Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission recommends denying proposed ADU allowance in PRD zone

2220342 · February 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The planning commission voted to recommend City Council deny a proposal to allow accessory dwelling units in PRD zones. The applicant said ADUs could help affordability, while a resident and several commissioners raised concerns about added density and parking in tightly packed PRDs.

The Bay Planning Commission voted to recommend City Council deny a text amendment that would allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Planned Residential Development (PRD) zones.

Developer Mike Bashan presented the proposal and said the change would create an option to help affordability in new subdivisions. Bashan said the 5,200-square-foot minimum he proposed was intended to allow lots wide enough for a three-car garage; he said the alternative 5,600-square-foot minimum used elsewhere “would be okay” if the commission preferred it. He told commissioners an ADU could increase borrowers’ purchasing power by adding rental income: “that ADU, a 1 bedroom's apartment, would rent for about $1,500,” he said.

A resident, Dave Mon of Doral Drive, urged the commission to oppose the change, arguing it would double density in PRDs and effectively convert single-family approvals into duplex-like arrangements. Mon said: “When you do this, you now double up on that density by allowing ADUs inside of another single unit.”

Commission discussion focused on parking, garage access, and whether ADUs should be limited to attached or internal units only. Staff noted that ADUs already exist as conditional uses in the RPC zone with a 5,600-square-foot minimum and that the PRD change would alter rules applying across PRDs. Commissioners expressed concern about retrofitting ADUs into existing, tightly packed PRDs and about enforcement of garage-parking requirements. Several commissioners favored making ADUs conditional, limiting them to attached or internal configurations, or addressing individual projects through development agreements or conditional-use review.

After discussion a commissioner moved to recommend denial. The motion passed on a voice vote; the chair announced that Commissioner Shea voted no (opposed). The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for final action.