News

State orders Palo Alto to revise its rules on accessory dwelling units

Department of Housing and Community Development: City's 2020 ordinance runs afoul of regulations

An accessory dwelling unit with two bedrooms and two bathrooms behind the main house in Palo Alto. Embarcadero Media file photo by Veronica Weber.

Palo Alto will have to revise its new laws pertaining to accessory dwelling units after the California Department of Housing and Community Development determined that they are too restrictive and run afoul of state regulations.

The department announced its findings in a December letter from David Zisser, the agency's assistant deputy director for local government relations and accountability. The determination means that the city will now have to modify the ordinance it adopted in October 2020 to ease restrictions related to height, setbacks and permitted square footage for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Palo Alto is one of just 13 cities or counties in California that have received "review letters" from the state department notifying them that they need to revise their ADU plans. Atherton, Santa Cruz and Pittsburg are the only other Bay Area municipalities that have received such warnings.

One flaw that the state identified in the city's ordinance is a table that establishes a maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit at 800 square feet. While state law prohibits cities from denying ADUs that are with a floor area of 800 square feet, it also sets a limit of 850 square feet for attached units with more than one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for detached units with more than one bedroom, according to the department.

The state agency also took issue with the height limit that Palo Alto established for ADUs in flood zones. State law requires cities to allow building heights of at least 16 feet. The department notes, however, that in flood zones, the city allows most residential structures to exceed established heights so that buildings can be elevated for protection. This accommodation, the state department notes, has not been extended to ADUs. In fact, the city's ordinance includes the caveat: "Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling."

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

"In many instances, this would operate as an impermissible restriction on ADUs," the state department's letter states.

The city's rules pertaining to basements also conflict with state regulations, the agency has found. The Palo Alto ordinance states that "no basement or other subterranean portion of an ADU/JADU (junior accessory dwelling unit) shall encroach into a setback required for the primary dwelling." This, according to the department, can conflict with a state law prohibiting cities from establishing rear- and side-yard setbacks greater than 4 feet.

The state agency found this clause problematic for two reasons, the letter states.

"First, setbacks may not be required for JADUs as they are constructed within the walls of the primary dwelling," the department's letter states. "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."

The state agency also took issue with the city's suggestion that daylight plane requirements, which aim to protect neighbors' access to light and air, can act as a limit on ADU heights. While this would not be a problem in many instances, the restriction cannot be used to limit the height to less than 16 feet. And it faulted the city's ordinance for counting covered parking in its calculation of the accessory dwelling unit's square footage.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"Covered parking should not count toward the total floor area of the site as 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," Zisser wrote. "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."

While the city has agreed to modify its ordinance and clarify many of the provisions that the state department has flagged, it is pushing back against the agency over its findings on basements and daylight planes. In a response letter that city Planning Director Jonathan Lait submitted to the agency earlier this month, he disputes that the city's failure to grant ADUs in flood zones the same type of height allowances that it grants to primary residences is unduly restrictive.

"It is unclear to the City how the failure to provide additional height above 16 feet represents an impermissible restriction on ADU," Lait wrote.

The state department had indicated that it would prefer to have as few restrictions as possible on ADU production.

"The only restriction here is on finished floor height in the flood zone, which cannot be waived or relaxed without impacts in health and safety," Lait wrote. "Even in areas requiring the most extreme height above the base flood elevation, an ADU remains feasible within the 16-foot height limit."

When it comes to basements, Lait challenged the state department's findings, noting that the city has "significant concerns" about basements, particularly their impacts on street trees and on groundwater pumping. Even though state law prohibits cities from imposing a setback of greater than 4 feet for ADUs, he argued that the setback could be greater for basements as long as it remains feasible for the unit to be of at least 800 square feet.

Placing ADUs with basements close to the property line, Lait argued, may jeopardize the health of trees that serve to enhance privacy between properties.

"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," Lait wrote.

He also pushed back against the agency's findings on counting garage space toward square footage, noting that the property owner "may always choose to provide a detached garage, uncovered parking, or no parking at all for the ADU."

