HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-17 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 125
Special Meeting
April 17, 2017
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:00 P.M.
Present: DuBois, Filseth arrived at 5:05 P.M., Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou,
Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach
Absent:
Closed Session
A. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY
Existing Litigation - 1 Matter
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Buena Vista MHP Residents Association v. City of Palo Alto, et al.
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 115CV284763.
Mayor Scharff: We have a Closed Session with the City Attorney on existing
litigation, one matter, Buena MHP Residents Association versus the City of
Palo Alto. I need a Motion to go into Closed Session.
Council Member Fine: I'll move (crosstalk).
Council Member Wolbach: Second.
MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
Wolbach to go into Closed Session.
Mayor Scharff: Moved and seconded. If you could vote on the board. That
passes with Council Members Kou and Filseth not participating. I notice that
Council Member Kou is now present. We just voted to go into Closed
Session.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Filseth absent
Council went into Closed Session at 5:01 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 6:46 P.M.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 2 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: We're coming back out of Closed Session. We have nothing
to report.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Mayor Scharff: The first thing we have is Agenda Changes, Additions, and
Deletions. We have a couple of things. We're going to have a long meeting
on ADUs, I would guess. The first thing we're going to do is I am going to
tell you that we are not going to get to Items 11 and 12. That was the
S/CAP. I apologize for that, but I don't see how we could possibly get to
that tonight. We won't be taking those up. The second things is we're
actually going to flip Item Numbers 9 and 10. We'll take up the approval of
a construction contract in the total amount of $22 million, etc., before we
take up the review of the Valley Transportation Authority item. We will take
up ADUs tonight and hear the item. The other thing I wanted to mention is I
was reading the protocols today in anticipation of this. What is says is when
you have a large number of speakers on a Consent Item, at the discretion of
the Mayor you can pull the item, which you have a large number of speakers
on, and hear that item separately off the Consent Calendar. I am just going
to pull the ADU item now and tell everyone we're going to do that when we
get to the Consent Calendar so you know that's going to happen. First, we
have to go through some of the other items we do first. I just wanted you
to know that. The first thing we have is City Manager Comments.
Female: What does that mean, that you're pulling an item?
Mayor Scharff: That means we'll hear the item. The ADU item is on the
Consent Calendar. Normally it would be voted on without discussion as part
of the consent items. We won't do that. What we're going to do is vote on
the rest of the consent items, if no one pulls an additional consent item.
We'll vote on that separately, and then we will have a full discussion on the
ADU item.
James Keene, City Manager: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Scharff: Yes. When we get to the Consent Calendar, we're going to
break it out and speak specifically to the ADU item. When we call the
Consent Calendar—the Clerk already knows that. The Clerk has them
separated out. I just wanted you to know that we have to spend another 20
minutes or so probably going through things 'til we get to that item.
Mr. Keene: Mr. Mayor, I've got three or four pages of City Manager
Comments. I don't think there's anything on here that would be harmful if I
held it 'til later in the meeting. I could do it at the end of the meeting
tonight if you would like.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 3 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Why don't we do that?
Oral Communications
Mayor Scharff: The next item is Oral Communications, and we do actually
have, I believe, 16 speakers on Oral Communications. You will each get 2
minutes. If you're thinking about your remarks on the ADU item, how many
speakers do we have on the ADU item so far? Fifty-eight. I am actually
going to give everyone 2 minutes, so it'll be a long list of speakers. Fifty-
eight times two will tell you how long it's going to take. I would appreciate
it, if you are going to speak, if you can get your cards in so we can plan it
frankly.
James Keene, City Manager: Mr. Mayor, could you restate the purpose for
Oral Communications so people understand it's for items …
Mayor Scharff: Oral Communications is for items not on the Agenda. It's for
anything we don't have on the Agenda tonight. At Oral Communications, we
as the Council may not respond and may not speak to the issue. If it's on
ADUs, it does not go on Oral Communications or if it's on anything on the
Agenda. On Oral Communications, you have 2 minutes. The first speaker is
Davina Brown.
Davina Brown: Good evening. My name's Davina Brown. I'm the Vice
President of La Comida de California, which is our senior nutrition center.
We are currently located at the Avenidas facility on Bryant Street. We feed
160 seniors a day in that facility plus some others at Stevenson House and
at Cubberley once a week. We take care of a lot of seniors. We feed them
lunch, and we feed them socialization. We are a congregant site, which
means that people come in, and they socialize. We have a problem.
Avenidas has been given the green light to rebuild. What they are rebuilding
is a three-story building on the La Comida dining room. It's going to be torn
down and a three-story building. As of August 31st, we have no home. We
are in negotiations with a site in south Palo Alto, but we have no agreement
at this time. I do not think we as a City want to have 170 people not have a
place to have a nutritious meal once a day. There are some City spaces.
We did have a meeting with the real estate people from the City. They said
they couldn't do anything for us. That was months ago, when we weren't so
desperate, but we are desperate. I can think of a number of places that
have big spaces, Mitchell Park, Lucie Stern, the Arts Center on Embarcadero.
I hope you can help us. Come for lunch if you haven't been there. Thank
you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Mary Sylvester to be followed by Bill Blodgett.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 4 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mary Sylvester: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council Members.
I'm Mary Sylvester, and I live at 135 Melville Avenue. I'm here to speak
about Castilleja. I think you regularly associate me with that issue. First of
all, I'd like to thank Mr. Keene, City Manager, for directing Planning Staff to
grant the neighbors of the school a 2-week extension on scoping comment.
That was very much appreciated. You often hear me voicing grievances.
It's nice to come and acknowledge City Staff for their assistance. However—
it is a big however—I'd like to say that we were given this extension based
on our appeal that Castilleja was going to submit documents today, their
grand unveiling of their updated plans. However, at 5:00 today I checked
with Ms. Amy French in Planning, and those documents have not arrived.
No surprise. Once Castilleja heard that we were granted the extension,
interestingly they canceled their unveiling party and, interestingly enough,
most neighbors were not invited to that. At the last minute, a couple of
neighbors were asked if they'd like to come, but now people have been
disinvited. Why? We don't know. I would like to ask City Staff and Council
to take action on this, to please work with Castilleja to get their documents
in, in a timely manner out of respect to the community at large. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Our protocols don't allow clapping. We may
have issues where people are on opposite sides of things, and we don't want
to intimidate anyone. I just wanted you all to know that. I'd appreciate it if
we don't clap. I know it's more fun to clap, but … Bill Blodgett to be
followed by Sea Reddy.
Bill Blodgett: Good evening. My name is Bill Blodgett. I'm also from La
Comida. I'm the President of the Board of Directors. First, I'd like to thank
all of you, the City of Palo Alto for the support you've given to our program
over the years through the HSRAP program. I also want to thank a number
of our seniors who regularly attend our program, who came out tonight to
show support for our program. As you heard from Davina, we've got a
problem. We don't have a home after September 1st. We're in discussions
with some folks; don't know if that'll work out. We really need help. One of
the great challenges is we need a commercial-grade kitchen. Serving 160
folks a day, we need a kitchen that's robust and can meet the requirements
of the County Department of Environmental Health. A City-owned facility is
what we really would love to have. You might not know there is 36 senior
nutrition sites in Santa Clara County; 26 of them are in community centers
or other city-owned facilities around the county. There are a few in churches
and a few in other nonprofit organizations. Why? We're a nonprofit; we
don't have a lot of money. We have pretty limited funding; can't afford
commercial rental rates. We really would encourage you to help us in
finding a location where we can continue serving our 160 seniors a day and
TRANSCRIPT
Page 5 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
giving them a place where they can socialize as well as having a good,
nutritious meal. Thanks.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Sea Reddy to be followed by Greer Stone.
Sea Reddy: Good evening, Mayor and City Council and all the attendees as
well as the citizens of Palo Alto. I really think it is not necessary to go and
put all the parking meters and collect money. We are Palo Alto. We can do
better than that. We have a lot of money. We can cut down on programs
that we don't really need and excessive analysis, this and that. I request
you to reconsider the whole thing. I think we want to park there and do our
thing, and we go home. We don't need to use credit cards and this and that.
Let it be like it is today. Thank you. The second item is I do support
declining Castilleja expansion. I think it hurts the community. They should
go do outside the box thinking, to go find somewhere else near Stanford
campus, maybe near where I live on Stanford Avenue to find the expansion.
The third item is on Korea. I think we need to warn Korea. We don't need a
(inaudible) fight. We don't need bombs. We don't need missiles. Please
encourage your friends to call the Senators and the Congressman to have a
peaceful negotiation. There is absolutely no need. One Vietnam, one
Germany, and one Korea. There's no need for a fight. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Greer Stone to be followed by Paul Martin.
Greer Stone, Human Relations Commission Chair: Good evening, Mr. Mayor,
Madam Vice Mayor, Honorable members of the City Council. My name is
Greer Stone. I'm the Chair of the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission.
This is Commissioner Jill O'Nan. We've been dully authorized to read this
letter to you. To the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council, in
December 2016 Council unanimously passed a Resolution reaffirming Palo
Alto's commitment to being a diverse, supportive, inclusive, and protective
community. The Palo Alto Human Relations Commission fully supports this
Resolution and stands ready to assist you in making it a reality for everyone
who lives in, works in, or visits our community. The HRC's mission is to
promote the just and fair treatment of all people in Palo Alto, particularly our
most vulnerable populations by promoting awareness of issues and enabling
conversations that enhance inclusion. The HRB strives to create a
community where civility, respect, and responsible actions are the norm. To
fulfill this mission, we serve in a dual role, both as an advisory body to
Council and as the voice of the community. Given the recent rise of hateful
rhetoric across the nation, we are more committed than ever to bringing the
voice to the attention of City leaders. Last year, we began hosting a
multipart forum called Being Different Together that encourages participants
to share their experience and collaboratively build a nurturing community
TRANSCRIPT
Page 6 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
that respects individual differences. In January, the HRB cohosted an
immigrants and allies forum that addressed the fears and concerns of
undocumented members of our community. We also host an ongoing
speaker series called The Immigrant Experience, where community members
share their immigration stories at HRC meetings. Looking ahead, the HRC
plans to host a service workers forum later this year to help educate and
inform low-wage workers of their rights. We continue to seek out human
rights-related events and partners in order to share this information with the
community through the City's Office of Human Services. We will, of course,
keep Council informed of these community events and hope that some of
you will be able to attend. In addition, the HRC looks forward to receiving
your guidance as to how we can best partner with Council to help ensure
Palo Alto remains a safe and welcoming community that we can all be proud
of. With sincere thanks for your dedication and leadership, the Palo Alto
Human Relations Commission. Thank you so much.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Paul Martin to be followed by Dan Garber.
Paul Martin: Good evening, Council. I live on a very narrow street in
Crescent Park. There are cars parked on both sides, so I'm in a situation
where cars moving, parked, bicycles, etc., are kind of winding their way
down the street. Recently, there was somebody living on my street in a VW
van. I called the police, and they said, "There's no rule against that until the
City Council passes some kind of ordinance that generally restricts living on
the street in a van. There's nothing we can do." I didn't get any response
from the Council person I wrote to, but I did want to speak today. Streets
are public property. We get to choose how we use that public property. I'd
like to ask the Council how much of our public property is actually used for
on-street parking. What is the fraction of the public property that we now
have available to us, that's used for that? Might we not be able to imagine
some other uses for that property? Might we imagine that there are more
bike lanes? Might we imagine that there's more trees? Might we imagine
that there's space for people running and walking in that public property?
My encouragement tonight on this topic is simply to look at what might be
possible if we restricted on-street parking in many of the neighborhoods,
especially the ones where parking is on narrow streets. That's what I
wanted to encourage today.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Dan Garber to be followed by Dr. Maria D.
Michael.
Dan Garber: Synergy. I'm Dan Garber, property owner and partner in a
woman-owned business here in Palo Alto. Four weeks ago, I came to you to
ask your help in dealing with two derelict vehicles that were parked on
TRANSCRIPT
Page 7 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Encina, one of which was being lived in by someone who had been banned
from the Opportunity Center because he had an altercation with one of the
employees there. The situation has not changed in the last 4 weeks. I know
that the wheels of the City move slowly. There's really only one salient issue
here. That is, over the last year and a half, the City has trained the owners
of these vehicles that they can park on the street overnight despite the
signage on the street that says otherwise and the notices had been placed
on these cars. The owners know that the City doesn't enforce these rules,
and the word has gotten out. There is now a third vehicle as of last week, a
white Suburban, that is spending its time there. There appear to be only
two things that seem to be keeping this from happening: either, one, there
isn't money to actually afford the towing that would otherwise occur or, two,
the City has a nonperforming subcontractor. To try and learn which that is,
last week I asked the City Manager's Office for copies of the City's contracts
with our towing subcontractors to learn the basis of their arrangement and if
their scope allows them to not tow a vehicle for some reason. I'd appreciate
your help in getting that information as well as your help in getting these
vehicles towed. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Dr. Maria D. Michael followed by Mark
Grossman.
Dr. Maria D. Michael: I wanted to address you, Mr. Mayor, Ms. Vice Mayor,
and all the Council Members here and all my relatives that stand behind me.
I am a Lakota Dene elder, Navajo elder. I have been welcomed by your
town when we did the direct actions. Mr. Wolbach was with us and shook
our hand. We come to humbly and heartfully ask you to be a leader as a
City. We have all kinds of leaders in this country now. We're asking you to
show up and stand up and be a leader, to take the money away from the
oil—from all the banks that are going to hurt our Grandmother Earth. We
only have one Earth. I'm a mother. I'm a grandmother. I have 18-year-
olds, and I have a 1-year-old granddaughter. I have seven grandchildren. I
want them to have a planet to live on. I want them to drink water, sacred
water, this kind of water. I want them to be able to swim. I want them to
be able to eat healthy food. We ask you. You have the power to be a leader
like Davis. You have the power to set an example, to help this world
understand that Grandmother Earth is more important than power and
money and greed. Look into your hearts. We ask you to look into your
hearts. What do you want for your families, for your relatives? What did
your ancestors want for you, each of you? I know what our ancestors
wanted. They still want the same things. We ask you, please, to look into
your hearts. Please, divest. Please, tell these banks that they cannot keep
doing business as usual. The laws in this country allow the oil pipelines to
leak hundreds of thousands of gallons at each fitting before they even have
TRANSCRIPT
Page 8 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
to be announced. Please look into your hearts and divest. [Foreign
language.]
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Mark Grossman to be followed by Ruth
Robertson.
Mark Grossman: Hello, Council and Mayor. Thank you. Divestment
supporters may quietly but wildly wave their hands if they choose to. I live
at 2063 Byron, and I'm also standing here as a representative of 350 Silicon
Valley, your friendly, local, grassroots, climate-change organization. I'm so
happy that everyone in Palo Alto including the Council for the most part
takes (inaudible) seriously, but there is a disconnect. According to the
second quarter investment activity report, the City of Palo Alto holds millions
of dollars with banks like U.S. Bank, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo that
are major funders of the Dakota Access Pipeline and other fossil fuel
projects. These banks may claim to adhere to the equator principles and to
care about human rights and so forth, but the Dakota Access Pipeline and
other fossil fuel projects do fundamental harm to indigenous communities
and to the environment. We have 100 percent green energy here, but it
doesn't make any sense to fund non-clean projects elsewhere in the country.
That's just moving the problem around. Wells Fargo says—I wrote to them.
Wells Fargo says they are unable or unwilling to withhold the funds that are
committed to these projects. We urge you to follow other cities, like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Davis, and move our money to cleaner
pastures. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Ruth Robertson to be followed by Rita.
Ruth Robertson: I'm Ruth Robertson. I've been a resident of Palo Alto for
25 years. We know you won't forget our message because we're going to
sing it in song.
Female: Just in case anybody didn't know, DAPL refers to Dakota Access
Pipeline. That's in our song.
Ms. Robertson: By the way, we're the Raging Grannies. Save our planet,
save our planet, divest now, divest now. Don't invest in DAPL, don't invest
in DAPL, divest now, divest now.
Mayor Scharff: That was wonderful. Thank you.
Rita Vrhel: Good evening. Last week, I followed the donkeys. This time, I
get to follow the singing grannies. I'm not going to talk about ADUs. I do
want to thank everybody on both sides who came because this is an
important issue. I think it needs to be discussed by the entire community.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 9 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Thank you. My comments are on the incredibly rapid sense of development
that is happening in Palo Alto right now. I would ask everybody just to take
a deep breath and slow down. The City sends out a little email that has
project after project after project after project and, yet, the City Manager
says that frequently Staff cannot respond to the questions that you have on
certain issues because there just isn't enough Staff time because Staff is
really busy doing other things. Maybe things can just slow a little bit.
Maybe we could see what the long-term result of the buildings that are going
in happens to be. The other thing is last week we spoke about the parking
garage. I attended the PTC meeting. I think it's really important to ask
companies to fully park their office buildings. If you are shifting the cost of
a $65,000 parking spot to the public, however it's going to be paid for, that
is a $65,000 gift to a developer. I don't think that's appropriate. My last list
of complaints is that many of the recent Staff Reports are so long and so
repetitive and so poorly written that it is challenging to find out what the
meat of the issues happen to be. I think the paper had last week or the
week before the amount of salary that Staff is being paid. I think they're
being paid enough to write a short, concise, to the point, "mention the major
issues and keep all the emails to the end" report. I would definitely request
this. Thank you.
Reda: There's a lot wrong with the world or there wouldn't be so many
people here tonight. Frankly, something's wrong with our Federal
Administration that we're asking you to fill in the gap for. We need a lot of
things, but it's hard to figure out the answers. A lot of the answers rest in
divestment because so many things are interlinked with greed, corruption.
That is a true solution. It is linked to a lot of other solutions, things like zero
point energy, free energy for everyone. I don't understand why we're so
invested in oil. It doesn't make sense. We're asking you to be ahead of the
curve, not behind. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Kurtis Wu to be followed by Cheryl McGovern.
Kurtis Wu: Hello, Council. When I learned what happened at Standing
Rock, it sickened me to my core to see how we continue to violate
indigenous rights, how we continue to extract oil out of the ground when we
don't need it, and how we continue to value profit over greed. This is so
much bigger than one pipeline. It symbolizes so many things that's wrong
with this country. Divesting from DAPL, I think, really lays out a blueprint
for the country in how to fight climate change. In a capitalistic society,
unfortunately our government and corporations don't really view us much as
people and citizens as much as they do consumers. This is speaking their
language. What we have going on is basically a really crappy product that
we don't need, that we're drilling out of the ground, that causes death and
TRANSCRIPT
Page 10 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
destruction in the form of wars, pollution. All it does is benefit a few CEOs
and oil executive companies. I think what we're asking is—I think we're just
in a pivotal moment in human history. I'm just asking will you guys stand
on the sidelines and let these oil companies take advantage of us or will you
divest and fire a warning shot to these companies and tell them that when
you sell out indigenous rights and threaten our planet, we will hit you where
it hurts the most, your bottom line. My last comment is given our history
with this indigenous people, trying to do this is literally the least we can do.
I hope that you try. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Cheryl McGovern to be followed by Tara Sood.
Cheryl McGovern: Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak. I
thought I was going to speak under "11" and "12," under Sustainability Plan.
I can come back to that. I personally am divesting from—I have a portfolio
as a retiree, and I'm looking at preferred stocks that can yield 5 percent
interest or dividends as an alternative to oil companies and to funding these
pipelines. There's 3 million jobs, as you probably have heard, with clean
energy. That's the way of the future. I hope that you guys do the right
thing. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Cheryl McGovern to be followed by—sorry. Tara
Sood to be followed by Melanie Liu.
Tara Sood: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Ms. Vice Mayor, and Council Members,
for this repeat opportunity to speak to you. My name is Tara Sood. I am an
emergency physician. I'm also here representing the national group
Physicians for Social Responsibility. I was at Standing Rock in December
2016. I can assure the atrocities that you saw on TV and on social media
were just the tip of the iceberg. During most of my stay there, I was the
only physician in camp. This allowed me to witness all the health
consequences of the inhumane treatment of the water protectors. I cared
for the lady who lost her eye to a rubber bullet, a man who suffered from
hypothermia because he was stripped down to his underwear in negative 30-
degree weather, elderly grandmothers who had trouble breathing because of
chemical pneumonitis likely from teargas and pepper spray exposure, and
multiple people with broken bones. I'm not a lawyer; I don't know what the
legal definition of human rights violation is. I do know what occurred at
Standing Rock was wrong. By continuing to fund the oil companies that
employ these inhumane tactics, we are part of the problem. We cannot sit
here and pretend our money did not fund these atrocities. We let the people
of Standing Rock down, but we can still stop funding oil companies to stop
what occurred there so it will never happen again. Thank you.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 11 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Melanie Liu to be followed by Sophia Catalano.
Melanie Liu: On October 10, 2014, almost exactly 3 years ago today,
Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for an apartheid-style boycott to save the
planet. He said, "We must stop climate change, and we can if we use the
tactics that worked in South Africa." The divestment movement played a
key role in helping to liberate South Africa. The corporations understood the
logic of money, even when they weren't swayed by the dictates of morality.
In November of last year, Federal judge from Oregon, Judge Akin, ruled that
if the government was knowingly destroying the Earth's climate, it was in
violation of the public trust doctrine, which requires governments to act as
trustees for natural resources. Since September of last year, residents have
had boots on the ground, so to speak. We have had five rallies and marches
to defund DAPL. We know that there is broad support and deep support for
this action. Please work this into the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan,
S/CAP. We'll be back to make that point when you discuss it again later.
Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Sophia Catalano to be followed by Stephanie
Munoz.
Sophia Catalano: Hi. How are you guys doing today? I'm so happy to see
all these wonderful people. I stand before you as the future generation. As
well, one day I will bear life. When I look into the future for the life that I
will bear, it becomes bleak and frightening because I see a future plagued by
war and our food saturated with toxins. With this, I read this statement on
behalf of the future. We, the undersigned, urge Palo Alto City Council to
direct City Staff to expeditiously divest the City's financial portfolio of all
entities providing financing to the Dakota Access Pipeline and Energy
Transfer Partners as well as any other infrastructure construction designed
to extract or consume fossil fuels. Furthermore, we urge the City of Palo
Alto to conduct its business with financial institutions that have the values
aligned with ours and lending practices that support rather than harm our
communities and our shared climate. It is sad that we live in a day and age
where I have to fight for my children's future, that I have to fight for clean
air, clean water, and clean soil. All that I ask as the future is for you to
please be our champion. Please rise with us and to defend us. I ask you as
an equal, more like beg because the future I look into—I'm scared. I'm very
scared. I ask you to use your power to help us, to help us. Whether or not
you agree with what we are saying, let us walk into the future with bravery.
Let us not sell out our heart in the pursuits of a cold dollar that cannot feel.
Do we agree? We agree. Please join us. Thank you.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 12 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Stephanie Munoz to be followed by Gaby
Nightengale.
Stephanie Munoz: Good evening, Mayor Scharff and Council Members. It
seems to be an evening in which everybody's asking you to act responsibly.
I would like to mention one little thing about the oil situation. Let's suppose
for a moment. If indeed we do need this oil, would it not be more prudent,
more practical, more responsible to wait until the Arabs and the Iraqis and
the evers and the tiny use up their oil and there isn't any left? Wouldn't it
be more prudent and practical and responsible to use up other people's oil
first before destroying—I suppose that's prejudicial—before using our own
oil? I think so. I've come to tell you something about housing. It seems to
me pretty obvious that there is some continuity toward being the City of Palo
Alto and being the City of Palo Alto Council that some 50 years ago a Council
decided that it would be very clever and make a lot of money, and we could
have a lot of school money if they created some jobs but didn't make any
place for the workers to stay. This was a big mistake, which I think you
should rectify. As I hear Comida there, I'm reminded that I've suggested
that it would be very sensible to have something like a residential hotel with
small, small places for people to live with La Comida down on the ground
floor as a public facility. In fact, most of our public facilities would marry
very well with affordable housing. I'd like you to consider that very
seriously, especially with the VTA property which is zoned public facility. I
have the impression that Windy Hill is completely willing to do whatever you
would like done with it. Thank you very much.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Gaby Nightengale to be followed by Ellen Henn.
Gaby Nightengale: Hi. I'm a sophomore from Palo Alto, and I'm compelled
by recent Federal immigration policy to speak at today's meeting in favor of
declaring Palo Alto a Sanctuary City. After reading over Palo Alto's current
immigration policy and comparing it to current legislation in Sanctuary Cities
like San Francisco, Palo Alto seems to be a Sanctuary City in all but name.
At a time as politically divisive as today, names have a lot of power and
momentum behind them. I believe that officially making Palo Alto a
Sanctuary City would help the momentum of similar immigration legislation
in other cities across the state and also create more awareness of current
policy within the Palo Alto community. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Ellen Henn.
Ellen Henn: Hi. I'm Ella Henn, and I’m also a sophomore in Palo Alto, and
I'm 15. I believe that people my age should have a say in policy that will be
directly affecting us. I'm also pretty young for my grade, which means I'll
TRANSCRIPT
Page 13 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
be turning 18 during my freshman year of college, when I'm already away
from home. Having the voting age lowered would increase my likelihood to
vote because I'll have my parents as well as my high school to guide me
through the process. Beginning to vote early, when our lives are stable,
increases the chances of developing a lifelong habit of voting. When there
are school and family to build voting into our lives, before we leave for
college, the chances of going to the polls every 2 years are much higher. In
Denmark, younger voters voted more when they could vote sooner. In the
Maryland cities where the voting age has been lowered to 16 as well as in
multiple European countries, 16 and 17-year olds turned out in higher
numbers than any other demographic. Not only that, but there is evidence
to support, when teenagers vote, they can influence their parents to become
more civically engaged. In addition, by having more high schoolers vote,
there would be a push to improve civic education, a necessity for a healthy
democracy. I believe it is time for Palo Alto to join the movement and show
support for Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. That concludes our Oral communications.
Minutes Approval
1. Approval of Action Minutes for the April 3, 2017 Council Meeting.
Mayor Scharff: Now, I need a Motion to approve the Minutes.
Vice Mayor Kniss: So moved.
Council Member Kou: Second.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to
approve the Action Minutes for the April 3, 2017 Council Meeting.
Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the board. That passes unanimously.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Consent Calendar
Mayor Scharff: Now, we come to the Consent Calendar. We've already
pulled Item Number 4, so we're talking about—yeah, Item Number 4. We're
talking about Items 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Cards on "6." I have a couple of
lights. Council Member Holman, Council Member Kou, do you want to …
Council Member Holman: I'll be registering a no vote on Number 6.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 14 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member Kou: I'm also registering a no vote on Number 6.
Mayor Scharff: Before we vote on that, though, let's hear from the public.
Our first speaker is Jeff Levinsky, to be followed by Bill Ross.
Jeff Levinsky, speaking on Agenda Item Number 6: Good evening, Mayor
Scharff and Council Members. I'm here to discuss Item 6 on tonight's
Consent Calendar. It drastically lowers funding for affordable housing in
Palo Alto by slashing fees we had planned to collect for such housing from
new developments including office projects. Some here tonight are calling
for more housing via ADUs. I hope they will also speak out against this
other item that takes away many, many tens of millions of dollars over the
next years from affordable housing. In fact, it's possible we'll lose more
affordable housing from the fee reduction in item 6 than we will ever get
from the proposed ADU rule changes. After all, new ADUs will rent out at
market rates, not at the much lower rents charged for affordable housing.
Many if not most new ADUs won't ever become regular rentals. Instead,
they will be used for guests, home offices, extra storage, and Airbnb. The
affordable housing we're losing tonight because of Item 6 would have by law
been affordable. That loss is an undeniable tragedy. I ask those Council
Members who truly want to increase the supply of affordable housing in our
City to vote no on Item 6 tonight. In these difficult times, that's the best
vote you can cast to help those from across this community and beyond who
need affordable housing. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Bill Ross to be followed by Mark Mollineaux.
Bill Ross, speaking on Agenda Item Number 6: Good evening. Bill Ross.
I'm a taxpayer, resident, and a business person within the City. My
message is simple. If you compare this to the underlying AB 1600 analysis,
which is required for the demonstrated nexus for the development fees,
which you reduced from your action in December for the commercial
properties to $35 a square foot with the concomitant 50 percent increase to
$190 per square foot for residential development, it isn't consistent with
applicable law. The nexus isn't demonstrated in that document. I'll stand
on that basis. That's an insufficiency for the recommended Staff action.
Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Mark Mollineaux to be followed by Stephanie
Munoz.
Mark Mollineaux, speaking to Agenda Item Number 4: Hi there. True
confession, I actually misread the numbers. I meant to write for ADU and
wrote it for this. Just to keep time short, I'll step off to say—I would have
TRANSCRIPT
Page 15 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
said ADUs are great. I'm just happy so many people are here. Thank you
for your time.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Stephanie Munoz.
Stephanie Munoz, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Mayor
Scharff, members. I hope you'll do the right thing and keep the affordable
housing money. I'm here to urge you to make the most of your dollars.
There are certain groups that have a kind of entitlement from other people
or from their own financial resources that would relieve you of the
obligation—the entire obligation at least—of taking care of these people so
that the affordable housing money would all go to not necessarily the
poorest but the people, say, with families that have the most need. One of
the people that I'm most concerned with are the singles, starting with the
seniors, the widowed or divorced or single seniors. The couple seniors are
market rate housing because they get two pensions. The single seniors only
get one. It's about the minimum anyway; it's like $800 a month. I'm
begging you please make available for private enterprise rental housing like
residential hotels that these people could afford and use your power to have
greater numbers of units even though you have the same number of square
feet and the same FAR and the same demand for beauty and luxury and
gardening and all the beautiful things. You can still do it with each person
getting only a small bit of private space. You could put Comida down on the
first floor, couldn't you? Please give this some thought. My homeless
people that I have had this past month could afford something. They're
paying—can you imagine—$400 for storage for their little lorries and
penates, and they're homeless. Think about it. Thanks.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Eric Rosenblum.
Eric Rosenblum, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Hello, Council
Members. I'm Eric Rosenblum. I live at 154 Bryant. I'm a member of the
Planning and Transportation Commission, but I'm speaking as an individual.
I hadn't planned on speaking to this item, but I want to correct, I think,
some misstatements that were made by the earlier gentleman on this same
point. The fees that you're being asked to consider are substantially higher
than in the past. The confusion might be that they were lower than the
maximum that could have been imposed based on the nexus study. They're
still higher than what had been done in the past for Palo Alto. We're raising
the fees. The Commission's discussion on this matter was a fear that, if you
jack fees up all at once, possibly it would lower the overall development and,
therefore, lower the amount of funds available for affordable housing. The
question is not whether or not there is a will or a desire for more affordable
housing fees. The question is whether or not raising fees to a certain extent
TRANSCRIPT
Page 16 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
will decimate the desire for producing units that produce affordable housing.
