 Call the meeting Do I have a gavel I will call the meeting of the capitol of planning commission to order roll call, please Commissioner Ruth Commissioner Wilk here chair Newman here Commissioner Christensen and Commissioner Welch are not here okay This meeting is cable cast live on charter communications cable TV channel 8 and AT&T Uverse channel 89 99 And is being recorded to be replayed on the following Monday and Friday at 1 p.m. On charter channel 71 and Comcast channel 25 Meetings can also be viewed from the city's website www.cityofcapitol.org our technician tonight is Kingston Rivera as reminder, please turn off your cell phones and if you Choose to come up and speak at some point during the meeting. Please sign in and give us your name also Next is the pledge That takes us to oral communications Do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda? No additions or deletions to the agenda. We did receive extra materials One an email that I sent out regarding ADUs was is available at the back of the room for the public and Also, we received an email from Catherine Parker regarding Grand Avenue Parkway Is that also available to the available to the public in the back? Okay, then next is a time for public comments This is an opportunity for anyone in the audience to address any issue that they would like to briefly It's not on the agenda It's anyone seeing no one any commission comments and Any staff comments no comments, okay So that takes us to the consent calendar the consent calendar consists of items that if there is no objection are dealt with in as a group on a vote and Don't require a public hearing We have three items on the consent agenda in a in this case because there are issues with regard to each of them We'll take them one at a time. The first one is 511 Escalona. Does anyone want to pull that from the consent agenda? No, but this may I do have a question. Are there no minutes from the previous meeting? Oh There are no minutes. They'll be in the next packet due to the quick turnaround. Good point Well, I'm gonna pull 511 Escalona so that will Move into the public hearing realm The next item is 1500 Park Avenue And that's the item where I felt like I should not participate because I am affiliated with the State parks, which is the applicant so we don't really have a quorum yet on that Okay, we can put that to the end of the agenda. I do think that Commissioner Christensen will be here eventually Okay, so that will be pulled also and then the last item is the Grand Avenue pathway drainage improvements Is there anyone in the audience or any commissioners would like to have a public hearing on that item? Okay, seeing several so our consent agenda has gone the way of Null agenda So let me ask this before we move into the public hearings. Well, actually the first No, we don't have anything we can do on the consent agenda I'd like to see how many people are here on each of the items for which we will have a public hearing So if you intend to either participate or are very interested in hearing the Grand Avenue pathway drainage item, would you raise your hand please? okay, and then Same thing for the three seven seven five Capitola Road conditional use permit for a community assembly Okay, it seems like we have people here for both of those Anyone have any preference as to Which we do first with the Grand Avenue first Missionary Christian since absence. Okay, let's do Grand Avenue. We have a staff report on that, please And five eleven Escalona. Where would you like that on me? Well, that's gonna come after Grand Avenue, okay? Thank You chair new men commissioners The city of Capitola tonight is applying for a coastal development permit for drainage improvements on Hollister Avenue Near the Grand Avenue pathway in the R1 single-family residential zoning district the improvements include a new drainage inlet on the west side of Hollister Avenue City of Cup. Oh, sorry Between I'm gonna give you a little backstory on it here between Saturday, November 30th 2019 and Monday December 2nd 2019 Approximately seven inches of rain fell in the Capitola area at noon on December 2nd Public work staff learned that the bluff below Grand Avenue pathway between Hollister and Oakland avenues had failed Resulting in the complete loss of a section of the pathway loss of the bluff through slides in this vicinity had been anticipated in 2017 when the council authorized closure of this section of the pathway due to ongoing slope failures in the area and potential impacts on the pathway Do in part to the closure no one was harmed when the bluff failed However, as a result of the slide rain runoff from Hollister Avenue and surrounding properties Which previously had flowed down the pathway westerly toward a drainage inlet near Oakland Avenue began falling directly on to the failed slope On December 3rd 2019 based on the series of events the city's director of emergency services, which is the city manager Issued a proclamation of the existence of a local emergency On December 4th 2019 the city awarded an emergency contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering construction To immediately construct and install a new drainage inlet on Hollister Avenue to divert the runoff away from the area of the slope failure Anderson Pacific began work on December 4th, and the work was completed on December 6th So here we have a drain section showing the curb inlet on the left and the drain outlet on the right The blue line is the the pipe from one to the other Assistant planner Sasanto got a hold of a drone, so we have some good drone photos here for you tonight That is the aerial of the corrugated pipe going down the bluff there in black So here's the bluff failure area today or as of Friday The proposed project includes the drainage improvements completed under the emergency coastal development permit Under our capital and municipal code a coastal development permit is required for repair and maintenance activities requiring quote the presence whether temporary or permanent of mechanized construction equipment or Construction materials on any sand area or bluff or environmentally sensitive habitat areas defined by the Coastal Act The proposed work is adjacent to the bluff at the end of Hollister Avenue. Therefore a coastal development permit is required Here's a up-close view of the bluff failure in December the Coastal Commission provided a letter with a list of items that should be included in a follow-up coastal development permit To authorize the work that had previously previously been done under the emergency coastal development permit Several conditions of approval have been added to reflect the Coastal Commission recommendations Including number two, which is to the extent safely possible Applicants shall attempt to remove any non-plant materials from the top of the bluff and along the bluff for example asphalt plastic sandbags fencing To prevent these materials from falling onto the beach area and into the ocean and number three Which is applicants shall submit the following information to the Coastal Commission the level of storm the existing drainage inlets can accommodate and a preliminary analysis of additional possible drainage improvements to prevent runoff down the bluff and any other measures that may be suitable to prevent or Reduce erosion in the area So if that staff recommends the planning commission approve project 20-0014 based on the conditions of approval and findings Any questions of the staff? We should note Steve Jesberg the public work structures here this evening also and very familiar with the construction that's been done Thank you So I have a question on the picture that the drain pipe when I walked By the cliffs I think two days ago, I didn't see the corrugated pipe. I just saw a big white Pipe is that it doesn't look like what I saw. So there's the white pipe leading out to the black pipe That might have been what you saw. I'm not sure how much of that black you can see from the cliff edge behind the fence I would just thought maybe that corrugated pipe fell off or something that probably better question for Public work stressor Jesberg. It was there as a Friday. So I just I walked down The cliffs earlier this week and I didn't see the corrugated pipe. I did see a big white Pipe that kind of just went straight down and okay. Thank you So If I understand this application correctly, it's the work has already been done And the city is applying for a permit So what if we deny it If it were denied I'd we'd have to work with the coastal Commission closely and I'm Guessing that The improvements would have to be removed but I You know, that's my Without I'm not suggesting we're going to do that. But if it were denied, I believe we'd have to remove the improvements And it could be appealed to the council Okay This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the public who would like to address this item? How much time do you need? Okay, that sounds good Also Very extensive report Current status of the drains the end of Sacramento. There is a small drain going over the block The end of Hollister. There is a small drain going over the block The middle of the 300 block of Grand Avenue a small drain going over the block This was repaired perhaps 10 years ago after a cliff failure in that area due to a faulty drain The drain was not improved because a smaller pipe was inserted into an older larger drain We told the city that this repair was inadequate at that time At the end of Central Avenue, there is a drain located on the west side of Central about 15 feet before Grand Avenue all water as We should obviously know should not be going over If possible But should be diverted away to mitigate erosion Small berms should be placed on El Salto to prevent water from other areas of Deepo Hill to flow down the north south streets Livermore, Sacramento, Hollister, Oakland, Saxton and Central This was all brought to the attention of the city in the past Response was that if they did this then they would have to improve drainage