Lait alluded to the department finding earlier this month, when he told the council during its Feb. 5 retreat that the city will have to make some adjustments to its ordinance to make sure it complies with state law.

"It's mostly some minor aspects, and mostly clarifications," Lait said.

But two local architects who have been working to build accessory dwelling units in Palo Alto told this news organization that the city's failure to comply with state law have already had the effect of deterring some homeowners and creating major delays for many others. The proliferation of new restrictions not only conflicts with specific state requirements but runs counter to the law's intent, which is to make ADU production quick and simple, they said in an interview.

Jessica Resmini, CEO of the company ADU Collective, has been trying to warn the city about the about the discrepancy between its new ordinance and state laws since October 2020, with very limited success. Since the council adopted its ordinance, she and local architect Randy Popp had submitted numerous letters to the city requesting adjustments to the ordinance and have held meetings with city staff and state department officials to discuss the city's recent requirements.

The process for getting an ADU approved has become increasingly complex, said Resmini, who has 64 ADU projects currently in the works between San Francisco and Orange. When she submitted a site plan for her first ADU, it consisted of five pages. Since then, it has grown to 31 sheets. The amount of money it takes to get through planning makes it unaffordable to many people who are looking to build the additional unit.

"It's totally and completely over the top," Resmini said.

At times, the feedback she has been getting from planning staff is frustratingly vague and subjective. She gave an example of an ADU she was working on at Greenwood Avenue, which is south of Eleanor Pardee Park. The owners wanted to convert a garage and add an extension to create an ADU. The property included a redwood tree close to the project site and which would have been preserved under the plans. Despite their efforts to avoid the redwood, the city's Urban Forestry Division declined to sign off on the project.

"They got so many runarounds from Urban Forestry that they stopped the project," Resmini said. "It was just too much for them."

Popp sits with Resmini on the ADU Task Force, a coalition of architects that has been working with the city on its ADU laws. In January 2020, when the city adopted its initial urgency ordinance on ADUs, he submitted a complaint to the state department that identified discrepancies between Palo Alto's new rules and the state ordinance. Popp told this news organization that the complaint is the only avenue that residents have to point out areas where local laws don't align with the state.

Popp has written numerous letters urging the city to revise its laws, including the one that prohibits basements at new ADUs. He mentioned one project in which an ADU is on a hillside and the owner wanted to press the first floor into the ground by about 24 inches. The city found that this was not allowable.

"The city has added a lever of complexity that is really disincentivizing new development," Popp told this news organization.

Popp said he sees the creation of ADUs as an effective method to build more housing in a way that does not create major impacts to the immediate neighborhood. And while the city sees the recent proliferation of ADUs as a victory of sorts, he believes the number could have been far higher if the city's laws were less stringent and more consistent with the state's intent.

"I happen to believe that sprinkling ADUs through the city and through the state is a very gentle way to create housing that does not create as significant an impact as, for example, a 150-unit apartment building on the corner, where you have a density of people who weren't there before," Popp said. "When you're talking about the 89 ADUs built around PA — the impact of that is not measurable. You can't say that the traffic at Charleston is worse because there are those ADUs. And even if we double that number, it still wouldn't be measurable."

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important city government news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

State orders Palo Alto to revise its rules on accessory dwelling units

Department of Housing and Community Development: City's 2020 ordinance runs afoul of regulations

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, Feb 23, 2022, 3:38 pm

Palo Alto will have to revise its new laws pertaining to accessory dwelling units after the California Department of Housing and Community Development determined that they are too restrictive and run afoul of state regulations.

The department announced its findings in a December letter from David Zisser, the agency's assistant deputy director for local government relations and accountability. The determination means that the city will now have to modify the ordinance it adopted in October 2020 to ease restrictions related to height, setbacks and permitted square footage for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Palo Alto is one of just 13 cities or counties in California that have received "review letters" from the state department notifying them that they need to revise their ADU plans. Atherton, Santa Cruz and Pittsburg are the only other Bay Area municipalities that have received such warnings.

