 Good morning. Thank you for joining us for today's Planning Commission hearing. Today's date is May 26, 2021, and the time is 930. Today's hearing is completely remote, and we are using a Zoom video conferencing meeting platform. So for you at home who are viewing this hearing or who may wish to participate in this hearing and wanted to take a moment to explain the technological pieces of the remote hearing. To participate in the hearing, you may connect with us via the Zoom link which is posted on the Planning Department's homepage at sccoplanning.com. Alternatively, you may participate in today's meeting by phone. Please dial 1-669-900-6833. When prompted, enter collaboration code number 838-5615-3839. If you wish to simply view today's hearing, it is being broadcast live on television. For more information, please visit the community television website. A couple of instructions about participating in today's meeting. For each agenda's public hearing item, time will be provided for speakers to contribute their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either remotely raise their hand by selecting the hand icon on the Zoom link, or if calling in by telephone by raising your hand remotely by pressing star nine on your telephone. I will call on participants by either your name or the last four digits of your telephone number. If you are participating via the Zoom link, when I call on you to speak, you'll see a pop-up on your screen that says to unmute. Please accept the pop-up, state your name for the record, and provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone, you must unmute yourself by pressing star six on your telephone. Members of the public will be provided three minutes to speak. I wanted to ask that everyone keep yourself muted until called on to speak. If you have difficulty connecting to today's meeting via the link or by calling in, please email me at jocelyn drake at Santa Cruz County US. So that's jocelyn j-o-c-e-l-y-n dot drake d-r-a-k-e at Santa Cruz County all one word that US. I'll be checking my email periodically throughout the meeting to ensure that we can connect you. Okay, so it looks like we're situated. I will now turn the planning commission meeting over to the planning commission chair Judith Lazenby. Good morning, Judith. Good morning, and good morning to all and welcome to this May 26 2021 virtual meeting of the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission. The time is now 933, and I will call the meeting to order. May we have a roll call please. Yes, Commissioner Gordon. Yeah. Commissioner shepherd. Here. Commissioner Schaefer Freitas. Here. Commissioner Dan. Sure. And Chair Lazenby. Here. Are there any additions or corrections to today's agenda? No, there are not. Are there any declarations of X party communications from any of the commissioners? I had several conversations with residents of the Rio del Mar area. Regarding the issue. Thank you. Anyone else? I have had several conversations as well. Your audio is a little bit difficult to understand. Thank you. Could you repeat what you had said? Yeah. Can you hear me better now? Oh, much. Great. Thank you. So I just had said that. I have had conversations with many members of the public on this item as well. Thank you. Any other commissioner. I have had no communicates party communications. At this point in the agenda and in the meeting, the planning commission will hear brief. Two minute only statements from members of the public who want to speak on issues of concern that are not on today's agenda. Okay. All right. So I'm seeing a hand raised by Jen. Good morning, Jen. Will you please state your name for the record in case I have misstated it? You have two minutes. I'm Jen Levini. I am a lawyer in the community and an author of. The best selling book about tiny home laws in the United States. And I am wanted to comment on the planning commissions. Removal of the tiny home on wheels. As part of the ADU ordinance. As part of the micropayments that were submitted to the county supervisors after the county supervisors voted unanimously to allow tiny homes on wheels. As residential units to solve the housing crisis has required by the state of California. Instead of following the mandates of the state of California and this County supervisors, you opted to indefinitely continue. There's already been multiple public hearings on this topic. Thousands of people support this across the county and hundreds of thousands have been watching Santa Cruz as an example across the United States. Similar ordinances are already passed in the county of San Diego, the county of Santa Clara, the city of Los Angeles, the city of San Jose, the city of San Luis Obispo, Humboldt County, Fresno County, and hundreds more ordinances all the way across the United States. There's no need for this commission to reinvent the wheel. A model ordinance was already written and delivered to the planning department. And this was Santa Cruz's county's opportunity to put a stamp on what we wanted this ordinance to look like in our county. And instead I feel like the position you made to do nothing was just cowardly. And there was no reason for that decision to be made. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay, are there any other members of the public who should speak on an item not on today's agenda. Okay, I'm seeing a hand raised by Tim Richards. Good morning please restate your name for the record you have two minutes. Hi, my name is Tim Richards. I'm a local small business owner, I run the philosopher stone ground up butters. We held two commercial leases in the sash mill, actually three. We've been in Santa Cruz operating our business since 2015. And my family and I have a one year old daughter, and we've been homeless since last November. And that's one of the reasons for that. But the important thing is we need to create affordable housing for ourselves. And so we want to echo what Jenny is saying about the need to create tiny home on wheels as a housing option for people in our community. We cannot find any rental housing stock that is affordable for one thing. And for another thing, mold is a major problem in our housing stock in our community. And so we actually need to be able to create new construction that is built on our own with mold hardy building techniques so that we can avoid living in toxic mold but for ourselves and our one year old daughter. So I just want to strongly advocate that you reconsider your decision and put tiny homes on wheels back on the agenda, make it part of the ADU ordinance legalize it not only as ADUs but also as standalone units on land. And in addition to that, we love hearing that you guys are considering tiny home villages as well. So we definitely want to see you guys legalize tiny home on wheels to the full extent of the law be a model for our state and our nation. And we really like the direction that you were going in the last couple of public hearings and it felt like it was going in a good direction now it feels a little bit like we're retrograding so. Thank you for considering the needs of our family and many of our community that are severely lacking affordable housing. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other members of the public who is to speak on an item or topic that is not on today's agenda and if so, please raise your hand by pressing star nine on your telephone or using the hand icon on the zoom link. Thank you for being one additional hand at this time being raised by a caller by the name of Anna. Good morning, please state your name for the record you have two minutes. I'm calling into second what the last two collars talked about I also have two children and have really struggled to find housing that is affordable because I'm often told, there's too many of us for the space. It would be really helpful. One, to be able to build equity and be able to have my own little home that I'm not paying exorbitant amount of rents to live in and also, there's just a lot of ways that tiny homes on wheels would greatly enhance my children's future so I'm basically just expecting what the last two collars said. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, are there any additional comments at this time. Okay I'm seeing a hand raised by Jeff right now. Good morning, please state your name for the record again you have two minutes. Hello, my name is Jeff right now or I'm a recently relocated to back to Santa Cruz I've been living for about a year and a half. Years ago, and had to move closer to the Bay area for a job and with pandemic managed to keep the job and now I'm a remote worker, and I've just recently moved back in to Santa Cruz County because it's a great great area to live and but also one of the biggest reasons was was the friendly position of of the county towards tiny houses on wheels and it feels like it's the only way that I'm going to be able to, you know, build equity and and and be able to not just be a renter hand of hand about subsistence housing. And, you know, I also concur the other speakers that I think this is a very positive thing to look and I hope that you will reconsider. Adding that to the ADU ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to jump in really quickly and just state. Just make a comment on the tiny home issue, which is the planning commission at their hearing. Where they considered the tiny homes decoupled the tiny homes from the discussion around ADU so they're, they're on separate tracks right now, I'm going to the planning commission they are not. They're not dismissing the time they did not dismiss the tiny home amendments or, you know, disregard them in any way they're just on a separate track so that we can get the ADU ordinance amendments through first to comply with state law so that will be agendized for future meeting on that topic of tiny homes I just wanted to make that clear and I'm sure Daisy when she gives her presentation can provide more information I just wanted to see that the record. Okay. Can I just add to that. Yes, is this. Thank you it's Rachel. Thank you, Jocelyn I just wanted to appreciate that explanation and to reiterate that the reason why the commission bifurcated the issues was that because there are some very particular land use issues associated with tiny homes that aren't associated with standalone homes and we also had some direction from the state HCD with regard to ad use that we needed to take action on. So we have not eliminated considering tiny homes. It's just on a separate track because of the particular issues associated with tiny homes. Thank you. Okay, sorry I just wanted to get that out there okay so let's see I'm back to the list of callers. Are there any additional callers or participants today who was just speak on an item, not on today's agenda. I'm going to take one more look here at our list. And seeing an old hand by 10 I think we spoke with her from time already. I'm not seeing any additional hands raised at this time chair I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you Mr. Going back to the scheduled items for today's meeting. The next is approval of the minutes of the May 12 2021 planning commission. I'll move approval. I'll second. Thank you. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion. All in favor. Hi. Thank you. So now we'll move on to the main item of the agenda. And I will turn this over to the project planner. Okay, I am promoting Daisy Allen to a presenter. And can we please load the PowerPoint for this item. Good morning. Thank you very much. We've got the PowerPoint up. All righty. So thank you very much, chair Lason B and commissioners. I'm Daisy Allen with planning department. Today we are holding a public hearing to discuss potential changes to regulations for accessory dwelling units, also known as ADUs. We have a meeting on May 24th on both the topics of ADUs and tiny homes. And at that study session, as has been noted, you directed staff to separate out the ADU policy project from the tiny homes policy project, and to continue additional community outreach on both projects. At that time, we have advertised the ADU policy project widely, and we held a second community meeting on May 11 to gather more feedback from the community. We have also had a chance to talk to staff from the coastal commission, as well as staff from the California office of housing and community development or HCD. Today I will be sharing with you the components of the draft ADU ordinance, highlighting new information that we received since the study session and any changes that we have proposed. Next slide please. Okay, so before discussing the details of the ordinance. I wanted to take a minute to discuss the scope of the policy project. The main impetus for the proposed changes is an ADU handbook that was released last fall by HCD. Based on this handbook and subsequent discussion with HCD staff. There are some areas of the county code that need to be updated in order to meet state law minimum requirements. There are some other areas where our local code exceeds state law minimum requirements, and we have the option to pull back our regulations to simply meet the state law minimum. Or we can keep our regulations as they are, or we can change our regulations to further exceed state law. The intent of the state ADU law is to remove barriers to ADU construction. The ADU regulations may be more lenient than state law but may not be more restrictive. And then for topics that are not covered by state law, there are some additional updates proposed to the ADU regulations in the county code for the purpose of reducing confusion for applicants and staff. The ordinance also addresses some special circumstances, including disaster recovery, as well as ADU regulations in the coastal zone where state ADU law must be balanced against the objectives of the California Coastal Act. Next slide please. I also wanted to take a moment to talk about public outreach. Per Planning Commission directions staff has used traditional media outlets as well as social media and outreach to community groups in order to get the word out about this ordinance. There was a high level of participation at both March 16 and May 