on long array to handle the excess water and they would not do this In 2002 The GHA author authorized a study of the drainage on Deepo Hill and our consultants Discussed this matter with both the city and the California coastal commission The resultant plan was to bore an underground hole from Livermore to Central Connecting all the present home and street drains into it And have only one drain at Central which would divert water over the Over the bluff The coastal commission would only permit one such drain on Deepo Hill Due to the cost and reluctance of the city and various members of the GHA this plan was never implemented That one drain we were told by the city that we had to divert the water southward to Grand Avenue And onto the walkway if we wanted our construction permit So what are we to do now? What is the city going to do about the bluff? The December Grand Avenue failure as a result of the city's inattention to the drainage problem all these years In 1994 our family purchased our home a beautiful public view shed existed A walkway for so many enjoyed And please get this issue the serious consideration it deserves As long as water is diverted over the cliff that drainage will continue to contribute to even more damage Thank you, and don't forget to sign in please Don't forget to sign in Okay, anyone else your name, please Can hand it to chloe Okay So As was discussed in the previous presentation I watched this change occur quite a bit and So first I'd like to thank the city for addressing the water issue I've never seen the city act so fast and that was great because you really you could tell from the pictures The the reason we were having such bad for the great deal of erosion was there was a lot of water just flowing Into the hole into the So putting in that drain right away was fantastic, and I really What I thought I would point out is I spent a lot of time studying the cliff and I might be able to sort of Tell you or identify how this actually so normally when we have erosion on the cliff Okay, what happens is that it starts at the Basically the bottom of Two-thirds of the cliff is sandstone And what happens is the waves come in eat out the bottom of the sandstone sandstone page in and then eventually the top goes with it Okay, and so that's the common way that we've had erosion along the cliff in front of us However, this event that occurred was entirely different It was not the normal erosion Because what happened is if you know if you study the pictures you'll now notice that what we have is about a 10 foot essentially There's a 10 foot ledge that was now exposed Down about 15 to 20 feet below the top And that ledge happens because Essentially all the sand which is the top third of the cliff all the soil was immediate was washed out And this doesn't normally happen and normally happens from bottom to top not from the bottom and and so the So now we have a situation where the top of the cliff the sand is eroded We have this ledge that's going out the ledge will be there for probably 20 years Okay, it'll probably take that long for the waves To essentially make that go away So the interesting thing is without the this water flow issue that occurred We would probably have still have the path and it would probably still For probably 10 to 20 years would probably be fine. So what happened is this particular event Basically caused us to lose the pathway have this cavemen occur Probably 20 years before it would have happened otherwise And it's basically it was all done Due to what is not done to a wave event It was it was not a natural event from the ocean It was all done because water was not redirected. Can I ask you to wrap it up mr. Hart? Okay, fine. So interestingly So that's that's that's just the point I want to make is that this is unique This is the top to bottom it can be fixed by the way We have a huge ledge out there that we could fix it. Thank you Anyone else in the public care to address this item So we have a specific application before us today And then we have some members of the public who have raised some broader issues Regarding drainage and the cliff mr. Jesper Do you have anything you want to say to that about what's going on or could go on or I will Three years ago when we ended up closing the pass because of the failure caused by undertakings The geologist at that time did say the top slope was going to fall back unrelated to any Further failure of the block below so While the previous speaker said it wasn't going to ever happen for 20 years The geologist said this pathway is going to be further damaged within the next five years Correct I think it was a function that we had a very soft steep part for the top of sand And that was going to find its natural angle for bows at some point Was it exasperated by the amount of water going through there probably? But There's no way that pathway Was going to be there for another 20 years at this point, you know, I know the email That the commission received talked about a plan that was done in Because And that involves installing a storm drain system in all the people helped To capture the water before it gets included putting Pipes at the end of each of these roads running back toward El Salto putting pipes in El Salto laying all the way back to Monterey and then placing the Drain line I take it that's not on your capital improvement list that goes to the council Thank you, so I'd be curious to is this subject been in front of the city council recently I'm I'm I'm talking about the general general more general concern about the Thank you Kate We have closed the public portion, but because really I mean this is a good discussion in the sense that we've Reached way beyond the application we have in front of us here And we're going to bring it back to the commission to discuss the application And then the broader issues that people are thinking about Have to go there's that's something that needs to be taken to the city council And see if they want to set up task for us or Commit money or whatever they want to do, but that's the planning commission just deals with applications that come before the planning commission, so Okay, I'll reopen but I'm loath to do this, but I will reopen the public hearing This means everybody has to it has to be reopened for everybody It has to be reopened for everybody will reopen the public hearing Please come up So What I just was trying to say is that the bigger picture of how to address the cliff problem and the drainage problem on depot hill On a Comprehensive scale is something that has to go to the city council It can't be part of this application, which is to approve a particular work That was already done on an emergency permit I understand that it's just not something that we Can address in the context of the application before us in terms of this because the city of capitol is applying to us Will we do that all the time with local coastal permits? So So as members of the coastal commission you already talked about, you know, what would happen if we Refused or denied this and Just wondering if there's that would get it to the council Exactly, exactly. So if there is a there is a concern and we want we want to get this to the council We want to force them to address this There is that's a method for doing that The public However, I'm woe to do that because I think that exceeds our authority I think that's a little bit kind of uh caddy wampus. I think There's a better way to get things before we have a many many term councilman here who's uh Familiar with how these things happen, but just sign in please. Okay. Thank you All right any more comments on the application itself We have another member of the public Okay I still haven't heard a member on the spoke earlier The question we have is when Cip I think means capital improvement projects Okay, we'll again close the public hearing and commissioners any comments on the application Just a long time history on this back in On a couple points back in the early 80s a builder named joe salami to build the Window project that's on the bluff at the corner of opacliff's drive and portola At that time gary griggs did a study that would allow that to be built and He talked about what was called the sluice box effect That the cliff didn't slough off from the bottom That the groundwater collected in the soil on the top and the cliff sloughed off from the top That was a study done in I think the mid 80s that gary griggs did Now to go on in the early I think it was in the early 90s perhaps late 80s, but I believe it's the early 90s There was an attempt to form an assessment special assessment district along grand avenue To provide drainage improvements up there and the city determined That was necessary because the overall expense for the city to In burden itself with that to burden itself with that Was only going to benefit a handful of property owners So the city determined at that time the way to get that done would be a special assessment district along grand avenue for just those Properties that face the bluff That election was held and it failed I think when two property owners voted against it and since that time It's kind of been been a distalmate. So that gives a little history and I would think That if the grand avenue residents went to the council, this is only my surmising now that if they attempted to Ask the city to pay for those drainage improvements, which mr. Jesper said would total well over a million dollars probably at this point in time I don't think the city would be willing to shoulder that burden and Apply it to the whole city since it only benefits a few property owners now I could be wrong. It's a different different era different time The coastal commission has a lot more power But you may want to consider a special assessment district up there again to solve the drainage problems Just my take on it. Okay, and any further comments. If not, uh, do we have a motion? So move move approval second All in favor. I I was none that passes. Thank you um, I'm gonna come back to