HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2503-4326CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 12, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
10.FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapters in Title 16 and 18 in Response to Direction from the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) Regarding State Accessory and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Unit Law. CEQA Status - Exempt From the Provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Staff Presentation, Public Comment
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: May 12, 2025
Report #:2503-4326
TITLE
FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapters in Title 16 and 18 in Response to Direction from the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) Regarding State Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit Law. CEQA Status - Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council (Council) take the following actions: Adopt the draft
Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 16 (Building
Regulations) and Title 18 (Zoning) regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 29, 2024, Palo Alto received a letter from HCD (Attachment C) regarding the City’s
ADU ordinance, which Council adopted in May 2023. (1)(2) HCD identified several aspects of the
ordinance that they thought conflicted with or otherwise required further clarification in the
ordinance based on recent State laws that were adopted between 2024 and 2025.
On November 26, 2024, City staff responded to HCD’s letter noting concerns with the agency’s
interpretation of some provision but also with a commitment to update the ordinance before
July 2025 to align with State law (Attachment D). HCD did not provide additional feedback in
response to this letter, however, the agency did publish updates its ADU Handbook3 in January
amplifying requirements that were included in the letter to Palo Alto. Staff recommends
revising the City’s ordinance to comply with HCD’s letter and the supporting ADU Handbook.
1 May 15, 2023 Council Meeting (Action Item #13):
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=11318
2 Ordinance 5587: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=48255
3 HCD ADU Handbook (January 2025): https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/adu-
handbook-update.pdf
Attachment A is a clean draft of the proposed changes to the existing ordinance and
Attachment B is an annotated version of the ordinance which keys to the specific changes HCD
requested from their letter in Attachment C.
4 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discussed the proposed
changes to the City’s ordinance and recommended, on a 7-0 vote, to adopt the ordinance, with
a specific modification to the draft language in PAMC Section 18.09.050(f), discussed further
below.
BACKGROUND
State ADU Laws
4 includes a list of the relevant
State laws with a summary of their provisions relevant to the HCD comments.
Staff Response to HCD Letter
After providing an initial response to HCD, staff revisited its responses in the context of the
recently released 2025 ADU Handbook. While in some cases staff believes no changes are
needed to comply with State law, staff also endeavors to avoid the continued ambiguity in
whether the City’s ordinance complies with State law caused by HCD’s delayed responses.
When asked, HCD staff noted that they do not provide official pre-reviews of ADU/JADU
ordinances prior to adoption, and therefore the City may not receive a response until a revised
ordinance has been adopted.
ANALYSIS
Many of HCD’s comments were minor clarifications, which appear in the annotated draft
ordinance (Attachment B) with comment bubbled responses indicating which response
addresses specific items listed in the HCD letter. In many cases, the proposed adjustments
clarify existing policy to provide assurance to the State and the public that the City’s ordinance
should be interpreted in a manner consistent with State law.
Unit Allowance (Item #3 in HCD Letter)
4 April 9, 2025 Staff Report (Action Item #3):
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16512
primary home, one attached ADU (converted from existing or proposed space within the
buildable area), one detached ADU, and one JADU (also converted from existing or proposed
space within the buildable area). This is a recent interpretation of State law since 2024 which
was reinforced in HCD’s updated Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook (January 2025) published
on their website.5 This effectively means that single family zoning in California can include up to
four units on a parcel.
Tree Ordinance (Item #9 in HCD Letter)
5 HCD ADU Website: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/accessory-dwelling-units
3. Replacement requirements based on the City’s Tree Technical Manual Table 3-1;6
4. A statement that this provision shall not result in the delay or denial of a building permit
for a second unit.
For projects that do not qualify for review under PAMC 18.09.030, the City’s tree protection
and removal requirements would apply through Title 8. Whenever future modifications to the
City’s tree ordinance occur, staff will need to update these provisions at the same time,
otherwise it would result in various standards for tree protection/removal based on the scope
of work for the permit.
PAMC Section 18.09.040 JADU Provisions (Item #10 in HCD Letter)
In 2020, the City updated its regulations to provide additional flexibility for JADU development
by:
1) Allowing JADUs to be an addition to a home rather than a conversion of existing space;
2) Allowing JADUs to have a four-foot setback similar to attached or detached ADUs;
3) Providing a 500 square foot bonus to a property’s allowable floor area and lot coverage
to build a JADU; and
4) Sharing the bonus floor area between a JADU and ADU.
As a result of these changes, between late 2020 through the 2024 Annual Report,7 the City has
received roughly 120 JADU applications. Prior to the code change, the City only received three
JADU applications. HCD’s comment letter (Attachment C) contests that these provisions conflict
with State law as JADUs may only be constructed within existing or proposed areas for the
single-family home – effectively limiting JADU creation to the underlying setbacks, floor area,
lot coverage, and similar regulations that apply to the primary home.
Staff notes that Government Code Sections 66333 through 66339 provides cities with the
authority to establish regulations for JADUs that is distinct from the authority cited by HCD. As a
Charter City, Palo Alto is also able to adopt local development programs that do not conflict
with State law. Staff believes that these local incentives do not conflict with State law because
they are more permissive than what State law provides. The State has not substantially
modified its JADU regulations since 2017 to incentivize JADU development, only ADU
development. Eliminating these provisions would significantly hinder the City’s ability to
develop JADUs and limit homeowner’s options to develop second units that meet their needs.
To address HCD’s concerns while still incorporating these incentives into the ordinance, the
draft ordinance recommends the following:
6 Tree Technical Manual: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/tree-
section/ufmp/tree-technical-manual/cover-corecombined_cpa_ttm-2016-final-copy.pdf
7 2024 Annual Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-
services/long-range-planning/adu/2024-annual-adu-report.pdf
1) Remove the existing provisions for JADUs from PAMC Section 18.09.040;
2) Adopt a bonus provision for the primary home equal to the square footage of a
proposed JADU (now reflected as PAMC Section 18.09.050(f)); and
3) Adopt a finding which declares PAMC Section 18.09.050(f) is consistent with State law.
The initial draft language for this provision was phrased in a way that could be interpreted to
allow for a larger home to be built regardless of the size of a JADU (e.g. a homeowner could
build a 150 square foot JADU and use the remaining square footage as an addition to the
home). During the April 9, 2025 PTC hearing, the PTC recommended modifying staff’s draft
language to specify that the bonus afforded the home is limited to the size of the proposed
JADU, which is now included in the draft Ordinance. This eliminates the potential for the
primary home to receive bonus square footage that is not used specifically for a JADU.
Alternatively, the Council could direct removing the provisions entirely from the ordinance, as
HCD requested, or maintaining the provisions in PAMC Section 18.09.040 and adopt a finding
that declares these regulations are more lenient than State law.
Staff does not have data on how many of the permitted JADUs are being used as separate units
and available to households beyond the principal single family residential occupants.
Palo Alto Local Inventory of Historic Resources (Item #12 in HCD Letter)
HCD states the City may not require ADU/JADUs to comply with the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties if the property is not listed on the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). This would impact roughly 350 properties on the local
historic registry that are not on the CRHR and vary from Category 1 to 4 in terms of historical
significance (the lower number rating being the more historically significant). Currently, the City
may require any exterior alteration to a historic structure/site that is a Category 1 or 2
resource, or within a historic district, to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and/or
Historic Review Board to ensure the modification doesn’t impact the integrity of the resource.
By removing this provision, any attached ADU/JADU proposed on a Category 1 or 2 property
may result in modifications that impact the integrity of these local resources, without a remedy.
While the City does not have the authority to require additional changes based on the language
in State law, it is important to note there could be impacts to the integrity of existing and future
local resources.
Kitchen Requirements for ADU/JADUs (Items #17 and 20 in HCD Letter)
In 2020, the City updated its regulations to establish an objective standard for kitchen
requirements for ADU/JADUs. State law does not provide clear guidance on what constitutes a
kitchen and the lack of an objective standard for kitchen requirements led to uncertainty in the
review process. Consistent with the State’s mandate to create ministerial and objective review
standards for ADU/JADUs, it was prudent for the public and staff to have a consistent standard
to ensure a streamlined review process. Absent a consistent, objective, and published standard,
HCD’s comments appear to conflict with other parts of State law which mandate a ministerial
and streamlined review process for ADU/JADUs by introducing subjective decision making into
the review process.
8 (see
page 8 of 18). Applicants that seek to deviate from the kitchen dimension guidelines would be
permitted to do so.
Miscellaneous PAMC Updates to Comply with ADU/JADU Regulations
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The impact to the City’s resources as a result of adopting this ordinance would be minimal.
Resources expended would be limited staff trainings on the materials, implementation and
communication of this ordinance to the public, and staff time spent updating checklists or
webpage information.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The PAMC requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper at least 10 days in
advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 2,
2025, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting.
8 Palo Alto ADU Handbook: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/development-
services/planning-review/1.-single-family-and-duplexes/2024-adu-handbook.pdf
3. Allowing height increases for ADU/JADUs in the flood zone;
4. Increasing base height allowances for ADU/JADUs;
5. Waiving/adjusting impact fee calculations for ADUs.
These suggested policy changes are not required to be done to comply with state but may be
revisited by Council and updated policy direction given.
The commenter has some additional remarks, some are addressed below:
Calculating Impact Fees for 750 SF ADUs
In 2020, the State began limiting when impact fees can be applied to newly constructed ADUs,
allowing them only for units that are 750 square feet or larger. When applicable, State law
requires that these fees be assessed proportionally, based on the ADU’s size relative to the
primary dwelling. For example, if an ADU is 20% the size of the main home, it would pay only
20% of the standard impact fee (e.g., $79,124.22 × 0.2 = $15,824.84).9
The commenter raised concerns that the City’s ordinance may not align with State law because
it does not impose impact fees on home additions unless a new unit is being created. However,
neither Government Code section 66324 nor HCD’s ADU Handbook (p. 22) requires impact fees
to be tied to an addition occurring simultaneously with the ADU. State law simply authorizes
cities to charge impact fees when a new unit over the size threshold is created — not based on
whether the primary home is being expanded. 10 This approach is consistent with PAMC
Sections 16.58.010(b) and 16.58.030(g), which bases impact fees on unit creation and size.
At present, the City only applies impact fees to net new dwelling units. In response to ongoing
policy discussions, the City Council has directed staff to re-examine this approach. As part of the
Council's work plan objective to update development impact fees, staff will evaluate the
application of impact fees more broadly through that process.
To further reduce costs for homeowners and housing developers, the City recently revised its
impact fee structure to a per-square-foot model, providing a more predictable and equitable
fee system.
Impact Fee Deferral
During the April 9, 2025 hearing, the PTC briefly discussed adjusting the City’s process around
recording a lien against a property to defer impact fee payment until final occupancy. However,
a motion was not seconded to recommend changes to those policies during the hearing. The
PTC requested staff return in the future to discuss potential changes to that policy and
9 2024 Development Impact Fee Spreadsheet: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/development-
services/planning-review/6.-planning-fees/fy25-impact-fee-information-sheet.pdf
10 Govt. Code Section 66324:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=66324.&nodeTreePath=12.1.32.
2&lawCode=GOV
encouraged staff to seek ways to streamline the internal process for recording the lien in the
meantime.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0160107_20250417_ms29
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building
Regulations) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend
Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations.
A. In 2023, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance 5585, amending the City’s requirements
for ADUs and JADUs to reflect changes in State law and guidance from the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
B. On October 29, 2024, the City received a letter from HCD commenting on aspects of the
City’s J/ADU ordinance that HCD found inconsistent with State law.
C. California Government Code section 66326(b)(2) requires that the City either amend its
ordinance as indicated in the letter or adopt the ordinance without the changes and include
findings that explain the reasons the City believes the ordinance complies with State J/ADU
law.
D. Upon recommendation of City Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto now intends to amend its J/ADU ordinance in response to
each of HCD’s comments.
E. Additionally, the City now adopts explanatory findings to accompany the amendments in
response to several of HCD’s comments.
F. HCD Comment 9 states, “The Ordinance makes several references to Chapter 8.10, the
City’s Tree and Landscape Preservation and Management regulations, and requires that
elements of ADU development conform to Chapter 8.10…The City should amend the
Ordinance to ensure that compliance with this ordinance section will not delay or cause the
denial of an ADU or JADU building permit or use permit.” The City now intends to amend its
ADU ordinance to eliminate references to Chapter 8.10. Additionally, the City now amends
its Chapter 18.09.040 to include objective landscape requirements for those ADUs that are
subject to local standards, pursuant to Government Code section 66314(b). These landscape
requirements include adherence to applicable objective landscape standards in the Tree
and Landscape Technical Manual for the protection of trees during construction. The City
Council finds that the standards in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual for the
protection of trees during construction are industry standard best practices for construction
and are typically imposed as conditions of approval. Consistent with HCD’s comment, the
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0160107_20250417_ms29
ordinance will clarify that the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual’s standards for tree
protection during construction are not a cause of delay or denial of an ADU or JADU permit.
G. HCD Comment 10 states, “The Ordinance describes JADUs in the section ‘Units Subject to
Local Standards’ and creates governance of JADUs that ‘do not qualify for approval under
section 18.090.030.’ However, all JADUs are created pursuant to Government Code section
66323, subdivision (a)(1), and would therefore be approved under section 18.090.030. The
City must remove references to JADUs in this section.” The City Council finds that this
comment is incorrect; although some JADUs are created pursuant to Government Code
section 66323, JADUs may also be created pursuant to Government Code sections 66333-
66339 (also known as “Article 3”), which begins with the statement “Notwithstanding
Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314 [and including section 66323]), a local agency
may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units in single-
family residential zones” (emphasis added). Nonetheless, through this Ordinance, the City
intends to remove all references to JADUs in Section 18.09.040, “Units Subject to Local
Standards.” All JADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code section 66323(a)
will be subject to the ministerial approval provisions in Chapter 18.09.030. Additionally, in
order to further incentivize the construction of JADUs, the Ordinance allows a 500 square
foot bonus for the primary dwelling unit where a JADU that meets the conditions in
18.09.050(f) is constructed on site. The City Council finds that this additional incentive
provided in 18.09.050 does not conflict with Government Code sections 66310-66342
because it liberalizes the City’s regulations for primary residences and does not regulate the
construction of JADUs.
H. HCD Comment 14 states, “Section 18.09.040 (l) – Parking Exceptions – The Ordinance does
not provide for exemptions to parking requirements pursuant to Government Code section
66322, subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(6)…Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to
add the required exemptions.” Table 1 and 2 of PAMC 18.09.030 and 18.09.040, as well as
Table 1 of PAMC 18.52.040, indicate that parking is not required for newly constructed
ADUs or JADUs. Additionally, this Ordinance amends PAMC 18.09.040(l) so that the City no
longer requires replacement parking for ADUs or JADUs under any circumstance. Because
the Ordinance as amended imposes no parking requirements for J/ADUs, it does not
enumerate the exemptions to parking requirements described in Government Code section
66322(a)(1)-(6).
I. On September 19, 2024, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1211, effective January 1,
2025. SB 1211 allows up to 8 detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on parcels with
existing multifamily development and provides that cities can no longer require
replacement parking for uncovered parking spaces that are removed for an ADU.
J. Upon recommendation of City Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto desires to amend its J/ADU ordinance to implementing SB
1211 and to make additional clerical amendments and minor amendments to conform with
State law.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
0160107_20250417_ms29
K. Section 9 of this Ordinance amends Chapter 16.04 (California Building Code, California Code
of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 &2) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This is an administrative amendment to clarify and establish civil and
administrative procedures, regulations, or rules to administer the enforcement of Title 16.
In particular, it clarifies that while the California Building Code definitions of “gross floor
area” and “net floor area” apply for the purposes of enforcing Title 16, for the purposes of
enforcing the zoning code (Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), the definitions in Title
18 apply. This amendment is not a building standard as defined in Health and Safety Code
section 18909.
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.09 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows
(additions underlined and deletions struck-through):
18.09.010 Purpose
The intent of this Chapter is to provide regulations to accommodate accessory and
junior accessory dwelling units (ADU/JADU), in order to provide for variety to the city's
housing stock and additional affordable housing opportunities. These 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 units on nearby residents and throughout the city, and to assure that the
size and location of such dwellings is compatible with the existing or proposed
residence(s) on the site and with other structures in the area.
18.09.020 Applicable Zoning Districts
The establishment of an accessory dwelling unit is permitted in zoning districts when
single-family or multi-family residential is a permitted land use. The development of a
single-family home, ADU, and/or a JADU on a lot that allows for single-family
development shall not be considered a multifamily development pursuant to PAMC
Section 18.04.030, nor shall they require Architectural Review pursuant to other
sections of Chapter 18.
18.09.030 Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations
(a) Government Code sections 6632365852.2, subdivision (e) provides that certain units
shall be approved notwithstanding State or local regulations that may otherwise
apply. The following types of units shall be governed by the standards in this section.
In the event of a conflict between this section and Government Code section
6632365852.2, subdivision (e), the Government Code shall prevail.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4
0160107_20250417_ms29
i. An ADU and JADU within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or an
ADU within the existing space of an accessory structure (i.e. conversion
without substantial addition).
ii. An ADU and JADU within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling.
iii. A detached, new construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing
single-family dwelling, provided the ADU does not exceed 800 square feet,
sixteen feet in height, or four-foot side and rear (i.e. interior) setbacks, or the
maximum height described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (4)
of subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 66321, as applicable.
iv. ADUs created by conversion of portions of existing multi-family dwellings not
used as livable space.
v. Up to two eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multi-family
dwelling, provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of
existing units on the lot.
vi. Up to two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multi-family dwelling.
(b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are summarized in
Table 1. Regulations set forth in section 18.09.040 do not apply to units created
under 18.09.030. The minimum and maximum sizes indicated in Table 1 do not
prohibit units that are greater than 800 square feet. These sizes simply serve to
distinguish when a unit transitions from regulations set forth in Table 1 and section
18.09.030 to regulations set forth in Table 2 and section 18.09.040.
Table 1: Development Standards for Units Described in Government Code Section 65852.2(e)
66323
Single-Family Multi-Family
Conversion of
Space Within
the Existing
Space of a
Single-Family
Home or
Accessory
Structure
Construction of
Attached
ADU/JADU
Within the
Proposed Space
of a Single-
Family Home
New
Construction
of Detached
ADU
Conversion of
Non-Habitable
Space Within
Existing Multi-
family Dwelling
Structure
Conversion or
Construction of
Detached(4)
ADU on a site
with Existing
Multi-family
Structure
Conversion or
Construction of
Detached(4) ADU
on a site with
Proposed Multi-
family Structure
Number
of Units
Allowed
1 ADU and 1 JADU 1 Attached ADU, 1 Detached
ADU, and 1 JADU
25% of the
existing units
(at least one)
Up to 8 (not to
exceed the
number of
existing units
on the lot)
2
Minimum 150 sf
*NOT YET APPROVED*
5
0160107_20250417_ms29
size(1)
Maximum
size(1) N/A2 800 sf N/A
Setbacks
N/A, if
condition is
sufficient for
fire and safety
Underlying
zone standard
for Single
Family Home
(ADU must be
within
allowable space
of Single-Family
Home)
4 feet from
side and rear
lot lines;
underlying
zoning for
front setback
N/A
4 feet from side
and rear lot
lines; underlying
zoning for front
setback
Daylight
Plane N/A N/A
Maximum
Height(3) N/A 16(5) N/A 16(5)(6)
Parking None
State Law
Reference
65852.2(e)(1)(A
) 66323(a)(1)
65852.2(e)(1)(A
) 66323(a)(1)
65852.2(e)(1)
(B)
66323(a)(2)
65852.2(e)(1)(C) 66323(a)(3) 65852.2(e)(1)(D)
66323(a)(4)
(1) Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface
is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area.
(2) New construction must be consistent with allowable space (e.g. FAR, Lot Coverage) of a single
family residence, except that up to 150 sf may be added for the purpose of ingress and egress
only, without regard to underlying zone standards The maximum size of a JADU is 500 square
feet. See PAMC 18.09.030(h) for additional information.
(3) Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary
dwelling.
(4) Units must be detached from existing primary dwellings but may be attached to each other.
(5) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or
multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit
stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public
Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch
on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
(6) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily,
multistory dwelling.
(c) Development standards stated elsewhere in this Section or Title 18, including
standards related to FAR, lot coverage, and privacy, are not applicable to ADUs or
JADUs that qualify for approval under this section. When there is an ADU or JADU
attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling, the shared wall between
these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and
Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-family home, this
measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance with Section
18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement shall be taken to
the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B)
and (C).
(d) The establishment of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units
pursuant to this section shall not be conditioned on the correction of non-
*NOT YET APPROVED*
6
0160107_20250417_ms29
conforming zoning conditions; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall
limit the authority of the Chief Building Official to require correction of building
standards relating to health and safety. Upon request of the owner for a delay in
enforcement, the Chief Building Official shall delay enforcement of a building
standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(e) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if
sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. The construction of an
accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be
installed in the existing multifamily dwelling. Nothing in this section shall preclude
the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers as an alternative means of
compliance with generally applicable fire protection requirements.
(f) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or
more.
(g) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing
single-family dwelling. Except for JADUs, attached units shall not have an interior
access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar
feature/appurtenance). If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom,
the permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the
structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.
(h) Conversion of an existing accessory structure pursuant to Government Code section
65852.2(e)(1)(A) 66314(d)(7) may include reconstruction in-place of a non-
conforming structure, so long as the renovation orf reconstruction does not increase
the degree of non-compliance, such as increased height, envelope, or further
intrusion into required setbacks. An expansion of not more than 150 square feet
beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure may be
provided to accommodate ingress and egress. Any portion of an ADU addition to the
existing accessory structure that is not limited to providing for ingress and egress to
the unit, and that exceeds the envelope of the existing accessory structure shall be
subject to Section 18.09.040.
(i) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to assist in
emergency response.
(j) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as allowed
under Government Code Section 66341.
(k) Replacement parking is not required when a garage, carport, or covered parking
structure an off-street parking space is converted to, or demolished in conjunction
with the construction of, an ADU.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
7
0160107_20250417_ms29
(l) JADUs shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.09.050.
(m) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of Chapter 8.10, to the extent the City’s
application checklist requires a tree disclosure statement, it may be completed by the
property owner.
18.09.040 Units Subject to Local Standards
(a) This section shall govern applications for ADUs and JADUs that do not qualify for
approval under section 18.09.030 and for which the City may impose local standards
pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a) through (d)66314.
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit an ADU of up to 800 square
feet, at the heights stated in Table 2, with a four foot side and rear setbacks.
(b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are provided in Table
2. These regulations do not limit the height of existing structures converted into
ADU/JADUs unless the envelope of the building is proposed to be modified beyond
any existing legal, non-conforming condition.
Table 2: All other Units
Attached Detached JADU
Number of Units Allowed1 1 1
Minimum size 150 sf
Maximum size 900 sf (1,000 sf
for two or more
bedrooms);
no more than
50% of the size
of the single-
family home
900 sf (1,000 sf
for two or
more
bedrooms)
500 sf
Setbacks 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; Underlying
zone standard
for front
setback
Daylight Plane Underlying
zone standard
per footnote (7)
N/A Underlying
zone standard
Maximum Height3 Underlying
zone standard Res. Estate (RE) 30 feet
Open Space (OS) 25 feet
All other eligible zones 16 feet(5)(6)(7)
Parking None
*NOT YET APPROVED*
8
0160107_20250417_ms29
Square Footage Exemption when in
conjunction with a single family
home(4)
Up to 800 sf Up to 500 sf
(1) An attached orand detached ADU may be built in conjunction with a JADU on a lot with an
existing or proposed single family home. One attached or detached ADU may be built in
conjunction with an existing or proposed multifamily building.
(2) Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface
is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area.
(3) Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary
dwelling.
(4) Lots with both an attached and detached ADU and a JADU may exempt a maximum combined
total of 800 square feet of boththe ADUs and JADU from FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum
House Size calculations. Any square footage that exceeds this exemption shall contribute to the
FAR, Lot Coverage, and (if attached) Maximum House Size calculations for the subject property.
This exemption is not afforded to lots with existing or proposed multifamily dwellings.
(5) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or
multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit
stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public
Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch
on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
(6) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily,
multistory dwelling.
(7) A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the underlying zone district that applies to the
primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an ADU that is attached to a primary dwelling. These
ADUs shall not exceed two stories in height.
(c) A single-family or multifamily dwelling shall exist on the lot or shall be constructed
on the lot in conjunction with the construction of an ADU/JADU.
(d) ADU and/or JADU square footage shall not be included in FAR, Lot Coverage, and
Maximum House Size calculations for a lot with an existing or proposed single family
home, up to the amounts stated in Table 2. ADU and/or JADU square footage in
excess of the exemptions provided in Table 2 shall be included in FAR, Lot Coverage,
and Maximum House Size calculations for the lot.
(e) When there is an ADU or JADU attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling,
the shared wall between these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable
Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-
family home, this measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance
with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement
shall be taken to the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section
18.04.030(a)(65)(B) and (C).
(f) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing
single-family dwelling. Except for JADUs, Aattached units shall not have an interior
*NOT YET APPROVED*
9
0160107_20250417_ms29
access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar
feature/appurtenance).
(g) Reserved No protected tree shall be removed for the purpose of establishing an
accessory dwelling unit except in accordance with Chapter 8.10. Notwithstanding
any contrary provision of Chapter 8.10, to the extent the City’s application checklist
requires a tree disclosure statement, it may be completed by the property owner.
(h) 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 shall be required.
(i) Noise-producing equipment such as air conditioners, water heaters, and similar
service equipment that exclusively serves an ADU/JADU may be located anywhere
on the site, provided they maintain the underlying front yard setback requirements
of the property and, if the property is a corner lot, a 10-foot street-side setback. All
such equipment shall be insulated and housed, except that the Director may permit
installation without housing and insulation, provided that a combination of technical
noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will
assure compliance with the city’s Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. All
service equipment must meet the city’s Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of the
Municipal Code.
(j) Setbacks
(1) Detached units shall maintain a minimum three-foot distance from the
primary unit, measured from the exterior walls of structures.
(2) A basement or other subterranean portion that serves an ADU/JADU may
encroach into a setback required for the primary dwelling provided the
following conditions are met:
(A) Newly constructed basement walls are no closer than four feet to an
adjacent interior side or rear property line.
(B) A new lightwell associated with a basement shall not be placed
closer than four feet to an adjacent interior property line. When
visible from the right of way, these facilities shall be screened from
view with vegetation.
(C) The new basement shall not negatively impact tree roots on the
subject property or on adjacent lots such that it would require to be
removed or cause the protected tree to die.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
10
0160107_20250417_ms29
(D) (C) Habitable ADU/JADU basements shall contribute toward the
unit’s total allowable floor area. Any floor area in excess of the
exemptions provided in this Section shall contribute to the total
allowable limits for the site.
(3) Projections, including but not limited to windows, doors, mechanical
equipment, venting or exhaust systems, are not permitted to encroach into
the required setbacks, with the exception of a roof eave of up to 2 feet.
(4) For corner lots developed as a single-family home only, when an existing or
proposed primary dwelling unit is expanded or constructed simultaneously
with the construction of a new ADU/JADU, the homeowner may elect to
build all structures may be built to a 10-foot street-side setback and a 16-foot
front yard setback, regardless of the presence of a more restrictive special
setback, unless a fire or life-safety regulation requires a greater setback.
Pursuant Government Code section 66321(b)(3), a street-side setback may
not preclude the development of an 800 square foot unit.
(5) When an existing, legal, nonconforming structure is converted or
reconstructed to create an ADU/JADU, any portion of the ADU/JADU that is
in the same location and falls within the building envelope of the original
structure shall not be subject to the development standards stated in this
Section. Any portion of the ADU/JADU that is in a different location or
exceeds the envelope of the original structure shall comply with the
development standards stated in this Section.
(6) Notwithstanding the development standards stated in Table 2 and paragraph
(5) above, when an existing, legal, non-conforming structure is converted in-
place to an ADU/JADU, the envelope of the structure may be modified to
encroach further into a setback or daylight plane as follows:
(A) The height of the existing structure may be increased by no more
than one linear foot in height commensurate to the existing roofline
of the structure provided the height of the addition does not exceed
12 feet from grade. The roofline shall not be changed to a style other
than what currently exists on the structure.
(B) Each non-conforming wall may be expanded by no more than six
inches in thickness based on its existing location and configuration, as
measured to exterior surface of the material, to provide for greater
insulation and energy requirements provided that a minimum of one
foot is maintained between the addition and an adjacent interior
property line. An existing wall of a structure that does not currently
*NOT YET APPROVED*
11
0160107_20250417_ms29
have a separation of one foot from a parallel property line shall not
be expanded outward.
(C) All other additions not specified here shall follow the standard
setbacks for the ADU/JADU identified in Table 2.
(k) Design
(1) Except on corner lots, where feasible, the unit shall not have an entranceway
facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main
dwelling unit unless the entranceway to the accessory unit 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.
(2) Privacy
(A) Second story doors and decks shall not face a neighboring property
line. Second story decks and balconies shall utilize screening barriers
to prevent views towards an adjacent interior property line. These
barriers shall be a minimum five-foot, six-inch height from the floor
level of the deck or balcony and shall not include perforations of any
kind that would allow visibility between properties.
