Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to this regular meeting of the planning commission this Tuesday evening, August 26th. I now call this meeting to order. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Could you please call the role? Chair Patel

here. Commissioner Bush here. Commissioner Clerfter here. Commissioner, excuse me, Commissioner Shaml here, and Commissioner Williams here. All right. Good evening and welcome. We would like to welcome our newly appointed planning commissioners, Commissioner Bush and Commissioner Schmol. Um, I wanted to give you both the opportunity to introduce yourselves to the public.

Great. Uh, hi everyone. And I'm Katie Bush. I've been a resident of Sonteo for 11 years, uh 10 years as a renter, one year as a homeowner. I live in Parkside and uh I've served on the personnel board before joining the planning commission. So I'm excited to join this team and uh by day I am an attorney for the county of Santo. Uh great to be here. Thank you all so much. Welcome.

Good evening everybody. Uh Maxwell Shumpl um longtime resident uh 44 years born and raised. Um happy to be here and for this opportunity to serve on the planning commission. Um I am an electrician by trade and uh yeah excited to be here.

Welcome. Um, so when I joined the planning commission in 2021, at the time Margaret was on the commission and the chair was Ellen Mallerie and on my first day she mentioned that that was the first time there had been a planning commission that was majority women and it only lasted a brief moment because a few months later unfortunately she moved away from San Mo. So Katie, welcome. Um, I hope I hope that our majority lasts a little longer this time. For those attending in person, um please complete a yellow request to speak slip and hand it to the per clerk. Um we also have options for virtual participation tonight. If participating remotely, use the raise your hand feature in Zoom and you will be called on at the appropriate time. If calling in via phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and when called upon, press star six to continue. I mean star six to unmute. These options for public comment will remain available until I close the public comment period for that specific item. And finally, we welcome speakers providing public comment, but please be advised this is a limited public forum. As such, speakers must stay on topic if speaking to a particular agenda item. If speakers fail to follow these rules, they will be warned, and if they continue to disregard our rules, their opportunity to speak will be ended. The next item on our agenda is public comment. Members of the public wishing to comment on any item not appearing on the agenda may address the planning commission at this time. State law prevents the commission from taking action on any matter not on the agenda. Your comments may be referred to staff for follow-up. Public comment is generally limited to a total of 15 minutes. However, that is subject to the commission's discretion and can be extended if the commission wishes to do so. So, any members of the public who are attending in person and wish to speak, please turn in your yellow slips now. Um, any members of the public attending remotely, please raise your hands now.

I love it. How many speakers do we have through the chair? We have no public speakers in person nor via Zoom.

Okay. Thank you. I am going to go ahead and close the public comment period. The next item on our agenda is the public hearing for item one, Bay Meadows phase 2 development agreement annual review for year 19, 2024. I am going to ask at this time if any commissioners have any announcements or any exparte communications. Um, at this time I'll be recusing myself as uh this um project is within 500 ft of my residence. So I'll be recusing myself from this item.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Shankl. We'll see you after this agenda item. All right, we will start with the staff presentation followed by the applicant presentation and public comments. Good evening members of the planning commission and community members. My name is Sim Zakovand, associate planner, presenting the item before you this evening, the annual review of the Bay Meadows phase 2 development agreement. A quick overview of tonight's presentation. For this item, I will begin with some background and overview of the development of the Bay Meadows phase 2 development, followed by a more focused discussion on the current development status and finally staff recommendation for planning commission action. The Bay Meadows phase 2 development agreement was adopted in 2005 to secure orderly development of the project consistent with the specific plan. In 2023, the city council granted a three-year extension for the Bay Meadows phase 2 development agreement in respond to COVID 19 construction delays, extending the term of the development agreement from 18 years to 21 years. The planning commission is required through the development agreement to undertake an annual review and determine whether the property owner has complied in good faith in terms of compliance with the terms of development agreement. And this item tonight is to fulfill these requirements. This is the 19year review of a 21-year agreement.

The phase 2 area is a total of 83 acres divided into a total of 18 blocks with a range of uses including residential, office and retail. Phase 2 area includes five office station blocks which are outlined in green in this map and um five mixed use blocks outlined in yellow and nine residential blocks outlined in blue on the right. Currently, with the exception of two blocks which are highlighted in um orange on this map, the rest of the Bay Meadows area is fully developed and the city has received um community benefits. all the community benefits um within the development agreement including one minute 1 million contribution to the public to public arts, three new public parks and u below market rate housing affordable housing including 10% affordable housing of um the residential units and donation of 1 acre land to the city for 68 affordable apartments. The last two undeveloped blocks are mixed use 2 and mixes 3. In 2021, the planning commission approved a site plan and architectural review for mixuse 2 and mixes three. And the building permits for these two blocks are currently under review which I will discuss the details of development standards in the coming slides. Here is a photo simulation of Bay Meadows at full buildout. And here are the two remaining blocks. The most recent construction activities include completion of um building

station office station one and office station 5 in 2022 and 2023 and followed by tenant improvements in 2024. Both uh buildings received their certificate of occupancy in 2024 and currently they are occupied and leased by Roblox. On the residential side, residential block 6, a 54 unit multif family project with 50 apartments and four town homes was built in 2023 and received its certificate of occupancy in May 2024. Currently, residential block six is at um 85% occupancy. For the remaining two blocks, MU2 and MU3, the shoring and excavation permits um are currently completed in 2024 and ready to be issued once the related building and superstructure permits are approved. The building and superstructure permits for both buildings are currently under review. And since the last annual review in November 2024, the applicant has been actively addressing the remaining comments and um they have indicated their intent to obtain the permits for um these buildings before the application expiration date in November 2025. Additionally, I'd like to share some updates on retail spaces in town square. A Greek and Mediterranean restaurant has replaced Rome Artisian Burgers and um two more restaurants, the uh the Breakfast Club and Sidewalk Juice are also expected to open within the next few months. Again, this is the annual review of the Bay Meadows phase 2 development

agreement year 19. The The review period spans from December 21st, 2023 to December 20th, 2024. And as indicated in the staff report, no specific items required during this time and the owner has complied in good faith with the terms of the development agreement. With that, STAP recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution finding that the Bay Meadows Main Track Investors LLC has complied in good faith with the terms of the de of the Bay Meadows phase 2 development agreement for the review period of December 21st, 2023 to December 20th, 2024. That concludes staff's presentation and I'm available to answer any questions. Uh we also have Janice Tatcher with Wilson Mini um to answer any questions. Thank you.

Great. Um will date will Wilson Mini be making a presentation or just answering questions?

Sorry, what was the question? Um will will the applicant be making a presentation or are they just available for questions? I think they're just um available for questions. Okay, great. Thank you. Um so at this time we will go ahead and open up the public comment for this item. Members of the public are given two to three minutes to speak depending on the number of speakers. The applicant may also be given 5 minutes at the end of the public comment to respond to the public comments. Once the public hearing is closed, the chair may ask staff to respond to any public comments and the commission will ask clarifying questions, deliberate and render a decision. So, HVA, how many public commenters do we have tonight?

Through the chair, we have one public comment in person.

Okay. Do we have any remote? Um, anyone watching remotely, this would be the time to raise your hands if you would like to make a public comment. through the chair and not in zoom. Okay. So with one public commenter I believe that is three minutes to speak. Thank you. Thank you for your time. My name is David Agronovich. I'm a resident of Bay Meadows. Um and appreciate the opportunity to speak on the uh renewal development plan. Um I wanted to site three specific areas where as residents of the neighborhood, we feel the developer is out of compliance with the Bay Meadows specific plan. specifically around commitments the developer made to uh provide on and off streetet guest parking for residents in the neighborhood. First, we believe the developer is out of compliance and specifically in com in uh providing 98 additional off- streetet parking spots that are cited in the development plan and the accompanying parking management plan. Um, we believe that the developer at least has attempted to provide some form of guest parking through on street timelmited parking, but the original plan calls for unrestricted off- streetet parking options for guests. Second, the elimination of that parking has led to specifically desperate impact on a number of communities within our uh neighborhood. First, it has removed the opportunity for elderly, disabled, and parents with children to have uh daytime childare providers. um and healthcare providers who are able to park outside of their homes and provide services to residents in the neighborhood without

having to leave the the building and also potentially leave their charges to move their cars every 2 hours. Um second, this has also particularly impacted our neighbors who are lowincome housing resident in the apartment complexes prior to the resumption of enforcement for two-hour parking in our neighborhood. those uh apartment residents and particularly low-income apartment residents had access to parking spots provided as part of their leases in the buildings in which they resided. And for those who were unable to get those in inbuilding parking spaces, they had the ability to use street parking. When the city announced the resumption of enforcement, the developer, who I believe also owns those uh apartment buildings, began charging residents to add parking spots to their leases, including charging low-income housing and affordable housing residents for those same parking spots. Essentially creating a situation where people no longer had any opportunity uh no any other option besides to give more money to the developer who now had a captive audience, forced to buy parking in the buildings which they resided. We're asking that rather than simply approving the developers compliance with this plan, the commission consider whether there are other remedies the developers should follow in order to meet their obligations within the approved specific plan and the parking management plan that was approved as part of that. Thank you.

Thank you, David, for your comment. And just confirming we have no other public commenters at this time. No public comments. Okay, great. I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment period, but um the applicant may have five minutes to respond to that public comment if they wish.

Chairman, commissioners, my name is Janice Thatcher. I'm with Wilson Meanie. Uh the issue over parking has been raised with us. We had a public study session with the city several months ago. I'd like to point out a couple of things. Um, we are in compliance with the parking requirements in our SPAR agreements which define where the guest parking is to be located within the apartment buildings. So, that's point one. Point two, um, the cities at the streets at Bay Meadows are all public streets. Um, we built the streets, we dedicated them to the city. The city made the decision to have time the two-hour time limit. That was not a decision that we made. We've had discussions with the city about it, but it is it is not it is not something that um was a developer decision, nor do we have the ability to make that decision as they are public streets, not private streets. Um finally, the we do charge for parking at Bay Meadows. Um, and we did not start charging for parking because the city was imposing the 2-hour time limit that they're completely independent decisions. The decision on the part of the developer to start charging for parking was driven by the market. So, the new buildings in the market are charging for parking. And so we and we do, you know, just as we do with our our rents, we um we survey the local market and see what other people are doing. Having said that, the below market rate residents are not do not pay for parking. So parking charges are waved for below market rate residents and they have the abil we are not we have not taken parking away from them.

you they have parking under their leases pursuant to the requirements of the spar. Um and their parking is free of charge. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We are going to move on to clarifying questions from the commission. So, I'm going to look to my fellow commissioners and ask if anybody has any questions for either staff or the applicant. Oh, um I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and now clarifying questions.

Um yeah, through the chair. U I think this is probably a question for staff because we've had we've had a few people um from Bay Meadows come in and in our last several meetings to talk about the parking issue and it's definitely something that seems to be of concern for quite a few residents there and we've had clarification from staff in the past that there is an agreement with the developer if you can correct me if I'm wrong but there's an agreement with the developer that we're not allowed to institute any sort of permit program in that neighborhood. Is that correct? That is correct.

So then so then I think the follow-up question is if there is sufficient demand for that, is that something that could be changed that agreement?

Yeah, there there are different pathways. Um staff has had multiple um conversations including a community meeting with residents um in in the Bay Meadows Association and talk through these different um areas including different opportunities um different tiers so to speak of um pathways that they could move forward and I mean ultimately ultimately making that request they would need to initiate the application and there there would need to be an updated parking analysis um to support that request. Um but we had talked through the different options from kind of exploring things between um the developer and adjacent properties and the residents um through different public processes um to look for different options to address the the parking challenges.

So so who would it need to initiate a study? Um ultimately I mean this wouldn't be something that the city would initiate. This would need to be something that the the residents would need to. So, we had kind of outlined the process and there there would be costs that go with that both because there would there would be an application fee and there would be the need to retain a a traffic or parking consultant to provide a technical study to support the request and and then that could potentially be used to amend the agreement that the city has.

Yeah, there there are pathways there. We'd have to explore those um and look at the the basis for why that prohibition um was initially um established. I think part of the key was is we needed to make sure we do we process this request consistently with any request citywide um with regard to a parking per permit program. So I think that was the key is um we have to think about the equitability and so that's why we were looking at it being applicant driven rather than city initiated. Okay. Thank you.

I I have a follow-up question about that. Um and then a couple other questions or minor question. Um so what you were asking about um commissioner was about um permitted parking on street offsite I guess. Um but what I'm understanding is that there's I'm not sure if it was just mentioned or if I read this that um the on street parking has a two-hour time limit. I mean I don't know if it was two hours but I don't think it's I think that's typically what it is in the city. Right. And my question is, why does it have a 2-hour time limit? I mean, that would go a long ways without needing to do the um permitted parking. All um I generally speaking um there was a number of different reasons. This was I mean part of the overall um parking management plan that was established. One of the considerations is it is adjacent to a Cal Train station and there is a a parking lot that serves that station but the time limit also would ensure that the neighborhood um wasn't um providing parking for um riders on Cal Train. Um it's also to promote um higher turnover um given the number of parking spaces that are out there. So I mean for the the commercial um and office users um if you want to ensure that the parking is available for kind of higher turnover um needs that would support that. So I don't know the specific all the specifics in there but that was those were some of the factors that contributed to that being incorporated into the parking management plan for the the public street parking

and and the two-hour parking limit is consistent with um the parking limitations in other parts of the city. Yeah, I've seen that in my neighborhood. Um I mean I guess is there any opportunity to change that or is it better to get to go to the um permit parking permit option? So I think we have to be careful with our questions because the issue of the parking is not on the agenda tonight.

Okay. So my other clarifying question was um going back um to the um the issue that uh MU2 and MU3 and the the status that they're in. So I had I had seen and was mentioned in the presentation that um there's two or three more months before the building permit process expires that they're currently in process with the building department for obtaining the building permit. Um what's the extent of the outstanding planning uh plan check comments that that you know that's a lot to do in really what's like two or three months if there's is it going to be possible to get these items addressed and revisions made and then resubmitted and fact checked and you know a permit issued within two month two to three months I'm not sure

through the chair um the applicant is working with our staff closely to address the remaining comments and um there are only a few comments left and uh from public works uh and um it seems they're really close in um getting the permits within uh before the application expiration date in November but um but they are um and unless the if they expires then they have to resubmit the new application. Okay. It sounds like you're down there the applicant's down to just a few and it's um feasible within the time frame. Yes. Um okay, those are all the questions I had.

I had a question, but I think you may have already answered my question, so I'll ask it again anyway. Um uh so I've been I've been aware of some of the issues that have been brought up by the public comments tonight and uh I went and I read the SPAR and the SPAR amendment. I read the specific plan. I read the transportation demand management program um document and I read the parking management plan, the Bay Meadows parking management plan. I do believe that there is a discrepancy between what the specific plan required and what was approved in the SPAR amendment, but I don't think we can discuss that tonight. Is that correct? So, I'm looking to um our staff. What is the best way for me to ask questions about that specifically? Would it be offline after this meeting? I think general questions I are fine as part of this discussion since we are looking at the overall development agreement with the Bay Meadows development. I think it's just how far we go down specific avenues that go beyond what's in the annual performance a progress report.

Sure. Yeah. And and that's I think what I was struggling with because while the development agreement references all of those documents, it does not incorporate the language of those documents. So, I wasn't quite sure what we could talk about. Um, I I I'll just mention what I noticed. I don't know if we can discuss it tonight, but the um the Bay Meadows specific plan required 171 off- streetet visitor parking spaces, but the spar only provided 73 off- streetet visitor parking spaces. It was short by the 98 spaces that the public commenter mentioned. And that deficiency was made up by providing on street visitor parking spaces. But I think the difference here is that the on street visitor parking spaces have a 2-hour time limit while the off- streetet visitor parking spaces have a 72-hour time limit. So that seems to be what is causing the consternation. If there was more off- streetet visitor parking that had a 72-hour time limit, then the home healthcare workers wouldn't be as affected. Again, I don't I don't know what to do with that cuz I don't think we can talk about it tonight. So, maybe I'll just follow up with staff about how we might be able to address that.

Sounds good. Okay, great. Yes, please, Commissioner Bush. Thanks. Um, I wasn't familiar with the parking issues in this area. I guess I just want to confirm with staff you all were familiar with this. You reviewed the development agreement and you all confirmed based on your analysis that the developer is in compliance with the parking requirements under the agreement.

Yes, with with regard to the development agreement um yes we did not identify any deficiencies specifically between over the um the la last reporting period which is the the focus of this annual progress report. Okay, thanks. Do we have any more questions from commissioners? No. Okay, so why don't we um go ahead and move on to our deliberation? Um do do my fellow commissioners have any comments about this annual progress report? Commissioner Clafter through the chair. Just yes,

just uh just to say that uh it's nice to hear that a permit will be issued soon and uh that those two pits that we have been walking and driving by for quite some time will uh someday sooner rather than later now become thousand new units of housing and office space. And uh this project will finally be completed. Any other comments? Um, these are final comments.

Yeah, final comments. I mean um in rereading the agreement um and the agreed upon requirements um I see that there were you know there have been many benefits to the uh city and to the community you know um between the public parks and um contributions to neighborhood groups to um contribute to planning or managing other adjacent neighborhoods. um you know, it was good to kind of reread that and see all that the city um how the community benefited from this um long project. So, I'm also really glad to see that the last or to hear that the um last two sites are um ready to move forward pretty soon. So, that'll be really exciting. Um, other than that, I um I see that they're in full compliance per the presentation and the documents, and I take no exception to the um approval of the 19th year review.

I I'm out of practice with the mic. I do not have any comments. Um I I read the annual review and I agree that it is in compliance. Um so, may I have a motion from one of my commissioners? I'll make a motion to Oh, should we see the wording of

Oh, yes. Um, would staff be able to put the wording of the resolution on the screen. Uh, I'll make a I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution accepting the annual reports on the Bay Meadows phase 2 development agreement, finding that the owners complied in good faith with the terms of the development agreement for the period covering December 21st, 2023 through December 20th, 2024. Second. Great. Um, could we have a roll call vote, please? Chair Patel, yes. Commissioner Bush, yes. Commissioner Clafter,

yes. And Commissioner Williams, yes.

