[0:00] All
[0:10] right, we will call the meeting to order
[0:12] and we will begin with the pledge of
[0:14] allegiance.
[0:32] Roll call.
[0:34] >> Chair Gar
[0:35] >> here.
[0:35] >> Vice Chair Palber
[0:37] >> here.
[0:38] >> Commissioner Evans
[0:39] >> here.
[0:39] >> Commissioner Gonerko
[0:41] >> here.
[0:41] >> And Commissioner Weaver is noted absent.
[0:45] >> There
[0:47] agenda for today.
[0:50] >> There are no changes to the agenda.
[0:52] However, you do have some desk items
[0:54] related to item number two. Um, and I'll
[0:57] go over those uh during my presentation.
[1:01] >> All right, perfect. Uh, so we will move
[1:03] forward with public communication. So,
[1:05] if anybody would like to speak on an
[1:08] item not on the agenda tonight, now is
[1:10] the time to do so. So, folks either in
[1:12] the room or on Zoom.
[1:15] >> Sure. I have a desk item. uh not
[1:18] sleeping it's on the agenda or
[1:20] >> is it if it's related to the topic on
[1:22] the agenda then that's for later
[1:26] >> that make sense it does
[1:29] >> and we have no members of the public
[1:30] online
[1:32] >> all right in that case we will move on
[1:35] to the consent agenda and consent
[1:38] calendar we have one item which is the
[1:41] approval of the uh April 15 2026 minutes
[1:46] uh before we do so Does anyone have any
[1:48] proposed changes to the minutes u they
[1:51] would like to raise?
[1:57] » All right. In that case, uh may I have a
[1:58] motion to approve the minutes?
[2:01] >> Motion to approve the minutes.
[2:03] >> I'll second it.
[2:06] >> Chair Gar.
[2:06] >> Yes.
[2:07] >> Vice Chair Tober.
[2:08] >> Yes.
[2:08] >> Commissioner Evans.
[2:09] >> Yes.
[2:10] >> Commissioner Gerko.
[2:11] >> Yes.
[2:13] >> All right. In that case, uh we will go
[2:17] ahead with the main item for the night,
[2:19] which is the public hearing on the uh
[2:21] continued review of the uh resolution
[2:24] for intention and recommendation on the
[2:26] municipal code updates uh with respect
[2:28] to ADUs.
[2:31] >> Great. Thank you, Chair Gore. Um so uh
[2:34] as you recall on April 15th the planning
[2:39] commission reviewed changes to the
[2:41] municipal code uh related to the
[2:43] development of ADUs. There were a
[2:46] handful of items in which the planning
[2:49] commission provided direction to staff
[2:51] to look into further provide some
[2:53] updates and make some modifications. So
[2:56] in my presentation today, it will um go
[2:59] through those changes and the responses
[3:01] to the direction from the planning
[3:03] commission.
[3:05] Um so I'll go through each of these
[3:07] items. Uh you can we can pause for any
[3:11] questions as I get through each one and
[3:13] then once um the presentation's
[3:16] complete, members of the public can
[3:18] provide comments. Um and then after
[3:20] that, the planning commission can
[3:22] deliberate.
[3:23] Um, so the first item that the
[3:26] commission asked us to bring back was
[3:28] related to
[3:30] the proposed ministerial approval of
[3:33] second driveways for accessory dwelling
[3:36] units. Um, so the what what you see on
[3:41] the screen is the proposed language and
[3:43] underlying strikethrough and then the
[3:45] areas highlighted in yellow were the
[3:47] changes that we made from last time. So
[3:49] the planning commission expressed some
[3:51] concerns
[3:53] um that uh it should be allowed for to
[3:57] access more than one ADU as well as to
[4:00] reduce some of the requirements uh
[4:04] particularly related to um paving as
[4:09] well as uh that it it had to be only
[4:14] serve the 1AU. So we just made a few
[4:17] adjustments here. Um we clarified that
[4:20] it is not just for access of one ADU and
[4:24] then we just removed the requirements um
[4:28] that it has less paving materials than
[4:31] if it was accessed from the main
[4:33] driveway. Um and this just provides more
[4:37] flexibility
[4:38] as well as there are instances in which
[4:41] there could be a shorter distance uh
[4:43] from the main road but there could be
[4:45] some other constraint whether it's a
[4:46] steep slope or a stream or a drainage
[4:50] ditch or some other infrastructure
[4:51] facility um that doesn't make it
[4:54] feasible. So we wanted to remove that
[4:56] requirement and then therefore provide
[4:59] more flexibility and not create
[5:01] obstacles.
[5:03] Um and then the second piece that we removed is just
[5:09] noting that um it doesn't have to only
[5:12] serve the proposed ADU. Uh sometimes
[5:15] there could be some other ancillary
[5:17] building out there or you know provides
[5:19] better firetruck access to another
[5:20] building as well. And so for those
[5:22] reasons uh staff removed those two
[5:25] requirements. Um but that was the
[5:27] changes that we made to the second
[5:30] driveway exception. Um, happy to answer
[5:32] any questions if you have. Um, otherwise
[5:34] we can move on to the next section.
[5:42] » I I have a question.
[5:45] >> Wait, you have to turn the mic on.
[5:48] >> I guess being in a different location
[5:50] doesn't change anything here. All right.
[5:53] So um
[5:57] I think I understand
[6:00] why the word exclusive
[6:03] was struck. Um,
[6:08] my question is I'm trying to think about
[6:10] the law of unintended consequences and I
[6:13] think I understand why it was struck but
[6:16] in it being struck.
[6:23] What would be unintended consequences
[6:25] that the second driveway could be used
[6:27] for that are not a second ADU? Well, it
[6:30] would only So, someone could always do a
[6:33] second driveway exception for other
[6:34] buildings. Those still have to come to
[6:35] the planning commission. In this
[6:37] instance, it would have to be tied to a
[6:39] proposed ADU. Um, so if you have an
[6:42] existing ADU on your lot, um, this
[6:44] doesn't come into play because that
[6:46] already has access. Um, so this is if
[6:49] someone were to come in to propose an
[6:51] ADU and they needed this second access,
[6:53] this is something that they could get
[6:54] through uh, at the staff level. And then
[6:57] at the at the staff level, since this
[6:59] would be approved by town staff, I'm
[7:02] proposing a new ADU,
[7:04] you all would make sure that it's ex
[7:07] that that's the principal use of the
[7:10] driveway.
[7:12] >> Yes, it would have to uh uh serve the
[7:15] ADU. Um and if it serves some other
[7:18] structure as well, that could be an
[7:21] added benefit. Um but in this case, it
[7:23] would have to principally serve the ADU.
[7:26] Okay. Okay, I'm good.
[7:28] >> I've got a followup follow-up question.
[7:30] So, in those same lines, so if someone
[7:33] applies to staff for a secondary
[7:36] driveway not related to the ADU, saying
[7:38] that that is not considered.
[7:40] >> So, that would be something that still
[7:42] has to go to the planning commission for
[7:44] >> so that's the current practice now is
[7:46] that for a second driveway for any
[7:48] reason needs to come to the planning
[7:50] commission and this provides a carveout
[7:52] for ADUs.
[7:57] So I mean in in the interest of
[7:59] efficiency too maybe why don't do we
[8:02] want to
[8:04] >> you want to go the whole thing when
[8:05] we're done or
[8:05] >> Sure.
[8:06] >> Okay. Or we can even kind of do I'll
[8:08] just take notes that as we go if there's
[8:11] any changes. So I think this one seems
[8:14] like no changes.
[8:16] >> Good. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
[8:18] >> So everyone okay with this one?
[8:20] >> And then Yeah. And then we'll also want
[8:22] to just make sure that before coming to
[8:23] any conclusions that we take all the
[8:25] public input um at that time at the end.
[8:28] >> Yep. Fair enough. Okay. We'll uh we'll
[8:31] hold off on
[8:32] >> Okay. So, uh move along. So, um we had
[8:36] the last time we talked about the
[8:37] definition of an efficiency kitchen. Um
[8:40] and uh to provide some better
[8:43] clarification on that. And so, um, part
[8:47] of what we do with these ordinances to
[8:49] be careful and making sure we are
[8:51] consistent with state law. Um, while
[8:54] state law has a definition of an
[8:56] efficiency unit, um, it specifies that
[8:59] JADUs can have an efficiency kitchen,
[9:01] but does not define an efficiency
[9:03] kitchen. Um, but there is the department
[9:07] of housing and community development,
[9:09] otherwise known as HCD. Um they have
[9:12] interpretations of various state laws
[9:15] and what they what their definition
[9:18] basically says is that um an efficiency
[9:20] kitchen can be something that can use
[9:23] 120 volt uh for any kind of cooking
[9:25] appliance. Um and so they state 120 volt
[9:29] or 220 volt um as well as gas
[9:33] connections. And so just to be safe, we
[9:36] just wanted to really use the
[9:37] interpretation from HCD um and that's
[9:40] why we updated. So I I believe that does
[9:42] clarify basically you have the options
[9:44] but if you just had one of those plug-in
[9:47] type of cooking facilities that could be
[9:49] effective your your cooking portion of
[9:52] your kitchen
[9:56] » questions
[10:00] here I go again
[10:04] as I understand this is the language of
[10:07] HCD so it's not it's not language that
[10:10] we're inserting. Is that correct?
[10:13] >> Correct. It is. We already have a
[10:15] definition of efficiency kitchen. Um,
[10:18] and this is to clarify it and bring it
[10:20] up to the interpretation of HCD.
[10:23] >> The only reason I ask is because I was
[10:25] struck with gas connection when folks
[10:28] are trying to limit the use of gas.
[10:31] >> There's just the town of Woodside
[10:33] doesn't ban gas. Um and so uh for that
[10:37] reason we just wanted to be extremely
[10:39] clear that there are no restrictions.
[10:42] >> Um and that I think the state would look
[10:44] favorably on that.
[10:46] >> So this is a town not a state thing.
[10:49] >> Uh it's both. So it's there the state
[10:54] law says a JADU may have an efficiency
[10:56] kitchen. And so it's you know what is an
[11:00] efficiency kitchen? So the town has
[11:02] always had this in our code, but we did
[11:04] an update to be more in line with the
[11:07] current interpretation by HCD. Okay.
[11:14] So this is something um like to
[11:17] discuss a little bit here. The at the
[11:19] last meeting the planning commission
[11:21] some comments from the public um
[11:23] indicated that you know there should be
[11:25] some paved area and surface coverage
[11:27] exceptions carved out for ADUs.
[11:30] um noting that some of the lots in SCP5
[11:33] zoning districts or other SCP districts
[11:35] are limited to 9,000 square ft uh which
[11:38] often can get um used up pretty quickly
[11:42] depending on features on the lot and at
[11:45] the same time staff um has encountered
[11:50] uh kind of a newer
[11:52] issue for folks doing development and
[11:55] it's the fire district is now requiring
[11:58] ing that everybody has no planting
[12:03] within 5 ft of the house. And while
[12:06] someone could have dirt, they're often
[12:08] recommending some type of gravel or
[12:11] other concrete or any kind of paved
[12:13] material. And it's becoming a problem um
[12:18] especially on larger projects. Um they
[12:21] don't have enough pavearian square foot
[12:23] uh paved area surface coverage to meet
[12:25] that requirement. Um people are finding
[12:28] that they've gone through fire at the
[12:31] designer view level and they're okay
[12:34] with it and then come to find a building
[12:36] permit they are requiring this. And so
[12:40] what we did was to look at try to um
[12:46] really deal with the major issue and
[12:50] that is that the fire district is
[12:53] requiring people to have paving of some
[12:56] sort around their house or all their
[12:58] structures. And so what we've done here
[13:01] is we've didn't provide something
[13:03] specifically for ADUs, but it can still
[13:06] have an ancillary effect for ADUs um by
[13:10] opening up more square footage for
[13:12] things like ADUs. So the definition that
[13:15] we've proposed here or I'm sorry the
[13:17] exception that we've proposed here is
[13:21] one that if you have some type of
[13:24] non-binding material, it's not concrete
[13:26] or pavers, um but something more like
[13:29] gravel or loose rock, um that could be
[13:33] exempt. Now people will still have
[13:35] landings outside of their exit doors.
[13:38] Many people have patios that are
[13:40] concrete, bricks, flag stone, things of
[13:42] that nature. Um, and all of those will
[13:45] still count, but in the areas that they
[13:49] choose to put things around the
[13:51] building,
[13:57] um, sorry about that. The, um,
[14:01] this will be something that can comply
[14:02] with the fire district, uh, while still
[14:06] having people count what they typically
[14:08] would count. Um but as long as so we
[14:12] looked at this kind of non-biting
[14:13] material is gravel uh sand similar um
[14:17] that this would be something that could
[14:20] be exempt from the paved area surface
[14:22] coverage. Um in the staff report we
[14:25] provided uh an example of a current this
[14:29] is a current example. Um so this is a
[14:31] project in which you know relatively
[14:33] large site um I think we're just under
[14:35] five acres here and they have a main
[14:39] house. This is a brand new property. I'm
[14:41] sorry, a new development. Uh, and it has
[14:44] a main house, detached garage, ADU, pool
[14:46] house, gym building. Um, and their
[14:49] square footage to go around those
[14:51] buildings, excluding the areas that they
[14:54] were already going to use for patios or
[14:57] uh, exit landings um, totals a little
[14:59] under 5,000 square ft. Um, so we did
[15:01] want to recognize that it is a fair
[15:03] amount of square footage, but this would
[15:05] be something that is on a relatively
[15:06] large property. Um and on properties of
[15:09] this size, this is a pretty typical size
[15:13] development that you would see um you
[15:16] know the main house and you know two or
[15:18] three uh accessory structures. And given
[15:22] that this is going to be required by the
[15:24] fire district uh staff does recommend
[15:26] that we just allow them to provide what
[15:30] is necessary for fire. Alternatively,
[15:33] the planning commission could consider
[15:34] some type of cap. um that would just
[15:37] mean folks would have to reduce paved
[15:40] area in other places. Uh if someone
[15:42] wanted to do a concrete walkway around
[15:44] their house, this ex exception would not
[15:46] apply. Um so it's is also just to
[15:49] clarify that still trying to maintain
[15:51] more of the rural character of the town.