The ask to Council is to find the right medium. I wanted to correct the
record around raising or lowering the fees. They're being raised. They could
be raised higher according to the nexus study, but they're being raised
substantially from the past. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: I'd like to register a no vote on "6" as well.
Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Holman: I think we get to speak (inaudible)
Mayor Scharff: We do that after we vote no. We do it afterwards.
Beth Minor, City Clerk: (inaudible) Motion.
Mayor Scharff: We do need a Motion.
Vice Mayor Kniss: So moved.
Mayor Scharff: I'll second it. Moved by Vice Mayor Kniss.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to approve
Agenda Item Numbers 2-3, 5-8.
2. Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract Number
S16163411A With Tou Bar Equipment Company, Inc., for an Additional
$70,000 for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $325,000 to Provide
Maintenance Services at the Former Los Altos Treatment Plant Over
the Term of Three Years.
3. Resolution 9673 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Declaring the Results of the Mail Ballot Election in Connection With
the City’s Proposed Storm Water Management Fee.”
4. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18
(Zoning) to Implement a new State Law Related to Accessory Dwelling
Units and Junior Dwelling Units and to Reorganize and Update the
City’s Existing Regulations. The Ordinance is Exempt From the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Public Resource Code
Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guideline Sections 15061(b), 15301,
15303 and 15305 and was Recommended for Approval by the Planning
and Transportation Commission on November 30, 2016. (FIRST
TRANSCRIPT
Page 17 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
READING: March 6, 2017 PASSED: 6-2-1 DuBois, Holman no, Kou
abstain).
5. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.11 of Title 2 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to Reauthorize Public, Education, and Government
(PEG) Access Fees That Will Apply to AT&T as it Provides Service
Under its State Video Franchise.
6. Ordinance 5408 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Updating the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program as
Recommended by the Finance Committee: (1) Repealing Municipal
Code Section 16.47 (Non-residential Projects) and 18.14 (Residential
Projects) (FIRST READING: March 27, 2017 PASSED: 5-4 DuBois
Filseth, Holman and Kou no);” and Ordinance 5409 Entitled,
“Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding a new Section
16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing In-lieu Fees for Residential,
Nonresidential, and Mixed Use Developments). The Proposed
Ordinances are Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per Sections 15378(b)(4), 15305 and 15601(b)(3) of the State
CEQA Guidelines (FIRST READING: March 27, 2017 PASSED: 5-4
DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no).”
7. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the
Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2016.
8. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the
Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit.
Mayor Scharff: Let's vote on the board. The Consent Calendar minus Item
Number 6 passes unanimously.
Council Member Wolbach: You mean minus Item 4.
Mayor Scharff: Yes. Did I say "6"? I meant Item 4. Correct, minus Item 4.
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 2-3, 5, 7-8 PASSED: 9-0
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Holman,
Kou no
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman, would you like to give a reason for
your no vote?
Council Member Holman: Yes. Apologies for stepping in there. I'm voting
against this as I did before because there have been several members of the
public who have spoken to this. The office/R&D fees are higher than they
TRANSCRIPT
Page 18 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
were before, but they're not as high or even close to as high as they could
be. Neighboring jurisdiction comparisons, their fees are outdated. They
haven't renewed their fee schedules in quite some time, so those
comparisons are actually rather invalid. It depends on how you calculate it,
but just the range of just office and R&D lost revenues for our affordable
housing fund to the next 13 years for the life of the Comprehensive Plan is
something in the range of $42.5 million lost in affordable housing fees by
changing them from $60 a square foot to $35 a square foot. The prior
Council had approved the $60 a square foot. When you look at how much
money we could be raising for affordable housing fees for our housing
impact by raising fees on housing, we're losing over $100 million over the
next 13 years. Also, this means that the housing is still bearing a greater
burden in funding affordable housing than is office and R&D. Just a quick
point. I don't think there's anything to be done about at this point in time,
but the second reading does cause five Council Members to ask for
something to be pulled; there were only three who pulled this item. Just
point of record.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: Just agree with what Council Member Holman said.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou.
Council Member Kou: As I said on the March 17 meeting, this proposal is
about building affordable housing. Creating the funding in order to build
affordable housing for those people who are community-serving for our
communities in order to make our—to provide us the quality of life that
we're looking for. When I said this proposal was indisgenuous [sic], I still
stand by that because at the end of the day, when you look at these funds,
it is $35 versus the previous $20.37 for office and R&D building. This kind of
development has been the largest in our City for the last 2 decades. If you
think this is going to go away, it is not. It is only encouraging further office
and R&D development. In addition to that, while I think in our last Retreat
it's been said that we've had successes in our RPPs and TMAs and TDMs and
whatever else there are, those are the unintended consequences of over-
building and not having our developments and office spaces fully parked. As
Council Member Holman had said, we are leaving over $100 million on the
table, leaving it behind so that we can't move faster on building affordable
housing.
Action Items
8A. (Former Agenda Item Number 4) FIRST READING: Adoption of an
Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) to Implement a new State
TRANSCRIPT
Page 19 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Law Related to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Dwelling Units and
to Reorganize and Update the City’s Existing Regulations. The
Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per Public Resource Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA
Guideline Sections 15061(b), 15301, 15303 and 15305 and was
Recommended for Approval by the Planning and Transportation
Commission on November 30, 2016. (FIRST READING: March 7, 2017
PASSED: 6-2-1 DuBois, Holman no, Kou abstain).
Mayor Scharff: Now, we come back to what was Item Number 4 on the
Consent Calendar, which will now become Item Number 9A. We'll take that
first. Does Staff have any sort of presentation or statement they'd like to
make?
James Keene, City Manager: I think we do. We'll be joined by another Staff
from the City Attorney's Office, and the Planning Department is here.
Sandy.
Sandra Lee, Assistant City Attorney: Good evening, Mayor, Honorable City
Council. Sandra Lee for the City Attorney's Office. I just want to provide a
little context as to where we are today. The promotion of accessory dwelling
units, previously called secondary units, as a form of affordable, cost-
effective housing is a longstanding State policy. It has long been required
by State law that these ADUs be ministerially approved, but local
government had fairly significant latitude to set development standards and
parking requirements. The City Council in 2015 requested that the Planning
and Transportation Commission review City regulations and recommend
ways to increase ADU construction. While that review was underway, the
State adopted new legislation to further streamline ADU approval by
providing additional limitations on local discretion. The laws mandated
certain elements but also left other matters to local agency discretion
through a newly adopted Ordinance. The legislation was signed by the
Governor in the fall of 2016 with an effective date of January 1, 2017.
These laws created the impetus for the City to adopt new regulations related
to ADUs. Importantly, the State law provided that as of its effective date,
January 1st of this year, any local Ordinance adopted prior to that date that
is not in compliance with the changes under State law will be null and void.
This means that Palo Alto's preexisting Ordinance on secondary units and
other regulations related to secondary units no longer apply. The only
standards that apply today are those that are set by the State. The State
expressly provides that local agencies may adopt an ordinance providing for
the creation of ADUs and, through that Ordinance, they could impose
standards including parking, height, setback, lot coverage, landscape,
maximum size, and standards to prevent adverse impacts on historic
TRANSCRIPT
Page 20 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
properties. Absent the city adopting such an Ordinance, no such city-
specific standards can be considered in evaluating an ADU application. In
keeping with the purpose of the State law, to encourage the development of
ADUs, no local standard should burden their development by unreasonably
restricting opportunities. The ordinance before you is intended to comply
with State law, establish regulations for ADUs that both comply with State
law and exercise the City's discretion where allowed, all to facilitate the
development of ADUs.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Does Staff have anything further?
Mr. Keene: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if I just might very briefly restate what Sandy
said. We've had existing regulations for quite some time. Let's just call that
the status quo of how we dealt with ADUs. Essentially, what we're saying is
that has disappeared and has been replaced by the State law, many of the
provisions of which a lot of folks in our community would take issue with and
would want to see us be able to alter as we are allowed to do within the law.
There may be some things that are positive. We do want to make it clear
that not proceeding with amendments to our existing Ordinance—we would
think everybody would agree—is not in the City's best interest. Until we do
that, the State law will be operative. If we get ADU applications, the
Development Center will be forced to comply with those applications under
State law.
Mayor Scharff: Now, we'll return to Council. What we're going to do is
we're going to have one 3-minute round of questions or comments, and then
we're going to go to the public. We will then do all the public comment. I
thought it would be fair to the public to hear a little bit from Council before
we do that. What I was going to do is—Council Member Holman, would you
mind starting? I'll just go down the line.
Council Member Holman: I'll start with just a couple of questions. One
question is because we don't have a current regulation in place, we're reliant
on State law for the ADUs, as City Manager just said and the City Attorney
did too. If the Council wanted to act tonight, would it be possible we could
act on the original Staff recommendation and then continue the
amendments that were also part of the Ordinance in front of us tonight for
further discussion? We'd still be in compliance with State law, correct? In
other words, pass the previously Staff-recommended Ordinance and have
the additions come back to us.
Ms. Lee: Thank you, Council Member. Just to clarify, you're asking if the
Council can adopt the March 7th Ordinance that was presented to Council?
Council Member Holman: Yes.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 21 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Ms. Lee; Yes, the Council could do that.
Council Member Holman: I think that's my only question for right now.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine.
Council Member Fine: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. More comments than
questions. I want to thank Staff for bringing this back, and thank you for all
the work you've done over the past year and a half with this Council, with
the Planning Commission, bringing an item to them for a number of
meetings. Just some broad comments. I'm a 30-year-old resident of Palo
Alto. My fiancé and I want to live here. We want to raise a family here,
send our kids to schools, be near my parents as they grow older. Housing
affordability and housing availability is clearly an issue of contention in this
community. I ran for Council last year because I wanted to see Palo Alto
really begin to deal with the issue. As a lifetime resident, I didn't feel we
were doing enough to take care of aging seniors, to take care of young
people who moved here, to take care of long-term residents. I ran on
housing; that was the main thing. I ran in support of affordable housing, in
support of rental housing, in support of market rate housing, in support of
ADUs. Lydia, Liz, Greg, you ran on that also; all of us did. I think it was
very clear from this community that housing is the number one issue as our
National Citizen Survey also shows. At the heart of it, Palo Alto is really only
special because of its people. Our community has different needs and
different abilities. I believe our housing stock and our ability to produce
housing needs to meet those needs in different places. ADUs can serve our
honored seniors looking to downsize. They can serve seniors who are on a
fixed income. They can serve families with adult children living at home.
They can serve caretakers who would otherwise drive here to take care of
seniors in Palo Alto. They can serve disabled children and adults in this
community. I just see ADUs as one piece of the pie. There's a lot more we
can do on housing. I really hope we listen to our community tonight, and we
listen to the folks who have spoken for the past year and a half on this item.
I hope we can do something special tonight and make sure that Palo Alto
remains an inclusive, diverse, and multigenerational community. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Tanaka. No. Council Member Filseth. Vice
Mayor Kniss.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Welcome, Ms. Lee. A pleasure to have you. Could you
tell me, if we do not pass this tonight, how large a unit can I put in my
backyard?
Ms. Lee: Thank you, Council Member. Under State law, the maximum
square footage is 1,200 square feet.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 22 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Jonathan, I need to get an application in right now.
Ms. Lee: Just to …
Vice Mayor Kniss: I can put 1,200 feet in my backyard. How high can it be?
Ms. Lee: State law doesn't set forth height limit and leaves that to cities to
determine. In the absence of any regulations, the height limit may be
what's generally applicable in that zoning district.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Therefore, I could have a second story?
Ms. Lee: Yes, potentially.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I potentially can put 2,400 square feet in my backyard
under the current State law?
Ms. Lee: No, no. The maximum size is 1,200 square feet.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I can put 600 on the bottom and 600 on the top?
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Assistant Director: I
would say that our Codes also have standards for accessory structures which
limit those structures to 12 feet in height in, say, the R-1 zone. I think this
is part of the area where we're trying to suss out State law versus our local
regulations. That's …
Vice Mayor Kniss: That's helpful. You would agree on the 1,200 square
feet?
Mr. Lait: Yeah. I'd also qualify that by saying it's also limited to the lot
coverage requirements that are existing and the floor area requirements for
what may be existing on the property today.
Vice Mayor Kniss: My husband will be so surprised when I apply for an
application, won't he? What we did or what has been done is an attempt to
modify the current item in front of us for tonight to adapt itself to Palo Alto
in a much more constructive way and a much more, I think, conservative
way than the State would allow. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Lee: I would agree that what's proposed is consistent with the
regulations that preexisted in Palo Alto prior to January 2017 and to that
extent reflects Palo Alto values.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Not an enormous change, but one that attempts to deal
with the new State law, which is quite liberal and which certainly backs up
TRANSCRIPT
Page 23 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
what the Governor has wanted to do, which is add considerably to the
housing stock throughout California. That ends my time. Thank you so
much.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: I don't have a prepared comment for this period.
I'll just say that there is—I'm actually really excited to see how much
attention has been paid to this. Council Member Scharff, I believe you were
one of the coauthors on the Colleagues' Memo we wrote along with a couple
of now former Council Members that we introduced and was supported by
Council back in October of 2015. It went through Planning and
Transportation Commission. Council Member Fine at the time was a
member of that Commission as was Commissioner Rosenblum in the
audience. We had a lot of conversation and a lot of community input, but
clearly not everybody was part of those conversations. We also had a lot of
conversations leading up to our March 7th meeting, which was the first time
it came to Council, giving us a chance to take what Staff and the PTC,
Planning and Transportation Commission, recommended and add some
tweaks. Again, there's more people here than there were at that meeting. I
think we had a couple of hours of public comment at that point. I think
that's good. I generally support what we did and actually do support what
we did on March 7th. I'll be looking forward to hearing additional feedback
and taking that under consideration. I do want to emphasize that not all but
most of the things that I've heard in the extensive public comment we've got
and the emails, etc., phone calls that we've received—the biggest issues are
ones which are essentially ones where our hands were tied by the State. A
couple of the big ones were—I was hoping we could add more nuance—
restricting parking for ADUs in places like around California Avenue,
Downtown, those neighborhoods where parking is more of a challenge.
Those are precisely the neighborhoods where the State said you can't
require any parking. What was left for us was we could add parking
regulations in those parts of town where parking is not as much of an issue.
That's why we decided, rather than having a complex set of rules around
parking for the areas where it's less of an issue, let's just scrap it. It's not
worth the hassle for the places where there's no need. I was also hoping
we'd be able to do more with design requirements, but again the State
substantially tied our hands with design requirements, review processes, etc.
The places where I thought it was most important to be sensitive to different
needs in different communities, that's where the State tied our hands. Aside
from that, I think the changes we made on March 7th in addition to what
Staff and the PTC brought us were important. Some were a little bit more
liberal; some were a bit more conservative. We directed Staff to add more
protection for trees, for our historic buildings. We clarified that you can't
TRANSCRIPT
Page 24 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
rent out an ADU and your main house to different tenants. We can talk
more about it later. That's where I'm at right now.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou.
Council Member Kou: I do agree with Council Member Fine saying that we
all ran on housing. We certainly did. Housing is something that we need
here in Palo Alto, in particular affordable housing. Building ADUs for family
members who may have disabilities or for in-laws is certainly something that
we need to do for our own families as well as creating affordable housing, as
our City Attorney had said was the intent of this State law. However, just
going schizophrenic in building is not the way to go either. One of the things
that we have to take into consideration are the unintended consequences
that come around with building to this degree, with no regulations. This
expanded regulation is reckless, is reckless. We don't have the
infrastructure to have such type of building. We have Stanford University
that is going to be expanding with over 3,000 units for housing and also
their campus space. We have a DEIR, which the Council has just approved,
of looking at 35 to over 4,500 of housing units and up to 11,000 of job
development. Looking at this in isolation is reckless. It's irresponsible. I'm
going to ask you all to look at it as a whole picture rather in isolation. Thank
you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: First of all, I want to say thanks for everybody who
waited for us while we were in Closed Session. We were talking about an
affordable housing item. I hope you all will forgive our tardiness. I strongly
supported pulling this from Consent. It was a large, complex Motion, and it
really differed pretty significantly from what the PTC discussed and what
Staff recommended and hadn't been seen before. I have a bunch of
questions that we didn't get in the Staff Report, that I'd just like to list, and
maybe some of this will come out tonight. One, what are the number of
parcels affected by the new Ordinance? Two, it would have been really nice
to have seen a comparison grid of our current law, the State requirements,
the Staff proposal, and the new proposal; some discussion about why we
have the setbacks that we have in our residential zones. There's a section in
the State law that ADUs be used for residential use. How are we going to
enforce that (inaudible) as well as our own 30-day minimal rental period? I
also have several questions, which I'll bring up later, about there seem to be
changes from the Motion that was made on March 7th versus what was in
our report this week. There are also some questions about how this works
with Individual Review for two-story homes and what if you had a one-story
home with a two-story ADU or vice versa. I also had some questions about
TRANSCRIPT
Page 25 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
garage conversion impacts and what happens with covered parking when
that parking is converted into an ADU. Thanks.
Mayor Scharff: You have about a minute, if you want the answers to your
questions, any of them.
Council Member DuBois: If you have any answers to those, that'd be great.
Mr. Lait: We can answer maybe one or two. The garage conversion. The
way the Ordinance is before you, that garage could be converted and those
displaced parking spaces could be placed elsewhere on the property
including in the front yard, uncovered, within an existing driveway. There
would not be a requirement to cover those spaces again. As to the IR
process, I've had preliminary conversations with our legal office on that
issue. We believe that—at least the initial conversation is that while the use
of the second dwelling unit is not subject to review, if the ADU is
incorporated within the main dwelling, we would look at that as we would
ordinarily in our review process. If it is a detached structure, separate and
apart from the principal residence, we would just make sure that it met the
requirements for the ADU standards as it's a ministerial effort. There's two
of them.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, I just wanted to say briefly thank you all
for coming out tonight. I think it's a great example of civic participation and
that you all care so much. I need the list of speakers. Everyone will have 2
minutes, except for Bill Ross who is speaking for six people. Bill Ross will
have 6 minutes. Mr. Ross, if you'd like to come up and speak for 6 minutes.
That will be followed by Kale Moreau.
Bill Ross speaking for Rita Vrhel, Hiabbe Kohnow, Mary Sylvester, Hank
Sousa, Mary Gallagher, Julianne Frizzell: Good evening. My name is Bill
Ross. I'm a resident, taxpayer, and business owner. I have articulated—I'll
bring up copies—in a letter that's been emailed to the Council my concerns.
The first concern is waived because you pulled this matter off Consent. The
second matter is with respect to the prospective disqualification of a Council
Member. The third matter is that this be decided consistent with applicable
law. Let me explain what I mean so that a fair hearing is ensured with
respect to this issue. ADUs and the ADUs in the three mandated bills—it's
not just one—is a good idea. What happened at 12:05 a.m. on March 8th
was a bad idea, was a bad implementation of it. The first issue I have is it's
clear that, in the certificate of completion for AB 1234, Councilman Wolbach
clearly understands the issue of common law bias. I have attached in my
letter to the Council excerpts from several Facebook presentations during
August and September of 2016 where there is an indication of criticisms
TRANSCRIPT
Page 26 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
against residentialists. I would note at this point that I am not a member of
PASZ. I have consistently appeared before this Council to insist on
compliance with the law. The matters that are set forth in those excerpts
clearly indicate an animus toward anybody that's associated with the single-
family zone indicating that their views are founded on ignorance, fear, and
also make reference to two sitting members of this City Council
misrepresenting facts that they made about whether or not they were in
favor of continued development in association with affordable housing and
more housing in this City. I submit that that meets the test for common law
bias and that Council Member Wolbach should be disqualified with respect to
any consideration of this proposed matter. I would note that the standard
has been recently reaffirmed and set forth in the case of Woody's Group
versus the City of Newport Beach as being probable bias, not actual bias.
This is according to a previous case, Nasha versus City of Los Angeles, that
set forth the same standard and said that the presentation or finding of bias
by one decision-maker in a Planning Commission was sufficient to disqualify
the decision. Granted, you're rehearing it again. Technically, if you look at
the agenda item tonight—maybe not technically—it's not agendized that the
matter could be heard tonight. I would suggest that, whatever the situation
is at the end of the hearing, you continue it to a date certain because the
Brown Act notice doesn't allow for that. Your protocol may, but there are
members of the public that needed to be informed that you could hear that
tonight. That's not a technical violation of the Brown Act; that's an actual
violation of the Brown Act. Bias is limited to adjudicatory actions. This is a
legislative action, the Ordinance. It's combined with CEQA. CEQA has since
its inception been a substantial evidence, adjudicatory matter. Any
legislative matter without a valid analysis under CEQA, which is reviewed by
1094.5, an evidentiary statute, is invalid. I would maintain that that's
applicable here. I have no animus toward the Council Member even though
it's clear, if you read those provisions, a plain meaning could be drawn that
the Council Member has a animus against people who are residentialists. I
wonder what the position would be with respect to people who seek to
comply with the law? I would suggest that the action before you also has to
meet a consistency requirement with respect to your Comprehensive Plan.
The only reference to any type of consistency analysis was set forth on page
15 of the March 7th Staff analysis. It says with respect to Policy L-13 that
the action—keep in mind then they were talking about what was proposed,
not what came out at 12:05 p.m.—was generally consistent with the General
Plan. That's not the applicable test. It's the test of the General Plan
guidelines as adopted in 2003 that evaluates that specifically with respect to
elements of the General Plan as to whether they further or hinder the entire
applicable provisions of your Comprehensive Plan. That's applicable to
building regulations. The third item that I'd raise is I think this should be
TRANSCRIPT
Page 27 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
decided on a factual record. That means you have to consider items such as
the January 24th, 2017 Fire Marshal's report …
Mayor Scharff: Thank you.
Mr. Ross: … which in any of these things, I don't see it referenced. I would
think there needs to be clarification for the past two. Why would you not
want to have ADUs subject to the sprinkler provisions? In fact, that's what
the recommendation …
Mayor Scharff: Thank you.
Mr. Ross: … of the State Fire Marshal says. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Kale Moreau …
Female: (inaudible)
Mayor Scharff: No, we don't do that.
Female: (inaudible)
Mayor Scharff: To be followed by Sheri Furman.
Kate Moreau: I have been a Board Member for Habitat for Humanity for
decades and Rebuilding Together. I am interested in affordable housing. At
the same time, neighbors on both sides have already converted their
garages, and the garages sit on my property line. They've installed big
coolers and everything else, so all summer long I'm going to have their air
conditioners 6 feet away from my bedroom window. I think the changes in
setback is really concerning for me. Again, Habitat for Humanity, Rebuilding
Together, fundraising like crazy. I'm sensitive to it, but I think there has to
be some common sense. The edits concern me.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Sheri Furman to be followed by Elaine Uang.
Sheri Furman: Good evening everybody. This is not a pro versus anti ADU
issue. It's not a popularity contest based on who shows up tonight. It's a
process issue. Regardless of what many of you just said, these additions
you are proposing to enact are beyond the State mandates. The problem
was they went beyond the Staff recommendation with no public input, no
analysis by Staff as to their impacts, no discussion by the PTC or advisory
board, and you had severely curtailed discussion even among yourselves. I
am not objecting to ADUs, but I am objecting to that process that happened
that night. This type of governing is a radical departure from the careful
analysis and deliberation of issues that we are known for. If you had
TRANSCRIPT
Page 28 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
followed a more thoughtful and open process in discussing these, you could
have avoided all of this, this division that is now here. While we, of course,
have to follow State law, we do not have to go so far above that law with the
additions without further discussion. Let me point out that all the questions
you all were just asking tonight, just to highlight why we need a full analysis
of how to balance the creation of ADUs with neighbors' concerns including
privacy and noise, parking, historic and Eichler districts, whether certain
types of ADUs effectively turn R-1 into R-2. The idea of ADUs is to increase
the housing stock in Palo Alto. We also need rules on occupancy and usage,
such as Airbnb and offices. My suggestion is, if you feel the need to pass an
Ordinance as I've heard, then pass the one that came before you on
March 7th, that followed the State mandates. For all of those amendments,
hold additional hearings with the public to discuss the ramifications and the
implications and the possible unintended consequences of those. It doesn't
have to be an all or nothing, with all the amendments or nothing. Pass that
old one, talk about the new ones. Let me point out, people who agree with
me …
Mayor Scharff: Sheri, thank you.
Ms. Furman: … stand. I just promised I'd do that.
Mayor Scharff: Elaine Uang to be followed by Linnea Wickstrom.
Elaine Uang: Thank you all. I just want to remind you that you all made an
excellent decision in the wee hours of the morning on March 7th to support
practical ADU reform that will help a lot of Palo Alto residents create the
ADUs that they desperately need and want. I thank you for showcasing
excellent leadership that night. I hope you do the same tonight and approve
the Ordinance today. The policy direction you set will improve lives because,
first, you address the major obstacle to building ADUs, which is the
minimum lot size requirement. You allowed ADUs on any size lot and
allowed the floor area ratio to govern total square footage on a parcel and
also provided some additional incentives, additional square footage for an
ADU, and 50 square feet for a JADU, if you were to build one. Secondly, the
6-foot rear and side setbacks and relaxed lot coverage standards offer
substandard lots—allow homeowners to make better use of their lots and
have better options for things like open space and landscape. Third,
contrary to a deceptive rumor, you limited the ADU heights to prevent the
privacy issues. The direction on design review is important because,
remember, State law requires ministerial review of ADUs. Palo Alto
currently doesn't require design review for single-story structures. Please
remember that. Last, you addressed practical parking considerations. By
relieving parking requirements for ADUs and JADUs, allowing uncovered
TRANSCRIPT
Page 29 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
parking to account for the requirement and allowing the front setback to be
used for parking, you allow homeowners to house people, not cars, on their
parcels. Everyone parks in their driveway already. Why can't we count that
as a legal parking space for ADUs and JADUs? Thank you for your
consideration. Please approve this without delay tonight.
Mayor Scharff: Linnea Wickstrom to be followed by Gary Fine.
Linnea Wickstrom: Good evening. Linnea Wickstrom, I live in Monroe Park.
I'm here again. Would everyone who supports ADUs please stand up? I'd
also like to …
Mayor Scharff: If we could just sit down.
Ms. Wickstrom: I'd also like to introduce my son, Peter Maresca, for whom
I'm advocating. I'm a sort of everyman, for you English majors, for ADUs. I
have all the needs expressed by supporters and advocates: individuals
interested in an ADU for an aging parent or two, themselves as they age, for
adult children who could not otherwise live in Palo Alto, and maybe
grandchildren, for a caregiver, or especially for an adult son with autism.
Yes, some even might consider rental income as they age. I became an
advocate for this after years of hearing stories from Palo Alto parents of
disabled children. At the behest of Housing Choices Coalition, whose
director is also here, I started speaking for disabled people and housing for
disabled people. I soon realized there was a much more general need. The
Council vote on March 6th or 7th gave me real hope for my family and for all
the advocates, individuals, and organizations alike. The Ordinance as
written and voted on March 7th supports what Greer Stone emphasized for
HRC, inclusivity as a shared value. It also meets the requirements and the
intent of the new State law, to facilitate the development of ADUs. ADUs are
a distributed, low-density, privately funded option that some property
owners like me can fit into our neighborhoods while adding to the City's
housing stock. We, the people, and we would house in your backyards are
already your neighbors. I urge you to reaffirm the vote on March 7th.
Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Gary Fine to be followed by Terry Holzemer.
Gary Fine: Good evening. I'm Gary Fine. I want an ADU in my backyard,
and I want it soon. I know Peter and Linnea need it soon; I need it soon.
I've lived in Palo Alto 40 years, and I know what Palo Alto has been like for
40 years, a long time. Like many of you, I've benefited from the price of
housing here and from the property values. I really want to live here; that's
more important. I want some of my family members to stay here too. I
raised six kids here in Palo Alto. Only one of them lives here. To be fully
TRANSCRIPT
Page 30 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
forthcoming, Adrian Fine's my son. He's the only one of my six kids who
lives in Palo Alto. I coached AY soccer for 10 years. I've coached hundreds
of kids. I never see a single one here. Why? No housing. Another one of
my sons moved to Montreal, Canada, a month ago. Why? No housing.
Maybe Trump had something to do with it, but no housing. I want a future
that's not just a rich retirement community. I want my kids living here. I
don't want any more bottlenecks from the Palo Alto process. Continuously
looking at the whole picture, throwing in Airbnb, throwing in rentals really
bottlenecks this process. I've seen the Palo Alto process for 40 years. It's
enough. All you Council Members ran on a housing slate, so live up to your
campaigns. Put this housing in place. Some of you even issued this, one of
your campaign things about affordability. I appreciate it. These housing
units contribute to affordability. There's no single bullet for affordability.
They contribute. Do not let the process stall the future. I want an ADU in
my house. When I'm old and I'm less vital, my kid over there can move in
and keep an eye on me. It's urgent.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Terry Holzemer to be followed by Paul Machado.
Terry Holzemer: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. I'll try to
keep my comments short. I know that will be a benefit to all of us. I
encourage the Council to move this Ordinance back so that City Staff and
the PTC can analyze the true effects, the critical effects that this proposed
Ordinance has. I think for too long an Ordinance gets passed too quickly
without the proper thought process that goes into it. It's vital that the public
be aware of all the aspects of this Ordinance and how it could alter what we
have come to love and appreciate in our neighborhoods. Please vote to take
this Ordinance and use the proper process, to send it back to the City Staff
and the PTC for their full and complete analysis. However, if there is a great
desire to move forward with an Ordinance tonight, I do recommend that you
go back to the March 7th Staff recommendations and follow the properly
mandated State laws and mandates. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Paul Machado to be followed by Paul Martin.
Paul Machado: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Folk are not against
ADUs, but we should be good neighbors. Smaller setbacks, greater heights,
placing them on undersized lots affects privacy. Lowering parking
requirements Citywide contributes to an already growing problem. ADUs
must be compliant with State law, but this is Palo Alto. We do not need to
spur growth; it's going to occur anyway. Having an ADU should be
compatible with the City and the neighborhood. Having it as low impact as
possible should be a desirable goal. Thank you.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 31 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Paul Martin to be followed by Kevin Moore.
Paul Martin: Good evening. I'm actually quite impressed with the discussion
tonight. I will support ADUs. What I will not support as a member of this
community is the changes that were made at 12:05 a.m. on March 8th. It's
important that we get a rule that the community supports. There's no
reason to take very specific needs and create a general open flood of ADUs.
I think Council Member Kou's response was very well thought out.
Unintended consequences come from not properly reviewing and considering
amendments. That's my primary purpose. There were three things that
came out of this that really kind of shocked me: the removal of the design
review requirements; the allowing of ADUs on all residential lot sizes; and,
you can tell by my previous comments, the removal of any requirement for
parking. Although, I believe the future may be car-free or car-sharing,
today the fact is when you turn a garage into living quarters, those cars go
out on the street. That makes our streets, which are public property, now
privately used. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Kevin Moore to be followed by Vijay Varma.
