HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7921
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7921)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/17/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance (First Reading)
Title: FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18
(Zoning) to Implement 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 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 & Transportation Commission on November 30,
2016. (FIRST READING: March 6, 2017 PASSED: : 6-2-1 (DuBois, Holman no,
Kou abstain)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council introduce for additional first reading and adopt the attached draft
ordinance (Attachment A) amending Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions regarding accessory dwelling
units and find the ordinance exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Background
On March 7, 2017 the City Council held a public hearing and considered an ordinance to amend the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to implement State law regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) and to reorganize and update the City’s existing regulations. Due to the
extent of changes, the City Attorney’s Office has advised that this ordinance be presented to the City
Council as an additional first reading. However, because the Council has already held and closed a
public hearing on this subject, the ordinance is returning for a first reading on the Council’s consent
calendar. More background information regarding this subject, including the original draft of the
proposed ordinance and an explanation of the new State laws, can be found in the March 7, 2017
Council report available online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56095.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
This report transmits the updated ordinance, which is based on the Council motion below. Staff
annotations are provided in italics.
MOTION AS AMENDED AND RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council
Member Fine to move the staff recommendation adopting an Ordinance amending Chapter 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to update Code sections regarding Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs), with the following changes and clarifications:
a. Require no more than 6-ft side and rear setback for ADUs;
Incorporated into 18.42.040 (a) 8 (iv).
Current code requires attached or detached ADUs to be located outside of the required
setbacks and these structures are subject to the same setbacks and daylight plane
requirements as the principal residence. This change allows detached accessory structures to
be constructed in the rear yard and establishes a six-foot setback. Based on this direction,
staff recommends two additional development standards for detached SDUs that establish
1) a 16-foot setback from a street side yard, consistent with existing regulations, and, 2) a
daylight plane standard that borrows from the existing ‘accessory structure’ and principal
building daylight plan requirements. The proposed daylight plane requirement begins at a
height of 8 feet from the side and rear property lines and extends in and upward toward the
property at a 45-degree angle. Regulations for projections into the daylight plane would be
subject to the current standards that apply to the primary residence.
b. Allow ADUs on all residential lot sizes;
Incorporated into 18.42.040 (a) 2.
The prior draft ordinance would have permitted ADUs on R1 properties with conforming lot
sizes and retained the minimum lot size for other districts that permit accessory dwelling
units, including the Open Space (OS) district. The zoning code defines residential districts as
the following lots: RE, R1 (including all subdistricts), R2, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, and RM-40.
The attached ordinance has been updated to permit ADUs, regardless of lot size, on all lots in
residential districts, except the RM-15, RM-30 and RM-40 multi-family districts. OS zoned
lots, as drafted, remain subject to the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement.
c. Allow an additional 175 sq-ft of FAR for an ADU, but not for a two-story ADU
Incorporated into 18.42.040 (a) 4.
This provision permits an additional 175 square feet of building area beyond the maximum
floor area (FAR) allowed, on lots with a one-story ADU. The additional square footage cannot
be used to increase the size of the attached or detached ADU beyond the 600 or 900 square
foot floor area limitation, respectively, but could give property owners the ability to add such
units when they are close to the applicable FAR limit. This provision would similarly apply to
existing properties with ADUs.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
d. Allow an additional 50 sq-ft of FAR for a JADU
Incorporated into 18.42.040 (b) 2 (iii) b.
Similar to above, but allows 50 additional square feet of FAR for property owners wishing to
add a Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU). The additional square footage cannot be used
to increase the size of the JADU beyond 500 square feet.
e. Increase the maximum size of attached ADUs to 600 sq-ft;
Incorporated into 18.42.040 (a) 7 (iii).
This provision increases the maximum size of an attached ADU from 450 to 600 square feet.
f. Remove Lot Coverage requirements for ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10
percent smaller than standard lot sizes;
Incorporated into 18.42.040 (a) 4 (i) (a).
This provision exempts ADUs from the lot coverage requirement when that ADU is located on
a lot that is substandard by no more than 10 percent of the zoning district’s minimum lot
area standard.
g. Limit ADUs to 17-ft high and single-story in Single Story Overlay (SSO) neighborhoods, even
if the main house is a grandfathered 2-story house;
The Zoning Code currently prohibits any new two story structures or a new second story for
properties located in the Second Story Overlay Combining District. Because this is already a
requirement, no additional text was added to the draft ordinance. However, staff has added
a provision to the ordinance that clarifies the 17-foot height restriction also applies to flood
zone properties. A deviation from this standard could be requested and acted upon by filing
a variance application with the planning department.
h. Remove design review and requirements;
Removed from 18.42.040 (a) 8 (iv).
ADU architectural design compatibility requirements have been removed. However, privacy
related requirements, which retain some design features have been retained (Section
18.42.040 (a) 6) and, for detached accessory structures, a provision prohibiting windows,
doors, mechanical equipment, or venting or exhaust systems within six feet of a property line
has been retained as this standard attempts to mitigate privacy impacts and other nuisances
from existing structures located in close proximity to a property line. (Section 18.42.040 (a) 8
(vi)).
i. Remove door orientation requirements for ADUs;
Removed from 18.28.040 (a) 7 (vi).
City of Palo Alto Page 4
This requirement has been deleted.
j. ADUs to have the same parking requirements as JADUs;
Incorporated into throughout the ordinance.
This change provides that parking is not required for any ADU; JADUs are already exempt
from parking. Upon implementation, previously approved ADUs will not be required to retain
parking spaces that were previously required.
k. Remove requirements for covered parking on properties with an ADU or JADU;
Incorporated throughout the ordinance.
With the Council-directed motion, there is no parking requirement for any ADU; JADU is
already exempted from parking requirements pursuant to state law.
l. Allow required replacement parking on an existing driveway within the front setback;
Incorporated into 18.28.040 (a) 10 (ii).
If an ADU will occupy the existing parking for the primary residence (i.e., garage conversion
to ADU), replacement required parking would be able to be provided on an existing driveway
within the front setback.
1. Add the following language to Section 18.42.040 to address potential impacts on historic
properties from new detached and attached ADUs: “For properties listed in the Palo Alto
Historic Inventory, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of
Historic Places, or considered a historic resource after completion of a historic resource
evaluation, compliance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior’s Standards will be required,
as determined by the Planning Director.”
This provision has been incorporated as directed.
2. Add to the Ordinance Section 18.42.040 (a) 9 (xi) Tree Preservation: “No protected tree shall be
removed for the purpose of establishing an accessory dwelling unit unless the tree should be
removed because it is dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050. Any
protected tree removed pursuant to this subsection shall be replaced in accordance with the
standards it the Tree Technical Manual.”
This provision has been incorporated as directed.
3. Staff to return to council next year with options and discussion of possible incentives to make
ADUs available for moderate or low income residents, seniors, people with disabilities, or public
employees; and
This item will be incorporated into the department’s work program when feasible.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
4. Staff to return next year with options and discussion of mechanisms to bring existing ADUs into
compliance, including when existing ADUs which do not meet new standards; and
This item will be incorporated into the department’s work program when feasible.
5. Direct staff to revise the Ordinance to allow a property owner to rent both the ADU and
principal residence to one tenant without subletting.
The ordinance has been revised to provide that owner occupancy of either the principal residence
or ADU is required unless both units are rented to one tenant. (see 18.42.040 (a) 9 (v))
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-2-1 DuBois, Holman no, Kou Abstain
Historic Resources Board (HRB)
Subsequent to the Council’s action on March 7th, the HRB held discussions on March 9th and 23rd and
expressed an interest in reviewing building permit applications for ADUs when proposed within historic
districts, similar to existing procedures related to Category 1 resources. Based on advice from the City
Attorney’s Office, staff informed the HRB that HRB review would be in conflict with the State’s
objectives to process ministerial applications for ADUs. Staff informed the HRB that it would, however,
communicate its interest on this matter to the Council. The draft excerpt minutes from the March 23rd
HRB meeting (Attachment B) are provided for reference.
Timeline
If approved, the ordinance will be scheduled for a second reading by the City Council. The ordinance will
be effective 31 days following the City Council’s adoption on the second reading. The ordinance would
then be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days
after adoption.
Environmental Review
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 (Application of Division to Ordinances
Implementing Law Relating to Construction of Dwelling Units and Second Units) and CEQA Guidelines
sections 15061(b), 15301, 15303 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting
scheme for accessory dwelling units whose construction is exempt from CEQA.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Draft ADU Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B - HRB Excerpt Minutes March 23 2017 (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement New State Law Requirements Relating
to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and to Reorganize
and Update City’s Existing Regulations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Housing in California is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The average California
home currently costs about 2.5 times the national average home price and the monthly rent is 50%
higher than the rest of the nation. Rent in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Los Angeles are
among the top 10 most unaffordable in the nation. With rising population growth, California must
not only provide housing but also ensure affordability.
B. Despite a high median income in Palo Alto, nearly 30 percent of all households
overpaid for their housing (more than 30 percent of their income) in 2010;
C. It is estimated that 63 percent of extremely low income renter households and 75
percent of extremely low income owner households overpaid for housing in 2010. Of the
estimated 1,520 low income households, 75 percent of renter households and 44 percent of
homeowner households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing.
D. The Palo Alto City Council, recognizing the severity of the regional housing crisis,
requested that the Planning and Transportation Commission review constraints affecting the
production of second (accessory) dwelling units and recommend modifications to the City’s
development standards.
E. While existing law enables accessory dwellings as a source of housing, recent studies
show that local standards like Palo Alto’s, perhaps unintentionally, prevent homeowners from
building ADUs with standards like lot coverage, large set-backs, off-street parking, or costly
construction requirements.