[15:53] Um and allowing for this exception.
[15:58] Any questions on this?
[16:04] » Okay. Um so last time uh we noted that
[16:09] you know it our code is not clear and
[16:12] where uh mechanical equipment can go
[16:14] that serves ADUs although in practice it
[16:17] has been applied we've had to apply it
[16:20] um can't deny an ADU uh because the HVAC
[16:23] wouldn't meet um the setback and so uh
[16:27] in practice what the town has been doing
[16:30] is to ensure that the mechanical
[16:32] equipment is adjacent to the building
[16:34] and that it does not go any closer than
[16:36] 4 ft uh to a side or rear property line.
[16:39] So, it can't be any closer than an ADU
[16:41] could be. Um and at the last meeting
[16:44] there was concern about kind of what is
[16:46] immediately adjacent and if we could
[16:48] better clarify that. So, we've worked
[16:50] with the building department. Um
[16:52] typically they're probably around 12 in
[16:54] or so uh from a building wall. We just
[16:56] want to make sure that uh if there was
[16:58] some reason that it needed to be a
[17:00] little bit further away. Uh so we
[17:02] provided a objective standard of just
[17:04] that uh this mechanical equipment could
[17:06] be no further than 24 in from the
[17:08] exterior wall. Um and that's the
[17:10] proposal. So this would still allow for
[17:12] HVAC units or uh tankless water heaters
[17:15] that are often attached to the building.
[17:17] Uh so that was our proposal for this.
[17:21] No questions.
[17:24] >> Yeah. Um, we've we've heard cases before
[17:29] about pumps that make noise
[17:32] and neighbors impacted by pumps that
[17:35] make noise. Specifically last year with
[17:37] regards to a pool.
[17:38] >> Yep.
[17:40] >> I'm just thinking with regards to air
[17:43] conditioning, if something was within 4
[17:46] ft of a property line, how do we think
[17:50] about that with regards to noise and
[17:52] neighbors?
[17:53] >> It's a good question. Um, you know,
[17:56] clearly would not be allowing pool
[17:58] equipment. Uh, but with regard to ADUs,
[18:01] town has to allow an ADU that is close
[18:03] as 4T to a side of rear property line.
[18:05] So, it I I don't even know if it's
[18:08] feasible from a from a construction
[18:10] standpoint, but we couldn't make them
[18:12] push their heating system. Say it
[18:15] doesn't everyone doesn't have to have
[18:16] cooling. most people do in Woodside, but
[18:18] you could now you're requiring their
[18:20] heating mechanical equipment to be say
[18:24] 30 or 50 feet away from the property
[18:26] line. So, you're running this long line
[18:28] and that is just a problem and the town
[18:32] could not deny an ADU based on that. So,
[18:35] it's really a way what we're trying to
[18:37] do is just clarify what's allowed as
[18:39] opposed to someone saying, "No, you have
[18:41] to let me put it within 4T um on any
[18:44] side of my building." Uh so we tried to
[18:47] keep it somewhat restrictive. Um at
[18:50] least make it meet that four feet. Uh
[18:53] but it's just something that we are
[18:56] going to have to allow for new
[18:57] construction. Um and so this is a way
[18:59] for us to have some
[19:01] >> I'm just playing it out in my mind. The
[19:02] neighbor that lives next door has an
[19:05] issue with it
[19:06] >> and um and at least wants to have a at
[19:10] least wants his his or her voice heard.
[19:12] Yep.
[19:13] >> Um and as it's written, we wouldn't be
[19:16] able to do that.
[19:17] >> That's correct. Um but uh just under
[19:20] current practice, we wouldn't be able to
[19:21] do that.
[19:22] >> Okay.
[19:22] >> Um it's just for us to you know, we can
[19:27] not we we built it's in our code.
[19:31] The state may have some concerns about
[19:33] it, but it's already in our code that
[19:34] when something is in the required basic
[19:36] setback that we notify immediately
[19:39] neighbors. The the issue is um that we
[19:45] also have to specifically say that
[19:46] there's no appeal of this decision um
[19:49] because it has to be allowed and so uh
[19:52] we are notifying people um when that
[19:54] occurs uh but in this instance it's just
[19:57] something we do have to allow
[20:00] >> and and pool equipment is is not
[20:02] allowed.
[20:02] >> That's correct. So obviously the pool
[20:04] equipment would not be needed to serve
[20:06] the ADU and so therefore um if someone
[20:09] were to propose it adjacent to an ADU
[20:12] that was within the basic setback that
[20:14] would come to the planning commission
[20:15] for a variance or setback exception.
[20:21] Um so uh so last time we discussed about
[20:26] we have this exception um built into the
[20:30] code. Uh this is in response to the
[20:32] state's requirements for that
[20:37] if there is some type of standard uh in
[20:40] the zoning code um that would or or many
[20:44] standards in the zoning code that would
[20:46] prohibit a property from developing at
[20:49] least 1800 foot ADU. Um the town has to
[20:53] provide some type of waiver to those
[20:55] standards uh because the town has to
[20:57] allow at least 1800 foot ADU. Uh it's
[21:00] detached from a building. And at the
[21:03] last meeting there was a discussion
[21:05] about possibly of uh increasing that
[21:08] exception from 800 to,200 square ft. Um
[21:13] doesn't change you know what you're
[21:15] allowed now. It just means that if you
[21:17] were trying to build something over 800
[21:19] but less than 1,200, you could still
[21:22] look for some type of exception to maybe
[21:24] be in the front setback. Um maybe
[21:26] [clears throat]
[21:27] uh you would be in an area that you you
[21:30] just you're meeting your natural state
[21:32] requirements and there's nowhere else to
[21:33] put a building. So you might have to
[21:35] encroach into those areas a little bit.
[21:37] Um so uh at that time at the last
[21:40] meeting the planning commission decided
[21:41] they did not want to um increase uh from
[21:44] 800 to 1200 or increase above 800 at
[21:47] all. Um people can still have units
[21:49] larger than 800. It just means that if
[21:52] they try to qualify for this exception
[21:54] that building could be no more than 800
[21:56] square ft.
[21:58] So, uh, we just showed that we kept it
[22:00] at 800 square f feet and that, um, there
[22:03] was some question about
[22:06] trying to provide a little bit more
[22:08] clarity on on what people are required
[22:13] to do to kind of show that their site is
[22:15] constrained, in which they need some
[22:17] type of exception. And in looking at
[22:20] this initial thought was to say okay you
[22:25] can submit everything on the checklist
[22:26] and that's very objective and you have
[22:28] to do that
[22:30] um in order to identify if you have this
[22:33] one constraint um or or multiple
[22:36] constraints and still wanted to provide
[22:39] some flexibility um because
[22:43] for someone to have to provide all of
[22:46] this different information could be a a
[22:48] little bit um cumbersome. It could be a
[22:51] little bit uh it'd be more expensive. Um
[22:54] a great example we have of a recent ADU
[22:58] um they did a geotechnical earthquake
[23:02] fault trench. Um and it runs right
[23:05] through the existing house right now,
[23:06] the San Andreas fault. Um and on both
[23:10] sides of it there's this setback zone
[23:12] for uh in which you cannot build a new
[23:15] habitable building. And so that document
[23:19] was enough to demonstrate that they had
[23:21] to push they're only doing 800 square
[23:23] foot unit and that they had to push that
[23:25] into the front setback. It was the only
[23:27] place that was going to be either
[23:28] outside of a stream corridor that they
[23:30] had on their property as well as this
[23:32] fault setback area. And so in that
[23:35] particular case, all we needed was that
[23:38] fault trench study. Um, and
[23:41] if we were to require them to do the
[23:44] septic feasibility plan and a
[23:46] topographic study, all of which of these
[23:48] things they'll have to do for
[23:49] construction permits, but before they
[23:51] invest the time and money, they want to
[23:53] understand if they can move it into the
[23:55] location that they need to. So, what we
[23:57] did here is we tried to provide more
[24:00] examples of documents and things that
[24:03] can be submitted. Um the idea is really
[24:05] to sit down with staff um if there is
[24:08] something that's a question uh that wait
[24:11] why can't you put it in another location
[24:14] um we would ask for that piece of
[24:15] information and they would share with us
[24:17] why they couldn't do that. Uh so we made
[24:20] some changes here trying to provide at
[24:22] least identify more types of information
[24:24] that people would be required to have
[24:28] but happy to answer any questions. Yeah.
[24:32] I think with this one we talked when we
[24:34] were I recall talking about
[24:37] just because this is 800 versus 1,200
[24:40] folks still have a process right if they
[24:42] want to it's just a matter
[24:43] >> yes correct so let's say someone was
[24:45] over 800 they still meet all their
[24:47] square footage or whatnot but they yes
[24:48] they could apply for some type of
[24:50] variance other type of discretionary
[24:52] review y
[24:58] » I I don't have the memory that my
[25:00] partner here Yes. Um
[25:03] [laughter]
[25:04] >> I think I was Oh, no. This was
[25:06] >> You were This was at the last meeting.
[25:08] Ref.
[25:08] >> This is Rev 2. Got it. Um
[25:12] when you say uh if they produce these
[25:17] reports, um they may move things to the
[25:20] front setback.
[25:22] >> That's correct.
[25:25] » They would still need to go through a
[25:26] variance process.
[25:28] >> No, that is not. They would not have to.
[25:30] And this is this is state law that the
[25:33] and they the state um has made it very
[25:39] clear that uh you have to allow one of
[25:42] these what they call stateex exempt
[25:43] ADUs. So a detached ADU that's up to 800
[25:46] square ft. Um if you convert an existing
[25:49] structure um you have to allow these
[25:52] things into the front setback. And so,
[25:56] uh, that's where the the commission
[25:58] shared concerns of, you know, why they
[26:01] wanted to keep it limited to that 800
[26:03] square f feet. It's something we have to
[26:04] allow by state law, whereas we could be
[26:07] more flexible and allow larger units.
[26:09] Um, but at the last meeting, the
[26:10] commission decided uh to keep it stuck
[26:13] at the 800 and not increase that.
[26:16] So if I'm understanding this correctly,
[26:20] it is a state mandate that
[26:24] if they move into the setback area that
[26:27] the variance process be waved
[26:30] >> if they cannot place it somewhere else.
[26:32] >> They cannot place it somewhere else.
[26:35] And that last part of the sentence, if they
[26:40] cannot place it somewhere else, that's
[26:41] something that you work with the
[26:42] applicant.
[26:43] >> That's correct. And so what we try to do
[26:44] here is clarify the type of information
[26:47] that may be necessary to show that they
[26:49] cannot place somewhere else.
[26:50] >> And that is why
[26:53] my partners here decided to keep it
[26:55] constrained at 800.
[26:57] >> That's correct. Yeah.
[26:58] >> Got it. Okay.
[26:58] >> So people would still have a larger unit
[27:00] that would need the variance.
[27:07] » Yeah. And this is something we've had in
[27:09] our code very early on from the state
[27:11] law ordinances. Uh we are trying to
[27:14] provide some more clarification and
[27:15] asking if we wanted to go to a larger
[27:17] size but the decision at that time was
[27:18] to keep it in
[27:23] » um okay this is just oh the owner
[27:25] occupancy uh for junior accessory
[27:28] dwelling units. Um so there was a
[27:30] question last time about if we even have
[27:33] to require this and so uh just recently
[27:36] this so effective 2026 uh a new state
[27:40] law was passed um and became effective
[27:44] and uh what it clarifies is that you
[27:48] actually have to require an owner
[27:50] occupancy if it's first uh on a
[27:53] restriction that you cannot sell a Jadu
[27:55] separate from the property uh from other
[27:58] buildings on the property. And then two,
[28:01] that
[28:02] you cannot require owner occupancy if
[28:05] the JADU has its own separate bathroom,
[28:08] but if it shares a bathroom with the
[28:10] main residence, you shall require owner
[28:12] occupancy. So, this is another one. We
[28:15] just really went back to this new state
[28:17] law and we made sure it matched them.
[28:20] >> So, what what does that actually mean?
[28:22] Is it I I remember this one clearly.
[28:26] Like if you build a JADU, is the state
[28:29] law saying that you are forever mandated
[28:31] to live in your place? Then
[28:33] >> you live the owner has to live in one of
[28:35] those two units either in the JADU or
[28:38] the main residence,
[28:39] >> which which like makes no sense, right?
[28:43] I mean I'm not it's maybe it's something
[28:46] we should like give feedback to the
[28:49] state but the idea that if you create a
[28:51] J AU that you are forever bound to live
[28:53] in the place makes
[28:55] >> Yeah. Right. I mean as long as as long
[28:57] as you own the property.
