PC 062420 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown echoed this confusion. Ms. Bonn explained, although admittedly unclear, the language of the square footage was an attempt to mirror the wording of the State law. Commissioner Balch stated he thought staff could find a clearer way to define these standards. He then asked staff to clarify if they expected to go back to deed restricted ADUs after the five- year period when the new law was over. Ms. Clark confirmed that was staff's understanding, they could not require deed restrictions for the next five years, however, barring the state extending these laws indefinitely, deed restrictions would resume in 2025. Commissioner Balch expressed concern over having three different groups of criteria depending on when the ADU was approved. Commissioner Balch referenced Exhibit B on Page 9 and suggested clarification, rather than introducing ambiguity. He questioned whether ADU deed restrictions would not be enforceable for a period then go back to being enforced. Ms. Clark explained any ADU approved prior to January 1, 2020, was enforceable and there would be a gap during the five-year period when ADUs were not deed restricted for owner occupancy. Commissioner Allen stated the legislature could remove the sunset at some point in time. Commissioner Balch stated it was conceivable there could be three different groups: prior to January 1, 2020; the five-year trial period; and following the five-year sunset. Commissioner Pace inquired if a property with an existing free standing ADU could add another ADU, in addition to a Junior ADU (JADU), which would lead to two livable spaces being turned into four. Ms. Clark clarified it was possible for multifamily homes but not the case for single-family homes. Commissioner Brown referenced measurements on page 3 of the agenda report, stating he did not believe they were an accurate representation of the requirements. He then expressed confusion with verbiage on pages 6 and 7 of the agenda report and asked staff to clarify the reason laundry rooms, gyms, and living spaces were included as items that could not be converted to ADUs in multifamily dwellings. He expressed concern it might be too restrictive because those spaces were sometimes underutilized. Ms. Clark explained the measurements were accurate; if an ADU were to exceed any of those standards, the City would have the ability to apply typical zoning and development standards to the structure. She then clarified those items were amenities which benefitted the entirety of multifamily units and staff's concern that their conversion would not be consistent with the development's original approval. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if an ADU added to an existing, non-conforming structure, could be built to an existing, legal non-conforming setback. He then asked for clarification on the standards for windows and if the main structure already had windows which overlooked into a neighbor's property, whether those same windows would be allowable on an ADU. He expressed concern over this standard, stating if the main structure already had a view of the neighbor's property, it did not make sense to restrict the ADU, especially as it could impact the cross ventilation of the ADU, which would most likely be a small space. He also mentioned the restrictions could impact three of four facades, if the ADU was a corner property, which might look unappealing. Lastly, he expressed concern it could become very restrictive. Ms. Bonn confirmed the state law allowed an ADU be built to an existing, legal nonconforming setback if it maintained the footprint and dimensions of the legal nonconforming structure. Regarding windows, she confirmed the windows would have to be six feet above the finished floor or have obscured glass. Ms. Clark further noted, it might be reasonable to develop exceptions for existing windows to allow for those windows to be the same size, shape, and height. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 June 24, 2020