(B) Windows on a second floor, loft, or equivalent elevated space,
excluding those required for egress, shall have a five-foot sill height as
measured from the second-finished floor level, or utilize opaque
glazing on the entirety any window that faces an adjacent interior
property line.
(C) Windows on a second finished floor, loft, or equivalent elevated
space, shall be offset from neighbor’s windows to maximize privacy.
(D) Where feasible, egress windows on the first and second finished floor
of an ADU or JADU shall not face towards an adjacent interior
property line. If this is not feasible, then these windows shall utilize
opaque glazing on the whole window.
(E) If the first finished floor of an ADU or JADU is two feet or more above
grade, then first floor windows shall include the following:
i. Non-egress, operable windows facing an adjacent interior
property line shall have a windowsill(s) that start five feet
above the first finished floor for the unit;
ii. Non-egress, non-operable windows facing an adjacent interior
property line shall have the lower half of window(s) (minimum
of five feet above the first finished floor) utilize opaque
glazing.
(F) Where feasible, the use of skylights (whether operable or not) shall
be used in lieu of operable windows that face adjacent interior
properties.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
12
0160107_20250417_ms29
(G) No exterior lighting shall be mounted above seven feet. All lighting
mounted on walls shall be directed downwards and shall not direct
light towards adjacent interior property lines. Any ground lighting
shall not direct light upwards to the building or sky.
(l) Parking
(1) Replacement parking is not required when a garage, carport, or covered
parking structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to, or demolished
in conjunction with the construction of, an ADU.
(2) Replacement parking is required when an existing attached garage, carport,
or covered parking structure is converted to a JADU or when a required,
existing, uncovered parking space is expanded into an ADU/JADU. These
replacement spaces may be provided as uncovered spaces in any
configuration on the lot including within the front or street side yard setback
for the property.
(A) The Director shall have the authority to modify required replacement
parking spaces by up to one foot in width and length upon finding
that the reduction is necessary to accommodate parking in a location
otherwise allowed under this code and is not detrimental to public
health, safety or the general welfare.
(B) Existing front and street side yard driveways may be enlarged to the
minimum extent necessary to comply with the replacement parking
requirement above. Existing curb cuts shall not be altered except
when necessary to promote public health, safety or the general
welfare.
(2) (3) When parking is provided, the 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 will result in fewer environmental impacts such as paving, grading or tree
removal.
(3) (4) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the
construction of new ADU/JADUs, the primary unit’s covered parking
requirements identified in Chapter 18.10 and 18.12 do not need to be
provided. Two uncovered parking spaces shall be provided in any
configuration on the lot including within the front or street-side setback for
the property.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
13
0160107_20250417_ms29
(4) (5) If covered parking for a unit is provided in any district, the maximum size of
the covered parking area for the accessory dwelling unit is 220 square feet.
This space shall count towards the total floor area for the site but does not
contribute to the maximum size of the unit. Any attached garage shall not
have an interior access point to the ADU/JADU (e.g. hotel door or other similar
feature/appurtenance).
(m) Landscape
(1) For the purposes of this subsection (m), “protected tree” means:
(A) Any locally native tree of the species Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf
Maple), Calocedrus decurrens (California Incense Cedar), Quercus
agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak), Quercus
kelloggii (California Black Oak), or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which
is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in
circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-
four inches) above natural grade.
(B) Any Coast Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is
eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or
more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above
natural grade.
(C) Any tree of any species, other than a Coast Redwood Tree, fifteen
inches in diameter (forty-seven inches in circumference) or more
when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above
natural grade. A “protected tree” does not include a tree of any
species on the Exempt Species List put forth by the Department of
Urban Forestry and available on the City’s website.
(D) Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of
a current or previously completed development project.
(E) Any tree designated for carbon sequestration and storage and/or
environmental mitigation purposes as identified in an agreement
between the property owner and a responsible government agency
or recorded as a deed restriction.
(F) Any heritage tree previously designated by the city council.
(G) Any tree previously planted as a replacement mitigation tree.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) below, the construction of an ADU shall
not impact any protected tree, on the subject property or any adjacent lot by
requiring:
(A) Removal of more than twenty-five percent of the functioning leaf,
stem, or root area of a tree in any twenty-four-month period; or
(B) Removal of more than fifteen percent of the functioning root area of
any Quercus (oak) species in any thirty-six-month period; or
*NOT YET APPROVED*
14
0160107_20250417_ms29
(C) Trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the tree
protection zone of a tree in a way that foreseeably leads to the death
of the tree. For the purposes of this subsection (m), "tree protection
zone" means the area defined by a circle with a radius ten times the
diameter of the trunk when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-
four inches) above natural grade.
(3) If an action prohibited by section 18.09.040(m)(2) is necessary to allow the
construction of an ADU that meets the minimum standards set forth in state
law, the tree shall be replaced according to the objective requirements
identified in the Tree Canopy Replacement Table of the Palo Alto Tree and
Landscape Technical Manual.
(4) The construction of an ADU must comply with applicable objective standards
and specifications in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual for the
protection of trees during construction. Compliance with this subsection (4)
shall not delay or cause the denial of an ADU or JADU building permit or use
permit.
(n) Miscellaneous requirements
(1) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to
assist in emergency response.
(2) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence except as
allowed under Government Code Section 66341.
(3) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30
days or more.
(4) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory
dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. Nothing
in this section shall preclude the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers
as an alternative means of compliance with generally applicable fire
protection requirements.
18.09.050 Additional Requirements for JADUs
(a) A JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit may only be created on a lot in a single-family
residential zone with an existing or proposed single family residence. A JADUjunior
accessory dwelling unit shall be attached to or created within the walls of an existing
or proposed primary dwelling, including enclosed uses within the residence, such as
an attached garage.
(b) The JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit shall include an efficiency kitchen, requiring
the following components: A cooking facility with appliances, and; food preparation
*NOT YET APPROVED*
15
0160107_20250417_ms29
counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the
junior accessory dwelling unit.
i. A cooking facility with appliances shall mean, at minimum a one burner
installed range, an oven or convection microwave, a 10 cubic foot refrigerator
and freezer combination unit, and a sink that facilitates hot and cold water.
ii. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets shall be of reasonable size in
relation to a JADU if they provide counter space equal to a minimum 24-inch
depth and 36-inch length.
iii. i. JADUs may share sanitation facilities (bathrooms, laundry facilities, etc.) with
the primary unit. If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom,
the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance
from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main
living area. In this instance, the floor area and lot coverage associated with
shared space shall count towards the primary unit’s maximum allowances
only. The combined sanitation facilities between the units shall include
shower, toilet, and sink fixtures at a minimum and shall conform to the
minimum requirements specified in the Building Code.
(c) 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 JADUjunior accessory
dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new unit.
(d) The owner of a parcel proposed for a JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit shall occupy
as a primary residence either the primary dwelling or the JADUjunior accessory
dwelling. Owner-occupancy is not required if the owner is a governmental agency,
land trust, or housing organization.
(e) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a JADUjunior 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 (d)
above, does not permit short-term rentals, and restricts the size and attributes of the
JADUjunior dwelling unit to those that conform with this section.
(f) JADU incentive. The existing or proposed primary dwelling unit shall be afforded bonus
square footage equal to the square footage of a proposed JADU when a JADU is
constructed on site, provided the JADU meets the following requirements:
1) The JADU must conform to the underlying zoning district’s development
standards for single family homes.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
16
0160107_20250417_ms29
2) The maximum number of units on site shall not exceed four (two ADUs, one
JADU, and one primary home).
3) The maximum size of the JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet.
4) The total maximum bonus/exempt floor area provided for the site under
Section 18.09.040 and 18.09.050 may not exceed 800 square feet.
5) The exterior entryway to the JADU shall not face the same direction as the
entrance to the primary home.
6) All egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must utilize
opaque glazing on the whole window.
7) All non-egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must have
a windowsill(s) that start five feet above the first finished floor for the unit.
8) All noise producing equipment associated with the JADU must comply with the
noise regulations in PAMC 9.10.
SECTION 3. Subsection (a)(75)(A) of Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04
(Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read
as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through):
(A) For ADUs, a kitchen must have permanent provisions for eating, cooking, and sanitation
as required by Government Code Section 66313 and Section 17958.1 of the Health and
Safety Code. major appliances shall mean a minimum two burner installed range, and an
oven or convection microwave, as well as a minimum 11 cubic foot freezer and
refrigerator combination unit. Kitchens shall also include counter space for food
preparation equal to a minimum 24-inch depth and 36-inch length, and a sink that
facilitates hot and cold water.
SECTION 4. Subsection (a) of Section 16.49.050 (Exterior Alteration of Historic Structures) of
Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as
follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through):
(a) Review Process. Except for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
proposed on properties listed in the Palo Alto local historic inventory, aAll applications
for a building permit for exterior alteration to any historic structure/site in the
downtown area or a significant building elsewhere in the city, new construction on a
parcel where there is currently a historic structure in the downtown area or a significant
building elsewhere in the city, or such application for construction within a historic
district shall be reviewed as follows:
SECTION 5. Footnote (5) of Table 2 in Section 18.10.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter
18.10 (Low-Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) is amended to read as follows
(deletions struck-through):
(5) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached accessory
dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of
*NOT YET APPROVED*
17
0160107_20250417_ms29
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.
SECTION 6. Section 18.10.150 (Grandfathered Uses) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read
as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, unchanged text omitted by bracketed
ellipses):
18.10.150 Grandfathered Uses
[…]
(d) (Reserved) Existing Accessory Dwellings and Guest Cottages
In the RE district, accessory dwellings and guest cottages existing on April 28, 1986, and
which prior to that date were lawful, conforming permitted uses may remain as legal
nonconforming uses. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site
improvements on the same site, without necessity to comply with site development
regulations for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided that any such
remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not add a kitchen nor result in increased
floor area, number of dwelling units, height, length or any other increase in the size of the
improvement without complying with the standards set forth in this subsection and
applying for and receiving a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 18.76.
[…]
SECTION 7. Footnote (8) of Table 2 in Section 18.12.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter
18.12 (R-1 Single Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows (deletions struck-through):
(8) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached 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.
SECTION 8. Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS, and AC) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions
struck-through, unchanged text omitted by bracketed ellipses):
[. . .]
18.28.040 Land Uses
*NOT YET APPROVED*
18
0160107_20250417_ms29
Table 1 shows the permitted (P) and conditionally permitted (CUP) land uses for the Special
Purpose Districts.
Table 1
Land Uses
PF OS AC Subject to
Regulations in
Chapter:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
[…] […] […] […] […]
Accessory Dwelling Units,
subject to regulations in
Section 18.42.040
P(2) P(2) P(2) 18.0942.040
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units
P(2) P(2) P(2) 18.0942.040
[…] […] […] […] […]
[. . .]
(2) An Aaccessory dDwelling uUnit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a
single-family or multi-family residence on a lot in the OS District is permitted, subject to
the provisions of Section Chapter 18.0942.040, and such that no more than two total
units result on the lot.
[…]
18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations
The following additional regulations shall apply in the OS district:
(a) Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to the
regulations set forth in SectionChapter 18.0942.040.
[. . .]
18.28.100 Grandfathered Uses
In the OS district, accessory dwellings and guest cottages existing on April 28, 1986, and which
prior to that date were lawful, conforming permitted uses may remain as legal nonconforming
uses. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the
same site, without necessity to comply with site development regulations for continual use and
occupancy by the same use; provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement
shall not add a kitchen nor result in increased floor area, number of dwelling units, height,
*NOT YET APPROVED*
19
0160107_20250417_ms29
length or any other increase in the size of the improvement without complying with the
standards set forth in Section 18.28.070(a) and without applying for and receiving a conditional
use permit.
SECTION 9. Section 16.04.235 (Section 202 Definitions) is added to Chapter 16.04 (California
Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 &2 ) of Title 16
(Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows (additions underlined,
bracketed ellipses indicate text of the California Building Code, 2022 Edition, that has been
adopted without amendment but is omitted for brevity):
Section 202 Definitions
[...]
FLOOR AREA, GROSS. The floor area within the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the
building under consideration, exclusive of vent shafts and courts, without deduction for
corridors, stairways, ramps, closets, the thickness of interior walls, columns or other features.
The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls
shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. The gross
floor area shall not include shafts with no openings or interior courts. For the purposes of Title
18 (Zoning), the definition of “gross floor area” in Section 18.04.030 shall apply.
FLOOR AREA, NET. The actual occupied area not including unoccupied accessory areas such as
corridors, stairways, ramps, toilet rooms, mechanical rooms and closets. For the purposes of
Title 18 (Zoning), the definition of “net floor area” in Section 18.04.030 shall apply.
[...]
SECTION 10. 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 affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 11. 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 12. The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), because it constitutes
amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance to conform with preemptive State law, including
*NOT YET APPROVED*
20
0160107_20250417_ms29
Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) and Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of
Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, as well as other minor and non-
substantive amendments. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will
not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 13. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney or Designee City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0160107_20250417_ms29
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building
Regulations) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend
Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations.
A. In 2023, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance 5585, amending the City’s requirements
for ADUs and JADUs to reflect changes in State law and guidance from the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
B. On October 29, 2024, the City received a letter from HCD commenting on aspects of the
City’s J/ADU ordinance that HCD found inconsistent with State law.
C. California Government Code section 66326(b)(2) requires that the City either amend its
ordinance as indicated in the letter or adopt the ordinance without the changes and include
findings that explain the reasons the City believes the ordinance complies with State J/ADU
law.
D. Upon recommendation of City Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto now intends to amend its J/ADU ordinance in response to
each of HCD’s comments.
E. Additionally, the City now adopts explanatory findings to accompany the amendments in
response to several of HCD’s comments.
F. HCD Comment 9 states, “The Ordinance makes several references to Chapter 8.10, the
City’s Tree and Landscape Preservation and Management regulations, and requires that
elements of ADU development conform to Chapter 8.10…The City should amend the
Ordinance to ensure that compliance with this ordinance section will not delay or cause the
denial of an ADU or JADU building permit or use permit.” The City now intends to amend its
ADU ordinance to eliminate references to Chapter 8.10. Additionally, the City now amends
its Chapter 18.09.040 to include objective landscape requirements for those ADUs that are
subject to local standards, pursuant to Government Code section 66314(b). These landscape
requirements include adherence to applicable objective landscape standards in the Tree
and Landscape Technical Manual for the protection of trees during construction. The City
Council finds that the standards in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual for the
protection of trees during construction are industry standard best practices for construction
and are typically imposed as conditions of approval. Consistent with HCD’s comment, the
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0160107_20250417_ms29
ordinance will clarify that the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual’s standards for tree
protection during construction are not a cause of delay or denial of an ADU or JADU permit.
G. HCD Comment 10 states, “The Ordinance describes JADUs in the section ‘Units Subject to
Local Standards’ and creates governance of JADUs that ‘do not qualify for approval under
section 18.090.030.’ However, all JADUs are created pursuant to Government Code section
66323, subdivision (a)(1), and would therefore be approved under section 18.090.030. The
City must remove references to JADUs in this section.” The City Council finds that this
comment is incorrect; although some JADUs are created pursuant to Government Code
section 66323, JADUs may also be created pursuant to Government Code sections 66333-
66339 (also known as “Article 3”), which begins with the statement “Notwithstanding
Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314 [and including section 66323]), a local agency
may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units in single-
family residential zones” (emphasis added). Nonetheless, through this Ordinance, the City
intends to remove all references to JADUs in Section 18.09.040, “Units Subject to Local
Standards.” All JADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code section 66323(a)
will be subject to the ministerial approval provisions in Chapter 18.09.030. Additionally, in
order to further incentivize the construction of JADUs, the Ordinance allows a 500 square
foot bonus for the primary dwelling unit where a JADU that meets the conditions in
18.09.050(f) is constructed on site. The City Council finds that this additional incentive
provided in 18.09.050 does not conflict with Government Code sections 66310-66342
because it liberalizes the City’s regulations for primary residences and does not regulate the
construction of JADUs.
H. HCD Comment 14 states, “Section 18.09.040 (l) – Parking Exceptions – The Ordinance does
not provide for exemptions to parking requirements pursuant to Government Code section
66322, subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(6)…Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to
add the required exemptions.” Table 1 and 2 of PAMC 18.09.030 and 18.09.040, as well as
Table 1 of PAMC 18.52.040, indicate that parking is not required for newly constructed
ADUs or JADUs. Additionally, this Ordinance amends PAMC 18.09.040(l) so that the City no
longer requires replacement parking for ADUs or JADUs under any circumstance. Because
the Ordinance as amended imposes no parking requirements for J/ADUs, it does not
enumerate the exemptions to parking requirements described in Government Code section
66322(a)(1)-(6).
I. On September 19, 2024, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1211, effective January 1,
2025. SB 1211 allows up to 8 detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on parcels with
existing multifamily development and provides that cities can no longer require
replacement parking for uncovered parking spaces that are removed for an ADU.
J. Upon recommendation of City Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto desires to amend its J/ADU ordinance to implementing SB
1211 and to make additional clerical amendments and minor amendments to conform with
State law.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
0160107_20250417_ms29
K. Section 9 of this Ordinance amends Chapter 16.04 (California Building Code, California Code
of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 &2) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This is an administrative amendment to clarify and establish civil and
administrative procedures, regulations, or rules to administer the enforcement of Title 16.
In particular, it clarifies that while the California Building Code definitions of “gross floor
area” and “net floor area” apply for the purposes of enforcing Title 16, for the purposes of
enforcing the zoning code (Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), the definitions in Title
18 apply. This amendment is not a building standard as defined in Health and Safety Code
section 18909.
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.09 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows
(additions underlined and deletions struck-through):
18.09.010 Purpose
The intent of this Chapter is to provide regulations to accommodate accessory and
junior accessory dwelling units (ADU/JADU), in order to provide for variety to the city's
housing stock and additional affordable housing opportunities. These 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 units on nearby residents and throughout the city, and to assure that the
size and location of such dwellings is compatible with the existing or proposed
residence(s) on the site and with other structures in the area.
18.09.020 Applicable Zoning Districts
The establishment of an accessory dwelling unit is permitted in zoning districts when
single-family or multi-family residential is a permitted land use. The development of a
single-family home, ADU, and/or a JADU on a lot that allows for single-family
development shall not be considered a multifamily development pursuant to PAMC
Section 18.04.030, nor shall they require Architectural Review pursuant to other
sections of Chapter 18.
18.09.030 Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations
(a) Government Code sections 6632365852.2, subdivision (e) provides that certain units
shall be approved notwithstanding State or local regulations that may otherwise
apply. The following types of units shall be governed by the standards in this section.
In the event of a conflict between this section and Government Code section
6632365852.2, subdivision (e), the Government Code shall prevail.
Commented [A1]: HCD Comment 1.
Commented [A2]: HCD Comment 1.
Commented [A3]: HCD Comment 1
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4
0160107_20250417_ms29
i. An ADU and JADU within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or an
ADU within the existing space of an accessory structure (i.e. conversion
without substantial addition).
ii. An ADU and JADU within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling.
iii. A detached, new construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing
single-family dwelling, provided the ADU does not exceed 800 square feet,
sixteen feet in height, or four-foot side and rear (i.e. interior) setbacks, or the
maximum height described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (4)
of subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 66321, as applicable.
iv. ADUs created by conversion of portions of existing multi-family dwellings not
used as livable space.
v. Up to two eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multi-family
dwelling, provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of
existing units on the lot.
vi. Up to two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multi-family dwelling.
(b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are summarized in
Table 1. Regulations set forth in section 18.09.040 do not apply to units created
under 18.09.030. The minimum and maximum sizes indicated in Table 1 do not
prohibit units that are greater than 800 square feet. These sizes simply serve to
distinguish when a unit transitions from regulations set forth in Table 1 and section
18.09.030 to regulations set forth in Table 2 and section 18.09.040.
Table 1: Development Standards for Units Described in Government Code Section 65852.2(e)
66323
Single-Family Multi-Family
Conversion of
Space Within
the Existing
Space of a
Single-Family
Home or
Accessory
Structure
Construction of
Attached
ADU/JADU
Within the
Proposed Space
of a Single-
Family Home
New
Construction
of Detached
ADU
Conversion of
Non-Habitable
Space Within
Existing Multi-
family Dwelling
Structure
Conversion or
Construction of
Detached(4)
ADU on a site
with Existing
Multi-family
Structure
Conversion or
Construction of
Detached(4) ADU
on a site with
Proposed Multi-
family Structure
Number
of Units
Allowed
1 ADU and 1 JADU 1 Attached ADU, 1 Detached
ADU, and 1 JADU
25% of the
existing units
(at least one)
Up to 8 (not to
exceed the
number of
existing units
on the lot)
2
Minimum 150 sf
Commented [A4]: HCD Comment 2
Commented [A5]: HCD Comment 1
Commented [A6]: HCD Comment 3
*NOT YET APPROVED*
5
0160107_20250417_ms29
size(1)
Maximum
size(1) N/A2 800 sf N/A
Setbacks
N/A, if
condition is
sufficient for
fire and safety
Underlying
zone standard
for Single
Family Home
(ADU must be
within
allowable space
of Single-Family
Home)
4 feet from
side and rear
lot lines;
underlying
zoning for
front setback
N/A
4 feet from side
and rear lot
lines; underlying
zoning for front
setback
Daylight
Plane N/A N/A
Maximum
Height(3) N/A 16(5) N/A 16(5)(6)
Parking None
State Law
Reference
65852.2(e)(1)(A
) 66323(a)(1)
65852.2(e)(1)(A
) 66323(a)(1)
65852.2(e)(1)
(B)
66323(a)(2)
65852.2(e)(1)(C) 66323(a)(3) 65852.2(e)(1)(D)
66323(a)(4)
(1) Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface
is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area.
(2) New construction must be consistent with allowable space (e.g. FAR, Lot Coverage) of a single
family residence, except that up to 150 sf may be added for the purpose of ingress and egress
only, without regard to underlying zone standards The maximum size of a JADU is 500 square
feet. See PAMC 18.09.030(h) for additional information.
(3) Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary
dwelling.
(4) Units must be detached from existing primary dwellings but may be attached to each other.
(5) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or
multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit
stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public
Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch
on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
(6) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily,
multistory dwelling.
(c) Development standards stated elsewhere in this Section or Title 18, including
standards related to FAR, lot coverage, and privacy, are not applicable to ADUs or
JADUs that qualify for approval under this section. When there is an ADU or JADU
attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling, the shared wall between
these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and
Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-family home, this
measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance with Section
18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement shall be taken to
the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B)
and (C).
(d) The establishment of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units
pursuant to this section shall not be conditioned on the correction of non-
*NOT YET APPROVED*
6
0160107_20250417_ms29
conforming zoning conditions; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall
limit the authority of the Chief Building Official to require correction of building
standards relating to health and safety. Upon request of the owner for a delay in
enforcement, the Chief Building Official shall delay enforcement of a building
standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(e) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if
sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. The construction of an
accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be
installed in the existing multifamily dwelling. Nothing in this section shall preclude
the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers as an alternative means of
compliance with generally applicable fire protection requirements.
(f) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or
more.
(g) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing
single-family dwelling. Except for JADUs, attached units shall not have an interior
access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar
feature/appurtenance). If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom,
the permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the
structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.
(h) Conversion of an existing accessory structure pursuant to Government Code section
65852.2(e)(1)(A) 66314(d)(7) may include reconstruction in-place of a non-
conforming structure, so long as the renovation orf reconstruction does not increase
the degree of non-compliance, such as increased height, envelope, or further
intrusion into required setbacks. An expansion of not more than 150 square feet
beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure may be
provided to accommodate ingress and egress. Any portion of an ADU addition to the
existing accessory structure that is not limited to providing for ingress and egress to
the unit, and that exceeds the envelope of the existing accessory structure shall be
subject to Section 18.09.040.
(i) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to assist in
emergency response.
(j) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as allowed
under Government Code Section 66341.
(k) Replacement parking is not required when a garage, carport, or covered parking
structure an off-street parking space is converted to, or demolished in conjunction
with the construction of, an ADU.
Commented [A7]: HCD Comment 4
Commented [A8]: HCD Comment 5
Commented [A9]: HCD Comment 6
Commented [A10]: HCD Comment 1
Commented [A11]: HCD Comment 7
Commented [A12]: HCD Comment 8
*NOT YET APPROVED*
7
0160107_20250417_ms29
(l) JADUs shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.09.050.
(m) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of Chapter 8.10, to the extent the City’s
application checklist requires a tree disclosure statement, it may be completed by the
property owner.
18.09.040 Units Subject to Local Standards
(a) This section shall govern applications for ADUs and JADUs that do not qualify for
approval under section 18.09.030 and for which the City may impose local standards
pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a) through (d)66314.
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit an ADU of up to 800 square
feet, at the heights stated in Table 2, with a four foot side and rear setbacks.
(b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are provided in Table
2. These regulations do not limit the height of existing structures converted into
ADU/JADUs unless the envelope of the building is proposed to be modified beyond
any existing legal, non-conforming condition.
Table 2: All other Units
Attached Detached JADU
Number of Units Allowed1 1 1
Minimum size 150 sf
Maximum size 900 sf (1,000 sf
for two or more
bedrooms);
no more than
50% of the size
of the single-
family home
900 sf (1,000 sf
for two or
more
bedrooms)
500 sf
Setbacks 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; Underlying
zone standard
for front
setback
Daylight Plane Underlying
zone standard
per footnote (7)
N/A Underlying
zone standard
Maximum Height3 Underlying
zone standard Res. Estate (RE) 30 feet
Open Space (OS) 25 feet
All other eligible zones 16 feet(5)(6)(7)
Parking None
Commented [A13]: HCD Comment 9
Commented [A14]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A15]: HCD Comment 1
*NOT YET APPROVED*
8
0160107_20250417_ms29
Square Footage Exemption when in
conjunction with a single family
home(4)
Up to 800 sf Up to 500 sf
(1) An attached orand detached ADU may be built in conjunction with a JADU on a lot with an
existing or proposed single family home. One attached or detached ADU may be built in
conjunction with an existing or proposed multifamily building.
(2) Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface
is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area.
(3) Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary
dwelling.
(4) Lots with both an attached and detached ADU and a JADU may exempt a maximum combined
total of 800 square feet of boththe ADUs and JADU from FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum
House Size calculations. Any square footage that exceeds this exemption shall contribute to the
FAR, Lot Coverage, and (if attached) Maximum House Size calculations for the subject property.
This exemption is not afforded to lots with existing or proposed multifamily dwellings.
(5) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or
multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit
stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public
Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch
on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
(6) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily,
multistory dwelling.
(7) A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the underlying zone district that applies to the
primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an ADU that is attached to a primary dwelling. These
ADUs shall not exceed two stories in height.
(c) A single-family or multifamily dwelling shall exist on the lot or shall be constructed
on the lot in conjunction with the construction of an ADU/JADU.
(d) ADU and/or JADU square footage shall not be included in FAR, Lot Coverage, and
Maximum House Size calculations for a lot with an existing or proposed single family
home, up to the amounts stated in Table 2. ADU and/or JADU square footage in
excess of the exemptions provided in Table 2 shall be included in FAR, Lot Coverage,
and Maximum House Size calculations for the lot.
(e) When there is an ADU or JADU attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling,
the shared wall between these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable
Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-
family home, this measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance
with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement
shall be taken to the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section
18.04.030(a)(65)(B) and (C).
(f) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing
single-family dwelling. Except for JADUs, Aattached units shall not have an interior
Commented [A16]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A17]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A18]: HCD Comment 11
Commented [A19]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A20]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A21]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A22]: HCD Comment 10
*NOT YET APPROVED*
9
0160107_20250417_ms29
access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar
feature/appurtenance).
(g) Reserved No protected tree shall be removed for the purpose of establishing an
accessory dwelling unit except in accordance with Chapter 8.10. Notwithstanding
any contrary provision of Chapter 8.10, to the extent the City’s application checklist
requires a tree disclosure statement, it may be completed by the property owner.
(h) 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 shall be required.
(i) Noise-producing equipment such as air conditioners, water heaters, and similar
service equipment that exclusively serves an ADU/JADU may be located anywhere
on the site, provided they maintain the underlying front yard setback requirements
of the property and, if the property is a corner lot, a 10-foot street-side setback. All
such equipment shall be insulated and housed, except that the Director may permit
installation without housing and insulation, provided that a combination of technical
noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will
assure compliance with the city’s Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. All
service equipment must meet the city’s Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of the
Municipal Code.
(j) Setbacks
(1) Detached units shall maintain a minimum three-foot distance from the
primary unit, measured from the exterior walls of structures.
(2) A basement or other subterranean portion that serves an ADU/JADU may
encroach into a setback required for the primary dwelling provided the
following conditions are met:
(A) Newly constructed basement walls are no closer than four feet to an
adjacent interior side or rear property line.
(B) A new lightwell associated with a basement shall not be placed
closer than four feet to an adjacent interior property line. When
visible from the right of way, these facilities shall be screened from
view with vegetation.
(C) The new basement shall not negatively impact tree roots on the
subject property or on adjacent lots such that it would require to be
removed or cause the protected tree to die.
Commented [A23]: HCD Comment 9
Commented [A24]: HCD Comment 12
Commented [A25]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A26]: HCD Comment 10
*NOT YET APPROVED*
10
0160107_20250417_ms29
(D) (C) Habitable ADU/JADU basements shall contribute toward the
unit’s total allowable floor area. Any floor area in excess of the
exemptions provided in this Section shall contribute to the total
allowable limits for the site.