[28:59] >> Uh
[28:59] >> that's for a period of time though.
[29:01] >> Yeah that's a little bit different.
[29:02] >> It expires because you have to indicate
[29:06] that you intend to live there for 3
[29:08] years before you do it. But this is
[29:09] saying like
[29:11] forever you're never allowed to move
[29:14] out.
[29:15] >> And then then specifically if you have
[29:17] if it does not have its own bathroom. It
[29:20] >> does not. So if it has its own bathroom
[29:22] you
[29:23] >> then we do not require the owner
[29:24] occupancy.
[29:26] >> So to leave your house you would be
[29:28] required to add a bathroom.
[29:30] >> Uh essentially.
[29:31] >> Yes. Or you could or you could remove
[29:34] the J AU
[29:37] meaning
[29:38] >> what would could that I guess is that
[29:41] something that would be an easy removing
[29:43] a J AU is that basically paperwork or
[29:46] [clears throat]
[29:46] >> it's a good question. Depends how it's
[29:48] set up. It could be as simple as
[29:51] redefining the space because a JADU is
[29:53] supposed to come out of an existing
[29:55] space of a house. Yep.
[29:56] >> Now, it can come out of a space of a
[29:58] proposed house as well, but um so so the
[30:03] idea is you're basically, you know, you
[30:05] have a bedroom, then you can put in this
[30:07] efficiency kitchen, and then there and
[30:10] it's no larger than 500 ft. It has a
[30:12] separate entrance. Um and therefore, it
[30:14] can qualify as a J AU. Um you simply
[30:17] just have a door that closes off to the
[30:19] main residence. Uh and so yeah, it it
[30:23] could be as simple as reclassifying uh
[30:26] what you're proposing there depending if
[30:28] you need to remove any facilities.
[30:31] >> Okay. I think my my last question on
[30:33] this one that if if that is actually
[30:35] what this thing is saying and we are
[30:36] bound by state law. It would be good to
[30:40] maybe provide the
[30:41] [clears throat and snorts] fine people
[30:42] of Woodside with clarity on what to do
[30:44] in that situation. Like is there a
[30:45] recategorization? Because it just seems
[30:47] like it I doubt this would ever get
[30:49] enforced, right? like it would be a
[30:50] weird legal limbo to be in if you I
[30:54] don't know you go take another job and
[30:55] you're going to write for
[30:56] >> it's a good it's a good point and I
[30:58] think the best way that we can do that
[31:00] is with the owner occupancy document
[31:03] that it it indicates you know there's a
[31:06] method or a path um to remove the J AU
[31:10] or that removes it to have the offer
[31:12] >> and then that way that way it runs with
[31:14] the land and it's clear um what you can
[31:16] and cannot
[31:20] Um just one comment I didn't quite hear
[31:23] maybe [clears throat]
[31:25] um Matt covered this but it was facing
[31:27] the other direction. So the reason for this mandate about the
[31:32] bathroom is so that the person living in
[31:35] the JADU has access to toilet
[31:38] facilities.
[31:39] >> That's correct. So they so a JADU can
[31:43] share the toilet and bathing facilities.
[31:46] That's why you would the the owner of
[31:49] the nonju would would have to
[31:53] >> allow access to their own correct.
[31:55] >> So they want to make sure that person
[31:58] living in the JADU has access to.
[32:00] >> That's correct.
[32:06] » Um but yes, this was another one we just
[32:09] really wanted to fall back on. What this is a new state law. It used to
[32:13] require the owner occupancy and now they
[32:15] removed it when you have your own
[32:16] bathroom. And so, uh, we were just being
[32:19] very careful to follow the state law.
[32:30] » All right.
[32:32] Sorry, I'm just taking some notes.
[32:41] Okay.
[32:43] Um Okay. So, um this is
[32:50] one of the last comments that it was
[32:53] brought up by a member of the public. Um
[32:56] he's raised that at a couple of
[32:57] occasions at different ADU
[33:00] um meeting at different ADU ordinance
[33:02] meetings. um as the town has allowed for
[33:07] uh different criteria for ADUs on our
[33:11] lots sloping downward from a roadway. So
[33:14] that's already been codified. Um the ask
[33:18] was to look at allowing for a similar
[33:20] type of exception for ADUs that are in
[33:24] ups sloping lots from the roadway. and
[33:28] staff continues to have concerns
[33:31] um with kind of the really the visual
[33:34] aspect of how this look. While you know
[33:36] it's noted that they would still have to
[33:39] meet the basic setback requirements. So
[33:41] that could be 50 feet on all sides um in
[33:44] some of the larger zoning districts um
[33:47] but it could be as close as 15 feet or
[33:49] 10 feet or even if you're in the Glenns
[33:51] there's even reduced setbacks
[33:53] um and
[33:56] continue to struggle with the potential
[33:58] unintended consequences of the
[34:00] visibility of these types of units. um
[34:04] staff doesn't have as you know if the
[34:08] commission and council would like to
[34:09] move forward with something like that um
[34:11] using the language that was proposed um
[34:15] by uh Mr. Patrick is one way to do that.
[34:18] Um that's what's noted here up in gray.
[34:22] Um but we did not propose that in the
[34:25] ordinance. Um but we're happy to have
[34:27] some more discussion. I did want to show
[34:29] a couple of things and uh we have a
[34:31] member of the public that at least um
[34:34] will note one of these examples that
[34:36] we're showing here. Uh and the first one
[34:39] I'm going to show it's on an ups sloping
[34:42] lot, but it actually complies with the
[34:44] current standards.
[34:46] And to give you an idea of kind of how
[34:51] that building seems somewhat imposing,
[34:54] it could be even more imposing um if it
[34:56] were to have a taller building on the
[34:59] back wall. So this one kind of steps
[35:01] down the hill a little bit. Um so all
[35:09] okay so what I wanted to show is just an
[35:13] example of a property. So it ups slopes
[35:17] from the roadway.
[35:20] This is the existing conditions.
[35:22] >> Where's the roadway?
[35:23] >> So the road down at the bottom here.
[35:25] >> Then it has a driveway that comes up to
[35:27] the top. And the main residence is
[35:30] located kind of at the flat portion. in
[35:32] the site and the examples or the request
[35:36] before was to say, hey, if something has
[35:38] access from the driveway at the top, um
[35:41] it should be still be allowed to have
[35:44] the taller backside. So, this is the
[35:47] location I'll show in the next plan, the
[35:49] site plan of the actual proposal. This
[35:52] um is a location in which the ADU is
[35:55] being built. Now, um, uh, we do allow
[35:59] development on slopes in excess 35% for
[36:01] ADUs and so they were able to place it,
[36:04] access it from the uphill side. But I do
[36:06] want to note that while that's
[36:08] relatively far from the roadway, it is
[36:10] visible from a trail. Um, and so that's
[36:14] somewhat visibility, but from a roadway,
[36:17] you know, to see that building down
[36:20] closer to the road is something even if
[36:22] it met the 50ft setback, it would still
[36:25] be something that would look a bit more
[36:27] imposing. So, this is the proposal of
[36:31] the project itself. So, and I'll show
[36:34] you the elevation, and it it's kind of
[36:36] stepped down the hill a little bit. they
[36:37] tucked it into the hillside have kind of
[36:39] a partial basement
[36:41] and um but I wanted to note that
[36:45] something similar to this could actually
[36:46] this yellow line shows the required
[36:48] setbacks and potentially someone you
[36:52] know could have this ups sloping lot and
[36:54] it could be really close to the roadway
[36:56] um and it would be very visible. So
[36:59] looking at the elevations this is the
[37:00] side elevation so you see it kind of
[37:02] stepping down the hill a bit. dug into
[37:04] the hillside a bit, but this is the rear
[37:06] elevation of the building. This is
[37:07] what's what you see when it steps down
[37:09] the hillside. And
[37:12] this it steps down, so it helps to break
[37:15] up the mass. Yet, and if it were to
[37:18] allow to have this much taller plate
[37:20] height and overall height on this side,
[37:23] it could be much more visible, much more
[37:25] imposed on the right roadway. Um, so
[37:28] this is a real life example of one that
[37:30] actually complies with code today. Um,
[37:33] >> so Sage, if in the in the proposal that
[37:36] you did not propose or the proposal that
[37:38] was proposed by a member of the public
[37:41] >> last week, what would be Can you sure
[37:43] back?
[37:43] >> Yeah. So,
[37:44] >> what part? How much higher would that?
[37:46] >> So, it it could probably get roughly up
[37:48] to where that ridge is in the back
[37:50] >> in the all the way at the back.
[37:52] >> All the way in the background. Yeah. So,
[37:53] it could push that entire wall all the
[37:56] way out.
[37:56] >> Right. Because what you're not seeing in
[37:57] this one because it's a you you'd
[38:00] actually be viewing this from downhill.
[38:01] Correct.
[38:02] >> Smaller than it actually does in the
[38:04] picture.
[38:04] >> Yes. [clears throat] And so what I
[38:05] wanted to show, I just took some other
[38:07] images um off the internet just to
[38:10] provide some other examples of how
[38:12] buildings could look. Um so some are a
[38:15] little bit more extreme if they're
[38:16] placed on stilts. See the underside of
[38:18] the buildings. Um so this is a couple
[38:21] different options that could function
[38:23] that way. So again, have this much
[38:25] taller height over um
[38:27] >> kind of plate height would that one on
[38:29] stilts actually be measured?
[38:32] >> Not the post, not the post down at the
[38:34] bottom, right? Just the
[38:35] >> It would be measured to the grade below
[38:37] >> all the way to the bottom of the grade.
[38:38] >> Yes, that would be at 70 foot plate
[38:41] height.
[38:41] >> Uh I wouldn't suggest it's 70 foot. This
[38:43] is probably about a 10ft plate. So it'
[38:45] be another story under here. Um that
[38:49] >> would be that top roof though, right?
[38:50] That top rectangle.
[38:52] >> Yes, that would be the plate. And then
[38:53] the overall height, I believe we have it
[38:55] up to 28 ft tall. Um, so you could have
[38:58] a 28t tall. So, um, you know, looking at
[39:02] again, these aren't to scale and they're
[39:04] not exact measurements, but just
[39:06] different types of kind of flat twostory
[39:09] walls um, that could be done without
[39:12] stepping it down the hillside.
[39:14] >> And then I think one of the other
[39:16] arguments I remember about this one is
[39:18] that's currently allowed for a main
[39:20] residence, correct?
[39:21] >> That's correct. Yes. So this is just
[39:22] saying that so the the condition we're
[39:25] looking at here is already something
[39:26] that can happen. It just can't happen
[39:28] for ADUs. Correct.
[39:29] >> That's correct. For the detached ADUs
[39:31] that would be much taller. Um so you
[39:34] know this this one I thought was kind of
[39:36] good to look at. It actually has a
[39:38] another elevation you see. So this is
[39:40] kind of a very simple form but this is
[39:43] you know this is probably about
[39:46] 18t plate height or so there. Um, and
[39:50] this is a side view of that building.
[39:52] Um, and so, you know, it would instead
[39:55] of having kind of just this short side
[39:57] or having this step down the hillside,
[39:59] it creates this larger two-story wall um
[40:02] that could be visible. And
[40:05] so if the council, I'm sorry, if the
[40:09] commission would like to uh entertain um
[40:12] looking at the UPS slopes and and use
[40:15] the language provided by the applicant,
[40:18] I'm sorry, by the member of the public,
[40:19] that's something we could do. Um it's
[40:23] something that I just
[40:26] with some of the examples that we're
[40:28] seeing it's just starting to be more um
[40:33] >> but this is something if they wanted to
[40:35] they could still apply for a variance.
[40:37] >> That's correct. I mean there is a path
[40:38] if someone were to need to do something
[40:41] >> get anywhere else on the lot that was
[40:42] logical then
[40:44] >> yeah there's I mean we still have you
[40:47] know this this 800 foot ADU exception.
[40:50] So if someone needs a taller plate
[40:52] height because it needs to be, you know,
[40:54] a little bit down a hillside, that's
[40:56] something that they could do, but it
[40:57] would also be limited to 800 square ft
[40:59] unless they got a
[41:01] >> uh correct. Yes. So um that's the that's
[41:05] the uh staff is again continuing to
[41:09] struggle with that um and at this point
[41:12] has not provided that in the ordinance.
[41:15] >> Yep. Interesting because one of the
[41:18] arguments was
[41:20] Um,
[41:22] it's sort of no worse than the existing.
[41:24] I think the counterpoint is there's more
[41:26] of these.
[41:27] >> Mighty is that
[41:29] >> garage?
[41:30] >> Yeah. How did you do that?
[41:32] >> It's attached. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[41:35] >> And it was physically attached to the
[41:37] main house um by the breezeway. And so
[41:41] that
[41:44] >> the ups slope. It's the UPS slope with
[41:46] plate height of whatever stories. It's it's not the any of these specific
[41:51] ones, but uh what what um
[41:54] >> theory
[41:54] >> Commissioner Evans
[41:56] >> it it didn't even go to commission. It
[41:58] didn't go to ASV. It just went through
[41:59] your staff. It was 800 ft. It fit all
[42:01] the rules.
[42:02] >> Yes. And so that was considered an
[42:04] attached ADU. So it was like the house
[42:06] was able to have a taller plate height.
[42:08] >> Um
[42:08] >> like one mile on the street
[42:11] the same thing that was before the the
[42:13] rules exist.
