We ready to go, Julie?
Okay.
This is the call to order for the April
15, 2026 meeting of the Town of Woodside
Planning Commission. We'll start with
the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll call, please.
>> Chair Weaver,
>> present.
>> Vice Chair Gar.
>> Commissioner Evans.
>> Commissioner Gonko here.
>> And Commissioner Tober is noted absent.
Are there any changes to the agenda as
published?
» There are no changes to the agenda. Uh
you do have desk items for the one
public hearing item we have tonight and
I'll go through that during the
presentation.
>> Um given there are no changes to the
agenda, we will move on to the public
comment period. This is a chance for
people to make public comments about
items which are not on tonight's agenda,
but which are of interest to the town of
Woodside and its planning commission.
Um, public comments are limited to five
speakers maximum of three minutes each
at the beginning of the meeting and if
we have more um um speakers, those would
be deferred to the end of the meeting.
Items not on the agenda cannot be
addressed in detail or acted upon
tonight, but can be referred to staff
and potentially put on a future agenda.
So, given those restrictions, is there
anyone present in the room or on Zoom
that would like to speak on a topic not
on tonight's agenda?
» We have three raised hands online. Um,
I'm going to start with FAD.
» Hello. Can you hear me?
» Yes.
>> Hello.
Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can hear you.
>> Yes. My name is Fad and I need your
help. I'm feeling very weak. I haven't
been able to get up off the floor for 45
minutes to an hour. I ate Del Taco and
now
Okay, let's move on to the next speaker.
» Let's go ahead and mute that speaker.
PLEASE mute the Thank you. Thank you.
And let's move on to our third speaker.
Okay, the next speaker is Ben Rodriguez.
Okay. Um,
please mute, please mute that speaker.
Um, is there anyone present in the room
that would like to speak on a topic not
on tonight's agenda, but which is
relevant to the town of Woodside or its
planning commission?
Uh there being no raised hands or anyone
stepping up to the microphone, we will
at this point close the public comment
period.
And I believe the next item on the
agenda is a presentation from Hip
Housing.
» Okay.
You can um use the red lever and
move the microphone up and down so it's
at a convenient height for you.
» Oh, okay.
>> Is that better? I don't know if it's
>> It's on.
>> Okay, it's on. All right, great. Um,
good evening, commissioners. My name is
Laura Finuki. I'm the director of
programs at HIP Housing. I want to thank
Sage for inviting me to your meeting
tonight. I have a short presentation
about the work that HIP Housing does in
the community. Um, so Julie's going to
be advancing our slides. So, um, HIPP
housing, uh, st HIP stands for human
investment project. That's the legal
name of our organization. Um, and our
mission is to invest in human potential
by improving the housing and lives of
people here in San Monteo County. We've
been doing that work um, for over 50
years. Next slide.
So, HIP Housing offers four housing
programs and we also own and manage
properties. So, I'm going to touch
briefly on each one. Our first program
is our housing resource hub. Um, we take
in about uh 3,000 calls a year from
members of the community that want to
learn about hip housing andor affordable
housing here in San Monteo County. And
so, we create resources to share that
information with them. We have a weekly
community eblast where we list
affordable housing openings and we email
that out to the community. Um, we also
create a Google site where we list
update every two weeks affordable
housing waiting list openings. And then
we have a resource packet that we
provide clients um that contact our
organization that help them navigate how
to apply to the county subsidized
housing portal, how to apply to the
doorway portal, which is a portal that
um announces affordable housing waiting
list openings and then also HIP
housing's portal. Next slide.
Our housing readiness program is rel uh
relatively new. We started this program
about two years ago in the response to
the fact that we were seeing many many
older adults, very low-income older
adults who didn't qualify income-wise
for our home sharing program but still
needed help with finding housing in our
community. Um we find that most older
adults have been in stable housing for
many years and then suddenly something
has happened. either the landlord that
they were living with has moved out of
the area or their housing is getting
sold or their rent's being raised and
they're suddenly plunged into Sano
County's kind of crazy housing market
and learning how to navigate that. So,
we meet with clients to help them
understand what they're eligible for and
help them apply to this the county
subsidized housing portal and also the
doorway portal. Um, we have a
collaboration with the Department of
Housing, um, where we actually have some
scholarship funding to provide a housing
scholarship to an older adult that's
exiting one of the county operated
shelters. Um, the county is having a
really hard time moving clients out of
the shelters for their intended purpose
of stay, which is mostly like 90 days.
um we find that older adults don't have
the ability to increase their income and
so they remain in the shelters and so
our housing scholarship helps to move
out of the shelters into something
that's more permanent and affordable. So
this is a relatively new program of ours
and we're seeing it grow exponentially
with the number of seniors that are
experiencing homelessness for the first
time. Okay, next slide. Our third
program is our self-sufficiency program.
This is a program for low-income
families with dependent children. Um we
provide housing and coaching support for
a year to five years um for the adults
that are enrolled in school or a
vocational program. Uh we have some
families that are living independently
in their own unit here in San Mato
County and we help to provide a housing
scholarship for them while they're in
school. And then Hip Housing also owns
three houses that we built. Two are in
Redwood City and one is in San Carlos.
Um they are six-bedroom, three bath
homes and we usually have two to three
families share the home. Uh the
department of housing of San Monteo
County helps to subsidize the rent. So
the rent is very affordable for very
low-income families. Um so we have some
families that start in that housing
model and then some families that go
into independent living and we provide
coaching and wraparound support for the
families. Uh usually 40 to 50 families a
year that we're serving in that program.
Next slide. Uh, so in addition to our
housing programs, I'm going to talk
about our home sharing program last. Um,
but we do also own and manage property
here in Sonteo County. We have over 500
units of affordable housing, mostly
studio, onebedrooms, and some
two-bedroom units. Um, some of the
properties are project based section 8.
So, the tenants pay roughly a third of
their income on rent and the other units
are below market rate. We also do
property management for various
entities. So we have relationships with
the Rotary Club of Sonteo. Uh we manage
two of their affordable housing
properties, Rotary Hosienda and Rotary
Floritas in Sonteo. Um we also manage
properties for the city of Foster City.
And we have some collaborations with
market rate developers that have
affordable units within their
development and we partner with them to
do tenant selection and income
certification.
Um, we don't do a lot of new
construction, but we do have a new
construction project going on right now
in downtown San Carlos. Um, we had a
six-unit apartment building that we
owned for years, and we partnered with
the city and Eden Housing, another
nonprofit, uh, to uh, construct 33 units
of affordable housing. So, it's going to
be a mix of one, two, and threebedroom
units, which we're really excited about
because we don't have any three-bedroom
units in our portfolio, and we have very
few two-bedroom units. So that um
property is still under construction.
It's right downtown in San Carlos and
hope to be finished with that in
October. Okay, next slide. Um but what
we're most known in the community for is
our home sharing program. This was the
first housing program that the
organization started back in 1979.
And it's a program where we interview
homeowners or renters that have extra
space. Um they either have a room for
rent in their home or an accessory
dwelling unit. Um and then we help to
match them with a home seeker who
usually of a family size of one or two
persons. Um this program serves all of
Sonteo County and we get funding support
from the town of Woodside and also all
of the cities in Sonteo County including
the county of Sono. We're also included
in all of the city's housing elements as
a way to provide um affordable housing
options through our home sharing
program. Um and we provide technical
assistance to other organizations
throughout the country that are
interested in starting home sharing
programs in their community. Um in fact
here in California we have um have
probably close to 30 home sharing
programs throughout the state and we've
helped a lot of them with their
technical assistance and launching
programs in their community. We do have
a collaborations sorry my slide got cut
off here. We have collaborations with
the town of Athetherton and Hillsboro.
And since creating this presentation, we
also are now partnering with um uh
Portola Valley and San Bruno on their
ADU program. So, we have um
collaborations where we meet with town
staff every month to talk about outreach
activities to really increase the
visibility of HIPPO's home sharing
program to encourage homeowners that
have ADUs to register them with our home
sharing program. um because we can help
do the tenant screening, the income
certification, help discuss what the
rent is going to be, put together a
living together agreement, and are very
involved in the home in the housing
arrangement, whether it's a home
provider that's renting a room or an
accessory dwelling unit. So, we meet
with town staff every month to talk
about outreach. Um we're like for
Athetherton, we do a lot of their um
events like Earth Day, their national
nightouts. Um we partner with like
school districts in Menllo Park. We do
social media uh posts. We do we host
home owner homeowner events where we
invite the homeowners to come learn
about our program. So we have um a lot
of activities that we do in each
jurisdiction to really kind of raise the
visibility of our program um to
encourage homeowners with ADUs and
rooms. Uh next slide. Um, so this is
just a a snapshot of of like kind of our
screening process if folks really want
to understand like what's the difference
between going just doing this online or
finding roommates or tenants in other
ways. But we're very hands-on. So we do
the screening, we do background checks,
we do have reference checks, we do
income certifications, we complete a
living together agreement, and we main
maintain follow-up support for the
duration of the match. Um, in
Athetherton right now, we have two
matches. So, they're both are senior
homeowners that have accessory dwelling
units. Um, and they're both matched with
um older adults. Um, we have one match
in the town of Hillsboro that's been
together for almost 6 years. Um, it's
with a senior retired couple. They have
a two-bedroom ADU and they rented it to
a local teacher who was in jeopardy of
losing her housing and having to leave
the state. And so now she's been able to
remain in her community. Um, so that's
kind of the beauty of of this kind of
relationship. Uh, next slide. Again,
just some examples of who homeshares.
So, we have a lot of school district
personnel who are uh registered with our
home sharing program. In fact, about 11%
of our home seekers uh work for school
districts. Um, so we have a lot of
educators that get recruited to this
area, but they they can't find
affordable housing. Um, and so the
option of either renting a room or an
ADU becomes much more affordable. Uh,
next slide.
Um, and so, you know, for for our home
providers that have the ADU or room for
rent, it really helps to keep them
affordable in their own home. We have
most about 60% of our home providers are
older adults. So, they may live alone.
They may be on a retirement income and
they have extra space in their in their
home or they have an accessory dwelling
unit and they want to put that empty
space to good use. So, this is one way
to not only help them remain independent
in their home, but also to help them
financially as well. Um, and for our
home seekers, you know, the average rent
of a one-bedroom apartment here in this
community, I mean, we see people that
are renting for like 2700 to 3500 for a
one-bedroom apartment. And so, our our
room rentals and our ADUs are
significantly lower cost. And so, it
helps to make make an affordable housing
arrangement for them. And it keeps our
workforce local. There's a statistic
that over 60% of people who work here in
San Monteo County commute from outside
of the area. So, it really helps to
maintain the um the viability of our
community by keeping our workforce low.
Okay, next slide. And this is my contact
information. Um we're happy to partner
with the town of Woodside on our
affordable housing programs. We thank
the town for our subfunding support and
I'm happy to answer any questions if you
have any about our organization. Thank
you.
>> Does anyone have questions for Laura?
» So one question. So once again, what is
where does the funding come for your
services?
>> Yes. So for our housing programs, it's a
variety of funding streams. So we get
support from all the cities here in the
Sanonteo County. We get funding from the
county of Sanonteo. Also, um we have
private foundation support. Um we also
do, you know, annual events and we have
fundraising efforts and donations. Um
but what's really important is that that
because we own and manage property here
in Sano County, our rental income also
is a sustainable s source of funding for
our programs. So the funding that we
take from our property side helps to pay
for all the administrative costs of our
programs. Um, so that 100% of
contributions goes directly to client
services.
>> You
» Laura, thank you very much for your
presentation and for the great work that
you folks do in the community.
>> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you, Laura. We'll be in touch.
Thank you.
» Okay. The next item on tonight's agenda
would be um the terms of chair and vice
chair of the planning commission run for
two-year terms and
>> minute I think we have the minutes
first.
>> Oh whoops. We have a consent calendar
item first which is approval of the
minutes of our March 4th 2026 meeting.
So, if any commissioners, members of
staff, or members of the public have any
errors, emissions, additions, or
clarifications
that need to be made to the um minutes
as published, now is your chance to
um ask that those changes be made.
comes to that we would take a motion to
approve the minutes of the March 4
meeting.