All right, the motion passes 4 Z. And I'm going to go ahead and close this item through the chair. We will await staff. um to bring up the next presentation and for Commissioner Shamul to return. Great. Thank you. Okay, I believe we are ready for the

next item on our agenda with is which is a study session. Um item number two, the accessory dwelling unit ordinance updates. Um at this time I'm going to ask if any commissioners have any announcements or exparte communications. And this time it's me. I have an announcement. Um I have a open um discretionary review application for an ADU. Um we are uh pretty far along in the process. We just received comments on our third uh design iteration and um I believe we are really close uh to to being done with the review process. Um it's my hope that by the next time this this item comes before us, we'll be well on our way into construction. So that is my disclaimer. We are going to start with a staff presentation and um I don't believe there's an applicant presentation and then we will follow that with public comments. Okay, thank you. There we go. Um, good evening planning commissioners and members of the public. My name is Liz Gagliardi. I'm an associate planner with the community development department and I will be providing tonight's presentation on some ADU ordinance updates. Um, this will be a study session, so we're going to be looking for some planning commission feedback throughout. um we'll save discussion for the end and I'll conclude with a slide um summarizing all the questions that come up throughout this presentation. So with that I'll begin with just a little bit of background. Um in 2016 the California legisl legislature passed

some sweeping ADU laws which streamlined and promoted ADU development statewide. Um, since 2016, the state has continued to pass updates to state ADU law to build upon this framework, and they've tasked the state department of housing and community development, which I'll refer to throughout this presentation as HCD, um, with statutory authority to review local agencies ordinances and more recently to enforce state ADU laws. In 2022, the city of Sonteo adopted the current local ADU ordinance. Um, fast forward to 2024, HCD provided a formal review letter of the city's ADU ordinance and identified several areas that require updates for state law compliance. Um, that letter is included as an attachment to the agenda report. Staff also met with HCD to discuss this letter and provided formal response with a commitment to update the ADU ordinance in 2025. Additionally, in 2025, HCD published an updated ADU handbook, which is also included as an attachment to the report. Um, this handbook addressed many frequently asked questions, provided clarification on certain ADU standards within state law, and also provides a summary of some of the many changes and updates to state ADU law since 2016. Um, some additional local background. Um the city has a commitment within our housing element under policy H1.4 to support increased ADU development. Um this policy is followed by several implementation actions. One of these is to amend the city's ADU ordinance to align with state law and resolve any inconsistencies identified by HCD. So with all of that in mind, staff are working on those updates to the ADU

ordinance. And the changes that are proposed fall into two categories. So the first being changes that are proposed specifically in response to the comments brought forward by HCD for state law compliance. Um, some of these include clarification around front yard setbacks, multifamily ADU standards to align with state law, um, clarifying a 500 square f foot maximum size for junior ADUs and so on. Um, that complete list of HCD comments and the city's response are included as attachments to the report. Although for tonight's study session, we'll not be covering those state law compliance changes in great detail. um rather we'll be focusing on the second um kind of bucket of changes which are staff initiated changes that are proposed um in addition to the state law compliance changes. Um these are being brought forward by staff with the goal to address local needs, improve ordinance functionality, and this will be what we'll be focusing on for a study session tonight. So before we dive into that policy discussion, just a quick overview of where we're at with this process and the anticipated timelines for adoption. So tonight, this study session kicks off some of the efforts um and staff will be seeking feedback from the planning commission on the staff initiated changes. In addition to tonight's study session, there will be a virtual community workshop. This will be held on September 25th, 2025. So, just over or just under a month from tonight. And if folks are interested in attending that, keep an eye out for meeting information. We'll be circulating that through um city e newswsletters um and website channels. And then we plan to bring a draft ordinance of the full updated ADU ordinance to the planning commission in

October of 2025. um and hoping to move on to the city council in November of 2025 for a first read um returning for final approval by the end of the year. So now I'll dive into the policy discussion and questions that we want to cover tonight. Um just to reiterate, this study session will be focused on staff initiated changes. Um not looking at some of those items that are more for state law compliance. Um and these fall into four categories. The first will be height limits for detached ADUs. The second ADU maximum unit size. The third arcing exemptions for ADUs. And then finally we'll dive into um a discussion of ministerial approval and objective standards. And within that, the standards we'll be looking at will be questions around the accessory dwelling unit discretionary review alternative height setbacks and seconds story decks and balconies which I will cover um in some more detail in later slides. So the first item that we want to discuss with the planning commission is height limits for detached ADUs. And just to clarify, this is separate from attached ADU height standards. Solely looking at detached ADUs. So some context for state law. Um state law requires that the city must allow detached ADUs up to 16 ft in height. Um, and then for ADUs near transit or on multi-story multifamily lots, state law requires the city to allow at least 18 feet in height plus an additional 2 ft to allow the ADU to have a matching roof pitch to the existing dwelling. Um, the local ordinance must allow twotory detached ADUs. And I also wanted

to note here that while state law only addresses um total height standards, it does not provide um a a distinction between um top plate and roof peak, which the city of Sonteo Municipal Code does. So looking at local context, the current local ordinance sets a maximum height for detached ADUs of 16 ft to top plate line and 24 ft to roof peak. Um and all of our height local height measurements are from existing grade. So staff are looking at a proposed change here to provide separate standards for onetory and twostory detached ADUs. For one-story detached ADUs, we'd be proposing a 12 foot top plate and 18 foot roof peak maximum. And for twotory detached ADUs, 18 ft to top plate and 24 ft to roof peak. Um, these proposed standards all include a total height of at least 18 ft to be consistent with state law. And the reason for proposing a separate standard for one and twotory ADUs would be to avoid um one-story ADUs with overly tall plate heights um which would feel maybe out of context in most single family neighborhoods um while still allowing a separate twotory standard with up to 18 ft of plate height. This is 2 ft taller than the current plate height standard. Um, and the reason for this is that staff have received some feedback from ADU designers that the 16T plate height limit is challenging to meet for standard twotory construction. So, by proposing 18 ft, this would allow for a more standard like 8t over 8 ft interior ceiling heights plus 1 ft of floor joist

spacing between while leaving an additional foot of wiggle room for foundation. um other interior height variations or floor dry spacing. Um and just to dive a little bit more into the plate height versus roof peak, this diagram um is meant to be illust illustrative of how the local ordinance um deals with height. So as you can see here, top plate line is where the top of the wall assembly u meets the roof structure. So when we talk about plate height, that that's what we're referring to. And then roof peak will be the total height of the structure from existing grade all the way up to the highest point of the roof. And just an additional diagram here. Um this is I intended to help illustrate different height scenarios. So in this example, the structure um that you see is designed to meet the current 16 ft plate 24T peak standard. Um, and as you can see, the top floor plate height is measured at 7 ft for that interior um, upper floor, which is a little lower than a standard um, interior height, which we typically see around 8 or 9 ft. So, the update that's suggested by staff would increase this plate height up to 2 feet um to 18, which could accommodate that more standard 8 over8 um ceiling heights while staying within the 24 ft total height to roof peak. Um and then here I also want to highlight daylight plane since this pertains to um height standards. Although currently the ADU ordinance requires that ADUs meet daylight plans plane standards of the R1 zoning district. So this would be the same standard that's applied to single family homes. Um and the daylight plane is

measured from uh up 12 ft from the property line and in at a 45° angle as you can see in the image on the left. Um, and then on the right there's a cross-section diagram which is meant to show how daylight plane would intersect with a structure at a 4ft setback. Um, so at a 4ft setback you can see the height of 16 ft represented by the blue line. Um, and as you can see the set as the setback increases so too does the height at point of intersection with the daylight plane. Um, so all this just to highlight that this standard is included in the current ordinance. Um, at this time staff are not proposing changes to the daylight plane standards for ADUs, but just wanted to highlight this since it's closely related to height. So that brings us to our first discussion question which is should the ordinance adopt separate height standards for one and twotory detached ADUs and should the 16 ft play height be increased to 18 ft for twotory ADUs. So we'll hold discussion for the end but this is going to be one of our first topics and then moving along to ADU unit size standards. Um, again, this is uh some context from state law. So, for new construction ADUs, state law requires that a local agency allow at least uh by ADU of up to 800 square ft with 4ft side and rear setbacks. In addition, state law stipulates that a local agency cannot impose a maximum ADU size standard that does not allow at least an 850 ft ADU for a studio or onebedroom. Um or at least a 1,000 ft ADU with one

or um sorry more than one bedroom. So two unit twobedroom, threebedroom so on. Um, I'll note that these maximum size limits would not apply to conversion or existing of existing accessory structures. Those are also allowed by right per state law. Um, but for the purposes of tonight's discussion, um, we're really looking at new construction ADUs that are not stateex exempt. So, the current local ordinance does not specify a maximum size for ADUs. um rather ADU size over 800 square feet is regulated by the floor area ratio or F of the underlying zoning district. Up to 800 square ft of ADU living area is exempt from this total F. Additionally, um the local ordinance does require that an ADU cannot be larger than the primary dwelling unit on a property. So staff is proposing to maintain this existing F standard and the exemptions for up to 800 square feet of ADU area that are currently in place um with the introduction of an additional maximum unit size standard of 1,200 square ft for new construction ADUs. Um the reason for introducing this um staff feels that ADUs are intended to be accessory to the primary dwelling. Um, so this would further kind of encourage that. And out of all of the ADU applications that have been approved in the city since the ordinance was adopted in 2022, only four have been over 1,200 ft. So this wouldn't um meaningfully change what we've seen in terms of applications. So that brings us to our next discussion question which is should the ordinance

be amended to set a 1200 square foot maximum size limit for new ADU construction in addition to meeting F regulations. And that brings us to our next topic which is parking exemptions for ADUs. Um for state state law context when parking is required for an ADU um that requirement may not exceed one space per unit or one space per bedroom whichever is less. So under this requirement studio units would not be required to provide parking since they do not have a bedroom. Um parking cannot be required when an ADU is demolished or sorry when a parking structure is demolished or converted to an ADU. And then there's some additional exemptions for ADUs from parking standards. Um, so that applies to ADUs within a half mile walking distance of public transit within a historical district. um when part of an existing residence or an accessory structure is converted to an ADU. when on street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of an ADU, when there's a car share vehicle within one block of the ADU, and then finally when a permit application for an ADU is submitted together with an application to create a new residence. Um, parking would not be required for the ADU provided it meets one of the other criteria listed. So, some local context. Currently, um, our local ordinance does require a minimum of one standard size off- streetet parking space for each ADU. Um, and this parking can be covered or uncovered, and it can also be provided in tandem configuration, such as on a driveway. Um, the local ordinance does also acknowledge the exemptions listed

in state law, so those are all applied. So staff is proposing to eliminate all required parking off- streetet parking for ADUs citywide. Um within this update, we would clarify that voluntary voluntary parking is allowed and encouraged. And one way to do this would be allow existing driveways and curb cuts to remain in place even when a garage or carport is converted to an ADU or demolished for an ADU. Um and the reason for this change being proposed um I'll show on the next slide very much of the city most of the city is already within an area where ADUs are exempt from parking. So this map shows um areas within 1 half mile of transit stops as defined by ADU law. So the areas shaded in tan are already exempt from ADU parking standards under state law. Um, so it's quite marginal where these could be applied. So by eliminating parking citywide, this would create a more equitable and straightforward process for ADU development. So that brings me to our next discussion question, which is should the ordinance be amended to exempt all ADUs from off- streetet parking requirements? And that brings me to our final um policy discussion item for tonight, which is ministerial approval and objective standards. So for some state law context, um ministerial approval is required when an ADU meets state law requirements. Administerial approval means that this is done at a staff level. No public hearing and no discretionary review. So

very similar to a building permit. Um and it would also not be subject to an appeals process. A local agency may apply additional objective standards on ADUs, though these must be objective and clear and cannot be more restrictive than what state law allows. So for some local context under the current ordinance there are two paths for an ADU application review. The first is ministerial process um similar to what I just described under state law um which is applied for any ADU that meets all of the development standards of the ordinance. Uh the second option is an alternative for accessory dwelling unit discretionary review which I'll refer to as ADUDR. Um, and this provides the applicant with an option to um, elect to submit a planning application. Um, and I'll provide some additional context on how this process works in coming slides. Um, but it would be subject to a discretionary review for an exception to a standard. So the proposed update that staff is looking at is to update all development standards to be objective and to remove the ADUDR process so that all ADUs go through a ministerial review. Under this proposed update, a discretionary variance process would still be available for an ADU that is unable to meet objective standards due to exceptional circumstances. um which is similar to the process for other planning applications. So I'll dive a little bit into the objective standards that um we're looking to propose some updates to for height. Um this would be the same that I discussed previously that um increased plate height suggested for detached

ADUs. Um the the next would be setbacks. So, under current standards, all ADUs are subject to 4 foot side and rear setback requirements. In the proposed update, staff are suggesting to maintain that 4ft setback requirement for ADUs, but add an exception for an ADU within the rear 1/3 of a parcel to be built within side and rear setbacks so long as it would otherwise meet standards for an accessory structure in the same location. And I'll provide some additional um diagrams and context for this on the next slide. Um and then finally, we are suggesting to add objective standards around secondstory decks and balconies. So currently all second story decks and balconies require an ADUDR review. There is no objective standard for decks or balconies to be approved. Staff are suggesting allowing seconds story decks and balconies ministerially, provided that no portion of the deck or balcony be within the setbacks of the underlying zoning district, which would ensure that they're not um within an area closer to the property line than a primary structure would otherwise be allowed. Additionally, staff are suggesting adding a maximum size limit for seconds story decks and balconies. I apologize. I think I may be missing a slide here. So, I can try to return to that. But I will move on um to some additional background information on um the ADUDR process. So in addition to the proposed updates to objective standards for ADUs, staff are suggesting that the ADUDR

process be removed which would further streamline all ADU applications through a ministerial process. So this slide provides some background on um what we've seen with ADUDR applications from the time of the current ordinance adoption um through present. So since um 2022, we've seen a total of 19 ADUDR applications submitted for review. Of those submittals, 10 were approved, seven were withdrawn, and two um are currently under review. So, of the withdrawn applications, the most common reason that applicants cited for uh withdrawing was that they had elected to redesign their ADU proposal to meet the ordinance standards, therefore qualifying for ministerial review. And then of the ADU DR applications, um there are three reasons for the project seeking this alternative path. Um, some applications proposed a combination of these exceptions, but all fell within the three categories, which are additions to an existing accessory structure within 4T setbacks. Um, a proposal for a twostory ADU, which exceeded the 16 ft plate height standard, and then finally for a new detached ADU with a second story balcony. So the um the idea with the objective standards that staff have suggested are they're intended to address these common exceptions providing more permissive standards to allow for ministerial approvals. Um and a benefit of ministerial approval rather than discretionary would add um predictability and clearer objectivity to the review process while removing the uncertainty of an appeal. Um and staff feels that this would streamline ADU approvals for all of the stakeholders

and ensure that every application is subject to the same set of objective standards. So that leads me to our final questions for discussion tonight, which are what size limit should be set for a second story deck or balcony on an ADU? And then finally, should the ADUDR process be removed in favor of expanded objective standards for ministerial approval? So with that, um, I've got a final slide summarizing all of the questions tonight. I know that was a lot of ground to cover, but happy to revisit. Um, and I will wrap up my presentation there. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um, I'm going to go ahead and open the public comment period for this item. If there are any members of the public attending in person who wish to speak on this item, please turn in your yellow speaker slip now. Um, any remote attendees watching who wish to comment on this item, please raise your hand now.

Members of my name Lori, uh, if you could just give us a moment and we'll let you know when to speak. Sorry about that. How many total public commenters do we have? We have a total of three. There's two on Zoom and we have one in person.

Okay, great. So, um, I believe for three speakers, is that three minutes each? Okay. Good evening, members of the planning commission. My name is Lori Watanuki. My comments are towards the detached ADUs. Please retain the current heights and do not increase the heights. Number two, retain the underlying zoning F control for ADUs over 800 square ft with 800 square ft ADU living area exempt from the total F. Number three, stay with the current ordinance for parking one off-street parking space per unit. Do not exempt all ADUs from the parking requirement. the ADU design review should not be removed. And number five, create objective design standards for the detached ADUs, especially when an ADU is on a corner lot and both the home and the ADU is visible from the street. this it's important that we have um objective design standards follow the multi-family design standards. Um in some neighborhoods uh we would there are homes that are 80 to over 100 years old with very small uh primary units single family homes. We would like to suggest that windows shouldn't be across from other windows for privacy issues and no horizontal sliding windows or horizontal wood fences. We'd like to preserve the character of our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your comment, Lori. Eric, you can go ahead and unmute yourself. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, I'd like to make a couple quick comments. one um I think the your chain proposed changes for the one story and twotory are a good way of um addressing the potential for different design options and allowing for twotory heights. I would add though that most of no north central uh one-story existing buildings have a 14t top of plate uh for single story houses. I live in a 1920s bungalow with a 14 foot plate height. Uh so I think that limiting to 12 feet is um potentially not uh the right height limit for a one story that maybe it should be 14 ft. Um and I additionally think that you should allow that 14 ft the two story the two feet to exceed the daylight plane which is what most of the existing housing stock and a lot of one stories in the city uh that were built before the 1950s um were designed as. Um same with a two-story going to 18 ft. I think you should allow the daylight plane to penetrate by 2 ft which would be the existing daylight plane of the 16 ft to go to the 18 ft. Um the there was a comment that um the existing ordinance says that an ADU cannot be larger than the primary unit. And I don't see that in the in the zoning code. And I recall that it was actually Commissioner Patel that had the quite insightful and brilliant um suggestion that if you had a small bungalow house uh like most of the existing housing stock is, maybe you didn't want to make that existing house big. And if you um instead of doing 800 ft above your F, which was allowed by um the ADU ordinance uh or ADU law, that if you kept to the FA F, you could build a larger FA larger ADU than your primary residence. And that seems to be supported by section 2719.50 50 section D that says the max excess um

of max uh square footage in excess of 800 ft is governed by the F. Uh so I think that the report um is a was mistaken unless I misunderstood it to say that it um the existing ordinance limits it to the size of the existing house. So I think that needs some clarification. Um, and I think that that was a really um unique uh change in the um local ordinance from state state law that allowed you to be a little more flexible and I think it gives a lot more opportunity. Um I will note I'm an architect. Uh I'm not a residential architect. I do schools. Uh, but I um like to look at houses and that variety uh allows for a lot more complexity in our neighborhoods and a and a richer urban fabric. Um, thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment, Eric.

Our next public commenter, you could go ahead and unmute yourself. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.