[42:15] Can we
[42:17] possibly do we talk about it now or
[42:20] >> you can and just again please use the
[42:22] microphone.
[42:25] >> This is the only one that I'm kind of
[42:27] apprehensive of.
[42:28] >> Yeah. And so we so staff shares that
[42:31] concern and we have not included it in
[42:34] the proposed ordinance at this time. But
[42:36] if the commission would like us to um
[42:38] it's something that we could do move
[42:40] forward to the town council and the town
[42:42] council may consider it independently as
[42:45] well. Um but uh if the commission would
[42:48] like to put it forward and your
[42:50] recommendation we could do that and
[42:52] >> I think we probably want to suspend the
[42:54] final deliberation till after public.
[42:56] >> Yeah that definitely definitely and this
[42:57] one I think is actually important. And I
[42:59] know we have a member of public who
[43:00] submitted a desk item was here this
[43:02] evening um that has expressed some
[43:05] concerns with this exact situation.
[43:10] » Um so yeah, we can um so uh it is
[43:12] brought up and so now I'm getting you
[43:14] know this kind of concludes what the
[43:16] changes we made uh uh regarding the
[43:19] commissioner's um u direction at the
[43:22] last meeting. And we do have some desk
[43:24] items. um one desk item um and we can
[43:29] start with that one is uh actually very
[43:32] supportive of the different changes
[43:34] specifically the second driveways are
[43:36] noted.
[43:37] Um they also at the end are looking for
[43:42] kind of you know to ensure that we are
[43:46] uh doing an amnesty program. And so at
[43:49] the end of the
[43:52] um the ordinance, what we've done is
[43:55] just really try to keep it simple and
[43:58] just clarify because this is a zoning
[44:00] code and a zoning code doesn't really
[44:02] deal with building standards. And um so
[44:07] in the zoning code, what we wanted to
[44:10] acknowledge is that based on this state
[44:12] law that there is uh a process in which
[44:17] someone can apply to legalize an
[44:20] unpermitted ADU. Um the state law talks
[44:23] about something that was unpermitted
[44:24] prior to uh 2020. Um, and what in this
[44:30] particular case, there's different
[44:32] things spelled out in the state law. Um,
[44:34] people, they can have a third-party
[44:36] inspector. Uh, the town um will be
[44:40] considering if it's if it's to even that
[44:43] they could have a town inspector come
[44:45] out for a fee ahead of the the time,
[44:47] kind of see what items need to be
[44:48] corrected. Um, so this is actually in
[44:52] place already. It's a state law, so we
[44:54] have to have it. Um and one of the key
[44:56] components of it is that there's a
[44:58] checklist. Uh so that has been prepared
[45:00] by the building department. It is on the
[45:02] town's website. Uh as well as um the
[45:05] building department has been made aware
[45:08] of this provision and they are aware of
[45:10] it. And so they'll help assist
[45:13] applicants to provide the minimum
[45:15] information necessary to comply with the
[45:17] health and safety requirements. Um and
[45:20] specifically the state law cites health
[45:22] and safety code. Um and so they'll have
[45:25] to comply with those. We didn't want to
[45:26] get too far into that in the zoning code
[45:29] um just because it wasn't really the
[45:31] right place for it. And the building
[45:33] code is just these are health and safety
[45:36] code. That's stuff that's already in
[45:37] place. And so setting up the process
[45:39] will allow us to be a little bit nimble
[45:41] and be flexible and adjust that process
[45:44] when we find there's deficiencies in it
[45:47] um if that occurs. And so therefore, uh,
[45:50] we have it's something that is already
[45:52] allowed and this is recognizing that
[45:54] it's allowed.
[46:10] Okay. Um, and so, uh, so that was
[46:14] something that was brought up in that
[46:16] same desk item. you know, they just want
[46:18] to note that we're moving forward with
[46:20] implementing an amnesty program. And so
[46:22] the answer to that is yes, we are. Uh it
[46:24] is implemented. Um we're happy to take
[46:29] feedback from public and and how can we
[46:32] make it more clear uh as people start to
[46:34] go through this process. But the town
[46:36] has developed a checklist based on um a
[46:40] sample that's been used by other cities
[46:42] as well as the association of Bay Area
[46:44] Governments. um provide a sample. So,
[46:48] we've kind of geared it towards
[46:50] Woodside.
[46:51] Um
[46:52] >> this is this is as per the language
[46:54] hasn't changed since last.
[46:55] >> Correct. We did not change anything from
[46:57] the last meeting. Um and so we also have
[47:00] another desk item um that member of the
[47:03] public is here uh and is looking at
[47:09] how to adjust the municipal code for
[47:12] ADUs as it relates to SB9 which SB9
[47:17] you know there's other SB9s now. So but
[47:19] the one that everyone's familiar with is
[47:21] generally referred to as urban lot
[47:22] splits. So you can split a lot under
[47:24] certain circumstances and build two
[47:26] units on each lot. Uh that law does not
[47:30] require that you have to have ADUs. Um
[47:34] but the desk item brings up the fact
[47:36] that
[47:38] when SP9 was first passed, the town
[47:41] limited it to maximum of two 800 foot
[47:45] units on each slot because that is what
[47:48] had to be allowed by the state. And so
[47:50] the town did that, adopted that code. Um
[47:53] there has since been new state
[47:54] legislation
[47:56] um known as SB450
[47:58] which has updated this government code
[48:00] section and it provides more flexibility
[48:04] for over 800 square ft. If someone if
[48:08] someone can meet the objective criteria.
[48:10] So things like the height limit, the
[48:12] floor area limit, um staying out of 35%
[48:16] slopes, the setbacks, those are all very
[48:18] objective um uh criteria. And so if
[48:21] someone can meet that objective
[48:23] criteria, what the state law says is you
[48:26] have to allow the underlying
[48:29] zoning requirements that are already
[48:32] there. So for example, if someone's
[48:34] allowed a two a 4,000t house and they
[48:38] could meet all the objective standards
[48:41] by having two 2,000 foot houses, the
[48:44] town would allow that. It has to allow
[48:46] it. It's just a state law. And so, um,
[48:49] while the staff recognizes the comments
[48:53] from the member of the public,
[48:56] uh, it's it's a slightly different
[48:58] animal, um, and it is something that
[49:02] when given the updates to the state law,
[49:04] when someone has a project, we're happy
[49:06] to sit down with folks and see what
[49:08] their proposal is and how it may or may
[49:10] not fit into that state law. Uh and but
[49:13] um sometime soon uh got a little bit
[49:16] behind this year on some different
[49:18] items, but uh we will be updating our
[49:20] code to have more clarity on that
[49:23] locally. Um and that's at at the time in
[49:27] which if the town wants to also consider
[49:29] ADUs in addition to those duplexes, uh
[49:32] they it'd be that would be the best time
[49:34] to separate.
[49:35] >> Has has anyone used SP9 to make duplexes
[49:38] in town? So we have um a particular
[49:41] proposal from a member of the public
[49:42] who's here tonight. Um and uh it's going
[49:45] through the process. Uh that was the
[49:47] first one submitted to the town. And
[49:49] then we have um believe two more
[49:53] applications that have come in. One is a
[49:56] project that went through ASRB and maybe
[49:59] even the planning commission. forget if
[50:01] they needed some type of exception, but
[50:02] it was a full buildout of main house,
[50:05] ADU,
[50:06] uh, swimming pool, and
[50:09] they are now coming in to kind of place
[50:12] a property line between the
[50:13] developments. Um, and it looks like
[50:16] they'll probably be able to do that. One
[50:19] of the biggest constraints that people
[50:20] run into in trying to split the lots,
[50:23] it's really access to sewer and septic
[50:25] feasibility. Um that's still a health
[50:27] and safety constraint. That's makes it
[50:29] more difficult in a place like Woods to
[50:30] split the pipes.
[50:32] >> Well, if you have only one sewer
[50:34] connection allocated, you have to now
[50:37] get another sewer allocation and that
[50:40] may not be available. Um and so
[50:43] >> state would state law force it to
[50:44] happen?
[50:45] >> No, because there's there has to be
[50:47] capacity of the sewer plant. There has
[50:49] to be capacity in your pipes. Um so the
[50:52] town is just wrapping up a sewer study
[50:55] for the town center area district and um
[50:58] that will show that you know there is
[51:01] limited capacity. And so what it means
[51:04] is you still have your one sewer
[51:06] connection that you're allowed but your
[51:07] other lot now has to show septic. Um and
[51:10] so one of the examples that I uh talked
[51:13] about tonight that's what they're doing.
[51:16] They're going to see if they can get uh
[51:17] sewer, but they are planning for septic
[51:20] as a as a um backup
[51:24] plan if they can't get sewer.
[51:27] Um so, so with that desk item, we do
[51:30] understand a comment and something we
[51:31] want to tackle a little bit more as a
[51:33] full con comprehensive review of the
[51:35] SP9, SP450.
[51:37] >> Well, I a chance.
[51:39] >> Yeah, you'll get a chance. Yep.
[51:44] I move away from this accessory
[51:48] >> microphone.
[51:51] >> And if I figure this out. All right.
[51:53] That better. I haven't moved on from
[51:56] that. There was a letter sent by Carrie
[52:00] Diller.
[52:02] >> On the second page of the letter, she
[52:05] gave a suggestion
[52:07] about a pre-application walkthrough.
[52:10] Mhm.
[52:11] >> Can you can you talk more about that?
[52:13] >> Sure. I found that interesting.
[52:15] >> Yeah. No, so definitely what the state
[52:17] law says is that um cities have to allow
[52:20] someone to submit a third party uh uh
[52:24] inspection as part they so someone can
[52:26] go hire like sometimes before people buy
[52:28] a house they'll uh have some home
[52:30] inspector come in to see if there's any
[52:32] deficiencies. So, uh, the state law says
[52:35] someone can do that, but the town is
[52:38] looking at the possibility of actually
[52:40] having a town inspector, um, if the if
[52:43] the applicant wants to, it would be
[52:44] forced upon them, but if they wanted to,
[52:47] maybe there's a fee associated with
[52:48] that, um, that they would actually have
[52:50] a town inspector go out there who could
[52:52] provide some areas in which they would
[52:54] have to bring up to code uh, to comply
[52:56] with the state law and they could work
[52:58] handinand with the building department
[53:01] plan checker. um to try to provide ease
[53:04] of that process.
[53:09] » I really like that because I think in
[53:11] the spectrum of well-built stuff that
[53:15] you're going to grandfather to stuff
[53:18] that
[53:20] was cobbled together. It's a very wide
[53:23] spectrum. I think having the town decide
[53:27] where it is in that spectrum before
[53:32] grandfathering it is really valuable and
[53:35] doing it in a way that's safe for the
[53:36] homeowner.
[53:38] So any
[53:39] >> Yeah. No, that it's it's uh we agree. Um
[53:42] I think right now it's just looking at
[53:44] resources and how that would work, but
[53:46] uh it is definitely a possibility that's
[53:48] being considered.
[53:49] >> The way she wrote it, it's something we
[53:51] could charge a fee for. So
[53:52] >> correct. No, correct. Yeah, just
[53:54] sometimes it's a matter of time as well.
[53:56] Great.
[53:57] >> And so, but uh but yes, uh so we're
[54:00] working with the building department and
[54:02] you know, we also have contract
[54:04] inspectors. So, um sometimes it's a
[54:07] matter of just getting more inspectors
[54:09] um if that's necessary. Uh so, we're
[54:11] just looking at how to best roll that
[54:12] out. One of the topics we were chatting
[54:15] about last time was also just like the
[54:17] level of bindingness or not bindingness
[54:19] because again with contract inspectors
[54:22] we want to be careful that like
[54:24] >> is is their word creating some
[54:26] obligation for the town right
[54:29] >> they didn't flag something
[54:30] >> correct yeah yeah
[54:32] >> so I think there I think
[54:34] >> we were talking about it being sort of
[54:35] more advisory than funding
[54:37] >> yeah no we did talk about this last time
[54:40] that um you know there might be certain
[54:42] things that, you know, without opening
[54:44] up a wall, somebody may not be able to
[54:46] see.
[54:47] >> Uh, so there would definitely be any
[54:49] kind of caveats on things that they
[54:50] could see. Um, but
[54:52] >> I apologize if I've kind of recircled.
[54:54] >> No, it's okay. Um, and no, it's a good
[54:57] conversation and, um, Carrie Diller is
[54:59] actually um, online, so she'll get a
[55:02] chance to help speak to this when it's
[55:03] public comment time.
[55:06] Um, okay. So, those were two of the desk
[55:09] items. So, we dealt with the support for
[55:11] most of the items uh really encouraging
[55:14] a robust uh amnesty program through the
[55:17] building department. And then um we also
[55:21] received uh another desk item um just
[55:24] later this afternoon and that one
[55:27] expresses some concerns with allowing
[55:30] more flexibility for some of the ADUs uh
[55:33] outlining
[55:34] um that uh these things do not have to
[55:38] go through public hearings and that to
[55:41] be very careful on providing more
[55:43] flexibility. One of the biggest concerns
[55:45] raised that I've seen in the letter,
[55:47] I've actually worked uh with this person
[55:49] on this is um the ups sloping lots and
[55:54] the visibility and the kind of the
[55:56] [clears throat] imposing features that
[55:58] come with that. Uh so uh this desk item
[56:02] um clearly indicates that uh does not
[56:06] support the UPS slope lot uh provision
[56:10] which we have not included in the
[56:11] ordinance. Um there are some other
[56:13] questions in this desk item. I'm happy
[56:16] to answer any if the the commission
[56:18] would like me to do so. Uh we have
[56:20] looked at our ADU production. Uh we will
[56:24] based on some of the suggestions here.