F. In September 2016, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1069, Assembly Bill
2299 and Assembly Bill 2406 relating to the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior
accessory dwelling units.
G. These new bills were intended to address the housing crisis by easing regulatory
barriers for homeowners who choose to build affordable housing in their own backyards.
H. This ordinance is adopted to comply with these new State mandates regarding
ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units, and to reduce regulatory constraints affecting their
production.
Not Yet Approved
2
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
I. As required by these new State mandates, the Palo Alto City Council hereby finds
that no residential parking is permitted anywhere in the City within front setbacks or closer than ten
feet from the street side setback of a corner lot.
SECTION 2. Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18
(Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
18.04.030 Definitions
. . .
(4) “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling
unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall
include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same
parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the
following:
a. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
b. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
In some instances this Code uses the term second dwelling unit interchangeably with accessory
dwelling unit.
(46.5) “Dwelling unit, second” means a separate and complete dwelling unit, other than
and subordinate to the main dwelling unit, whether a part of the same structure or detached, on
the same residential lot.
(74.5) “Junior accessory dwelling unit” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in
size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. A junior accessory dwelling
unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing
structure.
(132) “Single-family use” means the use of a site for only one dwelling unit and,
where permitted, an accessory second dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
. . .
SECTION 3. In Section 18.10.010 (a) substitute the term “accessory dwelling unit(s)” for
“second dwelling unit(s)”.
SECTION 4. Section 18.10.030 Table 1 and Footnote (2) are amended as follows:
Not Yet Approved
3
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
TABLE 1
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES
[P = Permitted Use -- CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required]
R-E R-2 RMD Subject to
Regulations in:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted
uses (no limit on number of plumbing fixtures)
P
P
P
18.10.080
Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted residential
uses.
P
P
P
18.42.060
Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for
consumption by occupants of the site.
P P P
Sale of agricultural products produced on the premises (1) P 18.10.110
Second Accessory Dwelling Units P P(2) P(2) 18.4210.0470
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units P P(2) P(2) 18.42.040
AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE USES
Agriculture P 18.10.110
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES
Private Educational Facilities CUP CUP CUP
Religious Congregations and Institutions CUP CUP CUP
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
Community Centers CUP CUP CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services to the
neighborhood, but excluding business offices, construction or
storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards.
CUP
CUP
CUP
RECREATION USES
Neighborhood Recreational Centers CUP
Outdoor Recreation Services CUP CUP
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family P P P
Two-Family use, under one ownership P P
Mobile Homes P P P 18.42.100
Residential Care Homes P P P
Not Yet Approved
4
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
RETAIL USES
Cemeteries CUP
Commercial Plant Nurseries CUP
SERVICE USES
Convalescent Facilities CUP
Day Care Centers CUP CUP CUP
Small Adult Day Care Homes P P P
Large Adult Day Care Homes CUP CUP CUP
Small Family Day Care Homes P P P
Large Family Day Care Homes P P P
Bed & Breakfast Inns P(3)
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit
Required
. . .
(2) Second Accessory Dwelling Units in R-2 and RMD Zones: An accessory second dwelling
unit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a single-family residence on a lot in the R-
2 or RMD zones is permitted, subject to the provisions of Section 18.10.07018.42.040, and such
that no more than two units result on the lot.
. . . SECTION 5. Section 18.10.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
18.10.040 Development Standards
(a) Site Specifications, Building Size, Height and Bulk, and Residential Density
. . .
(5) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached second
accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of
maximum house size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one
detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation. This provision applies only to
single-family residences, not to duplexes allowed in the R-2 and RMD districts.
. . .
(B) Flag Lot Development Standards: (i) Individual Review
. . .
(i) Individual Review
Not Yet Approved
5
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
The Individual Review provisions of Section 18.12.110 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be applied
to any single-family or two-family residence in the R-2 or RMD districts to those sides of a site that
share an interior side lot line with the interior side or rear lot line of a property zoned for or used for
single- family or two-family dwellings. , except where architectural review board review is required for
an accessory second dwelling on an RMD-zoned site. The individual review criteria shall be applied
only to the project's effects on adjacent single-family and two-family uses.
SECTION 6. Section 18.10.060 Table 3 is amended as follows:
TABLE 3
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR R-E, R-2 AND RMD
USES
Use Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirement
Single-family residential use (excluding second accessory
dwelling units)
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
covered
Two family (R2 & RMD districts) 3 spaces total, of which at least two must
be covered
Second Accessory dwelling unit, attached or detached:
>450 sf in size
ч450 sf in size
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
covered
1 space per unit, which may be covered or
uncovered
See Section 18.42.040(a)(10).No parking
required
Junior accessory dwelling unit No parking requiredNone
Other Uses See Chapter 18.40
. . .
SECTION 7. Section 18.10.070 (Second Dwelling Units) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is repealed in its entirety and a new
18.10.070 is added to read as follows:
18.10.070 Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to the
regulations set forth in Section 18.42.040.
Not Yet Approved
6
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
SECTION 8. Section 18.10.120 (Architectural Review) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
18.10.120 Architectural Review
Architectural review, as required in Section 18.76.020, is required in the R-E, R-2, and RMD
districts whenever three or more adjacent residential units are intended to be developed
concurrently, whether through subdivision or individual applications. Architectural review is also
required for second dwelling units of more than 900 square feet, when located in the Neighborhood
Preservation Combining District (NP).
SECTION 9. Section 18.10.140 (Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP)
Standards) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning)
is amended to read as follows:
18.10.140 Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) Standards
. . .
(2) Design Review Required
For properties on which two or more residential units are developed or modified, design
review and approval shall be required by the architectural review board in compliance with
procedures established in Section 18.76.020 for any new development or modification to any
structure on the property and for site amenities. No design review is required for construction of or
modifications to single-family structures that constitute the only principal structure on a parcel of
land or for accessory dwelling units or junior accessory units.
No design review is required for construction of second dwelling units on a parcel except
when the second unit exceeds 900 square feet in size.
. . .
SECTION 10. In Section 18.10.150(e) is deleted in its entirety and reserved for future use,
substitute the term “accessory dwelling units” for “second dwelling units”.
. . .
SECTION 11. Section 18.12.010(a) is amended as follows:
(a) Single Family Residential District [R-1]
The R-1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas
suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording
maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children's play. Minimum site area
requirements are established to create and preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide
adequate open area, and to encourage quality design. Second Accessory dwelling units, junior
accessory dwelling units and accessory structures or buildings are appropriate. where consistent with
the site and neighborhood character. Community uses and facilities, such as churches and schools,
should be limited unless no net loss of housing would result.
. . .
Not Yet Approved
7
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
SECTION 12. Section 18.12.030 Table 1, is amended as follows:
Table 1
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL R-1 RESIDENTIAL USES
R-1 and all R-1
Subdistricts
Subject to
Regulations for:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and uses customarily
incidental to permitted uses with no more than
two plumbing fixtures and no kitchen facility, or
of a size less than or equal to 200 square feet
P 18.04.030(a)(3)
18.12.080
Accessory facilities and uses customarily
incidental to permitted uses with more than
two plumbing fixtures (but with no kitchen), and
in excess of 200 square feet in size, but
excluding second accessory dwelling units
CUP 18.12.080
Home occupations, when accessory to
permitted residential
P 18.42.060
Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food
products for consumption by occupants of the
site
P
Second Accessory Dwelling Units P(1) 18.42.04012.070
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P(1) 18.42.040
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS AND ASSEMBLY USES
Private Educational Facilities CUP
Churches and Religious Institutions CUP
PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC USES
Community Centers CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility
services to the neighborhood, but excluding
business offices, construction or storage yards,
maintenance facilities, or corporation yards
CUP
RECREATION USES
Outdoor Recreation Services CUP
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family P
Mobile Homes P 18.42.100
Residential Care Homes P
SERVICE USES
Not Yet Approved
8
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
Day Care Centers CUP
Small Adult Day Care Homes P
Large Adult Day Care Homes CUP
Small Family Day Care Homes P
Large Family Day Care Homes P
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
(1) An Accessory Dwelling Unit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a single-
family residence on a lot is permitted, subject to the provisions of Section 18.42.040, and such that
no more than two total units result on the lot.
SECTION 13. Section 18.12.040 Table 2, footnote (8) is amended as follows:
(8) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached accessory second
dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of maximum house
size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one detached covered
parking space shall be included in the calculation.
SECTION 14. Section 18.12.060 Table 4 is amended as follows:
Table 4 shows the minimum off-street automobile parking requirements for specific uses in
the R-1 district.
Table 4
Parking Requirements for Specific R-1 Uses
Use Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirement
Single-family residential use (excluding second accessory
dwelling units)
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
covered.
Second Accessory dwelling unit , attached or detached
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
covered
See Section 18.42.040(a)(10).No parking
required
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit No parking requiredNone
Other Uses See Chs. 18.52 and 18.54
. . .
Not Yet Approved
9
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
SECTION 15. Section 18.12.070 (Second Dwelling Units) of Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Single-
Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) is repealed in its entirety and a new 18.12.070 is
added to read as follows:
18.12.070 Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to the regulations
set forth in Section 18.42.040.
SECTION 16. Section 18.12.090(b)(2), substitute the term “accessory dwelling unit(s)” for
“second dwelling unit(s)”.is amended to read as follows:
. . .
(2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first floor is no
more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation.
Basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be counted as floor
area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the unit (but may be excluded from
calculations of floor area for the total site). This 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.
. . .
SECTION 17. In Section 18.12.150(d), substitute the term “accessory dwelling unit(s)” for
“second dwelling unit(s)” is deleted in its entirety and reserved for future use.
