HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2608-6695CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Wednesday, September 09, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:00 PM
Agenda Item
11.SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16
(Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units (FIRST READING: August 17, 2026; PASSED: 4-3, Stone,
Veenker, Lythcott-Haims no) Public Comment
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 9, 2026
Report #:2608-6695
TITLE
SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building
Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
(FIRST READING: August 17, 2026; PASSED: 4-3, Stone, Veenker, Lythcott-Haims no)
BACKGROUND
The City Council heard this item on August 17, 2026 for a first reading and approved it on a 4-3
vote. Staff removed the reference in the adopting ordinance for Section 1, Item F as the Separate
Sale ordinance will come back to Council at a later time on the Consent Calendar. Staff also
reintroduced Footnote 7 under Table 1, which codifies staff’s interpretation of how square
footage applies under Table 1. This footnote was provided in the draft ordinance the PTC
reviewed and recommended but was inadvertently omitted in the version of the ordinance
provided during the first reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building
Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0160207_20260821_ay16
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building
Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) 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 2025, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance 5656, 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 May 12, 2025, the City Council directed staff to evaluate modifying the City’s ordinance
to increase the maximum size for ADUs to 1,200 square feet and allowing ADU
condominiums as allowed under AB 1033 (2024).
C. On September 30, 2025, the Governor signed Assembly Bills (AB) 130, 462, 1154 and Senate
Bills (SB) 9 and 543, effective between June 30, 2025 and January 1, 2026. These various
bills affect the processing time and requirements for ADU/JADU permits as well as the
number of permissible ADU/JADUs on one lot.
D. Upon recommendation of City Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto desires to amend its ADU/JADU ordinance to implementing
SB 1211 and to make additional clerical amendments and minor amendments to conform
with State law.
E. Section 4 of this Ordinance amends Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fee) of Title 16
(Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This is an administrative amendment
to align how impact fees for ADUs must be calculated based on interior livable space rather
than gross square footage as defined in Chapter 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning)
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
F. This ordinance is adopted to incorporate changes in state law that have occurred since the
adoption of Ordinance 5656 and to respond to direction from the City Council.
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
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0160207_20260821_ay16
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 ADUaccessory 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 with multiple ADU/JADUs, 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 Title Chapter 18.
18.09.030 Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations
(a) Government Code sections 66323 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 66323, the Government Code shall
prevail.
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, 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 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.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
0160207_20260821_ay16
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 66323
Single-Family Multi-Family
Conversion of
Space Within
the Existing
Space of a
Single-Family
Home or
Accessory
Structure
Construction of
Attached ADU
and/or 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 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
size(1) 150 sf
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;
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 66323(a)(1) 66323(a)(1) 66323(a)(2) 66323(a)(3) 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) 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 primary dwellings but may be attached to each other.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4
0160207_20260821_ay16
(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) Square footage of a detached ADU under this section shall not reduce the allowable square footage
of a proposed single-family home.
(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) For ADUs and JADUs only, the allowable square footages noted in Table 1 and this
section for these units shall be based on the interior livable space for the purposes of
FAR, lot coverage, and maximum house size. The exterior walls not counted towards
interior livable space for these units will not count against the property’s FAR, lot
coverage, or maximum house size requirements.
(e) The establishment of ADUsaccessory dwelling units and JADUsjunior 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. 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.
(f) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an ADUaccessory dwelling unit
if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. The construction of an
ADUaccessory 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.
(g) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or
more.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
5
0160207_20260821_ay16
(h) 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.
(i) Conversion of existing living area or an existing accessory structure pursuant to
Government Code section 66314(d)(7) may include reconstruction in-place of a non-
conforming structure, so long as the renovation or 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 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.
(j) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to assist in
emergency response.
(k) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as allowed
under Government Code Section 66341.
(l) Replacement parking is not required when an off-street parking space is converted to,
or demolished in conjunction with the construction of, an ADU or JADU.
(m) JADUs shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.09.050.
(n) An applicant that seeks to appeal the City’s determination of completeness or denial of
a permit for an ADU must submit their appeal in writing to the City identifying the
reasons for their appeal and pay the accompanied appeal fee, as set forth in the
adopted municipal fee schedule. Appeals for these applications shall follow the
procedures for appeal under PAMC 18.77.075 except that the appeal shall be placed on
Council’s Consent Agenda within 45 days of filing a timely appeal. Any decision from the
Council, either on consent or through an agendized item, is final.
