[0:06] We ready to go, Julie?

[0:09] Okay.

[0:11] This is the call to order for the April

[0:15] 15, 2026 meeting of the Town of Woodside

[0:18] Planning Commission. We'll start with

[0:21] the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:45] Roll call, please.

[0:46] >> Chair Weaver,

[0:47] >> present.

[0:48] >> Vice Chair Gar.

[0:49] >> Commissioner Evans.

[0:51] >> Commissioner Gonko here.

[0:53] >> And Commissioner Tober is noted absent.

[1:01] Are there any changes to the agenda as

[1:03] published?

[1:07] » There are no changes to the agenda. Uh

[1:09] you do have desk items for the one

[1:11] public hearing item we have tonight and

[1:12] I'll go through that during the

[1:13] presentation.

[1:16] >> Um given there are no changes to the

[1:19] agenda, we will move on to the public

[1:21] comment period. This is a chance for

[1:26] people to make public comments about

[1:29] items which are not on tonight's agenda,

[1:31] but which are of interest to the town of

[1:33] Woodside and its planning commission.

[1:36] Um, public comments are limited to five

[1:39] speakers maximum of three minutes each

[1:42] at the beginning of the meeting and if

[1:44] we have more um um speakers, those would

[1:48] be deferred to the end of the meeting.

[1:51] Items not on the agenda cannot be

[1:53] addressed in detail or acted upon

[1:55] tonight, but can be referred to staff

[1:58] and potentially put on a future agenda.

[2:02] So, given those restrictions, is there

[2:05] anyone present in the room or on Zoom

[2:08] that would like to speak on a topic not

[2:10] on tonight's agenda?

[2:14] » We have three raised hands online. Um,

[2:17] I'm going to start with FAD.

[2:23] » Hello. Can you hear me?

[2:27] » Yes.

[2:28] >> Hello.

[2:31] Can you hear me?

[2:32] >> Yes, we can hear you.

[2:35] >> Yes. My name is Fad and I need your

[2:38] help. I'm feeling very weak. I haven't

[2:42] been able to get up off the floor for 45

[2:46] minutes to an hour. I ate Del Taco and

[2:50] now

[3:16] Okay, let's move on to the next speaker.

[3:25] » Let's go ahead and mute that speaker.

[3:31] PLEASE mute the Thank you. Thank you.

[3:41] And let's move on to our third speaker.

[3:48] Okay, the next speaker is Ben Rodriguez.

[4:06] Okay. Um,

[4:10] please mute, please mute that speaker.

[4:13] Um, is there anyone present in the room

[4:16] that would like to speak on a topic not

[4:19] on tonight's agenda, but which is

[4:21] relevant to the town of Woodside or its

[4:23] planning commission?

[4:31] Uh there being no raised hands or anyone

[4:34] stepping up to the microphone, we will

[4:36] at this point close the public comment

[4:39] period.

[4:41] And I believe the next item on the

[4:43] agenda is a presentation from Hip

[4:45] Housing.

[4:51] » Okay.

[4:52] You can um use the red lever and

[4:55] move the microphone up and down so it's

[4:57] at a convenient height for you.

[5:02] » Oh, okay.

[5:03] >> Is that better? I don't know if it's

[5:06] >> It's on.

[5:08] >> Okay, it's on. All right, great. Um,

[5:11] good evening, commissioners. My name is

[5:12] Laura Finuki. I'm the director of

[5:14] programs at HIP Housing. I want to thank

[5:15] Sage for inviting me to your meeting

[5:18] tonight. I have a short presentation

[5:19] about the work that HIP Housing does in

[5:21] the community. Um, so Julie's going to

[5:23] be advancing our slides. So, um, HIPP

[5:26] housing, uh, st HIP stands for human

[5:28] investment project. That's the legal

[5:29] name of our organization. Um, and our

[5:32] mission is to invest in human potential

[5:34] by improving the housing and lives of

[5:36] people here in San Monteo County. We've

[5:38] been doing that work um, for over 50

[5:40] years. Next slide.

[5:45] So, HIP Housing offers four housing

[5:47] programs and we also own and manage

[5:49] properties. So, I'm going to touch

[5:50] briefly on each one. Our first program

[5:53] is our housing resource hub. Um, we take

[5:56] in about uh 3,000 calls a year from

[5:59] members of the community that want to

[6:01] learn about hip housing andor affordable

[6:03] housing here in San Monteo County. And

[6:06] so, we create resources to share that

[6:08] information with them. We have a weekly

[6:11] community eblast where we list

[6:13] affordable housing openings and we email

[6:16] that out to the community. Um, we also

[6:18] create a Google site where we list

[6:20] update every two weeks affordable

[6:22] housing waiting list openings. And then

[6:25] we have a resource packet that we

[6:27] provide clients um that contact our

[6:29] organization that help them navigate how

[6:31] to apply to the county subsidized

[6:33] housing portal, how to apply to the

[6:35] doorway portal, which is a portal that

[6:38] um announces affordable housing waiting

[6:40] list openings and then also HIP

[6:42] housing's portal. Next slide.

[6:45] Our housing readiness program is rel uh

[6:48] relatively new. We started this program

[6:50] about two years ago in the response to

[6:53] the fact that we were seeing many many

[6:55] older adults, very low-income older

[6:57] adults who didn't qualify income-wise

[7:00] for our home sharing program but still

[7:02] needed help with finding housing in our

[7:05] community. Um we find that most older

[7:07] adults have been in stable housing for

[7:09] many years and then suddenly something

[7:11] has happened. either the landlord that

[7:13] they were living with has moved out of

[7:14] the area or their housing is getting

[7:17] sold or their rent's being raised and

[7:19] they're suddenly plunged into Sano

[7:21] County's kind of crazy housing market

[7:23] and learning how to navigate that. So,

[7:26] we meet with clients to help them

[7:28] understand what they're eligible for and

[7:31] help them apply to this the county

[7:33] subsidized housing portal and also the

[7:35] doorway portal. Um, we have a

[7:38] collaboration with the Department of

[7:39] Housing, um, where we actually have some

[7:42] scholarship funding to provide a housing

[7:45] scholarship to an older adult that's

[7:47] exiting one of the county operated

[7:48] shelters. Um, the county is having a

[7:51] really hard time moving clients out of

[7:53] the shelters for their intended purpose

[7:55] of stay, which is mostly like 90 days.

[7:58] um we find that older adults don't have

[8:00] the ability to increase their income and

[8:02] so they remain in the shelters and so

[8:05] our housing scholarship helps to move

[8:07] out of the shelters into something

[8:09] that's more permanent and affordable. So

[8:11] this is a relatively new program of ours

[8:13] and we're seeing it grow exponentially

[8:16] with the number of seniors that are

[8:17] experiencing homelessness for the first

[8:19] time. Okay, next slide. Our third

[8:23] program is our self-sufficiency program.

[8:25] This is a program for low-income

[8:26] families with dependent children. Um we

[8:29] provide housing and coaching support for

[8:31] a year to five years um for the adults

[8:34] that are enrolled in school or a

[8:36] vocational program. Uh we have some

[8:38] families that are living independently

[8:40] in their own unit here in San Mato

[8:42] County and we help to provide a housing

[8:44] scholarship for them while they're in

[8:46] school. And then Hip Housing also owns

[8:49] three houses that we built. Two are in

[8:51] Redwood City and one is in San Carlos.

[8:53] Um they are six-bedroom, three bath

[8:55] homes and we usually have two to three

[8:58] families share the home. Uh the

[9:00] department of housing of San Monteo

[9:01] County helps to subsidize the rent. So

[9:04] the rent is very affordable for very

[9:05] low-income families. Um so we have some

[9:08] families that start in that housing

[9:09] model and then some families that go

[9:11] into independent living and we provide

[9:13] coaching and wraparound support for the

[9:15] families. Uh usually 40 to 50 families a

[9:18] year that we're serving in that program.

[9:20] Next slide. Uh, so in addition to our

[9:23] housing programs, I'm going to talk

[9:24] about our home sharing program last. Um,

[9:26] but we do also own and manage property

[9:28] here in Sonteo County. We have over 500

[9:31] units of affordable housing, mostly

[9:33] studio, onebedrooms, and some

[9:35] two-bedroom units. Um, some of the

[9:37] properties are project based section 8.

[9:39] So, the tenants pay roughly a third of

[9:41] their income on rent and the other units

[9:43] are below market rate. We also do

[9:46] property management for various

[9:47] entities. So we have relationships with

[9:50] the Rotary Club of Sonteo. Uh we manage

[9:52] two of their affordable housing

[9:54] properties, Rotary Hosienda and Rotary

[9:56] Floritas in Sonteo. Um we also manage

[9:59] properties for the city of Foster City.

[10:01] And we have some collaborations with

[10:03] market rate developers that have

[10:05] affordable units within their

[10:06] development and we partner with them to

[10:08] do tenant selection and income

[10:10] certification.

[10:12] Um, we don't do a lot of new

[10:13] construction, but we do have a new

[10:15] construction project going on right now

[10:16] in downtown San Carlos. Um, we had a

[10:19] six-unit apartment building that we

[10:20] owned for years, and we partnered with

[10:22] the city and Eden Housing, another

[10:24] nonprofit, uh, to uh, construct 33 units

[10:28] of affordable housing. So, it's going to

[10:30] be a mix of one, two, and threebedroom

[10:33] units, which we're really excited about

[10:34] because we don't have any three-bedroom

[10:36] units in our portfolio, and we have very

[10:38] few two-bedroom units. So that um

[10:40] property is still under construction.

[10:42] It's right downtown in San Carlos and

[10:44] hope to be finished with that in

[10:46] October. Okay, next slide. Um but what

[10:49] we're most known in the community for is

[10:51] our home sharing program. This was the

[10:53] first housing program that the

[10:54] organization started back in 1979.

[10:57] And it's a program where we interview

[10:59] homeowners or renters that have extra

[11:01] space. Um they either have a room for

[11:04] rent in their home or an accessory

[11:05] dwelling unit. Um and then we help to

[11:08] match them with a home seeker who

[11:10] usually of a family size of one or two

[11:12] persons. Um this program serves all of

[11:14] Sonteo County and we get funding support

[11:17] from the town of Woodside and also all

[11:19] of the cities in Sonteo County including

[11:22] the county of Sono. We're also included

[11:24] in all of the city's housing elements as

[11:28] a way to provide um affordable housing

[11:30] options through our home sharing

[11:32] program. Um and we provide technical

[11:35] assistance to other organizations

[11:37] throughout the country that are

[11:38] interested in starting home sharing

[11:40] programs in their community. Um in fact

[11:42] here in California we have um have

[11:45] probably close to 30 home sharing

[11:47] programs throughout the state and we've

[11:49] helped a lot of them with their

[11:51] technical assistance and launching

[11:52] programs in their community. We do have

[11:55] a collaborations sorry my slide got cut

[11:57] off here. We have collaborations with

[11:59] the town of Athetherton and Hillsboro.

[12:01] And since creating this presentation, we

[12:04] also are now partnering with um uh

[12:06] Portola Valley and San Bruno on their

[12:09] ADU program. So, we have um

[12:12] collaborations where we meet with town

[12:14] staff every month to talk about outreach

[12:17] activities to really increase the

[12:19] visibility of HIPPO's home sharing

[12:21] program to encourage homeowners that

[12:24] have ADUs to register them with our home

[12:26] sharing program. um because we can help

[12:29] do the tenant screening, the income

[12:31] certification, help discuss what the

[12:34] rent is going to be, put together a

[12:36] living together agreement, and are very

[12:38] involved in the home in the housing

[12:40] arrangement, whether it's a home

[12:42] provider that's renting a room or an

[12:43] accessory dwelling unit. So, we meet

[12:46] with town staff every month to talk

[12:47] about outreach. Um we're like for

[12:50] Athetherton, we do a lot of their um

[12:52] events like Earth Day, their national

[12:54] nightouts. Um we partner with like

[12:57] school districts in Menllo Park. We do

[12:59] social media uh posts. We do we host

[13:02] home owner homeowner events where we

[13:05] invite the homeowners to come learn

[13:06] about our program. So we have um a lot

[13:09] of activities that we do in each

[13:10] jurisdiction to really kind of raise the

[13:12] visibility of our program um to

[13:14] encourage homeowners with ADUs and

[13:16] rooms. Uh next slide. Um, so this is

[13:20] just a a snapshot of of like kind of our

[13:23] screening process if folks really want

[13:25] to understand like what's the difference

[13:27] between going just doing this online or

[13:29] finding roommates or tenants in other

[13:32] ways. But we're very hands-on. So we do

[13:34] the screening, we do background checks,

[13:36] we do have reference checks, we do

[13:38] income certifications, we complete a

[13:40] living together agreement, and we main

[13:42] maintain follow-up support for the

[13:44] duration of the match. Um, in

[13:45] Athetherton right now, we have two

[13:47] matches. So, they're both are senior

[13:49] homeowners that have accessory dwelling

[13:51] units. Um, and they're both matched with

[13:54] um older adults. Um, we have one match

[13:56] in the town of Hillsboro that's been

[13:58] together for almost 6 years. Um, it's

[14:00] with a senior retired couple. They have

[14:03] a two-bedroom ADU and they rented it to

[14:06] a local teacher who was in jeopardy of

[14:08] losing her housing and having to leave

[14:10] the state. And so now she's been able to

[14:12] remain in her community. Um, so that's

[14:14] kind of the beauty of of this kind of

[14:16] relationship. Uh, next slide. Again,

[14:19] just some examples of who homeshares.

[14:22] So, we have a lot of school district

[14:24] personnel who are uh registered with our

[14:26] home sharing program. In fact, about 11%

[14:29] of our home seekers uh work for school

[14:32] districts. Um, so we have a lot of

[14:33] educators that get recruited to this

[14:35] area, but they they can't find

[14:37] affordable housing. Um, and so the

[14:39] option of either renting a room or an

[14:41] ADU becomes much more affordable. Uh,

[14:44] next slide.

[14:47] Um, and so, you know, for for our home

[14:49] providers that have the ADU or room for

[14:52] rent, it really helps to keep them

[14:54] affordable in their own home. We have

[14:57] most about 60% of our home providers are

[15:00] older adults. So, they may live alone.

[15:02] They may be on a retirement income and

[15:05] they have extra space in their in their

[15:07] home or they have an accessory dwelling

[15:09] unit and they want to put that empty

[15:11] space to good use. So, this is one way

[15:13] to not only help them remain independent

[15:16] in their home, but also to help them

[15:17] financially as well. Um, and for our

[15:20] home seekers, you know, the average rent

[15:22] of a one-bedroom apartment here in this

[15:24] community, I mean, we see people that

[15:26] are renting for like 2700 to 3500 for a

[15:29] one-bedroom apartment. And so, our our

[15:32] room rentals and our ADUs are

[15:34] significantly lower cost. And so, it

[15:36] helps to make make an affordable housing

[15:38] arrangement for them. And it keeps our

[15:40] workforce local. There's a statistic

[15:43] that over 60% of people who work here in

[15:45] San Monteo County commute from outside

[15:47] of the area. So, it really helps to

[15:50] maintain the um the viability of our

[15:52] community by keeping our workforce low.

[15:55] Okay, next slide. And this is my contact

[15:57] information. Um we're happy to partner

[16:00] with the town of Woodside on our

[16:02] affordable housing programs. We thank

[16:03] the town for our subfunding support and

[16:06] I'm happy to answer any questions if you

[16:08] have any about our organization. Thank

[16:10] you.

[16:13] >> Does anyone have questions for Laura?

[16:18] » So one question. So once again, what is

[16:20] where does the funding come for your

[16:22] services?

[16:23] >> Yes. So for our housing programs, it's a

[16:26] variety of funding streams. So we get

[16:28] support from all the cities here in the

[16:30] Sanonteo County. We get funding from the

[16:32] county of Sanonteo. Also, um we have

[16:34] private foundation support. Um we also

[16:38] do, you know, annual events and we have

[16:40] fundraising efforts and donations. Um

[16:42] but what's really important is that that

[16:44] because we own and manage property here

[16:46] in Sano County, our rental income also

[16:49] is a sustainable s source of funding for

[16:52] our programs. So the funding that we

[16:55] take from our property side helps to pay

[16:57] for all the administrative costs of our

[16:59] programs. Um, so that 100% of

[17:02] contributions goes directly to client

[17:04] services.

[17:06] >> You

[17:10] » Laura, thank you very much for your

[17:12] presentation and for the great work that

[17:15] you folks do in the community.

[17:16] >> Thank you so much.

[17:17] >> Thank you, Laura. We'll be in touch.

[17:19] Thank you.

[17:23] » Okay. The next item on tonight's agenda

[17:26] would be um the terms of chair and vice

[17:29] chair of the planning commission run for

[17:31] two-year terms and

[17:33] >> minute I think we have the minutes

[17:35] first.

[17:36] >> Oh whoops. We have a consent calendar

[17:38] item first which is approval of the

[17:41] minutes of our March 4th 2026 meeting.

[17:46] So, if any commissioners, members of

[17:49] staff, or members of the public have any

[17:53] errors, emissions, additions, or

[17:57] clarifications

[17:59] that need to be made to the um minutes

[18:03] as published, now is your chance to

[18:08] um ask that those changes be made.

[18:15] comes to that we would take a motion to

[18:18] approve the minutes of the March 4

[18:19] meeting.

[18:20] >> Make a motion to approve the minutes

[18:22] from the meeting.

[18:25] >> Second motion.

[18:27] >> Chair Weaver.

[18:28] >> Yes.

[18:28] >> Vice Chair Gar.

[18:29] >> Yes.

[18:30] >> Commissioner Evans. Commissioner

[18:32] Gonerko.

[18:33] >> Yes.

[18:36] Given that it is time to move on to

[18:39] election of a new chair and vice chair

[18:42] of the planning commission.

[18:44] So taking this in order um we would

[18:49] entertain motions from the planning

[18:51] commission members for a new nominee for

[18:55] chair of the planning commission for the

[18:56] next two years.

[19:00] I nominate uh Matt Gar for chair of the

[19:04] planning commission for the next two

[19:06] years.

[19:08] >> Second.

[19:13] » Sarah Weaver.

[19:14] >> Yes.

[19:16] >> Vice Shar.

[19:17] >> Commissioner Evans.

[19:19] >> Yes.

[19:19] >> Commissioner Gonco.

[19:20] >> Yes.

[19:24] So you guys can get up and the two of

[19:27] you trade seats.

