Agenda packet — Palo Alto City Council, May 15, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

Item 14
Attachment B - Task Force
Letter

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 175 of 229

ADUs higher than one story may be up to 22’ tall at the peak, measured from average

grade, and any portion of the structure that exceeds 16’ in height must be set back a

minimum of 5’ from the side yard property line and 10’ from the rear yard property line.

ii.

Exception: An ADU that faces an alley or street can be up to 22’ tall and any portion of the

structure that exceeds 16’ in height must be set back 5’ from the side and rear property

lines.

iii.

Detached New Construction ADUs higher than one story shall limit the major access stairs,

decks, entry doors, and windows to the interior of the lot or an alley if applicable. Windows

that impact the privacy of the neighboring side or rear yards should be minimized or

otherwise restricted as in (b.) above

3. Fees

Significant cost is incurred relative to fees for Plan Check, Building Permit, Planning Impacts,

Specialty Consultants, School Fees, etc. They are not always levied in a relative fashion.

Why not just charge a flat fee based on ADU floor area?

ii.

Included in that methodology, remove some of the fees to further incentivize ADU

construction.

It is important to note that the proportionate language in regard to Planning Impact Fees for units

>750 sf contained in Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (f)(3)(A) creates a significant disincentive for

individuals with existing small homes. Please note the following examples:

Project #1, Demolish an existing detached garage and replace it with a new conforming

detached ADU.

1. Main house at 3,427 sf

and new

ADU at 800 sf

= 23.3% =

$4,511.47

ii.

Project #2, Convert an existing detached garage and construct an addition to create a new

detached ADU.

1. Main house at 1,209.6 sf

and new

ADU at 882 sf

= 73.0% =

$14,101.46

Both are roughly the same scope but because of the more modest house on Project #2,
the

weighted ratio pushes the fee to be $10k more

.

Add to this about $9,000 for: School Impact Fees ($3,000), Plan Check Fees ($2,800) and

Building Permit Fees ($3,300) - That puts the fees for Project #2 at around $23k, or almost 11%

of the total anticipated project construction cost!

4. Subterranean/Basement Construction

Without some flexibility in this, floor to ceiling heights are substandard (+/- 7’-0”). Codifying this in

a thoughtful way can provide tangible improvements in privacy management and enhancement to

overall massing.

Partially subterranean 1

st

floor lowers 2

nd

floor and allows 8’ ceilings with a reasonable roof slope

Page 3 ends

Item 14
Attachment B - Task Force
Letter

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
38 Packet Pg. 176 of 229

Adding a basement could reduce an entire floor of height/massing

1. Reduce impact to neighbors

2. Required exclusionary excavation techniques remove any concerns related to

dewatering

ii.

Tree root impacts could be conditioned since the 800 sf exemption ADU is not obligated in

regard to underground space

iii.

Add clarifying language requiring the interior basement FA to count toward the 800 sf

exemption triggering the additional area beyond 800 sf to be deducted from overall site FA

iv.

No further encroachment other than that required for emergency egress.

Consider, as an additional incentive, allowing a 1200 sf max ADU if 50% of FA is below

grade?

5. Minimal increase to non-conforming structures

Create an allowance to avoid complete demolition or unnecessary

complexity due to energy or structural upgrades

Clarify that it can only be accessed for compliance with energy or

structural obligations

1. Grant an additional 12” of height – increase framing depth

above top plate rather than hanging, which is structurally

complex and reduces ceiling heights.

2. Note that the structure height will still be restricted by the 16’

height limit.

3. Grant an additional 6” in plan on any side for structural

seismic sheathing, exterior insulation, or replacement siding,

so long as no portion of the structure encroaches beyond

the property line.

ii.

Add a clarification regarding structures with existing

parapets. A non-conforming portion of the structure

may be modified up to the height of the existing

parapet. This can be done without creating an

increased impact to neighbors. Previous interpretation

of ‘shrink-wrap’ rules should not apply to recessed roof

areas below the top of the parapet. This flexibility will

allow the interior to be a reasonable residential height.

6. Utility Connections

Separate meters placed only at the owner’s discretion

The requirement to provide a separate sewer line for detached ADUs has been directed by the

Chief Building Official.

There is an exception in the Plumbing Code recognized in many jurisdictions to avoid the

significant cost this causes (often greater than $9,000) CPC 311.1
Exception: Where one

building stands in the rear of another building on an interior lot, and no private sewer is

available or can be constructed to the rear building through an adjoining court, yard, or

driveway, the building drain from the front building shall be permitted to be extended to the

rear building.

1. Recognize that the high cost can be viewed as the basis for applying the exception

2. Question - If no separate line is required for an attached ADU, why obligate the cost

and complexity for a detached ADU. The outcome is the same so why regulate

differently?

3. An alternative to this might be a study performed by experts under CPC 301.3

“Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Equivalency” with the establishment

Page 4 ends

Item 14
Attachment B - Task Force
Letter

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
39 Packet Pg. 177 of 229

of standards for equipment (backflow prevention) and cleaning/inspection schedules.

Once established in the City, this could be relied on as an alternate approach.

Routing of utilities at the discretion of property

owner (rear alley or another alternate to avoid

disruption to landscape or trees)

This graphic compares three lots with an

alley behind. Parcel 3 has an attached

ADU and the sewer may connect to the

main house line. There is no impact to the

site. Parcels1 and 2 have detached ADUs

and are currently required to run their

sewer line shown as ‘A’, around the main

house, and out to the street at the front

yard. This is highly problematic, especially

if there are protected trees on site. A

reasonable option would be to allow the

sewer line placement shown by the ‘B’ or

‘C’ routing.

7. Garage replacement associated with Detached ADU

When replacement covered parking is provided, and attached to an ADU, that area should not

count against the 800 sf ‘bonus’

Staff has not indicated agreement with this.

ii.

It represents a significant disincentive toward the creation of covered parking spaces.

iii.

The space designated as a garage should count against the overall FA and not be allowed if

the FAL or Lot Coverage will be exceeded as a result.

8. Retroactive Actions for all ADUs in process after 1/1/2020 (for projects without Building Final)

Retract

all

enacted Deed Restrictions which are not in compliance with the updated regulations

Require new Deed Restrictions in conformance with the updated requirements

Refund any overpayment of fees for all projects in process (between approvals and Building

Final) since January 1, 2020 for:

Proportionate Impact Fees, if they remain in place

ii.

Other fees as adjusted by the revised ordinance

iii.

Council could elect to refund the full amount or an adjusted amount according to

16.06.110/R108.5 at 80%?

9. Green Building

The current detached ADU regulations require Tier 2 with exceptions

Tier 2 obligates requirements for third party preparation of documents and site evaluation

which comes at significant cost

If a homeowner proposes an addition/alteration to their home under 1,000sf, a third party is not

required and the project is only required to meet CALGreen Mandatory measures

To streamline the ADU permitting and construction process, detached ADUs under 1,000 sf

should only be required to comply with CALGreen Mandatory for consistency

10. Noise producing equipment

Allow placement at any location on the property as long as documentation is provided which

confirms noise level will be below the 66 decibel limit at the property line. What should be codified

for these issues are rules that direct the desired result. Don’t overcomplicate what can be

achieved simply.

Equipment should be <66 dB without accessories such as blankets (can fail/degrade over

time)

Page 5 ends

Item 14
Attachment B - Task Force
Letter

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
40 Packet Pg. 178 of 229

ii.

Asking for site-specific studies creates an additional unreasonable cost burden and must be

avoided

11. Doorway between ADU and Primary Unit

This really should be allowed as long as it is a hotel style communicating door. Note that it is

allowed for a JADU so why not for an ADU?

Provides indoor access to care for or interact with the occupant but can be closed if privacy

or separation is needed

Don’t create rules people will routinely circumvent - just remove the unnecessary regulation -

Some may take advantage but there is little stopping them anyway

12. 60-day Processing

Sets unrealistic expectations without clear narrative

Explain how this will be interpreted/implemented

Note that HCD has indicated the State says once an application is submitted, the City must

approve within 60 days or it is automatically approved.

It is assumed that the clock is stopped when waiting for applicant response to comments,

but there is nowhere this is codified and creates frustration for homeowners

13. Sprinkler requirements

Clarify rules relative to the California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 17-001 (1/24/17)

Current PA implementation is not in alignment with Senate Bill 1069

ii.

Safety concerns and physical constraints must be balanced against compliance with the

State language

14. Flood Zone

Better articulate requirements and permitted exceptions

Consider an example of the Exemption 800 sf ADU in the flood zone on a small lot – if

reconstructing a non-conforming structure, it must be allowed to go higher than the 16 foot

limitation by the delta between existing grade and the project site base flood elevation to

raise the first floor level.

15. Remove requirement to convert “existing” garage/carport

Only applies to projects where a new home is constructed with the intent of the garage or carport

being converted to an ADU as a second ‘step’ after final inspection.

Allow for a one-phase process

Offer incentive for streamlining

1. Cannot be setbacks, height, etc. as these are enshrined in Gov. Code, § 65852.2,

subd. (c)(2)(C)

2. Could offer an additional fee reduction for saved staff time or something similar

While we recognize the Ordinance before you has been in process for the better part of a year, your

action tonight will set the tone for what is possible until the next iteration of this language evolves. We are

hopeful the commitment you have voiced toward incentivizing residential development, aligned with a

stated goal of streamlining the approval of ADUs, will lead you to adopt some version of the 15 points we

have presented. As professionals serving as guides to those who wish to construct an ADU, and being

tasked with implementing the regulations, we want you to understand how important we believe these

items are. If anything, we hope you might consider this as a starting point. We welcome your willingness

to perhaps go further and, as many other cities have done, consider the adoption of additional language

which will make ADUs more livable, desirable, and affordable.

Respectfully submitted,

Page 6 ends

Jessica Resmini, Architect Randy Popp, Architect

Item 14
Attachment B - Task Force
Letter

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
41 Packet Pg. 179 of 229

8 Roofed porches on the 1st ﬂ oor
Roofed porches on the 1st ﬂ oor do NOT count toward the gross ﬂ oor area if at least 50% of the perimeter is at least 50% open.