18.09.040 Units Subject to Local Standards
(a) This section shall govern applications for ADUs 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 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.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
6
0160207_20260821_ay16
(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
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
Number of Units Allowed1 1
Minimum size 150 sf
Maximum size 1,200900 sf (1,000 sf for
two or more bedrooms
required to exceed
1,000 sf);
no more than 50% of
the size of the single-
family home
1,200900 sf (1,000 sf
for two or more
bedrooms required to
exceed 1,000 sf)
Setbacks 4 feet from side and rear lot lines;
Daylight Plane Underlying zone
standard per
footnote (7)
N/A
Maximum Height3
Res. Estate (RE) 30 feet
Open Space (OS) 25 feet
All other eligible zones 16 feet(5)(6)(7)
Parking None
Square Footage Exemption when in
conjunction with a single family
home(4)
Up to 800 sf
(1) An attached andor detached ADU may be built in conjunction with the allowable units prescribed
under Table 1 and PAMC 18.09.050(f)a JADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family
home. One attached or detached ADU may be built in conjunction with the allowable units
prescribed under Table 1 on 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 may exempt a maximum combined total of 800
square feet of both ADUs 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
*NOT YET APPROVED*
7
0160207_20260821_ay16
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.
(d) Interior livable space for ADU 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 sSquare 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 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. Attached units shall not have an interior access point to the
primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance).
(g) For ADUs only, the allowable square footages noted in Table 2 and this section for these
units shall be based on the interior livable space for the purposes of FAR, lot coverage,
and maximum house size. The exterior walls not counted towards interior livable space
for these units will not count against the property’s FAR, lot coverage, or maximum
house size requirements.Reserved
(h) For properties listed in the California Register of Historical Resources 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 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
*NOT YET APPROVED*
8
0160207_20260821_ay16
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 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) Habitable ADU 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, when an existing or proposed
primary dwelling unit is expanded or constructed simultaneously with the
construction of a new ADU, the homeowner may elect to build all structures 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, any portion of the ADU 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 that is in a
different location or exceeds the envelope of the original structure shall comply with
the development standards stated in this Section.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
9
0160207_20260821_ay16
(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, 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 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 identified in Table 2.
(k) Design
(1) Except on corner lots, where feasible, ADUsthe 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 ADUaccessory 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 obscuredopaque 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.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
10
0160207_20260821_ay16
(D) Where feasible, egress windows on the first and second finished floor of an ADU
shall not face towards an adjacent interior property line. If this is not feasible,
then these windows shall utilize obscuredopaque glazing on the whole window.
(E) If the first finished floor of an ADU 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 obscured 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.
(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, covered parking
structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to, or demolished in conjunction
with the construction of, an ADU.
(2) 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) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the construction
of new ADU, 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.
(4) If covered parking for a unit is provided in any district, the maximum size of the
covered parking area for the ADUaccessory 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 (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance).
*NOT YET APPROVED*
11
0160207_20260821_ay16
(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
(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
*NOT YET APPROVED*
12
0160207_20260821_ay16
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 and PAMC 21.09.
(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.
(5) An applicant that seeks to appeal the City’s determination of completeness or denial
of a permit for an ADU must submit their appeal in writing to the City identifying the
reasons for their appeal and pay the accompanied appeal fee, as set forth in the
adopted municipal fee schedule. Appeals for these applications shall follow the
procedures for appeal under PAMC 18.77.075 except that the appeal shall be placed
on Council’s Consent Agenda within 45 days of filing a timely appeal. Any decision
from the Council, either on consent or through an agendized item, is final.
18.09.050 Additional Requirements for JADUs
(a) A JADU may be created on a lot in a single-family residential zone with an existing or
proposed single family residence. A JADU 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.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
13
0160207_20260821_ay16
(b) The JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, requiring the following components: A
cooking facility with appliances, and; food preparation counter and storage cabinets that
are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit.
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 JADU shall not be considered a separate
or new unit.
(d) The owner of a parcel proposed for a JADU shall occupy as a primary residence either the
primary dwelling or the JADU. Owner-occupancy is not required if the owner is a
governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization or if the required bathroom for
the JADU is provided in the unit, rather than inside the primary home.
(e) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a JADU, 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,
identifies that if the unit is rented it shall be rented for no shorter term than 30 days,
isrequires owner-occupancy consistent with subsection (d) above, and restricts the size
and attributes of the JADU 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.
2) The maximum number of units on site shall not exceed fivefour (threetwo 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.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
14
0160207_20260821_ay16
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
obscureopaque 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.
9) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the construction
of new JADU using these provisions, the primary unit’s covered parking requirements
do not need to be provided. Instead, two uncovered parking spaces shall be provided
in any configuration on the lot including within the front or street-side setback for the
property.