[56:27] We just recently started kind of
[56:29] tallying up the number of ADUs month by
[56:31] month. Um which actually is a really
[56:33] great thing for us. It's helped us to
[56:35] keep track a little bit better. And with
[56:37] this suggestion, one of the things we're
[56:38] also going to do is clarify in the new
[56:42] director's reports, it's not in this one
[56:43] today, but the new director's reports to
[56:46] have not only the number of units that
[56:50] are on this current year, but from the
[56:53] previous years and break them down by
[56:55] ADU and single family dwellings. Um,
[56:58] there is questions about, you know, if
[57:00] the town is meeting its ADU goals. Uh I want to note that there is a housing
[57:07] target goal um that should be a various
[57:10] types of housing but at the end of the
[57:12] day it's the number of units um but
[57:15] looking at varied housing types and so
[57:18] we've reszone sites for multif family as
[57:20] a housing type and then we have the
[57:22] single family and the ADUs as different
[57:25] housing types. So there's not a specific
[57:27] number of ADUs that we need to hit. Um,
[57:31] I'll note that, uh, we're we're not, you
[57:35] know, we're we're into our fourth year
[57:37] now of this housing element cycle and
[57:40] we're about a third of the way into what
[57:44] we need to complete just from a number
[57:46] of units standpoint. Um, so
[57:50] with the different changes, you're
[57:52] starting to see more increased
[57:53] production of ADUs. So whereas we may
[57:56] not be exactly where we need to be today
[57:59] with additional changes, it could help
[58:02] to increase production at the later
[58:05] years of this cycle to help us meet the
[58:07] numbers. Um so
[58:09] >> the cycle has four years left, right?
[58:11] >> Yeah, it goes through 2031 and I have to
[58:14] figure out exactly when they I think
[58:16] they're still going to count some units
[58:17] in 2031. Um
[58:20] >> but yes,
[58:21] >> there's there's actually no way we're
[58:22] going to hit our target.
[58:24] the e is the one that we were trying to
[58:25] hit our target with the with the large
[58:29] multif family 10 per acre type units and
[58:32] none of those are broke ground or have
[58:34] plans at all. So there's no
[58:35] >> no we we have one um so two of them are
[58:37] town owned sites and part of the step
[58:40] that we're doing right now is they both
[58:41] need to be accessed by sewer. Um so the
[58:44] town is wrapping up its sewer capacity
[58:46] study to see
[58:47] >> you think it's done in four years
[58:48] though.
[58:49] >> Well you have to get a permit issued.
[58:52] Um so that is that's the bar in which
[58:55] the unit is counted. Um so many a cycle
[58:59] or two ago the HCD used to count units
[59:02] final. Um and now that they've they have
[59:06] significantly increased the number of
[59:08] units that need to be produced yet they
[59:10] have changed the bar to permits issued.
[59:13] So it makes it a little bit easier to to
[59:16] hopefully meet their targets um within
[59:19] that time frame.
[59:20] >> But there's no no judgment. I just I
[59:22] just think practically no way we're
[59:23] going to hit it.
[59:25] >> I think that the big So if if the 80s
[59:28] alone are trending towards like call it
[59:30] 2/3, the only way you get there is
[59:34] looking at the town sites which I know
[59:36] >> it seemed like before all of the
[59:40] issues with various staff members that
[59:42] things were starting to make progress
[59:44] towards having proposals and getting
[59:45] those agendaized. So I mean I think
[59:47] that's something
[59:47] >> and and so that's still on track. Um,
[59:50] you know, this again, this step, uh,
[59:52] really was to figure out sewer capacity.
[59:54] Um, and so that should be wrapping up, I
[59:57] believe, maybe even in the next week.
[59:59] Um, so I know the public works
[1:00:01] department has been working on that and
[1:00:02] that'll be released to the public as
[1:00:04] soon as that's ready.
[1:00:05] >> And is that like an ASIS assessment?
[1:00:07] >> It is an assessment primarily of the
[1:00:09] town center sewer assessment district.
[1:00:12] Um uh the
[1:00:16] both of the town owned sites run would
[1:00:19] have run through pipes that use the the
[1:00:22] pipes that are used for the town center
[1:00:24] district. Um, and then I'll also note
[1:00:27] that there is uh one private proposal um
[1:00:31] at 773 Kinyatta Road and that applicant
[1:00:34] has filed for a subdivision map um
[1:00:37] hasn't applied for the permits to
[1:00:39] construct yet uh but is in the middle of
[1:00:41] that process. It's at the very northern
[1:00:44] end of town on the east side of the
[1:00:45] freeway.
[1:00:47] >> Uh yes.
[1:00:49] >> Question Sage with regards to Kimberly's
[1:00:52] email. Is she present? Yes.
[1:00:55] >> Okay. Just because I I had the same
[1:00:57] feeling that you did. This was the only
[1:01:00] different one and I just wanted to make
[1:01:02] sure that I heard from her.
[1:01:03] >> Yep. Yeah. No, she'll she'll have an
[1:01:05] opportunity to speak and you know, as we
[1:01:07] noted, we share similar concerns
[1:01:10] regarding the UPS slope adus.
[1:01:12] >> So, the last question on potentially off
[1:01:15] topic for this one, but with this the
[1:01:17] sewer study, is that also going to look
[1:01:19] at if improvements need to be made for
[1:01:22] the long term?
[1:01:23] >> Yes. Well, I
[1:01:24] >> center
[1:01:25] >> yes I believe it will start to do that
[1:01:28] in terms of you know what
[1:01:31] I'm not 100% sure I haven't been deeply
[1:01:32] involved with that but my understanding
[1:01:34] is if it's not at this point at some
[1:01:36] point in the near future it's going to
[1:01:37] be looking at what are the solutions and
[1:01:39] potential costs for those kinds of
[1:01:41] things.
[1:01:43] Um so that concludes my presentation. Um
[1:01:48] if you I'm happy to answer any other
[1:01:50] questions or if not we can open up to
[1:01:51] the public. I know we have two members
[1:01:53] of the public in the room as well as we
[1:01:55] have um some members of the public
[1:01:58] online who would wish to speak
[1:02:01] anyone else on our side.
[1:02:03] >> Okay. In that [clears throat] case we
[1:02:04] will open public comment.
[1:02:11] » Well goes first.
[1:02:14] [laughter]
[1:02:16] >> Okay. I have three minutes I believe
[1:02:18] right?
[1:02:18] >> Yes. Yep.
[1:02:18] >> Okay. So, um again, uh you may or may
[1:02:22] not be familiar with the details of SB9.
[1:02:25] >> Sorry. Do you mind stating just name
[1:02:26] addressable?
[1:02:28] >> I'm Vertaft, 16 Preston Road. I am
[1:02:32] Woodside resident since 2012.
[1:02:36] I lived in the area since 1982. After I
[1:02:40] graduated from UCLA, I moved up here and
[1:02:43] I basically I work in high-tech. I I do
[1:02:46] AI nowadays. It's not unusual. So, um uh
[1:02:51] SB9
[1:02:53] um really is a companion legislation for
[1:02:57] all the ADU stuff and uh once a property
[1:03:01] is divided
[1:03:03] uh and there are either it's two ADUs on
[1:03:07] one parcel or or it's a single duplex.
[1:03:12] the uh it's known only to God,
[1:03:17] tax collector, planning department and
[1:03:20] the mortgage bank. There are many family
[1:03:24] situations and business situations when
[1:03:27] that uh uh SB9
[1:03:30] lot split makes things much easier. For
[1:03:34] example, you know, when it comes to
[1:03:35] financing, for example, there are other
[1:03:38] scenarios or when kids want their aging
[1:03:42] parent move to a smaller house and live
[1:03:46] in a bigger house. There are many
[1:03:47] scenarios. Um, back in 2022, if you go
[1:03:51] to Chad GPT, for example, and you ask
[1:03:54] related questions, you would say the
[1:03:57] very first thing you would hear would be
[1:03:59] Woodside became nationally known in 2022
[1:04:04] for initially attempting to pause as
[1:04:07] benign implementation using the mountain
[1:04:10] line habitat argument. You may remember
[1:04:13] this. It was like my wife was saying
[1:04:15] don't wear this cap when you go to when
[1:04:18] you go shopping. It says Woodside
[1:04:21] volunteer.
[1:04:22] >> So my suggestion is to avoid that type
[1:04:25] of situations for the sake of all of us
[1:04:28] the the town people working in the town
[1:04:30] doing really hard and prudent work and
[1:04:33] people who are residents of the town. um
[1:04:36] to um include to make sure that when we
[1:04:41] phrase uh any ordinances related to AD
[1:04:46] ADUs, they are balanced as it relates to
[1:04:50] SB9. for example.
[1:04:53] Um, and I put it in the um
[1:05:00] here um
[1:05:05] the proposed uh phrasing or which which
[1:05:10] may stay immutable for you know the time
[1:05:12] to come. Maybe any increased multi-unit
[1:05:16] or size allowances approved for ADUs
[1:05:20] shall apply equally to duplexes created
[1:05:23] via SB9 L split on qualifying parcels
[1:05:28] for example and unfortunately that
[1:05:30] proposal didn't pass
[1:05:33] from what I hear 1,200 square foot
[1:05:36] maximum which really makes sense
[1:05:38] financially if someone looks at it from
[1:05:40] the you know what is the ROI on this
[1:05:44] investment and unless you are a large
[1:05:46] developer doing multi-unit building
[1:05:48] hooked up to municipally subsidized uh
[1:05:52] sewer system but if you are a kind of a
[1:05:54] regular guy who needs to deal with u you
[1:05:58] know septic additional septic all the
[1:06:02] permissions and spend hundreds of
[1:06:04] thousands of dollars literally to go
[1:06:06] through the process right um make it uh
[1:06:10] make it fair keep it balanced and not
[1:06:14] create any uh grounds for additional
[1:06:17] lawsuits which the town has a lot of. I
[1:06:20] mean we all know about closed sessions
[1:06:22] and so on. Um it has to be very balanced
[1:06:28] and for the sake of the town's PR it has
[1:06:30] to be very balanced and aligned with the
[1:06:33] intent of the state law. That's all I
[1:06:35] wanted to say and thank you very much.
[1:06:50] Um, hi. So, what Kim Hansen, Ray Mundo,
[1:06:55] um, and what I found out through this
[1:07:00] ADU process is that the public, myself
[1:07:03] included, we don't know anything about
[1:07:05] ADU law. We don't know how I mean
[1:07:09] ministerial review when I looked it up
[1:07:12] on chat GPT it said that that means
[1:07:15] rubber stamp
[1:07:17] um and that really concerns me and so
[1:07:21] this all started um from for my newfound
[1:07:25] awareness was that it was uh there's a
[1:07:27] project in our neighborhood and I asked
[1:07:30] a couple of the neighbors I'm like well
[1:07:31] hey you know do you know that these are
[1:07:34] the two neighbors on either side of this pro this project. I'm like, do you
[1:07:37] know what's going on? And they said,
[1:07:38] "No, we don't know what's going on." So,
[1:07:42] if there is some type of they said, "No,
[1:07:45] we don't know what's going on." But the
[1:07:46] way this works is that we get the chance
[1:07:49] to be alerted about what's going on and
[1:07:52] we get to make comments and the planning
[1:07:54] commission will, you know, take a look
[1:07:57] at the project and be able to give their
[1:07:59] input. So, what I've learned through
[1:08:00] this process is that no, that's not
[1:08:02] true. It's a rubber stamp thing. Um the
[1:08:05] other thing that was so I said, "Huh,
[1:08:08] okay. Well, so I reached out to planning
[1:08:12] um not to Sage originally. He was very
[1:08:15] helpful and I'm grateful for that." Um
[1:08:18] and what I found out, so I asked,
[1:08:20] "What's the deal with the project?" One
[1:08:21] of the planners said, "Oh, it's a 1500
[1:08:23] square foot ADU." Another planner said,
[1:08:26] "It's a 2200 foot ADU." So, one of my
[1:08:29] questions is and and and so this ADU is
[1:08:34] actually three levels
[1:08:36] with a rooftop deck
[1:08:40] with patios
[1:08:42] in an active landslide zone. It also has
[1:08:46] a very steep driveway and there's a
[1:08:50] water management and lack of a drainage
[1:08:52] plan. And then I was like, "Okay." And
[1:08:55] my husband's like, "Well, don't you have
[1:08:57] anything better to do?" And I'm like, I
[1:08:58] can't stop. So, I continued asking
[1:09:01] questions and I was like, okay, so you
[1:09:05] know who who's the building inspector?
[1:09:07] Oh, well, Woodside doesn't have a
[1:09:09] building inspector. We use not building
[1:09:12] inspector, the geotech person. I'm like,
[1:09:15] okay, well, so who do we use? We use
[1:09:18] consultants. How do you know which
[1:09:20] consultant? Uh, I don't know. We have to
[1:09:22] get back to you. Like all of these
[1:09:23] layers for the rubber stamp is a
[1:09:26] problem. And my concern is that I use a
[1:09:29] portion of the Crystal Springs Trail
[1:09:31] that is downhill from this massive
[1:09:35] project in an active landslide zone that
[1:09:39] um the trail could be affected.