Fig 5 Roofed 1st ﬂ oor porch
G A
E
C
D
F
B
��
��
��
��
��
��
Step 1: Determine the perimeter of the porch and divide it into segments that will allow a comparison of closed and
open segments.

The perimeter of the porch in Fig 5 is shown below. It is the sum of segments A throug A throug A G. It is 70 linear feet.

How to determine if a porch is at least 50% open (using Fig 5 as an example) Item 14
Attachment C - Substantially Open
Porches

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
42 Packet Pg. 180 of 229

9 In Fig 5 sides A, B, & C abut the house walls.

These are considered to be closed segments.
��
��
��
�
�
�
Step 2: Determine which perimeter segments abut the house walls. These are closed segments, or sides.

Step 3: Determine the status (open/closed) of the remaining segments based on the design. If at least 50% of the facade area is open, then the segment or side is considered open.
��
��
�
��
�
��
�
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
For purposes of assessing the openess of the facade:
• The height of the segment facades is measured from the top of the porch ﬂ oor to the the point where the segment facade intersects with the top of the roof material. • The widths of the segment facades are measured from the same plane. Allowances may be made for structural supports that are not excessive.

Item 14
Attachment C - Substantially Open
Porches

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
43 Packet Pg. 181 of 229

10 Step 4: Finalize the determination of which segments are closed and which are open, total the linear feet in each category, and compare the totals.
��
��
��
��
��
��
� �
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
For the porch in Fig 5, the summary is as follows:

Conclusion: The perimeter of the porch in Fig 5 is 50% open and so the porch would NOT count toward gross ﬂ oor area �� Feet �� Feet
� ��
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
��
��
��
�
��
�
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Note: If a porch ﬂ oor is more than 30” above
grade, the porch sides may need to be 36” high for
safety reasons. This may cause the porch facade
to be considered closed. Possible solutions to make
sure the porch sides are considered open are
illustrated to the right:
• Railings (ballisters) instead of solid half walls.
• A single safety rail above lower, solid half walls.

Item 14
Attachment C - Substantially Open
Porches

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
44 Packet Pg. 182 of 229

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

D
ecember 23, 2021

J
onathan Lait, Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue – Fifth Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301

D
ear Jonathan Lait:

RE: Review of Palo Alto’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance under ADU Law (Gov. Code § 65852.2)
Thank you for submitting the City of Palo Alto (City) accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance (Ordinance No.5507) adopted September 26, 2020, to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The ordinance was received on October 20, 2020. HCD has reviewed the ordinance and is submitting these written findings pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h). HCD has determined that the ordinance does not comply with section 65852.2 in the manner noted below. Under the statute, 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 January 23, 2022. HCD will review and consider any written response received from the City before that date in advance of taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65852.2.

The adopted ADU ordinance meets many statutory requirements. However, the ordinance must be revised to comply with State ADU Law (Gov. Code, § 65852.2), as follows:
• Section 18.09.030(a)(3) Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations: The text of this Section and the applicable portion of Table 1 indicate the maximum size of a newly constructed detached ADU is 800 square feet. Although a local agency may establish minimum and maximum size requirements for ADUs pursuant to subdivision (c)(1) of Government Code section 65852.2 within limits, a local agency shall not establish a maximum square footage requirement for either attached or detached ADUs that is less than 850 square feet and 1,000 square feet for an ADU that provides more than one bedroom. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(B).) Therefore, all relevant Item 14
Attachment D - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2021)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 183 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Planning Director

Page 2 ends

sections of the ordinance must be amended to comply with this mandate in State ADU Law.

•
Section 18.09.030 Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations:

There appears to be a conflict between the text of this section and Table 1. The number of allowable units are correctly noted in Table 1 as “1 ADU and 1 JADU.” The text of section 18.09.030(a) appears to limit allowable units to “an ADU or JADU.” Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(A), requires an ordinance to allow “one ADU and one JADU per lot… .” The City must amend the ordinance to correct this inconsistency, clarifying that “one ADU and one JADU” are permitted if all the conditions of section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(A) apply.

•
Section 18.09.030(b) Application of Development Standards: Local agencies may establish standards for ADUs pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a); however, these standards do not apply to ADUs constructed pursuant to subdivision (e). Table 1 impermissibly applies “underlying zoning” “for front setback[s]” to subdivision (e) ADUs. (Mun. Code, §18.09.030(b).) Subdivision (e)(1) describes permitted setbacks in full. Unless underlying zoning for all residential areas conforms to subdivision (e) limits, this table must be amended to comply with statute. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (e)(1)(A).)

•
Section 18.09.030(b)(1) ADU Height in Flood Zones: The City has impermissibly restricted the height of ADUs. It appears that the City establishes minimum elevations for the first floor of structures in the flood zone, which is essentially the entire city to varying degrees. To account for this, the zoning code allows most residential structures to exceed otherwise maximum allowable heights for development. The City does not extend this accommodation to ADUs. Currently, Table 1 states that the maximum height for new, detached ADUs is 16 feet, but includes a caveat that “units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extension.” (Mun. Code, § 18.09.030(b).) In many instances, this would operate as an impermissible restriction on ADUs.

Under State ADU Law, the City must accommodate an ADU of at least 800 square feet and 16 feet in height. Thus, the caveat in Table 1 is potentially confusing and could restrict the height to less than 16 feet. If it would in fact operate to effectively limit the height of ADUs to less than 16 feet, it would operate as an impermissible restriction on ADUs. As such, Table 1 should be revised to clarify that this limitation does not apply where necessary to permit an 800-square foot ADU that it at least 16 feet tall. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (c)(2)(C) and (e)(1)(B)(ii).)

•
Section 18.09.040(b) Daylight Plane and ADU Height Standards: Table 2 states that “daylight plane” acts as a limit on the height of ADUs. In many instances, Item 14
Attachment D - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2021)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
46 Packet Pg. 184 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Planning Director

Page 3 ends

this may not be a problem; however, daylight plane concerns cannot be used to unduly limit the height of an ADU. ADUs are permitted up to 16 feet high. (Gov.

Code, § 65852.2, subds. (c)(2)(C), (e)(1)(B)(ii).) Therefore, in considering restrictions that the City is imposing on ADUs for daylight planes, the ordinance should note the 16-foot height allowable for ADUs. This Table must be amended to clarify this point.

•
Section 18.09.040(b) Units Subject to Local Standards: Table 2 sets out the development standards for ADUs that do not qualify under section 18.09.030.

Although the City has more freedom to establish development standards for these ADUs, that is not without limitation. This section, and Table 2, must be amended to clarify that—notwithstanding the development standards—an ADU of at least 800 square feet, 16 feet in height, and with four-foot rear and side- yard setbacks is permitted as required by State ADU Law. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(C).)
• Section 18.09.040(b) Floor Area and JADUs: Development standards can account for ADUs in their measurement of the floor area restrictions or ratio (FAR). But these standards may not account for or consider JADUs. A JADU may not be included in this calculation, because a JADU is a unit that is contained entirely within a single-family residence. (Gov. Code § 65852.22, subd. (h)(1).) Footnote 4 of Table 2 impermissibly includes JADUs as part of the FAR calculations. This footnote must be amended to clarify this point. • Section 18.09.040(h) Noise-Producing Equipment: Local agencies may impose development standards on ADUs; however, these standards shall not exceed state standards. Section 18.09.040(h) states that noise-producing equipment “shall be located outside of the setbacks.” This section must be revised to only refer to ADUs since setbacks are not required for JADUs. In addition, this setback for noise-producing equipment for ADUs must be revised to make clear that this setback requirement will not impede the minimum state standards of four-foot setbacks. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(C).) • S ection 18.09.040(i)(2) Setbacks: Currently, this section states, “No basement or other subterranean portion of an ADU/JADU shall encroach into a setback required for the primary dwelling.” Under state law, new attached and detached ADUs have maximum four-foot rear and side-yard setbacks. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(1)(D)(vii), (c)(2)(C), (e)(1)(B), and (e)(1)(D).) Local agencies may impose setback requirements if the minimum rear and side-yard setbacks established by state law are not exceeded. This restriction is concerning on a number of grounds.

First, setbacks may not be required for JADUs as they are constructed within the walls of the primary dwelling. Second, this requirement imposes excessive restrictions on ADUs converted from an existing area of the primary dwelling or accessory structure with a basement or subterranean space. Again, these Item 14
Attachment D - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2021)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
47 Packet Pg. 185 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Planning Director

Page 4 ends

structures are not subject to setback requirements. Finally, this section would violate State ADU Law if the side or rear setback requirement for an ADU or JADU located in a basement or other subterranean structure exceeded four feet.

Requiring ADUs and JADUs to meet the side and rear setbacks for the primary dwellings could exceed the maximum four-foot setbacks set out in State ADU Law.

The ordinance must be revised to eliminate these concerns.

•
Section 18.09.040(j) Design: This section states, “Except on corner lots, 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 towards the interior side or rear yard of the property.” These standards appear to apply only to the creation of ADUs and may unduly restrict the placement of an ADU on some lots. Local development standards provided by ordinance pursuant to subdivisions (a) through (d) of Government Code section 65852.2 do not apply to ADUs created under subdivision (e).

Please consider eliminating this restriction or modifying it such that it applies “when feasible.”

•
Section 18.09.040(j)(2)(A) Privacy: The section states, “Second story doors and decks shall not face a neighboring dwelling unit.” This limitation, however, may place an impermissible constraint on an ADU. For example, excessive constraints would be placed on the creation of a second story ADU if residential units were located on all adjacent parcels. In addition, when operating in conjunction with Section 18.09.040(j), noted above, this restriction may prohibit ADUs created under subdivision (e) of Government Code section 65852.2.

Accordingly, this provision must be revised to allow for more flexibility. The City could revise the first sentence of this section to state, “Second story doors and decks shall not face a neighboring dwelling unit, where feasible.”

• Section 18.09.040(k)(4) Parking: The ordinance indicates 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. Further, under this section, the space for the covered parking count towards the total floor area for the site and the ADU if attached to the unit. Covered parking should not count towards the total floor area of the site as if it would unduly limit the allowable size of an ADU established by state law, nor should it directly count toward the area available for the ADU. Although standards within an underlying zone may apply when noted in the adopted ADU ordinance, they may not be more restrictive than those contained in state statute. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subs. (a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(D)(vii), (a)(1)(D)(x), (c), and (e).) The portion of this section stating “unit unless attached to the unit” should be deleted, or the section should otherwise be modified to comply with state law.