uh Consent agenda 1,500 park avenues since uh commissioner christensen is not Here and what i'm gonna do on this. This is the new brighton state beach application I'm going to Not recuse myself, but i'm just gonna abstain from the vote So we'll have a quorum. Okay Okay, so that's a consent item. Do we have uh a motion? Move approval. Do you have a second? Oh wait Didn't we want to do Well, you wanted to either wanted to pull that one. You want to pull that? I wanted to pull it. Yes, okay Because I have one question This is the this is the new bar new brighton beach Maybe instead of pulling it from the consent agenda you can See if the staff can satisfy your question I've or they haven't they haven't asked them. I hadn't probably get to satisfy my question Okay, why don't we do capitol road for that people that are here? All right, then We'll go back to all right You want to do Three seven seven five capitol road. Yes, okay So this is uh, we're jumping around here and I apologize for that But this is uh item 4a under public hearings It's an application for a conditional use permit for a community assembly Use for a commercial structure located within the cr regional commercial zoning district This project is not located in the coastal zone and does not require A coastal development permit. This is the old takara building. I believe And staff report Good evening commissioners chair newman The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a church within an existing commercial space located at 37 75 Capitola road in the regional commercial zoning district The structure is one of the capitol mall properties, but separate from the primary mall facility the north of capitol road and the 38th avenue intersection The point Which is the applicant here is a religious organization within santa cruz county and is looking to establish a presence within capitol Community assembly uses are defined as facilities that provide space for public or private meetings or gatherings Such uses are permissible in the regional commercial zone with a conditional use permit Uh, the proposed four plan The applicant intends to remove the fixed seating currently in place and several of the interior walls to create a larger space The assembly area is proposed at 5,587 square feet the kitchen area shaded in gray to the left Will not be used by the applicant and is not included in the parking analysis When considering a conditional use permit application outside the coastal area in the new code The planning commission must consider the following characteristics of the proposed use A the operating characteristics The church proposes to operate daily from 8 a.m through 10 p.m Services to include typical church community events with saturday and sunday church services Midweek bible studies prayer events and family and youth events No external activities were proposed B availability of services The applicant is not proposing to enlarge the structure and adequate public services are already established at the site See potential impacts of the natural environment again, there are no Changes to the exterior of the building and there are no impacts to the natural environment The site is developed and the structure will not be enlarged The applicant is not proposing No change to the structure And lastly the physical suitability of the subject site There are no new impacts in terms of design location shape size or topography The one change that could influence the site is the impact of parking from the community assembly land use Typically community assembly uses without fixed seating require one space per 40 square feet However, the subject site shares parking with the capitol of mall When the mall expansion was proposed in 1986 an environmental impact report was prepared for the project Staff reviewed the environmental impact report with respect to the parking requirements and determined that there are currently 205 surplus spaces within the shared parking area The proposed use would only Only requires an additional 49 spaces which is met through that service surplus parking on the site With that Staff recommends the planning commission review and approve the conditional use permit based on conditions of approval and findings Questions for staff Okay, this is a public hearing is the applicant present Would you like to uh, you don't have to but you're welcome to address us Okay, that's Perfectly acceptable any members of the public wish to address this application Okay, bring it back. Go close the public hearing Bring it back to the commission comments for question Are you going to apply for a sign application or propose a sign at some other point? Yes And is the name going to be the point? Okay I was going to say I don't think you wanted to name it the same as the restaurant. Yeah, I knew you were going to say that Well, I notice you still have the food prep area in your plan Oppose approval second With the conditions as stated Fall in favor. Aye. Oppose none that carries with flying collars Okay Yeah, this is a guessing game. What do you think? Okay, let's do All quick. No, we'll find out. I've checked my emails and there's no update Yeah, so something I maybe should forgot that's happened before We do have the owner of 511 Escalona here as well, so So let's do 511 Escalona Staff report, please All right, so you've seen this project before Pretty much the same project the applicant is proposing to expand a second story living space above and attached Garage and convert a portion of the condition space within the garage into an internal accessory dwelling unit The application also includes a major revocable encroachment permit for an existing wall in the public right of way Little history on july 18th 2019 a design permit for a second story edition adu an encroachment permit sounds similar Was approved by the planning commission On january 2nd 2020 the applicant submitted updated plans Reflecting the new allowances to adu maximum unit size and parking requirements under the new state law governing adus Which we covered at the last meeting will delve into more tonight That went into effect on january 1st 2020 The new application is proposing to expand the adu from the one previously approved To include a portion of the garage that previously provided a covered parking space All other aspects of the july 18th 2019 approval remain unchanged The applicant chose to submit a new application because the previous approval included a condition of approval Requiring the applicant to record several deed restrictions related to the adu Including an owner occupancy requirement And a size restriction that are no longer required under state law Existing residents at 511 escalator drive is a non-conforming two-story single-family residents Which is surrounded by other one and two-story single-family homes The previously approved project included the conversion of 499 square feet of existing flurry inside the attached garage into an adu Shown here in red. It was limited to that because there was a maximum size of the time of 500 square feet The current proposal includes includes the conversion of 761 square feet Of existing flurry inside the garage shown here in red The project converts garage space that would have provided the fourth required parking space For the primary dwelling into an adu however under new state law when a garage is converted into an adu Local agency cannot require that those off-street spaces be replaced Therefore the covered parking space that is lost as a result of the project does not need to be replaced There are two minor exterior changes. There's a new window on the proposed north elevation Which is under the uh the suspended breezeway or suspended walkway And then there's a new window and door where the old garage door used to be On the east elevation I have to point out too the proposed adu meets the criteria under the limited standard section of the new state law So the application for the adu must be approved ministerially without any discretionary review However, due to the fact that the addition to the primary structure requires planning commission review Due to the second story addition the details of the adu have been included in this analysis As I mentioned the application also includes a major revocable encroachment permit for the Unpermitted improvements in the public right-of-way shown here on the site plan in blue New encroachments include an existing stucco wall along escalona drive and sacramona avenue that was built without the required permits So that staff recommends the planning mission approved project 20-0002 based on the condition of approval and findings Questions of staff So you've just uh modified our code to um be consistent with state code But you've put in a new parking requirement since we're in the coastal zone that does not affect this requirement Not until that's adopted Until you approve it because the city council they approve it. We send it off to hcd They have to sign off on it and we also need it to be certified by the coastal commission So until all of that happens we are functioning under the state law So right now this application is is treated just under what's in government code 6585 2.2 See and you looked at the second story and the windows are Appropriately located and all those other issues are yes I have those slides hidden here if you wanted to go back to it But we as we discussed back in july Those windows were raised up to the point where they could still provide egress, but could not be used as as a door um And at the time we also discussed that the uh flat roof going out on the front which looks like a deck Will be allowed to be a deck under our new code whenever that gets certified by the coastal commission So um, it was permitted to go into place with the parapet wall and the high windows Thank you I had a couple questions, which is why I We moved at one was i'm I know we're going to get into this when we get back to the new Code, but this is kind of the first application of it. I guess i'm dense I can't i'm having