Kevin Moore: I'm Kevin Moore. I'm a 30-year resident of Palo Alto. I live
on Carolina Lane. Rather than recap everything that's been said, I'll just say
that, number one, I in general support the remarks of the person who
preceded, Mr. Martin, and also those of Ms. Furman regarding process. I
want to voice my support for the comments made by Council Members Kou
and DuBois. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Vijay Varma to be followed by Neva Yarkin.
Vijay Varma: Mr. Mayor and Madam Vice Mayor and Council Members, I
have said in the past the problem we have with housing today is because we
let the commercial development go uncontrolled in the past. We're trying to
fix the housing problem by doing the same mistake again. We are making
decisions without adequate analysis of what it's going to do to our
infrastructure. Do we have the infrastructure for the increased population
we would have in the City? I haven't seen any reports on that. I haven't
seen any analysis on that. What's going to happen to school, garbage
collection, sewer lines, water, gas, electricity, roads? Nothing, we don't
have no analysis on that. We're trying to make a problem worse. Solving
one mistake by making another mistake is no solution. We voted you in to
make our quality of life better. I don't see how adding this many housing
units to Palo Alto is going to make our life better in the City. I heard people
say that they need the money, the rental income, and the lady—I empathize
with her—who said she needs her special needs son to live in the house, but
TRANSCRIPT
Page 32 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
the kid can live in the house. They don't need a separate house for that. A
separate house is only meant for increasing the population, which is a bad
idea for Palo Alto. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Neva Yarkin to be followed by Wesley
Henderson.
Neva Yarkin: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Neva
Yarkin, and I live at 133 Churchill Avenue. Over 30 years ago, my neighbor
built a two-story house overlooking my backyard and living room. In the
same period, another neighbor built a second-story townhouse overlooking
my kitchen and dining room. I have no windows in my house that neighbors
can't see into. I complained at that time to City Council, and a member of
City Council came to my house to see the problem. City Council is also
welcome today to see my house and backyard again. Regarding no covered
parking, we already having major parking problems all over the City,
Churchill included, on streets at night, and this would only compound the
problem. I would like the ADU Ordinance pulled and rescheduled after Staff
and Planning Commission can analyze the changes. Thank you so much for
your time.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Wesley Henderson.
Wesley Henderson: Good evening. I'm a Palo Alto resident here to speak in
favor of ADUs. I'd like to start a family here and live near my fiancé's family
who lives in Palo Alto but, as you all know, the housing situation is very dire.
Costs have spiraled out of control. I don't think this ADU thing is asking for
a radical reshaping of Palo Alto. We're talking about giving homeowners the
freedom to add a little bit of capacity on their property. I support it in the
fullest. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sophia Berger, followed
by Helyn MacLean.
Sophia Berger: Hi. My name is Sophia Berger, and I am a native Palo Altan
as well as a current resident. I grew up here, and I love this City, and I love
the way it is now, but I do not believe that adding ADUs will change the
scape of the City significantly. I would love to be able to raise a family here,
to have my kids go to the same schools that I went to, and to live near their
grandparents. Without additional housing capacity, that's just not possible.
Tonight, I urge you to pass a liberal ADU Ordinance that will allow building of
many units. It's not a silver bullet, but it's one piece of the puzzle. Thank
you.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 33 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Helyn MacLean followed by Faramarz. I'm
sorry about my pronunciation.
Helyn MacLean: Hi. I'm Helyn MacLean; I live in Palo Alto. I'm here to urge
Council to pass an ADU Ordinance that satisfies State law but goes no
further without understanding the consequences of the Fine/Wolbach
proposal. We don't know enough about the Wolbach/Fine proposal to know
if it'll actually help with adding housing or affordable housing. I have to say
it's not clear to me that the Council actually supports affordable housing
given what happened earlier. Be that as it may, my other issue is
transparency. I'm very disappointed that things are happening at 12:10 in
the morning that nobody knows about. In fact, we're sitting here in the
audience, and nobody knows what the proposal is. I don't think that's the
way to run a City. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Followed by Faramarz and then Kristen
Harrison.
Faramarz: Good evening. My name is Faramarz Bahmani, and I live in
Crescent Park. The State requirement of ADU will easily achieve more
affordable housing. That's what I believe. Going beyond the State
requirements and relaxing the rules further, however, creates a set of
problems including unhappy neighbors, privacy concerns, and the
commercialization of our great City by some greedy actors. I know because
I lived through a similar experience just a few months ago. Last October my
next door neighbor decided to rent his three-bedroom house to a renter.
The plan was for this renter to turn around and sublease the entire house to
14 strangers using Airbnb. The landlord and the renter would make at least
$14,000 a month for this three-bedroom house. What's shocking is that the
renter stated he was doing this to help others by creating more affordable
housing. That, to me, does not sound like someone who tries to help others.
He saw it as an easy cash flow with no investment into the future of the
City. Without any oversight and supervision over these additional units
created by relaxed ADU Ordinance, any number of problems could happen,
the least of which would be privacy concerns from nearby neighbors. I urge
the members to take this issue of relaxing the ADU rules seriously.
Otherwise, the foundation would be set for easy abuse of the system. Thank
you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Kristen [phonetic] Harrison to be followed by
LaDoris Cordell. LaDoris Cordell.
LaDoris Cordell: Good evening. My name is LaDoris Hazzard Cordell. I'm a
46-year resident of the City of Palo Alto and a former Palo Alto City Council
TRANSCRIPT
Page 34 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Member. I am not opposed to the construction of accessory dwelling units in
Palo Alto. I am opposed to the violation of the due process rights of Palo
Alto residents that will result, if you approve this Ordinance tonight with the
changes introduced by Council Members Wolbach and Fine. The Wolbach
and Fine changes were incorporated into the Ordinance after the period for
public comment had closed. The Wolbach/Fine changes are significant and
must be evaluated and analyzed by Staff and/or by the Planning and
Transportation Commission. It is improper for you to vote to implement
these major changes to housing construction in the City without an objective
and thorough analysis. I concur with Mr. Ross' comments that the Brown
Act prohibits this Council from taking action on this item tonight. Finally, I
ask that you refer the Ordinance with the changes to Staff and to the
Planning and Transportation Committee for objective and thorough analysis
and public comment. It is the right thing to do legally and morally. Thank
you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. I do have to ask you not to do that. Sue
Dinwiddie—Florence Keller to be followed by Sue Dinwiddie. Florence.
Florence Keller: Whatever she said.
Mayor Scharff: Sue Dinwiddie to be followed by Annette Ross.
Sue Dinwiddie: I want to thank the Council for the opportunity to speak.
I'm Sue Dinwiddie; I've been a resident of Palo Alto for the past 56 years. I
am concerned that, unlike Palo Alto tradition, this Ordinance is being rushed
through without adequate public discussion. I may have missed it, but I
have been totally unaware about the change in State law, which will of
course affect our local law, until this last week. I have not been successful
in finding a lot of information to read about it. I know Palo Alto's been
criticized for studying and discussing items excessively, but this interest and
discussion is what keeps our City democratic and involved and the stellar
place to live that it is today. It seems to me that the haste of the
Wolbach/Fine ADU amendment defies this tradition of strong community
input. I am sympathetic of the need for more affordable housing in Palo
Alto, but I’m also concerned about making a rapid decision to implement it
to the detriment of the present community. It seems to me that a clear lack
of requirements for ADUs, accessory dwellings, will lead to innumerable
problems down the road, such as impacting the parking problem, which is
already big, diminishing privacy of neighbors. There is the potential for
more Bnbs, which I know is not intended. With almost no monitoring and
enforcement, that might be inevitable. It seems to me ironic that when it's
so difficult to get approval for remodeling projects or building new homes,
there would be very few restrictions for second dwellings. We bought our
TRANSCRIPT
Page 35 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
home many years ago because we liked the nature of the neighborhood. We
did not expect to have the quality of the neighborhood change dramatically
out from under us, so to speak. Adding extra units to lots with no minimum
requirements and very little oversight of the structure seems like a bad joke.
I urge you to slow down. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Annette Ross to be followed by Bob Hinden.
Annette Ross: Good evening. I am Annette Ross, and I live in College
Terrace. I have a friend here to help me illustrate something. That is 6
feet. That is what we're talking about doing all over our City. The
refinements need to happen. What happens in the process is wrong. I'd
love to have LaDoris Cordell have a permanent seat on the City of Palo Alto
City Council. It would help. I would like to second the questions that Mr.
DuBois asked. I also really sympathize with what Kate Moreau said and her
privacy issues and what has happened to her home. When you are writing
this Ordinance, you need to take these things into consideration and put
yourself in the house that is going to have a neighbor that's 6 feet away.
That's huge. It doesn't have to be done poorly. This can be done well. I
support doing it but only if we're smart and do it well. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Bob Hinden to be followed by Stu Beattie.
Bob Hinden: Hi. I'm Bob Hinden. I live at 3271 Murray Way. Three things
I want to say. I agree with what Ms. Cordell said quite a lot. I thought she
said that very well. I'm not against ADUs. This is not a discussion about
really pro or against ADUs as, I think, some people here have suggested. I
could imagine doing an ADU at our house. I'm also very unhappy about the
process that Council has added a lot of requirements literally late at night.
That's not the way to do open business here. I think there's a lot of issues
that need to be resolved or looked at. A gentleman earlier talked about
infrastructure. For example, is our sewage system going to be able to
handle much higher capacity or are we going to have to build a much larger
sewage plant? What are the unintended consequences of this? I think this
does need more analysis. If you have to do something now, going back to
the minimum would be better. You can always do amendments later.
Overall, I think this needs a lot more analysis by Staff and then allow the
community to have time to actually think about it, and then we can have a
more reasoned debate. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Stu Beattie to be followed by Peter Taskovich.
Stu Beattie: Hi. My name is Stu Beattie. My wife and I have lived in Palo
Alto since 1983 very happily. It seems to me as though the proposed
Ordinance has been passed without consideration of really many critical
TRANSCRIPT
Page 36 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
issues, not the least of which was mentioned earlier relating to fire safety,
which is really very frightening to me. This proposed Ordinance, in my
opinion, will affect the City of Palo Alto so dramatically that it really should
be decided by a vote of residents. Thank you very much.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Peter Taskovich to be followed by Betty Jo.
Peter Taskovich: Hello. My name's Peter Taskovich. I live at 751 Galen
Avenue. I've been a resident of Palo Alto for over 50 years. First of all, I
have a very hard time to square away this ultra-liberalization of ADU laws.
The rationale being we need as much affordable housing as possible, and yet
just today you voted to decrease the in-lieu affordable housing fees. How
can you guys square that and say you're really for affordable housing, yet
you reduced the in-lieu housing fees for rental housing? I can't put my mind
around that. The main point I want to talk about is the best course of action
here is simply to pass the original ADU regulations as proposed by Staff on
March 7. You can pass it today. That way, we're protected from the State
ADU laws, and then you can further discuss the additions, the changes that
Council Member Wolbach and Fine wanted and maybe adopt them later on.
Today, just adopt the current—not the current, but the ones proposed
originally by Staff on March 7th. Even if you don't do that, the State law is
better. The current State law is better than what was proposed and adopted
by the Council that night. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Betty Jo to be followed by Louise Beattie.
Betty Jo: Mayor, Councilmen, thank you for hearing me. I'm a Palo Alto
resident and a renter and a granny. I like granny units. I supported the
proposed ADU Ordinance, the one that was reviewed by Staff, reviewed by
Planning and Transportation, but I disagree with the changes to the
Ordinance included in your March 7th amendments, in particular those
further reducing setbacks, eliminating minimum lot size, eliminating design
review for privacy guidelines, and requirements for owner occupancy of one
of the units. None of these changes are required for compliance with the
State law. I take issue with the notion that the State law precludes our
ability to put any design review guidelines in. Indeed, as I understand it,
the Staff Report on the previous version of this thing did identify some
particular issues that could be identified for privacy and furthermore
identified issues that ADUs could be required to be of substantially the same
style, color, form for the neighborhood. We've been working on increasing
affordable housing options for a long time. Let's not get so hasty now, here
in the home stretch, that we lose the support of residents for that effort.
I'm not keen on bait and switch Ordinance creation; it's not right, and it's
not the honorable way to do business. Please refer the amended Ordinance
TRANSCRIPT
Page 37 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
back to Planning and Transportation and City Staff for review. Please
schedule another discussion following that review. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Louise Beattie to be followed by Phil Farrell.
Louise Beattie: I wanted to say that LaDoris Cordell took the words right out
of my mouth. I have a few more words too. First, I think we should go
back to the original State-mandated order, whatever it's called. I had it all
written here. The Ordinance. I'm a senior, and I would like to say I think
the seniors may not all feel that we need an accessory unit in our backyard.
We have Proposition 13 to help us out, and we have lower taxes. It would
be nice to have someone who will take care of us in our backyard. I don't
think there's a desperate need for all seniors to have an accessory unit in
your backyard. It would be extremely expensive to build one, and then our
properties would be reassessed. Secondly, I understand exactly why many
people would like to move here to Palo Alto. We have a family-friendly area,
wonderful schools. Building these units may destroy the ambience of our
communities. They will take up a lot of the space that our children play in
now. Having cars parked in the front yard would not be very attractive.
Please rethink this ADU Ordinance and either go back to the original one
passed by the State and review what you might want to change or add on
later. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Phil Farrell to be followed by Marilyn Mayo.
Phil Farrell: Dear Mayor and City Council, my name is Phil Farrell. I've been
a resident of Palo Alto for 35 years and thankfully in my own home for the
last 33. It's finally paid off thankfully. I understand the frustration of people
who are concerned about the process. I'm one of the seniors who wants to
support the idea, particularly the liberalizing amendments that were passed
on March 7th. Those amendments would make it possible for me to create
an ADU on my property. I have 7,600 square feet, but it's a pie-shaped lot.
Setbacks are a difficult problem to deal with; although, there's a big back
corner where I could put one. I would really like to see that kind of
Ordinance passed. Maybe we need a better process to do it. I've seen my
three children grow up and leave Palo Alto because there's no place for
them, that they can afford, even though a couple of them make good
salaries in the tech industry. I'd like to be able to offer some kind of small
housing for them or other people like them to get started in this town. I
think this would be the great way to do it. I'm definitely in favor of the kind
of Ordinance you passed. You may need a better process, but I would
support that. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Marilyn Mayo to be followed by Bonnie Packer.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 38 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Marilyn Mayo: Good evening. I support LaDoris Cordell. I think her points
are well taken. I just wanted to compare this to the leaf blower issue and
this important land use issue. It's all about clarity. We spent years on the
leaf blowers. We redid it. We didn't have enforcement of it. It's probably
still going on. Then, you have this important issue. I have struggled for the
last 2 weeks to figure out what are the regulations, what are the changes,
what are the amendments. It's not in the news. It's not clear. It's hard to
put it all together. Someone said, who I've been talking to today, "I have a
lot. What am I allowed to do?" It's not clear. I would just say let's go back
so the community understands it. Once you agree on the rules, then you go
forward. Right now, it's very difficult to understand what we're doing.
That's all I can say. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Bonnie Packer to be followed by Judith Wasserman.
Bonnie Packer: Good evening. My name's Bonnie Packer, and I'm speaking
for the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. In our earlier letter to you on
the ADU Ordinance, the League said that we support increasing the density
of single-family residential areas in various ways, to improve the diversity of
housing opportunities for all economic levels. Allowing accessory dwelling
units is one way to do this. We also said in that letter that we support
greater flexibility for ADUs than was presented to you in the proposed
Ordinance. We said there ought to be more incentives to create these
additional housing opportunities. We urge you to seriously consider those
recommendations, which is what you did in the Ordinance that you passed in
the early hours of March 7th. The League supports those increased
incentives that will allow more ADUs to address our housing issues in Palo
Alto. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Judith Wasserman to be followed by Karen
Porter. I don't see her. Karen Porter to be followed by James Cornett.
Karen Porter: Thank you. I'm a homeowner here in Palo Alto, just over 10
years. I agree with the comments of those who have expressed concerns
about the process that was employed with this Ordinance, particularly the
nature of the last minute changes, particularly those expressed by Council
Member Kou and especially those by Judge Cordell. I'll be brief and just say
a couple of things. I might add that if we are considering changes to the
State requirements, I hope that the City considers good enforcement,
making sure that people are abiding by any regulations that are employed.
Also, I think it would be important to have some good resources for
mediation for neighborhood disputes. I think there will be a lot of them. I
also think we need to—Palo Alto's an enlightened City. I think we need to
consider the environmental ramifications. I'm reminded of that lyric of pave
TRANSCRIPT
Page 39 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
paradise, put up a parking lot. In this case, a few ADUs. I don't think it's a
good—I don't see how it's a real solution to affordable housing, particularly
as people have pointed out what we did to the funding of affordable housing
with the earlier decision, but I'll leave that to the wisdom of our elected
leaders. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: James Cornett to be followed by Jeralyn Moran.
James Cornett: Good evening, Council, Mayor Scharff. Thank you very
much for the opportunity to be here. I have little to add other than the fact,
I think, has already been spoken earlier by members of this group, Ross,
Furman, Cordell. What I’m most concerned about is the lack of clarity. I'm
a resident of the City and a homeowner for 30 years. A lot of these issues
really had not come to the forefront in a way that was easily found about
and to make a decision upon. I do urge you—I appreciate you making the
change in the Consent Calendar. I do urge you to bring this really before
the voters, the residents. We are a representative democracy. You do a
fine job in representing us. I think this is one of the issues that has such
potential for both benefit and also potential for harm. That would be a good
one to bring to the voters themselves. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Jeralyn Moran to be followed by Richard Willits.
Jeralyn Moran: Good evening. My name's Jeralyn Moran, and I'm a resident
here in Palo Alto. I'm before you this evening to reinforce what I think is the
importance of action on all feasible projects and policies to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate disruption. I am
supportive of accessory dwelling units in this way. I'll try to explain why.
Our City has been and, I'd like to think, will continue to be a leader in
pushing back on this critical, time-sensitive, environmental problem. I'm
dismayed that many of my fellow Palo Altans cannot seem to see the
importance of ramping up all forms of increased housing density in the City
to fight this enormous problem of greenhouse gas emissions coming from so
many that work right here, but they can't find affordable housing anywhere
nearby. They're forced to commute from really far away. All these
problems are connected. I respect that you are mindful of the housing
shortage, the traffic and parking problem crisis here. Like I said, it's all
connected. Add to that our City's goals of addressing climate disruption, and
you're obligated to support promotion of accessory dwelling units. Thank
you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Richard Willits to be followed by Norm Beamer.
Richard Willits: Good evening, Council Members. I come in front of you, as
I have many times in the last 3 years, to speak in further protection of
TRANSCRIPT
Page 40 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Eichler communities. The problem that I see with these particular rules is
again the problems that we've noted many times. Our Eichler homes and
our Eichler communities are built on a modulus that is slab on the ground.
This has been noted by the Eichler guideline development group, which you
have convened. I appreciate your having done that. Slab on the ground
means that our eyes are at the 6-foot level. Our fences are 6 or 7 feet. If
an accessory dwelling unit were to be built in the back of an Eichler backyard
up at 3 feet, which many people in the Planning Department have told me
gives a normal crawlspace, not in our neighborhood. That particular
accessory dwelling unit would be looking into every other Eichler home.
Several members have tried to convince me that the current Ordinance
covers for protection. It does not allow windows within 6 feet of a fence.
That doesn't help us in this particular consideration. It does not allow for
clear windows on the second story. We don't expect to have second stories
in the R-1; however, you can have a clear window that starts 5 feet high and
goes to 8 feet high with someone in an ADU looking right into a whole bunch
of Eichler neighborhoods. I would request that this particular ADU process
include a chance to fold it into the Eichler guidelines process specifically for
those places where this would be a problem for Eichler communities. We
have noted many times to the Council that when one particular homeowner
is allowed to expand and infringe upon the rights of others, the overall
density of our community goes down. It would behoove the City, I believe,
to make the guidelines match the overall modulus of Eichler construction for
Eichler communities. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Norm Beamer to be followed by Christian Pease.
Norm Beamer: Hi. I'd like to support the view that we go back to the
previous Ordinance, go ahead and pass that because the State law requires
it and hold off the amendments that were added late in the previous
meeting. Some of those amendments may well be meritorious, but I do
think there should be more study. I do think, among other things, you
should figure out the Airbnb problem before you extend the idea of
expanding or making even more available ADUs because that is a real
problem that, I think, people are concerned with. If the State Legislature
had passed a law saying we're doing away with R-1 zoning, we're doing
away with single-family residences, from now on it has to be at least two-
family residences, people would have been up in arms. By the same token,
if this Council had passed an Ordinance to that effect, it would have not
been accepted at all. Doesn't this whole ADU effort in effect create
something in the nature of R-2 zoning in the R-1 areas? It seems to me that
it's headed towards that direction. Put the light touch on the brakes on this
bandwagon. Do what the State law requires, and then see how that affects
our neighborhoods. In due course, we may want to liberalize it further. I'm
TRANSCRIPT
Page 41 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
very concerned about this changing things to affect an R-2 zoning
(inaudible) the whole City. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Christian Pease to be followed by Carol Scott.
Christian Pease: Good evening. Christian Pease, Evergreen Park. The
differences between what's before you tonight and the original proposal,
which was subject to analysis and recommendation by the Staff, is material
enough so that it should be subject to and enjoy the same benefit of that
analysis and public comment before you move forward with it. If you need
to pass an Ordinance, pass the one that was recommended or go along with
the State guidelines. These should be treated separately because this is a
forever decision, and it should be done with proper analysis and public
comment. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Carol Scott to be followed by Grant Dasher.
Carol Scott: Good evening, Council Members. I want to second all of the
comments that have been made about the process being not exactly
transparent and about a process that does not allow for adequate
consultation from the public and from the Staff. I'd like to also suggest just
a few more things. Mr. Fine would like an ADU on his property, but what
about his neighbor? Does his neighbor have any rights in this process?
What are we doing to assure that those rights are also protected? There has
to be something between the extreme of no ADU in Palo Alto and the wild,
wild West that was suggested in the amendment by Mr. Wolbach and
Mr. Fine. Surely the smart people in Palo Alto can come up with a better
solution than that. Your Ordinance or your amendment could perhaps
double the residences in my neighborhood, which is Evergreen Park, which
already has a sewer problem, and it already has a parking problem. I
looked around my neighborhood the other day as I sat in my backyard, and
I thought about having another ADU, not just here or there but one on every
single lot. The density is staggering. This is not a minor inconvenience; this
is staggering. What do we want this housing to be for anyway? As I
understand it, it's a 600-square-foot ADU. Is that for families? Not really.
Is it going to be affordable? That hasn't been addressed here either, has it?
There's a number of considerations like that we might think about in terms
of what we're trying to do here and does this really meet our objectives. I'd
like to also say that I really don't appreciate being threatened with a State
law or nothing. It's not the case that we have to go by the State law or we
have to approve the Wolbach and Fine amendment. That is beneath us, and
we can do better than that. I'd like to second Council Member Lydia Kou's
suggestion that we have a comprehensive look at this issue and that these
TRANSCRIPT
Page 42 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
decisions be made in the context of that comprehensive addressing of the
critical problem of housing in Palo Alto. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Grant Dasher to be followed by Elaine Meyer.
Grant Dasher: Hello. Thank you, Council, for letting us speak. It's super
exciting for me to see the great mobilization of democratic energy here and
the civil nature of the discussion. I really appreciate that on behalf of
everyone. It probably doesn't surprise very many people that I am in
support of the Ordinance liberalizing ADUs. I could sit here and give you a
long policy argument, but I encapsulated that with John Kelley in a rather
long and involved letter that we sent to the Council in advance of the
March 7th Ordinance. I think it's highly unclear if the March 7th Ordinance
is actually compliant with the spirit of State law. The City was quite creative
in its interpretations of certain provisions of that law. We discussed that at
some length in the letter. I would really like to speak more to a human
story. We have a democratic representative government, and people ran on
the basis of housing. The parameters of the policy debate over ADUs has
been clear since the beginning of this process, the different ways in which it
could go. There has been quite a bit of public discussion and debate on this
topic. While no process is perfect, the process that was followed here, given
the 2 years of preceding discussion on this subject, was not as horrible as it
has been made out to be. Most importantly, I want to speak on behalf of my
generation, the people who moved into this City in the last 5 years, because
we got a job in Silicon Valley or because we were students at Stanford, and
we want to continue to live in this community. I'm a lucky one because I
can afford it because I have a high-paying job. A lot of my friends lived
either in illegal ADUs or other small houses in Palo Alto, so they could
commute to their jobs. These people are in our community too. They may
not be here tonight, but they're there. They voted for you, and we cannot
let them down. Thank you so much.
Mayor Scharff: Elaine Meyer to be followed by Kitty Talbot.
Elaine Meyer: Good evening, Mayor Scharff and members of the Council.
I'd like to associate myself with two brief, intelligent, clear statements made
by Councilwoman Kou and by Judge Cordell. They said things clearly and
concisely. We are not against ADUs. We are against the lack of process that
took place last week. The midnight amendments with no analysis or
scrutiny reminded me of the results of the 2016 Citizen Survey. There were
three questions that people answered, that seemed very relevant to these
issues. One question was how do you generally react—does the City
generally act in the best interests of the community. Only 44 percent of the
public agrees excellent or good. In 2014, 54 percent of people believed the
TRANSCRIPT
Page 43 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
City acts in the general interest of the community. Now, it's only 44. What
is your overall confidence in the Palo Alto government? In 2014, 52 percent
said good or excellent. Last year, 44 percent, way down from 52. The last
question, how well Palo Alto government does at being honest? In 2015, it
was 62 percent; now it's down to 55 percent. I think …
Mayor Scharff: Thank you.
Ms. Meyer: … if you push this …
Mayor Scharff: Thank you.
Ms. Meyer: … change through, those numbers are likely to go down even
further. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Katie Talbot to be followed by Jeff Salzman.
Katie Talbot: Good evening. I'm sure there's nothing that I could say that
you haven't heard before, so I'll be exceedingly brief, I hope. We all agree
that we desperately need housing in Palo Alto for all kinds of people, for
seniors, for our disabled children, for just families who want to live here. It
has to be affordable. Distributed housing through ADUs seems like the best
way to do it. The last thing I have to say is it's uncomfortable for people to
see any kind of change to what they're used to, but change has to happen
here because we seriously need it. Have a good night.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Jeff Salzman to be followed by Gail Price.
Jeff Salzman: I fully support the action that was taken by the Council on
March 7th. I believe the amendments were very reasonable. I happen to
have sat through that session of that whole evening. I think there was a
full, really deliberative process that was building upon a great deal of work
that was done by Staff, by the Planning and Transportation Commission as
well as, of course, the State law. I fully support any efforts that are made to
increase the volume of housing. This will in effect allow the mobilization of
probably a very small amount of private capital of individual homeowners
who may see it in their interest because of family concerns, income
concerns. It'll be small and very decentralized. The history of ADU building
in cities that have adopted liberal Ordinances is that they're very, very small
numbers that have done. Thank you.
Gail Price: Good evening. I'm Gail Price; I'm a former City Council Member.
I strongly support the amendments to the ADU Ordinance and the actions
taken on March 7th. Cities are organic and must and need to be flexible in
addressing changing needs. Do we know and understand Palo Alto is one of
TRANSCRIPT
Page 44 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
the most costly places to live in the country? Yes. Do we recognize housing
shortage is critical? Yes. The growing population and impacts everyone
must face is part of the changing situation here and the future. With a
change in population and jobs, we need to provide housing capacity and to
expand it. I concur with all the comments made related to the impact in
terms of environmental considerations. Having housing near jobs is really
critical. Do we appreciate that we need a variety of housing? Yes. Do we
know that not everyone feels a single-family home necessarily meets their
needs? Yes. Do we recognize the importance of providing flexibility? Yes.
Do we recognize that the setbacks, FAR, lot coverage are elements that will
be critically used in the evolution of the ADU? It is very important to
recognize that those issues will still be in place. We believe local
government must look at the broader needs of the community and make
decisions that support that outcome. I strongly support the ADU Ordinance,
as I mentioned. I appreciate your deliberations and work as City Council
Members. In closing, I've been very concerned about some of the negative
comments that have been made, the distortions, and the alternative facts
that have been introduced into the debate. I appreciate that comments
have been made here tonight to correct some falsehoods and discussion
around that. Thank you for your work. The implementation of this will be
very slow and deliberate. Other cities have handled these amendments and
ADU Ordinances extremely well. We can do the same.
Mayor Scharff: Bob Moss to be followed by Roger Peterson.
Bob Moss: Thank you, Mayor Scharff and Council Members. The ordinance
before you tonight is a classic example of midnight badness. It was
discussed only after all the public comment was ended. The Planning
Commission and Staff never discussed or reviewed it. It was just sprung on
the public. I totally agree with Bill Ross, Sheri Furman, and LaDoris Cordell.
This is a violation of the Brown Act because it is a very significant change to
the Zoning Ordinance, which was never noticed to the community.
Therefore, the Ordinance before you tonight has real legal difficulties. I
strongly urge you send it to the Planning Commission and the Staff for
review and not enact it tonight. Let me give you a couple of examples of
where there are, in fact, negative environmental impacts. Currently,
between 3,500 and 4,000 of the 28,000-plus single-family zoned properties
are large enough to accommodate a second unit. This Ordinance will change
that to 28,000. If only one-quarter of that 28,000 units actually build an
ADU, that will increase traffic by over 70,000 trips a day. Some of you may
have heard that we have a traffic problem and a parking problem in Palo
Alto. Increasing the amount of development allowed in the R-1 zone will
only make that worse. Furthermore, what this does is it destroys past City
TRANSCRIPT
Page 45 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
policy to protect the R-1 zone and effectively rezones every R-1 property to
R-2. That is not a good idea. This proposal sucks. Kill it.
Mayor Scharff: Roger Peterson to be followed by Jane Uvvova. Roger
Peterson? No Roger. Jane Uvvova to be followed by Patrick Slattery.
Jane Uyvova: Good evening Council Members and fellow citizens. I'm here
to express my strong support for the ADU Ordinance that was approved on
March 6. Please continue the good work that you started to help address
our enormous housing shortage. I have been a renter in Palo Alto for 5
years, and 50 percent of my income goes to housing. Moreover, the little
housing stock that exists makes finding a place to rent let alone buy
extremely, extremely difficult. This is also my community just as much as it
is the community of those who have bought a home and have been
fortunate enough to do so 20, 30, 40 years ago when it was still affordable.