>> Make a motion to approve the minutes
from the meeting.
>> Second motion.
>> Chair Weaver.
>> Yes.
>> Vice Chair Gar.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Evans. Commissioner
Gonerko.
>> Yes.
Given that it is time to move on to
election of a new chair and vice chair
of the planning commission.
So taking this in order um we would
entertain motions from the planning
commission members for a new nominee for
chair of the planning commission for the
next two years.
I nominate uh Matt Gar for chair of the
planning commission for the next two
years.
>> Second.
» Sarah Weaver.
>> Yes.
>> Vice Shar.
>> Commissioner Evans.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Gonco.
>> Yes.
So you guys can get up and the two of
you trade seats.
» Oh, nobody there.
Yeah, very engaging on YouTube.
Okay, I need to bring my agenda up.
>> So, take uh next is we'll take
nominations for the vice chair for the
next two years.
Would anyone like to make a motion?
for
vice chair of the
>> So, I'd like to nominate Alex Talber as
vice chair for the planning commission
for the next two years.
» He's not not present, but
>> second.
>> It's acceptable. If if for some reason
he would decline, we could follow up
with that the next meeting, but it's
totally acceptable to have a nomination
without him prison. Okay.
I think I heard a second from
>> um I will second that.
>> Uh Chair Gar,
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Evans,
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Ganco,
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Weaver,
>> yes.
» Okay.
Uh with that I believe we will move on
to the next item on the agenda which is
the uh the review of the resolution of
intention and recommendation to amend
the municipal code chapters 151 and 153
uh regarding ADUs. So shall we move on
to that?
>> Congratulations and thank you chair Gar.
>> Um so what uh so as I mentioned earlier
we received a number of desk items and
I'll kind of go through those through
topic. Um, my proposal here tonight is
to uh for me to present kind of on each
section and then I'll ask for questions
from the planning commission and answer
any questions. Um, once we're done with
the presentation and questions and
answers from the commission. We'll have
the public provide any input they'd like
to provide and then after that the
planning commission can deliberate, ask
more questions, provide to some
conclusion.
So, with that, I will um pull what I'm
going to do is just pull up the the
draft ordinance language and we can kind
of just go through it and as it's uh
written.
And so, the first uh and maybe I should
back up just a bit. Um some may recall
uh back in uh June 23ish
um there was a study session provided by
the planning commission uh that went
over a number of different topics uh to
look how the town could increase to
modify its regulations that would
increase flexibility and help increase
the production of ADUs. Um so over the
years the town has provided um different
ordinance changes that um have provided
flexibility and um we have had members
of the public already taking advantage
of some of those uh ordinances. And so
we just will be continuing to work on
looking at challenges that people have
um to creating ADUs and looking at how
the town can modify its regulations to
maintain consistency with state law as
well as to go even further than state
law in some circumstances. Um and so
that is uh what is before us tonight. We
are going to go through some additional
items uh that could provide more
flexibility um reduce some of the
challenges that people have to construct
ADUs. And um we will start tonight with
an order. And so in chapter 151 is our
site development chapter of the
municipal code. That's what it's called.
Um the best way to think of that chapter
of the code, it primarily deals with
grading, drainage, and driveways. Um and
so the town of Woodside um currently
restricts properties to having one
driveway onto their property, although
there is a process for planning
commission approval of a second driveway
exception. Um that process has been in
place for a number of years, albeit it
has been modified from time to time. Um
and there has been uh some requests from
the public interest I think from
planning commission and council related
to providing some relief to that
requirement for a public hearing process
if a second driveway is to serve an ADU.
So what we've done uh is provide a an
administrative process. that would not
require a public hearing for ADUs to be
able to install a second driveway under
certain circumstances. So, what we see
initially here, this is just cleanup
language for our existing driveway
exception process.
And this section, excuse me, this
following section here is the proposed
language for um allowance for an
administrative second driveway exception
process for ADUs. um we've kept a lot of
the same kind of safety goals uh in
place um from the initial exception
process. So with all driveways there has
to be um they have to meet certain line
of sight and safety standards. Uh
whether it's a singular driveway or a
second driveway. Uh these are things
that a line of sight distance study
something uh an engineer would prepare.
They look at curvatures of the road.
They look at the speed limits on the
road um and they provide a sight
distance analysis is what it's called
which then is reviewed by our uh
engineering department. So we would keep
that obviously in place. Um we are
looking at you know
whenever we're trying to provide
additional flexibility we also want to
be careful of um people taking advantage
it of it for things that aren't directly
related to the construction of an ADU.
And there are many instances where it
just makes more sense to have a second
driveway for an ADU. Um some extreme
examples and very easily to uh imagine
examples. We have some properties um
that are bisected by a creek. Um so
example there's properties on Manzanita
that back all the way up to Whiskey Hill
and they are biseected by a creek. Um,
say you have your house on Manzanita,
but you'd like to do an ADU off Whiskey
Hill. Instead of building a bridge
across the creek, um, one could do a
second driveway. An instance like that,
it would make a lot of sense for that
ADU to not have to go through a special
hearing process for that. Um, so we've
looked at things like if someone is
proposing a second driveway to access an
ADU, uh, that would would require less
paving than just say extending a small
extension off of their existing
driveway. That would be something that
would be looked at.
Um, we look at that's only proposed uh,
the driveway is only proposed to serve
the ADU. um we want to make sure it's
not kind of a tangent to really serve
something else or the main residence on
the property. Um so it's specifically
focused for that. Um and then the number
four is really just trying to minimize
the appearance of these second
driveways. So often people will have um
fencing on the property. If they have no
fencing, that's fine. They don't need to
have fencing. Um, but if they do have
fencing, uh, try to have that vehicle
gate look as close to the m fencing as
possible with minimal pylons. Um, and
that would kind of minimize the visual
appearance of this second driveway,
which has always been a concern about
additional driveways on the property. Um
there are some instances even one of the desk items I know of a property they
have an old historic um pylon that's not
used as a driveway now. In those
instances we wouldn't make them tear
that out and put in a a regular fence um
if they were proposed to use that for a
second driveway. Uh but the idea is to
really just maintain the character that
exists now. Um and then uh number five
is just you know clarifying that we
should not be um proposing these uh
second drive is environmentally
sensitive areas or in areas that are
really sign have really significant
steep slopes um immediately adjacent to
the drive. It would cause some real
carving into a hillside and significant
retaining walls. Um, and the last one is
just indicating that if you already have
two driveways, um, we wouldn't use this
process for a third or fourth driveway.
Um, so we do have, uh, we received out
of the different desk items we have, we
received, um, three items specifically
related to this topic. Uh, and all of
them shared the same, uh, uh, idea and,
um, staff is very open to that idea.
they are suggesting, hey, you know, this
ordinance is works. It just does it. It
says only for one ADU and let's say
someone was building two ADUs. Um they
were grouping them near each other to
come off this proposed second driveway.
Um staff sees no issue with that. If
it's acceptable to the commission, we
can easily um if acceptable to the
commission uh literally, you know,
taking away the word a right here and
making all our references to accessory
dwelling units. Um so just to go back,
um so we remove this and then we can
make the references to accessory
dwelling units plural. Um and if that
was something that the commission is
interested in, uh we could make that
change. Um so with this just on this
particular topic there's any questions
of the commission um for staff be happy
to answer any of those questions.
Um, yeah. So, couple of things in in
some of the the letters and also in my
own experience, the the when you're
designing these, there was this request
for the fire department to be able to
drive in and turn around. Um, and for me
and a lot of less than 10,000 square
feet, seemed ridiculous to even get that
question, but it was a question I had to
go deal with and get a response on. um
for these larger lots that have do have
large properties
with with something that has a ADU
that's sort of close to an edge and has
its own own driveway.
>> Um should we be saying something about
that kind of ridiculous statements of
needing a firetruck to come in and turn
around?
>> I So we will the firetruck has its
standards and people will need to meet
fire district standards. Um if it's uh
with regards to our local standards, if
the fire district does require a
firetruck turnaround, we do have
exemptions in our um paved area section.
So the turnaround itself uh doesn't
count against their paved area
standards. Sometimes if people have a
really long driveway, they have to
actually do a turnout as well. Well,
yeah. I mean, I get I get if it's a if
it's a long driveway and it's back part
of the property and the property is
three acres big, but if they're going to
put the ADU on the on the corner, is
that
>> So, I guess what you're saying is the
fire truck turnaround rule is not in the
town.
>> That's correct. Yeah. So, we wouldn't
want to put that something in our
municipal code directly related to that.
Um, so in those instances and where it
may not be required, it's something we
can help support that applicant with the
fire district. Um but it is a fire
district requirement. Yeah.
>> Um second is uh in some of the letters
they talked about having multiple
driveways for multiple ADUs. Are we
thinking that's a bad idea?
>> Um at this point the town has never
contemplated allowing more than two
driveways on a property. And so um the
idea is really to ensure that people can
have easy access to a proposed ADU. And
so if they are proposing new if they
have existing ADUs, they obviously are
existing and have access to those units.
Um for proposed ADUs, uh they should be
looking at grouping those uh together
with their proposed second driveway or
access off their primary driveway. Um
staff hasn't really analyzed looking at
a third or fourth driveway because
people want multiple separate driveways
for multiple different ADUs. We'd really
try to encourage people to hear that
hasn't come up yet.
>> Uh, no, we haven't had any significant
concerns or challenges that people have
run into for that.
>> Um, okay. And my last question may not
be related to this specifically, but
I've read somewhere that there's either
a state law being contemplated or
debated about being able to
automatically carve out ADUs from a
certain lot. Is that something that the
town has thought about yet? um in terms
of for sale
>> for for separation of ownership sort of.
>> Yeah. So there is a state law that
allows for um cities to optionally
decide if they want to uh provide a
mechanism in which people can purchase
an ADU separate from the primary unit
while it's still one property. The town
council has not opted to uh uh look at
an ordinance for that at this time.
>> There's an option for the town.
>> Yeah. So the state law it's not a
mandatory requirement. Um it's a state
law that they provided uh that is an
option. It's an option that cities can
pursue.
>> That's my son. If he calls three times
>> understood.
>> Thank you.
» Okay. Sage. Um what I do have one
question on this one and that's on
criteria three.
um the the draft language uh that's in
there is only serve the proposed ADU.
If this goes into municipal code and
you're making a literal interpretation
of that,
then that would theoretically
bar
a proposed second driveway that served
the ADU, but then it just coincidentally
happened to provide better access to a
pool house or a
um storage building or a barn or
something like that given that the
intent that you outlined
was
to of these changes is to make it easier
to create ADUs and the second driveway
would be the one and would be the
primary means of access
um to an ADU that would be in a location
that would otherwise be um inaccessible.
Um, my suggestion would be to consider
tweaking the language to instead of
saying only serve the ADU,
um, to say that the driveway is needed
to provide a practical means of access
to the proposed ADU.
» Totally open to that there. We don't
find significant concern that we can
look at modifying that language. Yes, it
would just be to make the language
better fit what seems to be the intent
of this.
>> Well, that makes sense. You know, there
might be times in which um you know,
somebody does this short driveway to an
ADU, but yet they can spur off of that
to connect to their primary driveway.
And as with some of the letters that
we've seen, just internal more
circulation um provides better fire
safety and things of that nature. Um
yeah, we're definitely open to that. Um
and um with that I'll note, you know,
we're going to get through some of the
other comments too tonight. Um some of
the other items that are suggested from
the public are necessarily directly
related to some of these things. And
what I want to note is
um the council schedule is very full in
the near future. Uh so we don't have a
specific date in which we're going to
the council. Uh we know that we wouldn't
come to the council before June. Um and
so with tonight's conversation uh with
these ideas, what I would like to do is
um get the direction from the planning
commission at the end and we can uh what
I would propose to do is bring this back
probably the second meeting in May um
that we could show any of these changes
that are made uh based on the comments
that we heard tonight and this would be
one of them um should the rest of the
commission agree to that.
>> That's all I had.