SECTION 3. Subsection (g) of Section 16.58.030 (Exemptions) of Chapter 16.58
(Development Impact Fees) of Title 16 (Building) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is
amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through):
(g) Accessory dwelling units (ADU) less than 750 square feet in size of interior livable
space. Any impact fees to be charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square
feet of interior livable space or more shall be proportional to the square footage of
the primary dwelling unit;
SECTION 4. 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 5. 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 6. 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*
15
0160207_20260821_ay16
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 7. 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
From:Jessica Resmini
Subject:Please Retain the 800 SF ADU Exemption — PTC Hearing September 9
Date:Thursday, September 3, 2026 8:36:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Planning & Transportation Commission,
I am writing as a Palo Alto homeowner to urge you to retain the City's current policy
exempting the first 800 square feet of an ADU from FAR and other floor-area limits, as
adopted in 2020. I understand the PTC will review this issue on September 9 before making
a recommendation to Council — after which the Council could act the same evening — and
I want to flag a real inequity in eliminating this exemption.
Under the current policy, this exemption applies uniformly — whether a homeowner
already has a house on their lot or is building new. Remove it, and that uniformity
disappears. A homeowner with an existing smaller home who builds an 800 sf ADU would
permanently lose future expansion capacity for the main house. A developer who
demolishes that same size home, builds a new primary residence to the maximum
allowable FAR, and then adds an ADU would still receive the full benefit. Two identical lots,
two very different outcomes — a disparity my own back-of-envelope math puts at roughly
$1.4 million in property value, favoring teardown-and-rebuild over the family that's already
there.
That's the opposite of what I understand this ordinance is supposed to encourage. If
the goal is more ADUs and preserving housing stock, this policy should reward
homeowners who add an ADU to a home they already own — not push them toward
demolition to stay competitive with new construction.
I ask that the PTC recommend, and the Council ultimately vote, to retain the 800 sf
exemption as it was originally intended and adopted.
Thank you for your time and for considering the impact this change would have on longtime
Palo Alto homeowners.
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Cheers,
Jessica Resmini
---
ADU|Collective
Build smart for flexible living.
Jessica Resmini
Architect & LEED AP
Mobile +1 415 823 3213www.aducollective.com
BACKGROUND
Meeting Date: 8/17/2020
City of Palo Alto City Council Staff Report (ID # 11118)
Page 9
6. Providing a Uniform Exemption of ADU Square Footage from FAR, Lot
Coverage, and Maximum House Size Under State rules, the City must allow floor
area over a property’s maximum allowable floor area (calculated with respect to
site area as a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum) to the extent necessary to
construct an 800 sq. ft. ADU. This requirement was incorporated into both the
Interim Ordinance and the proposed ordinance without modification. Thus,
properties would be entitled to different amounts of exempt ADU square footage
depending on the amount of
FAR available for the property after accounting for the primary residence.
This can be illustrated by imagining a 6,000 square foot R-1 lot, which would
allow up to 2,550 sq. ft. of floor area. A homeowner with a 2,000 square foot
primary residence on this property would be entitled to exempt up to 250 square
feet of an 800 square foot ADU (550 remaining square feet + 250 square feet
over the maximum FAR = 800 sf). In a second scenario, if the primary residence
were 2,550 square feet, the property owner would be entitled to exempt all 800
square feet of the ADU. In a final scenario, if the primary residence were less
than 1,750 square feet, ADU floor area exemption would not be required or
provided. This creates an incentive for a property owner to build a primary home
to the maximum FAR before applying for an ADU. This could have the effect of
encouraging tear-down remodels. This approach to ADU square footage also
makes it more difficult to construct an ADU over 800 sq. ft, as the entire square
footage of the ADU would need to be accommodated within allowable
FAR without any exemption. To avoid these effects and to encourage ADU
production, staff and the PTC recommend the ordinance provide a uniform
“bonus” for ADUs: only square footage above 800 sq. ft. would count towards the
floor area maximum (FAR, lot coverage, or maximum house size). This approach
could make it easier for the public to understand how these limits can impact
what is allowed and make it easier for staff to implement. It also would remove a
potential incentive to demolish an existing residence to max out FAR before
building an ADU. Finally, this approach
would allow a property owner seeking to build a larger ADU to do so if there is
additional FAR available for the site. A uniform approach to exempting ADU
square footage would make it marginally easier to maximize the size of both a
primary residence and an ADU by eliminating the two-step process. It is unclear
to what extent this would impact the ultimate development of properties.
Meeting Date: 8/17/2026
City of Palo Alto City Council Staff Report (Report #: 2605-6356)
Page 7
Codifying Local Practice for Table 1 Detached ADUs
The draft ordinance also includes a change to Table 1 to clarify staff’s
interpretation and implementation of its provisions with respect to detached
square feet offered in Table 2, any ADUs proposed under Table 1 are counted
against the standard available FAR and lot coverage on a site. At the same time,
FAR and lot coverage cannot be used to constrain or deny proposed Table 1
ADUs of up to 800 square feet. For example, if a site has 2,500 square feet of
total development potential and an existing single-family home of 2,000 square
feet, an 800 square foot Table 1 ADU would “use up” any remaining development
potential, limiting future expansion of the primary home. Even though the ADU
exceeds the available FAR in this scenario by 300 square feet, the City would still
be required to permit it under State law. A homeowner could avoid
these impacts on future development potential by instead proceeding under
Table 2 (including local tree protection/privacy measures), which offers the local
bonus/exemption. Staff presented this approach to Council during the 2020 ADU
Ordinance update as a way to incentivize applicants to build using local
standards. This would allow the City to support second-unit development while
also providing some measures (such as privacy measures) to limit impacts on
neighbors. Since then, the City has predominantly seen applicants following the
local standards for second unit development instead of using State law
allowances.