. . .
SECTION 18. Section 18.28.040, Table 1, is amended as follows:
Table 1
Land Uses
PF
OS
AC Subject to
Regulations in
Chapter:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and accessory uses P
Chs. 18.40
and 18.42
Eating and drinking services in conjunction with a
permitted use
(1) CUP
Retail services as an accessory use to the administrative
offices of a non-profit organization, provided that such
retail services do not exceed 25% of the gross floor area
of the combined administrative office services and retail
service uses
(1) CUP
Not Yet Approved
10
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
Retail services in conjunction with a permitted use (1) CUP
Sale of agricultural products produced on the premises;
provided, that no permanent commercial structure for
the sale or processing of agricultural products shall be
permitted.
P
Second Accessory dwelling units, subject to
regulations in Section 18.28.07042.040
P(2) 18.28.070
18.42.040
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P(2) 18.42.040
AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE USES
Agricultural Uses, including animal husbandry, crops,
dairying, horticulture, nurseries, livestock farming, tree
farming, viticulture, and similar uses not inconsistent
with the intent and purpose of this chapter
P
P
Botanical conservatories, outdoor nature
laboratories, and similar facilities
P
Native wildlife sanctuaries P
Park uses and uses incidental to park operation P
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES
Business or trade schools (1) CUP
Churches and religious institutions (1) CUP
Educational, charitable, research, and philanthropic
institutions
CUP
Private educational facilities (1) CUP
Public or private colleges and universities and
facilities appurtenant thereto
CUP
Special education classes (1) CUP
OFFICE USES
Administrative office services for non-profit
organizations
(1) CUP
OTHER USES
Other uses which, in the opinion of the director, are
similar to those listed as permitted or conditionally
permitted uses
CUP (1)
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITY USES
All facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by
the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the State
of California, the government of the United States, the
Palo Alto Unified School District, or any other
governmental agency
P
Communication Facilities CUP
Community Centers CUP (1)
Not Yet Approved
11
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
Utility Facilities CUP CUP CUP
RECREATIONAL USES
Neighborhood recreation centers CUP (1)
Outdoor recreation services CUP (1) CUP
Recreational uses including riding academies, clubs,
stables, country clubs, and golf courses
CUP
Youth clubs CUP (1)
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-family dwellings P
Manufactured housing (including mobile homes on
permanent foundations)
P 18.40.
Guest ranches CUP
Residential care facilities, when utilizing existing
structures on the site CUP (1)
Residential Care Homes P
Residential use, and accessory buildings and uses
customarily incidental to permitted dwellings; provided,
however, that such permitted dwellings shall be for the
exclusive use of the owner or owners, or lessee or lessor
of land upon which the permitted agricultural use is
conducted, and the residence of other members of the
same family and bona fide employees of the
aforementioned
P
SERVICE USES
Animal care, including boarding and kennels CUP CUP
Cemeteries CUP
Cemeteries, not including mausolea, crematoria, or
columbaria
CUP
Small day care homes P
Large day care homes CUP
Day care centers CUP (1)
Art, dance, gymnastic, exercise or music studios or CUP (1)
Medical Services:
Hospitals CUP
Outpatient medical facilities with associated
medical research
CUP
TEMPORARY USES
Temporary parking facilities, provided that such facilities CUP (1)
TRANSPORTATION USES
Airports and airport-related uses CUP (1)
. . .
(2) An accessory dwelling unit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a single-
family residence on a lot in the OS District is permitted, subject to the provisions of Section 18.42.040,
and such that no more than two total units result on the lot.
Not Yet Approved
12
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
SECTION 19. Section 18.28.070(a) (Second Dwelling Units) is amended as follows:
18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations
The following additional regulations shall apply in the OS
district:
(a) AccessorySecond Dwelling Units and Junior Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to the regulations set
forth in Section 18.42.040.
Not more than one attached or detached second dwelling units shall be allowed on a lot in the
OS district, and shall be subject to the following regulations:
(1) Second dwelling shall only be permitted on sites with a minimum site area of 10
acres;
(2) Attached second dwelling units shall comply with the OS district height limitation of
25 feet;
and
(3) Second dwelling units shall follow the standards set forth in the Residential Estate (R-
E) District for second dwelling units (18.10.070(b)), with the exceptions outlined in subsections 1 and 2
above. . . .
SECTION 20. Section 18.42.040 (Accessory and Junior Dwelling Units) is added as follows:
18.42.040 Accessory and Junior Dwelling Units
The following regulations apply to zoning districts where accessory dwelling units and
junior accessory dwelling units are permitted.
(a) Accessory Dwelling Units
1. Purpose
The intent of this section is to provide regulations to accommodate accessory dwelling units,
in order to provide for variety to the city's housing stock and additional affordable housing
opportunities. Accessory dwelling units shall be separate, self-contained living units, with separate
entrances from the main residence, whether attached or detached. The standards below are
provided to minimize the impacts of accessory dwelling units on nearby residents and throughout the
city, and to assure that the size and, location and design of such dwellings is compatible with the
existing residence on the site and with other structures in the area.
2. Minimum Lot Sizes
(i) In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, RE district, R-2 district, and RMD district,
there shall be no minimum lot size for the development of an accessory dwelling unit.
(i) In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, the minimum lot size for an accessory dwelling
unit shall equal the minimum lot size established for the district or subdistrict.
(ii) In the RE district, the minimum lot size for an accessory dwelling unit is one acre.
Not Yet Approved
13
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
However, for flag lots in the RE District, the minimum lot size shall be 35% greater than the minimum
lot size established by Section 21.20.301 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
(iii) In the R-2 District the minimum lot size for an accessory dwelling unit is 6,000 square
feet and in the RMD District it is 5,000 square feet. All flag lots in the R-2 and RMD Districts shall
comply with the lot size requirements set forth in Section 21.20.301 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
For R-2 zoned lots of 6,000 square feet or greater, but less than 7,500 square feet, an Accessory
Dwelling Unit of 450 square feet or less is permitted.
(iv ii) In the OS District, the minimum lot size for an accessory dwelling unit is 10 acres.
3. Setbacks
(i) Except as otherwise provided in this section, Aaccessory dwelling units shall comply
with the underlying zoning district’s setbacks, including daylight plane requirements.
(ii) Notwithstanding section (i) above, no setback shall be required for an existing
garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, except as provided in subsection (a)(5)
below.
(iii) In districts permitting second story accessory dwelling units, a setback of no more
than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit
constructed above a garage.
4. Lot Coverage/FAR
(i) An accessory dwelling unit shall be included in the lot coverage and FAR requirements
applicable to the primary dwelling unit.
(ii) Exceptions:
a. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be included in the calculation of lot coverage
applicable to the property, if the parcel is substandard by no more than ten
percent (10%) of the underlying zoning district’s minimum lot size requirement.
b. In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, basement space used as an accessory
dwelling unit, or portion thereof, shall not be included in the calculation of floor
area for the entire site.
c. A lot with a one-story accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted to develop an
additional 175 square feet of floor area above the maximum amount of floor area
otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning district.
(iii) An accessory dwelling unit shall not be included in the calculation of lot coverage applicable to
the property unless the property is a nonconforming lot that is no smallermore than ten percent (10%)
smaller than the minimum lot size permitted in the underlying zoning district.
5. Conversion of Space in Existing Single Family Residence or Existing Accessory
Not Yet Approved
14
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
Structure
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(7) and (a)(8), in the R-1
district and all R-1 subdistricts and RE district only and RE Districts only, an Accessory Dwelling Unit
shall be permitted if the unit is contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or and
existing accessory structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side
and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety, and if the accessory dwelling unit conforms with the
following:
a. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if
they are not required for the primary residence.
b. For the purposes of this section, the portion of the single-family residence
or accessory structure subject to the conversion, must be legally permitted and existing as of
January 1, 2017.
c. Notwithstanding the allowance in this section, only one accessory dwelling
unit or junior accessory dwelling unit may be located on any lot subject to this section.
d. No new or separate utility connection may be required between the
accessory dwelling unit and utility service, such as water, sewer, and power.
e. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the provisions of subsections
(a)(6), (a)(9), and (a)(10).
6. Privacy
Any window, door or deck of a second story accessory dwelling unit shall utilize techniques
to lessen views onto adjacent properties to preserve the privacy of residents. These techniques may
include placement of doors, windows and decks to minimize overview of neighboring dwelling units,
use of obscured glazing, window placement above eye level, and screening between the properties.
7. Additional Development Standards for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units
(i) Attached accessory dwelling units are those attached to the main dwelling. All
attached accessory dwelling units shall be subject to the additional development requirements
specified below.
(ii) Attached unit size counts toward the calculation of maximum house size.
(iii) Unit Size: The maximum size of an attached accessory dwelling unit living area shall
not exceed 600450 square feet and shall not exceed 50% of the existing living area of the primary
existing dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit and any covered parking provided for the
accessory dwelling unit shall be included in the total floor area for the site, but the covered parking
area is not included in the maximum 600450 square feet for attached unit. 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 the accessory unit.
(iv) Maximum height (including property in a special flood hazard zone): one One story and 17
feet. However, in the RE District attached Accessory Dwelling Units may be two stories and 30 feet. In
the OS zone, attached Accessory Dwelling Units may be two stories and 25 feet.
Not Yet Approved
15
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
(v) Separate Entry Required for Attached Units: A separate exterior entry shall be provided to
serve an accessory dwelling unit.
(vi) Except on corner lots, the accessory dwelling unit may not have an entranceway facing
the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main dwelling unit unless the second
entranceway is located in the rear half of the lot. Exterior staircases to second floor units shall be
located toward the interior side or rear yard of the property.