[19:33] » Oh, nobody there.

[19:53] Yeah, very engaging on YouTube.

[20:04] Okay, I need to bring my agenda up.

[20:08] >> So, take uh next is we'll take

[20:10] nominations for the vice chair for the

[20:12] next two years.

[20:18] Would anyone like to make a motion?

[20:20] for

[20:22] vice chair of the

[20:24] >> So, I'd like to nominate Alex Talber as

[20:28] vice chair for the planning commission

[20:30] for the next two years.

[20:34] » He's not not present, but

[20:37] >> second.

[20:39] >> It's acceptable. If if for some reason

[20:41] he would decline, we could follow up

[20:43] with that the next meeting, but it's

[20:44] totally acceptable to have a nomination

[20:46] without him prison. Okay.

[20:51] I think I heard a second from

[20:53] >> um I will second that.

[20:55] >> Uh Chair Gar,

[20:57] >> yes.

[20:58] >> Commissioner Evans,

[21:00] >> yes.

[21:00] >> Commissioner Ganco,

[21:02] >> yes.

[21:02] >> Commissioner Weaver,

[21:03] >> yes.

[21:12] » Okay.

[21:13] Uh with that I believe we will move on

[21:16] to the next item on the agenda which is

[21:18] the uh the review of the resolution of

[21:20] intention and recommendation to amend

[21:22] the municipal code chapters 151 and 153

[21:26] uh regarding ADUs. So shall we move on

[21:28] to that?

[21:29] >> Congratulations and thank you chair Gar.

[21:32] >> Um so what uh so as I mentioned earlier

[21:36] we received a number of desk items and

[21:38] I'll kind of go through those through

[21:39] topic. Um, my proposal here tonight is

[21:42] to uh for me to present kind of on each

[21:45] section and then I'll ask for questions

[21:48] from the planning commission and answer

[21:50] any questions. Um, once we're done with

[21:53] the presentation and questions and

[21:55] answers from the commission. We'll have

[21:57] the public provide any input they'd like

[21:59] to provide and then after that the

[22:01] planning commission can deliberate, ask

[22:03] more questions, provide to some

[22:06] conclusion.

[22:07] So, with that, I will um pull what I'm

[22:11] going to do is just pull up the the

[22:14] draft ordinance language and we can kind

[22:16] of just go through it and as it's uh

[22:19] written.

[22:20] And so, the first uh and maybe I should

[22:24] back up just a bit. Um some may recall

[22:27] uh back in uh June 23ish

[22:32] um there was a study session provided by

[22:34] the planning commission uh that went

[22:36] over a number of different topics uh to

[22:41] look how the town could increase to

[22:44] modify its regulations that would

[22:46] increase flexibility and help increase

[22:48] the production of ADUs. Um so over the

[22:51] years the town has provided um different

[22:57] ordinance changes that um have provided

[23:00] flexibility and um we have had members

[23:03] of the public already taking advantage

[23:04] of some of those uh ordinances. And so

[23:07] we just will be continuing to work on

[23:11] looking at challenges that people have

[23:14] um to creating ADUs and looking at how

[23:18] the town can modify its regulations to

[23:20] maintain consistency with state law as

[23:23] well as to go even further than state

[23:24] law in some circumstances. Um and so

[23:27] that is uh what is before us tonight. We

[23:30] are going to go through some additional

[23:32] items uh that could provide more

[23:34] flexibility um reduce some of the

[23:37] challenges that people have to construct

[23:38] ADUs. And um we will start tonight with

[23:43] an order. And so in chapter 151 is our

[23:47] site development chapter of the

[23:50] municipal code. That's what it's called.

[23:52] Um the best way to think of that chapter

[23:54] of the code, it primarily deals with

[23:57] grading, drainage, and driveways. Um and

[24:00] so the town of Woodside um currently

[24:04] restricts properties to having one

[24:06] driveway onto their property, although

[24:09] there is a process for planning

[24:11] commission approval of a second driveway

[24:13] exception. Um that process has been in

[24:15] place for a number of years, albeit it

[24:18] has been modified from time to time. Um

[24:21] and there has been uh some requests from

[24:24] the public interest I think from

[24:26] planning commission and council related

[24:29] to providing some relief to that

[24:32] requirement for a public hearing process

[24:34] if a second driveway is to serve an ADU.

[24:37] So what we've done uh is provide a an

[24:42] administrative process. that would not

[24:43] require a public hearing for ADUs to be

[24:48] able to install a second driveway under

[24:50] certain circumstances. So, what we see

[24:52] initially here, this is just cleanup

[24:54] language for our existing driveway

[24:57] exception process.

[24:59] And this section, excuse me, this

[25:02] following section here is the proposed

[25:04] language for um allowance for an

[25:06] administrative second driveway exception

[25:08] process for ADUs. um we've kept a lot of

[25:12] the same kind of safety goals uh in

[25:16] place um from the initial exception

[25:19] process. So with all driveways there has

[25:22] to be um they have to meet certain line

[25:25] of sight and safety standards. Uh

[25:27] whether it's a singular driveway or a

[25:29] second driveway. Uh these are things

[25:31] that a line of sight distance study

[25:34] something uh an engineer would prepare.

[25:37] They look at curvatures of the road.

[25:39] They look at the speed limits on the

[25:41] road um and they provide a sight

[25:44] distance analysis is what it's called

[25:46] which then is reviewed by our uh

[25:47] engineering department. So we would keep

[25:49] that obviously in place. Um we are

[25:53] looking at you know

[25:56] whenever we're trying to provide

[25:57] additional flexibility we also want to

[25:59] be careful of um people taking advantage

[26:02] it of it for things that aren't directly

[26:05] related to the construction of an ADU.

[26:08] And there are many instances where it

[26:10] just makes more sense to have a second

[26:12] driveway for an ADU. Um some extreme

[26:15] examples and very easily to uh imagine

[26:17] examples. We have some properties um

[26:20] that are bisected by a creek. Um so

[26:23] example there's properties on Manzanita

[26:25] that back all the way up to Whiskey Hill

[26:27] and they are biseected by a creek. Um,

[26:30] say you have your house on Manzanita,

[26:32] but you'd like to do an ADU off Whiskey

[26:35] Hill. Instead of building a bridge

[26:36] across the creek, um, one could do a

[26:39] second driveway. An instance like that,

[26:41] it would make a lot of sense for that

[26:42] ADU to not have to go through a special

[26:46] hearing process for that. Um, so we've

[26:49] looked at things like if someone is

[26:51] proposing a second driveway to access an

[26:54] ADU, uh, that would would require less

[26:57] paving than just say extending a small

[27:00] extension off of their existing

[27:01] driveway. That would be something that

[27:03] would be looked at.

[27:05] Um, we look at that's only proposed uh,

[27:09] the driveway is only proposed to serve

[27:10] the ADU. um we want to make sure it's

[27:13] not kind of a tangent to really serve

[27:16] something else or the main residence on

[27:17] the property. Um so it's specifically

[27:20] focused for that. Um and then the number

[27:23] four is really just trying to minimize

[27:25] the appearance of these second

[27:27] driveways. So often people will have um

[27:30] fencing on the property. If they have no

[27:32] fencing, that's fine. They don't need to

[27:33] have fencing. Um, but if they do have

[27:35] fencing, uh, try to have that vehicle

[27:38] gate look as close to the m fencing as

[27:41] possible with minimal pylons. Um, and

[27:44] that would kind of minimize the visual

[27:47] appearance of this second driveway,

[27:49] which has always been a concern about

[27:50] additional driveways on the property. Um

[27:54] there are some instances even one of the desk items I know of a property they

[27:59] have an old historic um pylon that's not

[28:03] used as a driveway now. In those

[28:05] instances we wouldn't make them tear

[28:06] that out and put in a a regular fence um

[28:09] if they were proposed to use that for a

[28:11] second driveway. Uh but the idea is to

[28:13] really just maintain the character that

[28:14] exists now. Um and then uh number five

[28:18] is just you know clarifying that we

[28:21] should not be um proposing these uh

[28:25] second drive is environmentally

[28:27] sensitive areas or in areas that are

[28:29] really sign have really significant

[28:31] steep slopes um immediately adjacent to

[28:34] the drive. It would cause some real

[28:36] carving into a hillside and significant

[28:38] retaining walls. Um, and the last one is

[28:42] just indicating that if you already have

[28:45] two driveways, um, we wouldn't use this

[28:48] process for a third or fourth driveway.

[28:50] Um, so we do have, uh, we received out

[28:53] of the different desk items we have, we

[28:56] received, um, three items specifically

[28:59] related to this topic. Uh, and all of

[29:01] them shared the same, uh, uh, idea and,

[29:05] um, staff is very open to that idea.

[29:06] they are suggesting, hey, you know, this

[29:09] ordinance is works. It just does it. It

[29:12] says only for one ADU and let's say

[29:14] someone was building two ADUs. Um they

[29:17] were grouping them near each other to

[29:18] come off this proposed second driveway.

[29:20] Um staff sees no issue with that. If

[29:24] it's acceptable to the commission, we

[29:26] can easily um if acceptable to the

[29:28] commission uh literally, you know,

[29:30] taking away the word a right here and

[29:33] making all our references to accessory

[29:35] dwelling units. Um so just to go back,

[29:40] um so we remove this and then we can

[29:42] make the references to accessory

[29:44] dwelling units plural. Um and if that

[29:46] was something that the commission is

[29:48] interested in, uh we could make that

[29:52] change. Um so with this just on this

[29:54] particular topic there's any questions

[29:56] of the commission um for staff be happy

[29:59] to answer any of those questions.

[30:09] Um, yeah. So, couple of things in in

[30:13] some of the the letters and also in my

[30:16] own experience, the the when you're

[30:20] designing these, there was this request

[30:22] for the fire department to be able to

[30:23] drive in and turn around. Um, and for me

[30:26] and a lot of less than 10,000 square

[30:28] feet, seemed ridiculous to even get that

[30:30] question, but it was a question I had to

[30:31] go deal with and get a response on. um

[30:33] for these larger lots that have do have

[30:37] large properties

[30:39] with with something that has a ADU

[30:41] that's sort of close to an edge and has

[30:43] its own own driveway.

[30:45] >> Um should we be saying something about

[30:48] that kind of ridiculous statements of

[30:50] needing a firetruck to come in and turn

[30:51] around?

[30:52] >> I So we will the firetruck has its

[30:54] standards and people will need to meet

[30:57] fire district standards. Um if it's uh

[31:00] with regards to our local standards, if

[31:03] the fire district does require a

[31:05] firetruck turnaround, we do have

[31:07] exemptions in our um paved area section.

[31:11] So the turnaround itself uh doesn't

[31:13] count against their paved area

[31:15] standards. Sometimes if people have a

[31:16] really long driveway, they have to

[31:18] actually do a turnout as well. Well,

[31:20] yeah. I mean, I get I get if it's a if

[31:22] it's a long driveway and it's back part

[31:24] of the property and the property is

[31:25] three acres big, but if they're going to

[31:27] put the ADU on the on the corner, is

[31:29] that

[31:30] >> So, I guess what you're saying is the

[31:31] fire truck turnaround rule is not in the

[31:34] town.

[31:34] >> That's correct. Yeah. So, we wouldn't

[31:36] want to put that something in our

[31:37] municipal code directly related to that.

[31:39] Um, so in those instances and where it

[31:43] may not be required, it's something we

[31:45] can help support that applicant with the

[31:47] fire district. Um but it is a fire

[31:49] district requirement. Yeah.

[31:50] >> Um second is uh in some of the letters

[31:54] they talked about having multiple

[31:55] driveways for multiple ADUs. Are we

[31:58] thinking that's a bad idea?

[31:59] >> Um at this point the town has never

[32:03] contemplated allowing more than two

[32:05] driveways on a property. And so um the

[32:10] idea is really to ensure that people can

[32:12] have easy access to a proposed ADU. And

[32:16] so if they are proposing new if they

[32:18] have existing ADUs, they obviously are

[32:20] existing and have access to those units.

[32:23] Um for proposed ADUs, uh they should be

[32:27] looking at grouping those uh together

[32:29] with their proposed second driveway or

[32:31] access off their primary driveway. Um

[32:35] staff hasn't really analyzed looking at

[32:38] a third or fourth driveway because

[32:40] people want multiple separate driveways

[32:42] for multiple different ADUs. We'd really

[32:44] try to encourage people to hear that

[32:45] hasn't come up yet.

[32:46] >> Uh, no, we haven't had any significant

[32:49] concerns or challenges that people have

[32:51] run into for that.

[32:53] >> Um, okay. And my last question may not

[32:55] be related to this specifically, but

[32:58] I've read somewhere that there's either

[33:00] a state law being contemplated or

[33:02] debated about being able to

[33:04] automatically carve out ADUs from a

[33:06] certain lot. Is that something that the

[33:08] town has thought about yet? um in terms

[33:10] of for sale

[33:12] >> for for separation of ownership sort of.

[33:14] >> Yeah. So there is a state law that

[33:17] allows for um cities to optionally

[33:20] decide if they want to uh provide a

[33:24] mechanism in which people can purchase

[33:27] an ADU separate from the primary unit

[33:29] while it's still one property. The town

[33:32] council has not opted to uh uh look at

[33:35] an ordinance for that at this time.

[33:37] >> There's an option for the town.

[33:38] >> Yeah. So the state law it's not a

[33:40] mandatory requirement. Um it's a state

[33:42] law that they provided uh that is an

[33:45] option. It's an option that cities can

[33:47] pursue.

[33:48] >> That's my son. If he calls three times

[33:51] >> understood.

[33:52] >> Thank you.

[33:56] » Okay. Sage. Um what I do have one

[33:59] question on this one and that's on

[34:01] criteria three.

[34:04] um the the draft language uh that's in

[34:07] there is only serve the proposed ADU.

[34:12] If this goes into municipal code and

[34:17] you're making a literal interpretation

[34:19] of that,

[34:21] then that would theoretically

[34:24] bar

[34:25] a proposed second driveway that served

[34:29] the ADU, but then it just coincidentally

[34:32] happened to provide better access to a

[34:35] pool house or a

[34:39] um storage building or a barn or

[34:42] something like that given that the

[34:45] intent that you outlined

[34:48] was

[34:50] to of these changes is to make it easier

[34:54] to create ADUs and the second driveway

[34:58] would be the one and would be the

[35:01] primary means of access

[35:04] um to an ADU that would be in a location

[35:06] that would otherwise be um inaccessible.

[35:10] Um, my suggestion would be to consider

[35:13] tweaking the language to instead of

[35:16] saying only serve the ADU,

[35:19] um, to say that the driveway is needed

[35:22] to provide a practical means of access

[35:25] to the proposed ADU.

[35:32] » Totally open to that there. We don't

[35:33] find significant concern that we can

[35:35] look at modifying that language. Yes, it

[35:37] would just be to make the language

[35:40] better fit what seems to be the intent

[35:43] of this.

[35:43] >> Well, that makes sense. You know, there

[35:45] might be times in which um you know,

[35:48] somebody does this short driveway to an

[35:50] ADU, but yet they can spur off of that

[35:53] to connect to their primary driveway.

[35:56] And as with some of the letters that

[35:57] we've seen, just internal more

[35:59] circulation um provides better fire

[36:02] safety and things of that nature. Um

[36:04] yeah, we're definitely open to that. Um

[36:06] and um with that I'll note, you know,

[36:09] we're going to get through some of the

[36:10] other comments too tonight. Um some of

[36:12] the other items that are suggested from

[36:14] the public are necessarily directly

[36:16] related to some of these things. And

[36:18] what I want to note is

[36:21] um the council schedule is very full in

[36:23] the near future. Uh so we don't have a

[36:25] specific date in which we're going to

[36:27] the council. Uh we know that we wouldn't

[36:29] come to the council before June. Um and

[36:32] so with tonight's conversation uh with

[36:34] these ideas, what I would like to do is

[36:38] um get the direction from the planning

[36:40] commission at the end and we can uh what

[36:43] I would propose to do is bring this back

[36:45] probably the second meeting in May um

[36:48] that we could show any of these changes

[36:50] that are made uh based on the comments

[36:52] that we heard tonight and this would be

[36:53] one of them um should the rest of the

[36:55] commission agree to that.

[36:57] >> That's all I had.

[37:04] Okay. So, the the questions I have, so

[37:06] first on on pylons, can you just

[37:09] describe a little bit more what we what

[37:11] we mean by pylons versus fences? And

[37:13] >> Sure. So, a pylon is going to be a

[37:15] support for a gate that will be kind of

[37:18] the hinge for the gate. Um, and so, uh,

[37:22] when doing a pylon, you might have a

[37:24] wooden wire fence and just a, you know,

[37:28] 12 inch squared wood post probably is

[37:30] going to support your gate, but having

[37:32] some type of minimal metal post as

[37:35] opposed to, um, another, you know, 2x

[37:38] two or 3x3 stone pylon. Um, the idea is

[37:42] to blend it more into the existing

[37:43] fence. So, that's the intent with that.

[37:46] And I think my other question was with

[37:48] respect to the burner on a connection.

[37:52] So I I think I don't know that there's

[37:54] any net new question on this but um I

[37:57] think considering the ability to have

[38:00] circulation for the driveway to I I

[38:02] think I mean I think the intent needs to

[38:04] be look the driveway is to serve a net

[38:07] new ADU that's being built but if it

[38:09] connects on site that that really does

[38:12] feel like the type of thing that um

[38:14] >> yeah no look at given the comments we

[38:16] heard tonight and the from the desk

[38:18] items it's very reasonable request and

[38:20] something that we will uh focus this on

[38:22] when we bring this back.

[38:24] >> That's that's all I had.

[38:29] » And Sage, how we're going section by

[38:31] section.

[38:31] >> Yes. Yes. So, I'll I'll just continue to

[38:33] move on here. Okay.

[38:34] >> Um I'm not going to go into these in

[38:36] detail. These are just definitions.

[38:38] We've made some modifications. Um these

[38:41] are really to make sure we are up to

[38:42] date with current state law. Uh so,

[38:44] we've made modifications. Our

[38:46] definitions were in pretty good shape.

[38:49] Um, we've just made some minor

[38:50] clarifications. Um, and there are really

[38:52] no substantive changes to these

[38:54] definitions. Um, so unless there's any

[38:56] questions, I'll just move on to the

[38:58] next.

[39:02] » So the go ahead.