[1:09:42] And I'm I'm just really uncom and my
[1:09:45] concern isn't really about how things
[1:09:47] look because I mean I feel I mean unless
[1:09:50] it was pink and then I would have a
[1:09:52] concern but um I I feel like it's a
[1:09:56] safety concern, right? Like state law
[1:09:59] says the state law says that um from
[1:10:03] 2020 law sets housing as a highest goal
[1:10:06] and while it requires more relaxed
[1:10:08] development standards it does not
[1:10:10] sanction unsafe sighting sighting within
[1:10:12] a fault zone on a landslide in a flood
[1:10:15] zone or in a manner which does not
[1:10:17] comply with emergency response
[1:10:19] requirements. So, I kind of went into
[1:10:21] more detail in the email um that I sent
[1:10:25] you all and I'm guessing I don't have
[1:10:27] time. I don't know if you've had time to
[1:10:29] read it or if you want to grant me more
[1:10:31] time, but my my concern is that we're
[1:10:36] going to rubber stamp these projects
[1:10:38] that affect not only the applicant but
[1:10:42] properties around there. Um it it's I
[1:10:45] mean I I am a property rights person for
[1:10:48] everyone in town, not just the applicant
[1:10:51] but the surrounding properties and my
[1:10:53] concern really is safety. So that's and
[1:10:58] I've learned quite a bit and I have more
[1:11:01] to learn and I want to thank you Sage
[1:11:02] for jumping in because um I was very
[1:11:05] frustrated until you helped me
[1:11:08] understand part of this. One last
[1:11:09] question is, is the size of a basement
[1:11:13] unlimited?
[1:11:18] » Like, I can speak to that. Um, the so
[1:11:21] there is a certain amount of basement
[1:11:24] grading that can occur on a property.
[1:11:27] And so, someone has a basement under a
[1:11:29] house and an ADU and under a barn.
[1:11:32] There's the cumulative grading that gets
[1:11:35] pulled out of the ground has a limit.
[1:11:38] And so you know 10 years ago or so there
[1:11:41] was no limits um because the way floor
[1:11:45] area calc is calculated is based on the
[1:11:48] above ground portions of the structure
[1:11:50] and so any portions of the structure
[1:11:52] that are below grade do not contribute
[1:11:54] towards the floor area limit. However
[1:11:58] those do contribute towards the grading
[1:12:00] limit for basements. So they are not
[1:12:02] unlimited.
[1:12:04] >> Okay. So just I mean I don't know if you
[1:12:08] knew this but your 800 square foot ADU
[1:12:11] your 1,200 your 1500 foot ADU especially
[1:12:14] if it's an UPS slope lot in a landslide
[1:12:16] zone with a steep driveway could
[1:12:18] actually be very much bigger than a 1500
[1:12:23] foot ADU and it will get rubber stamped
[1:12:25] and approved. Thank you.
[1:12:31] » Do we have any comments online?
[1:12:33] >> We do. We have a raised hand. And I
[1:12:34] believe it's Carrie Diller.
[1:12:37] Carrie, I've given you permission to
[1:12:38] speak. You just need to unmute.
[1:12:41] >> Uh I think I've unmuted. Am I coming
[1:12:43] through?
[1:12:44] >> Loud and clear.
[1:12:44] >> Yes.
[1:12:45] >> Great. Thank you. Um I wanted to uh just
[1:12:51] commend a lot of the changes. I think
[1:12:53] they are um really going in a positive
[1:12:55] way that could help get to the numbers.
[1:12:57] Um, I think as I mentioned last time, we
[1:12:59] have 10 or 13 ADUs going in town and I
[1:13:02] think there is a path forward where we
[1:13:04] don't have to change the character, but
[1:13:06] we could add some more housing. Um, and
[1:13:09] I think the second driveway and other
[1:13:10] elements have been very positive. Um, I
[1:13:13] do want to build on advocating for
[1:13:16] pushing legalization further. There's a
[1:13:18] lot of ambiguity in the state law that
[1:13:21] while they give you a checklist, there
[1:13:23] aren't really third parties that want to
[1:13:25] come in and say
[1:13:27] um what is uh I think the language in
[1:13:30] the law is sound and sufficient for
[1:13:32] elements like foundations that were
[1:13:34] built in 1970. And while those
[1:13:36] foundations don't show any signs of
[1:13:39] cracking, there's no water infiltration,
[1:13:41] there's no signs of them not being okay,
[1:13:44] um, we have a lot of people living in
[1:13:46] illegal units that you don't know about.
[1:13:48] And there are some really good proactive
[1:13:51] life safety things that could come from
[1:13:54] these reviews where um, we could make
[1:13:58] sure that the egress windows and the
[1:13:59] life safety and exits are corrected or
[1:14:02] repaired for relatively low cost. And
[1:14:05] then we could use some logic and uh like
[1:14:08] if a building has been standing there
[1:14:10] since 1970 and shows no signs of
[1:14:12] problems that it's probably okay to
[1:14:14] continue. And I understand there is a
[1:14:17] gray area but the state's started
[1:14:19] something and I know it's not
[1:14:20] necessarily in the planning commission's
[1:14:22] purview. Um but I think we could really
[1:14:24] encourage a paid for service where the
[1:14:27] town comes out and works with people
[1:14:29] ahead of time to assess. we certainly
[1:14:31] have several clients that would be happy
[1:14:33] to participate in a um a you know
[1:14:37] program to see if it works um and we
[1:14:39] could go from there. Um and then I don't
[1:14:41] know if this brings any peace of mind to
[1:14:44] um my fellow resident in the room but
[1:14:46] the ministerial approval is only applied
[1:14:49] to planning. Uh so any geotechnical
[1:14:53] drainage structural requirements,
[1:14:56] building code interpretations, sewer
[1:14:58] utility connections, all are going
[1:15:00] through the fullblown review that any
[1:15:03] other building would go. So the
[1:15:05] ministerial approval from the state is
[1:15:07] only responding to a planning approval
[1:15:10] and not um all the other building code
[1:15:13] requirements if that helps at all. So
[1:15:16] thank you very much.
[1:15:20] Thank you.
[1:15:23] Okay. We have anyone else online?
[1:15:27] >> No, we do not.
[1:15:28] >> Okay.
[1:15:31] >> Can I um
[1:15:33] you mentioned that if you had more time
[1:15:36] you felt like you were not complete and
[1:15:39] I and I want to make sure that you feel
[1:15:42] complete.
[1:15:44] >> Can we grant her more time? I just I
[1:15:47] mean I I with everything that we
[1:15:50] received, this is kind of the only
[1:15:51] variant that is different and I just
[1:15:53] want to make sure you have your time.
[1:15:56] >> What?
[1:16:01] » Thank you. I appreciate that. And I also
[1:16:03] think it's because we just don't know. I
[1:16:07] really think that we could do a better
[1:16:09] job with the public understanding what
[1:16:11] AD ADU law is. Um, in 2020 there was a
[1:16:16] recommendation by town council that the
[1:16:18] adjacent neighbors would at least be
[1:16:20] informed if there was a project. I
[1:16:22] understand that um there's not you can't
[1:16:27] object to state law requirements, but
[1:16:30] you you know like you on a Sunday when
[1:16:32] your neighbors taking down 14 trees
[1:16:36] and you're like what is going on? Like
[1:16:38] from we just we could do better and that
[1:16:42] would be helpful. Um the you know and I I really I really think that some of
[1:16:48] the interpretation of state law has to
[1:16:51] be balanced with safety. You know we
[1:16:53] have we have we have projects where
[1:16:57] driveways fail. We had multiple slides.
[1:16:59] We've got so much un
[1:17:03] um like not just the expansive soil but
[1:17:06] we have so many geological features. We
[1:17:09] used to say
[1:17:11] you're either close to the fault line or
[1:17:15] you're on some form of old landslide.
[1:17:18] And I know that most of the residents
[1:17:20] here are all affected by drainage
[1:17:23] problems as well. If your if your UPS
[1:17:25] slope neighbor um
[1:17:28] decides if they've got a leak or if they
[1:17:31] decide to route their water through your
[1:17:32] property, you know, we we personally our
[1:17:35] first house here, we had our septic tank
[1:17:37] fail because of water from construction
[1:17:40] debris
[1:17:41] um from their their activities. So, I
[1:17:44] mean, I understand we have to be
[1:17:47] compliant with state law, but I also
[1:17:49] feel like there is a responsibility to
[1:17:52] the town to put some guard rails and um
[1:17:56] I I understand as well that there is a
[1:18:00] desire to have more housing units, but the other parts in this process of
[1:18:06] understanding more was I found that the
[1:18:08] town really relies a lot on consultants.
[1:18:12] You know, we have our public works
[1:18:14] director who's in charge of both all the
[1:18:16] public works as well as the building
[1:18:18] department. Sage has both consultants
[1:18:22] and staff employees. We have a a
[1:18:26] compliance officer that we're borrowing
[1:18:28] from another town who's here for one
[1:18:30] day. We have, you know, a consultants
[1:18:34] from from a geotech perspective that we
[1:18:36] don't even know who we're going to get.
[1:18:38] and there's there seems to be very
[1:18:41] they're they're working the capacity as
[1:18:43] someone from Woodside and they're giving
[1:18:46] um review. Uh, I appreciate um, Miss
[1:18:50] Diller who tried to make me feel better
[1:18:52] and I I love her for that. But I I guess
[1:18:54] I'm still feeling like as I looked into
[1:18:57] this process um, we are really leaning
[1:19:02] on a process for ADUs that is just
[1:19:07] um, it's it's kind of out of our control
[1:19:11] and it's it's also layered with
[1:19:14] neighbors not knowing what's going on.
[1:19:16] And it's also layered with some expect I
[1:19:19] mean it's layered with some assumptions
[1:19:23] that by complying with state law it's
[1:19:25] creating an unsafe environment. So
[1:19:29] please
[1:19:31] >> microphone
[1:19:33] >> reference to what we're deciding today I
[1:19:35] mean your point about guard rails. Do
[1:19:38] you have any concrete suggestions for
[1:19:40] what we are deciding today that would be
[1:19:42] helpful? Yeah, I I do. I feel like um we
[1:19:49] for the additional driveway option, I
[1:19:52] feel like there should be an additional
[1:19:55] there should be some additional language
[1:19:56] that talks about driveways if they
[1:19:59] exceed a 20% 20% grade because the
[1:20:02] current I think the language that you
[1:20:04] have in the current regulation just
[1:20:06] talks about the grade for the beginning
[1:20:08] part of the driveway, not the whole
[1:20:10] amount. It also doesn't talk about um it
[1:20:14] doesn't really in my mind address the
[1:20:17] fire safety apparatus. It doesn't talk
[1:20:19] about um the um the geology of the the
[1:20:25] land. It doesn't talk about a drainage
[1:20:26] plan. It also doesn't have any language
[1:20:29] about um how big this driveway can be.
[1:20:33] and we're going to count on a rubber
[1:20:35] stamp that they can just do it and hope
[1:20:37] that someone who's a consultant from,
[1:20:40] you know, Pleasanton or Fremont and and
[1:20:43] these these people don't, you can
[1:20:45] correct me if I'm wrong, Sage, but in
[1:20:48] one of the reports for this project that
[1:20:50] I looked at, it said that the geotech
[1:20:53] inspector didn't even go to the site. I I feel like I feel like it's it's just
[1:20:59] I feel like with your ordinance, maybe
[1:21:01] if you had some language that would call
[1:21:04] out certain conditions where we could
[1:21:06] look at it from the impacts instead of
[1:21:10] just rubber stamping it. And for floor
[1:21:13] area exceptions, I feel like if I I feel
[1:21:18] like there should be some language
[1:21:19] there, too. if they already have a lot
[1:21:23] of paved area, if there isn't any
[1:21:25] language about permeability for the for
[1:21:27] the um for the the materials you put on
[1:21:31] the ground, if you're adding patios, if
[1:21:35] you're adding more, all of these things
[1:21:37] should be looked at in conjunction for a
[1:21:40] whole project. Um, and if you're putting
[1:21:42] a big basement in, I feel like, you
[1:21:46] know, that that in addition should be a
[1:21:50] trigger for some type of additional
[1:21:53] oversight. Um
[1:21:56] and uh
[1:21:59] because this particular project with
[1:22:02] this UPS slope lot um also it's so it's basically three stories and they're
[1:22:09] going to have a rooftop deck
[1:22:12] >> just whatever this is about the the
[1:22:14] comment is about the the specific uh
[1:22:18] decision and regulations rather than a
[1:22:20] specific project. So if it's something
[1:22:22] that pertains to
[1:22:23] >> So for the specific regulation, I feel
[1:22:25] like if the project has a rooftop deck,
[1:22:28] if it has additional paved area for for
[1:22:32] patios, for garage, for any type of
[1:22:35] mechanical equipment, I feel like I feel
[1:22:38] like you all with the direction of
[1:22:40] planning should have numbers where it
[1:22:43] does trigger an additional oversight.
[1:22:49] you.
[1:22:50] >> Thank you.
[1:22:54] » All right, with that I think we will
[1:22:56] wrap up public comments and move to uh
[1:22:59] commissioner discussions.
[1:23:01] Anyone want to open?
[1:23:04] >> I'll open say sage I mean this is a
[1:23:06] perfect setup. How did this thing get
[1:23:08] approved without anybody knowing?