11 community meetings. Over 100 community members joined each of those virtual meetings. Then at the end of the May 11 meeting we asked participants to answer a short survey to provide feedback to us about the meeting. One of those questions was how participants learned about the meeting. So I thought it would be interesting to share that data with you in the graph here. 24 people answered the question with a variety of responses including newspaper, email, county website, social media, word of mouth, and other methods such as radio and seeing a printed flyer. My number of newspaper responses was likely due to the fact that the meeting was advertised in an article in the Sentinel. And then following the meeting there was additional exposure from a televised study story on KSBW. So at these community meetings there were a lot of questions asked to clarify and understand what the proposed changes would include and how those changes might apply to specific properties or situations. Other comments or questions address the policy content directly and I will highlight those policy comments as I discussed the proposed ordinance. Please see exhibit F in your packet for more information about public outreach and the public comments that have been received. Next slide please. Okay, so now I'll go ahead and present the proposed ordinance exhibit C in your packet is the clean ordinance and exhibit D is a track changes version showing changes from the current code. So first a few definitions are being updated per state law conversion ADUs can include complete demolition and rebuilding, as long as a finished ADU does not exceed the envelope of the original structure by more than 150 square feet. Also per state law for the purposes of the ADU code, single family dwellings do include town homes, half plexes or any attached dwellings that are on separate parcels and are not contained within a common parcel. The proposed ordinance also updates the definition of kitchen to require that the appliances be built in. This is not required by state law but it is a clarification that is proposed for the county code. Additionally clarification has been provided that a junior ADU is considered an independent dwelling unit. If it is not internally connected to the primary dwelling. This means that a single family dwelling with an attached ADU and an attached independent junior ADU may be required to be built to multifamily building code occupancy standards. Next slide please. Oh, great. Thank you. We have a great number of ADUs on a parcel. For single family dwellings the state law minimum is one ADU and one junior ADU per parcel. The current county code goes beyond state law and allows for one ADU plus one junior ADU per single family dwelling, meaning that multiple ADUs are allowed on parcels with single family dwelling groups. Based on feedback received from the community, staff is proposing to keep the county code as is with the clarification that multiple only allowed for dwelling groups with the density that conforms to zone district requirements. So to illustrate this proposal, I will provide an example of a 10,000 square foot lot in the R15 zone district. So if you could advance the slide. Perfect. So, in the R15 zone district the minimum density is one house per 5,000 square feet of land area. So in this first scenario you see a schematic site plan of the parcel. The yellow square represents the single family home the blue square represents an ADU and the red square represents a junior ADU created from within the walls of the single family home. And this is the state law minimum requirement. So if you could advance the slide. Perfect. In the second scenario we see the lot has been subdivided into two 5,000 square foot parcels with a single family home ADU and a junior ADU on each lot. This is also just the state law minimum requirement. Okay, and then if you can advance the slide again. Perfect. In scenario three, we see the same development as scenario two, but on a single parcel instead of in a subdivision. The two existing single family dwellings are considered to be a conforming dwelling group. The state law minimum requirement here would be one ADU for the whole parcel. But the staff is proposing to allow the same ADU development for a dwelling group that would be allowed with the subdivision in scenario two. Okay, advance the slide please. In scenario four, we see a situation where there are three existing single family dwellings on the parcel, making the parcel non conforming. In this scenario the proposed ordinance would limit development to one ADU and one junior ADU for the parcel with additional development only allowed with a level five approval. Per our usual non conforming zoning process. And then advance the slide one more time. Perfect. And then scenario five illustrates an additional provision that has been included in the proposed ordinance that goes beyond the state law minimum, which is to allow property owners that are in the situation shown in scenario for to one or more of their existing primary dwellings in the dwelling group as as ADUs in order to make the existing dwelling group conforming, which then allows in this example for an additional junior ADU to be constructed, ultimately achieving the same development potential as if the site had been subdivided. We have heard support from the community for going beyond the state law minimum as indicated here in scenarios three and five. We have received comments received in favor of allowing multiple ADUs to be associated with one single family dwelling, especially on larger parcels where perhaps there would be fewer neighborhood or environmental impacts. The proposed ordinance does not include a provision for more than 180 you per dwelling per single family dwelling, but the commission may wish to consider this idea. So with that allowing multiple ADUs for one single family dwelling would as part of this ordinance would require staff to conduct environmental review. Okay, next slide please. Okay, for multi for multifamily dwellings, the existing county code allows for two detached ADUs that may be attached to each other, as well as conversion ADUs in up to 25% of the units. The HCD handbook clarifies that the state law minimum requirement is actually either the detached ADUs or the conversion ADUs. In order to reduce potential parking impacts from ADUs on multifamily properties, staff is proposing to modify the code to align with the HCD handbook and allow either detached ADUs or conversion ADUs on multifamily properties, not both. So if you could advance the slide one time. Perfect. For example, of an eight unit apartment building. The current code would allow for ADUs as indicated in this diagram. And then if you could advance the slide. Great. And then the proposed ordinance would allow to ADUs as indicated, either in scenario one or in scenario to also note that for non conforming multifamily dwellings the level five discretionary approval that applies to single family dwellings does not apply. In other words, this example, in this example the size of the parcel and the zone