trouble following the parking situation here So before this project started there were three spaces Um before the project started technically there were only two Because of the lack of length. Let me get back to the So if you look behind the garage here, uh, there wasn't space for any uncovered parking They added those spaces on the right as part of this project. Um, so really prior to this There were only two spaces and they were both in the garage So the plans say existing No change three spaces two of which are covered That's on the proposed that's that says existing no change And then it says required three spaces one of which must be covered so Okay, when when we get to the public hearing I I do need help on that And what's going on with the parking here then the second thing is The the wall in the public right away As a result of the hearing the last time on prospect I I studied this a little bit further and I Chapter 12.56 of our code is not part of our zoning code. It's it's uh standalone So it's not being changed or anything and it appears maybe commissioner ruth remembers this in 1997 This uh, rather Comprehensive I was going okay. You he will not remember it in 1997 It looks like the city council decided to adopt a code group of provisions here to allow These kinds of encroachments when there's no real harm to the public and there's benefit To the applicants such as in this case you might argue but This one was built in 1997 if I read the staff report without permits So I wondered number one did trigger the ordinance because it's in both 1997 And two did it ever get legalized? Are we legalizing it? Weirdly, how come we didn't legalize it last time we passed this? Well, you did Yeah, so the last time this was included in the application and it was legalized so it was an um Existing it was a not it was not legal at that point and never gotten an encroachment permit So as part of the previous review The planning commission did approve this as part of their review. It's already done deal Well, it it was approved, but when you um When this application By bringing the application back in and amending it to get rid of the deed restrictions that were tied to the adu And take advantage of the new state law opens everything it opened it back up because it pretty much the The previous application once if this is approved is then null and void So could they could they pull the encroachment permit and do that separately at another time if they chose? They I mean if it were denied they could come back and amend it and do it separately. No if it were If they requested that it not be part of this particular application and then they make a separate application for it They could but we actually push them to bring it forward to make it legal during this application. Yeah, I mean So i'm i'm sort of having to rethink the Position I took at the last hearing that we shouldn't be converting public property and private use For just a few individuals because the city council has basically said that's what they want to do So i'm gonna i'm willing to go along with that At this point I had something else The encroachment Permit there. Oh, I know I didn't see I probably missed it. Do we have a condition about Do we have a condition about Having to pay To take down the encroachment if the city decides it wants to use That's in there conditions. Yep. It's part of the agreement. Okay. Good. All right public hearing Oh, would you like an answer on the parking? Yes I believe under the previous application. Um, we were allowed to count the adu towards the parking requirement Um, but under the state line now, we cannot count that towards the parking requirements So at 761 square feet that took it down to the next category. So it's just one covered two uncovered Did we well, she's gonna tell me do we lose any parking spaces? Let's open the public hearing and I'll let the applicant seems very anxious to address this issue Okay, come forth come We like to hear from you the tv audience wants to see Because you have three and that's all that's required is three Okay, I guess I can understand that but even if you needed for they would not replace that fourth one So if you if you convert a parking space That is a garage To an adu you have one less parking space and one greater living space and that's good Yeah, according to the state. Yes anything else you'd like to tell us I have a quick question the the photograph of the of the home Which showed the front yard with the weeds this tall. Is that a recent photograph? Okay, that doesn't look like your house now either No That house has had a lot of problems up there for a lot of years Okay, thank you Anyone else in the public want to address this if not I'll close the public hearing commissioners No comments Okay, you know a very taciturn commission. I would move approval second with all the conditions Okay, any further discussion all in favor? I Hey You got it All right, let's see what we mounts over here Uh update to zoning ordinance. Is that the last thing? No, it's park avenue. I have a question. Oh park avenue. Yes My lingering question. Yeah, so my issue is on the conditions of approval So conditions of approval two it talks about if active birds nests are found work will be redirected and noise levels Will not exceed ambient levels until the chicks have fledged the city capitol conceivably it can be in the middle of a project and And and and then you know have to stop their activity because of Because of the birds and I'm all for birds But I mean I would just wonder that you include the words like endangered species nests or I don't know I guess I'm curious to know where this This requirement came from With the birds nests The staff respond to that sure so in 2007 the original permit was approved with this condition and that's where it comes from You know within the tannery gulch and the conditions that are listed as they're certain Within the tannery gulch riparian corridor the following are required And I think you have some flexibility in that condition because it states Snags are standing dead trees having high value as nesting sites and shall not be removed unless in imminent danger of falling Removal shall be consistent with the application provisions of the capitol at tree cutting ordinance any such tree remove shall require replacement That's the only condition in the ordinance regarding Trees and nesting so if you'd like we could tailor that more towards this condition to I just worry about the expense associated with Finding a robin's nest or something seagulls. Yeah seagulls are crows Or you could change it now Shut down Wouldn't one might or you could change it to threaten during danger So so I would I would move then that we modify the conditions of approval to insert the word Would you call it in I said endangered threatened or threatened or endangered species between the word active and nests So if active Endangered or threatened species nests are found work will be redirected I think it's a can of worms so to speak but Because I mean these are all technical terms, but I'm okay with it I mean we'll let somebody else figure it out. I don't know that it's really a big issue It isn't a big issue probably, but I just you know, let me worry about I think it's a good point Little things can catch you every once in a while on your I'm supposed to be recused anyway I'd move approval as is With your amendment Second second. Yes, okay roll call please Commissioner Ruth. Hi. Commissioner Wilk. Hi chair Newman. I've seen okay. Thank you We have gotten to The only one left is only one left updates his owning ordinance. We've been trying to avoid it, but we have to do it So we have tonight with us Eric Phillips From our attorney's office and Eric one of the first trainings I was on Eric was leading for the american planning association With this subject matter. So we're in good hands and any questions you have also Matt is All right. Thank you director. Hello. Get seated here before I start Okay, so there are three proposed zoning code amendments within the current review The first amendment proposes updates to chapter 17.74 regulating accessory dwelling units or ad us To bring it into compliance with new state laws The second amendment is to remove the floor area ratio incentive for ad us from the single family r1 zone The third amendment proposes updates to chapter 17.80 regulating signs and incorporates non-commercial allowances based on recent court rulings So a little bit of background We're going to start with the zoning code amendment one, which is the new ad u ordinance on january 16th 2020 city staff presented the new state ad u regulations to the planning commission At that meeting the planning commission requested that city council provide general direction on the approach for the draft ordinance in terms of Either matching state law or making the regulations more permissive Then on january 23rd 2020 city council Received the staff report and provided direction to bring the code into compliance with state regulation And not to incorporate any regulations that are more permissive than the state So, uh, this is a long list from the staff report, but they're important because these are the significant most significant changes So the new state law identifies general requirements applicable to all ad us Expands permitted location of ad us to include any zoning district where single family or multifamily dwellings are allowed requires action on administrative ad u applications within 60 days incorporates two types of administrative review processes specific to ad u scenario Scenarios including units subject to limited standards and units subject to full review standards It allows cities to require discretionary review process only for ad us that do not comply with specific administrative scenarios to outline by the state On single family properties, it allows a junior ad u in conjunction with a detached ad u of specific circumstances are met On multifamily properties, it allows more than one ad u per parcel if