The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 2601-5829CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Monday, March 09, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM Agenda Item 9.FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding a New Section 18.70.105 (Noncomplying facility - De minimis exceptions) to Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). Public Comment City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 9, 2026 Report #:2601-5829 TITLE FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding a New Section 18.70.105 (Noncomplying facility - De minimis exceptions) to Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council (Council) adopt the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) regulations to add a new section regarding noncomplying facilities de minimis exceptions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On September 15, 2025, Council directed staff to prepare a text amendment within six months authorizing the Director of Planning and Development Services to approve de minimis exceptions from noncomplying facility regulations and similar minor adjustments that are not impactful to adjacent properties or public realm for residential properties. The proposed ordinance amending PAMC Chapter 18.70 to add a new code section for a de minimis exception for modifications to noncomplying facilities responds to Council’s direction. The proposed ordinance limits this exception to allow minor relocations of non-complying floor area for single-family homes as detailed further in this report. On January 14, 2026, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance with minor modifications for clarity. BACKGROUND On May 8, 2025, the Director of Planning and Development Services issued a formal interpretation of PAMC Chapter 18.70, concluding that noncomplying gross floor area (GFA) may not be removed and replaced elsewhere on a site, even where total GFA is not increased. This interpretation was prompted by a minor remodel of a single-family home that remains over the district’s GFA limit. 1) reflects the most reasonable and consistent application of the Municipal Code and that it supports the broader policy goal of reducing noncomplying conditions over time. While the proposal in the appellant’s case was minor, permitting it would have rendered portions of the code meaningless and could have created a precedent for larger changes inconsistent with the Code’s purpose. 2 ANALYSIS 18.70.105 Noncomplying facility - De minimis exception 1 September 15, 2025, Council Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=9235&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=16839 2 September 15, 2025, Council Summary Minutes: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16227&compileOutputType =1 Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 18.70.080, 18.70.090, and 18.70.100, up to 250 square feet of non-complying floor area (i.e. floor area associated with a non-complying feature) may be relocated as follows, provided that the degree and manner of non-compliance is not increased: Six-month turnaround for code amendment; Align with the meaning of “de minimis” – trivial or minor; Avoid additional process/delay/appeals; Preventing impacts on neighboring properties; Align with other floor area thresholds existing in the code; and Allow flexibility for projects similar in scale to the one proposed by the appellant. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT within an existing building permit review process and would therefore be absorbed within the department budget and resources. If a project were to require Individual Review, per PAMC Section 18.12.110, then standard application fees would apply. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: *NOT YET APPROVED* 0160183_20260202_ay16 1 Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending 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. Section 18.70.105 (Noncomplying facility – de minimis exception) of Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is added to read as follows: 18.70.105        Noncomplying facility - De minimis exception Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 18.70.080, 18.70.090, and 18.70.100, up to 250 square feet of non-complying floor area (i.e. floor area associated with a non-complying feature) may be relocated as follows, provided that the degree and manner of non-compliance is not increased: (a) The non-complying facility houses a single-family residential use in a low-density residential zone district; and (b) Any proposal to relocate non-complying floor area will comply with the following: (1) Projects that include relocation of 150 to 250 square feet to a location above the ground floor shall be subject to Section 18.10.040, subd. (i), or 18.12.110, as applicable; or (2) Projects that include relocation of less than 150 sf above the ground floor and that are therefore not subject to Individual Review, shall comply with the objective standards for single-family development as applicable to the proposed relocation. SECTION 2. 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 3. 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), 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it constitutes minor adjustments to the City’s zoning ordinance to implement State law requirements related to accessory dwelling units as established in Government Code Section 65852.2, and these changes are also likely to result in few additional dwelling units dispersed throughout the City. 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. *NOT YET APPROVED* 0160183_20260202_ay16 2 SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: _______________________________ __________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _______________________________ __________________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager __________________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment From:Jeff Levinsky To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Ordinance Doesn’t Match Council Request (Item 9 on Monday Council Agenda / De Minimis Exceptions) Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 4:25:07 PM Dear City Councilmembers: The proposed ordinance on tomorrow’s agenda doesn’t match what the Council requested. The proposed ordinance begins: Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 18.70.080, 18.70.090, and 18.70.100, up to 250 square feet of non-complying floor area (i.e. floor area associated with a non-complying feature) may be relocated as follows, provided that the degree and manner of non- compliance is not increased There are several ways that floor area may be “non-complying.“ The obvious one is that it exceeds the allowed floor area ratio. But it might also be within a setback area, extend beyond the daylight plane, and/or exceed the allowed ground floor size (aka the “footprint”). Suppose a home has ground floor square footage that does not exceed the allowed amount but extends into the side setback, making that part of the home non-compliant. The proposed ordinance as written would allow that square footage to be relocated elsewhere within the side setback as long as it does not extend deeper into that setback. It could thus be relocated nearer to a neighboring home, potentially causing the neighbor to suffer greater privacy and noise issues. While the proposed ordinance does contain some protection from this for square footage added/relocated on upper floors, it offers none for ground floors. Similarly, the proposed ordinance would allow a first floor room that exceeds the daylight plane to be relocated nearer to a neighbor's home. Again, this could easily increase problems for those neighbors. The above scenarios allowed by the proposed ordinance are not consistent with your Council motion that initiated this. In that September 15, 2025 motion, you explicitly said that allowed adjustments should be: “not impactful to adjacent properties” Yet the proposed ordinance clearly will allow adjustments that are impactful. One easy way to fix this is to limit the allowed non-compliance to only excess square footage , which was the actual situation that triggered the Council to request this proposed ordinance. With that limitation, any relocated square footage would still need to comply with our current development standards such as setbacks, daylight planes, footprints, and similar rules, thereby protecting adjacent properties. Thank you, Jeff Levinsky