district where it is located does not impact the number of ADUs allowed. In fact, the ADU rules for multifamily dwellings apply even if this apartment building were located in a zone district where we wouldn't usually allow an apartment building. The ADU rules are associated with a dwelling type, not the zone district, except for situations such as the dwelling groups that I was just describing for the single family dwellings where our local code allows for more ADUs than the state law minimum. This clarification was provided by HCD staff. Okay, next slide please. So regarding ADU dwelling size and floor area calculations, the proposed ordinance clarifies that ADU size should be counted in terms of habitable square footage rather than gross square footage in alignment with state law. Regarding conversion ADUs, the existing county code caps conversion ADU size at 50% of the primary dwelling square footage. At the study session in March staff discussed the options of keeping or removing this maximum size for conversion ADUs pending clarification from HCD. HCD staff has now clarified that conversion ADUs are exempted from maximum size limits due to the provision in the state law that allows conversion ADUs regardless of other provisions within the same state law. So it's a little it's a little tricky but we did get that clarification from HCD staff. The proposed ordinance goes beyond state law to continue to allow additions as part of junior ADUs in order to provide more flexibility for applicants. Regarding large dwelling units, the ordinance clarifies that an attached ADU or junior ADU does not count as part of the overall structure counted in the large dwelling unit calculation. This is a relief from what was presented at the March 24 study session based on community feedback and further staff work. Although attached ADUs and junior ADU square footage do add to the bulk and mass of an overall structure. ADUs and junior ADUs are not subject to discretionary review themselves. So it follows that their addition to or conversion from the space within a primary dwelling should not trigger discretionary review from the primary or for the primary dwelling. Okay, next slide please. The state law allows for an 800 square foot 16 foot tall ADU regardless of a parcels existing floor area or lock coverage. This provision in the state law is intended to make it easier for property owners with small lots to fit in an ADU. Before the state law went into effect, the county code already had a provision to allow an additional 2% floor area ratio and lock coverage on lots that are 6000 square feet or smaller. The proposed ordinance removes the existing 2% allowance because the 800 square foot ADU allowance addresses the same policy issue. The small decrease in development potential resulting from this change only comes into play on small parcels where a property owner wants to absolutely maximize development potential. As shown in the example here. Okay, so if you wouldn't mind advancing the slide. So, in this example we have a 2500 square foot home on a 5000 square foot parcel, the maximum floor area ratio is 0.5, meaning that building the building area cannot be more than 2500 square feet. So, the, the home is built out at 2500 square feet. The existing code the addition of an ADU in this case it's a 800 square foot ADU here allows the property owner to add 100 square feet of building area, or 2% of the parcel size, increasing the maximum allowed square footage from 2500 to 2600 square feet. And then of course the 800 square foot ADU is allowed in addition to that. And if you wouldn't mind advancing the slide. And again. Oh, sorry. Yeah, that's that's good. Okay, in the proposed ordinance with the 2% provision removed from the ordinance, only the ADU is allowed to exceed the existing maximum floor area ratio. So the difference is that that additional 100 square feet of floor area for the primary dwelling would not be allowed. Okay, next slide great perfect. So the proposed ordinance also clarifies that the allowance for an ADU up to 800 square feet should be treated as a square footage credit for the parcel and not counted towards FAR or lock coverage. This is another shift from current practice, which has been to count the ADU square footage towards FAR and lock coverage, such that no additional development is allowed on a parcel after the ADU is built. Staff is proposing this shift in order to simplify calculations and make calculations more equitable between developed parcels and vacant parcels. Also staff is proposing to remove the 16 foot height limit for ADUs that exceed FAR or lock coverage in order to allow flexibility for property owners with tight lots to construct second floor ADUs. So for commission direction staff did check in with HCD on this particular issue and HCD clarified that they do not have a position on this issue as long as an 800 square foot ADU is allowed on the parcel. So again, oh perfect thank you yeah so again using the example of a 5000 square foot lot. Let's now say that the existing home is 2000 square feet. Let's say that the property owner wants to construct 650 square foot ADU. Under the existing county practice that 650 square foot ADU would be included in the calculation for the FAR of the parcel, and additional square footage would not be allowed after the ADU is constructed. Since the overall square footage on the parcel would exceed 2500 square feet. And then advance the slide. Perfect. So with the proposed ordinance, the ADU square footage would not count towards FAR since it is less than 800 square feet. And for that reason an additional 500 square feet of other building area would still be allowed on the parcel after this ADU is constructed. Advance the slide please. And then in scenario two here with the proposed ordinance we're illustrating the advantage of removing the 16 foot height limit for an ADU that exceeds FAR lot coverage. So now the property owner would have the option to build that ADU as a second story addition, leaving more room on the parcel for parking or open space. Okay, next slide please. Regarding access, the existing code disallows second driveways for ADUs within the urban services line, which is the area shown in pink on this map. The proposed ordinance expands this existing regulation to be applied throughout the county, recognizing the importance of protecting resources, reducing grading and otherwise concentrating development on rural parcels. A second driveway can be approved by public works if it is necessary for safety or protection of environmental resources. Public comment has been received expressing concern about this provision in the county code, because it may serve as a barrier to construction of ADUs in cases where property owners wish to construct a second driveway for aesthetic or functional reasons rather than safety or environmental reasons. Another alternative option that the commission might consider would be to apply the one driveway requirement to rural areas only where there are more environmental issues and remove this restriction within the urban services