CCMIN 11162021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Senior Planner Bonn reported SB 9 does not prohibit setting affordability limits for new units. She stated staff believes this should be a topic for a future policy discussion. She stated the draft resolution to establish application fees is based on existing application fees. She reported receiving two written public comments, one concerned with the width and depth of lots and the other encouraging the Council to adopt a policy for net -zero greenhouse gas impact for all development. She stated the City has received inquiries from residents interested in constructing SB 9 units. She stated staff recommends the Council review the draft amendments to the PMC, amend the PMC, and adopt application processing fees. In response to Councilmember Balch, Senior Planner Bonn confirmed there are planned unit developments (PUD) in the City with prescribed building envelopes due to grading and those will still apply as long as they do not preclude an 800 -square foot SB 9 unit, similar to the ADU ordinance. Staff's understanding is they cannot prohibit an SB 9 unit from being as close as four feet from a property line. There are many PUDs in the City and some Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) do get into the detailed level of building envelopes so some HOAs might modify their CC&Rs on account of SB 9. She confirmed it is staff's understanding many PUDs could see their City -defined building envelopes change due to SB 9. In response to Councilmember Balch, Senior Planner Bonn confirmed if land from a lot has already been dedicated to the City for something like a conservation easement or right-of-way, this status quo cannot be altered further. In response to Councilmember Balch, Senior Planner Bonn stated methods they could use to determine if a property has been unoccupied for three years include utility billing records, deed restrictions, or affordable housing agreements. In response to Councilmember Balch, Senior Planner Bonn confirmed the bar to prevent any of these developments is so high the City is not expecting to reach it. In response to Councilmember Balch, Senior Planner Bonn confirmed the City's two Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) station, and the 10R bus line typically have 15 -minute headways. She noted recent schedules now show 30 -minute headways due to labor shortages so, at this time, those stops would not count as close access to transit. She stated they would have to look at the transit schedules at the time of application. She stated "car share" is still on the list of examples of transit and its definition has not changed. In response to Councilmember Balch, Senior Planner Bonn clarified the second story separation between existing houses and SB 9 units is an existing PMC requirement. The PMC allows for houses to go straight up so long as they do not get closer. The difference between the current and proposed codes is the element of discretionary review. In response to Councilmember Balch, Senior Planner Bonn stated the potential for construction in flood zones is unclear because the City has not dealt with it and the language is straight from the State law. She acknowledged there is ambiguity and would have to take it on a case-by-case basis. In response to Councilmember Narum, Senior Planner Bonn clarified the City would want an applicant to demonstrate compliance with the State law's restrictions about demolishing no more than 25% of an existing structure's external walls. In response to Councilmember Narum, Community Development Director Ellen Clark stated requirements such as meeting the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) are typically defined in the building code. She confirmed the City would have to be consistent between SB 9 unit requirements and requirements for other developments. City Council Minutes Page 16 of 19 November 16, 2021