Portola Valley planners propose ADU code rewrite to meet state rules; commissioners, residents debate size, setbacks and indemnity

Portola Valley planning staff presented a bundled set of zoning-code amendments at a study session on a draft ADU/JADU ordinance, emergency-shelter standards and a developer indemnification provision, saying the changes are intended to bring the town into compliance with recent state legislation and HCD guidance. "This meeting will be an opportunity to ask questions and also provide comments," said Sarah, Portola Valley's planning and building director, adding that the session was informational and no vote would be taken.

Brandon Ducas, a consultant senior planner with Good City, told the commission staff had drafted a standalone ADU chapter to make the rules easier to find and to align the town's standards with a series of state bills and HCD interpretations. He said the town received an HCD non-compliance letter in 2023 and that HCD's technical assistance letters and handbook have given the agency expanded interpretive authority. "The state loves to change ADU law," Ducas said, describing why staff recommended a separate ADU chapter to keep the main ordinance clearer for users.

Key elements of the proposal include: allowing ADUs in all residential districts or on sites with residential use; restricting single-family lots to two additional units (ADU/JADU combinations); permitting up to eight detached ADUs on a multifamily property with conversions limited to 25% of existing units; and proposed non-exempt ADU size limits (staff proposed a 1,000-square-foot cap, while commissioners discussed raising that to 1,200). The draft also proposes objective site standards (lighting, landscaping) where allowable, a requirement for separate addresses in many ADU cases to aid emergency access, and guidance clarifying utility connections and rules for rentals.

A central legal constraint now shaping the draft is the state's limitation on local development standards for ADUs. Staff explained HCD has clarified that the maximum side and rear setback a city may require for ADUs is 4 feet. "If we want to say we'll allow you up to 1,200 square feet but you have to have a 10-foot setback, the state has clarified we cannot apply a 10-foot setback," Ducas said. He also noted that certain small ADUs that meet Government Code
66323's state-exempt conditions (for example, an 800-square-foot ADU with 4-foot setbacks) are largely shielded from local objective design standards; they still must meet building and fire codes, but many zoning controls do not apply.

Commissioners pressed staff on the practical effects and policy choices. Vice Chair Krosinski asked which ADUs are "state-exempt" and what standards still apply; staff responded that state-exempt ADUs must comply with building and fire-safety codes but are exempt from most local objective zoning standards. Commissioners repeatedly raised the question of maximum ADU size: staff described three options in practice'keep a local maximum (staff proposed 1,000 square feet for a non-exempt ADU), raise the cap to 1,200 square feet to match common statewide practice, or repeal the town's ADU ordinance and default to state law (which would allow 1,200 sq ft under state rules).

Several commissioners and members of the public pressed hard on safety and process questions. Commissioners sought clarity on whether objective safety and geologic standards could be retained without running afoul of HCD interpretation; staff said site-specific determinations by the building official remain available for fire- and geologic-risk sites but that broad, blanket local bans would likely be vulnerable to HCD challenge. On parking, staff recommended not imposing local parking requirements for ADUs because state exemptions make it difficult to trigger those conditions in practice.

Public commenters focused on the proposed indemnification clause and practical concerns for contractors and residents. Rita, a resident, urged that contractors and consultants working for the town carry insurance and bear responsibility for errors tied to town decision-making. "I hope that we do not put the town in more litigation situations due to things that have been approved by Good City and other building contractors," she said. Staff responded that indemnification is a standard condition intended to recover municipal costs in developer-related litigation and that the draft language can be tightened based on commission input.

Commissioners also discussed procedural requirements added or clarified by recent state bills: a new 15-business-day completeness determination and HCD's 60-day request-response framework for enforcement letters. Staff told the commission they are coordinating with HCD and aim to finalize code edits and return to the planning commission and, if requested, town council for direction.

The commission did not vote on the proposals. Staff said they will revise the draft ordinance to address the commissioners' drafting and scope concerns (including typos and the specific indemnity wording), re-evaluate which objective safety standards can be retained without triggering HCD non-compliance, and return the package for further review and possible council direction. The item will move forward through the planning process with additional opportunities for public comment.