Item 14
Attachment D - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2021)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
48 Packet Pg. 186 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Planning Director

Page 5 ends

In these respects, revisions are necessary to comply with statute.

H
CD will consider any written response to these findings, such as a revised ordinance or a detailed plan to bring the ordinance into compliance with law by a date certain, before taking further action authorized pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2.

Please note that HCD may notify the Attorney General’s Office in the event that the City fails to take appropriate and timely action under section 65852.2, subdivision (h).

H
CD appreciates the City’s 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 contact Lauren Lajoie of our staff, at (916) 776-7495 or at [email protected] if you have any questions or would like HCD’s technical assistance in these matters.

Sin
cerely,

D
avid Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
Item 14
Attachment D - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2021)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
49 Packet Pg. 187 of 229

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441

February 3, 2022
Lauren Lajoie
Housing & Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
[email protected]

Dear Ms. Lajoie,

This letter represents the City of Palo Alto’s response to your letter dated December 23, 2021 received by email, and received by hard copy on January 27, 2022. The c ontent of the Housing and Community Development’s letter is italicized. The City of Palo Alto’s responses are bolded.

1. ADU Size - Section 18.09.030(a)(3) Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations: The text of this Section and the applicable p ortion of Table 1 indicate the maximum size of a newly constructed detached ADU is 800 square feet. Although a local agency may establish minimum and maximum size requirements for ADUs pursuant to subdivision (c)(1) of Government Code section 65852.2 within limits, a local agency shall not establish a maximum square footage requirement for either attached or detached ADUs that is less than 850 square feet and 1,000 square feet for an ADU that provides more than one bedroom. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(B).) Therefore, all relevant sections of the ordinance must be amended to comply with this mandate in State ADU Law.

PAMC Section 18.09.030 is intended to describe the requirements for ADUs built under Gov. Code 65852.2, subdivision (e). This is not int ended to create any limitation on ADUs built under subdivisions (a)-(d), which are governed by PAMC Section 18.09.040. The City will add clarifying language to this effect at the top of PAMC Section 18.09.030.

2. ADU & JADU - Section 18.09.030 Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations: There appears to be a conflict between the text of this section and Table 1. The number of allowable units are correctly noted in Table 1 as “1 ADU and 1 JADU.” The text of section 18.09.030(a) appears to limit allowable units to “an ADU or JADU.” Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(A), requires an ordinance to allow “one ADU and one JADU per lot… .” The City must amend the ordinance to correct this inconsistency, clarifying that “one ADU and one JADU” are permitted if all the conditions of section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(A) apply.

The City will update its ordinance to reflect the changes made by AB 3182 with respect to 1 ADU and 1 JADU.

3. Front Setback - Section 18.09.030(b) Application of Development Standards: Local agencies may establish standards for ADUs pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a); however, these standards do not apply to ADUs constructed pursuant to subdivision (e). Table 1 impermissibly applies “underlying zoning” “for front setback[s]” to subdivision (e) ADUs. (Mun. Code, §18.09.030(b).) Subdivision (e)(1) describes permitted setbacks in full. Unless underlying zoning for DocuSign Envelope ID: 26247F48-AB81-46DC-AE75-91A87A8EE538 Item 14
Attachment E - Staff
Response to HCD (2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 188 of 229

CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441 all residential areas conforms to subdivisio n (e) limits, this table must be amended to comply with statute. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (e)(1)(A).)
During our conversation on February 2, 2022, you explained that local rules may apply for front setbacks, including ADUs built under subdivision (e), and that it is not HCD’s position that subdivision (e) ADUs must be allowed at the front lot line. You explained that the issue with the current City ordinance is that it does not make clear that “underlying zoning” is only for front setbacks. The City will clarify this point in its ordinance.

4. Height - Section 18.09.030(b)(1) ADU Height in Flood Zones: The City has impermissibly restricted the height of ADUs. It appears that the City establishes minimum elevations for the first floor of structures in the flood zone, which is essentially the entire city to varying degrees. To account for this, the zoning code allows most residential structures to exceed otherwise maximum allowable heights for development. The City does not extend this accommodation to ADUs. C urrently, Table 1 states that the maximum height for new, detached ADUs is 16 feet, but includes a caveat that “units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extension.” (Mun. Code, § 18.09.030(b).) In many instances, this would operate as an impermissible restriction on ADUs. Under State ADU Law, the City must accommodate an ADU of at least 800 square feet and 16 feet in height. Thus, the caveat in Table 1 is potentially confusing and could restrict the height to less than 16 feet. If it would in fact operate to effectively limit the height of ADUs to less than 16 feet, it would operate as an impermissible restriction on ADUs. As such, Table 1 should be revised to clarify that this limitation does not apply where necessary to permit an 800-square foot ADU that it at least 16 feet tall. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (c)(2)(C) and (e)(1)(B)(ii).)
For purposes of health and safety, the City of Palo Alto requires structures built in a flood zone to have a minimum finished floor height based on FEMA regulations. For a primary residence, the City provides an extra height allowance of 50% the minimum finished floor height. The City does not provide this allowance for any accessory structures, including ADUs . Nevertheless, ADUs in the flood zone can still be built to a height of 16 feet. It is unclear to the City how the failure to provide additional height above 16 feet represent s an impermissible restriction on ADUs. During our conversation, you related that HCD prefers to have as few restrictions as po ssible on ADU production. The only restriction here is on finished floor height in the flood zone, which cannot be waived or relaxed without impacts on health and safety. Even in areas requiring the most extreme height above the base flood elevation, an ADU remains feasible within the 16 foot height limit.

5. Daylight Plane - Section 18.09.040(b) Daylight Plane and ADU Height Standards: Table 2 states that “daylight plane” acts as a limit on the height of ADUs. In many instances, this may not be a problem; however, daylight plane concerns cannot be used to unduly limit the height of an ADU. ADUs are permitted up to 16 feet high. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (c)(2)(C), (e)(1)(B)(ii).) Therefore, in considering restrictions that the City is imposing on ADUs for daylight planes, the ordinance should note the 16-foot height allowable for ADUs. This Table must be amended to clarify this point.

Please note that the City’s daylight plane regulations do not apply to subdivision (e) ADUs, which are governed by PAMC Sec tion 18.09.030. The City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section 18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs. In addition, the City will add a clarifying statement that the regulations in PAMC

18.09.040 are not intended to limit the conversion of existing structures to ADUs or JADUs.

For all other ADUs, however, the City has requested clarity on HCD’s position on daylight plane on numerous occasions, most recently by email dated August 8, 2021. Please see this email, which is DocuSign Envelope ID: 26247F48-AB81-46DC-AE75-91A87A8EE538 Item 14
Attachment E - Staff
Response to HCD (2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 189 of 229

CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441 attached, for an explanation of the City’s position. The City looks forward to continued discussion of this topic.

6. Clarify - Section 18.09.040(b) Units Subject to Local Standards: Table 2 sets out the development standards for ADUs that do not qualify under section 18.09.030. Although the City has more freedom to establish development standards for these ADUs, that is not without limitation. This section, and Table 2, must be amended to clarify that—notwithstanding the development standards—an ADU of at least 800 square feet, 16 feet in height, and with four-foot rear and side- yard setbacks is permitted as required by State ADU Law. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(C).) The City will add a clarifying statement to this effect.

7. Floor Area & JADUs - Section 18.09.040(b) Floor Area and JADUs: Development standards can account for ADUs in their measurement of the floor area restrictions or ratio (FAR). But these standards may not account for or consider JADUs. A JADU may not be included in this calculation, because a JADU is a unit that is contained entirely within a single-family residence. (Gov. Code § 65852.22, subd. (h)(1).) Footnote 4 of Table 2 impermissibly includes JADUs as part of the FAR calculations. This foot note must be amended to clarify this point.

Footnote 4 of Table 2 provides additional FAR on a site for ADUs and JADUs. This is an incentive to promote production of such units without limiting the development potential of a primary unit.

Because a JADU is contained entirely within the space of a single -family residence, it would normally be included in the floor area of the primary unit. Footnote 4 provides an opportunity for a property owner to exempt all JADU square footage from the calculation of floor area for the primary unit. The removal of JADUs from footnote 4 would only serve to restrict the development of JADUs. The City will attempt to clarify the language of this footnote.

8. Noise-Producing Equipment - Section 18.09.040(h) Noise-Producing Equipment: Local agencies may impose development standards on ADUs; however, these standards shall not exceed state standards.

Section 18.09.040(h) states that noise -producing equipment “shall be located outside of the setbacks.” This section must be revised to on ly refer to ADUs since setbacks are not required for JADUs. In addition, this setback for noise -producing equipment for ADUs must be revised to make clear that this setback requirement will not impede the minimum state standards of four -foot setbacks. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(C)).

As noted above, the City will add a clarifying statement that the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 are not intended to limit the conversion of existing structures to ADUs or JADUs. For new construction, however, the City p ermits JADUs to build at a lesser setback than a single -family home normally would. Therefore, the removal of JADUs from this section will only serve to restrict the development of JADUs.

Additionally, the City’s ordinance states that noise producing equi pment needs to be placed outside the setback for an ADU or JADU. This means that the noise producing equipment itself cannot be placed closer than four-feet to a property line for either type of structure; not that the ADU or JADU cannot be placed at those locations. This is consistent with the state setback requirements for an ADU.

9. Basements - Section 18.09.040(i)(2) Setbacks: Currently, this section states, “No basement or other subterranean portion of an ADU/JADU shall encroach into a setback required for the primary dwelling.” Under state law, new attached and detached ADUs have maximum four-foot rear and side- yard setbacks. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(1)(D)(vii), (c)(2)(C), (e)(1)(B), and (e)(1)(D).) Local DocuSign Envelope ID: 26247F48-AB81-46DC-AE75-91A87A8EE538 Item 14
Attachment E - Staff
Response to HCD (2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 190 of 229

CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441 agencies may impose setback requirements if the minimum rear and side -yard setbacks established by state law are not exceeded. This restriction is concerning on a number of grounds. First, setbacks may not be required for JADUs as they are constructed within the walls of the primary dwelling.

