Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission begins rewrite of SB9 rules, signals interest in removing substandard‑lot hearing requirement and in floor‑area limits
Summary
In a lengthy June 8 study session, Menlo Park staff briefed the Planning Commission on aligning local code with state SB9 and SB450; commissioners gave nonbinding support for removing the use‑permit trigger for substandard lots, establishing objective floor‑area limits for lots under 5,000 sq ft, and exploring narrowly focused objective design standards and incentives to encourage multi‑unit builds.
Menlo Park planning staff presented an extended study session June 8 to discuss potential municipal‑code amendments to align local regulations with California Senate Bills 9 and 450 and to consider options to streamline development review for single‑family zones.
Staff summarized SB9/SB450: the state requires ministerial review (no discretionary public hearing) for qualifying two‑unit developments and urban lot splits if objective standards are met, and SB450 tightened timelines and removed a prior 25% exterior‑wall demolition threshold for ministerial eligibility. The staff report identified multiple local SB9 development standards that are now legally inconsistent and recommended removing or making those standards uniform with the underlying single‑family zones.
Commission discussion focused on three staff requests: (1) remove inconsistent SB9 standards and update code for compliance; (2) consider removing the use‑permit requirement for development on substandard lots and set objective floor‑area limits (FAL) for lots under 5,000 sq ft; and (3) explore development of objective residential design standards that would apply uniformly to all single‑family zones.
Commissioners generally agreed to remove inconsistent SB9 standards. On substandard lots and FAL, a majority supported staff exploring either (a) removing the discretionary use‑permit trigger for substandard lots (to speed ministerial review) or (b) eliminating the ‘substandard’ category entirely, but several commissioners asked staff to evaluate downstream impacts (subdivision rules, notice requirements and tracking). On FAL, commissioners favored establishing an objective sliding scale for lots under 5,000 sq ft (staff demonstrated a linear scaling concept so property owners can know an objective FAL rather than rely on discretionary review).
Several commissioners proposed incentives to encourage multiple smaller units instead of one large house — for example, modest additional FAL or building‑coverage bonuses for projects that deliver two or four primary units, or adjustments to fees and parking requirements — citing Portland‑style incentives as a model to change developer economics.
Commissioners also favored pursuing narrowly focused, objective design standards to address recurring neighbor concerns (privacy screening, window placement, modulation/daylight plane) rather than open‑ended discretionary design review. The Commission conducted nonbinding straw polls: a majority expressed interest in staff exploring FAL bonuses and removing the substandard‑lot use‑permit requirement; all commissioners supported establishing an objective FAL for lots under 5,000 sq ft; and most supported a focused study of objective design standards. Staff said the feedback was nonbinding and will be used to prepare draft ordinance language and implementation options for future Commission and Council review.
No formal ordinance or vote was adopted at the study session; the item will return with draft code language for the Commission’s consideration.