Great. Thank you. Uh first of all, uh um welcome to the new commissioners. Um I am an ex-commissioner and I hope that uh you have a wonderful experience on the commission. It's a very important important part of city government and um I hope that uh you have an enjoyable time working with the city and the and the uh residents. Um the first slide tonight I think it mentioned that the state legislature passed initial statewide ADU laws to streamline and promote ADU development. And I think um as I listen to the presentation tonight and think back on some of the past um discussions, we have again made things somewhat more complicated than they need to be. And I think that reflects in our inability to issue permits in less than two months as is state law. Um, I I really hope that uh these study sessions and the and the gathering of public input can be used to model ordinances that will further promote our ADUs. um especially in light that our arena numbers are dismal and with ADUs um filling being over 44% of our housing stock new housing stock over the last two years I think it's proven that they can be an important component of helping us deal with our housing shortages. So, um, again, thank you to my old friends on the commission and welcome to the new ones and I hope that you were able to review the comments that I had submitted late today

and um, help I hope it helps with the discussion going forward. Thank you. Thank you for the comment, John. Do we have any other public commenters through the chair? Those are all our public commenters.

Great. I am going to go ahead and close the public comment period. So, um, we're going to move on to deliberation and I'm going to make some suggestions to my fellow commissioners. When the planning commission originally reviewed the ADU ordinance in 2021, we discussed it for 6 hours. My goal tonight is to not take a vote on whether we stay past 11. So, I'm just going to let you know that right now. I think we can do it. Um, in order to streamline the discussion, what I'm going to suggest is that rather than discussing all of these questions one by one, we discuss them one at a time. So, we take item number one, we all ask our questions related to item number one, we all offer our comments related to item number one, and then we move on to item number two. I think the other thing that I'm going to suggest, this is um a very meaty topic and it can be complex and we have two new commissioners and so um I don't want to put you both on the spot on this very complex item and so normally um the the more senior commissioners would speak last, the chair would speak last, but I'm going to suggest that perhaps we have our veteran commissioners go first and then follow with our new commissioners just so you can kind get a sense of the questions that we're asking and how this kind of goes and um and go from there. Does that sound acceptable to all of my commissioners?

Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, great. I'm going to make one more suggestion which is before we dive right into this because it's going to be real meaty. We do um a fivem minute break, five minute restroom break. Okay, great. Thank you. Uh did they spend six

through the chair. We're ready to begin. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so before we get started with our questions and discussion, um, I I will note there was one public commenter who asked about the restriction um of ADUs to be smaller than the primary residential dwelling unit. Um, if that public commenter is still watching, they can search our municipal code for chapter 27.04.165 subsection F, which states the primary residential dwelling unit shall be larger in terms of floor area than any other residential unit situated on the same parcel or lot. So that is where in in our municipal code, they can find that restriction. All right, question number one, which is related to the height limits. Why don't we start um by asking any questions that we have related to that specific topic? And um do we have any commissioners who would like to go first with their questions?

Commissioner Williams, always some questions. You and I both. Yeah,

someday I won't. Right. Um uh I guess it's really kind of a question to clarify the top of plate uh definition and I think that I mean maybe it's clear to everyone but I've feel like there was a couple comments that um I we received maybe um I'm used to thinking of top of plate height from the top of the first of the floor inside you know the finished floor or maybe not top of sheathing I guess to the top of framing. So if it's an 8ft ceiling, it's 8 foot high. But what we're talking about here is not that. It's it's um to the grade. Now grade changes from one side of a building to the other. So what I don't know is how is um grade accounted for? Is it the um the lowest grade or is it the average of the lowest and the highest

through the chair? Um so the I've repulled up this slide that shows um this example is a one-story structure but just to clarify um top of plate line when we're talking about these height standards would be um the total building plate. Um so it's where the top of the wall assembly meets the roof structure. Um as you can see in this diagram in this example this is a 10 ft um plate height. And then for the question on grade, the um site code measures from existing natural grade. So the height um may vary at different points along the structure if that natural grade changes. So if you're on like a hillside or you know bit of sloping property um the top of plate um for a one story we're talking about um 10 so if we're talking about a 10-ft top of plate that includes you know a drop from the to the lowest point or does that h I mean that can't that can't apply to the the highest the what do I am trying to say the lowest grade I guess because that could be a hillside that drops off quite a bit. So it must be the lowest point the

yeah through the chair I hope I'm understanding the question correctly but um so sometimes for example with height if there is a slope or a variation in grade we may ask for a topographic um elevation to show height at different points throughout the structure. Um, so it will vary a little bit. If you're looking at like a flat lot, for example, height, um, would just follow the flat grade. Um, but if you're on a slope, then the point at which it's measured from like the top of slope would be different a different grade than the the lower point. Um, but it's not taken at an average. It's at any one point along the structure. I'm not sure if that answers, but

yes, that does. Can I ask a follow-up question to your question? Um, I think I'm I'm confused, so I'm going to ask that calculation of that top plate line. It it's it looks like it's measured to grade, but what you're saying is that the grade height can vary at different points, but you said it wasn't averaged. So, do you go by the biggest measurement or the shortest measurement? Yes. Through the chair. Um, when we're looking at for conformance with a maximum height standard, it would be um the highest point along the structure. Yes.

And is That's all I have. Oh, that's all for you. Okay. Um, Commissioner Cler,

um, yeah, a couple things. So, actually just following up on this Greg question, like if if you have a property that the sloping lot and the street is at the top of the hill and the house, the primary residence is at the, you know, towards the front of the lot. And so then you have the backyard and it's a continual slope and then you get to the back there. And um we're also proposing to allow people to build a singlestory accessory structure with zero setback. Correct.

Through the chair. Uh yes. The question on setbacks, we staff are suggesting that um for a structure that would meet the requirements of um an accessory structure in the rear 1/3 that those could be constructed within required setbacks, side and rear setbacks.

Yeah. So, so there's a if you have this continual slope and then you're um obviously going to have a level floor inside the structure. So, you want to level it out and it needs to be the level needs to probably wants to start, you know, into the lot enough that you can have your square footage and everything. And then, but we're going to be measuring the the plate line height from the back of that structure where it's so where so it's going to have that, you know, potentially um additional several maybe it could even be several feet of foundation to bring it up into level right

through the chair. Yes, that is correct. Um, so then that could end up in a situation where even a onestory theoretically one-story um ADU could end up going over the 12 ft or sorry the um 16 ft. Well, the one Yeah, the one story I was trying to find it is 12 feet. 12 feet. Yeah. To the top of plate.

Yeah. So yeah, I mean if you have an 8 foot ceiling height inside then you have four feet to work with in terms of foundation. So So then so then the next so then the follow on from that is because then I'm just I'm kind of connecting also to some other things that we'll be talking about later. I know I'm jumping around a little bit but I think it's relevant to do this. So then if we have a if you have a situation where let's say you're going to go 12 feet one inch and it's just not going to work any other way. Well, we're also talking about going from the ADUDR process to the requesting a variance. So, in that situation, they would the applicant that can't make it work any other way. They're going to have to go through the variance process

through the chair. Yeah. the um the proposal that staff is recommending would be um either ministerial approval if all standards are met or if there's an extenduating circumstance um it would be a variance request.

Okay. And that's obviously a very specific, very hypothetical scenario that I've set up here, which may never happen, but I'm just trying to understand how all these things could, you know, the perfect storm, uh, end up, you know, coming together. Um, something may come to me, I may come back. Commissioner Bush. Um well, first I'd like to say that um I had the opportunity to ask several questions over email and uh Liz right was uh fantastic at answering them for me. So thank you for taking all the time. One question that came up for me during the presentation was just about the uh daylight plane. This is new to me. So the schematic was helpful, but I don't quite understand how it interacts with these proposed max heights. So, I think I heard you say that if the if the ADU is up to the max height, but it violates the daylight plane requirements, then the ADU has to be shorter. Is that right? Um, so through the chair, the I think this diagram shows a little bit how daylight plane would interact with height. Um so this blue line um hopefully it's visible clearly visible to everyone shows um at a 4ft setback where daylight plane would intersect with a 16 ft plate. Um, I think some there's probably different ways that a designer could address this um if they're looking to do something taller, whether that be lowering the plate, introducing um a larger setback, or perhaps a step back. Um I I don't think

there's a one-sizefits-all way to approach this. Um those are some that I've seen. But for the like let's take the suggestion if we were to to uh do the suggestion where you can have uh an ADU that otherwise meets the accessory requirements and have zero setback. Does the daylight plane requirement still apply to that such that it wouldn't be able to go up to the max height that we're proposing now if it didn't otherwise comply with the plane? So to clarify, are you asking about the proposal for um within the required setbacks in the rear 1/3?

I guess I'm just asking does the daylight plane trump the max height requirement? Meaning if you if you have an ADU that it we're saying it can be up to 16 or it can be up to 12 feet at the um uh the roof line, whatever you call it, the top plate. Um but if the if it violates the daylight plane and it's 12 feet then it has to either be shorter or set back more. Is that correct?

Yes. So if um if there's a conflict with either standard height or daylight plan um the more restrictive would apply. Okay. Um, and I I would also like to share if I'm able to I had a slide um illustrating how this works for Can I do

Okay, I'm I'm going to jump in and um add to your question because I actually had a very similar question. So, while we're talking about it, I might as well jump in with it. Um my question was very similar which was noting that one of the proposals is to increase the plate height limit to 18 feet but per the daylight plane diagram the daylight plane at the 4ft setback intersects at 16 ft. So even if we allowed people to go up to 18 ft they would have to step back or increase the setback in order to meet the daylight plane or have a sloping roof. I mean, but if the plate height is is above the daylight plane, then a sloping roof isn't going to help that. If it's above Yeah.

Yeah. And then similarly to your question, I had the same question, which was at a zero lot line, the daylight plane is measured at 12 ft. So, you wouldn't be able to do an 18 ft um plate height ADU at a zero lot line because you're already violating the daylight plane by six feet. to the chair. I think I just wanted to reiterate what you said, Liz, that there's many solutions to that. And one is that you have a much lower plate height at the perimeter and then you have sort of a, you know, a sloping ceiling or, you know, I mean, there's many design solutions to get to your height or within the daylight plane. Um, if I may through the chair, I I'd like to revisit the question about um in the rear one-third what would be allowed. Um, so I pulled up a diagram. This is from the zoning code for accessory structures in the rear 1/3 of a single family property. Um, and what we're proposing with this additional um, exception to setback standards would be to allow only ADUs that meet these same requirements as would otherwise be allowed for an accessory structure to encroach into setbacks. So that would further restrict height and daylight plane. Um if you'll see here the the requirements for an accessory structure within required setbacks in the rear 1/3 um does cap height and daylight plane a little bit lower than other structures. Um so it would be working within a 9 ft 45° angle daylight plane which is more restrictive. So these would by default be limited to um one story and compliance with that. And of course, if

a um applicant wanted to meet the other standards, um those would be available at the 4- foot setback. So hopefully that clarifies a little bit um what we're trying to articulate with that exception. Um and I can revisit other slides too if there were other questions that I didn't get to in that answer.

Also, sorry to jump in through the chair really quickly. Um says this also says nine nine feet at side and rear. That's just for the for the final third and then it goes up to 12 or is this slightly out of date or so through the chair. This is solely for accessory structures within a required yard in the rear 1/3 of a property. So outside of the rear 1/3 and outside of required setbacks, um these standards would not apply. It's only for that very narrow exception to setbacks for lower accessory structures in the rear third. Okay,

I'm going to follow that up with another question. Okay, I know where you're about to go. Um, we've done this enough. So, okay. So, I'm looking at the diagram here that you've showed. That 9 ft 45° angle daylight plane is the daylight plane. So, you wouldn't have a second daylight plane that is at measured 12 ft and 45° where once you got back far enough, you could go up to that additional daylight plane. So like if you wanted to do a seconds story ADU where a portion of it is in this required setback but then you have a step back and you go higher. I'm actually don't know on the math. It's possible that the regular daylight plane already conforms to this daylight plane and it's the same daylight plane. Um but if they're different, does the shorter one trump the taller one? It it applies in the con in the location

in the lo that's but see that's what I wasn't sure about because I think it just there's one version where it just applies within those setbacks and within the one-third rear yard but then maybe the more permissive daylight plane applies when you get out of the setback. Yeah, I think that's yeah through the chair. That's correct. So this this more restrictive only applies to structures encroaching into a required setback. So for an ADU example,

um if the ADU is set back say 2 ft from the property line, we would look at this standard under the um suggestions that staff is bringing forward, not the current code. Um and then if say for example the design was at 4T, which is the otherwise required setback, then we would look at the regular 12T 45°ree daylight plane. And I guess what I'm asking is could you have a project where both of those daylight planes apply because a portion of the ADU is in the required setback but then a portion is not. Yeah. Through the chair. No. Um if a portion is within the the more restrictive would apply to the entire structure. Yeah. There we go.

Um

I have another Well, it's sort of related but sort of different maybe. Is yours the same? just further. So, so there's a proposal to allow accessory structures a use zero setback, but then it's going to have to have a 9 ft plate line essentially. Yes, that's correct. So, this diagram um represents what's currently allowed for accessory structures. Um the proposed change would essentially allow an ADU to do this um without a two-step process. So now under current requirements um an accessory structure can be converted to an ADU and accessory structures are afforded this um option. So this would essentially propose to um allow the same for ADUs within um that meet these requirements of an accessory structure. and what we're talking about which is raising the playline heights those those other numbers that's outside of the rear third

um both outside of the rear third and outside of a required setback

um I have a related question that I've been was going to ask later but I'll ask it now um and it's regarding setbacks um because I think that's what we're talking about here so I when you talk about accessory structure structures, they're usually garages or sheds, but now we're talking about accessory dwelling units. So, um, previously, like it didn't matter about windows and such for garages or sheds, but it matters now that we're talking about ADUs. Um, when we talk about setbacks and if you're trying to build within the setback, as is allowed for accessory structures, there's still a requirement for like a 1 hour fire rated wall, as I understand it, if you're within 5 ft of the property line. Um, and uh is it can you can am I correct? Is that the case? And is that not apply to ADUs? because I literally have one in my neighborhood that doesn't seem to apply.

So yeah, I that you're getting into more of a building code related question, which would be your building code

side of the ordinance, but yeah, I um anytime you're within 5T of a property line, you're subject to a fire rated construction assembly. Um so yeah, any I mean even at 4T, those ADU walls will be subject to that enhanced um fire rating requirement. I think it's really important to um for people to understand that and I wanted to just confirm I was that I was understanding it the way I always have understood it. And the reason I think it's important is because I mean I've literally seen a project go up with a window looking at the fence, you know, like 2 feet from the fence. And I I don't understand how they built a 1 hour fire rated wall per the California building code, you know, with unless it's a fire rated window, which is very unusual. I mean, very expensive. So people should understand that if you do that, you can't easily put windows within the setbacks. So all of these, you know, this particular diagram doesn't really really work that well for a residential project if you have to have light and air and ventilation.

So I think probably it's an if we're talking about like compliance with the California building code, it does go beyond kind of what would go into the ADU ordinance. Um but yeah, that goes without saying all projects, all ADUs are subject for applicable. I mean, there's utility requirement. There's a whole host of requirements that the ordinance doesn't cover, but would still need to be addressed as part of any ADU permitting process. Okay. Anyway, that answers my question that yes, they are 1hour rated walls within the setbacks. Commissioner Bush, did you have any other questions about this item? No, not right now. Commissioner Shangle.

Um, the majority of my questions have been clarified. Uh, but I still have a little bit of confusion. Um, going back to the the first question in regards to um, a property that's on a sloped um, uh, property line. So, I I still don't quite follow exactly so how that determination of of which number will be used for the top plate if the property line is sitting on on a slope. And so if I could just get some more clarification on that one more time.

Sure. So through the chair, the um the way that height is measured in our local ordinance, it's um it's not an average. It would be at any given point along the structure from existing grade to the highest point on the structure. Um and so if we're looking at for example compliance with a maximum height standard, we would look at the point at which um the distance between the grade and the plate is the highest um to take the highest um plate height of the structure.

And that's actually going to be through sorry through the chair that's actually going to be nine feet then potentially. Correct. It would depend on um the specifics of the project.

Um and and also I had one more clarifying question I suddenly remembered. Um sorry to jump in again. Um so um talking about daylight plane and 18 ft and things for twotory um and reading through everything and trying to make sense of it. My understanding, and you can tell me if I'm wrong, of course, is that there are situations where we'll have a non-conforming existing accessory structure, a garage or some other type of thing, and there is actually a um the ability to construct a second story ADU on top of that by right. That'd be correct. So through the chair, hopefully this is getting at the question you're asking, but um ADU law requires that we can't we cannot require correction of existing non-conforming conditions um in order to permit an ADU. That said, um if the proposed design were to further increase non-conformance, um that would be a separate question. So, conversion of an existing accessory structure um is something that's allowed by right under state law, but when you get into additions, those additions would be regulated the same as a new construction ADU.

Okay. Thank you. If I may take a stab at answering what I think you were asking, um I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, our legal team, uh we must allow an 800 square f foot ADU by right within a 4ft setback no matter what. So, I think your question was if you have a non-conforming accessory structure, you asked about building an ADU on top of a non-conforming accessory structure. I believe that if that ADU on top was less than 800 square f feet and met the 4ft rear and side setback requirements, it would have to be allowed even if it was violating the daylight plane or other requirements. Did I get that right?

I I don't believe that would be that's our understanding. Okay. It's I mean you are allowed that story but it doesn't necessarily have to be a twotory. Um so okay. So if you were converting or you were adding on to an existing, you are allowed that by right, but um you're now adding on above. So that's the piece that wouldn't necessarily apply to the by right under state law. I see that's helpful. This is very complicated.

Yes. And I and I'm I'm kind of because I had I had asked some questions about a project which uh we actually got an email about last week and I think it'll probably make more sense to bring it up a little later in this discussion in further detail. But I that that in that situation I think they had um offset the second floor 4T in um on top of an existing garage building that was at the lot line. And um I was just kind of I'm trying to understand exactly what you know how that project got from uh the drawing board to approval basically.

Why why don't we continue with the height question for now as I eyeball our time and our 11 p.m. goal which is going to be ambitious. Um do we have any more questions from my fellow commissioners about height? Because I have a couple. No.