From:Shivin Devgon
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 10:14:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello planning commission and city council,
My name is Shivin and I live in California Ave. I want our community to create more
opportunities for lower-cost homeownership through ADUs.
For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, please vote in favor of item 2 to allow ADU homeownership.
For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda and remove the "Main Home Penalty"
against Table 1 ADUs by amending footnote 7 of Table 1.
I want to incentivize more housing being built to tackle the affordability crisis and help more
young families with kids be able to afford a house near their jobs
Thank you for supporting more homes in our community,
Shivin Devgon
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Andrea Eckstein Gara
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Public Comment to Council: Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 10:39:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members and Planning Commission
Like many of us in Palo Alto, our family has seen changes over the years with more to come.
Having maximum flexibility with our house is top of mind for us. With both our kid's families
and an aging parent, we want to ensure that we can change our house to accomodate our future
needs, as well as those of our adult child and his family. Will we build an ADU in the future
for a parent or ourselves? Will we want to expand the main home for our adult child's family
to live in? Will we want to sell an ADU separately from the main house as we attempt to retire
in an expensive area? Please keep our options for multi-generational living and aging in place
open.
For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, please vote in favor of item 2 to allow ADU homeownership.
For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda and remove the "Main Home Penalty"
against Table 1 ADUs by amending footnote 7 of Table 1.
Thank you,
Andrea Gara
Community Center
From:Kristen Lomax
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki; Planning Commission; bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangPTC@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com;
ptc@allenakin.com; kevinji2021@gmail.com
Subject:Please Retain the 800 SF ADU Exemption — PTC Hearing September 9
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 12:06:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Planning & Transportation
Commission,
I am writing as a Palo Alto homeowner to urge you to retain the City's current
policy exempting the first 800 square feet of an ADU from FAR and other floor-area
limits, as adopted in 2020. I understand the PTC will review this issue on September
9 before making a recommendation to Council — after which the Council could act
the same evening — and I want to flag a real inequity in eliminating this exemption.
Under the current policy, this exemption applies uniformly — whether a
homeowner already has a house on their lot or is building new. Remove it, and that
uniformity disappears. A homeowner with an existing smaller home who builds an 800
sf ADU would permanently lose future expansion capacity for the main house. A
developer who demolishes that same size home, builds a new primary residence to
the maximum allowable FAR, and then adds an ADU would still receive the full
benefit. Two identical lots, two very different outcomes — a disparity my own back-of-
envelope math puts at roughly $1.4 million in property value, favoring teardown-and-
rebuild over the family that's already there.
That's the opposite of what I understand this ordinance is supposed to
encourage. If the goal is more ADUs and preserving housing stock, this policy should
reward homeowners who add an ADU to a home they already own — not push them
toward demolition to stay competitive with new construction.
I ask that the PTC recommend, and the Council ultimately vote, to retain the 800 sf
exemption as it was originally intended and adopted.
Thank you for your time and for considering the impact this change would have on
Palo Alto homeowners.
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Sincerely,
Kristen Lomax (1752 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA)
--
Kristen Lomax
Partner
Fergus Garber Architects
www.fg-arch.com
650.644.7994
81 Encina Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
From:Karen Marincovich
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 12:29:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good Day City Council and Planning Commission,
My name is Karen Marincovich, and I live in the Downtown North Neighborhood of Palo
Alto. I'd like our community to create more homeownership opportunities through ADUs.
These I believe add to the valuation of a property parcel. While creating more allowable
housing, they nicely don't strangle neighborhoods with over-density. The county gains +
revenue, as well, per another assessed property tax. This reads as a Win-Win formula!!
For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, I would ask that you please vote in favor of item 2 to allow
for our ADU community homeownership.
For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda and remove "Main Home Penalty"
against Table 1 ADUs, by amending footnote 7 of Table 1.
We best incentivise, not penalize, methods whereby homeowners are encouraged, and
rewarded for all their contributions to the City of Palo Alto, and County of Santa Clara.
I hope the above in support of ADU homes in our community, will be recognized, and of
a realized value to every involved participant within this discussion.