specific circumstances are met It allows conversion replacement of existing structures with non-conforming setbacks and non-conforming building separation standards for ad us It modifies the development standard regulations as follows Removes minimum parcel size increases maximum unit size Reduces minimum setbacks to four feet side and rear and increases height To 16 feet for one story detached ad us It also modifies the parking requirements for detached ad us with specific characteristics It limits review to objective standards, which are measurable and quality quantitative and architectural standards Rather than subjective development standards such as compatibility It allows objective standards to minimize adverse impacts to historic properties consistent with the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties And it removes size attribute and owner occupancy deed restriction requirements for ad us except junior ad us However, there are several areas where the state law is silent. Therefore staff determinations and interpretations were necessary to create the draft ordinance The first one of those is that the state law does not provide prescriptive guidance on attached or two-story ad us In order to create the a process for review and approval of these types of ad us staff incorporated the content and intent Of the new state law with the approval process under the city's previous ad u ordinance Second state law allows local agencies to apply objective review standards to some ad us Staff has included several standards in the objective design standards section including entrance orientation Privacy impacts second-story decks and balconies architectural details and building additions to historic structures These standards are not required by state law and can be modified or removed at the direction of the planning commission Staff is also requesting planning commission guidance on several optional items The first one is separate sale of ad us This is allowed under state law for certain units such as ones built by nonprofit organizations But staff did not include this in the draft ordinance based on the feedback from city council The draft ordinance also includes a deed restriction for all ad us prohibiting separate sale of ad u from the primary dwelling Number two is vacation rentals This is required for limited standards ad us only under state law But staff has expanded this and included a prohibition of short-term vacation rentals for all ad us in the draft ordinance And there's also a deed restriction for all ad us prohibiting short-term rentals as well the third optional item Probably the stickiest of the bunch here is how the city treats parking requirements in the coastal zone At the very end of the government code section. There's Subsection l which specifies that the new state law shall not be construed to supersede or in any way lesson Alter or lesson the effect or application of the california coastal act of 1976 It has been determined that this gives the city the ability to maximize protection of coastal resources consistent with the city's local coastal program And the california coastal act Staff has used this allowance to include in the draft ordinance specific standards within the coastal zone Which deviate from the parking standards in other areas of the city Those standards are that one on-site parking spaces space is required for all ad us within the coastal zone And converted garages must provide replacement parking However, staff has also included two additional options for the planning commission to consider So just to give you a visual. This is option one The whole coastal zone outlined in black And it would require parking for all ad us within this zone Option two would be to require parking in specific neighborhoods located in the coastal zone This is just an example Shown here that includes existing areas with impacted street parking that we know about As well as multifamily parcels that now have the potential to create significant parking impacts on adjacent streets And then a third option would be to require parking for properties located within a specific distance of the coast So this example shows just 1200 feet from the coast what that would be do we know where the coastal commission is on this issue? No, I do know that the county um has Put in parking requirements for certain neighborhoods Such as pleasure point where there's a park parking issue and vacation rentals and So at this point The coastal commission hasn't issued any formal guidance Since the the 2020 laws became effective what was adopted in 2019 Um, there were also a round of ad u changes in 2017 and the coastal commission issued a technical bulletin at that point directing um All agencies to make sure that the ad u ordinances that they were adopting were consistent with their lcps so By extension, I mean the the coastal commission wants you to Look at and consider Compliance with the lcp and connection with the local standards that you adopt And that's that's required to comply with the coastal act. Hey, so this is going to perpetuate a uh difference between coastal zone and on coastal zone capitol for sure Yeah In in the just if I made one additional thought on that is in the future The lcp could be amended if you wanted to harmonize the two Assuming that that was something that the city was interested in and the coastal commission would accept but Um to comply with the the lcp as it is now one of these options is recommended So the rationale for changing the parking would be to say that well the Public needs access to the coast they need parking If we fill up all the parking with a with local residents and ad us that limits the parking for the public therefore We need to have a parking restriction to basically open up parking for visitors That that's the notion. That's correct. So if if we were to allow All the any ad that comes in to take place in a garage and displace the on-site parking As it is today and then they they're not required to Replace that parking on site there will be an impact to the streets and Many of our neighborhoods in the coastal zone are already very challenged by on-street parking Currently, so I think the there's a clear nexus between if we start pushing Densifying and having the parking be forced onto the street. There will be impacts to coastal access Well, there's a clear conflict between the two policies Which are both seem very Good policies statewide policies and they just are completely In conflict one says Don't require parking for more housing. The other one says Keeps the parking available for visitors But only in the coast. Yeah, yeah, only in the coast. That's half our city And then a coastal commission will probably prevail And that matt has another a couple more slides that introduce another problem that if we I think the coastal commission's lawyers have been had more cases So those were the three options, but do you want to go into the Yeah, so that's that's up next So basically just in choosing which approach you want to do the planning measures should evaluate which option is most aligned with The lcp and the coastal act Which was already discussed So considering the requirement for on-site parking there's also an aesthetic impact to consider Within state law parking for ad use is allowed within the front side and rear setbacks In capital is neighborhoods with compact lots such as the jewelbox and river view neighborhoods New parking spaces within the front yard will be allowed and landscaping displaced To mitigate the impacts of parking in the front yard the draft ordinance requires parking spaces in The front yard area for ad use to be limited to two parallel strips of pavement No wider than two and a half feet each that utilize permeable paving and have landscaped areas in between the strips As shown in this example here Matt and that kind of situation. Can you have a second curb? I'm going to defer it. Yeah We're concerned about the second curb cut because then again you take away another another street parking space. So We haven't specified in the code Whether or not but our our current regulations state that There's a maximum width for a driveway cut and you can't have a second curb cut Currently without bringing it forward to planning commission for an exception So I think that would still hold that we would just have to The impact, you know, it would be wider because someone's going to have to pack Park parallel on their front yard if we don't allow a second curb cut So the the hollywood parking You've showed it there. There's a there's looks like there's a setback from the house. Is that is that something that we can Like a 15 foot setback. Is there any requirement for this would all fall within the 15 foot setback I mean, I don't see why we couldn't specify a distance from the house, but We have to allow it within the front yard setback Yeah, so there's there's limitations on the On the the physical constraints that the city can impose on edu's under the state law So again, it's it's the balancing between Trying to thread the needle by being As as permissive as required by the the Section of the government code about edu's while still Respecting the mandates of the coastal act. So they're trying to To thread that needle here So we don't have We're not imposing any front yard requirements then It just just happens to look that way on the picture Well, I mean we're requiring the two strips So what you see here is what we're requiring and not necessarily not placement within the yard But in the front yard, they can add two strips as shown here. I mean they could be Be right up against the house almost Okay, but typically if we had an application like this, we would they'd be asking for an exception To the the parking requirement because we have that maximum width standard And we've approved those in the past and required the hollywood design with the two strips, but Under this new edu ordinance, it's by right But you know, we could never say you can't have that in the front yard and