Second, this requirement imposes excessive restrictions on ADUs converted from an existing are a of the primary dwelling or accessory structure with a basement or subterranean space. Again, these structures are not subject to setback requirements. Finally, this section would violate State ADU Law if the side or rear setback requirement for an ADU or JADU located in a basement or other subterranean structure exceeded four feet. Requiring ADUs and JADUs to meet the side and rear setbacks for the primary dwellings could exceed the maximum four-foot setbacks set out in State ADU Law. The ordinance must be revised to eliminate these concerns.

As noted above, the City will add a clarifying statement that the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 are not intended to limit the conversion of existing structures to ADUs or JADUs. In addition, as with the previous section, the inclusion of JADUs here only serves to increase flexibility of JADU production.

As noted above, the City will add a clarifying statement an ADU of at least 800 square feet, 16 feet in height, and with four -foot rear and side - yard setbacks is permitted as required by State ADU Law.

With these clarifications the City does not believe it would violate State ADU Law to require that a newly constructed ADU limit any below-grade space to a setback greater than 4 feet. It is the City’s understanding that it could simply state that basements are not permitted for ADUs built under subdivisions (a)-(d), so long as it was still feasible to construct an ADU of at least 800 square feet. If this is the case, the City should have the lesser authority to direc t the placement of below -grade development.

The City has significant concerns about basements in general, and those concerns extend to basements constructed as part of ADUs. Due to a high water table throughout most of Palo Alto, the construction of baseme nts requires dewatering (pumping water from the construction site).

While this is allowed, there are significant restrictions on timing and procedures taken during the dewatering process.

Secondly, development of homes in Palo Alto often includes requirem ents for the planting and maintenance of trees used to enhance privacy between properties. Placing ADUs with basements as close as 4 feet from the property line may jeopardize the health of these trees on the subject property as well as trees on adjacent p roperties. The trees could fail, which would both diminish the tree canopy—important for our environment and adaptation to climate change—and diminish the privacy between properties.

Building below ground is not required in order to achieve a unit which follows the requirements in Section 65852.2 and can lead to potential impacts on adjacent lots, such as to large stature trees on adjacent lots which is a common occurrence in Palo Alto. Building a basement in these scenarios may cause the tree to fail which is a life, safety, and health hazard which would unduly affect both homeowners as a result of the action by one individual. There are construction methods which can be implemented for above ground construction to help limit root damage caused by this construction to preserve trees but that is not possible for below ground construction and can lead to significant impacts as noted above.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 26247F48-AB81-46DC-AE75-91A87A8EE538 Item 14
Attachment E - Staff
Response to HCD (2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
53 Packet Pg. 191 of 229

CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441

10. Corner Lots - Section 18.09.040(j) Design: This section states, “Except on corner lots, 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 towards the interior side or rear yard of the property.” These standards appear to apply only to the creation of ADUs and may unduly restrict the placement of an ADU on some lots. Local development standards provided by ordinance pursuant to subdivisions (a) through (d) of Government Code section 65852.2 do not apply to ADUs created under subdivision (e). Please consider eliminating this restriction or modifying it such that it applies “when feasible.” As noted above, the City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Sect ion 18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs . The City will clarify this is not applicable for subsection (e) ADUs. We are not aware of any evidence that this simple design requirement creates an excessive constraint on ADU production and that has not been our experience.

11. Privacy - Section 18.09.040(j)(2)(A) Privacy: The section states, “Second story doors and decks shall not face a neighboring dwelling unit.” This limitation, however, may place an impermissible constraint on an ADU. For example, excessive constraints would be placed on the creation of a second story ADU if residential units were located on all adjacent parcels. In addition, when operating in conjunction with Section 18.09.040(j), noted above, this restriction may prohibit ADUs created under subdivision (e) of Government Code section 65852.2. Accordingly, this provision must be revised to allow for more flexibility. The City could revise the first sentence of this section to state, “Second story doors and decks shall not face a neighboring dwelling unit, where feasible.” As noted above, the City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section 18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs. We are not aware of any evidence that this simple design requirement creates an excessive constraint on ADU production and that has not been our experience.

The City will clarify this is not applicable for subsection (e) ADUs. We are not aware of any evidence that this creates an excessive constraint and that has not been our experience.

12. Parking - Section 18.09.040(k)(4) Parking: The ordinance indicates 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. Further, under this section, the space for the covered parking count towards the total floor area for the site and the ADU if attached to the unit. Covered parking should not count towards the to tal floor area of the site as if it would unduly limit the allowable size of an ADU established by state law, nor should it directly count toward the area available for the ADU. Although standards within an underlying zone may apply when noted in the adopted ADU ordinance, they may not be more restrictive than those contained in state statute. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subs. (a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(D)(vii), (a)(1)(D)(x), (c), and (e).) The portion of this section stating “unit unless attached to the unit” should be deleted, or the section should otherwise be modified to comply with state law.

As noted above, the City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section 18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs.

Currently, all covered parking in the single -family zones counts towards floor area for the site and dwelling unit. The City does not understand how this creates a standard that is more restrictive than that contained in state statute; none of the subsections cited in your letter speak to whether a garage for an ADU must be exempted from the unit size for the ADU. Moreover, this provision does DocuSign Envelope ID: 26247F48-AB81-46DC-AE75-91A87A8EE538 Item 14
Attachment E - Staff
Response to HCD (2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
54 Packet Pg. 192 of 229

CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441 not create a constraint on ADU production, as a property owner may always choose to provide a detached garage, uncovered parking, or no parking at all for the ADU.

The City has concerns that allowing attached garages onto these structures will incentivize individuals to illegally expand the unit into the garage , which would both exceed the City’s ordinance, contain unpermitted construction, and potentially place the health and safety of the occupants at risk.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Lait
Director of Planning and Development Services

DocuSign Envelope ID: 26247F48-AB81-46DC-AE75-91A87A8EE538 Item 14
Attachment E - Staff
Response to HCD (2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
55 Packet Pg. 193 of 229

Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 26247F48AB8146DCAE7591A87A8EE538
Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign: 2022-02-02 Draft HCD ADU Letter response.docx Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 6
Signatures: 1
Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 2
Initials: 0
Madina Klicheva
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
[email protected]
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Record Tracking
Status: Original
2/3/2022 4:39:53 PM
Holder: Madina Klicheva
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: StateLocal
Storage Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: City of Palo Alto
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Jonathan Lait
[email protected]
Interim Director Planning and Community
Environment
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image
Using IP Address: 99.88.42.180
Sent: 2/3/2022 4:42:20 PM
Viewed: 2/3/2022 4:42:59 PM
Signed: 2/3/2022 4:43:06 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Garrett Sauls
[email protected]
Associate Planner
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 2/3/2022 4:43:08 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
Rachael Tanner
[email protected]
Assistant Director of Planning and Development
Services
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 2/3/2022 4:43:08 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
Item 14
Attachment E - Staff
Response to HCD (2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
56 Packet Pg. 194 of 229

Witness Events
Signature
Timestamp
Notary Events
Signature
Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events
Status
Timestamps
Envelope Sent
Hashed/Encrypted
2/3/2022 4:42:20 PM
Certified Delivered
Security Checked
2/3/2022 4:42:59 PM
Signing Complete
Security Checked
2/3/2022 4:43:06 PM
Completed
Security Checked
2/3/2022 4:43:08 PM
Payment Events
Status
Timestamps
Item 14
Attachment E - Staff
Response to HCD (2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
57 Packet Pg. 195 of 229

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

December 21, 2022

Jonathan Lait, Director
Planning and Development Services
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5
th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301

Dear Jonathan Lait:

RE: City of Palo Alto Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance – Letter of Technical Assistance

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) thanks the City of Palo Alto (City) for submitting accessory dwelling unit (ADU) Ordinance Number 5507 (Ordinance) and for its response to HCD’s December 23, 2021, written findings of non-compliance. HCD appreciates the time and effort the City took in crafting its February 3, 2022, response, and for the conversation between City staff and HCD Analyst Lauren Lajoie on February 2, 2022. Nevertheless, HCD has concerns with the City’s response as it fails to address identified inconsistencies between the City’s ADU ordinance and State ADU Law, as outlined in this letter.

HCD requests that the City respond to this letter no later than January 20, 2023, with a detailed plan of action and timeline, to bring its Ordinance into compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(2)(B).

Background and Summary of Issues
In its December 23, 2021, findings, HCD detailed where it found the Ordinance violates Government Code section 65852.2. In its February 3, 2022, letter, the City responded point by point to the findings as they were presented in the HCD letter. While the responses indicate a willingness to come into compliance with state law, HCD remains concerned that the proposed changes to the City’s Ordinance are insufficient. This letter will address HCD’s findings for which the City’s response and/or commitment to correct was not satisfactory and where HCD still considers an inconsistency between the Ordinance and State ADU Law.

1) HCD’s Original Finding
Daylight Plane - Section 18.09.040(b): Table 2 states that "daylight plane" acts as a limit on the height of ADUs. In many instances, this may not be a problem; however, daylight plane concerns cannot be used to unduly limit the height of an ADU. ADUs Item 14
Attachment F - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
58 Packet Pg. 196 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 2 ends

are permitted up to 16 feet high. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (c)(2)(C), (e)(1)(B)(ii).) Therefore, in considering restrictions that the City is imposing on ADUs for daylight planes, the ordinance should note the 16-foot height allowable for ADUs.

This Table must be amended to clarify this point.

Palo Alto’s Response
“Please note that the City’s daylight plane regulations do not apply to subdivision (e) ADUs, which are governed by PAMC Section 18.09.030. The City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section 18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs. In addition, the City will add a clarifying statement that the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 are not intended to limit the conversion of existing structures to ADUs or JADUs. For all other ADUs; however, the City has requested clarity on HCD’s position on daylight plane on numerous occasions, most recently by email dated August 8, 2021. Please see this email, which is attached, for an explanation of the City’s position. The City looks forward to continued discussion of this topic.”