Respectfully Submitted,
Karen Marincovich
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Russell Siegelman
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 2:33:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello planning commission and city council, My name is Russell Siegelman and I live in Old
Palo Alto at 244 Santa Rita At. I want our community and all of Palo Alto to create more
opportunities for lower-cost homeownership through ADUs and other means. I hear there is an
important vote upcoming on this issue. For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, please vote in favor of
item 2 to allow ADU homeownership. For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda
and remove the "Main Home Penalty" against Table 1 ADUs by amending footnote 7 of Table
1. I think it is critical that we allow lower cost ownership of homes in Palo Alto. Taking these
steps will be an important step in that direction and not doing so will create another
impediment for allowing school teachers, fire fighters, police people and all others who
deserve to live and own in Palo Alto.. Thank you for supporting more homes in our
community,
Russell Siegelman
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Jeremy Levine
To:Council, City
Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait,
Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett; Armer, Jennifer
Subject:Public Comment: Agenda Item 11, ADU ordinance; and Agenda Item 12, Rezoning 470 Olive Ave.
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 3:19:24 PM
Attachments:2026.9.9 Public Comment CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 11 on ADUs; and Item 12 on Rezoning 470 Olive Street
(1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Good afternoon Palo Alto City Council members,
Please see the attached comment in support of rezoning 470 Olive Avenue, as proposed by
staff. We also are requesting that council pull item 11, an update to the ADU ordinance, to
make amendments to the "Main Home Penalty," which will arbitrarily punish homeowners
who have built ADUs or plan to build them in the future.
Have a great weekend,
Jeremy
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
September 9, 2026
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Agenda Item 11, ADU ordinance update; and Agenda Item 12, Rezoning 470 Olive
Avenue
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Palo Alto Forward supports policies to further housing affordability and multi-mobility
accessibility in Palo Alto. To that end, we have supported ADUs in Palo Alto to create more
affordable options for seniors to downsize, children to move home, and essential workers to live
in our community.
In order to promote ADUs, please remove Item 11 from consent to amend footnote 7 of Table 1.
This footnote codifies a “Main Home Penalty” in Palo Alto’s ADU ordinance, which would punish
homeowners who have built an ADU or plan to build one without demolishing their primary
home. We agree with staff that the ADU ordinance should be changed to add clarity around
square footage exemptions, but the current proposed change penalizes homeowners who have
built ADUs and does not reflect recent permitting practices for ADUs.
To avoid penalizing homeowners who build an ADU, Palo Alto should amend Table 1 to
include the same Square Footage Exemption as Table 2 (see below) and amend footnote
7 of Table 1 to read: “Square footage of an ADU under this section shall not reduce the
allowable square footage of a proposed single-family home any primary dwelling.”
The Table 2 language we want inserted into Table 1:
1
The context:
●As currently written, the ADU ordinance adds footnote 7 of Table 1, which reads “Square
footage of a detached ADU under this section shall not reduce the allowable square
footage of a proposed single-family home.” The word “proposed” has big implications:
1 New text for footnote 7 of Table 1 in the ordinance: “Square footage of an ADU under this section
shall not reduce the allowable square footage of any primary dwelling.”
1
○ If a single-family home owner demolishes their home and rebuilds it at the max
FAR along with an 800 square foot Table 1 ADU, that ADU is exempt from the
FAR under local zoning rules.
○ If a single-family homeowner remains in their more modest home and builds an
800 square foot Table 1 ADU, they would lose 800 square feet of FAR for their
primary home under local zoning rules if they ever want to expand their house in
the future.
● Staff argue that footnote 7—which was not present in the ordinance council reviewed on
August 17—clarifies longstanding staff practice. However:
○ While a uniform square foot exemption has not been codified for Table 1, City
Council had this exact discussion in 2020. Then, the staff report recommended a
uniform exemption.2
○ Operating under the assumption that there is uniform exemption, ADU builders
have been submitting applications pursuant to Table 1 with the exemption. Staff
has been processing Table 1 ADUs that include an 800 square foot exemption.
○ Furthermore, ADU permitting applications in Palo Alto do not distinguish between
Table 1 and Table 2 ADUs. That means homeowners who have built an ADU
don’t actually know which ADUs are Table 1 or Table 2 ADUs—and it’s not clear
staff do either. The August 17 staff report claims staff have been informally
counting Table 1 ADUs toward FAR; if that is the case, homeowners who have
built ADUs using Table 1 are unaware.
ADUs have formed an essential part of the City's housing strategy, consistently resulting in the
permitting of more than 100 ADUs annually—even higher than the 64 ADUs projected in Palo
Alto's housing element. State law has played an essential role complimenting Palo Alto’s local
efforts.
Palo Alto can continue building on its ADU success by amending footnote 7 to give Table 1 and
Table 2 ADUs a uniform square footage exemption. Otherwise, the City risks penalizing modest
homeowners who built an ADU or plan to in the future while remaining in their more modest
homes. The Main Home Penalty should be removed entirely so that Palo Alto continues its
leadership on ADU development.