[39:04] >> Sorry. The the efficiency kitchen.

[39:08] >> So we are making a change there with

[39:11] respect to cooking. Correct. Um this is

[39:15] uh clarifying what a uh

[39:18] it didn't include the cooking piece

[39:21] before and um it just said well it said

[39:26] appliances for food preparation and this

[39:29] is looking at something that a permanent

[39:32] cooking facility. So this is a term used

[39:35] and so the question is when you're doing

[39:36] an ADU you know do I have a stove? do I

[39:39] have, you know, you can have a wet bar,

[39:41] but that's not a kitchen. Um, so that

[39:43] wouldn't qualify as an ADU. Whereas an

[39:46] ADU, they have permanent cooking

[39:48] facilities. And uh what that has been

[39:51] taken into

[39:53] um is that it's essentially uh uh when

[39:57] you install a stove, an oven, it

[39:59] requires venting. And so that's

[40:01] something that does require a building

[40:03] permit. Um so the town has always looked

[40:06] at what is a permanent cooking facility.

[40:07] It is something that's going to require

[40:09] the venting. And what we wanted to

[40:11] clarify in this efficiency kitchen is

[40:13] that someone could have that, but they

[40:16] could have other just cooking

[40:17] appliances. So, as many of us, including

[40:20] myself, you know, we buy all these

[40:22] different, you know, ways to cook um

[40:25] that are just kind of plug-in appliances

[40:27] that are threein- one and can do all

[40:29] these different things. Um so, if people

[40:31] are doing something like that, they

[40:32] don't have to have the oven or the the

[40:35] venting. Um, we just want to make sure

[40:36] that they have some cooking appliances

[40:38] as part of it. So, it's clarifying that.

[40:43] » Okay. So, it and and it reads may or may

[40:45] not include a permanent

[40:46] stove/conventional oven. Does it read

[40:48] elsewhere that any cooking appliances

[40:51] are required?

[40:53] >> It's just a cooking facility with

[40:55] appliances as the leadin to that. Um,

[40:59] so it it which means the cooking

[41:01] facility

[41:03] may or may not be a permanent cooking

[41:05] facility,

[41:06] >> right?

[41:09] Yeah. I think it's I I wonder if we

[41:11] should maybe consider clarifying what a

[41:14] cooking facility actually is. Part of

[41:17] the reason I ask is when I was getting

[41:18] final, I had a temporary set of

[41:21] appliances and was told by the inspector

[41:23] that I didn't need them and go ahead and

[41:25] return them. So it was sort of unclear

[41:28] uh there in terms of is that required.

[41:29] So I think it would be good to just

[41:32] specify what a cooking facility.

[41:34] >> Yeah. So they should have I mean

[41:36] inspected I mean the venting and stuff

[41:38] would have had is what's really getting

[41:40] permitted as opposed to uh the

[41:42] installation of the stove itself. Um so

[41:45] if someone hasn't you know if their

[41:48] plans show for that venting in that

[41:50] cooking facility that would be what's

[41:52] inspected. Um

[41:55] >> okay. So we are saying that the venting

[41:57] is required

[41:58] >> that we're saying for an efficiency

[42:00] kitchen you can have it but you don't

[42:02] have to and the efficiency kitchens are

[42:04] directly related to the JADUs whereas if

[42:08] you're doing a regular ADU you're going

[42:10] to do a permanent cooking facility

[42:13] you're not going to just have the

[42:14] appliances

[42:15] >> okay I think my questions

[42:19] >> we want to ensure that the permanent the

[42:20] ADUs

[42:22] will always have a cooking facility as

[42:24] part of it Okay. Do we have a definition

[42:26] of cooking facility in the code

[42:28] somewhere or is that something?

[42:29] >> It's just the the permanent It's the

[42:31] permanent cooking. We do have a

[42:33] definition of cooking facility and it's

[42:35] the permanent I'd have to look at the

[42:38] exact words, but something we've worked

[42:39] with the building department on. Um, and

[42:41] it's the venting itself which makes it

[42:43] permanent.

[42:45] >> Okay. Yeah. I think it may be helpful to

[42:47] just clarify what the reference is to

[42:49] that just for readability of the code

[42:51] because I know actually talked with a

[42:53] number of folks who get confused over

[42:54] this one.

[42:59] We'll look at look at how to better

[43:01] clarify that.

[43:07] Um, okay. If there's no other questions,

[43:09] we'll move on. Um, okay. So, floor area.

[43:13] Um this is something that in the study

[43:16] session from the planning commission as

[43:18] well as town council and from residents

[43:20] and we've seen in some letters here

[43:22] tonight um that to uh currently the code

[43:26] indicates that everyone u every lot

[43:29] doesn't have to count um up to 800

[43:32] square ft for ADUs on a property and

[43:35] people have asked to uh increase that

[43:38] exception and so what we've done is to

[43:42] clarify uh to propose that people, you

[43:46] know, up to 1,200 square f feet, so

[43:48] giving people another 400 square f feet

[43:50] that could be applied to ADUs on their

[43:52] property that would not account against

[43:54] our maximum resin size or their total

[43:56] floor area allowed on the property. Um,

[43:59] we've had um some letters here. We have

[44:03] at least um you know, five of the

[44:06] letters tonight. two of them kind of

[44:09] just generally supported any increase

[44:11] whereas the other three uh specifically

[44:14] spoke to

[44:16] um looking at the increase up to 1500

[44:18] square f feet. Um so uh in looking at

[44:22] this change and we're specifically just

[44:24] looking at D1 right now when looking at

[44:26] this change staff contemplated you know

[44:30] the town does allow AD to use up to 1500

[44:32] square ft. Um, this isn't directly

[44:36] changing anything for that. It's just

[44:38] simply saying that people get an extra

[44:40] 400 square feet in previously um that

[44:44] they for an ADU, meaning they could use

[44:47] that 400 square ft somewhere. If they

[44:49] use it for an ADU, they could use that

[44:51] somewhere else on their property. Um, we

[44:54] could simply change it for all lots up

[44:56] to 1500 square ft. Uh we do know that

[45:00] when this first came into play, the 800

[45:04] was specifically because town had to

[45:06] require at least an 800 foot unit

[45:09] on smaller lots. I mean, adding another

[45:13] 700 square ft on top of the 800 going to

[45:15] 15, you know, could seem a bit much to

[45:19] some neighbors, say. Um so uh but it's

[45:23] up to the commission if they want to

[45:24] just up the number to 1500 ft² leave it

[45:27] at 1,200 reduce it below that whatever

[45:30] um you may find to be adequate. Um

[45:33] another thing that could be looked at is

[45:35] we could hold a number for lots that are

[45:39] um an acre less than an acre in size and

[45:42] then properties that are larger maybe

[45:45] provide those with a larger exception.

[45:47] um that would have less impacts when

[45:50] they have larger properties. Uh so those

[45:52] are just two different ideas, but uh

[45:54] there are members of the public that

[45:56] have asked to increase that exception up

[45:57] to 1500 square ft. And um if there's any

[46:01] questions on that, you know, can let me

[46:03] know. Um also, you know, again, we'll have public input and at the end

[46:08] you can deliberate where you want to go

[46:10] with that in particular, but there's

[46:11] questions, I'm happy to answer those.

[46:16] Um, so we'll discuss it later.

[46:18] >> Yeah. In terms of Yeah. So if there's

[46:20] questions to answer, now would be the

[46:22] time. But yes, in terms of discussion,

[46:24] be good to get everybody's input and

[46:26] then the commission can decide where

[46:27] they want to end with that item.

[46:32] Okay. Um, okay. So looking at D2, this

[46:35] is a new section. Um, this is out of new

[46:38] state law. And what I'll do is kind of

[46:42] just jump a little bit ahead to kind of

[46:44] intertwine this with E1. Um, initial

[46:48] some of the initial state laws that have

[46:49] passed uh required cities to allow for

[46:53] up to 150 square foot expansions to

[46:57] provide ingress and egress when creating

[46:59] a JADU. And that has been in our code.

[47:03] The um state law has now been changed.

[47:06] They don't explicitly call out the JADU

[47:08] anymore, but they do explicitly call out

[47:11] um the need for this 150 foot expansion

[47:14] uh for ADUs. So, we want to make sure

[47:17] that that is in our code consistent with

[47:19] state law. And the language in here

[47:24] is is consistent with state law.

[47:27] Meaning, sometimes people are just

[47:28] trying to add an extra 150 square feet,

[47:30] but all they need to do is put a door

[47:32] in. Um, and you know, 150 ft be a

[47:37] bedroom. Um, so what we've used is the

[47:40] state law language to say yes, you can

[47:42] go up to the 150 square ft um, if it's

[47:44] necessary. Uh, but if you're already

[47:47] maxed out and you just need to carve out

[47:49] a little bit area. We have some

[47:51] instances people are like raising plate

[47:53] heights a little bit and it's affecting

[47:54] their floor area the way we do floor

[47:56] area here. Um, we want to make sure that flexibility is there. So that's the

[48:02] proposal using the same language uh just

[48:05] to clean up the J AU stuff. We don't

[48:06] want to take that away even though state

[48:08] law um doesn't explicitly require it

[48:11] anymore. But so this is what we proposed

[48:13] for those two expansions if needed.

[48:20] » So state law does not have any

[48:22] requirements with this 150 at this

[48:23] point. it for the JADU. It doesn't

[48:26] explicitly call that out anymore, but it

[48:28] does now explicitly call it out for the

[48:30] ADU. Um that we have to h allow for some

[48:33] expansions to create these ADUs. Um so

[48:36] if someone has an attached ADU, they're

[48:38] proposing. Um again, we have other

[48:41] instances where people are converting

[48:42] buildings and they might need to bump

[48:45] out a little area. We're starting to

[48:47] deal with things on hillsides that kind

[48:49] of create some situations sometimes. Um,

[48:52] and so this is will be consistent with

[48:55] state law. Um, and so we're just making

[48:58] sure we have that in our code.

[48:59] >> So the the effect of this is to say you

[49:02] get the 150 if you're already maxed out.

[49:04] If you're not already maxed out, you

[49:06] don't get the 150 because it counts

[49:08] towards the TFS.

[49:09] >> Correct. And you you would just get what

[49:11] is just necessary to provide that

[49:14] ingress egress to that unit.

[49:17] >> So would would this create then an

[49:19] incentive to sort of

[49:22] phase construction projects in a way

[49:24] that people build up to the maximum with

[49:26] a it could hold back of 150 which then

[49:30] leads to construction projects that last

[49:31] longer.

[49:34] it. If people want to phase development

[49:37] in a way to get an extra 150 square

[49:40] feet, that's something that could occur.

[49:52] » Move on. This is all existing language

[49:54] in our code.

[49:57] Um, okay. So this is something that just

[50:01] really hasn't been addressed in our code

[50:03] um since we've been implementing ADU

[50:06] ordinances

[50:07] um you know ADUs. So there's this term

[50:10] used basic setbacks in our code. So

[50:13] that's kind of your normal setbacks that

[50:14] are required you know that everyone's

[50:16] kind of used to your side setbacks,

[50:18] front setbacks, rear setbacks. Um

[50:21] whereas everyone has kind of come to

[50:23] learn now that uh you know an ADU can be

[50:26] as close as four feet to a side or rear

[50:28] property line. And the question starts

[50:32] to become how large can those overhangs

[50:34] be? Um, you know, our code currently to

[50:37] put ADUs aside, um, before any of these

[50:40] changes to state law, and still

[50:42] currently, um, a house can have a 6-foot

[50:46] encroachment into a front or rear

[50:48] setback for an overhang or other types

[50:50] of features like balconies, um, and go

[50:53] three feet into a side or rear setback.

[50:55] Well, you have an ADU that's 4T away

[50:58] from a side property line. Um, you know,

[51:02] how far should that be able to go into

[51:04] that four feet? Um, and you know, eaves

[51:08] are functional obviously for drainage in

[51:10] many cases and construction and they're

[51:12] also a very common design feature. You

[51:14] can design things without eaves. Um, but

[51:18] with that, what we wanted to do was

[51:20] clarify that, you know, we've had some

[51:23] people trying to do these large patio

[51:25] covers with an ADU. And so, you have

[51:27] this 800 square foot unit and now

[51:30] they're trying to do, you know, another

[51:33] 700 square ft of covered patio um really

[51:36] enlarging this structure. And, um, we've

[51:40] really had to look at these things case

[51:42] by case. And what we believe to be very

[51:45] reasonable is just to clarify that once

[51:48] you're starting to encroach into your

[51:49] basic setbacks for an ADU and getting

[51:51] closer to your neighbors properties that

[51:54] you keep those um to a maximum of 18 in.

[51:57] Um and so that is what is proposed for

[52:01] this section five here. Um for section

[52:04] six again this is just kind of another

[52:07] reasonable concept you know that we've

[52:09] run into with permitting ADUs over the

[52:11] years. So, you know, HVAC units are most

[52:14] common. Uh sometimes have people with

[52:17] tankless water heaters that get attached

[52:19] to the building on the exterior wall.

[52:22] And um what we've done just at the staff

[52:26] level, uh we've really had to just make

[52:28] an interpretation call here because

[52:31] we we can't deny an ADU because they

[52:35] have an HVAC unit that's next to it. Um,

[52:38] you know, if someone's proposing an 800

[52:40] foot ADU that's 4T from a side or rear

[52:42] property line, you know, you don't have

[52:44] an HVAC unit that's 40t away. Um, it's

[52:48] just I'm not an HVAC specialist. Um, but

[52:52] my understanding it should be as close

[52:54] to the building as possible. Uh, and

[52:57] that so what we've done is saying, hey,

[53:00] look, you can have your mechanical

[53:01] equipment. It's serving this unit. It

[53:02] makes sense, but you can't be any closer

[53:04] than 4T to a side or rear property line.

[53:06] So, we just wanted to make sure that

[53:08] it's clear in the code that it is

[53:09] allowed and that you just keep those

[53:12] particular features um within line of

[53:15] kind of the intent and spirit of the

[53:17] state law to say ADUs can be as close as

[53:20] 4T. So, if you are in a corner where we

[53:22] have two sides, one's four feet from the

[53:24] side, one's four feet from the rear,

[53:26] then you just need to put it on one of

[53:28] the other two sides that doesn't make it

[53:30] any closer than four feet to the side

[53:32] property line. Um, so that's the intent

[53:34] behind number six. So there's any

[53:37] questions for five or six?

[53:40] >> One question is how do we define

[53:41] immediately adjacent?

[53:43] >> Um

[53:46] next to um it is against I mean we we

[53:50] can define a distance of how far it can

[53:53] be away. Um you know if that's preferred

[53:56] we

[53:57] >> within 12 inches of or something.

[53:59] >> Yeah. I just you know again I'm not a an

[54:02] expert in mechanical equipment. Um, I

[54:04] could do a little bit of uh um further

[54:07] discussion with the building department.

[54:09] Um, to me, you know,

[54:13] they if someone's putting something 20

[54:16] ft away from it, 5t away, I mean, that's

[54:19] pretty clear. It's not immediately

[54:20] adjacent, but um, we'll talk to the

[54:22] building department and see if it makes

[54:24] sense to there. There may be some

[54:26] requirement of how close it has to be.

[54:28] Um, so we can look at that a little bit

[54:29] closer, too. Okay.

[54:31] >> Thank you.

[54:45] moving right along.

[54:48] It's just cleanup language, just

[54:50] clarifying state law changes. We follow

[54:53] the new codes.

[54:55] Um, okay. So, um, this is something that

[55:00] it's kind of what we were making this

[55:04] change someone in relation to increasing

[55:06] the the TFA uh, exception. And

[55:09] currently, this was put in place in the

[55:12] code um because under state law that if

[55:16] you can't you can't have a local zoning

[55:18] regulation that would amount to making

[55:21] it infeasible for someone to construct

[55:23] an 800 foot unit. And uh further it used

[55:28] to um state law used to say that you

[55:31] could impose a front setback. Now it has

[55:35] language that you can impose a front

[55:37] setback but if that makes it infeasible

[55:39] to construct the unit um that the towns

[55:43] h cities have to make an exception to

[55:45] that. So we've in past ordinances we've

[55:48] removed the the hard restriction on the

[55:51] front setback. Um, and what we've looked

[55:54] at is providing a little bit more

[55:57] flexibility for ADUs for staff to work

[55:59] with folks in unique circumstances. Um,

[56:03] our our past, you know, kind of easy

[56:06] example of this was saying, hey, what if

[56:08] kind of the only place to put an ADU was

[56:10] in a slope and nexus of 35%. You know,

[56:12] staff should be able that's kind of a

[56:14] local zoning thing and staff should be

[56:16] able to provide some flexibility there.

[56:19] Well, since then, we've changed our code

[56:21] to allow ADUs to be in slopes and nexus

[56:23] 35%. So, that's not my go-to example

[56:25] anymore. Um, but I will suggest a couple

[56:28] things which also does relate to a desk

[56:30] item that I'll get to at the end. Um,

[56:33] that there's uh one of the more common

[56:36] examples is paved area surface coverage.

[56:39] Um, when you have a new ADU, at a

[56:41] minimum, you have to have there's

[56:43] building code requirements for landings

[56:46] outside of exit doors. Um, so there's

[56:49] going to have to be some type of patio,

[56:52] porch, something that that meets, but if

[56:55] someone's maxed out on paved area, the

[56:57] town has allowed this exception in the

[56:59] past based on this. Um, so that's an

[57:02] area in which flexibility could be done,

[57:04] but it was limited to only units that

[57:06] were 800 square ft. So if someone was

[57:09] proposing to do a 900 ft²,000 square

[57:11] foot unit that staff would still say

[57:15] still have to go do a variance for

[57:17] something like that. And so what we're

[57:19] trying to do and same goes with the

[57:21] front setback. We have another project.

[57:23] It's a great example. The house is on

[57:26] the San Andreas fault. The property

[57:29] behind it is a creek that splits it from

[57:31] another piece of the property behind it.

[57:34] And really the only place to put an ADU

[57:37] is in the front setback. And so we've

[57:39] worked with them under this uh exception

[57:41] and consistent with state law that they

[57:43] can do an 800 foot unit in that area. Um

[57:47] but because that that gets them outside

[57:48] of the fault zone area. And what we're

[57:51] looking here is just um if uh the

[57:55] commission and council agree that it

[57:57] provides staff with flexibility to look

[57:59] at some of our local zoning centers.