line. Another alternative would be to keep the code as it is, since the second driveways for ADUs in the urban area do create curb cuts that may reduce on street parking and impede circulation. Okay, next slide please. For rural parking at the March 24 study session, staff presented the idea of removing the extra parking requirements that currently apply for ADUs within the coastal zone, which is the area shown in blue on the map on this slide. Since the study session staff has learned that the coastal commission actually has not been very supportive of removing special parking requirements entirely. And that the coastal commission has been more supportive of a hybrid option that involves some extra parking restrictions in specific areas of the coastal zone. So for this reason, staff is proposing that ADU parking should generally follow state law requirements, except for certain county maintained streets that are identified as key coastal access points where visitors can access the coast and there are not large parking lots available. During the May 11 community meeting staff pulled participants on the question of ADU parking in the coastal zone. 49 participants responded. Approximately two thirds of respondents favored either no special ADU parking rules in the coastal zone, or special rules only on specific streets. Next slide please. So the conceptual maps on this slide indicate the areas in green, where staff is proposing to keep in special parking regulations for coastal properties. So on the maps indicate parking lots umbrellas indicate beach access, and the surfer icons indicate surf access to develop these draft maps staff looked at coastal access points and parking facilities along the coast of unincorporated Santa Cruz using especially on the three neighborhoods where the existing county code already includes more coastal parking regulations so that is the pleasure point, C Cliff and Davenport neighborhoods. Finally, the proposed areas for special ADU parking requirements include East Cliff Drive, and the county maintained streets between East Cliff Drive and 41st Avenue, between East Cliff Drive and the ocean, sorry from 5th Avenue to 41st Avenue. And then along Opal Cliffs Drive from 41st Avenue to the boundary with the city of Capitola. The C Cliff, Rio del Mar area proposed areas for special ADU parking restrictions include Beach Drive, Rio del Mar, Boulevard, Stephen Road, Marina Avenue, Esplanade and Venetian Road. In some coastal locations, there are parking lots available to accommodate tourists. So in those areas we did not propose to add any off street parking restrictions for ADUs beyond what is required by state law. For instance, just west of the Twin Lakes neighborhood is the large harbor parking lot. And in the C Cliff neighborhood there is the large C Cliff Beach parking lot. But across Aptos Creek to the southeast, the visitor parking lot in Rio del Mar is much smaller. So it may be more important to limit any increase in demand for residential on street parking in that area. There were other streets in the C Cliff Aptos area that were identified by staff as potentially appropriate for extra off street ADU parking restrictions. But for ease of implementation of the ordinance, the ordinance is limiting the streets to public county maintained roadways. I note that there is an error in the staff report. The report also calls out Las Alas Road and Potbelly Beach Road for coastal ADU parking restrictions, but these are private streets, and they have not been included in the actual ordinance. I wanted to point out in Davenport, which is the map on the top left of this slide. There is parking for visitors along both sides of highway one, and staff did not identify a need to add special parking regulations for ADUs on the residential streets in this area. These maps are clearly very conceptual in nature and they're considered to be starting points for commission discussion on this topic. Next slide please. I just wanted to provide an example. This map indicates the ADU parking regulations that were just approved by the Coastal Commission on May 14 for the city of Santa Cruz. So parking is required for ADUs that are ocean side of the thick black line indicated on this map. Okay, next slide please. Then regarding design, the proposed ordinance removes the existing subjective requirement that ADUs shall be compatible with the main dwelling, and no objective design standards are proposed. Staff has heard support for this update to the county's ADU regulations. Objective standards are proposed for ADUs that involve additions or alterations to historic buildings. Starting setbacks per state law, the proposed ordinance applies the four foot setback to street sideyards, not just interior sideyards. Also, the setbacks for agricultural parcels have been clarified. Additionally, staff would like to point out that the minimum state law requirement for the four foot side and rear yard setbacks is actually for ADUs that are up to 16 feet tall. So if our local code does allow ADUs to be taller than 16 feet in certain situations, the county has the option to require setbacks for ADUs that are over 16 feet tall, which essentially would mean setbacks for second story ADUs. The illustration on the lower right of this slide demonstrates this concept. If a step back would serve to decrease development potential for ADUs from what is currently allowed in the county code, the commission may want to consider adding a step back requirement in order to provide for neighborhood privacy and compatibility. If the commission decides to pursue this option, staff would suggest an eight foot rear yard step back with an exception for stairways. It might also be appropriate to disallow windows at eye level for stairways located within that step back distance. Okay, next slide please. Regarding approval and occupancy for per state law, the discretionary review has been removed for ADUs in the commercial agriculture, temper production, parks and future parks districts. Also, the ordinance includes a provision that ADU construction is allowed before construction of a primary dwelling following a disaster. There has been strong community support for adding this to the regulations. The post ordinance includes another provision to streamline approval of ADUs and other small projects, specifically in the coastal zone, and that is a coastal development permit waiver. This waiver was recommended to staff by coastal commission staff in for the purpose of streamlining permitting. Similar waivers have been recently approved by the coastal commission for the city of Capitola and Monterey County. The waiver provides staff with another tool to use to assess and exempt small projects from the CDP process. Regarding occupancy, the county code currently requires owner occupancy on properties with junior ADUs and on properties with ADUs that were permitted prior to 2020. In March 24 study session, staff discussed adding some flexibility to the code by recognizing relatives of the property owner as qualifying as the owner for the purpose of meeting this requirement. Another