Nope. Okay, great. So, um, one aspect that nobody has asked about is the proposal to have a different height limit based on the number of stories. And so, one question I asked staff ahead of time, but I'll ask it again for the benefit of the public. Uh, do we currently have a different height limit for one-story and twostory primary dwelling structures? through the chair. No. Um, our current standards are applicable um to all structures. It does not distinguish between number of stories. Okay, great. I'm going to ask a follow-up question that I didn't ask ahead of time. Do we have onestory height limits on accessory structures? So, if you were like building a shed or a garage, do we have a height limit on those that's different than the underlying zoning height limit? I think I know the answer, but all I know we have we're getting some in the weeds. I know we have plate height limits for accessory structures within the rear 1/3 of the property, but I don't know if we have plate height limits for accessory structures that are outside the rear 1/3 of the property. So through the chair um accessory structures, the requirements do vary depending on the zoning district um and then the location of the accessory structure. So I'll start with R1 districts which allow um accessory structures if if separate from the rear third um at 9 ft to the plate line and 16 ft to the

roof peak maximum um and additionally in R1 districts accessory structures located in within the rear 1/3 within a setback are limited to one habitable floor on the ground level. So that's specific to single family. Um and then in all other districts, accessory structures um are can be built up to 15 ft to the plate line. Um so it's not there's not a specific restriction on the number of stories, but rather on height. Um and then of course in the rear 1/3 within setbacks, there is that story restriction.

Okay. I I don't I don't know how important this is, but you mentioned that's within a rear one-third of the yard. Is there a different height limit if it's outside the rear 1/3 of the property or are accessory structures not allowed outside of the rear 1/3? So through the chair, my understanding is accessory structures outside of required yards would be subject to the underlying zoning.

Okay. So, it's more permissive once you're outside the rear 1/3. Thank you. That's very helpful. I'm just taking notes. Okay, any more questions? That was my only hype related question because I asked the daylight plane one already. If there's no more questions, why don't we share some comments and have some discussion around the height issue? What? Commissioner Cler, commissioner. Yeah, Commissioner Williams, please go first.

Okay. Um, I will go first. Uh I think the changes to the uh to the height make a lot of sense to me and in fact I remember arguing about the height at you do remember this

our meeting in 2021 and what I I guess I um I mean I I I don't know if it was brought up at that time but what the reason I was against it is because that I mean now I see that the reason I was against it is because that height applied to one or twotory ADUs and really 12t foot high is better than 16 ft for a onetory for singlestory ADU and 18 ft is better than 16 ft for a two-story ADU. So that makes a lot of sense to me. Um now if I've been sketching over here if the house is on a slope um the ADU might just have to be moved um to a different area of the site. if you know if you've got a big drop off and you're going to be counting all that you know foundation space um in your 12 feet or you've got to come up with something creative like something more cottagey and less giant um and so the slope to me I thought it was sort of an issue but it's not really a problem because where it does occur it's probably a bigger property than you know some that are in our neighborhoods with 5,000 square thoughts. Um, so that kind of addresses my thoughts on the slope, but I do think there's a lot of properties that are on smaller 5,000 foot lots. I mean, I see them in my neighborhood where they're putting in much bigger um much higher projects than I think really they need to. I mean, a small room with a 10- foot top plate height, like a 10- foot ceiling. Sure, that's nice. It's a nice to have, but it's it's kind of out of scale for small rooms and small, you know, ADUs. Um, so I think it's

unnecessary. Creates tall buildings where they're just don't really serve any purpose in a small neighborhood. Unnecessary bulk and massing. But all of that said, I think that the um the new numbers make a lot of sense and they they work in a variety of conditions. And although they might allow for taller spaces than necessary, I think they also um um address these issues of uh the one story versus the twotory. And if it's on a slope, you've got a little flexibility. Commissioner Clerfter.

Um, yeah. So, uh, I mean, I overall I think this is a move in the correct direction for many of the reasons already mentioned by, uh, Commissioner Williams and, um, our comments. And I, I do think I had misunderstood um, coming into the meeting this evening about the fact that in the rear third it's is still going to step down at the back. it would step down to like a 9 foot limit. Um, but I think that also, you know, if that's and we're not that's the daylight plane is not under discussion this evening, I think. So, um, you know, if that's remaining as it is, then I think that still is going to cover concerns, you know, in people's backyards, shade and sunlight and that sort of thing u potentially. But um I like the fact that we're going up because ultimately that provides more flexibility and it's you know not always the case that people are going to maximize that. Um I think that I think that you know providing flexibility makes it possible to have better design. Um I think that taller ceiling heights in a small space usually makes that space more appealing. Doesn't have to be a cathedral ceiling, but uh you know um I've been in a lot of, you know, older homes. We had a you know, public commenter mentioned um you know, older homes with taller ceilings, uh usually with smaller rooms and um you know, it usually makes it a better living space when you have that taller ceiling.

Okay, I'll go next. I have a lot of comments unsurprisingly. Okay, let me go up to my notes. So, I um I agree with the first recommendation that we should increase the 60ft plate height limit to 18 ft to be compliant with state law and just to make it simple because an extra 2 ft or up to 18 ft is required within a half mile of transit. We've already noted that's virtually the entire city anyway. Doesn't make sense to have different standards for the tiny percentage of the city that's not covered by that half mile of public transit. Make it be make it be simple for everybody if it's 18t plate height everywhere. Um I do not believe there should be a separate rule for one story and twotory ADUs. So here are all the reasons I don't think we should do that. Um, every time you introduce a new restriction, you run the risk that it'll create unanticipated edge cases. Our our municipal code is already very long, very complex. Um, and just introducing further granularity is just opportunity for further conflicts and edge cases. It's really difficult to anticipate all the potential ways a new rule can interact with existing rules to create like catch22s that block projects. And so I generally tend to think that simpler is better. Additionally, in HCD's review letter, item number eight states, ADUs converted from accessory structures may not be subject to height requirements. So, I'm worried about situations where someone might have an existing 15 ft plate height accessory structure because that is the plate height limit in nonR1 districts and they tried to convert it to a one-story ADU and they're they're conf they're in conflict

with the proposed 12t high plate height. Um, I imagine what would happen in that case is their project would be allowed because HCD says you have to allow conversions from accessory structures. But then that introduces an opportunity for again someone to do a two-step process. If they really want a plate height taller than 12 ft, they could build an accessory structure first and then convert it. So I think anytime where something is allowed through a two-step process, we should just make it simple and allow it as as a single one-step process. Um, also I have seen a bunch of adorable ADUs on um, House and Pinterest that are singlestory living spaces with lofted sleeping areas and I think that is a really popular option for smaller ADUs, you know,

serves a purpose

and it's Yes. Yes. And so would a single story with a lofted sleeping space count as a one-story ADU or twotory ADU? And so that feels like the kind of edge case or catch 22 something can fall into where what seems like a reasonable idea ends up getting blocked because of this restriction. Um we don't have story-based height restrictions for primary dwelling units in general. I don't like the idea of having um a different set of rules if we don't need to because I want to make sure that the quality of housing that is being built for an ADU is comparable to the quality of housing of a primary unit. I don't want people to feel like they get a lesser experience because they happen to live in an ADU. So, the gentleman who lives in North Central who has a says most older buildings in North Central have a singlestory 14 foot height plate. Um, I wouldn't like that's a great living experience for him. I wouldn't want someone in his backyard to have a lesser experience just because they happen to be in the ADU. Um, yeah. Uh so I think those are my reasons for why I don't think we we should have a separate height limit for one story or two story. I think we should just retain the flexibility. Commissioner Bush or Commissioner Shunkle. Sure. I'm happy happy to go. Um I agree with a lot of what U. Chair Patel said. I I agree that it makes sense to have to raise the heights for two stories to 18 and 24. I don't quite see the rationale for having a separate height limit for a single story. In in my exchange with um

Liz ahead of time, uh she informed me that you know singlestory ADUs don't so our our current ordinance has a 1624 limit and that singlestory ADUs don't typically go higher than 8 to 12 anyways. So, as a practical matter, I don't see a ton of um singlestory ADUs somehow taking advantage of an 18 ft roof plate to, you know, have this bulking mass or something. Um, and in fact, it probably would be pretty expensive for for what purpose. Um, a lot of what Chair Patel said uh made sense to me, although I wouldn't have been able to articulate it that way myself, but just streamlining the process by not having uh different criteria for different types of ADUs based on story, I think makes sense. Also the conversation about um daylighting kind of or like there's these other things that kind of may keep in check the height um of particular ADUs in particular circumstances. Um, so I think and so I think my perspective would be we should just have an 1824 um and that as a practical matter single story ADUs aren't going to become you know I don't see a clear justification for limiting them um based on this this conversation and what I've heard here. Um, I would say if we do go with a singlestory ADU, I would be it, you know, I would encourage us to determine whether um the public comment about having 14 foot um plates in certain neighborhoods was accurate or not and then consider whether maybe the ADU should the minimum should be 14. I mean, the maximum should be 14 rather than 12 because I uh completely agree that it

doesn't make sense to not allow the ADU to be the same height as the primary residence. So, those would be my my thoughts. Commissioner Shanko.

Yeah, I'll go. Um, so I I I do like the the 1218 for the single stories. Uh but when it comes to the 18 24 for the two stories um um I'm just looking at the practical design for a twotory ADU um with anything constrained less than that. Um so just to follow up to your uh comments um chair so would we be so 1824 is what is allowed through the state right now um for the top plate.

Yeah. So the this new state law as staff presented said that if you are within a half mile of public transit you are allowed up to 18 ft plus two additional feet for matching roof pitch. And so I think for simplicity, staff is recommending, let's just make the plate height limit 18 feet everywhere in the city because the areas in the city that wouldn't get that 18 ft are so small that it's just complicated to have two different sets of rules. I understand.

So the the question is, you know, do we just have the entire city go up to the 18t plate height for simplicity? That's question number one. And then the question number two is do we have a separate height limit if it's a one-story ADU versus a two-story ADU? Yeah, for the sake of uh just the practical twotory design, um I'm looking at the 84 the 8ft ceiling heights and accommodating for um the floor joist and everything else within that. So we would still be um proponents of having the 18t plate height for the two stories. Yes. Yeah. So that's we're just streamlining everything to be at 18. Exactly.

Got it. Well, the discussion should should there be separate? Yeah. So if rather the 12 for the one story just make it 18 for versus one story or two story. Well that that is the question before you right. So there's there's two separate questions. One is for twostory ADUs, do we just have the whole city have an 18 ft plate height limit? And then the second question is, do we have a shorter limit for one-story ADUs or do we just have it be an 18 ft limit no matter what, which is how it is today. So today it's 1624 no matter what. Doesn't matter how many stories you're building, but the proposal from staff is to create a shorter limit for a one-story ADU,

separate height. Mhm. And the code does I think differentiate for loft spaces versus a story like if you were to you were asking how would the like a sleeping space be that's defined in the building code as I don't remember if it's a mezanate or sleeping you know how it's defined but I think it's defined as a not as a story not you know if you wanted to do a second story you would have to do a second story but sure or you could do a second story it's also Worth pointing out again that 24 to the roof peak is more generous than that that 18 plus two which the requires.

Yeah. But my my point is is like the reason Well, I want to let Commissioner Schmuckle speak. No, go ahead. I think this will help. I was just saying like anytime you introduce a restriction, you can't it's really hard to envision all of the scenarios that might come up where it might there might be a purpose, right, to having

that to having to to not having that restriction. And so like one idea I came up with was what if you I've seen them smaller ADUs really popular, right? to have a lofted sleeping space, but I don't know if under one roof height a lofted sleeping space counts as a onestory structure or a two-story structure and it just introduces confusion, right? Like that means that someone somewhere has to interpret and make a call.

Is that allowed or is that not allowed? Whereas I personally believe if you just have one uniform standard, you eliminate those areas of edge cases where things like this pop up. Yeah, I I I I have been um looking at this and I'm when I first came I had a open mind to uh obviously listening to everyone and their input um and I had been a little bit more uh leaning towards having the two separate um height limits. Um but I see in in sake of simplicity and um making this a lot more streamlined process um yeah I I would ask for either more clarification on the reasoning behind um having these two separate plate light u plate heights. Um and another question that I had. So as confusing as this is for us here on on the dis would in the event that we do um pass this along and it goes to the public for um not recommendation but once this is established are are there going to be um design or at least some type of um cuz I I'm still trying to gather myself around this um for them to to look at some type of diagram or um ability for them to access what everything that we're discussing here tonight. So, would that go out to the public um after after discussion and after we we pass here?

So this packet has already gone out to the public just for clarification but I believe um the director can speak to next steps. Yeah. Like for the community workshop I assume there would be materials prepared. Got it. Yes. Or actually I would prefer um Liz if you're able to kind of talk through next steps and what we're doing for for preparation.

Sure. So, um it I think it's maybe a little premature to think about um like what materials would be produced supplemental to whatever ordinance changes are adopted. But that's certainly something that staff would look at once we have clear direction and changes made. Um we've also discussed so the city partners with the ADU resource center of Sonteo County. They've been a great partner, produce really good um public facing content, and I I know we would be um open to working with them for like outreach and engagement post adoption as well. So, I'm not sure exactly which diagrams would be produced, but I think certainly we want to make sure that we have materials that make this easy to understand. And if the commission has some suggestions in terms of the types of diagrams that you would like us to present at some of these public outreach meetings, please feel free to let Steph know.

Great. I I do think, you know, with with all the discussion of the daylight plane, a diagram that could be really helpful for anyone to understand. It would be one of those diagrams where you sort of have a volume over the site showing the full extent that you're allowed to build at any spot on that site. We have these diagrams kind of showing the There's one in the zoning code. Yeah. Yeah. Mhm. There you go. You know, as you read for fun,

as one does. Um, okay. I want I want to see if I can summarize what we said for the benefit of staff and try to move us along. So, um I heard Commissioner Bush say you are in favor of increasing um the height limit to 18 ft for twotory ADUs across the entire city. Um also uh not in favor of having separate height limits. I heard Commissioner Cler say that you are in favor of increasing the height limit for twotory ADUs to 18 ft across the entire city. I did not hear you clearly express an opinion about the separate height limits for stories. I'm I'm generally in favor of flexibility.

Okay. I don't know that every if if the if the limit is 18 that everyone is going to go all the way up to the limit for every project. It sounds like what we're hearing is that even though we have generous limits already in some areas that that things are not being built out to the maximum already anyways in those other categories. So, um, you know, I don't know if it, you know, ends up being a problem, right?

Uh, and, um, for simplicity sake, it might be better just to have one number that is generous, uh, and allows for architects and property owners and everyone to sort of say, "Okay, what's best for this site?" and not be as constrained. And I think I heard Commissioner Williams say you are in in favor of having the separate height limits for one or two stories.

Um yeah, I mean you all made good points, I think. Um but I generally thought the case was um well made for two separate uh for one story and two story and that the heights made sense to me. I did want to just comment on the um comment that was made by the public speaker and and on the das that the 14 foot plate height in you know like our neighborhoods um you know wouldn't be allowed then to a one store for a one-story house wouldn't be allowed then to a onestory um ADU I mean that may be a h like if it's like my house for instance it's a house from it's over 100 years old 1920 I think and so you know there's a porch you go up the steps to the porch And then, you know, you step up another step and then you're in the house and then I have weirdly like an 8 foot six height ceiling, I think. And so, you know, an an ADU isn't necessarily going to have a flight of stairs up to it. It might be, you know, more costefficient to not build a bunch of crawl space and all of that. You'd be building it closer to grade. So, I think there's design differences that are going to happen between the original um house and the ADU just naturally. So, they're not they're not being um it's not it's not that someone's going not going to get the benefit of 14 ft. It's just they're two different kinds of structures in my opinion. So, yeah, I think the two I still stand by that. I think the two heights make sense to me and all the numbers made sense to me.

Okay. And then I think I heard Commissioner Schwank say that you originally were leaning towards the two height limits, but you now understand the benefit of the flexibility. Yes. Okay, that is correct. Great. Um just real quick, can I see that diagram again with the daylight plane showing this and the setback? Yeah. I mean, um, with the 4-foot setback, if you're doing a 4 foot setback, you're and you're staying within the daylight plane, you're going up to 16. That's right. line anyways. Right.

Yeah. So, in most of these situations where someone wants to tuck an ADU in a corner of their property, close as close to the property line as they can, it's likely that the 16 ft limit is going to be um guiding their design choices regardless. Correct. Yeah.

Okay. I do want to call out one public comment we got. I realize none of us touched on it which in the letter that Johnettter sent to us. He noted that in some areas of the city right now due to flood plane structures are required to be 3 feet off off the ground 3T off the something. Is that true? I guess the broader question is is what is potential like groundwater and flood mitigation impacts of these height limits. See that I

I mean if you're in a flood zone, you'd have to build your finished floor above whatever that flood elevar flood elevation is. So that those could pose constraints depending but we we have removed a significant number of our sites from the flood zone. Um, but yeah, there are are a certain number of properties around the city that are do have flood zone constraints.

In those situations, are the plate heights adjusted to accommodate the flood zone constraints? Because like I don't know if you had a Oh, I guess I guess those would be primary dwellings, so they're already at the 2432 height limit anyway. So requiring them to build off the flood plane isn't going to materially impact what they can do. I mean, I there is variation um with the parcels depending on where they are. If they're adjacent to a creek, some portions in, some portions out. I mean, I think in general, the goal is to avoid flood zones when constructing habitable structures, but um for those that are um

yeah, I um yeah, there might be scenarios where if you have four or five feet, that might pose a constraint and maybe that's a good justification for a variance because I mean at that point you have a physical limitation um that could justify an increase via variance. Okay. that that's really what the variance process is there for for us a sight specific consideration like that. Sure. Um and then there are other cities that make adjustments to height based on the flood plane elevation. So that is something we can look into if you'd like. Great. That makes sense.

Are we ready to move on to item number two? Okay. I think item number two. Should the ordinance be amended to set a,200 square foot maximum size limit for new ADU construction? Do you have Let's start with questions. Commissioner Clafter, do you have any questions related to this item? Uh, yeah. So, my my understanding is that the current ordinance basically has a few guidelines already in place. you're allowed to build out your FAR allowance, but there is also currently um a requirement that the accessory unit not exceed the square feet of the primary unit. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. Yeah. and and then um but if I wanted to say construct an addition on my primary residence, there's no restriction on me from building out to the maximum far allowed. That's correct. The F would be the limiting factor. Okay. Um, and uh, I think that's the main thing for the moment. Commissioner Williams, do you have any questions on this item?

I don't. Although, um, I No, I guess not. I'm just thinking about some projects we've seen that have come through from the zoning administrator. And anyway, it's not really a question. I don't have any questions. Commissioner Bush, Commissioner Shaml.

Yeah, I have a question. Um, so as someone new to FAR, as they say, uh, I did some Googling. I understand what FAR is and understand how you calculate it, but I don't have a concept of what the FAR is here in Sano. Is it like based on anything in R1 has the same FAR or how do we think about figuring out what whether a you know 10,000 square foot parcel is going to have a really huge FAR such that an ADU only restrained by FAR could be 8,000 ft or how do we how do we kind of think about that?