Okay. So, the the questions I have, so
first on on pylons, can you just
describe a little bit more what we what
we mean by pylons versus fences? And
>> Sure. So, a pylon is going to be a
support for a gate that will be kind of
the hinge for the gate. Um, and so, uh,
when doing a pylon, you might have a
wooden wire fence and just a, you know,
12 inch squared wood post probably is
going to support your gate, but having
some type of minimal metal post as
opposed to, um, another, you know, 2x
two or 3x3 stone pylon. Um, the idea is
to blend it more into the existing
fence. So, that's the intent with that.
And I think my other question was with
respect to the burner on a connection.
So I I think I don't know that there's
any net new question on this but um I
think considering the ability to have
circulation for the driveway to I I
think I mean I think the intent needs to
be look the driveway is to serve a net
new ADU that's being built but if it
connects on site that that really does
feel like the type of thing that um
>> yeah no look at given the comments we
heard tonight and the from the desk
items it's very reasonable request and
something that we will uh focus this on
when we bring this back.
>> That's that's all I had.
» And Sage, how we're going section by
section.
>> Yes. Yes. So, I'll I'll just continue to
move on here. Okay.
>> Um I'm not going to go into these in
detail. These are just definitions.
We've made some modifications. Um these
are really to make sure we are up to
date with current state law. Uh so,
we've made modifications. Our
definitions were in pretty good shape.
Um, we've just made some minor
clarifications. Um, and there are really
no substantive changes to these
definitions. Um, so unless there's any
questions, I'll just move on to the
next.
» So the go ahead.
>> Sorry. The the efficiency kitchen.
>> So we are making a change there with
respect to cooking. Correct. Um this is
uh clarifying what a uh
it didn't include the cooking piece
before and um it just said well it said
appliances for food preparation and this
is looking at something that a permanent
cooking facility. So this is a term used
and so the question is when you're doing
an ADU you know do I have a stove? do I
have, you know, you can have a wet bar,
but that's not a kitchen. Um, so that
wouldn't qualify as an ADU. Whereas an
ADU, they have permanent cooking
facilities. And uh what that has been
taken into
um is that it's essentially uh uh when
you install a stove, an oven, it
requires venting. And so that's
something that does require a building
permit. Um so the town has always looked
at what is a permanent cooking facility.
It is something that's going to require
the venting. And what we wanted to
clarify in this efficiency kitchen is
that someone could have that, but they
could have other just cooking
appliances. So, as many of us, including
myself, you know, we buy all these
different, you know, ways to cook um
that are just kind of plug-in appliances
that are threein- one and can do all
these different things. Um so, if people
are doing something like that, they
don't have to have the oven or the the
venting. Um, we just want to make sure
that they have some cooking appliances
as part of it. So, it's clarifying that.
» Okay. So, it and and it reads may or may
not include a permanent
stove/conventional oven. Does it read
elsewhere that any cooking appliances
are required?
>> It's just a cooking facility with
appliances as the leadin to that. Um,
so it it which means the cooking
facility
may or may not be a permanent cooking
facility,
>> right?
Yeah. I think it's I I wonder if we
should maybe consider clarifying what a
cooking facility actually is. Part of
the reason I ask is when I was getting
final, I had a temporary set of
appliances and was told by the inspector
that I didn't need them and go ahead and
return them. So it was sort of unclear
uh there in terms of is that required.
So I think it would be good to just
specify what a cooking facility.
>> Yeah. So they should have I mean
inspected I mean the venting and stuff
would have had is what's really getting
permitted as opposed to uh the
installation of the stove itself. Um so
if someone hasn't you know if their
plans show for that venting in that
cooking facility that would be what's
inspected. Um
>> okay. So we are saying that the venting
is required
>> that we're saying for an efficiency
kitchen you can have it but you don't
have to and the efficiency kitchens are
directly related to the JADUs whereas if
you're doing a regular ADU you're going
to do a permanent cooking facility
you're not going to just have the
appliances
>> okay I think my questions
>> we want to ensure that the permanent the
ADUs
will always have a cooking facility as
part of it Okay. Do we have a definition
of cooking facility in the code
somewhere or is that something?
>> It's just the the permanent It's the
permanent cooking. We do have a
definition of cooking facility and it's
the permanent I'd have to look at the
exact words, but something we've worked
with the building department on. Um, and
it's the venting itself which makes it
permanent.
>> Okay. Yeah. I think it may be helpful to
just clarify what the reference is to
that just for readability of the code
because I know actually talked with a
number of folks who get confused over
this one.
We'll look at look at how to better
clarify that.
Um, okay. If there's no other questions,
we'll move on. Um, okay. So, floor area.
Um this is something that in the study
session from the planning commission as
well as town council and from residents
and we've seen in some letters here
tonight um that to uh currently the code
indicates that everyone u every lot
doesn't have to count um up to 800
square ft for ADUs on a property and
people have asked to uh increase that
exception and so what we've done is to
clarify uh to propose that people, you
know, up to 1,200 square f feet, so
giving people another 400 square f feet
that could be applied to ADUs on their
property that would not account against
our maximum resin size or their total
floor area allowed on the property. Um,
we've had um some letters here. We have
at least um you know, five of the
letters tonight. two of them kind of
just generally supported any increase
whereas the other three uh specifically
spoke to
um looking at the increase up to 1500
square f feet. Um so uh in looking at
this change and we're specifically just
looking at D1 right now when looking at
this change staff contemplated you know
the town does allow AD to use up to 1500
square ft. Um, this isn't directly
changing anything for that. It's just
simply saying that people get an extra
400 square feet in previously um that
they for an ADU, meaning they could use
that 400 square ft somewhere. If they
use it for an ADU, they could use that
somewhere else on their property. Um, we
could simply change it for all lots up
to 1500 square ft. Uh we do know that
when this first came into play, the 800
was specifically because town had to
require at least an 800 foot unit
on smaller lots. I mean, adding another
700 square ft on top of the 800 going to
15, you know, could seem a bit much to
some neighbors, say. Um so uh but it's
up to the commission if they want to
just up the number to 1500 ft² leave it
at 1,200 reduce it below that whatever
um you may find to be adequate. Um
another thing that could be looked at is
we could hold a number for lots that are
um an acre less than an acre in size and
then properties that are larger maybe
provide those with a larger exception.
um that would have less impacts when
they have larger properties. Uh so those
are just two different ideas, but uh
there are members of the public that
have asked to increase that exception up
to 1500 square ft. And um if there's any
questions on that, you know, can let me
know. Um also, you know, again, we'll have public input and at the end
you can deliberate where you want to go
with that in particular, but there's
questions, I'm happy to answer those.
Um, so we'll discuss it later.
>> Yeah. In terms of Yeah. So if there's
questions to answer, now would be the
time. But yes, in terms of discussion,
be good to get everybody's input and
then the commission can decide where
they want to end with that item.
Okay. Um, okay. So looking at D2, this
is a new section. Um, this is out of new
state law. And what I'll do is kind of
just jump a little bit ahead to kind of
intertwine this with E1. Um, initial
some of the initial state laws that have
passed uh required cities to allow for
up to 150 square foot expansions to
provide ingress and egress when creating
a JADU. And that has been in our code.
The um state law has now been changed.
They don't explicitly call out the JADU
anymore, but they do explicitly call out
um the need for this 150 foot expansion
uh for ADUs. So, we want to make sure
that that is in our code consistent with
state law. And the language in here
is is consistent with state law.
Meaning, sometimes people are just
trying to add an extra 150 square feet,
but all they need to do is put a door
in. Um, and you know, 150 ft be a
bedroom. Um, so what we've used is the
state law language to say yes, you can
go up to the 150 square ft um, if it's
necessary. Uh, but if you're already
maxed out and you just need to carve out
a little bit area. We have some
instances people are like raising plate
heights a little bit and it's affecting
their floor area the way we do floor
area here. Um, we want to make sure that flexibility is there. So that's the
proposal using the same language uh just
to clean up the J AU stuff. We don't
want to take that away even though state
law um doesn't explicitly require it
anymore. But so this is what we proposed
for those two expansions if needed.
» So state law does not have any
requirements with this 150 at this
point. it for the JADU. It doesn't
explicitly call that out anymore, but it
does now explicitly call it out for the
ADU. Um that we have to h allow for some
expansions to create these ADUs. Um so
if someone has an attached ADU, they're
proposing. Um again, we have other
instances where people are converting
buildings and they might need to bump
out a little area. We're starting to
deal with things on hillsides that kind
of create some situations sometimes. Um,
and so this is will be consistent with
state law. Um, and so we're just making
sure we have that in our code.
>> So the the effect of this is to say you
get the 150 if you're already maxed out.
If you're not already maxed out, you
don't get the 150 because it counts
towards the TFS.
>> Correct. And you you would just get what
is just necessary to provide that
ingress egress to that unit.
>> So would would this create then an
incentive to sort of
phase construction projects in a way
that people build up to the maximum with
a it could hold back of 150 which then
leads to construction projects that last
longer.
it. If people want to phase development
in a way to get an extra 150 square
feet, that's something that could occur.
» Move on. This is all existing language
in our code.
Um, okay. So this is something that just
really hasn't been addressed in our code
um since we've been implementing ADU
ordinances
um you know ADUs. So there's this term
used basic setbacks in our code. So
that's kind of your normal setbacks that
are required you know that everyone's
kind of used to your side setbacks,
front setbacks, rear setbacks. Um
whereas everyone has kind of come to
learn now that uh you know an ADU can be
as close as four feet to a side or rear
property line. And the question starts
to become how large can those overhangs
be? Um, you know, our code currently to
put ADUs aside, um, before any of these
changes to state law, and still
currently, um, a house can have a 6-foot
encroachment into a front or rear
setback for an overhang or other types
of features like balconies, um, and go
three feet into a side or rear setback.
Well, you have an ADU that's 4T away
from a side property line. Um, you know,
how far should that be able to go into
that four feet? Um, and you know, eaves
are functional obviously for drainage in
many cases and construction and they're
also a very common design feature. You
can design things without eaves. Um, but
with that, what we wanted to do was
clarify that, you know, we've had some
people trying to do these large patio
covers with an ADU. And so, you have
this 800 square foot unit and now
they're trying to do, you know, another
700 square ft of covered patio um really
enlarging this structure. And, um, we've
really had to look at these things case
by case. And what we believe to be very
reasonable is just to clarify that once
you're starting to encroach into your
basic setbacks for an ADU and getting
closer to your neighbors properties that
you keep those um to a maximum of 18 in.
Um and so that is what is proposed for
this section five here. Um for section
six again this is just kind of another
reasonable concept you know that we've
run into with permitting ADUs over the
years. So, you know, HVAC units are most
common. Uh sometimes have people with
tankless water heaters that get attached
to the building on the exterior wall.
And um what we've done just at the staff
level, uh we've really had to just make
an interpretation call here because
we we can't deny an ADU because they
have an HVAC unit that's next to it. Um,
you know, if someone's proposing an 800
foot ADU that's 4T from a side or rear
property line, you know, you don't have
an HVAC unit that's 40t away. Um, it's
just I'm not an HVAC specialist. Um, but
my understanding it should be as close
to the building as possible. Uh, and
that so what we've done is saying, hey,
look, you can have your mechanical
equipment. It's serving this unit. It
makes sense, but you can't be any closer
than 4T to a side or rear property line.
So, we just wanted to make sure that
it's clear in the code that it is
allowed and that you just keep those
particular features um within line of
kind of the intent and spirit of the
state law to say ADUs can be as close as
4T. So, if you are in a corner where we
have two sides, one's four feet from the
side, one's four feet from the rear,
then you just need to put it on one of
the other two sides that doesn't make it
any closer than four feet to the side
property line. Um, so that's the intent
behind number six. So there's any
questions for five or six?
>> One question is how do we define
immediately adjacent?
>> Um
next to um it is against I mean we we
can define a distance of how far it can
be away. Um you know if that's preferred
we
>> within 12 inches of or something.
>> Yeah. I just you know again I'm not a an
expert in mechanical equipment. Um, I
could do a little bit of uh um further
discussion with the building department.
