Council upholds planning director’s interpretation on nonconforming residential changes and directs staff to prepare a de minimis code amendment

Palo Alto’s City Council on Sept. 15 sustained the Planning Director’s formal interpretation governing how the city treats floor area on nonconforming residential properties, then directed staff to prepare a narrowly tailored amendment to the zoning code (a "de minimis" change) for council consideration within six months.

The appeal was filed by homeowners seeking to remove an unsafe permitted loft and convert the living space to a single‑story plan that reduces total floor area by 11 square feet while enclosing some previously permitted exterior covered areas. The homeowners argued their plan should be processed under the enlargement provision (section referenced in the transcript as "18‑70‑80"), which they said allows improvements that do not increase the degree of noncompliance. Planning staff and the director concluded the project was instead governed by a different section (transcript reference "section 18‑7‑100") and the director issued a formal interpretation that staff said did not permit the proposed reallocation of floor area.

The petitioner, Joseph Peterson, testified that staff had processed similar requests before 2016 and that the abrupt change in administrative interpretation had left homeowners in limbo. He asked council to either reverse the director's interpretation for his project or direct staff to prepare an ordinance on an expedited schedule (he suggested 90 days); he said the remodel is intended to make the house safer and allow the owners to age in place.

Council deliberations explored the textual differences between the two municipal code provisions, how the city has applied them historically, and the practical effect of either ruling. Some council members said the director’s reading better matched the plain language of the code and cited concerns about setting a precedent that could allow net increases in building size through relocation of floor area; others emphasized the homeowners’ hardship and the long‑standing administrative practice petitioners cited.

After a motion failed, the council adopted a substitute motion to uphold the Planning Director’s interpretation while directing staff to prepare the de minimis zoning amendment and return to council within six months. The final recorded vote on the substitute motion was 6 in favor, 0 opposed and 1 abstention (Council member Liu). The council’s direction allows staff time to craft regulatory language that could allow limited residential adjustments without creating broader precedents, and it preserved the director’s current interpretation in the interim.

Ending: The homeowners' permit remains unresolved administratively while the de minimis code amendment is drafted; council asked staff to prioritize a narrowly scoped ordinance for residential nonconforming situations and return to the council within six months for formal consideration.