(3) Projections, including but not limited to windows, doors, mechanical
equipment, venting or exhaust systems, are not permitted to encroach into
the required setbacks, with the exception of a roof eave of up to 2 feet.
(4) For corner lots developed as a single-family home only, when an existing or
proposed primary dwelling unit is expanded or constructed simultaneously
with the construction of a new ADU/JADU, the homeowner may elect to
build all structures may be built to a 10-foot street-side setback and a 16-foot
front yard setback, regardless of the presence of a more restrictive special
setback, unless a fire or life-safety regulation requires a greater setback.
Pursuant Government Code section 66321(b)(3), a street-side setback may
not preclude the development of an 800 square foot unit.
(5) When an existing, legal, nonconforming structure is converted or
reconstructed to create an ADU/JADU, any portion of the ADU/JADU that is
in the same location and falls within the building envelope of the original
structure shall not be subject to the development standards stated in this
Section. Any portion of the ADU/JADU that is in a different location or
exceeds the envelope of the original structure shall comply with the
development standards stated in this Section.
(6) Notwithstanding the development standards stated in Table 2 and paragraph
(5) above, when an existing, legal, non-conforming structure is converted in-
place to an ADU/JADU, the envelope of the structure may be modified to
encroach further into a setback or daylight plane as follows:
(A) The height of the existing structure may be increased by no more
than one linear foot in height commensurate to the existing roofline
of the structure provided the height of the addition does not exceed
12 feet from grade. The roofline shall not be changed to a style other
than what currently exists on the structure.
(B) Each non-conforming wall may be expanded by no more than six
inches in thickness based on its existing location and configuration, as
measured to exterior surface of the material, to provide for greater
insulation and energy requirements provided that a minimum of one
foot is maintained between the addition and an adjacent interior
property line. An existing wall of a structure that does not currently
Commented [A27]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A28]: HCD Comment 13
Commented [A29]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A30]: HCD Comment 10
*NOT YET APPROVED*
11
0160107_20250417_ms29
have a separation of one foot from a parallel property line shall not
be expanded outward.
(C) All other additions not specified here shall follow the standard
setbacks for the ADU/JADU identified in Table 2.
(k) Design
(1) Except on corner lots, where feasible, the unit shall not have an entranceway
facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main
dwelling unit unless the entranceway to the accessory unit 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.
(2) Privacy
(A) Second story doors and decks shall not face a neighboring property
line. Second story decks and balconies shall utilize screening barriers
to prevent views towards an adjacent interior property line. These
barriers shall be a minimum five-foot, six-inch height from the floor
level of the deck or balcony and shall not include perforations of any
kind that would allow visibility between properties.
(B) Windows on a second floor, loft, or equivalent elevated space,
excluding those required for egress, shall have a five-foot sill height as
measured from the second-finished floor level, or utilize opaque
glazing on the entirety any window that faces an adjacent interior
property line.
(C) Windows on a second finished floor, loft, or equivalent elevated
space, shall be offset from neighbor’s windows to maximize privacy.
(D) Where feasible, egress windows on the first and second finished floor
of an ADU or JADU shall not face towards an adjacent interior
property line. If this is not feasible, then these windows shall utilize
opaque glazing on the whole window.
(E) If the first finished floor of an ADU or JADU is two feet or more above
grade, then first floor windows shall include the following:
i. Non-egress, operable windows facing an adjacent interior
property line shall have a windowsill(s) that start five feet
above the first finished floor for the unit;
ii. Non-egress, non-operable windows facing an adjacent interior
property line shall have the lower half of window(s) (minimum
of five feet above the first finished floor) utilize opaque
glazing.
(F) Where feasible, the use of skylights (whether operable or not) shall
be used in lieu of operable windows that face adjacent interior
properties.
Commented [A31]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A32]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A33]: HCD Comment 10
*NOT YET APPROVED*
12
0160107_20250417_ms29
(G) No exterior lighting shall be mounted above seven feet. All lighting
mounted on walls shall be directed downwards and shall not direct
light towards adjacent interior property lines. Any ground lighting
shall not direct light upwards to the building or sky.
(l) Parking
(1) Replacement parking is not required when a garage, carport, or covered
parking structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to, or demolished
in conjunction with the construction of, an ADU.
(2) Replacement parking is required when an existing attached garage, carport,
or covered parking structure is converted to a JADU or when a required,
existing, uncovered parking space is expanded into an ADU/JADU. These
replacement spaces may be provided as uncovered spaces in any
configuration on the lot including within the front or street side yard setback
for the property.
(A) The Director shall have the authority to modify required replacement
parking spaces by up to one foot in width and length upon finding
that the reduction is necessary to accommodate parking in a location
otherwise allowed under this code and is not detrimental to public
health, safety or the general welfare.
(B) Existing front and street side yard driveways may be enlarged to the
minimum extent necessary to comply with the replacement parking
requirement above. Existing curb cuts shall not be altered except
when necessary to promote public health, safety or the general
welfare.
(2) (3) When parking is provided, the 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 will result in fewer environmental impacts such as paving, grading or tree
removal.
(3) (4) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the
construction of new ADU/JADUs, the primary unit’s covered parking
requirements identified in Chapter 18.10 and 18.12 do not need to be
provided. Two uncovered parking spaces shall be provided in any
configuration on the lot including within the front or street-side setback for
the property.
Commented [A34]: HCD Comment 14 and 15
Commented [A35]: HCD Comment 14 and 15
Commented [A36]: HCD Comment 10
*NOT YET APPROVED*
13
0160107_20250417_ms29
(4) (5) If covered parking for a unit is provided in any district, the maximum size of
the covered parking area for the accessory dwelling unit is 220 square feet.
This space shall count towards the total floor area for the site but does not
contribute to the maximum size of the unit. Any attached garage shall not
have an interior access point to the ADU/JADU (e.g. hotel door or other similar
feature/appurtenance).
(m) Landscape
(1) For the purposes of this subsection (m), “protected tree” means:
(A) Any locally native tree of the species Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf
Maple), Calocedrus decurrens (California Incense Cedar), Quercus
agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak), Quercus
kelloggii (California Black Oak), or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which
is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in
circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-
four inches) above natural grade.
(B) Any Coast Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is
eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or
more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above
natural grade.
(C) Any tree of any species, other than a Coast Redwood Tree, fifteen
inches in diameter (forty-seven inches in circumference) or more
when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above
natural grade. A “protected tree” does not include a tree of any
species on the Exempt Species List put forth by the Department of
Urban Forestry and available on the City’s website.
(D) Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of
a current or previously completed development project.
(E) Any tree designated for carbon sequestration and storage and/or
environmental mitigation purposes as identified in an agreement
between the property owner and a responsible government agency
or recorded as a deed restriction.
(F) Any heritage tree previously designated by the city council.
(G) Any tree previously planted as a replacement mitigation tree.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) below, the construction of an ADU shall
not impact any protected tree, on the subject property or any adjacent lot by
requiring:
(A) Removal of more than twenty-five percent of the functioning leaf,
stem, or root area of a tree in any twenty-four-month period; or
(B) Removal of more than fifteen percent of the functioning root area of
any Quercus (oak) species in any thirty-six-month period; or
Commented [A37]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A38]: HCD Comment 9
*NOT YET APPROVED*
14
0160107_20250417_ms29
(C) Trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the tree
protection zone of a tree in a way that foreseeably leads to the death
of the tree. For the purposes of this subsection (m), "tree protection
zone" means the area defined by a circle with a radius ten times the
diameter of the trunk when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-
four inches) above natural grade.
(3) If an action prohibited by section 18.09.040(m)(2) is necessary to allow the
construction of an ADU that meets the minimum standards set forth in state
law, the tree shall be replaced according to the objective requirements
identified in the Tree Canopy Replacement Table of the Palo Alto Tree and
Landscape Technical Manual.
(4) The construction of an ADU must comply with applicable objective standards
and specifications in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual for the
protection of trees during construction. Compliance with this subsection (4)
shall not delay or cause the denial of an ADU or JADU building permit or use
permit.
(n) Miscellaneous requirements
(1) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to
assist in emergency response.
(2) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence except as
allowed under Government Code Section 66341.
(3) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30
days or more.
(4) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory
dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. Nothing
in this section shall preclude the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers
as an alternative means of compliance with generally applicable fire
protection requirements.
18.09.050 Additional Requirements for JADUs
(a) A JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit may only be created on a lot in a single-family
residential zone with an existing or proposed single family residence. A JADUjunior
accessory dwelling unit shall be attached to or created within the walls of an existing
or proposed primary dwelling, including enclosed uses within the residence, such as
an attached garage.
(b) The JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit shall include an efficiency kitchen, requiring
the following components: A cooking facility with appliances, and; food preparation
Commented [A39]: HCD Comment 8
Commented [A40]: HCD Comment 16
*NOT YET APPROVED*
15
0160107_20250417_ms29
counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the
junior accessory dwelling unit.
i. A cooking facility with appliances shall mean, at minimum a one burner
installed range, an oven or convection microwave, a 10 cubic foot refrigerator
and freezer combination unit, and a sink that facilitates hot and cold water.
ii. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets shall be of reasonable size in
relation to a JADU if they provide counter space equal to a minimum 24-inch
depth and 36-inch length.
iii. i. JADUs may share sanitation facilities (bathrooms, laundry facilities, etc.) with
the primary unit. If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom,
the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance
from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main
living area. In this instance, the floor area and lot coverage associated with
shared space shall count towards the primary unit’s maximum allowances
only. The combined sanitation facilities between the units shall include
shower, toilet, and sink fixtures at a minimum and shall conform to the
minimum requirements specified in the Building Code.
(c) 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 JADUjunior accessory
dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new unit.
(d) The owner of a parcel proposed for a JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit shall occupy
as a primary residence either the primary dwelling or the JADUjunior accessory
dwelling. Owner-occupancy is not required if the owner is a governmental agency,
land trust, or housing organization.
(e) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a JADUjunior 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 (d)
above, does not permit short-term rentals, and restricts the size and attributes of the
JADUjunior dwelling unit to those that conform with this section.
(f) JADU incentive. The existing or proposed primary dwelling unit shall be afforded bonus
square footage equal to the square footage of a proposed JADU when a JADU is
constructed on site, provided the JADU meets the following requirements:
1) The JADU must conform to the underlying zoning district’s development
standards for single family homes.
Commented [A41]: HCD Comment 17.
Commented [A42]: HCD Comment 18
Commented [A43]: HCD Comment 19
*NOT YET APPROVED*
16
0160107_20250417_ms29
2) The maximum number of units on site shall not exceed four (two ADUs, one
JADU, and one primary home).
3) The maximum size of the JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet.
4) The total maximum bonus/exempt floor area provided for the site under
Section 18.09.040 and 18.09.050 may not exceed 800 square feet.
5) The exterior entryway to the JADU shall not face the same direction as the
entrance to the primary home.
6) All egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must utilize
opaque glazing on the whole window.
7) All non-egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must have
a windowsill(s) that start five feet above the first finished floor for the unit.
8) All noise producing equipment associated with the JADU must comply with the
noise regulations in PAMC 9.10.
SECTION 3. Subsection (a)(75)(A) of Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04
(Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read
as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through):
(A) For ADUs, a kitchen must have permanent provisions for eating, cooking, and sanitation
as required by Government Code Section 66313 and Section 17958.1 of the Health and
Safety Code. major appliances shall mean a minimum two burner installed range, and an
oven or convection microwave, as well as a minimum 11 cubic foot freezer and
refrigerator combination unit. Kitchens shall also include counter space for food
preparation equal to a minimum 24-inch depth and 36-inch length, and a sink that
facilitates hot and cold water.
SECTION 4. Subsection (a) of Section 16.49.050 (Exterior Alteration of Historic Structures) of
Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as
follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through):
(a) Review Process. Except for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
proposed on properties listed in the Palo Alto local historic inventory, aAll applications
for a building permit for exterior alteration to any historic structure/site in the
downtown area or a significant building elsewhere in the city, new construction on a
parcel where there is currently a historic structure in the downtown area or a significant
building elsewhere in the city, or such application for construction within a historic
district shall be reviewed as follows:
SECTION 5. Footnote (5) of Table 2 in Section 18.10.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter
18.10 (Low-Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) is amended to read as follows
(deletions struck-through):
(5) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached accessory
dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of
Commented [A44]: HCD Comment 10
Commented [A45]: HCD Comment 20
Commented [A46]: HCD Comment 12
*NOT YET APPROVED*
17
0160107_20250417_ms29
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.
SECTION 6. Section 18.10.150 (Grandfathered Uses) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read
as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, unchanged text omitted by bracketed
ellipses):
18.10.150 Grandfathered Uses
[…]
(d) (Reserved) Existing Accessory Dwellings and Guest Cottages
In the RE district, accessory dwellings and guest cottages existing on April 28, 1986, and
which prior to that date were lawful, conforming permitted uses may remain as legal
nonconforming uses. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site
improvements on the same site, without necessity to comply with site development
regulations for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided that any such
remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not add a kitchen nor result in increased
floor area, number of dwelling units, height, length or any other increase in the size of the
improvement without complying with the standards set forth in this subsection and
applying for and receiving a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 18.76.
[…]
SECTION 7. Footnote (8) of Table 2 in Section 18.12.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter
18.12 (R-1 Single Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows (deletions struck-through):
(8) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached 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.
SECTION 8. Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS, and AC) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions
struck-through, unchanged text omitted by bracketed ellipses):
[. . .]
18.28.040 Land Uses
*NOT YET APPROVED*
18
0160107_20250417_ms29
Table 1 shows the permitted (P) and conditionally permitted (CUP) land uses for the Special
Purpose Districts.
Table 1
Land Uses
PF OS AC Subject to
Regulations in
Chapter:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
[…] […] […] […] […]
Accessory Dwelling Units,
subject to regulations in
Section 18.42.040
P(2) P(2) P(2) 18.0942.040
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units
P(2) P(2) P(2) 18.0942.040
[…] […] […] […] […]
[. . .]
(2) An Aaccessory dDwelling uUnit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a
single-family or multi-family residence on a lot in the OS District is permitted, subject to
the provisions of Section Chapter 18.0942.040, and such that no more than two total
units result on the lot.
[…]
18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations
The following additional regulations shall apply in the OS district:
(a) Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to the
regulations set forth in SectionChapter 18.0942.040.
[. . .]
18.28.100 Grandfathered Uses
In the OS district, accessory dwellings and guest cottages existing on April 28, 1986, and which
prior to that date were lawful, conforming permitted uses may remain as legal nonconforming
uses. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the
same site, without necessity to comply with site development regulations for continual use and
occupancy by the same use; provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement
shall not add a kitchen nor result in increased floor area, number of dwelling units, height,
*NOT YET APPROVED*
19
0160107_20250417_ms29
length or any other increase in the size of the improvement without complying with the
standards set forth in Section 18.28.070(a) and without applying for and receiving a conditional
use permit.
SECTION 9. Section 16.04.235 (Section 202 Definitions) is added to Chapter 16.04 (California
Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 &2 ) of Title 16
(Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows (additions underlined,
bracketed ellipses indicate text of the California Building Code, 2022 Edition, that has been
adopted without amendment but is omitted for brevity):
Section 202 Definitions
[...]
FLOOR AREA, GROSS. The floor area within the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the
building under consideration, exclusive of vent shafts and courts, without deduction for
corridors, stairways, ramps, closets, the thickness of interior walls, columns or other features.
The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls
shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. The gross
floor area shall not include shafts with no openings or interior courts. For the purposes of Title
18 (Zoning), the definition of “gross floor area” in Section 18.04.030 shall apply.
FLOOR AREA, NET. The actual occupied area not including unoccupied accessory areas such as
corridors, stairways, ramps, toilet rooms, mechanical rooms and closets. For the purposes of
Title 18 (Zoning), the definition of “net floor area” in Section 18.04.030 shall apply.
[...]
SECTION 10. 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 affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 11. 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 12. The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), because it constitutes
amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance to conform with preemptive State law, including
*NOT YET APPROVED*
20
0160107_20250417_ms29
Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) and Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of
Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, as well as other minor and non-
substantive amendments. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will
not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 13. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney or Designee City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon St, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
October 29, 2024
Jonathan Lait, Director
Planning and Development Services
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Jonathan Lait:
RE: Review of Palo Alto’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance under State
ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 66310 – 66342)
Please Note: As of March 25, 2024, with the Chaptering of Senate Bill (SB) 477
(Chapter 7, Statutes of 2024), the sections of Government Code relevant to State ADU
and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) Law have been re-numbered (Enclosure 1).
Thank you for submitting the City of Palo Alto’s (City) ADU Ordinance No. 5585
(Ordinance), adopted June 5, 2023, to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD). HCD has reviewed the Ordinance and submits these
written findings pursuant to Government Code section 66326, subdivision (a). HCD
finds that the Ordinance does not comply with State ADU and JADU Laws in the
manner noted below. Under section 66326, subdivision (b)(1), the City has up to 30
days to respond to these findings. Accordingly, the City must provide a written response
to these findings no later than November 28, 2024.
The Ordinance addresses many statutory requirements; however, HCD finds that the
Ordinance does not comply with State ADU Law in the following respects:
1. Statutory Numbering - The Ordinance contains several references to code
sections that were deleted by SB 477, effective March 25, 2024. These include
Government Code sections 65852.2, 65852.22 and 65852.26. The contents of
these sections were relocated to Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter
13 (sections 66310-66342, see Enclosure). The City must amend the Ordinance
to refer to the correct code sections.
2. Section 18.09.030 (a) iii. – Height – The Ordinance provides for “A detached,
new construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling,
provided the ADU does not exceed 800 square feet, sixteen feet in height, or
four-foot side and rear (i.e. interior) setbacks.” However, Government Code
Jonathan Lait, Director
Page 2
sections 66321, subdivision (b)(4)(B), which is referenced in section 66323,
subdivision (a)(2)(B) as would govern a unit described here in the Ordinance,
requires a height allowance of “18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on
a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is
within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-
quality transit corridor… A local agency shall also allow an additional two feet in
height to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned
with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.” Footnote 5 in Table 1 of Section
18.09.030 provides for these allowances, the City must amend the Ordinance to
to comply with State ADU law and avoid contradictory provisions.
3. Section 18.09.030 Table 1 – Unit Allowance – The Ordinance states in Single
Family residence only “1 ADU and 1 JADU” are permitted. This prohibits the
combination of units subject to Government Code section 66323, subdivision
(a)(1) and (a)(2).
Government Code section 66323 states, “Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to
66322, inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a
building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the
following: (1) One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling
unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling…(A) The
accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed
space of a single family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or
accessory structure.” Subparagraph (2) permits “[o]ne detached, new
construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four-foot side and
rear yard setbacks.” The use of the term “any” followed by an enumeration of
by-right ADU types permitted indicate that any of these ADU types can be
combined on a lot zoned for single-family dwellings.
This permits a homeowner, who meets specified requirements, to create one
converted ADU; one detached, new construction ADU; and one JADU. Thus, if
the local agency approves an ADU that is created from existing (or proposed)
space, and the owner subsequently applies for a detached ADU (or vice versa)
that meets the size and setbacks pursuant to the subdivision, the local agency
cannot deny the application, nor deny a permit for a JADU under this section.
Limiting single-family primary dwelling lots to one ADU and one JADU prevents
property owners from creating ADUs by-right under section 66323. Therefore,
the City must amend the Ordinance to allow for all by-right ADU combinations.
4. Section 18.09.030 (d) – Delay of Enforcement – The Ordinance states, “The
establishment of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units
pursuant to this section shall not be conditioned on the correction of non-
conforming zoning conditions; provided; however, that nothing in this section
shall limit the authority of the Chief Building Official to require correction of
building standards relating to health and safety.” However, Government Code
Jonathan Lait, Director
Page 3
section 66331 states, “In enforcing building standards pursuant to Article 1
(commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the
Health and Safety Code for an accessory dwelling unit described in subdivision
(a) or (b), a local agency, upon request of an owner of an accessory dwelling
unit for a delay in enforcement, shall delay enforcement of a building standard,
subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code: (a)
The accessory dwelling unit was built before January 1, 2020. (b) The
accessory dwelling unit was built on or after January 1, 2020, in a local
jurisdiction that, at the time the accessory dwelling unit was built, had a
noncompliant accessory dwelling unit ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant
at the time the request is made.” Therefore, the City must add language
allowing delay of enforcement.
5. Section 18.09.030 (e) – Sprinklers – The Ordinance states, “The installation of
fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers
are not required for the primary residence.” However, Government Code
section 66323, subdivision (c) states, “The installation of fire sprinklers shall not
be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the
primary residence. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not
trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing multifamily
dwelling.” Therefore, City must add the second sentence in the preceding
citation to the Ordinance to be consistent with State ADU law.
6. Section 18.09.030 (g) – JADUs and Interior Entry – The Ordinance states,
“Except for JADUs, attached units shall not have an interior access point to the
primary dwelling.” However, Government Code section 66633, subdivision
(e)(2) states, “If a permitted junior accessory dwelling unit does not include a
separate bathroom, the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a
separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry
to the main living area.” Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance
accordingly.
7. Section 18.09.030 (h) – Conversion and Expansion – Th Ordinance states,
“Conversion of an existing accessory structure pursuant to Government Code
section 65852.2(e)(1)(A) may include reconstruction in-place of a non-
conforming structure, so long as the renovation of reconstruction does not
increase the degree of non-compliance, such as increased height, envelope, or
further intrusion into required setbacks. Any portion of an ADU that exceeds the
envelope of the existing accessory structure shall be subject to Section
18.09.040.” However, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(1)(A)
provides for, “an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same
physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond
the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to
accommodating ingress and egress.” The City must amend the Ordinance to
allow for such an expansion without reference to Section 18.09.040.
Jonathan Lait, Director
Page 4
8. Section 18.09.030 (j) and 18.09.040 (m)2. – Separate Sale1 – The Ordinance
notes that ADUs “shall not be sold separately from the primary residence.”
However, Government Code section 66341 creates a narrow exception to allow
separate conveyance of an ADU to a qualified buyer if the property was built or
developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation, among other things. The City
must note the exception.
9. Section 18.09.030 (m), 18.09.040 (g) and (j) 2.C. – Tree Ordinance – The
Ordinance makes several references to Chapter 8.10, the City’s Tree and
Landscape Preservation and Management regulations, and requires that
elements of ADU development conform to Chapter 8.10. However, Government
Code section 66317, subdivision (c) states that “No local ordinance, policy, or
regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use
permit under this section.” The City should amend the Ordinance to ensure that
compliance with this ordinance section will not delay or cause the denial of an
ADU or JADU building permit or use permit.
10. Section 18.09.040 (a), Table 2– JADUs and Development Standards – The
Ordinance describes JADUs in the section “Units Subject to Local Standards”
and creates governance of JADUs that “do not qualify for approval under
section 18.090.030.” However, all JADUs are created pursuant to Government
Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(1), and would therefore be approved
under section 18.090.030. the City must remove references to JADUs in this
section.
11. Section 18.09.040 (c) – Multifamily ADU Allowances – In the “Units Subject to
Local Standards” section, the Ordinance states, “A single-family dwelling shall
exist on the lot or shall be constructed on the lot in conjunction with the
construction of an ADU/JADU.” However, Government Code section 66314,
subdivision (a)(2) permits ADUs when “The lot is zoned to allow single-family or
multifamily dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing
dwelling.” The City must amend the Ordinance to include multifamily as well.
12. Section 18.09.040 (h) – Local Historic Register – The Ordinance applies
special requirements to properties “listed on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.”
However, Government Code section 66314, subdivision (b)(1) states that ADU
ordinances may “Impose objective standards on accessory dwelling units that
include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural
review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on
any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical
Resources.” Therefore, the use of a local historic register such as the Palo Alto
1Please note that Government Code section 66342 gives local jurisdictions the option of
adopting an ordinance to provide for the separate conveyance of an ADU from its primary
dwelling.
Jonathan Lait, Director
Page 5
Historic Inventory would be inconsistent with State ADU Law. The City must
remove this reference.
13. Section 18.09.040 (j)(4) – “Street Side Setbacks” – The Ordinance states, “For
corner lots developed as a single-family home only, when an existing or
proposed primary dwelling unit is expanded or constructed simultaneously with
the construction of a new ADU/JADU, all structures may be built to a 10-foot
street-side setback and a 16-foot front yard setback, regardless of the presence
of a special setback, unless a fire or life-safety regulation requires a greater
setback.” A street side setback for a corner lot is in essence a front setback.
Government Code section 66321, subdivision (b)(3) states that a front setback
may not preclude the development of an 800 square foot unit. The City must
note the exception.
14. Section 18.09.040 (l) – Parking Exceptions – The Ordinance does not provide
for exemptions to parking requirements pursuant to Government Code section
66322, subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(6):
“(1) Where the accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half of one
mile walking distance of public transit.
(2) Where the accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally
and historically significant historic district.
(3) Where the accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing
primary residence or an accessory structure.
(4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the
occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.
(5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the
accessory dwelling unit.
(6) When a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted
with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new
multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided that the accessory
dwelling unit or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed in this
subdivision.
Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to add the required exemptions.
15. 18.09.040 (l)(2) – Garage Conversion and Replacement Parking – The
Ordinance states, “Replacement parking is required when an existing attached
garage, carport, or covered parking structure is converted to a JADU….” Local
agencies may not require parking as a condition to permitting a JADU, even
when the JADU is converted from an attached garage.2 The City must amend
the Ordinance accordingly.
2 Gov. Code, § 66334, subd. (a).
Jonathan Lait, Director
Page 6
16. 18.09.050 (a) - JADUs in Attached Garages – The Ordinance states, “A junior
accessory dwelling unit may only be created on a lot in a single-family
residential zone with an existing or proposed single family residence. A junior
accessory dwelling unit shall be attached to or created within the walls of an
existing or proposed primary dwelling.” However, Government Code section
66333, subdivision (d) states that for the purposes of siting JADUs, “enclosed
uses within the residence, such as attached garages, are considered a part of
the proposed or existing single-family residence.” Therefore, the City must
amend the Ordinance to include a reference to enclosed uses.
17. 18.09.050 (b)(i) and (ii) – JADU Kitchen Facilities – The Ordinance states, “A
cooking facility with appliances shall mean, at minimum a one burner installed
range, an oven or convection microwave, a 10 cubic foot refrigerator and
freezer combination unit, and a sink that facilitates hot and cold water.” It also
states “[a] food preparation counter and storage cabinets shall be of reasonable
size in relation to a JADU if they provide counter space equal to a minimum 24-
inch depth and 36-inch length.” However, Government Code section 66333,
subdivision (f) requires “the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to include
an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of the following: (1) A cooking
facility with appliances. (2) A food preparation counter and storage cabinets
that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory
dwelling unit.” The terms “appliances” and “reasonable size” are broad
provisions in statute. Therefore, the Ordinance is more stringent than state
JADU law. The City must remove the quoted language.
18. 18.09.050 (b) iii. – JADU Entry – The Ordinance states, “JADUs may share
sanitation facilities (bathrooms, laundry facilities, etc.) with the primary unit.”
However, Government Code section 66333, subdivision (e)(2) states “If a
permitted junior accessory dwelling unit does not include a separate bathroom,
the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance
from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living
area.” Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU
Law.
19. 18.09.050 (e) – JADU Term Limits – The Ordinance requires that JADU deed
restrictions “[do] not permit short-term rentals”. However, Government Code
section 66333, subdivision (c) requires only “(1) A prohibition on the sale of the
junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family
residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced
against future purchasers. (2) A restriction on the size and attributes of the
junior accessory dwelling unit that conforms with this article.” No additional
provisions may be added to the listed deed restrictions in statute. JADU Law
does not provide for rental limits to JADUs and therefore the City may not
require these term limits. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance
accordingly.
Jonathan Lait, Director
Page 7
20. 18.04.030 (a)(75)(A) – Kitchen Requirements – The Ordinance requires “major
appliances” and then states, “For ADUs, major appliances shall mean a
minimum two burner installed range, and an oven or convection microwave, as
well as a minimum 11 cubic foot freezer and refrigerator combination unit.
Kitchens shall also include counter space for food preparation equal to a
minimum 24-inch depth and 36-inch length, and a sink that facilitates hot and
cold water.” However, Government Code section 66313, subdivision (a) defines
ADUs as needing only “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating,
cooking, and sanitation” and does not describe them any further. Additionally,
section 66313, subdivision (a)(1) allows ADUs to be an efficiency unit, which
Health and Safety Code section 17958.1 states may have “partial kitchen”
facilities. Therefore, the establishment of appliance and counterspace
minimums are inconsistent with State ADU Law. The City must amend the
Ordinance accordingly.
Please note that the City has two options in response to this letter.3 The City can either
amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law 4 or adopt the Ordinance without
changes and include findings in its resolution adopting the Ordinance that explain the
reasons the City believes that the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law despite
HCD’s findings.5 If the City fails to take either course of action and bring the Ordinance
into compliance with State ADU Law, HCD must notify the City and may notify the
California Office of the Attorney General that the City is in violation of State ADU Law.6
HCD appreciates the City efforts in the preparation and adoption of the Ordinance and
welcomes the opportunity to assist the City in fully complying with State ADU Law.