(vii) If covered parking for an accessory dwelling unit is provided in the RE zone, the
maximum size of the covered parking area for the accessory dwelling unit is 200 square feet.
8. Additional Development Standards for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
(i) Detached accessory dwelling units are those detached from the main dwelling. All
detached accessory dwelling units shall be subject to the additional development standards
specified below.
(ii) The maximum size of the detached accessory dwelling unit living area shall be 900
square feet.
a. The accessory dwelling unit and any covered parking shall be included in the
total floor area for the site, but the covered parking area is not included within the maximum 900
square feet for detached unit.
b. 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 the accessory unit.
c. For R-2 zoned lots of 6,000 square feet or greater, but less than 7,500
square feet, a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit of 450 square feet or less is permitted.
(iii) Maximum height (including property in a special flood hazard zone): one story and 17
feet.
(iv) Design: The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be similar to the main residence
with respect to style, roof pitch, color and materialsSetbacks: notwithstanding section (a)(3)(i), a
detached accessory dwelling unit may be located in a rear yard, but must maintain a minimum
setback of six feet (6’) from the interior side and rear property lines and sixteen feet (16’) from a
street side yard. No portion of a building may encroach into a daylight plane beginning at a height
of eight feet (8’) at the property line and increasing at a slope of one foot (1’) for every one foot (1’)
of distance from the property line.
(v) In If covered parking is provided for an accessory dwelling unit in the RE District, the
maximum size of covered parking area for the detached accessory dwelling unit is 200 square
feet.
(vi) There shall be no windows, doors, mechanical equipment, or venting or exhaust
systems located within six feet of a property line.
9. Additional Requirements for All Accessory Dwelling Units
Not Yet Approved
16
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
(i) Sale of Units: The Accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the
primary residence.
(ii) Short term rentals. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be rented for periods of less
than 30 days.
(iii) Number of Units Allowed: Only one accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory
dwelling unit may be located on any residentially zoned lot.
(iv) Existing Development: A single-family dwelling must exist on the lot or shall be
constructed on the lot in conjunction with the construction of the accessory dwelling unit.
(i)(v) Occupancy: The owner of a parcel proposed for accessory dwelling use shall occupy
as a principal residence either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling, unless both the
primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling are rented to the same tenant and such tenant is
prohibited from sub-leasing the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling.
(vi) Prior to issuance of a building permit for the accessory dwelling unit, the owner shall
record a deed restriction in a form approved by the city to notify future owners of the owner
occupancy requirements and restrictions on short-term rentals.that: includes a prohibition on the
sale of the accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence;, requires
owner-occupancy consistent with subsection (a)(9)(v) above;, does not permit short-term rentals;,
and restricts the size and attributes of the accessory dwelling unit to those that conform with this
section.
(vii) Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not
required for the primary residence.
(viii) Street Address Required: Street addresses shall be assigned to all accessory dwellings
to assist in emergency response.
(ix) Street Access: The When parking is provided, the accessory dwelling unit shall have
street access from a driveway in common with the main residence in order to prevent new curb cuts,
excessive paving, and elimination of street trees, unless separate driveway access is permitted by the
director upon a determination that separate access will result in fewer environmental impacts such
as excessive paving, unnecessary grading or unnecessary tree removal, and that such separate access
will not create the appearance, from the street, of a lot division or two-family use.
(x) For properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, the California Register of
Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or considered a historic resource after
completion of a historic resource evaluation, compliance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties will be required, as determined by the Planning
Director.
(xi) No protected tree shall be removed for the purpose of establishing an accessory
dwelling unit unless the tree is dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050.
Not Yet Approved
17
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
Any protected tree removed pursuant to this subsection shall be replaced in accordance with the
standards it the Tree Technical Manual.
(xii) Except as modified by this Section 18.42.040, the accessory dwelling unit shall conform
to all requirements of the underlying zoning district, any applicable overlaycombining district, and all
other applicable provisions of this Title 18 chapter, including but not limited to height, setback, lot
coverage, floor area ratio, landscape, and historic preservation requirements.
10. Parking
(i) No additional parking shall be required for accessory dwelling units.
The following parking criteria apply to both detached and attached accessory dwelling units:
(i) One parking space per unit or one parking space per bedroom, whichever is greater,
shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit.
(ii) Such parking may be provided as tandem parking, may be located on an existing driveway
and may be located in side and rear setbacks, but not in front setback. For a corner lot, parking
may be located within the corner street side setback if located at least ten (10) feet from the
property line.
(iii) Notwithstanding subsection (i) above, no parking shall be required for:
a. Accessory dwelling units located within one-half mile of public transit or within 0.75 mile of
the Palo Alto, California Avenue, or San Antonio Caltrain stations. For purposes of this section,
“public transit” shall include a bus stop with fixed route bus service that provides transit service
at 15 minute intervals or better during peak commute periods.
b. Accessory dwelling units located within an architecturally and historically significant National,
California or locally designated historic district.
c. Accessory dwelling units part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory
structure.
d. Accessory dwelling units located within a Residential Parking Program District.
e. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the
Accessory dwelling unit.
f. When there is a car-share vehicle located within one block of the Accessory dwelling unit. For
purposes of this section, “car-share vehicle” shall mean part of an established program
intended to stay in a fixed location for at least 10 years and available to the public.
(ivii) If an accessory dwelling unit replaces an existing garage, replacement spaces must be
provided. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with
the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, any required replacement spaces may be located in
any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to,
within the front setback if on an existing driveway, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem
spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.
(b) Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
1. Purposes: This Section provides standards for the establishment of junior accessory
dwelling units, an alternative to the standard accessory dwelling unit. Junior accessory dwelling
Not Yet Approved
18
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
units will typically be smaller than an accessory dwelling unit, will be constructed within the walls of
an existing single family structure and requires owner occupancy in the single family residence
where the unit is located.
2. Development Standards. Junior accessory dwelling units shall comply with the
following standards:
(i) Number of Units Allowed: Either one accessory dwelling unit or one junior
accessory dwelling unit, may be located on any residentially zoned lot that permits a single-family
dwelling except as otherwise regulated or restricted by an adopted Coordinated Area Plan or Specific
Plan. A junior accessory dwelling unit may only be located on a lot which already contains one legal
single-family dwelling.
(ii) Size: A junior accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 500 square feet in size.
(iii) Lot Coverage/FAR:
a. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall be included in the calculation of lot
coverage and FAR requirements applicable to the primary dwelling unitproperty.
b. A lot with a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted to develop an
additional 50 square feet of floor area above the maximum amount of floor area otherwise permitted
by the underlying zoning district.
(iv) Owner Occupancy: The owner of a parcel proposed for a junior accessory
dwelling unit shall occupy as a principal residence either the primary dwelling or the junior
accessory dwelling. Owner-occupancy is not required if the owner is another governmental agency,
land trust, or housing organization.
(v) Sale Prohibited: A junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold independently
of the primary dwelling on the parcel.
(vi) Short term rentals: The junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be rented for
periods of less than 30 days.
(vii) Location of Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit: A junior accessory dwelling unit must
be created within the existing walls of an existing primary dwelling, and must include conversion of
an existing bedroom.
(viii) Separate Entry Required: A separate exterior entry shall be provided to serve a
junior accessory dwelling unit, with an interior entry to the main living area. A junior accessory
dwelling may include a second interior doorway for sound attenuation.
(ix) Kitchen Requirements: The junior accessory dwelling unit shall include an
Not Yet Approved
19
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
efficiency kitchen, requiring and limited to the following components:
a. A sink with a maximum waste line diameter of one-and-a-half (1.5) inches,
b. A cooking facility or appliance which does not require electrical service
greater than one hundred and twenty (120) volts, or natural or propane gas, and
c. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size
in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
(x) Parking. No additional parking is required beyond that required at the time the
existing primary dwelling was constructed.
(xi) Fire Protection; Utility Service. For the purposes of any fire or life protection
ordinance or regulation or for the purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, a
junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new unit.
(xii) Deed Restriction. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a junior
accessory dwelling unit, the owner shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the city
that includes a prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale
of the single-family residence, requires owner-occupancy consistent with subsection (b)(2)(iii)
above, does not permit short-term rentals, and restricts the size and attributes of the junior
dwelling unit to those that conform with this section.
SECTION 21. Section 18.52.040 (6)(c) Table 1, is amended as follows:
Table 1
Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
Use Vehicle Parking Requirement
(# of spaces)
Bicycle Parking Requirement
Spaces Class1
Long Term (LT)
and Short Term
(ST)
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single -Family Residential (Primary Unit) Tandem Parking Allowed
(a) In the OS district 4 spaces, of which at least one
space must be covered
None
(b) In all other districts 2 spaces, of which at least one
space must be covered
(c) Underground parking for single family uses is prohibited, except
pursuant to a variance granted in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of this title, in which case the area
of the underground garage shall be counted toward the gross floor area.
Not Yet Approved
20
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit
(In addition to main dwelling unit
requirements)
>450 sf in size
<450 sf in size
2 spaces, of which at least one
must be covered
1 space, covered or
uncovered
See Section 18.42.040(a)(10).
No parking required
None
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units No parking requiredNone None
Two-Family Residential
(R-2 & RMD Districts)
1.5 spaces per unit, of which
at least one space per unit
must be covered
Tandem Parking Allowed, with
one tandem space per unit,
associated directly with
another parking space for the
same unit
1 space per
Unit
100% – LT
Multiple -Family Residential 1.25 per studio unit
1.5 per 1-bedroom unit
2 per 2-bedroom or larger
unit At least one space per
unit must be covered
Tandem parking allowed for
any unit requiring two spaces
(one tandem space per unit,
associated directly with
another parking space for the
same unit, up to a maximum
of 25% of total required
spaces for any project with
more than four (4) units)
1 per unit 100% – LT
Not Yet Approved
21
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
(a) Guest Parking For projects exceeding 3
units; 1 space plus 10% of
total number of units,
provided that if more than
one space per unit is assigned
or secured parking, then guest
spaces equal to 33% of all
units is required.