[58:01] someone wants to do up to a,200 foot

[58:03] unit. That gives us more,

[58:06] we we could have flexibility with that

[58:08] unit, not just up to 800 square f feet.

[58:11] Um,

[58:13] so, uh, we're just proposing to

[58:16] increase, um, the flexibility that staff

[58:19] can provide, uh, in I don't want to say

[58:22] wave zoning standards, but modify zoning

[58:25] standards, uh, when necessary, um,

[58:27] because that is the feasible place to

[58:29] put the ADU. So that's what this is

[58:31] proposing.

[58:35] » This is just to make sure they don't if

[58:37] it's truly unable to be put on the fault

[58:40] line,

[58:41] >> then it they don't need to come to ASRB

[58:44] and planning to get it approved.

[58:46] >> Right. So in the case that I that I

[58:48] cited, you know, right now they could do

[58:50] the 800 ft into the front setback. Um,

[58:54] but if this was changed the way it's

[58:55] proposed, they could make that unit up

[58:57] to,200 square feet as opposed to 800.

[59:00] Um, so it provides a little bit more

[59:02] flexibility at the staff level without

[59:04] having to go through the variance

[59:06] process.

[59:08] >> And just to to confirm that, so we were

[59:11] talking about the 800 to,200 earlier,

[59:14] which is

[59:15] >> what are folks titled to. This one is an

[59:18] additional layer of flexibility. There's

[59:20] no reason this couldn't stay at 800.

[59:22] >> That's correct. That's correct.

[59:23] >> They want to do a larger one. They'd

[59:25] come essentially to planning for

[59:27] >> That is correct. Yes. So you you know

[59:29] you could still exempt more square

[59:31] footage from the TFA and hold this at a

[59:34] different number.

[59:39] » And and how how are folks demonstrating

[59:41] the infeasibility of construction?

[59:44] What's the standard for that?

[59:45] >> Um we we don't want to make it

[59:49] overburdensome. Um so uh typically

[59:52] people are going to need surveys and

[59:54] typically people have surveys those will

[59:56] be a big help in identifying some of the

[59:57] constraints. Um when someone you know

[1:00:02] whether it's an ADU or a house you just

[1:00:04] can't build a new one on a fault line.

[1:00:06] Um so people that are on or near fault

[1:00:09] lines they're going to have to

[1:00:10] demonstrate that anyway through

[1:00:11] geotechnical investigations. Uh so we

[1:00:14] look at those um pieces of information.

[1:00:17] Uh we look at um you know

[1:00:19] environmentally sensitive areas

[1:00:21] primarily in Woodside where we deal with

[1:00:23] the stream corridors. Um so those are

[1:00:25] easily identifiable.

[1:00:27] We'll we'll go do a site visit if

[1:00:29] necessary to kind of look at where the

[1:00:31] top of bank may be for um property. So

[1:00:35] uh we we we like to keep it open because

[1:00:38] we want it to be a low bar uh in terms

[1:00:41] of those pro providing that it's not

[1:00:43] feasible. Um, we had another example.

[1:00:46] Someone else strumman showed us that

[1:00:49] they could fit 1500 square feet um, you

[1:00:53] know, outside of a front setback, but

[1:00:56] now they want to just move that into the

[1:00:59] front setback. And well, I'm saying,

[1:01:02] well, you just showed us that you could

[1:01:03] put it you could meet the front setback,

[1:01:06] so I don't so that is not a problem. Um

[1:01:09] so so we try to just keep it very simple

[1:01:12] at those kind of basic issues. Uh steep

[1:01:15] slopes uh faults um and environmentally

[1:01:19] sensitive areas tend to be the biggest

[1:01:20] constraints.

[1:01:23] » And so as they're going through the

[1:01:25] process it's a matter of they they they

[1:01:28] make this case directly to

[1:01:31] >> that's correct.

[1:01:32] >> They're kind of a stage gate like how

[1:01:33] does that

[1:01:34] >> Yeah. No. So the, you know, I mean,

[1:01:36] sometimes people can just show up one

[1:01:39] day and never talk to us and put on

[1:01:40] their plans and here's my reasoning. Um,

[1:01:42] but we encourage people to meet with us

[1:01:44] and often we'll meet with folks once if

[1:01:47] not many times. And so, um, yes, if they

[1:01:50] have some issue, hey, look, you want to

[1:01:52] put it here. sometimes it's the only

[1:01:54] place they can put the septic system to

[1:01:57] serve the ADU whereas okay you could fit

[1:01:59] the ADU there but now you can't put the

[1:02:01] septic system anywhere else because it

[1:02:03] can only be in that location and so

[1:02:05] that's another thing that we kind of

[1:02:06] look at with folks um so yeah we try to

[1:02:09] just be very open and reasonable with

[1:02:11] people um and providing um you know that

[1:02:15] they'll explain their situations to us

[1:02:17] and like I said we're happy to do site

[1:02:18] visits and whatever we can to help u

[1:02:21] make it very clear um And you know it's

[1:02:24] also very clear when we make that

[1:02:25] determination if the neighbor has a

[1:02:27] concern we can say this is how we got to

[1:02:28] that.

[1:02:30] >> And so it mentions the planning director

[1:02:32] shall determine which regulations may be

[1:02:34] written.

[1:02:34] >> Is is it also true that the

[1:02:37] basically if if the planning director

[1:02:39] determines it is not feasible. That's

[1:02:42] also your call.

[1:02:43] >> That's correct. Right. So you're you're

[1:02:46] showing that it's not feasible and we'll

[1:02:48] concur with that or we'll say wait you

[1:02:51] can fit that size unit here. So now

[1:02:53] there's more if we up the square footage

[1:02:55] there's more flexibility for that for

[1:02:58] there's there's the same flexibility for

[1:03:00] a larger unit.

[1:03:04] Okay, makes sense. Um sorry a lot of my

[1:03:07] comments are having having gone through

[1:03:08] processes and just trying to understand

[1:03:10] the the precision. it might be useful

[1:03:12] here to specify that it's a planning

[1:03:14] director call on that and um I don't

[1:03:17] know if there's if there's something

[1:03:18] about what feasibility means or what

[1:03:21] folks are supposed to present um that's

[1:03:24] probably helpful because I think like

[1:03:25] for variances it's quite clear usually

[1:03:27] like there's a form etc like how does

[1:03:30] one determine feasibility would probably

[1:03:32] be quite helpful to applicants

[1:03:42] Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, so we're

[1:03:46] going to move on here to the number of

[1:03:48] ADUs on a property. Um so as many may

[1:03:53] recall um what came out of part of the

[1:03:55] housing element was that on properties

[1:03:59] that are an acre or larger that the town

[1:04:02] would allow amend our codes to allow

[1:04:05] uh three ADUs and a JDU so a total of

[1:04:08] four ADUs on a property plus a house. um

[1:04:11] that was in a very specific I believe

[1:04:12] the the state uh HCD was looking for us

[1:04:16] to just implement that into the SR

[1:04:18] district and um when we moved that

[1:04:21] through the process um I definitely know

[1:04:24] at the council level and I think at the

[1:04:25] planning commission as well but there

[1:04:27] was um saying hey look if we're going to

[1:04:30] allow this for lots of a certain size we

[1:04:32] should just allow it on all lots of that

[1:04:34] size and so that's what the town did so

[1:04:36] the town went a little bit beyond what

[1:04:38] the state had required of

[1:04:40] and allowed uh these three ADUs plus a

[1:04:43] J8U on uh parks that are an acre or

[1:04:47] larger. So there's a part of the

[1:04:50] government code known as government code

[1:04:53] section 66323.

[1:04:55] Um the state will often refer to these

[1:04:58] as stateex exempt ADUs.

[1:05:00] And

[1:05:03] under this state code, every property

[1:05:07] has to allow three ADUs in this these three different types. So one is a

[1:05:14] JADU

[1:05:16] and one is you have to allow a

[1:05:18] conversion of space. So that could be a

[1:05:21] conversion of a storage building, a

[1:05:25] detached garage, a barn as we noted with

[1:05:28] our last amendment. Um it could be a

[1:05:31] conversion of part of your residence. Um

[1:05:34] and so this is a conversion of space.

[1:05:35] The state you have to allow the JADU.

[1:05:38] You have to allow the conversion of

[1:05:39] space. And then the third one is one

[1:05:43] we've kind of been accustomed to is that

[1:05:45] every property has to be allowed to have

[1:05:48] at least one de new detached ADU that's

[1:05:52] uh can be 800 square ft and 16 ft tall

[1:05:56] and as close as 4t to a side or rear

[1:05:58] property line. So, we've changed our

[1:06:00] code to make sure it's clear that people

[1:06:02] can implement that type of unit. Um,

[1:06:04] that type of unit doesn't get held to

[1:06:06] the 11 foot plate height limit, just

[1:06:08] gets to go up to the 16 ft. And what

[1:06:11] we've done here with this section of the

[1:06:13] code, um, because the code currently

[1:06:16] allows folks to have one JADU and one

[1:06:19] attached or detached ADU,

[1:06:22] we're saying if people want to be

[1:06:24] consistent with state law with these

[1:06:26] three types of JADs that are quote

[1:06:29] unquote the stateex exempt ADUs, they

[1:06:31] can have those three units because it is

[1:06:33] allowed by state law. Um and so we you

[1:06:36] know the town could just say everyone's

[1:06:39] allowed to you know those pro those

[1:06:41] smaller properties can have more that's

[1:06:43] another option. Um what we were doing as

[1:06:45] we've kind of done with this is trying

[1:06:47] to provide more flexibility taking

[1:06:50] somewhat smaller steps um incremental

[1:06:52] steps to be careful of how impactful it

[1:06:55] could be to neighboring properties. Um

[1:06:58] and so uh so we're explicitly clarifying

[1:07:02] although it says one Jedu and one

[1:07:05] attached or detached if you want the

[1:07:07] three you follow what is allowed by the

[1:07:11] government code section.

[1:07:14] So that is the proposal for this

[1:07:16] particular

[1:07:18] >> that's an asterct. Is there is the

[1:07:19] asterk up higher?

[1:07:22] >> Um no I appreciate the point that's an

[1:07:23] asterct and like no this is oh sorry yes

[1:07:26] that thank you because you're very point

[1:07:28] it's very important to always have the

[1:07:30] asterct. So yes it is right here. Yeah.

[1:07:32] No no you don't want to have just an

[1:07:34] asterisk without whatever. So um that

[1:07:37] yes that's the placement of it.

[1:07:40] So they get this limitation to JDU and

[1:07:43] one detached or attached. But there's

[1:07:45] this asterct saying if you're following

[1:07:48] what's allowed by government code, you

[1:07:50] can have the three.

[1:08:00] So um this number six is just to also

[1:08:04] clarify um what's allowed by section

[1:08:06] 66323 which um what I just mentioned.

[1:08:09] So, um, if people are, uh, converting a

[1:08:13] portion of their main dwelling,

[1:08:17] someone could convert a barn, 3,000 foot

[1:08:21] barn to an ADU.

[1:08:23] Under 66323,

[1:08:25] the

[1:08:27] um, it doesn't specify the size in which

[1:08:31] you can convert a building. So, with a

[1:08:34] main residence,

[1:08:36] someone could say, "I want to convert

[1:08:39] 3,000 out of my 8,000 foot house into an

[1:08:42] ADU." And under 66323,

[1:08:45] that would be allowed.

[1:08:48] What we're stating here is if someone

[1:08:50] has already used that conversion under

[1:08:53] 66323,

[1:08:55] they can still have an attached ADU, but

[1:08:58] it can't be larger than 1500 square ft.

[1:09:00] So they wouldn't do the conversion of

[1:09:02] the 3000 and add the 1500 foot attached

[1:09:06] ADU. That's the primary example what

[1:09:09] this is getting at. Um so uh so because

[1:09:13] we have standards in our code for

[1:09:15] attached ADUs. Um that's a little bit

[1:09:19] further down but that that's the that's

[1:09:21] the point of what this is doing here.

[1:09:23] saying, "Hey, look, you can convert

[1:09:25] larger spaces. That's allowed, but

[1:09:29] can't convert multiple large spaces."

[1:09:32] Um, so if you want that additional

[1:09:34] attached ADU, you would follow the

[1:09:36] maximum standard for that attached ADU

[1:09:40] since you've already converted

[1:09:42] over that. If you converted an,000 ft

[1:09:45] building to an ADU and it meets code,

[1:09:49] that wouldn't impact this.

[1:09:59] is just clarification language of

[1:10:01] the proper code sections being

[1:10:03] referenced.

[1:10:15] Um this is uh I mean straight out of

[1:10:19] state law. We're just clarifying and

[1:10:21] making sure that everything here um is

[1:10:23] consistent with the state law.

[1:10:33] Just again clarifications.

[1:10:38] So, um this is our our last piece of the

[1:10:41] um proposed ordinance. Um

[1:10:45] through the housing element, uh we have

[1:10:48] a program that look at developing some

[1:10:50] type of amnesty program for ADUs, uh

[1:10:53] unpermitted ADUs and how they can be

[1:10:55] legalized.

[1:10:57] And

[1:10:59] from a planning standpoint, it's it's

[1:11:01] been a bit of a struggle to figure out

[1:11:02] how best to implement something like

[1:11:04] that because a lot of what we've already

[1:11:05] built into our code makes it pretty easy

[1:11:08] and straightforward to convert a

[1:11:09] building. So, if someone had a detached

[1:11:11] garage, even under our laws, if you've

[1:11:14] converted a garage, you don't have to

[1:11:15] replace the parking. Um, and so from a

[1:11:19] zoning standpoint, a lot of the

[1:11:21] conversion issues have already been

[1:11:24] addressed. Um what it the the struggle

[1:11:27] has been really with um ensuring people

[1:11:31] that have done something that's

[1:11:33] unpermitted that they comply with

[1:11:34] building code regulations.

[1:11:37] And you know we could say it's okay to

[1:11:40] convert your garage into an ADU. You've

[1:11:43] already done it. Now come in for

[1:11:44] permits. Zoning wise it's pretty clear

[1:11:47] we almost have nothing to look at. um

[1:11:50] but then they get hit with the building

[1:11:51] code requirements and that's been a real

[1:11:55] um problem for folks. And so in 2024

[1:12:00] uh the state passed what was known as AB

[1:12:04] 2533

[1:12:06] since been replaced just for a

[1:12:08] reumbering. Um but uh it is now this new

[1:12:12] government code section 66311.7.

[1:12:16] And what we're doing here is that's state law. It needs to be

[1:12:20] implemented. There is for units that

[1:12:23] were constructed prior to January 2020.

[1:12:26] I know people will question how do you

[1:12:28] always identify when it was built if

[1:12:30] something was unpermitted. Um

[1:12:33] there's certain building techniques that

[1:12:36] the building department will look at,

[1:12:37] but that the town has a checklist. Um,

[1:12:41] in terms there's still a level of health

[1:12:44] and safety requirements that need to be

[1:12:46] met, but uh, it may not require every

[1:12:49] little detail that would say be for new

[1:12:51] construction today. And that checklist

[1:12:55] has been developed. Um, we have a member

[1:12:58] of the public here who's actually been

[1:12:59] really great and builds ADUs and helps

[1:13:03] us go through some of this stuff and has

[1:13:05] different examples. Um, and she can

[1:13:07] maybe speak to that too tonight. Uh but

[1:13:09] there's we are we want to ensure that we

[1:13:13] are implementing that process. So it's

[1:13:16] primarily a building department function

[1:13:19] from the planning department standpoint.

[1:13:21] We are working with the building

[1:13:22] department to make sure that function is

[1:13:24] in place and that we try to make it as

[1:13:27] clean and smooth as possible. Um

[1:13:31] we just simply wanted to just like our

[1:13:33] preapproval program that we did

[1:13:35] previously. We wanted to keep the

[1:13:37] language very simple. We wanted to make

[1:13:39] sure that it is functional and that the

[1:13:43] building department um makes sure it

[1:13:45] implements the laws, but we have some

[1:13:47] flexibility to continue working on the

[1:13:49] process and make it as clear as

[1:13:50] possible. Um we do have some desk items

[1:13:53] that spoke to that tonight. And

[1:13:56] um the one the one suggestion that came

[1:13:59] out of those desk items um was asking

[1:14:03] for uh the town uh to pro to be able to

[1:14:07] provide a building uh building inspector

[1:14:11] inspection of the unit prior. Um it's

[1:14:14] very good point. you know, if you know,

[1:14:17] once you spend a bunch of money

[1:14:19] designing plans and then you realize you

[1:14:21] have other stuff that you have to figure

[1:14:22] out and that's just going way beyond

[1:14:25] what you ever thought you were going to

[1:14:26] have to do.

[1:14:28] Um people who want to enter this process

[1:14:31] in good faith uh and legalize these

[1:14:33] unpermitted units uh should have some

[1:14:38] mechanism to help minimize any um down

[1:14:42] the road problems that that may have

[1:14:44] been unforeseen initially. The state law

[1:14:47] does state uh does indicate that um that

[1:14:52] jurisdictions

[1:14:53] um basically have to allow they don't

[1:14:56] have to they can't require it, but they

[1:14:58] have to allow uh for property owners to

[1:15:02] come in with a third-party general

[1:15:04] contractor inspection. So, someone can

[1:15:06] go hire a general contractor on their

[1:15:08] own. They can use the checklist that the

[1:15:10] town provides and they can provide them

[1:15:13] with feedback. I believe what is in in

[1:15:16] so that's in place. People are allowed

[1:15:18] to do that. They can always hire someone

[1:15:20] on their own. Um I believe what is being

[1:15:24] suggested in the desk items we received

[1:15:26] tonight was actually having a town

[1:15:29] inspector go out there. Um and

[1:15:33] you know to me it's it's something talk

[1:15:35] with the building department. We look at

[1:15:38] capacity. We look at is should there be

[1:15:40] a cost associated with it? And I look at

[1:15:43] this more of a policy decision. Um so

[1:15:46] it's something that uh you know with the

[1:15:48] desk items and if the town on the

[1:15:50] planning commission would like us to to

[1:15:52] talk with the council further is to

[1:15:54] bring this to the town council and

[1:15:56] indicate

[1:15:58] you know what that might cost the town

[1:15:59] to do. Does the town want to implement a

[1:16:03] cost for that? Currently we wave most

[1:16:05] building permit fees for ADUs. Um but

[1:16:09] and I'll note that our building

[1:16:11] inspectors are contract building

[1:16:13] inspectors. Um and so we really look at

[1:16:16] this as a policy decision. Does the town

[1:16:20] want to um

[1:16:22] look at that cost and capacity uh is

[1:16:25] really the two questions. So do our

[1:16:27] building inspectors have capacity? Is

[1:16:30] that just a matter of um expanding the

[1:16:32] contract uh with the current company

[1:16:34] that holds the building inspections? Um,

[1:16:38] but I I would suggest it's not something

[1:16:40] that we should necessarily codify. Uh,

[1:16:43] so it gives the town the flexibility to

[1:16:45] implement things like this. Um, but to put in our code that the town shall

[1:16:51] provide a building inspection, I really

[1:16:54] think it's a um a good policy decision

[1:16:56] for the town council. Uh, if that's

[1:16:58] something they want to implement, they

[1:17:00] could do that by resolution. Uh, and it

[1:17:02] wouldn't have to be codified. and every

[1:17:04] time it gets changed, we have to change

[1:17:05] the code.