HCD’s Follow-up Response
On February 23, 2022, HCD received a copy of an email from Assistant City Attorney (ACA) Albert Yang dated August 30, 2021. ACA Yang sought clarification on behalf of the City on whether local government could enforce a development standard that would require that any portion of an ADU fall below 16 feet in height.

The email states: ”Subdivision (c)(2)(C) provides that a local agency may not establish “[1] any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, [2] size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or [3] limits on lot coverage, [4] floor area ratio, [5] open space, and [6] minimum lot size [. . .] that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.” ACA Yang argues that the law is very specific regarding the development standards addressed and it (the subdivision) specifically recognizes that the list does not encompass all development standards. ACA Yang states, “The specific development standards addressed in subdivision (c)(2)(C) do not include daylight plane standards.” ACA Yang impliedly concludes that because the development standards, which ACA Yang numbered from [1] through [6], do not list daylight plane standards, the City may impose daylight plane standards over the minimum 16-foot height requirement.

However, the City incorrectly cited subdivision (c)(2)(C) above; thereby, creating a list of “development standards” from portions of (c)(2)(A) and (c)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and conflated these with “other local development standards” found in subdivision (c)(2)(C). Accurately cited, subdivision (c)(2)(C) states:

(C) 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 Item 14
Attachment F - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
59 Packet Pg. 197 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 3 ends

coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.

State ADU Law authorizes a local agency to establish the minimum and maximum size requirements for ADUs in subdivision (c)(1), but any such size requirement must allow for a minimum height of 16 feet while being constructed in compliance with all other local development standards. This height requirement is meant to be in harmony with local development standards. Because the subdivision has set the minimum height, authorized by statute, local design standards set in the ordinance cannot invalidate this provision, pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2 (a)(5). Therefore, the minimum height of all proposed ADUs is 16 feet and cannot be limited by Daylight Plane restrictions. Table 2 must be amended to clarify this point. Please note that SB 897 (2022), effective January 1, 2023, amends this subdivision, and adds provisions regarding the minimum height for detached and attached ADUs.

2) HCD’s Original Finding
Floor Area & JADUs - Section 18.09.040(b): Development standards can account for ADUs in their measurement of the floor area restrictions or ratio (FAR). But these standards may not account for or consider JADUs. A JADU may not be included in this calculation, because a JADU is a unit that is contained entirely within a single- family residence. (Gov. Code § 65852.22, subd. (h)(1).) Footnote 4 of Table 2 impermissibly includes JADUs as part of the FAR calculations. This footnote must be amended to clarify this point.

Palo Alto’s Response
“Footnote 4 of Table 2 provides additional FAR on a site for ADUs and JADUs. This is an incentive to promote production of such units without limiting the development potential of a primary unit. Because a JADU is contained entirely within the space of a single-family residence, it would normally be included in the floor area of the primary unit. Footnote 4 provides an opportunity for a property owner to exempt all JADU square footage from the calculation of floor area for the primary unit. The removal of JADUs from footnote 4 would only serve to restrict the development of JADUs. The City will attempt to clarify the language of this footnote.”

HCD’s Follow-up Response
HCD supports the City’s attempt to add clarifying language. Converting an area within an existing home should not be counted. To clarify footnote 4 in Table 2, the City could include, for example, "This provision applies to JADUs in proposed single-family dwellings, or remodels that increase the square footage of a single- family dwelling.”

Item 14
Attachment F - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
60 Packet Pg. 198 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 4 ends

3) HCD’s Original Finding
Noise-Producing Equipment - Section 18.09.040(h): Local agencies may impose development standards on ADUs; however, these standards shall not exceed state standards. Section 18.09.040(h) states that noise-producing equipment “shall be located outside of the setbacks.” This section must be revised to only refer to ADUs since setbacks are not required for JADUs. In addition, this setback for noise- producing equipment for ADUs must be revised to make clear that this setback requirement will not impede the minimum state standards of four-foot setbacks. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(C)).

Palo Alto’s Response
“As noted above, the City will add a clarifying statement that the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 are not intended to limit the conversion of existing structures to ADUs or JADUs. For new construction; however, the City permits JADUs to build at a lesser setback than a single-family home normally would. Therefore, the removal of JADUs from this section will only serve to restrict the development of JADUs.

“Additionally, the City’s ordinance states that noise producing equipment needs to be placed outside the setback for an ADU or JADU. This means that the noise producing equipment itself cannot be placed closer than four feet to a property line for either type of structure; not that the ADU or JADU cannot be placed at those locations. This is consistent with the state setback requirements for an ADU.”

HCD’s Follow-up Response
JADUs are entirely within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family dwelling and as such not subject to any setback requirements. Therefore, the City should remove the reference to JADU from Section 18.09.040(h). The City writes, “For new construction; however, the City permits JADUs to be built at a lesser setback than a single-family home normally would.” Please clarify this statement for us. HCD applauds the City’s intention to promote JADUs by relaxing setback requirements.

However, since setbacks do not apply to JADUs, the City would have to relax the setback requirements for the primary single-family dwelling to achieve the desired effect.

4) HCD’s Original Finding
Corner Lots - Section 18.09.040(j) Design: This section states, “Except on corner lots, 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 towards the interior side or rear yard of the property.” These standards appear to apply only to the creation of ADUs and may unduly restrict the placement of an ADU on some lots. Local development standards provided by ordinance pursuant to subdivisions (a) through (d) of Government Code section 65852.2 do not apply to ADUs created under subdivision (e). Please consider eliminating this restriction or modifying it such that it applies “when feasible.” Item 14
Attachment F - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 199 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 5 ends

Palo Alto’s Response
“As noted above, the City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section

18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs. The City will clarify this is not applicable for subsection (e) ADUs. We are not aware of any evidence that this simple design requirement creates an excessive constraint on ADU production and that has not been our experience.”

HCD’s Follow-Up Response
Requirements such as stipulating the facing of entranceways or the location of stairways may unduly restrict the creation of ADUs on some lots. Statute for both ADUs (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (e)(1)(A)(ii)) and JADUs (Gov. Code, § 65852.22, subd. (a)(5)) require independent entry into the unit, and a constraint on the location of an entry door may prohibit the creation of an additional housing unit.

In addition, this requirement could add significant expense if entry doors must be installed in an exterior wall instead of utilizing an existing doorway facing the same direction as the entryway to the primary dwelling. The City must either eliminate this restriction or modify it such that it applies “when feasible.”

5) HCD’s Original Finding
Parking - Section 18.09.040(k)(iv) Parking: The ordinance indicates 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. Further, under this section, the space for the covered parking count towards the total floor area for the site and the ADU if attached to the unit. Covered parking should not count towards the total floor area of the site as if it would unduly limit the allowable size of an ADU established by state law, nor should it directly count toward the area available for the ADU. Although standards within an underlying zone may apply when noted in the adopted ADU ordinance, they may not be more restrictive than those contained in state statute. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subs. (a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(D)(vii), (a)(1)(D)(x), (c), and (e).) The portion of this section stating “unit unless attached to the unit” should be deleted, or the section should otherwise be modified to comply with state law.

Palo Alto’s Response
“As noted above, the City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section

18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs.

“Currently, all covered parking in the single-family zones counts towards floor area for the site and dwelling unit. The City does not understand how this creates a standard that is more restrictive than that contained in state statute; none of the subsections cited in your letter speak to whether a garage for an ADU must be Item 14
Attachment F - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
62 Packet Pg. 200 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 6 ends

exempted from the unit size for the ADU. Moreover, this provision does not create a constraint on ADU production, as a property owner may always choose to provide a detached garage, uncovered parking, or no parking at all for the ADU.

“The City has concerns that allowing attached garages onto these structures will incentivize individuals to illegally expand the unit into the garage, which would both exceed the City's ordinance, contain unpermitted construction, and potentially place the health and safety of the occupants at risk.”

HCD’s Follow-up Response
Covered parking does not count towards the total floor area of the ADU. An ADU is defined in Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (j)(1), as “complete independent living facilities,” and subdivision (j)(4) further specifies that the living area for the ADU “does not include a garage...” Thus, a covered parking space or garage, whether or not attached to a unit, would be considered “non-livable” space.

Therefore, as stated in our original finding, covered parking should not count towards the total floor area of the site as it would unduly limit the allowable size of an ADU established by state law. Similarly, it should not directly count toward the area available for the ADU, as this could also restrict the size of the ADU. The addition of garage space to the ADUs livable space would violate ADU size requirements found in Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a)(1)(D)(iv) and (v), and (c).

While the City raises concerns of potential illegal expansion, the City may not adopt an ordinance that would violate State ADU Law. The City may rely on its enforcement of codes and standards to mitigate its concerns. The City should remove the portion of this section stating “unless attached to the unit” or otherwise modify the section to comply with State ADU Law.

Conclusion

Given the deficiencies described above and in HCD’s December 23, 2021, letter, the City’s Ordinance is inconsistent with State ADU Law. HCD requests that the City respond to this letter no later than January 20, 2023, with a detailed plan of action and timeline, to bring its Ordinance into compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(2)(B). Specifically, to bring its ADU ordinance into compliance, the City must either amend the Ordinance according to HCD’s findings to comply with State ADU Law (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (h)(2)(B)(i)) or readopt the Ordinance without changes. Should the City choose to readopt the Ordinance without the changes specified by HCD, the City must include findings in its resolution that explain the reasons the City finds that the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law despite the findings made by HCD. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (h)(2)(B)(ii), (h)(3)(A).)

Item 14
Attachment F - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
63 Packet Pg. 201 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 7 ends

HCD will review and consider any plan of action and timeline received from the City before January 20, 2023, in advance of taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65852.2.

HCD appreciates the City’s efforts provided 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, of our staff, at (916) 776-7541 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
Item 14
Attachment F - HCD
Letter on ADU Ordinance
(2022)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
64 Packet Pg. 202 of 229

January 13, 2023

Mike Van Gorder
Housing & Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
[email protected]

Dear Mr. Van Gorder,

Thank you for the telephone call today regarding HCD’s letter dated December 21, 2022, which is attached to and referenced in this response. Staff appreciates HCD’s thoro ugh review of the City’s ADU ordinance and consideration of the City’s prior comments in response to HCD compliance concerns. There are five outstanding issues referenced in the letter related to various development standards. City staff responses to each topic area is provided below; in short, staff will recommend that the City’s ordinance be updated in accordance with HCD’s comments.