I do want to talk about this subject of affordability. By not providing more
housing options in this community, you are suffocating the future of this
community. You really are doing that. That is reckless. That was the word
that was used this evening. That is reckless. Also, if you're only going to be
building housing for the chosen ones, those who are serving the community,
how are you going to choose who those people are? What process are we
going to go through next to decide who gets to live in this community? Isn't
that just like building servants quarters? I really encourage you to think
about that. I think some of the commentary, some of the vitriol is
discriminating against the future of Palo Alto, and it's killing it on the vine. I
am really encouraging you to look at all the housing options, look at
everything that is available because we are the future of this community.
We deserve to live here just like all the folks that are here. Everybody in the
Bay Area are waking up to the fact that Palo Alto is not an island. The entire
Bay Area is facing housing shortages, and we really need to do our part.
Thank you very much.
Mayor Scharff: Patrick Sklattery to be followed by Deb Goldeen.
Patrick Sklattery: I agree with a lot of other people who have come up here.
I don't think we should go beyond the State law until we have time to sit
down and discuss it with the community and the Staff and calmly go through
all the details and see what the effects are going to be. There's one other
question I sort of had. It comes from the discussion I got from the video.
Would a homeowner be allowed to live in the accessory unit and rent out the
house? Thank you.
Deb Goldeen: The leaf blower Ordinance that was passed ended up being
essentially unenforceable. With that in mind, my only concern with what has
TRANSCRIPT
Page 46 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
been proposed is how are you going to enforce Airbnb regulations. There's
nothing in the Ordinance or changes as they've been proposed that say
where's the teeth of the enforcement. That is a big concern of mine. That
said, from the vitriolic nature of the comments that I've been reading on
neighbors Nextdoor, the small space segment of the Palo Alto community
that is very anti-build any housing, I am very suspicious that many of the
objections to the way this process has been conducted are about red tape
and obfuscation and preventing the building of more housing. What I also
don't understand is how people can think building a 3,500-square-foot house
on a 5,000-square-foot lot that is three stories high doesn't significantly
affect the Cityscape but building ADUs does. That, I'm sorry, I just don't
follow.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Charlene Liao to be followed by T.T. Ranganath.
Charlene Liao: Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members, I live in
Palo Alto for over 20 years. I support affordable housing for people with
disabilities. I could envision adding ADU on my own property, but I ask you
to please delay voting on ADU and to reschedule it to a future date when the
impact to our neighborhood can be fully assessed. This is especially
important because City Planning and the Transportation Staff have not been
given sufficient time to work out the new Motions introduced at midnight of
March 7th by Councilmen Wolbach and Fine. As illustration, we heard
tonight many sensible questions from Council Member DuBois whose
questions have not been answered sufficiently by Staff members. Council
Member Fine, I want to tell you that parking is an issue everywhere in Palo
Alto including the quiet south Palo Alto neighborhood. Right now, already
four to five cars of my neighbors and their renters are parked on a private
easement driveway up to my front door. Their parking affect the full
easement rights of four families and blocks paratransit van that comes to
pick up my daughter every day. No one can stop their aggressive parking
practice because the neighbor owns the easement driveway even with the
easement. Therefore, parking can get worse and can have adverse impact
on adjacent neighbors if your Motion on ADU is passed today. We need the
City to set development standards and parking requirements for ADU. Your
clarity on ADU Ordinance could prevent nasty neighborhood disputes. Thank
you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. T.T. to be followed by David Kwoh.
T.T. Ranganath: … 35-year resident of Palo Alto. I've been here a long
time. Some of the problems of housing in Palo Alto in terms of affordability
that one of the ladies just spoke about have been always there. When we
moved into Palo Alto, we could barely afford the little house that we bought,
TRANSCRIPT
Page 47 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
and we had to take all kinds of loans. I'm sure this is a problem always
been there in Palo Alto. That being the case, increasing the density by
passing this Ordinance basically is not limit in terms of whatever the size of
the lot is. If it qualifies, it can be big. As Bob Moss said, a small fraction as
a quarter already makes the problem really worse. I have to agree with
what DuBois and Lydia Kou and Ms. Cordell said, that we have to go slow on
this, pay attention to how we're going to handle all these other unintended
consequences. Also the question of Airbnb has been brought up, and that's
a very serious problem that this Ordinance doesn't do anything to stop or
doesn't have any way of enforcing that that can be controlled. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. David Kwoh to be followed by Randy Popp.
David Kwoh: My name's David Kwoh. I'm a retired person coming to Palo
Alto to retire a few years ago. First of all, what I found out is that in recent
year and months, I am mentally exhausted about all these confrontations.
First of all, with living on Lincoln I find my street underneath a highway of
the airplanes. I'm subjected to all the highway noises and the confrontation
with FAA. Now, the second confrontation is with the big developer with the
big parking problem of RPP encroachment into the neighborhood. Now, the
ADU confrontation with my neighbors. This is the last thing I want to do. If
I say anything that is offending my neighbors—I hope I won't—please
forgive me. First of all, I want to say I support ADU, the version mandated
by the State of California, not the version full of amendments from Fine and
Wolbach in the wee hours of March 17 when I've already gone to bed.
Subsequently, I never heard about either, only about 2 weeks. This thing
apparently had never been really look over and discussed. I don't like the
way this is handled by the City. Total lack of transparency. This is not how
City of Palo Alto should be run. Secondly, the infrastructure issue. When I
come here, I look at the neighborhood. I'm surprised how close houses are.
The first thing that came to mind is fire. If there's a fire, it can spread very
quickly. I'm concerned about that. There are infrastructure issues that have
been plenty mentioned, and I won't repeat it. They need to be looked at.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Randy Popp to be followed by Becky Sanders.
Randy Popp: good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members. Randy
Popp, architect. I live at 375 Monroe Drive. First, I'd just like to suggest
that I’m one of the people in this room who deal with the technical
implications of the regulations. As I design and draw for my clients, the
restrictions in the language become very real. For the most part, the Motion
most of you supported is simply aligning with State-mandated regulations.
Palo Alto cannot continue to regulate ADUs within the existing Zoning
Ordinance. Most of you, to the extent you were able, included in the
TRANSCRIPT
Page 48 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
proposed Ordinance regulations limiting ADUs in a thoughtful way. For
example, a 900-square-foot limit versus the State recommendation of 1,200
square feet. Another example is the limitation of 17 feet for the height
versus a restriction consistent with what would be allowed in any other
residence. This Ordinance, as most of you proposed, is balanced and
reasonable. I hope you'll follow through and approve it. I have one
comment. I've studied Staff's proposal, and the daylight plane language is
too restrictive. Please maintain a 10-foot and 45-degree plane rather than
the 8-foot limit as suggested. This is really critical in order to maintain
reasonable setbacks and preserve backyard open space. I'll close by letting
you know that I received three phone calls this week related to people
inquiring about my ability to help them approve an ADU. Two of them were
from parents who want to build for their children, and one was from an adult
child who wants to care for an aging parent. Not one of these was asking for
an income-producing unit so they could Airbnb and park all over the street.
I support the Motion as approved and hope you will move this forward to
best align Palo Alto and the State. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Becky Sanders to be followed by Diane Reklis.
Becky Sanders: Good evening Council Members. Thank you so much for
hearing all of us. As a 27-year old resident of Palo Alto, I'm 27 years old. I
have lived in Palo Alto for 27 years, and I lived the housing squeeze.
Housing was not affordable back then. I believe we bought the cheapest
house in Palo Alto. At the time, my husband and I made tremendous
sacrifices to do so. We have a 26-year-old daughter, and we'd love for her
to find housing nearby with her new husband when they are married next
month. They are committed to their home turf, both being Gunn grads. I'm
definitely up for exploring ADU options; however, I cannot countenance the
way in which the proposed changes to the ADU State mandates have been
handled. These changes go well beyond the State, things you have heard
this evening. The lack of transparency really bothers me. The lack of public
forum really bothers me. That's one of my pet peeves. Are we so sure of
the results that we do not question the process, and do the ends justify the
means by which they are obtained? I just don't think we are going to feel
better about the outcome knowing that the Ordinance was subject to public
scrutiny and debate. I don't see how you could possibly pass it without
more public input. I ask that we continue the discussion of ADUs and do not
vote on this Ordinance tonight. If you do vote, please vote against
exceeding the State mandate. Let's roll it back to that. Also I wanted to
just point out that Sheri Furman of the Palo Alto Neighborhoods Association
was the one to deliver a petition earlier this evening. I think she wanted to
mention that, so I'm mentioning that for her. Thank you very much.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 49 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Diane Reklis to be followed by John Kelley.
Diane Reklis: Hi. My name is Diane Reklis, and I live in a typical Eichler
with a relatively small yard and big windows. I believe I was the first to
suggest ADUs to Mr. Wolbach, and I strongly support the concept to more
efficiently use land, the City's most scarce resource. By decreasing the
setbacks required, most Eichlers could be expanded forward to provide
space for extended families or for a separate rental space with no negative
impact on the neighbors. The devil is always in the details. My biggest
concern with this proposal is that detached ADUs in our backyards would
reduce the wonderful indoor/outdoor living spaces created by Joseph Eichler.
The proposal also shows disregard for the Eichler Design Guidelines process
that has finally gotten underway. Flood control restrictions would make
things even more problematic as separate units in my neighborhood would
likely have to start at 4 feet above the height of our yards or only 3 feet
below the fences. That's kind of weird. Please send this item back to Staff.
It will become needlessly political if you try to fix the problems on the fly
tonight. There is a real possibility of yet another disturbing 5-4 vote tonight.
We can craft a set of rules that will be appealing to most folks in Palo Alto
and more than a bare majority of our Council. It will take input from Staff
and PTC as well as others. Please table this item for a month or so and
create a really good document that will stand the test of time. This is worth
doing right. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. John Kelley to be followed by Lisa Van Dusen.
John Kelley: Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, Council Members, I really
don't think I could have asked for a better segue. I appreciate the fact that
you support ADUs. I appreciate the fact that you live in an Eichler. I think
that's great. I really, really, really want to disagree with everyone who's
spoken here tonight, who's contested the process that this Council has gone
through to get us here tonight. I also want to disagree with those who are
trying to characterize the Ordinance—it's wasn’t an amendment. It wasn't a
Motion. It was an Ordinance that was adopted by much more than a 5-4
vote, actually by a 6-2-1 vote on March 7th. I'd like to remind everyone
who wasn't there—many of us were there that whole night—that it was a
special meeting. The Council set aside half of a night to deal with this
particular issue. That was not the beginning of this discussion. This matter
has been before this Council—I'm losing count now. I think this is probably
the fifth or the sixth time that I've gotten up here and talked about ADUs not
only in connection with the ADU Motion but also in connection with housing
generally. For those of you tonight who say that you support ADUs but,
great. I love it that you support ADUs, but I also want to call into question
your commitment to really providing more housing for this community.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 50 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Every time there's something concrete that comes before the Council, we
hear time and again we need more process, we need more study, we need
more amendments. I was delighted—frankly I was quite proud of what the
Council did on March 7th. This was not a 5-4 vote. There were some
courageous votes that night. There were a lot of amendments. There was a
lot of discussion. At the end of the night, you voted 6-2 to adopt an
Ordinance. Not only that but to increase the opportunity for public
comment—I believe at the suggestion of Staff—we were told that rather
than making tonight's meeting the second reading, we would open this thing
up again. There are two more shots at this. What's really going on here
now is what's in effect a Motion for reconsideration. Let me just talk about
the substance of this. I particularly like what Grant Dasher had to say. I'm
one of the older people who is supporting this thing. I support it
wholeheartedly. I encourage you to ratify the Ordinance that was adopted
on March 7th tonight. I look not at the parking and not the privacy issues; I
look at the neighbors that we're going to have. More neighbors, younger
neighbors, more inspired neighbors, people who are going to continue to
make Palo Alto great. I see people as what makes Palo Alto fantastic. I
really welcome smaller units. The Council cut the maximum size down from
1,200 to 800. By doing so, the ADUs that we're going to have in this
community are going to be more affordable. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Lisa Van Dusen to be followed by Hillary Glann.
Lisa Van Dusen: Good evening, Mayor Scharff and Council Members. I am
actually speaking in part on behalf of Gina Doma, who needed to leave
earlier this evening to be home with her family. She joins me in this, and
I'm not extending my time. What kind of community do we want to create?
We talk about diversity, inclusiveness, multigenerational, and vibrant
communities. The question is really how we're going to make that happen.
An earlier citizen asked about change, and this does require some change.
Young people, old people, we've seen the full array tonight. I will put in a
word for middle-aged people. We need the middle-aged people too.
Everyone can benefit from ADUs. This debate seems to be hung up on fear
rather than a positive vision. I just want to remind us that, I think, we all do
better and bring out our best selves and our best policies when we think
about the vision that we have and not what we're afraid of. I am
disappointed in some of the thinking that is driven by fear. I don't think that
gets us anywhere. I also think we don't get anywhere when we think about
freezing ourselves in time, keeping our community the same. That is not
how life is. We will be changing in some fashion. Having a vision to drive
us, which has been articulated, is the best way forward. Keeping it as is
isn't an option. There has been a lot of talk about process. Adding to some
of the other remarks, I'd just like to say that I have spent in my 32 years as
TRANSCRIPT
Page 51 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
a resident and for several years before that a lot of time in these chambers.
To say that decisions are not made after midnight is a crazy thing. I have
sat in these chambers a lot of times. I haven't had dinner yet; I'm hungry.
Please decide to go ahead with the Ordinance as is. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Hillary Glann to be followed by Adrienne Germain.
Hillary Glann: Thank you. Let's hear it for middle-aged women speaking
here tonight. I am a 19-year resident of Palo Alto. I'm a small business
owner, and I have two children who graduated from Gunn High. I support
ADUs because I believe that Palo Alto is not an isolated community. We are
part of the Bay Area, and the Bay Area has a huge housing crisis. We need
to do our part, not the bare minimum, to address this problem. I like ADUs
especially because uniquely residents, not developers—you're supposed to
hiss and boo around developers—drive the decision to build an ADU, and the
residents can reap the benefits directly. Most housing development that I
see in Palo Alto today, particularly in Barron Park, is the form of large spec
houses. I'm going to boo about that too. They cover every inch of the plot
of land. They are typically two stories, sometimes two up/one below. They
often have a single car garage that their owners rarely use because we in
America don't use our garages for cars. Right now, it feels like we're more
supportive of spec house developers than of existing homeowners. If more
residents had the ability to build ADUs or to get amnesty on their old ADUs
to be able to make them a rentable space, they could make some extra
money. They could have space for their children, for their elderly parents,
for their—let's face it—nannies, their other caregivers, their housekeepers
who can't afford to live in the area. I also want to say that the existing
privacy and setback and parking requirements can help Palo Alto owners
potentially stay in their homes longer, maybe even stave off some of the
waves of selling out to the spec home developers. I also want to comment.
I read something in The Merc that said only 25 percent of Bay Area residents
would even consider adding an ADU. That's consider. I don't think we're
going to be flooded by everyone putting up an ADU. Certainly not in my
backyard because it's very small and my cat wants the space. I'll go sit
down now. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Michael Lowy to be followed by Stuart Hansen. Did I forget
you? I apologize. Go on, Adrienne.
Adrienne Germain: Good evening Council. Thank you for having me.
Adrienne Germain. I was raised in Palo Alto, and I'm now raising my four
children here in Palo Alto. I think we're all in agreement that Palo Alto is
faced with a housing shortage and shortage of supply and excess of
demand. My concern is this is creating issues of affordability and also
TRANSCRIPT
Page 52 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
negatively impacting the diversity of our community. I personally
experienced two life challenges that would have benefited from ADUs. I was
raised by a single mom who's an elementary school teacher. When time
came for me to go to college, going away to a UC was a very tough choice.
It was made possible by my mom's willingness to rent out a room in her
house to allow me to pay rent away at UC Santa Barbara. It's also allowed
her to stay in this community. Today, my husband and I are faced with
another tough decision. My mother-in-law has multiple myeloma. She's a
longtime member of this community. She can no longer work. Her fixed
income barely covers her rent and medical expenses, leaving little ability for
anything else. If the Council were to pass this practical Ordinance, we would
add an ADU in our backyard. This would allow her to remain in our
community and also allow us to care for her. Without an ADU, the cost both
financial and personal is great. I've been part of this community since the
'70s. In my experience, Palo Alto welcomes a diverse community. I truly
fear we are losing that inclusion. My two personal experiences are two of
many that our community faces. It is for this reason I am in support of this
Ordinance, which is a pragmatic solution to a complicated problem. I
encourage the Council to move to a decision expeditiously. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, Michael Lowy.
Michael Lowy: Good evening. I'm the 55th person to speak tonight. How in
the world did this matter get on the Consent Calendar? I don't understand
that. There are 55 people, 65 people that want to speak to it, and it got on
the Consent Calendar. I'd like to know that happened. Also, I'd like to say
that, in terms of entitlement to living in Palo Alto, I moved out to California,
and we couldn't afford a house in Palo Alto. We got a house in Berkeley.
When I was ready to move back to Palo Alto, we went into a condo, so we
lived in a condo. I resent the fact that the younger people are saying we
older folks are standing in their way of getting housing. We had to wait. We
had to take our turn. You don't get a place just like that. You have to pay
for it. I think you have to take your time. We only have two children. One
child has a house in Alameda; one child has a house in Redwood City. They
can't afford to live in Palo Alto, but they're living in the Bay Area. You have
to take your time, and you have to be smart about what you're doing. The
idea that you're going to get dense housing in Palo Alto is not realistic
because most people want to have room to spread out. They want to enjoy
life. One last thing I want to mention to you all. I've been sitting here this
evening and listening. It's very hard to hear you; I wish you'd either crank
up your microphones or speak louder. Especially people who are here at this
location need to speak up because it's very hard to hear. We thank you and
good night.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 53 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Stuart Hansen to be followed by Amy Sung.
Stuart Hansen: Good evening, Stuart Hansen, Palo Alto resident. I support
the comments made earlier by LaDoris Cordell and also Council Member Kou
in regard to unintended consequences if we pass an Ordinance with these
amendments. I think it's a reasonable request to give Staff the time to
analyze the impact of those amendments that were passed at midnight and
for the public to have time to think about what this means to them and to
provide further input as to what they want to do with their City that they're
supporting with their taxes. It's very discouraging to me to think, listening
here about the State allowances that would presumably allow garage
conversions that would push the parking onto the front yards. That's not a
vision that's very easy to be at home with. Too, this issue, if it were
possible, should really be voted on by the people that live in the City here
and pay the taxes and provide all that Palo Alto is. I don't know if that's
possible, but I think the issue is really important. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Amy Sung to be followed by Marie Christina
Urruela.
Amy Sung: Good evening, Mayor and Vice Mayor and the members of the
Council. My name is Amy Sung, and I was here into the wee hour last time
when we talked about it. That was March the 6th. I remember coming to
the Chamber, listening to many proposals and Motions and decision that
were made more often than not into the wee hours. I would go home
feeling like, "My God. Best decisions are made after midnight." However, I
am here to support the wonderful decision that you have made back last
month. I'm here to support that I urge you to follow through with that. I do
prepare a little speech. I was wondering why there was a question calling
into the process. This is a non-issue. I listened to the introduction from the
beginning. The ADU has existed for many, many long time. This is a
process that had gone to the Planning Commission. It is not a new concept;
it's not a new idea. It is crazy to call this into question of the process that
has not been very well discussed. However, by adopting this ADU, we are
looking at empowering homeowners to help with the much needed housing
shortage that has plagued our community and robbed our productivities.
For the first time we are providing new dimension to the property rights and
the property owners. People like me have an opportunity to house my own
extended family that may be the grown parents, the grown children, the
children with special needs—I have one who is a special kid—also for owners
who wish to rent out for extra income to help with the housing shortage. I
think this is a win-win for homeowners, for families, for renters. It also align
with the City's established goal to increase housing to better balance job and
housing need. Thank you.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 54 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Maria Christina Urruela to be followed by Eddie
Keating.
Marie Christina Urruela: Hello. I live on Sandalwood Court. By now, I
would just be repeating what many people have said before me. Basically, I
just wanted to thank you very much for your hard work. I also supported
the ADUs. I think anyone who is working late into the night is working really
hard. It's not a question of lack of anything other than lack of time. Thank
you very much. I would echo many comments that were said before. I
have rented out rooms to put three kids through college. It would be
wonderful to be able to do more than that. It would be wonderful to bring
my parents, who are 87 and 92, to live with me but to still have them have a
sense of independence. Anyway, there's many arguments one can make.
Thank you very much, and I hope that you will pass this Ordinance as you
have suggested. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Edie Keating followed by Mark Mollineaux
then followed by Katie Renati.
Edie Keating: First, I'm kind of torn about whether I want you to pass
something tonight or not. When I left the last meeting, I wasn't aware that
State law was currently in effect in Palo Alto. I have a friend who wants to
build a larger ADU in her backyard to support her disabled daughter. I really
want to go talk to her right away and have her get her application in.
Perhaps I want you to delay. It's been unclear to me, it's been humbling to
me to try and find out where the line is of what's required by State law in
this process and where you have the discretion. One of the big changes you
made—I have lived here—I just did the math—29 years. I look forward to
being able to say 30 soon. When you did the R-1 zoning review, I really
looked at the ADU then in place or what you passed that night. South Palo
Alto basically could not have ADUs because their lots were all too small. I
found that to be quite an injustice. Whereas, many lots but not all in north
Palo Alto could. Now, when I see this new proposal coming forward, I figure
this must be motivated by State law saying that almost all lots have to be
eligible for an ADU to comply with State law. By lot size, you're doing that
with the Staff proposal. When you look at the parking, if you don't allow the
parking in the front setback, that is on the driveway, on the existing
driveway, if that can't count, then you've just wiped out a whole lot of
eligibility in south Palo Alto. In those houses, you don't have room to put
the driveway around to the back if you can't use the parking on the
driveway. One of those late-night proposals, the changes, was to allow the
parking on the existing driveway, to not require the covered parking. I think
that's really essential. If you take that away, you may be wandering into
the—you may remove so many units from eligibility that you may not be
TRANSCRIPT
Page 55 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
compliant with State law anymore; although, I truly don't know. Finally,
density is already here. People make their choices around housing. When
my young adult son comes home to visit, it's sufficient for him to go to the
one house where four of his friends are sharing a rented, single-family
home. It's pretty nice; they're happy. When I think for myself what kind of
living situation I want, if I had more financial choices, sharing a house is one
thing, but having two units on one lot gives a lot more comfort and privacy
and dignity. I hope you go that way. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Mark Mollineaux and then Kati Renati.
Mark Mollineaux: Hi there. Thank you very much for moving the spot. I
didn't even sign up for that, so I really appreciate that. I'd just like to say I
think it's a bit ridiculous the disparity of the dialog we're seeing here tonight.
You have people who are opposing this ADU Ordinance by saying it would
become the wild, wild West of development, become ultra-liberalized. It is
so far from the wild, wild West of development here in Palo Alto; it's insane.
In a more sane system, we would have people all throughout the single-
family residences be able to, if they want to, change it into a duplex, change
it into a sensible townhouse, change it into apartment complexes. Some
things you'd have gradual development. This is going to be a very small
change in the big scheme of things. People who want more housing
shouldn't be fighting for scraps. I just would like to say look at the different
harm done to people. On one hand, you have people who there might be an
ADU too close to a fence. There might be a two-story ADU near their place.
That's not that bad. Other people are talking about they are pushed into
homelessness. They're talking about driving 3 hours, 4 hours roundtrip each
day to commute into town. Compare the misery of that against there is
something too close to my fence. I wish people would just look in their
hearts and show a bit more empathy. I am so dismayed of the so-called
residentialists' lack of empathy for real human suffering that lack of
affordable housing brings. I just wish that there's a little bit more empathy
around here. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Katie Renati to be followed by Stephanie Munoz.
Katie Renati: Good evening. I hope you're not falling asleep because it's a
long, long night for everybody. I'm a longtime resident of Palo Alto. I'm
also a business owner. I have my own business. I'm also living in an Eichler
in a flood zone. A few people mentioned that Eichler owners have specific
requirements. I'm in favor of affordable housing. Definitely, I'm in favor of
being able to have smaller units so people can actually rent places here in
Palo Alto. I'm also in favor of the ADUs as mandated by the State. I do
have a lot of concerns and questions. It was interesting. I didn't know
TRANSCRIPT
Page 56 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
anything about ADU until just a few hours ago. I've been reading and trying
to understand what's going on. I have more questions than comments. I
don't understand why there's no design reviews for something that's going
to be built next to my fence. When I had to add 24 inches to my bathroom
on the side of my house, all the neighbors within a block were notified. I
don't understand. I don't understand why somebody could put a two-story
unit in my neighborhood, which is all one story. I live in Eichler. Eichlers
have big windows. Anybody building anything will go over everybody's
bedroom and living room. I'm also interested in understanding—people say
it's going to be affordable and small—I don't know—renters. How can you
actually enforce that? I could see myself building a unit, having Airbnb
renters, and making a lot of money here. I can see my company becoming
bigger and having my startup in that back unit. That would be a perfect
thing. I know people who have actually granny units, and they're renting
those units for startup companies for a lot of money. I don't know how this
is going to happen. I'm also concerned about traffic, safety, and
neighborhood fight, which is a concern for the City. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Stephanie Munoz to be followed by Richard
Brand.
Stephanie Munoz: Hello again. When the Durastes [phonetic] moved in
next door to us, Arcia [phonetic], the budding CEO, was already in school.
The parents sent Cyros [phonetic] to nursery school to toughen him up a
little bit and have him be more Americanized. Both children were fascinated
by a yo-yo that we had. Arcia was monopolizing it, and Cyros, who had
never been heard to say a word before, jumped up on the apron of the
fireplace and said, "Share, share." That was what the American way of life
did for Cyros Duraste. We could all agree that that's essentially the
American essence, that we can more for ourselves when we share with other
people. I do not mean that we should take away the open space or the
beauty or the amenities that we have in the country. I want to remind you
about SOFA. There are a lot of people in this room who were here for SOFA.
People thought that Palo Alto Medical Clinic consisted of one large building,
which Dina Mosar [phonetic] hated. That was it, but it wasn't. It was
dozens, literally dozens of little houses that Palo Alto Medical Foundation had
taken over. They were all torn down relentlessly. So much for Palo Alto's
ideal of little, pretty houses with a lot of space around them. No way. They
became big houses next to each other, much like San Francisco houses, and
quite attractive in their way but different, different from what we had before.
Furthermore, when they tried to say we should have some guest units,
ADUs, on top of the garages on all of these, the City Council was persuaded
by the developers that that extra unit should go to the main house to make
more money and attract wealthier people.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 57 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Thank you.
Ms. Munoz: I kid you not. Bye-bye.
Mayor Scharff: Richard Brand to be followed by Jessica Carson Clark.
Richard Brand: Good evening. Richard Brand. I live in one of those houses
next to the old clinic, and it's not torn down. It's still there 110 years later.
I'm in R-2, so I actually support having additional people that want to live in
the City. I'm very concerned about a special interest group in this City that
is sending out form letters or encouraging their members to send you form
letters to fill up your email basket. That bothers me. I'm here to say that
ADUs are important. In 1967, I graduated from the local university. I
couldn't find a place to live. Housing was less than 1 percent. This is not a
new issue, folks. I know that there are young people coming in that weren't
here when I was here. We've always had a limitation on housing in Palo
Alto. This is not a new issue. The Councils from 50 years ago and before
have worked on finding ways to work on housing. This Council will do the
same. I'm glad you pulled this issue from the list. It's a major issue that
needs to be worked on and, therefore, needs a lot more work. Zoning is an
important issue in this City and process. We all get tired of process. We get
tired of zoning, but it's what has made this City great. I encourage you to
take this one on. It's going to take some work. Work with the Staff; work
the Commissions. We have those people volunteering their time to do the
right thing, look at the architectures. This is a wonderful City. I love to live
here, and you do too. Let's do the right thing and not jump into this and
work the process. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Jessica Carson Clark to be followed by Jennifer
Hetterly.
Jessica Oakson Clark: Hello, Council. Just a little correction. It's Jessica
Oakson Clark, not Carson.
Mayor Scharff: You're right. I know that.
Ms. Clark: I'll let that slide. I'm Jessica Oakson Clark. I'm a Palo Alto
resident for over 40 years. On April 12th, on a popular Facebook group
called Our Town of Palo Alto, known for nostalgic, historic photos and current
photos of nature blooming in our City, a woman posted on behalf of a couple
friends of hers who are, in her words, somewhat older. The female in the
couple has lived in Palo Alto her whole life. After 30 years of living in the
same Midtown complex at an affordable rate at the discretion and good will
of her landlord now needs to vacate. The poster was looking to the FB
group for any housing leads for this couple. Many comments of concern and
TRANSCRIPT
Page 58 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
compassion were actually expressed. It should be noted that the couple was
open to finding an ADU or cottage to live in. Tonight you have the
opportunity to affirm the leadership Council took on March 6th on ADUs.
You have already heard repeatedly from hundreds of residents over the last
few years on the need to make it easier to build ADUs. Please follow
through on your Motion from March 6th and don't water it down to meet the
bare minimum of the new State requirements. Let's take the lead on
helping our community now. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Jennifer Hetterly to be followed by Sandra
Slater.
Jennifer Hetterly: Good evening, Council Members. I'm Jennifer Hetterly.
I'm here tonight—let me start over. This is not about, in my view, ADUs or
no ADUs. From what I've heard, most of the people here tonight support
ADUs. You had a chance to pass a fairly balanced and thoroughly vetted
Ordinance that probably would have been quite well received across a broad
spectrum of the community. Instead, for the second time this year on a
topic of great significance to the community, this Council resorted to bait
and switch tactics that sideline your professional Staff, preclude a common
understanding of your strategies, and marginalize the voice of the
community. Much like your notorious removal of the Comprehensive Plan
implementation programs, you've rejected the recommendations of Staff
and the PTC that emerged from a lengthy public review process. Instead of
sending your last minute proposal to those expert bodies for an updated
review and analysis, you have repeatedly and misleadingly cited the
adequacy of the process that came before, even though the changes put
forth on the dais in March were not vetted through that process. You got it
half right by pulling it off Consent tonight. By opting to hear it the same
night, still without a Staff analysis that will inform the community, you make
a mockery of informed public comment. Again, this is not about ADUs or
fairness or social justice. It's about good government and public trust. We
all deserve and should expect better from our elected officials. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Sandra Slater to be followed by Lily Huang.
Sandra Slater: Thank you, Council, Mayor, and Vice Mayor, for hearing—
sitting through all the comments of this evening. I know that it's been a
long evening already. We've been here for a number of hours. It's an
important issue. We've heard a lot of comments tonight and residents who
say that they absolutely love ADUs. I'm fear that they are killing it with
kindness, that they're so loving them that they're going to want to put so
many rules and regulations on them that they will actually not be utilized by
residents. I also hear that they're dismayed by the process and that the
TRANSCRIPT
Page 59 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
amendments are the problem, but I haven't heard anyone of all the 50-
whatever comments talk specifically about what in the amendments are so
onerous that they can't live with what's in the amendments. I see that the
State has put in some very good guidelines for us. We have to follow those.