[1:17:08] >> Are there actually any penalties for

[1:17:10] having one and not getting it permitted?

[1:17:12] >> Um, it's a good question. So, if

[1:17:13] someone's following this process, no.

[1:17:16] Um, you know, typically prior to this

[1:17:19] process, um, if someone builds something

[1:17:22] uh without permits, um, it could incur

[1:17:26] three times the permit fee. Um, should

[1:17:28] note we wave most of the permit fees for

[1:17:30] ADUs. So,

[1:17:31] >> three times zero. Okay.

[1:17:33] >> Um, so, so the town does not have

[1:17:35] significant fines uh for anything like

[1:17:37] this.

[1:17:40] » I agree with you on the on the no need

[1:17:42] to put in the code thing. I mean, this

[1:17:44] does seem like a town policy of I think

[1:17:46] we kind of want these, right? We want

[1:17:48] people to permit them and get them in

[1:17:50] their numbers.

[1:17:51] >> Um, and so almost like having a

[1:17:53] international amnesty for anybody

[1:17:55] >> and and some sort of onbudsmanship to

[1:17:58] get them to the point where they're

[1:17:59] coded safe that

[1:18:00] >> Yeah. No, that that's the point. uh it increases more housing, legitimate

[1:18:05] housing as well as safer housing. So um

[1:18:08] for that reason, the goal is really to

[1:18:11] try to continually, you know, make this

[1:18:14] uh easier.

[1:18:15] >> Do you guys know where they are?

[1:18:17] >> No, I No, I would say no. Um you know,

[1:18:20] we if if there is a complaint that comes

[1:18:23] in, the code enforcement process has

[1:18:25] started. Um and that's simply to get

[1:18:28] someone into compliance.

[1:18:31] The question I have based on and based

[1:18:32] on the desk item and so someone comes

[1:18:36] forth goes into this program

[1:18:39] they get hit with a set of code code

[1:18:42] issues the cost spirals are they able to

[1:18:45] pull back or it's once they've started

[1:18:47] the process

[1:18:49] >> it's a good question uh so we had

[1:18:51] someone come in uh prior to this state

[1:18:54] law being in place um they just want to

[1:18:56] come in hey you guys need adus I'll do

[1:18:58] that and they've

[1:19:00] uh they've come in, they, you know, had

[1:19:03] some issues. They were drawing the plans

[1:19:04] themselves. They still needed to come up

[1:19:07] to certain building code requirements.

[1:19:08] Um I did reach out to them since it's

[1:19:10] been in place. I don't know. I think

[1:19:12] they may have sold their property, but

[1:19:14] um it wasn't a code enforcement case. It

[1:19:16] wasn't something that was an inquiry

[1:19:18] that was brought to the town for

[1:19:19] enforcement. Um so because of that, the

[1:19:22] town is reactive to inquiries. We did

[1:19:26] not pursue code enforcement.

[1:19:30] If there's health and safety violations

[1:19:31] that the town is made aware of, building

[1:19:34] department will look at those to ensure

[1:19:36] that those are corrected.

[1:19:40] We're looking at, you know, you want to

[1:19:41] make sure there's not wiring hanging out

[1:19:43] everywhere, things of that nature.

[1:19:47] Just one policy question that occurs to

[1:19:50] me with respect to the prospect of the

[1:19:53] building department going out and doing

[1:19:54] pre-insspection

[1:19:56] of unpermitted ADUs

[1:19:59] is

[1:20:01] in in in addition to whether

[1:20:04] uh um um there would be a charge for

[1:20:07] this service, it would be also whether

[1:20:10] it would just be a verbal report by the

[1:20:13] inspector or if a written report is

[1:20:17] provided and then also

[1:20:20] if that written report is going to by

[1:20:25] its existence

[1:20:27] um be an implicit statement by the

[1:20:30] building department or the town on

[1:20:32] limiting the scope of the required

[1:20:34] changes

[1:20:37] because it sort of um

[1:20:41] I mean doing renovations it's a big can

[1:20:44] of worms So,

[1:20:46] um um scope creep is always an issue.

[1:20:50] And is the town be um going to be on the

[1:20:53] hook if the building inspector initially

[1:20:55] said something didn't have to be done

[1:20:57] and then

[1:20:59] um things changed?

[1:21:01] >> Yeah. No, I I I So, from what I hear is

[1:21:07] would that say I don't have to fix

[1:21:09] something that I didn't see behind the

[1:21:10] wall? And I think the answer is no.

[1:21:13] there's still a possibility that you may

[1:21:14] have to fix more. Uh there are certain

[1:21:17] things that would not be inspected um

[1:21:19] like things that are behind a wall when

[1:21:21] someone opens up a wall uh to make

[1:21:24] certain modifications. So there are a

[1:21:26] lot of in the checklist kind of call you

[1:21:30] know there's some uh um the right word

[1:21:34] not caveats necessarily but uh it would

[1:21:38] the inspection is based on what was seen

[1:21:40] and inspected and people will need to be

[1:21:44] aware that there could be additional

[1:21:46] items uh that could come into play that

[1:21:48] just aren't identifiable by that

[1:21:50] inspection.

[1:21:57] So, so that goes through the proposals.

[1:22:01] Um, I do want to s question on actually

[1:22:04] the prior one before we got here, which

[1:22:06] was

[1:22:07] >> in bottom of page 13.

[1:22:11] >> Owner occupancy is required in any

[1:22:13] residence that contains a junior ADU

[1:22:15] except as described below.

[1:22:17] So if you build a J jadu,

[1:22:22] you have to stay in your house for life.

[1:22:24] >> No. Um the owner of the property has to

[1:22:28] live in one of the units. So if you sell

[1:22:30] your property that the own whoever owns

[1:22:34] the property has to live in one of the

[1:22:35] two units. So if right so if if somebody

[1:22:41] say I I build a JDU

[1:22:44] I have a job requirement that brings me

[1:22:47] to Chicago

[1:22:49] I have to sell the house

[1:22:51] >> or you wouldn't rent out the JADU

[1:22:55] >> can't rent out the JADU can rent out the

[1:22:57] rest of the

[1:22:58] >> because the JDU will be part of the

[1:22:59] house it's always part of the house um

[1:23:02] it's the JDU is something that gets can

[1:23:04] be closed off Um, so that's kind of the

[1:23:07] idea of JADUs that, you know, you have a shared door that you can

[1:23:13] close. Even a JADU, you don't have to

[1:23:15] have its own bathroom. Um, a JADU can

[1:23:18] actually share a bathroom with the rest

[1:23:20] of the house. Um, and so the the idea of

[1:23:25] J8s when they first came up is that I

[1:23:27] have this extra bedroom. I can close it

[1:23:29] off and I can put in this little

[1:23:32] efficiency kitchen and then so that way

[1:23:34] it just turns into the house.

[1:23:37] >> Yeah, I think I'm just struggling with

[1:23:38] the language on this because it it

[1:23:40] really reads maybe it's just me, but it

[1:23:42] reads as if

[1:23:45] the fact that there's a Jadu requires

[1:23:47] that owner occupancy is required for the

[1:23:49] life of this structure,

[1:23:52] which seems problematic.

[1:23:57] » Understood. We'll look at that a little

[1:23:58] bit closer. Um the the intent is that

[1:24:03] you don't you don't rent out two units,

[1:24:07] the JDU and the house that you have

[1:24:09] someone on site.

[1:24:12] this one. Well, it is part of this comes

[1:24:15] out of the state law which is why you

[1:24:17] get into these requirements about

[1:24:19] government agencies and land trust and

[1:24:21] um so I'll look at a couple things at

[1:24:24] one to make sure that this is more clear

[1:24:26] and then two if the town wants to pursue

[1:24:28] it maybe saying hey we just don't even

[1:24:30] want to have this requirement in place

[1:24:32] um if I'll double check it may be that

[1:24:35] the state law doesn't require that you

[1:24:37] have that in place and so I'll look at

[1:24:40] one making this more clear shall we keep

[1:24:42] it in place and two Is there the option

[1:24:44] to just remove the requirement

[1:24:46] completely? Um, and if that's an option,

[1:24:49] we'll present that as well.

[1:24:51] >> Makes sense. Yeah, I think that the

[1:24:52] clarification that would be helpful

[1:24:53] would be I think exactly what you said,

[1:24:56] which is it also wouldn't be required if

[1:25:00] the owners I'm not going to say this

[1:25:01] right, but the owner is not trying to

[1:25:02] rent out two units, right? Like if they

[1:25:04] can rent out the whole thing

[1:25:07] uh

[1:25:09] but not carve it up. Yep.

[1:25:14] So um

[1:25:24] okay so what I'd like to also now just

[1:25:27] to um continue with is

[1:25:31] we've received a few desk items um that

[1:25:34] were not uh directly interwoven with

[1:25:38] what we were doing today

[1:25:41] and uh I'd like to bring up a couple and

[1:25:43] thankfully Steve Patrick is here tonight

[1:25:45] so we can help um bring up his items. He

[1:25:48] brought up two items. Um one was related

[1:25:51] to paved area and uh possibly allowing a

[1:25:56] larger exception for paved area related

[1:25:58] to ADUs. Uh so a very good question.

[1:26:01] It's actually something thought about.

[1:26:03] Um we as I noted a little bit earlier

[1:26:06] that that wouldn't be a restriction in

[1:26:08] and of itself to construct an ADU. we

[1:26:11] have that flexibility. Uh but um during

[1:26:14] deliberation, if the the planning

[1:26:17] commission would like us to actually

[1:26:18] carve out, he suggested 1500 square ft

[1:26:21] of additional paved area, um we'd be

[1:26:24] happy to explore that further and bring

[1:26:25] that back. Uh if we want to look at some

[1:26:28] specific uh additional square footage of

[1:26:30] exemption that's directly related to the

[1:26:32] construction of an ADU, um we're don't

[1:26:36] have any significant concern for that. I

[1:26:39] think the I think it's a great point and

[1:26:41] very needed. Um my question would be do

[1:26:45] you have any data as to what would be

[1:26:47] needed?

[1:26:48] >> That's a very good question. That's

[1:26:50] something we could provide. Like I said,

[1:26:51] you know, it will it will change, right?

[1:26:54] So I think I think it's like you have to

[1:26:57] have at least by like a three foot out

[1:26:59] landing from your doors and so there's

[1:27:01] certain things like that. But if you

[1:27:03] only have two small doors, maybe that's

[1:27:04] >> But it also includes the driveway,

[1:27:06] >> right? There's certain things. I mean,

[1:27:08] you don't necessarily have to have a

[1:27:10] driveway all the way up to an ADU. Um,

[1:27:13] you know, so there's certain things, but

[1:27:15] what we could just look at is, you know,

[1:27:17] you look at, okay, let's say someone has

[1:27:19] a, you know, a 10x4 walkway for, you

[1:27:23] know, that distance and then has roughly

[1:27:26] some additional square footage around an

[1:27:28] ADU. Um, you know, the town can just

[1:27:31] make a decision that it wants to make

[1:27:33] sure you get at least the minimum and

[1:27:35] could go up to

[1:27:37] whatever seems to be a reasonable square

[1:27:39] footage. Uh so we can come back with a

[1:27:41] little bit more clarification on what

[1:27:44] some bare minimums might look like. Uh

[1:27:46] and then you know what a little bit more

[1:27:49] reasonable maybe you know okay you have

[1:27:51] your landing outside your door but maybe

[1:27:53] they should be allowed a 9 by9 patio or

[1:27:56] something like that you know. Um

[1:27:59] >> separate question from all the stuff I

[1:28:02] had a question around garages for ADUs.

[1:28:05] Has anybody tried to add a garage to

[1:28:07] ADU?

[1:28:08] >> So, a garage to an ADU is a couple

[1:28:11] things to look at. So, talking about a

[1:28:13] detached ADU, the town still has a limit

[1:28:16] of 1500 square ft of a an accessory

[1:28:20] structure. Um, so if someone wanted to

[1:28:24] uh use part of that accessory structure

[1:28:27] limit as a garage, they would have a

[1:28:29] smaller ADU or they could just have a

[1:28:32] garage right next to their 1500 foot

[1:28:34] structure um that wouldn't be part of

[1:28:36] separate.

[1:28:38] >> So it's a it's a matter of does the town

[1:28:40] want to allow for larger structures

[1:28:43] um that would include garages? It's

[1:28:46] something that uh we h it it hasn't

[1:28:50] people have asked about in the past but

[1:28:52] it hasn't become any significant hurdle

[1:28:55] or challenge to someone building an ADU.

[1:28:57] >> If we if we talk about a 1500

[1:29:01] it's a discussion item.

[1:29:02] >> Sure. I mean, one one thing I'll just

[1:29:05] note is that

[1:29:07] to have a structure with an ADU and it's

[1:29:10] larger, someone builds a garage, they

[1:29:13] may come in later and say, "You have to

[1:29:15] allow me to convert that garage into

[1:29:17] part of my ADU."

[1:29:20] So, it's it's the balance of trying to

[1:29:23] provide some reasonable,

[1:29:27] you know,

[1:29:28] >> there's also a balance of rats eating

[1:29:30] wiring.

[1:29:31] >> Yep. Understood. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah.

[1:29:34] The town

[1:29:35] >> 1500 foot like my house when I bought it

[1:29:37] was 1,400 bedrooms. We had a twoar shed

[1:29:40] >> y sort of thing. So

[1:29:42] >> they're actually making a living unit

[1:29:44] for a separate family.

[1:29:48] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's definitely something we

[1:29:49] can think about more. Um and yeah, under

[1:29:52] deliberation if that's something you

[1:29:53] want us to look at increasing the sizes,

[1:29:56] uh we can bring that back as well.

[1:29:59] Um so so that's one item that was

[1:30:02] brought up by uh Mr. Patrick. Um the

[1:30:05] other item is something that he's

[1:30:07] actually brought up in the past and um

[1:30:09] we did think about this definitely. Uh

[1:30:13] we we last time we amended the code, we

[1:30:16] looked at amending we did amend the code

[1:30:19] to allow for taller ADUs on downward

[1:30:22] sloping lots from from public rightways.

[1:30:26] And

[1:30:27] um he's brought up the the point of well

[1:30:30] you should allow on ups sloping lots

[1:30:32] too. And one of the examples that I

[1:30:35] think I most grasp from this is you have

[1:30:37] a driveway kind of leading up to a

[1:30:39] flatter area on this ups sloping lot.

[1:30:42] You have this ADU that's kind of you

[1:30:44] know now inward facing towards this

[1:30:48] flatter part but they're now on this

[1:30:51] downward slope and the downward slope is

[1:30:52] facing the right of way. Shouldn't that

[1:30:54] be allowed to be taller? Um, I really

[1:30:57] appreciate actually that he's also

[1:31:00] provided some suggested code language.

[1:31:01] That's always very helpful for us to

[1:31:03] kind of understand how that could work.

[1:31:05] Um, this is something that, you know, if

[1:31:08] the if the commission would like us to

[1:31:10] explore further, I would. Uh, I some of

[1:31:13] the just a little bit hesitation and why

[1:31:15] it didn't make it into this um go around

[1:31:18] was,

[1:31:19] you know, you could talk about it just

[1:31:20] based on a size of a property. Um, the

[1:31:24] real intent was to be careful of

[1:31:27] allowing very tall ADUs that are very

[1:31:30] visible and imposing from the rightway

[1:31:31] or sometimes to a neighboring property

[1:31:34] and

[1:31:37] just the size of the property sometimes

[1:31:39] may not be the answer. Um, maybe

[1:31:42] distance from a property line. Um, maybe

[1:31:45] really looking at the the height of it,

[1:31:48] you know, should it be allowed to be as

[1:31:50] tall in the back? um what should go

[1:31:53] should be allowed to go into that space

[1:31:55] at the bottom. Um the way we did the

[1:31:57] downward sloping lots, we said that we

[1:32:00] don't take our plate height multiplier

[1:32:04] measurement on the downward sloping

[1:32:06] lots. If the lower level is not for

[1:32:08] living space, um but if you want to make

[1:32:11] it living space, it's okay. But we're

[1:32:13] going to then use the multiplier and

[1:32:14] that's going to go into the overall size

[1:32:16] of that building. I think it would be

[1:32:18] good to look at because when I built

[1:32:20] mine um it was really hard to fit in the

[1:32:23] plate height and my the 80 was still

[1:32:26] below my front door.

[1:32:27] >> Yeah.

[1:32:27] >> Base of it. So it like it

[1:32:29] >> there was a lot of Yeah.

[1:32:30] >> lot of squeezing that had to happen.

[1:32:31] >> So yeah. So

[1:32:32] >> very short garage and a very short

[1:32:34] >> Yep.

[1:32:35] >> house. Yep. Understood. So So yeah. So

[1:32:38] it's definitely a point. I think you

[1:32:39] know I really appreciate the code and

[1:32:41] I'd actually start to the suggestion if

[1:32:43] the commission wants to look at that.

[1:32:45] start with that and then look at, you

[1:32:47] know, maybe providing a couple of guard

[1:32:49] rails that the commission may want to

[1:32:50] consider. Um, but that that was just the

[1:32:53] main initial concern was, okay, let's

[1:32:56] make sure that this works for what we're

[1:32:58] intending it for.

[1:33:00] >> Look at that further.

[1:33:02] >> Going back to the you mentioned more

[1:33:04] paved area

[1:33:06] >> where where is that? I didn't see that

[1:33:07] in the letter.

[1:33:08] >> Oh, he had he submitted a second one.