[1:23:10] >> Um so again you submit for a building
[1:23:13] permit and so that is what the process
[1:23:15] is. on the particular project. Uh it's
[1:23:19] the same as building a house. Um you
[1:23:22] have to comply with all geotechnical
[1:23:24] standards, all drainage requirements,
[1:23:27] all building codes. They have structural
[1:23:29] engineers, the design foundations and
[1:23:33] framing and structural all of that
[1:23:35] stuff. All the health and safety
[1:23:37] requirements are thoroughly reviewed.
[1:23:39] This particular project has been gone
[1:23:42] back to town's geotechnical consultants,
[1:23:46] looked at the engineering plans over
[1:23:49] with drainage, all of that stuff
[1:23:50] complies with the health and safety
[1:23:52] requirements to say that something might
[1:23:56] fail in the future.
[1:23:58] It's the threshold is is meeting those
[1:24:01] current construction requirements. Um,
[1:24:04] and so that all of that occurs. I mean,
[1:24:07] I just it's it has to occur for the
[1:24:11] permits to be issued.
[1:24:12] >> I I I would actually encourage you to uh
[1:24:16] figure out if you can put AD on your
[1:24:17] property, go through the process and
[1:24:19] figure out that it's not a rubber stamp.
[1:24:22] As someone who's been through this on a
[1:24:24] very simple box on a very simple street,
[1:24:28] it was two years of back and forth with
[1:24:30] the building to get through all of the
[1:24:32] hurdles, the geoteex four times, and it
[1:24:35] was ridiculous. So I I would be
[1:24:37] surprised if if there was any
[1:24:40] overstamping from the building
[1:24:41] department or really from PL from from
[1:24:43] the group. So it may it may be a
[1:24:46] terrible project in your mind, but the codes you have to get through and
[1:24:50] the the annoyance it's like the reason
[1:24:52] why I'm here is there just annoyance of the process. It's hard. So I I
[1:24:57] actually not I would trust I trust the
[1:25:00] group. And the thing that we can't we
[1:25:01] can't get around is that we're a town of
[1:25:03] 5,000. we can't and we already have a
[1:25:05] staff of 55 with like the town like we can't afford more than that. The only thing we can do is maybe
[1:25:10] consolidate with other towns and like
[1:25:11] create a big group which we don't want
[1:25:13] to do, right? So it's it's it's a pain.
[1:25:16] I mean the thing I I want to address too
[1:25:18] in terms of just the concept of a rubber
[1:25:20] stamp and heard the mentions of state
[1:25:22] law. I mean we've been at the ADU stuff
[1:25:24] for years so it like so so kneede in it
[1:25:28] it's it's ridiculous at this point. But
[1:25:30] the um I mean the state law does have
[1:25:33] certain requirements like an 800 foot
[1:25:35] ADU is required to be approved with a 4
[1:25:38] foot setback etc. So those are true but
[1:25:41] that doesn't obiate the need to do as as
[1:25:43] Commissioner Evans was pointing out the additional work. So I mean there certainly are things where we're
[1:25:49] bound and we are I mean we are bound
[1:25:52] heard about mountain lion gate again and
[1:25:54] you know when we try those things then
[1:25:57] uh we get angry letters from the state
[1:25:59] attorney general and we've seen how how
[1:26:01] we react in those cases. So I think
[1:26:03] we've done you know quite a bit of
[1:26:04] consideration of those and frankly
[1:26:06] tested the boundaries and see where they kind of hit
[1:26:10] it is true that there are certain things
[1:26:12] that we have no standing versus
[1:26:15] Sacramento but then others where as as
[1:26:17] Sage you're mentioning there's there's a
[1:26:19] number of approvals.
[1:26:19] >> Yeah. And what a lot of the stuff that
[1:26:21] we've done um and some of the stuff that
[1:26:24] we're doing now is directly related to
[1:26:26] state law whereas other things are
[1:26:28] trying to provide more flexibility to
[1:26:31] increase ADU production. Um but to the
[1:26:34] speaker's comment it's something you
[1:26:36] know as a planner in 25 years it's
[1:26:39] important to understand what the
[1:26:41] applicant has to go through but it's
[1:26:43] also important to understand how that
[1:26:44] impacts neighbors. And so whenever we
[1:26:48] look at modifying regulation, it is an
[1:26:51] important consideration to look at both
[1:26:52] sides of that.
[1:26:53] >> Do do we have something that says uh
[1:26:56] once you get a permit to build that your
[1:26:57] neighbors get something that like a
[1:26:59] notice?
[1:27:00] >> No. Um there's only when so if an ADU
[1:27:04] needs some type of exception like that
[1:27:06] we were talking about before, we would
[1:27:08] notify the immediate neighbors. Um there
[1:27:13] are there are groups that feel that that
[1:27:17] shouldn't even be allowed um given to
[1:27:21] notify the neighbors. Um
[1:27:24] >> but the town
[1:27:26] >> both ways
[1:27:27] >> the town has
[1:27:29] when and if if someone complies with the
[1:27:31] setbacks and the size requirements and
[1:27:34] things like that. Um, just like any
[1:27:36] structure, if you build a barn that's
[1:27:38] 1500 square feet, 2,000 square feet, um,
[1:27:40] you may not trigger any kind of process.
[1:27:43] Um, so
[1:27:44] >> if a process is not triggered, then
[1:27:46] there's no notice. They'll sort of see the construction take.
[1:27:49] >> Someone's going just through a building
[1:27:50] permit. Another example is solar panels
[1:27:53] and sometimes people construct these
[1:27:55] relatively large solar arrays that can
[1:27:58] the town cannot impose setbacks on other
[1:28:00] than health and safety. and next thing
[1:28:03] someone knows a large solar panel array
[1:28:06] is sitting in what appears to be their
[1:28:08] backyard.
[1:28:09] >> Yeah.
[1:28:09] >> So there are certain limitations.
[1:28:12] >> Sage, I I have a question. So in looking
[1:28:15] at all this criteria before you approve
[1:28:17] an ADU,
[1:28:19] uh you're mandated by the state even if
[1:28:23] one of these is not uh doesn't come up
[1:28:26] to the standards that you would normally
[1:28:29] use to approve a building. uh which is
[1:28:33] the aren't there some some criteria that
[1:28:36] are just not negotiable?
[1:28:38] >> Yes. And and those are the health and
[1:28:40] safety issues. So the geotechnical the
[1:28:43] structural the ability to connect to
[1:28:45] sewer or septic to have potable water um
[1:28:49] you know all of those things are not
[1:28:50] negotiable. Uh they do have to be in
[1:28:53] compliance. um the things that you know
[1:28:56] negotiable maybe not the right word but
[1:28:59] um that may need to have some some
[1:29:03] waiver as if you know it's what we were
[1:29:06] talking about earlier tonight the height
[1:29:08] >> yeah if you can if you can show that you
[1:29:10] cannot fit
[1:29:11] >> that ADU without say going into the
[1:29:14] front setback or maybe um into a natural
[1:29:18] state area um something that needs to be
[1:29:20] a little bit over height uh given the
[1:29:23] excuse me, slope of the property. Um,
[1:29:26] those are the kinds of things where the
[1:29:28] adjustments could be made, but when it
[1:29:30] comes to the health and safety, they
[1:29:32] have to meet all those regulations.
[1:29:34] >> All right, I'm going to move us forward
[1:29:35] to deliberating on the issue at hand,
[1:29:37] which is the uh the
[1:29:39] >> Before we do that, could we just the SP9
[1:29:41] thing real fast?
[1:29:43] [clears throat]
[1:29:43] >> So, it the I think in the SP9 it is is
[1:29:47] separate part of the code, isn't it?
[1:29:48] >> It's a separate part of the code. Um,
[1:29:50] [clears throat] again, I understand the
[1:29:52] speaker's comments. Um, the when SP9 was
[1:29:55] first introduced, uh, I do want to
[1:29:57] clarify that we worked very hard to make
[1:29:59] sure that ordinance was done in
[1:30:00] complete. Um, and that there was a pause
[1:30:03] given a comment made about mountain
[1:30:05] lines, but two weeks later it was
[1:30:06] adopted. Just have to
[1:30:08] >> Yeah. Also, being part of that part of
[1:30:11] the process that was a it I recall the
[1:30:13] big draconian uh, rules to try to
[1:30:16] dissuade from anybody from doing it. It was you had to allow at least you had
[1:30:21] to allow up to 800 square foot units.
[1:30:22] Two 800 square foot.
[1:30:24] >> So, but it was like thou shalt fit this
[1:30:26] little bitty B. That's correct.
[1:30:27] >> So, I think I think your your basic
[1:30:29] instinct was correct and that it was
[1:30:31] designed or the code was designed to try
[1:30:33] to dissuade people from doing it. Um
[1:30:35] because that was the the whole town was
[1:30:37] mad years. Um so I I think some some
[1:30:41] rational thinking about what's actually
[1:30:43] practical for certain things might be
[1:30:45] useful to do.
[1:30:45] >> Yes. No, definitely that's going to be
[1:30:46] looked at further and and as I was
[1:30:48] noting before that part of the
[1:30:50] government code section has been changed
[1:30:54] and so if someone does can comply with
[1:30:57] the objective standards they could have
[1:30:59] larger units today. Um but let's say
[1:31:02] someone had to go into steep slopes um
[1:31:05] you just have to allow the 800 foot
[1:31:07] unit. So I think that's
[1:31:09] >> but but they but they could still so Mr.
[1:31:10] Taff could come to us for a variance
[1:31:13] from the always the option for the
[1:31:16] variance um as well as but I I I do want
[1:31:19] to note that it is on the town's
[1:31:21] workload to re one to make sure that our
[1:31:24] codes are just clear with the current
[1:31:26] state laws um but we are in fact
[1:31:29] implementing the state law currently um
[1:31:32] but uh outside of that does the town
[1:31:34] want to be a little bit more flexible so
[1:31:35] say somebody you know can't meet all of
[1:31:38] the stuff they have to go into the steep
[1:31:40] slopes maybe they could be a thousand
[1:31:41] square foot 1200 square foot units
[1:31:43] that's a discussion that the on should
[1:31:45] and will have
[1:31:46] >> or 800 feet off the one that's the steep
[1:31:48] slope and 1,000 ft for the flat part.
[1:31:50] What?
[1:31:51] >> Yes, there there's different
[1:31:52] >> but all that stuff could be done handled
[1:31:53] today on a variance.
[1:31:55] >> Today on a variance yes um uh with that
[1:32:02] microphone
[1:32:06] » I want to make sure I understand the
[1:32:07] implications of this. I mean, I think
[1:32:09] your request is that we attach what
[1:32:12] we're considering today to SB9, and I
[1:32:16] think what I'm hearing you say is it's
[1:32:18] in our list. We will focus on it, and we
[1:32:23] don't need to merge both. Let's keep
[1:32:25] them separate.
[1:32:26] >> I think right now it's important to be
[1:32:28] careful of taking all of these different
[1:32:30] adjustments and just applying them to
[1:32:32] SP9. Currently, SB9, SP450 doesn't
[1:32:35] require ADUs to be permitted. It can be,
[1:32:39] um, but right now under SP 450, like I
[1:32:42] said, you could have two 2,000 foot
[1:32:44] houses potentially if you can meet all
[1:32:46] of the objective standards. You could
[1:32:48] have four 1,000T houses if you split the
[1:32:51] lots. Um, and so there's different ways
[1:32:54] to meet the underlying zoning
[1:32:55] requirements that are already in place.
[1:32:58] So, someone's allowed a 6,000 foot
[1:33:00] house, you know, you could potentially
[1:33:02] have uh two uh 3,000 foot houses. So,
[1:33:10] » it's a different if if you don't mind
[1:33:12] approach the mic to be on the record.
[1:33:14] >> No, no, you you can speak. You just have
[1:33:16] to
[1:33:17] >> uh what you're referring to in about
[1:33:20] when they talk about SB450. It's in in
[1:33:23] my business, they call it a different
[1:33:24] use case. the use case for the basic SB9
[1:33:29] there is no need to uh put it on a
[1:33:32] different approval uh track or
[1:33:34] disapproval track because it's basically
[1:33:37] the same it's the same considerations we
[1:33:40] want to limit growth the way it's
[1:33:43] reasonable we don't want to uh have a
[1:33:47] lunches in our backyard uh we want it to
[1:33:50] look nice so there is really no need to
[1:33:53] differentiate between a do two ADUs. If
[1:33:56] we allow two ADUs,
[1:33:59] it's basically the same as having a
[1:34:02] duplex on that new lot and creating
[1:34:06] extra workload for even your team. It
[1:34:09] doesn't seem to be effective. More
[1:34:11] effective thing may be to consider it as
[1:34:15] just same
[1:34:17] basically same track. Whenever we we say
[1:34:20] it can be done for the ADU and there's I
[1:34:23] can assure you there's no rubber
[1:34:24] stamping.
[1:34:25] As someone who is going through this
[1:34:27] process, there's no such thing. It's you have to go you have to jump
[1:34:32] through all the hoops except you have to
[1:34:34] do that jump through all the hoops at
[1:34:37] once which is doesn't make it less
[1:34:40] painful, less expensive
[1:34:42] just address the commission.
[1:34:43] >> So, so again my suggestion was just to
[1:34:46] have that one phrase added to the uh ADU
[1:34:51] legislation,
[1:34:53] right? And this way to kind of solve it,
[1:34:57] not not to allow more, not to go out of
[1:35:00] our way, but to just simplify it.