we're not going to allow an exception It's if it's placed in the front yard and they comply with everything It's a ministerial approval. It doesn't go in front of planning commission What happens in the situation as I read this you could basically put three units on a single family property With the junior. Yeah with the juniors. What happens to the parking in that kind of situation? I know specifically there's no parking required for juniors So I don't think we could Well again with the you have slightly you have to In the if it's in the coastal zone, you have a slightly more discretion And need to to take action that's consistent with the coastal plan the Though the junior actually, I'll double check right now if the junior edu statute has the same Carve out for compliance with the coastal act that the full edu statute does So that the edu statute specifically says that None of its special provisions keep the coastal act from applying We'll confirm if that's also in the j adu section But the default is that there's no parking provided for j adus and very limited parking for the adus And outside of the coastal zone. We don't have any discretion over those So the the only time you can really create that Triplex is if you have a detached adu and then a junior adu in the home And if you recall at our last meeting map brought up a map that showed all of capitolah In the areas where we could regulate parking and the only area that wasn't within is at a quarter or a half mile of a bus stop A half mile of a bus stop was clifwood heights neighborhood because a couple bus stops have been removed recently that have been operating So In that scenario the only place where you could require parking would be in clifwood heights Because every other an internal adu is exempt from onsite parking The detached is the only one we can regulate under the standards So even in the coastal zone So in the no so in the coastal zone we have that ability So that's just if if we didn't have stricter standards for the coastal zone Well, so I mean, I don't need to jump ahead here. I have you hadn't finished that It's okay. There's just a little bit more you want to finish and then come back. I'm gonna forget what I was gonna say I mean, I think I haven't really thought about it in this way in terms of coastal zone versus non-coastal zone, but the parking pressure in capitol is Great everywhere, but it's especially great in the coastal zone and I think as much as possible We should have the coastal act trump The new adu act as far as exempting parking Is as much as we can do that and which I think is probably a lot given that that provision that says the coastal zone trumps So just one new section add none of this applies in the coastal zone Okay Also, since the agenda packet went out staff received clarification on how the guaranteed allowance under the new state law is to be applied I don't remember this from last meeting with this is the 800 square feet 16 feet or less four feet setbacks have to approve The 800 square foot allowance is applied to both existing and proposed single family dwellings with accessory dwelling units Including projects on vacant lots with new single family dwellings and adus and projects with additions to existing structures and adus In order to clarify this staff added a sentence to the section stating that the guaranteed allowance of 800 square feet of floria Is in addition to the maximum floria of a property I will give examples of this on the next slide, but this one had a few other little changes as well The language and subsection h of the draft ordinance was modified to impose a maximum floria of 800 square feet And a maximum height of 16 feet The original language that was in here was from the government code section that established the lower limit of what local agencies Could prohibit in terms of floria and height and so we just went with that lower limit as our maximum Is there a minimum size? Uh, it can't be you can't impose a minimum of less than 150 square feet because that's the minimum efficiency unit size But we don't have one in our code. This just blows a hole in our uh floria ratio ordinance I mean you don't have to rent out your adu So now instead of building a 1750 square foot house you can build a 2550 square foot house On the same lot And if you want to rent it out at some time you can but nobody's making you In you have the ability kitchen amenities and things like that Hot plate in a in a bathroom. Yeah, the requirements are pretty low. It's just uh, you know bathing Uh cooking and sleeping. I mean that's basically we have to go back now and ratchet back all our floria ratios And There's there's other state laws that limit the ability Again, there's different rules in the coastal zone But outside of the outside of the coastal zone reductions and residential capacity are limited under sb 330 All right, so here's the two examples I was referring to here. Um, just to illustrate what I said in the last paragraph And if it wasn't clear, um example one here is the vacant 4004,000 square foot lot the maximum floria of 2160 square feet and the applicant in this case can build a 2160 square foot primary residence and an 800 square foot adu That's on the left there Uh, and then for example, too, it's the same 4,000 square foot lot with the same maximum floria of 2160 square feet Uh, this one has an existing 1600 square foot residence They can apply for an addition of 560 square feet to get to the 2160 and the 800 Uh 800 square foot new adu as well together Can they add an additional 800 square feet if it's a junior adu? No, that needs to be in time. It has to stay within the zoning code then that would have to be within the 2160 basically These are really good questions because yeah, they bring up my major point here, which is that we spent I don't know how many years on a general plan in a new zoning code and one of the Uh, tenets of that was, uh Simplicity clarity so the public can understand what's going on user friendly This just completely blows that away There's no way anybody can figure out what they can do without going Down to and then even then you're going to get a verbal and they're going to misunderstand it and It's it's not your fault And maybe it's not even the people in the state's fault that this is just in the nature of the thing But it just is completely out in the wrong direction in terms of Readability and understandability I'm a lawyer and I only got about 15 percent of it And and you know, we're filling two to three increase a day a lot of weeks on this and you know We've been telling them what our understanding our evolving understanding has been so You know the the more it changes it it's hard because people come back and say well, you told me two weeks ago acts and You know so kind of begs the question We this parking thing is I'm going to call it a loophole that we we've found because it's the coastal commission Uh gives us the opportunity and uh, is there any other? Opportunities throw it out Yeah, and say well You know the second stories are unacceptable because of viewshed or I don't know is anybody looked at that Is anybody any other city look finding loopholes that's in the coastal zone I've been brainstorming it thoroughly and mad has to I think this is the one that there is actually a connection to When you talk about parking and the impacts to the public street Otherwise, um, we don't protect protect. We protect public viewsheds. So on a private property Who has a right to develop we really? It'd be We've never applied the standard that way and it wouldn't be consistent But I think a coastal town like ours is not really the paradigm when the legislature Moved in this direction It's a lot easier and just sort of a suburban, uh City And it works great in some areas of our own county, you know, but yeah, this little capitol How do you want to go about this? Uh, this is going to go to the city council, obviously So if you're looking for input from us and we have city attorney here can answer questions So we determine an option, right? Well, there's still more by the way. So oh, there's more We're still in the first amendment right now. We haven't gotten to the second third, but they're very short. So I read those examples already I know we started with the most fun one. Maybe we should have started with some Yeah All right, so this one's just a cleanup item. Um staff is proposing two other changes Here's the first one striking and requirements from this section Um, this change is necessary because the accessory dwelling unit is not subject to the same requirements as separate construction It's just subject to the same review procedure So we're cutting that out And then this one, um, it just had the incorrect section noted. So I changed this from an h to a g to an h so, okay So there's no arkansas requirements at all for adu. No most don't even have a public hearing if they're under the limited standards or full standards only deviations and two stories So it may be good Matt to stop here and just to get a recommendation on this chapter Before we move forward with the removal of the far from the r1 zone You mean do we want to move ahead with it or what are our options? Well, we definitely would like some direction on the mapping and if it should apply to the whole coastal zone Or the the parking so if you could go back I think Arrow application is possible. Okay. Well, let's explore that a little bit. Why why did you provide three options? I mean, what was your rationale for the other two options? I Is there a good rationale for the other two options? So can you go back to the map the map that we drew the boundaries? so Yeah, this one so from my perspective I honestly think if you were going to draw a boundary and not include certain neighborhoods the one neighborhood that Possibly has enough on-street parking and large lots would be the cliffwood heights neighborhood Otherwise the area actually I think after we we just put this on here as an example but without Going through but north of capitol a road