[1:33:11] There's two letters. Yes. Yeah. So, he

[1:33:13] made me a a second email that actually

[1:33:15] just came in right before the meeting

[1:33:16] and I I'm pretty sure everyone got a

[1:33:17] copy of it.

[1:33:19] >> Um,

[1:33:19] >> just came in.

[1:33:20] >> Well, no, I'm sorry. It should Yeah. So,

[1:33:23] yeah. Yeah. So, um, so yes. No, he

[1:33:25] brought that up as well and and you

[1:33:27] know, it's paved. He even brought it up.

[1:33:30] He even kind of specifically mentioned,

[1:33:32] you know, on our SCP lots, most of them

[1:33:34] are allowed a 9,000 square foot minimum.

[1:33:37] Um, I'm sorry, maximum for paved area.

[1:33:39] And so, uh, you know, looking at some

[1:33:42] additional clearcut paved area exemption

[1:33:45] for ADUs. Be happy to look at that if

[1:33:48] the commission would like us to.

[1:33:52] Um, and then I do want to mention um

[1:33:55] this other desk item. Uh, it's, uh,

[1:33:58] comes in from Steve Luben. Um, I really

[1:34:01] commend him for this idea. I totally

[1:34:03] understand where he's coming from. Um

[1:34:06] he's he's talked about looking at uh all

[1:34:10] of the R1 zoning in a similar way to how

[1:34:12] it was changed for the Glenn's. The

[1:34:15] Glenn's is in an R1 zoning district and

[1:34:17] as many are aware, I'm sure at least two

[1:34:19] of you directly are aware given the

[1:34:21] detailed um hearings we went through

[1:34:24] then um that you know should something

[1:34:28] like that or just immediately apply that

[1:34:30] to all the R1 districts in town and that

[1:34:33] could help provide some more flexibility

[1:34:35] for ADUs. Uh so while I do think it's a

[1:34:39] it's something worth exploring, it's a

[1:34:41] little bit outside of the realm that's

[1:34:42] directly related to ADUs. It's a little

[1:34:45] bit larger of a process. U we want to

[1:34:47] look at, you know, the different R1

[1:34:49] areas. Uh but a point well taken. Um you

[1:34:54] know, I I just don't know how it would

[1:34:56] totally weave into this ordinance.

[1:34:58] >> Yeah, that that makes sense. It was also

[1:35:00] interesting there the um the size of the

[1:35:03] lots in Palm Circle are also

[1:35:05] non-conforming to me. It was it was kind

[1:35:07] of another glands in a lot of ways.

[1:35:09] >> It is. It is. No. And you look at the

[1:35:11] Emerald Lake Hills, they have an R1 area

[1:35:13] which shares a lot of the similar areas.

[1:35:15] And then some of our other R1 areas are

[1:35:18] kind of right here in the main town

[1:35:20] corridor. Get over to by Prospect

[1:35:22] Street. Um, and so it's definitely worth

[1:35:26] looking into, but I think it's a little

[1:35:28] bit needs a little bit more holistic

[1:35:29] approach to it.

[1:35:32] So with that, that concludes my

[1:35:33] presentation. Um, and think we've gone

[1:35:37] through the questions. If you have any

[1:35:38] other additional questions this time,

[1:35:40] otherwise we can roll up to public and

[1:35:42] then we can go back to deliberation for

[1:35:43] more questions if you have any.

[1:35:48] » All right, we will go ahead and open uh

[1:35:50] public comment then. Is there are there

[1:35:52] members of the public here in the room

[1:35:54] or on Zoom who would like to make a

[1:35:56] comment?

[1:36:00] » I'll go first.

[1:36:03] >> Good evening. I'm Steve Patrick. I live

[1:36:06] at 732 West Glway Lake. Congratulations,

[1:36:09] Chairgar, on the appointment as

[1:36:12] chairman. Quite a few years ago, I sat

[1:36:15] there and it's, you know, I don't it was

[1:36:18] I was going to say thankless, but it's

[1:36:20] not. I mean it uh

[1:36:23] >> after today

[1:36:24] >> you got to put your fingerprints on

[1:36:25] everything for a while and then it's great that all of you do the public

[1:36:30] service thing. That's what's needed in

[1:36:32] this town and in all towns and all

[1:36:34] communities. So appreciate all your work

[1:36:36] on that uh as missionaries. Um actually

[1:36:41] just kind of piggybacking on what Sage

[1:36:43] just went over the two points I had and

[1:36:45] I think he was pretty clear. I think

[1:36:47] that um there should be some provision

[1:36:51] for the UPS sloped lots and if there's

[1:36:56] enough as he says guard rails and I kind

[1:36:58] of pointed out potential guard rails

[1:37:00] that would be there like the lot should

[1:37:02] be big enough and actually even in the

[1:37:05] way it's written now um with the

[1:37:08] provision for setbacks that structure

[1:37:11] would have to follow actually setbacks

[1:37:13] not ADU setbacks so it couldn't be you

[1:37:16] know 4T from the back property line or

[1:37:18] four feet from the side property line.

[1:37:19] It would have to follow all normal

[1:37:20] setbacks and uh you know I actually the

[1:37:25] reason it really came to light was we're

[1:37:28] working on a project and it's the the

[1:37:31] driveway goes all the way up to the back

[1:37:33] of the property and then from the

[1:37:34] property it does slope down to the

[1:37:36] street but the ADU would be well within

[1:37:39] the or well beyond the 50ft front

[1:37:41] setback. So it's no more imposing than

[1:37:45] even a you know the main house the main

[1:37:47] residence could be. It just happens to

[1:37:49] be the way this was configured over the

[1:37:50] last probably 40 50 years. So it seems

[1:37:54] there should be some provision to allow

[1:37:56] something with kind of unique

[1:37:58] circumstance and actually uh you know

[1:38:01] sites that are 35% it is somewhat

[1:38:04] unique. I mean, they're they're there

[1:38:07] and seems like they're uh more con the

[1:38:10] more constrained sites are starting to

[1:38:12] appear as building sites now with ADUs.

[1:38:15] So, uh having done this for 40 years in

[1:38:18] town, I realized that this ADU provision

[1:38:21] is really opening up the possibility for

[1:38:23] people to, you know, have family homes

[1:38:25] and, you know, uh expand that

[1:38:28] possibility. The other one that kind of

[1:38:30] came up and I apologize that I didn't

[1:38:32] get it as a desk item sooner, but it was

[1:38:34] kind of late in the day and I just kind

[1:38:36] of realized that, you know, we actually

[1:38:39] was discussed in great length about

[1:38:41] second driveways. Well, how do you do a

[1:38:43] second driveway if you're primarily I

[1:38:45] said an SPC site where you're only

[1:38:48] allowed 9,000 square feet and if you

[1:38:50] have a driveway that has to go up and

[1:38:52] then you brought up the fire department

[1:38:54] requirement that you have to do a

[1:38:55] turnaround in front of your new ADU

[1:38:58] because you got to be so far and it's

[1:39:00] really impossible. So what you have to

[1:39:03] look at investigating is well we'll tear

[1:39:05] out their front walkway and we'll tear

[1:39:07] out the pool patio and we'll put gravel

[1:39:10] around this and it's just seems like

[1:39:13] it's not the intent as if you're going

[1:39:15] to allow ADUs and you're going to allow

[1:39:17] second driveways and I don't want to say

[1:39:19] going to allow I think it's wonderful

[1:39:20] that we're allowing ADUs second

[1:39:22] driveways and actually four ADUs on a

[1:39:26] property plus the main house and then

[1:39:28] still limit the uh impervious surface

[1:39:31] area to 9,000 ft on an SCP lot. It it

[1:39:35] really doesn't calculate. And uh so I'd

[1:39:39] love it to have you consider that. I

[1:39:41] think the work that's uh staff has done

[1:39:43] and all your deliberations, it's

[1:39:45] wonderful. I appreciate it. Um and as

[1:39:49] Sage pointed out, there is an

[1:39:51] opportunity to kind of work this over the next month, which is useful. It

[1:39:56] doesn't have to be a knee-jerk reaction.

[1:39:59] and said, "No, we just can't absorb that

[1:40:01] much at this time." I think it's really

[1:40:03] worthwhile that, you know, Sage is going

[1:40:05] to be able to rework some verbiage in

[1:40:08] there and make it work for more people

[1:40:10] in town to have, you know, enjoy family

[1:40:14] properties. So, thanks for your time and

[1:40:16] your consideration.

[1:40:23] » Good evening. I'm Carrie Diller, 50

[1:40:26] Prospect, uh, homeowner and ADU owner. I

[1:40:30] also am the founder of Inspired ADUs,

[1:40:32] uh, a architecture firm focused on ADUs.

[1:40:35] I think we've just permitted over 300 in

[1:40:38] the Bay Area and we have 13 active going

[1:40:41] in Woodside. Um, it's been amazing

[1:40:43] working with Sage and the team um, to

[1:40:46] get those going, interpret this crazy

[1:40:48] state law that's changing every few

[1:40:50] minutes. Um, so I just wanted to give a

[1:40:53] couple other points for consideration as

[1:40:55] you start your debate on the up on the

[1:40:58] topics we've discussed tonight. So the

[1:41:00] second driveway is super uh I think it's

[1:41:02] a super important thing to make these um

[1:41:06] units really function improve the fire

[1:41:08] access. Um that's a real big point. So,

[1:41:11] I think a simple clarity of of trying to

[1:41:14] add more ADUs and not limiting the

[1:41:16] driveway to only serving one ADU or

[1:41:18] saying specifically what it should be

[1:41:20] serving, uh, I think would be great.

[1:41:22] Just a simple clarification of that code

[1:41:24] at that number three. Uh, the 150 foot

[1:41:28] exemption to add on for egress and

[1:41:31] ingress is a strange one that came about

[1:41:32] a long time ago, but we are actually

[1:41:35] seeing um the need for it, especially

[1:41:37] with some of the barn conversions we're

[1:41:39] doing in town. in order to not change

[1:41:42] the footprint and the integrity of the

[1:41:44] barn, but to make it a usable, habitable

[1:41:46] place. Um, that weird little code is

[1:41:49] actually proving to be helpful in a lot

[1:41:51] of ADUs we're doing because the state

[1:41:54] limited that code to ingress and egress.

[1:41:57] It's a little more hard to manipulate

[1:41:58] and make it into these extra bedrooms

[1:42:00] and things. And I think we are seeing

[1:42:02] historically through the years of of

[1:42:04] permitting it to use that it is helping

[1:42:07] um if it helps at all on the mechanical

[1:42:09] equipment. Typically those mini split

[1:42:12] systems are about 6 in off a unit and

[1:42:15] can be up to about 20 ft for the line

[1:42:17] set. So you have some play in terms of

[1:42:20] what's immediate and not if that's

[1:42:22] helpful. Um

[1:42:24] I would also support uh raising that 800

[1:42:30] uh to 1,200 in regard to the flexibility

[1:42:32] that the planning department has for

[1:42:34] lots. Um it was the second upgrade from

[1:42:37] the 8 to 1200. Um there are a lot of

[1:42:40] lots in Woodside that have really unique

[1:42:42] like our home for example is a flag lot.

[1:42:44] So although we have a large parcel the

[1:42:47] area where we can do units based on

[1:42:50] septic and then the fire overlay. So

[1:42:53] fire department has requirements in

[1:42:55] terms of how um far you can go to be

[1:42:57] reached by a fire truck to make the

[1:42:59] project viable. Um and so sometimes

[1:43:02] putting those units closer to the front

[1:43:04] or in the front yard is improving

[1:43:06] overall life safety and I don't think is

[1:43:08] necessarily um making a problematic

[1:43:12] architectural contribution. And I think

[1:43:14] if the planning director and department

[1:43:16] have a say on that that moving that to

[1:43:18] 1,200 is is an excellent thing to do. Um

[1:43:24] and then finally on the legalization, thing has been very

[1:43:27] complicated and there's a real gap uh

[1:43:30] between actually getting units legalized

[1:43:33] and what the state's done so far. The

[1:43:36] state has made a long checklist. There's

[1:43:37] a short checklist and a long checklist.

[1:43:40] But what they did as they often do is

[1:43:42] leave a lot of ambigu ambiguity in the

[1:43:44] language. So it says that the authority

[1:43:46] having jurisdiction in terms of the

[1:43:49] inspectors can approve something if it

[1:43:53] if the health and wellness and life

[1:43:55] safety of the occupants is not harmful.

[1:43:58] So it's um very difficult. The current

[1:44:02] process we've been going through is that

[1:44:03] a client has to hire us. We have to

[1:44:05] design the whole thing then submit it to

[1:44:07] the town. Then we get feedback from

[1:44:09] building which is asking us to x-ray

[1:44:13] slabs or prove that there's

[1:44:14] waterproofing or appropriate rebar.

[1:44:16] Well, we have several structures from

[1:44:18] the 40s and 50s that obviously are not

[1:44:21] going to have any of those things. And

[1:44:23] if the clients are required to scrape

[1:44:25] the whole thing, lift it up, put in a

[1:44:27] new foundation, they're not going to

[1:44:28] legalize it. So, um there is a lot of

[1:44:31] other ways that inspectors could go out

[1:44:33] in the field. I do think it could be

[1:44:35] something that's a paid for service that

[1:44:37] could either then be reimbured if you

[1:44:39] permit the unit or just be a paid for

[1:44:42] service because um people are living in

[1:44:45] these units. Fire department doesn't

[1:44:46] necessarily know they're there. Um

[1:44:49] you're not necessarily getting tax

[1:44:50] assessment on them for the tax income.

[1:44:53] Uh, and there are a lot of things that

[1:44:55] this inspection could catch like faulty

[1:44:58] wiring, like plumbing or uh limited

[1:45:01] windows or doors for life safety that

[1:45:03] could be improved. But there are some

[1:45:05] considerable things that if a slab isn't

[1:45:07] cracked, if there's no water

[1:45:08] infiltration, if it looks sound and

[1:45:11] whole and people have been living there

[1:45:12] for 20 years, that it's probably okay to

[1:45:15] keep going. So, um I think it's not a

[1:45:18] planning, but if the uh planning

[1:45:20] commission made a recommendation to city

[1:45:22] council that they adopt something like

[1:45:24] this, it could really there are a lot of

[1:45:27] illegal units um in Woodside. And I

[1:45:30] think it would be a great way to get

[1:45:31] your numbers up, but also just make

[1:45:33] healthier living for people um and make

[1:45:36] it reasonable because otherwise they're

[1:45:38] too intrepidacious to to move forward.

[1:45:41] Um thank you. And I also support Steve's

[1:45:43] um ideas of ex extending the paving and

[1:45:46] thinking about the slope sites. We're um

[1:45:49] we're just working on one on Glenn Craig

[1:45:52] this morning that could use a little

[1:45:53] help on that one. So, thank you very

[1:45:55] much.

[1:45:57] >> One one followup question maybe to to

[1:46:00] Sage or or or yourself. The fire

[1:46:03] department requirements for is that

[1:46:05] distance from a road to the structure or

[1:46:08] that hasn't come up in any of the

[1:46:10] projects. So, there's a couple different

[1:46:11] pieces with fire. There's a distance

[1:46:13] from the hydrant to the property. And

[1:46:15] then there's a distance from where the

[1:46:16] fire truck can come onto the property or

[1:46:19] park. And then there's a a hose distance

[1:46:22] from the fire truck where the hose has

[1:46:24] to get to the rear side of the ADU.

[1:46:27] >> So, if that exceeds 150 ft, uh, so

[1:46:31] there's a bunch of different numbers.

[1:46:32] they'll save you the the but if either

[1:46:35] of those two things get exceeded you can

[1:46:38] require hydrant which makes some

[1:46:40] projects not plausible for clients andor

[1:46:44] um fire sprinklers or both or a fire

[1:46:47] turnaround which some properties don't

[1:46:49] support. So it it can really limit kind

[1:46:52] of the area of where you could actually

[1:46:54] build an ADU which you don't necessarily

[1:46:56] see at the planning side of things.

[1:46:58] Yeah.

[1:47:04] For those online, please use a raise

[1:47:06] hand feature if you'd like to make a

[1:47:07] comment.

[1:47:11] I see no raised hands

[1:47:14] comments in the room.

[1:47:18] All right, that we will go ahead and

[1:47:20] close public comment and move on to

[1:47:22] commissioner deliberation. So, we have a

[1:47:24] lot of things go through. Uh maybe we'll

[1:47:28] go sort of one by one the same same way

[1:47:31] that that that Sage had done for the

[1:47:32] initial presentation. And

[1:47:36] Sage, can can we do something where

[1:47:38] you're helping take notes of where do we

[1:47:42] land on each issue and then we do motion

[1:47:44] at the end?

[1:47:45] >> Sure. Yeah. Yeah. No, I think we can go

[1:47:47] through each issue and maybe get a straw

[1:47:49] poll um from the commission. It's worth

[1:47:51] moving forward and then Yes.

[1:47:53] >> And then we do a

[1:47:55] we do one of these things where you read

[1:47:56] out the laundry list and

[1:47:57] >> Sounds good.

[1:47:58] >> Down we go. We don't we don't have to

[1:47:59] decide language today.

[1:48:01] >> No, it Yeah. What you'll do is give us a

[1:48:03] motion um you'll be providing a motion

[1:48:06] with direction to staff um to come back

[1:48:09] with specific items.

[1:48:10] >> So we would make

[1:48:12] >> Yeah.

[1:48:13] >> So it'll sort of ratify the

[1:48:15] recommendations.

[1:48:15] >> Those are things that we'll come back

[1:48:17] with and we'll we'll renotice it for the

[1:48:19] public when that when that we nail down

[1:48:22] the date. We we'd shoot for the second

[1:48:24] meeting in May. Okay.

[1:48:27] >> All right.

[1:48:30] So in that case, let's go back to

[1:48:33] >> and I could even just, you know, what

[1:48:35] I've taken so far and just as we go

[1:48:38] through a section. So the first item we

[1:48:39] were talking about was the second

[1:48:42] driveways. Um we wanted to look at um

[1:48:47] that

[1:48:48] uh one that it can serve more than one

[1:48:50] proposed ADU. Um so we want to make sure

[1:48:52] that that's clarified. Um and then also

[1:48:57] we want to make sure that

[1:49:00] uh that there's more flexibility um in

[1:49:03] the language specifically in the finding

[1:49:05] number three uh that would

[1:49:09] if there's kind of incidental access to

[1:49:11] another building um that wouldn't be

[1:49:13] something that would hold it up or also

[1:49:15] even if it connects to some other

[1:49:18] circulation system on the property that shouldn't be a limitating factor.