idea that was presented was removing the owner occupancy requirement for ADU properties completely as many other jurisdictions have done. Based on subsequent community feedback in favor of removing this requirement and because it is a challenging requirement to enforce, staff is proposing to remove the owner occupancy requirement for ADUs. Next slide please. Okay, and then regarding infrastructure and utilities, staff is proposing not to charge impact fees for junior ADUs, although the state law does allow for this. Earlier at the March 24 study session staff had discussed charging impact fees for junior ADUs, but since ADUs smaller than 750 square feet are already exempt from impact fees. And since junior ADUs are only 500 square feet, staff is proposing not to charge those fees. Utility connection fees are currently charged for new construction ADUs but not for conversion ADUs or junior ADUs. The AD handbook clarifies that local jurisdictions may charge utility connection fees for conversion ADUs and junior ADUs that are built concurrently with a primary dwelling. The proposed ordinance reflects this update. And then the ordinance clarifies that no, oh, I'm, I'm sorry, can you go back one slide. Perfect, thank you. The ordinance clarifies that no public improvements can be required for the creation or conversion of an ADU. For example, an applicant shall not be required to improve sidewalks or other frontage improvements in order to create an ADU. Staff verified with HCD that this provision of the state law does not extend to fire safety measures that are required per the building code. Secondly, I wanted to touch on the topic of septic systems. Septic systems are not really addressed in the ADU ordinance, except to allow for percolation test per state law. However, I wanted to talk about septic systems because we have received a lot of comments and questions from the community related to the fact that building an ADU in the rural area often triggers a requirement to upgrade the septic system for a property, which involves a costly new septic tank. And in some cases this becomes a barrier to the construction of legal ADUs. Environmental Health Director Marilyn Underwood wanted to be available today to discuss this topic with you but unfortunately she's traveling. So I will speak a little bit about the septic requirements and how they relate to ADUs. The septic system requirements are governed by the county code and the state onsite wastewater treatment system policy, which was created as a result of AB 885, a state law from 2000. This state law was passed to address the fact that septic systems were negatively affecting drinking water for many California communities, including Santa Cruz County, in particular San Lorenzo Valley and La Selva Beach. In San Lorenzo Valley, this is especially important because this watershed provides drinking water to Santa Cruz. On many lots in San Lorenzo Valley, the property, the problem is that there's often not the required vertical separation between the point of distribution of the sewage water and the high groundwater mark. The appropriate vertical separation is indicated in the diagram on this slide, which is taken from the county's draft local area management plan or LAMP. Current and future requirements about setbacks to water wells and streams are also very challenging for many parcels. The public who are interested in learning more about septic system requirements and how those requirements may be changing should engage with the environmental health department's effort to update the LAMP and the associated county code section 7.38 and 7.42. The other aspect of the county's septic code that may be changing with LAMP approval is allowance of separate septic systems for ADUs as an alternative option to upgrading the existing septic tank serving a primary dwelling. Okay, and then finally regarding infrastructure and ADUs generally at the March 24 planning commission study session. There was some discussion about whether or not it might make sense to have different regulations for ADUs inside and outside the urban services line, or to allow fewer ADUs and areas that are constrained in terms of infrastructure or resources. Despite of those concerns I wanted to let the commission know that the ADU state law allows local jurisdictions to limit the geographic location of ADUs based on either public safety, traffic or sewer and water infrastructure. If the commission is interested in pursuing that option, staff would need to coordinate with staff from the fire districts, water districts, departments of public works and environmental health in order to gather the data that we would need to present the reasoning behind that decision to HCD. Okay, next slide please. Staff recommends that the commission conduct a public hearing to discuss the proposed ordinance, and then adopt a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the ordinance, along with the CEQA notice of exemption, and transmit the amendments to the California Coastal Commission. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Allen for such a thorough and complete discussion. I also want to thank you and all the other staff who worked very hard to get community outreach and providing the and providing and encouraging public participation in this matter. I'll bring this to the commissioners now and ask if any commissioners have questions. I have a couple questions. Commissioner Dan. First, I just want to thank Daisy for the staff report. It's really exceptional work. I found it very, very informative. Really, really good job. So thank you for that. I'm going to go in order of the questions I wrote down based on the PowerPoint on the, the multiple dwelling group example. I just want to be clear so for the scenario three through five. We would not be requiring a subdivision. For those parcels. I mean for that. Okay. Right. Okay. So with regard to the 16 foot height limit. I wanted to ask a question about this because I remember whatever that was two years ago or so when we wrangled over the height limit for 80 years and landed on 16 feet after probably three different meetings I think. So, are you suggesting. Raising that height and then what would that be would that be 28 feet. What would be the two story height limit. Yeah, so current county code. Limits at you height to 16 feet only for detached new construction at us that are located inside the urban services line. Right. So for attached ad use inside the urban services line and for any ad use outside the urban services line we allow ad you height to be the same as primary dwelling height that's allowed by the zone district so in most cases, that's 28 feet. So for this situation where it's a small lot. So I think that was the scenario that you where this was brought up. You would be suggesting allowing that ad you to go up to the same height as the primary dwelling for a detached ad you on a small lot. Oh, and yeah, let me actually add one more clarification about our current county code. So we also limit to 16 feet and ad you if you have an ad you that is exceeding floor area