My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 062420
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2020
>
PC 062420
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 5:03:59 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 5:03:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/24/2020
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> AYES: Commissioners Allen, Balch, Brown, O'Connor, and Ritter <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: Commissioner Balch (Item 3; May 27, 2020 Minutes) <br /> The Actions of the City Council were approved, as submitted. <br /> The Actions of the Zoning Administrator were approved, as submitted. <br /> The Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2020 were approved, as submitted. <br /> MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC <br /> 4. Public Comment from the audience regarding items not listed on the agenda — <br /> Speakers are encouraged to limit comments to 3 minutes. <br /> There were no members of the audience wishing to address the Commission. <br /> PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> 5. Amendment to Title 18 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code — Consider amendments to <br /> Chapters 18.08, 18.20, 18.28, 18.32, 18.36, 18.84, and 18.106 of the Pleasanton <br /> Municipal Code to comply with state legislation for accessory dwelling units. <br /> Senior Planner Shweta Bonn presented the specifics of the item in the Agenda Report. <br /> Commissioner Allen inquired about the owner occupancy requirement and the reason for the <br /> sunset date of January 1 , 2025. Community Development Director Ellen Clark responded there <br /> was no specific reason provided but it was probably an attempt of the State to balance the <br /> interests and desires of many different cities; it was a trial period in which the State could end <br /> the requirement after five years or extend it longer. <br /> Commissioner Brown referenced information provided on one of the presentation slides <br /> regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) colors and materials which matched those of the <br /> primary residence and inquired if that would be considered an unnecessary barrier. Assistant <br /> City Attorney Julie Harryman explained there was room for objective design standards if they <br /> were included in advance, as this requirement would not result in discretionary review of the <br /> ADU but more of a simple review. Ms. Clark further clarified an outside legal expert was <br /> consulted, who noted the requirement was defensible and quite common in many ADU <br /> ordinances; it ensured ADUs would fit in with the existing home and the neighborhood without <br /> being too onerous. <br /> Commissioner Balch referenced information from one of the presentation slides and asked for <br /> clarification on the maximum allowable square footage for different types of ADUs. He did not <br /> understand the reason 800 square feet was described as the maximum when the points below <br /> it identified 850 square feet and even 1,200 square feet to be the maximum in some cases. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 June 24, 2020 <br />