in the avenues is overwhelmed by parking. There's four plexus up and down those streets There's also dense pds of multifamily multifamily There's exceptions in the state law in which you can get increased density within multifamily to replace carports. There are a lot of so that's an area that's already challenged by parking and From gales in the area behind at pine street. They're really challenged by on-street parking There's a huge parking issues there because of multifamily that exists in that area as well So if you were to go with an option to our recommendation I think would be just, you know, maybe carve out Cliffwood heights if you didn't want to require on-site parking because most of cliffwood heights has four on-site parking spaces They're larger lots So that means they have more street frontage for more parking in front But that's the only reasonable option I see within the coastal zone that could That has the ability to provide on-street parking. So the so let me see if I understand that so In the cliffwood heights area you're saying well, that's more of a standard residential Neighborhood and if we require the additional parking Then they would go ahead and do the hollywood ribbon parking in the front yard And but if we didn't Then they would maintain their existing yards and because there's available street parking So in terms of beautification of capitola, perhaps that might be more Advantages because we'd be able to preserve more front yards. Correct. Yeah But that's a good theory I I mean, I hate to make it more complicated, but I think that makes a lot of sense Be carving out that one area. What about the other? Oh Isn't that uh, the other area in the coastal zone? This was the 1200 foot coastal buffer. This is the one that k And I just did this morning as examples of what we were thinking in terms of areas We knew were impacted and multi-family things like that. What's the other one? This is just the whole coastal zone. Yeah, so there's that that area on the left side at the top that in option two Would the avenues the avenues Yeah, don't you think that they Have are impacted by parking. I think they are So maybe just cliffwood height. We need option four. Yeah, maybe just cliffwood heights if you'd like That same theory that you mentioned doesn't really apply in the avenues Okay wonder Commissioner looks through the Having it not included would mean you'd get those ribbon front yard parking if you didn't have if you had This option then they wouldn't need to do the front yard parking. So I think What you're saying actually supports this one not carving it out. Well So within the coastal zone, we would require the on-site parking. So then we'd have we'd end up with more So if we carve it out then They would park on the street and they wouldn't have to provide on-site parking In that one neighborhood Just cliffwood And there's one area of I don't know if it's technically cliffwood heights, but you'll see the yellow. It's um high density Or it's like low density along park avenue where there's quite a few duplexes and I would suggest keeping that out of it because There's you know, right when you take a left up kennedy Yeah, I'm park. There's if you take that first, right? There's mcqueen ones Those four plexes capitol shores Matt can you point to it with your pointer? Unfortunately, I can't in the way Before you get to capitol annals, it's between the high density So we wouldn't include obviously the high density apartments and then that little connection between So really what we're looking for is for you to to have an option for where you go back with your pencil and you draw The residential neighborhoods that are appropriate that have fairly large lots and Big, you know front yards and their standard and and not include the duplex areas and You know without carving around every individual house, but you know Isn't that what you're yeah simplicity. Yeah, just the cliffwood heights neighborhoods that are not already multifamily Is the long horizontal line there on the left is that capitol a road? Yes, yeah, so your house The whole joe box Yeah, all the all the major neighborhoods single family neighborhoods Okay, um, so what's what's the rationale for the just the buffer Option whatever that was just if you wanted to pick the a certain area from the coast In which people would typically walk to you know park and walk to the beach with the argument therapy That's an easier sell to the coastal commission possibly Yeah, you just wanted to give us a menu just a menu You know that's the way things work, okay, I have a minor Uh Potential change to 17.7 4.0 30 A1 It says accept when a design permit is specifically required I thought we should add by this chapter. So because when I read that I said, where do I start hunting? Yeah Okay, that's acceptable And then uh, okay ready for more Not yet. You got it. Yep 17.7 4.0 3.0 a 2 B D B small b. Okay, and then Uh D big D And maybe this isn't the time to do that. You might want to look at it I just couldn't put those two and they look like they overlap and uh, it's very confusing to me those two provisions So this is permitting process. Yeah, and when consistent with the standards I get the part about postponing it when it's a new a new application, but other than that So that was similar to the application we saw tonight. Yeah And then D when dependent on separate construction when a proposed attach or detach accessory joint Maybe you could look at those because I just uh, You know, I I didn't spend uh Oh this this is so, um The single family home is built and not just the adu It's requiring Well, I can I don't want to take up a valuable time everyone's time here. I can if you want I can address that Later, but I'm just I'm just saying that I found it very Obtuse you raised a question this what what does dependent upon the construction of a new building mean? So you're under the state law. You're not allowed to build an adu unless it's in conjunction With the single family home Or multi family or a multi family. So Um, when it so therefore it's dependent on separate construction It's so if it's a vacant lot and they're going to build an adu This is just um So new building refers to the adu and not the single family home that's already there or being built There's a specific section in the in the state law that Elaborates on so most of them are 60 day approvals and then there's this big exception carved out for when it's paired with the new single family dwelling Um, and that's that's what this is reflecting And I think that then the comment is too that it it's also addressed in Lower case b. They both uh, yeah, that's my point. Yeah. Yeah, let's get those uh together in some way Okay, my next one is vacation rentals prohibited so I among the game changers that this ordinance is going to create I think the Um vacation rentals of adu's It's I mean, I I've already heard of situations where people are What's the name of that? site that you rent here Airbnb. Yeah, they're doing Airbnb on their apartments in big apartment buildings They bring an apartment and then they're doing there. So what I and I mentioned this to katie that I don't know how our enforcement is going but I Think it might be a good idea to really get involved with this site that there's a company that really does Does the enforcement for cities? They think it's a private private enterprise and they follow these things through and I think it would more than pay for itself because I'm sure they get lots of tot that way And they follow them all because they follow all the ads and they So can we look into that? We can. Yeah. Yes. We can. And what did we do? Um, so what what did occur there is we had hired When we are recently to review our finances and tax that are That sorry um We had hired a group that we thought was going to go beyond just looking at tax revenues and they're looking at vacation rentals and our tot And we thought that a component of that was actually helping us with the code enforcement but only to find out later that um, they're not that They're calculating that revenue. They're not doing the code enforcement part of that. So that's something we can revisit and Talk with that. You know, we could actually put out an rfp I am planning um to bring on another intern into the department in the past. We've had our interns work on our Code enforcement, but it Yeah, I mean, I just I know you are familiar with the site and for the benefit of uh, those encampments It was very impressive to me when I I read an article where there was a there were a lot of illusions to this site that uh, chase us down people doing vacation rentals And it seems like it could very well be a better solution than Having an because we we went after we started this up at one point and you know, it kind of faded away and If we hired this other company that might not happen Yeah, I'll take another look. What was the name of the site? It's code. Um, You know the strange name you you'll find. Yeah. Okay So I've got a question about the Parking again going back. I was just thinking of scenarios So and if we have this coastal zone excluding clipwood heights And they want to build an adu and we say Uh, well, you have to provide on you have to provide parking and they can't Would we then offer them an in lieu kind of a thing? So currently our we would have to amend our in lieu policy currently we have an in lieu program that's Just for large hotels and possibly a small hotel So it wouldn't be applicable But that's something we could look at in the future if the city wanted to create say a parking garage And allow residents to fulfill their parking requirement through paying an in lieu. That's something we could consider I'm just anticipating an applicant coming in and saying well, I you know I'm allowed to have this adu and you're telling me I can't because I can't provide parking and say that that's not the spirit of this state law And so I was just wondering if we would then say well We've got this in lieu activity. Although it seems to me there