1. Daylight Plane. Staff understands HCD’s response to mean that all portions of an ADU must be permitted at the he ights now provided Government Code section 65852.2(c)(2)(D). City staff will recommend to its legislative body updating the ordinance to reflect that daylight plane does not limit ADU heights below the heights provided in the Government Code.

2. Floor Area and JADUs. The City’s intention with respect to JADUs has always been that they will not impact the development potential for single -family dwelling, whether through f loor area, lot coverage, or any other development standard. The City believes this is con sistent with HCD’s direction and will ensure that its ordinance reflects this intention in a manner that makes sense in the context and structure of the City’s other zoning regulations.

3. Noise Producing Equipment/JADU setbacks . The City does not believe t here is a substantive disagreement in this area. Typically, in Palo Alto, new construction related to a single -family residence requires a six -foot side yard and 20 -foot rear yard setback.

However, as an incentive for JADU production, the City’s zoning reg ulations provide a more lenient four-foot setback for new construction that is proposed to contain a JADU.

While, it may be technically more accurate to call this this four- foot setback a “setback for the new construction portion of a single-family home that is dedicated to a JADU,” we DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E99A082-32FD-4318-B448-A9330E581F35 Item 14
Attachment G - Staff
Response to HCD (2023)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
65 Packet Pg. 203 of 229

believe it is easier for applicants and staff to refer to this as a “setback for a new construction JADU.” Nevertheless, staff will explore whether there are clearer ways to express this in the upcoming ADU code amendment.

With respect to the topic of noise producing equipment, the City’s municipal regulations prohibit such freestanding or attached appurtenances from being located closer to the property line than is already allowed by state law for the ADU/JADU structure. The City is currently working on amendments to the regulations pertaining to certain noise producing equipment to allow greater flexibility for the primary unit in an effort to advance the City’s carbon reduction goals.

4. Corner Lots. The City continues to be unaware of any evidence that a simple objective design requirement related to entryways creates an excessive constraint on ADU production – that has certainly not been our experience processing over 527 ADU permits since 2018.

Nevertheless, City staff will recommend an additional clarifying statement to the effect of “when feasible,” or removal of this provision altogether.

5. Parking. The City was not able to find a relationship in state law between the term “living area” and minimum or maximum sizes for an ADU. Indeed, the term “living area” is only used in Gov. Code 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(vii) with respect to conversion of existing structures.

Nonetheless, the City understands HCD’s position that garage area should not count toward the “size” of an ADU. City staff will recommend removal of the phrase “unless attached to the unit”, as suggested by HCD.

City staff intends to propose amendments to the City’s ADU ordinance consistent with HCD direction at the earliest practical opportunity. At this time, staff anticipates a hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) by the end of March to discuss and address the requested changes from HCD. Following the PTC’s recommendation, staff will then place the ordinance on the City Council’s agenda for adoption; anticipated for May, if not sooner. If the City deviates from this schedule, staff will contact HCD and provide relevant updates.

Thank you again for reviewing our response letters, if you have any questions, please contact me at (650) 329-2676 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Jonathan Lait
Director of Planning and Development Services

Attachment: HCD Letter, dated December 21, 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E99A082-32FD-4318-B448-A9330E581F35 Item 14
Attachment G - Staff
Response to HCD (2023)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
66 Packet Pg. 204 of 229

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

December 21, 2022

Jonathan Lait, Director
Planning and Development Services
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5
th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301

Dear Jonathan Lait:

RE: City of Palo Alto Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance – Letter of Technical Assistance

1) HCD’s Original Finding
Daylight Plane - Section 18.09.040(b): Table 2 states that "daylight plane" acts as a limit on the height of ADUs. In many instances, this may not be a problem; however, daylight plane concerns cannot be used to unduly limit the height of an ADU. ADUs DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E99A082-32FD-4318-B448-A9330E581F35 Item 14
Attachment G - Staff
Response to HCD (2023)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
67 Packet Pg. 205 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 2 ends

This Table must be amended to clarify this point.

(C) 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E99A082-32FD-4318-B448-A9330E581F35 Item 14
Attachment G - Staff
Response to HCD (2023)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
68 Packet Pg. 206 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 3 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E99A082-32FD-4318-B448-A9330E581F35 Item 14
Attachment G - Staff
Response to HCD (2023)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
69 Packet Pg. 207 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 4 ends

However, since setbacks do not apply to JADUs, the City would have to relax the setback requirements for the primary single-family dwelling to achieve the desired effect.

4) HCD’s Original Finding
Corner Lots - Section 18.09.040(j) Design: This section states, “Except on corner lots, 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 towards the interior side or rear yard of the property.” These standards appear to apply only to the creation of ADUs and may unduly restrict the placement of an ADU on some lots. Local development standards provided by ordinance pursuant to subdivisions (a) through (d) of Government Code section 65852.2 do not apply to ADUs created under subdivision (e). Please consider eliminating this restriction or modifying it such that it applies “when feasible.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E99A082-32FD-4318-B448-A9330E581F35 Item 14
Attachment G - Staff
Response to HCD (2023)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
70 Packet Pg. 208 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 5 ends

Palo Alto’s Response
“As noted above, the City will add a clarifying sentence at the top of Section

18.09.040 explaining that none of the regulations in PAMC 18.09.040 apply to subdivision (e) ADUs.

“Currently, all covered parking in the single-family zones counts towards floor area for the site and dwelling unit. The City does not understand how this creates a standard that is more restrictive than that contained in state statute; none of the subsections cited in your letter speak to whether a garage for an ADU must be DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E99A082-32FD-4318-B448-A9330E581F35 Item 14
Attachment G - Staff
Response to HCD (2023)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
71 Packet Pg. 209 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 6 ends

Conclusion

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E99A082-32FD-4318-B448-A9330E581F35 Item 14
Attachment G - Staff
Response to HCD (2023)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
72 Packet Pg. 210 of 229

Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services

Page 7 ends

HCD will review and consider any plan of action and timeline received from the City before January 20, 2023, in advance of taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65852.2.

Sincerely,

Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E99A082-32FD-4318-B448-A9330E581F35 Item 14
Attachment G - Staff
Response to HCD (2023)

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
73 Packet Pg. 211 of 229

State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65852.2
65852.2. (a)  (1)  A local agenc y may, by ordinance, pro vide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use. The ordinance shall do all of the following:
(A)  Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agenc y where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety . A local agency that does not pro vide water or sewer services shall consult with the local w ater or se wer service pro vider regarding the adequacy of w ater and se wer services before designating an area where accessory dwelling units may be permitted.
(B)  (i)  Impose objective standards on accessory dwelling units that include, b ut 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 Re gister of Historical Resources. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.
(ii)  Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agenc y may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction. (C)  Provide that accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
(D)  Require the accessory dwelling units to comply with all of the following:
(i)  Except as provided in Section 65852.26, the accessory dwelling unit may be rented separate from the primary residence, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence.
(ii)  The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing dwelling.
(iii)  The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached g arages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or e xisting primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or e xisting primary dwelling, including detached garages.
(iv)  If there is an e xisting primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling. (v)  The total floor area for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not e xceed 1,200 square feet.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL

Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
74 Packet Pg. 212 of 229

(vi)  No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.
(vii)  No setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not con verted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(viii)  Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, e xcept that the 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 e vidence in the record that the construction of the accessory dwelling unit could ha ve a specific, adv erse impact on public health and safety .

Nothing in this clause shall be interpreted to pre vent a local agenc y 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 section.
(ix)  Approval by the local health officer where a pri vate sewage disposal system is being used, if required.
(x)  (I)  Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not e xceed one parking space per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whiche ver is less. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway. (II)  Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions. (III)  This clause shall not apply to an accessory dwelling unit that is described in subdivision (d).
(xi)  When a g arage, carport, or co vered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or con verted to an accessory dwelling unit, the local agency shall not require that those offstreet parking spaces be replaced.
(xii)  Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to pro vide fire sprinklers if they 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 primary dwelling.
(2)  The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(3)  (A)  A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and appro ved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
75 Packet Pg. 213 of 229

regulating the issuance of v ariances or special use permits. The permitting agenc y shall either approve or deny the application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the permitting agency recei ves a completed application if there is an e xisting single-f amily or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay appro ving or den ying the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agenc y approves or denies the permit application to create the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, but the application to create or serve the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered without discretionary re view or hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred to implement this paragraph, including the costs of adopting or amending an y ordinance that pro vides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.
(B) If a permitting agency denies an application for an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit pursuant to subparagraph (A), the permitting agenc y shall, within the time period described in subparagraph (A), return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defecti ve or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant. (4) The ordinance shall require that a demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an accessory dwelling unit be reviewed with the application for the accessory dwelling unit and issued at the same time. (5) The ordinance shall not require, and the applicant shall not be otherwise required, to provide written notice or post a placard for the demolition of a detached garage that is to be replaced with an accessory dwelling unit, unless the property is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (6) An existing ordinance governing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agenc y shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include an y discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, e xcept as otherwise pro vided in this subdivision. If a local agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdi vision, that ordinance shall be null and void and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agenc y adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.
(7) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. (8) (A) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to e valuate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot that includes a Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
76 Packet Pg. 214 of 229

proposed or existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdi vision, shall be used or imposed, e xcept that, subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant.
(B) (i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local agenc y shall not impose an owner-occupant requirement on an accessory dwelling unit before January 1, 2025. (ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local agenc y shall not impose an owner-occupant requirement on an accessory dwelling unit that was permitted between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2025.
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), a local agency may require that an accessory dwelling unit be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. (9) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an accessory dwelling unit if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. (10) An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the e xisting general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (b) (1) When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a) receives an application for a permit to create or serv e an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this subdi vision, the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdi vision (a). The permitting agenc y shall either appro ve or deny the application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the permitting agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create or serv e an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create or serv e a new single-family or multif amily dwelling on the lot, the permitting agenc y may delay approving or denying the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency approves or denies the permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, but the application to create or serve the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay , the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. (2) If a permitting agency denies an application for an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit pursuant to paragraph (1), the permitting agency shall, within the time period described in paragraph (1), return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defecti ve or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.

Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
77 Packet Pg. 215 of 229

(c)  (1)  Subject to paragraph (2), a local agenc y may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached accessory dwelling units.
(2)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency shall not establish by ordinance any of the following:
(A)  A minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that prohibits an efficiency unit. (B)  A maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that is less than either of the following:
(i)  850 square feet.
(ii)  1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that pro vides more than one bedroom.
(C)  Any 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 e xisting primary dwelling, or limits on lot co verage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least 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.
(D)  Any height limitation that does not allow at least the following, as applicable:
(i)  A height of 16 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit. (ii)  A height 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, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. 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.
(iii)  A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling.
(iv)  A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the local zoning ordinance that applies to the primary dwelling, whiche ver is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling. This clause shall not require a local agency to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories. (d)  Notwithstanding any other law, and whether or not the local agency has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a), all of the following shall apply:
(1)  The local agenc y shall not impose an y parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances:
(A)  Where the accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile w alking distance of public transit.
(B)  Where the accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.

Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
78 Packet Pg. 216 of 229

(C)  Where the accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.
(D)  When onstreet parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.
(E)  When there is a car share v ehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.
(F)  When a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a ne w single-f amily dwelling or a ne w multif amily dwelling on the same lot, pro vided that the accessory dwelling unit or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed in this paragraph.
(2)  The local agency shall not deny an application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit due to the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, b uilding code violations, or unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and are not affected by the construction of the accessory dwelling unit. (e)  (1)  Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusi ve, a local agenc y shall ministerially appro ve an application for a b uilding permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
(A)  One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
(i)  The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single-f amily dwelling or e xisting space of a single-f amily dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure.

An expansion beyond the ph ysical dimensions of the e xisting accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
(ii)  The space has e xterior access from the proposed or e xisting single-f amily dwelling.
(iii)  The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (iv)  The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22.
(B)  One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit may be combined with a junior accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A). A local agency may impose the following conditions on the accessory dwelling unit:
(i)  A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (ii)  A height limitation as pro vided in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) as applicable, of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c).
(C)  (i)  Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as li vable space, including, b ut not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.

Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
79 Packet Pg. 217 of 229

(ii)  A local agenc y shall allo w at least one accessory dwelling unit within an existing multif amily dwelling and shall allo w up to 25 percent of the e xisting multifamily dwelling units.
(D)  (i)  Not more than two accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an e xisting or proposed multif amily dwelling, b ut are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limitation in clause (i), (ii), or (iii), as applicable, of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdi vision (c) and rear yard and side setbacks of no more than four feet.
(ii)  If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side setback of less than four feet, the local agency shall not require any modification of the existing multifamily dwelling as a condition of approving the application to construct an accessory dwelling unit that satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph. (2)  A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial appro val of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. (3)  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.
(4)  A local agency may require owner-occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit on a single-f amily lot, subject to the requirements of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a).
(5)  A local agency shall require that a rental of the accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this subdivision be for a term longer than 30 days. (6)  A local agency may require, as part of the application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit connected to an onsite w astewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last fiv e years, or , if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
(7)  Notwithstanding subdivision (c) and paragraph (1) a local agenc y that has adopted an ordinance by July 1, 2018, providing for the approval of accessory dwelling units in multifamily dwelling structures shall ministerially consider a permit application to construct an accessory dwelling unit that is described in paragraph (1), and may impose objective standards including, b ut not limited to, design, de velopment, and historic standards on said accessory dwelling units. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.
(f)  (1)  Fees char ged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012).
(2)  An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered by a local agenc y, special district, or water corporation to be a ne w residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity char ges for utilities, including w ater and sewer service, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling. (3)  (A)  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 Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
80 Packet Pg. 218 of 229

feet. Any impact fees char ged 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.
(B)  For purposes of this paragraph, “impact fee” has the same meaning as the term “fee” is defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66000, except that it also includes fees specified in Section 66477. “Impact fee” does not include an y connection fee or capacity charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water corporation. (4)  For an accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not require the applicant to install a ne w or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling.
(5)  For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a ne w or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the w ater or sewer system. This fee or char ge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
(g)  This section shall supersede a conflicting local ordinance. This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.
(h)  (1)  A local agency shall submit a cop y of the ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Department of Housing and Community De velopment within 60 days after adoption. After adoption of an ordinance, the department may submit written findings to the local agenc y as to whether the ordinance complies with this section.
(2)  (A)  If the department finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local agenc y and shall provide the local agency with a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any other action authorized by this section. (B)  The local agency shall consider the findings made by the department pursuant to subparagraph (A) and shall do one of the following:
(i)  Amend the ordinance to comply with this section.
(ii)  Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that e xplain the reasons the local agenc y believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department.
(3)  (A)  If the local agenc y does not amend its ordinance in response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings e xplaining the Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
81 Packet Pg. 219 of 229

reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing the department’ s findings, the department shall notify the local agenc y and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law. (B)  Before notifying the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law, the department may consider whether a local agency adopted an ordinance in compliance with this section between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020. (i)  The department may review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section. The guidelines adopted pursuant to this subdivision are not subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2.
(j)  As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1)  “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or e xisting primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
(A)  An efficiency unit.
(B)  A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)  “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.
(3)  “Efficiency unit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
(4)  “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (5)  “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered.
(6)  “Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
(7)  “Objective standards” means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. (8)  “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. (9)  “Permitting agency” means any entity that is involved in the review of a permit for an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit and for which there is no substitute, including, but not limited to, applicable planning departments, building departments, utilities, and special districts.
(10)  “Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.

Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
82 Packet Pg. 220 of 229

(11)  “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. (12)  “Tandem parking” means that tw o or more automobiles are park ed on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. (k)  A local agenc y shall not issue a certificate of occupanc y for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling.
(l)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in an y way alter or lessen the ef fect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Di vision 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), e xcept that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.
(m)  A local agency may count an accessory dwelling unit for purposes of identifying adequate sites for housing, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65583.1, subject to authorization by the department and compliance with this division. (n)  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 paragraph (1) or (2), a local agency, upon request of an o wner 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:
(1)  The accessory dwelling unit was built before January 1, 2020. (2)  The accessory dwelling unit w as 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, b ut the ordinance is compliant at the time the request is made.
(Amended (as amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 343, Sec. 1) by Stats. 2022, Ch. 664, Sec. 2.5. (SB 897) Effective January 1, 2023.)
Item 14
Attachment H -
Government Code
Section 65852.2

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
83 Packet Pg. 221 of 229

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Community Services
Meeting Date: May 15, 2023
Report #:2304-1339
TITLE
Study Session to Discuss Next Steps Following Letter Received on March 13, 2023 from Palo Alto Unified School District titled “Invitation for Cubberley Development Proposals”; CEQA status – Not a Project

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council hold a study session to discuss the letter received from the Palo Alto Unified School District titled “Invitation for Cubberley Development Proposals” (Attachment A) and next steps.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cubberley is a 35-acre site located in south Palo Alto at 4000 Middlefield Road. Most of the site is owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD or School District) with the City of Palo Alto owning an 8-acre portion of the land on the northern side of the site. Cubberley operated as a public high school until 1979 and later, after various land transactions, operated solely as a community center until 2020. Between 1990 and 2020, the City leased the School District-portion of Cubberley and operated the Cubberley Community Center. In 2020, the lease was reduced and PAUSD began to occupy some of the classrooms and buildings for its own uses. A complete history and timeline of the Cubberley site is provided below.

PAUSD now has an interest in relinquishing control of a portion of their land. On March 13, 2023, the PAUSD Board of Education provided a letter to the Palo Alto City Council inviting the City to submit one or more proposals to transfer a portion of PAUSD-owned land at Cubberley to the City (Attachment A). This Study Session provides the Council an opportunity to hear from the public and discuss Cubberley, the letter and next steps.

Item 2
Staff Report

Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 222 of 229

BACKGROUND
History of Cubberley
The 35-acre Cubberley site, located at 4000 Middlefield Road in Palo Alto, opened as a public high school in 1956 in the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD or School District). Due to budget constraints resulting from the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 coupled with declining enrollment, PAUSD closed many of its schools, including Ellen Fletcher Middle School (formerly Terman Middle School) and in 1979, Cubberley High School. During the 1980s, the City of Palo Alto (City) purchased or leased portions of the closed school sites for community uses. In 1981, the City entered into a Lease to Purchase Agreement with PAUSD to lease the Terman Site (both the school and park) for 20 years with the right to acquire the Terman Site in the year 2000.

During that time, the City operated it as the Terman Community Center. The City also purchased Ventura Elementary in 1981, now the Ventura Community Center site.

In 1989, the City and PAUSD entered into a lease agreement in which the City would provide annual revenue to PAUSD in exchange for: 1) a lease of the entire 35-acre Cubberley site; 2) a Covenant Not to Develop five other neighborhood school sites; and 3) an agreement that PAUSD provide space for extended day care at each of the eleven remaining elementary school sites.

The initial lease term was 15 years beginning in 1990, and the lease amount was $2.7 million per year. The Covenant Not to Develop required the City to pay PAUSD $970k per year to not sell or develop the school sites that had been closed.

By the early 2000s PAUSD had a need to establish a third middle school and identified Terman School as the best location to open the middle school. As a result, the City exchanged its right to acquire the Terman School site for fee title of an equivalent area of Cubberley. The City retained Terman Park, and it is currently dedicated parkland. Following this transaction, the Cubberley lease was reduced to 27 acres in consideration of the 8 acres now owned by the City. The lease of 27 acres of Cubberley to the City was extended two more times, and in 2015 the Lease was amended by replacing the Covenant Not to Develop with a Cubberley Property Infrastructure Fund of the same amount for long neglected and ongoing maintenance 1,2. At the time of the lease’s expiration in 2019, the annual lease amount was $5.1M and the Covenant Not to Develop was $1.86M. Although the lease expired, the City continues to transfer $1.86 million into the Infrastructure Fund for repairs and maintenance of buildings, facilities, and outdoor spaces.