Um, to me, you know,
they if someone's putting something 20
ft away from it, 5t away, I mean, that's
pretty clear. It's not immediately
adjacent, but um, we'll talk to the
building department and see if it makes
sense to there. There may be some
requirement of how close it has to be.
Um, so we can look at that a little bit
closer, too. Okay.
>> Thank you.
moving right along.
It's just cleanup language, just
clarifying state law changes. We follow
the new codes.
Um, okay. So, um, this is something that
it's kind of what we were making this
change someone in relation to increasing
the the TFA uh, exception. And
currently, this was put in place in the
code um because under state law that if
you can't you can't have a local zoning
regulation that would amount to making
it infeasible for someone to construct
an 800 foot unit. And uh further it used
to um state law used to say that you
could impose a front setback. Now it has
language that you can impose a front
setback but if that makes it infeasible
to construct the unit um that the towns
h cities have to make an exception to
that. So we've in past ordinances we've
removed the the hard restriction on the
front setback. Um, and what we've looked
at is providing a little bit more
flexibility for ADUs for staff to work
with folks in unique circumstances. Um,
our our past, you know, kind of easy
example of this was saying, hey, what if
kind of the only place to put an ADU was
in a slope and nexus of 35%. You know,
staff should be able that's kind of a
local zoning thing and staff should be
able to provide some flexibility there.
Well, since then, we've changed our code
to allow ADUs to be in slopes and nexus
35%. So, that's not my go-to example
anymore. Um, but I will suggest a couple
things which also does relate to a desk
item that I'll get to at the end. Um,
that there's uh one of the more common
examples is paved area surface coverage.
Um, when you have a new ADU, at a
minimum, you have to have there's
building code requirements for landings
outside of exit doors. Um, so there's
going to have to be some type of patio,
porch, something that that meets, but if
someone's maxed out on paved area, the
town has allowed this exception in the
past based on this. Um, so that's an
area in which flexibility could be done,
but it was limited to only units that
were 800 square ft. So if someone was
proposing to do a 900 ft²,000 square
foot unit that staff would still say
still have to go do a variance for
something like that. And so what we're
trying to do and same goes with the
front setback. We have another project.
It's a great example. The house is on
the San Andreas fault. The property
behind it is a creek that splits it from
another piece of the property behind it.
And really the only place to put an ADU
is in the front setback. And so we've
worked with them under this uh exception
and consistent with state law that they
can do an 800 foot unit in that area. Um
but because that that gets them outside
of the fault zone area. And what we're
looking here is just um if uh the
commission and council agree that it
provides staff with flexibility to look
at some of our local zoning centers.
someone wants to do up to a,200 foot
unit. That gives us more,
we we could have flexibility with that
unit, not just up to 800 square f feet.
Um,
so, uh, we're just proposing to
increase, um, the flexibility that staff
can provide, uh, in I don't want to say
wave zoning standards, but modify zoning
standards, uh, when necessary, um,
because that is the feasible place to
put the ADU. So that's what this is
proposing.
» This is just to make sure they don't if
it's truly unable to be put on the fault
line,
>> then it they don't need to come to ASRB
and planning to get it approved.
>> Right. So in the case that I that I
cited, you know, right now they could do
the 800 ft into the front setback. Um,
but if this was changed the way it's
proposed, they could make that unit up
to,200 square feet as opposed to 800.
Um, so it provides a little bit more
flexibility at the staff level without
having to go through the variance
process.
>> And just to to confirm that, so we were
talking about the 800 to,200 earlier,
which is
>> what are folks titled to. This one is an
additional layer of flexibility. There's
no reason this couldn't stay at 800.
>> That's correct. That's correct.
>> They want to do a larger one. They'd
come essentially to planning for
>> That is correct. Yes. So you you know
you could still exempt more square
footage from the TFA and hold this at a
different number.
» And and how how are folks demonstrating
the infeasibility of construction?
What's the standard for that?
>> Um we we don't want to make it
overburdensome. Um so uh typically
people are going to need surveys and
typically people have surveys those will
be a big help in identifying some of the
constraints. Um when someone you know
whether it's an ADU or a house you just
can't build a new one on a fault line.
Um so people that are on or near fault
lines they're going to have to
demonstrate that anyway through
geotechnical investigations. Uh so we
look at those um pieces of information.
Uh we look at um you know
environmentally sensitive areas
primarily in Woodside where we deal with
the stream corridors. Um so those are
easily identifiable.
We'll we'll go do a site visit if
necessary to kind of look at where the
top of bank may be for um property. So
uh we we we like to keep it open because
we want it to be a low bar uh in terms
of those pro providing that it's not
feasible. Um, we had another example.
Someone else strumman showed us that
they could fit 1500 square feet um, you
know, outside of a front setback, but
now they want to just move that into the
front setback. And well, I'm saying,
well, you just showed us that you could
put it you could meet the front setback,
so I don't so that is not a problem. Um
so so we try to just keep it very simple
at those kind of basic issues. Uh steep
slopes uh faults um and environmentally
sensitive areas tend to be the biggest
constraints.
» And so as they're going through the
process it's a matter of they they they
make this case directly to
>> that's correct.
>> They're kind of a stage gate like how
does that
>> Yeah. No. So the, you know, I mean,
sometimes people can just show up one
day and never talk to us and put on
their plans and here's my reasoning. Um,
but we encourage people to meet with us
and often we'll meet with folks once if
not many times. And so, um, yes, if they
have some issue, hey, look, you want to
put it here. sometimes it's the only
place they can put the septic system to
serve the ADU whereas okay you could fit
the ADU there but now you can't put the
septic system anywhere else because it
can only be in that location and so
that's another thing that we kind of
look at with folks um so yeah we try to
just be very open and reasonable with
people um and providing um you know that
they'll explain their situations to us
and like I said we're happy to do site
visits and whatever we can to help u
make it very clear um And you know it's
also very clear when we make that
determination if the neighbor has a
concern we can say this is how we got to
that.
>> And so it mentions the planning director
shall determine which regulations may be
written.
>> Is is it also true that the
basically if if the planning director
determines it is not feasible. That's
also your call.
>> That's correct. Right. So you're you're
showing that it's not feasible and we'll
concur with that or we'll say wait you
can fit that size unit here. So now
there's more if we up the square footage
there's more flexibility for that for
there's there's the same flexibility for
a larger unit.
Okay, makes sense. Um sorry a lot of my
comments are having having gone through
processes and just trying to understand
the the precision. it might be useful
here to specify that it's a planning
director call on that and um I don't
know if there's if there's something
about what feasibility means or what
folks are supposed to present um that's
probably helpful because I think like
for variances it's quite clear usually
like there's a form etc like how does
one determine feasibility would probably
be quite helpful to applicants
Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, so we're
going to move on here to the number of
ADUs on a property. Um so as many may
recall um what came out of part of the
housing element was that on properties
that are an acre or larger that the town
would allow amend our codes to allow
uh three ADUs and a JDU so a total of
four ADUs on a property plus a house. um
that was in a very specific I believe
the the state uh HCD was looking for us
to just implement that into the SR
district and um when we moved that
through the process um I definitely know
at the council level and I think at the
planning commission as well but there
was um saying hey look if we're going to
allow this for lots of a certain size we
should just allow it on all lots of that
size and so that's what the town did so
the town went a little bit beyond what
the state had required of
and allowed uh these three ADUs plus a
J8U on uh parks that are an acre or
larger. So there's a part of the
government code known as government code
section 66323.
Um the state will often refer to these
as stateex exempt ADUs.
And
under this state code, every property
has to allow three ADUs in this these three different types. So one is a
JADU
and one is you have to allow a
conversion of space. So that could be a
conversion of a storage building, a
detached garage, a barn as we noted with
our last amendment. Um it could be a
conversion of part of your residence. Um
and so this is a conversion of space.
The state you have to allow the JADU.
You have to allow the conversion of
space. And then the third one is one
we've kind of been accustomed to is that
every property has to be allowed to have
at least one de new detached ADU that's
uh can be 800 square ft and 16 ft tall
and as close as 4t to a side or rear
property line. So, we've changed our
code to make sure it's clear that people
can implement that type of unit. Um,
that type of unit doesn't get held to
the 11 foot plate height limit, just
gets to go up to the 16 ft. And what
we've done here with this section of the
code, um, because the code currently
allows folks to have one JADU and one
attached or detached ADU,
we're saying if people want to be
consistent with state law with these
three types of JADs that are quote
unquote the stateex exempt ADUs, they
can have those three units because it is
allowed by state law. Um and so we you
know the town could just say everyone's
allowed to you know those pro those
smaller properties can have more that's
another option. Um what we were doing as
we've kind of done with this is trying
to provide more flexibility taking
somewhat smaller steps um incremental
steps to be careful of how impactful it
could be to neighboring properties. Um
and so uh so we're explicitly clarifying
although it says one Jedu and one
attached or detached if you want the
three you follow what is allowed by the
government code section.
So that is the proposal for this
particular
>> that's an asterct. Is there is the
asterk up higher?
>> Um no I appreciate the point that's an
asterct and like no this is oh sorry yes
that thank you because you're very point
it's very important to always have the
asterct. So yes it is right here. Yeah.
No no you don't want to have just an
asterisk without whatever. So um that
yes that's the placement of it.
So they get this limitation to JDU and
one detached or attached. But there's
this asterct saying if you're following
what's allowed by government code, you
can have the three.
So um this number six is just to also
clarify um what's allowed by section
66323 which um what I just mentioned.
So, um, if people are, uh, converting a
portion of their main dwelling,
someone could convert a barn, 3,000 foot
barn to an ADU.
Under 66323,
the
um, it doesn't specify the size in which
you can convert a building. So, with a
main residence,
someone could say, "I want to convert
3,000 out of my 8,000 foot house into an
ADU." And under 66323,
that would be allowed.
What we're stating here is if someone
has already used that conversion under
66323,
they can still have an attached ADU, but
it can't be larger than 1500 square ft.
So they wouldn't do the conversion of
the 3000 and add the 1500 foot attached
ADU. That's the primary example what
this is getting at. Um so uh so because
we have standards in our code for
attached ADUs. Um that's a little bit
further down but that that's the that's
the point of what this is doing here.
saying, "Hey, look, you can convert
larger spaces. That's allowed, but
can't convert multiple large spaces."
Um, so if you want that additional
attached ADU, you would follow the
maximum standard for that attached ADU
since you've already converted
over that. If you converted an,000 ft
building to an ADU and it meets code,
that wouldn't impact this.
is just clarification language of
the proper code sections being
referenced.
Um this is uh I mean straight out of
state law. We're just clarifying and
making sure that everything here um is
consistent with the state law.
Just again clarifications.
So, um this is our our last piece of the
um proposed ordinance. Um
through the housing element, uh we have
a program that look at developing some
type of amnesty program for ADUs, uh
unpermitted ADUs and how they can be
legalized.
And
from a planning standpoint, it's it's
been a bit of a struggle to figure out
how best to implement something like
that because a lot of what we've already
built into our code makes it pretty easy
and straightforward to convert a
building. So, if someone had a detached
garage, even under our laws, if you've
converted a garage, you don't have to
replace the parking. Um, and so from a
zoning standpoint, a lot of the
conversion issues have already been
addressed. Um what it the the struggle
has been really with um ensuring people
that have done something that's
unpermitted that they comply with
building code regulations.
And you know we could say it's okay to
convert your garage into an ADU. You've
already done it. Now come in for
permits. Zoning wise it's pretty clear
we almost have nothing to look at. um
but then they get hit with the building
code requirements and that's been a real
um problem for folks. And so in 2024
uh the state passed what was known as AB
2533
since been replaced just for a
reumbering. Um but uh it is now this new
government code section 66311.7.
And what we're doing here is that's state law. It needs to be
implemented. There is for units that
were constructed prior to January 2020.
I know people will question how do you
always identify when it was built if
something was unpermitted. Um
there's certain building techniques that
the building department will look at,
but that the town has a checklist. Um,
in terms there's still a level of health
and safety requirements that need to be
met, but uh, it may not require every
little detail that would say be for new
construction today. And that checklist
has been developed. Um, we have a member
of the public here who's actually been
really great and builds ADUs and helps
us go through some of this stuff and has
different examples. Um, and she can
maybe speak to that too tonight. Uh but
there's we are we want to ensure that we
are implementing that process. So it's
primarily a building department function
from the planning department standpoint.