I don't believe that the City would have allowed a process that wasn't legal
to go through. We heard a lot of comments in March. We heard a lot of
deliberations. I'm not quite understanding what is it they want other than to
kill it with kindness. That's what I’m really worried about, that it gets
bogged down in the famous Palo Alto process, and we'll end up with
something really diluted. While they say they want ADUs, it's really a
strawman. I would encourage you to find out what in the amendments are
so onerous and proceed as you did in March by leading this community.
That's we elected you to do, to lead us. You are representatives. You have
the power to make this happen. You owe it to the social justice issue and to
the environmental issue to go forward and go forward quickly and
expeditiously. Thank you very much.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Our final speaker, Lily Huang.
Lily Huang: I'm Lily Huang. I lived in Bay Area for over 20 years. I
supported ADU, but I am concern about the parking and traffic. I remember
I feared driving to San Francisco or some big cities to finding the parking
and to fighting for the parking space for the traffic. I hope to have better
solutions for traffic and parking for this ADU—for the audience.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, we're going to return to Council. I'm
completely with Council Member Holman, who's giving me the 5-minute
break sign. Is that correct? Let's take a 5-minute break and try and
reconvene at 10:00, at which point we can then try and move to midnight
and make a really good decision.
Council took a break from 9:54 P.M. to 10:06 P.M.
Mayor Scharff: Now, we'll return to Council for questions, comments,
Motions, etc. First, I actually wanted to say a few words. The first thing I
think I wanted to say is I heard a lot of people referring to it as the
Wolbach/Fine Motion or the Fine/Wolbach Motion. I've really got to say that
it was a strong majority of the Council. In fact, there were only two Council
Members that voted against it. I think that's really important. I don't think
it's right to call it the Fine/Wolbach Motion. I think this was a Council …
Vice Mayor Kniss: You want more credit.
Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I want more credit. No, it was a strong Council
decision. What we're really doing tonight is listening to the public and
TRANSCRIPT
Page 60 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
thinking about it and possibly reconsidering it. The process was a good one.
We started that process—I forget—like 6:00, 6:30, somewhere around
there. We ended public comment around 8:00-something. We had a little
over an hour of public comment, if I recall. We had 2-plus hours of public
deliberation. Council Member Wolbach made his Motion at 10:30. The
actual vote occurred after midnight because it was a thorough vetting and
lots of Council Members wanted to make Motions and amendments. It
wasn't like this was done—the Motion wasn't made after midnight in the wee
hours of the morning. The Motion was made at 10:30. It's now 10:10. The
next Council Member tonight, whoever makes a Motion on this, will make it
after 10:00. We may very well vote on it after midnight. That could very
well happen. It's not necessarily a bad process. I don't think there's
anything underhanded in that. Someone asked why it went on Consent. We
actually made it a first reading, not a second reading, because we wanted to
give more transparency. When you put things on Consent, it doesn't mean
that it's a bad process. Three Council Members can always pull an item off
Consent and often did. There was no sense tonight with everyone showing
up that we weren't going to pull this off Consent. There was no discussion
about that. In fact, I as the Mayor pulled it off because our protocols allow
that. I thought that was really important to put it in some perspective on
this. Reasonable people can disagree on things. I think they do, but there's
no underhandedness; there's no bad process; there's none of that. I think
it's important to admit that. I think we also should focus that—only two
Council Members voted against this at the time. I also wanted to say a
couple of other things. As I said in my State of the Union speech, our
single-family neighborhoods are going to look pretty much what they look
like now. I firmly believe that. I got a bunch of emails that say, "Mayor
Scharff said." Some were directed at me personally and said, "You promised
us our single-family neighborhoods. You're creating R-2 neighborhoods."
We're not creating R-2 neighborhoods. R-2 neighborhoods look like
duplexes. I also want to point out to people that who uses the ADU use the
most is Woodside, Atherton, and Hillsborough. That's how they meet their
affordable housing requirements with the State. The last time I was in
Atherton, Hillsborough, and Woodside, they looked very much like single-
family neighborhoods. In fact, half the time I feel like I'm accused of the
opposite thing, that I’m trying to make Palo Alto look like Atherton,
Woodside, and Hillsborough. I'm not trying to do that either. I think it's
really important to think about what a single-family neighborhood is going to
look like. Frankly, as someone pointed out, only 25 percent of the people
are likely to consider putting in ADUs anyway. One of the things in this
Motion was that after a year, Staff would come back and assess the results.
If we're causing problems, I think we would then change the Motion. In
listening to everyone and listening to what I really view as the fear that their
single-family neighborhood will change in a way they don't recognize, which
TRANSCRIPT
Page 61 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
I strongly believe not to be true. If I am wrong, I will be the first person to
want to change it. When we come to Motions, if we do go with this or we do
make changes, one of the things that would be really important is to speed
up that reporting period. I actually think we should get—given the fear in
the community and the concern, I would at the very least like to see us have
a quarterly report from Staff on how many ADUs, how many complaints
we've gotten, and those kind of issues, so that we have a decent sense of
what's going on out there, actual data. I want to talk a little bit about the
vetting issue that I heard. I heard a lot of people say to us, "You made
changes to this Motion, to the Staff recommendation on an Ordinance, and
that was inappropriate." We do that all the time. All the time. That's what
happens up here. Staff comes forward with something, and we make
changes to it. That's our job. We don't send it back to the PTC to go
through all of that. The PTC is advisory to the Council. In fact, on most of
these issues, I believe the PTC had some discussion around them. Maybe
not all of them, but on most of them. I remember that in the evening—I
also remember long discussions that night about parking. One of the most
frustrating things was the State law mandates that, in the areas where
parking is scarce, we can't require parking. Where parking is plentiful, we
can mandate parking. That makes no sense, but that's what we're stuck
with. We had that discussion, and went through it. We had disagreements
among different people. In fact there were amendments that were made to
maybe just go with where the parking is plentiful. Reasonable people can
disagree on this stuff. I do not believe for a second that this Ordinance, if
passed, is going to in any way damage our single-family neighborhoods. A
couple of people or a number of you spoke about Airbnb, and this will be
used as Airbnb. That is specifically addressed in this Ordinance, specifically.
The argument can be that, yes, we have trouble enforcing stuff. That means
maybe we need to step up enforcement. That doesn't mean the fact we
address it in the Ordinance and say, "You can't have less than a 30-day
rental on your ADU unit." We specifically say you can't. That doesn't mean
that we're saying this is going to be a problem. This means we're saying
you can't do that, and we as the City have a duty to enforce it. I think it's
not hard to enforce it. You'd probably just go on Airbnb and report it to the
City and say, "They're advertising their ADU as an Airbnb," and we send
someone out. I don't think enforcement on this is—I think enforcement on
this is more easy than a lot of the things because they put it on the internet
when you're using Airbnb. I think that's really what I wanted to say. Now,
we have a couple of lights on.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Could you ask Staff if there were any things they heard
that they wanted to address?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 62 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: I did actually suggest—we also heard that we were violating
the Brown Act. I guess I wanted to—we heard it in two ways. One we
heard it that tonight we can't take this up because it's not agendized
appropriately. We also heard that the amendments that were made to the
Staff recommendation on March 6th were not agendized, and so we couldn't
take that up. I really wanted to clear the air on that. I don't believe there
was any violation of the Brown Act. In fact, I don't believe there was any
issue with process at all. I wanted to ask our City Attorneys there to weigh
in on that.
Ms. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We also agree that there were no Brown
Act violations. As for tonight's item, the agenda states, consistent with the
Council policy and procedures, any item on the Consent Agenda may be
pulled by a vote of three Council Members. The Council policies provide that
that item can be heard later that evening or on a later day. It's appropriate
for Council to take that up tonight, even though the matter was agendized
on the Consent Calendar. With respect to the March 7th meeting, as you
said, Mr. Mayor, amendments get made when Ordinances are considered.
The Brown Act recognizes that that may occur because the Brown Act just
requires that the agenda include a general description of each item of
business to be transacted. I believe it says ideally no more than 20 words to
describe the item. There must be enough information to advise of the
general subject matter of the item to be discussed. The March 7th agenda
stated that the item was an Ordinance to update Code sections regarding
accessory dwelling units. The general subject matter of accessory dwelling
units was properly agendized under the Brown Act.
Mayor Scharff: Actually I did have one other thought I wanted to say, since
I'm speaking at the moment. I would just say that ADUs on the whole have
far less impact on a community than building, for instance, a large
apartment complex on El Camino, where you concentrate the trips, you
concentrate the traffic, and you concentrate the impacts on one particular
area. I actually think this is probably the least impactful way you can create
affordable housing in Palo Alto. To the speaker who said how difficult it was
for them when they were young to find housing in Palo Alto and how young
people are really whining about it. I've got to say when I moved to Palo Alto
in 1988, we rented on South Court in Midtown a two-bedroom, one-bath
house on like a 10,000-square-foot lot. The rent was only like 1,100 bucks.
Me and my wife, I think, together as a dual earner made about $60,000 a
year. We could afford that. I do not think you could afford renting that
house in South Court in Midtown frankly on the equivalent salary of two
people today. I think it's much, much harder to find a place if you want to
be in Palo Alto. I don't think it's quite the same that it was then. Council
Member DuBois.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 63 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member DuBois: First, I want to say that I really think that all nine
of us are in favor of ADUs. I really believe that. I want to thank the
members of the community who spoke passionately about the need for
housing. I'm going to draw on our recent Council Retreat again this week—
I'll probably keep doing it every week—and let everybody on Council know
where I'm coming from on this issue. First of all, I want to assure you that
I'm open to persuasion tonight. I'm one of the two that voted against this
last time. I'd ask that you guys be open as well. I think we all want what's
best for Palo Alto. I think we could find a slightly more optimal solution in
the face of some conflicting values that we heard tonight. I think one of the
speakers said that this isn't a black and white issue about ADUs, yes or no.
It's really a more nuanced conversation about how do we build ADUs. I
hope we focus on that tonight. What I think we need to do is see if there's
some minor tweaks that we can all agree to. I think this is a classic balance
of individual property rights versus a social justice issue. I believe the
original Staff Motion on March 7th actually struck a pretty nice balance. We
can achieve more housing and also protect those individual housing rights.
My person feeling is the Motion we passed pushed it just a little too far. I
hope you'll be open to considering some slight adjustments. Secondly,
because so much of our residents' financial worth is tied up in their homes,
it's perfectly reasonable that voters want to understand the implications of
this Ordinance. I honestly don't think we've understood what it meant. I
think nearly everyone was confused on parking. Even the next day, the
press said that there was parking included in the Ordinance when there
wasn't. Yeah, the Motion was made at 10:00, but it was a pretty substantial
Motion. I do think there was some confusion. Just to summarize my
position, I think we should, one, consider some minor tweaks and, two, we
should try to balance the needs of housing with property rights. I'm glad
you mentioned not changing the nature of residential neighborhoods. Let's
make sure that's true. I was originally going to propose two Motions, one
with some minor things that I thought most of us could agree to and then a
second one where I think there were some things in this Staff Report this
week that didn't actually match up with the Motion that was made. After
listening to the public, I'd actually like to try to get three Motions out, if
you'll let me.
Mayor Scharff: I don't know what three Motions means. We make one
Motion at a time.
Council Member DuBois: The two Motions I was going to make were related.
Mayor Scharff: You have a choice. You can make one whole Motion, and we
can then split them if we get to that. We have to have one main Motion on
the floor.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 64 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member DuBois: The first Motion is fundamentally different than the
other two. After listening to the public speak, I really do think there was
fundamentally a question about process. I appreciate that it came back for
a first hearing tonight because the City Attorney's Office said that the
changes were substantial and that it should be a first hearing. I think it
should come back as a publicly noticed action item after Staff has done more
analysis and come back with some of the implications of the changes. We
don't really have those answers in front of us tonight. My Motion would be
that we adopt the original Staff Motion; we send the proposed amendments
to be vetted by the PTC to come back to Council as soon as possible with an
assessment of the pros and cons of the proposed changes.
Council Member Holman: Second.
Council Member Kou: Second.
Mayor Scharff: I believe that was seconded by Council Member Holman.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to:
A. Adopt an Ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units as recommended by Staff on March
7, 2017; and
B. Refer Council directed amendments to the Planning and Transportation
Commission and Staff for analysis and return to Council as soon as
possible; and
C. Find the Ordinance exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Council Member DuBois: Just to speak to this real quick. I still have a lot of
questions that I'd like Staff to answer. I don't think any of us really know
what the impacts are of the Motion that was passed on March 7th. The Staff
Motion that came to us was well vetted. Sure Council can make tweaks on
the dais. I think minor tweaks are acceptable. I think we should be honest
with each other. Those were some major changes. I think we should all
support objective, considered analysis. I'm not requesting unbounded,
infinite study. I think we can time box this, have it come back to us pretty
quickly. We should really consider these changes. I think it's clearly—what
we saw tonight is clearly some disagreement in the community. That's
exactly when we should spend some time to make sure that we're getting it
as right as we can. Judge Cordell said that we had both a legal and a moral
issue. I'm not going to question the judge. I think she is right actually,
TRANSCRIPT
Page 65 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
though, and we should honor our values of transparency and openness.
Again, just the disagreement in the community is a sign that we really
haven't done that yet. If this Motion does pass, I'd suggest that we follow
up with a short discussion of what we want the PTC to actually do and Staff,
so we can be really clear and get it back in a timely manner.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: I think Tom has spoken to this very well. Maybe
it bears restating that I've heard no one on Council say that they aren't in
favor of ADUs. I think we all are. I've often said I have a cottage in my
backyard. I rent it out to tenants who I appreciate their being there and
appreciate that I have the ability to provide some additional housing. It's
kind of ingrained in who I've been in Palo Alto for the last several years. I
agree that there are many things that, even in rereading and rereading the
Motion, I don't understand some of the implications. I don't even
understand some of the language. When I go through the Ordinance that's
brought this evening, I'm not sure why some of the changes to the
Ordinance were made based on the Motion that was made on March 7th.
There seems to be a disconnect. One of the basic things that is necessary
for all of us to understand what the implications are is have Staff prepare a
chart that compares existing zoning, State mandate, March 7 Staff-
recommended proposal, and the March 7 amendments. I think that's going
to help allay a lot of fears. A lot of people talked about fears driving a lot of
the opposition. In this case, it truly is fear of the unknown. I think there is
so much that is not known about what will happen with the amendments
that were offered. I think there is a due process issue here. While we can
say it wasn't midnight, it was after midnight when we voted. 10:30 at night
is not the time to be offering up what I would consider as significant—I
mean, it's "A" through "L" amendments, however many that is.
Mayor Scharff: Is that a Motion to adjourn?
Council Member Holman: We'll vote on the Motion, pass that, and then we
can go home.
Mr. Keene: There's only 3 more minutes until 10:30.
Council Member Holman: It's too many complex and compound issues to be
raised without them being vetted. We do have a Palo Alto process. I don't
think any of us want to drag this out, but we need to know what we're
doing, have clarity on what we're doing and have real clarity for ourselves
and for the public on what the implications are of what's before us in the
amended Ordinance that comes before us tonight. I'll just give you a couple
or three examples. The State law talks about—this is Section
TRANSCRIPT
Page 66 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
65852.2(A)(c). It says ADUs will be for residential use. How are we going
to assure that? We've talked about Airbnb and not used for Airbnb, but how
do we know that they're going to be residential use? How do we know
they're not going to be a home office or someone's workout room or
something like that? Are we really adding residential units? Are we really
adding them or not? I'll just bring up a couple or three of these things. How
do we know that's what we're doing? That's in the State law. State law also
says that—State law actually in many occasions talks about—my words here,
I can look it up in a second—respecting neighborhoods and the
characteristics of existing neighborhoods. It talks about how the State
Ordinance says that cities shall—uses the word shall—impose standards and
impose standards having to do with—I'm excerpting here—parking, height,
setbacks, lot coverage, landscape, architectural review. How does this
Ordinance address those? The Motion on March 7 said remove design
review and requirements. I don't even know what "and requirements"
means. Page 16 of the 3/7 Staff Report—if I can find it—talks about how the
Ordinance that was proposed would be subject to the development
standards contained within the Ordinance which are intended to ensure
compatibility with surrounding development. Again, those requirements
were removed. How are we going to accomplish that? the Staff Report lists
very responsibly several aspects from the Comprehensive Plan that require
that. How are we not even violating the Comprehensive Plan by taking out
design review? I could go on for quite a while in addressing questions that
we do not have answers to. I'll stop with those because I think they're quite
significant and seem to be actually not only exceeding but in contradiction to
the State law. I'm happy to support the Motion. Thank you, Council
Member DuBois.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine.
Council Member Fine: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to echo
what the Mayor just said, some of the corrections and some of the context of
this issue. I think it is really important. A few small things I heard from a
number of the speakers in the public. I really appreciate everyone coming
out here. It has been a full-throated debate. The Motion currently doesn't
allow two-story ADUs. It prohibits Airbnb rental. As the Mayor mentioned,
this a tough thing that we'll have to work on further. The vote was 6-2-1,
and the Motion includes that Staff come back within a year. We may speed
that up. I'm not going to support this Motion at the moment. The main
reason is actually Letter B, refer amendments to the Planning and
Transportation Commission. Council Member Tanaka and I and other
members of the Planning and Transportation Commission saw this three
times. We spoke extensively about the parking requirements, about the
height issues, about setbacks, about lot size. We wrestled with some of it.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 67 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
There wasn't agreement on everything, but many of those issues were aired.
We had many members of the public coming to us on each of those
sessions. At the moment, I'm not ready to support this.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou.
Council Member Kou: I wanted to bring clarity. I heard a lot of people
mention that they wanted this to be according to what the State mandates,
but I thought the March 7th Staff-recommended Ordinance had actually
taken a lot of considerations in and had a lot of measures in there to ensure
that this Ordinance and the building of ADUs or JADUs does not encroach
into the neighbors and does not cause privacy issues or noise issues, etc.,
including parking. They actually took into consideration that matter as well.
I have to say that was a very impressive Staff Report. I thought it was
something I was ready to go with. I do want to say that if I had more
experience on Council, I would have voted no on that. With due respect to
Mayor Scharff, who really tries to ensure that everybody speaks, I did have
my light on. I didn't get to speak, and we went to vote. I abstained for that
reason. It was a mistake I made, so I apologize. It would have been a no
vote on that because the expansion of that Ordinance just completely—I'll
repeat myself—was absolutely reckless. Reckless in the sense that we have
Board Members from School Board that came here and said we should do
the ADU with the expanded version with no consideration to the impacts on
school enrollment. They have a budget problem right now. How are we
going to accommodate that? A few members of the community also spoke
to infrastructure. We just voted and passed a ballot to revamp our storm
drain system. This is voter money. What else are we going to have to vote
in order to come out of your pockets from your parcel taxes? There are a lot
of questions that have been left unanswered. There definitely needs to be
more analysis on that. I am going to support this Motion because it is
reasonable. Nobody said we're not supporting ADUs. Definitely nobody said
we're not supporting—we're not for no growth. It's sensible growth. It's
reasonable growth. It is planned growth so that we don't have parking
issues; we don't have school impacts; we don't have infrastructure
problems; we don't have traffic congestion. I am going to say it again. All
the successes that you think with implementing RPPs and TMAs and TDMs,
as was witnessed by this last week's news article about Tesla and it's
parking problems at their campus, we have not even come close to resolving
it. These are unproven assumptions that we can move forward. I think
something that Mayor Scharff had mentioned in one of the community
meetings, that ABAG chooses communities that have great schools, that
have API scores that are high. That's where they're putting their job growth
as well as their housing. That's how we come up with our RHNA numbers.
If you think about it, schools are one of the more important factors that
TRANSCRIPT
Page 68 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
keeps our community vibrant and desirable. That's why everybody's coming
over here, whether you're a renter or a homeowner. I hope you take that
into consideration as well. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth.
Council Member Filseth: We're at risk here of opening up the process
bucket. The first thing I want to say is I want to thank everybody that came
out here tonight. As of this afternoon, we've received way over 200 emails
and phone calls from residents on this topic, large numbers from both
people that felt the amendments went way over the original Staff
recommendation and wanted more discussion, and also people that wanted
us to just uphold it as we did. Since I voted for the original Motion, I
assume that means some of these folks will like me and others won't. I
want to talk for a second about process and how that vectors in on what
we're talking about on the Motion. Most of these emails have to do with
campaigns on both sides, urging people to contact us. One of the things
you've noticed is we've got a whole lot on this campaign and increasing
numbers on some of the recent ones. A huge number of them are all
exactly the same form email, as one of the speakers brought up. Just for
grins, I looked up the solicitation for the clone emails. The cloned ones are
all from an activist group called Palo Alto Forward. The solicitation says,
"Take 1 minute and show your support for ADUs. Click here." You click the
link, and a site called youjoin.co automatically sends the Council a form
letter with your name on it. The truth is almost all of us support more
ADUs, including most of the people that asked us to pull it off Consent.
What we're talking about tonight isn't whether we support ADUs or not but
the gritty details of exactly how we do it and balance any impact to the
neighborhoods, which are things that some people care about and others
don't, but they all deserve some careful thinking through and certainly more
than a minute. At risk of going slightly off topic here, I'm with Mr. Brand
who spoke. I don't care for these click-here campaigns. My wife gets tons
of them from environmental causes. She faithfully clicks every single one,
and she never reads the actual form letter she's sending. I'm really glad
people came here tonight and talked. I wish people would write us
themselves because these form email campaigns—I know they mean
something, but I can't be certain exactly what. They sort of feel a little
manipulative, if that makes sense. One of the reasons I bring this up is
when we passed the original March 6th or 7th Motion with the dozen or so
amendments we're all talking about tonight, we got a lot of emails leading
up to that too. I'm going to read a piece of one of these emails I didn't
actually see until after we'd pass the Motion. This is from Kyu Yung Kim
dated March 6th. It says, "Dear Honorable Council Members, please pass
the ADU Ordinance with the amendments that will be presented by Palo Alto
TRANSCRIPT
Page 69 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Forward." I don't know about you but, when I read this letter, it sounds like
our March 6th Motion that has amendments we're all talking about—maybe
it was not actually drafted by Council or even Staff but by an outside activist
group and then introduced as a Motion by a Council Member, and not just
any outside group but the same one that's mounting a click-here email
campaign on us. Is that a problem? I don't know. At some level, the
amendments stand on their own. Some of them were good. I thought some
of them were pretty bad. If it's true, I don't think this is a good process.
We're all familiar with State legislation that gets drafted in Sacramento by
lobbyists. I don't think we ought to do that in Palo Alto. We already know
that a community majority is questioning whether we truly represent their
interests. I want to do things that inspire confidence. I voted for the
original Motion. Under the right circumstances, I might again. I'd be okay
to have PTC's eyes on the amendments before we lock them in. Thanks.
Mayor Scharff: I'll speak a little bit to that. First of all, I want to say I think
Council Member DuBois' Motion is a reasonable Motion. Council Member
Filseth's comments were good comments. I also want to inspire confidence.
It comes down, to me, a little bit about what do we want in terms of
process. I have to do this, Council Member DuBois, because you mentioned
the Retreat. I also have to mention the Retreat. One of the things that the
moderator at the Retreat said was when you actually don't want to pass
something, send it somewhere else, send it for more study, do those things.
I guess I heard Council Member Fine say, "I was on the PTC with Council
Member Tanaka. We went through these issues. We heard it three times.
We debated all of the issues." Maybe I’m putting words in your mouth.
"We've pretty much debated all of the amendments here." I guess the
question is what do we get by referring it out and having it come back to us.
Do we get better information? People say things like it hasn't been vetted;
we haven't had the Staff analysis. I've been doing this for a long time. I do
not believe we will get any more Staff analysis than we had on March 6. If
there's particular Staff analysis that Council Members want, that's a different
issue. I'm not sure what more Staff analysis we would get on this. It's been
really vetted and discussed. I think we should adopt what we adopted on
March 6th. I've been struggling with it a little bit as we sit here tonight,
wondering what I was going to do and what I think I'm going to do. I would
be interested—I'm going to make the Motion that we adopt the Staff
recommendation at this point, which—as a Substitute Motion. I'll make a
substitute Motion. I'll do this right. I will make a Substitute Motion that we
adopt Attachment A, the Ordinance, which is the Staff recommendation,
amending Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions regarding advisory dwelling
units and find the Ordinance exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 70 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Vice Mayor Kniss: Second.
Mayor Scharff: That's seconded by Council Member Kniss. Vice Mayor
Kniss, sorry.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Kniss to:
A. Adopt an Ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); and
B. Find the Ordinance exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Mayor Scharff: I am actually open to having discussions if there are
particular items here on the amendments for particular reasons that need
extra vetting and what information should come back on those particular
items and what I would hope to learn by that, frankly. I am open to saying
we pass it with the exception of Item—I'm just going to throw one
randomly—E without even looking at what "E" is, and because we're looking
to get this information or want PTC to look at it for this reason. Frankly, I'm
not sure what we would gain by sending it to PTC. I think I'd rather have it
"we want Staff to come back on that particular item to us," but I'm open to
it. That's why I come out on this. Vice Mayor Kniss.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you. I have a whole number of thoughts. Most of
you know I've done this for a long time. I have discovered in Palo Alto
process is our most important product. If you don't have enough product,
you don't have enough process, then you have a huge group that comes out
just as they did tonight. If you listened earlier both to Council Member Fine
and—Greg Tanaka hasn't spoken yet. They sat through long meetings of the
PTC that dealt with exactly this. When the State law was actually passed
last fall, I'm not sure a number of people really paid any attention to it. How
many of you—just nod your head. Did you really notice that on
September 19th Governor Brown signed a bill that completely changed how
we could have accessible dwelling units? They have at the State level been
so concerned about housing over the past 2 or 3 years that they have looked
for almost any way to provide more affordable housing. Let me talk about
affordable housing for a minute. You can't have it both ways. You can have
affordable housing and not be willing to do ADUs or not be willing to do
affordable housing of some kind. We haven't added any affordable housing
in this community. I'll look at you, City Manager. I think the last we passed
an affordable housing project in Palo Alto was 2010. I'm probably too early
on that. The last time I remember one being dedicated was 2011 or 2012.
Certainly for 5 or 6 years, we have not added any affordable housing, not
TRANSCRIPT
Page 71 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
unless somebody knows something I don't know. Maybe a few BMRs here
and there, but very, very few. We may have all run on affordable housing.
We may have had fancy brochures that talked about affordable housing, but
we don't have any affordable housing yet. We don't even have a new
project that's come to us. This is the only thing I have seen recently. I
heard the word reckless used in regards to schools. Most of you have been
reading—Eric and I sit on the City/Schools Committee. By any account
except that there's a bubble—at the end of junior high school going into high
school, there's a bubble there. The rest of the enrollment is going down.
It's going down somewhat dramatically and has been for about 6 years. For
some reason, it didn't come to the fore, and it really wasn't being discussed
in our community. You're probably hearing now more things about
Cubberley again, what you would do with Cubberley, now that we're pretty
sure the enrollment is not going to continue up. As far as bait and switch,
heavens. I can't tell you how many nights I've sat here, and we've had
something and added amendment after amendment after amendment to it.
One night, Tom, you were involved in one that went from "A" to "J." I
remember thinking, "Whew." We do that, and it's not illegal. You've heard
from our legal Staff tonight. We did not violate the Brown Act by doing
something, which we are in the middle of doing right this minute. I hesitate
to call this out but, Eric, you mentioned that you had a form letter from one
group in town. I think both groups in town—I don't know how we ever got
to this. Five or 6 years ago, we didn't have factions, and we now have
factions in this community. I think you might as well just call it out loud and
say, yes, there are two factions. They both begin with the Letter P. People
seem to associate strongly with one or the other. I think that's unfortunate.
It's so much easier if you can all work together and not feel that you've got
to be loyal to one faction or another. Let me also address Number 6 while
we're on affordable housing and units and so forth. On Number 6 tonight,
when I heard that we weren't putting sufficient money into affordable
housing, we raised the impact fees tonight.
Mayor Scharff: We doubled them.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Maybe not to the maximum, but we raised the impact
fees. Do not think tonight as you leave that we didn't raise impact fees to
add more money to the affordable housing fund that we're not using. We
haven't accessed that affordable housing fund in a long time. There is
money in our affordable housing fund. I think once again tonight—I said this
the last time—we're delivering on a promise. I ran for several weeks this fall
absolutely flat-out running. When you run in this community, you are barely
taking a breath. We talked about affordable housing so many times at so
many house parties, door to door. Constantly, we talked about the housing
problem in Palo Alto. Our surveys show at least 75 percent of the people in
TRANSCRIPT
Page 72 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Palo Alto think it's our biggest problem. Let me close on this. It'll date me,
but some of you might remember a Superintendent named Newman Walker,
who was in our School District. What Newman said was, "If I'm not going to
close your school, it doesn't matter how many meetings we've had. I've
made the right decision. If I'm going to close your school, close your
building, close whatever it is, we never could have had enough meetings."
That's where we are tonight. We can never have enough meetings to make
people feel comfortable with this particular Motion that we have before us. I
feel somewhat apologetic that that's the case. I think we have vetted this
very thoroughly. You're all here late again tonight. It's going onto 11:00.
The last time many of you stayed here until well after midnight. I would
maintain and argue at this point we've been vetted, and we've been vetted
sufficiently. Thank you. I've carried on a bit, but I think this is one of our
most important issues and one of the ones that we've needed to discuss for
a very long time. By the way, ADUs existed in the 1990s Comprehensive
Plan as something desirable to have. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: First, I want to respond to the comments made
by Council Member Filseth. I think they need to be addressed.
Mayor Scharff: In a respectful and kind way.
Council Member Wolbach: I hope so. I actually appreciate some of the
points he's trying to make about what our process is. Council Member Kniss
touched on this as well as far as where we are in Palo Alto, that we have
some divisions, to put it mildly. We have advocacy groups affiliated with
them, whether it's PAN or Palo Alto Forward, the PAC, or Palo Altans for
Sensible Zoning, a 501(c)(3). We do have organizations. We also have less
formal ones. We have the group around Castilleja. We have Sky Posse. I
can't even name off the top of my head all of the community organizations
we have. Sometimes they are very effective in getting people affiliated with
them or on their mailing lists to come and present their views. I don't care
who asked you to come share your views with us, whether it's in person or
by email or giving me a phone call. I'm glad you're sharing your views with
us. I appreciate that PAN and PASZ and PAF tell their members, "If you
hear about this issue, here's what we think about this issue. We hope you'll
participate in democracy." I don't want to get into saying that's a bad thing.