On July 1, 2020, in response to the City’s financial constraints due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a new 54-month lease (expires December 2024) began that reduced the amount of building space leased by the City at Cubberley. The leased premises consists of approximately 52,000 square feet of building space including the theater, pavilion, Gyms A and B, and some additional rooms; 1 City Council, February 24, 2014, Agenda Item #10, SR#4506, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/year-archive/2014/id-4506-cubberley.pdf
2 City Council, February 24, 2014, Meeting Minutes, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/00-archive/2014/02-24-14-motions.pdf Item 2
Staff Report

Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 223 of 229

and about 16 acres of outdoor recreation area (athletic fields and track). The new lease amount is $2.5 million per year (for approximately 17 acres). The School District occupies or has tenants in rooms and buildings no longer leased by the City. Costs to maintain and repair common areas (walkways and parking lots) are shared between the City and PAUSD.

Current Uses
There are currently 23 tenants and 24 artists who lease space at Cubberley from the City, and dozens of individual groups who rent the theater, pavilion, classrooms, and athletic fields from the City. Combined, these groups provide the community with programs that support health and wellness, childcare, education, and visual and performing arts. The School District uses their spaces for educational purposes, staff offices and has leases with some tenants that were previously leasing space from the City. The parking lot in the southeast corner of the property houses several portable trailers which function as a temporary site for Palo Verde Elementary School while it undergoes renovations. Hoover Elementary School will then be relocated to the same portable trailers for two years beginning in the 2023-2024 academic year (unless construction timeframes shift).

A site map of Cubberley property lines and uses is included in Attachment B.

Master Plans
There have been several master planning efforts over the years to provide a roadmap and framework for redevelopment of the Cubberley site. In 1991, A Cubberley Conceptual Master Plan was completed with community input. In 2013, a Cubberley Community Advisory Committee, consisting of four subcommittees – School Needs, Community Needs, Facilities and Finance – issued their report after working together for nine months and developing recommendations for the future of the Cubberley site. In 2016, a former City Manager and former PAUSD Superintendent signed the Cubberley Compact to demonstrate a commitment to working together to develop a vision for Cubberley. A Cubberley community co-design process began in 2018. The year-long effort resulted in publication of a Cubberley Concept Plan 3 in November 2019 developed with input from over 400 community participants.

ANALYSIS
Since the completion of the 2019 Cubberley Concept Plan there has been limited movement on advancing a plan for Cubberley due to several reasons. These include a shift in priorities during the COVID-19 pandemic and the understanding that the PAUSD would not be able to support the Concept Plan due to limitations in funding projects that are not strictly for education purposes.

In March 2023, the PAUSD Board of Education provided a letter to the Palo Alto City Council inviting the City to submit one or more proposals to transfer a portion of PAUSD-owned land at 3 Cubberley Concept Plan, 2019, https://www.pausd.org/about-us/committees-task-forces/archived- committees/cubberley-master-plan
Item 2
Staff Report

Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 224 of 229

Cubberley to the City (Attachment A). The letter states the Board of Education is “…open to a deal that transfers ownership or development control over at least 7 additional acres to the City…” so the School District can retain 20 acres for development of a future school. However, the letter also states that they would be open to a proposal that transfers more than 7 acres to the City and expressed flexibility around the exact location of the City’s acquired acreage. The School District would like to reserve their acreage for a future school site as they determine necessary.

The invitation from the School District provides an opportunity to re-ignite interest in the future of Cubberley. Below is a description of the discussions and potential next steps leading to decisions needed by City Council to respond to the School District with a formal proposal. The steps described below do not assume an immediate decision on future specific uses for the Cubberley site.

At this point in the conversation with the School District, staff recommends a focus on simplifying the decision-making process involved to determine both near and longer-term uses of the property. The current interdependency of on-site infrastructure across ownership lines has confounded both parties’ ability to make longer term decisions and investments. This suggests focusing on actions that maximize the extent to which the City can make decisions and investments on the Cubberley property, while respecting PAUSD’s interest in preserving its long- term options. This would require a new structure that moves away from the current arrangement of shared use and maintenance responsibilities.

There are 3 topic areas for the City Council to discuss:

1.What is the process the City Council would like to use for discussions and communications with the School District? Options could include staff-to-staff, the Cubberley Ad Hoc Committee, the City/Schools Liaison Committee, or only through action of the full City Council. Staff recommends enabling City staff to engage with PAUSD staff to develop potentially viable options, with the City/Schools Liaison Committee as a venue for reporting on progress.

2.What would the City Council like to include in a proposal to the School District? This will provide guidance on what to include in a draft. Staff recommends holding some of this discussion in an upcoming closed session (within the bounds of the Brown Act). The types of decisions that will need to be made and included in a proposal are:
a. Scope of discussion (acreage and location within the Cubberley site, other properties, other City/PAUSD issues)
b. Financial considerations (price, terms of payment, or equivalent site for land swap)

3.Would the City Council like to designate a committee to work with staff on proposal development? Options could include the Cubberley Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Mayor Kou and Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, or another composition.

Item 2
Staff Report

Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 225 of 229

Staff has identified the next steps to follow this study session to move forward with the development of a property proposal.

1. Closed Session to discuss price and terms of payment options.

2. Finalize a property proposal for presentation to PAUSD.

3. City and PAUSD to engage in negotiations with public reporting at appropriate times.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The resource impact involved with next steps is dependent on the future Council direction and response by the School District. Cost and terms of payment could vary greatly depending on the method proposed to acquire land (purchase, ground lease or land swap). Staff expect that existing staffing will support this effort, however, as this was not identified as a priority objective for 2023, timing is uncertain.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The first City Council discussion on this topic was intentionally scheduled as a Study Session to allow members of the public to participate and share their comments related to this very important community space.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Study Session is not a Project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Invitation for Cubberley Development Proposals Attachment B: Cubberley Current Land Ownership and Uses APPROVED BY:

Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director
Item 2
Staff Report

Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 226 of 229

B O A R D O F E D U C A T I O N
2 5 C h u r c h i l l A v e n u e
P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 6
( 6 5 0 ) 3 2 9 - 3 9 8 3
w w w . p a u s d . o r g
1 5
5 2
March 10, 2023
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Invitation for Cubberley Development Proposals
Dear Colleagues,
What’s happening with Cubberley?
Within the shared canon of our two governmental bodies, few questions evoke the same wearied engagement as this one. It’s a perennial topic at City/School Liaison Committee meetings (where it is given a light touch) and during election-season candidate forums (where the response is a touch heavy-handed). It has been the subject of meetings, workshops, listening sessions, town halls, and a master plan, all while the site has remained relatively unchanged since the school was closed on February 6, 1979. As the crumbling infrastructure belies the rich panoply of community- oriented programs that now inhabit the site, there is general agreement that Cubberley’s current use is unsustainable without significant capital improvements.

We, the PAUSD Board of Education, shoulder some of the responsibility for the restrained pace of Cubberley’s redevelopment plan. But our caution is well-founded. As fiduciaries of the school district and trustees of students present and future, we have a fundamental duty to ensure we do not prejudice their interests by repeating the mistakes of our past selves—when we gave up land during a period of declining enrollment only to find ourselves in financial dire straits once the need for a new campus inevitably arose years later.

Indeed, we found ourselves with a student-driven need for the site just this past year.

Two of our elementary schools, Palo Verde and Hoover, are undergoing sitewide redevelopment. Accordingly, we designated a temporary school campus on the Cubberley site that will be in use through 2025 to serve those students for the duration of the construction.

Nevertheless, we understand and fully support the City’s desire to move forward on development of a portion of the site to realize the vision of a fully-fledged Cubberley Community Center. The polished incarnation of this community gem will surely benefit our joint stakeholders and serve as a resource for the District’s students and families.

Item 2
Attachment A Invitation
for Cubberley
Development Proposals

Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 227 of 229

B O A R D O F E D U C A T I O N
2 5 C h u r c h i l l A v e n u e
P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 6
( 6 5 0 ) 3 2 9 - 3 9 8 3
w w w . p a u s d . o r g
1 5
5 2
Our enthusiasm to support the City’s endeavor is caveated by two constraints: (1) we have a desire to retain ownership over roughly 20 of the 35 acres for future school use, the exact nature of which cannot be determined until the need for such a school arises; and (2) we cannot ask the voters to pass a school bond to fund a community center development, as such a bond may only be used to fund school construction as specifically enumerated in Education Code section 15100.

Within those constraints lies a viable path forward. We are open to a deal that transfers ownership or development control over at least 7 additional acres to the City, leaving the City with a total of 15 or more acres to freely develop without the constraints placed upon us. (For reference, the current indoor space at Cubberley amounts to roughly 1.5 acres.) While our preference is to retain 20 acres for future school development, we will not automatically foreclose a deal that might include a transfer of more than 7 acres.

Furthermore, nothing in such a deal would preclude the City from continuing to lease the remaining acreage from the District until such a time as the need arises for a new school. Moreover, we are flexible about the exact location of the City’s acreage based on the needs of the City’s planned development, subject only to a few limited considerations for the future school site like street access and neighborhood proximity.

We are also open to the form of the deal—whether it’s a land swap, ground lease, or some other vehicle for land transfer.

As your neighbor and partner, we therefore formally invite you to submit one or more land transfer proposals for our consideration within the parameters discussed above.

We acknowledge that your process for community feedback and Council consensus may take time, but we eagerly await the next step in Cubberley’s future.

Proposals can be submitted directly to Superintendent Don Austin for placement by the Board’s Agenda Setting Committee on the Board’s agenda.

Respectfully,
Shounak Dharap
Board Trustee
On behalf of the Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education* *Duly authorized under Board Bylaw 9010 to communicate this letter on behalf of the Board.

Item 2
Attachment A Invitation
for Cubberley
Development Proposals

Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 228 of 229

Cubberley Current Land Ownership and Facility Uses
Spaces City leases from PAUSD
▪Fields
▪Gyms A & B
▪G5 & G8
▪Pavilion
▪Theatre
▪S Building
▪FOPAL portable (near track)
Item 2
Attachment B Cubberley
Current Land Ownership
and Uses

Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 229 of 229

Palo Alto City CouncilMay 15, 2023

Palo Alto City Council
May 15, 2023