Yeah. So through the chair the um F standards do vary depending on the zoning district. Um, so for example, in R1 zoning districts, it depends on if you're R1A, R1B, R1C. Um, and then it's determined based on lot size. Um, so I would have to look at the exact numbers, but um, it's commonly.5 for lots up to 6,000 square ft plus 2 times any remainder over 6,000. Um, and then another caveat is, um, if you have an overly large lot and you would the calculation would get you F beyond, um, 6,000 ft² of of, um, like buildable area. There's also an additional cap to not go beyond 6,000. Um, okay. So, when you say a lot size is 6,000 and it's 0.5, then that means 3,000 correct a square feet. Okay. Yes.

Um, I think that was my main question. Yep. Commissioner Shankle. Yes, I do have one question. Um,

sorry, going through my notes. Yeah, just a question in regards to the um the state minimum uh size entitlements um for the 850 square ft for studios and onebedroom and 10,000 for twobedroom. Um so [Music] if it's not going to trigger um this ministerally um how do those still go through um approval um for let's say kind of along the lines of what um commissioner um Bush was asking in regards to like a bigger lot um if We're going to allow um the eight. Okay. So, you put this up uh setbacks are allowed.

So, the state law isn't affected by what we're doing here with the with capping it at 1,200.

Yeah. So, the um through the chair, the state law provides a few different um requirements. So the the 850 and the 1,000 that you're referring to, those are essentially um minimum maximums, I guess you could say, for what we can cap maximum unit size as. So for example, we could not set um a maximum unit size of 700 square ft cuz that would be less than the 850 that we have to allow. Um so the the 1,200 goes beyond the um minimum maximums you could say that state law requires us to comply with.

Okay. Um and then I had one other uh input. So, would there be leeway for like a a safety valve um procedure where let's say someone has um extenduating circumstance or a special needs case for um accessibility for handicap where they could or they need to build a space that's higher than 1,200 square ft. Um what would the review process be? Would would that be the add? Yeah, most cities have a reasonable accommodation allowance, but typically it's not for Floria. It's really about different types of accessibility. Um, if that's something you want the staff to look into, we can, but typically that's not what um the reasonable accommodation is used for.

And and I think it's also important to note that 1,200 is the max mo the average size of ADU that we permit in the city is significantly below the 1,200. Um, so I I think by looking at kind of the trends, you could still add additional square footage beyond the average size if you needed accommodation or extra floor area and be within that 1,200. Okay. Thank you. I think I think to answer your question about the safety valve, that's a great topic to bring up when we talk about whether or not discretionary review should go away. Yes, I was going to follow up with that later. Uh, did any more questions? No, you have a question.

Fair. Yes. Yeah. Do you remember some additional questions? So, you mentioned we threw out a number that there have been four ADU projects that have exceeded the 1,200 threshold. I mean, did they you may not have the exact square footage at your fingertips right now, but did they go to 2,000 ft? Was it 1,210? Was it, you know, 1300? um through the chair. I I don't have the exact numbers right in front of me. I might be able to look them up and get back to you on that. Um I'll have to check.

Yeah. Um and then um was there something else? Um that talks about in the uh report talks about how it says state law generally envisions a maximum size limit. Then you mentioned talk about minimum maximum uh which is a fantastic uh construction, language construction there. Um uh and my interpretation of that is basically they're they're saying you could go more than that which we currently do but you can't do less. That has to be that like if you know it obviously an applicant could build an 1100 foot ADU but they have to be allowed to build at least to 1,200. Correct. So through the chair it's it's these minimum maximums um are informing the policy standards that local ordinance cuz the ordinances can implement. Um so it's not saying that necessarily any property owner would be allowed 1,000 square ft for an ADU with one or more bedroom. Of course a local ordinance could allow that. Um but rather we can't set a cap lower than that.

Yes. Within our regulation we must allow at least 1,000 square ft but we can allow more. Yeah. Okay.

And through the chair I do have um an answer for the earlier question about the square footages that were allowed over 1,200. So, we saw two at exactly 1,200, one at um 1,564 and one at 2,194 square ft each. Okay. And then and out of how many? Two, I'm sorry, 2,1 94. Okay. Thank you. house

I through the chair I don't have the total number but it's out of that's um from total permits issued from the time of the ordinance adoption in 2022 um through when this report was generated a few days ago. Okay. So yeah, so over over three years over three years. Commissioner Bush, thank you for just kind of following up on that and harking back to my other question about FAR. In order to have been allowed a 2100 square foot ADU that I know I'm not asking you to do the algebra right here, but like that's a big lot size, right? Correct. It would need to be quite a large lot to have that much available and the primary residence has to be large.

The primary residence has to be larger. Right. Right. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. I mean that it's a uh 100. There's the number. Oh, I just lost it. 2194. 2194. No, the number of ADUs over the last three years was 181. Yes. 181 ADUs over the last three years. Four of which exceeded the,200 foot limit. Yeah, I thought you were ask.

Any more questions on this topic? No comments. Commissioner Cler, leading off again. Oh, or shall we change it up, Commissioner Williams? Okay, sure. Yeah, let's change it up. Thought I started, but maybe not. Yeah, she she Sorry, Commissioner Williams did lead off, but

Well, I I don't I probably have not so much to say, but uh I'm going to reference the rationale and rely on the staff's understanding of this and also the fact that we just talked about the numbers. how many of them are um most of them are well below 1,200 f feet. So to me it seems like kind of a moot point and I just wanted to look at the rationale that staff provided. I mean it's that's the rationale that's that staff created um which is to say that um given this oh shoot all of a sudden uh I won't read the whole thing I guess but seen only a small number of proposed ADUs that exceed 1200 this size limit would ensure the ADU remains accessory to the primary residential unit and would cap larger units might have to pass it off to someone else who

I I think I can finish your thought for you which is the rationale is that the size limit would ensure the ADU is accessory to the primary unit maintain reasonable neighborhood scale and cont contextual relationships. Yes. What I got in my

Anyway, so that I to me that made a lot of sense. I like to think about the context of the neighborhood. I like to think about the relationship to the uh reg the main house or the main residence whatever. Um and so it makes sense to me that 1,200 foot maximum for the ADU is acceptable. Um I do think the question of the F I I I'm generally I think it's okay except then yeah in these cases of like really large you know properties like 10,000 foot lot that you have a 3,000 foot you know house on um you know then you end up with a really large um uh ADU like the one that we just talked about. So, I I see I don't know. I don't see that really in keeping with the idea of an ADU as an accessory dwelling unit to provide more housing. You're providing like a really giant house at that point.

Commissioner Claptor. Um yeah, I mean I I think um I had asked a question right at the beginning of this portion about um what one could use one's FAR for and you know we're the proposal is to impose a a limit on uh the use of FAR for ADUs but there would not be a limit on the use of FAR for um uh and you know a single family addition. So someone um could use their allowance as they see fit in that one way, but we're we're now going to tell them you can only use your allowance up to a certain amount for this particular thing. But this other thing go crazy still. Um we have we also have these we also have these other parts of the ordinance which we're not talking about this evening which we're keeping in place that the ADU cannot be larger than the primary residence. um far itself of course is a also a cap on not that much of the property can be built um and I feel like in general that you know again we've had this very generous limit which is more generous than the state requires um in that time we've seen four projects that exceeded it only one of them by an amount that made all of us go oh uh And you know, I could imagine a 2,000 square foot ADU in San Monteo Park or something like that. Um, but I imagine that is not going to be happening in neighborhoods full of small bungalows. Um, where it's again already has to be smaller than that. Um, I've also heard about situations where um, someone has said, "Well, I want to have a second unit of a certain size

and my primary residence is smaller than that. So, I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to build an addition on my small primary residence, which will then allow me later down the road to build a larger secondary unit. Again, I don't think that's happening all the time, but uh you know, we're talking about maintaining a certain scale and maintaining a certain character, um I don't necessarily want to make people jump through that hoop. Um and uh I just keep coming back to the idea that even though again we have this flexibility, people aren't necessarily abusing that. Um I don't think abuse is even necessarily the right word because it's something that is allowed. Uh people are not taking advantage of what they are allowed to do um the fullest extent and you know there are any number of reasons for that. There's a cost associated with building a 2,000 foot 8 that people simply you're not going to be interested in. Uh there's all these other things which are are keeping things at a reasonable scale. So, I just I'm just not sure I want to impose um another artificial sort of limitation. Um one could say that it's not a problem because most of the units are under 1,200 square feet. Um you could flip that around and say it doesn't matter that it's being more generow it's it's allowed to be more generous than that because people are not um generally needing that extra space. But if someone wants to go to,1 square feet, um I don't know that I have a problem with that and that that should have to go through additional review.

Great. Good.

All right, I'm going to go next. Um okay, so unsurprisingly, I I do not think we should set a maximum ADU size of,200 square ft. Um, we've kind of already covered this, but part of staff's rationale for suggesting a 1,200 foot cap is that it would ensure that an ADU remains accessory to the primary residential unit. But we already have a regulation um that ensures this because chapter 27.04.165 subsection F states the primary residential dwelling unit shall be larger in terms of floor area than any other residential unit situated on the same parcel or lot. So, we already have something in our residential code that is ensuring that the ADU remains accessory, but put a pin in that for a minute. Um, another part of the rationale is um the the fact that the city has only seen a small number of proposed ADUs for that exceed the,200 square foot limit. So, to me, I have the same um perspective as you. I think if out of 181 ADUs over the last three years, only four are exceeding the limit, then it doesn't feel like there's a big problem here. Um, and to your point, only one of them was at a size that made all of us go, "Whoa, that that's big." So, I think it would be different if um a lot of people were taking advantage of the flexibility to build 3,000 foot ADUs and we were starting to hear a lot of feedback from the community of how that might be impacting the neighborhood context. But when it's four in 3 years, I to me it just doesn't seem like a problem. And I also want to point out um the city's response to the HCD review letter. Uh, I'm going to read the whole response because I thought this was amazing. Um, item number 15 addresses max JDU size, which is more permissive than the maximum size under state law.

So, in our response letter, the city wrote, um, city staff consulted with HCD in 2021 2022 to seek guidance on the JADU size limit and received direction that a local jurisdiction could set a more permissive maximum size, provided that it was aligned with the overall function and intended use for JADUs. Based on this guidance, the city established a maximum size for JADUs of 650 square ft with the intention of encouraging more JADU construction and allowing for higher quality units within existing single family dwellings. Um, since the ADU ordinance was adopted in 2022, the city has issued permits for 36 Jedus, including six that are larger than 500 square ft. Because the city has permitted J8US that exceed 500 square f feet in size and because there is local support for maintaining the current size limit, the city would like to preserve the J8U size limit of up to 650 square ft in the ADU ordinance. So one, amazing response. Um two, I think that same logic applies to this max ADU size, right? Like our intent was to encourage higher quality units. we're not seeing a high number of projects that take that that um take advantage of that flexibility to go really large. And so for me, I think this doesn't feel like a problem and we should retain the flexibility we have today. Um because you can never anticipate what all those edge case scenarios are where someone might want that extra space for a good reason. I'm actually going to go one step further and say um I also think that we should amend our municipal code so that the size of the ADU isn't limited to the size of the primary dwelling. So back when we discussed this in 2021, you might remember Commissioner Williams,

this is one of the ones that we debated. um that recommendation to cap ADU sizes at the underlying FAR came from the planning commission. The staff recommendation at the time was a tiered ADU size system and we were the ones who were like actually what if it was capped by the FAR. Um, when we had that discussion and we had that made that recommendation, I didn't realize that there was a provision in the municipal code that required the primary dwelling unit size to be larger. And so I walked away from that meeting thinking that the only limit was the FAR. Um, and I think I had the same same um back back in 2021, I had the same uh thought that you did, Commissioner Cler, which is like I don't know that there is benefit to the community in in the city dictating where people spend their far. So, the example I have in my notes from 2021 is I said, assume that you have buildable square footage of 3500 square ft. Um, and assume the primary dwelling is 2,000 square ft. Like, why why would we say you can use um you have 1500 square ft left, you can use 1,200 ft bit of an ADU, but we're not going to use the let you use the extra 300 ft left on the table for your ADU. but you could put it to your primary dwelling. Like I just didn't see a huge benefit to regulating it in that way. Um and then I I also think like we have a really wide diversity of housing stock in San Mateo. So in older neighborhoods it's common to find smaller homes and in the newer neighborhoods like you mentioned San Mato Park, it's common to find larger

homes. So to me, it doesn't feel equitable to have a rule where homeowners with a pime larger primary dwelling are allowed to build larger ADUs. In a world where everyone has the FAR to do it, it feels inequitable to me to say if you happen to own a property with a larger primary dwelling, you get to build a larger ADU. Uh yeah. And so are you saying that you don't agree with

I'm saying I don't agree with how it is today? Like I I'm saying I don't agree with the provision in the municipal code that caps the primary dwell caps the ADU size at the primary dwelling size and that back in 2021 when we discussed this I didn't realize that that limitation was in the municipal code would do the same thing. It allows for a bigger I mean not the same thing but it allows for a larger home and a larger property to have a larger ADU. Totally. Un unless equitable 1,200 foot. Yes. Unless you live what? Go on. We um

Oh, okay. Um so you're right. Under a far-based system, I think it is equitable, right? because the limitation is the lot size. But right now we have a limitation that is the primary dwelling size. So if you have a really big lot but your primary dwelling is 1,000 square ft, you can't build an ADU that is bigger than 1,000 square ft. But if your neighbor has the same lot size but has a 3,000 ft house, they can build a bigger ADU than you can because their house is bigger. And um I've I've talked to some folks who operate in other jurisdictions the same comment you had where a similar restriction is in place and it sounds like people are doing what you mentioned um where they want to create a larger family size ADU but their primary dwelling is small and so they end up putting an addition on their primary dwelling that they don't want or need just so that they can create a larger ADU. tear they've torn down

or tear down, right? The house is built a two-story house. Totally. And then a new Yeah. If we're talking about uh reasonable neighborhood scale and contextual relationships and you're talking about an older established neighborhood with little cute little bungalows and historic charm and uh you are um having a property owner who wants to be able to stay in their home for some reason maybe, you know, there's there's some reason they want to have extra living space or they want to have an ADU so they can have an income thing or I don't whatever it is. um you know, room for the family. Um they may be incentivized to tear that house down and uh and build a bigger house. houses in my neighborhood on my street or adjacent to my street,

you know. And and conversely, if you have um the ability to construct a at least, you know, up to the far uh and you can have this bigger property on the back, it's it's actually probably going to um protect that little home in the front because um it's less likely that someone's going to come in and uh remove a newly constructed ADU and uh the primary residence. Well, and you you still in the scenario that I'm seeing se several times lately is um the tear down and then the twostory house is big enough that it's taking up mo you know quite a bit of the F. So the ADU has stayed. I mean, it is sort of this thing that it's a little bit of a moot point because people aren't necessarily taking advantage of the um of all the except in the case where they're tearing down and they're building a new giant two-story house, then the ADU has to be smaller. I has to be quite a bit smaller than it originally could be. Through the chair, if I could just add a couple of thoughts to the discussion. Um, I mean I in that scenario, um, the term accessory dwelling unit, I think that's a key definition. You're creating a different unit type if you're making it bigger than the primary dwelling. You're now building a new primary dwelling. And so in that scenario, what you would do is you would reclassify the main house as an ADU and then you'd build a new primary. Um, to go to build an ADU larger than the primary, I mean, you functionally then have a pathway to build a new primary dwelling unit to ADU standards. So those are the considerations there, but I think the key is in the definition with which is accessory. Um so that that's kind of what the guide is there and that's why why it was kind of created as the parameters. I mean um you're looking more at primary units if you're now going become building the largest unit on the lot.

I think that's a fair point, right? Like it's called accessory dueling unit. I think I'm I'm concerned about the implications and the I'm concerned about the equity implications when you've got two exact same size lots. One has a big house on it, one has a small house on it, and then those property owners are restricted to different sizes of ADUs. And it just it feels like an extra hoop and cost to make people jump through to stick an addition on their primary dwelling so that they can build a larger potentially familysized ADU. Um I'll leave it at that. Like I think I think the point it is an accessory dwelling unit, but I do I do think that causes the way it is today causes some inequities. I

I I do think the you know as it is right now where we're allowing people to you know this We have we have a code that code gives people an allowance form of FAR and um you know so they they and and it is it is property that people own and we're saying to them hey this is what you're allowed to do with this and um you can spend that allowance however you want and um you know subject to other guidelines like the daylight plane or or setbacks or the rear third and that sort of thing and and those are all constraints and um and then within that you know hire an architect and do something interesting. Uh and then um given that people in general do not seem to have gone too crazy

y and um they're obviously not currently building accessory units which are larger than the primary residence because they can't Yeah. But, you know, they can they can do any combination of build an addition on the house and build an ADU that they want. Um, and it seems people have been pretty um reasonable about that. So, you know, I just feel like, you know, let people have that flexibility. Again, flexibility. I keep I reading through this packet and all this stuff. I keep coming back to that word. Um, you know, it seems like it seems like uh, you know, um, people have not um, done anything in general. been able to again four four out of

sure 100 something right or six jadus out of 36 y have gone above that so I'll I'll summarize my point which is I don't think we should have a200 foot max I think we should keep it at the far I think that we already have a regulation that requires the ADU to be smaller than the primary dwelling so we don't need another regulation to ensure um that it is remains an accessory unit because we already have one. That's that's my TLDDR. Um, Commissioner Bush, Commissioner Shaml, sure. I want to make sure you guys get to speak.

Yeah. Um, I think it's important that it does remain accessory um to the primary residents. Um but I do that's why I had mentioned in my um during my questions if if there would be an opportunity for a pathway for um optional discretionary review for um those who are seeking a larger ADU um for special needs um whatever they may be. Um, but I I am in favor of keeping the cap on um the size of what uh ADU should be. Um, but I'd also like if there was, like I said earlier, a little safety mechanism that we could turn on that spigot only as required for a special needs case to go under additional review for approval. So I just I just want to follow up and clarify you. Um so today we do have a cap that is the size of the primary unit. You can't go bigger than the size of the primary unit. Do you also want to set a cap at 1,200 ft²? So if your primary unit is bigger than 12,200 square ft, do you want to cap the ADU at 12,200 ft² or are you okay with the ADU? As long as it's smaller than the primary unit, it can be built.

Yes, I'm okay with that. Okay, Commissioner Bush, thank you. Um, just my understanding is that the current cap is actually FAR plus 800 square ft. Is that correct? like the remaining FAR plus 800 square feet. Yes, that's correct. So 800 square feet only of ADU living area is um exempt from total F. So it serves essentially as a bonus for use.

