PC 070820 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pace expressed appreciation for the work of staff. Chair Ritter asked and confirmed whether there was any deviation from the State requirement for efficiency units and the reason for allowing 150-square-foot minimum. He expressed concern with the ordinance complying with State law as the law states the City shall not establish minimum square feet. Ms. Bonn clarified that the 150-sqaure-foot minimum was as defined by the State for an efficiency unit according to the City's Chief Building Official and the proposal was consistent with the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC). Chair Ritter then inquired if having the window of a second story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) five feet above the ground was the recommendation for all windows. Ms. Bonn again clarified that one of the three measures would be required for windows in second story ADUs: the four-foot offset, five feet above the floor, or obscured glass. Chair Ritter expressed concern through an example of a neighbor who might purchase a shed and put it close to where the proposed ADU would go to prevent it from being built. Ms. Clark explained that the condition would be evaluated, based on conditions in place at the time the ADU was submitted. Though she felt it was unlikely, she agreed that it was possible a neighbor could preemptively erect new structures. Ms. Bonn further clarified the language in the ordinance addressed windows facing the neighbor's residence, not an accessory structure. She also offered to strengthen the language to avoid future issues. In response to Chair Ritter, Ms. Clark stated whether to do away with previously imposed conditions, with respect to owner-occupancy, would be a policy decision of the Commission. Commissioner Brown inquired about obscured windows and whether it was defined or subjective. Ms. Bonn stated the definition would need to be added. Ms. Clark stated staff would have to come up with a precise definition. Commissioner Brown expressed concern with owners attempting "do it yourself' (DIY) window tinting. He also inquired about the State's reasoning for ending the owner-occupancy provisions in 2025. Ms. Clark assumed the five- year period was an effort by the legislature to seek a compromise for groups with differing positions on the topic. Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on the different types of deed restricted ADUs. Ms. Bonn explained the three categories: deed restrictions that expressly indicated the owner-occupancy requirements; deed restrictions referring to the owner-occupancy requirements identified in the PMC; and properties that have the owner occupancy requirement identified in a different instrument such as Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or project conditions of approval. Commissioner Brown expressed concern with the use of sheds not requiring a building permit as an ADU. Ms. Clark stated it would be difficult, since an ADU would require electrical, plumbing and a proper foundation, all of which required a building permit. Ms. Clark informed the Commissioners of the public comments received via email, including correspondence from Mr. Mike Carey regarding owner occupancy regulations. She also noted a comment received just prior to the start of the meeting from Californians for Home Ownership, stating the proposed ordinance was inconsistent with State law. Given the nature of these latter comments, Ms. Clark recommended that the Planning Commission receive public comments, discuss the currently proposed draft ordinance, then continue the item to allow staff the opportunity to review the late correspondence and determine if further revisions were necessary. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 July 8, 2020