was something in there that said we're not allowed to have other kind of charges or That that would be frowned upon There's specific fee limitations Depending on the size of an adu an adu That is 750 square feet or smaller is exempt from impact fees Larger ones have to be charged proportional impact fees based on their size relative to the primary dwelling unit in The in in lieu concept is is a little bit different, but as director Hurley was saying that we would want The city would would need to have A use for that money if it was going to take funds in lieu of providing the parking would have to have a use for those funds to Allocate that money for to address the parking issue so that It wasn't just a cash grab We But that that is something that that the city can explore and we can we can look into There's really a long checker history of in lieu Ordinances in capitol at least 40 years And we've had them and not had them and the money's gone where it's supposed to go and it's gone where it's not supposed to go And at this point, I mean, I don't think we can do a piecemeal The city council has to decide if they really want to get into the in lieu business And then they need to do another section of our Ordinance and figure it all out So our response into that applicant would be if you can't provide the onsite parking then you can't put on the adu Yeah, yeah Which has been our response historically and and even some of those people who we've Given that reply to have been in since january 1st. Well now I can do what I want to do But if we impose this coastal zone, I think we're gonna be back to the previous response So But they the response also includes well, you can now park your car in the front yard Right. So if they have a front yard, they do have a solution for parking Um, unfortunately, you know for aesthetics I mean Something's got to give and cars in the front yard. It might be the most benign Of the options boy Anyway, um, yeah, it's up on blocks. Yeah. Yeah, right and oil leaking on the street So on the deed restriction thing So that is one of the bizarre sections of the law in my opinion because we have something called the sub divided lands law It says you can't sell parcels until they are legal parcels And I don't know what whoever wrote this state statute was thinking If they're planning to overturn that Law that has been in violent for 50 years No 70 something so 40 some years But I as far as we're concerned My answer is no You know no separate sale period of an ad you on a parcel that's Somebody else owns And Into clarifying. I think this was part of the presentation as well that that provision is Yeah, it's an optional provision. It was it was a permissive As he said it's an exception to the subdivision map act and it's a pretty in some ways. It's a narrow exception. It has the ad you has to be built by That qualifying nonprofit organization. They have to have deed restrictions to ensure the affordability it's um Several several specific boxes have to be checked in order to qualify for that map act exemption, but you're exactly right It's yeah, I said the subject lands law. It's the map acts But yeah, same the same principle that we yeah that we're working with Okay, we should get some clear direction on which approach to take it sounded like There was discussion focused on maybe making an exception to cliffwood heights Except for the multifamily in the parking for the parking. So how did we land on that? I think we landed on option four, which was to exclude cliffwood heights Yeah, I think your theory has some merit to it or protects the front yard Yeah, it's one area where that applies We need to have a motion or is this just recommendations? That's going to be in the recommendation. Yeah Have a great minute taker Did you need any other guidance? No, if they're fine with the other things that we proposed. Is there anything we didn't cover? I know we've been jumping around just this is a jumping around night No, no, I mean, I believe as long as you're okay with um, the staff assumptions interpretations that I listed and the Optional items it sounds like you support the no separate sale And you don't have problems And vacation rentals Okay, all right Okay, that takes us to It's actually related. It's the Removing the reference to the floor ratio bonus that we currently have for lots with the ad us in chapter 17 15 and 17 16 So this is the r1 single family section of the Old code and new code as we refer to them, but the one inside and outside the coastal zone currently Since we were doing away with this 60 bonus in our new chapter 17.74 We wanted to completely eliminate it. So there weren't any confusing references in the single family. Is this a cleanup? This is a cleanup. Yes So that's two And then in summary just for the ad you were already covered this earlier But once you recommend make a recommendation goes to city council After city council approves it we send it to the california department of housing community development They have a couple options. They can either submit written findings regarding our compliance with the government code Or they can find that we are inconsistent with that and then we can either amend the ordinance or Adopt the ordinance without changes, but include findings explaining How we think we do in fact comply And then as I said earlier too after that it also needs coastal commission certification before it can be put into law So then the third one is the update to the sign chapter The city attorney has recommended several changes to the regulations for signs based on court rulings regarding freedom of speech and content Those changes include adding language allowing non-commercial content wherever commercial content is allowed Adding definitions for commercial message commercial sign and election period Adding a section allowing small temporary non-commercial signs on residential property And adding message neutrality message substitution Prohibited sign content other government installed signs and signs in the coastal zone sections to chapter 17.80 Did you want to discuss any of those? So you're going to propose you're going to come up with some verbiage and then Come back to us. It's already in there. It was attached to the staff report. Um, we can Somehow I think there's a long story behind this all these terms and Cases and so forth, but I don't know if we That's a good use of our time or not I mean Just go with the city attorney's recommendation who studied this These are all mandated, right basically. Yeah, and this is this is an area that is again where discretion is highly limited because of Here it's specific court cases rather than the legislature, but um the all the way up to the supreme court and that It's defined pretty clearly. What is and is not in balance at this point. Are you um able to enlighten me on The moving signs on the street corner And why that's a first amendment protected activity Spinners. Yes spinners. Yeah, they have to keep moving if you ever see him stopped call police Um, I would I'm not prepared to actually to get into that tonight I'd have to I'd have to look into it a little bit more to give you a and Cohere in answer Thank you. I'd mean to put you on the spot. No problem Okay, anything further. Are we gonna go with the city attorney's, uh, work product here Okay, so that's good. All right, so that's That's it for this item. Thank you. Good job. Thanks Uh anything further? We will need a motion with recommendation Okay, so all three I'll look for a motion to, um Recommend the city council Enact the ordinance with the changes that we have recommended I'll move to that. Okay for a second. All in favor. All right. Hi Thank you for creating that motion Director's report Director's report. Well, great news was received today We did receive our sp2 grant approval So I had gotten preliminary information that it was being pushed to the next step But we've gotten the approval. So we will be moving forward with more objective standards in our code That's one area that when housing applications come in that need to be looked at through new Regulations at the laws of the state level by having stronger objective standards will have more design criteria in place That can be measured And reviewed so we're going to Tighten our ordinance that way just as we're just as we're finishing up the zoning code We're going to be just come coming at it from a different angle so And then also pre-approved ad use is part of that So some of the funding will be utilized to design ad use that would actually fit within our standard lots and we're going to be Brainstorming through this so probably at the next meeting I'll be asking if there's a volunteer planning commissioner That'd like to get involved in this process. We could have up to two But to start brainstorming how we're going to approach this and Start moving forward with a pre-approved ad you will probably have up to Maybe four designs with the money that we received. So I've seen them advertised online now Really? Yeah, yeah, so um again, I Lobbying in favor of trying to keep it as user-friendly as possible as we keep adding complexity I know that's not easy easier said than them Okay, any other directors I have one quick one. What's the status on now? It's the tap room over here It was red tagged today we Red tagged it about a month or two ago because they were putting papers in and The whole front yard is prepped again In violation of the c up. There was a limited area for access to the trash And so we'll be we're trying to meet with the owner and the contractor tomorrow, but they're Unavailable, so I think we'll be meeting with them monday, but that's going to be pulled out Before they're able to proceed with any more work. So Hey, that didn't seem to stop them No, this is getting expensive Unbelievable. Yeah, okay commission communications any others? No Okay, and we will adjourn to our meeting in march Yes Like march 6th March 5th, yes You know how I do that Oh, I know February has 28 days Oh We've got a leap here Sorry