Thank you. So there are going if we regulate it just by FAR plus this 800 ft² exemption then there are going to be ADUs without without a,200 foot max or any other max. There are going to be ADUs that are built that create greater than the FAR on the lot, right? Or that is possible anyways up to 800 ft more than the FAR allowable on the lot, right? I'm seeing nodding. Okay.

Yes. But they still would be limited by the size of the 800 square ft exemption. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um is just for the calculation of the FAR limit. The entire ADU still has to be smaller than the primary dwelling. You can't make the ADU be 800 square feet larger than the primary dwelling.

Right. Right. Yeah, I understand. Um, yeah. I think for me it's like easier to think in actual examples. So, I asked Liz ahead of time if you have a max far available on a lot is 3,000 square feet. the existing primary residence is 2,000 square feet and you want to build an ADU that's 1,200 square feet. Um, you can do that and you also could build actually an ADU that's 1,800 square ft um under the FAR plus 800 square ft um exemption. So for me it's like okay well 1,200 square foot max in that situation is leaving square footage on the table. Um, and it's still smaller than the primary residence. Um, and you know, in theory then it's not some hulking mass bigger than the primary residence. Um, but then I also asked about, you know, it sounds like there are numerous numerous other jurisdictions in on the peninsula, some similar to us, some not, that have a 1,200 square foot max, if not less. Correct? I believe you said. Yeah. So, I asked ahead of time. There's I mean, I could read them to you, but it is basically every city on the peninsula. Like, maybe save a few. I didn't count them, but have a uh um have a max on ADU sizes of 1,200 square f feet or less. Is that right?

That's correct. I am not certain about how other cities regulate F, but those maximums are accurate. So then I think about that and it's like well you know obviously Sam is unique and and we have to think about the you know the circumstances here but it also suggests to me that there hasn't been some huge issue with the 12,200 foot max um in those jurisdictions. So where am I? I'm a little torn to be honest. Uh, I feel like, you know, I don't want to leave square footage on the on the table because the more square footage you're allowed, the more bedrooms you can have, the more people you can house there, the more accessible the ADU would be to a family. Um but I also see the benefit of having a maximum other than FAR um FAR plus 800 really because of the scenarios where you can have um you can have things that really don't fit um in the neighborhood or otherwise. Um but I guess uh I guess the emphasis on the other limitation is the size of the primary residence maybe um council's for me in favor of just using the FAR um because probably in a lot of scenarios you're not going well I don't know I have a 1500T house so like that's a pretty you could have a 1500 foot ADU I I don't know if I have an answer. Maybe am I last right now? So, okay.

Um I think I would be fine with with the 1,200 foot max. That's that's why I came into this discussion uh fine with it. Um I think there it's I think it's uh nice to have sort of like a clear line. Um and I think perhaps per Commissioner Williams discussion maybe it is more equitable um in light of the fact that um FAR would allow for you know larger lots to have larger ADUs. Um so I think that's where I'm landing after talking out loud for a while. Okay. So if I'm going to summarize all of us, I think Commissioner Clafter, Commissioner Shankl, and I were okay with leaving it at the FAR given the primary unit size restriction that exists today already. And I think um Commissioner Bush and Commissioner Williams were okay with capping it at,200 square feet, but I can't quite remember what you said. So,

as I started coughing, um, yeah, that's what I said. Okay, great. I I think I started talking about the rationale that's in the do in the packet. I thought said it well.

Okay. So, you've got a split opinion. Next item. Is should the ordinance be amended to do we should we take a break? Okay. Sorry. Be sensitive to that. Um should the ordinance be amended to exempt all ADUs from off- streetet parking requirements? Any questions? Did I have one question? Go ahead.

Okay. Um yes, let me sorry. me. Um so, uh the city is um says CL wants to clarify that voluntary parking is allowed and encouraged um and uh in part by allowing existing driveways and curb cuts to remain um even when a garage or carport is converted, demolished for an ADU. though I think you know in those cases you know what we're seeing is covered parking or enclosed parking is being removed for the the new accessory structure um the curb cut in and of itself is not to me is not really um it's a theoretical future parking in the event that that space becomes open again for a car um which is you know beneficial in in some respect but are we doing are we have there been any discussion in about in some some other way to encourage um people who are in an area that is otherwise exempt to include off streetet parking. It I mean it has to be incentivized because we can't there's no parking minimums required for ADU. So I think it's really just looking for different ways and flexibilities to to encourage it where where it might be feasible. Um, we did note specifically about the the driveway and the curb cut because it actually is a code requirement that when a garage goes away, the curb cut in the driveway needs to go away. So, it's like, well, let's leave that so you still have the uncovered parking because in reality, I think you you end up with

opportunities for uncovered parking because there there's any number of pathways to convert garages or carports to ADUs. And we often see that and we wouldn't necessarily see new garages or carports built as part of that. maybe in a rear yard with a detached structure, you could still have a garage within an ADU above it. Um, so I think it's really looking at any all portions of the lot um to provide for that off- streetet parking.

But there hasn't been any like um the proposal is to include something about allowing people to keep those driveways and keep the curb cuts and that that's that's been the disc that's the incentive that's been discussed. Nothing nothing else. In certain areas of the city, we've looked at um waving lot coverage requirements for hardscape. Um I think in particular in front yards um because that that's also a limiting factor is width of driveway or amount of hardscape. So if you take that cap or raise it, then you have more ability to maybe add a second a first or second space where maybe it would not have been permitted otherwise. Yeah. Okay. I think that's the only question I had.

I have a question related to parking requirements. Um, so the um there currently isn't anything anywhere about ADUs uh needing to be accessory from the I'm not sure how to say it that need to needing to be accessed from the street where the the house the primary residence is accessed. Um and there's nothing that prohibits somebody from accessing the ADU from an alley. I know we I've talked about this in the past. Um, and I um I feel like there are alleys that are not paved. They're dirt, not even you know, gravel frankly. And I I feel like um you know somebody like for instance the project that I'm thinking of is you know has been basically the house was torn down, a new two-story house was built and then an accessory um dwelling unit was built on the alley and there's um it's in the middle of the block. So there is a garage associated with the ADU. So that's great because otherwise somebody either drives down and parks in the alley or parks on the street and walks down the dark alley to get to their front door. There's no other way to get to the ADU. And it it just seems um it I guess my question is is can we consider is there any what would be the means to change that in the ADU um ordinance? I guess um can can it be deemed that it has to be accessible from a public right of way like or a pathway through the property that it's part of. It seems like it has a poor access in this particular case and I don't know

how often this occurs but it's occurred at least once. And so anyway, I'm I guess I don't need an answer about it right now, but I think it should be something to be considered in this ordinance that the the access to the ADU should be through the property that it's on or through a public right of way. And the alley is not really a public right of way, at least it's not paved in all cases. Um I don't know that ADU statute speaks directly to that but it does speak to what we like jurisdictions cannot limit and I know in different iterations for past jurisdictions there was comments about oh can we require the entrance to face a street or put um limits or requirements on that and HCD's response was no you can't and so in this situation my instinct would tell me that we probably can't limit limit where an ADU has access from. Um, I think we do have a number of properties around the city or neighborhoods that do have these privately maintained alleys, but they still do have access over them. So, if a property has an access easement, whether it's over a private property or it's public right away, um, we could look into it, but my guess would be we probably couldn't prohibit an entry on something where they have legal access over it, even if maybe the condition is suboptimal, like you mentioned,

they still have that access easement over that alley to um, drive a vehicle or walk across. And so I I don't know that we could prohibit an ADU from having entry off of um something like an an easement access easement like that. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bush. Commissioner Shaml, any parking related questions? No, I don't have any questions. All right. Shall we go to our discussion of this commission Williams? Me this time or him this time? I can start. Yeah. Commissioner Bush, please. Yeah, I agree with the recommendation.

Love it. Love it. I didn't actually hear what you said. I got to work on my mumbling from the dis. I agree with the recommendation and have no comments. I guess we're going in reverse order, so we'll go ahead and let the new people go first on this one. Um, yeah, I also agree with the recommendation. um especially because it's also it's a big hurdle and a barrier for people who are going to be constructing ADUs to have to um supply and provide um parking space. So um yeah, I uh agree with the recommendation.

Um I won't be quite so succinct, but I won't be very long. This um is a um also basically a moot point because as we talked about

most of the city has you know will an ADU would fall into one of those exemptions. So, I I don't really I don't really have any objection to the exemption except in the case where somebody has to park or either walk or park down a dark alley to their front door, but there's nothing that can prevent that. So, at this point in time, um, and I I I thought about whether or not um it would be worth um if if we didn't exempt uh the off- streetet parking requirement, then um there's a lot of workarounds. I mean, so it's it's not that easy. It's not that hard to on paper show that we have a driveway. you can fit one parking space for the ADU, one parking space tandem for the house. In reality, you know, that's probably not how it would operate. People would park on the street to not block each other. So, it's sort of one of those same kind of circular arguments where it's kind of a moot point. I'm not sure it's really necessary, but I I guess I I guess I could ex it could be amended to exempt all the ADUs from off street parking. Yes, I um also tend to ramble. Um but uh yeah, following on on what Commissioner Williams just said um and what everybody else has said, you know, uh basically a mood point, it's our most ADUs across the vast majority of the city are exempted from having to um you know keep any sort of off streetet parking. So, you know, this just simplifies everything by making the same standard

everywhere. That said, following up on my question, we do have a directive to find ways to improve off- streetet parking. And I know that in my neighborhood that's not really a problem. I can always find a parking space if I needed one on the street somewhere within reasonable walking distance of where I'm living. That's not true everywhere, though. I know that there are some parts of town which are very difficult to park in and I think that's where that directive from council came from and um allowing people to keep the curb cuts, allowing people to keep the the driveway to use as a parking pad is is a a great idea. Sometimes that's not practical when they're constructing the ADU. So, I don't know um what other steps in the future can be considered at a at a at another date to help people um with this problem. Um and at the same time also, you know, I don't necessarily want to encourage people to be driving, but it's a reality. So, um just something to keep in mind for the future.

All right. Am I up? I also have a tendency to ramble. Um, let me scroll to my notes. Okay, so I I love this recommendation because I think this is a great example of how we can simplify and streamline our regulations. You know, have one rule applicable everywhere. Um, so I agree with this recommendation um that we should eliminate all required off- streetet parking for ADU citywide while clarifying that voluntary parking is allowed and encouraged. And yes, and um I don't I don't know if this is the um opportunity, but I'll echo what Commissioner Clafter said, which is that statement to clarify um voluntary parking is allowed and encouraged. As Commissioner Clafter noted, in 2021, the city council spent a lot of time discussing how to incentivize off- streetet parking because in some neighborhoods, uh, parking supply is very tight. It's getting worse. It's impacts to parking is one of the top concerns we hear from residents about new development. Um, you heard public comment tonight where they asked that uh, we don't exempt the small remaining parcels left from the parking requirements. It's come up a lot recently during discussions about bike lanes. um where you know parking is is a top concern to everyone. And so in 2021, the city council spent a lot of time discussing how can we incentivize people to build off- streetet parking if it's not required. And while I think some of the suggestions that have been said already are are great, they're a good start, you know, not to make people have to rip out a driveway or rip out a curb cut. Um, I think we need I think we need to think more on this. I think we need to come up with more ideas. Um, I

personally don't love altering the lot coverage requirements because I think open green space is important for people who live in their homes. And I think, you know, people should have access to lawns. Kids should have access to lawns. I worry about the permeability of surfaces, especially with storm water runoff because storm water runoff has been an issue. So, you know, I think I think we need some thought into how do we actually encourage and incentivize off- streetet parking. Um, I will I will note that today if a homeowner lives in a part of a city where off- streetet parking is not required and they voluntarily provide off- streetet parking, the um guidance from city is that that off- streetet parking is is not part of the ADU and it's subject to the underlying zoning requirements. And I think that's a really important thing to call out because if this recommendation is now that all ADUs are exempt from off- streetet parking, that means every applicant that voluntarily provides off- streetet parking will be subject to the underlying zoning rules for the off- streetet parking that they're providing. And I think um we should keep in mind that that may make it difficult to build an ADU and off- streetet parking as part of a parcel and package if those things are subject to two different sets of zoning rules. Um I've been thinking about this a lot because this was mentioned in the HCD letter. We haven't talked about it tonight, but um as I learned from reading the HCD letter, ADUs are now allowed in front yard setbacks. It seems like and um and it and if I understood the HCD letter correctly and then I Googled correctly,

uh I don't think we can impose a front yard setback to a front yard ADU. So they still have to provide a 4ft rear and sideyard setbacks, but they don't have to provide a front yard setback. And that is all to say there is the opportunity now. I think I could be wrong. It's just the visibility issue.

I It's It's okay if I'm wrong. It's not an important detail, but the idea is ADUs can go in front yards. Now, um front yards to to the point that you just made are accessible to the street, right? The street is right there. So for those ADUs, that's a really natural place to want to include voluntarily parking as part of that ADU. But today, the setback requirements for covered parking and closed parking for garages. The setback requirements for garages are larger than the setback requirements for a front yard. So you wouldn't be able to do that. So, I think like if if we're going to talk about how we voluntarily how we encourage voluntary parking, I think we need to think through um how these things work together and how we can make it simple and easy for people to provide the off- streetet parking. Um I was going to call out that uh I was trying to figure out like what have other jurisdictions done to incentivize off- streetet parking. um Los Angeles and Los Altos Hills. Uh

I'm about to use a positive example of zoning and development from LA, which has perhaps never happened before. Okay, so um Los Angeles will allow you to build off streetet parking within the allowable footprint of an ADU. So, if you're building an ADU that has 4ft setbacks, you can build um covered parking underneath that ADU. Los Altos Hills does the same thing. And I actually um learned that Los Altos Hills incentivizes doing that by providing you bonus square footage if a garage is included as part of the ADU. So, these are just some ideas to throw out there for how we might um incentivize off- streetet parking. Um feel it seems like it's a problem that's getting worse and worse and you know as as we start to think about other um other needs for our public right of way like bike lanes very hot topic right now. Uh, I think it's I think it's a good idea to think about how we can how we can really incentivize off- streetet parking. And like those are I feel like there's got to be better ideas out there than just that. Um, so maybe I'll think on it some more and Google it some more and see if I can find out any other jurisdictions that are doing creative things with off streetet parking. Uh, okay. So, that's all I had to say. Yes, we should we should amend the ordinance to do this. But let's also try to think creatively about how we can incentivize off streetet parking. Next question. Last question. Right. Multiart. Okay. I had a lot of notes for this one. Sorry guys. Um shall we start with questions? Do we want to take a

break? I generally like to offer breaks every 90 minutes. How are we feeling? Want to power through this one or you want to take a break? Power through. Let's do it. Okay. All right. Okay. Let's keep going. Who wants to go first? Let's open it up. Do we have any examples from other jurisdictions on how they handle second story deck and balconies on an ADU? through the chair. I I don't have any off the top of my head, but that's certainly something we can look into

regarding decks specifically. You mean decks and balconies? Yeah, because um I would love to there I don't really have any I'm afraid I don't really have much frame of reference at the moment on this one. I

like what what other places are doing. So I I have a um related question but one larger question first which is that my understanding from the packet was there are a few other proposed updates that I don't see questions about and I'm wondering if this is the time to talk about them for example the one-/3 uh setback the you know zero foot setback for the one-/3 conversion accessory d is this the time to ask about that and talk about that or is that a different slide or

um yeah through the chair I didn't have specific questions for any of those, but I can certainly navigate back and we can dive into the other objective standard changes if um we'd like. Okay. I do have uh thoughts about the accessory conversion piece, but I'll save them till after we answer these questions. Um, I also wondered whether there are uh requirements currently on primary dwelling balcony, second story balcony sizes. And I asked that question too. Okay. I Yeah, I I um think I missed your answer in my email, but um what are those and h how should we think about that?

Yeah. So, um through the chair, we don't have restrictions on the size of decks or balconies for um primary residences. The um the way they're regulated is it kind of depends on the design. So, if it's a covered deck or balcony, it would count towards um total F and be limited kind of naturally through those requirements. Um, for uncovered decks, it it depends on the height of the deck, um, whether or not it can be allowed within setbacks and to what extent. But in terms of the size of the deck, um, no specific restrictions. Although I would mention that, um, there are setback standards for houses, um, and it could be expensive to extend a deck way out without structural support underneath. So, um, that would maybe naturally limit it while we don't have a specific standard.

Can I add to that? Sorry. You're saying that would naturally limit the size of the deck that because you don't have the structural support is that way you should be canvering some deck. Yeah. Through the chair. I think it's maybe feasible, but it would be a very creative design. Yeah. Okay. I didn't think you could do that actually. Do we have any limitations on Juliet balconies?

Through the chair. No limitations on Juliet balconies. Like if I like if I wanted to have a large sliding glass door like a double you know like almost like a you know double wide like a like a you know um and I could have a Jul turn it into a Juliet balcony essentially just a very large generous one that would be acceptable um for are you asking for ADUs specifically? Yeah. Yeah. So currently, um, I believe that would be treated as a second story deck or balcony and would be subject to the ADUDR standard.