Separately, we support the staff recommendation to rezone 470 Olive Avenue from the
NV-R1 designation to the NV-MXM medium-density designation. We also support staff’s
intent to add this site to the Housing Element.
2 City of Palo Alto City Council Staff Report (ID # 11118): The report discusses “Providing a Uniform
Exemption of ADU Square Footage from FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size,” which staff
recommended because “This approach could make it easier for the public to understand how these limits
can impact what is allowed and make it easier for staff to implement. It also would remove a potential
incentive to demolish an existing residence to max out FAR before building an ADU. Finally, this approach
would allow a property owner seeking to build a larger ADU to do so if there is additional FAR available
for the site.”
2
470 Olive Avenue already contains a defunct commercial business. The parcel is immediately
next to the El Camino Real Focus Area. When creating the ECR Focus Area, council directed
staff to independently evaluate whether the site would be sufficient for new multi-family housing.
Having conducted their evaluation, staff now have proposed moving forward with a mixed-use
designation better reflecting the property’s existing use and redevelopment potential.
Palo Alto’s local zoning should broadly allow development on existing corridors. Most new
development the City has approved in recent years has been proposed pursuant to state laws
like the Builder ’s Remedy that circumvent local process; 470 Olive reflects an opportunity for the
council to demonstrate local prerogative for new homes in the places where the City has stated
it wants them. The structure for this business is built out to the lot limits on two sides. Replacing
this with housing under NV-MXM zoning would give more separation, via setback requirements,
to those two residential neighbors.
In an SB 79 local alternative plan, Palo Alto should encourage additional height and density on
this site. For now, however, the staff recommendation will best indicate the city’s intent to
promote more homes in this location.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
3
From:Angela Dellaporta
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 3:36:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council and PTC Members,
Please incentivize the building of ADUs in Palo Alto.
For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, please vote in favor of item 2 to allow ADU homeownership.
For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda and remove the "Main Home Penalty"
against Table 1 ADUs by amending footnote 7 of Table 1.
Thank you for supporting more homes in our community,
Angela Dellaporta
Ventura Neighborhood Resident
From:Judith Wasserman
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 3:46:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the Planning Commission and City Council,
My name is Judith Wasserman and I live in Leland Manor. I want our community to create
more opportunities for lower-cost homeownership through ADUs, among other methods.
ADUs have legislative policies and legal decisions backing them up.
For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, please vote in favor of item 2 to allow ADU homeownership.
Homeownership is one customary basis for generational wealth-building.
For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda and remove the "Main Home Penalty"
against Table 1 ADUs by amending footnote 7 of Table 1.
ADUs are a minimal way of increasing density in the city without creating major visual
changes to the cityscape.
Thank you for supporting more homes in our community,
Judith Wasserman
751 Southampton Drive
Palo Alto, California 94303
650-321-1987
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Garrett Clark
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 8:11:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello planning commission and city council,
My name is Garrett Clark and I live in Downtown North. I want our community to create more opportunities for
lower-cost homeownership through ADUs.
For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, please vote in favor of item 2 to allow ADU homeownership.
For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda and remove the "Main Home Penalty" against Table 1 ADUs
by amending footnote 7 of Table 1.
Thank you for supporting more homes in our community,
Garrett Clark
From:James Taylor
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Saturday, September 5, 2026 4:47:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the Palo Alto city council,
My name is James Taylor and I live in Greenmeadow. I have lived in Palo Alto 30 years. Now
my kids are grown, I'd really like to downsize to a smaller, more modern house but the lack of
development in Palo Alto makes this extraordinary difficult. ADUs represent a key element in
Palo Alto's housing supply by making it easier to find smaller places to live and give those of
us with houses that are now too big, a crucial way to reduce our own living space while
generating retirement income.
Having reviewed the ADU item on your agenda, it seems clear this will penalize those who
are adding ADUs to existing homes while favoring developers who are building a wholly new
property. I don't believe this was ever the intent of ADUs - they were always meant to help
home owners add a source of rental income. I urge you to pull item 11 from the agenda and
remove the so-called "Main Home Penalty" against Table 1 ADUs by amending footnote 7 of
Table 1.
Thank you
James
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Bill Fitch
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Sunday, September 6, 2026 7:47:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello planning commission and city council,
My name is Bill Fitch and I live in Evergreen Park. I want our community to create more opportunities for lower-
cost homeownership through ADUs.
For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, please vote in favor of item 2 to allow ADU homeownership.
For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda and remove the "Main Home Penalty" against Table 1 ADUs
by amending footnote 7 of Table 1.
I converted my garage to an ADU last spring. I provide housing for a Stanford postdoc. Please dont make it harder
for others to do this..
Thank you for supporting more homes in our community,
Bill
From:Barb V
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Pathways to ownership - Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote
ADUs for All
Date:Sunday, September 6, 2026 9:58:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello planning commission and city council,
My name is Barb Voss and I live in Palo Alto Redwoods (4250 El Camino Real C221). I want
our community to create more opportunities for lower-cost homeownership through ADUs.