[1:49:26] folks. So, deliberation wise, do we all

[1:49:30] >> I'm supportive of those?

[1:49:32] >> I'm good. Additional that.

[1:49:35] >> Okay,

[1:49:38] » supportive. Any any additional things we

[1:49:40] want to add to that?

[1:49:43] >> Okay,

[1:49:43] >> great.

[1:49:44] >> All right, let's move on. The next one

[1:49:46] um was just going into our definitions

[1:49:49] um and that was looking at more of the

[1:49:51] clarification of uh the permanent stove

[1:49:55] um versus a non-permanent cooking

[1:49:57] facility. We'll look at see how we we'll

[1:49:59] talk to the building department see if

[1:50:00] there's any more clarification that we

[1:50:02] can make that a little bit better.

[1:50:03] >> Perfect.

[1:50:05] >> Everyone good with that?

[1:50:06] >> Okay.

[1:50:11] And we hit the 150.

[1:50:14] No, excuse me. The 1,200.

[1:50:15] >> Yeah. So, the there the question is um

[1:50:18] and I don't know that we got any real

[1:50:20] significant feedback on that. Um was

[1:50:22] that right now we're proposing to exempt

[1:50:24] up to 1,200. So, the first question is

[1:50:27] should we exempt it up to,200? Um or do

[1:50:30] you want to increase that up to 1500? Uh

[1:50:33] if you wanted to increase it higher than

[1:50:35] 1,200, um you know, do you want to say

[1:50:39] yeah, that's okay, but maybe only for

[1:50:40] properties that are an acre or larger.

[1:50:42] Um, so those were some of the ideas

[1:50:44] floated.

[1:50:47] >> Yeah. Yeah. So I actually like the

[1:50:50] concept of 1500 because that says one

[1:50:53] big bedroom, two small bedrooms. So

[1:50:55] family, two kids uh would fit that.

[1:50:59] That's the size of our house when we

[1:51:00] first bought it. Um 1,500 would have

[1:51:04] been hard to put into my Glenn's lot. Um

[1:51:08] we put in eight. Eight. eight was a big

[1:51:12] 1,200 wouldn't have really fit. 1,500

[1:51:14] definitely wouldn't fit. So, so I I

[1:51:16] think that for those that can have

[1:51:18] 1,200, maybe that that is a ceiling for

[1:51:22] smaller lots and then 1,500 for the

[1:51:24] bigger lots maybe something I'd toss out

[1:51:26] there. That's that see it seems

[1:51:27] reasonable. I mean, if if if the whole

[1:51:29] town, if you're a SR, whatever what the

[1:51:34] one is, if that's up to 1500, why not

[1:51:37] have that be consistent across the code

[1:51:39] for all the large lots?

[1:51:41] Um,

[1:51:43] >> and this one, ju just to make sure we're

[1:51:44] all on the same page. This is not You

[1:51:47] can still build an ADU up to 1500,

[1:51:50] right? This is about the the increased

[1:51:52] TFA.

[1:51:53] >> Yes.

[1:51:54] I kind of think that the town wants it

[1:51:57] seems like we we're all leaning towards

[1:51:58] making their first ADU free from a TFA

[1:52:02] point of view. Um and so if the large

[1:52:04] lots can make 1500 then fits then why

[1:52:07] not? The small lots I just don't think

[1:52:09] it'll fit

[1:52:11] with a Houston house.

[1:52:17] I would actually am in the strange

[1:52:19] position of wanting to keep it at 1,200

[1:52:23] because as was pointed out um I mean

[1:52:26] 1500 square feet that's one master two

[1:52:30] smaller bedrooms that could hold a

[1:52:33] family of four. There are lots of

[1:52:35] tracked houses in the East Bay and in

[1:52:38] Redwood City that fit that description.

[1:52:41] And

[1:52:43] that sort of

[1:52:46] calling that an edu seems like a really

[1:52:48] bit of a stretch.

[1:52:50] If you have a property that's already

[1:52:54] been developed and maxed out on TFA

[1:52:59] for the main residence or whatever,

[1:53:02] giving essentially being able to drop an

[1:53:06] extra track home in there, I can see

[1:53:10] from an affordable housing and policy

[1:53:12] standpoint

[1:53:14] that

[1:53:16] at one level that's desirable,

[1:53:18] but on the other hand, It is essentially

[1:53:21] we're talking about dropping another

[1:53:24] small home rather than an ADU on there.

[1:53:28] And if you're planning a building site,

[1:53:32] if you want to

[1:53:36] drop an additional 300 square ft of TFA

[1:53:39] elsewhere, you know, like give up a

[1:53:41] garage space or give up a pool house or

[1:53:45] whatever, so that you're not maxed out.

[1:53:49] then you can have your 1500 square feet.

[1:53:52] Um, it's not an issue that

[1:53:59] is

[1:54:01] make or break for me, but my inclination

[1:54:03] would be to limit it to 1,200.

[1:54:09] » Yeah, it's interesting. I'm thinking

[1:54:12] back to all the the Glenn's hearings

[1:54:14] that we had at Sage. you brought all the

[1:54:16] great memories back of of all the time

[1:54:18] here spent and and it's I mean if we if

[1:54:20] we also think about the mulative

[1:54:23] what what have we added up over time

[1:54:26] it's actually it is quite a bit I will

[1:54:29] absolutely admit I was one of the people

[1:54:30] pushing for flexibility in the Glenns

[1:54:33] it's interesting so I mean let's just

[1:54:34] take an example right like 7,000T lot

[1:54:36] would have been

[1:54:38] a 1700T home you we added 400 for a

[1:54:44] garage plus Um I think 800 for the ADU

[1:54:47] plus this is now sort of going to say it

[1:54:50] would be another if we did go to 1500

[1:54:52] another 700

[1:54:54] to your point Darren these like fill up

[1:54:58] >> right and and they they fill up with

[1:55:02] things as they are before adding more

[1:55:05] square footage. I think we want to be I

[1:55:08] just think we want to be mindful of kind

[1:55:10] of to Ly to your point like once there

[1:55:13] is that much on a small lot it does

[1:55:16] start to

[1:55:18] >> what do we

[1:55:19] sorry I think back there it was like can

[1:55:23] you fit even a family on the lot right

[1:55:27] um and then I think we're now it's

[1:55:30] definitely getting to be a lot

[1:55:32] >> is is there is there a guard rail on uh

[1:55:35] you know % of lot has a house footprint

[1:55:38] on it.

[1:55:39] >> Um the Woodside does not have like a lot

[1:55:43] coverage, a building coverage only in

[1:55:46] the commercial district but not in

[1:55:47] residential. There's just your floor

[1:55:49] area limit.

[1:55:51] >> It seems like that might be a way to

[1:55:53] constrain uh so we don't have know two

[1:55:57] square feet around the edge of the

[1:55:59] property that's that's grass and

[1:56:00] everything else is a building which I

[1:56:02] think is not our goal.

[1:56:05] So with with the state mandates

[1:56:08] I think maybe quite so if you have

[1:56:11] multiple ADUs so we're talking about

[1:56:12] three four on a site

[1:56:15] >> those are on eight lots that are giant

[1:56:17] right

[1:56:18] >> not necessarily right so if you add up

[1:56:20] multiple ADUs that each have say a 4

[1:56:23] foot setback is each one of these

[1:56:26] subject

[1:56:26] >> and I'll just remind folks to just if

[1:56:28] you speak into the microphones more just

[1:56:29] for folks online

[1:56:30] >> yeah so so is each one subject object to

[1:56:35] town setbacks at that point or

[1:56:37] >> Yeah. So what what the town has allowed

[1:56:39] is, you know, up to 800 into the setback

[1:56:43] and then this could with this change

[1:56:45] could allow up to 1,200 into the setback

[1:56:48] um

[1:56:49] >> in into the town setback.

[1:56:51] >> That's the other the other ones there.

[1:56:52] There's all these other different state

[1:56:54] laws, but generally speaking, let's say

[1:56:56] you want to do three detached ADUs, one

[1:56:58] of them could go into the basic setback.

[1:57:00] The other two would meet the setback.

[1:57:01] >> Only one could. Yeah. Um, and so just to the point, this is again we're

[1:57:06] looking at exempting floor area. So now

[1:57:10] if someone gets more square footage

[1:57:12] exempt from their ADU, so they already

[1:57:15] have 1500 square feet, they can now add

[1:57:17] more square footage onto their house.

[1:57:21] >> And so so it's, you know, it's that

[1:57:22] balance and that's why we didn't go to

[1:57:24] the full 1500 trying to look at this

[1:57:26] incremental step um to allow more

[1:57:28] exemption. That was something that was

[1:57:30] asked for. Uh but we thought kind of

[1:57:32] adding you know 50% more.

[1:57:35] >> Yeah. But they they they can't expand

[1:57:37] the main residence

[1:57:39] without doing the they can use

[1:57:42] >> correct. Yeah. Yes.

[1:57:43] >> Have the ADU to get

[1:57:44] >> correct. You only get to exempt it from

[1:57:46] the ADU. But just say someone's maxed

[1:57:48] out now with a 1500 foot ADU. Um you

[1:57:51] know you'll getting more exemption.

[1:57:55] Now you'll be counting less. that I can

[1:57:58] easily envision people that come in and

[1:58:00] they'll do a doover and they'll

[1:58:03] redevelop a property where they come up

[1:58:05] right to the limit on floor area and

[1:58:08] paved area, no edus. Then they'll come

[1:58:12] back and they're essentially adding a

[1:58:15] three-bedroom house on top of that.

[1:58:16] That's a freebie

[1:58:18] and that's been their plan all along.

[1:58:21] Um

[1:58:23] 1,200

[1:58:25] Sure.

[1:58:29] Yeah, I I think and certainly I'm more

[1:58:33] comfortable with 1,200 than 15.

[1:58:36] Um I think if we if we did go to 15, I

[1:58:39] think there should likely be a lot size

[1:58:41] attached to it, but at the same time

[1:58:44] >> I start

[1:58:48] like Exactly. Yeah. And I mean to to

[1:58:51] Lyle's point sizewise I mean there there

[1:58:55] is flexibility within 1,200

[1:58:58] think to make a it's it's not

[1:59:00] necessarily a large house but it it can

[1:59:02] be a two threebedroom. Uh and then they

[1:59:06] can make those trade-offs on you know do

[1:59:07] they want to allocate 300 feet to a a

[1:59:09] onecar garage or not.

[1:59:11] >> What is what is the if you had two acre

[1:59:14] lot how how build big could the

[1:59:16] residence be? It depends on the zoning.

[1:59:19] Zonings have different, but generally

[1:59:21] speaking, let's say an SR zoning, it's a

[1:59:23] 1acre minimum. And in that zoning

[1:59:26] district, in 1 acre, you're going to get

[1:59:28] about a little under 8,000. So if you

[1:59:31] had two acres, you're going to be

[1:59:32] getting closer to like 15,000.

[1:59:35] >> 300 is pocket change then.

[1:59:36] >> And 3 acre lots, you know, they're have

[1:59:40] a smaller percentage, but yet they're

[1:59:42] still getting closer to the 12,000. Um

[1:59:44] you go into the hills there in the

[1:59:47] western hills there's different they

[1:59:48] have lower percentages um but if they

[1:59:51] have a very large lot they could still

[1:59:52] have more square feet.

[1:59:56] So currently Sage there is no difference

[1:59:59] on a lot that's exactly one acre

[2:00:01] compared with something that's 10,000

[2:00:03] square feet as far as the number of ADUs

[2:00:05] that you can build and the size

[2:00:07] >> there there is um currently that right

[2:00:10] now if you're an acre or larger you get

[2:00:12] the three ADUs plus a JADU and if you're

[2:00:15] less than an acre

[2:00:16] >> well I'm talking about the ones that are

[2:00:18] an acre or less.

[2:00:20] >> Yeah. So the smaller ones right now

[2:00:22] >> under state law you still get those

[2:00:26] three that I was talking about right but

[2:00:27] if someone wants to go outside of that

[2:00:29] because we allow larger and more

[2:00:31] flexibility um they could do one ADU and

[2:00:34] one JADU and the ADU could be attached

[2:00:36] or detached

[2:00:38] >> or the conversion also and the

[2:00:40] conversion also

[2:00:40] >> if they if they followed yes for all the

[2:00:42] specific standards they could do that

[2:00:45] >> okay there's a huge difference between

[2:00:48] a.99 acre and a 7,000 ft.

[2:00:51] >> Yep.

[2:00:54] » You add all these pieces up and it it

[2:00:57] starts to become like how many ADUs do

[2:00:59] you need? Like it's starting to get like

[2:01:02] I don't know like with with if you take

[2:01:04] >> Yeah. But but the number of ADUs has has

[2:01:07] not really skyrocketed. I mean we're

[2:01:09] under our our allocation for the you

[2:01:13] know 2031.

[2:01:15] >> Yeah. They they take time. I mean we

[2:01:16] just heard you know one one individual

[2:01:18] has 13 projects under under I mean they

[2:01:22] are getting bill but

[2:01:23] >> that's a major that's a major

[2:01:24] individual.

[2:01:25] >> Yeah we're we're there's some more we

[2:01:26] are seeing numbers increase. I mean

[2:01:28] since um you know prior to our housing

[2:01:31] element we did a four-year average that

[2:01:33] was 15 units per year. Um since then

[2:01:36] with a lot of these different changes uh

[2:01:38] we've uh averaged over 20 per year. Um

[2:01:42] we're getting you know last you know

[2:01:44] January we had no permits issued in

[2:01:46] March we had five ADUs issued um and so

[2:01:50] uh you know it's we are seeing more

[2:01:53] units coming out with some flexibility

[2:01:56] question is how much

[2:01:57] >> yeah and that's the hang that's the

[2:01:59] flexibility that's already in in place

[2:02:03] >> I just I I'm actually remembering a lot

[2:02:06] of the discussions we had when we were

[2:02:07] looking at these sort of two three years

[2:02:09] back and um I I think it was it was

[2:02:11] Marilyn at the time was making the point

[2:02:13] that like, hey, how much do we really

[2:02:15] want to unilaterally

[2:02:18] add leniency knowing that the

[2:02:20] regulations are going to continue in

[2:02:22] that direction from Sacramento? So, I

[2:02:25] mean to a large extent I only expect

[2:02:26] that to be more just the way that the

[2:02:29] sort of tea leaves are going or the

[2:02:30] trends have been going. Not that past

[2:02:33] results are guarantees of future or

[2:02:35] whatever, but at the same time, I I I don't like 1500 from that

[2:02:42] standpoint. Um, even 1,200 and it feels

[2:02:45] like there's going to be some regulation

[2:02:46] that goes beyond that anyway. I don't

[2:02:49] know that that's a flexibility we need

[2:02:50] to offer. So, personally, I'm not

[2:02:52] convinced we need to do anything on

[2:02:54] this. Um, I'm not comfortable going

[2:02:55] beyond 1,200. I can probably get to

[2:02:57] 1,200.

[2:02:59] >> Okay.

[2:02:59] >> Being being okay. So we've heard, you

[2:03:01] know, mostly sounds consistent with

[2:03:03] straw poll on looking at just keeping it

[2:03:06] at 1200 or any further direction.

[2:03:09] >> Yeah, I I would go maximum 1,200 and

[2:03:13] then in the future if we see trends

[2:03:16] developing in a certain direction, it

[2:03:18] could always be changed. We can always

[2:03:19] have a another ordinance passed uh as

[2:03:24] far as stipulations for in either

[2:03:26] increasing it or keeping it the same. I

[2:03:29] mean, we have that flexibility. So, I

[2:03:31] certainly wouldn't be a proponent to go

[2:03:33] up to 1500 at this point.

[2:03:36] >> Yeah. Our take was take kind of take

[2:03:38] initial steps. It's a little harder to

[2:03:40] pull back on those once you've gone a

[2:03:42] certain point.

[2:03:42] >> Yeah. 100%. But you still, 1200 or I'm

[2:03:47] good with 1,200.

[2:03:49] I'm with perspective of what's possible

[2:03:51] in larger lots. Yeah. They don't they

[2:03:53] don't need extra.

[2:03:54] >> Okay. Great. So, okay. We'll have um uh

[2:03:57] no further direction on that item.

[2:04:00] We're leaving it at 12:0.

[2:04:01] >> Yep. Let's leave that one. Let that one.

[2:04:03] >> Okay. Um the other item that we heard uh some

[2:04:13] feedback on this was a roof overhangs

[2:04:16] where heard no feedback there, but you

[2:04:18] can let us know if you have any. and the

[2:04:20] mechanical equipment was looking at to

[2:04:22] try to better clarify the immediately

[2:04:24] adjacent term. Um, but if there's

[2:04:27] anything further, let us know.

[2:04:30] >> Roof overhangs. Does anyone have passion

[2:04:32] there or seem good?

[2:04:34] >> No passion on overhangs.

[2:04:37] >> Yeah, I think that that seems good to me. I do like the the

[2:04:41] specification of just these subjective

[2:04:44] things are just hard for people within

[2:04:47] when it's not sort of clearly defined.

[2:04:48] So this be great.

[2:04:50] >> Um

[2:04:53] so then we moved on to we were looking

[2:04:55] at the exception. So this is their plan

[2:04:57] director exception and uh heard comments

[2:05:01] on

[2:05:03] um looking at kind of clarifying

[2:05:05] feasibility. And then also uh whether or

[2:05:09] not it's built into this ordinance or if

[2:05:11] the town kind of looks more in kind of

[2:05:13] like a form or steps that people can

[2:05:15] kind of follow to kind of how best to

[2:05:18] approach um the need to

[2:05:22] uh provide their their kind of

[2:05:24] feasibility analysis. And again we're trying to keep it very simple and

[2:05:28] objective. Uh so uh we can look at

[2:05:32] clarifying the feasibility statement in

[2:05:34] the ordinance and then also maybe

[2:05:36] accompanied with um some draft handouts

[2:05:40] uh that we could provide folks. I

[2:05:43] >> think when I read the language I also

[2:05:45] maybe clarified that it's the planning

[2:05:47] director who would certify feasibility

[2:05:50] not feasibility. Um I think it was it

[2:05:52] was sort of subject didn't seem like it

[2:05:54] was a very clear sage doubt shout

[2:05:57] declare it feasible unfeasible and make

[2:05:59] a record known sort of thing some way to

[2:06:02] make sure it's truly a staffed decision

[2:06:06] by planning director that has to sign

[2:06:07] off on it.