One flaw that the state identified in the city's ordinance is a table that establishes a maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit at 800 square feet. While state law prohibits cities from denying ADUs that are with a floor area of 800 square feet, it also sets a limit of 850 square feet for attached units with more than one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for detached units with more than one bedroom, according to the department.

The state agency also took issue with the height limit that Palo Alto established for ADUs in flood zones. State law requires cities to allow building heights of at least 16 feet. The department notes, however, that in flood zones, the city allows most residential structures to exceed established heights so that buildings can be elevated for protection. This accommodation, the state department notes, has not been extended to ADUs. In fact, the city's ordinance includes the caveat: "Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling."

"In many instances, this would operate as an impermissible restriction on ADUs," the state department's letter states.

The city's rules pertaining to basements also conflict with state regulations, the agency has found. The Palo Alto ordinance states that "no basement or other subterranean portion of an ADU/JADU (junior accessory dwelling unit) shall encroach into a setback required for the primary dwelling." This, according to the department, can conflict with a state law prohibiting cities from establishing rear- and side-yard setbacks greater than 4 feet.

The state agency found this clause problematic for two reasons, the letter states.

"First, setbacks may not be required for JADUs as they are constructed within the walls of the primary dwelling," the department's letter states. "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."

The state agency also took issue with the city's suggestion that daylight plane requirements, which aim to protect neighbors' access to light and air, can act as a limit on ADU heights. While this would not be a problem in many instances, the restriction cannot be used to limit the height to less than 16 feet. And it faulted the city's ordinance for counting covered parking in its calculation of the accessory dwelling unit's square footage.

"Covered parking should not count toward the total floor area of the site as 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," Zisser wrote. "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."

While the city has agreed to modify its ordinance and clarify many of the provisions that the state department has flagged, it is pushing back against the agency over its findings on basements and daylight planes. In a response letter that city Planning Director Jonathan Lait submitted to the agency earlier this month, he disputes that the city's failure to grant ADUs in flood zones the same type of height allowances that it grants to primary residences is unduly restrictive.

"It is unclear to the City how the failure to provide additional height above 16 feet represents an impermissible restriction on ADU," Lait wrote.

The state department had indicated that it would prefer to have as few restrictions as possible on ADU production.

"The only restriction here is on finished floor height in the flood zone, which cannot be waived or relaxed without impacts in health and safety," Lait wrote. "Even in areas requiring the most extreme height above the base flood elevation, an ADU remains feasible within the 16-foot height limit."

When it comes to basements, Lait challenged the state department's findings, noting that the city has "significant concerns" about basements, particularly their impacts on street trees and on groundwater pumping. Even though state law prohibits cities from imposing a setback of greater than 4 feet for ADUs, he argued that the setback could be greater for basements as long as it remains feasible for the unit to be of at least 800 square feet.

Placing ADUs with basements close to the property line, Lait argued, may jeopardize the health of trees that serve to enhance privacy between properties.

"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," Lait wrote.

He also pushed back against the agency's findings on counting garage space toward square footage, noting that the property owner "may always choose to provide a detached garage, uncovered parking, or no parking at all for the ADU."

Lait alluded to the department finding earlier this month, when he told the council during its Feb. 5 retreat that the city will have to make some adjustments to its ordinance to make sure it complies with state law.

"It's mostly some minor aspects, and mostly clarifications," Lait said.

But two local architects who have been working to build accessory dwelling units in Palo Alto told this news organization that the city's failure to comply with state law have already had the effect of deterring some homeowners and creating major delays for many others. The proliferation of new restrictions not only conflicts with specific state requirements but runs counter to the law's intent, which is to make ADU production quick and simple, they said in an interview.

Jessica Resmini, CEO of the company ADU Collective, has been trying to warn the city about the about the discrepancy between its new ordinance and state laws since October 2020, with very limited success. Since the council adopted its ordinance, she and local architect Randy Popp had submitted numerous letters to the city requesting adjustments to the ordinance and have held meetings with city staff and state department officials to discuss the city's recent requirements.