1 space for
each 10 units
100% – ST
. . .
SECTION 2122. In Section 18.76.020 (D), substitute the term “accessory dwelling unit(s)” for
“second dwelling unit(s)”.
SECTION 2223. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto
inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 2324. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to
whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 2425. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21080.17 (Application of Division to Ordinances Implementing Law Relating to Construction of
Dwelling Units and Second Units) and CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15303 and
15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme for accessory dwelling
units whose construction is exempt from CEQA.
SECTION 2526. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date
of its adoption.
INTRODUCD:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Not Yet Approved
22
2017-04-03_Palo Alto ADU
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
__________________________________ __________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
__________________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Board Member Wimmer, Beth Bunnenberg, Brandon Corey, Roger
Kohler, Michael Makinen
Absent: Vice Chair Bower
Staff: Jonathan Lait, Amy French, Chitra Moitra
ITEM 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Discussion
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is a study session number three. It’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
discussion and please - is there are any report for us, please?
Ms. French: Yes, so you have the information that we transmitted to you. I should say that the staff
report says that it’s going – the updated ordinance will be going to the Council on April 10th; that is not
true, it’s going on the 11th. Apparently, there was a move in dates and so you have – last time we spoke,
you didn’t have anything in front of you. I think Elena Lee talked to you about what was going on and
there was access via a link to the staff report that went to Council. Now, what we have is just bullets in
this report and it talks about what the State legislation, that became effective in January of this year,
allows and encourages. Then, you also have the Council proposed changes and clarifications, and so this
is what happened on March 7th. This is on page 3 of your staff report. The key section that the HRB may
wish to understand/review is on page 3 or packet page 9 and it’s number 1 on that page, a full paragraph
that says this, “the language was added to address potential impacts on historic properties from new
detached and attached ADUs,” in quotes there. The legal language is this, “for properties listed in the
Palo Alto Historic Inventory, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of
Historic Places or considered a historic resource after completion of a historic resource evaluation.
Compliance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior Standards will be required as determined by the
Planning Director.” Now, this does not mean that somebody that comes in for an accessory dwelling unit
in Professorville or some other context where there’s a historic resource, this does not mean that it’s
going to be coming to the HRB for review. This is going to be a staff level situation because it does not –
cannot be contrary to the State’s mandate that we facilitate these and encourage these and expedite
these; just to be clear about that. Staff did add this in to acknowledge that we need to look at the
Secretary of Interior Standards and it would appear that we are going to require compliance with the
Secretary of Interior Standards.
Board Member Kohler: Maybe you should clarify what you are talking about, these detached structures, is
this the one that the State mandated that you can do any unit in the back of your house, no matter what
the zoning ordinance says? Is that what you’re talking about?
Ms. French: What I am talking about is the ordinance that’s going back to Council that has some wording
regarding when a detached structure or attached structure – they’re called Junior Units, are going
through our process. It’s just a building permit but as part of that, we are…
Board Member Kohler: But you’re not talking about the one that was last week that was a big deal. This…
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: March 23, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Ms. French: Yes, I am talking about that.
Board Member Kohler: Ok, so there’s – according to that – what I’m hearing about this and I may be
wrong but you are allowed to do 150-square foot building in your back yard no matter what the
(inaudible) situation is. If you’re maxed out, you can build 150-square foot building.
Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible)
Board Member Kohler: But – if it isn’t, then maybe we should find out about it because that means
anyone can build a 150-square foot building…
Chair Bernstein: It’s not 150.
Ms. French: Rodger, I think…
Board Member Kohler: No, no, no, I have it. I have it and I should have brought it. There’s two of them.
There’s 120 but there’s 150 one as well. I think…
Ms. French: Can I just – I just want to make sure that we’re not getting too deep in the weeds as far as
zoning because I really want this to just be transmitting information to alert you to the fact that we are
inserting into this for Council adoption that these accessory dwelling units, that we’re supposed to
facilitate, will be looked at for Secretary of Interior Standards compliance and will be required to have
compliance. Despite the fact that it’s only a building permit - so this is actually a win because currently
when something is in – only requiring a building permit, it’s – these are all encouragements to follow the
Secretary of Interior Standards, but people might come in and do something different at the building
permit stage. It’s actually great that this is in there.
Chair Bernstein: Excuse me Board Member Kohler; the April 11th, is that the first reading of the
ordinance?
Ms. French: Well, it’s the second first reading. The first reading happened on March 7th and then the
changes were so significant that they are doing another first reading.
Chair Bernstein: It’s still considered first reading so there won’t be any adoption of an ordinance on
April…
Ms. French: They would have the opportunity to say, yes, we approve this ordinance and then it comes
back to them on second reading…
Chair Bernstein: Oh, I understand, yes.
Ms. French: …which is – yeah.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you.
Board Member Kohler: Is this ordinance just for Professorville or are you talking…
Chair Bernstein: No, it’s for the whole City.
Board Member Kohler: The whole City, ok.
Chair Bernstein: Great.
Board Member Kohler: You’re relating to it because it will impact us in historic buildings?
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Chair Bernstein: We’re going to…
Ms. French: I don’t know if it will impact you because we are not going to bring them to the HRB. What
will be impactful is to your knowledge. Your knowledge is that we are looking at these things for
Secretary of Interior Standards compliance so if you asked out in the public, “are these coming in and
they are just being plopped onto a historic property without review of Secretary of Interior Standards?”,
you can say, “oh no, they will be reviewed, just not by us as a Board, but by staff.” I’m going to
introduce Chitra, who is responsible for the next staff report, and if you want to ask her for further
questions about other things.
Chair Bernstein: Welcome and can you pronounce your name again, please?
Mrs. Chitra Moitra: Chitra. Chitra Moitra, Planning -- Planner.
Chair Bernstein: Chichum?
Ms. Moitra: Chitra, C-H-I-T-R-A.
Chair Bernstein: I’m sorry.
Ms. Moitra: I just want to add something to what Amy said. We are – the City Council is hearing this item
on April 11th as a consent item and the Council will decide whether to hear it on that night or may decide
to pull it off so based on the Council’s decision, we’ll know more – what happens.
Chair Bernstein: During that April 11th meeting, is there a process where an HRB Member can speak to
the Council asking that that consent item to be pulled from the agenda as a consent item?
Ms. French: It would not be a consent item.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, I just heard it was.
Ms. French: If it’s a first reading, I don’t believe that that is on consent, is it?
Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Hi, Mr. Lait, welcome.
Mr. Lait: Hello, good evening. Good evening? I attend night meetings so it’s programmed that way.
(Crosstalk)(Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: We did have a time change recently, your right.
Mr. Lait: I’m Jonathan Lait and I’m the Assistant Director to the Planning and Community Environment
Department that we work for. This ordinance did actually have a first reading already before the City
Council and they gave us some – I think it was about eight or ten discreet changes to make to the
ordinance. The City Attorney has advised that we need to do another first reading of that ordinance but
that’s going to be on the consent calendar. To the question that was asked, certainly, any member of the
public could approach the Council and ask that any item be taken off the consent calendar. It’s the
Council’s discretion to do so.
Chair Bernstein: Procedure, can an HRB Member address the Council during that consent discussion –
and speak to the ADU Ordinance or does it need to be pulled off consent before a Member of the HRB
can speak to the Council at that meeting? Do you know?
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Mr. Lait: I think during the consent, there is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to items
on the consent calendar before the Council makes an action to pull it or not pull it.
Chair Bernstein: Can that member of the public be a Member of the HRB?
Mr. Lait: Yes. Sorry, yes.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Alright, any other comments from Staff? Ok. Alright. I’m glad you’re here
Jonathan. I’ll have a series of questions and comments regarding the proposed ordinance but I’ll see to
any other -- Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Just a little clarification. I was reading over this material and I think you touched
on it just a minute ago, Amy. The junior accessory unit and it’s JADU, I saw that pop up as a term but it
was never defined and I really hate it when I read documents and they don’t give a clear definition on
what these terms are. Now, where was that actually defined what a JADU is?
Chair Bernstein: That is a – well, you’re just making a rhetorical comment, right?
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I think we should know what it is.
Chair Bernstein: Well, it’s a junior accessory dwelling unit, is what it is but – I understand.
Ms. French: Yeah so, we believe that the State defines that as a 500-square foot unit, in our staff report
packet page 9. There is a local modification to increase the maximum size of an attached ADU to 600-
square feet. I don’t know how that relates to the junior accessory.
Ms. Moitra: For a detached ADU – I’m sorry, for a junior accessory dwelling unit, the State regulation
requires you to have a maximum size of 500-square feet and that is to be included in the building
envelope. Like it should be a conversion of an existing room, maybe a bedroom, to a junior accessory
unit.
Board Member Makinen: Ok, so that’s within an existing structure, then?
Ms. Moitra: That’s detached – attached ADU, that’s different. There’s a little bit of confusion here. For
attached ADUs the existing size was 450-square feet and the Council at the March 7th discussion has
requested Staff to increase that to 600-square feet so an addition of 150-sqaure feet.
Chair Bernstein: Right. If we add the – if that gets approved, the 600-square feet, if that puts the total
FAR of the property over the allowable that’s ok by this proposed ordinance?
Ms. Moitra: It should be within the existing FAR.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so then 600 is not a right then?