I'm going to jump in and note, I'm not quite sure if this is what you were asking, Commissioner Bush, but um, I had the same question. Are there size restrictions for primary units on deck balconies? And the answer is no. But um there are regulations uh chapter 27.18.100 and 27.70.02 if anyone's following along at home uh that govern decks and balconies on primary dwellings in front yard rear yard, interior sideyard and street side yards. So they are allowed in those setbacks on primary dwellings but with restrictions. So depending on which yard it is, the amount that you can project into that yard is limited but you are allowed to project into the sideyards for a primary dwelling

through the chair. Um just kind of providing a little color to the conversation. I I think decks and balconies they were probably the primary driver for why the ADUDR process was established back in 21-22 and it is because you have a unique sensitivity that varies lot to lot context to context and I mean just having um worked through the design review process here and in other jurisdictions often times they're they can be the most controversial aspect of a two-story house because they feel the most kind of acutely um in terms of privacy on an adjacent property, the ability of people to hang out and look into a yard space,

the ability to congregate and create noise that projects further onto other neighboring properties. And so I think that's a driving sensitivity and thinking about um yes, with an accessory dwelling unit, how much of a balcony do we want to allow? Do we want to set parameters? I mean, I think that was a key for allowing the the DR process to look at the context and think about, well, do we want to have higher solid railings to create a little bit more privacy? Um maybe um be aware of is there a slope? Because if it's a slope down, the the balcony can see further. If it's a slope up, maybe being adjacent to a cider rear yard, there isn't really an impact because or maybe it's adjacent to a water tank site where so there's a lot of those very context specific things where sometimes a large balcony is fine and other times it could really be a challenging dynamic in a neighborhood to add one in. And so those are the considerations as you're if you're looking at an objective standard to think about and some of the challenges and also being aware maybe an ADU isn't the best place to have a large deck as opposed to think about it with the main dwelling instead. But all all just things to think about as as you're looking at this question

and are there other restrict if if we were to say let's say the balcony can be 30 ft or whatever. Also, I'm going to have to learn square footage and like what's an approximation by 65 in within four years. But, um, let's say we did agree to 30 square feet, whatever. Um, would that be the only restriction on balconies or or are there other restrictions that come into play for ADUs on second story balconies

like the makeup of the railing for instance? Well, I mean I not like building things but like um like like setbacks or um whatever if there's like an equivalent of sort of the daylight plane but not for about you know vis visual planes or whatever like is this the only objective standard and if you meet the standard you get that you get a balcony wherever you want it that's architecturally sound on your ADU. So, um, through the chair, we're also looking at recommendations for setback standards for balconies to, I think, address some of, um, those concerns about maybe privacy or proximity to a neighboring property. Um, with the suggestion from staff being that ADU, um, second story decks and balconies be subject to the setbacks of the underlying zoning. um which would vary depending on the zoning district you're in, but would be a greater setback than perhaps the 4T that the ADU would be allowed. So that's not to say that other portions of the ADU could not be closer to the property line, but that any area of the deck would need to be outside of those. So, um I think that's also an item for discussion tonight. Um so curious to hear the commission's feedback on that, but that's staff's recommendation. Yeah, because I don't see it on the discussion questions, but I remember it from the staff report where prohibiting decks or balconies within the underlying zoning required setbacks was one of the constraints you were considering. Yeah. No portion of the deck or balcony shall be within setbacks of the underlying zoning district.

Would that would that include an entrance? Uh like an entrance to a second story ADU like a porch. Yeah. Um or is a porch distinct from a deck? So I think it would depend linger on your porch if it's the only outdoor space I have

through the chair. I think it would depend on whether we're looking at a a porch at the ground level. Right now what we're talking about would be second story decks and balconies. Um and currently um what's allowed without ADUDR is just a landing. That's the max the minimum required to meet building code requirements for egress. So I think that would be considered um access like a landing and anything larger than that would be considered a deck or a balcony. A landing is as small as like 3 feet deep I believe. Uh three three feet by three feet. Yeah. How do you get furniture through that?

Well, it's door. It's like door size, but yeah, it's Yeah, that that would just be to provide space for the door to open. So, really just an access landing, not a balcony. Do you have any comparators? Like I have I literally have no idea how I know that in my apartment my deck was like pretty big that I probably could come up with a square footage if I tried. Maybe it was 100 square feet. It was big. And sometimes I've had a deck that's

Well, if you had like a sliding glass door from your living space to your like deck, this sliding glass door is probably like 6 ft wide. And so if that was the full width of your deck, it would be like 6 ft wide by however far out. Yeah. Then that's helpful. I mean, not a not like please explain the square footage to me, but instead like a Yeah. Like well I guess it's that as a comparator for like thinking about Yeah. Like you had at least six feet. So you had like or maybe 10. Okay. So six. So wow we're getting really in the weeds. Um what's a typical balcony depth or deck depth like?

I mean like just a balcony kind of where you maybe put like a balcony a cafe table like maybe. Okay. So, sliding glass door with a little coffee table would be 6x4 24 ft. Thank you. Very minimal. Yeah, I think it I think it says something. I'm not exactly sure what that we're all struggling to picture a large deck or balcony off of a second story ADU right now. Um, I'm going to reframe the conversation real quick and and we're we're it feels like we're discussing, but I want to make sure if people had questions, we got the questions out of the way first. So,

I have additional questions on like the second component of this question. Let's maybe let's focus on the decks and balconies part first. Let's break down. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Decks and balconies questions. Uh, Commissioner Williams or Commissioner Shankl, just of uh, of the 181 um, ADUs that have been constructed within the past 3 years, have any of those been constructed with a deck or a balcony?

Um, through the chair, yes, we have seen several approved with a deck or balcony. Um, let's see. One, two. Um, so we've got nine. um that proposed it. And of those one, two were approved through the ADUDR process with um a larger second story deck or balcony.

And also just to provide a clarification on the number, the 181 is the number of ADUs that have been final. The city has actually issued permits for 299 ADUs since March of 22. So there's a number that are either starting construction, under construction, but the 181 is just final. So, um, we've done a lot of ADU production over the past three and a half years. Wow, great. That's great. I have another question. Um, for an ADU built on top of a garage, so the ADU itself is the second story, but it's not a twotory ADU. Does this Are we talking about those as well? Um, yes,

that that's an interesting one. So, um, uh, yeah, what was, uh, do we have some sense of like u for the for the few that did have balconies, um, was this a do we and again, you may not know right now of what the form that balcony took, was it over the roof of a lower level? Was it can levered off the side?

So through the chair, I would have to look at the specific approvals to give greater detail. Um I do have just some some quick notes on the the size of the balconies that were approved. So of the two that um so I I guess to add some context I have some notes just on ADUDRS in general and um specifically for the the several I believe yeah nine that initially submitted for ADUDR with a second story balcony. Seven of those were withdrawn. Um, primary reason we saw for folks withdrawing their ADUR application was to just revise it to go through a ministerial approval. Um, so that would have included like removing the deck or balcony. Perhaps they just thought it would be more simple to get rid of that piece and go through the ministerial approval. Um, but that there were two that did um fully go through the ADUR and get an approval for a second story decker balcony. Um, one I'm just looking here. The balcony size was about 16 by 4 1/2 um feet dimension wise. And it it did meet setbacks of the underlying zoning. And then the other one was approximately 18 ft long by 3 1/2 ft wide and also did meet the underlying zoning setbacks. specifically for the balcony. Um I'm not sure without looking at the plans where exactly that balcony was proposed, but hopefully that gives a little bit of color to what we have approved the two um that went through that process.

Thank you. Commissioner Williams, do you have any questions about Dex balconies? Wondering if we're kind of making a case for ministerial for um rather for the um add. Yeah. Yes. Let's put a pin in that though. Let's put a pin in it. Uh I think we're all kind of getting there, but let's put a pin in it. I think I did have a a question related to this. I have to go through my notes, but I can't remember. No, I don't have a question related to this. Um Commissioner Shaml, I can't remember if you've already asked a question about this topic. I did.

Okay, great. Let's move on to discussion of text and balconies. How do we feel about these questions? Um should there be a size limit and should um they be prohibited in the setbacks of the underlying zoning?

Yes, please. So when I think about second story decks on an ADO or even a house, for me it's not really about the size. So it's like equally invasive or not invasive regardless of how large it is unless you can only fit I mean and one person is you know the same as three people on the deck as far as I'm concerned if you're looking into my backyard from your deck. Um, so I don't know. I mean, I think I mean I I think I would be inclined just to not even allow second story decks in like most situations absent some like very specific guidelines about what those would be. For example, an ADU over a garage where the deck is facing the road. Um, or I would make the ADU requirements the exact same as the primary residence requirements. So, um, but maybe with a I guess in that situation, you can have a second story deck, but at least all the setbacks would be the same. And in that case, if primary residences don't have a maximum size deck, then then so be it. Um, then I'd be fine with the ADU not having maximum size deck. I think the concern for me is just for the ADUs where the setbacks are less than the primary residence, any second story balcony or deck is going to has the potential to feel invasive. And as a lay person, like before I read anything about definitely a concern for me for would be the like privacy aspect of a two-story ADU. Um, so to answer the question, I think I care more about the setback piece and would uh would be inclined to say that it has to meet the same requirements as the primary residents and um I guess if those are met then might as well have

the same limitations on size as primary residents which I think is there is no limitation from the staff discussions.

Great. I think I would echo um Commissioner Bush's comments. I don't think anyone likes the idea of I mean, you know, we're talking about people building residences in, you know, and living space in their backyards and potentially even being second story. And I think there's that and then there's uh going into your backyard and looking at this, you know, hopefully architecturally interesting new new construction in the backyard and looking up at it and seeing someone staring down at you. Uh I I think you know from a from a deck and you know looking into what your your yard I think I think that you know that can be tricky. Um sometimes someone might find a way to make it work. Um you know as we got the staff comment you know it's like kind of been on a casebyase basis um uh up to now. Uh so yeah, I I mean I definitely think you know keeping it out of the setback uh can make a lot of sense, but beyond that I'm a little unclear on what a standard should be.

I go ahead. Mhm.

Um yeah, I I think what the previous commissioners said makes a lot of sense to me and that um I I think what one of the one of the concerns is is sort of like you know look thinking about like worst case scenario and it's like yeah I do think that maybe there should be a size limit and it should be um you know reigned in because it it's not that you I think of the worst case scenario I think of, you know, a, you know, garage on the first floor, an ADU over that, and then somebody just makes it super simple and creates the whole roof, you know, a big deck over the garage that is not even particularly attractive and could hold a lot of people and, you know, I just think there's a lot of um potential for really bad design and, you know, in terms of privacy and other things. So the con the idea of decking a deck in a setback seems really strange to me. So I don't think that should be allowed. In fact, I think of I tend to think of setbacks as like fire protection from the next property or for the next property either way. And so you know you talk about one hour rated walls. Well a deck doesn't have a fire rating. It's just kindling. So, so that seems not a good idea to me. Um, yeah, I would like to set a limit on them if they are allowed. Um, because I think it's easy to sort of just put a big deck on for I mean, if there's no limit, I don't know. Maybe maybe people wouldn't do that because it's just additional cost that doesn't necessarily serve a purpose.

I'll add that we have the data today, right, too? Oh, there's two there's two applications that came through. Yeah. So, um it's not happening a lot. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Um I I support allowing I mean um as as far as that they don't encroach into people's privacy um with and making sure that the setback limitations are um are there and enforced. Um as far as size and standard for what that what that should look like I I don't have a numerical number or value for what that set size should be. Um but um I I support allowing second story balconies so far as they don't encroach on privacy and um are um subject to setback.

Okay. Um I find my comments. I have a few thoughts. Okay. So, um, I originally came in saying I wasn't sure about the restriction that they not be permitted in the setbacks of the parcels of the underlying zoning because if the ADU itself can be built in those setbacks, but you limit putting the balconies in those setbacks, I worry it might create oddly shaped things where you have like a balcony that just terminates into the middle of an elevation or a facade and that just I feel like that would look odd.

So my initial my initial thought was like it doesn't seem to be a problem. There's been two applications that have been able to get it approved. So like do we need to add more restrictions if it's if it's not a huge problem today? Now after hearing my fellow commissioners talk I think I've become a little bit more conservative. Um I think aligning it with what's happening with the primary dwellings can make sense right where with the primary dwellings they do allow it in the setbacks but in a limited fashion. So I think if we are going to impose a setback limitation matching it to what the rules are for the primary dwellings may make sense but I think I need to maybe read those rules again to convince myself that that's true. I could be open to a size limit, but I ran into the same problem we all did. Like I just really struggled to figure out what that size limit should be.

Depends on the

It depends on the project. It depends on the property. It dep It depends on all of this stuff. And um and I I worry some of these restrictions might be overly restrictive for parcels where there are no privacy concerns. I think Zach mentioned this already like there are residential parcels that abut commercial properties, a water tower, they abut open space, um they abut roads or alleys. Like we are potentially saying you couldn't have a balcony that faces that is in the front or side yard setback that that overlooks a road. Is overlooking a road a privacy concern? I actually think one of the most charming things about front porches which overlook roads is that people sit out on them and then like say hi to all the people who are walking by. So I think where I'm I'm landing with this is like this is this is complicated and now I remember why we had this be decided by discretionary review because I think of of all of the things it's so dependent on the parcel. It's dependent on what the parcel is facing. It's dependent on um you know like what may already exist in your neighbor's yard. Like if your neighbor has a big second floor deck and balcony and it seems weird that you shouldn't be able to do the same thing. So anyway, I'll stop rambling. I'll say that um I I think it could make sense to have the same setback limitations as the primary dwelling. I would hesitate to set a size limit just because it seems really hard to figure out what that number should be. Any other comments? Okay. Um I think there were a few other things in this section. I don't see them on here, but looking at my notes, um we were asked again in the staff report

about the 16 foot plate height, but we already talked about that. And then the other one is the um let's talk about before we get into the the discretionary review. Keep an eye on the clock. Let's talk about the um the ADUs with zero setbacks provided that they are compliant with the accessory structure requirements. So, do we have questions on this? Any questions? Um, I'm trying to find where the reference to that is in the report.

In the staff report. I know it was in there, but yeah, it's um Let me give you the page number.

Page 133 of the packet and then it's B setbacks. Oh, I was looking right at it. Thank you.

Anyone have any questions before we start chatting? Nope. No questions.

Well, um I guess it's not really a question, but it it's this first line is um you know to be built to a zero setback when they meet specified height not occupy. So I mean it lists all the things that that are part of that would be required except for the part about the fire rated construction which to me I mean I don't know like there's no windows or anything I mean it it changes the design from what some units I've some places I've seen. Anyway, it's not really a question. Sorry. You sort of touched on this already at the beginning of our discussion.

We we we did ask questions related to if Well, if there's no questions, why don't we go ahead and jump to discussing this? Would anyone like to go first? Yes. Well, I went first the last two times, but I did ask to discuss this. Okay. So, I asked Liz ahead of time, and my understanding is that the way it currently functions is you have a pre-existing accessory dwelling unit. And not, sorry, you have a pre-existing accessory unit. Is that what structure? Thank you. Accessory structure.

And then you can convert that to an ADU. And by doing so, you are allowed to have the zero setbacks. And that the proposal here would be you no longer have to have a pre-existing accessory structure and instead you can just skip straight to the ADU and build an ADU that meets the same conversion like what it would if you convert it. And I just thought it was worth discussing that I think there is some value to disincentivizing to the extent you're trying to build a new ADU and you have no other accessory structures on your lot. I think there's some value to disincentivizing an ADU with a zero foot setback. And by that I mean the the value of being able to convert an an existing accessory structure into an ADU is that you have this thing already that exists. And so we want to incentivize you turning that into an ADU. And in order to do that, we're going to let you have the ADU on a zero foot setback. But when you don't have an existing accessory structure, then all you're doing is incent and someone wants to build a brand new ADU. Then by allowing you to go straight to uh an ad a new ADU without an existing accessory structure, you're incentivizing or maybe the better way of saying it is you're not disincentivizing ADUs at a zero foot setback whereas typically you would the ADU would be required I think to be at a 4ft setback or to meet you know the requirements of state law. So, I thought it was just worth discussing whether there might be some perverse incentives or something here or whether it's I I think it's worth it. Like I do think incentivize building ADUs that are, you know, appropriate as often as we can. And I think this does that by allowing you to have a zero foot setback, which

actually in, for example, like my neighbors yards is a lot easier to have an ADU with a zero foot setback than it than a 4-foot setback. Um, but I do think there is a role like I do think the purpose here is that it's meant to incentivize an existing structures conversion and that the proposal is instead kind of kind of turning it on its head and instead incentivizing um or no longer disincent no longer like calling for these setbacks that otherwise would be required. So I thought it was worth discussing or you know not at length but I just wanted to raise that concern that was kind of flagged for me when I read this. So why do they not currently allow zero what setbacks like what is the I guess it's a question for

yeah through the chair I'm not sure that there's a a specific reason I the current requirements for ADUs just follow state law for 4 foot side and rear setbacks um and allow for conversions of existing accessory structures. So, this carveout hasn't been um like specified outside of allowance for conversions. Um I don't know if there's more background than I would surmise that it would sort of reduce some of the impacts to the neighbors. Um and also like having a zero foot setback, it's really hard to maintain those the rear and the side of the structure. So,

and I I think also um to your point about when you've got a zero lot line, it's a blank wall. Um, when you're more than 3 feet, you can't have openings. They can be protected, but you still like it at as long as you're at least 3 feet, you have the ability to have a window opening or other things. So, I I think there's probably some designer access considerations to that as well. But I think obviously then in for a detached existing accessory structure, often times you do have a number that are at close to or zero lot lines and allowing a pathway to convert them. So that I mean that's probably what's driven kind of the context as it currently exists.

Commission, I want to make sure everyone else gets a chance to speak. Do you have Commissioner Cleft, Commissioner Shle? I think we're at the comments section. Yeah, I mean um Commissioner Bush mentioned, you know, there might be some existing structure back there. You know, like see a lot of times again older neighborhoods where somebody builds something that's kind of grandfathered in now. Um and uh can be converted uh legally, I believe. Uh but then you know if someone wasn't lucky enough to that the previous homeowner constructed an particularly sturdy shed or rickety shed as the case may be in the the rear third uh before they bought the house then they might be out of luck. And I think this might be a fairness thing to let people come in and build something which as we established still you know has to adhere to a 9 foot uh daylight plane and um you know adhere to other you know types of conditions. And so it's not going to be something um oversized looming over the rear neighbor's backyard necessarily. Uh and and also some you know people you know might be additionally incentivized to tuck their ADU all the way into the back corner and that's going to again sort of direct without forcing people to to struct ADUs with a lower height um at the rear and which then results in lower height at the front of the ADU something a little bit more in scale. uh and if they don't have that option, they are moving it forward, they might naturally go higher. So um which they would still have the option to do, but um this might sort of direct people in a different direction if they have that

option. So I think there are advantages to this in multiple multiple ways. I guess my comments would only um be I guess I don't see a problem with it um um with making that change and um I think uh I I just think the applicant needs to be informed about you know I mean there's no there's no gabled roof with an overhang or I mean it could be a gabled roof but no overhangs. um you know I mean there are like you like we were saying there's some inherent design um things to consider. So uh I I guess it's feasible to do that so long as the applicant and the designer knows what they're um how to address it properly. Yeah, I uh I'm in alignment with the proposed update uh for this, but I just a question I should ask in the question portion, but um are there no um fire um safety guidelines in regards to having the zero setback?