For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, please vote in favor of item 2 to allow ADU homeownership.
For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda and remove the "Main Home Penalty"
against Table 1 ADUs by amending footnote 7 of Table 1.
As an educator who has worked in Palo Alto for 25 years, I know first hand how difficult it is
to take the first step towards home ownership in this area. Home ownership provides stability
and continuity for middle-class professionals like me who serve the Palo Alto community.
Thank you for supporting more homes in our community,
Barb (Barbara L. Voss)
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City
Cc:John Kelley; Jeremy Levine; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:ADU item on consent 9/9
Date:Sunday, September 6, 2026 10:50:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Veenker and council members,
Please remove the ADU item from the consent calendar for the many reasons cited by John
and Jeremy
AND
remove the item from the 9/9 council meeting and move to a later date
AS
the, hopefully unintentional, scheduling of two important ADU items for council and PTC at
the same date has the effect, hopefully unintentional, of disrupting/stifling public
participation, participation that the council has been trying to make easier and more
transparent.
Stephen Levy
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Alexandra Konings
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Veenker, Vicki; Sauls, Garrett; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George;
Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Monday, September 7, 2026 1:54:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Hello planning commission and city council,
My name is Alexandra Konings and I am a homeowner in College Terrace. I want our
community to create more opportunities for lower-cost homeownership through ADUs.
For PTC on Wednesday 9/9, please vote in favor of item 2.
For City Council, please pull item 11 from the agenda and remove the "Main Home Penalty"
against Table 1 ADUs by amending footnote 7 of Table 1.
Regardless of your feelings about ADUs and the need for more homes in Palo Alto, it is unfair
to allow only the richest citizens (those who can afford to build from an empty lot and add an
ADU to a new construction project) to benefit from the ADU exemption on the FAR, while
not allowing the same exemption for those who add an ADU to an existing home. This is extra
unfair if we are not adequately informing homeowners with existing ADU projects of what the
ADU is doing to their future ability to upgrade their home. Aside from fairness issues,
disincentivizing ADUs in this way keeps property values lower than they could be, and thus
reduces the sorely needed property tax income for the county and city.
Thank you
Alexandra Konings
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:John Kelley
To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Shikada, Ed; Jensen, Christopher; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Sauls,
Garrett
Subject:PA-POLI-letter to (a) PACC re Agenda tem #11 re ADUs and (b) PTC re Agenda Item #2 re ADUs for 9/9/26
meetings
Date:Monday, September 7, 2026 9:32:29 PM
Attachments:PA-POLI-letter to PACC and PTC re 2026-09-09 meetings re ADUs-with exhibits.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council, PTC, and City Staff,
Please see the attached letter regarding both the City’s Council’s September 9, 2026 meeting and the
PTC’s September 9, 2026 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
John Kelley
From:Rob Nielsen
To:Planning Commission; Council, City
Cc:bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangptc@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com;
kevinji2021@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett
Subject:Public Comment to Council on Agenda Item 11 and PTC on Agenda Item 2: Promote ADUs for All
Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:38:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Chair Chang and other planning commissioners, Mayor Venker and other city council
members,
My name is Rob Nielsen and I live in Midtown. I would like to see our city offer
newcomers today some of the same opportunities I had when I moved here in the
1980s. Among these opportunities is lower-cost homeownership, for which I would
like to see the city make greater use of ADUs to facilitate this.
For the Planning and Transportation Commission, meeting on Wednesday
September 9, I request that you vote in favor of item 2 on the agenda, which would
provide for ADU homeownership. For the City Council, meeting on the same day, I
request that you pull item 11 from the "consent agenda" in order to amend footnote 7
of Table 1 so that the "Main Home Penalty" against ADUs would be effectively
removed.
These actions will greatly aid the creation of new housing opportunities in our
community as well as bring new neighbors to Palo Alto—and the many benefits that
entails.
Thank you for supporting more homes in Palo Alto.
Rob Nielsen
From:Sadhana Rau
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki; Planning Commission; bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangPTC@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com;
ptc@allenakin.com; kevinji2021@gmail.com
Cc:Sadhana Rau
Subject:Please Retain the 800 SF ADU Exemption — PTC Hearing September 9
Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:22:46 AM
Attachments:image
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Planning & Transportation
Commission,
I am writing as a Palo Alto homeowner to urge you to retain the 2020 policy:
the first 800 square feet of an ADU should be exempt from FAR and other floor-area
limits and be applied uniformly to all types of ADUs, including Table 1 and Table 2
ADUs. We have a flag lot, which complicates ADU construction and accessibility of
such ADUs for rental purposes.
