PC 062420 - Laserfiche WebLink

certain assumptions and have met that assumption. If the legislature pushed out the sunset date of 2025, she would be open to allowing everyone to follow the same rules for consistency but would prefer deciding following the five year period. She was in agreement with other Commissioners about the confusing language on the bottom of page 4 regarding square footage. Commissioner Balch echoed Commissioner Allen's comments about how staff interpreted and represented the information. He pointed out the language on page 11 and suggested it as a better way of communicating square footage standards. He also mentioned staff interpreted the State law well, and the purpose of the law was to build more ADUs. He was not sure about keeping the deed restricted class of ADUs, stating he had never seen a prohibition/restriction "grandfathered" versus an approval/entitlement. Commissioner Brown expressed his appreciation of staff taking complicated language and putting into clearer terms, however, he mentioned he would like to see a different language used to convey square footage requirements, particularly for detached ADUs. He then referenced correspondence received by Mike Carey and stated he understood the concern yet did not know if it was right to enforce the standards that were imposed prior to the new law. Commissioner O'Connor stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Allen. He continued by stating he was concerned about removing existing restrictions previously put in place and then having to reinstate them at the end of five years. He was also in agreement with Commissioner Allen on the height of ADUs in the C-C District. Chair Ritter stated he was in agreement if staff could utilize some of the language used by the State to help guide some of the decisions. He encouraged the Commissioners and staff to think about what the State was trying to accomplish with the new laws, explaining it was to create more housing and if too many restrictions were imposed, then the City would not be following the intent of the State. He also encouraged staff to use the State's wording within the ordinance whenever possible, which would give the City more latitude in its discussion versus just adding more words to the state's concepts and making it more complex, while losing the intent. In regard to Commissioner Allen's previous comment referencing height, Commissioner Balch asked staff whether it was conceivable to have an 800-square-foot ADU, if the only allowable space was at the top of an existing multi-family residence. Ms. Clark clarified the requirement was to ensure the City's ordinance allowed for a unit of those minimum standards to be built. Commissioner Balch requested more clarification about the 40-foot requirement. Ms. Clark stated it could, in theory, result in some structures being taller than others, if allowed to be built vertically, and admitted there was complexity to the question and the different allowable standards for accessory units and ADUs. She advised that staff would come up with a recommendation for the next meeting. Commissioner Balch expressed his support for additional discussion at the next meeting and asked how ADUs were measured. Ms. Bonn provided further clarification stating the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) required ADUs be measured differently than primary structures; with primary structures measured from ground to the mean height between eaves and ridges and ADUs measured from the ground to the top of the structure. Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 June 24, 2020 lanning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 June 24, 2020 ure. 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