Ms. French: It would be a building permit…
Chair Bernstein: But if that exceeds the FAR…
Ms. French: but wouldn’t exceed the FAR to get a building permit only.
Mr. Lait: Thank you. Jonathan Lait again. The – to answer the first question, a junior accessory dwelling
unit is a defining term in the ordinance. In the draft ordinance that went to Council, it’s defined as a unit
that – as Chitra has mentioned - it means that a unit that is no more than 500-square feet in size and
contained entirely within the existing single family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include
separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. That is a
City of Palo Alto Page 5
defining term. With respect to the floor area question, the – all accessory dwelling units do need to meet
the City’s floor area requirements and the City Council gave – in a couple instances, did exempt – I think
it was 50 additional square feet for one type of accessory unit and like another 150-square foot for floor
area, where they added that to the base standards. The codes being changed to accommodate a little bit
more floor area.
Chair Bernstein: Do that mean that the FAR – let’s see. If the 600-sqare feet, if that exceeds the FAR on
the property, that’s – you cannot do the 600-sqare feet, is that correct?
Mr. Lait: Is the question, can the accessory dwelling unit exceed 600-feet or the 600-feet in combined
with the primary residence exceeded what the code has established as the maximum buildable floor
area?
Chair Bernstein: It says, increases the – oh I see. (Inaudible) it says, the maximum size is 600-square
feet but you still have to comply to the FAR so you meet…
Mr. Lait: That’s correct.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you for that. Thank you. Yes, Board Member…(crosstalk)
Board Member Bunnenberg: I have a question…
Chair Bernstein: …Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: … along that line. What are the setback requirements or are there setback
requirements?
Ms. Moitra: Yes, there are setback requirements for new accessory dwelling units. Council’s
recommendation on March 6th was no more than 6-feet required side and rear setbacks for ADUs but for
converted – existing garage conversion to an ADU, there is no setback requirement and that’s for a single
story.
Chair Bernstein: Right, good.
Board Member Wimmer: But it still has to comply with the daylight plane if it’s detached.
Ms. Moitra: Yes.
Chair Bernstein: Unless (inaudible) – unless it’s an existing, non-conforming situation, right. Thank you.
Board – Beth, your lights still on, do you have a question? Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Nothing at the present time, Chair.
Chair Bernstein: I just saw your light on. Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: Is there still an assessment that is going to be charged for the secondary
dwelling units? I believe there were two assessments and there was a $18,000 one-time assessment for
an ADU that was less than a certain square footage. Then a higher assessment charge if the ADU was a
higher square footage, is that still in the plan, an impact fee.
Ms. French: When we’re saying assessment, we are talking – yeah, development impact fee.
Board Member Wimmer: Development impact fee. It’s a one-time fee, is that still being planned?
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Ms. Moitra: I’m not sure on that but I will get back to you on that. As far as I know, it will be charged but
there would be no requirement for new utility hookups or any other kind of utility hookups and fire
sprinklers, if the main dwelling unit does not have it for attached.
Board Member Wimmer: If the main dwelling unit does not have fire sprinklers, then the ADU is not
required to…(crosstalk)
Ms. Moitra: Not required to have (inaudible).
Board Member Wimmer: …have fire sprinklers because that’s how -- Los Altos has the same rule.
However, I do this in different Cities, I have several ADU projects and Palo Alto is the only one that is
proposing an impact fee. I just thought that was interesting.
Chair Bernstein: Where does – is the fee listed? Is it published somewhere?
Ms. Moitra: Yes, the impact fees are published.
Chair Bernstein: Huh? What?
Ms. Moitra: The impact fees are published.
Chair Bernstein: I’d like to learn that. For an applicant to apply for an AD Unit, there’s a $18,000 fee?
Ms. French: That’s – ok – that is – it sounds like you’re talking about a permit fee, that’s not a permit fee.
Development impact fees are assessed at the time of building permit to be paid to cover any new
dwelling unit…
Chair Bernstein: Oh, I see.
Ms. French: … which an accessory dwelling unit is, to pay into the parks, libraries, and community
facilities fees.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so that’s nothing new then?
Ms. French: Nothing new, yes. Whether – it sounds like this ordinance is not addressing that. In other
words, not changing that fact in Palo Alto.
Ms. Moitra: Yes.
Board Member Wimmer: On top of that, would you still need to pay school impact fees?
Chair Bernstein: Great question.
Ms. Moitra: There’s no change. There’s no change to that. You have…
Board Member Wimmer: That means because – I think if you’re adding more than 500-square feet, you
have to pay school impact fees, right? I think that’s the trigger point, 500-square feet?
Mr. Lait: Yeah, I’m sorry Board Member. I don’t know that we know all the different fees that are
assigned to the different projects right now but this ordinance that’s going to Council does not change
any fee structure that we have presently. If there is a concern about the existing fee system that we
apply to these units, then I think that’s an appropriate conversation or a comment that we could
understand. We can also take a look at that when our fee study goes to the Council, I think it’s in June
this year. If there’s an additional fee – if there is somehow a fee that is discouraging this, we can take a
look at that and identify that. We’ll take that comment and try to explore the different fees that would
City of Palo Alto Page 7
apply to any accessory dwelling unit, whether it’s an existing or a conversion to a JADU and see what
that looks like and how that might need to change if at all.
Chair Bernstein: Go ahead, Board Member Kohler.
Board Member Kohler: I guess I’m – I read a pretty long article about all this and it sounds like Palo
Alto’s – is incorporating as part of their ordinance of what to do because what I read about this was that
there weren’t going to be any zoning rules other than square feet. That’s good to hear that Palo Alto will
still have a daylight plane because the article I read was kind of scary. You could – there were no rules,
you had this 150 or whatever the number square feet and you could build it and it was not required to go
through any other rules. I’m mean, I ‘m glad you’re – what you’re saying is what will be here in Palo Alto
because I think that’s going to be a much more reasonable approach to this situation. The one I read
was floor area wasn’t (inaudible), if you wanted to add this square foot, you could do it. That’s probably
in general but I’m glad to hear Palo Alto has this limit. I think that’s good.
Ms. French: One thing I would call the attention to when we talk about existing zoning standards and
what this is talking about. Currently, you can’t have a living area within the rear setback. You can have a
garage but it can’t be used for living. What this says is that there will be no greater setback than 6-feet
at the side and rear yards. Now, with this ordinance, you will be able to have a living unit six feet from
the rear property line, and that’s a change.
Board Member Kohler: That’s a pretty big change.
Chair Bernstein: My understanding of the proposal, there are three types of accessory dwelling units.
There’s detached, there’s attached and then a junior, correct? There are three kinds?
Ms. Moitra: Correct.
Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you for that. What I understand, the detached maximum proposed is 900-
sqare feet?
Ms. Moitra: Yes, correct.
Ms. French: That is no change from the existing.
Chair Bernstein: Right. Then the attached ADU is 450. There might be – correct? 450 is the current
proposal?
Ms. Moitra: Existing is 450 and Council proposed attached to be 600.
Chair Bernstein: Up to 600 and then the junior ADU is – State is – is 500-square feet?
Ms. Moitra: 500-sqare feet.
Chair Bernstein: I’m going to repeat it so that I get this right. Detached - 900-square feet, attached is
proposed 600-square feet and then junior ADU is 500-square feet. Thank you. Board Member Brandon
Corey?
Board Member Corey: One clarification, is the only difference between an attached and junior the max
square footage or is there something – I did hear the junior must be attached by I’m still not 100% clear.
Ms. Moitra: Yes, a junior is when you carve out the existing 500-sqare feet from an existing bedroom or a
spare living space that you have.
Board Member Corey: Isn’t that also an attached – the attached? How is that different?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Ms. Moitra: Attached can be added.
Chair Bernstein: An attached would be an addition – house addition basically.
Ms. Moitra: A house addition, it can be added but the junior is something from the existing.
Board Member Corey: From the existing so you can’t add to create a junior?
Ms. Moitra: No, you cannot add a junior.
Board Member Corey: Add a junior so that’s the difference. It’s just whether or not it’s existing or not, ok.
Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you.
Board Member Corey: Can you create – if you have existing, can you make that an attached or that
would just automatically become a junior based on that?
Ms. Moitra: Right.
Board Member Corey: Interesting.
Board Member Wimmer: Can I have – ask a follow-up question.
Mr. Lait: Hold on, I think there are a couple of things here. The other distinction is the junior accessory
structure can rely on the sanitation facilities within the primary residences. Whereas, an attached
accessory dwelling unit needs to provide full, independent living on its own. Merely taking an existing one
and attaching it to that house, doesn’t make it a JADU. It’s the conversion of an existing bedroom and
meeting these other things within the existing structure. We have a primary residence and an adjacent
detached structure and you wanted to merge those together somehow, there may be a way to do that in
the code but that doesn’t make it a JADU, it may make it an attached accessory dwelling unit.
Board Member Corey: Then if you removed the separate sewage system, wouldn’t it them become a
junior? Is that the only difference then?
Mr. Lait: I think the – the purpose of the junior accessory dwelling unit is to create a lower threshold
opportunity to – for a unit in the home. It’s sort of a lower bar to do an accessory dwelling unit. You
don’t have to meet the same standards as you – not all the same standards that you do for the accessory
dwelling unit. Right.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Somehow, I always pictured the attached dwelling unit on the back. Is there
any provision against you taking in a large front porch that – this was done a lot in Professorville before
we had – or adding a thing to the changing the front façade? Is that allowed?
