CCMIN 01192021 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to City Attorney Dan Sodergren's call for clarification, Councilmember Testa made a second motion, excluding the ability to build an ADU over a garage and limiting the waiver of owner- occupancy to 2020-25. In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiry, Community Development Director Clark stated her belief the above-garage ADUs currently permitted by the PMC are within the sphere of what is being currently considered. Councilmember Arkin seconded Councilmember Testa's motion. In response to her inquiry, Councilmember Testa and Councilmember Balch both confirmed the motion by Councilmember Testa would not allow above-garage ADUs at all because there is no chance for discretionary review. Councilmember Narum stated her support of ADUs to create affordable housing which was the Planning Commission's intent in 2012 to help towards Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. She added her belief there are many unintended consequences of the new State laws, including the boundary of four feet from the property line being too close to neighbors by Pleasanton's standards. She called for outreach to other Tri-Valley cities ahead of an upcoming legislative meeting to collectively lobby if they share Pleasanton's concerns. She stated her support for Councilmember Balch's motion but noted all five of the Councilmembers have reservations about some component of the State laws. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Community Development Director Clark confirmed the provisions for above-garage ADUs up to 25 feet have existed since 2012 so rolling it back seemed more restrictive than what was necessary. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Community Development Director Clark confirmed public comment was a major reason for the deed restriction changes so existing ADU owners would be on the same standard as their peers adding units from 2020-25. She added those commenters also raised a concern about implications should they sell their property with these outdated restrictions. She added JADUs require an owner-occupant because they are more integrated with the original structure. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, City Attorney Sodergren recommended voting on Councilmember Testa's amended motion followed by a vote on Councilmember Balch's main motion. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Councilmember Testa stated she would like to see existing above-garage ADUs and owner-occupancy requirements be grandfathered in. In response to Mayor Brown noting the restrictions are different today by State law, Councilmember Testa agreed but stated her intention of controlling whatever the City can and sending a message they do not wish for this law to continue past 2025. Mayor Brown stated she cannot support the motion because there should not be a difference in the standards just a year apart. Councilmember Arkin requested clarification the current amended motion keeps the owner-occupancy provisions but prohibits above-garage two-story ADUs above the state-mandated 16-foot limit. Councilmember Testa stated 16 feet does not allow for a two-story structure over a garage. Community Development Director Clark confirmed this would be the case due to typical ceiling heights. Councilmember Testa stated her opinion ADUs more than 16 feet high are fine if in a renovated space and she merely does not wish to see new ADUs built to exceed the height threshold if the City will not have an opportunity to review their plans. She noted to Mayor Brown she would remove her deed revision objection to have this restriction included in an approved motion. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 17 January 19, 2021