Please feel free to contact Mike Van Gorder at mikevangorder@hcd.ca.gov if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Jamie Candelaria
Senior Housing Accountability Unit Manager
Housing Policy Development Division
3 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (c)(1).
4 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (b)(2)(A).
5 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (b)(2)(B).
6 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (c)(1).
State ADU/JADU Law Statutory Conversion Table
Article 1. General Provisions
66310 65852.150 (a)
66311 65852.150 (b)
66312 65852.150 (c)
66313 General Definition Section
65852.2 (j)
Article 2. Accessory Dwelling Unit Approvals
Article 3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Article 4. Accessory Dwelling Unit Sales
November 26, 2024
Mike Van Gorder
Housing & Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Mike.VanGorder@hcd.ca.gov
Dear Mr. Van Gorder,
This letter represents the City of Palo Alto’s response to HCD’s letter dated October 29, 2024.
1. HCD Comments 1, 3, 7-8, 11-12, 15, and 19: the City will update its ordinance to incorporate this
feedback by June 30, 2025.
2. HCD Comments 2, 4-6, 16, and 18: Unless HCD requires local implementing ordinances match
verbatim state law, no change is needed as the local ordinance complies with state law.
3. HCD Comment 9: the City’s Tree Ordinance is included in the local ADU ordinance and is not a
separate policy document or ordinance; the City could restate that language but this seems
unnecessarily duplicative. Accordingly, the City does not a believe a change needed.
4. HCD Comment 10: there continues to a be a misunderstanding regarding this section. Nothing about
this section precludes JADU production in compliance with state law. This section sets forth
incentives that allow a JADU to be constructed in conjunction with new development and not
converted after the fact. Table 2 is more permissive than state law and has yielded a significant
increase in JADU production in Palo Alto.
5. HCD Comment 13: This is a local incentive for homeowners on corner lots. Nothing about this
incentive precludes construction of an ADU in compliance with state law. The City does not a
believe a change needed.
6. HCD Comment 14: The City does not require parking for J/ADUs. The local implementing ordinance
does not need include every provision or exemption of state law.
7. HCD Comments 17 and 20: State law requires J/ADUs be reviewed ministerially against objective
criteria. HCD’s comment would have the City use subjective criteria to assess reasonableness and
introduce discretionary decision-making. If HCD has objectively defined a reasonableness standard,
please share, otherwise, the City does not believe a change is warranted.
Please advise if HCD disagrees with any of the City’s responses. To meet our June 2025 timeframe
reported in comment response 1 above, we request a meeting before January 31, 2025, if necessary.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Lait
Director of Planning and Development Services
Docusign Envelope ID: 329BD321-FBC3-4061-B1C0-06B783805F21
City of Palo Alto-Notes re ADU reforms, 2025
John Kelley
Apr 23, 2025
Ver. 0.2
These notes summarize some of the key points made in the accompanying
document, “City of Palo Alto-Notes re 2025-03 ADU reforms--Revised
2025-04-23.” Please see that document for details.
Based on State ADU Regulations
1. Because the City does not charge impact fees for additions to or
scrapes of single-family residences (SFRs), proportionality requires
that impact fees be eliminated for ADUs. [No. 26]
1.1. As a matter of equity, the City should also refund improperly
charged ADU fees back to at least March 23, 2023. [No. 36]
2. Additional local design, zoning, and other standards may not be
imposed on 66323 Units. The 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook makes
clear, at p. 20, that development of 66323 Units may not be curtailed
by local standards that penalize such "state exemption" ADUs and
JADUs. (This principle applies to all four categories of ADUs and
JADUs identified in Gov. C. sec. 66323.) This principle requires
modifying Palo Alto’s regulation of 66323 Units in many ways. [Nos.
30, 30A, 30B, and 30C]
2.1. Palo Alto calculates allowable heights for all ADUs differently
from single-family homes in flood zones.
2.2. Palo Alto calculates FAR for basements for all ADUs differently
from single-family homes.
2.3. Palo Alto incorrectly calculates FAR for ADUs, and possibly
single-family homes as well, requiring measurements "to the
outside of stud walls...." [ See also No. 29]
2.4. Palo Alto generally prohibits ADUs from either (i) using an
existing sewer line for a single-family residence to convey
sewage from an ADU to the main sewer system or (ii) running a
1
separate sewer line for an ADU under a single-family home,
effectively requiring long, sometimes tortuous, and frequently
expensive separate sewer runs for ADUs.
2.5. Palo Alto, through the City of Palo Alto Utilities, prohibits ADUs
from obtaining their own, separate municipal utilities. This too
may operate as a constraint on the production of 66323 Units.
Homeowners should, at their sole option, have the choice of
whether to connect ADUs, both attached and detached, directly
to CPAU utilities.
2.6. Just as Urban Forestry review should not be part of permitting
ADUs or JADUs, CPAU should not review ADU or JADU permit
applications unless the applicant specifically requests such
permitting review in writing as part of the permit application.
2.7. Palo Alto should (A) use HCD tools for determining whether a
given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit, and (B) acknowledge
that (i) non-VTA bus routes are relevant to determining such
areas, (ii) the appropriate unit of analysis is a bus stop, not a
bus route, and (iii) the requisite periodicity established by state
law has changed recently. This requires that Palo Alto's current
maps, wherever they are maintained and however they are
shared with the public, be revised.
3. Fire review criteria should focus on "fire area," not FAR. [No. 23]
4. No assumed property line between two buildings. [No. 24]
5. Constructing an ADU does not change a Group R occupancy, unless
an authorized representative of a local agency makes a specific,
written finding regarding a particular project. [No. 25]
6. Palo Alto must allow an attached ADU up to 800 sf in size to be built
out to four-foot side and rear setbacks. [No. 31A]
6.1. In other words, it need not be confined to the setbacks for the
primary dwelling on the lot.
6.2. Such an ADU would enjoy the height benefits provided by Gov.
C. subd. 66321(b)(4)(D); as a result, in most parts of the City, it
could be built to 25', provided that it does not have more than
two stories.
2
More Effective Local Regulations For Stimulating ADU Production
1. Palo Alto should allow for separate conveyance of ADUs under Gov.
C. sec. 66342. [No. 32]
2. Palo Alto should adopt a 1,200 sf size limit for all ADUs. [No. 39]
3. Palo Alto should create an alternative, local, 20' height limit,
specifically for two-story, detached, Table 2 ADUs, with a daylight
plane. [No. 38]
4. Palo Alto should experiment with meaningful financial incentives to
increase ADU production, totaling $5 million in grants and on-bill
financing over two years. [No. 41]
4.1. Up to 50 $25k grants for pre-designed ADUs.
4.2. Up to 50 $25k grants based on CalHFA program.
4.3. Up to 25 on-CPAU-bill financings for first $100k of ADU costs.
5. The City should waive all impact and permitting fees on both ADUs
and JADUs. [No. 37]
5.1. If the City does charge any impact fees on ADUs, however,
applicants should be allowed to defer them without recording a
lien against their properties. [No. 27]
6. End the "loser lottery." Do not condition permit approval of ADUs or
JADUs on charging applicants for CPAU infrastructure upgrades, a
type of impermissible demand for public improvements, and give
applicants, at their sole option, the ability to obtain one or more
separate utility services for ADUs. [No. 34]
3
1
City of Palo Alto-Notes re 2025-03 ADU reforms (selected summary points for City Staff and City Council in larger font, comments from 2024-10 HCD L 2025-04-23 Ver. 0.5
(WIP draft).
Category No.Issue Reference(s)
"18.09.030
Units
Exempt
from
Generally
Applicable
Local
Regulations
"1
The HCD's comments concern additional height requirements for, , detached ADUs witihin a half mile of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor,
as well as additional height for matching the roof pitch of the primary dwelling. Those changes should be adopted.
Please also see the further discussions below, "Additional concerns re setbacks, daylight plane, and height," and "Palo Alto should use HCD tools for determining
whether a given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit."
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#2
2 These proposed changes should be adopted.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
3 This proposed change, which concerns Gov. C. sec. 66331, should be made.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#4
4
This proposed change, which refers to ADU construction not triggering "a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing multifamily dwelling," should
be made.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#5
5
The proposed change, which concerns JADUs without a separate bathroom needing "a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior
entry to the main living area," should be adopted.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#6
6
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to allow for the expansion for ingress and egress pursuant to Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(A).
Although not specifically noted by HCD:
(a) in the Ordinance, "renovation of reconstruction..." should perhaps read, "renovation or reconstruction...."; and,2024-10 HCD Letter,
#7
7
Both sections of the Ordinance should allow for the separate sale of an ADU "built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation, among other things," to a
qualified buyer pursuant to Gov. C. sec. 66341.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#8
Section 18.09.030 (a) iii -- "Footnote 5 in Table 1 of Section 18.09.030 provides for these allowances, the City must amend the Ordinance to comply with
State ADU law and avoid contradictory provisions."
Section 18.09.030 Table 1 – . "This permits a homeowner, who meets specified requirements, to create one converted ADU; one detached, new
construction ADU; and one JADU."
Section 18.09.030(d) –. "Therefore, the City must add language allowing delay of enforcement."
Section 18.09.030(d) –. "Therefore, City must add the second sentence in the preceding citation to the Ordinance to be consistent with State ADU
law.."
Section 18.09.030 (g) – JADUs and Interior Entry. "Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance accordingly."
Section 18.09.030(h) – .
Sections 18.09.030(j) & 18.09.040(m)(2) – .
Height.
Unit Allowance
Delay of Enforcement
Sprinklers
Conversion and Expansion
Separate Sale
e.g.
Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(4)(B)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(C)
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
Gov. C. sec. 66323
Gov. C. sec. 66331
Gov. C. subd.
66323(d)
Gov. C. subd.
66333(e)(2)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(A)
Gov. C. subd. 66341
(b) if the ADU being expanded for ingress and egress is a 66323 Unit (formerly sometimes known as a statewide exemption ADU) under Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1), then, in addition, such an expansion should not be subject to Section 18.09.040.
2
8
(a) All explicit or implicit references to any of the City's tree or landscape regulations, including those in PAMC Chap. 8.10, "Tree and Landscape Preservation and
Management," should be deleted from the ADU Ordinance.
(b) PAMC Chap. 8.10 should be amended to make clear that it may not be applied or enforced with regard to ADUs, pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66317(c).
(c) Any review of an ADU permit application by the City's Public Works Urban Forestry Section, or any other part of the City seeking information or review with
regard to the City's tree or landscape regulations, should cease, pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66317(c).
(d) These actions are consistent with Governor Newsom's recent . As explained on February 6, 2025 in a , "The
executive order issued by Governor Newsom," among other things, "[d]irects the State Board of Forestry to accelerate its work to adopt regulations known as
“Zone 0,” which will require "an ember-resistant zone within 5 feet of structures located in the highest fire severity zones in the state."
From the recent, devastating fires in Southern California and advances in fire science, we know that "Zone 0" protections are critical to enhancing fire safety for
California homes. The current Tree Ordinance should not prohibit Palo Altans from defending their homes against the increasing and increasingly great threats of
wildfires resulting from catastrophic global heating.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#9
"18.09.040
Units
Subject to
Local
Standards."
9
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to "remove references to JADUs in this section," because JADUs are created
pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66323(a)(1), "and would therefore be approved under section 18.090.030."
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#10
10
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to clarify that ADUs may be built when a "lot is zoned to allow single-family or
multifamily dwelling residential use...," pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66314.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#11
11
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to delete any reference to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, pursuant to Gov. C.
subd. 66314(b)(1).
Although not specifically noted by HCD, this also means that the City should refrain from any review of an ADU permit application by the City's Planning
personnel or any other part of the City with reference to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66317(c).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#11
12
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to make clear that, in the case of a street-side setback, as well as a front setback,
such a setback "may not preclude the development of an 800 square foot unit," pursuant to Gov. C. subd. Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(3).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#13
13
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to include the parking exceptions included in Gov. C. subds. 66322(a)(1)-(a)(6),
, if an ADU is within a half mile of public transit.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#14
14
As indicated by the HCD, the City "may not require parking as a condition to permitting a JADU, even when the JADU is converted from an attached garage,"
citing Gov. C. subd. 66334(a) in a footnote. This change should be made.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#15
Sections 18.09.030(m) & 18.09.040(g) and (j)(2)(C) –
Section 18.09.040(a) – JADUs and Development Standards.
Section 18.09.040(c) – Multifamily ADU Allowances.
Section 18.09.040(h) – Local Historic Register.
Section 18.09.040 (j)(4) – Street-Side Setback.
Section 18.09.040 (l) – Parking Exceptions.
18.09.040 (l)(2) – Garage Conversion and Replacement Parking.
Tree Ordinance.
Executive Order N-18-25 separate announcement
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(A)
Gov. C. subd. 66314
Gov. C. subd.
66314(b)(1)
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(3)
Gov. C. subds.
66322(a)(1)-(a)(6)
Gov. C. subd.
66334(a)
e.g.
3
"18.09.050
Additional
Requireme
nts for
JADUs"
15
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to clarify that "'enclosed uses within the residence' include 'attached garages,
[which] are considered a part of the proposed or existing single-family residence.'” Gov. C. subd. 66333(d).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#16
16
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to conform with the broad language of Gov. C. subd. 66333(f), deleting the City's
more stringent requirements regarding JADU kitchens.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#17
17 As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to conform with the precise terms of Gov. C. subd. 66333(e)(2).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#18
18
As indicated by the HCD, Gov. C. subd. 66333(c) does not include authority for prohibiting short term rentals, and the City must delete such provisions from its list
of deed restrictions.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#19
"18.04.030
Definitions"
19
.
As indicated by the HCD, Gov. C. subd. 66313(a) does not specifically define cooking facilities, and HSC sec. 17958.1 allows for "'partial kitchen'" facilities.
Accordingly, the City must delete its appliance and counterspace requirements for ADUs.
Although not specifically noted by HCD, relying upon those same code sections, an ADU applicant constructing an "efficiency unit" should also be allowed to
provide only "partial .... bathroom facilities," as described in HSC sec. 17958.1.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#20
18.09.050 (a) - JADUs in Attached Garages.
18.09.050 (b)(i) and (ii) – JADU Kitchen Facilities.
18.09.050 (b) iii. – JADU Entry.
18.09.050 (e) – JADU Term Limits.
18.04.030(a)(75)(A) – Kitchen Requirements
Gov. C. subd.
66333(d)
Gov. C. subd. 66333(f)
Gov. C. subd.
66333(e)(2)
Gov. C. subd.
66333(c)
Gov. C. subd.
66313(a)
HSC sec. 17958.1
4
Additional
proposed
regulatory
changes
20
Combine building permit applications and demo permit applications for ADUs, and make
responsibilities for matters typically handled by contractors (such as securing a J#) post-permit-issuance, rather than pre-permit-issuance, requirements. Such
changes should be memorialized in Chp. 18.09 of the PAMC.
".
Adds a requirement for
a local agency to
review and issue a
demolition permit for
“a detached garage
that is to be replaced
with an ADU” at the
same time it reviews,
and issues permits for,
the ADU construction.
(Gov. Code, § 66314,
subd. (e).) Also
prohibits permitting
agencies requiring
applicants to “provide
written notice or post a
placard for the
demolition of a
detached garage ...
unless the property is
located within an
architecturally and
historically significant
district.” (Gov. Code, §
66314, subd. (f).)"
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 14
21
The 60-day time limit for approving or denying an ADU or JADU permit application should be (a) strictly observed, and (b)
calculated using the equivalent of a "chess clock" displayed in the City's online permitting system. Such changes should be memorialized in Chp. 18.09 of the
PAMC.
".
Requires a permitting
agency to either
approve or deny
(replacing the former
language “act on”) an
application to create or
serve an ADU or
JADU within 60 days
Integrate building and demo permit applications for ADUs.
Demolition Permits
Enforce the 60-day time limit.Permitting Process
Compare:
5
22
Prohibit reviewers from adding new plan check comments after C1 plan check comments have been returned to an
applicant unless such new plan check comments (a) only note a failure to comply with prior plan check comments, or (b) are directed to and concern only
changes in submittal materials made in response to earlier plan check comments. Such changes should be memorialized in Chp. 18.09 of the PAMC.
23
The City's "Fire Department Checklist for
Residential Plan Review" includes a misleading question, which can lead to an incorrect plan check comment. It asks: "Are you doing an addition that will result
in the total floor area (including basements and attached garages) exceeding 3600 square feet?" This question refers impliciitly to PAMC subd. 16.06.140,
"Section R313.2.2 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems increase in design requirements," whose numbered sub-part 2 states, "Structures where the combined fire area is
3600 sq ft or larger." FAR is simply not the same as fire area. Accordingly, the fire review criteria should focus on fire area, not FAR, and the Fire Department
checklist should be revised accordingly.
, : "[BF] FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or
horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the
horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above."
24
Instead:
(1) Consider the two buildings as one structure with two dwelling units. This would be the same as considering one structure with an attached ADU.
(2) One of the walls between the buildings to be considered as the wall separating dwelling units would require 1-hour fire-rating with 45 min. rated opening
protection (the same as fire partition requirements per CBC).
CRC R302.3.
"
Obligates a
permitting agency,
when it denies an ADU
or JADU application,
to “return in writing a
full set of comments to
the applicant with a list
of items that are
defective or deficient
and a description of
how the application
can be remedied by
the applicant” within
60 days from when a
completed application
is received. (Gov.
Code, §§ 66317, subd.
(b); 66320, subd. (b);
66335, subd. (b).)"
No new-later-cycle plan check comments.Permitting Agency
Denials.
Fire review criteria should focus on "fire area," not FAR.
No assumed property line between two buildings.
See also
See, e.g.,
Cal. Fire Code (2022) sec. 202
PAMC subd.
16.06.140
CRC R302.3
6
25
26
Palo Alto recently replaced per-unit with per-square-foot impact fees to comply with prior state law. Nonetheless, it still treats ADUs unfairly, because on parcels
with existing SFRs, it does not levy impact fees on additions or even complete “scrapes.” (video recording of the
.)
The proportionality example at p. 23 of the HCD’s 2025 ADU Handbook refers to “a new primary dwelling on the same site.”
If a parcel in Palo Alto has an existing SFR, a new primary dwelling on that site would not trigger any impact fees under the city’s procedures. Consequently, the
proportionate impact fees for an ADU of any size should also be zero.
Imposition of such impact fees on ADUs should cease immediately (and the City should refund amounts charged improperly to applicants, as discussed below).
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 23.
"(c) (1) A local agency,
special district, or
water corporation shall
not impose any impact
fee upon the
development of an
accessory dwelling
unit less than 750
square feet. Any
impact fees charged
for an accessory
dwelling unit of 750
square feet or more
shall be charged
proportionately in
relation to the square
footage of the primary
dwelling unit."
Gov. C. subd. 66314(d)(8) states in part:
"[T]he construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as described in Section 310 of
the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), unless the building official or enforcement agency of the local agency makes a written
finding based on substantial evidence in the record that the construction of the accessory dwelling unit could have a specific, adverse impact on public health and
safety. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to prevent a local agency from changing the occupancy code of a space that was unhabitable space or was
only permitted for nonresidential use and was subsequently converted for residential use pursuant to this article." (Introductory language omitted.)
Because the City does not charge impact fees for additions to or scrapes of
single-family residences (SFRs), proportionality requires that impact fees be
eliminated for ADUs.
Constructing an ADU does not change a Group R occupancy, unless an authorized
representative of a local agency makes a specific, written finding regarding a
particular project.
See, e.g., Palo Alto City Council meeting on
November 18, 2024
Gov. C. subd.
66324(c)(1)
Gov. C. subd. 66314
7
27
Payment of impact fees on ADUs, among other projects, may deferred until , as now codified in , as well as ,
which was updated recently based on Ord. 5645.
If any impact fees are assessed on ADUs, then homeowners should be allowed to defer payment of such fees, and the issuance of a permit to build an ADU
should not be deferred pending their payment.
But requiring that homeowners record a lien for payment of such fees is unnecessarily burdensome, time-consuming, and expensive. The City should be able to
craft other means of ensuring that such fees, if any, are paid prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy using the City's own permitting and
inspection systems, rather than requiring a recorded lien.
28
As indicated above, the City's current impact fee regime as applied to ADUs is, at best, problematic. If the City is genuinely interested in providing more and more
affordable housing, and if the City wishes to meet its Housing Element goals by producing more ADUs, one of the most reasonable steps would be to eliminate
impact fees on ADUs altogether.
In addition, one might have doubts about the continued constitutional validity of California's impact fee system. following the vacating of the prior
submission of the case in , Case Number C093682, before the 3rd District Court of Appeal, is now scheduled for June 24, 2025.
,
Case Number
C093682.
29
The HCD has clarified how square footage of ADUs and JADUs should be calculated:
"The CBC defines “Floor Area, Gross” as “[t]he floor area within the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the building under consideration, exclusive of vent
shafts and courts, without deduction for corridors, stairways, ramps, closets, the thickness of interior walls, columns or other features. The floor area of a building,
or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. The gross floor
area shall not include shafts with no openings or interior courts.
Government Code section 66314, subdivision (d)(8) states that a local ADU ordinance must require ADUs to comply with local building codes. Thus, when a local
agency has not adopted specific changes to the CBC in its local building standards, then the CBC standards, and in this case the definition of floor area, shall
apply. If the local agency has made specific amendments, additions, or deletions relating to the definition of “Floor Area” within its local building standards, then
those altered definitions shall apply." 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 39.
Palo Alto does ot appear to have incorporated a change to this portion of the CBC. PAMC subds.. Consequently, Palo Alto is bound by the
CBC rules, requiring measurements to "the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the building under consideration...." But Palo Alto measures "to the outside of
stud walls...." . The same considerations likely apply to lot coverage and other zoning measurements based on square footage
calculations. Therefore, Palo Alto's Municipal Code and its calculation of square footages for ADUs must be changed.
In addition, because the PAMC likely requires conformity with the CBC for single-family homes, absent specific local changes, this problem may affect the
calculation of square footages for single-family homes as well.
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 39
If the City does charge any impact fees on ADUs, applicants should be allowed to
defer them without recording a lien against their properties
Indeed, the City can and should go further and simply eliminate impact fees on
ADUs
Palo Alto incorrectly calculates square footages, including FAR, for ADUs, and
possibly single-family homes as well.
.
.
SB 937 Gov. C. sec. 66007 PAMC subd.16.64.030
Oral argument
Docket of
16.04.230-240
PAMC subd. 18.04.030(a)(65)(C)
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
See
Sheetz v.
County of El Dorado
830
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
Additional local design, zoning, and other standards may not be imposed on 66323
Units.
Palo Alto calculates allowable heights for all ADUs differently from single-family
homes in flood zones.
Palo Alto calculates FAR for basements for all ADUs differently from single-family
homes
Palo Alto incorrectly calculates FAR for ADUs, and possibly single-family homes
as well, requiring measurements "to the outside of stud walls...."
Palo Alto generally prohibits ADUs from either (i) using an existing sewer line for
a single-family residence to convey sewage from an ADU to the main sewer system
or (ii) running a separate sewer line for an ADU under a single-family home,
effectively requiring long, sometimes tortuous, and frequently expensive separate
sewer runs for ADUs.
The 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook makes clear, at p. 20, that development of 66323 Units may not be curtailed by local standards that penalize such
"state exemption" ADUs and JADUs. (This principle applies to all four categories of ADUs and JADUs identified in Gov. C. sec. 66323.) As the HCD
has explained:
"What design, zoning, or other local standards can be imposed on 66323 Units?
A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323
Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), (b).) This includes, but is not limited to,
parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.)." (Blue font deleted.). 2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 20.
Palo Alto has many ADU-specific, local standards that may not be applied to 66323 Units, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a)
See, e.g., footnotes 3 and 3 to Table 1 of Section 18.09.030 and Table 2 of Section 18.09.040, respectively.
(b)
See, e.g., City of Palo Alto, "Guidebook 2024, Accessory Dwelling Unit" ("Palo Alto ADU Guidebook 2024"), p. 16: "Basements are
permitted, but habitable basement space will contribute to unit size." Contrast one part of the definition of "Gross floor area" in PAMC subd.
18.04.030(a)(65)(D)(i):
"D) Low Density Residential Exclusions: In the RE and R-1 single-family residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts,
'gross floor area' shall not include the following:
(i) Basements where the finished level of the first floor is not more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building
foundation, shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area, provided that lightwells, stairwells and other excavated features comply with
the provisions of Section 18.12.070;....'
(c)
PAMC subd. 18.04.030(a)(65)(C).
(See the discussion above.)
(d)
(This requirement is believed to be in a manual maintained at the Development Services office, to which I do
not presently have access.) But these requirements as well go beyond the text of Gov. C. sec. 66323. (See also the discussion below of the limited
scope of utilities review of ADU building permit applications.)
.
Gov. C. sec. 66323
9
30
A
(e)
(f)
Otherwise, such CPAU review may also operate as a constraint on the production of 66323 Units. The City has already determined which
parts of Palo Alto have adequate water and sewer service. This is apparently includes all residential areas in Palo Alto: "ADUs are allowed on any property where
single- or multi-family residential is a permited use." Palo Alto ADU Guidebook 2024, p. 6. ADU and JADU applicants should simply indicate that the parcel is
located in a residential area on the title sheet of a set of plans for an ADU or a JADU. Applicants should have the option of deferring all other CPAU reviews until
after a permit has issued. This will also facilitate contractor involvement with utilities issues. (See also the additional discussion of limitations on CPAU permitting
review below.)
(g) Palo Alto should use HCD tools for determining whether a given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit. (PLEASE NOTE: please see the further discussion
immediatley below.)
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
Palo Alto, through the City of Palo Alto Utilities, prohibits ADUs from obtaining
their own, separate municipal utilities. This too may operate as a constraint on the
production of 66323 Units. Homeowners should, at their sole option, have the
choice of whether to connect ADUs, both attached and detached, directly to CPAU
utilities.
Just as Urban Forestry review should not be part of permitting ADUs or JADUs,
CPAU should not review ADU or JADU permit applications unless the applicant
specifically requests such permitting review in writing as part of the permit
application.
Gov. C. sec. 66323
10
30
B (Continued immediately below.)
Additional local design, zoning, and other standards may not be imposed on 66323 Units (continued).
(h)
The HCD has prepared an "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), Data Viewer & Mapping Resources," which provides tools for determining
whether a given parcel is or is not within 1/2 mile of transit. I have not checked this recently, but in the past I have observed that the results of using
the HCD tool lead to different results from consulting with the City regarding the distance between particular parcels and transit. In general, I believe
that the City should, at a minimum, accept the results from such HCD tools, even if the City wishes to be more generous than the state mandates.
Reasons for this conclusion include the following:
(i) I believe that non-VTA bus routes are relevant to determining such areas. Although I have not been able to find a public-facing, web-available tool
from the City for determining whether or not a given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit, based on past communications, I believe, but have not
confirmed, that the City's current maps are based on VTA bus routes. But there are other transit providers whose routes should be considered, such
as AC Transit, Stanford, and perhaps others, and, as far as I know, one cannot easily test the City's maps to determine whether such other routes are
even being considered in determining such 1/2 mile distances.
(ii) Importantly, the appropriate unit of analysis is a bus stop, not a bus route. Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(4)(B), for example, refers to this distance:
"one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the
Public Resources Code." The phrase "major transit stop" is significant. PRC subd. 21155(b) states, in part, "
"A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in
the applicable regional transportation plan. For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service
with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major
transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from
the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile
from the stop or corridor." (Emphasis added.)
(iii) PRC sec. 21064.3 was recently changed. ("Amended by Stats. 2024, Ch. 275, Sec. 2. (AB 2553) Effective January 1, 2025.). It now states:
"“Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either
a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the
morning and afternoon peak commute periods."
In terms of implications for Palo Alto's ADU ordinace, specifically with reference to height limits:
(1) It is unclear how one can interrogate the City's current maps through the web. Asking regarding particular parcels is accepting a "black box"
analysis which is not transparent. Homeowners are entitled to know what they can build before they incur the cost and expense of preparing a permit
application, and the community should be able to know, for example, in the context of urging the City Council to amend its current ordinance, which
specific areas of Palo Alto the City current considers to be within such 1/2 mile distances.
PLEASE NOTE: These are additional comments provided on 2025-03-25.
This concern applies specifically to 66323 Units, as well as to what might be
deemed "66321 Units." Palo Alto should (A) use HCD tools for determining
whether a given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit, and (B) acknowledge that (i)
non-VTA bus routes are relevant to determining such areas, (ii) the appropriate unit
of analysis is a bus stop, not a bus route, and (iii) the requisite periodicity
established by state law has changed recently. This requires that Palo Alto's
current maps, wherever they are maintained and however they are shared with the
public, be revised.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
Gov. C. sec. 66323
11
30
C
31 PLEASE NOTE: Please see the further discussion immediately below.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#2
(2) It is unclear whether the City has even begun to update its analyses based on the recent changes to PRC sec. 21064.3 with its new, 20-min.
standard.
(3) It is unclear whether the City has taken account of non-VTA transit providers, including AC Transit and Stanford, among others.
(4) It is unclear on what principled basis the City would substitute its own analyses for those of HCD.
(5) And, perhaps most importantly, while I am not certain, I believe that the City has constructed its map based on bus routes, rather than bus stops.
