Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 44 of 85 <br />5. Can we evaluate a hard cap of .40 and let developers apply for proposed projects that exceed the cap if <br />they have an exceptional design or other benefits? A hard cap with a discretionary exception would put the <br />time and financial burden on developers -- where it belongs. There could be legitimate situations where <br />exceeding the cap makes sense but let's have the developer bear that cost via the Planning Commission. <br />6. 1 fully support the PC recommendation for more than two years of data. We should not be basing an <br />interim FAR recommendation on the excessive development we have experienced the last two years where we <br />saw a pronounced increase in developers taking advantage of our permissive zoning in our neighborhoods. I <br />also fully support the Commission's decision to not consider a "soft -cap threshold" but request an interim hard - <br />cap instead. <br />ADU <br />7. Why didn't staff provide mock-ups (see attached) similar to what Commissioner Shoe hand -sketched, <br />showing renderings of the different heights of ADUs? I found these drawings incredibly illuminating and I'm <br />wondering why staff couldn't provide 2D or 3D drawings so the Commission and the public could actually see a <br />visual of what they were recommending? <br />a. In this same vein, why aren't we also seeing renderings of what the FAR recommendations <br />would look like on different sized lots? Surely we have Planning staff with CAD expertise or <br />available through an approved consultant who could assist with this. Perhaps staff could <br />produce visual images of 4-5 recent applications for the next discussion on .tune 18? <br />8. Given the emotional testimony from the public last week, I hope everyone understands why 28 -ft tall, <br />700 sq ft ADUs (the equivalent of an average 3 -car garage) on top of a detached garage just a few feet from <br />the property line are so problematic. Perhaps we should consider a change to the ordinance where we allow <br />700 sq ft for ground floor ADUs (see attached proposed ADU) but limit ADUs above a garage to only 350 sq ft? <br />That would provide yet another significant incentive for the production of one-story ADUs. <br />9. l see no justification for allowing external staircases and balconies on 2nd -story ADUs given the privacy <br />concerns. The elimination of these two items could also have positive impacts on overall massing. Please see <br />the attached proposed ADU that does not have an exterior staircase nor a balcony. It can be done. <br />10. Can we consider having a policy where a one-story ADU doesn't count towards FAR but a two-story <br />does? Once again, this could be a creative way to encourage the production of one-story ADUs while reducing <br />impacts on neighbors. <br />11. Given the unique impacts and design requirements for ADUs, have we considered creating "Findings" <br />that are specific to ADUs similar to what San Carlos does (see attached)? Given that there is an application <br />with findings (the Architectural Permit) for ADUs above garages, can we have specific criteria and findings <br />regarding privacy and neighbor impacts for that type of AP? <br />320 <br />