The process for getting an ADU approved has become increasingly complex, said Resmini, who has 64 ADU projects currently in the works between San Francisco and Orange. When she submitted a site plan for her first ADU, it consisted of five pages. Since then, it has grown to 31 sheets. The amount of money it takes to get through planning makes it unaffordable to many people who are looking to build the additional unit.

"It's totally and completely over the top," Resmini said.

At times, the feedback she has been getting from planning staff is frustratingly vague and subjective. She gave an example of an ADU she was working on at Greenwood Avenue, which is south of Eleanor Pardee Park. The owners wanted to convert a garage and add an extension to create an ADU. The property included a redwood tree close to the project site and which would have been preserved under the plans. Despite their efforts to avoid the redwood, the city's Urban Forestry Division declined to sign off on the project.

"They got so many runarounds from Urban Forestry that they stopped the project," Resmini said. "It was just too much for them."

Popp sits with Resmini on the ADU Task Force, a coalition of architects that has been working with the city on its ADU laws. In January 2020, when the city adopted its initial urgency ordinance on ADUs, he submitted a complaint to the state department that identified discrepancies between Palo Alto's new rules and the state ordinance. Popp told this news organization that the complaint is the only avenue that residents have to point out areas where local laws don't align with the state.

Popp has written numerous letters urging the city to revise its laws, including the one that prohibits basements at new ADUs. He mentioned one project in which an ADU is on a hillside and the owner wanted to press the first floor into the ground by about 24 inches. The city found that this was not allowable.

"The city has added a lever of complexity that is really disincentivizing new development," Popp told this news organization.

Popp said he sees the creation of ADUs as an effective method to build more housing in a way that does not create major impacts to the immediate neighborhood. And while the city sees the recent proliferation of ADUs as a victory of sorts, he believes the number could have been far higher if the city's laws were less stringent and more consistent with the state's intent.

"I happen to believe that sprinkling ADUs through the city and through the state is a very gentle way to create housing that does not create as significant an impact as, for example, a 150-unit apartment building on the corner, where you have a density of people who weren't there before," Popp said. "When you're talking about the 89 ADUs built around PA — the impact of that is not measurable. You can't say that the traffic at Charleston is worse because there are those ADUs. And even if we double that number, it still wouldn't be measurable."

Comments

felix
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2022 at 6:37 am
felix, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 6:37 am

The state is reckless to reduce side and rear setbacks to 4 feet for ADUs and to demand that daylight plane protection be ignored.

Diminishing setbacks to 4-feet will be the death of many mature trees that then will add heat to our city as more lots fill with ADUs, basements, above and below ground infrastructure.

It means more noise and less privacy for neighbors. It will make fire fighting more difficult if needed in reduced 4-foot setbacks.

No protection of daylight plane? Goodbye to adding solar, summer garden, sun in the winter to keep us sane.

There is nothing “gentle” about this, Randy Popp.

By the way, this so called “Task Force” that Popp and Resmini are in was created by them and others profiting from ADU proliferation to lobby the City. It wasn’t created by the City and has no official status though it may sound like it.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2022 at 7:47 am
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 7:47 am

This is more government overreach. We had protections for all sorts of reasons. Now we have almost no protections from what may be happening in our street, in our neighborhood, outside our own fence. We are not Woodside, but we have the same desire to live in the peace of single family neighborhoods. No cares about daylight planes, trees, offstreet parking, street parking, or other neighborly issues.

Many of the new adus are not used to house low income people or teachers, police, etc. Even those that are built to house elderly relatives or grown children, will eventually change to something other than low income people. Many are now being builts as home offices for work from home!

The war on our quiet suburbs is real.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Feb 24, 2022 at 8:48 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 8:48 am

What a farce by the deep-pocketed self-serving lobbyists since this does nothing to increase affordable housing.

But think of the money the city could save by cutting all its promotion of solar energy, off-street parking, Palo Alto as Tree City, privacy,...

Time to redesign the city logo, guys.