A "major transit stop" includes "the intersection of two or more major bus routes...." There is nothing on the face of PRC sec. 21064.3 requiring that
such bus routes be orthogonal, or even at a slight angle, to one another. In the absence of such a legislative requirement, two bus routes could
intersect by overlaping one another. Since the fundamental unit of analysis is a "major transit stop," this means that the number of "major transit
stops" throughout Palo Alto is likely considerable greater than that suggested by the City's maps. In many instances, VTA, AC Transit, Stanford, and
perhaps other transit servcie providers (including the City itself, whether now or in the future) run buses along the same major vehicular arteries,
such as University, Embaracadero, San Antonio, Middlefield, etc. Although service may be provided by different agencies or carriers at such stops,
because the same bus stop is served by multiple providers, there are likely far more that qualify as "major transit stops" under the new 20-min.
standard. If the City has not undertaken such an analysis, in addition to acknowleging and accepting the results of the HCD's tools, it should also
calculate which particular stops in Palo Alto are served with 20-min. intervals by any carrier at peak commute times. It would be sad, and, indeed,
ironic, were the City not to take account of interactions between different transit providers for the purposes of assessing height limitations for ADUs
when its own "Getting Around" web page champions "the free Stanford Marguerite shuttle bus network" as complementing VTA buses.
Although not specifically noted by the HCD (see discussion of "Section 18.09.030 (a) iii -- Height," above, parts of both Table 1 of Section 18.09.030
and Table 2 of Section 18.09.040 are inconsistent with state law. Among other things, "66323 Units do not have to comply with lot coverage, front
setbacks, and design standards." The 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 18. Cf. paragraph immediately below table at p. 20. That 66323 Units do not
have to comply with lot coverage, front setbacks, and design standards affects both Table 1 and, importantly, and Table 2 as well, in several ways:
(a) The heading for the third column from the left of Table 1 reads, "Construction of Attached ADU Within the Proposed Space of a Single-Family
Home," and a large cell for the rows concerning setbacks, daylight plane, and maximum height states, "Underlying zone standard for Single[-]Family
Home (ADU must be within allowable space of Single-Family Home)."
(b) As for setbacks, Gov. C. subd. 66323(a)(1)(C) states, "The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety," not that the setbacks are the
same as for the single-family home.
(c) As for daylight plane requirements, none are mentioned in Gov. C. subd. 66323(a); therefore, for the same reasons discussed by the HCD in
2024-10 HCD Letter, #9 (discussed above), under Gov. C. subd. 66317(c), the City may not enact additional requirements to delay an ADU or JADU
building permit.
(d) As for maximum height, footnote (3) states, "Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling."
Again, under Gov. C. subd. 66317(c), the City may not enact additional requirements to delay an ADU or JADU building permit. Consequently, the City
cannot rely upon other parts of the PAMC to reduce the effective height limit for ADUs.
(e) In addition, the heading for the second column from the left of Table 2 merely states, "Attached," but its problems --- regarding setbacks, daylight
plane, and maximum heigh --- are analogous to those of the third column in Table 1, and they too must be corrected.
(f) Both tables should incorporate the current guidance from HCD regarding two-story ADUs:
"If a detached two-story ADU can be built according to the height allowances required under State ADU Law while remaining compliant with the
building code, a local agency cannot deny an ADU application to create a two-story ADU, irrespective of the underlying zoning that might restrict a
primary dwelling to one story. (Gov. Code, §§ 66321, subd. (b)(4)(D); 66314, subd. (d)(8).)". 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 25.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
Gov. C. sec. 66323
Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(4)(B)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(C)
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
Additional concerns re setbacks, daylight plane, and height.
12
31
A
(g) While 66323 Units have a special status, including an explicit ministerial approval requirement, Gov. C. subd. 66323(a), additional concerns regarding Palo
Alto's current ADU ordinance concerning setbacks, daylight plan, and height arise from consideration of Gov. C. subd. 66321. For example, while Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(A) does not speak separately and explicitly to rules governing attached ADU ("The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within
the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure...."), state ADU laws still encourage and protect
the development of attached ADUs in important ways. Among other things:
Gov. C. subd. 66321(a) explicitly references "both attached and detached accessory dwelling units."
Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(2) sets floors for the maximum sizes of all ADUs and those that "provide[] more than one bedroom."
Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(4)(D) generally provides greater height limits for attached ADUs: "A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the local zoning ordinance
that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling. This subparagraph shall not require a
local agency to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories."
And Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(3) establishes a special set of protections for "an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks
to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards."
Because all of these provisions are part of one section of the Government Code, and because Gov. C. sec. 66321 should be read in harmony with Gov. C. subd.
66323, along with the other parts of Article 2, an 800-sf ADU with four-foot side and rear setbacks, whether attached or detached, enjoys, among other things, the
additional height allowances provided by Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(4)(D), and protection from any portion of any local agency ordinance that would seek to impose
"[a]ny requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a
percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for either
attached or detached dwellings...." Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(3).
Applying these principles to Palo Alto's current ADU ordinance leads to several important conclusions, including, but not limited to, the following:
(3) Although it is perhaps a bit of an open question, I believe that the most reasonable reading of Gov. C. sec. 66321, particulary in light of Gov. C. subd. 66323,
along with the other parts of Article 2, protects such an attached ADU from Palo Alto's daylight plane requirements, provided it respects the four-foot side and rear
setback requirements.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#2
Additional concerns re setbacks, daylight plane, and height.
PLEASE NOTE: These are additional comments provided on 2025-03-25.
(1) Palo Alto must allow an attached ADU up to 800 sf in size to be built out to four-foot
side and rear setbacks; in other words, it need not be confined to the setbacks for the
primary dwelling on the lot.
(2) Such an ADU would enjoy the height benefits provided by Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(4)(D); as a result, in most parts of the City, it could be built to 25', provided that
it does not have more than two stories.
Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(4)(B)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(C)
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
13
OTHER
POLICY
CHANGES
32
Althought not required by state law, Gov. Code section 66342 gives local jurisdictions the option of adopting an ordinance to provide for the separate conveyance
of an ADU, apart from its primary dwelling, as noted by the HCD in a footnote in the 2024-10 HCD letter. Palo Alto should adopt such an ordinance as a means of
stimulating ADU production. Allowing for the separate conveyance of ADUs in Palo Alto would likely expand capital availability for ADU production considerably.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#8, fn.1
33
A Palo Alto worksheet for estimating existing electrcal loads (), which is
referenced by implication in Palo Alto's "" at p. 2 ("COMPLETED AND SIGNED UTILITY SERVICE APPLICATION INCLUDING UTILITY
DEMANDS FOR THE REQUIRED SERVICES") essentially relies upon nameplate information, with repeated instructions to specify "Volt Amps from Label." With
Palo Alto's new "Advanced Meter Infrastructure" for electrical service, applicants can, in addition, use , which begins,
"
The calculation of a feeder or service load for existing installations shall be permitted to use actual maximum demand to determine the existing load under all of
the following conditions...."
Palo Alto should: (a) make clear that this alternate form of calculation existing electrical loads can be used for ADUs and JADUs; (b) provide an updated form for
calculating the resultant demand in accordance with CEC (2022) 220.87; and (c) simplify and publicize clearly instructions for obtaining historical load data from
CPAU customer service personnel or directly online through MyCPAU.
Allow for separate conveyances of ADUs under Gov. C. sec. 66342
Gov. C. sec. 66342.
res_load_calc_gh_03.24.17_dc1-em
Utility Service Application
CEC (2022) 220.87
Simplify and improve CPAU load calculatons.
220.87 Determining Existing Loads
CEC (2022) 220.87
14
34
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 33,
At present CPAU will sometimes
charge a customer for electrical infrastructure upgrades. For example, if a customer seeks to upgrade a home's electrical service to electrify the home or to add
an EV charger, CPAU sometimes allocates the entire cost of that infrastructure upgrade to the customer requesting a new service, even thought the capacity of
the existing CPAU infrastructure reached an exhaustion threshold by the load demands of all of the customers in a given local area. This can be thought of as a
"loser lottery." When this policy is applied to ADUs or JADUs in the additional regulatory context of the City's newly modified reach codes, it becomes particularly
untenable. Making it extremely difficult for ADU or JADU applicants to have gas appliances while charging them for CPAU electrical infrastructure upgrades
creates a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" choice. This is also poor public policy because CPAU infrastructure upgrades, in general, should be borne
by CPAU itself or all customers, not a select few.
From an ADU and JADU regulatory perspective, such CPAU policies also violate state law. Gov. C. subd. 66314(a) makes clear that (a) only local water and
sewer utilities have any proper participation in ADU and JADU permitting, and (b) even then, the only legitimate inquiry concerns "the adequacy of water and
sewer services...."; once a local agency has consulted with local water and sewer utilities as to which regions with that agency's jurisdiction have adequate water
and sewer services, further involvement of local utilities in ADU and JADU permitting should end. Thus, if a local agency (a) allows water or sewer review of a
particular permit application concerning a parcel that is in an area with adequate water and sewer services, or (b) allows any other local utility to review an ADU or
JADU permit application, it fails to respect and honor that portion of Gov. C. sec. 66314. Therefore, current CPAU policies concerning the "loser lottery" are
doubly problematic: electrical utilities have no role in ADU and JADU permitting, and even if the state had allowed cities to consider the adequacy of electrical
service in a local sub-region --- which is not the case --- once that determination had been made, an electrical utility should not be further involved in permittng for
an ADU or JADU.
CPAU's "loser lottery" policies are troublesome when applied to 66323 Units for other reasons as well. There is no mention of electrical infrastructure upgrades in
Gov. C. sec. 66323, and Gov. C. subds. 66323(b)-(c) state:
"(b) A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that
meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).
(c) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior
accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions."
Taken together, the entirety of that section and those particular sub-divisions also prohibit the City from forcing ADU or JADU applicants to pay for CPAU
infrastructure upgrades as price for a building permit, as well as prohibiting CPAU electrical permitting review. 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 33,
concerning non-conforming zoning.
End the "loser lottery." Do not condition permit approval of ADUs or JADUs on
charging applicants for CPAU infrastructure upgrades, a type of impermissible
demand for public improvements, and give applicants, at their sole option, the
ability to obtain one or more separate utility services for ADUs.
Cf.
Gov. C. sec. 66314
Gov. C. sec. 66323
15
35
A homeowner seeking to build an ADU in a flood zone will frequently be directed to complete a
"," which will likely result in a determination by the City, made using RS Means cost estimating data or software,
which, without further work, frequently results in a determinaton by the City that the cost of adding an ADU is more than 50% of the current value of the primary
home, thus preventing one from obtaining an exception to certain additional flood zone building requirements. As ordinarily followed, this procedure is irrational,
failing to take reasonable account of home values in Palo Alto. Therefore, an applicant is required to seek and to pay for a custom appraisal of the home, one
more expense tacked onto the price of creating the additonal housing that our community needs. A better approach is possible. Here are three suggestions
(doubtless there are more possibilities):
1. The City could acknowledge that the RS Means data and software are extremely poor indicators of the value of existing homes in Palo Alto, and it could create
more realistic estimates of home values in our community. This need not be a major undertaking requiring exceptional expenditures. (Perhaps there are students
at local universities who might find this an interesting project and a worthwhile endeavor that could even lead to creating a profitable business. One will only know
for sure by asking.)
2. The City, having made that acknowledgement, could entertain other approaches that are likely far more accurate than the RS Means data and software
approach. The question ought not to be whether the alternative is perfect, but whether it's better than the current, highly tarnished, "gold standard." The City
should be able to use, for example, rough data from, ., Zillow, to establish the market price of a home and then to have an optional parameter, perhaps 25% or
even 20% (and maybe an variable that changes with both the size of the house relative to the size of the lot and the age of the house) of the Zillow-estimated
FMV as an acceptable approximation of the FMV of the structure on property. Local relators might have even better ideas. Any such figures that accord with the
experience and judgments of those who probably know these values best, such as local relators, ought to be allowed in lieu of a detailed and costly appraisal for
the purposes of a flood-zone-screening analysis. Perhaps waivers or exceptions might be necessary state or federal regulators, but let's not make the process of
building ADUs in Palo Alto --- even in flood zones --- any more expensive than it already is, particularly when RS Means data and software simply fail to measure
actual Palo Alto home FMV values accurately.
3. Simply accept a good-faith estimate provided by a local, licensed relator.
36
In a , the HCD wrote, with respect to Palo Alto's
December, 2022 draft housing element:
"Fees and Exaction: While the element describes required fees for single family and multifamily housing developments, including impact fees, on (pp. 4-66) the
element states that impact fees/capacity fees are considered the highest in the County. In addition, on (pp. 4-67) the City recognizes that current
planning/permitting and development fees add substantial cost to residential development."
By this time, if not earlier, Palo Alto reasonably should have known that there were serious problems with its per-unit impact fees as applied to ADUs, and that, as
the City would acknowledge explicitly in the redlined ("V6") of the housing element, if not earlier that:
"Because Palo Alto has historically charged per-unit feesfor residential development, this has led to some inequitable results, as the fees for an ADU will depend
not only on the size of the ADU, but also on the size of the primary unit, with higher fees required under state law when the primary unit is smaller." V6, at p. 4-65.
The City should do the right thing and refund the impact fees that were charged on ADUs improperly from at least March 23, 2023 to the present in two distinct
ways:
1. At a minimum, the City should re-calculate the fees charged on a per-unit basis and refund the difference as compared with the amounts that would be
charged under current rules. To follow its stated values (, Recital A(5) in the draft resolution attached to
": "Will safeguard public trust through transparent practices and open
communication."), this is the minimum that the City should do even to begin to make whole the homeowners who were overcharged for ADU impact fees.
2. If the City recognizes that even the current impact fee structure is improper, as discussed above, then the City should refund the entire amount of the fees
previously charged to such homeowners, as having been charged in violation of state proportionality rules for ADUs.
references noted
above concerning
impact fees and
proportionality.
Create a simplified approach for flood zone appraisals.
FLOOD ZONE SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE
letter dated March 23, 2023
April, 2024 version
"City Council At Places Memo, From: Mayor
Lauing and Vice Mayor Veenker, Meeting Date: February 24, 2025, Item Number: 8
e.g
see, e.g.
See
Refund improperly charged ADU fees.
16
37
If the City is serious about meeting its
goals in the Housing Element, it should simply waive all such fees. Impact fees for larger ADUs can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. In addition,
permitting fees are themselves consequential, sometimes amounting to several thousand dollars or more. Building more ADUs and JADUs is, perhaps, the
fastest, most effective, and most demonstrably successful means of creating more and more afforedable housing in Palo Alto. We should make it easier and less
expensive for people to build ADUs and JADUs. Waiving all such fees would send the right message and address current geopolitical conditions. Homeowners
are already concerned about the effects of global tariff wars on the prices of lumber, appliances, and the other goods necessary to construct ADUs and JADUs.
Cutting all such fees would show that Palo Alto is committed to meeting its housing goals even as geopolitical changes create higher construction costs.
references
noted above
concerning impact
fees and
proportionality, as well
as the separate
discussion of simply
ending impact fees on
ADUs.
38
By going beyond what is required by state law in terms of ADU height, the City may be
able to create appropriate incentives for complying with current daylight plane standards. A simple approach would be to allow for 20' high, two-story, detached,
Table 2 ADUs, on the condition that they conform with current daylight plane standards. Because the 20' height limit is greater than that contemplated in state
ADU statutes for non-66323 Units, allowing for such an alternative, non-mandatory regulatory pathway might be countenanced by the HCD.
39
State law allows for 1,200 sf ADUs, and some Bay Area jurisdictions allow for such
larger ADUs already. To truly reform Palo Alto's housing market and spur construction of more and more affordable housing, our community needs to embrace
"next phase housing," which will meet the needs of, and be embraced by, Palo Altans seeking to downsize, but confronted with the unavailability of suitable
housing alternatives. Community members who have lived for decades in larger homes are likely to be sceptical about moving into 800 sf ADUs. 1,200 sf ADUs,
which could have a third bedroom, space for family members who visit occasionally, or home offices, might be attractive enough so that homeowners would
consider moving our of their single-family residences into a 1,200 sf ADU, thus freeing primary dwellings up for rental (and ideally sale, if the City ever embraces
Gov. C. sec. 66342).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#8, fn.1
40
To create the additional and less
expensive housinng that our community needs and deserves, the City should do more than meet minimal standards; it should strive for excellence. Palo Alto
should set a goal of earning a "Prohousing Designation" from the HCD. As shown on the , neighboring cities such as Mountain View and Redwood
City have already achieved such designations, as have other cities such as Santa Monica. Achieving such a designation can unlock meaningful benefits for
creating additional housing in Palo Alto, and changing existing regulations and creating new housing incentives will benefit the Palo Alto community along the way
to earning such a designation.
Waive all impact and permitting fees on both ADUs and JADUs.
Create an alternative, local, 20' height limit, specifically for two-story, detached,
Table 2 ADUs, with a daylight plane.
Adopt a 1,200 sf size limit for all ADUs.
Palo Alto should seek a "Prohousing Designation," and ADU reforms can help our community to achieve that goal.
See also
Gov. C. sec. 66342.
HCD's website
Prohousing
Designation Benefits
and Prohousing
Designated
Jurisdictions
17
41
To create more and more affordable housing, the City should also allocate reasonable funding. In some housing projects, the City
appears to expect other government agencies to contribute significantly to construction costs. But the City has an enormous budget, much more of which could
be used to create incentives for new housing. Allocating a tiny fraction of that budget, even only 25 basis points or less over a two-year period would free up $5
million in total that could be used to test different regulatory and incentive programs to determine the ease of their implementation and the likelihood of their
success. The oversubscription and success of certain state-wide financial incentives has already demonstrated demand for funds to help build ADU. Palo Alto
could and should experiment with such mechanisms and others. Here is a rough outline of a series of such possible experiments:
Total of $5 million in grants and on-bill financing over two years:
Up to 50 $25k grants for pre-designed ADUs
Up to 50 $25k grants based on CalHFA program
Up to 25 on-CPAU-bill financings for first $100k of ADU costs
With this partricular experimental approach, $2.5 million would be returned to the City over time, which could help pay for the next, full implementation phase of
such programs. Creating such incentives, even on an experimental basis, might also accelerate Palo Alto's obtaining a "Prohousing Designation." 2025-01 HCD
ADU Handbook, p. 28.
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 28
Palo Alto should experiment with meaningful financial incentives to increase ADU
production.
1
City of Palo Alto-References & Abbreviations re 2025-03 ADU reforms
Abbreviation Reference
2024-10 HCD
Letter
Letter to Jonathan Lait, Director, from Jamie Candelaria Senior Housing
Accountability Unit Manager, HCD, dated October 29, 2024
2025-01 HCD
ADU Handbook
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
OK, January 2025ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT HANDBO
May 12, 2025
ADU Ordinance UpdateCity CouncilPresenter: Garrett Sauls, Principal Planner
2
HCD Comments
•HCD Response to Ordinance October 29,
2024 (Attachment C)
•Majority of HCD’s comments require
minor clarifications/modifications to the
City’s code and processes.
•HCD comments 3, 9, 10, 12, 17, and 20
result in greater changes to the City’s
existing regulations and procedures.
3
Unit Allowance (Item #3)
Previous allowance:
•SF: 1 ADU (attached/detached) and 1 JADU;
•MF: 2 detached ADUs*
•Up to 25% of attached units through
conversion*
New State law provides:
•For Single Family:
•1 attached ADU* AND 1 detached ADU
•1 JADU
•For Multi-Family:
•2 detached ADUs with proposed multi-
family structure*
•Up to 8 detached ADUs or existing number
of units on site, whichever is less*
•Up to 25% of attached units through
conversion*
*No maximum size for these types of units
4
TREE PROTECTION (Item #9)
•HCD comment: unless objective
provisions exist within PAMC
Chapter 18.09, Palo Alto cannot
apply regulations of other
sections through reference
•PAMC 18.09.040(m) incorporates
objective standards:
•Definitions of protected trees
•Threshold for impacts to trees
•Replacement requirements
•These rules do not apply to PAMC
18.09.030
6
JADU Provisions (Item #10)
Previous requirements:
•Four-foot setback
•Up to 500 sf FAR/LC bonus; shared w/ ADU
•Reduced corner lot setbacks for JADUs
New requirements:
•500 sf FAR/LC bonus for primary home when
JADU is built; shared with ADU FAR/LC bonus
•JADU must be built within buildable area of
primary home; could result in limits to JADU
production based on lot size
•JADU must incorporate objective privacy,
design, and noise requirements under PAMC
18.09.050(f) to be afforded the bonus sf
7
Historic Inventory (Item #12)
New State law provides that PA cannot apply
SISR provisions to non CRHR properties:
•Ensure historic integrity of additions
•Limits impacts to historic resources
•Staff level or HRB level review
•Most relevant for attached ADU/JADUs
Palo Alto has 1,024 historic properties:
•Vary from Cat 1 – Cat 4
•If on NRHP, then on CRHR
•684 Cat 1-4 not on CRHR/NRHP
•340 Cat 1-4 on CRHR/NRHP
•Roughly 13,000 non-historic R-1
properties in PA
8
Kitchen Requirements (Items #17 & 20)
Previous requirements:
•Proscribed burners, oven/
convection microwave, counter
space, and fridge/freezer capacity
New requirements:
•Permanent provisions for eating,
cooking, and sanitation that are
“reasonable in size”
•PA ADU Handbook shows
previous standards and can be
used as guidance in conversations
with public
9
•State Law Compliance: Remove local standards that conflict with state law.
•Fee Reform: Eliminate all ADU/JADU impact & permit fees; refund collected fees
•Zoning Adjustments: Align height, FAR, and setbacks with more permissive state
law allowances; update transit maps using HCD tools (include non-VTA routes).
•Incentives: Launch $5M pilot (grants + on-bill financing); allow 1,200 sf ADUs;
offer 20’ two-story option with daylight plane.
•Other Actions: Simplify flood zone cost estimates; pursue HCD “Prohousing ”
designation.
Public Comment (Summary)
10
•Recommend approval of the draft ordinance provided with the
packet with the added modifcation:
o Eliminate the phrase "underlying zoning for front setback"
under the Single Family - New Construction of Detached
ADU column in PAMC 18.09.030 Table 1
Recommended Motion and Next Steps
11
Garrett Sauls
Principal Planner
Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov
650-329-2471
12
Electric: One service owned by the City to a two-meter
set located at the main house. Private lines feeding
ADU.
Gas: One service owned by the City to a two-meter set
located at main house. Private house lines feeding the
main house and ADU
Water: One service to a two-meter set located at back
of sidewalk. Private house lines feeding main house
and ADU
Sewer: One lateral to cleanout located at back of
sidewalk
Approved Configuration: Utility
in Front of Home
12
Electric: One service owned by the City to a two-meter
set located at the ADU. Private lines feeding main
house.
Gas: One service owned by the City to a two-meter set
located at main house. Private house lines feeding the
main house and ADU
Water: One service to a two-meter set located at back
of sidewalk. Private house lines feeding main house
and ADU
Sewer: One lateral to cleanout located at back of
sidewalk
Approved Configuration: Utility
Behind Home
12
Electric: Two services owned by the City to
two, separate electric panels and meters
located at the main house and ADU.
Gas: Two services owned by the City to two,
separate meters located at main house and
ADU.
Non-Approved Configuration: Utility
Behind Home
12
Electric: Two services owned by the City to
two, separate electric panels and meters
located at the main house and ADU.
Gas: Two services owned by the City to two,
separate meters located at main house and
ADU.
Non-Approved Configuration: Utility
in Front of Home
State Law Definition – Half-mile
21155.
(b)(3) A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for
purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the
applicable regional transportation plan. For purposes of this section, a high-quality
transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals
no longer than 20 minutes during peak commute hours. A project shall be
considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit
corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area
farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent
of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther
than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.
From:Sven Thesen
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Cc:Kate Kramer; John Kelley
Subject:Agenda item 10, ADU"s - In Support of John Kelley"s ADU proposals
Date:Sunday, May 11, 2025 11:47:38 PM
Attachments:Thesen Kramer Pre Notary Deferral 250312.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Gentle City Council Members,
I am writing in support of John Kelley's ADU proposals as detailed in his email of May 11,
sent at approximately 9:40pm.
In summary:
1) We should be able to build larger than 1000 square-foot ADU's;
2) We should be able to convert the main house and/or the ADU(s) into condominiums similar
to San Jose;
3) The city should cancel all impact fees associated with ADUs.
Please see his email for a detailed analysis of the above.
My wife and I are beginning the process of constructing an ADU.
As noted above, we are limited to 1000 ft.². We would have preferred to have built roughly
1200 ft.² to allow a second bathroom & bigger bedroom dedicated for a future caregiver.
Regarding converting the ADU to a condominium, we had not heard of this before and would
at least like it as an option.
Impact fees, we have been requested to pay ~$23,700 in impact fees & this is separate from
the ~$4,700 in school impact fees & the cities ~$5,900 in permit fees
--
Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645
EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie
"Under the Trump administration, America is retreating from hard power, surrendering soft
power, and yielding economic power. Is this what greatness looks like?" David A. Graham,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
The Atlantic
__________________________________________________
How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers
This document is recorded for the
benefit of the City of Palo Alto
and is entitled to be recorded
free of charge in accordance with
Section 6103 of the Government Code
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
AGREEMENT CREATING A LIEN
TO SECURE DEFERRED PAYMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND/OR IN-LIEU FEES
ADDRESS: ________________, PALO ALTO, CA
A.P.N. No._____________
This Agreement, made and executed this _____ day of_____________, 20___, by and between the CITY OF
PALO ALTO, a California charter municipal corporation ("City"), and ___________________________, a
______________________ ("Developer") to secure the payment of deferred development impact fees and or
in-lieu fees that would otherwise be due prior to issuance of a building permit.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the owner of that certain tract of land situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, generally known and described as _______________[street
address], Palo Alto, California and more fully described in Exhibit A [legal description], (the
"Property"); and
B. On or about _____________[date], City approved Developer’s application(s) for
_________________ [entitlements], subject to conditions of approval including the payment of
development impact fees and/or in-lieu fees under Chapter 16.64 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(“PAMC”).
C. Developer wishes to defer payment of development impact fees and/or in-lieu fees associated with
the Property, more fully described in Exhibit B, pursuant to PAMC Section 16.64.030
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the approval and covenants contained herein and other
good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:
1.Deferral of Fees. Pursuant to PAMC Section 16.64.030, payment of the development impact
fees and/or in-lieu fees described in Exhibit B shall be deferred until the date the development is
approved for occupancy. If the development contains more than one dwelling, the fee shall be
paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it is approved for occupancy. All fees must be
paid before final occupancy approval may be granted. Fees shall be payable at the rates in
effect on the date the fees are paid, except: (1) an applicant for a vesting tentative map for a
development project shall pay the fees at the rate in effect on the date the application for the
vesting tentative map is deemed complete, and (2) an applicant that defers fees for a designated
residential redevelopment project, as defined in California Government Code Section 66007,
may elect to pay the fees at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
314 Stanford Avenue,
124-30-002
Thesen Kramer 2007 Revocable Living Trust dated 31 October 2007
trust
314 Stanford Avenue
ADU Building Permits
2. Lien Created. Developer hereby grants to the City a lien against the Property described in
Exhibit A; said lien is intended to guarantee the payment in full of the deferred fees described in
Exhibit B, plus the City’s costs of enforcement and collection, including reasonable attorney’s
fees, if any.
3. Release of Lien. Upon full payment of all deferred fees to City and complete satisfaction of all
terms of this Agreement by the Developer, the City shall promptly release the lien created
hereunder by executing a lien release in substantial form as shown in Exhibit C. Upon request
by the Developer, the City will execute a partial release of the lien in the event the fee is
prorated pursuant to Section 1 above.
4. Enforcement. The City may pursue collection through all available legal and administrative
means, including without limitation, judicial or non-judicial foreclosure of the recorded lien
against the Property or a civil judgment against the Developer for breach of this Agreement
and/or the security provided hereunder. The Developer will be responsible for any fees required
of the City for the enforcement and collection of the development impact fees, including
reasonable attorney’s fees.
5. Notices. All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To City: Office of the City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To Developer: _________________________
6. Miscellaneous.
a. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
b. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
c. The terms, covenants and conditions of this agreement shall run with the land and shall
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, contractors, and
subcontractors of the parties.
d. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This
document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
e. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
f. In the event the either the City or Developer shall at any time or times waive any breach of
this Agreement by the other, such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of any other or
succeeding breach of this Agreement, whether of the same or any other covenant,
condition, or obligation.
g. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly
Sven Thesen, 314 Stanford Ave Palo Alto CA 94306
executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will
be deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
h. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal
capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. This Agreement
may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,
constitute a single binding agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed in
duplicate the day and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO Developer
____________________________ ______________________________
City Manager
Name: ________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Title: _______________________
____________________________
Deputy City Attorney ______________________________
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Name: ________________________
Title: _______________________
____________________________
Director of Planning
and Development Services
Sven H. Thesen
Trustee
Sven H. Thesen
Trustee
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT B
DEFERRED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND/OR IN-LIEU FEES
Amounts provided are estimates based on the rates in effect at the time this Agreement is executed. Fees
are payable at the rates in effect on the date of payment except: (1) an applicant for a vesting tentative
map for a development project shall pay the fees at the rate in effect on the date the application for the
vesting tentative map is deemed complete, and (2) an applicant that defers fees for a designated
residential redevelopment project, as defined in California Government Code Section 66007, may elect to
pay the fees at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
EXHIBIT C [Option 1: Full Release]
LIEN RELEASE FORM
This document is recorded for the
benefit of the City of Palo Alto
and is entitled to be recorded
free of charge in accordance with
Section 6103 of the Government Code
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RELEASE OF LIEN UPON REAL PROPERTY
ADDRESS: ________________, PALO ALTO, CA
A.P.N. No._____________
WHEREAS, on __________, ___________________________ (“Grantor”) and the City of Palo Alto
(“Grantee”) entered into an Agreement Creating a Lien to Secure Deferred Payment of Development
Impact Fees and/or In-Lieu Fees (“Agreement”), which Agreement was recorded as Document No.
