[0:06] We ready to go, Julie?
[0:09] Okay.
[0:11] This is the call to order for the April
[0:15] 15, 2026 meeting of the Town of Woodside
[0:18] Planning Commission. We'll start with
[0:21] the Pledge of Allegiance.
[0:45] Roll call, please.
[0:46] >> Chair Weaver,
[0:47] >> present.
[0:48] >> Vice Chair Gar.
[0:49] >> Commissioner Evans.
[0:51] >> Commissioner Gonko here.
[0:53] >> And Commissioner Tober is noted absent.
[1:01] Are there any changes to the agenda as
[1:03] published?
[1:07] » There are no changes to the agenda. Uh
[1:09] you do have desk items for the one
[1:11] public hearing item we have tonight and
[1:12] I'll go through that during the
[1:13] presentation.
[1:16] >> Um given there are no changes to the
[1:19] agenda, we will move on to the public
[1:21] comment period. This is a chance for
[1:26] people to make public comments about
[1:29] items which are not on tonight's agenda,
[1:31] but which are of interest to the town of
[1:33] Woodside and its planning commission.
[1:36] Um, public comments are limited to five
[1:39] speakers maximum of three minutes each
[1:42] at the beginning of the meeting and if
[1:44] we have more um um speakers, those would
[1:48] be deferred to the end of the meeting.
[1:51] Items not on the agenda cannot be
[1:53] addressed in detail or acted upon
[1:55] tonight, but can be referred to staff
[1:58] and potentially put on a future agenda.
[2:02] So, given those restrictions, is there
[2:05] anyone present in the room or on Zoom
[2:08] that would like to speak on a topic not
[2:10] on tonight's agenda?
[2:14] » We have three raised hands online. Um,
[2:17] I'm going to start with FAD.
[2:23] » Hello. Can you hear me?
[2:27] » Yes.
[2:28] >> Hello.
[2:31] Can you hear me?
[2:32] >> Yes, we can hear you.
[2:35] >> Yes. My name is Fad and I need your
[2:38] help. I'm feeling very weak. I haven't
[2:42] been able to get up off the floor for 45
[2:46] minutes to an hour. I ate Del Taco and
[2:50] now
[3:16] Okay, let's move on to the next speaker.
[3:25] » Let's go ahead and mute that speaker.
[3:31] PLEASE mute the Thank you. Thank you.
[3:41] And let's move on to our third speaker.
[3:48] Okay, the next speaker is Ben Rodriguez.
[4:06] Okay. Um,
[4:10] please mute, please mute that speaker.
[4:13] Um, is there anyone present in the room
[4:16] that would like to speak on a topic not
[4:19] on tonight's agenda, but which is
[4:21] relevant to the town of Woodside or its
[4:23] planning commission?
[4:31] Uh there being no raised hands or anyone
[4:34] stepping up to the microphone, we will
[4:36] at this point close the public comment
[4:39] period.
[4:41] And I believe the next item on the
[4:43] agenda is a presentation from Hip
[4:45] Housing.
[4:51] » Okay.
[4:52] You can um use the red lever and
[4:55] move the microphone up and down so it's
[4:57] at a convenient height for you.
[5:02] » Oh, okay.
[5:03] >> Is that better? I don't know if it's
[5:06] >> It's on.
[5:08] >> Okay, it's on. All right, great. Um,
[5:11] good evening, commissioners. My name is
[5:12] Laura Finuki. I'm the director of
[5:14] programs at HIP Housing. I want to thank
[5:15] Sage for inviting me to your meeting
[5:18] tonight. I have a short presentation
[5:19] about the work that HIP Housing does in
[5:21] the community. Um, so Julie's going to
[5:23] be advancing our slides. So, um, HIPP
[5:26] housing, uh, st HIP stands for human
[5:28] investment project. That's the legal
[5:29] name of our organization. Um, and our
[5:32] mission is to invest in human potential
[5:34] by improving the housing and lives of
[5:36] people here in San Monteo County. We've
[5:38] been doing that work um, for over 50
[5:40] years. Next slide.
[5:45] So, HIP Housing offers four housing
[5:47] programs and we also own and manage
[5:49] properties. So, I'm going to touch
[5:50] briefly on each one. Our first program
[5:53] is our housing resource hub. Um, we take
[5:56] in about uh 3,000 calls a year from
[5:59] members of the community that want to
[6:01] learn about hip housing andor affordable
[6:03] housing here in San Monteo County. And
[6:06] so, we create resources to share that
[6:08] information with them. We have a weekly
[6:11] community eblast where we list
[6:13] affordable housing openings and we email
[6:16] that out to the community. Um, we also
[6:18] create a Google site where we list
[6:20] update every two weeks affordable
[6:22] housing waiting list openings. And then
[6:25] we have a resource packet that we
[6:27] provide clients um that contact our
[6:29] organization that help them navigate how
[6:31] to apply to the county subsidized
[6:33] housing portal, how to apply to the
[6:35] doorway portal, which is a portal that
[6:38] um announces affordable housing waiting
[6:40] list openings and then also HIP
[6:42] housing's portal. Next slide.
[6:45] Our housing readiness program is rel uh
[6:48] relatively new. We started this program
[6:50] about two years ago in the response to
[6:53] the fact that we were seeing many many
[6:55] older adults, very low-income older
[6:57] adults who didn't qualify income-wise
[7:00] for our home sharing program but still
[7:02] needed help with finding housing in our
[7:05] community. Um we find that most older
[7:07] adults have been in stable housing for
[7:09] many years and then suddenly something
[7:11] has happened. either the landlord that
[7:13] they were living with has moved out of
[7:14] the area or their housing is getting
[7:17] sold or their rent's being raised and
[7:19] they're suddenly plunged into Sano
[7:21] County's kind of crazy housing market
[7:23] and learning how to navigate that. So,
[7:26] we meet with clients to help them
[7:28] understand what they're eligible for and
[7:31] help them apply to this the county
[7:33] subsidized housing portal and also the
[7:35] doorway portal. Um, we have a
[7:38] collaboration with the Department of
[7:39] Housing, um, where we actually have some
[7:42] scholarship funding to provide a housing
[7:45] scholarship to an older adult that's
[7:47] exiting one of the county operated
[7:48] shelters. Um, the county is having a
[7:51] really hard time moving clients out of
[7:53] the shelters for their intended purpose
[7:55] of stay, which is mostly like 90 days.
[7:58] um we find that older adults don't have
[8:00] the ability to increase their income and
[8:02] so they remain in the shelters and so
[8:05] our housing scholarship helps to move
[8:07] out of the shelters into something
[8:09] that's more permanent and affordable. So
[8:11] this is a relatively new program of ours
[8:13] and we're seeing it grow exponentially
[8:16] with the number of seniors that are
[8:17] experiencing homelessness for the first
[8:19] time. Okay, next slide. Our third
[8:23] program is our self-sufficiency program.
[8:25] This is a program for low-income
[8:26] families with dependent children. Um we
[8:29] provide housing and coaching support for
[8:31] a year to five years um for the adults
[8:34] that are enrolled in school or a
[8:36] vocational program. Uh we have some
[8:38] families that are living independently
[8:40] in their own unit here in San Mato
[8:42] County and we help to provide a housing
[8:44] scholarship for them while they're in
[8:46] school. And then Hip Housing also owns
[8:49] three houses that we built. Two are in
[8:51] Redwood City and one is in San Carlos.
[8:53] Um they are six-bedroom, three bath
[8:55] homes and we usually have two to three
[8:58] families share the home. Uh the
[9:00] department of housing of San Monteo
[9:01] County helps to subsidize the rent. So
[9:04] the rent is very affordable for very
[9:05] low-income families. Um so we have some
[9:08] families that start in that housing
[9:09] model and then some families that go
[9:11] into independent living and we provide
[9:13] coaching and wraparound support for the
[9:15] families. Uh usually 40 to 50 families a
[9:18] year that we're serving in that program.
[9:20] Next slide. Uh, so in addition to our
[9:23] housing programs, I'm going to talk
[9:24] about our home sharing program last. Um,
[9:26] but we do also own and manage property
[9:28] here in Sonteo County. We have over 500
[9:31] units of affordable housing, mostly
[9:33] studio, onebedrooms, and some
[9:35] two-bedroom units. Um, some of the
[9:37] properties are project based section 8.
[9:39] So, the tenants pay roughly a third of
[9:41] their income on rent and the other units
[9:43] are below market rate. We also do
[9:46] property management for various
[9:47] entities. So we have relationships with
[9:50] the Rotary Club of Sonteo. Uh we manage
[9:52] two of their affordable housing
[9:54] properties, Rotary Hosienda and Rotary
[9:56] Floritas in Sonteo. Um we also manage
[9:59] properties for the city of Foster City.
[10:01] And we have some collaborations with
[10:03] market rate developers that have
[10:05] affordable units within their
[10:06] development and we partner with them to
[10:08] do tenant selection and income
[10:10] certification.
[10:12] Um, we don't do a lot of new
[10:13] construction, but we do have a new
[10:15] construction project going on right now
[10:16] in downtown San Carlos. Um, we had a
[10:19] six-unit apartment building that we
[10:20] owned for years, and we partnered with
[10:22] the city and Eden Housing, another
[10:24] nonprofit, uh, to uh, construct 33 units
[10:28] of affordable housing. So, it's going to
[10:30] be a mix of one, two, and threebedroom
[10:33] units, which we're really excited about
[10:34] because we don't have any three-bedroom
[10:36] units in our portfolio, and we have very
[10:38] few two-bedroom units. So that um
[10:40] property is still under construction.
[10:42] It's right downtown in San Carlos and
[10:44] hope to be finished with that in
[10:46] October. Okay, next slide. Um but what
[10:49] we're most known in the community for is
[10:51] our home sharing program. This was the
[10:53] first housing program that the
[10:54] organization started back in 1979.
[10:57] And it's a program where we interview
[10:59] homeowners or renters that have extra
[11:01] space. Um they either have a room for
[11:04] rent in their home or an accessory
[11:05] dwelling unit. Um and then we help to
[11:08] match them with a home seeker who
[11:10] usually of a family size of one or two
[11:12] persons. Um this program serves all of
[11:14] Sonteo County and we get funding support
[11:17] from the town of Woodside and also all
[11:19] of the cities in Sonteo County including
[11:22] the county of Sono. We're also included
[11:24] in all of the city's housing elements as
[11:28] a way to provide um affordable housing
[11:30] options through our home sharing
[11:32] program. Um and we provide technical
[11:35] assistance to other organizations
[11:37] throughout the country that are
[11:38] interested in starting home sharing
[11:40] programs in their community. Um in fact
[11:42] here in California we have um have
[11:45] probably close to 30 home sharing
[11:47] programs throughout the state and we've
[11:49] helped a lot of them with their
[11:51] technical assistance and launching
[11:52] programs in their community. We do have
[11:55] a collaborations sorry my slide got cut
[11:57] off here. We have collaborations with
[11:59] the town of Athetherton and Hillsboro.
[12:01] And since creating this presentation, we
[12:04] also are now partnering with um uh
[12:06] Portola Valley and San Bruno on their
[12:09] ADU program. So, we have um
[12:12] collaborations where we meet with town
[12:14] staff every month to talk about outreach
[12:17] activities to really increase the
[12:19] visibility of HIPPO's home sharing
[12:21] program to encourage homeowners that
[12:24] have ADUs to register them with our home
[12:26] sharing program. um because we can help
[12:29] do the tenant screening, the income
[12:31] certification, help discuss what the
[12:34] rent is going to be, put together a
[12:36] living together agreement, and are very
[12:38] involved in the home in the housing
[12:40] arrangement, whether it's a home
[12:42] provider that's renting a room or an
[12:43] accessory dwelling unit. So, we meet
[12:46] with town staff every month to talk
[12:47] about outreach. Um we're like for
[12:50] Athetherton, we do a lot of their um
[12:52] events like Earth Day, their national
[12:54] nightouts. Um we partner with like
[12:57] school districts in Menllo Park. We do
[12:59] social media uh posts. We do we host
[13:02] home owner homeowner events where we
[13:05] invite the homeowners to come learn
[13:06] about our program. So we have um a lot
[13:09] of activities that we do in each
[13:10] jurisdiction to really kind of raise the
[13:12] visibility of our program um to
[13:14] encourage homeowners with ADUs and
[13:16] rooms. Uh next slide. Um, so this is
[13:20] just a a snapshot of of like kind of our
[13:23] screening process if folks really want
[13:25] to understand like what's the difference
[13:27] between going just doing this online or
[13:29] finding roommates or tenants in other
[13:32] ways. But we're very hands-on. So we do
[13:34] the screening, we do background checks,
[13:36] we do have reference checks, we do
[13:38] income certifications, we complete a
[13:40] living together agreement, and we main
[13:42] maintain follow-up support for the
[13:44] duration of the match. Um, in
[13:45] Athetherton right now, we have two
[13:47] matches. So, they're both are senior
[13:49] homeowners that have accessory dwelling
[13:51] units. Um, and they're both matched with
[13:54] um older adults. Um, we have one match
[13:56] in the town of Hillsboro that's been
[13:58] together for almost 6 years. Um, it's
[14:00] with a senior retired couple. They have
[14:03] a two-bedroom ADU and they rented it to
[14:06] a local teacher who was in jeopardy of
[14:08] losing her housing and having to leave
[14:10] the state. And so now she's been able to
[14:12] remain in her community. Um, so that's
[14:14] kind of the beauty of of this kind of
[14:16] relationship. Uh, next slide. Again,
[14:19] just some examples of who homeshares.
[14:22] So, we have a lot of school district
[14:24] personnel who are uh registered with our
[14:26] home sharing program. In fact, about 11%
[14:29] of our home seekers uh work for school
[14:32] districts. Um, so we have a lot of
[14:33] educators that get recruited to this
[14:35] area, but they they can't find
[14:37] affordable housing. Um, and so the
[14:39] option of either renting a room or an
[14:41] ADU becomes much more affordable. Uh,
[14:44] next slide.
[14:47] Um, and so, you know, for for our home
[14:49] providers that have the ADU or room for
[14:52] rent, it really helps to keep them
[14:54] affordable in their own home. We have
[14:57] most about 60% of our home providers are
[15:00] older adults. So, they may live alone.
[15:02] They may be on a retirement income and
[15:05] they have extra space in their in their
[15:07] home or they have an accessory dwelling
[15:09] unit and they want to put that empty
[15:11] space to good use. So, this is one way
[15:13] to not only help them remain independent
[15:16] in their home, but also to help them
[15:17] financially as well. Um, and for our
[15:20] home seekers, you know, the average rent
[15:22] of a one-bedroom apartment here in this
[15:24] community, I mean, we see people that
[15:26] are renting for like 2700 to 3500 for a
[15:29] one-bedroom apartment. And so, our our
[15:32] room rentals and our ADUs are
[15:34] significantly lower cost. And so, it
[15:36] helps to make make an affordable housing
[15:38] arrangement for them. And it keeps our
[15:40] workforce local. There's a statistic
[15:43] that over 60% of people who work here in
[15:45] San Monteo County commute from outside
[15:47] of the area. So, it really helps to
[15:50] maintain the um the viability of our
[15:52] community by keeping our workforce low.
[15:55] Okay, next slide. And this is my contact
[15:57] information. Um we're happy to partner
[16:00] with the town of Woodside on our
[16:02] affordable housing programs. We thank
[16:03] the town for our subfunding support and
[16:06] I'm happy to answer any questions if you
[16:08] have any about our organization. Thank
[16:10] you.
[16:13] >> Does anyone have questions for Laura?
[16:18] » So one question. So once again, what is
[16:20] where does the funding come for your
[16:22] services?
[16:23] >> Yes. So for our housing programs, it's a
[16:26] variety of funding streams. So we get
[16:28] support from all the cities here in the
[16:30] Sanonteo County. We get funding from the
[16:32] county of Sanonteo. Also, um we have
[16:34] private foundation support. Um we also
[16:38] do, you know, annual events and we have
[16:40] fundraising efforts and donations. Um
[16:42] but what's really important is that that
[16:44] because we own and manage property here
[16:46] in Sano County, our rental income also
[16:49] is a sustainable s source of funding for
[16:52] our programs. So the funding that we
[16:55] take from our property side helps to pay
[16:57] for all the administrative costs of our
[16:59] programs. Um, so that 100% of
[17:02] contributions goes directly to client
[17:04] services.
[17:06] >> You
[17:10] » Laura, thank you very much for your
[17:12] presentation and for the great work that
[17:15] you folks do in the community.
[17:16] >> Thank you so much.
[17:17] >> Thank you, Laura. We'll be in touch.
[17:19] Thank you.
[17:23] » Okay. The next item on tonight's agenda
[17:26] would be um the terms of chair and vice
[17:29] chair of the planning commission run for
[17:31] two-year terms and
[17:33] >> minute I think we have the minutes
[17:35] first.
[17:36] >> Oh whoops. We have a consent calendar
[17:38] item first which is approval of the
[17:41] minutes of our March 4th 2026 meeting.
[17:46] So, if any commissioners, members of
[17:49] staff, or members of the public have any
[17:53] errors, emissions, additions, or
[17:57] clarifications
[17:59] that need to be made to the um minutes
[18:03] as published, now is your chance to
[18:08] um ask that those changes be made.
[18:15] comes to that we would take a motion to
[18:18] approve the minutes of the March 4
[18:19] meeting.
[18:20] >> Make a motion to approve the minutes
[18:22] from the meeting.
[18:25] >> Second motion.
[18:27] >> Chair Weaver.
[18:28] >> Yes.
[18:28] >> Vice Chair Gar.
[18:29] >> Yes.
[18:30] >> Commissioner Evans. Commissioner
[18:32] Gonerko.
[18:33] >> Yes.
[18:36] Given that it is time to move on to
[18:39] election of a new chair and vice chair
[18:42] of the planning commission.
[18:44] So taking this in order um we would
[18:49] entertain motions from the planning
[18:51] commission members for a new nominee for
[18:55] chair of the planning commission for the
[18:56] next two years.
[19:00] I nominate uh Matt Gar for chair of the
[19:04] planning commission for the next two
[19:06] years.
[19:08] >> Second.
[19:13] » Sarah Weaver.
[19:14] >> Yes.
[19:16] >> Vice Shar.
[19:17] >> Commissioner Evans.
[19:19] >> Yes.
[19:19] >> Commissioner Gonco.
[19:20] >> Yes.
[19:24] So you guys can get up and the two of
[19:27] you trade seats.
[19:33] » Oh, nobody there.
[19:53] Yeah, very engaging on YouTube.
[20:04] Okay, I need to bring my agenda up.
[20:08] >> So, take uh next is we'll take
[20:10] nominations for the vice chair for the
[20:12] next two years.
[20:18] Would anyone like to make a motion?
[20:20] for
[20:22] vice chair of the
[20:24] >> So, I'd like to nominate Alex Talber as
[20:28] vice chair for the planning commission
[20:30] for the next two years.
[20:34] » He's not not present, but
[20:37] >> second.
[20:39] >> It's acceptable. If if for some reason
[20:41] he would decline, we could follow up
[20:43] with that the next meeting, but it's
[20:44] totally acceptable to have a nomination
[20:46] without him prison. Okay.
[20:51] I think I heard a second from
[20:53] >> um I will second that.
[20:55] >> Uh Chair Gar,
[20:57] >> yes.
[20:58] >> Commissioner Evans,
[21:00] >> yes.
[21:00] >> Commissioner Ganco,
[21:02] >> yes.
[21:02] >> Commissioner Weaver,
[21:03] >> yes.
[21:12] » Okay.
[21:13] Uh with that I believe we will move on
[21:16] to the next item on the agenda which is
[21:18] the uh the review of the resolution of
[21:20] intention and recommendation to amend
[21:22] the municipal code chapters 151 and 153
[21:26] uh regarding ADUs. So shall we move on
[21:28] to that?
[21:29] >> Congratulations and thank you chair Gar.
[21:32] >> Um so what uh so as I mentioned earlier
[21:36] we received a number of desk items and
[21:38] I'll kind of go through those through
[21:39] topic. Um, my proposal here tonight is
[21:42] to uh for me to present kind of on each
[21:45] section and then I'll ask for questions
[21:48] from the planning commission and answer
[21:50] any questions. Um, once we're done with
[21:53] the presentation and questions and
[21:55] answers from the commission. We'll have
[21:57] the public provide any input they'd like
[21:59] to provide and then after that the
[22:01] planning commission can deliberate, ask
[22:03] more questions, provide to some
[22:06] conclusion.
[22:07] So, with that, I will um pull what I'm
[22:11] going to do is just pull up the the
[22:14] draft ordinance language and we can kind
[22:16] of just go through it and as it's uh
[22:19] written.
[22:20] And so, the first uh and maybe I should
[22:24] back up just a bit. Um some may recall
[22:27] uh back in uh June 23ish
[22:32] um there was a study session provided by
[22:34] the planning commission uh that went
[22:36] over a number of different topics uh to
[22:41] look how the town could increase to
[22:44] modify its regulations that would
[22:46] increase flexibility and help increase
[22:48] the production of ADUs. Um so over the
[22:51] years the town has provided um different
[22:57] ordinance changes that um have provided
[23:00] flexibility and um we have had members
[23:03] of the public already taking advantage
[23:04] of some of those uh ordinances. And so
[23:07] we just will be continuing to work on
[23:11] looking at challenges that people have
[23:14] um to creating ADUs and looking at how
[23:18] the town can modify its regulations to
[23:20] maintain consistency with state law as
[23:23] well as to go even further than state
[23:24] law in some circumstances. Um and so
[23:27] that is uh what is before us tonight. We
[23:30] are going to go through some additional
[23:32] items uh that could provide more
[23:34] flexibility um reduce some of the
[23:37] challenges that people have to construct
[23:38] ADUs. And um we will start tonight with
[23:43] an order. And so in chapter 151 is our
[23:47] site development chapter of the
[23:50] municipal code. That's what it's called.
[23:52] Um the best way to think of that chapter
[23:54] of the code, it primarily deals with
[23:57] grading, drainage, and driveways. Um and
[24:00] so the town of Woodside um currently
[24:04] restricts properties to having one
[24:06] driveway onto their property, although
[24:09] there is a process for planning
[24:11] commission approval of a second driveway
[24:13] exception. Um that process has been in
[24:15] place for a number of years, albeit it
[24:18] has been modified from time to time. Um
[24:21] and there has been uh some requests from
[24:24] the public interest I think from
[24:26] planning commission and council related
[24:29] to providing some relief to that
[24:32] requirement for a public hearing process
[24:34] if a second driveway is to serve an ADU.
[24:37] So what we've done uh is provide a an
[24:42] administrative process. that would not
[24:43] require a public hearing for ADUs to be
[24:48] able to install a second driveway under
[24:50] certain circumstances. So, what we see
[24:52] initially here, this is just cleanup
[24:54] language for our existing driveway
[24:57] exception process.
[24:59] And this section, excuse me, this
[25:02] following section here is the proposed
[25:04] language for um allowance for an
[25:06] administrative second driveway exception
[25:08] process for ADUs. um we've kept a lot of
[25:12] the same kind of safety goals uh in
[25:16] place um from the initial exception
[25:19] process. So with all driveways there has
[25:22] to be um they have to meet certain line
[25:25] of sight and safety standards. Uh
[25:27] whether it's a singular driveway or a
[25:29] second driveway. Uh these are things
[25:31] that a line of sight distance study
[25:34] something uh an engineer would prepare.
[25:37] They look at curvatures of the road.
[25:39] They look at the speed limits on the
[25:41] road um and they provide a sight
[25:44] distance analysis is what it's called
[25:46] which then is reviewed by our uh
[25:47] engineering department. So we would keep
[25:49] that obviously in place. Um we are
[25:53] looking at you know
[25:56] whenever we're trying to provide
[25:57] additional flexibility we also want to
[25:59] be careful of um people taking advantage
[26:02] it of it for things that aren't directly
[26:05] related to the construction of an ADU.
[26:08] And there are many instances where it
[26:10] just makes more sense to have a second
[26:12] driveway for an ADU. Um some extreme
[26:15] examples and very easily to uh imagine
[26:17] examples. We have some properties um
[26:20] that are bisected by a creek. Um so
[26:23] example there's properties on Manzanita
[26:25] that back all the way up to Whiskey Hill
[26:27] and they are biseected by a creek. Um,
[26:30] say you have your house on Manzanita,
[26:32] but you'd like to do an ADU off Whiskey
[26:35] Hill. Instead of building a bridge
[26:36] across the creek, um, one could do a
[26:39] second driveway. An instance like that,
[26:41] it would make a lot of sense for that
[26:42] ADU to not have to go through a special
[26:46] hearing process for that. Um, so we've
[26:49] looked at things like if someone is
[26:51] proposing a second driveway to access an
[26:54] ADU, uh, that would would require less
[26:57] paving than just say extending a small
[27:00] extension off of their existing
[27:01] driveway. That would be something that
[27:03] would be looked at.
[27:05] Um, we look at that's only proposed uh,
[27:09] the driveway is only proposed to serve
[27:10] the ADU. um we want to make sure it's
[27:13] not kind of a tangent to really serve
[27:16] something else or the main residence on
[27:17] the property. Um so it's specifically
[27:20] focused for that. Um and then the number
[27:23] four is really just trying to minimize
[27:25] the appearance of these second
[27:27] driveways. So often people will have um
[27:30] fencing on the property. If they have no
[27:32] fencing, that's fine. They don't need to
[27:33] have fencing. Um, but if they do have
[27:35] fencing, uh, try to have that vehicle
[27:38] gate look as close to the m fencing as
[27:41] possible with minimal pylons. Um, and
[27:44] that would kind of minimize the visual
[27:47] appearance of this second driveway,
[27:49] which has always been a concern about
[27:50] additional driveways on the property. Um
[27:54] there are some instances even one of the desk items I know of a property they
[27:59] have an old historic um pylon that's not
[28:03] used as a driveway now. In those
[28:05] instances we wouldn't make them tear
[28:06] that out and put in a a regular fence um
[28:09] if they were proposed to use that for a
[28:11] second driveway. Uh but the idea is to
[28:13] really just maintain the character that
[28:14] exists now. Um and then uh number five
[28:18] is just you know clarifying that we
[28:21] should not be um proposing these uh
[28:25] second drive is environmentally
[28:27] sensitive areas or in areas that are
[28:29] really sign have really significant
[28:31] steep slopes um immediately adjacent to
[28:34] the drive. It would cause some real
[28:36] carving into a hillside and significant
[28:38] retaining walls. Um, and the last one is
[28:42] just indicating that if you already have
[28:45] two driveways, um, we wouldn't use this
[28:48] process for a third or fourth driveway.
[28:50] Um, so we do have, uh, we received out
[28:53] of the different desk items we have, we
[28:56] received, um, three items specifically
[28:59] related to this topic. Uh, and all of
[29:01] them shared the same, uh, uh, idea and,
[29:05] um, staff is very open to that idea.
[29:06] they are suggesting, hey, you know, this
[29:09] ordinance is works. It just does it. It
[29:12] says only for one ADU and let's say
[29:14] someone was building two ADUs. Um they
[29:17] were grouping them near each other to
[29:18] come off this proposed second driveway.
[29:20] Um staff sees no issue with that. If
[29:24] it's acceptable to the commission, we
[29:26] can easily um if acceptable to the
[29:28] commission uh literally, you know,
[29:30] taking away the word a right here and
[29:33] making all our references to accessory
[29:35] dwelling units. Um so just to go back,
[29:40] um so we remove this and then we can
[29:42] make the references to accessory
[29:44] dwelling units plural. Um and if that
[29:46] was something that the commission is
[29:48] interested in, uh we could make that
[29:52] change. Um so with this just on this
[29:54] particular topic there's any questions
[29:56] of the commission um for staff be happy
[29:59] to answer any of those questions.
[30:09] Um, yeah. So, couple of things in in
[30:13] some of the the letters and also in my
[30:16] own experience, the the when you're
[30:20] designing these, there was this request
[30:22] for the fire department to be able to
[30:23] drive in and turn around. Um, and for me
[30:26] and a lot of less than 10,000 square
[30:28] feet, seemed ridiculous to even get that
[30:30] question, but it was a question I had to
[30:31] go deal with and get a response on. um
[30:33] for these larger lots that have do have
[30:37] large properties
[30:39] with with something that has a ADU
[30:41] that's sort of close to an edge and has
[30:43] its own own driveway.
[30:45] >> Um should we be saying something about
[30:48] that kind of ridiculous statements of
[30:50] needing a firetruck to come in and turn
[30:51] around?
[30:52] >> I So we will the firetruck has its
[30:54] standards and people will need to meet
[30:57] fire district standards. Um if it's uh
[31:00] with regards to our local standards, if
[31:03] the fire district does require a
[31:05] firetruck turnaround, we do have
[31:07] exemptions in our um paved area section.
[31:11] So the turnaround itself uh doesn't
[31:13] count against their paved area
[31:15] standards. Sometimes if people have a
[31:16] really long driveway, they have to
[31:18] actually do a turnout as well. Well,
[31:20] yeah. I mean, I get I get if it's a if
[31:22] it's a long driveway and it's back part
[31:24] of the property and the property is
[31:25] three acres big, but if they're going to
[31:27] put the ADU on the on the corner, is
[31:29] that
[31:30] >> So, I guess what you're saying is the
[31:31] fire truck turnaround rule is not in the
[31:34] town.
[31:34] >> That's correct. Yeah. So, we wouldn't
[31:36] want to put that something in our
[31:37] municipal code directly related to that.
[31:39] Um, so in those instances and where it
[31:43] may not be required, it's something we
[31:45] can help support that applicant with the
[31:47] fire district. Um but it is a fire
[31:49] district requirement. Yeah.
[31:50] >> Um second is uh in some of the letters
[31:54] they talked about having multiple
[31:55] driveways for multiple ADUs. Are we
[31:58] thinking that's a bad idea?
[31:59] >> Um at this point the town has never
[32:03] contemplated allowing more than two
[32:05] driveways on a property. And so um the
[32:10] idea is really to ensure that people can
[32:12] have easy access to a proposed ADU. And
[32:16] so if they are proposing new if they
[32:18] have existing ADUs, they obviously are
[32:20] existing and have access to those units.
[32:23] Um for proposed ADUs, uh they should be
[32:27] looking at grouping those uh together
[32:29] with their proposed second driveway or
[32:31] access off their primary driveway. Um
[32:35] staff hasn't really analyzed looking at
[32:38] a third or fourth driveway because
[32:40] people want multiple separate driveways
[32:42] for multiple different ADUs. We'd really
[32:44] try to encourage people to hear that
[32:45] hasn't come up yet.
[32:46] >> Uh, no, we haven't had any significant
[32:49] concerns or challenges that people have
[32:51] run into for that.
[32:53] >> Um, okay. And my last question may not
[32:55] be related to this specifically, but
[32:58] I've read somewhere that there's either
[33:00] a state law being contemplated or
[33:02] debated about being able to
[33:04] automatically carve out ADUs from a
[33:06] certain lot. Is that something that the
[33:08] town has thought about yet? um in terms
[33:10] of for sale
[33:12] >> for for separation of ownership sort of.
[33:14] >> Yeah. So there is a state law that
[33:17] allows for um cities to optionally
[33:20] decide if they want to uh provide a
[33:24] mechanism in which people can purchase
[33:27] an ADU separate from the primary unit
[33:29] while it's still one property. The town
[33:32] council has not opted to uh uh look at
[33:35] an ordinance for that at this time.
[33:37] >> There's an option for the town.
[33:38] >> Yeah. So the state law it's not a
[33:40] mandatory requirement. Um it's a state
[33:42] law that they provided uh that is an
[33:45] option. It's an option that cities can
[33:47] pursue.
[33:48] >> That's my son. If he calls three times
[33:51] >> understood.
[33:52] >> Thank you.
[33:56] » Okay. Sage. Um what I do have one
[33:59] question on this one and that's on
[34:01] criteria three.
[34:04] um the the draft language uh that's in
[34:07] there is only serve the proposed ADU.
[34:12] If this goes into municipal code and
[34:17] you're making a literal interpretation
[34:19] of that,
[34:21] then that would theoretically
[34:24] bar
[34:25] a proposed second driveway that served
[34:29] the ADU, but then it just coincidentally
[34:32] happened to provide better access to a
[34:35] pool house or a
[34:39] um storage building or a barn or
[34:42] something like that given that the
[34:45] intent that you outlined
[34:48] was
[34:50] to of these changes is to make it easier
[34:54] to create ADUs and the second driveway
[34:58] would be the one and would be the
[35:01] primary means of access
[35:04] um to an ADU that would be in a location
[35:06] that would otherwise be um inaccessible.
[35:10] Um, my suggestion would be to consider
[35:13] tweaking the language to instead of
[35:16] saying only serve the ADU,
[35:19] um, to say that the driveway is needed
[35:22] to provide a practical means of access
[35:25] to the proposed ADU.
[35:32] » Totally open to that there. We don't
[35:33] find significant concern that we can
[35:35] look at modifying that language. Yes, it
[35:37] would just be to make the language
[35:40] better fit what seems to be the intent
[35:43] of this.
[35:43] >> Well, that makes sense. You know, there
[35:45] might be times in which um you know,
[35:48] somebody does this short driveway to an
[35:50] ADU, but yet they can spur off of that
[35:53] to connect to their primary driveway.
[35:56] And as with some of the letters that
[35:57] we've seen, just internal more
[35:59] circulation um provides better fire
[36:02] safety and things of that nature. Um
[36:04] yeah, we're definitely open to that. Um
[36:06] and um with that I'll note, you know,
[36:09] we're going to get through some of the
[36:10] other comments too tonight. Um some of
[36:12] the other items that are suggested from
[36:14] the public are necessarily directly
[36:16] related to some of these things. And
[36:18] what I want to note is
[36:21] um the council schedule is very full in
[36:23] the near future. Uh so we don't have a
[36:25] specific date in which we're going to
[36:27] the council. Uh we know that we wouldn't
[36:29] come to the council before June. Um and
[36:32] so with tonight's conversation uh with
[36:34] these ideas, what I would like to do is
[36:38] um get the direction from the planning
[36:40] commission at the end and we can uh what
[36:43] I would propose to do is bring this back
[36:45] probably the second meeting in May um
[36:48] that we could show any of these changes
[36:50] that are made uh based on the comments
[36:52] that we heard tonight and this would be
[36:53] one of them um should the rest of the
[36:55] commission agree to that.
[36:57] >> That's all I had.
[37:04] Okay. So, the the questions I have, so
[37:06] first on on pylons, can you just
[37:09] describe a little bit more what we what
[37:11] we mean by pylons versus fences? And
[37:13] >> Sure. So, a pylon is going to be a
[37:15] support for a gate that will be kind of
[37:18] the hinge for the gate. Um, and so, uh,
[37:22] when doing a pylon, you might have a
[37:24] wooden wire fence and just a, you know,
[37:28] 12 inch squared wood post probably is
[37:30] going to support your gate, but having
[37:32] some type of minimal metal post as
[37:35] opposed to, um, another, you know, 2x
[37:38] two or 3x3 stone pylon. Um, the idea is
[37:42] to blend it more into the existing
[37:43] fence. So, that's the intent with that.
[37:46] And I think my other question was with
[37:48] respect to the burner on a connection.
[37:52] So I I think I don't know that there's
[37:54] any net new question on this but um I
[37:57] think considering the ability to have
[38:00] circulation for the driveway to I I
[38:02] think I mean I think the intent needs to
[38:04] be look the driveway is to serve a net
[38:07] new ADU that's being built but if it
[38:09] connects on site that that really does
[38:12] feel like the type of thing that um
[38:14] >> yeah no look at given the comments we
[38:16] heard tonight and the from the desk
[38:18] items it's very reasonable request and
[38:20] something that we will uh focus this on
[38:22] when we bring this back.
[38:24] >> That's that's all I had.
[38:29] » And Sage, how we're going section by
[38:31] section.
[38:31] >> Yes. Yes. So, I'll I'll just continue to
[38:33] move on here. Okay.
[38:34] >> Um I'm not going to go into these in
[38:36] detail. These are just definitions.
[38:38] We've made some modifications. Um these
[38:41] are really to make sure we are up to
[38:42] date with current state law. Uh so,
[38:44] we've made modifications. Our
[38:46] definitions were in pretty good shape.
[38:49] Um, we've just made some minor
[38:50] clarifications. Um, and there are really
[38:52] no substantive changes to these
[38:54] definitions. Um, so unless there's any
[38:56] questions, I'll just move on to the
[38:58] next.
[39:02] » So the go ahead.
[39:04] >> Sorry. The the efficiency kitchen.
[39:08] >> So we are making a change there with
[39:11] respect to cooking. Correct. Um this is
[39:15] uh clarifying what a uh
[39:18] it didn't include the cooking piece
[39:21] before and um it just said well it said
[39:26] appliances for food preparation and this
[39:29] is looking at something that a permanent
[39:32] cooking facility. So this is a term used
[39:35] and so the question is when you're doing
[39:36] an ADU you know do I have a stove? do I
[39:39] have, you know, you can have a wet bar,
[39:41] but that's not a kitchen. Um, so that
[39:43] wouldn't qualify as an ADU. Whereas an
[39:46] ADU, they have permanent cooking
[39:48] facilities. And uh what that has been
[39:51] taken into
[39:53] um is that it's essentially uh uh when
[39:57] you install a stove, an oven, it
[39:59] requires venting. And so that's
[40:01] something that does require a building
[40:03] permit. Um so the town has always looked
[40:06] at what is a permanent cooking facility.
[40:07] It is something that's going to require
[40:09] the venting. And what we wanted to
[40:11] clarify in this efficiency kitchen is
[40:13] that someone could have that, but they
[40:16] could have other just cooking
[40:17] appliances. So, as many of us, including
[40:20] myself, you know, we buy all these
[40:22] different, you know, ways to cook um
[40:25] that are just kind of plug-in appliances
[40:27] that are threein- one and can do all
[40:29] these different things. Um so, if people
[40:31] are doing something like that, they
[40:32] don't have to have the oven or the the
[40:35] venting. Um, we just want to make sure
[40:36] that they have some cooking appliances
[40:38] as part of it. So, it's clarifying that.
[40:43] » Okay. So, it and and it reads may or may
[40:45] not include a permanent
[40:46] stove/conventional oven. Does it read
[40:48] elsewhere that any cooking appliances
[40:51] are required?
[40:53] >> It's just a cooking facility with
[40:55] appliances as the leadin to that. Um,
[40:59] so it it which means the cooking
[41:01] facility
[41:03] may or may not be a permanent cooking
[41:05] facility,
[41:06] >> right?
[41:09] Yeah. I think it's I I wonder if we
[41:11] should maybe consider clarifying what a
[41:14] cooking facility actually is. Part of
[41:17] the reason I ask is when I was getting
[41:18] final, I had a temporary set of
[41:21] appliances and was told by the inspector
[41:23] that I didn't need them and go ahead and
[41:25] return them. So it was sort of unclear
[41:28] uh there in terms of is that required.
[41:29] So I think it would be good to just
[41:32] specify what a cooking facility.
[41:34] >> Yeah. So they should have I mean
[41:36] inspected I mean the venting and stuff
[41:38] would have had is what's really getting
[41:40] permitted as opposed to uh the
[41:42] installation of the stove itself. Um so
[41:45] if someone hasn't you know if their
[41:48] plans show for that venting in that
[41:50] cooking facility that would be what's
[41:52] inspected. Um
[41:55] >> okay. So we are saying that the venting
[41:57] is required
[41:58] >> that we're saying for an efficiency
[42:00] kitchen you can have it but you don't
[42:02] have to and the efficiency kitchens are
[42:04] directly related to the JADUs whereas if
[42:08] you're doing a regular ADU you're going
[42:10] to do a permanent cooking facility
[42:13] you're not going to just have the
[42:14] appliances
[42:15] >> okay I think my questions
[42:19] >> we want to ensure that the permanent the
[42:20] ADUs
[42:22] will always have a cooking facility as
[42:24] part of it Okay. Do we have a definition
[42:26] of cooking facility in the code
[42:28] somewhere or is that something?
[42:29] >> It's just the the permanent It's the
[42:31] permanent cooking. We do have a
[42:33] definition of cooking facility and it's
[42:35] the permanent I'd have to look at the
[42:38] exact words, but something we've worked
[42:39] with the building department on. Um, and
[42:41] it's the venting itself which makes it
[42:43] permanent.
[42:45] >> Okay. Yeah. I think it may be helpful to
[42:47] just clarify what the reference is to
[42:49] that just for readability of the code
[42:51] because I know actually talked with a
[42:53] number of folks who get confused over
[42:54] this one.
[42:59] We'll look at look at how to better
[43:01] clarify that.
[43:07] Um, okay. If there's no other questions,
[43:09] we'll move on. Um, okay. So, floor area.
[43:13] Um this is something that in the study
[43:16] session from the planning commission as
[43:18] well as town council and from residents
[43:20] and we've seen in some letters here
[43:22] tonight um that to uh currently the code
[43:26] indicates that everyone u every lot
[43:29] doesn't have to count um up to 800
[43:32] square ft for ADUs on a property and
[43:35] people have asked to uh increase that
[43:38] exception and so what we've done is to
[43:42] clarify uh to propose that people, you
[43:46] know, up to 1,200 square f feet, so
[43:48] giving people another 400 square f feet
[43:50] that could be applied to ADUs on their
[43:52] property that would not account against
[43:54] our maximum resin size or their total
[43:56] floor area allowed on the property. Um,
[43:59] we've had um some letters here. We have
[44:03] at least um you know, five of the
[44:06] letters tonight. two of them kind of
[44:09] just generally supported any increase
[44:11] whereas the other three uh specifically
[44:14] spoke to
[44:16] um looking at the increase up to 1500
[44:18] square f feet. Um so uh in looking at
[44:22] this change and we're specifically just
[44:24] looking at D1 right now when looking at
[44:26] this change staff contemplated you know
[44:30] the town does allow AD to use up to 1500
[44:32] square ft. Um, this isn't directly
[44:36] changing anything for that. It's just
[44:38] simply saying that people get an extra
[44:40] 400 square feet in previously um that
[44:44] they for an ADU, meaning they could use
[44:47] that 400 square ft somewhere. If they
[44:49] use it for an ADU, they could use that
[44:51] somewhere else on their property. Um, we
[44:54] could simply change it for all lots up
[44:56] to 1500 square ft. Uh we do know that
[45:00] when this first came into play, the 800
[45:04] was specifically because town had to
[45:06] require at least an 800 foot unit
[45:09] on smaller lots. I mean, adding another
[45:13] 700 square ft on top of the 800 going to
[45:15] 15, you know, could seem a bit much to
[45:19] some neighbors, say. Um so uh but it's
[45:23] up to the commission if they want to
[45:24] just up the number to 1500 ft² leave it
[45:27] at 1,200 reduce it below that whatever
[45:30] um you may find to be adequate. Um
[45:33] another thing that could be looked at is
[45:35] we could hold a number for lots that are
[45:39] um an acre less than an acre in size and
[45:42] then properties that are larger maybe
[45:45] provide those with a larger exception.
[45:47] um that would have less impacts when
[45:50] they have larger properties. Uh so those
[45:52] are just two different ideas, but uh
[45:54] there are members of the public that
[45:56] have asked to increase that exception up
[45:57] to 1500 square ft. And um if there's any
[46:01] questions on that, you know, can let me
[46:03] know. Um also, you know, again, we'll have public input and at the end
[46:08] you can deliberate where you want to go
[46:10] with that in particular, but there's
[46:11] questions, I'm happy to answer those.
[46:16] Um, so we'll discuss it later.
[46:18] >> Yeah. In terms of Yeah. So if there's
[46:20] questions to answer, now would be the
[46:22] time. But yes, in terms of discussion,
[46:24] be good to get everybody's input and
[46:26] then the commission can decide where
[46:27] they want to end with that item.
[46:32] Okay. Um, okay. So looking at D2, this
[46:35] is a new section. Um, this is out of new
[46:38] state law. And what I'll do is kind of
[46:42] just jump a little bit ahead to kind of
[46:44] intertwine this with E1. Um, initial
[46:48] some of the initial state laws that have
[46:49] passed uh required cities to allow for
[46:53] up to 150 square foot expansions to
[46:57] provide ingress and egress when creating
[46:59] a JADU. And that has been in our code.
[47:03] The um state law has now been changed.
[47:06] They don't explicitly call out the JADU
[47:08] anymore, but they do explicitly call out
[47:11] um the need for this 150 foot expansion
[47:14] uh for ADUs. So, we want to make sure
[47:17] that that is in our code consistent with
[47:19] state law. And the language in here
[47:24] is is consistent with state law.
[47:27] Meaning, sometimes people are just
[47:28] trying to add an extra 150 square feet,
[47:30] but all they need to do is put a door
[47:32] in. Um, and you know, 150 ft be a
[47:37] bedroom. Um, so what we've used is the
[47:40] state law language to say yes, you can
[47:42] go up to the 150 square ft um, if it's
[47:44] necessary. Uh, but if you're already
[47:47] maxed out and you just need to carve out
[47:49] a little bit area. We have some
[47:51] instances people are like raising plate
[47:53] heights a little bit and it's affecting
[47:54] their floor area the way we do floor
[47:56] area here. Um, we want to make sure that flexibility is there. So that's the
[48:02] proposal using the same language uh just
[48:05] to clean up the J AU stuff. We don't
[48:06] want to take that away even though state
[48:08] law um doesn't explicitly require it
[48:11] anymore. But so this is what we proposed
[48:13] for those two expansions if needed.
[48:20] » So state law does not have any
[48:22] requirements with this 150 at this
[48:23] point. it for the JADU. It doesn't
[48:26] explicitly call that out anymore, but it
[48:28] does now explicitly call it out for the
[48:30] ADU. Um that we have to h allow for some
[48:33] expansions to create these ADUs. Um so
[48:36] if someone has an attached ADU, they're
[48:38] proposing. Um again, we have other
[48:41] instances where people are converting
[48:42] buildings and they might need to bump
[48:45] out a little area. We're starting to
[48:47] deal with things on hillsides that kind
[48:49] of create some situations sometimes. Um,
[48:52] and so this is will be consistent with
[48:55] state law. Um, and so we're just making
[48:58] sure we have that in our code.
[48:59] >> So the the effect of this is to say you
[49:02] get the 150 if you're already maxed out.
[49:04] If you're not already maxed out, you
[49:06] don't get the 150 because it counts
[49:08] towards the TFS.
[49:09] >> Correct. And you you would just get what
[49:11] is just necessary to provide that
[49:14] ingress egress to that unit.
[49:17] >> So would would this create then an
[49:19] incentive to sort of
[49:22] phase construction projects in a way
[49:24] that people build up to the maximum with
[49:26] a it could hold back of 150 which then
[49:30] leads to construction projects that last
[49:31] longer.
[49:34] it. If people want to phase development
[49:37] in a way to get an extra 150 square
[49:40] feet, that's something that could occur.
[49:52] » Move on. This is all existing language
[49:54] in our code.
[49:57] Um, okay. So this is something that just
[50:01] really hasn't been addressed in our code
[50:03] um since we've been implementing ADU
[50:06] ordinances
[50:07] um you know ADUs. So there's this term
[50:10] used basic setbacks in our code. So
[50:13] that's kind of your normal setbacks that
[50:14] are required you know that everyone's
[50:16] kind of used to your side setbacks,
[50:18] front setbacks, rear setbacks. Um
[50:21] whereas everyone has kind of come to
[50:23] learn now that uh you know an ADU can be
[50:26] as close as four feet to a side or rear
[50:28] property line. And the question starts
[50:32] to become how large can those overhangs
[50:34] be? Um, you know, our code currently to
[50:37] put ADUs aside, um, before any of these
[50:40] changes to state law, and still
[50:42] currently, um, a house can have a 6-foot
[50:46] encroachment into a front or rear
[50:48] setback for an overhang or other types
[50:50] of features like balconies, um, and go
[50:53] three feet into a side or rear setback.
[50:55] Well, you have an ADU that's 4T away
[50:58] from a side property line. Um, you know,
[51:02] how far should that be able to go into
[51:04] that four feet? Um, and you know, eaves
[51:08] are functional obviously for drainage in
[51:10] many cases and construction and they're
[51:12] also a very common design feature. You
[51:14] can design things without eaves. Um, but
[51:18] with that, what we wanted to do was
[51:20] clarify that, you know, we've had some
[51:23] people trying to do these large patio
[51:25] covers with an ADU. And so, you have
[51:27] this 800 square foot unit and now
[51:30] they're trying to do, you know, another
[51:33] 700 square ft of covered patio um really
[51:36] enlarging this structure. And, um, we've
[51:40] really had to look at these things case
[51:42] by case. And what we believe to be very
[51:45] reasonable is just to clarify that once
[51:48] you're starting to encroach into your
[51:49] basic setbacks for an ADU and getting
[51:51] closer to your neighbors properties that
[51:54] you keep those um to a maximum of 18 in.
[51:57] Um and so that is what is proposed for
[52:01] this section five here. Um for section
[52:04] six again this is just kind of another
[52:07] reasonable concept you know that we've
[52:09] run into with permitting ADUs over the
[52:11] years. So, you know, HVAC units are most
[52:14] common. Uh sometimes have people with
[52:17] tankless water heaters that get attached
[52:19] to the building on the exterior wall.
[52:22] And um what we've done just at the staff
[52:26] level, uh we've really had to just make
[52:28] an interpretation call here because
[52:31] we we can't deny an ADU because they
[52:35] have an HVAC unit that's next to it. Um,
[52:38] you know, if someone's proposing an 800
[52:40] foot ADU that's 4T from a side or rear
[52:42] property line, you know, you don't have
[52:44] an HVAC unit that's 40t away. Um, it's
[52:48] just I'm not an HVAC specialist. Um, but
[52:52] my understanding it should be as close
[52:54] to the building as possible. Uh, and
[52:57] that so what we've done is saying, hey,
[53:00] look, you can have your mechanical
[53:01] equipment. It's serving this unit. It
[53:02] makes sense, but you can't be any closer
[53:04] than 4T to a side or rear property line.
[53:06] So, we just wanted to make sure that
[53:08] it's clear in the code that it is
[53:09] allowed and that you just keep those
[53:12] particular features um within line of
[53:15] kind of the intent and spirit of the
[53:17] state law to say ADUs can be as close as
[53:20] 4T. So, if you are in a corner where we
[53:22] have two sides, one's four feet from the
[53:24] side, one's four feet from the rear,
[53:26] then you just need to put it on one of
[53:28] the other two sides that doesn't make it
[53:30] any closer than four feet to the side
[53:32] property line. Um, so that's the intent
[53:34] behind number six. So there's any
[53:37] questions for five or six?
[53:40] >> One question is how do we define
[53:41] immediately adjacent?
[53:43] >> Um
[53:46] next to um it is against I mean we we
[53:50] can define a distance of how far it can
[53:53] be away. Um you know if that's preferred
[53:56] we
[53:57] >> within 12 inches of or something.
[53:59] >> Yeah. I just you know again I'm not a an
[54:02] expert in mechanical equipment. Um, I
[54:04] could do a little bit of uh um further
[54:07] discussion with the building department.
[54:09] Um, to me, you know,
[54:13] they if someone's putting something 20
[54:16] ft away from it, 5t away, I mean, that's
[54:19] pretty clear. It's not immediately
[54:20] adjacent, but um, we'll talk to the
[54:22] building department and see if it makes
[54:24] sense to there. There may be some
[54:26] requirement of how close it has to be.
[54:28] Um, so we can look at that a little bit
[54:29] closer, too. Okay.
[54:31] >> Thank you.
[54:45] moving right along.
[54:48] It's just cleanup language, just
[54:50] clarifying state law changes. We follow
[54:53] the new codes.
[54:55] Um, okay. So, um, this is something that
[55:00] it's kind of what we were making this
[55:04] change someone in relation to increasing
[55:06] the the TFA uh, exception. And
[55:09] currently, this was put in place in the
[55:12] code um because under state law that if
[55:16] you can't you can't have a local zoning
[55:18] regulation that would amount to making
[55:21] it infeasible for someone to construct
[55:23] an 800 foot unit. And uh further it used
[55:28] to um state law used to say that you
[55:31] could impose a front setback. Now it has
[55:35] language that you can impose a front
[55:37] setback but if that makes it infeasible
[55:39] to construct the unit um that the towns
[55:43] h cities have to make an exception to
[55:45] that. So we've in past ordinances we've
[55:48] removed the the hard restriction on the
[55:51] front setback. Um, and what we've looked
[55:54] at is providing a little bit more
[55:57] flexibility for ADUs for staff to work
[55:59] with folks in unique circumstances. Um,
[56:03] our our past, you know, kind of easy
[56:06] example of this was saying, hey, what if
[56:08] kind of the only place to put an ADU was
[56:10] in a slope and nexus of 35%. You know,
[56:12] staff should be able that's kind of a
[56:14] local zoning thing and staff should be
[56:16] able to provide some flexibility there.
[56:19] Well, since then, we've changed our code
[56:21] to allow ADUs to be in slopes and nexus
[56:23] 35%. So, that's not my go-to example
[56:25] anymore. Um, but I will suggest a couple
[56:28] things which also does relate to a desk
[56:30] item that I'll get to at the end. Um,
[56:33] that there's uh one of the more common
[56:36] examples is paved area surface coverage.
[56:39] Um, when you have a new ADU, at a
[56:41] minimum, you have to have there's
[56:43] building code requirements for landings
[56:46] outside of exit doors. Um, so there's
[56:49] going to have to be some type of patio,
[56:52] porch, something that that meets, but if
[56:55] someone's maxed out on paved area, the
[56:57] town has allowed this exception in the
[56:59] past based on this. Um, so that's an
[57:02] area in which flexibility could be done,
[57:04] but it was limited to only units that
[57:06] were 800 square ft. So if someone was
[57:09] proposing to do a 900 ft²,000 square
[57:11] foot unit that staff would still say
[57:15] still have to go do a variance for
[57:17] something like that. And so what we're
[57:19] trying to do and same goes with the
[57:21] front setback. We have another project.
[57:23] It's a great example. The house is on
[57:26] the San Andreas fault. The property
[57:29] behind it is a creek that splits it from
[57:31] another piece of the property behind it.
[57:34] And really the only place to put an ADU
[57:37] is in the front setback. And so we've
[57:39] worked with them under this uh exception
[57:41] and consistent with state law that they
[57:43] can do an 800 foot unit in that area. Um
[57:47] but because that that gets them outside
[57:48] of the fault zone area. And what we're
[57:51] looking here is just um if uh the
[57:55] commission and council agree that it
[57:57] provides staff with flexibility to look
[57:59] at some of our local zoning centers.
[58:01] someone wants to do up to a,200 foot
[58:03] unit. That gives us more,
[58:06] we we could have flexibility with that
[58:08] unit, not just up to 800 square f feet.
[58:11] Um,
[58:13] so, uh, we're just proposing to
[58:16] increase, um, the flexibility that staff
[58:19] can provide, uh, in I don't want to say
[58:22] wave zoning standards, but modify zoning
[58:25] standards, uh, when necessary, um,
[58:27] because that is the feasible place to
[58:29] put the ADU. So that's what this is
[58:31] proposing.
[58:35] » This is just to make sure they don't if
[58:37] it's truly unable to be put on the fault
[58:40] line,
[58:41] >> then it they don't need to come to ASRB
[58:44] and planning to get it approved.
[58:46] >> Right. So in the case that I that I
[58:48] cited, you know, right now they could do
[58:50] the 800 ft into the front setback. Um,
[58:54] but if this was changed the way it's
[58:55] proposed, they could make that unit up
[58:57] to,200 square feet as opposed to 800.
[59:00] Um, so it provides a little bit more
[59:02] flexibility at the staff level without
[59:04] having to go through the variance
[59:06] process.
[59:08] >> And just to to confirm that, so we were
[59:11] talking about the 800 to,200 earlier,
[59:14] which is
[59:15] >> what are folks titled to. This one is an
[59:18] additional layer of flexibility. There's
[59:20] no reason this couldn't stay at 800.
[59:22] >> That's correct. That's correct.
[59:23] >> They want to do a larger one. They'd
[59:25] come essentially to planning for
[59:27] >> That is correct. Yes. So you you know
[59:29] you could still exempt more square
[59:31] footage from the TFA and hold this at a
[59:34] different number.
[59:39] » And and how how are folks demonstrating
[59:41] the infeasibility of construction?
[59:44] What's the standard for that?
[59:45] >> Um we we don't want to make it
[59:49] overburdensome. Um so uh typically
[59:52] people are going to need surveys and
[59:54] typically people have surveys those will
[59:56] be a big help in identifying some of the
[59:57] constraints. Um when someone you know
[1:00:02] whether it's an ADU or a house you just
[1:00:04] can't build a new one on a fault line.
[1:00:06] Um so people that are on or near fault
[1:00:09] lines they're going to have to
[1:00:10] demonstrate that anyway through
[1:00:11] geotechnical investigations. Uh so we
[1:00:14] look at those um pieces of information.
[1:00:17] Uh we look at um you know
[1:00:19] environmentally sensitive areas
[1:00:21] primarily in Woodside where we deal with
[1:00:23] the stream corridors. Um so those are
[1:00:25] easily identifiable.
[1:00:27] We'll we'll go do a site visit if
[1:00:29] necessary to kind of look at where the
[1:00:31] top of bank may be for um property. So
[1:00:35] uh we we we like to keep it open because
[1:00:38] we want it to be a low bar uh in terms
[1:00:41] of those pro providing that it's not
[1:00:43] feasible. Um, we had another example.
[1:00:46] Someone else strumman showed us that
[1:00:49] they could fit 1500 square feet um, you
[1:00:53] know, outside of a front setback, but
[1:00:56] now they want to just move that into the
[1:00:59] front setback. And well, I'm saying,
[1:01:02] well, you just showed us that you could
[1:01:03] put it you could meet the front setback,
[1:01:06] so I don't so that is not a problem. Um
[1:01:09] so so we try to just keep it very simple
[1:01:12] at those kind of basic issues. Uh steep
[1:01:15] slopes uh faults um and environmentally
[1:01:19] sensitive areas tend to be the biggest
[1:01:20] constraints.
[1:01:23] » And so as they're going through the
[1:01:25] process it's a matter of they they they
[1:01:28] make this case directly to
[1:01:31] >> that's correct.
[1:01:32] >> They're kind of a stage gate like how
[1:01:33] does that
[1:01:34] >> Yeah. No. So the, you know, I mean,
[1:01:36] sometimes people can just show up one
[1:01:39] day and never talk to us and put on
[1:01:40] their plans and here's my reasoning. Um,
[1:01:42] but we encourage people to meet with us
[1:01:44] and often we'll meet with folks once if
[1:01:47] not many times. And so, um, yes, if they
[1:01:50] have some issue, hey, look, you want to
[1:01:52] put it here. sometimes it's the only
[1:01:54] place they can put the septic system to
[1:01:57] serve the ADU whereas okay you could fit
[1:01:59] the ADU there but now you can't put the
[1:02:01] septic system anywhere else because it
[1:02:03] can only be in that location and so
[1:02:05] that's another thing that we kind of
[1:02:06] look at with folks um so yeah we try to
[1:02:09] just be very open and reasonable with
[1:02:11] people um and providing um you know that
[1:02:15] they'll explain their situations to us
[1:02:17] and like I said we're happy to do site
[1:02:18] visits and whatever we can to help u
[1:02:21] make it very clear um And you know it's
[1:02:24] also very clear when we make that
[1:02:25] determination if the neighbor has a
[1:02:27] concern we can say this is how we got to
[1:02:28] that.
[1:02:30] >> And so it mentions the planning director
[1:02:32] shall determine which regulations may be
[1:02:34] written.
[1:02:34] >> Is is it also true that the
[1:02:37] basically if if the planning director
[1:02:39] determines it is not feasible. That's
[1:02:42] also your call.
[1:02:43] >> That's correct. Right. So you're you're
[1:02:46] showing that it's not feasible and we'll
[1:02:48] concur with that or we'll say wait you
[1:02:51] can fit that size unit here. So now
[1:02:53] there's more if we up the square footage
[1:02:55] there's more flexibility for that for
[1:02:58] there's there's the same flexibility for
[1:03:00] a larger unit.
[1:03:04] Okay, makes sense. Um sorry a lot of my
[1:03:07] comments are having having gone through
[1:03:08] processes and just trying to understand
[1:03:10] the the precision. it might be useful
[1:03:12] here to specify that it's a planning
[1:03:14] director call on that and um I don't
[1:03:17] know if there's if there's something
[1:03:18] about what feasibility means or what
[1:03:21] folks are supposed to present um that's
[1:03:24] probably helpful because I think like
[1:03:25] for variances it's quite clear usually
[1:03:27] like there's a form etc like how does
[1:03:30] one determine feasibility would probably
[1:03:32] be quite helpful to applicants
[1:03:42] Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, so we're
[1:03:46] going to move on here to the number of
[1:03:48] ADUs on a property. Um so as many may
[1:03:53] recall um what came out of part of the
[1:03:55] housing element was that on properties
[1:03:59] that are an acre or larger that the town
[1:04:02] would allow amend our codes to allow
[1:04:05] uh three ADUs and a JDU so a total of
[1:04:08] four ADUs on a property plus a house. um
[1:04:11] that was in a very specific I believe
[1:04:12] the the state uh HCD was looking for us
[1:04:16] to just implement that into the SR
[1:04:18] district and um when we moved that
[1:04:21] through the process um I definitely know
[1:04:24] at the council level and I think at the
[1:04:25] planning commission as well but there
[1:04:27] was um saying hey look if we're going to
[1:04:30] allow this for lots of a certain size we
[1:04:32] should just allow it on all lots of that
[1:04:34] size and so that's what the town did so
[1:04:36] the town went a little bit beyond what
[1:04:38] the state had required of
[1:04:40] and allowed uh these three ADUs plus a
[1:04:43] J8U on uh parks that are an acre or
[1:04:47] larger. So there's a part of the
[1:04:50] government code known as government code
[1:04:53] section 66323.
[1:04:55] Um the state will often refer to these
[1:04:58] as stateex exempt ADUs.
[1:05:00] And
[1:05:03] under this state code, every property
[1:05:07] has to allow three ADUs in this these three different types. So one is a
[1:05:14] JADU
[1:05:16] and one is you have to allow a
[1:05:18] conversion of space. So that could be a
[1:05:21] conversion of a storage building, a
[1:05:25] detached garage, a barn as we noted with
[1:05:28] our last amendment. Um it could be a
[1:05:31] conversion of part of your residence. Um
[1:05:34] and so this is a conversion of space.
[1:05:35] The state you have to allow the JADU.
[1:05:38] You have to allow the conversion of
[1:05:39] space. And then the third one is one
[1:05:43] we've kind of been accustomed to is that
[1:05:45] every property has to be allowed to have
[1:05:48] at least one de new detached ADU that's
[1:05:52] uh can be 800 square ft and 16 ft tall
[1:05:56] and as close as 4t to a side or rear
[1:05:58] property line. So, we've changed our
[1:06:00] code to make sure it's clear that people
[1:06:02] can implement that type of unit. Um,
[1:06:04] that type of unit doesn't get held to
[1:06:06] the 11 foot plate height limit, just
[1:06:08] gets to go up to the 16 ft. And what
[1:06:11] we've done here with this section of the
[1:06:13] code, um, because the code currently
[1:06:16] allows folks to have one JADU and one
[1:06:19] attached or detached ADU,
[1:06:22] we're saying if people want to be
[1:06:24] consistent with state law with these
[1:06:26] three types of JADs that are quote
[1:06:29] unquote the stateex exempt ADUs, they
[1:06:31] can have those three units because it is
[1:06:33] allowed by state law. Um and so we you
[1:06:36] know the town could just say everyone's
[1:06:39] allowed to you know those pro those
[1:06:41] smaller properties can have more that's
[1:06:43] another option. Um what we were doing as
[1:06:45] we've kind of done with this is trying
[1:06:47] to provide more flexibility taking
[1:06:50] somewhat smaller steps um incremental
[1:06:52] steps to be careful of how impactful it
[1:06:55] could be to neighboring properties. Um
[1:06:58] and so uh so we're explicitly clarifying
[1:07:02] although it says one Jedu and one
[1:07:05] attached or detached if you want the
[1:07:07] three you follow what is allowed by the
[1:07:11] government code section.
[1:07:14] So that is the proposal for this
[1:07:16] particular
[1:07:18] >> that's an asterct. Is there is the
[1:07:19] asterk up higher?
[1:07:22] >> Um no I appreciate the point that's an
[1:07:23] asterct and like no this is oh sorry yes
[1:07:26] that thank you because you're very point
[1:07:28] it's very important to always have the
[1:07:30] asterct. So yes it is right here. Yeah.
[1:07:32] No no you don't want to have just an
[1:07:34] asterisk without whatever. So um that
[1:07:37] yes that's the placement of it.
[1:07:40] So they get this limitation to JDU and
[1:07:43] one detached or attached. But there's
[1:07:45] this asterct saying if you're following
[1:07:48] what's allowed by government code, you
[1:07:50] can have the three.
[1:08:00] So um this number six is just to also
[1:08:04] clarify um what's allowed by section
[1:08:06] 66323 which um what I just mentioned.
[1:08:09] So, um, if people are, uh, converting a
[1:08:13] portion of their main dwelling,
[1:08:17] someone could convert a barn, 3,000 foot
[1:08:21] barn to an ADU.
[1:08:23] Under 66323,
[1:08:25] the
[1:08:27] um, it doesn't specify the size in which
[1:08:31] you can convert a building. So, with a
[1:08:34] main residence,
[1:08:36] someone could say, "I want to convert
[1:08:39] 3,000 out of my 8,000 foot house into an
[1:08:42] ADU." And under 66323,
[1:08:45] that would be allowed.
[1:08:48] What we're stating here is if someone
[1:08:50] has already used that conversion under
[1:08:53] 66323,
[1:08:55] they can still have an attached ADU, but
[1:08:58] it can't be larger than 1500 square ft.
[1:09:00] So they wouldn't do the conversion of
[1:09:02] the 3000 and add the 1500 foot attached
[1:09:06] ADU. That's the primary example what
[1:09:09] this is getting at. Um so uh so because
[1:09:13] we have standards in our code for
[1:09:15] attached ADUs. Um that's a little bit
[1:09:19] further down but that that's the that's
[1:09:21] the point of what this is doing here.
[1:09:23] saying, "Hey, look, you can convert
[1:09:25] larger spaces. That's allowed, but
[1:09:29] can't convert multiple large spaces."
[1:09:32] Um, so if you want that additional
[1:09:34] attached ADU, you would follow the
[1:09:36] maximum standard for that attached ADU
[1:09:40] since you've already converted
[1:09:42] over that. If you converted an,000 ft
[1:09:45] building to an ADU and it meets code,
[1:09:49] that wouldn't impact this.
[1:09:59] is just clarification language of
[1:10:01] the proper code sections being
[1:10:03] referenced.
[1:10:15] Um this is uh I mean straight out of
[1:10:19] state law. We're just clarifying and
[1:10:21] making sure that everything here um is
[1:10:23] consistent with the state law.
[1:10:33] Just again clarifications.
[1:10:38] So, um this is our our last piece of the
[1:10:41] um proposed ordinance. Um
[1:10:45] through the housing element, uh we have
[1:10:48] a program that look at developing some
[1:10:50] type of amnesty program for ADUs, uh
[1:10:53] unpermitted ADUs and how they can be
[1:10:55] legalized.
[1:10:57] And
[1:10:59] from a planning standpoint, it's it's
[1:11:01] been a bit of a struggle to figure out
[1:11:02] how best to implement something like
[1:11:04] that because a lot of what we've already
[1:11:05] built into our code makes it pretty easy
[1:11:08] and straightforward to convert a
[1:11:09] building. So, if someone had a detached
[1:11:11] garage, even under our laws, if you've
[1:11:14] converted a garage, you don't have to
[1:11:15] replace the parking. Um, and so from a
[1:11:19] zoning standpoint, a lot of the
[1:11:21] conversion issues have already been
[1:11:24] addressed. Um what it the the struggle
[1:11:27] has been really with um ensuring people
[1:11:31] that have done something that's
[1:11:33] unpermitted that they comply with
[1:11:34] building code regulations.
[1:11:37] And you know we could say it's okay to
[1:11:40] convert your garage into an ADU. You've
[1:11:43] already done it. Now come in for
[1:11:44] permits. Zoning wise it's pretty clear
[1:11:47] we almost have nothing to look at. um
[1:11:50] but then they get hit with the building
[1:11:51] code requirements and that's been a real
[1:11:55] um problem for folks. And so in 2024
[1:12:00] uh the state passed what was known as AB
[1:12:04] 2533
[1:12:06] since been replaced just for a
[1:12:08] reumbering. Um but uh it is now this new
[1:12:12] government code section 66311.7.
[1:12:16] And what we're doing here is that's state law. It needs to be
[1:12:20] implemented. There is for units that
[1:12:23] were constructed prior to January 2020.
[1:12:26] I know people will question how do you
[1:12:28] always identify when it was built if
[1:12:30] something was unpermitted. Um
[1:12:33] there's certain building techniques that
[1:12:36] the building department will look at,
[1:12:37] but that the town has a checklist. Um,
[1:12:41] in terms there's still a level of health
[1:12:44] and safety requirements that need to be
[1:12:46] met, but uh, it may not require every
[1:12:49] little detail that would say be for new
[1:12:51] construction today. And that checklist
[1:12:55] has been developed. Um, we have a member
[1:12:58] of the public here who's actually been
[1:12:59] really great and builds ADUs and helps
[1:13:03] us go through some of this stuff and has
[1:13:05] different examples. Um, and she can
[1:13:07] maybe speak to that too tonight. Uh but
[1:13:09] there's we are we want to ensure that we
[1:13:13] are implementing that process. So it's
[1:13:16] primarily a building department function
[1:13:19] from the planning department standpoint.
[1:13:21] We are working with the building
[1:13:22] department to make sure that function is
[1:13:24] in place and that we try to make it as
[1:13:27] clean and smooth as possible. Um
[1:13:31] we just simply wanted to just like our
[1:13:33] preapproval program that we did
[1:13:35] previously. We wanted to keep the
[1:13:37] language very simple. We wanted to make
[1:13:39] sure that it is functional and that the
[1:13:43] building department um makes sure it
[1:13:45] implements the laws, but we have some
[1:13:47] flexibility to continue working on the
[1:13:49] process and make it as clear as
[1:13:50] possible. Um we do have some desk items
[1:13:53] that spoke to that tonight. And
[1:13:56] um the one the one suggestion that came
[1:13:59] out of those desk items um was asking
[1:14:03] for uh the town uh to pro to be able to
[1:14:07] provide a building uh building inspector
[1:14:11] inspection of the unit prior. Um it's
[1:14:14] very good point. you know, if you know,
[1:14:17] once you spend a bunch of money
[1:14:19] designing plans and then you realize you
[1:14:21] have other stuff that you have to figure
[1:14:22] out and that's just going way beyond
[1:14:25] what you ever thought you were going to
[1:14:26] have to do.
[1:14:28] Um people who want to enter this process
[1:14:31] in good faith uh and legalize these
[1:14:33] unpermitted units uh should have some
[1:14:38] mechanism to help minimize any um down
[1:14:42] the road problems that that may have
[1:14:44] been unforeseen initially. The state law
[1:14:47] does state uh does indicate that um that
[1:14:52] jurisdictions
[1:14:53] um basically have to allow they don't
[1:14:56] have to they can't require it, but they
[1:14:58] have to allow uh for property owners to
[1:15:02] come in with a third-party general
[1:15:04] contractor inspection. So, someone can
[1:15:06] go hire a general contractor on their
[1:15:08] own. They can use the checklist that the
[1:15:10] town provides and they can provide them
[1:15:13] with feedback. I believe what is in in
[1:15:16] so that's in place. People are allowed
[1:15:18] to do that. They can always hire someone
[1:15:20] on their own. Um I believe what is being
[1:15:24] suggested in the desk items we received
[1:15:26] tonight was actually having a town
[1:15:29] inspector go out there. Um and
[1:15:33] you know to me it's it's something talk
[1:15:35] with the building department. We look at
[1:15:38] capacity. We look at is should there be
[1:15:40] a cost associated with it? And I look at
[1:15:43] this more of a policy decision. Um so
[1:15:46] it's something that uh you know with the
[1:15:48] desk items and if the town on the
[1:15:50] planning commission would like us to to
[1:15:52] talk with the council further is to
[1:15:54] bring this to the town council and
[1:15:56] indicate
[1:15:58] you know what that might cost the town
[1:15:59] to do. Does the town want to implement a
[1:16:03] cost for that? Currently we wave most
[1:16:05] building permit fees for ADUs. Um but
[1:16:09] and I'll note that our building
[1:16:11] inspectors are contract building
[1:16:13] inspectors. Um and so we really look at
[1:16:16] this as a policy decision. Does the town
[1:16:20] want to um
[1:16:22] look at that cost and capacity uh is
[1:16:25] really the two questions. So do our
[1:16:27] building inspectors have capacity? Is
[1:16:30] that just a matter of um expanding the
[1:16:32] contract uh with the current company
[1:16:34] that holds the building inspections? Um,
[1:16:38] but I I would suggest it's not something
[1:16:40] that we should necessarily codify. Uh,
[1:16:43] so it gives the town the flexibility to
[1:16:45] implement things like this. Um, but to put in our code that the town shall
[1:16:51] provide a building inspection, I really
[1:16:54] think it's a um a good policy decision
[1:16:56] for the town council. Uh, if that's
[1:16:58] something they want to implement, they
[1:17:00] could do that by resolution. Uh, and it
[1:17:02] wouldn't have to be codified. and every
[1:17:04] time it gets changed, we have to change
[1:17:05] the code.
[1:17:08] >> Are there actually any penalties for
[1:17:10] having one and not getting it permitted?
[1:17:12] >> Um, it's a good question. So, if
[1:17:13] someone's following this process, no.
[1:17:16] Um, you know, typically prior to this
[1:17:19] process, um, if someone builds something
[1:17:22] uh without permits, um, it could incur
[1:17:26] three times the permit fee. Um, should
[1:17:28] note we wave most of the permit fees for
[1:17:30] ADUs. So,
[1:17:31] >> three times zero. Okay.
[1:17:33] >> Um, so, so the town does not have
[1:17:35] significant fines uh for anything like
[1:17:37] this.
[1:17:40] » I agree with you on the on the no need
[1:17:42] to put in the code thing. I mean, this
[1:17:44] does seem like a town policy of I think
[1:17:46] we kind of want these, right? We want
[1:17:48] people to permit them and get them in
[1:17:50] their numbers.
[1:17:51] >> Um, and so almost like having a
[1:17:53] international amnesty for anybody
[1:17:55] >> and and some sort of onbudsmanship to
[1:17:58] get them to the point where they're
[1:17:59] coded safe that
[1:18:00] >> Yeah. No, that that's the point. uh it increases more housing, legitimate
[1:18:05] housing as well as safer housing. So um
[1:18:08] for that reason, the goal is really to
[1:18:11] try to continually, you know, make this
[1:18:14] uh easier.
[1:18:15] >> Do you guys know where they are?
[1:18:17] >> No, I No, I would say no. Um you know,
[1:18:20] we if if there is a complaint that comes
[1:18:23] in, the code enforcement process has
[1:18:25] started. Um and that's simply to get
[1:18:28] someone into compliance.
[1:18:31] The question I have based on and based
[1:18:32] on the desk item and so someone comes
[1:18:36] forth goes into this program
[1:18:39] they get hit with a set of code code
[1:18:42] issues the cost spirals are they able to
[1:18:45] pull back or it's once they've started
[1:18:47] the process
[1:18:49] >> it's a good question uh so we had
[1:18:51] someone come in uh prior to this state
[1:18:54] law being in place um they just want to
[1:18:56] come in hey you guys need adus I'll do
[1:18:58] that and they've
[1:19:00] uh they've come in, they, you know, had
[1:19:03] some issues. They were drawing the plans
[1:19:04] themselves. They still needed to come up
[1:19:07] to certain building code requirements.
[1:19:08] Um I did reach out to them since it's
[1:19:10] been in place. I don't know. I think
[1:19:12] they may have sold their property, but
[1:19:14] um it wasn't a code enforcement case. It
[1:19:16] wasn't something that was an inquiry
[1:19:18] that was brought to the town for
[1:19:19] enforcement. Um so because of that, the
[1:19:22] town is reactive to inquiries. We did
[1:19:26] not pursue code enforcement.
[1:19:30] If there's health and safety violations
[1:19:31] that the town is made aware of, building
[1:19:34] department will look at those to ensure
[1:19:36] that those are corrected.
[1:19:40] We're looking at, you know, you want to
[1:19:41] make sure there's not wiring hanging out
[1:19:43] everywhere, things of that nature.
[1:19:47] Just one policy question that occurs to
[1:19:50] me with respect to the prospect of the
[1:19:53] building department going out and doing
[1:19:54] pre-insspection
[1:19:56] of unpermitted ADUs
[1:19:59] is
[1:20:01] in in in addition to whether
[1:20:04] uh um um there would be a charge for
[1:20:07] this service, it would be also whether
[1:20:10] it would just be a verbal report by the
[1:20:13] inspector or if a written report is
[1:20:17] provided and then also
[1:20:20] if that written report is going to by
[1:20:25] its existence
[1:20:27] um be an implicit statement by the
[1:20:30] building department or the town on
[1:20:32] limiting the scope of the required
[1:20:34] changes
[1:20:37] because it sort of um
[1:20:41] I mean doing renovations it's a big can
[1:20:44] of worms So,
[1:20:46] um um scope creep is always an issue.
[1:20:50] And is the town be um going to be on the
[1:20:53] hook if the building inspector initially
[1:20:55] said something didn't have to be done
[1:20:57] and then
[1:20:59] um things changed?
[1:21:01] >> Yeah. No, I I I So, from what I hear is
[1:21:07] would that say I don't have to fix
[1:21:09] something that I didn't see behind the
[1:21:10] wall? And I think the answer is no.
[1:21:13] there's still a possibility that you may
[1:21:14] have to fix more. Uh there are certain
[1:21:17] things that would not be inspected um
[1:21:19] like things that are behind a wall when
[1:21:21] someone opens up a wall uh to make
[1:21:24] certain modifications. So there are a
[1:21:26] lot of in the checklist kind of call you
[1:21:30] know there's some uh um the right word
[1:21:34] not caveats necessarily but uh it would
[1:21:38] the inspection is based on what was seen
[1:21:40] and inspected and people will need to be
[1:21:44] aware that there could be additional
[1:21:46] items uh that could come into play that
[1:21:48] just aren't identifiable by that
[1:21:50] inspection.
[1:21:57] So, so that goes through the proposals.
[1:22:01] Um, I do want to s question on actually
[1:22:04] the prior one before we got here, which
[1:22:06] was
[1:22:07] >> in bottom of page 13.
[1:22:11] >> Owner occupancy is required in any
[1:22:13] residence that contains a junior ADU
[1:22:15] except as described below.
[1:22:17] So if you build a J jadu,
[1:22:22] you have to stay in your house for life.
[1:22:24] >> No. Um the owner of the property has to
[1:22:28] live in one of the units. So if you sell
[1:22:30] your property that the own whoever owns
[1:22:34] the property has to live in one of the
[1:22:35] two units. So if right so if if somebody
[1:22:41] say I I build a JDU
[1:22:44] I have a job requirement that brings me
[1:22:47] to Chicago
[1:22:49] I have to sell the house
[1:22:51] >> or you wouldn't rent out the JADU
[1:22:55] >> can't rent out the JADU can rent out the
[1:22:57] rest of the
[1:22:58] >> because the JDU will be part of the
[1:22:59] house it's always part of the house um
[1:23:02] it's the JDU is something that gets can
[1:23:04] be closed off Um, so that's kind of the
[1:23:07] idea of JADUs that, you know, you have a shared door that you can
[1:23:13] close. Even a JADU, you don't have to
[1:23:15] have its own bathroom. Um, a JADU can
[1:23:18] actually share a bathroom with the rest
[1:23:20] of the house. Um, and so the the idea of
[1:23:25] J8s when they first came up is that I
[1:23:27] have this extra bedroom. I can close it
[1:23:29] off and I can put in this little
[1:23:32] efficiency kitchen and then so that way
[1:23:34] it just turns into the house.
[1:23:37] >> Yeah, I think I'm just struggling with
[1:23:38] the language on this because it it
[1:23:40] really reads maybe it's just me, but it
[1:23:42] reads as if
[1:23:45] the fact that there's a Jadu requires
[1:23:47] that owner occupancy is required for the
[1:23:49] life of this structure,
[1:23:52] which seems problematic.
[1:23:57] » Understood. We'll look at that a little
[1:23:58] bit closer. Um the the intent is that
[1:24:03] you don't you don't rent out two units,
[1:24:07] the JDU and the house that you have
[1:24:09] someone on site.
[1:24:12] this one. Well, it is part of this comes
[1:24:15] out of the state law which is why you
[1:24:17] get into these requirements about
[1:24:19] government agencies and land trust and
[1:24:21] um so I'll look at a couple things at
[1:24:24] one to make sure that this is more clear
[1:24:26] and then two if the town wants to pursue
[1:24:28] it maybe saying hey we just don't even
[1:24:30] want to have this requirement in place
[1:24:32] um if I'll double check it may be that
[1:24:35] the state law doesn't require that you
[1:24:37] have that in place and so I'll look at
[1:24:40] one making this more clear shall we keep
[1:24:42] it in place and two Is there the option
[1:24:44] to just remove the requirement
[1:24:46] completely? Um, and if that's an option,
[1:24:49] we'll present that as well.
[1:24:51] >> Makes sense. Yeah, I think that the
[1:24:52] clarification that would be helpful
[1:24:53] would be I think exactly what you said,
[1:24:56] which is it also wouldn't be required if
[1:25:00] the owners I'm not going to say this
[1:25:01] right, but the owner is not trying to
[1:25:02] rent out two units, right? Like if they
[1:25:04] can rent out the whole thing
[1:25:07] uh
[1:25:09] but not carve it up. Yep.
[1:25:14] So um
[1:25:24] okay so what I'd like to also now just
[1:25:27] to um continue with is
[1:25:31] we've received a few desk items um that
[1:25:34] were not uh directly interwoven with
[1:25:38] what we were doing today
[1:25:41] and uh I'd like to bring up a couple and
[1:25:43] thankfully Steve Patrick is here tonight
[1:25:45] so we can help um bring up his items. He
[1:25:48] brought up two items. Um one was related
[1:25:51] to paved area and uh possibly allowing a
[1:25:56] larger exception for paved area related
[1:25:58] to ADUs. Uh so a very good question.
[1:26:01] It's actually something thought about.
[1:26:03] Um we as I noted a little bit earlier
[1:26:06] that that wouldn't be a restriction in
[1:26:08] and of itself to construct an ADU. we
[1:26:11] have that flexibility. Uh but um during
[1:26:14] deliberation, if the the planning
[1:26:17] commission would like us to actually
[1:26:18] carve out, he suggested 1500 square ft
[1:26:21] of additional paved area, um we'd be
[1:26:24] happy to explore that further and bring
[1:26:25] that back. Uh if we want to look at some
[1:26:28] specific uh additional square footage of
[1:26:30] exemption that's directly related to the
[1:26:32] construction of an ADU, um we're don't
[1:26:36] have any significant concern for that. I
[1:26:39] think the I think it's a great point and
[1:26:41] very needed. Um my question would be do
[1:26:45] you have any data as to what would be
[1:26:47] needed?
[1:26:48] >> That's a very good question. That's
[1:26:50] something we could provide. Like I said,
[1:26:51] you know, it will it will change, right?
[1:26:54] So I think I think it's like you have to
[1:26:57] have at least by like a three foot out
[1:26:59] landing from your doors and so there's
[1:27:01] certain things like that. But if you
[1:27:03] only have two small doors, maybe that's
[1:27:04] >> But it also includes the driveway,
[1:27:06] >> right? There's certain things. I mean,
[1:27:08] you don't necessarily have to have a
[1:27:10] driveway all the way up to an ADU. Um,
[1:27:13] you know, so there's certain things, but
[1:27:15] what we could just look at is, you know,
[1:27:17] you look at, okay, let's say someone has
[1:27:19] a, you know, a 10x4 walkway for, you
[1:27:23] know, that distance and then has roughly
[1:27:26] some additional square footage around an
[1:27:28] ADU. Um, you know, the town can just
[1:27:31] make a decision that it wants to make
[1:27:33] sure you get at least the minimum and
[1:27:35] could go up to
[1:27:37] whatever seems to be a reasonable square
[1:27:39] footage. Uh so we can come back with a
[1:27:41] little bit more clarification on what
[1:27:44] some bare minimums might look like. Uh
[1:27:46] and then you know what a little bit more
[1:27:49] reasonable maybe you know okay you have
[1:27:51] your landing outside your door but maybe
[1:27:53] they should be allowed a 9 by9 patio or
[1:27:56] something like that you know. Um
[1:27:59] >> separate question from all the stuff I
[1:28:02] had a question around garages for ADUs.
[1:28:05] Has anybody tried to add a garage to
[1:28:07] ADU?
[1:28:08] >> So, a garage to an ADU is a couple
[1:28:11] things to look at. So, talking about a
[1:28:13] detached ADU, the town still has a limit
[1:28:16] of 1500 square ft of a an accessory
[1:28:20] structure. Um, so if someone wanted to
[1:28:24] uh use part of that accessory structure
[1:28:27] limit as a garage, they would have a
[1:28:29] smaller ADU or they could just have a
[1:28:32] garage right next to their 1500 foot
[1:28:34] structure um that wouldn't be part of
[1:28:36] separate.
[1:28:38] >> So it's a it's a matter of does the town
[1:28:40] want to allow for larger structures
[1:28:43] um that would include garages? It's
[1:28:46] something that uh we h it it hasn't
[1:28:50] people have asked about in the past but
[1:28:52] it hasn't become any significant hurdle
[1:28:55] or challenge to someone building an ADU.
[1:28:57] >> If we if we talk about a 1500
[1:29:01] it's a discussion item.
[1:29:02] >> Sure. I mean, one one thing I'll just
[1:29:05] note is that
[1:29:07] to have a structure with an ADU and it's
[1:29:10] larger, someone builds a garage, they
[1:29:13] may come in later and say, "You have to
[1:29:15] allow me to convert that garage into
[1:29:17] part of my ADU."
[1:29:20] So, it's it's the balance of trying to
[1:29:23] provide some reasonable,
[1:29:27] you know,
[1:29:28] >> there's also a balance of rats eating
[1:29:30] wiring.
[1:29:31] >> Yep. Understood. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah.
[1:29:34] The town
[1:29:35] >> 1500 foot like my house when I bought it
[1:29:37] was 1,400 bedrooms. We had a twoar shed
[1:29:40] >> y sort of thing. So
[1:29:42] >> they're actually making a living unit
[1:29:44] for a separate family.
[1:29:48] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's definitely something we
[1:29:49] can think about more. Um and yeah, under
[1:29:52] deliberation if that's something you
[1:29:53] want us to look at increasing the sizes,
[1:29:56] uh we can bring that back as well.
[1:29:59] Um so so that's one item that was
[1:30:02] brought up by uh Mr. Patrick. Um the
[1:30:05] other item is something that he's
[1:30:07] actually brought up in the past and um
[1:30:09] we did think about this definitely. Uh
[1:30:13] we we last time we amended the code, we
[1:30:16] looked at amending we did amend the code
[1:30:19] to allow for taller ADUs on downward
[1:30:22] sloping lots from from public rightways.
[1:30:26] And
[1:30:27] um he's brought up the the point of well
[1:30:30] you should allow on ups sloping lots
[1:30:32] too. And one of the examples that I
[1:30:35] think I most grasp from this is you have
[1:30:37] a driveway kind of leading up to a
[1:30:39] flatter area on this ups sloping lot.
[1:30:42] You have this ADU that's kind of you
[1:30:44] know now inward facing towards this
[1:30:48] flatter part but they're now on this
[1:30:51] downward slope and the downward slope is
[1:30:52] facing the right of way. Shouldn't that
[1:30:54] be allowed to be taller? Um, I really
[1:30:57] appreciate actually that he's also
[1:31:00] provided some suggested code language.
[1:31:01] That's always very helpful for us to
[1:31:03] kind of understand how that could work.
[1:31:05] Um, this is something that, you know, if
[1:31:08] the if the commission would like us to
[1:31:10] explore further, I would. Uh, I some of
[1:31:13] the just a little bit hesitation and why
[1:31:15] it didn't make it into this um go around
[1:31:18] was,
[1:31:19] you know, you could talk about it just
[1:31:20] based on a size of a property. Um, the
[1:31:24] real intent was to be careful of
[1:31:27] allowing very tall ADUs that are very
[1:31:30] visible and imposing from the rightway
[1:31:31] or sometimes to a neighboring property
[1:31:34] and
[1:31:37] just the size of the property sometimes
[1:31:39] may not be the answer. Um, maybe
[1:31:42] distance from a property line. Um, maybe
[1:31:45] really looking at the the height of it,
[1:31:48] you know, should it be allowed to be as
[1:31:50] tall in the back? um what should go
[1:31:53] should be allowed to go into that space
[1:31:55] at the bottom. Um the way we did the
[1:31:57] downward sloping lots, we said that we
[1:32:00] don't take our plate height multiplier
[1:32:04] measurement on the downward sloping
[1:32:06] lots. If the lower level is not for
[1:32:08] living space, um but if you want to make
[1:32:11] it living space, it's okay. But we're
[1:32:13] going to then use the multiplier and
[1:32:14] that's going to go into the overall size
[1:32:16] of that building. I think it would be
[1:32:18] good to look at because when I built
[1:32:20] mine um it was really hard to fit in the
[1:32:23] plate height and my the 80 was still
[1:32:26] below my front door.
[1:32:27] >> Yeah.
[1:32:27] >> Base of it. So it like it
[1:32:29] >> there was a lot of Yeah.
[1:32:30] >> lot of squeezing that had to happen.
[1:32:31] >> So yeah. So
[1:32:32] >> very short garage and a very short
[1:32:34] >> Yep.
[1:32:35] >> house. Yep. Understood. So So yeah. So
[1:32:38] it's definitely a point. I think you
[1:32:39] know I really appreciate the code and
[1:32:41] I'd actually start to the suggestion if
[1:32:43] the commission wants to look at that.
[1:32:45] start with that and then look at, you
[1:32:47] know, maybe providing a couple of guard
[1:32:49] rails that the commission may want to
[1:32:50] consider. Um, but that that was just the
[1:32:53] main initial concern was, okay, let's
[1:32:56] make sure that this works for what we're
[1:32:58] intending it for.
[1:33:00] >> Look at that further.
[1:33:02] >> Going back to the you mentioned more
[1:33:04] paved area
[1:33:06] >> where where is that? I didn't see that
[1:33:07] in the letter.
[1:33:08] >> Oh, he had he submitted a second one.
[1:33:11] There's two letters. Yes. Yeah. So, he
[1:33:13] made me a a second email that actually
[1:33:15] just came in right before the meeting
[1:33:16] and I I'm pretty sure everyone got a
[1:33:17] copy of it.
[1:33:19] >> Um,
[1:33:19] >> just came in.
[1:33:20] >> Well, no, I'm sorry. It should Yeah. So,
[1:33:23] yeah. Yeah. So, um, so yes. No, he
[1:33:25] brought that up as well and and you
[1:33:27] know, it's paved. He even brought it up.
[1:33:30] He even kind of specifically mentioned,
[1:33:32] you know, on our SCP lots, most of them
[1:33:34] are allowed a 9,000 square foot minimum.
[1:33:37] Um, I'm sorry, maximum for paved area.
[1:33:39] And so, uh, you know, looking at some
[1:33:42] additional clearcut paved area exemption
[1:33:45] for ADUs. Be happy to look at that if
[1:33:48] the commission would like us to.
[1:33:52] Um, and then I do want to mention um
[1:33:55] this other desk item. Uh, it's, uh,
[1:33:58] comes in from Steve Luben. Um, I really
[1:34:01] commend him for this idea. I totally
[1:34:03] understand where he's coming from. Um
[1:34:06] he's he's talked about looking at uh all
[1:34:10] of the R1 zoning in a similar way to how
[1:34:12] it was changed for the Glenn's. The
[1:34:15] Glenn's is in an R1 zoning district and
[1:34:17] as many are aware, I'm sure at least two
[1:34:19] of you directly are aware given the
[1:34:21] detailed um hearings we went through
[1:34:24] then um that you know should something
[1:34:28] like that or just immediately apply that
[1:34:30] to all the R1 districts in town and that
[1:34:33] could help provide some more flexibility
[1:34:35] for ADUs. Uh so while I do think it's a
[1:34:39] it's something worth exploring, it's a
[1:34:41] little bit outside of the realm that's
[1:34:42] directly related to ADUs. It's a little
[1:34:45] bit larger of a process. U we want to
[1:34:47] look at, you know, the different R1
[1:34:49] areas. Uh but a point well taken. Um you
[1:34:54] know, I I just don't know how it would
[1:34:56] totally weave into this ordinance.
[1:34:58] >> Yeah, that that makes sense. It was also
[1:35:00] interesting there the um the size of the
[1:35:03] lots in Palm Circle are also
[1:35:05] non-conforming to me. It was it was kind
[1:35:07] of another glands in a lot of ways.
[1:35:09] >> It is. It is. No. And you look at the
[1:35:11] Emerald Lake Hills, they have an R1 area
[1:35:13] which shares a lot of the similar areas.
[1:35:15] And then some of our other R1 areas are
[1:35:18] kind of right here in the main town
[1:35:20] corridor. Get over to by Prospect
[1:35:22] Street. Um, and so it's definitely worth
[1:35:26] looking into, but I think it's a little
[1:35:28] bit needs a little bit more holistic
[1:35:29] approach to it.
[1:35:32] So with that, that concludes my
[1:35:33] presentation. Um, and think we've gone
[1:35:37] through the questions. If you have any
[1:35:38] other additional questions this time,
[1:35:40] otherwise we can roll up to public and
[1:35:42] then we can go back to deliberation for
[1:35:43] more questions if you have any.
[1:35:48] » All right, we will go ahead and open uh
[1:35:50] public comment then. Is there are there
[1:35:52] members of the public here in the room
[1:35:54] or on Zoom who would like to make a
[1:35:56] comment?
[1:36:00] » I'll go first.
[1:36:03] >> Good evening. I'm Steve Patrick. I live
[1:36:06] at 732 West Glway Lake. Congratulations,
[1:36:09] Chairgar, on the appointment as
[1:36:12] chairman. Quite a few years ago, I sat
[1:36:15] there and it's, you know, I don't it was
[1:36:18] I was going to say thankless, but it's
[1:36:20] not. I mean it uh
[1:36:23] >> after today
[1:36:24] >> you got to put your fingerprints on
[1:36:25] everything for a while and then it's great that all of you do the public
[1:36:30] service thing. That's what's needed in
[1:36:32] this town and in all towns and all
[1:36:34] communities. So appreciate all your work
[1:36:36] on that uh as missionaries. Um actually
[1:36:41] just kind of piggybacking on what Sage
[1:36:43] just went over the two points I had and
[1:36:45] I think he was pretty clear. I think
[1:36:47] that um there should be some provision
[1:36:51] for the UPS sloped lots and if there's
[1:36:56] enough as he says guard rails and I kind
[1:36:58] of pointed out potential guard rails
[1:37:00] that would be there like the lot should
[1:37:02] be big enough and actually even in the
[1:37:05] way it's written now um with the
[1:37:08] provision for setbacks that structure
[1:37:11] would have to follow actually setbacks
[1:37:13] not ADU setbacks so it couldn't be you
[1:37:16] know 4T from the back property line or
[1:37:18] four feet from the side property line.
[1:37:19] It would have to follow all normal
[1:37:20] setbacks and uh you know I actually the
[1:37:25] reason it really came to light was we're
[1:37:28] working on a project and it's the the
[1:37:31] driveway goes all the way up to the back
[1:37:33] of the property and then from the
[1:37:34] property it does slope down to the
[1:37:36] street but the ADU would be well within
[1:37:39] the or well beyond the 50ft front
[1:37:41] setback. So it's no more imposing than
[1:37:45] even a you know the main house the main
[1:37:47] residence could be. It just happens to
[1:37:49] be the way this was configured over the
[1:37:50] last probably 40 50 years. So it seems
[1:37:54] there should be some provision to allow
[1:37:56] something with kind of unique
[1:37:58] circumstance and actually uh you know
[1:38:01] sites that are 35% it is somewhat
[1:38:04] unique. I mean, they're they're there
[1:38:07] and seems like they're uh more con the
[1:38:10] more constrained sites are starting to
[1:38:12] appear as building sites now with ADUs.
[1:38:15] So, uh having done this for 40 years in
[1:38:18] town, I realized that this ADU provision
[1:38:21] is really opening up the possibility for
[1:38:23] people to, you know, have family homes
[1:38:25] and, you know, uh expand that
[1:38:28] possibility. The other one that kind of
[1:38:30] came up and I apologize that I didn't
[1:38:32] get it as a desk item sooner, but it was
[1:38:34] kind of late in the day and I just kind
[1:38:36] of realized that, you know, we actually
[1:38:39] was discussed in great length about
[1:38:41] second driveways. Well, how do you do a
[1:38:43] second driveway if you're primarily I
[1:38:45] said an SPC site where you're only
[1:38:48] allowed 9,000 square feet and if you
[1:38:50] have a driveway that has to go up and
[1:38:52] then you brought up the fire department
[1:38:54] requirement that you have to do a
[1:38:55] turnaround in front of your new ADU
[1:38:58] because you got to be so far and it's
[1:39:00] really impossible. So what you have to
[1:39:03] look at investigating is well we'll tear
[1:39:05] out their front walkway and we'll tear
[1:39:07] out the pool patio and we'll put gravel
[1:39:10] around this and it's just seems like
[1:39:13] it's not the intent as if you're going
[1:39:15] to allow ADUs and you're going to allow
[1:39:17] second driveways and I don't want to say
[1:39:19] going to allow I think it's wonderful
[1:39:20] that we're allowing ADUs second
[1:39:22] driveways and actually four ADUs on a
[1:39:26] property plus the main house and then
[1:39:28] still limit the uh impervious surface
[1:39:31] area to 9,000 ft on an SCP lot. It it
[1:39:35] really doesn't calculate. And uh so I'd
[1:39:39] love it to have you consider that. I
[1:39:41] think the work that's uh staff has done
[1:39:43] and all your deliberations, it's
[1:39:45] wonderful. I appreciate it. Um and as
[1:39:49] Sage pointed out, there is an
[1:39:51] opportunity to kind of work this over the next month, which is useful. It
[1:39:56] doesn't have to be a knee-jerk reaction.
[1:39:59] and said, "No, we just can't absorb that
[1:40:01] much at this time." I think it's really
[1:40:03] worthwhile that, you know, Sage is going
[1:40:05] to be able to rework some verbiage in
[1:40:08] there and make it work for more people
[1:40:10] in town to have, you know, enjoy family
[1:40:14] properties. So, thanks for your time and
[1:40:16] your consideration.
[1:40:23] » Good evening. I'm Carrie Diller, 50
[1:40:26] Prospect, uh, homeowner and ADU owner. I
[1:40:30] also am the founder of Inspired ADUs,
[1:40:32] uh, a architecture firm focused on ADUs.
[1:40:35] I think we've just permitted over 300 in
[1:40:38] the Bay Area and we have 13 active going
[1:40:41] in Woodside. Um, it's been amazing
[1:40:43] working with Sage and the team um, to
[1:40:46] get those going, interpret this crazy
[1:40:48] state law that's changing every few
[1:40:50] minutes. Um, so I just wanted to give a
[1:40:53] couple other points for consideration as
[1:40:55] you start your debate on the up on the
[1:40:58] topics we've discussed tonight. So the
[1:41:00] second driveway is super uh I think it's
[1:41:02] a super important thing to make these um
[1:41:06] units really function improve the fire
[1:41:08] access. Um that's a real big point. So,
[1:41:11] I think a simple clarity of of trying to
[1:41:14] add more ADUs and not limiting the
[1:41:16] driveway to only serving one ADU or
[1:41:18] saying specifically what it should be
[1:41:20] serving, uh, I think would be great.
[1:41:22] Just a simple clarification of that code
[1:41:24] at that number three. Uh, the 150 foot
[1:41:28] exemption to add on for egress and
[1:41:31] ingress is a strange one that came about
[1:41:32] a long time ago, but we are actually
[1:41:35] seeing um the need for it, especially
[1:41:37] with some of the barn conversions we're
[1:41:39] doing in town. in order to not change
[1:41:42] the footprint and the integrity of the
[1:41:44] barn, but to make it a usable, habitable
[1:41:46] place. Um, that weird little code is
[1:41:49] actually proving to be helpful in a lot
[1:41:51] of ADUs we're doing because the state
[1:41:54] limited that code to ingress and egress.
[1:41:57] It's a little more hard to manipulate
[1:41:58] and make it into these extra bedrooms
[1:42:00] and things. And I think we are seeing
[1:42:02] historically through the years of of
[1:42:04] permitting it to use that it is helping
[1:42:07] um if it helps at all on the mechanical
[1:42:09] equipment. Typically those mini split
[1:42:12] systems are about 6 in off a unit and
[1:42:15] can be up to about 20 ft for the line
[1:42:17] set. So you have some play in terms of
[1:42:20] what's immediate and not if that's
[1:42:22] helpful. Um
[1:42:24] I would also support uh raising that 800
[1:42:30] uh to 1,200 in regard to the flexibility
[1:42:32] that the planning department has for
[1:42:34] lots. Um it was the second upgrade from
[1:42:37] the 8 to 1200. Um there are a lot of
[1:42:40] lots in Woodside that have really unique
[1:42:42] like our home for example is a flag lot.
[1:42:44] So although we have a large parcel the
[1:42:47] area where we can do units based on
[1:42:50] septic and then the fire overlay. So
[1:42:53] fire department has requirements in
[1:42:55] terms of how um far you can go to be
[1:42:57] reached by a fire truck to make the
[1:42:59] project viable. Um and so sometimes
[1:43:02] putting those units closer to the front
[1:43:04] or in the front yard is improving
[1:43:06] overall life safety and I don't think is
[1:43:08] necessarily um making a problematic
[1:43:12] architectural contribution. And I think
[1:43:14] if the planning director and department
[1:43:16] have a say on that that moving that to
[1:43:18] 1,200 is is an excellent thing to do. Um
[1:43:24] and then finally on the legalization, thing has been very
[1:43:27] complicated and there's a real gap uh
[1:43:30] between actually getting units legalized
[1:43:33] and what the state's done so far. The
[1:43:36] state has made a long checklist. There's
[1:43:37] a short checklist and a long checklist.
[1:43:40] But what they did as they often do is
[1:43:42] leave a lot of ambigu ambiguity in the
[1:43:44] language. So it says that the authority
[1:43:46] having jurisdiction in terms of the
[1:43:49] inspectors can approve something if it
[1:43:53] if the health and wellness and life
[1:43:55] safety of the occupants is not harmful.
[1:43:58] So it's um very difficult. The current
[1:44:02] process we've been going through is that
[1:44:03] a client has to hire us. We have to
[1:44:05] design the whole thing then submit it to
[1:44:07] the town. Then we get feedback from
[1:44:09] building which is asking us to x-ray
[1:44:13] slabs or prove that there's
[1:44:14] waterproofing or appropriate rebar.
[1:44:16] Well, we have several structures from
[1:44:18] the 40s and 50s that obviously are not
[1:44:21] going to have any of those things. And
[1:44:23] if the clients are required to scrape
[1:44:25] the whole thing, lift it up, put in a
[1:44:27] new foundation, they're not going to
[1:44:28] legalize it. So, um there is a lot of
[1:44:31] other ways that inspectors could go out
[1:44:33] in the field. I do think it could be
[1:44:35] something that's a paid for service that
[1:44:37] could either then be reimbured if you
[1:44:39] permit the unit or just be a paid for
[1:44:42] service because um people are living in
[1:44:45] these units. Fire department doesn't
[1:44:46] necessarily know they're there. Um
[1:44:49] you're not necessarily getting tax
[1:44:50] assessment on them for the tax income.
[1:44:53] Uh, and there are a lot of things that
[1:44:55] this inspection could catch like faulty
[1:44:58] wiring, like plumbing or uh limited
[1:45:01] windows or doors for life safety that
[1:45:03] could be improved. But there are some
[1:45:05] considerable things that if a slab isn't
[1:45:07] cracked, if there's no water
[1:45:08] infiltration, if it looks sound and
[1:45:11] whole and people have been living there
[1:45:12] for 20 years, that it's probably okay to
[1:45:15] keep going. So, um I think it's not a
[1:45:18] planning, but if the uh planning
[1:45:20] commission made a recommendation to city
[1:45:22] council that they adopt something like
[1:45:24] this, it could really there are a lot of
[1:45:27] illegal units um in Woodside. And I
[1:45:30] think it would be a great way to get
[1:45:31] your numbers up, but also just make
[1:45:33] healthier living for people um and make
[1:45:36] it reasonable because otherwise they're
[1:45:38] too intrepidacious to to move forward.
[1:45:41] Um thank you. And I also support Steve's
[1:45:43] um ideas of ex extending the paving and
[1:45:46] thinking about the slope sites. We're um
[1:45:49] we're just working on one on Glenn Craig
[1:45:52] this morning that could use a little
[1:45:53] help on that one. So, thank you very
[1:45:55] much.
[1:45:57] >> One one followup question maybe to to
[1:46:00] Sage or or or yourself. The fire
[1:46:03] department requirements for is that
[1:46:05] distance from a road to the structure or
[1:46:08] that hasn't come up in any of the
[1:46:10] projects. So, there's a couple different
[1:46:11] pieces with fire. There's a distance
[1:46:13] from the hydrant to the property. And
[1:46:15] then there's a distance from where the
[1:46:16] fire truck can come onto the property or
[1:46:19] park. And then there's a a hose distance
[1:46:22] from the fire truck where the hose has
[1:46:24] to get to the rear side of the ADU.
[1:46:27] >> So, if that exceeds 150 ft, uh, so
[1:46:31] there's a bunch of different numbers.
[1:46:32] they'll save you the the but if either
[1:46:35] of those two things get exceeded you can
[1:46:38] require hydrant which makes some
[1:46:40] projects not plausible for clients andor
[1:46:44] um fire sprinklers or both or a fire
[1:46:47] turnaround which some properties don't
[1:46:49] support. So it it can really limit kind
[1:46:52] of the area of where you could actually
[1:46:54] build an ADU which you don't necessarily
[1:46:56] see at the planning side of things.
[1:46:58] Yeah.
[1:47:04] For those online, please use a raise
[1:47:06] hand feature if you'd like to make a
[1:47:07] comment.
[1:47:11] I see no raised hands
[1:47:14] comments in the room.
[1:47:18] All right, that we will go ahead and
[1:47:20] close public comment and move on to
[1:47:22] commissioner deliberation. So, we have a
[1:47:24] lot of things go through. Uh maybe we'll
[1:47:28] go sort of one by one the same same way
[1:47:31] that that that Sage had done for the
[1:47:32] initial presentation. And
[1:47:36] Sage, can can we do something where
[1:47:38] you're helping take notes of where do we
[1:47:42] land on each issue and then we do motion
[1:47:44] at the end?
[1:47:45] >> Sure. Yeah. Yeah. No, I think we can go
[1:47:47] through each issue and maybe get a straw
[1:47:49] poll um from the commission. It's worth
[1:47:51] moving forward and then Yes.
[1:47:53] >> And then we do a
[1:47:55] we do one of these things where you read
[1:47:56] out the laundry list and
[1:47:57] >> Sounds good.
[1:47:58] >> Down we go. We don't we don't have to
[1:47:59] decide language today.
[1:48:01] >> No, it Yeah. What you'll do is give us a
[1:48:03] motion um you'll be providing a motion
[1:48:06] with direction to staff um to come back
[1:48:09] with specific items.
[1:48:10] >> So we would make
[1:48:12] >> Yeah.
[1:48:13] >> So it'll sort of ratify the
[1:48:15] recommendations.
[1:48:15] >> Those are things that we'll come back
[1:48:17] with and we'll we'll renotice it for the
[1:48:19] public when that when that we nail down
[1:48:22] the date. We we'd shoot for the second
[1:48:24] meeting in May. Okay.
[1:48:27] >> All right.
[1:48:30] So in that case, let's go back to
[1:48:33] >> and I could even just, you know, what
[1:48:35] I've taken so far and just as we go
[1:48:38] through a section. So the first item we
[1:48:39] were talking about was the second
[1:48:42] driveways. Um we wanted to look at um
[1:48:47] that
[1:48:48] uh one that it can serve more than one
[1:48:50] proposed ADU. Um so we want to make sure
[1:48:52] that that's clarified. Um and then also
[1:48:57] we want to make sure that
[1:49:00] uh that there's more flexibility um in
[1:49:03] the language specifically in the finding
[1:49:05] number three uh that would
[1:49:09] if there's kind of incidental access to
[1:49:11] another building um that wouldn't be
[1:49:13] something that would hold it up or also
[1:49:15] even if it connects to some other
[1:49:18] circulation system on the property that shouldn't be a limitating factor.
[1:49:26] folks. So, deliberation wise, do we all
[1:49:30] >> I'm supportive of those?
[1:49:32] >> I'm good. Additional that.
[1:49:35] >> Okay,
[1:49:38] » supportive. Any any additional things we
[1:49:40] want to add to that?
[1:49:43] >> Okay,
[1:49:43] >> great.
[1:49:44] >> All right, let's move on. The next one
[1:49:46] um was just going into our definitions
[1:49:49] um and that was looking at more of the
[1:49:51] clarification of uh the permanent stove
[1:49:55] um versus a non-permanent cooking
[1:49:57] facility. We'll look at see how we we'll
[1:49:59] talk to the building department see if
[1:50:00] there's any more clarification that we
[1:50:02] can make that a little bit better.
[1:50:03] >> Perfect.
[1:50:05] >> Everyone good with that?
[1:50:06] >> Okay.
[1:50:11] And we hit the 150.
[1:50:14] No, excuse me. The 1,200.
[1:50:15] >> Yeah. So, the there the question is um
[1:50:18] and I don't know that we got any real
[1:50:20] significant feedback on that. Um was
[1:50:22] that right now we're proposing to exempt
[1:50:24] up to 1,200. So, the first question is
[1:50:27] should we exempt it up to,200? Um or do
[1:50:30] you want to increase that up to 1500? Uh
[1:50:33] if you wanted to increase it higher than
[1:50:35] 1,200, um you know, do you want to say
[1:50:39] yeah, that's okay, but maybe only for
[1:50:40] properties that are an acre or larger.
[1:50:42] Um, so those were some of the ideas
[1:50:44] floated.
[1:50:47] >> Yeah. Yeah. So I actually like the
[1:50:50] concept of 1500 because that says one
[1:50:53] big bedroom, two small bedrooms. So
[1:50:55] family, two kids uh would fit that.
[1:50:59] That's the size of our house when we
[1:51:00] first bought it. Um 1,500 would have
[1:51:04] been hard to put into my Glenn's lot. Um
[1:51:08] we put in eight. Eight. eight was a big
[1:51:12] 1,200 wouldn't have really fit. 1,500
[1:51:14] definitely wouldn't fit. So, so I I
[1:51:16] think that for those that can have
[1:51:18] 1,200, maybe that that is a ceiling for
[1:51:22] smaller lots and then 1,500 for the
[1:51:24] bigger lots maybe something I'd toss out
[1:51:26] there. That's that see it seems
[1:51:27] reasonable. I mean, if if if the whole
[1:51:29] town, if you're a SR, whatever what the
[1:51:34] one is, if that's up to 1500, why not
[1:51:37] have that be consistent across the code
[1:51:39] for all the large lots?
[1:51:41] Um,
[1:51:43] >> and this one, ju just to make sure we're
[1:51:44] all on the same page. This is not You
[1:51:47] can still build an ADU up to 1500,
[1:51:50] right? This is about the the increased
[1:51:52] TFA.
[1:51:53] >> Yes.
[1:51:54] I kind of think that the town wants it
[1:51:57] seems like we we're all leaning towards
[1:51:58] making their first ADU free from a TFA
[1:52:02] point of view. Um and so if the large
[1:52:04] lots can make 1500 then fits then why
[1:52:07] not? The small lots I just don't think
[1:52:09] it'll fit
[1:52:11] with a Houston house.
[1:52:17] I would actually am in the strange
[1:52:19] position of wanting to keep it at 1,200
[1:52:23] because as was pointed out um I mean
[1:52:26] 1500 square feet that's one master two
[1:52:30] smaller bedrooms that could hold a
[1:52:33] family of four. There are lots of
[1:52:35] tracked houses in the East Bay and in
[1:52:38] Redwood City that fit that description.
[1:52:41] And
[1:52:43] that sort of
[1:52:46] calling that an edu seems like a really
[1:52:48] bit of a stretch.
[1:52:50] If you have a property that's already
[1:52:54] been developed and maxed out on TFA
[1:52:59] for the main residence or whatever,
[1:53:02] giving essentially being able to drop an
[1:53:06] extra track home in there, I can see
[1:53:10] from an affordable housing and policy
[1:53:12] standpoint
[1:53:14] that
[1:53:16] at one level that's desirable,
[1:53:18] but on the other hand, It is essentially
[1:53:21] we're talking about dropping another
[1:53:24] small home rather than an ADU on there.
[1:53:28] And if you're planning a building site,
[1:53:32] if you want to
[1:53:36] drop an additional 300 square ft of TFA
[1:53:39] elsewhere, you know, like give up a
[1:53:41] garage space or give up a pool house or
[1:53:45] whatever, so that you're not maxed out.
[1:53:49] then you can have your 1500 square feet.
[1:53:52] Um, it's not an issue that
[1:53:59] is
[1:54:01] make or break for me, but my inclination
[1:54:03] would be to limit it to 1,200.
[1:54:09] » Yeah, it's interesting. I'm thinking
[1:54:12] back to all the the Glenn's hearings
[1:54:14] that we had at Sage. you brought all the
[1:54:16] great memories back of of all the time
[1:54:18] here spent and and it's I mean if we if
[1:54:20] we also think about the mulative
[1:54:23] what what have we added up over time
[1:54:26] it's actually it is quite a bit I will
[1:54:29] absolutely admit I was one of the people
[1:54:30] pushing for flexibility in the Glenns
[1:54:33] it's interesting so I mean let's just
[1:54:34] take an example right like 7,000T lot
[1:54:36] would have been
[1:54:38] a 1700T home you we added 400 for a
[1:54:44] garage plus Um I think 800 for the ADU
[1:54:47] plus this is now sort of going to say it
[1:54:50] would be another if we did go to 1500
[1:54:52] another 700
[1:54:54] to your point Darren these like fill up
[1:54:58] >> right and and they they fill up with
[1:55:02] things as they are before adding more
[1:55:05] square footage. I think we want to be I
[1:55:08] just think we want to be mindful of kind
[1:55:10] of to Ly to your point like once there
[1:55:13] is that much on a small lot it does
[1:55:16] start to
[1:55:18] >> what do we
[1:55:19] sorry I think back there it was like can
[1:55:23] you fit even a family on the lot right
[1:55:27] um and then I think we're now it's
[1:55:30] definitely getting to be a lot
[1:55:32] >> is is there is there a guard rail on uh
[1:55:35] you know % of lot has a house footprint
[1:55:38] on it.
[1:55:39] >> Um the Woodside does not have like a lot
[1:55:43] coverage, a building coverage only in
[1:55:46] the commercial district but not in
[1:55:47] residential. There's just your floor
[1:55:49] area limit.
[1:55:51] >> It seems like that might be a way to
[1:55:53] constrain uh so we don't have know two
[1:55:57] square feet around the edge of the
[1:55:59] property that's that's grass and
[1:56:00] everything else is a building which I
[1:56:02] think is not our goal.
[1:56:05] So with with the state mandates
[1:56:08] I think maybe quite so if you have
[1:56:11] multiple ADUs so we're talking about
[1:56:12] three four on a site
[1:56:15] >> those are on eight lots that are giant
[1:56:17] right
[1:56:18] >> not necessarily right so if you add up
[1:56:20] multiple ADUs that each have say a 4
[1:56:23] foot setback is each one of these
[1:56:26] subject
[1:56:26] >> and I'll just remind folks to just if
[1:56:28] you speak into the microphones more just
[1:56:29] for folks online
[1:56:30] >> yeah so so is each one subject object to
[1:56:35] town setbacks at that point or
[1:56:37] >> Yeah. So what what the town has allowed
[1:56:39] is, you know, up to 800 into the setback
[1:56:43] and then this could with this change
[1:56:45] could allow up to 1,200 into the setback
[1:56:48] um
[1:56:49] >> in into the town setback.
[1:56:51] >> That's the other the other ones there.
[1:56:52] There's all these other different state
[1:56:54] laws, but generally speaking, let's say
[1:56:56] you want to do three detached ADUs, one
[1:56:58] of them could go into the basic setback.
[1:57:00] The other two would meet the setback.
[1:57:01] >> Only one could. Yeah. Um, and so just to the point, this is again we're
[1:57:06] looking at exempting floor area. So now
[1:57:10] if someone gets more square footage
[1:57:12] exempt from their ADU, so they already
[1:57:15] have 1500 square feet, they can now add
[1:57:17] more square footage onto their house.
[1:57:21] >> And so so it's, you know, it's that
[1:57:22] balance and that's why we didn't go to
[1:57:24] the full 1500 trying to look at this
[1:57:26] incremental step um to allow more
[1:57:28] exemption. That was something that was
[1:57:30] asked for. Uh but we thought kind of
[1:57:32] adding you know 50% more.
[1:57:35] >> Yeah. But they they they can't expand
[1:57:37] the main residence
[1:57:39] without doing the they can use
[1:57:42] >> correct. Yeah. Yes.
[1:57:43] >> Have the ADU to get
[1:57:44] >> correct. You only get to exempt it from
[1:57:46] the ADU. But just say someone's maxed
[1:57:48] out now with a 1500 foot ADU. Um you
[1:57:51] know you'll getting more exemption.
[1:57:55] Now you'll be counting less. that I can
[1:57:58] easily envision people that come in and
[1:58:00] they'll do a doover and they'll
[1:58:03] redevelop a property where they come up
[1:58:05] right to the limit on floor area and
[1:58:08] paved area, no edus. Then they'll come
[1:58:12] back and they're essentially adding a
[1:58:15] three-bedroom house on top of that.
[1:58:16] That's a freebie
[1:58:18] and that's been their plan all along.
[1:58:21] Um
[1:58:23] 1,200
[1:58:25] Sure.
[1:58:29] Yeah, I I think and certainly I'm more
[1:58:33] comfortable with 1,200 than 15.
[1:58:36] Um I think if we if we did go to 15, I
[1:58:39] think there should likely be a lot size
[1:58:41] attached to it, but at the same time
[1:58:44] >> I start
[1:58:48] like Exactly. Yeah. And I mean to to
[1:58:51] Lyle's point sizewise I mean there there
[1:58:55] is flexibility within 1,200
[1:58:58] think to make a it's it's not
[1:59:00] necessarily a large house but it it can
[1:59:02] be a two threebedroom. Uh and then they
[1:59:06] can make those trade-offs on you know do
[1:59:07] they want to allocate 300 feet to a a
[1:59:09] onecar garage or not.
[1:59:11] >> What is what is the if you had two acre
[1:59:14] lot how how build big could the
[1:59:16] residence be? It depends on the zoning.
[1:59:19] Zonings have different, but generally
[1:59:21] speaking, let's say an SR zoning, it's a
[1:59:23] 1acre minimum. And in that zoning
[1:59:26] district, in 1 acre, you're going to get
[1:59:28] about a little under 8,000. So if you
[1:59:31] had two acres, you're going to be
[1:59:32] getting closer to like 15,000.
[1:59:35] >> 300 is pocket change then.
[1:59:36] >> And 3 acre lots, you know, they're have
[1:59:40] a smaller percentage, but yet they're
[1:59:42] still getting closer to the 12,000. Um
[1:59:44] you go into the hills there in the
[1:59:47] western hills there's different they
[1:59:48] have lower percentages um but if they
[1:59:51] have a very large lot they could still
[1:59:52] have more square feet.
[1:59:56] So currently Sage there is no difference
[1:59:59] on a lot that's exactly one acre
[2:00:01] compared with something that's 10,000
[2:00:03] square feet as far as the number of ADUs
[2:00:05] that you can build and the size
[2:00:07] >> there there is um currently that right
[2:00:10] now if you're an acre or larger you get
[2:00:12] the three ADUs plus a JADU and if you're
[2:00:15] less than an acre
[2:00:16] >> well I'm talking about the ones that are
[2:00:18] an acre or less.
[2:00:20] >> Yeah. So the smaller ones right now
[2:00:22] >> under state law you still get those
[2:00:26] three that I was talking about right but
[2:00:27] if someone wants to go outside of that
[2:00:29] because we allow larger and more
[2:00:31] flexibility um they could do one ADU and
[2:00:34] one JADU and the ADU could be attached
[2:00:36] or detached
[2:00:38] >> or the conversion also and the
[2:00:40] conversion also
[2:00:40] >> if they if they followed yes for all the
[2:00:42] specific standards they could do that
[2:00:45] >> okay there's a huge difference between
[2:00:48] a.99 acre and a 7,000 ft.
[2:00:51] >> Yep.
[2:00:54] » You add all these pieces up and it it
[2:00:57] starts to become like how many ADUs do
[2:00:59] you need? Like it's starting to get like
[2:01:02] I don't know like with with if you take
[2:01:04] >> Yeah. But but the number of ADUs has has
[2:01:07] not really skyrocketed. I mean we're
[2:01:09] under our our allocation for the you
[2:01:13] know 2031.
[2:01:15] >> Yeah. They they take time. I mean we
[2:01:16] just heard you know one one individual
[2:01:18] has 13 projects under under I mean they
[2:01:22] are getting bill but
[2:01:23] >> that's a major that's a major
[2:01:24] individual.
[2:01:25] >> Yeah we're we're there's some more we
[2:01:26] are seeing numbers increase. I mean
[2:01:28] since um you know prior to our housing
[2:01:31] element we did a four-year average that
[2:01:33] was 15 units per year. Um since then
[2:01:36] with a lot of these different changes uh
[2:01:38] we've uh averaged over 20 per year. Um
[2:01:42] we're getting you know last you know
[2:01:44] January we had no permits issued in
[2:01:46] March we had five ADUs issued um and so
[2:01:50] uh you know it's we are seeing more
[2:01:53] units coming out with some flexibility
[2:01:56] question is how much
[2:01:57] >> yeah and that's the hang that's the
[2:01:59] flexibility that's already in in place
[2:02:03] >> I just I I'm actually remembering a lot
[2:02:06] of the discussions we had when we were
[2:02:07] looking at these sort of two three years
[2:02:09] back and um I I think it was it was
[2:02:11] Marilyn at the time was making the point
[2:02:13] that like, hey, how much do we really
[2:02:15] want to unilaterally
[2:02:18] add leniency knowing that the
[2:02:20] regulations are going to continue in
[2:02:22] that direction from Sacramento? So, I
[2:02:25] mean to a large extent I only expect
[2:02:26] that to be more just the way that the
[2:02:29] sort of tea leaves are going or the
[2:02:30] trends have been going. Not that past
[2:02:33] results are guarantees of future or
[2:02:35] whatever, but at the same time, I I I don't like 1500 from that
[2:02:42] standpoint. Um, even 1,200 and it feels
[2:02:45] like there's going to be some regulation
[2:02:46] that goes beyond that anyway. I don't
[2:02:49] know that that's a flexibility we need
[2:02:50] to offer. So, personally, I'm not
[2:02:52] convinced we need to do anything on
[2:02:54] this. Um, I'm not comfortable going
[2:02:55] beyond 1,200. I can probably get to
[2:02:57] 1,200.
[2:02:59] >> Okay.
[2:02:59] >> Being being okay. So we've heard, you
[2:03:01] know, mostly sounds consistent with
[2:03:03] straw poll on looking at just keeping it
[2:03:06] at 1200 or any further direction.
[2:03:09] >> Yeah, I I would go maximum 1,200 and
[2:03:13] then in the future if we see trends
[2:03:16] developing in a certain direction, it
[2:03:18] could always be changed. We can always
[2:03:19] have a another ordinance passed uh as
[2:03:24] far as stipulations for in either
[2:03:26] increasing it or keeping it the same. I
[2:03:29] mean, we have that flexibility. So, I
[2:03:31] certainly wouldn't be a proponent to go
[2:03:33] up to 1500 at this point.
[2:03:36] >> Yeah. Our take was take kind of take
[2:03:38] initial steps. It's a little harder to
[2:03:40] pull back on those once you've gone a
[2:03:42] certain point.
[2:03:42] >> Yeah. 100%. But you still, 1200 or I'm
[2:03:47] good with 1,200.
[2:03:49] I'm with perspective of what's possible
[2:03:51] in larger lots. Yeah. They don't they
[2:03:53] don't need extra.
[2:03:54] >> Okay. Great. So, okay. We'll have um uh
[2:03:57] no further direction on that item.
[2:04:00] We're leaving it at 12:0.
[2:04:01] >> Yep. Let's leave that one. Let that one.
[2:04:03] >> Okay. Um the other item that we heard uh some
[2:04:13] feedback on this was a roof overhangs
[2:04:16] where heard no feedback there, but you
[2:04:18] can let us know if you have any. and the
[2:04:20] mechanical equipment was looking at to
[2:04:22] try to better clarify the immediately
[2:04:24] adjacent term. Um, but if there's
[2:04:27] anything further, let us know.
[2:04:30] >> Roof overhangs. Does anyone have passion
[2:04:32] there or seem good?
[2:04:34] >> No passion on overhangs.
[2:04:37] >> Yeah, I think that that seems good to me. I do like the the
[2:04:41] specification of just these subjective
[2:04:44] things are just hard for people within
[2:04:47] when it's not sort of clearly defined.
[2:04:48] So this be great.
[2:04:50] >> Um
[2:04:53] so then we moved on to we were looking
[2:04:55] at the exception. So this is their plan
[2:04:57] director exception and uh heard comments
[2:05:01] on
[2:05:03] um looking at kind of clarifying
[2:05:05] feasibility. And then also uh whether or
[2:05:09] not it's built into this ordinance or if
[2:05:11] the town kind of looks more in kind of
[2:05:13] like a form or steps that people can
[2:05:15] kind of follow to kind of how best to
[2:05:18] approach um the need to
[2:05:22] uh provide their their kind of
[2:05:24] feasibility analysis. And again we're trying to keep it very simple and
[2:05:28] objective. Uh so uh we can look at
[2:05:32] clarifying the feasibility statement in
[2:05:34] the ordinance and then also maybe
[2:05:36] accompanied with um some draft handouts
[2:05:40] uh that we could provide folks. I
[2:05:43] >> think when I read the language I also
[2:05:45] maybe clarified that it's the planning
[2:05:47] director who would certify feasibility
[2:05:50] not feasibility. Um I think it was it
[2:05:52] was sort of subject didn't seem like it
[2:05:54] was a very clear sage doubt shout
[2:05:57] declare it feasible unfeasible and make
[2:05:59] a record known sort of thing some way to
[2:06:02] make sure it's truly a staffed decision
[2:06:06] by planning director that has to sign
[2:06:07] off on it.