Mr. Lait: If you're – and if you interest specifically in Professorville, in general? Ok. To the extent that the
code would allow – to the extent that the development standards that are in place today, would allow for
that kind of a conversion. That would be reviewed and it could be approved. In Professorville or for any
historic resource, there is a requirement that it be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards,
which Staff will review with a consultant to ensure that it doesn’t detract from the character defining
features.
Board Member Bunnenberg: There are a lot of houses that are just out of Professorville but have similar
kinds of construction and I could view a lot of front porches being taken in.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. I have a copy of the draft ordinance and I just highlighted a couple
questions to help my understanding of it. The first one is, this is – I’ll give you the page number or the
chapter number so it’s 18.42.040A8(VI). Let’s see, it’s page number 15 or its was the Council’s packet
page 450. It’s page 15 of the ordinance. Do you have that Jonathan? Ok, thanks. It’s the paragraph
where it says, under VI, it says that there shall be no windows, doors, mechanical equipment or venting
exhaust system located within 6-feet of a property line. The California Fire Code that the City of Palo Alto
Council adopted allows those opening to be 5-feet from the property line. My suggestion for Council
review would be that changed from 6-feet to 5-feet so it’s consistent with the fire – California State Fire
Code that the City of Palo Alto adopted or are they having that different?
Mr. Lait: Thank you for that comment and I will say that the Council did give us direction to remove the
design review and other similar requirements. I think that might be a provision that is slated to be
removed.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Also, on that same page, I’ll give you the location, 18.42.040(A8) (IV) and
that’s also on page 15. Let me – let’s see – let me look for it here. IV — here it is right there. It says – I’ll
read it, it says “Design the detached accessory structure so that’s a separate building, shall be similar to
the main residence with respect to style, roof pitch, color, and materials.” The Secretary of Interior
Standards require compatibility and differentiation. If that’s the only statement that an applicant reads,
that it must be similar. There’s a chance that it could be a replication of a style and it could be considered
to be leading toward false historicism if it’s – if there is a tutor style main house and then the new
dwelling unit looks exactly the same amount of details. It might look like it’s a historic structure and
that’s conflicting with SISR.
Mr. Lait: Right and…
Chair Bernstein: So, there should be a – somehow if the ordinance can somehow address SISR.
Mr. Lait: That provision is going to be struck in the new ordinance that’s going to the Council on April 11th
as that is a design standard that will be modified.
Chair Bernstein: Great. Thank you for that. Next page, it’s 18 – let’s see, it would be page 17 and it’s
18.42.040(B2VI) and VII. Let me find those here. The code says – I’ll read it, a junior accessory dwelling
unit must be created within the existing walls and the existing primary dwelling – and must include
conversion of an existing bedroom. It should just be – why does it specify that it must be – include a
bedroom? For example, if you look at an Eichler, there may be no bedrooms in the back, all the
bedrooms are in the front. If you must attach it to a bedroom, that puts that ADU in the front. It should –
a bedroom to me becomes too much of a prescription of where that ADU has to – I think this should not
have a prescribed room.
Mr. Lait: That just comes from – straight from State law. That’s how the State drafted it.
Chair Bernstein: If we look at the Eichlers where the bedrooms are in the front and none in the back, that
puts the ADU in the front, if you follow that prescription. That’s what that means.
Mr. Lait: Yeah and I don’t – is there something inherently wrong with that?
Chair Bernstein: Let’s see, from a – we have some National Historic Districts of Eichlers, I guess that may
end up with ADUs in the front.
Mr. Lait: The building doesn’t change.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, that’s true. That’s a true statement but you need a separate entrance. Ok.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Ms. French: Obviously, they can still do a 600-sqaure foot attached ADU at the back but – they build it
new and you won’t see it. That might be the choice of many people.
Chair Bernstein: The explanation was that’s verbally from State law so that’s by that word is there.
Alright, then Chein, you said?
Ms. Moitra: Chitra.
Chair Bernstein: Chitra also mentioned that there are some revisions on the square footages so that’s just
a technicality. Thank you for that. On 18.42.040b2VIIB, for the kitchen requirements for the junior
accessory, you’re limited for cooking only an electric range. Do you know why a gas range would not be
allowed?
Mr. Lait: Again, this is State law. It’s explicitly spelled out (inaudible) State provision.
Chair Bernstein: Could be some energy concerns there or environmental concerns. Ok, well that explains
that. On 18.42.040b2(XI), it talks about deed restrictions and it says do not permit short term rentals.
Short terms should be defined so that a building owner understands what a short-term definition is. Is it
one week or one year or 30 days or whatever. That should be specified unless that’s just verbatim from
State law.
Mr. Lait: Right, I think the – elsewhere in the code we talk about a minimum rental of – yeah, short term
rentals. It’s up above on page 17.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, great.
Mr. Lait: It’s short term rentals, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be rented for periods of less
than 30 days.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Thanks. Next is on – there’s a map of accessory dwelling unit parking
exemption areas and I’ll just hold that up for the camera. There’s a diagram that talks about the shuttle
stops and if I look on the map in Professorville, I think there’s a Palo Alto bus stop on Embarcadero that’s
outside that circle. As I understand, there are exception that if you’re near public transportation but Palo
Alto shuttle bus stop -- I think that’s a listed public transportation thing.
Mr. Lait: The code also defines what public transit is and I’m not sure the local shuttle meets the
standard.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok.
Mr. Lait: Nevertheless, the City Council has waived or at least proposed – announced its intent to waive
any parking requirement for any ADUs and so the whole radius around train stations or bus lines is
relevant.
Chair Bernstein: Ok. Thanks for that. Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I also wanted to mention that there’s also the second impact of some these
secondary dwelling units, for instance, the attached secondary dwelling units. I know today that we are
just talking about planning issues but then once an applicant actually applies for one of these things,
then there’s a layer of building codes and things like that, that are then realized. One of those codes is
that if the secondary dwelling unit is attached, you have to create a firewall between the main dwelling
and the secondary dwelling, which is a special – a specified wall system that goes from the foundation up
to the roof. An attached secondary dwelling has to have its own HVAC system because you can’t
penetrate through this wall unless you have fire dampers, which is a very expensive HVAC ducting
system. The secondary dwellings have to have their own exclusive HVAC system. That’s something that
I’m again, realizing with the experience that I’m doing on these projects in other Cities. I just think it’s
City of Palo Alto Page 11
something to be aware of – the constructability that what the building department will require. It can be
very involved and complicated, especially, if you’re altering – like with a junior accessory dwelling, where
you’re taking existing square footage, you are going to have to alter the structure to really realize that
and make that happen. Sometimes these – when we talk about it in planning, it seems doable but then
that – you also have to focus on what is required by the code. I’m just putting that out there.
Mr. Lait: (Crosstalk) If I can…
Chair Bernstein: Board Member…
Mr. Lait: … take a moment to respond to that. The – you’re correct, the accessory dwelling unit – an
attached accessory dwelling unit would need to meet the required life safety provisions to be established.
However, for the junior accessory dwelling units, there’s a provision that says, for the purposes of any
fire or life protection ordinance or regulation or for the purpose of providing service for water, sewer or
power, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new unit.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey, you had a…
Board Member Corey: I have to excuse myself to leave. Thank you. Sorry.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you for your attendances so far. Board Member Kohler.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I have going to…
Chair Bernstein: You need your mic on.
Board Member Kohler: I have a scheduled meeting. I need to run too, thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, 1, 2, 3, 4. We still have a quorum present, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for
your – ok. Thank you, I just have some other comments regarding the proposed ordinance and I also see
Jonathan, that you and staff and Council are doing a good job of trying to fine tune this. Go through all
the historic issues – I’m sorry, what?
Board Member Wimmer: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: I do have some concerns that I would like to express and I have some notes that I
would just like to read. I’m just going to read my notes here so I don’t miss anything. I’m concerned
about the design of proposed new construction on properties with listed historic resources. How will they
be designed to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards of Rehabilitation? The City of Palo
Alto is a Certified Local Government (CLG). The Historic Resources Board is the agency that meets this
certification requirement to be a CLG and then you can see the 5 requirements. I put that At Places, I put
that at the public desk and I gave it to the members of Staff also and that’s being distributed to Staff
right now. Those are the five requirements to – for a CLG such as the City of Palo Alto and the Historic
Resources Board is the agency that meets that certification requirement. My next note is failing to meet
these requirements puts the City of Palo Alto at risk of becoming de-certified as a CLG and on my next
page, the Staff and public and HRB Members can see the de-certification process. To remain a CLG, the
CLG must enforce the local Preservation Ordinance. This means that new construction on properties with
listed historic resources must be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards of Rehabilitation. As a
CLG, HRB Members require annual State mandated training for applying the standards for historic review.
The Secretary of Interior Standards are not prescriptive standards, they are subject to scholarly
interpretation based on the required annual training that HRB Members need to receive. The newly
enacted State legislation permitting ADUs and JADUs, require ministerial review of ADUs. If all reviews of
ADU and JADU applications involving historic structures are restricted to Staff review, how will the CLG
requirement be met without input from the certified CLG agency of the HRB? This is today’s challenge.
The answer that challenge is that CLG allows the City of Palo Alto to enact appropriate local historic
City of Palo Alto Page 12
preservation to meet the requirements of CLG. So, suggestions for local legislation to allow HRB input
into the ADU/JADU review processing include a no fee study session with the full HRB, a no-fee study
session with an HRB subcommittee, a full HRB public hearing or HRB participation in some manner. To
my point, my concluding comment is that local ordinances are in response to our cultural values. The City
values historic preservation as evidence by our Historic Preservation Ordinance. Our ordinance requires
new construction involving historic resources to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation. HRB Members receive the required State mandated training for reviewing applications for
new construction. It is appropriate that the HRB in some manner review proposed new construction
involving historic resources. I look forward to continued continuing with Council and Staff to ensure the
cultural values of historic preservation continue to strengthen. I look forward to any other comments
from HRB Members of the importance of the HRB involvement during this review of any changes or new
construction on historic properties or any other comments from Staff too.