____________ in the Official Records of the County of Santa Clara on ____________; and
WHEREAS, Grantor has satisfied the conditions for the release of lien encumbering certain property under
the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, Grantee hereby releases all of its right, title, and interest to the lien in the real
property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________ Date: __________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
City Attorney or Designee
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
____________________________
Director of Planning and Development Services
314 Stanford Avenue,
124-30-002
EXHIBIT C [Option 2: Partial Release for Pro Rata Payments]
LIEN RELEASE FORM
This document is recorded for the
benefit of the City of Palo Alto
and is entitled to be recorded
free of charge in accordance with
Section 6103 of the Government Code
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PARTIAL RELEASE OF LIEN UPON REAL PROPERTY
ADDRESS: ________________, PALO ALTO, CA
A.P.N. No._____________
WHEREAS, on __________, ___________________________ (“Grantor”) and the City of Palo Alto
(“Grantee”) entered into an Agreement Creating a Lien to Secure Deferred Payment of Development
Impact Fees and/or In-Lieu Fees (“Agreement”), which Agreement was recorded as Document No.
____________ in the Official Records of the County of Santa Clara on ____________; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that the fees shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling unit
when it is approved for occupancy;
WHEREAS, Grantor has partially satisfied the conditions for the release of lien encumbering certain
property under the Agreement by paying $________ upon the approval for occupancy of _________
[number or description of dwelling units];
NOW, THEREFORE, Grantee hereby partially releases its right, title, and interest to the lien in the real
property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
There remain unpaid fees for _______ units.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________ Date: __________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
City Attorney or Designee
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
____________________________
Director of Planning and Development Services
314 Stanford Avenue,
124-30-002
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF __________________________)
)
COUNTY OF _________________________)
On __________________, before me, _____________________, a notary public in and for said
County, personally appeared _________________________, personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_____________________________
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF __________________________)
)
COUNTY OF _________________________)
On __________________, before me, _____________________, a notary public in and for said
County, personally appeared __________________________, personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_____________________________
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF __________________________)
)
COUNTY OF _________________________)
On __________________, before me, _____________________, a notary public in and for said
County, personally appeared ______________________, personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument,
and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and
that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_____________________________
From:John Kelley
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett; Stephen Levy; Sven Thesen
Subject:PA-ADUs: Recommendations re Agenda Item #10 on May 12, 2025
Date:Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:40:14 PM
Attachments:PA-POLI-letter to PACC re Amending Municipal Code re ADUs 2025-05-11 -- with attachment.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, and Councilmembers,
Please see the attached letter concerning Agenda Item #10 regarding ADUs on the agenda for tomorrow
night’s City Council meeting:
The summary and recommendations from the attached letter are also copied below in this email.
Respectfully submitted,
John Kelley
**********************
TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council)
RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #10 on May 12, 2025 Agenda,
“Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code…”
re ADUS, and Comments re Staff Report 2503-4326 (Staff Report)
DATE: May 11, 2025
FROM: John Kelley
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are succeeding in Palo Alto. More than half of the
new homes permitted in Palo Alto in recent years have been ADUs. Let’s not stop
now. We can make ADUs “21st century starter homes” to help Palo Alto achieve its
Housing Element commitments and address housing challenges facing our
community and the entire state.
Consider three groups of people who want (a) to age in place, (b) to buy a new home,
or (c) to feel that they can continue to pay the rent in Palo Alto.
Older homeowners might want to downsize or to supplement their retirement
income. But they don’t want to be forced out of Palo Alto by transaction costs
and capital gains taxes. Many couples recognize that they will not be happy
moving from a 2,200 sf house to an 800 sf ADU, because they need more
space. And if they seek rental income, it might be advantageous to build a
bigger ADU.
A young couple or family wants to leave their apartment and put down roots.
They know about Palo Alto’s great community, phenomenal environment, and
extraordinary schools. They check Zillow: “The average Palo Alto, CA home
value is $3,704,698, up 7.9% over the past year and goes to [sale] pending in
around 9 days.” They catch their breath. They don’t feel welcomed.
An individual, a couple, and a family have all lived in Palo Alto for years, but
they worry about being able to stay because of rising rents. Can we build
enough homes in Palo Alto to moderate rent increases?
Making ADUs “21st century starter homes” — big enough for a couple or small family
to live in comfortably — yet much more affordable — requires three key reforms. (1)
We need to move beyond the current 1,000 sf limit and allow for larger ADUs, with
maximum sizes of 1,200, 1,400, or even 1,600 sf, just like starter homes were in the
20th century. (2) We must create ownership opportunities for ADUs — to finance
them, to broaden access to the financial benefits of home ownership, and to
safeguard buyers’ long-term access to our community and its schools. (3) And we
must remove disincentives to building ADUs, especially larger ADUs. Chief among
these are local impact fees — which can total $15,000, $20,000, or more when levied
on ADUs 750 sf or larger. New single-family homes, by contrast, even 4,000+ sf
“scrapes” and 2,000+ sf additions, almost never pay local impact fees. Dozens of
other local regulations ought also to be changed to spur production of ADUs,
especially larger ADUs.
With 1,200-1,600 sf sizes, with ownership opportunities created by allowing existing
single-family homes and ADUs to become condominiums, and without impact fees or
other poorly conceived local regulations that deter ADU production, ADUs can
become “first-class homes.” They can be as well loved as any other home in Palo
Alto, providing both “next-phase” and “missing middle” housing. The needs of the
three distinct groups can be addressed together. Recall the older homeowners
seeking to downsize or to supplement their retirement income. They decide to build a
1,600 sf ADU and to create a condominium owners association (COA), unlocking new
financing alternatives. They have several options: (a) move into the new ADU and
either sell or rent the existing house as a condominium; or (b) stay in the existing
house and sell or rent the new ADU as a condominium. Depending on their choices,
they will have created a form of “next-phase housing” for themselves, putting the
additional square footage to good use by building an extra bedroom and a “bonus
room” for loved ones or caregivers. And they have also created a second “first-class”
home on their lot that provides “missing middle” housing: either an ownership
opportunity for people seeking to buy a new home; or a new rental home that can
moderate future rental increases.
Making ADUs “21st century starter homes” will benefit our community in other ways.
Production of new ADUs, especially larger ADUs, will increase revenues from
property taxes. In some instances, the incremental property taxes on the new ADU
may be greater than the current property taxes on the existing home. Creating both
new ownership and new rental opportunities will likely increase the numbers of
younger people able to remain in, return to, or join our community. At present, Palo
Alto is aging relatively quickly. To maintain its vibrancy as an innovation center,
allowing more younger people to be part of the community would be beneficial. With
more younger people, it’s also likely that there will be less pressure in coming years
to close local schools. Unless checked, declining enrollments will force difficult
school closure decisions. If we ensure that younger individuals, couples, and families
are welcomed in Palo Alto, we can help to maintain the excellence of Palo Alto’s
schools, which have always been part of the lifeblood of the community.
Accomplishing all of this work will require more than one City Council meeting, but
much can and should be completed on the night of May 12th. The City Council
should:
increase the size limit for detached ADUs with 2+ bedrooms to 1,200 sf, and
request City Staff to draft a further increase to 1,600 sf by September 1st;
request City Staff to draft a local ordinance under Gov. C. sec. 66342 to allow
for condominium conversions of ADUs by September 1st;
eliminate new local impact fees for ADUs, and request City Staff to draft a new
local ordinance by September 1st to refund all local impact fees for ADUs that
were charged at any time after March 23, 2023; and
request City Staff to engage actively with local architects, other design
professionals, and members of the public to analyze the other reforms identified
below, among others, and to return to the City Council no later than October 1,
2025 with a set of policy alternatives and recommendations for the Council.
TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council)
RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #10 on May 12, 2025
Agenda , “Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal
Code…” re ADUS, and Comments re Staff Report 2503-4326 (Staff
Report)
DATE: May 11, 2025
FROM: John Kelley
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are succeeding in Palo Alto. More than half of the
new homes permitted in Palo Alto in recent years have been ADUs. Let’s not stop now.
We can make ADUs “21st century starter homes” to help Palo Alto achieve its Housing
Element commitments and address housing challenges facing our community and the
entire state.
Consider three groups of people who want (a) to age in place, (b) to buy a new home,
or (c) to feel that they can continue to pay the rent in Palo Alto.
● Older homeowners might want to downsize or to supplement their retirement
income. But they don’t want to be forced out of Palo Alto by transaction costs
and capital gains taxes. Many couples recognize that they will not be happy
moving from a 2,200 sf house to an 800 sf ADU, because they need more space.
And if they seek rental income, it might be advantageous to build a bigger ADU.
● A young couple or family wants to leave their apartment and put down roots.
They know about Palo Alto’s great community, phenomenal environment, and
extraordinary schools. They check Zillow : “The average Palo Alto, CA home
value is $3,704,698, up 7.9% over the past year and goes to [sale] pending in
around 9 days.” They catch their breath. They don’t feel welcomed.
● An individual, a couple, and a family have all lived in Palo Alto for years, but they
worry about being able to stay because of rising rents. Can we build enough
homes in Palo Alto to moderate rent increases?
Making ADUs “21st century starter homes” — big enough for a couple or small family to
live in comfortably — yet much more affordable — requires three key reforms. (1) We
need to move beyond the current 1,000 sf limit and allow for larger ADUs, with
maximum sizes of 1,200, 1,400, or even 1,600 sf, just like starter homes were in the
20th century. (2) We must create ownership opportunities for ADUs — to finance them,
to broaden access to the financial benefits of home ownership, and to safeguard buyers’
long-term access to our community and its schools. (3) And we must remove
disincentives to building ADUs, especially larger ADUs. Chief among these are local
impact fees — which can total $15,000, $20,000, or more when levied on ADUs 750 sf
or larger. New single-family homes, by contrast, even 4,000+ sf “scrapes” and 2,000+
sf additions, almost never pay local impact fees. Dozens of other local regulations
ought also to be changed to spur production of ADUs, especially larger ADUs.
1
With 1,200-1,600 sf sizes, with ownership opportunities created by allowing existing
single-family homes and ADUs to become condominiums, and without impact fees or
other poorly conceived local regulations that deter ADU production, ADUs can become
“first-class homes.” They can be as well loved as any other home in Palo Alto,
providing both “next-phase” and “missing middle” housing. The needs of the three
distinct groups can be addressed together. Recall the older homeowners seeking to
downsize or to supplement their retirement income. They decide to build a 1,600 sf
ADU and to create a condominium owners association (COA), unlocking new financing
alternatives. They have several options: (a) move into the new ADU and either sell or
rent the existing house as a condominium; or (b) stay in the existing house and sell or
rent the new ADU as a condominium. Depending on their choices, they will have
created a form of “next-phase housing” for themselves, putting the additional square
footage to good use by building an extra bedroom and a “bonus room” for loved ones or
caregivers. And they have also created a second “first-class” home on their lot that
provides “missing middle” housing: either an ownership opportunity for people seeking
to buy a new home; or a new rental home that can moderate future rental increases.
Making ADUs “21st century starter homes” will benefit our community in other ways.
Production of new ADUs, especially larger ADUs, will increase revenues from property
taxes. In some instances, the incremental property taxes on the new ADU may be
greater than the current property taxes on the existing home. Creating both new
ownership and new rental opportunities will likely increase the numbers of younger
people able to remain in, return to, or join our community. At present, Palo Alto is aging
relatively quickly. To maintain its vibrancy as an innovation center, allowing more
younger people to be part of the community would be beneficial. With more younger
people, it’s also likely that there will be less pressure in coming years to close local
schools. Unless checked, declining enrollments will force difficult school closure
decisions. If we ensure that younger individuals, couples, and families are welcomed in
Palo Alto, we can help to maintain the excellence of Palo Alto’s schools, which have
always been part of the lifeblood of the community.
Accomplishing all of this work will require more than one City Council meeting, but much
can and should be completed on the night of May 12th. The City Council should:
● increase the size limit for detached ADUs with 2+ bedrooms to 1,200 sf, and
request City Staff to draft a further increase to 1,600 sf by September 1st;
● request City Staff to draft a local ordinance under Gov. C. sec. 66342 to allow for
condominium conversions of ADUs by September 1st;
● eliminate new local impact fees for ADUs, and request City Staff to draft a new
local ordinance by September 1st to refund all local impact fees for ADUs that
were charged at any time after March 23, 2023; and
● request City Staff to engage actively with local architects, other design
professionals, and members of the public to analyze the other reforms identified
below, among others, and to return to the City Council no later than October 1,
2025 with a set of policy alternatives and recommendations for the Council.
2
DISCUSSION
By (a) creating new incentives for ADU production, and
(b) eliminating barriers to ADU production not yet identified
by the HCD, ADUs can help to create a true local housing breakthrough.
1. Palo Alto needs a 1,600 sf size limit for detached ADUs with
2+ bedrooms, so that ADUs can become “21st century starter homes.” .
Palo Alto currently places a 1,000 sf maximum size limit on detached ADUs: “900 sf
(1,000 sf for two or more bedrooms).” PAMC 18.09.040(b ), Table 2. But Palo Alto
needs a larger size limit for ADUs to become “first-class homes” for both “next-phase”
and “missing middle” housing.
In recent decades, average home sizes have continued to grow and grow. Because
much of Palo Alto’s housing stock is relatively old, and because relatively few lots in R-1
neighborhoods are sub-standard, there are strong economic incentives to maximize the
square footage of new single-family homes, particularly “scrapes.” Consequently, the
number of smaller, more affordable single-family homes is generally declining.
Increasing the maximum size for detached ADUs with two or more bedrooms to 1,600 sf
can help create more abundant housing.
Many older Palo Altans have already recognized that their single-family homes are
larger than they need. But many (a) cannot live comfortably in 800 or even 1,000 sf
ADUs, and (b) have found that larger apartments, condominiums, or townhomes are so
expensive that, after selling their single-family homes, and paying transaction costs and
taxes, “downsizing” just doesn’t “pencil out.” May also love their current neighborhoods,
and others may wish to retain ownership of their homes as part of their estates.
Increasing the maximum size of ADUs to 1,600 square feet would allow ADUs to
become “21st century starter homes,” suitable for both “next-phase” and “missing
middle” housing. Because “dirt,” the land constituting the parcel on which ADUs can be
built, has already been paid for, developing ADUs is relatively less expensive than
developing new units on newly purchased lots. Older homeowners could choose either
(a) to move into new 1,600-square-foot ADUs — big enough to have an extra bedroom
and a “bonus room” for visiting family members or caregivers — or (b) remain in their
existing homes and to rent the larger ADUs — sufficiently large for a young family — to
allow younger people to remain in or to join the Palo Alto community. Either way,
1,600-square-foot ADUs would create new price points and more “missing middle”
homes. The entire community would benefit from a growing, more diverse, and
marginally more affordable housing market.
ADUs can be “21st century starter homes,” true “first-class homes” for both “next-phase”
and “missing middle” housing. The first step towards achieving this vision is to increase
the size limit for detached ADUs with two or more bedrooms to 1,600 sf.
3
2. Palo Alto should allow for condominium conversions of ADUs, under
Gov. C. sec. 66342, to provide for new financing for and sales of ADUs .
Besides Increasing maximum size limits, treating larger ADUs as true “first-class
homes” requires allowing them to be bought, sold, and financed like other houses. A
new state statute enables cities to allow ADUs to become condominiums.
The City of San Jose has summarized the background for Gov. C. sec 66342 as follows:
State law AB 1033 , effective January 2024, enables condominium conversions of
ADUs and California Code Section 66342 enables cities to adopt local
ordinances to allow for conveyance of an ADU as a condominium.
“ ADU Condominium Conversions ” web page. The provisions of that state code section
were incorporated into a local ordinance by the San Jose City Council in June 2024.
Ibid. In 2023, the Los Angeles Times explained part of the significance of AB 1033 as
follows:
Under AB 1033, which was signed into law this week, property owners in
participating cities will be able to construct an ADU on their land and sell it
separately, following the same rules that apply to condominiums. It gives
homeowners more options for building on their property, and “the hope is, it
would create more homeownership,”....
Some older Palo Alto homeowners, even with substantial assets, have already learned
that, after retirement, it can be harder to refinance an existing home with lower current
incomes, because lenders often make credit decisions based on current income levels.
Rather than forcing Palo Alto homeowners who want to build ADUs to accept poor
alternatives — higher transaction costs, unattractive loans, retirement savings
withdrawals, or even not building an ADU — adopting a local ordinance under Gov. C.
sec 66342 will help create new means of paying for ADUs.
And that’s good news for younger, prospective Palo Alto homeowners. Allowing ADUs
to become condominiums would mean that individuals, couples, and young families
could own their own homes throughout Palo Alto at lower prices. The combination of
increasing ADUs size limits and allow for condominium conversions of ADUs will turn
them into true “first-class homes,” suitable for both “next-phase” and “missing middle”
housing.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
4
3. Impact fees for ADUs should be eliminated, and fees paid after
March 23, 2023 refunded, based upon the proportionality rule,
commitments made in the Housing Element, and fundamental fairness .
(a) Impact fees for ADUs and single-family residences (SFRs) are inextricably
linked, just as the thigh and lower leg are joined to form one lower limb .
The state’s “proportionality rule” links ADU and SFR impact fees in one calculation.
Gov. C. subd. 66324(c)(1) requires that “[a]ny impact fees charged for an accessory
dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to
the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.” In its ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
HANDBOOK, January 2025 (2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook), the HCD recently
specified the meaning of “charged proportionately”:
What is “Proportionality”?
“Proportionality” is some amount in relation to a total amount, in this case, an
impact fee for a single-family dwelling. For example, a 2,000 square-foot primary
dwelling with a proposed 1,000 square-foot ADU could result in 50 percent of the
impact fee that would be charged for a new primary dwelling on the same site .
(Gov. Code, § 66324, subd. (c)(1).)
2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 23 (bold in original, and emphasis added).
Four points from the HCD’s statement are essential to understand:
● The calculation considers “the impact fee that would be charged for a new
primary dwelling on the same site,” i.e. , not the historical impact fees previously
charged on an actually existing primary dwelling, and not a maximum amount
that could be charged on any new primary dwelling of any size, but the impact
fees that would in fact be charged if a new primary dwelling were being built
simultaneously, or if the existing primary dwelling were, in effect, being
hypothetically built anew. We can refer to this as the “New Or Hypothetical New
Primary Dwelling Impact Fees.”
● The calculation utilizes a ratio between the size of the proposed ADU and the
size of the proposed or actually existing primary dwelling on the same parcel, in
this case, 1,000 sf/2,000 sf = 50%. We can refer to this as the “Pure Percentage
Ratio.” Importantly, this ratio is a pure percentage value, because the
measurement units of the numerator and the measurement units of the
denominator are not only commensurable (as a square foot would be to a square
yard), but also identical (here both are square feet). When the denominator
divides the numerator, these measurement units cancel each other out.
● Whether or not the new or hypothetical new primary dwelling is or is not a “new
unit” or a “net new unit,” i.e., whether the new or hypothetical new primary
dwelling is built on a pristine parcel, or instead whether another primary dwelling
had existed on the parcel before the new or hypothetical new primary dwelling is
built (and that earlier primary dwelling is being hypothetically “scraped”) is
5
irrelevant. One need not know the history of primary dwellings on the parcel to
calculate the impact fees for a new ADU under the proportionality rule.
● Finally, once one knows both (a) the New Or Hypothetical New Primary Dwelling
Impact Fees, and (b) the Pure Percentage Ratio, the final calculation is
straightforward. The two are multiplied, and the result is the impact fees that
may be charged on an ADU consistent with the proportionality rule.
(b) Palo Alto still calculates impact fees for single-family residences using
what is effectively a per-unit basis, so that they are nearly always $0 .
Prior to December 2, 2024, Palo Alto had calculated impact fees on a “per-unit” basis.
In the August 20, 2024 “ Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing Element (Certified) ” (Certified
HE), and earlier, Palo Alto acknowledged that per-unit impact fees had “led to some
inequitable results…,” and promised “to convert fees to a per square foot calculation.”
Certified HE, p. 4-65. 1 In “PROGRAM 3.5: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)
FACILITATION,” Implementing Objective E, the City specifically committed to the HCD
that it would “[r]ealign development impact fees for ADUs larger than 750 sq. ft. to utilize
per-square-foot methodology, likely reducing fee[s] applied to ADUs.” Certified HE, p.
5-19. Through Ordinance No. 5639, 2 introduced at the November 18, 2024 City Council
meeting and approved on December 2, 2024, Palo Alto purported to adjust certain
impact fees for ADUs to a new per-square-foot basis, but, in practice, it failed to do so,
creating even greater unfairness.
The record of the November 18, 2024 City Council meeting expressly acknowledges
that Palo Alto does not charge impact fees on “single-family home additions or scrapes
and rebuilds,” because “it’s based on the unit, and new units, net-new units that are
produced…..” Video of November 18, 2024 City Council Meeting (1:53:05 f.). This
raises multiple concerns.
● The proportionality rule links impact fees on ADUs to those on SFRs. Because
Palo Alto charges SFR impact fees “based on the unit, and new units, net-new
units,” it’s not honoring its commitment to the HCD to switch to a “per-square-foot
methodology.”
● Based on the HCD’s statement of how impact fees should be calculated,
discussed above, it’s not necessary to know the history of primary dwellings on
the parcel to calculate the impact fees for a new ADU under the proportionality
rule. Consequently, references to “net-new units,” which presuppose inquiring
into the history of a parcel’s primary dwellings, raise a large, crimson flags.
2 Available through the City of Palo Alto public portal .
1 “In accordance with state law, fees for ADUs are only charged on ADUs larger than 750 square feet, and
are charged in proportion to the fee that are or would be assessed on the primary unit. Because Palo Alto
has historically charged per-unit fees for residential development, this has led to some inequitable results,
as the fees for an ADU will depend not only on the size of the ADU, but also on the size of the primary
unit, with higher fees required under state law when the primary unit is smaller. To avoid this scenario,
the City will implement Programs 3.1 Fee Waivers and Adjustments and 3.5 ADU Facilitation to convert
fees to a per square foot calculation.”
6
These concerns are amplified by the text of Ordinance 5639:
Single Family Multi-Family
…
Park Impact Fee
Note: ADUs under 750 sf exempt. $18.78 per sq. ft. $44.50 per sq. ft.
(Ordinance No. 5639, Attachment A, row 5). No footnote alongside the “Single Family”
column name explains that virtually all single-family homes are categorically exempt
from any impact fees. 3
Nothing has changed since the November 18th City Council meeting. Palo Alto
continues to calculate impact fees for SFRs on what remains a type of per-unit basis —
applying “impact fees to net new dwelling units ” (Staff Report, p. 7, Mini-Packet p. 8/79
(emphasis added)). Continuing to this day, as the City Council heard last November,
“single-family home additions or scrapes and rebuilds” are generally not charged any
impact fees. Because nearly all single-family construction in Palo Alto is “in-fill,” on lots
that already have single-family homes, such “net-new units” are almost never to be
found. Consequently, the “impact fee that would be charged for a new primary dwelling
on the same site” is, almost always, $0.
As discussed above, under the proportionality rule, once one knows both (a) the New
Or Hypothetical New Primary Dwelling Impact Fees, and (b) the Pure Percentage Ratio,
one merely multiplies the two to determine the amount of ADU impact fees. Because
Palo Alto almost never charges any impact fees on SFRs, however, the calculation
becomes even simpler. No matter what the Pure Percentage Ratio is — i.e. , no matter
what the ratio is between the size of a 750 square-foot or larger ADU and the size of a
new or hypothetical new primary dwelling on the same parcel, $0 times the Pure
Percentage Ratio is always $0.
Consequently, if the City Council wishes to (a) comply with the state’s “proportionality
rule” in Gov. C. subd. 66324(c)(1) , (b) honor the City’s commitments made in the
Housing Element, and (c) “avoid the continued ambiguity in whether the City’s
ordinance complies with State law,” Staff Report, p. 2, Mini-Packet p. 3/79, then the City
should immediately cease charging impact fees for ADUs.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
3 This discussion of ADU impact fees is only half the story (or, more accurately a quarter), because the
enormous disparity between single- and multi-family impact fee rates creates other problems as well.
7
(c) Fundamental fairness requires immediately ceasing impact fees on
ADUs and refunding all impact fees paid on ADUs after March 23, 2023 .
The City has addressed one limited problem in Program 3.5, Objective E and Ordinance
No. 5639, but it has failed to address a much bigger problem with ADU impact fees.
The Housing Element also states:
Because Palo Alto has historically charged per-unit fees for residential
development, this has led to some inequitable results, as the fees for an ADU will
depend not only on the size of the ADU, but also on the size of the primary
unit, with higher fees required under state law when the primary unit is smaller.
Certified HE, p. 4-65. Ordinance No. 5639, despite its flaws, may have reduced the
inequities between impact fees charged on different ADUs at the margin, and it may
have reduced the absolute amount of those impact fees by ~10-20% 4 , but fundamental
inequities in Palo Alto’s current impact fees remain and cannot be ignored. 750 to
1,000 square-foot ADUs may be charged $15,000-$20,000 or more in supposedly
per-square-foot impact fees, when “scrapes” - even those adding 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 or
more square feet pay nothing. The former ADU-to-ADU inequity has been superseded
by a greater ADU-to-SFR inequity. 5
Palo Alto has effectively enacted “inversely progressive housing taxes,” saddling 750+
sf ADUs with extraordinary impact fees while 4,000+ sf luxury houses pay no impact
fees whatsoever. Besides correcting other inequities (such as those between single-
and multi-family housing), the City should immediately cease charging any impact fees
on ADUs.
In addition, if the City wishes to do what’s right and to correct the mistakes that it has
made in assessing impact fees on ADUs in the past, then it should refund all ADU
impact fees charged during the period beginning March 23, 2023. That date is when, it
is believed, the City may have first acknowledged during the Housing Element process
that there was a problem with per-unit impact fees. 6 Many ADU applicants have paid
$10,000, $15,000, $20,000, $25,000, or even more to the City in impact fees since that
date, while proportionality rules should have prevented the City from charging any such
fees. The fair, right, and honorable thing would be for the City to reimburse all of those
applicants for all of the impact fees that they were wrongly assessed as a condition for
obtaining a building permit for an ADU. 7
//
//
//
7 For additional details, please see the additional details provided in “City of Palo Alto-Notes re 2025-03
ADU reforms--Revised 2025-04-23” (ADU Spreadsheet), nos. 26 and 36, Staff Report, Attachment E, and
attached.
6 It is believed that the City may have had actual or constructive knowledge of such problems earlier.
5 The same types of inequities hold for additions to SFRs, and not just for scrapes.
4 I do not know the exact reduction and believe it varies by ADU project. This is a very rough estimate.
8
4. City Staff should (a) meet and engage actively with local
architects, other design professionals, and members of the
public to analyze the other reforms identified below, among others,
and (b) return to the City Council no later than October 1, 2025
with a set of policy alternatives and recommendations for the Council.
A. ADU permitting should be improved .
ADU permitting should be accelerated. This will benefit both the City, by processing
ADU permit applications more efficiently, and applicants, for whom improper plan check
comments lead to unnecessary plan check responses, additional permitting expenses,
and delayed permits. The Planning and Development Services department should
agree to consult and work with local architects and design professionals to ensure that:
● Fire review criteria focus on "fire area," not FAR. [ADU Spreadsheet No. 23]
See, e.g., Cal. Fire Code (2022) sec. 202:
“[BF] FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls,
fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the
building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if
such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next
above."
● No assumed property lines are requested between two buildings. [ADU
Spreadsheet No. 24]
Instead:
(1) Consider the two buildings as one structure with two dwelling units. This
would be the same as considering one structure with an attached ADU.
(2) One of the walls between the buildings to be considered as the wall
separating dwelling units would require 1-hour fire-rating with 45 min. rated
opening protection (the same as fire partition requirements per CBC).
CRC R302.3.
● Constructing an ADU does not change a Group R occupancy, unless an
authorized representative of a local agency makes a specific, written finding
regarding a particular project. [ADU Spreadsheet No. 25]
Gov. C. subd. 66314(d)(8) states in part:
"[T]he construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not constitute a Group R
occupancy change under the local building code, as described in Section 310 of
9
the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations),
unless the building official or enforcement agency of the local agency makes a
written finding based on substantial evidence in the record that the construction
of the accessory dwelling unit could have a specific, adverse impact on public
health and safety. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to prevent a local
agency from changing the occupancy code of a space that was unhabitable
space or was only permitted for nonresidential use and was subsequently
converted for residential use pursuant to this article." (Introductory language
omitted.)
B. The City should not impose additional design, zoning, and
other standards on 66323 Units (“state exemption” ADUs).
City Staff should be commended for seeking to “avoid the continued ambiguity in
whether the City’s ordinance complies with State law,” Staff Report, p. 2, Mini-Packet p.