[1:35:03] >> So the the town had a lot of
[1:35:04] conversations about this a couple years
[1:35:06] ago. And so if to sort of squeeze it in
[1:35:09] would not be practical or or fair. So I
[1:35:12] think we'd have to keep them separate
[1:35:13] and then have a separate discussion
[1:35:14] because I do believe if we if we put
[1:35:16] something out that even changed small
[1:35:18] deviations to the current, there would
[1:35:20] be a lot of kind of input that we'd have
[1:35:21] to collect. Look, I think we've heard
[1:35:23] from Z. This is this is going to be put
[1:35:25] on the agenda.
[1:35:26] >> It is on the workload and it's not as simple as just taking all of
[1:35:31] the things we allow for ADUs.
[1:35:33] >> And one last thing just to
[1:35:35] >> and then we're done. But one last thing
[1:35:37] to add to the comment here is my
[1:35:39] instinct is to trust the people who are
[1:35:42] closer to it.
[1:35:43] >> And if he says if Sage says I want to
[1:35:46] treat it differently, like I I I I feel
[1:35:49] like I need to support that. I I work
[1:35:52] with Sage over the years, so I have
[1:35:56] Sage and his team have my full trust.
[1:35:58] >> Yeah. So, Sage has stated this will be
[1:36:00] on the agenda. So, I think we've heard
[1:36:02] the comment. We'll take this into
[1:36:03] account when that's when that's put on,
[1:36:05] but it wouldn't be something we'd be
[1:36:07] changing in the specific language that
[1:36:10] we'll be approving tonight or
[1:36:12] considering tonight, I should say.
[1:36:14] >> But, we definitely will continue to
[1:36:15] consider how to make things more
[1:36:17] flexible. It is on our work plan.
[1:36:19] >> Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. All
[1:36:22] right, we're going to move to mission
[1:36:24] discussion at this point. And so what I
[1:36:27] would suggest, which worked well last
[1:36:29] time, is maybe we go just item by item.
[1:36:32] Uh if folks are okay with that and Sage,
[1:36:34] you had I think done a great job of kind
[1:36:35] of keeping us online
[1:36:37] rather.
[1:36:38] >> I could say I have no comments on the
[1:36:40] discussion of the the book.
[1:36:42] >> That might be a way I mean if if there's
[1:36:44] any any places in which people do want
[1:36:46] to discuss further, maybe focus on those
[1:36:48] areas.
[1:36:48] >> Okay. So I'll I'll keep us organized
[1:36:50] then. So the first thing we had was on
[1:36:52] the the driveways.
[1:36:55] Anything there? Good.
[1:37:03] uh the efficiency kitchen definition.
[1:37:05] Thought personally that was a good
[1:37:07] clarification
[1:37:08] and I went through purchasing and
[1:37:12] request of yours turning uh Amazon
[1:37:14] things to
[1:37:16] that was great air fryers. Exactly. uh
[1:37:20] the uncompacted and non-bonded gravel.
[1:37:23] To me that makes sense given we have
[1:37:25] these zero combustion zones now need to
[1:37:28] be sensitive to that
[1:37:29] >> and and that also to the speaker's
[1:37:31] comment you know when allowing this
[1:37:33] extra square footage the intent of the
[1:37:34] language is to make sure it is gravel
[1:37:37] and permeable. Um it wouldn't be
[1:37:39] something where someone puts pavers on
[1:37:41] top of sand even that's something that
[1:37:43] would not be accepted.
[1:37:46] >> Okay. Uh the mechanical equipment the 24
[1:37:49] in I thought was great objective
[1:37:51] standard so you can know it either
[1:37:52] implies or doesn't. So that's helpful.
[1:37:56] The 800 ft we debated that last last
[1:37:58] time. Um and that was an area we decided
[1:38:01] to be sort of less permissive and seems
[1:38:04] like we're still
[1:38:06] in agreement there. Okay.
[1:38:08] um the sanitization facilities. I think
[1:38:12] my comment there would be uh I I would
[1:38:15] ask uh that we request a you know some
[1:38:19] kind of guidance to our residents who
[1:38:22] may want to move on how to how to just
[1:38:24] >> Yeah. Well, we well I have a note that
[1:38:25] was where I was taking notes earlier.
[1:38:27] We'll include that in any restriction
[1:38:29] form that runs with the property.
[1:38:30] >> Okay. And then I think that the the big
[1:38:32] piece for discussion is uh the upward
[1:38:35] sloped lots and we've seen examples of
[1:38:38] that. So there's just a discussion of do
[1:38:39] we want to consider the inclusion of
[1:38:42] that or not and maybe we can do a little
[1:38:44] straw poll on that or have comments on
[1:38:47] that.
[1:38:47] >> If you stall start but I'd say
[1:38:51] keep keep it in the keep it as it is now
[1:38:53] and require a variance that about it
[1:38:56] >> would be flexible.
[1:38:58] >> Such a sore point. because an issue is
[1:39:01] this very large
[1:39:07] » this would be very large issue uh to a
[1:39:10] lot of residents. So um I would error on
[1:39:14] the side of keeping
[1:39:15] >> and I and I know for a fact that you
[1:39:18] there is a certain size where you can
[1:39:19] slide in without having to come for
[1:39:21] variance on an ups slope. So there there
[1:39:24] is there is a possible if they have to
[1:39:26] do it. But
[1:39:27] >> my take here I think there there was an
[1:39:29] argument made that it's no worse than
[1:39:31] what it is because it's the same as a
[1:39:33] house. I think my counter to that is
[1:39:36] it's more structures.
[1:39:38] ADUs tend to be pushed towards the edges
[1:39:41] rather than houses which are
[1:39:42] >> that's right
[1:39:43] >> cited at the center. So,
[1:39:45] >> you know, while there's a lit literal
[1:39:47] interpretation that's not any worse, I
[1:39:49] think in practice it it doesn't seem to
[1:39:52] be the type of thing we need to throw in
[1:39:53] there.
[1:39:57] » Agree.
[1:39:59] >> There's something else. Um,
[1:40:01] >> speak now.
[1:40:02] >> I'm good. I mean, I'm uncomfortable with
[1:40:04] this. I actually have a lot of respect
[1:40:05] for Mr. Patrick.
[1:40:06] >> Yeah.
[1:40:07] >> Not surprised propos this. And I think
[1:40:10] that all these things that we've talked
[1:40:12] about today have edge cases, but they're
[1:40:14] kind of reasonable. I think this one's
[1:40:16] an edge case that I don't even I'm
[1:40:19] uncomfortable.
[1:40:19] >> So you you do not want to include it,
[1:40:21] correct?
[1:40:22] >> No. Yeah. Okay.
[1:40:22] >> I don't. And
[1:40:24] >> yeah.
[1:40:25] >> Okay.
[1:40:26] >> It's something we'll continue to explore
[1:40:27] as we move through ADU ordinances. Um
[1:40:30] should there be a way to maybe provide
[1:40:33] some better guard rails, we'll continue
[1:40:35] to look at that.
[1:40:36] >> Okay. So to sum up,
[1:40:40] >> do we still have the amnesty?
[1:40:42] >> And so that's still in the code and uh
[1:40:45] to the other speakers comments, um she's
[1:40:47] actually been really great and helpful
[1:40:48] in a lot of these things. We talk a lot
[1:40:50] about different ADU stuff and um she'll uh you know work with our billing
[1:40:56] department to help us keep that to to
[1:41:00] keep improving that process. And one of
[1:41:02] the things I've heard tonight as well as
[1:41:04] what we think at the staff level is to
[1:41:06] really figure out um how to make it
[1:41:09] possible to have a town inspector uh
[1:41:12] meet with somebody early on.
[1:41:15] >> And that is what I mean I think that
[1:41:17] resonated with me this pre-application
[1:41:21] process to make it safe for the
[1:41:24] homeowner. So I just I just want to
[1:41:26] reinforce that. Yeah,
[1:41:28] >> I think where we landed this one I don't
[1:41:30] I'm a bit fuzzy on where we landed was
[1:41:32] we're going to recommend to council to
[1:41:33] consider that.
[1:41:34] >> That's correct. Yeah, it's something we
[1:41:35] were kind of looking at um the building
[1:41:38] department. So, it's not it's not to to
[1:41:40] town council to consider
[1:41:41] >> providing resources towards
[1:41:43] >> resourcing it. Yeah, correct.
[1:41:45] >> We'll put that in the report to the
[1:41:46] council.
[1:41:47] >> Okay.
[1:41:48] >> And and by then we'll talk more with the
[1:41:50] building department to figure out
[1:41:51] exactly what that looks like.
[1:41:55] >> Okay. So what I think we are at is is
[1:41:58] asis with
[1:42:02] thank you as proposed with the
[1:42:05] additional ask of an offramp for people
[1:42:07] who want to move out of their homes and
[1:42:10] have a a path to do so.
[1:42:16] Would anyone like to make a motion on
[1:42:18] that direct
[1:42:18] >> motion?
[1:42:21] A motion to agree as proposed with one
[1:42:23] offramp for owners.
[1:42:25] >> Yeah. So the so the in terms of the we
[1:42:28] wouldn't be putting that in the
[1:42:29] municipal code but with the document for
[1:42:32] property owners they'd be informed how
[1:42:34] to do that. So as well as the other
[1:42:36] issue with the town inspector not
[1:42:38] putting it in the ordinance um but
[1:42:40] looking at that as a process to move
[1:42:41] forward. So we'll explain both of those.
[1:42:43] The town council and if you're okay with
[1:42:46] the um resolution as proposed you can
[1:42:49] make a motion to approve the uh draft
[1:42:51] resolution.
[1:42:51] >> Make a motion to approve the draft
[1:42:53] resolution as proposed. I second it.
[1:42:56] >> Chair Gar,
[1:42:57] >> yes.
[1:42:58] >> Vice Chair Tober,
[1:42:59] >> yes.
[1:43:00] >> Commissioner Evans,
[1:43:01] >> yes.
[1:43:02] >> Commissioner Garco,
[1:43:03] >> yes.
[1:43:05] >> Right. Thank you.
[1:43:07] >> I just want to make one comment. Um,
[1:43:09] you've put a lot of time into this and I
[1:43:11] think there's nothing more annoying than
[1:43:13] coming here and getting three minutes.
[1:43:14] And it was easier today because there
[1:43:17] wasn't a lot of people, but I think it's
[1:43:19] important for folks like you to feel
[1:43:21] like at least you got your time.
[1:43:24] And I was I was hoping that at least you
[1:43:26] felt that. So,
[1:43:31] >> and Sage, there's no appeal process for
[1:43:33] this one. Correct.
[1:43:34] >> Correct. There's no appeal process other
[1:43:35] than nothing. So, this is a
[1:43:36] recommendation to the town council and
[1:43:39] so we have not agendaized it yet. Uh,
[1:43:42] now that this is through the planning
[1:43:43] commission, I'll work with the town
[1:43:45] manager's office to figure out when we
[1:43:47] can get this on the town council's
[1:43:48] agenda in the upcoming meeting.
[1:43:50] >> Okay, perfect. Um, anything else? Uh
[1:43:54] >> no, you just
[1:43:54] >> I don't think we have any director
[1:43:55] report.
[1:43:55] >> You just had the uh the April report. Um
[1:43:58] and so as personal suggestions by Miss
[1:44:01] Hansen, um there were she emailed me
[1:44:04] some very good suggestions. We'll uh
[1:44:06] make some updates to the report kind of
[1:44:07] breaking down the number of AD not just
[1:44:09] the income levels and where we're
[1:44:11] meeting those, but also ADUs versus
[1:44:14] other types of units throughout the
[1:44:16] different years. And then I'll just note
[1:44:18] that um you know the the little graph on
[1:44:20] the bottom shows per month of this year
[1:44:24] um how many ADUs and single family
[1:44:27] dwellings have been built. Also on the
[1:44:30] upper portion it only goes through 2024
[1:44:33] and the reason we had a little bit stall
[1:44:35] on that we're waiting for the state to
[1:44:37] certify our 2025 numbers which they have
[1:44:40] done and so um so we will update that
[1:44:44] table as well. Uh so uh just for some
[1:44:47] notes, you know, we have
[1:44:50] uh through 2025
[1:44:53] um we have 121
[1:44:57] um permits issued for uh at this point
[1:45:00] ADUs and single family dwellings and
[1:45:03] there is still a need to meet to meet
[1:45:06] 328 units total of varied types of
[1:45:09] housing. So that currently leaves
[1:45:10] another 207 units permits that still
[1:45:13] need to be issued in this cycle. So we
[1:45:16] are making progress uh yet we still um
[1:45:20] need to look at different housing types
[1:45:21] as well as you know the next year to
[1:45:24] really start to see those numbers rise.
[1:45:26] >> Is there any any updates besides that
[1:45:29] you mentioned the sewer. Is there any
[1:45:30] other updates in terms of things going?
[1:45:32] So that that part is the first step and
[1:45:35] then um the town has a consulting
[1:45:37] attorney who's worked with the town
[1:45:39] attorney's office that's going to help
[1:45:41] us with the surplus lands act um process
[1:45:45] and so that once the sewer stuff figure
[1:45:48] out what path is that necessary for that
[1:45:50] then we can start that process. Perfect.
[1:45:54] Any other questions for stage?
[1:45:57] All right. Well, with that we will
[1:45:59] adjourn. Um, thank you everybody for
[1:46:02] your time and thoughts.