CCMIN 01192021 - Laserfiche WebLink

has some concerns, citing Ms. Combs' public comments, but praised staff for considering the matter of neighborly screening. In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Community Development Director Clark confirmed it is difficult to know what the State will do in 2025 but having uniformity on the deed and owner-occupancy regulations will make for the easiest implementation in 2025 should the State change its laws. In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Community Development Director Clark confirmed the City must comply with the State law minimums, although it can always allow for more, citing the 25-foot height restriction as an example. Councilmember Arkin expressed her support for ADUs and noted they address the affordability piece. She lamented the lack of local control over several aspects of the legislation and encouraged upset residents to contact their State legislators. Motion: It was moved/second by Balch/Arkin to approve the staff recommendation. Councilmember Testa supported the PMC standards, particularly the requirements for an ADU to match the main structure's visual style. She cited several examples of areas where the recommendations do not satisfy her thoughts, particularly regarding ADUs over a garage. She requested the motion be amended to include owner-occupancy should be limited to the State-required period from 2020-25, and ADUs over a garage should not be included since there is no chance for discretionary review by the City. Councilmember Balch clarified the deed restriction only applies to 22 existing units in Pleasanton, making the impact minor. He reiterated there would be four groups of deed owners to sort out in 2025 when the legislation expires, including a group approved from 2020-25 who would not be subject to owner-occupancy requirements should the City have a chance to reinstate them in 2025. Senior Planner Bonn clarified the City has about 200 ADUs which have a deed restriction referencing owner-occupancy requirements. She stated there will also be potential PUD and CC&R considerations in 2025 which do not exist for the current five-year period as established by the State law. In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Councilmember Balch stated, if the deeds are not unified, until 2025, someone could legally challenge their deed restriction and require the City to defend a restriction no longer required under State law. He clarified second story ADUs above a garage are not in this Item because they have already been in place since 2012. He added how nice the ADUs look in the Walnut Hills neighborhood and are incorporated into the neighborhood. He declined the proposed amendments to his motion. Councilmember Testa clarified she supports above-garage ADUs but laments the law not allowing for any discretionary review. In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiry, Senior Planner Bonn stated her belief the City would have a discretionary review if a new PUD were being developed with ADUs in the plan. Community Development Director Clark stated the developer would likely be asked to design the ADUs into the project, but she does not believe the City could preclude future construction of ADUs in future years by a homeowner whose home in a PUD did not initially have an ADU. Councilmember Testa clarified her objection is to conversions and the City losing its ability to have individual input on how appropriate the ADU may be for the neighborhood. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 17 January 19, 2021