3/79. Taking that goal seriously, however, requires that the City consider its ADU
ordinance both directly and in the contexts of its other ordinances, rules, regulations,
and procedures.
The 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook makes clear that development of 66323 Units may
not be curtailed by local standards that penalize such "state exemption" ADUs and
JADUs:
What design, zoning, or other local standards can be imposed on 66323
Units?
A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both
local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are
not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323,
subds. (a), (b).) This includes, but is not limited to, parking, height, setbacks, or
other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.)."
2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 20. This principle applies to all four categories of
ADUs and JADUs identified in Gov. C. sec. 66323.
Contrary to the principle articulated by the HCD, Palo Alto has adopted many
ADU-specific, local standards that may not be applied to 66323 Units, including, but not
limited to, the following:
● Palo Alto calculates allowable heights for all ADUs differently from single-family
homes in flood zones. [ADU Spreadsheet No. 30]
● Palo Alto calculates FAR for basements for all ADUs differently from single-family
homes. [ADU Spreadsheet No. 30]
● Palo Alto incorrectly calculates FAR for ADUs, and possibly single-family homes
as well, requiring measurements "to the outside of stud walls...." [See also No.
29] [ADU Spreadsheet No. 30]
10
● Palo Alto generally prohibits ADUs from either (i) using an existing sewer line for
a single-family residence to convey sewage from an ADU to the main sewer
system or (ii) running a separate sewer line for an ADU under a single-family
home, effectively requiring long, sometimes tortuous, and frequently expensive
separate sewer runs for ADUs. [ADU Spreadsheet No. 30]
● Palo Alto, through the City of Palo Alto Utilities, prohibits ADUs from obtaining
their own, separate municipal utilities. This too may operate as a constraint on
the production of 66323 Units. Homeowners should, at their sole option, have
the choice of whether to connect ADUs, both attached and detached, directly to
CPAU utilities. [ADU Spreadsheet No. 30A]
● Just as Urban Forestry review should not be part of permitting ADUs or JADUs,
CPAU should not review ADU or JADU permit applications unless the applicant
specifically requests such permitting review in writing as part of the permit
application. [ADU Spreadsheet No. 30A]
● Palo Alto should (A) use HCD tools for determining whether a given parcel is
within 1/2 mile of transit, and (B) acknowledge that (i) non-VTA bus routes are
relevant to determining such areas, (ii) the appropriate unit of analysis is a bus
stop, not a bus route, and (iii) the requisite periodicity established by state law
has changed recently. This requires that Palo Alto's current maps, wherever they
are maintained and however they are shared with the public, be revised. [ADU
Spreadsheet No. 30B & 30C]
C. Under Gov. C. sec. 66321, attached ADUs up to 800 sf in
size may be constructed out to four-foot side and rear setbacks .
Palo Alto must allow an attached ADU up to 800 sf in size to be built out to four-foot
side and rear setbacks; in other words, it need not be confined to the setbacks for the
primary dwelling on the lot. Such an ADU would enjoy the height benefits provided by
Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(4)(D); as a result, in most parts of the City, it could be built to
25', provided that it does not have more than two stories. [ADU Spreadsheet No. 31A]
D. Besides eliminating barriers to ADU production the HCD did not identify,
Palo Alto should do far more to create incentives for ADU production .
As a creative city, a policy innovator, and a community facing ever greater demographic
obstacles, Palo Alto should aim not just to comply with California ADU law. If Palo Alto
continues to age, if its population continues to decline, and if enrollments in local
schools continue to fall, we will lose much of the vibrancy that has historically made
Palo Alto such an exceptional community within which to live, learn, and work. By
making ADUs “first-class homes,” we will create opportunities for older generations of
Palo Altans to continue to live in our community, to find “next phase housing,” and to
feel economically secure, even if present national economic trends continue.
We need a robust suite of new policy initiatives to meet the needs of both younger and
older members and would be members of our community. Our conception of ADUs
should be expanded to include “next-phase housing,” which will create new means for
11
older Palo Altans to continue to live in our community, while creating new forms of
“missing middle” homes that will allow younger people to expand and enhance the Palo
Alto community. Such additional policy initiatives include the following:
● Palo Alto should create an alternative, local, 20' height limit, for two-story,
detached, Table 2 ADUs, with a daylight plane. [ADU Spreadsheet No. 38]
● Palo Alto should experiment with meaningful financial incentives to increase ADU
production, totaling $5 million in grants and on-bill financing over two years.
[ADU Spreadsheet No. 41]
○ Up to 50 $25k grants for pre-designed ADUs.
○ Up to 50 $25k grants based on CalHFA program.
○ Up to 25 on-CPAU-bill financings for first $100k of ADU costs.
● The City should waive all impact and permitting fees on both ADUs and JADUs.
[ADU Spreadsheet No. 37]
● If the City does charge any impact fees on ADUs, however, applicants should be
allowed to defer them without recording a lien against their properties. [ADU
Spreadsheet No. 27]
● End the "loser lottery." Do not condition permit approval of ADUs or JADUs on
charging applicants for CPAU infrastructure upgrades, a type of impermissible
demand for public improvements, and give applicants, at their sole option, the
ability to obtain one or more separate utility services for ADUs. [ADU
Spreadsheet No. 34]
Conclusion
ADUs should be “first-class homes.” We should increase the maximum size of ADUs to
1,600 sf, allow ADUs to become condominiums, which will provide additional financing
and sales, and eliminate obstacles to ADU production, including impact and permitting
fees. ADUs can provide more abundant “next-phase” and “missing middle” homes for
our community. The City Council should:
● increase the size limit for detached ADUs with 2+ bedrooms to 1,200 sf now, and
request City Staff to draft a further increase to 1,600 sf by September 1st;
● request City Staff to draft a local ordinance under Gov. C. sec. 66342 to allow for
condominium conversions of ADUs by September 1st;
● eliminate new local impact fees for ADUs, and request City Staff to draft a new
local ordinance by September 1st to refund all local impact fees for ADUs that
were charged at any time after March 23, 2023; and
● request City Staff to engage actively with local architects, other design
professionals, and the public to analyze the other reforms in the attached
spreadsheet, among others, and to return to the City Council no later than
October 1, 2025 with policy alternatives and recommendations for the Council.
Attachments: City of Palo Alto-Notes re 2025-03 ADU reforms--Revised 2025-04-23”
(ADU Spreadsheet)
12
City of Palo Alto-Notes re ADU reforms, 2025
John Kelley
Apr 23, 2025
Ver. 0.2
These notes summarize some of the key points made in the accompanying
document, “City of Palo Alto-Notes re 2025-03 ADU reforms--Revised
2025-04-23.” Please see that document for details.
Based on State ADU Regulations
1. Because the City does not charge impact fees for additions to or
scrapes of single-family residences (SFRs), proportionality requires
that impact fees be eliminated for ADUs. [No. 26]
1.1. As a matter of equity, the City should also refund improperly
charged ADU fees back to at least March 23, 2023. [No. 36]
2. Additional local design, zoning, and other standards may not be
imposed on 66323 Units. The 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook makes
clear, at p. 20, that development of 66323 Units may not be curtailed
by local standards that penalize such "state exemption" ADUs and
JADUs. (This principle applies to all four categories of ADUs and
JADUs identified in Gov. C. sec. 66323.) This principle requires
modifying Palo Alto’s regulation of 66323 Units in many ways. [Nos.
30, 30A, 30B, and 30C]
2.1. Palo Alto calculates allowable heights for all ADUs differently
from single-family homes in flood zones.
2.2. Palo Alto calculates FAR for basements for all ADUs differently
from single-family homes.
2.3. Palo Alto incorrectly calculates FAR for ADUs, and possibly
single-family homes as well, requiring measurements "to the
outside of stud walls...." [ See also No. 29]
2.4. Palo Alto generally prohibits ADUs from either (i) using an
existing sewer line for a single-family residence to convey
sewage from an ADU to the main sewer system or (ii) running a
1
separate sewer line for an ADU under a single-family home,
effectively requiring long, sometimes tortuous, and frequently
expensive separate sewer runs for ADUs.
2.5. Palo Alto, through the City of Palo Alto Utilities, prohibits ADUs
from obtaining their own, separate municipal utilities. This too
may operate as a constraint on the production of 66323 Units.
Homeowners should, at their sole option, have the choice of
whether to connect ADUs, both attached and detached, directly
to CPAU utilities.
2.6. Just as Urban Forestry review should not be part of permitting
ADUs or JADUs, CPAU should not review ADU or JADU permit
applications unless the applicant specifically requests such
permitting review in writing as part of the permit application.
2.7. Palo Alto should (A) use HCD tools for determining whether a
given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit, and (B) acknowledge
that (i) non-VTA bus routes are relevant to determining such
areas, (ii) the appropriate unit of analysis is a bus stop, not a
bus route, and (iii) the requisite periodicity established by state
law has changed recently. This requires that Palo Alto's current
maps, wherever they are maintained and however they are
shared with the public, be revised.
3. Fire review criteria should focus on "fire area," not FAR. [No. 23]
4. No assumed property line between two buildings. [No. 24]
5. Constructing an ADU does not change a Group R occupancy, unless
an authorized representative of a local agency makes a specific,
written finding regarding a particular project. [No. 25]
6. Palo Alto must allow an attached ADU up to 800 sf in size to be built
out to four-foot side and rear setbacks. [No. 31A]
6.1. In other words, it need not be confined to the setbacks for the
primary dwelling on the lot.
6.2. Such an ADU would enjoy the height benefits provided by Gov.
C. subd. 66321(b)(4)(D); as a result, in most parts of the City, it
could be built to 25', provided that it does not have more than
two stories.
2
More Effective Local Regulations For Stimulating ADU Production
1. Palo Alto should allow for separate conveyance of ADUs under Gov.
C. sec. 66342. [No. 32]
2. Palo Alto should adopt a 1,200 sf size limit for all ADUs. [No. 39]
3. Palo Alto should create an alternative, local, 20' height limit,
specifically for two-story, detached, Table 2 ADUs, with a daylight
plane. [No. 38]
4. Palo Alto should experiment with meaningful financial incentives to
increase ADU production, totaling $5 million in grants and on-bill
financing over two years. [No. 41]
4.1. Up to 50 $25k grants for pre-designed ADUs.
4.2. Up to 50 $25k grants based on CalHFA program.
4.3. Up to 25 on-CPAU-bill financings for first $100k of ADU costs.
5. The City should waive all impact and permitting fees on both ADUs
and JADUs. [No. 37]
5.1. If the City does charge any impact fees on ADUs, however,
applicants should be allowed to defer them without recording a
lien against their properties. [No. 27]
6. End the "loser lottery." Do not condition permit approval of ADUs or
JADUs on charging applicants for CPAU infrastructure upgrades, a
type of impermissible demand for public improvements, and give
applicants, at their sole option, the ability to obtain one or more
separate utility services for ADUs. [No. 34]
3
1
City of Palo Alto-Notes re 2025-03 ADU reforms (selected summary points for City Staff and City Council in larger font, comments from 2024-10 HCD L 2025-04-23 Ver. 0.5
(WIP draft).
Category No.Issue Reference(s)
"18.09.030
Units
Exempt
from
Generally
Applicable
Local
Regulations
"1
The HCD's comments concern additional height requirements for, , detached ADUs witihin a half mile of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor,
as well as additional height for matching the roof pitch of the primary dwelling. Those changes should be adopted.
Please also see the further discussions below, "Additional concerns re setbacks, daylight plane, and height," and "Palo Alto should use HCD tools for determining
whether a given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit."
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#2
2 These proposed changes should be adopted.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
3 This proposed change, which concerns Gov. C. sec. 66331, should be made.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#4
4
This proposed change, which refers to ADU construction not triggering "a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing multifamily dwelling," should
be made.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#5
5
The proposed change, which concerns JADUs without a separate bathroom needing "a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior
entry to the main living area," should be adopted.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#6
6
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to allow for the expansion for ingress and egress pursuant to Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(A).
Although not specifically noted by HCD:
(a) in the Ordinance, "renovation of reconstruction..." should perhaps read, "renovation or reconstruction...."; and,2024-10 HCD Letter,
#7
7
Both sections of the Ordinance should allow for the separate sale of an ADU "built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation, among other things," to a
qualified buyer pursuant to Gov. C. sec. 66341.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#8
Section 18.09.030 (a) iii -- "Footnote 5 in Table 1 of Section 18.09.030 provides for these allowances, the City must amend the Ordinance to comply with
State ADU law and avoid contradictory provisions."
Section 18.09.030 Table 1 – . "This permits a homeowner, who meets specified requirements, to create one converted ADU; one detached, new
construction ADU; and one JADU."
Section 18.09.030(d) –. "Therefore, the City must add language allowing delay of enforcement."
Section 18.09.030(d) –. "Therefore, City must add the second sentence in the preceding citation to the Ordinance to be consistent with State ADU
law.."
Section 18.09.030 (g) – JADUs and Interior Entry. "Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance accordingly."
Section 18.09.030(h) – .
Sections 18.09.030(j) & 18.09.040(m)(2) – .
Height.
Unit Allowance
Delay of Enforcement
Sprinklers
Conversion and Expansion
Separate Sale
e.g.
Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(4)(B)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(C)
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
Gov. C. sec. 66323
Gov. C. sec. 66331
Gov. C. subd.
66323(d)
Gov. C. subd.
66333(e)(2)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(A)
Gov. C. subd. 66341
(b) if the ADU being expanded for ingress and egress is a 66323 Unit (formerly sometimes known as a statewide exemption ADU) under Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1), then, in addition, such an expansion should not be subject to Section 18.09.040.
2
8
(a) All explicit or implicit references to any of the City's tree or landscape regulations, including those in PAMC Chap. 8.10, "Tree and Landscape Preservation and
Management," should be deleted from the ADU Ordinance.
(b) PAMC Chap. 8.10 should be amended to make clear that it may not be applied or enforced with regard to ADUs, pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66317(c).
(c) Any review of an ADU permit application by the City's Public Works Urban Forestry Section, or any other part of the City seeking information or review with
regard to the City's tree or landscape regulations, should cease, pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66317(c).
(d) These actions are consistent with Governor Newsom's recent . As explained on February 6, 2025 in a , "The
executive order issued by Governor Newsom," among other things, "[d]irects the State Board of Forestry to accelerate its work to adopt regulations known as
“Zone 0,” which will require "an ember-resistant zone within 5 feet of structures located in the highest fire severity zones in the state."
From the recent, devastating fires in Southern California and advances in fire science, we know that "Zone 0" protections are critical to enhancing fire safety for
California homes. The current Tree Ordinance should not prohibit Palo Altans from defending their homes against the increasing and increasingly great threats of
wildfires resulting from catastrophic global heating.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#9
"18.09.040
Units
Subject to
Local
Standards."
9
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to "remove references to JADUs in this section," because JADUs are created
pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66323(a)(1), "and would therefore be approved under section 18.090.030."
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#10
10
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to clarify that ADUs may be built when a "lot is zoned to allow single-family or
multifamily dwelling residential use...," pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66314.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#11
11
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to delete any reference to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, pursuant to Gov. C.
subd. 66314(b)(1).
Although not specifically noted by HCD, this also means that the City should refrain from any review of an ADU permit application by the City's Planning
personnel or any other part of the City with reference to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, pursuant to Gov. C. subd. 66317(c).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#11
12
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to make clear that, in the case of a street-side setback, as well as a front setback,
such a setback "may not preclude the development of an 800 square foot unit," pursuant to Gov. C. subd. Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(3).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#13
13
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to include the parking exceptions included in Gov. C. subds. 66322(a)(1)-(a)(6),
, if an ADU is within a half mile of public transit.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#14
14
As indicated by the HCD, the City "may not require parking as a condition to permitting a JADU, even when the JADU is converted from an attached garage,"
citing Gov. C. subd. 66334(a) in a footnote. This change should be made.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#15
Sections 18.09.030(m) & 18.09.040(g) and (j)(2)(C) –
Section 18.09.040(a) – JADUs and Development Standards.
Section 18.09.040(c) – Multifamily ADU Allowances.
Section 18.09.040(h) – Local Historic Register.
Section 18.09.040 (j)(4) – Street-Side Setback.
Section 18.09.040 (l) – Parking Exceptions.
18.09.040 (l)(2) – Garage Conversion and Replacement Parking.
Tree Ordinance.
Executive Order N-18-25 separate announcement
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(A)
Gov. C. subd. 66314
Gov. C. subd.
66314(b)(1)
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(3)
Gov. C. subds.
66322(a)(1)-(a)(6)
Gov. C. subd.
66334(a)
e.g.
3
"18.09.050
Additional
Requireme
nts for
JADUs"
15
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to clarify that "'enclosed uses within the residence' include 'attached garages,
[which] are considered a part of the proposed or existing single-family residence.'” Gov. C. subd. 66333(d).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#16
16
As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to conform with the broad language of Gov. C. subd. 66333(f), deleting the City's
more stringent requirements regarding JADU kitchens.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#17
17 As indicated by the HCD, the City should amend this portion of the Ordinance to conform with the precise terms of Gov. C. subd. 66333(e)(2).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#18
18
As indicated by the HCD, Gov. C. subd. 66333(c) does not include authority for prohibiting short term rentals, and the City must delete such provisions from its list
of deed restrictions.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#19
"18.04.030
Definitions"
19
.
As indicated by the HCD, Gov. C. subd. 66313(a) does not specifically define cooking facilities, and HSC sec. 17958.1 allows for "'partial kitchen'" facilities.
Accordingly, the City must delete its appliance and counterspace requirements for ADUs.
Although not specifically noted by HCD, relying upon those same code sections, an ADU applicant constructing an "efficiency unit" should also be allowed to
provide only "partial .... bathroom facilities," as described in HSC sec. 17958.1.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#20
18.09.050 (a) - JADUs in Attached Garages.
18.09.050 (b)(i) and (ii) – JADU Kitchen Facilities.
18.09.050 (b) iii. – JADU Entry.
18.09.050 (e) – JADU Term Limits.
18.04.030(a)(75)(A) – Kitchen Requirements
Gov. C. subd.
66333(d)
Gov. C. subd. 66333(f)
Gov. C. subd.
66333(e)(2)
Gov. C. subd.
66333(c)
Gov. C. subd.
66313(a)
HSC sec. 17958.1
4
Additional
proposed
regulatory
changes
20
Combine building permit applications and demo permit applications for ADUs, and make
responsibilities for matters typically handled by contractors (such as securing a J#) post-permit-issuance, rather than pre-permit-issuance, requirements. Such
changes should be memorialized in Chp. 18.09 of the PAMC.
".
Adds a requirement for
a local agency to
review and issue a
demolition permit for
“a detached garage
that is to be replaced
with an ADU” at the
same time it reviews,
and issues permits for,
the ADU construction.
(Gov. Code, § 66314,
subd. (e).) Also
prohibits permitting
agencies requiring
applicants to “provide
written notice or post a
placard for the
demolition of a
detached garage ...
unless the property is
located within an
architecturally and
historically significant
district.” (Gov. Code, §
66314, subd. (f).)"
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 14
21
The 60-day time limit for approving or denying an ADU or JADU permit application should be (a) strictly observed, and (b)
calculated using the equivalent of a "chess clock" displayed in the City's online permitting system. Such changes should be memorialized in Chp. 18.09 of the
PAMC.
".
Requires a permitting
agency to either
approve or deny
(replacing the former
language “act on”) an
application to create or
serve an ADU or
JADU within 60 days
Integrate building and demo permit applications for ADUs.
Demolition Permits
Enforce the 60-day time limit.Permitting Process
Compare:
5
22
Prohibit reviewers from adding new plan check comments after C1 plan check comments have been returned to an
applicant unless such new plan check comments (a) only note a failure to comply with prior plan check comments, or (b) are directed to and concern only
changes in submittal materials made in response to earlier plan check comments. Such changes should be memorialized in Chp. 18.09 of the PAMC.
23
The City's "Fire Department Checklist for
Residential Plan Review" includes a misleading question, which can lead to an incorrect plan check comment. It asks: "Are you doing an addition that will result
in the total floor area (including basements and attached garages) exceeding 3600 square feet?" This question refers impliciitly to PAMC subd. 16.06.140,
"Section R313.2.2 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems increase in design requirements," whose numbered sub-part 2 states, "Structures where the combined fire area is
3600 sq ft or larger." FAR is simply not the same as fire area. Accordingly, the fire review criteria should focus on fire area, not FAR, and the Fire Department
checklist should be revised accordingly.
, : "[BF] FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or
horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the
horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above."
24
Instead:
(1) Consider the two buildings as one structure with two dwelling units. This would be the same as considering one structure with an attached ADU.
(2) One of the walls between the buildings to be considered as the wall separating dwelling units would require 1-hour fire-rating with 45 min. rated opening
protection (the same as fire partition requirements per CBC).
CRC R302.3.
"
Obligates a
permitting agency,
when it denies an ADU
or JADU application,
to “return in writing a
full set of comments to
the applicant with a list
of items that are
defective or deficient
and a description of
how the application
can be remedied by
the applicant” within
60 days from when a
completed application
is received. (Gov.
Code, §§ 66317, subd.
(b); 66320, subd. (b);
66335, subd. (b).)"
No new-later-cycle plan check comments.Permitting Agency
Denials.
Fire review criteria should focus on "fire area," not FAR.
No assumed property line between two buildings.
See also
See, e.g.,
Cal. Fire Code (2022) sec. 202
PAMC subd.
16.06.140
CRC R302.3
6
25
26
Palo Alto recently replaced per-unit with per-square-foot impact fees to comply with prior state law. Nonetheless, it still treats ADUs unfairly, because on parcels
with existing SFRs, it does not levy impact fees on additions or even complete “scrapes.” (video recording of the
.)
The proportionality example at p. 23 of the HCD’s 2025 ADU Handbook refers to “a new primary dwelling on the same site.”
If a parcel in Palo Alto has an existing SFR, a new primary dwelling on that site would not trigger any impact fees under the city’s procedures. Consequently, the
proportionate impact fees for an ADU of any size should also be zero.
Imposition of such impact fees on ADUs should cease immediately (and the City should refund amounts charged improperly to applicants, as discussed below).
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 23.
"(c) (1) A local agency,
special district, or
water corporation shall
not impose any impact
fee upon the
development of an
accessory dwelling
unit less than 750
square feet. Any
impact fees charged
for an accessory
dwelling unit of 750
square feet or more
shall be charged
proportionately in
relation to the square
footage of the primary
dwelling unit."
Gov. C. subd. 66314(d)(8) states in part:
"[T]he construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as described in Section 310 of
the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), unless the building official or enforcement agency of the local agency makes a written
finding based on substantial evidence in the record that the construction of the accessory dwelling unit could have a specific, adverse impact on public health and
safety. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to prevent a local agency from changing the occupancy code of a space that was unhabitable space or was
only permitted for nonresidential use and was subsequently converted for residential use pursuant to this article." (Introductory language omitted.)
Because the City does not charge impact fees for additions to or scrapes of
single-family residences (SFRs), proportionality requires that impact fees be
eliminated for ADUs.
Constructing an ADU does not change a Group R occupancy, unless an authorized
representative of a local agency makes a specific, written finding regarding a
particular project.
See, e.g., Palo Alto City Council meeting on
November 18, 2024
Gov. C. subd.
66324(c)(1)
Gov. C. subd. 66314
7
27
Payment of impact fees on ADUs, among other projects, may deferred until , as now codified in , as well as ,
which was updated recently based on Ord. 5645.
If any impact fees are assessed on ADUs, then homeowners should be allowed to defer payment of such fees, and the issuance of a permit to build an ADU
should not be deferred pending their payment.
But requiring that homeowners record a lien for payment of such fees is unnecessarily burdensome, time-consuming, and expensive. The City should be able to
craft other means of ensuring that such fees, if any, are paid prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy using the City's own permitting and
inspection systems, rather than requiring a recorded lien.
28
As indicated above, the City's current impact fee regime as applied to ADUs is, at best, problematic. If the City is genuinely interested in providing more and more
affordable housing, and if the City wishes to meet its Housing Element goals by producing more ADUs, one of the most reasonable steps would be to eliminate
impact fees on ADUs altogether.
In addition, one might have doubts about the continued constitutional validity of California's impact fee system. following the vacating of the prior
submission of the case in , Case Number C093682, before the 3rd District Court of Appeal, is now scheduled for June 24, 2025.
,
Case Number
C093682.
29
The HCD has clarified how square footage of ADUs and JADUs should be calculated:
"The CBC defines “Floor Area, Gross” as “[t]he floor area within the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the building under consideration, exclusive of vent
shafts and courts, without deduction for corridors, stairways, ramps, closets, the thickness of interior walls, columns or other features. The floor area of a building,
or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. The gross floor
area shall not include shafts with no openings or interior courts.
Government Code section 66314, subdivision (d)(8) states that a local ADU ordinance must require ADUs to comply with local building codes. Thus, when a local
agency has not adopted specific changes to the CBC in its local building standards, then the CBC standards, and in this case the definition of floor area, shall
apply. If the local agency has made specific amendments, additions, or deletions relating to the definition of “Floor Area” within its local building standards, then
those altered definitions shall apply." 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 39.
Palo Alto does ot appear to have incorporated a change to this portion of the CBC. PAMC subds.. Consequently, Palo Alto is bound by the
CBC rules, requiring measurements to "the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the building under consideration...." But Palo Alto measures "to the outside of
stud walls...." . The same considerations likely apply to lot coverage and other zoning measurements based on square footage
calculations. Therefore, Palo Alto's Municipal Code and its calculation of square footages for ADUs must be changed.
In addition, because the PAMC likely requires conformity with the CBC for single-family homes, absent specific local changes, this problem may affect the
calculation of square footages for single-family homes as well.
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 39
If the City does charge any impact fees on ADUs, applicants should be allowed to
defer them without recording a lien against their properties
Indeed, the City can and should go further and simply eliminate impact fees on
ADUs
Palo Alto incorrectly calculates square footages, including FAR, for ADUs, and
possibly single-family homes as well.
.
.
SB 937 Gov. C. sec. 66007 PAMC subd.16.64.030
Oral argument
Docket of
16.04.230-240
PAMC subd. 18.04.030(a)(65)(C)
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
See
Sheetz v.
County of El Dorado
830
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
Additional local design, zoning, and other standards may not be imposed on 66323
Units.
Palo Alto calculates allowable heights for all ADUs differently from single-family
homes in flood zones.
Palo Alto calculates FAR for basements for all ADUs differently from single-family
homes
Palo Alto incorrectly calculates FAR for ADUs, and possibly single-family homes
as well, requiring measurements "to the outside of stud walls...."
Palo Alto generally prohibits ADUs from either (i) using an existing sewer line for
a single-family residence to convey sewage from an ADU to the main sewer system
or (ii) running a separate sewer line for an ADU under a single-family home,
effectively requiring long, sometimes tortuous, and frequently expensive separate
sewer runs for ADUs.
The 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook makes clear, at p. 20, that development of 66323 Units may not be curtailed by local standards that penalize such
"state exemption" ADUs and JADUs. (This principle applies to all four categories of ADUs and JADUs identified in Gov. C. sec. 66323.) As the HCD
has explained:
"What design, zoning, or other local standards can be imposed on 66323 Units?
A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323
Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), (b).) This includes, but is not limited to,
parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.)." (Blue font deleted.). 2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 20.
Palo Alto has many ADU-specific, local standards that may not be applied to 66323 Units, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a)
See, e.g., footnotes 3 and 3 to Table 1 of Section 18.09.030 and Table 2 of Section 18.09.040, respectively.
(b)
See, e.g., City of Palo Alto, "Guidebook 2024, Accessory Dwelling Unit" ("Palo Alto ADU Guidebook 2024"), p. 16: "Basements are
permitted, but habitable basement space will contribute to unit size." Contrast one part of the definition of "Gross floor area" in PAMC subd.
18.04.030(a)(65)(D)(i):
"D) Low Density Residential Exclusions: In the RE and R-1 single-family residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts,
'gross floor area' shall not include the following:
(i) Basements where the finished level of the first floor is not more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building
foundation, shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area, provided that lightwells, stairwells and other excavated features comply with
the provisions of Section 18.12.070;....'
(c)
PAMC subd. 18.04.030(a)(65)(C).
(See the discussion above.)
(d)
(This requirement is believed to be in a manual maintained at the Development Services office, to which I do
not presently have access.) But these requirements as well go beyond the text of Gov. C. sec. 66323. (See also the discussion below of the limited
scope of utilities review of ADU building permit applications.)
.
Gov. C. sec. 66323
9
30
A
(e)
(f)
Otherwise, such CPAU review may also operate as a constraint on the production of 66323 Units. The City has already determined which
parts of Palo Alto have adequate water and sewer service. This is apparently includes all residential areas in Palo Alto: "ADUs are allowed on any property where
single- or multi-family residential is a permited use." Palo Alto ADU Guidebook 2024, p. 6. ADU and JADU applicants should simply indicate that the parcel is
located in a residential area on the title sheet of a set of plans for an ADU or a JADU. Applicants should have the option of deferring all other CPAU reviews until
after a permit has issued. This will also facilitate contractor involvement with utilities issues. (See also the additional discussion of limitations on CPAU permitting
review below.)
(g) Palo Alto should use HCD tools for determining whether a given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit. (PLEASE NOTE: please see the further discussion
immediatley below.)