We are working with the building
department to make sure that function is
in place and that we try to make it as
clean and smooth as possible. Um
we just simply wanted to just like our
preapproval program that we did
previously. We wanted to keep the
language very simple. We wanted to make
sure that it is functional and that the
building department um makes sure it
implements the laws, but we have some
flexibility to continue working on the
process and make it as clear as
possible. Um we do have some desk items
that spoke to that tonight. And
um the one the one suggestion that came
out of those desk items um was asking
for uh the town uh to pro to be able to
provide a building uh building inspector
inspection of the unit prior. Um it's
very good point. you know, if you know,
once you spend a bunch of money
designing plans and then you realize you
have other stuff that you have to figure
out and that's just going way beyond
what you ever thought you were going to
have to do.
Um people who want to enter this process
in good faith uh and legalize these
unpermitted units uh should have some
mechanism to help minimize any um down
the road problems that that may have
been unforeseen initially. The state law
does state uh does indicate that um that
jurisdictions
um basically have to allow they don't
have to they can't require it, but they
have to allow uh for property owners to
come in with a third-party general
contractor inspection. So, someone can
go hire a general contractor on their
own. They can use the checklist that the
town provides and they can provide them
with feedback. I believe what is in in
so that's in place. People are allowed
to do that. They can always hire someone
on their own. Um I believe what is being
suggested in the desk items we received
tonight was actually having a town
inspector go out there. Um and
you know to me it's it's something talk
with the building department. We look at
capacity. We look at is should there be
a cost associated with it? And I look at
this more of a policy decision. Um so
it's something that uh you know with the
desk items and if the town on the
planning commission would like us to to
talk with the council further is to
bring this to the town council and
indicate
you know what that might cost the town
to do. Does the town want to implement a
cost for that? Currently we wave most
building permit fees for ADUs. Um but
and I'll note that our building
inspectors are contract building
inspectors. Um and so we really look at
this as a policy decision. Does the town
want to um
look at that cost and capacity uh is
really the two questions. So do our
building inspectors have capacity? Is
that just a matter of um expanding the
contract uh with the current company
that holds the building inspections? Um,
but I I would suggest it's not something
that we should necessarily codify. Uh,
so it gives the town the flexibility to
implement things like this. Um, but to put in our code that the town shall
provide a building inspection, I really
think it's a um a good policy decision
for the town council. Uh, if that's
something they want to implement, they
could do that by resolution. Uh, and it
wouldn't have to be codified. and every
time it gets changed, we have to change
the code.
>> Are there actually any penalties for
having one and not getting it permitted?
>> Um, it's a good question. So, if
someone's following this process, no.
Um, you know, typically prior to this
process, um, if someone builds something
uh without permits, um, it could incur
three times the permit fee. Um, should
note we wave most of the permit fees for
ADUs. So,
>> three times zero. Okay.
>> Um, so, so the town does not have
significant fines uh for anything like
this.
» I agree with you on the on the no need
to put in the code thing. I mean, this
does seem like a town policy of I think
we kind of want these, right? We want
people to permit them and get them in
their numbers.
>> Um, and so almost like having a
international amnesty for anybody
>> and and some sort of onbudsmanship to
get them to the point where they're
coded safe that
>> Yeah. No, that that's the point. uh it increases more housing, legitimate
housing as well as safer housing. So um
for that reason, the goal is really to
try to continually, you know, make this
uh easier.
>> Do you guys know where they are?
>> No, I No, I would say no. Um you know,
we if if there is a complaint that comes
in, the code enforcement process has
started. Um and that's simply to get
someone into compliance.
The question I have based on and based
on the desk item and so someone comes
forth goes into this program
they get hit with a set of code code
issues the cost spirals are they able to
pull back or it's once they've started
the process
>> it's a good question uh so we had
someone come in uh prior to this state
law being in place um they just want to
come in hey you guys need adus I'll do
that and they've
uh they've come in, they, you know, had
some issues. They were drawing the plans
themselves. They still needed to come up
to certain building code requirements.
Um I did reach out to them since it's
been in place. I don't know. I think
they may have sold their property, but
um it wasn't a code enforcement case. It
wasn't something that was an inquiry
that was brought to the town for
enforcement. Um so because of that, the
town is reactive to inquiries. We did
not pursue code enforcement.
If there's health and safety violations
that the town is made aware of, building
department will look at those to ensure
that those are corrected.
We're looking at, you know, you want to
make sure there's not wiring hanging out
everywhere, things of that nature.
Just one policy question that occurs to
me with respect to the prospect of the
building department going out and doing
pre-insspection
of unpermitted ADUs
is
in in in addition to whether
uh um um there would be a charge for
this service, it would be also whether
it would just be a verbal report by the
inspector or if a written report is
provided and then also
if that written report is going to by
its existence
um be an implicit statement by the
building department or the town on
limiting the scope of the required
changes
because it sort of um
I mean doing renovations it's a big can
of worms So,
um um scope creep is always an issue.
And is the town be um going to be on the
hook if the building inspector initially
said something didn't have to be done
and then
um things changed?
>> Yeah. No, I I I So, from what I hear is
would that say I don't have to fix
something that I didn't see behind the
wall? And I think the answer is no.
there's still a possibility that you may
have to fix more. Uh there are certain
things that would not be inspected um
like things that are behind a wall when
someone opens up a wall uh to make
certain modifications. So there are a
lot of in the checklist kind of call you
know there's some uh um the right word
not caveats necessarily but uh it would
the inspection is based on what was seen
and inspected and people will need to be
aware that there could be additional
items uh that could come into play that
just aren't identifiable by that
inspection.
So, so that goes through the proposals.
Um, I do want to s question on actually
the prior one before we got here, which
was
>> in bottom of page 13.
>> Owner occupancy is required in any
residence that contains a junior ADU
except as described below.
So if you build a J jadu,
you have to stay in your house for life.
>> No. Um the owner of the property has to
live in one of the units. So if you sell
your property that the own whoever owns
the property has to live in one of the
two units. So if right so if if somebody
say I I build a JDU
I have a job requirement that brings me
to Chicago
I have to sell the house
>> or you wouldn't rent out the JADU
>> can't rent out the JADU can rent out the
rest of the
>> because the JDU will be part of the
house it's always part of the house um
it's the JDU is something that gets can
be closed off Um, so that's kind of the
idea of JADUs that, you know, you have a shared door that you can
close. Even a JADU, you don't have to
have its own bathroom. Um, a JADU can
actually share a bathroom with the rest
of the house. Um, and so the the idea of
J8s when they first came up is that I
have this extra bedroom. I can close it
off and I can put in this little
efficiency kitchen and then so that way
it just turns into the house.
>> Yeah, I think I'm just struggling with
the language on this because it it
really reads maybe it's just me, but it
reads as if
the fact that there's a Jadu requires
that owner occupancy is required for the
life of this structure,
which seems problematic.
» Understood. We'll look at that a little
bit closer. Um the the intent is that
you don't you don't rent out two units,
the JDU and the house that you have
someone on site.
this one. Well, it is part of this comes
out of the state law which is why you
get into these requirements about
government agencies and land trust and
um so I'll look at a couple things at
one to make sure that this is more clear
and then two if the town wants to pursue
it maybe saying hey we just don't even
want to have this requirement in place
um if I'll double check it may be that
the state law doesn't require that you
have that in place and so I'll look at
one making this more clear shall we keep
it in place and two Is there the option
to just remove the requirement
completely? Um, and if that's an option,
we'll present that as well.
>> Makes sense. Yeah, I think that the
clarification that would be helpful
would be I think exactly what you said,
which is it also wouldn't be required if
the owners I'm not going to say this
right, but the owner is not trying to
rent out two units, right? Like if they
can rent out the whole thing
uh
but not carve it up. Yep.
So um
okay so what I'd like to also now just
to um continue with is
we've received a few desk items um that
were not uh directly interwoven with
what we were doing today
and uh I'd like to bring up a couple and
thankfully Steve Patrick is here tonight
so we can help um bring up his items. He
brought up two items. Um one was related
to paved area and uh possibly allowing a
larger exception for paved area related
to ADUs. Uh so a very good question.
It's actually something thought about.
Um we as I noted a little bit earlier
that that wouldn't be a restriction in
and of itself to construct an ADU. we
have that flexibility. Uh but um during
deliberation, if the the planning
commission would like us to actually
carve out, he suggested 1500 square ft
of additional paved area, um we'd be
happy to explore that further and bring
that back. Uh if we want to look at some
specific uh additional square footage of
exemption that's directly related to the
construction of an ADU, um we're don't
have any significant concern for that. I
think the I think it's a great point and
very needed. Um my question would be do
you have any data as to what would be
needed?
>> That's a very good question. That's
something we could provide. Like I said,
you know, it will it will change, right?
So I think I think it's like you have to
have at least by like a three foot out
landing from your doors and so there's
certain things like that. But if you
only have two small doors, maybe that's
>> But it also includes the driveway,
>> right? There's certain things. I mean,
you don't necessarily have to have a
driveway all the way up to an ADU. Um,
you know, so there's certain things, but
what we could just look at is, you know,
you look at, okay, let's say someone has
a, you know, a 10x4 walkway for, you
know, that distance and then has roughly
some additional square footage around an
ADU. Um, you know, the town can just
make a decision that it wants to make
sure you get at least the minimum and
could go up to
whatever seems to be a reasonable square
footage. Uh so we can come back with a
little bit more clarification on what
some bare minimums might look like. Uh
and then you know what a little bit more
reasonable maybe you know okay you have
your landing outside your door but maybe
they should be allowed a 9 by9 patio or
something like that you know. Um
>> separate question from all the stuff I
had a question around garages for ADUs.
Has anybody tried to add a garage to
ADU?
>> So, a garage to an ADU is a couple
things to look at. So, talking about a
detached ADU, the town still has a limit
of 1500 square ft of a an accessory
structure. Um, so if someone wanted to
uh use part of that accessory structure
limit as a garage, they would have a
smaller ADU or they could just have a
garage right next to their 1500 foot
structure um that wouldn't be part of
separate.
>> So it's a it's a matter of does the town
want to allow for larger structures
um that would include garages? It's
something that uh we h it it hasn't
people have asked about in the past but
it hasn't become any significant hurdle
or challenge to someone building an ADU.
>> If we if we talk about a 1500
it's a discussion item.
>> Sure. I mean, one one thing I'll just
note is that
to have a structure with an ADU and it's
larger, someone builds a garage, they
may come in later and say, "You have to
allow me to convert that garage into
part of my ADU."
So, it's it's the balance of trying to
provide some reasonable,
you know,
>> there's also a balance of rats eating
wiring.
>> Yep. Understood. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah.
The town
>> 1500 foot like my house when I bought it
was 1,400 bedrooms. We had a twoar shed
>> y sort of thing. So
>> they're actually making a living unit
for a separate family.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's definitely something we
can think about more. Um and yeah, under
deliberation if that's something you
want us to look at increasing the sizes,
uh we can bring that back as well.
Um so so that's one item that was
brought up by uh Mr. Patrick. Um the
other item is something that he's
actually brought up in the past and um
we did think about this definitely. Uh
we we last time we amended the code, we
looked at amending we did amend the code
to allow for taller ADUs on downward
sloping lots from from public rightways.
And
um he's brought up the the point of well
you should allow on ups sloping lots
too. And one of the examples that I
think I most grasp from this is you have
a driveway kind of leading up to a
flatter area on this ups sloping lot.
You have this ADU that's kind of you
know now inward facing towards this
flatter part but they're now on this
downward slope and the downward slope is
facing the right of way. Shouldn't that
be allowed to be taller? Um, I really
appreciate actually that he's also
provided some suggested code language.
That's always very helpful for us to
kind of understand how that could work.
Um, this is something that, you know, if
the if the commission would like us to
explore further, I would. Uh, I some of
the just a little bit hesitation and why
it didn't make it into this um go around
was,
you know, you could talk about it just
based on a size of a property. Um, the
real intent was to be careful of
allowing very tall ADUs that are very
visible and imposing from the rightway
or sometimes to a neighboring property
and
just the size of the property sometimes
may not be the answer. Um, maybe
distance from a property line. Um, maybe
really looking at the the height of it,
you know, should it be allowed to be as
tall in the back? um what should go
should be allowed to go into that space
at the bottom. Um the way we did the
downward sloping lots, we said that we
don't take our plate height multiplier
measurement on the downward sloping
lots. If the lower level is not for
living space, um but if you want to make
it living space, it's okay. But we're
going to then use the multiplier and
that's going to go into the overall size
of that building. I think it would be
good to look at because when I built
mine um it was really hard to fit in the
plate height and my the 80 was still
below my front door.
>> Yeah.
>> Base of it. So it like it
>> there was a lot of Yeah.
>> lot of squeezing that had to happen.
>> So yeah. So
>> very short garage and a very short
>> Yep.
>> house. Yep. Understood. So So yeah. So
it's definitely a point. I think you
know I really appreciate the code and
I'd actually start to the suggestion if
the commission wants to look at that.
start with that and then look at, you
know, maybe providing a couple of guard
rails that the commission may want to
consider. Um, but that that was just the
main initial concern was, okay, let's
make sure that this works for what we're
intending it for.
>> Look at that further.
>> Going back to the you mentioned more
paved area
>> where where is that? I didn't see that
in the letter.
>> Oh, he had he submitted a second one.
There's two letters. Yes. Yeah. So, he
made me a a second email that actually
just came in right before the meeting
and I I'm pretty sure everyone got a
copy of it.
>> Um,
>> just came in.
>> Well, no, I'm sorry. It should Yeah. So,
yeah. Yeah. So, um, so yes. No, he
brought that up as well and and you
know, it's paved. He even brought it up.
He even kind of specifically mentioned,
you know, on our SCP lots, most of them
are allowed a 9,000 square foot minimum.
Um, I'm sorry, maximum for paved area.
And so, uh, you know, looking at some
additional clearcut paved area exemption
for ADUs. Be happy to look at that if
the commission would like us to.
Um, and then I do want to mention um
this other desk item. Uh, it's, uh,
comes in from Steve Luben. Um, I really
commend him for this idea. I totally
understand where he's coming from. Um
he's he's talked about looking at uh all
of the R1 zoning in a similar way to how
it was changed for the Glenn's. The
Glenn's is in an R1 zoning district and
as many are aware, I'm sure at least two
of you directly are aware given the
detailed um hearings we went through
then um that you know should something
like that or just immediately apply that
to all the R1 districts in town and that
could help provide some more flexibility
for ADUs. Uh so while I do think it's a
it's something worth exploring, it's a
little bit outside of the realm that's
directly related to ADUs. It's a little
bit larger of a process. U we want to
look at, you know, the different R1
areas. Uh but a point well taken. Um you
know, I I just don't know how it would
totally weave into this ordinance.
>> Yeah, that that makes sense. It was also
interesting there the um the size of the
lots in Palm Circle are also
non-conforming to me. It was it was kind
of another glands in a lot of ways.
>> It is. It is. No. And you look at the
Emerald Lake Hills, they have an R1 area
which shares a lot of the similar areas.
And then some of our other R1 areas are
kind of right here in the main town
corridor. Get over to by Prospect
Street. Um, and so it's definitely worth
looking into, but I think it's a little
bit needs a little bit more holistic
approach to it.
So with that, that concludes my
presentation. Um, and think we've gone
through the questions. If you have any
other additional questions this time,
otherwise we can roll up to public and
then we can go back to deliberation for
more questions if you have any.
» All right, we will go ahead and open uh
public comment then. Is there are there
members of the public here in the room
or on Zoom who would like to make a
comment?
» I'll go first.
>> Good evening. I'm Steve Patrick. I live
at 732 West Glway Lake. Congratulations,
Chairgar, on the appointment as
chairman. Quite a few years ago, I sat
there and it's, you know, I don't it was
I was going to say thankless, but it's
not. I mean it uh
>> after today
>> you got to put your fingerprints on
everything for a while and then it's great that all of you do the public
service thing. That's what's needed in
this town and in all towns and all
communities. So appreciate all your work
on that uh as missionaries. Um actually
just kind of piggybacking on what Sage
just went over the two points I had and
I think he was pretty clear. I think
that um there should be some provision
for the UPS sloped lots and if there's
enough as he says guard rails and I kind
of pointed out potential guard rails
that would be there like the lot should
be big enough and actually even in the
way it's written now um with the
provision for setbacks that structure
would have to follow actually setbacks
not ADU setbacks so it couldn't be you
know 4T from the back property line or
four feet from the side property line.
It would have to follow all normal
setbacks and uh you know I actually the
reason it really came to light was we're
working on a project and it's the the
driveway goes all the way up to the back
of the property and then from the
property it does slope down to the
street but the ADU would be well within
the or well beyond the 50ft front
setback. So it's no more imposing than
even a you know the main house the main
residence could be. It just happens to
be the way this was configured over the
last probably 40 50 years. So it seems
there should be some provision to allow
something with kind of unique
circumstance and actually uh you know
sites that are 35% it is somewhat
unique. I mean, they're they're there
and seems like they're uh more con the
more constrained sites are starting to
appear as building sites now with ADUs.
So, uh having done this for 40 years in
town, I realized that this ADU provision
is really opening up the possibility for
people to, you know, have family homes
and, you know, uh expand that
possibility. The other one that kind of
came up and I apologize that I didn't
get it as a desk item sooner, but it was
kind of late in the day and I just kind
of realized that, you know, we actually
was discussed in great length about
second driveways. Well, how do you do a
second driveway if you're primarily I
said an SPC site where you're only
allowed 9,000 square feet and if you
have a driveway that has to go up and
then you brought up the fire department
requirement that you have to do a
turnaround in front of your new ADU
because you got to be so far and it's
really impossible. So what you have to
look at investigating is well we'll tear
out their front walkway and we'll tear
out the pool patio and we'll put gravel
around this and it's just seems like
it's not the intent as if you're going
to allow ADUs and you're going to allow
second driveways and I don't want to say
going to allow I think it's wonderful
that we're allowing ADUs second
driveways and actually four ADUs on a
property plus the main house and then
still limit the uh impervious surface
area to 9,000 ft on an SCP lot. It it
really doesn't calculate. And uh so I'd
love it to have you consider that. I
think the work that's uh staff has done
and all your deliberations, it's
wonderful. I appreciate it. Um and as
Sage pointed out, there is an
opportunity to kind of work this over the next month, which is useful. It
doesn't have to be a knee-jerk reaction.
and said, "No, we just can't absorb that
much at this time." I think it's really
worthwhile that, you know, Sage is going
to be able to rework some verbiage in
there and make it work for more people
in town to have, you know, enjoy family
properties. So, thanks for your time and
your consideration.
» Good evening. I'm Carrie Diller, 50
Prospect, uh, homeowner and ADU owner. I
also am the founder of Inspired ADUs,
uh, a architecture firm focused on ADUs.
I think we've just permitted over 300 in
the Bay Area and we have 13 active going
in Woodside. Um, it's been amazing
working with Sage and the team um, to
get those going, interpret this crazy
state law that's changing every few
minutes. Um, so I just wanted to give a
couple other points for consideration as
you start your debate on the up on the
topics we've discussed tonight. So the
second driveway is super uh I think it's
a super important thing to make these um
units really function improve the fire
access. Um that's a real big point. So,
I think a simple clarity of of trying to
add more ADUs and not limiting the
driveway to only serving one ADU or
saying specifically what it should be
serving, uh, I think would be great.
Just a simple clarification of that code
at that number three. Uh, the 150 foot
exemption to add on for egress and
ingress is a strange one that came about
a long time ago, but we are actually
seeing um the need for it, especially
with some of the barn conversions we're
doing in town. in order to not change
the footprint and the integrity of the
barn, but to make it a usable, habitable
place. Um, that weird little code is
actually proving to be helpful in a lot
of ADUs we're doing because the state
limited that code to ingress and egress.
It's a little more hard to manipulate
and make it into these extra bedrooms
and things. And I think we are seeing
historically through the years of of
permitting it to use that it is helping
um if it helps at all on the mechanical
equipment. Typically those mini split
systems are about 6 in off a unit and
can be up to about 20 ft for the line
set. So you have some play in terms of
what's immediate and not if that's
helpful. Um
I would also support uh raising that 800
uh to 1,200 in regard to the flexibility
that the planning department has for
lots. Um it was the second upgrade from
the 8 to 1200. Um there are a lot of
lots in Woodside that have really unique
like our home for example is a flag lot.
So although we have a large parcel the
area where we can do units based on
septic and then the fire overlay. So
fire department has requirements in
terms of how um far you can go to be
reached by a fire truck to make the
project viable. Um and so sometimes
putting those units closer to the front
or in the front yard is improving
overall life safety and I don't think is
necessarily um making a problematic
architectural contribution. And I think
if the planning director and department
have a say on that that moving that to
1,200 is is an excellent thing to do. Um
and then finally on the legalization, thing has been very
complicated and there's a real gap uh
between actually getting units legalized
and what the state's done so far. The
state has made a long checklist. There's
a short checklist and a long checklist.
But what they did as they often do is
leave a lot of ambigu ambiguity in the
language. So it says that the authority
having jurisdiction in terms of the
inspectors can approve something if it
if the health and wellness and life
safety of the occupants is not harmful.
So it's um very difficult. The current
process we've been going through is that
a client has to hire us. We have to
design the whole thing then submit it to
the town. Then we get feedback from
building which is asking us to x-ray
slabs or prove that there's
waterproofing or appropriate rebar.
Well, we have several structures from
the 40s and 50s that obviously are not
going to have any of those things. And
if the clients are required to scrape
the whole thing, lift it up, put in a
new foundation, they're not going to
legalize it. So, um there is a lot of
other ways that inspectors could go out
in the field. I do think it could be
something that's a paid for service that
could either then be reimbured if you
permit the unit or just be a paid for
service because um people are living in
these units. Fire department doesn't
necessarily know they're there. Um
you're not necessarily getting tax
assessment on them for the tax income.
Uh, and there are a lot of things that
this inspection could catch like faulty
wiring, like plumbing or uh limited
windows or doors for life safety that
could be improved. But there are some
considerable things that if a slab isn't
cracked, if there's no water
infiltration, if it looks sound and
whole and people have been living there
for 20 years, that it's probably okay to
keep going. So, um I think it's not a
planning, but if the uh planning
commission made a recommendation to city
council that they adopt something like
this, it could really there are a lot of
illegal units um in Woodside. And I
think it would be a great way to get
your numbers up, but also just make
healthier living for people um and make
it reasonable because otherwise they're
too intrepidacious to to move forward.
Um thank you. And I also support Steve's
um ideas of ex extending the paving and
thinking about the slope sites. We're um
we're just working on one on Glenn Craig
this morning that could use a little
help on that one. So, thank you very
much.
>> One one followup question maybe to to
Sage or or or yourself. The fire
department requirements for is that
distance from a road to the structure or
that hasn't come up in any of the
projects. So, there's a couple different
pieces with fire. There's a distance
from the hydrant to the property. And
then there's a distance from where the
fire truck can come onto the property or
park. And then there's a a hose distance
from the fire truck where the hose has
to get to the rear side of the ADU.
>> So, if that exceeds 150 ft, uh, so
there's a bunch of different numbers.
they'll save you the the but if either
of those two things get exceeded you can
require hydrant which makes some
projects not plausible for clients andor
um fire sprinklers or both or a fire
turnaround which some properties don't
support. So it it can really limit kind
of the area of where you could actually
build an ADU which you don't necessarily
see at the planning side of things.
Yeah.
For those online, please use a raise
hand feature if you'd like to make a
comment.
I see no raised hands
comments in the room.
All right, that we will go ahead and
close public comment and move on to
commissioner deliberation. So, we have a
lot of things go through. Uh maybe we'll
go sort of one by one the same same way
that that that Sage had done for the
initial presentation. And
Sage, can can we do something where
you're helping take notes of where do we
land on each issue and then we do motion
at the end?
>> Sure. Yeah. Yeah. No, I think we can go
through each issue and maybe get a straw
poll um from the commission. It's worth
moving forward and then Yes.
>> And then we do a
we do one of these things where you read
out the laundry list and
>> Sounds good.
>> Down we go. We don't we don't have to
decide language today.
>> No, it Yeah. What you'll do is give us a
motion um you'll be providing a motion
with direction to staff um to come back
with specific items.
>> So we would make
>> Yeah.
>> So it'll sort of ratify the
recommendations.
>> Those are things that we'll come back
with and we'll we'll renotice it for the
public when that when that we nail down
the date. We we'd shoot for the second
meeting in May. Okay.
>> All right.
So in that case, let's go back to
>> and I could even just, you know, what
I've taken so far and just as we go
through a section. So the first item we
were talking about was the second
driveways. Um we wanted to look at um
that
uh one that it can serve more than one
proposed ADU. Um so we want to make sure
that that's clarified. Um and then also
we want to make sure that
uh that there's more flexibility um in
the language specifically in the finding
number three uh that would
if there's kind of incidental access to
another building um that wouldn't be
something that would hold it up or also
even if it connects to some other
circulation system on the property that shouldn't be a limitating factor.
folks. So, deliberation wise, do we all
>> I'm supportive of those?
>> I'm good. Additional that.
>> Okay,
» supportive. Any any additional things we
want to add to that?
>> Okay,
>> great.
>> All right, let's move on. The next one
um was just going into our definitions
um and that was looking at more of the
clarification of uh the permanent stove
um versus a non-permanent cooking
facility. We'll look at see how we we'll
talk to the building department see if
there's any more clarification that we
can make that a little bit better.
>> Perfect.
>> Everyone good with that?
>> Okay.
And we hit the 150.
No, excuse me. The 1,200.
>> Yeah. So, the there the question is um
and I don't know that we got any real
significant feedback on that. Um was
that right now we're proposing to exempt
up to 1,200. So, the first question is
should we exempt it up to,200? Um or do
you want to increase that up to 1500? Uh
if you wanted to increase it higher than
1,200, um you know, do you want to say
yeah, that's okay, but maybe only for
properties that are an acre or larger.
Um, so those were some of the ideas
floated.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So I actually like the
concept of 1500 because that says one
big bedroom, two small bedrooms. So
family, two kids uh would fit that.
That's the size of our house when we
first bought it. Um 1,500 would have
been hard to put into my Glenn's lot. Um
we put in eight. Eight. eight was a big
1,200 wouldn't have really fit. 1,500
definitely wouldn't fit. So, so I I
think that for those that can have
1,200, maybe that that is a ceiling for
smaller lots and then 1,500 for the
bigger lots maybe something I'd toss out
there. That's that see it seems
reasonable. I mean, if if if the whole
town, if you're a SR, whatever what the
one is, if that's up to 1500, why not
have that be consistent across the code
for all the large lots?
Um,
>> and this one, ju just to make sure we're
all on the same page. This is not You
can still build an ADU up to 1500,
right? This is about the the increased
TFA.
>> Yes.
I kind of think that the town wants it
seems like we we're all leaning towards
making their first ADU free from a TFA
point of view. Um and so if the large
lots can make 1500 then fits then why
not? The small lots I just don't think
it'll fit
with a Houston house.
I would actually am in the strange
position of wanting to keep it at 1,200
because as was pointed out um I mean
1500 square feet that's one master two
smaller bedrooms that could hold a
family of four. There are lots of
tracked houses in the East Bay and in
Redwood City that fit that description.
And
that sort of
calling that an edu seems like a really
bit of a stretch.
If you have a property that's already
been developed and maxed out on TFA
for the main residence or whatever,
giving essentially being able to drop an
extra track home in there, I can see
from an affordable housing and policy
standpoint
that
at one level that's desirable,
but on the other hand, It is essentially
we're talking about dropping another
small home rather than an ADU on there.
And if you're planning a building site,
if you want to
drop an additional 300 square ft of TFA
elsewhere, you know, like give up a
garage space or give up a pool house or
whatever, so that you're not maxed out.
then you can have your 1500 square feet.
Um, it's not an issue that
is
make or break for me, but my inclination
would be to limit it to 1,200.
» Yeah, it's interesting. I'm thinking
back to all the the Glenn's hearings
that we had at Sage. you brought all the
great memories back of of all the time
here spent and and it's I mean if we if
we also think about the mulative
what what have we added up over time
it's actually it is quite a bit I will
absolutely admit I was one of the people
pushing for flexibility in the Glenns
it's interesting so I mean let's just
take an example right like 7,000T lot
would have been
a 1700T home you we added 400 for a
garage plus Um I think 800 for the ADU
plus this is now sort of going to say it
would be another if we did go to 1500
another 700
to your point Darren these like fill up
>> right and and they they fill up with
things as they are before adding more
square footage. I think we want to be I
just think we want to be mindful of kind
of to Ly to your point like once there
is that much on a small lot it does
start to
>> what do we
sorry I think back there it was like can
you fit even a family on the lot right
um and then I think we're now it's
definitely getting to be a lot
>> is is there is there a guard rail on uh
you know % of lot has a house footprint
on it.
>> Um the Woodside does not have like a lot
coverage, a building coverage only in
the commercial district but not in
residential. There's just your floor
area limit.
>> It seems like that might be a way to
constrain uh so we don't have know two
square feet around the edge of the
property that's that's grass and
everything else is a building which I
think is not our goal.
So with with the state mandates
I think maybe quite so if you have
multiple ADUs so we're talking about
three four on a site
>> those are on eight lots that are giant
right
>> not necessarily right so if you add up
multiple ADUs that each have say a 4
foot setback is each one of these
subject
>> and I'll just remind folks to just if
you speak into the microphones more just
for folks online
>> yeah so so is each one subject object to
town setbacks at that point or
>> Yeah. So what what the town has allowed
is, you know, up to 800 into the setback
and then this could with this change
could allow up to 1,200 into the setback
um
>> in into the town setback.
>> That's the other the other ones there.
There's all these other different state
laws, but generally speaking, let's say
you want to do three detached ADUs, one
of them could go into the basic setback.
The other two would meet the setback.
>> Only one could. Yeah. Um, and so just to the point, this is again we're
looking at exempting floor area. So now
if someone gets more square footage
exempt from their ADU, so they already
have 1500 square feet, they can now add
more square footage onto their house.
>> And so so it's, you know, it's that
balance and that's why we didn't go to
the full 1500 trying to look at this
incremental step um to allow more
exemption. That was something that was
asked for. Uh but we thought kind of
adding you know 50% more.
>> Yeah. But they they they can't expand
the main residence
without doing the they can use
>> correct. Yeah. Yes.
>> Have the ADU to get
>> correct. You only get to exempt it from
the ADU. But just say someone's maxed
out now with a 1500 foot ADU. Um you
know you'll getting more exemption.
Now you'll be counting less. that I can
easily envision people that come in and
they'll do a doover and they'll
redevelop a property where they come up
right to the limit on floor area and
paved area, no edus. Then they'll come
back and they're essentially adding a
three-bedroom house on top of that.
That's a freebie
and that's been their plan all along.
Um
1,200
Sure.
Yeah, I I think and certainly I'm more
comfortable with 1,200 than 15.
Um I think if we if we did go to 15, I
think there should likely be a lot size
attached to it, but at the same time
>> I start
like Exactly. Yeah. And I mean to to
Lyle's point sizewise I mean there there
is flexibility within 1,200
think to make a it's it's not
necessarily a large house but it it can
be a two threebedroom. Uh and then they
can make those trade-offs on you know do
they want to allocate 300 feet to a a
onecar garage or not.
>> What is what is the if you had two acre
lot how how build big could the
residence be? It depends on the zoning.
Zonings have different, but generally
speaking, let's say an SR zoning, it's a
1acre minimum. And in that zoning
district, in 1 acre, you're going to get
about a little under 8,000. So if you
had two acres, you're going to be
getting closer to like 15,000.
>> 300 is pocket change then.
>> And 3 acre lots, you know, they're have
a smaller percentage, but yet they're
still getting closer to the 12,000. Um
you go into the hills there in the
western hills there's different they
have lower percentages um but if they
have a very large lot they could still
have more square feet.
So currently Sage there is no difference
on a lot that's exactly one acre
compared with something that's 10,000
square feet as far as the number of ADUs
that you can build and the size
>> there there is um currently that right
now if you're an acre or larger you get
the three ADUs plus a JADU and if you're
less than an acre
>> well I'm talking about the ones that are
an acre or less.
>> Yeah. So the smaller ones right now
>> under state law you still get those
three that I was talking about right but
if someone wants to go outside of that
because we allow larger and more
flexibility um they could do one ADU and
one JADU and the ADU could be attached
or detached
>> or the conversion also and the
conversion also
>> if they if they followed yes for all the
specific standards they could do that
>> okay there's a huge difference between
a.99 acre and a 7,000 ft.
>> Yep.
» You add all these pieces up and it it
starts to become like how many ADUs do
you need? Like it's starting to get like
I don't know like with with if you take
>> Yeah. But but the number of ADUs has has
not really skyrocketed. I mean we're
under our our allocation for the you
know 2031.
>> Yeah. They they take time. I mean we
just heard you know one one individual
has 13 projects under under I mean they
are getting bill but
>> that's a major that's a major
individual.
>> Yeah we're we're there's some more we
are seeing numbers increase. I mean
since um you know prior to our housing
element we did a four-year average that
was 15 units per year. Um since then
with a lot of these different changes uh
we've uh averaged over 20 per year. Um
we're getting you know last you know
January we had no permits issued in
March we had five ADUs issued um and so
uh you know it's we are seeing more
units coming out with some flexibility
question is how much
>> yeah and that's the hang that's the
flexibility that's already in in place
>> I just I I'm actually remembering a lot
of the discussions we had when we were
looking at these sort of two three years
back and um I I think it was it was
Marilyn at the time was making the point
that like, hey, how much do we really
want to unilaterally
add leniency knowing that the
regulations are going to continue in
that direction from Sacramento? So, I
mean to a large extent I only expect
that to be more just the way that the
sort of tea leaves are going or the
trends have been going. Not that past
results are guarantees of future or
whatever, but at the same time, I I I don't like 1500 from that
standpoint. Um, even 1,200 and it feels
like there's going to be some regulation
that goes beyond that anyway. I don't
know that that's a flexibility we need
to offer. So, personally, I'm not
convinced we need to do anything on
this. Um, I'm not comfortable going
beyond 1,200. I can probably get to
1,200.
>> Okay.
>> Being being okay. So we've heard, you
know, mostly sounds consistent with
straw poll on looking at just keeping it
at 1200 or any further direction.
>> Yeah, I I would go maximum 1,200 and
then in the future if we see trends
developing in a certain direction, it
could always be changed. We can always
have a another ordinance passed uh as
far as stipulations for in either
increasing it or keeping it the same. I
mean, we have that flexibility. So, I
certainly wouldn't be a proponent to go
up to 1500 at this point.
>> Yeah. Our take was take kind of take
initial steps. It's a little harder to
pull back on those once you've gone a
certain point.
>> Yeah. 100%. But you still, 1200 or I'm
good with 1,200.
I'm with perspective of what's possible
in larger lots. Yeah. They don't they
don't need extra.
>> Okay. Great. So, okay. We'll have um uh
no further direction on that item.
We're leaving it at 12:0.
>> Yep. Let's leave that one. Let that one.
>> Okay. Um the other item that we heard uh some
feedback on this was a roof overhangs
where heard no feedback there, but you
can let us know if you have any. and the
mechanical equipment was looking at to
try to better clarify the immediately
adjacent term. Um, but if there's
anything further, let us know.
>> Roof overhangs. Does anyone have passion
there or seem good?
>> No passion on overhangs.
>> Yeah, I think that that seems good to me. I do like the the
specification of just these subjective
things are just hard for people within
when it's not sort of clearly defined.
So this be great.
