All
right, we will call the meeting to order
and we will begin with the pledge of
allegiance.
Roll call.
>> Chair Gar
>> here.
>> Vice Chair Palber
>> here.
>> Commissioner Evans
>> here.
>> Commissioner Gonerko
>> here.
>> And Commissioner Weaver is noted absent.
>> There
agenda for today.
>> There are no changes to the agenda.
However, you do have some desk items
related to item number two. Um, and I'll
go over those uh during my presentation.
>> All right, perfect. Uh, so we will move
forward with public communication. So,
if anybody would like to speak on an
item not on the agenda tonight, now is
the time to do so. So, folks either in
the room or on Zoom.
>> Sure. I have a desk item. uh not
sleeping it's on the agenda or
>> is it if it's related to the topic on
the agenda then that's for later
>> that make sense it does
>> and we have no members of the public
online
>> all right in that case we will move on
to the consent agenda and consent
calendar we have one item which is the
approval of the uh April 15 2026 minutes
uh before we do so Does anyone have any
proposed changes to the minutes u they
would like to raise?
» All right. In that case, uh may I have a
motion to approve the minutes?
>> Motion to approve the minutes.
>> I'll second it.
>> Chair Gar.
>> Yes.
>> Vice Chair Tober.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Evans.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Gerko.
>> Yes.
>> All right. In that case, uh we will go
ahead with the main item for the night,
which is the public hearing on the uh
continued review of the uh resolution
for intention and recommendation on the
municipal code updates uh with respect
to ADUs.
>> Great. Thank you, Chair Gore. Um so uh
as you recall on April 15th the planning
commission reviewed changes to the
municipal code uh related to the
development of ADUs. There were a
handful of items in which the planning
commission provided direction to staff
to look into further provide some
updates and make some modifications. So
in my presentation today, it will um go
through those changes and the responses
to the direction from the planning
commission.
Um so I'll go through each of these
items. Uh you can we can pause for any
questions as I get through each one and
then once um the presentation's
complete, members of the public can
provide comments. Um and then after
that, the planning commission can
deliberate.
Um, so the first item that the
commission asked us to bring back was
related to
the proposed ministerial approval of
second driveways for accessory dwelling
units. Um, so the what what you see on
the screen is the proposed language and
underlying strikethrough and then the
areas highlighted in yellow were the
changes that we made from last time. So
the planning commission expressed some
concerns
um that uh it should be allowed for to
access more than one ADU as well as to
reduce some of the requirements uh
particularly related to um paving as
well as uh that it it had to be only
serve the 1AU. So we just made a few
adjustments here. Um we clarified that
it is not just for access of one ADU and
then we just removed the requirements um
that it has less paving materials than
if it was accessed from the main
driveway. Um and this just provides more
flexibility
as well as there are instances in which
there could be a shorter distance uh
from the main road but there could be
some other constraint whether it's a
steep slope or a stream or a drainage
ditch or some other infrastructure
facility um that doesn't make it
feasible. So we wanted to remove that
requirement and then therefore provide
more flexibility and not create
obstacles.
Um and then the second piece that we removed is just
noting that um it doesn't have to only
serve the proposed ADU. Uh sometimes
there could be some other ancillary
building out there or you know provides
better firetruck access to another
building as well. And so for those
reasons uh staff removed those two
requirements. Um but that was the
changes that we made to the second
driveway exception. Um, happy to answer
any questions if you have. Um, otherwise
we can move on to the next section.
» I I have a question.
>> Wait, you have to turn the mic on.
>> I guess being in a different location
doesn't change anything here. All right.
So um
I think I understand
why the word exclusive
was struck. Um,
my question is I'm trying to think about
the law of unintended consequences and I
think I understand why it was struck but
in it being struck.
What would be unintended consequences
that the second driveway could be used
for that are not a second ADU? Well, it
would only So, someone could always do a
second driveway exception for other
buildings. Those still have to come to
the planning commission. In this
instance, it would have to be tied to a
proposed ADU. Um, so if you have an
existing ADU on your lot, um, this
doesn't come into play because that
already has access. Um, so this is if
someone were to come in to propose an
ADU and they needed this second access,
this is something that they could get
through uh, at the staff level. And then
at the at the staff level, since this
would be approved by town staff, I'm
proposing a new ADU,
you all would make sure that it's ex
that that's the principal use of the
driveway.
>> Yes, it would have to uh uh serve the
ADU. Um and if it serves some other
structure as well, that could be an
added benefit. Um but in this case, it
would have to principally serve the ADU.
Okay. Okay, I'm good.
>> I've got a followup follow-up question.
So, in those same lines, so if someone
applies to staff for a secondary
driveway not related to the ADU, saying
that that is not considered.
>> So, that would be something that still
has to go to the planning commission for
>> so that's the current practice now is
that for a second driveway for any
reason needs to come to the planning
commission and this provides a carveout
for ADUs.
So I mean in in the interest of
efficiency too maybe why don't do we
want to
>> you want to go the whole thing when
we're done or
>> Sure.
>> Okay. Or we can even kind of do I'll
just take notes that as we go if there's
any changes. So I think this one seems
like no changes.
>> Good. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
>> So everyone okay with this one?
>> And then Yeah. And then we'll also want
to just make sure that before coming to
any conclusions that we take all the
public input um at that time at the end.
>> Yep. Fair enough. Okay. We'll uh we'll
hold off on
>> Okay. So, uh move along. So, um we had
the last time we talked about the
definition of an efficiency kitchen. Um
and uh to provide some better
clarification on that. And so, um, part
of what we do with these ordinances to
be careful and making sure we are
consistent with state law. Um, while
state law has a definition of an
efficiency unit, um, it specifies that
JADUs can have an efficiency kitchen,
but does not define an efficiency
kitchen. Um, but there is the department
of housing and community development,
otherwise known as HCD. Um they have
interpretations of various state laws
and what they what their definition
basically says is that um an efficiency
kitchen can be something that can use
120 volt uh for any kind of cooking
appliance. Um and so they state 120 volt
or 220 volt um as well as gas
connections. And so just to be safe, we
just wanted to really use the
interpretation from HCD um and that's
why we updated. So I I believe that does
clarify basically you have the options
but if you just had one of those plug-in
type of cooking facilities that could be
effective your your cooking portion of
your kitchen
» questions
here I go again
as I understand this is the language of
HCD so it's not it's not language that
we're inserting. Is that correct?
>> Correct. It is. We already have a
definition of efficiency kitchen. Um,
and this is to clarify it and bring it
up to the interpretation of HCD.
>> The only reason I ask is because I was
struck with gas connection when folks
are trying to limit the use of gas.
>> There's just the town of Woodside
doesn't ban gas. Um and so uh for that
reason we just wanted to be extremely
clear that there are no restrictions.
>> Um and that I think the state would look
favorably on that.
>> So this is a town not a state thing.
>> Uh it's both. So it's there the state
law says a JADU may have an efficiency
kitchen. And so it's you know what is an
efficiency kitchen? So the town has
always had this in our code, but we did
an update to be more in line with the
current interpretation by HCD. Okay.
So this is something um like to
discuss a little bit here. The at the
last meeting the planning commission
some comments from the public um
indicated that you know there should be
some paved area and surface coverage
exceptions carved out for ADUs.
um noting that some of the lots in SCP5
zoning districts or other SCP districts
are limited to 9,000 square ft uh which
often can get um used up pretty quickly
depending on features on the lot and at
the same time staff um has encountered
uh kind of a newer
issue for folks doing development and
it's the fire district is now requiring
ing that everybody has no planting
within 5 ft of the house. And while
someone could have dirt, they're often
recommending some type of gravel or
other concrete or any kind of paved
material. And it's becoming a problem um
especially on larger projects. Um they
don't have enough pavearian square foot
uh paved area surface coverage to meet
that requirement. Um people are finding
that they've gone through fire at the
designer view level and they're okay
with it and then come to find a building
permit they are requiring this. And so
what we did was to look at try to um
really deal with the major issue and
that is that the fire district is
requiring people to have paving of some
sort around their house or all their
structures. And so what we've done here
is we've didn't provide something
specifically for ADUs, but it can still
have an ancillary effect for ADUs um by
opening up more square footage for
things like ADUs. So the definition that
we've proposed here or I'm sorry the
exception that we've proposed here is
one that if you have some type of
non-binding material, it's not concrete
or pavers, um but something more like
gravel or loose rock, um that could be
exempt. Now people will still have
landings outside of their exit doors.
Many people have patios that are
concrete, bricks, flag stone, things of
that nature. Um, and all of those will
still count, but in the areas that they
choose to put things around the
building,
um, sorry about that. The, um,
this will be something that can comply
with the fire district, uh, while still
having people count what they typically
would count. Um but as long as so we
looked at this kind of non-biting
material is gravel uh sand similar um
that this would be something that could
be exempt from the paved area surface
coverage. Um in the staff report we
provided uh an example of a current this
is a current example. Um so this is a
project in which you know relatively
large site um I think we're just under
five acres here and they have a main
house. This is a brand new property. I'm
sorry, a new development. Uh, and it has
a main house, detached garage, ADU, pool
house, gym building. Um, and their
square footage to go around those
buildings, excluding the areas that they
were already going to use for patios or
uh, exit landings um, totals a little
under 5,000 square ft. Um, so we did
want to recognize that it is a fair
amount of square footage, but this would
be something that is on a relatively
large property. Um and on properties of
this size, this is a pretty typical size
development that you would see um you
know the main house and you know two or
three uh accessory structures. And given
that this is going to be required by the
fire district uh staff does recommend
that we just allow them to provide what
is necessary for fire. Alternatively,
the planning commission could consider
some type of cap. um that would just
mean folks would have to reduce paved
area in other places. Uh if someone
wanted to do a concrete walkway around
their house, this ex exception would not
apply. Um so it's is also just to
clarify that still trying to maintain
more of the rural character of the town.
Um and allowing for this exception.
Any questions on this?
» Okay. Um so last time uh we noted that
you know it our code is not clear and
where uh mechanical equipment can go
that serves ADUs although in practice it
has been applied we've had to apply it
um can't deny an ADU uh because the HVAC
wouldn't meet um the setback and so uh
in practice what the town has been doing
is to ensure that the mechanical
equipment is adjacent to the building
and that it does not go any closer than
4 ft uh to a side or rear property line.
So, it can't be any closer than an ADU
could be. Um and at the last meeting
there was concern about kind of what is
immediately adjacent and if we could
better clarify that. So, we've worked
with the building department. Um
typically they're probably around 12 in
or so uh from a building wall. We just
want to make sure that uh if there was
some reason that it needed to be a
little bit further away. Uh so we
provided a objective standard of just
that uh this mechanical equipment could
be no further than 24 in from the
exterior wall. Um and that's the
proposal. So this would still allow for
HVAC units or uh tankless water heaters
that are often attached to the building.
Uh so that was our proposal for this.
No questions.
>> Yeah. Um, we've we've heard cases before
about pumps that make noise
and neighbors impacted by pumps that
make noise. Specifically last year with
regards to a pool.
>> Yep.
>> I'm just thinking with regards to air
conditioning, if something was within 4
ft of a property line, how do we think
about that with regards to noise and
neighbors?
>> It's a good question. Um, you know,
clearly would not be allowing pool
equipment. Uh, but with regard to ADUs,
town has to allow an ADU that is close
as 4T to a side of rear property line.
So, it I I don't even know if it's
feasible from a from a construction
standpoint, but we couldn't make them
push their heating system. Say it
doesn't everyone doesn't have to have
cooling. most people do in Woodside, but
you could now you're requiring their
heating mechanical equipment to be say
30 or 50 feet away from the property
line. So, you're running this long line
and that is just a problem and the town
could not deny an ADU based on that. So,
it's really a way what we're trying to
do is just clarify what's allowed as
opposed to someone saying, "No, you have
to let me put it within 4T um on any
side of my building." Uh so we tried to
keep it somewhat restrictive. Um at
least make it meet that four feet. Uh
but it's just something that we are
going to have to allow for new
construction. Um and so this is a way
for us to have some
>> I'm just playing it out in my mind. The
neighbor that lives next door has an
issue with it
>> and um and at least wants to have a at
least wants his his or her voice heard.
Yep.
>> Um and as it's written, we wouldn't be
able to do that.
>> That's correct. Um but uh just under
current practice, we wouldn't be able to
do that.
>> Okay.
>> Um it's just for us to you know, we can
not we we built it's in our code.
The state may have some concerns about
it, but it's already in our code that
when something is in the required basic
setback that we notify immediately
neighbors. The the issue is um that we
also have to specifically say that
there's no appeal of this decision um
because it has to be allowed and so uh
we are notifying people um when that
occurs uh but in this instance it's just
something we do have to allow
>> and and pool equipment is is not
allowed.
>> That's correct. So obviously the pool
equipment would not be needed to serve
the ADU and so therefore um if someone
were to propose it adjacent to an ADU
that was within the basic setback that
would come to the planning commission
for a variance or setback exception.
Um so uh so last time we discussed about
we have this exception um built into the
code. Uh this is in response to the
state's requirements for that
if there is some type of standard uh in
the zoning code um that would or or many
standards in the zoning code that would
prohibit a property from developing at
least 1800 foot ADU. Um the town has to
provide some type of waiver to those
standards uh because the town has to
allow at least 1800 foot ADU. Uh it's
detached from a building. And at the
last meeting there was a discussion
about possibly of uh increasing that
exception from 800 to,200 square ft. Um
doesn't change you know what you're
allowed now. It just means that if you
were trying to build something over 800
but less than 1,200, you could still
look for some type of exception to maybe
be in the front setback. Um maybe
[clears throat]
uh you would be in an area that you you
just you're meeting your natural state
requirements and there's nowhere else to
put a building. So you might have to
encroach into those areas a little bit.
Um so uh at that time at the last
meeting the planning commission decided
they did not want to um increase uh from
800 to 1200 or increase above 800 at
all. Um people can still have units
larger than 800. It just means that if
they try to qualify for this exception
that building could be no more than 800
square ft.
So, uh, we just showed that we kept it
at 800 square f feet and that, um, there
was some question about
trying to provide a little bit more
clarity on on what people are required
to do to kind of show that their site is
constrained, in which they need some
type of exception. And in looking at
this initial thought was to say okay you
can submit everything on the checklist
and that's very objective and you have
to do that
um in order to identify if you have this
one constraint um or or multiple
constraints and still wanted to provide
some flexibility um because
for someone to have to provide all of
this different information could be a a
little bit um cumbersome. It could be a
little bit uh it'd be more expensive. Um
a great example we have of a recent ADU
um they did a geotechnical earthquake
fault trench. Um and it runs right
through the existing house right now,
the San Andreas fault. Um and on both
sides of it there's this setback zone
for uh in which you cannot build a new
habitable building. And so that document
was enough to demonstrate that they had
to push they're only doing 800 square
foot unit and that they had to push that
into the front setback. It was the only
place that was going to be either
outside of a stream corridor that they
had on their property as well as this
fault setback area. And so in that
particular case, all we needed was that
fault trench study. Um, and
if we were to require them to do the
septic feasibility plan and a
topographic study, all of which of these
things they'll have to do for
construction permits, but before they
invest the time and money, they want to
understand if they can move it into the
location that they need to. So, what we
did here is we tried to provide more
examples of documents and things that
can be submitted. Um the idea is really
to sit down with staff um if there is
something that's a question uh that wait
why can't you put it in another location
um we would ask for that piece of
information and they would share with us
why they couldn't do that. Uh so we made
some changes here trying to provide at
least identify more types of information
that people would be required to have
but happy to answer any questions. Yeah.
I think with this one we talked when we
were I recall talking about
just because this is 800 versus 1,200
folks still have a process right if they
want to it's just a matter
>> yes correct so let's say someone was
over 800 they still meet all their
square footage or whatnot but they yes
they could apply for some type of
variance other type of discretionary
review y
» I I don't have the memory that my
partner here Yes. Um
[laughter]
>> I think I was Oh, no. This was
>> You were This was at the last meeting.
Ref.
>> This is Rev 2. Got it. Um
when you say uh if they produce these
reports, um they may move things to the
front setback.
>> That's correct.
» They would still need to go through a
variance process.
>> No, that is not. They would not have to.
And this is this is state law that the
and they the state um has made it very
clear that uh you have to allow one of
these what they call stateex exempt
ADUs. So a detached ADU that's up to 800
square ft. Um if you convert an existing
structure um you have to allow these
things into the front setback. And so,
uh, that's where the the commission
shared concerns of, you know, why they
wanted to keep it limited to that 800
square f feet. It's something we have to
allow by state law, whereas we could be
more flexible and allow larger units.
Um, but at the last meeting, the
commission decided uh to keep it stuck
at the 800 and not increase that.
So if I'm understanding this correctly,
it is a state mandate that
if they move into the setback area that
the variance process be waved
>> if they cannot place it somewhere else.
>> They cannot place it somewhere else.
And that last part of the sentence, if they
cannot place it somewhere else, that's
something that you work with the
applicant.
>> That's correct. And so what we try to do
here is clarify the type of information
that may be necessary to show that they
cannot place somewhere else.
>> And that is why
my partners here decided to keep it
constrained at 800.
>> That's correct. Yeah.
>> Got it. Okay.
>> So people would still have a larger unit
that would need the variance.
» Yeah. And this is something we've had in
our code very early on from the state
law ordinances. Uh we are trying to
provide some more clarification and
asking if we wanted to go to a larger
size but the decision at that time was
to keep it in
» um okay this is just oh the owner
occupancy uh for junior accessory
dwelling units. Um so there was a
question last time about if we even have
to require this and so uh just recently
this so effective 2026 uh a new state
law was passed um and became effective
and uh what it clarifies is that you
actually have to require an owner
occupancy if it's first uh on a
restriction that you cannot sell a Jadu
separate from the property uh from other
buildings on the property. And then two,
that
you cannot require owner occupancy if
the JADU has its own separate bathroom,
but if it shares a bathroom with the
main residence, you shall require owner
occupancy. So, this is another one. We
just really went back to this new state
law and we made sure it matched them.
>> So, what what does that actually mean?
Is it I I remember this one clearly.
Like if you build a JADU, is the state
law saying that you are forever mandated
to live in your place? Then
>> you live the owner has to live in one of
those two units either in the JADU or
the main residence,
>> which which like makes no sense, right?
I mean I'm not it's maybe it's something
we should like give feedback to the
state but the idea that if you create a
J AU that you are forever bound to live
in the place makes
>> Yeah. Right. I mean as long as as long
as you own the property.
>> Uh
>> that's for a period of time though.
>> Yeah that's a little bit different.
>> It expires because you have to indicate
that you intend to live there for 3
years before you do it. But this is
saying like
forever you're never allowed to move
out.
>> And then then specifically if you have
if it does not have its own bathroom. It
>> does not. So if it has its own bathroom
you
>> then we do not require the owner
occupancy.
>> So to leave your house you would be
required to add a bathroom.
>> Uh essentially.
>> Yes. Or you could or you could remove
the J AU
meaning
>> what would could that I guess is that
something that would be an easy removing
a J AU is that basically paperwork or
[clears throat]
>> it's a good question. Depends how it's
set up. It could be as simple as
redefining the space because a JADU is
supposed to come out of an existing
space of a house. Yep.
>> Now, it can come out of a space of a
proposed house as well, but um so so the
idea is you're basically, you know, you
have a bedroom, then you can put in this
efficiency kitchen, and then there and
it's no larger than 500 ft. It has a
separate entrance. Um and therefore, it
can qualify as a J AU. Um you simply
just have a door that closes off to the
main residence. Uh and so yeah, it it
could be as simple as reclassifying uh
what you're proposing there depending if
you need to remove any facilities.
>> Okay. I think my my last question on
this one that if if that is actually
what this thing is saying and we are
bound by state law. It would be good to
maybe provide the
[clears throat and snorts] fine people
of Woodside with clarity on what to do
in that situation. Like is there a
recategorization? Because it just seems
like it I doubt this would ever get
enforced, right? like it would be a
weird legal limbo to be in if you I
don't know you go take another job and
you're going to write for
>> it's a good it's a good point and I
think the best way that we can do that
is with the owner occupancy document
that it it indicates you know there's a
method or a path um to remove the J AU
or that removes it to have the offer
>> and then that way that way it runs with
the land and it's clear um what you can
and cannot
Um just one comment I didn't quite hear
maybe [clears throat]
um Matt covered this but it was facing
the other direction. So the reason for this mandate about the
bathroom is so that the person living in
the JADU has access to toilet
facilities.
>> That's correct. So they so a JADU can
share the toilet and bathing facilities.
That's why you would the the owner of
the nonju would would have to
>> allow access to their own correct.
>> So they want to make sure that person
living in the JADU has access to.
>> That's correct.
» Um but yes, this was another one we just
really wanted to fall back on. What this is a new state law. It used to
require the owner occupancy and now they
removed it when you have your own
bathroom. And so, uh, we were just being
very careful to follow the state law.
» All right.
Sorry, I'm just taking some notes.
Okay.
Um Okay. So, um this is
one of the last comments that it was
brought up by a member of the public. Um
he's raised that at a couple of
occasions at different ADU
um meeting at different ADU ordinance
meetings. um as the town has allowed for
uh different criteria for ADUs on our
lots sloping downward from a roadway. So
that's already been codified. Um the ask
was to look at allowing for a similar
type of exception for ADUs that are in
ups sloping lots from the roadway. and
staff continues to have concerns
um with kind of the really the visual
aspect of how this look. While you know
it's noted that they would still have to
meet the basic setback requirements. So
that could be 50 feet on all sides um in
some of the larger zoning districts um
but it could be as close as 15 feet or
10 feet or even if you're in the Glenns
there's even reduced setbacks
um and
continue to struggle with the potential
unintended consequences of the
visibility of these types of units. um
staff doesn't have as you know if the
commission and council would like to
move forward with something like that um
using the language that was proposed um
by uh Mr. Patrick is one way to do that.
Um that's what's noted here up in gray.
Um but we did not propose that in the
ordinance. Um but we're happy to have
some more discussion. I did want to show
a couple of things and uh we have a
member of the public that at least um
will note one of these examples that
we're showing here. Uh and the first one
I'm going to show it's on an ups sloping
lot, but it actually complies with the
current standards.
And to give you an idea of kind of how
that building seems somewhat imposing,
it could be even more imposing um if it
were to have a taller building on the
back wall. So this one kind of steps
down the hill a little bit. Um so all
okay so what I wanted to show is just an
example of a property. So it ups slopes
from the roadway.
This is the existing conditions.
>> Where's the roadway?
>> So the road down at the bottom here.
>> Then it has a driveway that comes up to
the top. And the main residence is
located kind of at the flat portion. in
the site and the examples or the request
before was to say, hey, if something has
access from the driveway at the top, um
it should be still be allowed to have
the taller backside. So, this is the
location I'll show in the next plan, the
site plan of the actual proposal. This
um is a location in which the ADU is
being built. Now, um, uh, we do allow
development on slopes in excess 35% for
ADUs and so they were able to place it,
access it from the uphill side. But I do
want to note that while that's
relatively far from the roadway, it is
visible from a trail. Um, and so that's
somewhat visibility, but from a roadway,
you know, to see that building down
closer to the road is something even if
it met the 50ft setback, it would still
be something that would look a bit more
imposing. So, this is the proposal of
the project itself. So, and I'll show
you the elevation, and it it's kind of
stepped down the hill a little bit. they
tucked it into the hillside have kind of
a partial basement
and um but I wanted to note that
something similar to this could actually
this yellow line shows the required
setbacks and potentially someone you
know could have this ups sloping lot and
it could be really close to the roadway
um and it would be very visible. So
looking at the elevations this is the
side elevation so you see it kind of
stepping down the hill a bit. dug into
the hillside a bit, but this is the rear
elevation of the building. This is
what's what you see when it steps down
the hillside. And
this it steps down, so it helps to break
up the mass. Yet, and if it were to
allow to have this much taller plate
height and overall height on this side,
it could be much more visible, much more
imposed on the right roadway. Um, so
this is a real life example of one that
actually complies with code today. Um,
>> so Sage, if in the in the proposal that
you did not propose or the proposal that
was proposed by a member of the public
>> last week, what would be Can you sure
back?
>> Yeah. So,
>> what part? How much higher would that?
>> So, it it could probably get roughly up
to where that ridge is in the back
>> in the all the way at the back.
>> All the way in the background. Yeah. So,
it could push that entire wall all the
way out.
>> Right. Because what you're not seeing in
this one because it's a you you'd
actually be viewing this from downhill.
Correct.
>> Smaller than it actually does in the
picture.
>> Yes. [clears throat] And so what I
wanted to show, I just took some other
images um off the internet just to
provide some other examples of how
buildings could look. Um so some are a
little bit more extreme if they're
placed on stilts. See the underside of
the buildings. Um so this is a couple
different options that could function
that way. So again, have this much
taller height over um
>> kind of plate height would that one on
stilts actually be measured?
>> Not the post, not the post down at the
bottom, right? Just the
>> It would be measured to the grade below
>> all the way to the bottom of the grade.
>> Yes, that would be at 70 foot plate
height.
>> Uh I wouldn't suggest it's 70 foot. This
is probably about a 10ft plate. So it'
be another story under here. Um that
>> would be that top roof though, right?
That top rectangle.
>> Yes, that would be the plate. And then
the overall height, I believe we have it
up to 28 ft tall. Um, so you could have
a 28t tall. So, um, you know, looking at
again, these aren't to scale and they're
not exact measurements, but just
different types of kind of flat twostory
walls um, that could be done without
stepping it down the hillside.
>> And then I think one of the other
arguments I remember about this one is
that's currently allowed for a main
residence, correct?
>> That's correct. Yes. So this is just
saying that so the the condition we're
looking at here is already something
that can happen. It just can't happen
for ADUs. Correct.
>> That's correct. For the detached ADUs
that would be much taller. Um so you
know this this one I thought was kind of
good to look at. It actually has a
another elevation you see. So this is
kind of a very simple form but this is
you know this is probably about
18t plate height or so there. Um, and
this is a side view of that building.
Um, and so, you know, it would instead
of having kind of just this short side
or having this step down the hillside,
it creates this larger two-story wall um
that could be visible. And
so if the council, I'm sorry, if the
commission would like to uh entertain um
looking at the UPS slopes and and use
the language provided by the applicant,
I'm sorry, by the member of the public,
that's something we could do. Um it's
something that I just
with some of the examples that we're
seeing it's just starting to be more um
>> but this is something if they wanted to
they could still apply for a variance.
>> That's correct. I mean there is a path
if someone were to need to do something
>> get anywhere else on the lot that was
logical then
>> yeah there's I mean we still have you
know this this 800 foot ADU exception.
So if someone needs a taller plate
height because it needs to be, you know,
a little bit down a hillside, that's
something that they could do, but it
would also be limited to 800 square ft
unless they got a
>> uh correct. Yes. So um that's the that's
the uh staff is again continuing to
struggle with that um and at this point
has not provided that in the ordinance.
>> Yep. Interesting because one of the
arguments was
Um,
it's sort of no worse than the existing.
I think the counterpoint is there's more
of these.
>> Mighty is that
>> garage?
>> Yeah. How did you do that?
>> It's attached. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> And it was physically attached to the
main house um by the breezeway. And so
that
>> the ups slope. It's the UPS slope with
plate height of whatever stories. It's it's not the any of these specific
ones, but uh what what um
>> theory
>> Commissioner Evans
>> it it didn't even go to commission. It
didn't go to ASV. It just went through
your staff. It was 800 ft. It fit all
the rules.
>> Yes. And so that was considered an
attached ADU. So it was like the house
was able to have a taller plate height.
>> Um
>> like one mile on the street
the same thing that was before the the
rules exist.
Can we
possibly do we talk about it now or
>> you can and just again please use the
microphone.
>> This is the only one that I'm kind of
apprehensive of.
>> Yeah. And so we so staff shares that
concern and we have not included it in
the proposed ordinance at this time. But
if the commission would like us to um
it's something that we could do move
forward to the town council and the town
council may consider it independently as
well. Um but uh if the commission would
like to put it forward and your
recommendation we could do that and
>> I think we probably want to suspend the
final deliberation till after public.
>> Yeah that definitely definitely and this
one I think is actually important. And I
know we have a member of public who
submitted a desk item was here this
evening um that has expressed some
concerns with this exact situation.
» Um so yeah, we can um so uh it is
brought up and so now I'm getting you
know this kind of concludes what the
changes we made uh uh regarding the
commissioner's um u direction at the
last meeting. And we do have some desk
items. um one desk item um and we can
start with that one is uh actually very
supportive of the different changes
specifically the second driveways are
noted.
Um they also at the end are looking for
kind of you know to ensure that we are
uh doing an amnesty program. And so at
the end of the
um the ordinance, what we've done is
just really try to keep it simple and
just clarify because this is a zoning
code and a zoning code doesn't really
deal with building standards. And um so
in the zoning code, what we wanted to
acknowledge is that based on this state
law that there is uh a process in which
someone can apply to legalize an
unpermitted ADU. Um the state law talks
about something that was unpermitted
prior to uh 2020. Um, and what in this
particular case, there's different
things spelled out in the state law. Um,
people, they can have a third-party
inspector. Uh, the town um will be
considering if it's if it's to even that
they could have a town inspector come
out for a fee ahead of the the time,
kind of see what items need to be
corrected. Um, so this is actually in
place already. It's a state law, so we
have to have it. Um and one of the key
components of it is that there's a
checklist. Uh so that has been prepared
by the building department. It is on the
town's website. Uh as well as um the
building department has been made aware
of this provision and they are aware of
it. And so they'll help assist
applicants to provide the minimum
information necessary to comply with the
health and safety requirements. Um and
specifically the state law cites health
and safety code. Um and so they'll have
to comply with those. We didn't want to
get too far into that in the zoning code
um just because it wasn't really the
right place for it. And the building
code is just these are health and safety
code. That's stuff that's already in
place. And so setting up the process
will allow us to be a little bit nimble
and be flexible and adjust that process
when we find there's deficiencies in it
um if that occurs. And so therefore, uh,
we have it's something that is already
allowed and this is recognizing that
it's allowed.
Okay. Um, and so, uh, so that was
something that was brought up in that
same desk item. you know, they just want
to note that we're moving forward with
implementing an amnesty program. And so
the answer to that is yes, we are. Uh it
is implemented. Um we're happy to take
feedback from public and and how can we
make it more clear uh as people start to
go through this process. But the town
has developed a checklist based on um a
sample that's been used by other cities
as well as the association of Bay Area
Governments. um provide a sample. So,
we've kind of geared it towards
Woodside.
Um
>> this is this is as per the language
hasn't changed since last.
>> Correct. We did not change anything from
the last meeting. Um and so we also have
another desk item um that member of the
public is here uh and is looking at
how to adjust the municipal code for
ADUs as it relates to SB9 which SB9
you know there's other SB9s now. So but
the one that everyone's familiar with is
generally referred to as urban lot
splits. So you can split a lot under
certain circumstances and build two
units on each lot. Uh that law does not
require that you have to have ADUs. Um
but the desk item brings up the fact
that
when SP9 was first passed, the town
limited it to maximum of two 800 foot
units on each slot because that is what
had to be allowed by the state. And so
the town did that, adopted that code. Um
there has since been new state
legislation
um known as SB450
which has updated this government code
section and it provides more flexibility
for over 800 square ft. If someone if
someone can meet the objective criteria.
So things like the height limit, the
floor area limit, um staying out of 35%
slopes, the setbacks, those are all very
objective um uh criteria. And so if
someone can meet that objective
criteria, what the state law says is you
have to allow the underlying
zoning requirements that are already
there. So for example, if someone's
allowed a two a 4,000t house and they
could meet all the objective standards
by having two 2,000 foot houses, the
town would allow that. It has to allow
it. It's just a state law. And so, um,
while the staff recognizes the comments
from the member of the public,
uh, it's it's a slightly different
animal, um, and it is something that
when given the updates to the state law,
when someone has a project, we're happy
to sit down with folks and see what
their proposal is and how it may or may
not fit into that state law. Uh and but
um sometime soon uh got a little bit
behind this year on some different
items, but uh we will be updating our
code to have more clarity on that
locally. Um and that's at at the time in
which if the town wants to also consider
ADUs in addition to those duplexes, uh
they it'd be that would be the best time
to separate.
>> Has has anyone used SP9 to make duplexes
in town? So we have um a particular
proposal from a member of the public
who's here tonight. Um and uh it's going
through the process. Uh that was the
first one submitted to the town. And
then we have um believe two more
applications that have come in. One is a
project that went through ASRB and maybe
even the planning commission. forget if
they needed some type of exception, but
it was a full buildout of main house,
ADU,
uh, swimming pool, and
they are now coming in to kind of place
a property line between the
developments. Um, and it looks like
they'll probably be able to do that. One
of the biggest constraints that people
run into in trying to split the lots,
it's really access to sewer and septic
feasibility. Um that's still a health
and safety constraint. That's makes it
more difficult in a place like Woods to
split the pipes.
>> Well, if you have only one sewer
connection allocated, you have to now
get another sewer allocation and that
may not be available. Um and so
>> state would state law force it to
happen?
>> No, because there's there has to be
capacity of the sewer plant. There has
to be capacity in your pipes. Um so the
town is just wrapping up a sewer study
for the town center area district and um
that will show that you know there is
limited capacity. And so what it means
is you still have your one sewer
connection that you're allowed but your
other lot now has to show septic. Um and
so one of the examples that I uh talked
about tonight that's what they're doing.
They're going to see if they can get uh
sewer, but they are planning for septic
as a as a um backup
plan if they can't get sewer.
Um so, so with that desk item, we do
understand a comment and something we
want to tackle a little bit more as a
full con comprehensive review of the
SP9, SP450.
>> Well, I a chance.
>> Yeah, you'll get a chance. Yep.
I move away from this accessory
>> microphone.
>> And if I figure this out. All right.
That better. I haven't moved on from
that. There was a letter sent by Carrie
Diller.
>> On the second page of the letter, she
gave a suggestion
about a pre-application walkthrough.
Mhm.
>> Can you can you talk more about that?
>> Sure. I found that interesting.
>> Yeah. No, so definitely what the state
law says is that um cities have to allow
someone to submit a third party uh uh
inspection as part they so someone can
go hire like sometimes before people buy
a house they'll uh have some home
inspector come in to see if there's any
deficiencies. So, uh, the state law says
someone can do that, but the town is
looking at the possibility of actually
having a town inspector, um, if the if
the applicant wants to, it would be
forced upon them, but if they wanted to,
maybe there's a fee associated with
that, um, that they would actually have
a town inspector go out there who could
provide some areas in which they would
have to bring up to code uh, to comply
with the state law and they could work
handinand with the building department
plan checker. um to try to provide ease
of that process.
» I really like that because I think in
the spectrum of well-built stuff that
you're going to grandfather to stuff
that
was cobbled together. It's a very wide
spectrum. I think having the town decide
where it is in that spectrum before
grandfathering it is really valuable and
doing it in a way that's safe for the
homeowner.
So any
>> Yeah. No, that it's it's uh we agree. Um
I think right now it's just looking at
resources and how that would work, but
uh it is definitely a possibility that's
being considered.
>> The way she wrote it, it's something we
could charge a fee for. So
>> correct. No, correct. Yeah, just
sometimes it's a matter of time as well.
Great.
>> And so, but uh but yes, uh so we're
working with the building department and
you know, we also have contract
inspectors. So, um sometimes it's a
matter of just getting more inspectors
um if that's necessary. Uh so, we're
just looking at how to best roll that
out. One of the topics we were chatting
about last time was also just like the
level of bindingness or not bindingness
because again with contract inspectors
we want to be careful that like
>> is is their word creating some
obligation for the town right
>> they didn't flag something
>> correct yeah yeah
>> so I think there I think
>> we were talking about it being sort of
more advisory than funding
>> yeah no we did talk about this last time
that um you know there might be certain
things that, you know, without opening
up a wall, somebody may not be able to
see.
>> Uh, so there would definitely be any
kind of caveats on things that they
could see. Um, but
>> I apologize if I've kind of recircled.
>> No, it's okay. Um, and no, it's a good
conversation and, um, Carrie Diller is
actually um, online, so she'll get a
chance to help speak to this when it's
public comment time.
Um, okay. So, those were two of the desk
items. So, we dealt with the support for
most of the items uh really encouraging
a robust uh amnesty program through the
building department. And then um we also
received uh another desk item um just
later this afternoon and that one
expresses some concerns with allowing
more flexibility for some of the ADUs uh
outlining
um that uh these things do not have to
go through public hearings and that to
be very careful on providing more
flexibility. One of the biggest concerns
raised that I've seen in the letter,
I've actually worked uh with this person
on this is um the ups sloping lots and
the visibility and the kind of the
[clears throat] imposing features that
come with that. Uh so uh this desk item
um clearly indicates that uh does not
support the UPS slope lot uh provision
which we have not included in the
ordinance. Um there are some other
questions in this desk item. I'm happy
to answer any if the the commission
would like me to do so. Uh we have
looked at our ADU production. Uh we will
based on some of the suggestions here.
We just recently started kind of
tallying up the number of ADUs month by
month. Um which actually is a really
great thing for us. It's helped us to
keep track a little bit better. And with
this suggestion, one of the things we're
also going to do is clarify in the new
director's reports, it's not in this one
today, but the new director's reports to
have not only the number of units that
are on this current year, but from the
previous years and break them down by
ADU and single family dwellings. Um,
there is questions about, you know, if
the town is meeting its ADU goals. Uh I want to note that there is a housing
target goal um that should be a various
types of housing but at the end of the
day it's the number of units um but
looking at varied housing types and so
we've reszone sites for multif family as
a housing type and then we have the
single family and the ADUs as different
housing types. So there's not a specific
number of ADUs that we need to hit. Um,
I'll note that, uh, we're we're not, you
know, we're we're into our fourth year
now of this housing element cycle and
we're about a third of the way into what
we need to complete just from a number
of units standpoint. Um, so
with the different changes, you're
starting to see more increased
production of ADUs. So whereas we may
not be exactly where we need to be today
with additional changes, it could help
to increase production at the later
years of this cycle to help us meet the
numbers. Um so
>> the cycle has four years left, right?
>> Yeah, it goes through 2031 and I have to
figure out exactly when they I think
they're still going to count some units
in 2031. Um
>> but yes,
>> there's there's actually no way we're
going to hit our target.
the e is the one that we were trying to
hit our target with the with the large
multif family 10 per acre type units and
none of those are broke ground or have
plans at all. So there's no
>> no we we have one um so two of them are
town owned sites and part of the step
that we're doing right now is they both
need to be accessed by sewer. Um so the
town is wrapping up its sewer capacity
study to see
>> you think it's done in four years
though.
>> Well you have to get a permit issued.
Um so that is that's the bar in which
the unit is counted. Um so many a cycle
or two ago the HCD used to count units
final. Um and now that they've they have
significantly increased the number of
units that need to be produced yet they
have changed the bar to permits issued.
So it makes it a little bit easier to to
hopefully meet their targets um within
that time frame.
>> But there's no no judgment. I just I
just think practically no way we're
going to hit it.
>> I think that the big So if if the 80s
alone are trending towards like call it
2/3, the only way you get there is
looking at the town sites which I know
>> it seemed like before all of the
issues with various staff members that
things were starting to make progress
towards having proposals and getting
those agendaized. So I mean I think
that's something
>> and and so that's still on track. Um,
you know, this again, this step, uh,
really was to figure out sewer capacity.
Um, and so that should be wrapping up, I
believe, maybe even in the next week.
Um, so I know the public works
department has been working on that and
that'll be released to the public as
soon as that's ready.
>> And is that like an ASIS assessment?
>> It is an assessment primarily of the
town center sewer assessment district.
Um uh the
both of the town owned sites run would
have run through pipes that use the the
pipes that are used for the town center
district. Um, and then I'll also note
that there is uh one private proposal um
at 773 Kinyatta Road and that applicant
has filed for a subdivision map um
hasn't applied for the permits to
construct yet uh but is in the middle of
that process. It's at the very northern
end of town on the east side of the
freeway.
>> Uh yes.
>> Question Sage with regards to Kimberly's
email. Is she present? Yes.
>> Okay. Just because I I had the same
feeling that you did. This was the only
different one and I just wanted to make
sure that I heard from her.
>> Yep. Yeah. No, she'll she'll have an
opportunity to speak and you know, as we
noted, we share similar concerns
regarding the UPS slope adus.
>> So, the last question on potentially off
topic for this one, but with this the
sewer study, is that also going to look
at if improvements need to be made for
the long term?
>> Yes. Well, I
>> center
>> yes I believe it will start to do that
in terms of you know what
I'm not 100% sure I haven't been deeply
involved with that but my understanding
is if it's not at this point at some
point in the near future it's going to
be looking at what are the solutions and
potential costs for those kinds of
things.
Um so that concludes my presentation. Um
if you I'm happy to answer any other
questions or if not we can open up to
the public. I know we have two members
of the public in the room as well as we
have um some members of the public
online who would wish to speak
anyone else on our side.
>> Okay. In that [clears throat] case we
will open public comment.
» Well goes first.
[laughter]
>> Okay. I have three minutes I believe
right?
>> Yes. Yep.
>> Okay. So, um again, uh you may or may
not be familiar with the details of SB9.
>> Sorry. Do you mind stating just name
addressable?
>> I'm Vertaft, 16 Preston Road. I am
Woodside resident since 2012.
I lived in the area since 1982. After I
graduated from UCLA, I moved up here and
I basically I work in high-tech. I I do
AI nowadays. It's not unusual. So, um uh
SB9
um really is a companion legislation for
all the ADU stuff and uh once a property
is divided
uh and there are either it's two ADUs on
one parcel or or it's a single duplex.
the uh it's known only to God,
tax collector, planning department and
the mortgage bank. There are many family
situations and business situations when
that uh uh SB9
lot split makes things much easier. For
example, you know, when it comes to
financing, for example, there are other
scenarios or when kids want their aging
parent move to a smaller house and live
in a bigger house. There are many
scenarios. Um, back in 2022, if you go
to Chad GPT, for example, and you ask
related questions, you would say the
very first thing you would hear would be
Woodside became nationally known in 2022
for initially attempting to pause as
benign implementation using the mountain
line habitat argument. You may remember
this. It was like my wife was saying
don't wear this cap when you go to when
you go shopping. It says Woodside
volunteer.
>> So my suggestion is to avoid that type
of situations for the sake of all of us
the the town people working in the town
doing really hard and prudent work and
people who are residents of the town. um
to um include to make sure that when we
phrase uh any ordinances related to AD
ADUs, they are balanced as it relates to
SB9. for example.
Um, and I put it in the um
here um
the proposed uh phrasing or which which
may stay immutable for you know the time
to come. Maybe any increased multi-unit
or size allowances approved for ADUs
shall apply equally to duplexes created
via SB9 L split on qualifying parcels
for example and unfortunately that
proposal didn't pass
from what I hear 1,200 square foot
maximum which really makes sense
financially if someone looks at it from
the you know what is the ROI on this
investment and unless you are a large
developer doing multi-unit building
hooked up to municipally subsidized uh
sewer system but if you are a kind of a
regular guy who needs to deal with u you
know septic additional septic all the
permissions and spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars literally to go
through the process right um make it uh
make it fair keep it balanced and not
create any uh grounds for additional
lawsuits which the town has a lot of. I
mean we all know about closed sessions
and so on. Um it has to be very balanced
and for the sake of the town's PR it has
to be very balanced and aligned with the
intent of the state law. That's all I
wanted to say and thank you very much.
Um, hi. So, what Kim Hansen, Ray Mundo,
um, and what I found out through this
ADU process is that the public, myself
included, we don't know anything about
ADU law. We don't know how I mean
ministerial review when I looked it up
on chat GPT it said that that means
rubber stamp
um and that really concerns me and so
this all started um from for my newfound
awareness was that it was uh there's a
project in our neighborhood and I asked
a couple of the neighbors I'm like well
hey you know do you know that these are
the two neighbors on either side of this pro this project. I'm like, do you
know what's going on? And they said,
"No, we don't know what's going on." So,
if there is some type of they said, "No,
we don't know what's going on." But the
way this works is that we get the chance
to be alerted about what's going on and
we get to make comments and the planning
commission will, you know, take a look
at the project and be able to give their
input. So, what I've learned through
this process is that no, that's not
true. It's a rubber stamp thing. Um the
other thing that was so I said, "Huh,
okay. Well, so I reached out to planning
um not to Sage originally. He was very
helpful and I'm grateful for that." Um
and what I found out, so I asked,
"What's the deal with the project?" One
of the planners said, "Oh, it's a 1500
square foot ADU." Another planner said,
"It's a 2200 foot ADU." So, one of my
questions is and and and so this ADU is
actually three levels
with a rooftop deck
with patios
in an active landslide zone. It also has
a very steep driveway and there's a
water management and lack of a drainage
plan. And then I was like, "Okay." And
my husband's like, "Well, don't you have
anything better to do?" And I'm like, I
can't stop. So, I continued asking
questions and I was like, okay, so you
know who who's the building inspector?
Oh, well, Woodside doesn't have a
building inspector. We use not building
inspector, the geotech person. I'm like,
okay, well, so who do we use? We use
consultants. How do you know which
consultant? Uh, I don't know. We have to
get back to you. Like all of these
layers for the rubber stamp is a
problem. And my concern is that I use a
portion of the Crystal Springs Trail
that is downhill from this massive
project in an active landslide zone that
um the trail could be affected.
And I'm I'm just really uncom and my
concern isn't really about how things
look because I mean I feel I mean unless
it was pink and then I would have a
concern but um I I feel like it's a
safety concern, right? Like state law
says the state law says that um from
2020 law sets housing as a highest goal
and while it requires more relaxed
development standards it does not
sanction unsafe sighting sighting within
a fault zone on a landslide in a flood
zone or in a manner which does not
comply with emergency response
requirements. So, I kind of went into
more detail in the email um that I sent
you all and I'm guessing I don't have
time. I don't know if you've had time to
read it or if you want to grant me more
time, but my my concern is that we're
going to rubber stamp these projects
that affect not only the applicant but
properties around there. Um it it's I
mean I I am a property rights person for
everyone in town, not just the applicant
but the surrounding properties and my
concern really is safety. So that's and
I've learned quite a bit and I have more
to learn and I want to thank you Sage
for jumping in because um I was very
frustrated until you helped me
understand part of this. One last
question is, is the size of a basement
unlimited?
» Like, I can speak to that. Um, the so
there is a certain amount of basement
grading that can occur on a property.
And so, someone has a basement under a
house and an ADU and under a barn.
There's the cumulative grading that gets
pulled out of the ground has a limit.
And so you know 10 years ago or so there
was no limits um because the way floor
area calc is calculated is based on the
above ground portions of the structure
and so any portions of the structure
that are below grade do not contribute
towards the floor area limit. However
those do contribute towards the grading
limit for basements. So they are not
unlimited.
>> Okay. So just I mean I don't know if you
knew this but your 800 square foot ADU
your 1,200 your 1500 foot ADU especially
if it's an UPS slope lot in a landslide
zone with a steep driveway could
actually be very much bigger than a 1500
foot ADU and it will get rubber stamped
and approved. Thank you.
» Do we have any comments online?
>> We do. We have a raised hand. And I
believe it's Carrie Diller.
Carrie, I've given you permission to
speak. You just need to unmute.
>> Uh I think I've unmuted. Am I coming
through?
>> Loud and clear.
>> Yes.
>> Great. Thank you. Um I wanted to uh just
commend a lot of the changes. I think
they are um really going in a positive
way that could help get to the numbers.
Um, I think as I mentioned last time, we
have 10 or 13 ADUs going in town and I
think there is a path forward where we
don't have to change the character, but
we could add some more housing. Um, and
I think the second driveway and other
elements have been very positive. Um, I
do want to build on advocating for
pushing legalization further. There's a
lot of ambiguity in the state law that
while they give you a checklist, there
aren't really third parties that want to
come in and say
um what is uh I think the language in
the law is sound and sufficient for
elements like foundations that were
built in 1970. And while those
foundations don't show any signs of
cracking, there's no water infiltration,
there's no signs of them not being okay,
um, we have a lot of people living in
illegal units that you don't know about.
And there are some really good proactive
life safety things that could come from
these reviews where um, we could make
sure that the egress windows and the
life safety and exits are corrected or
repaired for relatively low cost. And
then we could use some logic and uh like
if a building has been standing there
since 1970 and shows no signs of
problems that it's probably okay to
continue. And I understand there is a
gray area but the state's started
something and I know it's not
necessarily in the planning commission's
purview. Um but I think we could really
encourage a paid for service where the
town comes out and works with people
ahead of time to assess. we certainly
have several clients that would be happy
to participate in a um a you know
program to see if it works um and we
could go from there. Um and then I don't
know if this brings any peace of mind to
um my fellow resident in the room but
the ministerial approval is only applied
to planning. Uh so any geotechnical
drainage structural requirements,
building code interpretations, sewer
utility connections, all are going
through the fullblown review that any
other building would go. So the
ministerial approval from the state is
only responding to a planning approval
and not um all the other building code
requirements if that helps at all. So
thank you very much.
Thank you.
Okay. We have anyone else online?
>> No, we do not.
>> Okay.
>> Can I um
you mentioned that if you had more time
you felt like you were not complete and
I and I want to make sure that you feel
complete.
>> Can we grant her more time? I just I
mean I I with everything that we
received, this is kind of the only
variant that is different and I just
want to make sure you have your time.
>> What?
» Thank you. I appreciate that. And I also
think it's because we just don't know. I
really think that we could do a better
job with the public understanding what
AD ADU law is. Um, in 2020 there was a
recommendation by town council that the
adjacent neighbors would at least be
informed if there was a project. I
understand that um there's not you can't
object to state law requirements, but
you you know like you on a Sunday when
your neighbors taking down 14 trees
and you're like what is going on? Like
from we just we could do better and that
would be helpful. Um the you know and I I really I really think that some of
the interpretation of state law has to
be balanced with safety. You know we
have we have we have projects where
driveways fail. We had multiple slides.
We've got so much un
um like not just the expansive soil but
we have so many geological features. We
used to say
you're either close to the fault line or
you're on some form of old landslide.
And I know that most of the residents
here are all affected by drainage
problems as well. If your if your UPS
slope neighbor um
decides if they've got a leak or if they
decide to route their water through your
property, you know, we we personally our
first house here, we had our septic tank
fail because of water from construction
debris
um from their their activities. So, I
mean, I understand we have to be
compliant with state law, but I also
feel like there is a responsibility to
the town to put some guard rails and um
I I understand as well that there is a
desire to have more housing units, but the other parts in this process of
understanding more was I found that the
town really relies a lot on consultants.
You know, we have our public works
director who's in charge of both all the
public works as well as the building
department. Sage has both consultants
and staff employees. We have a a
compliance officer that we're borrowing
from another town who's here for one
day. We have, you know, a consultants
from from a geotech perspective that we
don't even know who we're going to get.
and there's there seems to be very
they're they're working the capacity as
someone from Woodside and they're giving
um review. Uh, I appreciate um, Miss
Diller who tried to make me feel better
and I I love her for that. But I I guess
I'm still feeling like as I looked into
this process um, we are really leaning
on a process for ADUs that is just
um, it's it's kind of out of our control
and it's it's also layered with
neighbors not knowing what's going on.
And it's also layered with some expect I
mean it's layered with some assumptions
that by complying with state law it's
creating an unsafe environment. So
please
>> microphone
>> reference to what we're deciding today I
mean your point about guard rails. Do
you have any concrete suggestions for
what we are deciding today that would be
helpful? Yeah, I I do. I feel like um we
for the additional driveway option, I
feel like there should be an additional
there should be some additional language
that talks about driveways if they
exceed a 20% 20% grade because the
current I think the language that you
have in the current regulation just
talks about the grade for the beginning
part of the driveway, not the whole
amount. It also doesn't talk about um it
doesn't really in my mind address the
fire safety apparatus. It doesn't talk
about um the um the geology of the the
land. It doesn't talk about a drainage
plan. It also doesn't have any language
about um how big this driveway can be.
and we're going to count on a rubber
stamp that they can just do it and hope
that someone who's a consultant from,
you know, Pleasanton or Fremont and and
these these people don't, you can
correct me if I'm wrong, Sage, but in
one of the reports for this project that
I looked at, it said that the geotech
inspector didn't even go to the site. I I feel like I feel like it's it's just
I feel like with your ordinance, maybe
if you had some language that would call
out certain conditions where we could
look at it from the impacts instead of
just rubber stamping it. And for floor
area exceptions, I feel like if I I feel
like there should be some language
there, too. if they already have a lot
of paved area, if there isn't any
language about permeability for the for
the um for the the materials you put on
the ground, if you're adding patios, if
you're adding more, all of these things
should be looked at in conjunction for a
whole project. Um, and if you're putting
a big basement in, I feel like, you
know, that that in addition should be a
trigger for some type of additional
oversight. Um
and uh
because this particular project with
this UPS slope lot um also it's so it's basically three stories and they're
going to have a rooftop deck
>> just whatever this is about the the
comment is about the the specific uh
decision and regulations rather than a
specific project. So if it's something
that pertains to
>> So for the specific regulation, I feel
like if the project has a rooftop deck,
if it has additional paved area for for
patios, for garage, for any type of
mechanical equipment, I feel like I feel
like you all with the direction of
planning should have numbers where it
does trigger an additional oversight.
you.
>> Thank you.
» All right, with that I think we will
wrap up public comments and move to uh
commissioner discussions.
Anyone want to open?
>> I'll open say sage I mean this is a
perfect setup. How did this thing get
approved without anybody knowing?
>> Um so again you submit for a building
permit and so that is what the process
is. on the particular project. Uh it's
the same as building a house. Um you
have to comply with all geotechnical
standards, all drainage requirements,
all building codes. They have structural
engineers, the design foundations and
framing and structural all of that
stuff. All the health and safety
requirements are thoroughly reviewed.
This particular project has been gone
back to town's geotechnical consultants,
looked at the engineering plans over
with drainage, all of that stuff
complies with the health and safety
requirements to say that something might
fail in the future.
It's the threshold is is meeting those
current construction requirements. Um,
and so that all of that occurs. I mean,
I just it's it has to occur for the
permits to be issued.
>> I I I would actually encourage you to uh
figure out if you can put AD on your
property, go through the process and
figure out that it's not a rubber stamp.
As someone who's been through this on a
very simple box on a very simple street,
it was two years of back and forth with
the building to get through all of the
hurdles, the geoteex four times, and it
was ridiculous. So I I would be
surprised if if there was any
overstamping from the building
department or really from PL from from
the group. So it may it may be a
terrible project in your mind, but the codes you have to get through and
the the annoyance it's like the reason
why I'm here is there just annoyance of the process. It's hard. So I I
actually not I would trust I trust the
group. And the thing that we can't we
can't get around is that we're a town of
5,000. we can't and we already have a
staff of 55 with like the town like we can't afford more than that. The only thing we can do is maybe
consolidate with other towns and like
create a big group which we don't want
to do, right? So it's it's it's a pain.
I mean the thing I I want to address too
in terms of just the concept of a rubber
stamp and heard the mentions of state
law. I mean we've been at the ADU stuff
for years so it like so so kneede in it
it's it's ridiculous at this point. But
the um I mean the state law does have
certain requirements like an 800 foot
ADU is required to be approved with a 4
foot setback etc. So those are true but
that doesn't obiate the need to do as as
Commissioner Evans was pointing out the additional work. So I mean there certainly are things where we're
bound and we are I mean we are bound
heard about mountain lion gate again and
you know when we try those things then
uh we get angry letters from the state
attorney general and we've seen how how
we react in those cases. So I think
we've done you know quite a bit of
consideration of those and frankly
tested the boundaries and see where they kind of hit
it is true that there are certain things
that we have no standing versus
Sacramento but then others where as as
Sage you're mentioning there's there's a
number of approvals.
>> Yeah. And what a lot of the stuff that
we've done um and some of the stuff that
we're doing now is directly related to
state law whereas other things are
trying to provide more flexibility to
increase ADU production. Um but to the
speaker's comment it's something you
know as a planner in 25 years it's
important to understand what the
applicant has to go through but it's
also important to understand how that
impacts neighbors. And so whenever we
look at modifying regulation, it is an
important consideration to look at both
sides of that.
>> Do do we have something that says uh
once you get a permit to build that your
neighbors get something that like a
notice?
>> No. Um there's only when so if an ADU
needs some type of exception like that
we were talking about before, we would
notify the immediate neighbors. Um there
are there are groups that feel that that
shouldn't even be allowed um given to
notify the neighbors. Um
>> but the town
>> both ways
>> the town has
when and if if someone complies with the
setbacks and the size requirements and
things like that. Um, just like any
structure, if you build a barn that's
1500 square feet, 2,000 square feet, um,
you may not trigger any kind of process.
Um, so
>> if a process is not triggered, then
there's no notice. They'll sort of see the construction take.
>> Someone's going just through a building
permit. Another example is solar panels
and sometimes people construct these
relatively large solar arrays that can
the town cannot impose setbacks on other
than health and safety. and next thing
someone knows a large solar panel array
is sitting in what appears to be their
backyard.
>> Yeah.
>> So there are certain limitations.
>> Sage, I I have a question. So in looking
at all this criteria before you approve
an ADU,
uh you're mandated by the state even if
one of these is not uh doesn't come up
to the standards that you would normally
use to approve a building. uh which is
the aren't there some some criteria that
are just not negotiable?
>> Yes. And and those are the health and
safety issues. So the geotechnical the
structural the ability to connect to
sewer or septic to have potable water um
you know all of those things are not
negotiable. Uh they do have to be in
compliance. um the things that you know
negotiable maybe not the right word but
um that may need to have some some
waiver as if you know it's what we were
talking about earlier tonight the height
>> yeah if you can if you can show that you
cannot fit
>> that ADU without say going into the
front setback or maybe um into a natural
state area um something that needs to be
a little bit over height uh given the
excuse me, slope of the property. Um,
those are the kinds of things where the
adjustments could be made, but when it
comes to the health and safety, they
have to meet all those regulations.
>> All right, I'm going to move us forward
to deliberating on the issue at hand,
which is the uh the
>> Before we do that, could we just the SP9
thing real fast?
[clears throat]
>> So, it the I think in the SP9 it is is
separate part of the code, isn't it?
>> It's a separate part of the code. Um,
[clears throat] again, I understand the
speaker's comments. Um, the when SP9 was
first introduced, uh, I do want to
clarify that we worked very hard to make
sure that ordinance was done in
complete. Um, and that there was a pause
given a comment made about mountain
lines, but two weeks later it was
adopted. Just have to
>> Yeah. Also, being part of that part of
the process that was a it I recall the
big draconian uh, rules to try to
dissuade from anybody from doing it. It was you had to allow at least you had
to allow up to 800 square foot units.
Two 800 square foot.
>> So, but it was like thou shalt fit this
little bitty B. That's correct.
>> So, I think I think your your basic
instinct was correct and that it was
designed or the code was designed to try
to dissuade people from doing it. Um
because that was the the whole town was
mad years. Um so I I think some some
rational thinking about what's actually
practical for certain things might be
useful to do.
>> Yes. No, definitely that's going to be
looked at further and and as I was
noting before that part of the
government code section has been changed
and so if someone does can comply with
the objective standards they could have
larger units today. Um but let's say
someone had to go into steep slopes um
you just have to allow the 800 foot
unit. So I think that's
>> but but they but they could still so Mr.
Taff could come to us for a variance
from the always the option for the
variance um as well as but I I I do want
to note that it is on the town's
workload to re one to make sure that our
codes are just clear with the current
state laws um but we are in fact
implementing the state law currently um
but uh outside of that does the town
want to be a little bit more flexible so
say somebody you know can't meet all of
the stuff they have to go into the steep
slopes maybe they could be a thousand
square foot 1200 square foot units
that's a discussion that the on should
and will have
>> or 800 feet off the one that's the steep
slope and 1,000 ft for the flat part.
What?
>> Yes, there there's different
>> but all that stuff could be done handled
today on a variance.
>> Today on a variance yes um uh with that
microphone
» I want to make sure I understand the
implications of this. I mean, I think
your request is that we attach what
we're considering today to SB9, and I
think what I'm hearing you say is it's
in our list. We will focus on it, and we
don't need to merge both. Let's keep
them separate.
>> I think right now it's important to be
careful of taking all of these different
adjustments and just applying them to
SP9. Currently, SB9, SP450 doesn't
require ADUs to be permitted. It can be,
um, but right now under SP 450, like I
said, you could have two 2,000 foot
houses potentially if you can meet all
of the objective standards. You could
have four 1,000T houses if you split the
lots. Um, and so there's different ways
to meet the underlying zoning
requirements that are already in place.
So, someone's allowed a 6,000 foot
house, you know, you could potentially
have uh two uh 3,000 foot houses. So,
» it's a different if if you don't mind
approach the mic to be on the record.
>> No, no, you you can speak. You just have
to
>> uh what you're referring to in about
when they talk about SB450. It's in in
my business, they call it a different
use case. the use case for the basic SB9
there is no need to uh put it on a
different approval uh track or
disapproval track because it's basically
the same it's the same considerations we
want to limit growth the way it's
reasonable we don't want to uh have a
lunches in our backyard uh we want it to
look nice so there is really no need to
differentiate between a do two ADUs. If
we allow two ADUs,
it's basically the same as having a
duplex on that new lot and creating
extra workload for even your team. It
doesn't seem to be effective. More
effective thing may be to consider it as
just same
basically same track. Whenever we we say
it can be done for the ADU and there's I
can assure you there's no rubber
stamping.
As someone who is going through this
process, there's no such thing. It's you have to go you have to jump
through all the hoops except you have to
do that jump through all the hoops at
once which is doesn't make it less
painful, less expensive
just address the commission.
>> So, so again my suggestion was just to
have that one phrase added to the uh ADU
legislation,
right? And this way to kind of solve it,
not not to allow more, not to go out of
our way, but to just simplify it.
>> So the the town had a lot of
conversations about this a couple years
ago. And so if to sort of squeeze it in
would not be practical or or fair. So I
think we'd have to keep them separate
and then have a separate discussion
because I do believe if we if we put
something out that even changed small
deviations to the current, there would
be a lot of kind of input that we'd have
to collect. Look, I think we've heard
from Z. This is this is going to be put
on the agenda.
>> It is on the workload and it's not as simple as just taking all of
the things we allow for ADUs.
>> And one last thing just to
>> and then we're done. But one last thing
to add to the comment here is my
instinct is to trust the people who are
closer to it.
>> And if he says if Sage says I want to
treat it differently, like I I I I feel
like I need to support that. I I work
with Sage over the years, so I have
Sage and his team have my full trust.
>> Yeah. So, Sage has stated this will be
on the agenda. So, I think we've heard
the comment. We'll take this into
account when that's when that's put on,
but it wouldn't be something we'd be
changing in the specific language that
we'll be approving tonight or
considering tonight, I should say.
>> But, we definitely will continue to
consider how to make things more
flexible. It is on our work plan.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. All
right, we're going to move to mission
discussion at this point. And so what I
would suggest, which worked well last
time, is maybe we go just item by item.
Uh if folks are okay with that and Sage,
you had I think done a great job of kind
of keeping us online
rather.
>> I could say I have no comments on the
discussion of the the book.
>> That might be a way I mean if if there's
any any places in which people do want
to discuss further, maybe focus on those
areas.
>> Okay. So I'll I'll keep us organized
then. So the first thing we had was on
the the driveways.
Anything there? Good.
uh the efficiency kitchen definition.
Thought personally that was a good
clarification
and I went through purchasing and
request of yours turning uh Amazon
things to
that was great air fryers. Exactly. uh
the uncompacted and non-bonded gravel.
To me that makes sense given we have
these zero combustion zones now need to
be sensitive to that
>> and and that also to the speaker's
comment you know when allowing this
extra square footage the intent of the
language is to make sure it is gravel
and permeable. Um it wouldn't be
something where someone puts pavers on
top of sand even that's something that
would not be accepted.
>> Okay. Uh the mechanical equipment the 24
in I thought was great objective
standard so you can know it either
implies or doesn't. So that's helpful.
The 800 ft we debated that last last
time. Um and that was an area we decided
to be sort of less permissive and seems
like we're still
in agreement there. Okay.
um the sanitization facilities. I think
my comment there would be uh I I would
ask uh that we request a you know some
kind of guidance to our residents who
may want to move on how to how to just
>> Yeah. Well, we well I have a note that
was where I was taking notes earlier.
We'll include that in any restriction
form that runs with the property.
>> Okay. And then I think that the the big
piece for discussion is uh the upward
sloped lots and we've seen examples of
that. So there's just a discussion of do
we want to consider the inclusion of
that or not and maybe we can do a little
straw poll on that or have comments on
that.
>> If you stall start but I'd say
keep keep it in the keep it as it is now
and require a variance that about it
>> would be flexible.
>> Such a sore point. because an issue is
this very large
» this would be very large issue uh to a
lot of residents. So um I would error on
the side of keeping
>> and I and I know for a fact that you
there is a certain size where you can
slide in without having to come for
variance on an ups slope. So there there
is there is a possible if they have to
do it. But
>> my take here I think there there was an
argument made that it's no worse than
what it is because it's the same as a
house. I think my counter to that is
it's more structures.
ADUs tend to be pushed towards the edges
rather than houses which are
>> that's right
>> cited at the center. So,
>> you know, while there's a lit literal
interpretation that's not any worse, I
think in practice it it doesn't seem to
be the type of thing we need to throw in
there.
» Agree.
>> There's something else. Um,
>> speak now.
>> I'm good. I mean, I'm uncomfortable with
this. I actually have a lot of respect
for Mr. Patrick.
>> Yeah.
>> Not surprised propos this. And I think
that all these things that we've talked
about today have edge cases, but they're
kind of reasonable. I think this one's
an edge case that I don't even I'm
uncomfortable.
>> So you you do not want to include it,
correct?
>> No. Yeah. Okay.
>> I don't. And
>> yeah.
>> Okay.
>> It's something we'll continue to explore
as we move through ADU ordinances. Um
should there be a way to maybe provide
some better guard rails, we'll continue
to look at that.
>> Okay. So to sum up,
>> do we still have the amnesty?
>> And so that's still in the code and uh
to the other speakers comments, um she's
actually been really great and helpful
in a lot of these things. We talk a lot
about different ADU stuff and um she'll uh you know work with our billing
department to help us keep that to to
keep improving that process. And one of
the things I've heard tonight as well as
what we think at the staff level is to
really figure out um how to make it
possible to have a town inspector uh
meet with somebody early on.
>> And that is what I mean I think that
resonated with me this pre-application
process to make it safe for the
homeowner. So I just I just want to
reinforce that. Yeah,
>> I think where we landed this one I don't
I'm a bit fuzzy on where we landed was
we're going to recommend to council to
consider that.
>> That's correct. Yeah, it's something we
were kind of looking at um the building
department. So, it's not it's not to to
town council to consider
>> providing resources towards
>> resourcing it. Yeah, correct.
>> We'll put that in the report to the
council.
>> Okay.
>> And and by then we'll talk more with the
building department to figure out
exactly what that looks like.
>> Okay. So what I think we are at is is
asis with
thank you as proposed with the
additional ask of an offramp for people
who want to move out of their homes and
have a a path to do so.
Would anyone like to make a motion on
that direct
>> motion?
A motion to agree as proposed with one
offramp for owners.
>> Yeah. So the so the in terms of the we
wouldn't be putting that in the
municipal code but with the document for
property owners they'd be informed how
to do that. So as well as the other
issue with the town inspector not
putting it in the ordinance um but
looking at that as a process to move
forward. So we'll explain both of those.
The town council and if you're okay with
the um resolution as proposed you can
make a motion to approve the uh draft
resolution.
>> Make a motion to approve the draft
resolution as proposed. I second it.
>> Chair Gar,
>> yes.
>> Vice Chair Tober,
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Evans,
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Garco,
>> yes.
>> Right. Thank you.
>> I just want to make one comment. Um,
you've put a lot of time into this and I
think there's nothing more annoying than
coming here and getting three minutes.
And it was easier today because there
wasn't a lot of people, but I think it's
important for folks like you to feel
like at least you got your time.
And I was I was hoping that at least you
felt that. So,
>> and Sage, there's no appeal process for
this one. Correct.
>> Correct. There's no appeal process other
than nothing. So, this is a
recommendation to the town council and
so we have not agendaized it yet. Uh,
now that this is through the planning
commission, I'll work with the town
manager's office to figure out when we
can get this on the town council's
agenda in the upcoming meeting.
>> Okay, perfect. Um, anything else? Uh
>> no, you just
>> I don't think we have any director
report.
>> You just had the uh the April report. Um
and so as personal suggestions by Miss
Hansen, um there were she emailed me
some very good suggestions. We'll uh
make some updates to the report kind of
breaking down the number of AD not just
the income levels and where we're
meeting those, but also ADUs versus
other types of units throughout the
different years. And then I'll just note
that um you know the the little graph on
the bottom shows per month of this year
um how many ADUs and single family
dwellings have been built. Also on the
upper portion it only goes through 2024
and the reason we had a little bit stall
on that we're waiting for the state to
certify our 2025 numbers which they have
done and so um so we will update that
table as well. Uh so uh just for some
notes, you know, we have
uh through 2025
um we have 121
um permits issued for uh at this point
ADUs and single family dwellings and
there is still a need to meet to meet
328 units total of varied types of
housing. So that currently leaves
another 207 units permits that still
need to be issued in this cycle. So we
are making progress uh yet we still um
need to look at different housing types
as well as you know the next year to
really start to see those numbers rise.
>> Is there any any updates besides that
you mentioned the sewer. Is there any
other updates in terms of things going?
So that that part is the first step and
then um the town has a consulting
attorney who's worked with the town
attorney's office that's going to help
us with the surplus lands act um process
and so that once the sewer stuff figure
out what path is that necessary for that
then we can start that process. Perfect.
Any other questions for stage?
All right. Well, with that we will
adjourn. Um, thank you everybody for
your time and thoughts.