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
Palo Alto, through the City of Palo Alto Utilities, prohibits ADUs from obtaining
their own, separate municipal utilities. This too may operate as a constraint on the
production of 66323 Units. Homeowners should, at their sole option, have the
choice of whether to connect ADUs, both attached and detached, directly to CPAU
utilities.
Just as Urban Forestry review should not be part of permitting ADUs or JADUs,
CPAU should not review ADU or JADU permit applications unless the applicant
specifically requests such permitting review in writing as part of the permit
application.
Gov. C. sec. 66323
10
30
B (Continued immediately below.)
Additional local design, zoning, and other standards may not be imposed on 66323 Units (continued).
(h)
The HCD has prepared an "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), Data Viewer & Mapping Resources," which provides tools for determining
whether a given parcel is or is not within 1/2 mile of transit. I have not checked this recently, but in the past I have observed that the results of using
the HCD tool lead to different results from consulting with the City regarding the distance between particular parcels and transit. In general, I believe
that the City should, at a minimum, accept the results from such HCD tools, even if the City wishes to be more generous than the state mandates.
Reasons for this conclusion include the following:
(i) I believe that non-VTA bus routes are relevant to determining such areas. Although I have not been able to find a public-facing, web-available tool
from the City for determining whether or not a given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit, based on past communications, I believe, but have not
confirmed, that the City's current maps are based on VTA bus routes. But there are other transit providers whose routes should be considered, such
as AC Transit, Stanford, and perhaps others, and, as far as I know, one cannot easily test the City's maps to determine whether such other routes are
even being considered in determining such 1/2 mile distances.
(ii) Importantly, the appropriate unit of analysis is a bus stop, not a bus route. Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(4)(B), for example, refers to this distance:
"one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the
Public Resources Code." The phrase "major transit stop" is significant. PRC subd. 21155(b) states, in part, "
"A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in
the applicable regional transportation plan. For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service
with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major
transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from
the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile
from the stop or corridor." (Emphasis added.)
(iii) PRC sec. 21064.3 was recently changed. ("Amended by Stats. 2024, Ch. 275, Sec. 2. (AB 2553) Effective January 1, 2025.). It now states:
"“Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either
a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the
morning and afternoon peak commute periods."
In terms of implications for Palo Alto's ADU ordinace, specifically with reference to height limits:
(1) It is unclear how one can interrogate the City's current maps through the web. Asking regarding particular parcels is accepting a "black box"
analysis which is not transparent. Homeowners are entitled to know what they can build before they incur the cost and expense of preparing a permit
application, and the community should be able to know, for example, in the context of urging the City Council to amend its current ordinance, which
specific areas of Palo Alto the City current considers to be within such 1/2 mile distances.
PLEASE NOTE: These are additional comments provided on 2025-03-25.
This concern applies specifically to 66323 Units, as well as to what might be
deemed "66321 Units." Palo Alto should (A) use HCD tools for determining
whether a given parcel is within 1/2 mile of transit, and (B) acknowledge that (i)
non-VTA bus routes are relevant to determining such areas, (ii) the appropriate unit
of analysis is a bus stop, not a bus route, and (iii) the requisite periodicity
established by state law has changed recently. This requires that Palo Alto's
current maps, wherever they are maintained and however they are shared with the
public, be revised.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
Gov. C. sec. 66323
11
30
C
31 PLEASE NOTE: Please see the further discussion immediately below.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#2
(2) It is unclear whether the City has even begun to update its analyses based on the recent changes to PRC sec. 21064.3 with its new, 20-min.
standard.
(3) It is unclear whether the City has taken account of non-VTA transit providers, including AC Transit and Stanford, among others.
(4) It is unclear on what principled basis the City would substitute its own analyses for those of HCD.
(5) And, perhaps most importantly, while I am not certain, I believe that the City has constructed its map based on bus routes, rather than bus stops.
A "major transit stop" includes "the intersection of two or more major bus routes...." There is nothing on the face of PRC sec. 21064.3 requiring that
such bus routes be orthogonal, or even at a slight angle, to one another. In the absence of such a legislative requirement, two bus routes could
intersect by overlaping one another. Since the fundamental unit of analysis is a "major transit stop," this means that the number of "major transit
stops" throughout Palo Alto is likely considerable greater than that suggested by the City's maps. In many instances, VTA, AC Transit, Stanford, and
perhaps other transit servcie providers (including the City itself, whether now or in the future) run buses along the same major vehicular arteries,
such as University, Embaracadero, San Antonio, Middlefield, etc. Although service may be provided by different agencies or carriers at such stops,
because the same bus stop is served by multiple providers, there are likely far more that qualify as "major transit stops" under the new 20-min.
standard. If the City has not undertaken such an analysis, in addition to acknowleging and accepting the results of the HCD's tools, it should also
calculate which particular stops in Palo Alto are served with 20-min. intervals by any carrier at peak commute times. It would be sad, and, indeed,
ironic, were the City not to take account of interactions between different transit providers for the purposes of assessing height limitations for ADUs
when its own "Getting Around" web page champions "the free Stanford Marguerite shuttle bus network" as complementing VTA buses.
Although not specifically noted by the HCD (see discussion of "Section 18.09.030 (a) iii -- Height," above, parts of both Table 1 of Section 18.09.030
and Table 2 of Section 18.09.040 are inconsistent with state law. Among other things, "66323 Units do not have to comply with lot coverage, front
setbacks, and design standards." The 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 18. Cf. paragraph immediately below table at p. 20. That 66323 Units do not
have to comply with lot coverage, front setbacks, and design standards affects both Table 1 and, importantly, and Table 2 as well, in several ways:
(a) The heading for the third column from the left of Table 1 reads, "Construction of Attached ADU Within the Proposed Space of a Single-Family
Home," and a large cell for the rows concerning setbacks, daylight plane, and maximum height states, "Underlying zone standard for Single[-]Family
Home (ADU must be within allowable space of Single-Family Home)."
(b) As for setbacks, Gov. C. subd. 66323(a)(1)(C) states, "The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety," not that the setbacks are the
same as for the single-family home.
(c) As for daylight plane requirements, none are mentioned in Gov. C. subd. 66323(a); therefore, for the same reasons discussed by the HCD in
2024-10 HCD Letter, #9 (discussed above), under Gov. C. subd. 66317(c), the City may not enact additional requirements to delay an ADU or JADU
building permit.
(d) As for maximum height, footnote (3) states, "Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling."
Again, under Gov. C. subd. 66317(c), the City may not enact additional requirements to delay an ADU or JADU building permit. Consequently, the City
cannot rely upon other parts of the PAMC to reduce the effective height limit for ADUs.
(e) In addition, the heading for the second column from the left of Table 2 merely states, "Attached," but its problems --- regarding setbacks, daylight
plane, and maximum heigh --- are analogous to those of the third column in Table 1, and they too must be corrected.
(f) Both tables should incorporate the current guidance from HCD regarding two-story ADUs:
"If a detached two-story ADU can be built according to the height allowances required under State ADU Law while remaining compliant with the
building code, a local agency cannot deny an ADU application to create a two-story ADU, irrespective of the underlying zoning that might restrict a
primary dwelling to one story. (Gov. Code, §§ 66321, subd. (b)(4)(D); 66314, subd. (d)(8).)". 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 25.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#3
Gov. C. sec. 66323
Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(4)(B)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(C)
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
Additional concerns re setbacks, daylight plane, and height.
12
31
A
(g) While 66323 Units have a special status, including an explicit ministerial approval requirement, Gov. C. subd. 66323(a), additional concerns regarding Palo
Alto's current ADU ordinance concerning setbacks, daylight plan, and height arise from consideration of Gov. C. subd. 66321. For example, while Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(A) does not speak separately and explicitly to rules governing attached ADU ("The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within
the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure...."), state ADU laws still encourage and protect
the development of attached ADUs in important ways. Among other things:
Gov. C. subd. 66321(a) explicitly references "both attached and detached accessory dwelling units."
Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(2) sets floors for the maximum sizes of all ADUs and those that "provide[] more than one bedroom."
Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(4)(D) generally provides greater height limits for attached ADUs: "A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the local zoning ordinance
that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling. This subparagraph shall not require a
local agency to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories."
And Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(3) establishes a special set of protections for "an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks
to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards."
Because all of these provisions are part of one section of the Government Code, and because Gov. C. sec. 66321 should be read in harmony with Gov. C. subd.
66323, along with the other parts of Article 2, an 800-sf ADU with four-foot side and rear setbacks, whether attached or detached, enjoys, among other things, the
additional height allowances provided by Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(4)(D), and protection from any portion of any local agency ordinance that would seek to impose
"[a]ny requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a
percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for either
attached or detached dwellings...." Gov. C. subd. 66321(b)(3).
Applying these principles to Palo Alto's current ADU ordinance leads to several important conclusions, including, but not limited to, the following:
(3) Although it is perhaps a bit of an open question, I believe that the most reasonable reading of Gov. C. sec. 66321, particulary in light of Gov. C. subd. 66323,
along with the other parts of Article 2, protects such an attached ADU from Palo Alto's daylight plane requirements, provided it respects the four-foot side and rear
setback requirements.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#2
Additional concerns re setbacks, daylight plane, and height.
PLEASE NOTE: These are additional comments provided on 2025-03-25.
(1) Palo Alto must allow an attached ADU up to 800 sf in size to be built out to four-foot
side and rear setbacks; in other words, it need not be confined to the setbacks for the
primary dwelling on the lot.
(2) Such an ADU would enjoy the height benefits provided by Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(4)(D); as a result, in most parts of the City, it could be built to 25', provided that
it does not have more than two stories.
Gov. C. subd.
66321(b)(4)(B)
Gov. C. subd.
66323(a)(1)(C)
Gov. C. subd.
66317(c)
13
OTHER
POLICY
CHANGES
32
Althought not required by state law, Gov. Code section 66342 gives local jurisdictions the option of adopting an ordinance to provide for the separate conveyance
of an ADU, apart from its primary dwelling, as noted by the HCD in a footnote in the 2024-10 HCD letter. Palo Alto should adopt such an ordinance as a means of
stimulating ADU production. Allowing for the separate conveyance of ADUs in Palo Alto would likely expand capital availability for ADU production considerably.
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#8, fn.1
33
A Palo Alto worksheet for estimating existing electrcal loads (), which is
referenced by implication in Palo Alto's "" at p. 2 ("COMPLETED AND SIGNED UTILITY SERVICE APPLICATION INCLUDING UTILITY
DEMANDS FOR THE REQUIRED SERVICES") essentially relies upon nameplate information, with repeated instructions to specify "Volt Amps from Label." With
Palo Alto's new "Advanced Meter Infrastructure" for electrical service, applicants can, in addition, use , which begins,
"
The calculation of a feeder or service load for existing installations shall be permitted to use actual maximum demand to determine the existing load under all of
the following conditions...."
Palo Alto should: (a) make clear that this alternate form of calculation existing electrical loads can be used for ADUs and JADUs; (b) provide an updated form for
calculating the resultant demand in accordance with CEC (2022) 220.87; and (c) simplify and publicize clearly instructions for obtaining historical load data from
CPAU customer service personnel or directly online through MyCPAU.
Allow for separate conveyances of ADUs under Gov. C. sec. 66342
Gov. C. sec. 66342.
res_load_calc_gh_03.24.17_dc1-em
Utility Service Application
CEC (2022) 220.87
Simplify and improve CPAU load calculatons.
220.87 Determining Existing Loads
CEC (2022) 220.87
14
34
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 33,
At present CPAU will sometimes
charge a customer for electrical infrastructure upgrades. For example, if a customer seeks to upgrade a home's electrical service to electrify the home or to add
an EV charger, CPAU sometimes allocates the entire cost of that infrastructure upgrade to the customer requesting a new service, even thought the capacity of
the existing CPAU infrastructure reached an exhaustion threshold by the load demands of all of the customers in a given local area. This can be thought of as a
"loser lottery." When this policy is applied to ADUs or JADUs in the additional regulatory context of the City's newly modified reach codes, it becomes particularly
untenable. Making it extremely difficult for ADU or JADU applicants to have gas appliances while charging them for CPAU electrical infrastructure upgrades
creates a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" choice. This is also poor public policy because CPAU infrastructure upgrades, in general, should be borne
by CPAU itself or all customers, not a select few.
From an ADU and JADU regulatory perspective, such CPAU policies also violate state law. Gov. C. subd. 66314(a) makes clear that (a) only local water and
sewer utilities have any proper participation in ADU and JADU permitting, and (b) even then, the only legitimate inquiry concerns "the adequacy of water and
sewer services...."; once a local agency has consulted with local water and sewer utilities as to which regions with that agency's jurisdiction have adequate water
and sewer services, further involvement of local utilities in ADU and JADU permitting should end. Thus, if a local agency (a) allows water or sewer review of a
particular permit application concerning a parcel that is in an area with adequate water and sewer services, or (b) allows any other local utility to review an ADU or
JADU permit application, it fails to respect and honor that portion of Gov. C. sec. 66314. Therefore, current CPAU policies concerning the "loser lottery" are
doubly problematic: electrical utilities have no role in ADU and JADU permitting, and even if the state had allowed cities to consider the adequacy of electrical
service in a local sub-region --- which is not the case --- once that determination had been made, an electrical utility should not be further involved in permittng for
an ADU or JADU.
CPAU's "loser lottery" policies are troublesome when applied to 66323 Units for other reasons as well. There is no mention of electrical infrastructure upgrades in
Gov. C. sec. 66323, and Gov. C. subds. 66323(b)-(c) state:
"(b) A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that
meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).
(c) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior
accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions."
Taken together, the entirety of that section and those particular sub-divisions also prohibit the City from forcing ADU or JADU applicants to pay for CPAU
infrastructure upgrades as price for a building permit, as well as prohibiting CPAU electrical permitting review. 2025-01 HCD ADU Handbook, p. 33,
concerning non-conforming zoning.
End the "loser lottery." Do not condition permit approval of ADUs or JADUs on
charging applicants for CPAU infrastructure upgrades, a type of impermissible
demand for public improvements, and give applicants, at their sole option, the
ability to obtain one or more separate utility services for ADUs.
Cf.
Gov. C. sec. 66314
Gov. C. sec. 66323
15
35
A homeowner seeking to build an ADU in a flood zone will frequently be directed to complete a
"," which will likely result in a determination by the City, made using RS Means cost estimating data or software,
which, without further work, frequently results in a determinaton by the City that the cost of adding an ADU is more than 50% of the current value of the primary
home, thus preventing one from obtaining an exception to certain additional flood zone building requirements. As ordinarily followed, this procedure is irrational,
failing to take reasonable account of home values in Palo Alto. Therefore, an applicant is required to seek and to pay for a custom appraisal of the home, one
more expense tacked onto the price of creating the additonal housing that our community needs. A better approach is possible. Here are three suggestions
(doubtless there are more possibilities):
1. The City could acknowledge that the RS Means data and software are extremely poor indicators of the value of existing homes in Palo Alto, and it could create
more realistic estimates of home values in our community. This need not be a major undertaking requiring exceptional expenditures. (Perhaps there are students
at local universities who might find this an interesting project and a worthwhile endeavor that could even lead to creating a profitable business. One will only know
for sure by asking.)
2. The City, having made that acknowledgement, could entertain other approaches that are likely far more accurate than the RS Means data and software
approach. The question ought not to be whether the alternative is perfect, but whether it's better than the current, highly tarnished, "gold standard." The City
should be able to use, for example, rough data from, ., Zillow, to establish the market price of a home and then to have an optional parameter, perhaps 25% or
even 20% (and maybe an variable that changes with both the size of the house relative to the size of the lot and the age of the house) of the Zillow-estimated
FMV as an acceptable approximation of the FMV of the structure on property. Local relators might have even better ideas. Any such figures that accord with the
experience and judgments of those who probably know these values best, such as local relators, ought to be allowed in lieu of a detailed and costly appraisal for
the purposes of a flood-zone-screening analysis. Perhaps waivers or exceptions might be necessary state or federal regulators, but let's not make the process of
building ADUs in Palo Alto --- even in flood zones --- any more expensive than it already is, particularly when RS Means data and software simply fail to measure
actual Palo Alto home FMV values accurately.
3. Simply accept a good-faith estimate provided by a local, licensed relator.
36
In a , the HCD wrote, with respect to Palo Alto's
December, 2022 draft housing element:
"Fees and Exaction: While the element describes required fees for single family and multifamily housing developments, including impact fees, on (pp. 4-66) the
element states that impact fees/capacity fees are considered the highest in the County. In addition, on (pp. 4-67) the City recognizes that current
planning/permitting and development fees add substantial cost to residential development."
By this time, if not earlier, Palo Alto reasonably should have known that there were serious problems with its per-unit impact fees as applied to ADUs, and that, as
the City would acknowledge explicitly in the redlined ("V6") of the housing element, if not earlier that:
"Because Palo Alto has historically charged per-unit feesfor residential development, this has led to some inequitable results, as the fees for an ADU will depend
not only on the size of the ADU, but also on the size of the primary unit, with higher fees required under state law when the primary unit is smaller." V6, at p. 4-65.
The City should do the right thing and refund the impact fees that were charged on ADUs improperly from at least March 23, 2023 to the present in two distinct
ways:
1. At a minimum, the City should re-calculate the fees charged on a per-unit basis and refund the difference as compared with the amounts that would be
charged under current rules. To follow its stated values (, Recital A(5) in the draft resolution attached to
": "Will safeguard public trust through transparent practices and open
communication."), this is the minimum that the City should do even to begin to make whole the homeowners who were overcharged for ADU impact fees.
2. If the City recognizes that even the current impact fee structure is improper, as discussed above, then the City should refund the entire amount of the fees
previously charged to such homeowners, as having been charged in violation of state proportionality rules for ADUs.
references noted
above concerning
impact fees and
proportionality.
Create a simplified approach for flood zone appraisals.
FLOOD ZONE SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE
letter dated March 23, 2023
April, 2024 version
"City Council At Places Memo, From: Mayor
Lauing and Vice Mayor Veenker, Meeting Date: February 24, 2025, Item Number: 8
e.g
see, e.g.
See
Refund improperly charged ADU fees.
16
37
If the City is serious about meeting its
goals in the Housing Element, it should simply waive all such fees. Impact fees for larger ADUs can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. In addition,
permitting fees are themselves consequential, sometimes amounting to several thousand dollars or more. Building more ADUs and JADUs is, perhaps, the
fastest, most effective, and most demonstrably successful means of creating more and more afforedable housing in Palo Alto. We should make it easier and less
expensive for people to build ADUs and JADUs. Waiving all such fees would send the right message and address current geopolitical conditions. Homeowners
are already concerned about the effects of global tariff wars on the prices of lumber, appliances, and the other goods necessary to construct ADUs and JADUs.
Cutting all such fees would show that Palo Alto is committed to meeting its housing goals even as geopolitical changes create higher construction costs.
references
noted above
concerning impact
fees and
proportionality, as well
as the separate
discussion of simply
ending impact fees on
ADUs.
38
By going beyond what is required by state law in terms of ADU height, the City may be
able to create appropriate incentives for complying with current daylight plane standards. A simple approach would be to allow for 20' high, two-story, detached,
Table 2 ADUs, on the condition that they conform with current daylight plane standards. Because the 20' height limit is greater than that contemplated in state
ADU statutes for non-66323 Units, allowing for such an alternative, non-mandatory regulatory pathway might be countenanced by the HCD.
39
State law allows for 1,200 sf ADUs, and some Bay Area jurisdictions allow for such
larger ADUs already. To truly reform Palo Alto's housing market and spur construction of more and more affordable housing, our community needs to embrace
"next phase housing," which will meet the needs of, and be embraced by, Palo Altans seeking to downsize, but confronted with the unavailability of suitable
housing alternatives. Community members who have lived for decades in larger homes are likely to be sceptical about moving into 800 sf ADUs. 1,200 sf ADUs,
which could have a third bedroom, space for family members who visit occasionally, or home offices, might be attractive enough so that homeowners would
consider moving our of their single-family residences into a 1,200 sf ADU, thus freeing primary dwellings up for rental (and ideally sale, if the City ever embraces
Gov. C. sec. 66342).
2024-10 HCD Letter,
#8, fn.1
40
To create the additional and less
expensive housinng that our community needs and deserves, the City should do more than meet minimal standards; it should strive for excellence. Palo Alto
should set a goal of earning a "Prohousing Designation" from the HCD. As shown on the , neighboring cities such as Mountain View and Redwood
City have already achieved such designations, as have other cities such as Santa Monica. Achieving such a designation can unlock meaningful benefits for
creating additional housing in Palo Alto, and changing existing regulations and creating new housing incentives will benefit the Palo Alto community along the way
to earning such a designation.
Waive all impact and permitting fees on both ADUs and JADUs.
Create an alternative, local, 20' height limit, specifically for two-story, detached,
Table 2 ADUs, with a daylight plane.
Adopt a 1,200 sf size limit for all ADUs.
Palo Alto should seek a "Prohousing Designation," and ADU reforms can help our community to achieve that goal.
See also
Gov. C. sec. 66342.
HCD's website
Prohousing
Designation Benefits
and Prohousing
Designated
Jurisdictions
17
41
To create more and more affordable housing, the City should also allocate reasonable funding. In some housing projects, the City
appears to expect other government agencies to contribute significantly to construction costs. But the City has an enormous budget, much more of which could
be used to create incentives for new housing. Allocating a tiny fraction of that budget, even only 25 basis points or less over a two-year period would free up $5
million in total that could be used to test different regulatory and incentive programs to determine the ease of their implementation and the likelihood of their
success. The oversubscription and success of certain state-wide financial incentives has already demonstrated demand for funds to help build ADU. Palo Alto
could and should experiment with such mechanisms and others. Here is a rough outline of a series of such possible experiments:
Total of $5 million in grants and on-bill financing over two years:
Up to 50 $25k grants for pre-designed ADUs
Up to 50 $25k grants based on CalHFA program
Up to 25 on-CPAU-bill financings for first $100k of ADU costs
With this partricular experimental approach, $2.5 million would be returned to the City over time, which could help pay for the next, full implementation phase of
such programs. Creating such incentives, even on an experimental basis, might also accelerate Palo Alto's obtaining a "Prohousing Designation." 2025-01 HCD
ADU Handbook, p. 28.
2025-01 HCD ADU
Handbook, p. 28
Palo Alto should experiment with meaningful financial incentives to increase ADU
production.
1
City of Palo Alto-References & Abbreviations re 2025-03 ADU reforms
Abbreviation Reference
2024-10 HCD
Letter
Letter to Jonathan Lait, Director, from Jamie Candelaria Senior Housing
Accountability Unit Manager, HCD, dated October 29, 2024
2025-01 HCD
ADU Handbook
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
OK, January 2025ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT HANDBO
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Expanding Incentives for ADUs—A Vision to Meet Multiple City Goals
Date:Sunday, May 11, 2025 11:19:31 AM
Attachments:Expanding Incentives for larger ADUs--A Vision.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Lauing, council members and staff.
ADUs are a major success story for Palo Alto housing.
Consider expanding incentives for larger ADUs and imagine how powerful this could be for
meeting multiple housing goals.
Monday night is a first reading of the city's revised ADU ordinance.
I believe some improvements can be made before the second reading and other incentives
will take longer to develop.
I hope you are as excited as I am about the possibilities.
Let's move this vision to implementation.
I make a couple of broad suggestions for moving ahead and look forward, hopefully, to
council's thoughts on expanding incentives for larger ADUs--say in the range of 1,200 to
1,400 square feet with opportunities for ownership.
Thank you for considering how we can meet multiple city goals: helping seniors age in
place, providing a path for new families to live here and offset declining school enrollment,
not expanding the urban footprint, and with some additional incentives, open up ADUs to
more lower income families.
Stephen Levy
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Expanding Incentives for ADUs—A Vision to Meet Multiple City Goals
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are a success story for meeting Palo Alto’s housing
goals. The city issued permits for 249 ADUs in 2023 and 2024 accounting for more than
50% of our total housing permits issued in these two years.
This success was made possible by a set of incentives for ADUs that are not larger than
750 square feet including the waiver of impact fees and other incentives. State law both
protects those ADUs from paying impact fees, which can total tens of thousands of
dollars, and provides ADUs up to 800 sf with more generous design options and
expedited permitting. Expanding incentives to larger ADUs can greatly expand
production and, at the same time, meet multiple city housing goals.
Imagine the potential of ADUs in the 1,200 to 1,400 square foot range. This would
provide options for older families to downsize but remain in place without having to sell
their single-family home. The number of older households is continuing to grow but
downsizing to 750 square feet is not attractive while moving to 1,200 to 1,400 square
feet would work fine. That could happen by moving to an ADU on their property while
offering their existing home to family members or renting it for income.
Palo Alto has twin goals of encouraging new families to move here and also addressing
the affordability challenges for the middle class—the “missing middle” housing
affordability challenge. Larger ADUs can include, possibly depending on size, three
bedrooms and yet cost less than buying most existing single-family homes in Palo Alto.
What do we gain? We will see a surge in permits and new homes. All homes will be
within the existing urban footprint. Older households will see expanded options to
remain in their community while making their current homes available to others. We will
encourage new families with children to attend public schools in Palo Alto and avoid
having to close neighborhood schools with declining enrollment. We will address the
“missing-middle” affordability challenge.
What do we need to do to make this vision come alive?
We need to replicate and expand the incentives now in place for smaller ADUs. That
means waiving impact fees as we already do for smaller ADUs. It means creating
ownership opportunities for the larger ADUs that will expand the market and help with
financing. And we could develop meaningful financial incentives and grants to reduce
the cost for new ADUs.
From:James Lloyd
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney; City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty; Kallas, Emily
Subject:public comment re item 10 for 5/12/25 Council meeting
Date:Friday, May 9, 2025 6:11:31 PM
Attachments:Palo Alto ADU Ordinance Letter - 9 May 2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment concerning
item 10 on the agenda for the Council meeting scheduled for May 12, 2025, an amendment to the
City’s regulations for ADUs and JADUs.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
james@calhdf.org
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
May 9, 2025
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
By email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org;
Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org; George.Lu@CityofPaloAlto.org;
Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org; Keith.Reckdahl@CityofPaloAlto.org;
Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org; Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org
Cc: city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org; city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org;
CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org; Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org;
Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org
Re: Proposed Amendments to the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit Regulations
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment
concerning item 10 on the agenda for the Council meeting scheduled for May 12, 2025, an
amendment to the City’s regulations for ADUs and JADUs. This proposed ordinance fails to
comply with state law in one specific way and the City should address this issue before
approving the ordinance.
Background
The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances that implement a
variety of development standards on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314.) The standards in these local
ordinances are limited by state law so as not to overly restrict ADU development. (See id.)
Separately from local ADU ordinances, Government Code section 66323 establishes a
narrower set of ADU types that local governments have a ministerial duty to approve.
“Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322 ... a local agency shall ministerially approve” these
types of ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (a).) This means that ADUs that satisfy the minimal
requirements of section 66323 must be approved regardless of any contrary provisions of
the local ADU ordinance. (Ibid.) Local governments may not impose their own standards on
such ADUs. (Id. at subd. (b) [“A local agency shall not impose any objective development or
2221 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
hi@calhdf.org
design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that
meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).”].)
In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, like
other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit
application submittal. (Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (a).)
State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by
state law. Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those
provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant
requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for
rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”
Impermissible Front Setback Requirement on Section 66323 ADUs
City code section 18.09.030(b) Table 1 imposes underlying front setback requirements on
new construction, detached ADUs developed pursuant to Government Code section 66323,
subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(4), on single-family and multifamily properties, respectively.
However, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a) does not permit imposition of
front setback requirements for ADUs that qualify for the protections of that section of law.
Additionally, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b) specifically forbids the
imposition of any local design or development standards beyond what is provided in section
66323. This means that the City may not impose front setback requirements on ADUs that
meet the requirements of Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a).
There are many policy reasons for this, regardless of whether or not it is possible to locate an
ADU elsewhere on the property. For instance, a homeowner may prefer to preserve a private
backyard space while redeveloping the less useful front yard. While children may play in the
backyard, the front yard is closer to the street and less safe for a variety of activities.
Additionally, an ADU in the front setback may be easier to make accessible for disabled
residents, as it is much closer to the street. The City therefore must allow front yard ADUs
that comply with the standards in Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a) both on
single family and on multifamily properties.
HCD has issued guidance pursuant to its authority under Government Code section 66327
(the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook, page 18) affirming the duty of local agencies to allow
ADUs protected by Government Code section 66323 in the front setback under all
circumstances.
From page 18 of the HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added): “For example, 66323 Units do
not have to comply with lot coverage, front setbacks, and design standards.”
2 of 3
⧫ ⧫ ⧫
CalHDF appreciates the City’s effort to implement state law governing ADU construction.
However, the City should amend its ordinance to ensure that it complies with state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for
increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Jean Eisberg; Shikada, Ed
Subject:tape of SPUR webinar with David Zisser
Date:Friday, May 9, 2025 2:43:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
https://www.spur.org/events/2025-05-01/tracking-housing-elements-ensuring-cities-
follow-through-their-plans
About 24 minutes into the webinar Zisser of the HCD Housing Accountability Unit described
the process for informing cities of HE problems.
Thus far 4 cities have been decertified.
My takeaway is that HCD is most interested in programs and promises/commitments not
kept and does understand that market forces are making it harder right now to build
housing even if it is permitted.
Also as an fyi, I heard him encourage webinar attendees to contact the HAU as appropriate.
He made other comments later in the webinar that I think are worth listening to.
Steve
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast