This is not simply a matter of policy preference. The draft ordinance contains at least five instances where it does not comply with or correctly cite state law. There are also at least nine significant policy decisions embedded in the draft that were never reviewed by the ASCC, the Planning Commission, or the full Council. These include eliminating all off-street parking requirements for ADUs and allowing 1,200 sq ft ADUs to be placed just 4 feet from property lines, even though state law only requires that exemption for smaller ADUs of 800–1,000 sq ft.
Crucially, there is no urgency here that requires rushing. The Planning Department has already been operating under state ADU law since last year, and HCD does not require a local ordinance, only that any ordinance adopted complies with state law. Simply repealing the existing non-compliant ordinance is sufficient for now and removes the self-imposed pressure to act prematurely.
Issue 2: The Ordinance Does Nothing to Protect Our Natural Heritage The draft ordinance makes no effort to encourage applicants to respect Portola Valley’s design guidelines or rural character. While state law does give property owners more leeway on ADU placement, it does not require us to abandon our values entirely. The ADU law expressly permits municipalities to enforce objective design requirements on ADUs that are not of the state-exempt type — yet this draft imposes none.
Our design guidelines have no legal force if they are not codified as objective standards. Without that, every ministerial ADU decision will be made with no reference to the aesthetics, setbacks, and natural integration that make Portola Valley what it is. A proper ADU ordinance should, at minimum, remind applicants of our guidelines and encourage compliance where state law permits it. This draft does not do that.
Before adopting any ordinance, Town Council should direct the Planning Department working with the ASCC to develop strong objective requirements that enshrine our design guidelines for both ADUs and single-family homes and bring our multifamily and mixed-use objective requirements into better alignment with Portola Valley’s rural character. This work is foundational. Adopting an ADU ordinance now with ministerial decision making, without it, leaves our community exposed.
What I Am Asking the Council to Do at Wednesday’s Meeting
1. Repeal the existing non-compliant ADU ordinance and default to state ADU law (already the Planning Department’s current practice).
2. Review the compliance issues redlined in the attached draft ADU ordinance.
3. Discuss the unvetted policy decisions embedded in the draft and provide direction, including the incorporation of Code citations following HCD recommended best practices.
4. Direct staff to develop objective design requirements that codify our Design Guidelines for ADUs, single-family homes, Multifamily dwellings, and mixed use developments.
5. Decide whether to convene a working group to explore enhancements that would encourage ADU construction while protecting our community’s character.
6. Return with a revised ordinance by August or September 2026, following the normal Portola Valley process: ASCC study session, joint Planning Commission / Town Council review, and public comment.
Taking a few more months to get this right will protect Portola Valley far better than rushing through with a flawed ordinance. I have attached my full redlined draft for reference.
Regards,
Rebecca Flynn
Portola Valley Town Councilmember
Appendix: Supporting Detail
A. Reasons Not to Rush This Ordinance
1. HCD does not require a local ADU ordinance. State law only requires that any ordinance adopted comply with state law. Repealing the current non-compliant ordinance is adequate at this time.
2. HCD is finalizing an ADU ordinance template currently in their legal department.
Waiting for it will help ensure favorable HCD review of whatever the Town ultimately adopts.
3. The State Legislature is considering new ADU laws this session. Adopting an ordinance now risks near-term obsolescence.
4. The draft ordinance did not go through the normal Portola Valley process: ASCC review, then Planning Commission, then Town Council.
5. It is premature to adopt an ADU ordinance before the Town has crafted and approved objective design requirements. The ADU law permits municipalities to enforce objective requirements on non-exempt ADUs; without them, we have no legal mechanism to protect our design guidelines.
B. Specific Compliance and Policy Problems in the Draft
1. At least 5 instances where the draft does not comply with or correctly match state code.
2. At least 9 policy decisions made by Planning staff that have not been adequately vetted, including: not requiring off-street parking for any ADUs; allowing 1,200 sq ft ADUs to be built 4 feet from the property line (state law only requires this exemption for ADUs of 800 sq ft / 1 bedroom or 1,000 sq ft / 2 bedrooms).
3. The draft combines state-exempt and regular (larger) ADU requirements without distinction, effectively allowing all ADUs to be placed 4 feet from side and rear property lines with no additional objective requirements for larger units.
4. State law allows municipalities to designate areas where ADUs may not be permitted (except state-exempt ones) based on adequacy of water and sewer services and traffic/public safety impacts. The draft does not address this.
5. No working group or community brainstorming process was convened to explore enhancements that could encourage ADU construction particularly rentals.
6. The HCD ADU Ordinance Template includes best practices not incorporated in this draft, including State Law Citations (Government Code links) annotating every section to facilitate understanding and HCD review.
C. About the Redlined Draft
The attached redlined draft (version 3) shows specific recommended changes with annotations referencing applicable state law. It is intended to assist Town Council in providing direction and staff in preparing a revised ordinance for consideration in August or September 2026.