It is better, of course, if people take the time to say something individually.
When I worked for the State Senate, I saw this. I'll say it now. It does, I
think, mean more to us. Council Member Filseth is right. As a tip for
everybody, it means more to us when you take time to really think through
the issue and share your own thoughts. As far as form letters, I see that as
TRANSCRIPT
Page 73 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
signing a petition. Petitions are mentioned implicitly in the Constitution, to
petition the government for redress of grievances. It's a petition in the form
letter, as an extension, that is an essential part of our democracy. Whether
that was—I think we saw essentially form letters that were copy and paste
on different sides of this issue for tonight. For those who felt your voices
weren't part of this process, they have been heard. I assure you of that. As
far as how—obviously it's not the Wolbach/Fine Motion. It was supported by
six members of Council. As far as how it was drafted, this is what I really
wanted to address because there was an implication there that I didn't do
my homework, that I let some nefarious special interest write something for
me. I wasn't familiar with the email you read. My guess is they were
referencing what they expected or knew what a particular advocacy group
was going to recommend. We heard from people affiliated with that
advocacy group along with others. We heard from PAN as well. The Motion
that I offered and all the things we discussed that night—a lot of those
things were not in what we heard from the one that was mentioned by
Council Member Filseth. That was a Motion that I crafted because I thought
it represented the best way to move forward on this issue that's come out of
discussions for the last couple of years. I was the lead author on the
Colleagues' Memo back in 2015. We had a lot of conversations. I'll be
honest. I still don't think it's perfect. There are probably some tweaks we
could make to what we did in March. The perfect is the enemy of the good
in policy making. Politics is the art of the possible. The question is what do
we move forward with. I actually have a couple of questions for Staff. If we
made changes, for instance, to remove, say, Item E as a random one from
what we had passed on March 7th, that would mean when this comes back
to us next time, it would be on another first reading. Is that correct?
Mr. Lait: I think it depends on the nature of the change. We've done that
before, where you've made amendments to Ordinances, and it's come back
as a second reading.
Ms. Lee: I'm sorry. The Assistant Director may have said this. If you're
just deleting items, it can still come back as a second reading.
Council Member Wolbach: I will actually mention one that is worth
consideration. This is the issue of setbacks. I'm not sure if the best way to
address this is an amendment to the Motion or an addition to say let's pass
this as is, but let's maybe go back on top of what we're passing and have
another round of discussion for future, to talk about setbacks. We've heard
from some people, particularly in Eichler neighborhoods, that they might like
to have less setback in the rear but more setback in the front. I think
that's—I could see maybe a way to balance that, where you wouldn't take
away their ability to have an ADU, but you'd allow them to switch some of
TRANSCRIPT
Page 74 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
the rear setback for front setback. I just wanted to say I heard that. I think
it's an important suggestion. I didn't want it to go unaddressed. I'm not
sure what the best way is to include that. Maybe we have PTC look at that
in the future or—I'm basically looking to colleagues to say, "Do you think
that's something worth including?"
Mayor Scharff: Are you done speaking?
Council Member Wolbach: Yeah, that's it for now.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou.
Council Member Kou: Mayor Scharff, just a question. Your substitute
amendment, is it the amendment by Staff? I mean, is it the
recommendation by Staff on March 7th?
Mayor Scharff: No. It's to move what we passed on March 7th. In fact, one
of the things I left out of the Motion was the quarterly reporting. If we could
just add that in. I assume you don't have a problem with that.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Yes.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Substitute
Motion, “direct Staff to report back to Council on a quarterly basis.” (New
Part B)
Council Member Kou: That's all I wanted to ask.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: Two quick things. I think we are working on BMRs.
We're trying to protect 400 people at Buena Vista, and we passed quite a bit
of money for that. Also in my defense on the "A" to "J" Motion, I was a new
Council Member then, but I think you voted for it. I will try to get in a
couple of amendments that were originally part of my first Motion that
became my second Motion. These are things I think we could agree on. I'm
wondering if I should just get them all out at once. I'll get them all out at
once, but maybe we could vote on them individually or you could accept
them. First of all, I would suggest that ADUs should be on a minimum lot
size of 6,000 square feet. The concept there is there should be some
minimum size.
Mayor Scharff: Why 6,000?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 75 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member DuBois: I just think it's a good number compared to other
lot sizes. I'd be open to a different number, but I think there should be a
number.
Mayor Scharff: The first one you want to do—how did you want to do this?
You want to get them all out. Is that it? (crosstalk)
Council Member DuBois: If you want to accept them one at a time, that
would be good. Maybe I don't want to talk to the ones that you guys
(crosstalk).
Mayor Scharff: I'm not going to accept that, but I would—I assume
someone will second it, and we …
Council Member Kou: Second.
Mayor Scharff: .. can have a discussion about it. That would be Council
Member Kou.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member DuBois
moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to add to the Motion, “limit ADUs
to lot sizes of 6,000 square feet or more.”
Council Member DuBois: Would you accept it at a different square footage?
Vice Mayor Kniss: (inaudible)
Mayor Scharff: I might.
Council Member DuBois: What's that?
Vice Mayor Kniss: There are tons of 5,000-square-foot lots.
Mayor Scharff: Yeah. For me, if it said 5,000 square feet, I'm probably
okay with it.
Council Member DuBois: I'll make it 5,000.
Mayor Scharff: I'll accept that.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION RESTATED AND
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Substitute
Motion, “limit ADUs to lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or more.” (New Part
A.i.)
TRANSCRIPT
Page 76 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member DuBois: I'd request that we restore the language about
doorway orientation. Again, I don't see how that really restricts ADUs, but I
think it preserves the appearance of neighborhoods. What was in there
originally was that the ADU doorway doesn't face the street and would be
hidden from the street.
Mayor Scharff: What you want—I will support that and second it, but I want
to have some discussion on that. On doorway. Go on, but we'll have some
discussion on that.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member DuBois
moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “restore
Ordinance language pertaining to doorway orientation.”
Council Member DuBois: The third one was that we …
Council Member Holman: Second.
Council Member DuBois: … limit parking permits in RPP districts by lot
regardless of whether there's an ADU or not.
Mayor Scharff: Sorry. Say that again.
Council Member DuBois: That we would limit parking permits in RPP
districts by lot whether there's an ADU or not. We talked about this on
March 7th, but we ended up never voting for it.
Mayor Scharff: I would accept that. I don't know if Council Member Kniss
would.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I need to see it. Let me see it written out. By lot, do you
mean by …
Council Member DuBois: By parcel, whether there's an ADU on it or not.
Mayor Scharff: I think what you're trying to achieve—I'm just going to say it
because I'm getting funny looks from the City Attorney's Office. I'll just
jump in. I think what Council Member DuBois is trying to do is you can't get
more permits. The number of permits you get is by lot in RPP, not by
whoever is there.
Vice Mayor Kniss: (crosstalk) ADUs.
Mayor Scharff: Yeah. Because you have an ADU, you don't get double the
permits. Is that correct?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 77 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member DuBois: Yes.
Mayor Scharff: If there's a more artful way to draft that, I'm sure Council
Member DuBois would appreciate that. We can come back to it if you want
to give it some thought. That's what his intent is.
Council Member DuBois: Exactly.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “limit
parking permits in Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) districts by lot.”
(New Part A.ii.)
Council Member DuBois: This one's a little nuanced. We allow two-story
ADUs in the residential estate zone. I would suggest that we follow existing
setbacks. The implication is you want to put a two-story ADU with a 6-foot
setback in a residential estate zone, which is a large lot. Currently, I think
that would be allowed.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I don't know what a residential estate zone is.
Council Member DuBois: Could Staff answer that?
Vice Mayor Kniss: Do we have that?
Council Member DuBois: A residential estate zone, how big are those lots?
Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you. Residential estate lots have a
minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.
Council Member DuBois: I'm suggesting we use the existing setbacks on
20,000-square-foot lots not allowed to be 6 feet from the edge.
Mayor Scharff: Is that 6 feet from the edge on a 20,000-square-foot lot?
Council Member DuBois: That's what the current Ordinance would do.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I would support that. 20,000 square feet, you've got a
lot of room to play with.
Mayor Scharff: I actually don't support this. I don't understand it.
Council Member DuBois: This is a two-story ADU would be allowed 6 feet
from the lot boundary.
Mayor Scharff: But where?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 78 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member DuBois: On a residential estate zone.
Mayor Scharff: It is currently allowed? Is that what you're saying?
Council Member DuBois: In the proposed Ordinance. I'm not suggesting we
change it in that case where you have a 20,000-square-foot lot.
Mayor Scharff: In residential estate zones, that's fine, but we're limiting
that to residential estate zones.
Council Member DuBois: Yes.
Mayor Scharff: I accept that.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “allow
two story ADUs in the Residential Estate (R-E) District using existing.” (New
Part A.iii.)
Council Member DuBois: The last one, which Council Member Wolbach was
trying to get to, I could use some help on the wording in this one. To create
specific ministerial requirements for ADUs in Eichler neighborhoods, which
we heard several members of the public talk about today.
Mayor Scharff: I think there's some issues with ministerial under State law.
I was …
Council Member DuBois: I think it has to be ministerial.
Mayor Scharff: It has to be ministerial, but I'm not sure what that means. I
don't think Staff knows what that means.
Council Member DuBois: This is one where I'd say maybe we pass the
Motion, and then we have this come back as a future amendment.
Mayor Scharff: What would you direct Staff to come back with?
Council Member DuBois: A set of ministerial requirements for ADUs in
Eichler neighborhoods, specific to Eichler neighborhoods, to address the
concerns …
Mayor Scharff: To accomplish what?
Council Member DuBois: Address the concerns of the large windows and
along the back.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 79 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: I have no problem with it; I'm just getting quizzical looks
from Staff. Jonathan, do you want to …
Mr. Lait: We are in the process of looking at some standards and guidelines
for the Eichler neighborhoods. I sort of want that process to go forward and
see how that's developing. We could be mindful about possible additional
ADU regulations as we go through that process.
Council Member DuBois: Could you include ADUs in that discussion?
Mr. Lait: To some degree, we certainly can. I think we've got our
requirements that we need to maintain for the State, and that's got to be
ministerial. It would be design standards basically, what you're looking at.
I'm just trying to think about what sort of regulations might come into play
because it's one-story buildings. I guess I really don't know what we're
ultimately getting at. What's the problem that we're trying to solve by that
standard or that Motion?
Council Member DuBois: I think it's just a recognition of the nature of the
Eichler neighborhoods and the concern about privacy in the backyard with
the all-glass backyard.
Mr. Lait: I guess I'll defer to Council on that. I have some concern about
having a different process for ADUs in one part of the City and another in an
undefined area. We talk about Eichler neighborhoods, but we don't have the
boundaries.
Mayor Scharff: I understand. I think Council Member DuBois was looking to
come back with possible—not to say you had to do anything—approaches to
Eichler neighborhoods with design guidelines. That's the way I understood
it. I don't know if that's true.
Council Member DuBois: Exactly.
Mayor Scharff: That's the way I understood it. I'm not going to support this
right now, only because I think people want to have discussion on it. I'm
dominating the discussion with you, and other Council Members can't weigh
in. If someone wants to second that, we can have a discussion.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I actually think it's a good idea.
Mayor Scharff: You'll second it?
Vice Mayor Kniss: I would second it, right.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 80 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
AMENDMENT2 TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member DuBois
moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to
return with potential Eichler design guidelines relating to ADUs.”
Vice Mayor Kniss: We heard a lot about it tonight, and that's why I'm
concerned with it.
Mayor Scharff: Is that it or is there more?
Council Member DuBois: I'll continue. There are two cases where what was
in the Staff write-up of the Ordinance wasn't actually in the original motion.
I think the original Motion said that additional FAR should be used for ADUs.
There was 75 feet and 150 feet. The way I read the Ordinance was it could
be used for the primary dwelling. I wanted to clarify that that additional FAR
is to be used for the ADU.
Mr. Lait: I'm sorry, Council Member. You're referring to the addition of the
175 square feet?
Council Member DuBois: Yeah.
Mr. Lait: If there's a one-story ADU.
Council Member DuBois: Packet page 42 and packet page 47.
Mayor Scharff: You're at packet page where?
Council Member DuBois: Forty-two and 47. On page 42 …
Mr. Lait: These would be not for the ADU but for the primary residence itself
or for the lot.
Council Member DuBois: My understanding of the Motion was it was
additional square footage to be used in the ADU.
Mr. Lait: Then, is the question—we have established a maximum unit size
for ADUs, attached and detached. It's 600 for attached and 900 for
detached. We thought those were the standards. The 175 square feet was
for …
Council Member DuBois: If the existing FAR didn't allow that, you could get
an additional 175 feet in your ADU.
Mr. Lait: I guess I would look to Council for guidance on that. Our read of
that Motion was it applied to the lot, not the ADU specifically.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 81 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member DuBois: When I read the Motion, it said for the ADU. My
concern is people will have existing ADUs and use this to add additional
square footage to their house. I don't think that was really the intent of the
Motion.
Mr. Lait: I could just look here and find out. I'm just pulling up the Council
Motion on that issue. That was Letter C, allow an additional 175 square feet
of FAR for an ADU but not for a two-story ADU. That was also similar to
another one where we were adding another 50 square feet of FAR to a JADU.
This would be the forum to get clarification on that. If we got that wrong
from the Council's intent on that Motion, then we're happy to …
Mayor Scharff: Tom, maybe you could just say it again.
Council Member DuBois: My understanding of the Motion was we were
trying to allow an increase in total FAR by adding this square footage to the
ADU or JADU. The way the Ordinance was written, you could basically add
that to the main residence. It's almost like bonus FAR to the main house.
On the JADU, you could take more of your house and put it into the JADU
but not—I didn't think the intent was to make the main house larger.
Mr. Lait: In instances where one wants to put an ADU on a property but
they're bumping up against the maximum FAR, there would be a provision to
go 175 square feet above the FAR for the purposes of establishing an ADU.
Mayor Scharff: Correct.
Mr. Lait: Is that okay?
Mayor Scharff: That's my understanding of it. Tom's raising a different
issue (crosstalk).
Council Member DuBois: No, that's the point I'm raising. It was not written
that way, though.
Mr. Lait: It's not written that way. I understand that now.
Mayor Scharff: Right now, it's written that if you have an ADU, you can just
add 175 square feet total?
Mr. Lait: Yeah.
Mayor Scharff: My understanding was Tom's way, frankly. The 175 square
feet was for the ADU.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 82 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mr. Lait: Yeah, and still keeping the size limitations that were established at
600 and the 800.
Mayor Scharff: Correct.
Mr. Lait: That could be part of a Motion, and that could be a correction to
the Ordinance, if that's the Council's interest.
Council Member DuBois: If you guys accept that, I'll send it to David.
Mayor Scharff: I'm looking to Council Member Kniss.
Vice Mayor Kniss: It's fine. Thank you, Staff, for clarifying that.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Substitute
Motion, “clarify that the additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) should be used
within the ADU, not the primary dwelling unit.” (New Part A.iv.)
Mr. Lait: It looks like our legal counsel has a question.
Council Member DuBois: Thank you, guys, for your patience. That's it.
Ms. S. Lee: Thank you. I'd like to speak to the item with respect to the
parking permits in the RPP districts. That raises some implementation
challenges. First of all, currently the RPPs are given out based on dwelling
units. I don't know if that would require some change in the RPP program in
addition in order to actualize that proposal. Secondly, I think the ADU could
then—basically you could result in a situation where there's no parking
requirement for the ADU. If the lot has already been issued the parking
permits and an ADU is established, that ADU is not entitled to an RPP even
though RPP permits are required. Therefore, the State law provision is that
no parking requirement would apply.
Council Member DuBois: Wouldn't it be up to the landlord, though? If they
had their four permits, they could give one to the ADU or two. It's kind of to
be worked out by the property owner and their …
Ms. S. Lee: The State law just says that in areas where there are preferred
parking programs and the ADU is not entitled to a parking permit under that
program, then you can't apply parking requirements.
Mayor Scharff: This Motion has no parking requirements for ADUs.
Council Member DuBois: That's fine. We're not requiring parking. We're
just saying that you don't get double the amount of permits.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 83 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Ms. S. Lee: I just wanted to point out that that would be the consequence;
you couldn't allow parking.
Mr. Lait: Further to that point, we see some logistical challenges for
implementing the RPP. We're already looking to find out if there is a
business associated with the property, and now we need to look to see if
there's an ADU on the property. There's a whole system of us being able to
update our computer database to log these to be able to report back to
Council. I understand the interest in wanting to explore that further and
augment the RPP.
Council Member DuBois: Would an ADU have a separate mailing address or
would it be the same address?
Mr. Lait: It could have a separate address. What I’m hearing from Staff
that works most closely with this is that it adds a further complication and
challenges our ability to implement that.
Mayor Scharff: Tom, how would you feel about it if we asked Staff to
explore ways to implement that in the future?
Council Member DuBois: Yes, that's fine.
Mayor Scharff: If we could make that change.
Council Member DuBois: I think we need to recognize that we're basically
increasing the number of potential permits, so we kind of lose control of our
RPP program.
Mayor Scharff: Tom, there were a couple of things we were supposed to
have discussions on. They were … Which ones was it, Council Member
Wolbach? We said we were going to have discussion on …
Vice Mayor Kniss: Doorway orientation, that was one of the things.
Council Member Wolbach: Lot size.
Mayor Scharff: I accepted lot size at 5,000.
Vice Mayor Kniss: The one you wanted to discuss …
Mayor Scharff: It was doorway.
Vice Mayor Kniss: .. was doorway.
Mayor Scharff: Doorway orientation.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 84 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member DuBois: Doorway orientation and the …
Mayor Scharff: Design guidelines, right?
Council Member DuBois: The design guidelines for Eichler is missing.
Mayor Scharff: Do you want to take up—I don't see the Motion up. We
should have a separate Motion for that. We should take that up.
Mr. Lait: While that's getting added …
Mayor Scharff: There it is. I see it.
Mr. Lait: Back to the RPP one for a quick moment. Let me know if I’m
restating this correctly. It's to direct Staff to explore options to limit parking
permits in RPP districts for new ADUs. Is that what we're trying to capture?
These are to limit issuance of RPP permits for new ADUs in these
neighborhoods?
Council Member DuBois: No. It's just that the number of permits would be
limited by lot.
Mr. Lait: It's not about AD … Are ADUs being counted toward the—I'm
sorry.
Mr. Keene: What's the max that you could have at (crosstalk).
Josh Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Sorry. I need to jump in here.
Josh Mello, Chief Transportation Official. We currently sell RPP permits,
resident parking permits, by dwelling unit. We have many parcels that have
multiple dwelling units on them, apartment buildings, duplexes. This would
be an extremely complicated restriction to administer. We would need our
parking staff to determine whether it's a new ADU and whether it's attached
to an existing dwelling unit. It would just add a lot of complications. Given
the amount of verification that has to be done when we issue permits
already, this could potentially add to the amount of time it takes someone to
purchase a permit. We've already gotten a lot of feedback from residents
that we don't have a quick enough turnaround time for permit sales as is. I
just want you to know that this would add quite a bit of complication, and it
would require some type of tracking of the creation of new ADUs that would
be tied to our parking permit sales system. Logistically, it could be very
difficult to administer.
Vice Mayor Kniss: What are we saying?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 85 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: I'm looking at you, Tom. Do you want me to suggest
something?
Council Member DuBois: If you have an idea, yeah.
Mayor Scharff: This would be my idea. We direct Staff to come back when
they can. I could see a system where we have better software that says
when you go ahead and ask for an ADU and you go through the Planning
Department, that's picked up by Transportation, the permit sale. Then they
click off on it, and they know not to. Therefore, it's no extra work. I'm not
saying that's true. I'm just saying that we direct Staff to think about this. If
they see an opportunity to come back and do this, they do it.
Council Member DuBois: Certainly a JADU is going to have the same
address. Right?
Mr. Lait: Yeah. (inaudible)
Council Member DuBois: We could split those off.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A.ii.,
“Direct Staff to explore options to” before “limit parking permits.”
Mayor Scharff: On JADU—Josh, I have a question for you. On JADUs, would
you have—you wouldn't get any extra permits for doing a JADU anyway
because you don't have separate address, right?
Mr. Mello: Yeah. We verify by mailing address in order to determine if it's
an individual dwelling unit.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach says he has a solution.
Council Member Wolbach: Can I just offer a different take on that one?
Don't let ADUs have a separate address. That way it's no extra work, unless
there's a downside to that that I'm not thinking of. Why don't we just say
ADUs don't have a separate address?
Mr. Lait: Just noting the time of 11:18. It's beginning to get a little—we're
going down this path of …
Mayor Scharff: Maybe we could just drop this. We'll just delete that.
Council Member Wolbach: If Tom's still going through his, I'll offer that one
again in a minute, I guess.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 86 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: The one we need to talk about then is the doorway.
Council Member DuBois: I need a second on the doorway one, I think.
Council Member Holman: Second.
Mayor Scharff: Who seconded it? Council Member Holman. Tom, do you
want to speak to that?
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION RESTATED: Council
Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the
Motion, “restore Ordinance language pertaining to doorway orientation.”
(New Part A.v.)
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. I think we can encourage ADUs without
changing the nature of the neighborhoods. I think limiting doorways and
stairways so they're not in view of the street will preserve the context of our
residential neighborhoods. It's a quality design issue that will really have no
impact on the number of ADUs. I don't understand why Council Members
struck this before. Maybe they can explain that. It's worth putting back. I
think it will address a lot of the concerns about turning R-1 into looking like
duplexes.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman, you wanted to speak to that?
Council Member Holman: Yeah, just briefly. In addition to what Tom said, I
go back again to what the State law says. It says that accessory dwelling
units offer lower-cost housing to meet the needs of existing and future
residents within existing neighborhoods while respecting architectural
character. Having two doorways facing the street on the same house for a
JADU, for instance, really does change the character of the neighborhood
from single-family to duplex. That's why I support this.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine.
Council Member Fine: The main reason I supported this is I heard from a
number of community members who had special needs access. They were
concerned that not allowing this for them would force them to put a door or
stairway on the side or back of the ADU, which makes it a longer way for a
disabled person to access that accessory or junior accessory dwelling junior.
I think it's really important in terms of ADUs being able to serve a wider
range of our population, particularly special needs folks, here in Palo Alto.
Also, just secondarily to that, I don't necessarily agree that two doorways is
changing a neighborhood character. I mean, it's two doorways.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 87 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Anyone else feel they need to speak to this? Let's vote on
the Motion. On the amendment, sorry, on the amendment. That passes on
a 6-3 vote with Council Members Wolbach, Tanaka, and Fine voting no.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 6-3 Fine, Tanaka,
Wolbach no
Mayor Scharff: I think we did all of your Motion.
Council Member DuBois: I think there's one more below there.
Vice Mayor Kniss: One more down here hiding.
Mayor Scharff: Can we bring that up? The one down there. Which one was
that one? The Eichler design guidelines.
Council Member DuBois: I just heard from the public tonight. That was a
new one that I added. I just think if we can consider it as we go through our
potential Eichler design guidelines, it's just another thing that's going to
come back to us. I think it's more efficient government to consider it now.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I agree. I think that was—we have 5,000 Eichlers or
something similar? This is a true problem.
Mayor Scharff: I would just ask that this doesn't delay the implementation
of the Ordinance in the Eichler neighborhoods. When Staff comes back, we
can then have the discussion. We can change this Ordinance, but it doesn't
… Put it this way. We haven't singled out Eichler neighborhoods to not have
ADUs. They're under this Ordinance as it passes. I just want to make sure
that's everyone's understanding. Is that yours, Tom? Staff, that would be
your understanding? Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: The design issues, as I've expressed before, my
understanding of the State law—what we heard from Staff last month was
that the State law does not allow a lot of design criteria. Is that an accurate
understanding or really any design criteria? Is that a correct understanding
of the State law? I understand the State law said that we had to allow
premanufactured ones to get plopped in with no regard for neighborhood
design. Council Member Holman read something different tonight, so now
I'm confused. Where are we on that question with regards to the State?
Mr. Lait: State law does allow some local consideration of objective design
criteria, things that can be administered at the counter and don't require
design review, which is another element, which we cannot allow. For the
Eichler Guidelines, for instance, if there's a—maybe there's terms that get
TRANSCRIPT
Page 88 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
defined like a primary window on an adjacent lot if you're going to propose
an ADU adjacent to such a condition, then maybe you need to have a
secondary window, something that's smaller or raised up or something to
that effect. It is possible for us to understand what those privacy-related
concerns are and to develop objective standards so we're not imparting
judgment.
Council Member Wolbach: That's actually very helpful. That does open the
opportunity. I think this amendment actually gets to that. This was one of
my biggest—this was one of my most important thoughts back 2 years when
we first talking about this. Not every neighborhood is the same. Not every
property and design is the same. If we can allow that kind of design for
Eichlers, that would be useful. I would add just a comment. I don't think it
needs to be in the Motion, unless Staff says it should be. With an eye to
exchanging rear setback for front setback, basically that you could have a
greater front setback in exchange for a small—sorry, a small front setback in
exchange for a greater rear setback for Eichler neighborhoods. That would
be something to explore when you bring it back to us. Would you guys be
okay with adding that to the Motion? It doesn't look like I'm getting a lot of
support from my colleagues.
Council Member DuBois: Leaving it general is good. You just (crosstalk)
that idea.
Council Member Wolbach: The comment's out there. It's out in the
environment. As it's being discussed, I'm sure people will raise that. My
comments are in the record on that one.
Mayor Scharff: Does anyone want to speak against this? Otherwise, we
could just vote. You want to speak against it?
Council Member Wolbach: This particular one.
Mayor Scharff: This particular amendment. This particular amendment on
adding Eichler design guides. I think everyone's going to vote for it, that's
why …
Council Member Holman: (inaudible) speak to it. I have a suggestion
(inaudible).
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Among the amendments that were passed on
March 7th, one was limit ADUs to 17 feet high and single-story in single-
story …
TRANSCRIPT
Page 89 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman, we're speaking just to this, right?
Council Member Holman: Yes. In single-story neighborhoods. Single-story
neighborhoods are Eichler neighborhoods. There aren't any anywhere else.
Can I suggest that instead of 17 feet, that become 12 feet? Here's why.
The typical Eichler has a roof height of 12 feet, and that eliminates a lot of
the privacy issues.
Mayor Scharff: I'm fine with that.
Mr. Lait: We talk about Eichler neighborhoods. I think we have a general
understanding of what that means. If we're going to draft the Ordinance,
are we saying on lots that have an Eichler-designed …
Mayor Scharff: Why don't we say houses with single-story overlays?
Vice Mayor Kniss: I think it's the SSO designation.
Mayor Scharff; It's the SSO designation.
Mr. Lait: Only in the SSO areas, we're going to do 12 stories? I’m sorry, 12
feet.
Council Member Holman: To be clear, it's not just—I read that because
that's what this said. If you're in an Eichler neighborhood, not all Eichler
neighborhoods have the SSOs. If you're adjacent to an Eichler
development, then the ADU height would be a 12-foot max.
Mr. Keene: Doesn't the wording right now potentially allow for us to look at
this issue?
Mayor Scharff: Yes, it does. Maybe we should just look at that issue and
have Staff vet it and come back.
Council Member Holman: Would the Staff look at heights for ADUs? The
Motion that was passed on March 7th says specifically a 17-foot height.
Mr. Keene: I would think, given the commentary we've heard tonight and
many other times, the height and the visibility issues are core design factors
for Eichler houses and in an Eichler neighborhood. I think it would be a
design factor. The same way that Jonathan was talking about window place,
the height of a house is a similar feature that could be looked at and defined
in advance and would pass this muster as far as a design criteria.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 90 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member Holman: How about this then? Going to the substitute
Motion say "direct Staff to return with potential Eichler Design Guidelines for
ADUs including lower height limits." Is that acceptable to …
Mayor Scharff: Are you fine with that, Council Member Kniss?
Vice Mayor Kniss: Mm hmm.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kniss is fine with it. Council Member DuBois
is fine with it. Yes.
INCORPORATED INTO AMENDMENT2 TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to
Amendment2 to the Substitute Motion, “including lower height limits” after
“relating to ADUs.”
AMENDMENT2 TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED
RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss
to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to return with potential Eichler design
guidelines relating to ADUs, including lower height limits.” (New Part A.vi.)
Council Member Holman: That satisfies that.
Mayor Scharff: Again, does anyone else need to speak to this? Can I vote
on this amendment? Vote on the board. That passes unanimously.
AMENDMENT2 TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED:
9-0
Mayor Scharff: Does anyone else need to speak to the substitute Motion?
Everything lit up. Council Member Kou.
Council Member Kou: On the Motion that was passed on March 7th, the
parking was expanded Citywide. No parking necessary for ADUs and JADUs.
Am I correct? Citywide. Staff Report recommendations were specific areas
in the circles 0.7 miles away from a transportation priority area. Is that so?
That was the San Antonio, the Cal. Ave., and then Downtown.
Ms. E. Lee: That was the original recommendation that went to you based
on PTC feedback.
Council Member Kou: Now, it's Citywide. I would like to make an
amendment to that, for it to …
TRANSCRIPT
Page 91 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: You can do that. We actually had that exact same
amendment on March 7th, which failed either 5-4 or 6-3. You're welcome to
do that again. I just want to point out it's 11:30.
Mr. Keene: You have two items (crosstalk).
Mayor Scharff: We have two items, and we're going to do at least one of
those two items.
Council Member Kou: I can appreciate that. At the same time, there was
enough comments from the general public about parking.
Mayor Scharff: You're welcome to do it. Go ahead.
Council Member Kou: I would like to if you would indulge me. I don't know
if you'll accept it or not but since you brought it up.
Mayor Scharff: No, I'm not accepting it.
Council Member Kou: Amendment to the substitute Motion would be that we
restore the parking restrictions to the Staff-recommended …
Mayor Scharff: We need a second.
Council Member Filseth: Second.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou
moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to add to the Motion, “restore
parking restrictions to the March 7, 2017 Staff recommendation.”
Mayor Scharff: Seconded by Council Member Filseth. Do you need to speak
to your Motion further?
Council Member Kou: No, thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Do you need to speak to it?
Council Member Filseth: I always thought the parking thing was the
weakest thing of this Motion.
Mayor Scharff: Does anyone need to speak to this? Let's vote on the board.
We're voting on the amendment. That fails on a 5-4 vote like it did last time
with Council Member DuBois, Kou, Filseth, and Holman voting yes.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois,
Filseth, Holman, Kou yes
TRANSCRIPT
Page 92 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: Since we're making amendments …
Mayor Scharff: Doesn't mean you have to.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm going to offer two. I think there was actually
a misunderstanding by Staff about Item F. That was remove lot coverage
requirements for ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10 percent
smaller than standard lot sizes. That was intended to apply to all properties
that were within 10 percent of standard lot sizes or higher, not just the
narrow band between 10 percent below and standard. I'm looking to Staff
for how we could change the language so that's clarified. Could we just add
to Item F "including those that are standard or larger"? I'd like to suggest
that as a friendly amendment.