Ms. French: I would just comment, for sure JADUs which are contained in existing structures, that
statement would not relate to that, (inaudible) speaking to just additions.
Chair Bernstein: I agree, ok. With an attached ADU, that is a new addition to – if a project that’s listed
on a historic (inaudible), that’s a new addition to a historic structure, correct? An attached ADU?
Ms. French: That’s my understanding.
Chair Bernstein: Then no HRB review of an attachment – let’s say you have a Category – say the Squire
House, for example. If an owner wants, and if it meets all the requirements for FAR, for example. If you
can do a non-compatible addition to the Squire House, correct? This State law would allow that?
Ms. French: The Staff would be entrusted – delegated really in this situation to ensure Secretary of
Interior Standards compliance. That’s how it’s currently going to the Council.
Chair Bernstein: Does a CLG certification allow a non-HRB member to address the Secretary of Interior
Standard Compliance or consistency because the CLG specifically says that the HRB is the agency for
that.
Ms. French: Yes, well…
Chair Bernstein: If the HRB is not involved how does that meet the CLG requirement? (Crosstalk)
Ms. French: I believe that we have instances and – where Staff on minor – the code does allow – the
Preservation Code 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code does allow Staff to act on behalf of the HRB for
minor modifications and that has occurred over the years with qualified staff and consultants that assist
staff as is the current situation.
Chair Bernstein: Ok. Alright. It sounds like then that there’s going to be some kind of good monitoring of
any proposed additions to historic structures. Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: It does seem to me that I would support your position.
Chair Bernstein: I think that wasn’t recorded. Can you repeat the comment?
Board Member Bunnenberg: It does seem to me that I would support your point that it needed to be a
subcommittee or someone from the HRB involved.
Chair Bernstein: Go ahead, Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: Just to clarify what you’re asking. If there a historic category house and they’re
proposing to create a secondary dwelling – if it’s attached and they are altering and doing an addition to
City of Palo Alto Page 13
the house, then yes, that would come to the Board I would guess because that would just go through –
just because it’s an accessory dwelling unit, that doesn’t dismiss it from having to be reviewed. I guess if
it’s detached, that’s the wild card. If it’s a detached structure in their yard, does that trigger an HRB
review? Is that what you’re – is that kind of summarizing? I’m trying to understand better – I think that’s
what you are asking.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, if it’s a new – if it’s a house addition to a historic structure and it’s a list historic
structure…
Board Member Wimmer: It would come to the Board.
Chair Bernstein: …does it come to the Board even if it’s an ADU application?
Board Member Wimmer: That shouldn’t dismiss it. I don’t know.
Ms. French: It would seem that the ordinance is saying that it would no longer come to the Board if it’s
specifically an accessory dwelling unit but I’ll let Jon correct me if I am wrong.
Mr. Lait: We have consulted with the City’s Attorney’s office about this issue because we know it’s
important to the HRB to – I mean, you’re interested in protecting these wonderful historic resources that
we have in the community. Understandably, if somebody is building a new 600 or 900-square foot
accessory structure, you want to make sure that it’s not detracting from the character of what’s going on
or impacting the key character-defining features of a residence. However, our attorney’s office has
informed us that they believe that a review process such as coming to the HRB for the accessory dwelling
unit would be inconsistent with the intent of the State legislation and that’s why the Council has added
the provision, which I think is in the Staff report, requiring the review of any accessory dwelling unit
that’s on the City’s historic resources inventory to have this assessment that’s being done. If it’s a minor
thing and we have a staff member available to assist us with this -- we now have the one vacant position
and because of that, we have a consultant that is helping us. Page and Turnbull are helping us with some
reviews and that’s how we would continue to do that. That review would ensure – there would be two
reviews. One, there would be the consultant review and then there would be the staff sort of review of
that work too – that works with this Board and has been working with these issues. That’s how we feel
like that we are going to ensure consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards. I was looking at the
five requirements for CLG Certification and I don’t think anything in the process that we’ve laid out here
would be in conflict with that. The CLG is granted to the local government. It’s the City of Palo Alto that is
a CLG City and the five basic perimeter’s talk about enforcing State and local regulations for designated
resources and our attorney’s office has (inaudible) that State law for the ADUs is moving those to a
ministerial process, as efficiently as possible is the State’s concern, and having a review process where it
comes to the HRB would be in conflict with that. I don’t think we’re, as a City, running into a legal
challenge but I do understand the interest of wanting to be engaged in that discussion. That’s one of the
things we are trying to understand and balance more.
Chair Bernstein: If an applicant proposes a non-compatible addition to a historic structure and if the staff
says no, isn’t that discretionary?
Mr. Lait: No, we would treat that as an objective development standard in terms of its compliance with
the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ideally, though, we’re working with – we do this all the time, where
we are working with applicants to identify those concerns up front and have them design a structure that
is in compliance. However, if it is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards, we will not issue
a building permit for the construction of that accessory dwelling unit.
Chair Bernstein: Standard 9, it’s not a checklist of yes or no like – so I take some judgment.
Mr. Lait: It does.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Chair Bernstein: Isn’t that discretionary if there’s judgment involved because ministerial says that it meets
the seismic code or not. That’s yes or no, that’s just mathematics.
Mr. Lait: There is a certain amount of – even in an applying objective – so there are the clear objective
standards where you can’t go above 30-feet in height…
Chair Bernstein: Correct.
Mr. Lait: …or whatever that is and zoning codes from time to time have objective standards that blur the
line a little bit and this ordinance included some other standards such as design compatibility. You read a
couple under the record which are also subjective but the balance is – one of the questions that we
asked the Council is are these descriptive enough to give enough guidance to somebody for – to do this
without it being too subjective in its review and therefore ministerial? If we have a question -- I would
say to go to your scenario that you described. If we’ve done a review and we’ve concluded no, it’s not
consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards, we’d probably give the applicant an opportunity for
us to get another third-party consultant if they wanted to challenge that because we understand that
there can be different points of views. In the end, we’re going to look for where the evidence leaning
toward and make a decision based on that.
Chair Bernstein: Can that third party review be the HRB?
Mr. Lait: I don’t know. I think we would have to figure that out.
Chair Bernstein: Well, you’ve got the seven people who pretty well understand what’s going on in Palo
Alto regarding historic properties.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, no, I listen, I understand (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Bernstein: That’s why we were appointed.
Mr. Lait: … I’m not – I’m trying to give you – I’m trying to be responsive to your question but then also
be mindful of the direction that we’ve received from the City’s Attorney’s Office but I think you can be an
opportunity – probably at this point because we are going April 11th and I don’t think you’re having
another meeting before then. It could be worthwhile for individual Board Members to write letters to the
Council expressing your point of view of certainly come up to the – show up to the meeting.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, great. Ok.
Ms. French: Can I also say one thing? You had – in your discussion, you had mentioned study sessions.
Of course, we can encourage anybody, including those that are looking to do accessory dwelling units to
come as a study session at the earliest opportunity. Whether we catch those people or not at that earlier
stage is a question but it’s not a requirement so it’s voluntary and it could be helpful to people to get to
that point of compliance. We would still encourage people.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, that’s why this is added as a way for the HRB to at least see the proposed
application. Just so the applicant hears our comments and that’s what we’ve been encouraging even
before this proposed ordinance came. If there is some way that – again, that goes back to my question a
long time ago is how would an applicant that goes to the Development Center know that there’s this free,
no fee study session with the HRB? That would be a good – I don’t have an answer to how the
Development People know to say that.
Ms. French: Because the ordinance hasn’t been passed, there’s nothing that’s being said at this point but
following passage, certainly administrative policy and practices are something that we can – in flyers and
website announcements is all within the realm of things that staff can do without Council weighing in on
that.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Chair Bernstein: Right. Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I would think that if an applicant came with an addition that – if it wasn’t a
secondary dwelling unit and if that addition needed to be reviewed by the HRB, then I think – I guess
whether or not, it’s a secondary dwelling unit. If an addition would traditionally trigger a review by the
HRB then I think that should remain a requirement, whether or not it’s an accessory dwelling unit or not.
I can – I guess I can kind of see how because the City is trying to expedite this process that if it’s a
detached structure that doesn’t – would not alter the existing historic main buildings, then that can be
Staff reviewed just because coming to the HRB is -- it’s a time requirement and doing drawings and
presentation. I can see that being ok – I mean, it would be ok with me, as a Board Member, if an
applicant wanted to come and do a detached structure. They – it meets all the planning codes and yes,
we want it to be differentiated and naturally, it’s going to be because it’s probably going to be a different
looking building. I would entrust that the end result with the Staff review would be admissible or
acceptable. That’s just my comment.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I also think that it’s important for all of us to think about that there are –
we’re often talking about lots that are in the middle of the block but there are corner lots that their open
space will be very visible from the street. That would be an extremely important point to have something
that is very compatible because it will have a distinct visual impact on the historic structure.
Chair Bernstein: Any other items regarding this agenda item? Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I think also once the ordinance is put into place and then these applications
start coming through and these accessory dwelling units become – are realized in our community, it’s
kind of not until then that we can see the impact of what’s really – how this is really going to play out
and I think the Council has the power to adjust the ordinance. If – once we put the wheels in motion and
the wheels are going off to the wrong path, I think the City Council will correct it. I think I do have faith
in that sometimes we just need a little history to see how this thing is really going to impact the
community and I’m sure community members will complain or offer their opinions, then the City Council
can make adjustments at that time.