[2:06:09] >> That makes sense to me as well.
[2:06:13] >> This what I'm not sure we should
[2:06:15] increase to be honest. Um I mean we are
[2:06:19] I guess
[2:06:22] I I think some degree of oversight might
[2:06:25] not be a bad thing. I mean, when we're
[2:06:26] talking about 1,200, it does start to be
[2:06:29] >> it's it's getting closer to home than
[2:06:32] sort of smaller ADU.
[2:06:36] >> I mean, there is the we we should there
[2:06:38] is a variance process.
[2:06:39] >> We could also have the plan director
[2:06:41] sign off on it. by signing off and
[2:06:43] meaning presenting to planning
[2:06:44] commission that you know what what was
[2:06:46] declared feasible like type of like out
[2:06:49] >> I think it's basically a variance though
[2:06:51] at that point because it's coming and
[2:06:52] making findings etc
[2:06:54] >> so they would still have that
[2:06:55] flexibility to to come in present
[2:06:58] findings
[2:06:59] >> question for sage and also for gene I
[2:07:02] mean there's an exception to every rule
[2:07:04] right so if you had I mean if we limited
[2:07:07] it to 800
[2:07:09] and there was a lot that had some unique
[2:07:12] features and everybody ended up
[2:07:15] scratching their heads and yes there was
[2:07:19] uh the only way to do the allowed uh you
[2:07:24] know structure uh was to put it in the
[2:07:27] front setback we could do that via
[2:07:30] variance correct
[2:07:31] >> that's correct
[2:07:32] >> and given the fact that
[2:07:36] the planning commission is not
[2:07:39] overwhelmed with
[2:07:43] um having two meetings a month where
[2:07:44] we're doing three variances at every
[2:07:46] meeting. I mean, we're doing very few of
[2:07:49] these, we could tolerate handling those
[2:07:52] exemptions.
[2:07:54] That that's that's similar to the
[2:07:56] support I was trying to Yeah, there's
[2:07:58] still that flexibility. So, we're not
[2:08:00] saying no.
[2:08:00] >> Yeah.
[2:08:01] >> Right. I I do think I don't know. I
[2:08:04] think given how much things are
[2:08:07] changing, it is worth still looking at
[2:08:10] some of those pieces in terms of how how
[2:08:12] it builds out and
[2:08:15] I would I would probably be more
[2:08:16] comfortable with this one being a
[2:08:17] variance process. So heard uh comments
[2:08:22] about keeping it at 800 and 1,200 was
[2:08:24] the proposal and just just for
[2:08:28] discussion purposes 1,000 square feet.
[2:08:30] Nothing just to the direction to bring that back.
[2:08:36] >> Yeah, I would I would probably say keep
[2:08:38] 800 on this one. Oops.
[2:08:41] >> And on a an exception basis.
[2:08:44] >> Yeah. And that would that would always
[2:08:47] be available. Yeah,
[2:08:50] >> just just to clarify, this allows uh
[2:08:53] planning department to
[2:08:55] uh declare declare it is unfeasible
[2:09:00] to to work it without a variance. If
[2:09:03] it's less than 800, they could do it
[2:09:04] themselves. If it's more than 800, they
[2:09:06] come talk, right? Which is which is
[2:09:08] asis.
[2:09:09] >> Yep.
[2:09:09] >> Oh,
[2:09:10] got it.
[2:09:11] >> Yep.
[2:09:11] >> Except we probably should still clear.
[2:09:13] >> We're still looking at the clarity part.
[2:09:15] Just the the number. We'll keep it 800.
[2:09:18] Okay.
[2:09:24] » I didn't hear any comments on the
[2:09:25] changing the number of units for this
[2:09:28] government code section 66323. I mean
[2:09:30] essentially the code the other option
[2:09:32] would be just allow more ADUs on the
[2:09:35] smaller properties but from what I've
[2:09:36] heard think there's a move for that. Um
[2:09:41] so I'm sorry Sage which particular
[2:09:43] language
[2:09:43] >> sorry this was just uh this is on it's
[2:09:46] on uh page 10. It's the table.
[2:09:48] >> The the asterisk we discussed.
[2:09:50] >> Yeah, the asterisk. Exactly. Exactly.
[2:09:51] So, that's something that's allowed
[2:09:53] already by state law and we're just
[2:09:55] making sure it's clarified in
[2:09:56] >> We're just clarifying it. Nope.
[2:10:02] » Okay, I think we're good there.
[2:10:05] >> Um
[2:10:08] Oh, so now we're on page 13.
[2:10:12] Um and this is just about the owner
[2:10:14] occupancy. And so there's two items
[2:10:17] we're going to look at um to clarify
[2:10:20] that um if it's not owner occupied that
[2:10:23] only the house would be rented out. Um
[2:10:26] and we're also going to look at if
[2:10:29] there's even a requirement to have to
[2:10:31] have owner occupancy um by state law.
[2:10:34] And if there's not, we'll provide that
[2:10:35] option as well.
[2:10:36] >> And then sub I mean a sublet would still
[2:10:39] be allowable under this, right?
[2:10:42] Well, you can always have sublets going
[2:10:44] on under the table. So,
[2:10:45] >> yeah, I I don't know what we're trying
[2:10:47] to achieve with this one is is kind of
[2:10:48] the thing I would
[2:10:50] >> strike.
[2:10:52] It just seems like there's all these we
[2:10:54] don't need it and you can supp
[2:10:56] >> I think that's one of his action items
[2:10:58] where Yeah. So, and because this is what
[2:11:00] Jean is reminding me that we think the
[2:11:02] state might require that you have have
[2:11:05] this in place. So, we're going to double
[2:11:07] check that um based on the new updated
[2:11:09] laws. We just want to double check that.
[2:11:11] If it is, we'll let you know and we'll
[2:11:13] make sure we have some clarity. And if
[2:11:14] it's not, we'll provide you with the
[2:11:16] option
[2:11:17] >> to remove it.
[2:11:22] » Okay. Then we are um really down to uh
[2:11:29] the um we'll we'll just
[2:11:34] look at you know we understood that this
[2:11:36] is a policy uh decision kind of looking
[2:11:38] at the town inspectors for the amnesty
[2:11:40] program. Um,
[2:11:44] does the planning commission in their
[2:11:46] recommendation to town council want to
[2:11:48] recommend that the town council explore
[2:11:50] the idea of the town having town
[2:11:52] inspectors, whether it's for a fee or or
[2:11:54] not, it's something the town council
[2:11:56] could consider? It's it's just part of
[2:11:57] what you would be recommending to the
[2:11:59] planning commission.
[2:12:00] >> That would that be a separate
[2:12:01] recommendation from this?
[2:12:02] >> It's what we would do is just build it
[2:12:03] into the resolution itself. Um, it
[2:12:06] wouldn't be in the actual ordinance
[2:12:08] language. Um it will just be something
[2:12:10] that we could say, you know, this is
[2:12:12] what the planning commission recommended
[2:12:14] uh for the town council to explore to
[2:12:17] help assist people with unpermitted
[2:12:18] ADUs. I mean, from my perspective, it's nice to have a friend who can kind
[2:12:24] of help you through this complex
[2:12:26] process. Uh so an inspector could be
[2:12:28] good for that. I do think it's
[2:12:30] important. We we talked about sort of
[2:12:32] the if we do a program like this just
[2:12:35] limiting the the liability because to
[2:12:37] the earlier point like if they miss
[2:12:40] something and folks discover it we don't
[2:12:42] want to you know be on the on the hook
[2:12:44] for that and it's probably unfair to
[2:12:46] have a contract inspector you know
[2:12:48] liable for that
[2:12:50] >> right and as noted the town I people can
[2:12:53] always hire their own general
[2:12:55] contractors and they can give them their
[2:12:57] recommendations something that
[2:12:59] >> yeah I think we need to frame it as an
[2:13:00] advisory service or something of that
[2:13:02] nature.
[2:13:03] >> But but definitely encourage the amnesty
[2:13:04] because we we should have these
[2:13:06] properties
[2:13:07] on on the list and registered so we know
[2:13:09] that they exist and if they're on fire
[2:13:11] that they get out and they
[2:13:14] >> Yeah. And and we're not making any
[2:13:16] decisions on that part. I believe right
[2:13:19] >> just simply moving forward a
[2:13:21] recommendation to the council council
[2:13:23] town council. So when we bring this back
[2:13:25] um we can just provide that small
[2:13:28] recommendation into the resolution
[2:13:29] itself. I think it's great. Yeah. Um so
[2:13:32] then uh there's just two other items
[2:13:35] that we're going to talk about if you'd
[2:13:36] like us to look into further and that is
[2:13:39] um uh specifically exempting additional
[2:13:43] paved area um as it relates to
[2:13:45] construction of ADUs. Um and the other
[2:13:48] piece was uh looking at um potentially
[2:13:51] allowing for some height increases for
[2:13:54] ups sloping lots
[2:13:57] >> or both those I would say the paved area
[2:14:00] one kind of similar with with my points
[2:14:02] on cumulative impact uh
[2:14:06] it would be good maybe so I I support
[2:14:08] looking at it um also
[2:14:12] you know if that yields
[2:14:15] 90%
[2:14:16] >> surface coverage with paved area. That
[2:14:19] feels like a bad outcome.
[2:14:20] >> Yeah, we could we could
[2:14:20] >> So, we may want to have some kind of a
[2:14:22] cap. Yeah. Being mindful of the
[2:14:24] >> Yeah, we could definitely look at that.
[2:14:26] >> No clue as to whether 1,500 would be the
[2:14:29] right number or not.
[2:14:31] >> Yeah. And that that was just something
[2:14:32] brought up by a member of the public.
[2:14:34] Yes.
[2:14:34] >> And so, uh I think in terms of Yeah. Do
[2:14:37] you want you know, all you have is
[2:14:39] building and paving.
[2:14:40] >> Yeah. I mean, because you add all this
[2:14:42] up. And what was mentioned too was, you
[2:14:45] know, some of these larger lots in the
[2:14:46] SCP areas, they're already restricted to
[2:14:48] 9,000, whereas, you know, lots in a 1
[2:14:51] acre lot, you know, over in, uh,
[2:14:54] Woodside Hills, they can have 15,000
[2:14:56] square ft. Um, and so we can kind of
[2:15:00] look at some of the lot size issues, um,
[2:15:02] and then maybe some caps, uh, for those
[2:15:05] kind of exemptions.
[2:15:06] >> It might be helpful also when we
[2:15:08] consider this next if it's if it's
[2:15:10] possible to look at maybe just example
[2:15:11] scenarios. try to we'll try to yeah
[2:15:13] provide
[2:15:13] >> you know what I mean like maybe say you
[2:15:15] know a 7,000 foot lot if it were to be
[2:15:19] maxed out with all the things that we're
[2:15:21] approving like what does that look like
[2:15:23] because at a certain point
[2:15:26] >> we have to help with Sacramento we also
[2:15:28] have to uphold general plan and if we
[2:15:30] get 95% paved area we are not doing our
[2:15:33] job upholding the general plan also so I
[2:15:35] think that balancing you could just see
[2:15:37] what that looks like for
[2:15:38] >> yeah so 5,000 to 10,000 to 15,000 that
[2:15:41] We don't have to do that many scenarios
[2:15:43] but some that I think just helps us
[2:15:44] visualize it.
[2:15:45] >> Visualize this.
[2:15:46] >> So yeah, no we'll we'll take that
[2:15:47] direction. Um so we'll explore it
[2:15:49] further and bring some stuff back for
[2:15:51] you. Awesome.
[2:15:51] >> Okay. I would explore it further, maybe
[2:15:54] come up I mean see what number would be
[2:15:57] reasonable that would make most projects
[2:16:00] work and then
[2:16:03] um once again I mean if you get the
[2:16:05] exception to the rule
[2:16:08] uh you can always go through the
[2:16:09] variance process.
[2:16:11] >> Yeah. And if somebody needs an extra 200
[2:16:13] square feet of paved area to be able to
[2:16:16] have a,
[2:16:18] >> you know, paved access to the ADU, then
[2:16:21] I mean
[2:16:25] » that would be the presumption that that
[2:16:27] would pass. And we still for the 800
[2:16:29] square foot unit, you know, if someone
[2:16:31] that's all someone can fit or that's
[2:16:33] what they're they need some extra paved
[2:16:36] area to do that 1800 square foot unit
[2:16:38] that town staff still has some
[2:16:40] flexibility there.
[2:16:41] >> Yeah.
[2:16:41] >> And that was based on the section we're
[2:16:43] just debating about 800 to,200.
[2:16:46] >> Right. And then so I guess we didn't
[2:16:48] talk that much about the the height
[2:16:50] piece that
[2:16:50] >> So this is the last piece.
[2:16:52] >> Yeah. So on that one,
[2:16:55] I I I like that the proposal limits
[2:16:58] based I I think the language was well
[2:17:00] written that it's it's limited to not
[2:17:02] make any structure that's more impactful
[2:17:05] than the previous main residence could
[2:17:07] have been. So that that part feels good.
[2:17:12] Seems reasonable to consider it to me.
[2:17:15] >> Folks think
[2:17:18] explore it.
[2:17:20] Yeah, we we can explore some language if all of you are kind of in agreement
[2:17:24] with that any
[2:17:27] opposition.
[2:17:28] >> No.
[2:17:30] >> Okay, I think we're good with exploring
[2:17:32] that.
[2:17:32] >> So, we walked through everything um with
[2:17:35] this
[2:17:36] >> talk about the go
[2:17:38] >> the height slope Glenn's versus the R
[2:17:42] the R1's.
[2:17:42] >> Yeah. So I mean with that that's
[2:17:45] >> a separate part of the
[2:17:46] >> it's it's it's well um more than just
[2:17:51] ADUs. Um and so whereas that in and of
[2:17:56] itself could help with flexibility on
[2:17:58] ADUs. Um it's more about you know could
[2:18:02] my house be closer to a property line
[2:18:04] like what we did in the Glenn's um and
[2:18:07] so that uh very good point. And I am
[2:18:10] extremely point well taken but it
[2:18:12] >> different project.
[2:18:13] >> Yeah. I think it it encompasses much
[2:18:15] more than just ADUs.
[2:18:16] >> Yeah. And my recommendation there would
[2:18:18] be
[2:18:20] R1 is probably not the scope. It's
[2:18:23] probably more like the the Glenn's was a
[2:18:26] sort of coherent well or an area where
[2:18:30] there's a common issue of a
[2:18:32] concentration of non-conforming lots,
[2:18:34] right? And we have others. It seems like
[2:18:36] Palm Circle is one of those. Yeah.
[2:18:38] >> So, I would suggest we're just more
[2:18:40] mindful of the granularity and boundary
[2:18:42] of that study rather than saying like
[2:18:44] all R1 blank.
[2:18:45] >> Yes. No, for sure. And that's something
[2:18:46] well, you know, it's it's in working
[2:18:48] with the town council on priorities and
[2:18:49] what the, you know, the various
[2:18:51] different work items that
[2:18:52] >> it feels like it would be another like
[2:18:54] agendaized Glenn's style thing, right?
[2:18:58] With a defined scope of which which lots
[2:19:00] are in.
[2:19:01] >> Okay. So, so with that, um, we because
[2:19:04] we're just bringing stuff, we got a
[2:19:06] direction from you. We didn't have any
[2:19:08] like split issues on any of these. Um we
[2:19:11] are just going to explore the different
[2:19:13] things based on the direction given. We
[2:19:15] do not need a motion. Um we just we've
[2:19:17] taken all the notes. We've looked at um
[2:19:19] the consensus made by the planning
[2:19:21] commission and um
[2:19:23] >> we will bring all this stuff back to you
[2:19:25] to explore further and uh maybe for an
[2:19:28] adoption of a recommendation of the town
[2:19:29] council.
[2:19:30] >> Sounds great. Yeah, I think these
[2:19:31] scenario just final thought and I know
[2:19:33] I'm maybe just repeating myself but
[2:19:34] these scenarios I think are going to be
[2:19:36] helpful because we're saying things like
[2:19:37] we like going from 800 to,200 but not
[2:19:40] 1500 but we're also sort of thinking
[2:19:42] that without the cumulative impact. So I
[2:19:45] just think that'll be important for us
[2:19:47] to look at with a fresh set of eyes on
[2:19:49] terms of what it is.
[2:19:51] >> Cool.
[2:19:53] Anything else?
[2:19:53] >> Um so that uh that would conclude this
[2:19:56] item. Um, and
[2:19:59] there's just a couple of um, if you want
[2:20:02] to move on to the agenda. I think we
[2:20:03] just have director's report.
[2:20:05] >> All right, let's move on to director's
[2:20:06] report. Thank you for the cube.
[2:20:09] >> And, um, apologize, I don't have those
[2:20:12] right here in front of me, but
[2:20:13] essentially uh, the
[2:20:17] my computer died. Um,
[2:20:30] yeah so so what what I'll report is um
[2:20:34] you know we uh I know in February I
[2:20:37] think Thank you very much Jim. Um so uh
[2:20:41] so you know what we've kind of the
[2:20:44] primary thing of these reports that I
[2:20:46] think has been most interesting is just
[2:20:48] looking at um the number of permits were
[2:20:50] issued uh per month. And so, uh, this
[2:20:54] one in February, the town issued, uh,
[2:20:56] three permits for ADUs and one for new
[2:20:59] single family dwelling.
[2:21:01] And then, as I noted in, um, March that
[2:21:06] we have uh, we had six ADUs. One of them
[2:21:09] was a J AU, but we had six ADUs in March
[2:21:11] and one single family dwelling. Um, so
[2:21:14] whereas we had none issued in January,
[2:21:17] but you know, people are coming off the
[2:21:18] holidays, you know, there's different
[2:21:20] reasons maybe why that was a lower
[2:21:22] number. Uh, but as we progress through
[2:21:23] the summer, um, you know, if we can keep
[2:21:26] up four to six plus ADUs a month, that
[2:21:29] would be great.
[2:21:31] >> And so with that, that concludes my
[2:21:33] report. Um, I don't have anything
[2:21:35] further to add this time.
[2:21:39] » All right. Well, if we're all done, we
[2:21:41] will go ahead and adjourn. Thank you.