[2:06:09] >> That makes sense to me as well.

[2:06:13] >> This what I'm not sure we should

[2:06:15] increase to be honest. Um I mean we are

[2:06:19] I guess

[2:06:22] I I think some degree of oversight might

[2:06:25] not be a bad thing. I mean, when we're

[2:06:26] talking about 1,200, it does start to be

[2:06:29] >> it's it's getting closer to home than

[2:06:32] sort of smaller ADU.

[2:06:36] >> I mean, there is the we we should there

[2:06:38] is a variance process.

[2:06:39] >> We could also have the plan director

[2:06:41] sign off on it. by signing off and

[2:06:43] meaning presenting to planning

[2:06:44] commission that you know what what was

[2:06:46] declared feasible like type of like out

[2:06:49] >> I think it's basically a variance though

[2:06:51] at that point because it's coming and

[2:06:52] making findings etc

[2:06:54] >> so they would still have that

[2:06:55] flexibility to to come in present

[2:06:58] findings

[2:06:59] >> question for sage and also for gene I

[2:07:02] mean there's an exception to every rule

[2:07:04] right so if you had I mean if we limited

[2:07:07] it to 800

[2:07:09] and there was a lot that had some unique

[2:07:12] features and everybody ended up

[2:07:15] scratching their heads and yes there was

[2:07:19] uh the only way to do the allowed uh you

[2:07:24] know structure uh was to put it in the

[2:07:27] front setback we could do that via

[2:07:30] variance correct

[2:07:31] >> that's correct

[2:07:32] >> and given the fact that

[2:07:36] the planning commission is not

[2:07:39] overwhelmed with

[2:07:43] um having two meetings a month where

[2:07:44] we're doing three variances at every

[2:07:46] meeting. I mean, we're doing very few of

[2:07:49] these, we could tolerate handling those

[2:07:52] exemptions.

[2:07:54] That that's that's similar to the

[2:07:56] support I was trying to Yeah, there's

[2:07:58] still that flexibility. So, we're not

[2:08:00] saying no.

[2:08:00] >> Yeah.

[2:08:01] >> Right. I I do think I don't know. I

[2:08:04] think given how much things are

[2:08:07] changing, it is worth still looking at

[2:08:10] some of those pieces in terms of how how

[2:08:12] it builds out and

[2:08:15] I would I would probably be more

[2:08:16] comfortable with this one being a

[2:08:17] variance process. So heard uh comments

[2:08:22] about keeping it at 800 and 1,200 was

[2:08:24] the proposal and just just for

[2:08:28] discussion purposes 1,000 square feet.

[2:08:30] Nothing just to the direction to bring that back.

[2:08:36] >> Yeah, I would I would probably say keep

[2:08:38] 800 on this one. Oops.

[2:08:41] >> And on a an exception basis.

[2:08:44] >> Yeah. And that would that would always

[2:08:47] be available. Yeah,

[2:08:50] >> just just to clarify, this allows uh

[2:08:53] planning department to

[2:08:55] uh declare declare it is unfeasible

[2:09:00] to to work it without a variance. If

[2:09:03] it's less than 800, they could do it

[2:09:04] themselves. If it's more than 800, they

[2:09:06] come talk, right? Which is which is

[2:09:08] asis.

[2:09:09] >> Yep.

[2:09:09] >> Oh,

[2:09:10] got it.

[2:09:11] >> Yep.

[2:09:11] >> Except we probably should still clear.

[2:09:13] >> We're still looking at the clarity part.

[2:09:15] Just the the number. We'll keep it 800.

[2:09:18] Okay.

[2:09:24] » I didn't hear any comments on the

[2:09:25] changing the number of units for this

[2:09:28] government code section 66323. I mean

[2:09:30] essentially the code the other option

[2:09:32] would be just allow more ADUs on the

[2:09:35] smaller properties but from what I've

[2:09:36] heard think there's a move for that. Um

[2:09:41] so I'm sorry Sage which particular

[2:09:43] language

[2:09:43] >> sorry this was just uh this is on it's

[2:09:46] on uh page 10. It's the table.

[2:09:48] >> The the asterisk we discussed.

[2:09:50] >> Yeah, the asterisk. Exactly. Exactly.

[2:09:51] So, that's something that's allowed

[2:09:53] already by state law and we're just

[2:09:55] making sure it's clarified in

[2:09:56] >> We're just clarifying it. Nope.

[2:10:02] » Okay, I think we're good there.

[2:10:05] >> Um

[2:10:08] Oh, so now we're on page 13.

[2:10:12] Um and this is just about the owner

[2:10:14] occupancy. And so there's two items

[2:10:17] we're going to look at um to clarify

[2:10:20] that um if it's not owner occupied that

[2:10:23] only the house would be rented out. Um

[2:10:26] and we're also going to look at if

[2:10:29] there's even a requirement to have to

[2:10:31] have owner occupancy um by state law.

[2:10:34] And if there's not, we'll provide that

[2:10:35] option as well.

[2:10:36] >> And then sub I mean a sublet would still

[2:10:39] be allowable under this, right?

[2:10:42] Well, you can always have sublets going

[2:10:44] on under the table. So,

[2:10:45] >> yeah, I I don't know what we're trying

[2:10:47] to achieve with this one is is kind of

[2:10:48] the thing I would

[2:10:50] >> strike.

[2:10:52] It just seems like there's all these we

[2:10:54] don't need it and you can supp

[2:10:56] >> I think that's one of his action items

[2:10:58] where Yeah. So, and because this is what

[2:11:00] Jean is reminding me that we think the

[2:11:02] state might require that you have have

[2:11:05] this in place. So, we're going to double

[2:11:07] check that um based on the new updated

[2:11:09] laws. We just want to double check that.

[2:11:11] If it is, we'll let you know and we'll

[2:11:13] make sure we have some clarity. And if

[2:11:14] it's not, we'll provide you with the

[2:11:16] option

[2:11:17] >> to remove it.

[2:11:22] » Okay. Then we are um really down to uh

[2:11:29] the um we'll we'll just

[2:11:34] look at you know we understood that this

[2:11:36] is a policy uh decision kind of looking

[2:11:38] at the town inspectors for the amnesty

[2:11:40] program. Um,

[2:11:44] does the planning commission in their

[2:11:46] recommendation to town council want to

[2:11:48] recommend that the town council explore

[2:11:50] the idea of the town having town

[2:11:52] inspectors, whether it's for a fee or or

[2:11:54] not, it's something the town council

[2:11:56] could consider? It's it's just part of

[2:11:57] what you would be recommending to the

[2:11:59] planning commission.

[2:12:00] >> That would that be a separate

[2:12:01] recommendation from this?

[2:12:02] >> It's what we would do is just build it

[2:12:03] into the resolution itself. Um, it

[2:12:06] wouldn't be in the actual ordinance

[2:12:08] language. Um it will just be something

[2:12:10] that we could say, you know, this is

[2:12:12] what the planning commission recommended

[2:12:14] uh for the town council to explore to

[2:12:17] help assist people with unpermitted

[2:12:18] ADUs. I mean, from my perspective, it's nice to have a friend who can kind

[2:12:24] of help you through this complex

[2:12:26] process. Uh so an inspector could be

[2:12:28] good for that. I do think it's

[2:12:30] important. We we talked about sort of

[2:12:32] the if we do a program like this just

[2:12:35] limiting the the liability because to

[2:12:37] the earlier point like if they miss

[2:12:40] something and folks discover it we don't

[2:12:42] want to you know be on the on the hook

[2:12:44] for that and it's probably unfair to

[2:12:46] have a contract inspector you know

[2:12:48] liable for that

[2:12:50] >> right and as noted the town I people can

[2:12:53] always hire their own general

[2:12:55] contractors and they can give them their

[2:12:57] recommendations something that

[2:12:59] >> yeah I think we need to frame it as an

[2:13:00] advisory service or something of that

[2:13:02] nature.

[2:13:03] >> But but definitely encourage the amnesty

[2:13:04] because we we should have these

[2:13:06] properties

[2:13:07] on on the list and registered so we know

[2:13:09] that they exist and if they're on fire

[2:13:11] that they get out and they

[2:13:14] >> Yeah. And and we're not making any

[2:13:16] decisions on that part. I believe right

[2:13:19] >> just simply moving forward a

[2:13:21] recommendation to the council council

[2:13:23] town council. So when we bring this back

[2:13:25] um we can just provide that small

[2:13:28] recommendation into the resolution

[2:13:29] itself. I think it's great. Yeah. Um so

[2:13:32] then uh there's just two other items

[2:13:35] that we're going to talk about if you'd

[2:13:36] like us to look into further and that is

[2:13:39] um uh specifically exempting additional

[2:13:43] paved area um as it relates to

[2:13:45] construction of ADUs. Um and the other

[2:13:48] piece was uh looking at um potentially

[2:13:51] allowing for some height increases for

[2:13:54] ups sloping lots

[2:13:57] >> or both those I would say the paved area

[2:14:00] one kind of similar with with my points

[2:14:02] on cumulative impact uh

[2:14:06] it would be good maybe so I I support

[2:14:08] looking at it um also

[2:14:12] you know if that yields

[2:14:15] 90%

[2:14:16] >> surface coverage with paved area. That

[2:14:19] feels like a bad outcome.

[2:14:20] >> Yeah, we could we could

[2:14:20] >> So, we may want to have some kind of a

[2:14:22] cap. Yeah. Being mindful of the

[2:14:24] >> Yeah, we could definitely look at that.

[2:14:26] >> No clue as to whether 1,500 would be the

[2:14:29] right number or not.

[2:14:31] >> Yeah. And that that was just something

[2:14:32] brought up by a member of the public.

[2:14:34] Yes.

[2:14:34] >> And so, uh I think in terms of Yeah. Do

[2:14:37] you want you know, all you have is

[2:14:39] building and paving.

[2:14:40] >> Yeah. I mean, because you add all this

[2:14:42] up. And what was mentioned too was, you

[2:14:45] know, some of these larger lots in the

[2:14:46] SCP areas, they're already restricted to

[2:14:48] 9,000, whereas, you know, lots in a 1

[2:14:51] acre lot, you know, over in, uh,

[2:14:54] Woodside Hills, they can have 15,000

[2:14:56] square ft. Um, and so we can kind of

[2:15:00] look at some of the lot size issues, um,

[2:15:02] and then maybe some caps, uh, for those

[2:15:05] kind of exemptions.

[2:15:06] >> It might be helpful also when we

[2:15:08] consider this next if it's if it's

[2:15:10] possible to look at maybe just example

[2:15:11] scenarios. try to we'll try to yeah

[2:15:13] provide

[2:15:13] >> you know what I mean like maybe say you

[2:15:15] know a 7,000 foot lot if it were to be

[2:15:19] maxed out with all the things that we're

[2:15:21] approving like what does that look like

[2:15:23] because at a certain point

[2:15:26] >> we have to help with Sacramento we also

[2:15:28] have to uphold general plan and if we

[2:15:30] get 95% paved area we are not doing our

[2:15:33] job upholding the general plan also so I

[2:15:35] think that balancing you could just see

[2:15:37] what that looks like for

[2:15:38] >> yeah so 5,000 to 10,000 to 15,000 that

[2:15:41] We don't have to do that many scenarios

[2:15:43] but some that I think just helps us

[2:15:44] visualize it.

[2:15:45] >> Visualize this.

[2:15:46] >> So yeah, no we'll we'll take that

[2:15:47] direction. Um so we'll explore it

[2:15:49] further and bring some stuff back for

[2:15:51] you. Awesome.

[2:15:51] >> Okay. I would explore it further, maybe

[2:15:54] come up I mean see what number would be

[2:15:57] reasonable that would make most projects

[2:16:00] work and then

[2:16:03] um once again I mean if you get the

[2:16:05] exception to the rule

[2:16:08] uh you can always go through the

[2:16:09] variance process.

[2:16:11] >> Yeah. And if somebody needs an extra 200

[2:16:13] square feet of paved area to be able to

[2:16:16] have a,

[2:16:18] >> you know, paved access to the ADU, then

[2:16:21] I mean

[2:16:25] » that would be the presumption that that

[2:16:27] would pass. And we still for the 800

[2:16:29] square foot unit, you know, if someone

[2:16:31] that's all someone can fit or that's

[2:16:33] what they're they need some extra paved

[2:16:36] area to do that 1800 square foot unit

[2:16:38] that town staff still has some

[2:16:40] flexibility there.

[2:16:41] >> Yeah.

[2:16:41] >> And that was based on the section we're

[2:16:43] just debating about 800 to,200.

[2:16:46] >> Right. And then so I guess we didn't

[2:16:48] talk that much about the the height

[2:16:50] piece that

[2:16:50] >> So this is the last piece.

[2:16:52] >> Yeah. So on that one,

[2:16:55] I I I like that the proposal limits

[2:16:58] based I I think the language was well

[2:17:00] written that it's it's limited to not

[2:17:02] make any structure that's more impactful

[2:17:05] than the previous main residence could

[2:17:07] have been. So that that part feels good.

[2:17:12] Seems reasonable to consider it to me.

[2:17:15] >> Folks think

[2:17:18] explore it.

[2:17:20] Yeah, we we can explore some language if all of you are kind of in agreement

[2:17:24] with that any

[2:17:27] opposition.

[2:17:28] >> No.

[2:17:30] >> Okay, I think we're good with exploring

[2:17:32] that.

[2:17:32] >> So, we walked through everything um with

[2:17:35] this

[2:17:36] >> talk about the go

[2:17:38] >> the height slope Glenn's versus the R

[2:17:42] the R1's.

[2:17:42] >> Yeah. So I mean with that that's

[2:17:45] >> a separate part of the

[2:17:46] >> it's it's it's well um more than just

[2:17:51] ADUs. Um and so whereas that in and of

[2:17:56] itself could help with flexibility on

[2:17:58] ADUs. Um it's more about you know could

[2:18:02] my house be closer to a property line

[2:18:04] like what we did in the Glenn's um and

[2:18:07] so that uh very good point. And I am

[2:18:10] extremely point well taken but it

[2:18:12] >> different project.

[2:18:13] >> Yeah. I think it it encompasses much

[2:18:15] more than just ADUs.

[2:18:16] >> Yeah. And my recommendation there would

[2:18:18] be

[2:18:20] R1 is probably not the scope. It's

[2:18:23] probably more like the the Glenn's was a

[2:18:26] sort of coherent well or an area where

[2:18:30] there's a common issue of a

[2:18:32] concentration of non-conforming lots,

[2:18:34] right? And we have others. It seems like

[2:18:36] Palm Circle is one of those. Yeah.

[2:18:38] >> So, I would suggest we're just more

[2:18:40] mindful of the granularity and boundary

[2:18:42] of that study rather than saying like

[2:18:44] all R1 blank.

[2:18:45] >> Yes. No, for sure. And that's something

[2:18:46] well, you know, it's it's in working

[2:18:48] with the town council on priorities and

[2:18:49] what the, you know, the various

[2:18:51] different work items that

[2:18:52] >> it feels like it would be another like

[2:18:54] agendaized Glenn's style thing, right?

[2:18:58] With a defined scope of which which lots

[2:19:00] are in.

[2:19:01] >> Okay. So, so with that, um, we because

[2:19:04] we're just bringing stuff, we got a

[2:19:06] direction from you. We didn't have any

[2:19:08] like split issues on any of these. Um we

[2:19:11] are just going to explore the different

[2:19:13] things based on the direction given. We

[2:19:15] do not need a motion. Um we just we've

[2:19:17] taken all the notes. We've looked at um

[2:19:19] the consensus made by the planning

[2:19:21] commission and um

[2:19:23] >> we will bring all this stuff back to you

[2:19:25] to explore further and uh maybe for an

[2:19:28] adoption of a recommendation of the town

[2:19:29] council.

[2:19:30] >> Sounds great. Yeah, I think these

[2:19:31] scenario just final thought and I know

[2:19:33] I'm maybe just repeating myself but

[2:19:34] these scenarios I think are going to be

[2:19:36] helpful because we're saying things like

[2:19:37] we like going from 800 to,200 but not

[2:19:40] 1500 but we're also sort of thinking

[2:19:42] that without the cumulative impact. So I

[2:19:45] just think that'll be important for us

[2:19:47] to look at with a fresh set of eyes on

[2:19:49] terms of what it is.

[2:19:51] >> Cool.

[2:19:53] Anything else?

[2:19:53] >> Um so that uh that would conclude this

[2:19:56] item. Um, and

[2:19:59] there's just a couple of um, if you want

[2:20:02] to move on to the agenda. I think we

[2:20:03] just have director's report.

[2:20:05] >> All right, let's move on to director's

[2:20:06] report. Thank you for the cube.

[2:20:09] >> And, um, apologize, I don't have those

[2:20:12] right here in front of me, but

[2:20:13] essentially uh, the

[2:20:17] my computer died. Um,

[2:20:30] yeah so so what what I'll report is um

[2:20:34] you know we uh I know in February I

[2:20:37] think Thank you very much Jim. Um so uh

[2:20:41] so you know what we've kind of the

[2:20:44] primary thing of these reports that I

[2:20:46] think has been most interesting is just

[2:20:48] looking at um the number of permits were

[2:20:50] issued uh per month. And so, uh, this

[2:20:54] one in February, the town issued, uh,

[2:20:56] three permits for ADUs and one for new

[2:20:59] single family dwelling.

[2:21:01] And then, as I noted in, um, March that

[2:21:06] we have uh, we had six ADUs. One of them

[2:21:09] was a J AU, but we had six ADUs in March

[2:21:11] and one single family dwelling. Um, so

[2:21:14] whereas we had none issued in January,

[2:21:17] but you know, people are coming off the

[2:21:18] holidays, you know, there's different

[2:21:20] reasons maybe why that was a lower

[2:21:22] number. Uh, but as we progress through

[2:21:23] the summer, um, you know, if we can keep

[2:21:26] up four to six plus ADUs a month, that

[2:21:29] would be great.

[2:21:31] >> And so with that, that concludes my

[2:21:33] report. Um, I don't have anything

[2:21:35] further to add this time.

[2:21:39] » All right. Well, if we're all done, we

[2:21:41] will go ahead and adjourn. Thank you.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting - April 15, 2026

Transcript