Seer
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 24, 2022 at 10:10 am
Seer, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 10:10 am

Built an JADU in a remodel, it is actually a good deal bigger than what was allowed. So we sketched in a fictitious door. Can I erase that door now? Asking for a friend.

ADUs are still pretty expensive. I doubt you’ll be seeing enough to matter fellers. I bet 80% of them are really home offices in any case.


RPopp
Registered user
Monroe Park
on Feb 24, 2022 at 10:50 am
RPopp, Monroe Park
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 10:50 am

I rarely engage here because it is all so one-sided with what might be described as the NIMBY crowd complaining about any change, with little acknowledgment of the conditions that created the homes they live in, but here goes...

@felix - The ADU Task Force is a grassroots group of Architects and others who are all interested in ADUs. Your imagined lobbying has no factual basis - we generally just share ideas and communicate together to understand the regulations as a group. We have been active in working to gain alignment of City regulations with State legislation, but we have no influence over the makers of the laws. If you have some indication it is anything other than that, please share so we can all be factual here.

In all of the ADUs I am aware of, not a single mature tree has been removed or encroached on. I find no factual basis for your statement.

Oh, and let's be clear... A 4 story residential building will have a much greater impact on solar access, parking, traffic, school districts, trees, etc. than single-story ADUs in backyards. I stand by my belief that ADU development is far more gentle. Not to say we don't need both, but ADUs are a great way for us to increase the quantity of housing and I'm glad to be able to participate and support my business by doing what I believe is good.

@Bystander and @Seer - I hear the argument that ADUs are being built to just create an office but I have not seen that. (80%??) Every ADU I have been involved with is being used as either a full or part-time residence for either the owner, their family, or a renter. I do not know of any that have been built solely to create extra space through a loophole in the regulations. I expect there is some of this but in my observation, it is not as rampant as many often claim. Also, while each ADU might not be affordable, creating more housing will in time hopefully help to balance the costs and eventually lead to more opportunities and choices for those seeking homes.


M
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Feb 24, 2022 at 11:58 am
M, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 11:58 am

State regulators squaring off against local regulators. Likely we will get ADUs -- otherwise known as home offices -- but not much rental housing. And developers will build more tech housing, and sue under the new state regulations to allow them to do so. Its hard to see where low cost family housing will fit into all this.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 24, 2022 at 12:21 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 12:21 pm

Facts - each property has a "value" relative to the Santa Clara County Tax Assessor. When people make changes to that property that requires permits that then triggers a number of issues:
1. The property now can be re-evaluated for the purposes of property taxes. Are you all assuming that the tax collector has no interest in what you are doing?
2. For the purposes of utility payments your property has a track record of usage. Your usage is now going to go up as a collective cost for the property. What happens when they turn off the water? Is it you - or your ADU renter who is going to suffer this problem?
Yes - you are getting rent but you are still putting in motion a tax upgrade and a utility cost upgrade. And if your renter flees the scene the tax change is not going to change. You - the owner - are on the hook for all of the upgrades that increase your tax value.

Some guy was writing into the Opinion Section of the SJM about Prop 13. Not to worry - people will keep changing all of the factors concerning their property over the life of that owner. And houses change hands now on a regular basis - and when they do the tax value gets increased to the sales price of the property. It all works out just fine. Right?


Anonymous
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Feb 24, 2022 at 12:51 pm
Anonymous, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 12:51 pm

Hurray! Another setback for the NIMBYs!


felix
Registered user
Barron Park
on Feb 24, 2022 at 1:23 pm
felix, Barron Park
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 1:23 pm

@ Popp, it says here,
“Popp sits with Resmini on the ADU Task Force, a coalition of architects that has been working with the city on its ADU laws”. This sounds just like lobbying given your professional group is doing this to influence policy makers for personal gain.

To say you know of no trees lost to ADUs, or that ADUs are less a menace than tall buildings to solar is only due to our stricter regulations which you wanted changed.

ADUs are over the top expensive and it’s a fantasy to think this will change. The City recently held 2 PTC meetings desperately trying to find a way to make them more affordable. It has not found a way to do so.



