Since final July, former Yahoo govt Marissa Mayer has twice utilized for a allow from town of Palo Alto to tear down three of 4 townhomes on her Addison Avenue residential property. And twice she’s been rejected.
Now, she’s hoping that the third time will probably be a appeal.
Mayer desires to exchange the items with a swimming pool and an adjunct dwelling unit, however her plans have run into battle with a brand new state legislation designed to guard and construct badly wanted housing — and town’s confusion on find out how to interpret the legal guidelines, metropolis emails present.
Mayer, who along with her household filed a second pre-application in mid-October that was once more rejected, is within the midst of a 3rd try, submitting one other revised pre-application to Palo Alto’s planning division whilst town tries to interpret its method via complicated new laws.
The household’s property at 561 Addison Ave. accommodates 4 two-story townhomes. Mayer initially deliberate to knock down three items and the adjoining garages and retain the house closest to the road. She deliberate so as to add the pool in the course of the property and an adjunct dwelling unit within the again, based on metropolis paperwork. Ultimately, Mayer needed to exchange the remaining townhome on the entrance of the property with a brand new single-family dwelling, based on emails obtained from town.
However in Palo Alto’s preliminary interpretation of state legislation Senate Bill 330, the Housing Disaster Act of 2019, town is not allowed to approve any undertaking that ends in a web lack of housing items, Emily Foley, metropolis affiliate planner, wrote to Patterson Properties LLC, the actual property agency representing Mayer, on July 21.
SB 330 is one in all a sequence of housing legal guidelines designed to push cities to permit extra housing to assist make up an estimated 2 million-unit shortfall of residences in California. The legislation, which went into impact in 2020, banned initiatives that cut back residential density via Jan. 1, 2025.
The laws requires that any housing growth initiatives change the prevailing housing with no less than the identical variety of items.
Subsequent laws, Senate Bill 8, which works into impact on Jan. 1, 2022, clarifies SB 330’s provisions and extends them till Jan. 1, 2030. Notably, SB 8 additionally applies to initiatives that embody a single-family dwelling.
Mayer’s 561 Addison undertaking seems to have been caught up in complicated interpretations of the legislation. Underneath SB 330, whether or not the present townhomes are thought of a “housing growth undertaking” or are single-family dwellings has been the topic of a lot backwards and forwards with town, and it is a level town must make clear via a code revision, Jodie Gerhardt, supervisor of present planning, famous in a employees electronic mail earlier in summer season.
For instance, below SB 330 “a residential triplex can’t be demolished and changed with a duplex as this could be a web lack of one unit,” Gerhardt wrote to Patterson Undertaking’s actual property lawyer Chris Wade in an Oct. 13 electronic mail.
The plan might proceed if town have been to interpret {that a} townhome is a single-family dwelling; single-family dwelling items below SB 330 are exempt since they do not seem to satisfy the definition of a “housing growth undertaking,” Gerhardt famous.
A growth undertaking for development of a brand new single-unit dwelling, with no accent or junior accent dwelling unit, is exempt from the “no web loss” density requirement, Gerhardt mentioned,
However by including the ADU to the combo, the plan violates town’s present ordinances. Employees took a more in-depth have a look at state ADU legislation and native codes to find out whether or not the undertaking might mix a indifferent accent dwelling unit and a junior accent dwelling unit with a duplex on an R-2 lot.
“Sadly, this isn’t at present permitted below our ADU ordinance,” Assistant Metropolis Legal professional Albert Yang wrote in an Oct. 27 electronic mail to Wade. “For probably the most half, our ordinance authorizes ADUs solely when created along with a single household use.”
Metropolis planners additionally thought of sections of state legislation that require town to approve functions to create ADUs along with a multifamily use. Town might think about a duplex or two-family use to be multifamily, however apparently, the townhomes do not qualify.
The one method Mayer’s household might obtain its objective and nonetheless be compliant below SB 330 could be to first change two of the prevailing townhomes with two indifferent ADUs, after which change the remaining two items with a brand new two-family dwelling below state and metropolis ordinances that apply to current multifamily dwellings, Yang informed Mayer’s actual property agency.
A spokesperson for Mayer mentioned on Wednesday {that a} third pre-application was submitted to town on Nov. 8. He declined to touch upon particulars relating to the revisions at the moment because the software remains to be in dialogue. He mentioned they’re hopeful that this time they will obtain their objectives and nonetheless be in compliance.
“Representatives for the household have been proactively engaged with the varied metropolis authorities chargeable for this course of,” he mentioned.
Whereas new housing initiatives would want to adjust to the revisions below SB 8 beginning subsequent 12 months, Mayer’s property wouldn’t be impacted if it passes muster below SB 330 and is submitted to town earlier than Jan. 1, 2022, based on a legislative counsel’s evaluation.
