PC 051403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson advised that was the exception, and that the tandem parking must be approved through a PUD or a variance_ The normal Code requirement is that while anyone could park tandem in a driveway or a garage, a plan identifying a tandem parking space as a required parking space would not normally be allowed. Ms. Nerland noted that the staff could not support the language the City's existing second unit ordinance that occupancy of a second unit is limited to no more than `two (2J adults and only the number of children permitted by law'." She stated that is in direct contravention to several State appellate cases in the past decade and it is questionable whether the City can restrict residential occupancy beyond the State's building occupancy standards. Furthermore, staff was unaware of a law that restricts the number of children in a unit or a "family." She strongly urged the Commission not to approach this issue with respect to the definition of a Family and reproduction rights_ A discussion about balancing the parking requirements and occupancy of second units ensued. Commissioner Sedlak noted that the owner-occupancy requirement was aself-enforcing provision_ When the property owner is required to live in one of the units, that oRen kept the occupancy and parking numbers under control. With respect to the effect of AB1866 on those cities with design review processes that include discretionary review, projects for accessory structures or additions exceeding 10 feet in height require notices to surrounding property owners in Pleasanton_ In addition, these projects are heard before the Zoning Administrator; they would come before the Planning Commission only on appeal, or if the Zoning Administrator believed it was a unique situation that should be heard by the Commission_ Ms. Nerland advised that AB 1 866 clearly prohibits discretionary review in public hearings for second unit uses_ She noted that it was less clear whether that prohibition extends to design review, when the City's Code mandates design review, not because of the usc, but bccause of the structure. Staff believes that a narrow interpretation of the new legislation is defensible, that there be no discretionary review and no hearing for a second unit use_ However, second units which involve building additions or construction of a new free-standing structure would require a design review, just like any other addition on the property. Staff was concerned that if design review was eliminated for second units, it was possible that every addition would come forward as a second unit in order to avoid design review_ She noted that the State may not share staff s interpretation, and that contrary court cases or legislation may be seen; in that case, staff may appear before the Commission again to recommend making an amendment to the Ordinance_ Staff proposed leaving the design review in place, and to bifurcate the idea of a permitted second unit use meeting standards as to use, but to let the design review process run its normal chat~nels_ A discussion regarding design review scenarios ensued_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 14, 2003 Page 16