Sameoldthing
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Feb 24, 2022 at 1:54 pm
Sameoldthing, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 1:54 pm

I agree with Jessica Resmini and the ADU Collective. Palo Alto is part of California, it is not allowed to make its own rules. We have seen how that works when municipalities are allowed to do so, you have restrictive covenants that run with the land, you have laws that don't allow same-sex marriage, and you have arbitrariness that is an anathema to the rule of law Palo Alto needs to come to grips with the fact that it is not above the law.


MyFeelz
Registered user
another community
on Feb 24, 2022 at 2:23 pm
MyFeelz, another community
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 2:23 pm

I'm admittedly ignorant of the adu legislation. Do the rules prohibit anyone from using their ADU as a VRBO or any other type of vacation rental? Say, for instance, during a big game or an event where there could be an influx of visitors?


RPopp
Registered user
Monroe Park
on Feb 24, 2022 at 2:35 pm
RPopp, Monroe Park
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 2:35 pm

@MyFeelz - State legislation specifically prohibits stays that are less than 30 days for what is called a Statewide Exemption ADU (800 SF or less) specifically to avoid AirBnB or VRBO short-term rentals. "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."

For units larger than 800 SF, "a local agency may require... that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days." Palo Alto includes this requirement in the Municipal Code section 18.09.040, "Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or more."


RPopp
Registered user
Monroe Park
on Feb 24, 2022 at 2:46 pm
RPopp, Monroe Park
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 2:46 pm

@ felix You have obviously made up your mind about me and my business but for others reading the comment, "This sounds just like lobbying given your professional group is doing this to influence policy makers [sic] for personal gain." - it's not. The article pretty clearly lays out that the ADU Task Force has been trying to collaborate with the City to align local regulations with State legislation. We are not attempting to change what the State requires but merely to achieve agreement. This ultimately benefits our clients which is why we do it. A great resource for anyone seeking to better understand the legislation at the State level is the Housing and Community Development Handbook on ADUs Web Link


KD
Registered user
South of Midtown
on Feb 24, 2022 at 4:32 pm
KD, South of Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 4:32 pm

“Popp said he sees the creation of ADUs as an effective method to build more housing in a way that does not create major impacts to the immediate neighborhood.”

I think this is a real valid point. A few days ago I remember reading an article that city of palo alto has regional mandate to deliver 6000 houses. Between organically blended ADU’s in the neighborhood vs giant 5-story buildings popping up everywhere - I agree the former will be less destructive for the town.


[email protected]
Palo Alto Hills

Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 4:59 pm
Name hidden, Palo Alto Hills

Registered user
on Feb 24, 2022 at 4:59 pm

Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.


anon1234
Registered user
College Terrace
on Feb 28, 2022 at 12:48 pm
anon1234, College Terrace
Registered user
on Feb 28, 2022 at 12:48 pm

Does mr Popp have any data on how ADUs are being used and rental rates/lease agreements?
The city does not collect such data so it’s very hard to understand how to evaluate any impacts of ADUs on housing


community member
Registered user
University South
on Feb 28, 2022 at 1:34 pm
community member, University South
Registered user
on Feb 28, 2022 at 1:34 pm

Architect RPopp says
"This ultimately benefits our clients which is why we do it."

Right. And the clients are often developers.


RPopp
Registered user
Monroe Park
on Feb 28, 2022 at 1:50 pm
RPopp, Monroe Park
Registered user
on Feb 28, 2022 at 1:50 pm

@community member speaks with great conviction about something they clearly know little about. I am commenting here with my name visible for all to see and believe those who are hiding behind anonymous names and spouting untruths are not adding meaningfully to the conversation. I wish the Town Square rules were better at managing this since it seems to lead to such negative interaction.

Anyway, here are the FACTS - All but one of my projects have been directly for the homeowner. I just completed drawings for an ADU that is part of a renovation being done as a flip, but I would hardly define that as "often"... Maybe 2-5% of the total.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.