>> Um
so then we moved on to we were looking
at the exception. So this is their plan
director exception and uh heard comments
on
um looking at kind of clarifying
feasibility. And then also uh whether or
not it's built into this ordinance or if
the town kind of looks more in kind of
like a form or steps that people can
kind of follow to kind of how best to
approach um the need to
uh provide their their kind of
feasibility analysis. And again we're trying to keep it very simple and
objective. Uh so uh we can look at
clarifying the feasibility statement in
the ordinance and then also maybe
accompanied with um some draft handouts
uh that we could provide folks. I
>> think when I read the language I also
maybe clarified that it's the planning
director who would certify feasibility
not feasibility. Um I think it was it
was sort of subject didn't seem like it
was a very clear sage doubt shout
declare it feasible unfeasible and make
a record known sort of thing some way to
make sure it's truly a staffed decision
by planning director that has to sign
off on it.
>> That makes sense to me as well.
>> This what I'm not sure we should
increase to be honest. Um I mean we are
I guess
I I think some degree of oversight might
not be a bad thing. I mean, when we're
talking about 1,200, it does start to be
>> it's it's getting closer to home than
sort of smaller ADU.
>> I mean, there is the we we should there
is a variance process.
>> We could also have the plan director
sign off on it. by signing off and
meaning presenting to planning
commission that you know what what was
declared feasible like type of like out
>> I think it's basically a variance though
at that point because it's coming and
making findings etc
>> so they would still have that
flexibility to to come in present
findings
>> question for sage and also for gene I
mean there's an exception to every rule
right so if you had I mean if we limited
it to 800
and there was a lot that had some unique
features and everybody ended up
scratching their heads and yes there was
uh the only way to do the allowed uh you
know structure uh was to put it in the
front setback we could do that via
variance correct
>> that's correct
>> and given the fact that
the planning commission is not
overwhelmed with
um having two meetings a month where
we're doing three variances at every
meeting. I mean, we're doing very few of
these, we could tolerate handling those
exemptions.
That that's that's similar to the
support I was trying to Yeah, there's
still that flexibility. So, we're not
saying no.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. I I do think I don't know. I
think given how much things are
changing, it is worth still looking at
some of those pieces in terms of how how
it builds out and
I would I would probably be more
comfortable with this one being a
variance process. So heard uh comments
about keeping it at 800 and 1,200 was
the proposal and just just for
discussion purposes 1,000 square feet.
Nothing just to the direction to bring that back.
>> Yeah, I would I would probably say keep
800 on this one. Oops.
>> And on a an exception basis.
>> Yeah. And that would that would always
be available. Yeah,
>> just just to clarify, this allows uh
planning department to
uh declare declare it is unfeasible
to to work it without a variance. If
it's less than 800, they could do it
themselves. If it's more than 800, they
come talk, right? Which is which is
asis.
>> Yep.
>> Oh,
got it.
>> Yep.
>> Except we probably should still clear.
>> We're still looking at the clarity part.
Just the the number. We'll keep it 800.
Okay.
» I didn't hear any comments on the
changing the number of units for this
government code section 66323. I mean
essentially the code the other option
would be just allow more ADUs on the
smaller properties but from what I've
heard think there's a move for that. Um
so I'm sorry Sage which particular
language
>> sorry this was just uh this is on it's
on uh page 10. It's the table.
>> The the asterisk we discussed.
>> Yeah, the asterisk. Exactly. Exactly.
So, that's something that's allowed
already by state law and we're just
making sure it's clarified in
>> We're just clarifying it. Nope.
» Okay, I think we're good there.
>> Um
Oh, so now we're on page 13.
Um and this is just about the owner
occupancy. And so there's two items
we're going to look at um to clarify
that um if it's not owner occupied that
only the house would be rented out. Um
and we're also going to look at if
there's even a requirement to have to
have owner occupancy um by state law.
And if there's not, we'll provide that
option as well.
>> And then sub I mean a sublet would still
be allowable under this, right?
Well, you can always have sublets going
on under the table. So,
>> yeah, I I don't know what we're trying
to achieve with this one is is kind of
the thing I would
>> strike.
It just seems like there's all these we
don't need it and you can supp
>> I think that's one of his action items
where Yeah. So, and because this is what
Jean is reminding me that we think the
state might require that you have have
this in place. So, we're going to double
check that um based on the new updated
laws. We just want to double check that.
If it is, we'll let you know and we'll
make sure we have some clarity. And if
it's not, we'll provide you with the
option
>> to remove it.
» Okay. Then we are um really down to uh
the um we'll we'll just
look at you know we understood that this
is a policy uh decision kind of looking
at the town inspectors for the amnesty
program. Um,
does the planning commission in their
recommendation to town council want to
recommend that the town council explore
the idea of the town having town
inspectors, whether it's for a fee or or
not, it's something the town council
could consider? It's it's just part of
what you would be recommending to the
planning commission.
>> That would that be a separate
recommendation from this?
>> It's what we would do is just build it
into the resolution itself. Um, it
wouldn't be in the actual ordinance
language. Um it will just be something
that we could say, you know, this is
what the planning commission recommended
uh for the town council to explore to
help assist people with unpermitted
ADUs. I mean, from my perspective, it's nice to have a friend who can kind
of help you through this complex
process. Uh so an inspector could be
good for that. I do think it's
important. We we talked about sort of
the if we do a program like this just
limiting the the liability because to
the earlier point like if they miss
something and folks discover it we don't
want to you know be on the on the hook
for that and it's probably unfair to
have a contract inspector you know
liable for that
>> right and as noted the town I people can
always hire their own general
contractors and they can give them their
recommendations something that
>> yeah I think we need to frame it as an
advisory service or something of that
nature.
>> But but definitely encourage the amnesty
because we we should have these
properties
on on the list and registered so we know
that they exist and if they're on fire
that they get out and they
>> Yeah. And and we're not making any
decisions on that part. I believe right
>> just simply moving forward a
recommendation to the council council
town council. So when we bring this back
um we can just provide that small
recommendation into the resolution
itself. I think it's great. Yeah. Um so
then uh there's just two other items
that we're going to talk about if you'd
like us to look into further and that is
um uh specifically exempting additional
paved area um as it relates to
construction of ADUs. Um and the other
piece was uh looking at um potentially
allowing for some height increases for
ups sloping lots
>> or both those I would say the paved area
one kind of similar with with my points
on cumulative impact uh
it would be good maybe so I I support
looking at it um also
you know if that yields
90%
>> surface coverage with paved area. That
feels like a bad outcome.
>> Yeah, we could we could
>> So, we may want to have some kind of a
cap. Yeah. Being mindful of the
>> Yeah, we could definitely look at that.
>> No clue as to whether 1,500 would be the
right number or not.
>> Yeah. And that that was just something
brought up by a member of the public.
Yes.
>> And so, uh I think in terms of Yeah. Do
you want you know, all you have is
building and paving.
>> Yeah. I mean, because you add all this
up. And what was mentioned too was, you
know, some of these larger lots in the
SCP areas, they're already restricted to
9,000, whereas, you know, lots in a 1
acre lot, you know, over in, uh,
Woodside Hills, they can have 15,000
square ft. Um, and so we can kind of
look at some of the lot size issues, um,
and then maybe some caps, uh, for those
kind of exemptions.
>> It might be helpful also when we
consider this next if it's if it's
possible to look at maybe just example
scenarios. try to we'll try to yeah
provide
>> you know what I mean like maybe say you
know a 7,000 foot lot if it were to be
maxed out with all the things that we're
approving like what does that look like
because at a certain point
>> we have to help with Sacramento we also
have to uphold general plan and if we
get 95% paved area we are not doing our
job upholding the general plan also so I
think that balancing you could just see
what that looks like for
>> yeah so 5,000 to 10,000 to 15,000 that
We don't have to do that many scenarios
but some that I think just helps us
visualize it.
>> Visualize this.
>> So yeah, no we'll we'll take that
direction. Um so we'll explore it
further and bring some stuff back for
you. Awesome.
>> Okay. I would explore it further, maybe
come up I mean see what number would be
reasonable that would make most projects
work and then
um once again I mean if you get the
exception to the rule
uh you can always go through the
variance process.
>> Yeah. And if somebody needs an extra 200
square feet of paved area to be able to
have a,
>> you know, paved access to the ADU, then
I mean
» that would be the presumption that that
would pass. And we still for the 800
square foot unit, you know, if someone
that's all someone can fit or that's
what they're they need some extra paved
area to do that 1800 square foot unit
that town staff still has some
flexibility there.
>> Yeah.
>> And that was based on the section we're
just debating about 800 to,200.
>> Right. And then so I guess we didn't
talk that much about the the height
piece that
>> So this is the last piece.
>> Yeah. So on that one,
I I I like that the proposal limits
based I I think the language was well
written that it's it's limited to not
make any structure that's more impactful
than the previous main residence could
have been. So that that part feels good.
Seems reasonable to consider it to me.
>> Folks think
explore it.
Yeah, we we can explore some language if all of you are kind of in agreement
with that any
opposition.
>> No.
>> Okay, I think we're good with exploring
that.
>> So, we walked through everything um with
this
>> talk about the go
>> the height slope Glenn's versus the R
the R1's.
>> Yeah. So I mean with that that's
>> a separate part of the
>> it's it's it's well um more than just
ADUs. Um and so whereas that in and of
itself could help with flexibility on
ADUs. Um it's more about you know could
my house be closer to a property line
like what we did in the Glenn's um and
so that uh very good point. And I am
extremely point well taken but it
>> different project.
>> Yeah. I think it it encompasses much
more than just ADUs.
>> Yeah. And my recommendation there would
be
R1 is probably not the scope. It's
probably more like the the Glenn's was a
sort of coherent well or an area where
there's a common issue of a
concentration of non-conforming lots,
right? And we have others. It seems like
Palm Circle is one of those. Yeah.
>> So, I would suggest we're just more
mindful of the granularity and boundary
of that study rather than saying like
all R1 blank.
>> Yes. No, for sure. And that's something
well, you know, it's it's in working
with the town council on priorities and
what the, you know, the various
different work items that
>> it feels like it would be another like
agendaized Glenn's style thing, right?
With a defined scope of which which lots
are in.
>> Okay. So, so with that, um, we because
we're just bringing stuff, we got a
direction from you. We didn't have any
like split issues on any of these. Um we
are just going to explore the different
things based on the direction given. We
do not need a motion. Um we just we've
taken all the notes. We've looked at um
the consensus made by the planning
commission and um
>> we will bring all this stuff back to you
to explore further and uh maybe for an
adoption of a recommendation of the town
council.
>> Sounds great. Yeah, I think these
scenario just final thought and I know
I'm maybe just repeating myself but
these scenarios I think are going to be
helpful because we're saying things like
we like going from 800 to,200 but not
1500 but we're also sort of thinking
that without the cumulative impact. So I
just think that'll be important for us
to look at with a fresh set of eyes on
terms of what it is.
>> Cool.
Anything else?
>> Um so that uh that would conclude this
item. Um, and
there's just a couple of um, if you want
to move on to the agenda. I think we
just have director's report.
>> All right, let's move on to director's
report. Thank you for the cube.
>> And, um, apologize, I don't have those
right here in front of me, but
essentially uh, the
my computer died. Um,
yeah so so what what I'll report is um
you know we uh I know in February I
think Thank you very much Jim. Um so uh
so you know what we've kind of the
primary thing of these reports that I
think has been most interesting is just
looking at um the number of permits were
issued uh per month. And so, uh, this
one in February, the town issued, uh,
three permits for ADUs and one for new
single family dwelling.
And then, as I noted in, um, March that
we have uh, we had six ADUs. One of them
was a J AU, but we had six ADUs in March
and one single family dwelling. Um, so
whereas we had none issued in January,
but you know, people are coming off the
holidays, you know, there's different
reasons maybe why that was a lower
number. Uh, but as we progress through
the summer, um, you know, if we can keep
up four to six plus ADUs a month, that
would be great.
>> And so with that, that concludes my
report. Um, I don't have anything
further to add this time.
» All right. Well, if we're all done, we
will go ahead and adjourn. Thank you.