Mr. Lait: Something to that effect. The sentiment is the floor to this
requirement is those lots that are substandard by the base district zoning by
no more than 10 percent. The ceiling is …
Council Member Wolbach: None.
Mayor Scharff: I think that was the original intent.
Council Member DuBois: Can you clarify—are you just basically saying
there's no lot coverage requirement?
Council Member Wolbach: I'm trying to clarify what was the original intent
of Item F. The intent was that there should be no lot coverage requirements
on properties that are standard or higher and also for ones that are within
10 percent of standard.
Mayor Scharff: That's not my understand, Cory—Council Member Wolbach.
My understanding was that you could go over the existing lot coverage
requirements solely for an ADU. You could not do it for the single-family
house. You can have the single-family house. You build an ADU. You
wouldn't be able to build the ADU because of the lot coverage requirement.
I think this is (crosstalk).
Council Member Wolbach: They're not clarifying that.
Mayor Scharff: I tell you where I think this particularly comes in. We have
in those single story overlay neighborhoods is people can build out on their
property, and they don't lose FAR by having the single story. We've actually
relaxed lot coverage requirements. I think that's really the precedent for
TRANSCRIPT
Page 93 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
doing that. That's what I was thinking about. We still have lot coverage
requirements. I don't think you can—you misspoke.
Council Member Wolbach: Yes, for ADUs. Lot …
Mayor Scharff: Only that would allow an ADU. I wanted to make sure that
Staff understood that.
Mr. Lait: If I can just take a minute to restate what I think I understand
you're saying. In instances where somebody is proposing an ADU and it
would exceed the lot coverage requirement, we would allow that to happen
only for the ADU.
Mayor Scharff: Correct.
Mr. Lait: In instances where we have an existing ADU on the site and
somebody's at the maximum lot coverage, we would not allow them to go
above the lot coverage requirement.
Council Member Wolbach: Correct.
Mayor Scharff: Correct.
Council Member Wolbach: How do we change this? This is still the same
language that we had on Item F. Could we just say at the end of that what
the City Clerk has up, remove lot coverage requirements for ADUs? Maybe
we should say "for new ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10
percent smaller than standard lot sizes including those which are standard or
larger." Just to clarify. I'm open to Staff on how to make this more clear. I
thought it was clear the first time. What the Staff recommendation said was
different than what we intended.
Mr. Lait: I understand what you're saying. I think it's going to take us
some time to parse out the language. If the Council's able to pass the
Motion with the understanding that we're going to come back with language
to implement that, that would be …
Mr. Keene: Generalize the language as far as the intent.
Council Member Wolbach: That's fine. Is that amenable to the maker and
seconder?
Mayor Scharff: It is.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Mm hmm.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 94 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Substitute
Motion, “remove Lot Coverage requirements for new ADUs on properties that
are no smaller than 10 percent smaller than standard lot sizes including
those which are standard or larger.” (New Part A.vii.)
Council Member Wolbach: The other is on the 5,000-square-foot. I'm
concerned that that's arbitrary and that State law prohibits us from making
arbitrary distinctions like that. I would actually offer an amendment, which
clearly won't be friendly, to remove "A.i."
Mayor Scharff: You're going to lose. It's getting late. I'm willing to
entertain it, but you will lose.
Council Member Fine: Can I put some color into this one? I just did the
quick calculations. There are 3,100 lots in Palo Alto at less than 5,000.
That's about 22 percent of our housing stock.
Mr. Lait: If I can offer another comment that we were discussing up here.
That would only apply to requests for a new ADU. It would not cover
conversions. On any lot size, conversions can still take place, a conversion
of a garage, a conversion of an accessory structure. I wouldn't want
somebody to think if the lot's under 5,000 square feet, you're not going to
necessarily see an ADU on that property.
Council Member Wolbach; Does that include JADUs?
Mr. Lait: JADUs, I believe, are also the same standard. I have to take a
look.
Council Member Wolbach: We can't restrict them based on lot size basically?
Mr. Lait: Let me take a look at that because that's one more of an optional
standard. I'll have to look at that.
Council Member Wolbach: I'd suggest that we clarify that JADUs and
conversions are not included.
Council Member DuBois: I'll second that.
Mayor Scharff: I think Staff has already told us they're not.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm just suggesting we provide that clarity. It
might be redundant to what's in State law, but I don't think it hurts to add
it.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 95 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: Do we need to add something or is Staff comfortable?
Mr. Lait: I don't think you need to change that. There needs to an
understanding that conversions are going to take place on substandard lots
possibly. The 5,000 square feet is a policy call for the Council to decide, if
that's the appropriate threshold.
Mayor Scharff: You were saying we don't need to clarify the conversions?
Mr. Lait: Not for ADUs.
Mayor Scharff: How about JADUs?
Ms. S. Lee: You may want to clarify it in the item. As it reads, it makes it
appear that it applies to all ADUs. Under State law, you can't apply
minimum lot size requirements or other development standards to ADUs that
are going into existing structures.
Council Member Wolbach: I'll change my Motion to clarify that we are being
consistent with State law. Under Item i, conversions and JADUs shall not
face this restriction.
Council Member DuBois: I'll second that.
Council Member Wolbach: It might be friendly. I'm really just trying to
clarify that we …
Mayor Scharff: That's what State law says, correct?
Ms. S. Lee: That's correct.
Mayor Scharff: Then, that's fine if that's what State law says.
Council Member Wolbach: It's just a clarification.
Council Member DuBois: I didn't understand this. Basically you're saying
any new ADU being construction would have to be a 5,000-square-foot lot.
Mayor Scharff: We're good?
Council Member Wolbach: That was accepted by the maker and seconder?
Mayor Scharff: Yes.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the end of Motion
TRANSCRIPT
Page 96 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Part A.i., “ADU conversions and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)
would be exempt from this requirement.”
Council Member Wolbach: Thanks.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth, did you have your light on again?
Council Member Filseth: Not to this amendment.
Mayor Scharff: The amendment is done.
Council Member Filseth: I had a question. On the original Motion, there was
some language about a detached ADU shall be similar to the main residence
with respect to style, roof pitch, color, and materials, which we struck out.
Does anybody remember why we struck that out?
Council Member Fine: I can speak to it. It's kind of arbitrary. You can have
an adobe Spanish home with a modern structure next to it in the backyard.
That might work. And vice versa.
Council Member Filseth: Is there any design restrictions that I can't put up a
corrugated Quonset hut next to my adobe?
Council Member Fine: It's probably a question for Staff, what would apply in
these cases.
Council Member Filseth: I'll move that that language goes back in. The
detached accessory dwelling unit shall be similar to the main residence with
respect to style, roof pitch, color, and materials.
Council Member Holman: Second.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Filseth
moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Substitute
Motion, “add to Municipal Code Section 18.42.040(a)8.(iv), ‘Design: The
detached accessory dwelling unit shall be similar to the main residence with
respect to style, roof pitch, color and materials.”
Council Member Filseth: I think we heard a lot tonight about people
concerned about the look and feel of their neighborhood. I think this doesn't
put a huge restriction, doesn't stop you from building an ADU.
Mayor Scharff: I'm going to clear the board.
Council Member Holman: (inaudible)
TRANSCRIPT
Page 97 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: You can. I just wanted to make sure we …
Council Member Holman: I appreciate that this gets added back in. I'm just
pounding on that the State law talks about retaining neighborhood character
and the character of the neighborhoods, stated another way. I think this
goes a long way to help do that. It isn't discretionary review. There's
standards that can be applied very basically to any new ADU. While a lot of
people and maybe most people will do the right thing in putting something
that will be compatible in one fashion or another, it's the people who won't
for which this needs to happen. Remember that sometimes ADUs might be
in the front of the house. On those occasions, it's really most important that
the ADU be compatible with the house.
Mayor Scharff: I'm just going to speak briefly to this. I agree this is purely
a design issue. I was at Duke over the weekend. I've got to say when I saw
a purely modern building put between two gothic buildings, attached to
them—I posted it on Facebook if you really want to see it. It really looked
fantastic. I've got to say that surprised me, how good it looked. I could see
people having a different style for their ADU, especially if it's in their
backyard and it's not two stories. I think it'll look good. We're being too
restrictive in telling people they have to match the style of their house. I
think this is just purely a personal of what you think. I'm going to vote no.
anyone else want to speak to this? Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: I supported removing it in March because I
disagreed that it was in compliance with State law frankly.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: You heard tonight it's not in violation of State law.
It could be ministerial. I think that's the intent of restoring that language, to
do it in a ministerial way. It is just the Eicher design guidelines are. I just
want to say that keeping the same style and color is going to avoid a lot of
neighborhood conflict. I don't know if people will be able to appeal an ADU.
It's more efficient government to have it fit in.
Mr. Keene: Practically thinking about—ministerially means our Staff at the
permit counter has to make a determination. I'm concerned that "similar in
design to main residence" is subjective.
Council Member DuBois: The original language said style, roof pitch, color,
and materials, which seems a lot more specific to me.
Mayor Scharff: Who else wants—Council Member Fine.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 98 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member Fine: I can't support this for a number of reasons. One,
our residents and property owners should have the flexibility to create the
design of an ADU that suits them and their family. Some folks may hate the
design of their house, and they want to do something different for their ADU.
Additionally, there's also an issue here of neighborhood character.
Neighborhood characters change. Frankly, I'm kind of excited sometimes
when I go through a part of town I've been 20 years or 25 years, whatever,
an t here's something new and different. That's also important to serve our
neighborhood character.
Mayor Scharff: Can we vote on the amendment?
Council Member Holman: It's not worded correctly.
Mayor Scharff: It's not worded correctly.
Council Member Holman: It's not worded correctly because it did have, I
believe …
Council Member Filseth: Style, roof pitch, color, and materials.
Council Member Holman: It needs the other language having to do with
color, materials, roof pitch.
Mr. Lait: Can we just say restore the language from the March 7 Ordinance?
That's what you want, to restore that language, right?
Council Member Holman: Yes.
Mayor Scharff: Can we vote on it? That fails 5-4 with Council Members
DuBois, Kou, Filseth, and Holman voting yes.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois,
Filseth, Holman, Kou yes
Mr. Lait: I'd like to make a Motion that you wait 'til 12:05 to make any final
action.
Mayor Scharff: Exactly. Council Member Fine, you want to speak to the
main Motion?
Council Member Fine: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got two quick
amendments, actually three. One is that the daylight plane start at 10 feet
and then go up at a 1:1 ratio. Right now it's at 8 feet. The second is—I
might need a little bit of Staff help here. Right now, it's on packet page 44.
It's no windows, doors, etc., on the building within 6 feet. I think what we
TRANSCRIPT
Page 99 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
intended is on the building side adjacent to a property line. We're
essentially trying to eliminate those windows or appliances within 6 feet of
the property line on the adjacent side to the property, not necessarily just
on the building side. That one I might need some help with. The third one,
on packet page 43, 7.iv, I'd like to amend that to allow two-story ADUs if
attached.
Mayor Scharff: Before we go further, Staff, it's complicated to change the
daylight plane. Do you want to give your recommendation as to what that
means or why we had it that way? I know Mr. Popp had a different view of
it.
Mr. Lait: Just to make sure I’m on the right area. You're at packet page 44
for the daylight plane requirement that's in 8.iv? that has the language that
is struck that will now—no, that's struck and is not coming back. We
replaced it with setbacks, and we established some setback standards. We
don't have—we do have daylight plane requirements for accessory structures
in the rear inside yards. We do have daylight plane requirements for the
principle residence. When we introduced having ADUs in the rear yard and
there was sentiment from the Council to have it be subject to the daylight
plane requirements, we could either choose the existing accessory structure
daylight plane requirements that would apply to accessory structures, but
that one didn't really fit because accessory structures are limited to 12 feet
in height. You've got this formula that you have to apply, and then you
push the building back like 12 feet into the lot before you'd be able to go 17
feet up. The principle building daylight plane requirement didn't apply either
because it's measured from rear lot lines and has different angles and so
forth. We merged them. We took what we thought were the best of both
issues and came up with a hybrid daylight plane requirement, which respects
elements of the principle building area and also accessory structures.
Mayor Scharff: I am not going to accept it because I am just going to go
with what Staff recommends.
Council Member Fine: I won't push it then.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Fine
moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Substitute Motion,
“replace in Municipal Code Section 18.42.040(a)8.(iv), ‘daylight planes
beginning at a height of eight feet (8’)’ with ‘daylight planes beginning at a
height of ten feet (10’).’”
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK
OF A SECOND
TRANSCRIPT
Page 100 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member Fine: The other one is about no windows, doors. This is
8.vi on packet page 44. There shall be no windows, doors, mechanical
equipment or venting or exhaust systems located within 6 feet of a property
line. Are there any occasions where you may have a window on a rear-
facing building that could be caught up in this? We're trying to stop the
windows that are facing the property line. We're not necessarily trying to
restrict windows within 6 feet.
Mr. Lait: Within 6 feet of a property line is what we're trying to—at 6 feet,
you could have a window. If you have a structure that's at 4 feet …
Council Member Fine: Exactly.
Mr. Lait: … no window.
Council Member Fine: What if you've got a back-facing window within that 4
feet?
Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. A what kind?
Council Member Fine: a rear-facing window within that 4 feet? You've got a
window that's facing the rear property line, not the side property line, but
it's within 4 feet of the side property line.
Mr. Lait: As drafted, that would preclude that. If you want to make a
change …
Council Member Fine: I see my colleagues shaking their heads.
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Fine
moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Substitute Motion,
“update Municipal Code Section 18.42.040(a)8.(vi) to allow windows within
six feet of a property line that do not face a side property.”
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK
OF A SECOND
Council Member Fine: Last one is to allow two-story ADUs if attached.
They're limited to the 17 feet. What if you are doing an attached one that's
higher? Maximum height one story and 17 feet, packet page 43. Thank
you.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
XX to add to the Motion, “update Municipal Code Section 18.42.040(a)7.iv.
to allow 2-story ADUs if attached.”
TRANSCRIPT
Page 101 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK
OF A SECOND
Mayor Scharff: Does anyone else need to speak to this or can we vote
before midnight? Council Member Tanaka, you haven't spoken.
Council Member Tanaka: I have not spoken. I've been trying to be time
efficient. First thing I want to say is I want to thank everyone for coming
out here, staying here 'til 11:52, to all those that have reached out to us as
Council people. I know this item is very contentious. This is one of the
reasons why I made a very deliberate attempt to do some community
outreach to really understand what is the community thinking about this.
What I found for the most part is that the community is actually very
supportive of ADUs as everyone is here and of the efforts that we are trying
to do here. The big thing that I found also was that there was also a lot of
confusion. As you can see with these additional amendments, it's a rather
technical item. Most in the community had a really difficult time
understanding all the nuances and details, which is one reason why we have
representative government. You have nine people up here who's staying
here 'til 12:00 at night trying to make sure things are right. Even then, it's
hard. The original Motion was to move this back to PTC. I've been on PTC
for two terms as has Council Member Holman. The reason I'm going to
support this Motion, the substitute Motion, instead of the original Motion is
because one thing that's really important for us as Council people—one
reason why I'm trying to be time efficient is that there are a lot of things
that we need to look at. Time we spend on really fine-grained things versus
letting Staff or letting the PTC do takes away from other things. For
instance, we have Item Number 10, which I can only imagine how much
time we're going to give that, if we give it any time tonight, which is a $23
million contract. The City's looking like it's running a deficit this year maybe
of $6 million. $23 million is not a small number to sneeze at. Yet, we spent
a lot of time tonight redoing this item. We could do it again for next week
and the week after, and we could make this even better. We're getting to
the areas of diminishing returns. The more important thing is that Council
time is super valuable. We need the time to look at not just ADUs but a lot
of other items that are also important for us to evaluate. I just want to
make that point. With that said, I would like to make one small
amendment. This is something I think would benefit all of us as Council
people. On PTC, we could utilize them better. Sending this to PTC makes
some sense, but I think we should pass it. My amendment is basically that
PTC does a study session in 6 months that would have two cores of data. I
think we'll get the reports. For us, because we have like a gazillion items
every week, it's not like we're going to look that deeply on it. The PTC does
have time. They could be our watchdog. They could sound the alarm bell if
TRANSCRIPT
Page 102 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
there's issues. One big challenge is when we make decisions. We're trying
to do the best for the community. Everyone here as the community's
interest at heart. We're trying to figure out what is the right Ordinance. It's
really hard because there's not a lot of data. In a quarter or two quarters,
we'll actually have data. The PTC will actually have data, and they'll have
time, unless us on Council, to dig deep and say did we mess up. We
probably messed up something. They'll fix it; they'll tell us what's wrong.
We should try to be a more agile (inaudible). More importantly, as a
Council, if we want to accomplish big things in the community, which I think
we do want to do, we want to use our time efficiently. I want to make a
friendly that hopefully will be accepted, that we in 6 months, in two
quarters, the PTC …
Mayor Scharff: How about what they wrote there? Is that fine to write the
Planning and Transportation Commission?
Council Member Tanaka: There you go.
Mayor Scharff: I accept that.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Yes.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Substitute
Motion, “direct the Planning and Transportation Commission to conduct a
Study Session within six months of the implementation of this Ordinance to
analyze the results of this Ordinance.” (New Part C)
Mayor Scharff: Now, can we vote on the board?
Mr. Lait: No. I'm sorry.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman, did you speak to the main Motion
or not? I can't remember.
Council Member Holman: I was going to offer an amendment, and I've had
my light on for a while.
Mayor Scharff: Go for it.
Council Member Holman: I wanted to restore the language on packet page
38; it's Section 16.2. It is to restore the basement square footage. It's the
struck out space now referring to basements. It says clearly there the
provision is intended to assure that second units are subordinate in size to
the main dwelling and to preclude the development of duplex zoning on the
site.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 103 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: On packet page 16, you want to restore the language where
the crossed out language is. Is that it? On basements.
Council Member Holman: Packet page 38, Section 16. Yes, restore the
basement language that's struck out.
Mr. Lait: We struck that out there because we put it someplace else. Let
me show you where that is.
Council Member Holman: Where is it?
Mr. Lait: It's definitely in the new Ordinance. I just need to find it.
Mayor Scharff: If it's definitely in it, would you take Staff's representation
that it's still there?
Council Member DuBois: I don't see it.
Council Member Holman: Let me ask two questions while you're looking for
that.
Mr. Lait: I've got it. It's in Staff Report page 14, unit size, iii. It says any
basement space used as an accessory dwelling unit or portion thereof shall
be counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of
an accessory dwelling unit.
Council Member Holman: I'm sorry. Where are you reading it?
Council Member Filseth: Packet page 43.
Council Member Holman: Packet page 43?
Mayor Scharff: Second paragraph from the bottom.
Council Member Holman: I don't see it.
Mr. Lait: Do you see it? It's the last sentence under iii, unit size.
Council Member Holman: Yes. Two questions. The last part of this Motion
says find the Ordinance exempt from review under California Environmental
Quality Act. Can Staff explain why? The potential is for 22,000 new ADUs
or JADUs. How can that significant of a change be exempt from significant?
Ms. S. Lee: Thank you, Council Member. State law specifies that adoption
of an Ordinance to implement this Government Code section is exempt
under CEQA. The State Legislature, often when they have items that they
TRANSCRIPT
Page 104 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
are really embracing, like the creation of affordable housing, may create a
special exemption under CEQA. This is such an instance.
Council Member Holman: I understand and know that. We are going
beyond the State requirement. That's why I posed the question.
Ms. S. Lee: It's still an Ordinance that's implementing the requirements of
the Government Code. It would fall under that exemption.
Mr. Lait: Moreover, while we do think there will be a bump of ADUs being
added for a few years or something, we don't expect there's going to be a
huge rush of new ADUs. We're definitely going to see a spike, we think. As
we've seen, our capacity to put ADUs under the previous regulations was a
small percentage. I'm not suggesting this is going to be a small percentage.
We're not expecting a huge turnout. I guess that's why we going to be
doing the quarterly reporting also.
Council Member Holman: I had asked a question earlier about the State law
talks about ADUs are for residential use. How are we going to assure they're
in residential use? How do we know that we're creating new residences?
Mr. Lait: That's what we're permitting.
Council Member Holman: What kind of enforcement will we have to see that
they're used in a residential use?
Mr. Lait: That goes back to the Mayor's comments earlier about
enforcement and how we prioritize and resource our enforcement needs to
other priorities that we have.
Council Member Holman: We're going to do inspections of the properties
that put in new ADUs?
Mr. Lait: No, we're not planning on doing any inspections as a part of
implementation of the Ordinance. If we get complaints that an ADU was
issued and is not being used as an ADU, then that's something we can go
out and investigate.
Council Member Holman: It's complaint-based. Last question. If street
parking becomes an issue in a neighborhood, how will that be proactively
monitored? If we have to put in an additional RPP, how are we going to fund
that? The reasons I ask is because there are a lot of parking implications in
this proposal.
Mr. Lait: The proposal would exempt parking for ADUs. That's a policy
decision that the Council's considering. Where there are crowded streets for
TRANSCRIPT
Page 105 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
street parking, that's not uncommon from other dialog that the Council is
having with respect to other parts of the City. You'll hear about it from the
residents and explore options to address that as it comes up.
Council Member Holman: I appreciate the changes that have been made to
this. There are probably three things that keep me from supporting it. One
of them is the parking issue. I was hoping that the design requirements
would go back in. The setbacks issue. I appreciate the changes that have
been made very much, but those things keep me from being able to support
this.
Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the board.
Mr. Lait: I'm sorry, Mayor. Just a quick clarification. There's two items that
need to be clarified (crosstalk).
Mayor Scharff: Let's clarify. Go ahead.
Mr. Lait: "iv" and "vii." Number iv says clarify that the additional floor area
should be used within the ADU not the primary dwelling unit. Just to be
clear, this is for new ADU construction where you would get this 175 square
feet of additional floor area that would apply to the ADU only in the event
that the site was going over the maximum floor area for the site. That's …
Mayor Scharff: Correct.
Mr. Lait: … a lot more than stipulated there that we'll need to implement.
The same for "vii."
Council Member DuBois: Hang on. For Number iv, it was "C" and "D," right?
There was 50 feet for the JADU.
Mr. Lait: Similar for the JADU as well. Thank you. For Number vii, the
same concept except this is related to lot coverage only in the instance
where an ADU is being added and the existing site is maxed out on lot
coverage.
Mayor Scharff: That's correct.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved,
seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to:
A. Adopt an Ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) including the following
changes; and
TRANSCRIPT
Page 106 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
i. Limit ADUs to lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or more; ADU
conversions and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) would
be exempt from this requirement; and
ii. Direct Staff to explore options to limit parking permits in
Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) districts by lot; and
iii. Allow two story ADUs in the Residential Estate (R-E) District
using existing setbacks; and
iv. Clarify that the additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) should be used
within the ADU, not the primary dwelling unit; and
v. Restore Ordinance language pertaining to doorway orientation;
and
vi. Direct Staff to return with potential Eichler design guidelines
relating to ADUs, including lower height limits; and
vii. Remove Lot Coverage requirements for new ADUs on properties
that are no smaller than 10 percent smaller than standard lot
sizes including those which are standard or larger; and
B. Direct Staff to report back to Council on a quarterly basis; and
C. Direct the Planning and Transportation Commission to conduct a Study
Session within six months of the implementation of this Ordinance to
analyze the results of this Ordinance; and
D. Find the Ordinance exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the board. Council Member Kou, what
would you like your vote to be?
Council Member Kou: It's a no.
Mayor Scharff: It's a no. It passes on a 7-2 vote with Council Member
Holman and Council Member Kou voting no. Thank you very much.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Kou no
Mr. Keene: Mr. Mayor, are we ready for the next item?
Mayor Scharff: Yes. First of all, the next item is the sludge—what is it?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 107 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mr. Keene: The sludge dewatering contract.
Mayor Scharff: The sludge dewatering contract.
Mr. Keene: We still have the Staff here on the VTA item.
Mayor Scharff: My sense is I would like a Motion to put off the VTA item to a
date uncertain. You want to do the VTA? We'll do the VTA item. I'm willing
to do it.
Council Member DuBois: I would second that Motion.
Mr. Keene: Just so we're clear, the VTA Board will be meeting on May 4th.
Mayor Scharff: Let's do the VTA item too. On the sludge item, this would
normally be a Consent Calendar item. If you have issues with it, let's say it,
but don't feel you have to talk to it. The only reason it's not a Consent item
is because of the dollar amount.
Mr. Keene: We have about a 4-minute presentation.
Council Member DuBois: Mr. Mayor, can we discuss the VTA item? It's
midnight. It's a big item. I really don't think we should hear it tonight.
Mayor Scharff: No. Tom, I—just wait. They want to hear it tonight. We're
going to hear it tonight.
At this time Council heard Agenda Item Number 10.
10. Approval of a Construction Contract With C. Overaa & Co. in the Total
Amount of $22,867,900 and a Construction Management Contract With
Tanner Pacific in the Total Amount of $1,980,000 for the Sludge
Dewatering and Loadout Facility Project (WQ-14001) at the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant, and Resolution 9675 Entitled, “Resolution
of the Council of the City of Palo Alto: 1) Authorizing an Installment
Sale Agreement With the California State Water Resources Control
Board for Financing the Design and Construction of the Sludge
Dewatering and Loadout Facility; and 2) Authorizing the Amendment
of two Related Financing Agreements With the California State Water
Resources Control Board.”
James Keene, City Manager: Very quickly, this is time sensitive also.
Phil Bobel, Public Works Assistant Director: Phil Bobel, Public Works. Jamie
Allen, our Plant Manager for the sewage treatment plant that's owned and
operated by Palo Alto for six partner agencies, is going to do a brief
TRANSCRIPT
Page 108 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
presentation for us. We have Padam, our Senior Engineer, here as well.
Jamie.
James Allen, Water Quality Control Plant Manager: Good evening, Council.
I'm going to ask you to approve construction and construction management
contracts to build a sludge dewatering and truck loadout facility, allowing us
to retire the sewage sludge incinerators, which have been in service since
1972. We're also asking you to approve financing for a 30-year loan, $30
million, a low-interest State loan that includes a $4 million principal
forgiveness for greenhouse gas reductions, about 12,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent. This is what the facility for $30 million will look.
This is a photo image of our plant entrance. This is the timeline. We started
public outreach in 2010 with multiple workshops. This Council accepted our
long-range plan in 2012 and directed us to retire the incinerators as soon as
possible. We then worked on a Biosolids Facilities Plan. In 2014, we
completed that and brought that before Council. This Council directed us to
initiate design and apply for the State loan in May 2014. In March of last
year, this Council approved environmental documentation, and we
completed the design a month later. We then began working on financing.
Completing the financing and getting our partner agencies to approve, this
Council approved that in October of 2016. We then bid the contract to
construction contractors in November, received three bids in February of
2017. We're bringing before you tonight the approval of the construction
contract, the construction management services, and the loan, which has
been now finalized. We're going to be working on an RFP later in the year
for the sludge hauling contract and plan to bring that before you in the
middle of next year for the sludge hauling services contract and the final
treatment of that at a regional treatment facility. We estimate construction
to take 2 years. After construction is complete, the first loan payment to the
State would be due in March 2020. This is the construction estimate. You
can see that it's $30 million with the principal forgiveness for the
environmental benefits. The State is granting us 4 million principal
forgiveness; this is like a grant. That's good news for us and our ratepayers
and our partners. Speaking of the partners, this is the share. Palo Alto and
Mountain View have equal shares, about 38 percent; it's about three-
quarters. Los Altos has 9 percent, East Palo Alto Sanitary District is about 7,
Stanford about 5, Los Altos Hills just under 2 percent. To summarize the
recommendations is the last slide. Asking you to approve construction
contract with C. Overaa Company in the amount of $20,789,000, authorize
10 percent for change order authorization, approve a construction
management contract with Tanner Pacific Incorporated in the amount of
1.98 million, and then approve the Resolution authorizing the loan
agreement with the State and also approving amendments to former State
TRANSCRIPT
Page 109 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
loans to make them compliant with State policy regarding parity and
subordination to prior '95 and '99 revenue bonds. That's my presentation.
Mayor Scharff: Do we have any public speakers? No. In that case, we'll
return to Council. I'll move the Staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Second.
MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to:
A. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a
contract with C. Overaa & Co. in an amount not to exceed
$20,789,000 for construction of the Sludge Dewatering and Loadout
Facility at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant funded in Capital
Improvement Program project WQ-14001; and
B. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate
and execute one or more change orders to the contract with C. Overaa
& Co. for related additional, but unforeseen work, which may develop
during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed
$2,078,900; and
C. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
contract with Tanner Pacific in an amount not to exceed $1,980,000
for construction management services, including $1,800,000 for basic
services and $180,000 for potential additional services for the Sludge
Dewatering and Loadout Facility at the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant funded in Capital Improvement Program project WQ-14001; and
D. Adopt a Resolution authorizing an Installment Sale Agreement in an
amount not to exceed $30,000,000 with the California State Water
Resources Control Board for financing the design and construction of
the Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility, and authorizing the
amendment of two related financing agreements with the California
State Water Resources Control Board.
Mayor Scharff: I don't need to speak to this other than to say that we really
need to move forward with this. We've been working on this for a long time.
Appreciate all the Staff work. Council Member Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I'm going to be a little more lighthearted at this hour.
KPIX is just waiting to hear what the vote is so they can get it on the air.
They're very excited about our sludge plant. Believe it or not.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 110 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member Filseth: A quick question. Tanner Pacific, I think, is not the
construction management for the Mitchell Park Library. Was that Turner,
and it's different?
Mr. Bobel: That's right. It was Turner.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Tanaka.
Council Member Tanaka: I'm not a sludge expert, so I just wanted to get
some enlightenment here. Why does Palo Alto did to revamp our sludge
water management system?
Mr. Allen: It's been in operation since 1972, continuous operation. It's very
old. The electrical/mechanical systems will not continue to work without
major replacement. When we did the Biosolids Facilities Plan, we focused on
what's the next best option for the next 50 years. This was the best option
going forward. That was what we brought before Council in May 2014. This
was the component that we were directed to begin designing.
Mr. Bobel: Another aspect of it is that the air pollution control regulations
are getting tighter and tighter. This old incinerator is just not going to keep
up with those air pollution control requirements without continued major
investment.
Mr. Keene: Aren't we the last of two incinerators in the state?
Mr. Bobel: That's right.
Council Member Tanaka: It's something we need to keep it going?
Mr. Keene: Mm hmm.
Mr. Allen: We need to keep it going over the next 2 years while we're
building the new system.