Without this policy, an owner who builds an 800 square-foot ADU could forfeit up to
800 square feet of expansion capacity on their main house. Meanwhile, a developer
who demolishes the home, builds a new primary residence to maximum FAR, and
then adds an ADU could receive the full exemption. On identical lots, this could create
an estimated $1.4 million disparity in property value while encouraging demolition
rather than preservation and ADU construction.
That seems to be the opposite of what this ordinance is intended to encourage.
If the goal is more ADUs and preserving housing stock, this policy should reward
homeowners who add an ADU to a home they already own — not push them toward
demolition to stay competitive with new construction.
I ask that the PTC recommend, and the Council ultimately vote, to retain the 800 sf
exemption uniformly for types of ADUs including Table-1 and Table-2 ADUs.
Thank you for your time and for considering the impact this change would have on
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
longtime Palo Alto homeowners.
Sincerely,
Sadhana Rau
586 Loma Verde Ave Palo Alto CA 94306
9/8/2026
Meeting Date: 8/17/2020
City of Palo Alto City Council Staff Report (ID # 11118)
Page 9
6. Providing a Uniform Exemption of ADU Square Footage from FAR, Lot
Coverage, and Maximum House Size Under State rules, the City must allow floor
area over a property’s maximum allowable floor area (calculated with respect to
site area as a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum) to the extent necessary to
construct an 800 sq. ft. ADU. This requirement was incorporated into both the
Interim Ordinance and the proposed ordinance without modification. Thus,
properties would be entitled to different amounts of exempt ADU square footage
depending on the amount of
FAR available for the property after accounting for the primary residence.
This can be illustrated by imagining a 6,000 square foot R-1 lot, which would
allow up to 2,550 sq. ft. of floor area. A homeowner with a 2,000 square foot
primary residence on this property would be entitled to exempt up to 250 square
feet of an 800 square foot ADU (550 remaining square feet + 250 square feet
over the maximum FAR = 800 sf). In a second scenario, if the primary residence
were 2,550 square feet, the property owner would be entitled to exempt all 800
square feet of the ADU. In a final scenario, if the primary residence were less
than 1,750 square feet, ADU floor area exemption would not be required or
provided. This creates an incentive for a property owner to build a primary home
to the maximum FAR before applying for an ADU. This could have the effect of
encouraging tear-down remodels. This approach to ADU square footage also
makes it more difficult to construct an ADU over 800 sq. ft, as the entire square
footage of the ADU would need to be accommodated within allowable
FAR without any exemption. To avoid these effects and to encourage ADU
production, staff and the PTC recommend the ordinance provide a uniform
“bonus” for ADUs: only square footage above 800 sq. ft. would count towards the
floor area maximum (FAR, lot coverage, or maximum house size). This approach
could make it easier for the public to understand how these limits can impact
what is allowed and make it easier for staff to implement. It also would remove a
potential incentive to demolish an existing residence to max out FAR before
building an ADU. Finally, this approach
would allow a property owner seeking to build a larger ADU to do so if there is
additional FAR available for the site. A uniform approach to exempting ADU
square footage would make it marginally easier to maximize the size of both a
primary residence and an ADU by eliminating the two-step process. It is unclear
to what extent this would impact the ultimate development of properties.
Meeting Date: 8/17/2026
City of Palo Alto City Council Staff Report (Report #: 2605-6356)
Page 7
Codifying Local Practice for Table 1 Detached ADUs
The draft ordinance also includes a change to Table 1 to clarify staff’s
interpretation and implementation of its provisions with respect to detached
ADUs. Because Table 1 does not include the local bonus/exemption of 800
square feet offered in Table 2, any ADUs proposed under Table 1 are counted
against the standard available FAR and lot coverage on a site. At the same time,
FAR and lot coverage cannot be used to constrain or deny proposed Table 1
ADUs of up to 800 square feet. For example, if a site has 2,500 square feet of
total development potential and an existing single-family home of 2,000 square
feet, an 800 square foot Table 1 ADU would “use up” any remaining development
potential, limiting future expansion of the primary home. Even though the ADU
exceeds the available FAR in this scenario by 300 square feet, the City would still
be required to permit it under State law. A homeowner could avoid
these impacts on future development potential by instead proceeding under
Table 2 (including local tree protection/privacy measures), which offers the local
bonus/exemption. Staff presented this approach to Council during the 2020 ADU
Ordinance update as a way to incentivize applicants to build using local
standards. This would allow the City to support second-unit development while
also providing some measures (such as privacy measures) to limit impacts on
neighbors. Since then, the City has predominantly seen applicants following the
local standards for second unit development instead of using State law
allowances.
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; John Kelley
Subject:ADU item on consent 9/9
Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:59:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and council members,
I support the analysis and recommendations in John Kelley's letter to council on this issue
and repeat my ask that not only do you take the item off consent but also schedule the
discussion at a later council meeting to respect our public participation goals.
Stephen Levy