Yeah, through the chair there there are um they're not addressed in zoning, but through the the fire code and building code. those would be required. I'm not sure the specific um Okay, that's my concern. Standards, but yeah, it would be it would need to be compliant with building code. Okay. Hence, so there still would be a buffer, not necessarily a zero up to the property line um for for these ADUs. Well, no, it would be a zero lot line, but there's just certain construction standards that you need to abide by masonry or just certain fire protection. So, because obviously there's there's no buffer

and then if there's bedrooms, then it causes problems in terms of like egress. So, um having that 4 foot um buffer would allow for windows for egress. So, it kind of limits the design too to a certain extent. Got it. Let me go to my notes. So, um I agree with the staff recommendation here um to allow the zero zero lot line setbacks provided they're compliant with the accessory structure requirements. Um so I think the main reason I'm in support of this is because it's permissible today, right? People can build an accessory structure and then they can convert it to an ADU. And so just allowing them to skip that step simplifies things for the applicants, but it also simplifies things for staff because they don't have to process two applications. They can just process one application. So it feels like a good streamlining step to me. That's all I'll say short on that one. All right. I'm noting it's 10 to 11 and I think that means we need to take a vote. Is that correct?

Yes, there does need to be an action to go past 11 o'clock. All right. Um, do we need a motion or can we just call a roll call vote to go past 11? Yeah, there there's consensus again. Okay. Do we have consensus to extend beyond 11 p.m.? Yes. Okay, good. I think we're good to continue. Do we need a break? Okay, let's keep going. All right. Yeah. Yeah.

Great. Um because we've got we've got one more question, but then we've also got another agenda item. So, all right. I believe this is our last question. Should the discretionary review process be removed in favor expanded objective standards? Does anyone have questions about this item? I'm seeing hands raised. Commissioner Claptor.

Um yeah. So, um I think the big thing for me and this is probably going to take a minute is um that um if we're going to the report talks about how you know if we're going to if we were going to get a rid of the ADUDR process, it would require anyone who wants to do something beyond the objective standards to seek a variance. So, I really want to make sure I understand how the variance process works. First thing is because I and I printed it out for myself here because the first thing was that um uh there's an approval body and my understanding is that the approval body would be planning commission. Would that be correct?

Yes, that's correct. Okay. So, um I think the next relevant question then is is um right at least right now like uh obviously my tenure is fairly short still. How how often do we see variances variance requests?

Very rarely. I I don't think actually any have happened during my time with the city since 2021. I think we've had one since I've been on planning commission in four years. And meeting the variance findings is very very difficult. Yeah. Yes. That that was definitely a follow-up question. Like there's I've submitted for variances as an architect. Um and yeah, it's it was a very unusual I've done it like two or three times and it has to be a very unusual situation.

Yeah. Um kind of that's kind of the sense I was getting that sort of extraordinary. Um and um I imagine also that and again I rely on staff and anyone who may have had any experience with this like that a variance probably takes a significant amount of time and effort to make a case for and then also to go through that process. Would that be correct in saying?

Yes. And it and one of the findings is it has to be some sort of unique um something unique about the personal. So asking a variance just for the sake of asking a variance is not a finding that can um that would allow the plan commission to make an approval for a variance. Like there has to be something very unique about the parcel to to make that finding if that makes sense. Yep.

Yeah. Um so then so so I had asked some I'll just kind of summarize this and restate it for the benefit of everyone listening and everyone here. I had asked some questions about a we had gotten an email about a project uh last week actually uh in a second story ADU um over an existing accessory structure a garage with a flat roof uh and in North Central and the project was had just gone through the ADUDR process. It was um had just gotten approval and um the reason it had gone through that process at least in part was that violated the daylight plane and it had a plate line height of 18 ft and change or 19 ft as the um description was. And so I think the question I had asked at the time was um I think I asked this the other day and you you responded to me uh Liz responded to me this morning about or this afternoon about you know I said well in this case would that have to go through the variance process if we remove the ADVR process if they wanted to build it in that in that way that yeah just

um through the chair yes so the specific scenario that commissioner cla is referring to would is would have been an ADU exceeding the height requirements which um if if we were to move away from an ADUDR process would not meet objective standards and therefore could not be approved. So then the options before that applicant would be either to redesign to meet the objective standard um or to seek a variance which I believe in this case would not meet the variance findings and and also you know because it violated several or did not exceeded several um of the objective standards currently in place. Would it have it would have would it have to be a separate variance for each of those? I just want to be clear that a variance is a is relief from a standard due to a physical limitation of a site. So if like you can you can think of like a slope you know.

So it's not that each element of a requirement gets a variance. It's that the parcel has some peculiarity that doesn't allow for um the project to be built per certain design standards. So, it's not it's the findings are um very specific to a physical constraint on a parcel.

Yeah. Yeah. I I think that's I think that's kind of what I'm getting at. My my I think that's my was my understanding is and and when I'm hearing that back right now, which is that it would be very unlikely to prevail under that process. essentially a pro a project that was just approved last week would be very unlikely to prevail under a variance process.

So I just wanted to add in because it sounds like there's a a lot of concerns about the staff had made a recommendation here for planning commission to consider and recognizing the hour. I mean if the commission would like to keep the ADUR we could get right to that point. I I mean I don't know. I think if that's where you're going, you could just kind of say, "Hey, there's still I just a suggestion for your consideration." Suggest,

but I had a whole speech written, Zach. I I I'll I'll just I'll sum up my if we're going to get to that, I'll just sum up my thoughts very quickly, which is that I I think the direction that all everything we've been looking at tonight is to kind of expand what is allowable under objective standards with the goal of reducing the necessity for ADUDR to zero. My feeling is that there will always be that one edge case and I'd rather have that there for staff and for applicants to use so that people don't get completely frustrated and completely and feel like their city government is completely blocking them because of their unique circumstance. I'd rather it be there and never be used or used once in a blue moon um than not be available as an option. That's then that's where I'm at.

I have a question, please. Um, I don't quite understand how the discretionary review process would be allowed under state law. And I I asked Liz in advance and her answer made sense to me. But if the state law and I can't remember the section number SEMA has it memorized but the the uh whatever 6,000 whatever um 663 something um if it says that you have to have you know you if anything that meets these standards these objective standards on or like max height and the whatever six other characteristics it says must be approved and our ordinance code meets meets those things, but then it doesn't say anything about second story balconies, let's say, and we keep the discretionary process because someone wants a second story balcony and we say, "Nope, your lot doesn't work with a second story balcony ADU denied." How is that not violating the state law that requires us to provide ADUs that meet these six criteria when we've said you meet these six objective criteria but you don't meet this other criteria under the discretionary process? I don't need necessarily need an answer, but I that I don't I don't quite see how those things fit from my, you know, whatever hourlong uh investigation of what's kind of happening here. Um, so that's one question I have. Maybe it's rhetorical. Um, but with respect to kind of the um well, that that's that's my question. I guess I don't I don't know. I don't want to put any on the spot to answer like the legal question of it, but I don't like the H this HDF letter the um one from

I I correct me if I'm wrong. I was reading that and I felt like they were saying well you have to have an a a ministerial path which we do and our ministerial path is more generous in many respects than is required and therefore there is plenty of room for someone to get something through ministerially. in these edge cases we currently have this discretion. we have currently have this discretion. Um, and I think they misunderstood that we I also think they misunderstood. I think they assumed that we don't have a ministerial process. And we do.

I thought I read it to be saying you have a ministerial process. Anything that meets those ministerial requirements must be allowed. Design throw. You don't we don't ask about design. We don't ask about anything other than the six criteria you must meet to meet the ministerial criteria. And if you meet those, state law requires you to have it. If you also want a balcony, you can't who who cares? You get to have a balcony. There's nothing we can't say one way or the other. That That's how I read what they were saying. You can't have any discretionary. But that that's what I'm asking.

I Well, yeah. I I think they were making a claim that I don't know that we're in full agreement with, which is that if state law doesn't speak to it, you have to allow it, which I don't know that we read that the same way. I think they set the standard and really the um the discretionary process is for projects that want to go above and beyond and I think as Liz was talking referring to we had a number of ADUDRs that ultimately chose to comply with objective standards and get that ministerial path. So our code absolutely has a ministerial path and in many facets it is more generous than the minimum set by state law but it's for facets of an ADU that would go beyond whatever those limits are at or beyond state law minimums. So, state law doesn't say you have to have a balcony. We're providing a path to have one if you want one. And state law allows us to set reasonable parameters on that. Um, but we could also say no, you don't get a balcony and that wouldn't be in conflict with state law.

I So, why are why are you proposing to remove the ADUR process?

I think we were proposing Okay, we've seen all the things that are um being requested. We're proposing objective standards to meet them. Does that raise to the bar of okay, do we need it anymore? Um, if you if the commission doesn't thinks otherwise, I think we were floating it as a notion for your consideration, but if the recommendation is let's keep it in case it's needed, I I think that makes a lot of sense. So, we can definitely work with it and it was why we brought it before you this evening. I'd also add uh through the chair if I may, the ADUDR process in by nature being discretionary does leave open the option for appeal which of course is more risk for an applicant to take on. So um I think that's also something to consider with this discussion

and and to what um what an appeal may look like before the commission where discretion would even be available. Please, please. Yeah. Um, just Yeah, I'm thinking about the outliers of property owners that have oddly shaped lots that look like triangles and dinosaur nuggets um and them not falling into compliance with um you know, setbacks because of their oddly shaped uh property lines. I I I think that it'd be um advantageous to have those situations and those circumstances go under discretionary review.

Yeah, I won't belabor the point because I think we're in agreement. Um I don't think variances are a a good alternative because of how restrictive the variances are. I had a whole thing written about how diverse all of our lots and our parcels and whatever. We all get it. I'm not going to read it. Um, I liken discretionary review to when you're caught in a phone tree with a robot customer service and you're like 0000 I just want to talk to a human because none of your options make sense and I don't know like just let me talk to somebody. To me like discretionary review is that escaped valve. It is the push zero to talk to a human to try and explain like what you're trying to do and why it might not conform and you know can someone make a ruling on it. So I I think discretionary review is really important. We should keep it. What I actually said was, is there a way to give staff more discretion than they have today? Like I'm really curious about the seven We don't have to belabor this, but I was curious about the seven applications that were withdrawn and then redesigned to conform to ministerial regulations. Like it made me wonder what what happened there. like did staff not have enough discretion to be able to grant what those people were asking for? Um did they propose outlandish things? Did they propose like an eightstory tall ADU with a 100 square footprint? Like it's it's hard to know.

Are they anticipating I think I had asked that question. Didn't I ask that? And and I think some percentage of them were just ones that had exceeded the plate height. Yeah. the chair. It's It's hard to speak to the reasons that any individual applicant may have considered when redesigning their project. So, I'm not sure I can on that.

It It just made me wonder if staff didn't have enough discretion. I'll use like a very specific example. Um uh garages can only have two plumbing fixtures. if you want more than two plumbing fixtures, you have to ask for a special use permit. And that was one of the things where I was like, that seems minor enough that staff should be able to have the discretion. And it made me wonder like what else is out there that feels like a really minor decision that can we like can we give staff more discretion? Would that make this process smoother or better or faster? And though I know it's late, I don't want to belver this point any further.

I just found that that example from last week uh that approval to be very uh you know timely. Yeah.

For this discussion and that was a situation where you my like I think I think the approval cited the general plan and cited um you know the goals to encourage ADU um production uh as part of the rationale for the approval which I think makes a lot of sense. And um I again I I'd love to see a scenario where these very generous opportunities to proceed ministerally uh mean that we see one ADUDR you know a year or something to that you know like that would be great you know the less the better but there's always going to be that one person who just can't quite get in under the plate line height or the daylight plane or something and I just want I don't want them to feel that they have no re reasonable recourse.

Okay. I think I think we're all in agreement. I think especially since we didn't talk about altering the daylight plane requirement, I think you need I think you need the discretionary review so that people have that escape valve. All right. Is that any other comments on this ADU ordinance? Are we good? Amazing. All right. It's only 11:08. It's only 11:08. I think I'm going to close this item. Thank you so much, Liz. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank Thank you, Liz. Thank you to all the staff. Thank you, everyone. Um, do we need a break or do we want to power through? The next issue is minor.

The next issue is minor. Okay, let's power through. Let's do it. Um the next item on our agenda, election of officers. Do we have any kind of staff report or should we just start chatting? I would say dive right into it and we're happy to answer any questions or um support that you might need.

Who is the current vice chair of this commission? So this is the interesting situation we find ourselves in is we do not have a vice chair at the moment um because the person who was serving as vice chair was not reappointed. So normally what would happen it's normally it's pretty straightforward right the rotation is by seniority. The vice chair becomes the chair. The next most senior person on the commission who has not yet served as chair or vice chair then rotates into vice chair. So I think though I only allows for Adam. I mean that that yes all roads point to all roads point to Adam. So um Adam yes thoughts.

Yes. Well you know wait. Do we need to have a public comment on this item? Yes we should. Okay. Sorry I jumped the gun here. Um uh okay. So let me go back. Um, I'm going to open up public comment on this item since there's no staff report. Um, let's see if there's anyone in person, which there is not. Uh, please turn in your speaker slip right now. Um, anyone who is watching online who would like to speak on item three, election of officers, please raise your hand now.

Through the chair, we have one public comment. We have one public comment. Okay. Um, our one public commenter who is still with us gets three minutes. I have no idea anyone's listening.

Hello. Yes, you may speak now.

Oh, thank you. Uh great work tonight you guys. Incredible discussions very difficult subject matter and you are so lucky that Sema Patel the chair brought you through this grueling discussion. I have been I was blessed with serving as a commissioner with SEMA for four years and her intellect, leadership, and inclusiveness shined greatly tonight. She was only able to serve eight of her 24 possible meetings because because the city and staff did not have items to bring to the commission. I think that she should be appointed as the next chair and continue on leading this group through these extremely difficult times. And her leadership is incredible. Thank you all and have a great night.

Thank you for your comment, John.

Well, actually, it's funny that uh John should make that comment because I had sort of been thinking about the fact that um just as uh Chair Patel has only really served about 10 meetings out of a possible 20some meetings give or take as chair. that also would mean that I have only been on the commission for about 10 meetings or so uh and not as vice chair or any other specific position. So, um I don't know that I'm necessarily ready to jump right into the chair position. Uh and I would probably benefit from very at least serving as vice chair or you know kind of jumbling up the rotation a little bit. And I and I think that uh it's not unreasonable that uh uh Commissioner Patel continue to serve as chair for at least you know through June. I would not be opposed to that.

I'll add my two cents to this. Um, I think that's a great um idea and it's similar to when I became chair when uh the person before me um had to leave the planning commission due to um other um commitments and um I became chair for the remainder of his period and then the full next year. So it was more than a year. So it was acceptable then. So, it seems like that's a good would be an acceptable solution here.

And then it also gives it gives me the opportunity to serve as vice chair and potentially step into the chair role if uh Commissioner Patel is traveling or something like that and get a little bit of additional experience um and sort of restore our rotation.

Um I feel pretty strong. I you an amazing chair. This was a really great meeting first meeting. Thank you. I did feel very included. Couldn't echo the comment more. I feel really strongly about um sticking to the guidelines of rotating for past reasons that don't have anything to do with SEMA. Um so that would be my preference would be to have um the next person take the chair ship per kind of the standard rotation process. But I 100% respect the wish of the person I'm saying should be chair not to be chair. But that would be that would be how I'm going to vote.

I would be in favor of um keeping SEMA as the chair. Um she's uh um definitely a leader. um before uh my opportunity to serve here on my first uh meeting. Um she made sure that um that I was going to be okay and we had uh a good conversation about expectations and um I just really felt uh guided by her leadership and um I would support her in another term. Um, wow. Okay. Very flattering. Um, I'm going to ask if someone would like to make a nomination for chair and vice chair.

Uh, I would like to I can do that. I would like to nominate uh Simon Patel for chair planning commission and Adam I was want to say the other item out of claughter. Thank you for uh vice chair of the planning commission. Second. Can we get a vote? Chair Patel. Abstain. Commissioner Bush. Okay. I vote I vote yes. Commissioner Cler. Um, I vote. Yes.

Commissioner Shumpl, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Okay. Motion carries. Um, you guys, that was so nice and flattering. Um, I had a whole speech written about turning over the gavvel to the next chair. Uh, I don't know what to do with my speech now. Um, save it. Save it for next time. Next June.

Uh, I was going to say this is my last full meeting as chair and it has been an incredible honor and privilege. Um, I'll skip this part. I I do want to say one note from what I had written, which was I am so honored to serve on this commission with this group of people. Every time there's a vacancy on the planning commission and people reach out to me to ask me about my experience serving, um, I I'm inevitably asked if we get along as commissioners, and I always say yes. Oh my gosh, yes. Like, um, everybody I have served with on this planning commission has been incredibly amazing, nice, kind, respectful, so smart in their area of expertise. I learned so much from the people I serve with and um the best part of the planning commissioners academy which some of us went to in March was the time that we spent together. It was not the time in the sessions. It was all of the meals we ate together getting to know each other more. Going board game shopping with Adam Claster was super fun. Um because we genuinely like each other and like to spend time together and that is the best part of this experience. So, um, I'll skip the rest of these comments and just say I'm so grateful to have met and served with all of you and I am so looking forward to getting to know Commissioner Bush and Commissioner Shample better because um, many of the former commissioners and current commissioners on this DAS that I've served with, I met all of them through serving on planning commission, but many of them have turned into good friends who I remain in contact with and hang out with outside the DAS today. So, so looking forward to getting to know um our new commissioners better. Thank you all so much.

Okay. Uh our final item, reports and announcements. Um I I'll go ahead and start and then if there's any any commissioners who um wish to weigh in um wanted to first um as I think most everyone has gotten a chance introduce Joanna Winter our um new planning manager and um she will be taking over um the role as staff layers on to the planning commission. So you'll be getting to know her very well in um the coming months. Um so um that was the first announcement. excited to have her part of this robust robust discussion for this evening. Um, looking ahead for our meetings, not to have a meeting and then cancel one, but it seems potentially likely at this point, we'll probably be cancelling our September 9th regularly scheduled meeting as we don't have any anything up there. Our next meeting after that would be September 23rd. It doesn't look like it we have anything yet. We'll have to go review where things are at. But I um we do anticipate um having some items come before you in October. Um and I think it'll probably speed up as we get toward the end of the year. Um I think we're looking at second meeting in October, bringing ADU ordinance back as well as a specific plan amendment at Station Park Green. Um we're going to be looking at getting um a housing element amendment before you before too long sometime later this fall, but kind maybe December, but it'll be contingent on an HCD review. And then we've got a whole pipeline of projects that are going to start to queue up really fast coming in 26. So, um I would say get ready because there's going to be plenty to do then, but um it might still be uh a little bit slower into the fall, but we're we're working to ceue things up and there's other activity. And I think that's everything on the staff side to announce.

Anything any notes or announcements for my fellow commissioners? Nope. All right. With that, I will close the meeting. We are adjourned. Thank you.