Council Member Tanaka: How were the other bids on this?
Mr. Allen: This was 21 million. There was a bid of 22 million and 23 million.
Council Member Tanaka: We took the lowest bid.
Mr. Allen: Correct.
Council Member Tanaka: Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 111 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member Fine: Just really quickly. Thank you very much for bringing
this forward. I'm sorry we are going quickly here. You do deserve more
time for all this hard work. You brought it to PTC. We looked at it there. It
was a great project. I'm happy to support it.
Mayor Scharff: Seeing no further lights, if we could vote on the board. That
passes unanimously. Thanks for staying, Phil. I'm sorry we took so long to
get to the item.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
9. Review the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Next Network
Initiative Final Plan and the Draft Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan and
Direct Staff to Pursue Funding From VTA to Backfill Service Reductions
With Local Shuttle Service.
Mayor Scharff: Now, I'm going to call the next item, which is Item Number
11—9. It's Item 9. When Staff does their presentation, if they could break
out what's time sensitive on this item and what's not in case Council wants
to act on part of it and come back and talk about it later. VTA now, shuttle
later. That's what I had in mind, if possible.
Josh Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Good morning, Mayor, members of
Council. I'm Josh Mello; I'm the Chief Transportation Official with the City of
Palo Alto. I'm joined this evening to my right by Philip Kamhi, our
Transportation Programs Manager, and Steve Crosley, who is from the
consulting firm Nelson/Nygaard. Steve works in the Seattle office, but he
actually grew up in Palo Alto, went to Ohlone, JLS, and Gunn. He's staying
with his dad this evening, I believe. I'll go very quickly through the
presentation in the interest of time, and then just touch on the high points of
this. Tonight we're here to talk to you about two items. The first is the final
VTA transit service plan. The second is our Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan.
Long story short, we started work on a Transit Vision Plan to re-envision the
City of Palo Alto's free shuttle about a year and a half ago—a year ago,
sorry. We put this on hold while VTA began work on restructuring its bus
network. Our goal was to try to coordinate with VTA and come up with
something in our shuttle plan that worked in a coordinated fashion with
VTA's ultimate and final plan. We had to basically wait while VTA moved
forward with its final plan before we could finalize our shuttle service plan.
The real reason we're before you tonight and why we couldn't push this out
is because the VTA Board is actually meeting on May 4th to approve the cuts
to bus service, which we talked to you about, I believe, back in January of
this year. They are still recommending cutting the 88 route. They have
added back in the 89 since we last visited you. Other than that, they
TRANSCRIPT
Page 112 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
haven't made any modifications to the draft that I brought before you last.
This is an illustration of the current coverage from VTA on the left and our
proposed coverage under the final plan, which is on the right. They have
backed off on cuts slightly since I last came before you. They've gone from
a 85/15 split to an 83/17 split. They've added back in the 89 which
connects California Ave. Caltrain station to the Research Park and VA
Hospital. Big picture, they're cutting the 88. They are boosting service on
the 522 and the 22 and along El Camino. As I said, they've added back in
the 89. Another concern is some of our residents will be pushed from the $4
paratransit zone to the $16 paratransit zone. They'll see an increase in cost.
The 88 that's being reduced dramatically currently runs from Gunn High
School and the PA Veterans Hospital over to the Midtown area by using three
different routes. They are recommending cutting the daytime service on
that route and replacing it with a school-only run. This school-only run will
run towards Gunn in the morning and then away from Gunn in the evening.
They have added in a second afternoon run at our request since the draft
plan was released. Steve is going to go very quickly through the Transit
Vision Plan.
Steve Crosley, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates: Thank you, members
of Council and Mayor. I will be running briefly through the Transit Vision
Plan. Just briefly, we have two routes currently operating. You see the
crosstown route and the Embarcadero route. The crosstown route is 100
percent funded by the City. It travels from Downtown Palo Alto all the way
over to JLS and that general area over there by Mitchell Park. It currently
operates just Monday through Friday, basically from about 8:00 a.m. to
about 5:30 p.m. The other existing route in the City currently is the
Embarcadero route, and that is currently funded—over half of the funding is
provided by the City. It used to be 75 percent funded by Caltrain and 25
percent funded by the City but is now over half funded by the City. It also
operates Monday through Friday. It's mostly a peak period type shuttle to
provide first mile and last mile connectivity from the Palo Alto Caltrain
station. Those are the two routes. The East Palo Alto route was canceled at
the request of East Palo Alto. That is no longer operated by the City of Palo
Alto. There are just two routes, just to give a brief overview. What we were
looking at when we were putting together this Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan.
We did begin, as Josh said, back in 2015. That began with a community
survey. The Plan itself came out in March, but then we actually paused
while we watched the VTA Next Network come to fruition. One of the key
considerations that we had for this Plan is to understand where there were
coverage gaps within the City, where an individual within the City of Palo
Alto, whether you are a resident or an employee or visitor, how accessible
public transit would be to you within the City. The analysis that we
conducted for this included VTA routes and included the Palo Alto shuttle,
TRANSCRIPT
Page 113 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
included Stanford Marguerite, basically any fixed-route transit easily
accessible on a Monday through Friday with a 30-minute or 60-minute
frequency or better. We found that using what we call a network analyst to
understand how you can have, from an actual stop location, access within a
quarter mile from a transit stop. We found that about 74 percent of Palo
Alto residents are currently accessible within about a quarter mile of a
transit stop. Again, that's inclusive of all the typical services that are
operating within Palo Alto. That was a key driver for the Palo Alto Transit
Vision. I just wanted to remind you, we actually came up with goals for that
Vision. The goals were to provide convenient and accessible transit as well
as frequent and reliable transit. Another piece we had been looking at was
better branding of the Palo Alto shuttle system, and so visibility and ease of
use. I just want to point out that we are focusing on a coverage-based
system, also a system that provides better frequency, and then
understanding what was happening with the VTA pulling back some of their
service, why we paused and why we're here today with a revised Plan. I
wanted to highlight all the engagement that went on for the Palo Alto Transit
Vision and highlight some of those goals. We started the outreach in, I
believe, September 2015. We had an online survey that went on through
December. Almost 2,000 respondents, almost 2,000 individuals, either
residents and/or workers within the City of Palo Alto responded to that. We
had community meetings in March 2016. In addition to this online survey,
the City also did targeted outreach at senior centers to both get better
survey results, paper surveys, as well as to engage the community and
figure out what their needs are. There's also Facebook postings, recorded
comments from Facebook as well as other posts within the City's website
and through emails. Through the survey, not surprisingly, we did find that
the number one request from individuals who filled out the survey was buses
that come more often. Frequency is typically the most important factor and
also coverage, having buses that are closer to your origin or destination.
Not surprising, results did focus on those areas that are frequent and reliable
and also convenient and accessible. I wanted to point out, during the
community survey, some of the key themes that we were understanding
throughout the process. We're really focusing transit service for seniors,
focusing transit service for students. Those individuals are more likely to not
be able to drive or choose not to drive. Caltrain commuters are another key
theme for providing access to. Those find transit access since people
arriving on Caltrain or people leaving on Caltrain are captive users; we know
where they're going. To be able to get them to and from Caltrain and to
their destination, that first mile/last mile connection is important as well as
the employees that you see up there. Also, extending the hours of the Palo
Alto shuttle. Currently it's just Monday through Friday. It's just during the
typical periods of about 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. As we showed in an earlier slide,
there were gaps in coverage. Barron Park was basically no coverage. There
TRANSCRIPT
Page 114 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
were some gaps in Old Town Palo Alto as well. The other piece that we were
looking at—again, a separate piece of this project—would be a marketing
and rebranding study for the Palo Alto shuttle, which is also another factor.
The community meetings that were held were actually held in March when
we released the initial draft of this first Plan. That was just about the same
time that VTA was just about to come out with their draft plan. We had two
community meetings in March. One was focused on the daytime. We had
about 40 individuals show up to that meeting. In the evening meeting, we
had about 20 individuals show up. The afternoon meeting was well
attended. We engaged them, the individuals. We had boards. We actually
had people be able to post Post-It notes and mark up the routes themselves.
I was there. That's a picture of me up there talking about the different
routes and engage with the community to understand how they felt about
the service. I had a little anecdote that I told Josh. One of the individuals
came up to me and said, "I'm 85 years old. As a man, I should have been
on average dead 4 years ago. When can I get these new shuttle routes up
and running?" We had really great feedback from individuals at these
meetings. What I was trying to get to is that everyone wants better access
and better transit service within Palo Alto. Unfortunately, VTA is pulling
some of that back, and that's what we're going to get to next, how we can
backfill some of those holes. With the community survey, we did have key
destinations. Again, this was self-reported key destinations. Some of them
are probably a little more prominent, as you can see, Downtown Palo Alto,
up in Page Mill and the Stanford Research Park. You can see Gunn High
School and JLS are key destinations. We know key destinations within the
City generally revolve around major trip generators which would be
Downtown, the transit centers, etc. Now, I just want to go quickly through
the route recommendations. There are fewer than there were in March
2016. Again, this is really to add in additional coverage, not to be
duplicative with VTA, and to essentially enhance the overall transit coverage
for residents and employees within the City of Palo Alto. We're going to talk
first about the new south Palo Alto concept route, since this would
essentially backfill the cut that VTA would be making to the 88. As Josh
mentioned, the 88 is going to a school trip only service. You're only going to
have three runs in the morning and four runs in the afternoon, which
essentially does not make it accessible to the general public. This route
would cover that piece of the 88 that is being eliminated. It would also
enhance coverage to south Palo Alto by providing access to the California
Avenue shopping area and California Avenue Caltrain station. The current
88 does not go that far north or to the west. This route would also provide
access to Midtown. What the 88 does not do today this route would actually
provide access to key trip generators for residents of south Palo Alto. It
would also travel up Arastradero and terminate at Gunn High School and the
VA, still providing that accessibility to students and anyone else traveling to
TRANSCRIPT
Page 115 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
and from the VA or Gunn High School. The crosstown is an existing route,
as we mentioned. The crosstown, we have two different concepts for this,
that we developed with Staff. One would be the Variant B that you're seeing
up there. That is the Staff-preferred variant because that would overlap
with the VTA brand new Route 21. That would provide 15-minute service
under this concept along Middlefield all day long. As we were talking
internally, the concept here is by having high frequency service on El
Camino and then high frequency service on Middlefield, to and from
Downtown and also key trip generators to the south part of Palo Alto, this
concept would provide good accessibility along Middlefield and along El
Camino, two streets that can handle higher frequency transit throughout the
City and throughout the major portions of the City of Palo Alto. What this
variant does not do in terms of the current route is it didn't deviate down—
does not go to the Main Library. It has a few deviations. We also have
another crosstown variant for an extension of the existing crosstown route.
As you can see, the existing route is in the solid line, and the extensions that
we are proposing would be in the dashed. It would provide better access to
the Stanford Medical Center over in the northwest portion of the City. In the
southeastern portion of the City actually deviate down to hit the (inaudible)
residences and the JCC before traveling up San Antonio and providing access
to the San Antonio Caltrain station as well as shopping over in the Mountain
View area where the Walmart is and the Target is. This was actually a
request of a lot of the folks that we saw at these meetings. A lot of the
seniors want better access to shopping in some of these big box retail areas.
This was a logical extension of this route including access to Caltrain. The
other route extension that we are considering also for the Council to
consider is an extension of the Embarcadero. Currently the Embarcadero
route is actually funded more than half by the City of Palo Alto. The
Marguerite shuttle currently goes into the Baylands area. This concept
would actually extend the Embarcadero route down West Bayshore and then
East Bayshore. This will provide access all along the businesses along West
Bayshore. It would actually improve transit access in that portion of the
City, also providing access to JCC. What this also does is provide access to
the Municipal Services Center, currently an area of City employees that do
not have Go Passes. This would also provide better access for City
employees from Caltrain and provide a car-free access to those City facilities
that are not in the City Hall area. Again, as you can see, there's a slight
deviation. I think it's on Greer Road. That would provide access over to the
Greer Park area as well. Areas of the City that currently do not have transit
coverage, this extension would provide. One comparison that we did as we
developed these routes and these route concepts. We wanted to see how
the transit access within the City of Palo Alto would change based upon
these route concepts, based upon what VTA was considering. Earlier on, we
mentioned that with the current VTA routes, with the current Palo Alto
TRANSCRIPT
Page 116 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
shuttle, about 74 percent of City residents have access to transit within a
quarter mile. With the VTA Next Network changes and no changes to the
Palo Alto system, this would actually decrease to about 61 percent. You can
see just how much the VTA coverage would actually decrease overall
coverage for Palo Alto residents. If you factored in the route extensions as
well as the south Palo Alto route for the Palo Alto shuttle, that would actually
go back up to 77 percent. You can see that there is a significant increase
above that 61 percent coverage to get above 75 percent, which is the goal
for the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. Here is the final map of that
77 percent coverage up there. I'm going to hand it back to Josh to talk
about the resource impacts.
Mr. Mello: Thanks, Steve. Currently, we spend about $534,000 to operate
our shuttle. Of that, about 117,000 is covered by Caltrain for the
Embarcadero shuttle. Our proposed enhanced service annual cost—this is
total for the whole program. If we were to do a moderate increase including
the new south Palo Alto route, we would be spending about $1.8 million in
order to operate the whole program. If we were to go with the
recommended full service, which includes a lot more frequent service as well
as a larger span of service during the weekday and on the weekends, costs
could approach $3.4 million. Not all of this would be City funding, of course.
We'd seek grant opportunities. We hopefully would be able to leverage
some of our TIF funding and other transportation funding sources. That
Caltrain contribution of 117,000 would still likely remain static. With that,
our Staff recommendation this evening is Council review the Valley
Transportation Authority's Next Network Initiative final plan, which is
scheduled for the VTA Board meeting vote in May; review the draft Palo Alto
Shuttle Vision Plan; and direct Staff to pursue VTA funding to backfill
planned reductions in bus service with local shuttle service; and direct Staff
to develop a finance and implementation plan for the future extension of the
crosstown, Embarcadero shuttle and also come back to you with a branding
and marketing strategy for the shuttle. We really think the shuttle brand
needs updating and modernization. We'd like to come back to you with
some options for updating the branding and the marketing. With that, that
concludes our presentation.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, we have several speakers from the public.
You'll each have 3 minutes, the first people today to get 3 minutes. Penny
Ellson to be followed by Peter Taskovich.
Penny Ellson: Good morning. I'm Penny Ellson representing Gunn High
School PTSA. I'll be summarizing a letter you should have received earlier
today. The Gunn PTSA asks you to please support Staff's recommendation.
They thank Staff for the good work, the thoughtful work that they did in
TRANSCRIPT
Page 117 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
response to VTA's final plan. Please direct Staff to pursue VTA funding to
backfill planned reductions in bus service, VTA 88 particularly, with City
shuttle service; and direct them to develop a finance and implementation
plan for possible future extension of the existing shuttle routes. The PTSA
plans to advocate in support of Staff's effort to pursue VTA funding. Though
the majority of Gunn students walk or bike to school, cuts to the VTA 88 L
and M will affect approximately 100 Gunn students per day who use this
service for their school commutes. The 88 lines are an important part of
Gunn's alternative commute mix. The 88 bus lines will be replaced by 288,
288 L and 288 M, which will each run only once in the morning and once in
the afternoon with one extra afternoon run proposed one line. A recent
student survey made it clear that this change will have devastating effect on
the ability of students to commute to school by bus. 67 percent of survey
respondents indicated they'd be less likely to ride the bus if the 288 proposal
were implemented. High school students need flexibility to come and go
throughout the day for jobs and extracurricular activities. Their ability to
ride the bus in the morning depends on its ability to get them home later in
the day. The proposed south Palo Alto shuttle will satisfy this need,
preferably at a frequency of at least 30-minute service. VTA's offer of one
bus on one route at a later time of day will be inadequate to meet this need.
We hope Palo Alto and VTA will be careful to ensure that the free shuttle
does not cannibalize the paid VTA 288 school tripper service. An option to
consider might be for Palo Alto, Gunn High School—using existing VTA pass
subsidies from Gunn parking permit revenues—and the VTA to collaborate
on making this combined service free. The combination of a frequent south
Palo Alto shuttle and a VTA school tripper service would allow VTA a fourth
afternoon run. It's not only a school bus we want to remind you. It also
serves hundreds of affordable senior apartments and services for disabled at
Abilities United, Cubberley, and VA Hospital. We were surprised when we
had our PTSA conversations to learn that many of the grandparents—there
were kids with grandparents at the table in our conversation who were at
Stevenson House and places like that. This is about families. It's about
keeping people connected, not just to the schools but keeping the whole
community working together. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you.
Ms. Ellson: Thank you for staying so late.
Mayor Scharff: No, thank you for staying so late. Peter Taskovich.
Peter Taskovich: Hello. My name's Peter Taskovich, and I'm the Chair of
the Palo Alto Neighborhood organization transportation committee. They
asked me to speak to you today about the transit plan and the Next
TRANSCRIPT
Page 118 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Network. One thing I wanted to bring out is one thing I learned from Jared
Walker, the consultant who was doing the Next Network for VTA. He made a
very salient point. Headways, anything more than 30 minutes is ineffective.
Any bus routes you adopt should have a headway, a frequency of 30
minutes or less to be successful. Keep that in mind. First, let me talk
quickly about the VTA. Sadly, they're cutting back the 88. They're replacing
Route 35 with Route 21. It's going to have 30-minute headways on
weekdays. On weekends, it's going to have 45 minutes on Saturdays, 60
minutes on Sundays, which is what they have now. I have to remind you
when VTA first started—that was Route 23 and 35—it was 30-minute
headways all week long, weekdays, weekends too. One of the initiatives of
Next Network is to increase weekend headways to help service workers who
work in retail and restaurants. Route 21 serves Stanford Shopping Center
and Downtown. That'll be a great route to increase the objective of VTA of
30-minute headways on weekends. I'd like to recommend that the Council
recommends to VTA that they increase the proposed headways for Route 21
on weekends from 45 minutes and 60 minutes to 30 minutes both on
Saturday and Sunday. Going to the proposed routes of the Palo Alto shuttle,
they're very good. We recommend crosstown Variant A over Variant B.
Also, on the new south Palo Alto route, one thing we would recommend is—
right now it goes directly into Cal. Avenue from Oregon Expressway, which
might be great for commute. Once the business hours start, it'd be really
helpful for the shuttle to go down California Avenue to El Camino, make a
right on El Camino, and then up Page Mill. The reason for that is it will
connect then to the VTA 522 and the 22 route. Right now, how it's
proposed, the south Palo Alto shuttle does not connect at Cal. Avenue or at
Page Mill to the VTA 522, which stop is at California Avenue. The 522 has
infrequent stops. That would make it more practical for that route. One
quick more thing. You might want to consider during peak hours to extend
the south Palo Alto route from VA Hospital to go up Hillview and Arastradero
to service the Stanford Research Park only for peak hour trips there. Thank
you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Adina Levin.
Adina Levin: Good morning, Council Members. Adina Levin representing
Friends of Caltrain, myself as a transit user, and the community of zombies
at this point. Thank you very much for the advocacy with VTA to keep the
35 which got changed to the 21 and the 89 and then the good
recommendation to have local shuttle service replacing the 88 and some of
the thoughtful improvements in the shuttle plan. With regard to the
crosstown shuttle, I would urge you to consider Variant B which would
interleave with the 21 to give 15-minute service. One of the things that the
survey called for—people were saying they want frequent service.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 119 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Something that has every 15-minute service is more than twice as useful
than every 30 minutes. That's really at that basic level that if you want to
go from the Mitchell Park Library Downtown and something is going to show
up every 15 minutes, you have on the app, it's in 5 minutes from now, that
means you can show up and go. I would strongly recommend that for the
frequency benefits. VTA is having a Board workshop on Friday at 9:00. I
looked at that staff report. There was something I think the City Council is
going to be very interested in, which is the recommendations for Measure B
Caltrain grade separations. They have recommendation to only fund
projects that will keep the tracks at grade level, and a full overpass or a full
underpass. I've been following this pretty closely, and this seems to have
come out of nowhere. Their rationale was for it to be cost effective. In
grade separation projects up and down the corridor including San Mateo
County, the full overpass and full underpass were often less cost effective
than some of the other alternatives including property taking consequences
and bike/ped consequences. This is a bizarre recommendation; it doesn't
seem to make very much sense and doesn't seem to be in line with what the
City of Palo Alto is looking for. That Board workshop on Friday morning may
be something that Palo Alto would be concerned about. Another issue with
regard to the Measure B funding is there is a proposal to use Measure B
funding for bus operations to add weekend and evening service. As was
mentioned for the 21 route, that would be a logical item for that. Lastly,
VTA is talking with its fare policy committee to work to have free VTA to VTA
transfers. There are significant broader opportunities to have more
seamless fares that could help the Palo Alto TMA and the employers. This is
something that Palo Alto may be interested in supporting beyond that initial
first step. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Meg Minto. Is Meg here? Stephanie Munoz.
Stephanie Munoz: I hope I can be helpful to you at this late hour. Because
I recently had my driver's license suspended—not my fault. I want to say
that Palo Alto has spent a lot of time trying to make people get out of their
cars. It seems to me there's a lot of stick and no carrot. You haven't done
anything to make it easier for people to live someplace and not have a car.
I think you should do that. I think there should be one place in town on El
Camino and on the 22 where people could live. The cost of living there
would be much lower because of less space and no car housing. A car takes
up 100 square feet. That's the first thing. The second thing is I think you
could add some smaller buses to use during the part of the day in which a
route doesn't have very many passengers. Over time, you'd save a bit of
money. The third thing is the people who ride the buses aren't necessarily
the same people that you're reaching with the internet and with the—I've
never done social media. I have a lot of trouble getting back to my inbox. I
TRANSCRIPT
Page 120 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
wouldn't be affected by a survey on the internet at all. Most older people
are kind of like that. Your shuttle is really good. You might consider
something to work with the medical offices, which generate lots of traffic and
need lots of parking. May I go on? It's just a tiny bit.
Mayor Scharff: Okay, 5 seconds.
Ms. Munoz: You could have a shuttle for PAMF. Monday mornings they
could go to East Palo Alto. Tuesday mornings they could go to north Palo
Alto. Wednesday mornings they can go to west—you get the idea. The
doctors would have to make their appointments according to where the
people live, but why couldn't they? You could fill a shuttle with people pretty
efficiently. The other thing is …
Mayor Scharff: Thank you very much.
Ms. Munoz: There's no trip plan. When you call in, you can't find a place to
tell you how to get from here to there and in what time you can do it. If I
can master the internet, I'll write a letter.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, we return to Council. I guess I just
wanted to ask Staff—it looked to me like you were looking for three things.
You wanted us to comment on the Authority's Next Network Initiative plan,
which is going before their Board on Wednesday. I think that's what I
heard, or whenever it is.
Mr. Mello: Receive and review the Next Network Plan. We're actually
looking for you to reach out to the VTA Board between now and May 4th as
we do so on the Staff side, and try to line up funding to jointly operate this
new south Palo Alto route.
Mayor Scharff: We don't need a Motion on that, right? What you're really
looking for is us to reach out and ask them to help fund stuff. You're also
looking for a separate Motion to direct Staff to ask VTA to fund backfill of the
planned reduction in bus service with local shuttle service. Then, it's late.
I'm going to ask this question tactfully. There's a lot of stuff we could talk
about in directing Staff to develop a financing and implementation plan.
Could we continue that? Is that time sensitive or is that something we could
continue for a more robust discussion at …
Mr. Mello: You could just direct us to continue to work on these two route
recommendations. We just need to get some direction from you to move
forward on these and the branding as well.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 121 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
James Keene, City Manager: I think that's worthwhile just at that level.
There are interconnections with your directive in pursuing VTA funding.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: A couple of quick questions. How many residents
today are within a quarter mile of transit that has 15-minute headways?
Mr. Mello: That would really only be the residents along El Camino. The
other routes run at 30-minute headways.
Council Member DuBois: I'd need to understand the impact on students.
The VTA report showed very few students going outside these certain times
that they're going to run their routes. When you talk about getting funding
from the VTA to backfill, is it backfill specifically the routes to the schools?
Mr. Mello: VTA is eliminating the 88 route, which runs at 30-60 minute
headways all day long currently during the week. They're replacing that
with the 288, which would have three buses running towards Gunn in the
morning from different locations in Midtown. There's three different routes.
They would all converge at Gunn, drop the students off. Those three buses
would leave Gunn at dismissal time and distribute the students through the
Midtown area. That would be followed by one bus that would leave after
extracurricular activities in the late afternoon and drop the students off in
the Midtown area. Our route would fill in the shoulder periods during the
middle of the day, the late evening as well as weekends.
Council Member DuBois: I'm looking at the VTA report on 7 and 8. They
seemed to respond to our request for that. They're showing 1.4 of a
boarding at 11:00 a.m. It seemed like a reasonable response. I'm trying to
understand are we going to fill in all of these routes where it shows very few
students actually using the bus.
Mr. Mello: I'm not sure which routes you're—they're only cutting one route,
the 88.
Council Member DuBois: I'm looking at this—what is this document? It was
the attachment we got. On page 7 and 8, they show analysis of the route to
Gunn High School.
Mr. Mello: Their argument is that the route is only used during the peak
periods when school is starting and ending. Penny can speak to this as well.
The students need to have the confidence that they can leave midday and
take the bus or stay late for not just one but two extracurricular activities or
to socialize with their friends and still be able to rely on the bus. If they
TRANSCRIPT
Page 122 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
can't do that, then they're not going to take it at all. We actually think the
ridership could go up if we were to supplement their 288 with the south Palo
Alto route, which would actually do several other things besides just replace
the service to Gunn High School.
Council Member DuBois: That's what I'm trying to get to. To Council
Member Scharff's question—Mayor Scharff's question, if there's a time
sensitive piece to replace the route and go for funding, I'd be supportive of
that. I think we need a much fuller discussion about whether fixed route
buses make sense for extended routes. Before we go into that full
discussion, I'd like to understand. Maybe we could continue the discussion
about expansion of the Palo Alto free shuttle but tonight pass seeking VTA
funding to backfill the Gunn High School route.
Mr. Mello: We were hoping to have a more lengthy conversation this
evening. Of course, given the items before, we didn't have that opportunity.
Tonight the most urgent issue is working with you and working with the VTA
staff and others to secure some type of bridge funding or immediate
Measure B funding to help operate this south Palo Alto route.
Council Member DuBois: It's nearly 1:00 a.m. I'll try to make a Motion
maybe. I'd direct Staff to pursue VTA funding to backfill planned reductions
in bus service with local shuttle service, and we continue the discussion for
the Palo Alto free shuttle to a date uncertain.
Mayor Scharff: I'll second that.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to:
A. Direct Staff to pursue Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) funding to
backfill planned reductions in bus service with local shuttle service;
and
B. Continue discussion of the Palo Alto Free Shuttle to a date uncertain.
Council Member DuBois: I don't know if I need to speak to it. I'm tired and
want to go home.
Mr. Keene: We're entirely supportive of the Motion.
Mayor Scharff: I'm not going to speak to it. Council Member Tanaka.
Council Member Tanaka: I was going to make a suggestion about the south
Palo Alto Variant A route. I don't know whether, given the Motion on the
floor, that means we should do that next time or what.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 123 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Mayor Scharff: I think so. Maybe we can do it next time. Council Member
Filseth.
Council Member Filseth: I don't want to drag this out, but I want to ask an
out of the box question on the south Palo Alto route and Route 88, 288. I
was struck when VTA was here before that our costs of operation per
passenger mile are substantially lower than VTA's. The current status of 88
and 288 was they wanted to get rid of it. We beat them up into maintaining
routes to Gunn and so forth. Should we consider just asking them for the
money for 88, 288 and just running the whole thing ourselves and not doing
this hybrid thing? Is that something we should even think about?
Mr. Mello: We need the capacity of their buses for the school runs. That
second afternoon run, we've actually asked them whether they would just
give us the money for that second afternoon run. That's only picking up
some stragglers; it's not a full bus. One of our shuttles could handle that
feasibly. That's an argument that we've made.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Nope. Council Member Kou.
Council Member Kou: I just want to clarify. They cut the 88 which actually
services a lot of the seniors, etc. What were you going to do to
complement—to replace it with?
Mr. Mello: Our proposed south Palo Alto route serves the exact same streets
that the 88 does, but it further extends to the Cal. Ave. Caltrain station,
which provides connectivity that 88 doesn't do today.
Council Member Kou: Which one is this one here?
Mr. Mello: It's south Palo Alto Variant A in your presentation, immediately
following the route recommendation slide.
Council Member Kou: How about paratransit?
Mr. Mello: We don't currently operate paratransit. Our buses are
handicapped accessible, but they don't deviate. Some of our residents will
see negative impacts as far as paratransit. With the cuts to VTA service,
they'll go from the $4 standard service area to a $16 extended service area.
That's primarily residents along U.S. 101 who are no longer going to be in
proximity. The residents along Charleston-Arastradero, when the 288 is not
running, will have to take extended service paratransit trips.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 124 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member Kou: Is the City going to plan on trying to supplement that
paratransit by something that we're going to do, like having Uber or Lyft
available to the …
Mr. Mello: I think that's a pretty complicated discussion because there are
specific parameters around paratransit service.
Council Member Kou: Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Just quickly. When you're seeking funding from
VTA, can you also seek funding to subsidize the difference between the
current paratransit rate and the new paratransit rate?
Mr. Mello: The Board is also going to be making the paratransit decision on
May 4th. We have argued all along that the service area for paratransit
should stay static despite the reduction in fixed route service. We'd also rely
on you to make that point when you reach out to other elected officials and
Board Members, that the paratransit service area should really remain static.
They shouldn't penalize people because their particular fixed route is being
reduced or eliminated.
Mayor Scharff: Seeing no further lights, if we could vote on the board. That
passes unanimously.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
11. Discuss the Draft 2017-2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP)
and Direct Staff on Next Steps.
12. Annual Earth Day and Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP)
Update.
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
None.
City Manager Comments
Mayor Scharff: We're now at Council Member Comments. I think we can
pass on the City Manager Comments.
Vice Mayor Kniss: No, no, no. I think we need a quick song. [Vice Mayor
Kniss sang Happy Birthday.] Could you join in? [The Council sang Happy
Birthday to Council Member Fine.]
TRANSCRIPT
Page 125 of 125
City Council Meeting
Transcript: 4/17/17
Council Member Fine: Thank you. It was a pleasure spending it with all of
you.
Mayor Scharff: Adrian, it does look like you've aged an entire year in this
meeting.
James Keene, City Manager: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Scharff: Yes.
Mr. Keene: I was going to report some preliminary info on the budget we
will release next week. I'm just going to send it in writing to the City Council
email. Thank you.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Mayor Scharff: Meeting's adjourned.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:59 A.M.