ratio or lock coverage. Our current county code limits the height of that ad you to 16 feet. Regardless of if it's detached or attached. So, some feedback that we've gotten from applicants is that that rule makes it challenging to fit in an ad you on a small lot, even with the 800 square feet allowance. So the proposal is to remove that 16 foot height limit that we have in specifically for ad use that exceed FAR lock, FAR lock coverage. So in that example of like a small urban lot. Then be able to have your ad you exceed FAR lock or lock coverage and be built up to 28 feet tall. If it's attached. It's attached dwelling if it's detached it would still be subject to that basic rule that we have for detached ad use within the urban services line which is 16 feet. Okay, so. Okay, so I'm sorry. It's a little confusing so it's so it's. So basically just applies to attached ad use them. Yeah, it would in, in practical terms, it would, it, it mostly is going to make the difference on tight lots that are within the urban services line and within the urban services line it would only basically allow for a tap and attached ad you to be up to 28 feet tall. Um, so on parking. A couple things. Did coastal basically signal that this proposal is acceptable to them. Um, coastal provided us feedback that despite the memo that was issued by the coastal commission last year, kind of in favor of generally supporting the state ADU law as written in practice the coastal commission has taken a more kind of nuanced hybrid approach in regards to the parking issues specifically. And recent ordinances that have been approved, have required still required some kind of special parking requirements for ADUs in certain areas of the coastal zone and in the city of Santa Cruz that ended up being a line on the map that's one or two streets in from the coast. Okay, so we're basically just trying to replicate what they approved in the city and read the tea leaves of what's acceptable based on what they approved in the city. Yeah, I mean the feedback that we got from coastal staff is that whatever we propose we need to make sure that we can defend what we're what we're proposing so if we're proposing to include certain streets and not other streets. We need to have a reason for that. And in the case of, you know, the proposal that we have in the draft ordinance it's based on location of public parking lots and proximity to areas of, you know, busy coastal access. So thank you for that and that brings me to Davenport. And I understand on paper why Davenport was excluded from this it's on paper it looks like there's a big parking lot there. I just wanted to point out right now that that parking lot is being used for fire survivors. And so it's really not open to the public right now. Half of it is privately owned, and there is a plan to build a parking lot there that's going to be paved and have lights in a bathroom and, and all of that. But that's probably maybe five to 10 years away from construction. And right now we don't know when those fire survivors how long they're going to need to utilize that space so I would make a push for now at least, even to include Davenport. In the area is for parking restriction for them. Yeah, to include parking for 80 years, they do have issues with with parking on busy summer weekends up there. And it's, you know, maybe it could be until the Davenport parking lot is developed fully be open to that. And then I think, I think that was, I think that was it for me. Thank you Daisy, really, really helpful staff report. Any other questions. I have, I have some questions chair. Okay, go ahead. This staff report was unbelievably clear, very easy to follow on a very complicated issue, and I commend Daisy and staff for the staff report and also I want to echo my appreciation for your public outreach. You did an amazing job of getting public comment on this and I appreciate it very much. I just wanted to sort of get down to it's very simple in regards to parking. Can I blankly say that there's no parking required for junior ad use conversion ad use and converted garages that the parking requirement is only reviewed for new construction ad use. Yes, that's right so the state ADU law exempts junior ad use and conversion ad use from parking period, and our local ordinance. Proposes to also have that apply in the coastal zone as well. Okay, and then to further describe it for new construction ad use. If the ad you is located within a half a mile of a public transportation pickup area, then it can be waved at that point too. That's correct. And that's one of the provisions that we are proposing to not have apply in those on those certain coastal streets. Right. Okay, and then that leads to the coastal issue. So, we have some indication from the coastal commission that if we limited to streets with coastal access that's probably going to be okay but in your staff report you suggest that we might want to have defined areas within the coastal zone such as the live out permit parking area or the vacation rental designated areas. And so, for example here in this district, it'd be the C clip after the cell the designated area is that right that could be considered rather than just specific streets. Yeah, I mean I think. But the map that you saw for the city of Santa Cruz I would describe as a compromise between from the city proposing no parking for ad use, and the coastal commission wanting some parking for ad use in the coastal zone. So that's correct county code has special parking requirements for ad use located in in areas corresponding to those vacation rental designated areas. So Davenport pleasure point, and the secret Baptist the Selva beach designated areas. So that's currently how our parking rules kind of apply in the coastal zone. So that's one option that we could, we could have that stay in our in our code that way. And it's likely that the coastal commission would would approve that. Oh it is likely. Yes, I think it's likely that the coastal commission would approve would approve that. All right. Okay. That's the extent of my questions thank you. Commissioners have questions. Okay, then. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Sorry, my microphone wasn't working. I'm sorry. I apologize to interrupt you. Yes, I had a couple of questions. Okay, Commissioner shepherd. I'm a little confused about the Daisy go over what I'm sorry to go over this again. So you're saying that what you are going to be proposing here is that certain areas the coastal zone that have special plans will still be have provisions that additional or or removing any requirement for additional parking will not happen. So we've got double negatives here right. Yeah so that's that's how our current code is set up, and the proposal is to reduce that area to only be a key coastal access streets. Rather than entire neighborhoods. Well I think you're going to hear strongly from entire neighborhoods then because they work very hard to get some of those parking restrictions so I think the board of supervisors should weigh in on that but certainly, you know, on East Cliff there and pleasure point. You certainly don't want to change anything there and maybe and, you know, Melanie's district as well so I think you got to be really careful, because the whole coast is so impacted in the summer. So I'm not so sure that that is a really I question whether that really makes sense but it's not my district so I only just try to park there I don't live there. I wanted to ask about the very last thing you discussed. And if you would go over that again. Specifically, what would it take to look at changing specific requirements and areas with constraints. I believe that's how you characterized that. Yes, so I just wanted to make sure that your commission was aware that the state ad you law includes a provision that we can limit the locations where ad use are allowed in the county. Based on four for criteria one is public safety. One is septic or sewer infrastructure, water infrastructure. And then the others traffic. We would need to, if we wanted to do that, we would need to have some data that we can provide to the Office of Housing and Community Development to justify our reasoning for not allowing ad use throughout the county. Okay, that's helpful. Given the events of the last year, specifically the fire and the constraints around resource septic issues, particularly in my district. There might that might be somewhat relevant. So you're saying you'd want to consult the fire districts and the water department. I think that something my supervisor might be interested in looking into. I think having ad use in the valleys is a good idea of nothing. I'm in favor of it but there are some specific areas where there may be constraints that it might be good to get that set as a ground role. Now, so I think that's something to bring up again please. Yeah, I mean, another thing I would, I would mention about that though is that if you have a site that has some kind of environmental resource or, you know, is a riparian area or has some kind of major access issue. And there, those, those, the regulations around those issues may end up preventing an ad you from being built on those sites. So that's what I wanted. Then, so what you're saying is, you can build an ad you but you still have to pay attention to the report appearing quartered restrictions septic requirements, access requirements, your entry road still needs to be fire accessible. And so on there's no exemptions from health and safety laws for ad use. Exactly, right. Okay, thank you. And I agree that was a very clear report this is a complicated subject and I'm impressed that you made it so clear and lucid thank you. Thanks. Mission. Thank you. Yeah, Smith Allen thank you so much for that presentation that was really helpful, very clear. I really appreciated the graphics trying what's possible and what's not that really helped me understand a lot better what the, what the goals are there so great job. I had one question in particular and it's around the multifamily code changes there and how it relates to condos in particular so our condos counted towards a multifamily. You know they're different than the town home but the town home has a different different code that's going to be associated with it now for ad use so can you just confirm that for me. Sure. Yeah, this has been a really complicated topic for us but in my conversation with HCD staff they clarified that if you have a condo that's shown parcel but it's contained within a common parcel. That is considered a multifamily construction or dwelling in terms of the ADU regulations. But if you have a town home let's say that maybe it's attached to other dwellings. It's on wall to wall but it's on its own parcels its own footprint, then in that case, it would be subject to the single family ADU rules. Okay, great thank you and then so how that process the technical aspect of that with CCNRs and all that stuff it's not something that we deal with I assume that that just gets worked out later. Right. Yep. Okay, thank you. Okay, I do have a question. Daisy for a clarification on impact fees. The page 28 of the staff report which is part of the, the ordinance. It says impact fees prior to the issue issuance of a building permit for a new construction ADU the applicant shall pay the impact fees, but in the red line version. There was no new construction in front of ADU. Right, so that reflects the change that we are now allowing for impact fees to be charged for junior ADUs and for conversion ADUs that are built concurrently with the primary dwelling. Okay, but it is new construction ADU that has to pay impact fees. So let me get to the page that you're looking at. So it's 28 page 28. Yes, page 12 of 16 of the ordinance. Okay, impact fees. Oh, I see. Okay, so this is the clean ordinance prior to the issue of building permit for new construction ADU. Okay. And then let's look at the red line ordinance. Let me get to that page. Yes, I think that this is a typo that you caught here, because it should not say the word new can, it should not have the words new construction in the ordinance, based on based on the proposal that we're making. So I would just say for an ADU. Yes, either detached or attached. Yes, I don't know that that clear that kind of qualifier would be needed, but. Okay, but I don't think we need the word new construction there I think that's, that's a typo. So thank you for that. Thank you. That is 1310 681. Each three, three. Okay. Okay, if there's no other chair. Yeah, chair I had just a really quick question. If we remove the owner occupancy requirement. I believe that that we've been requirement in the past would existing owners of ADUs who have been complying with the owner occupancy be relieved of that responsibility. If we decide to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement. Yes. Okay, thank you. Chair, I actually had one more issue I forgot to ask about. Yes, Commissioner Dan. Thank you. And reading over the staff report I made some notes I forgot to ask you about when it was my turn to ask questions and that's regarding the large dwelling unit provisions. The main question is whether the recommendation to not not include the attached ADU or JADU into the large dwelling calculations is from direction from each CD specifically or is that something that we're deciding to. Is that a determination that we're doing at the local level without direction from the each CD. And is that a local level determination because it's not. It's not an issue that's covered by the state law. I guess I would just just for the other commissioners give a little background. I'm particularly interested in this one because this was something that one of my previous bosses actually changed a while ago over 10 years ago I think. It was mostly as a result of stuff that was happening in the rural areas and Bonnie Dune where very, very, very large homes were being constructed with just a building permit, and then they were for all intents and purposes being used as dormitories. And so the large dwelling unit threshold at that time was 7500 square feet. And we reduced it with community input and meetings and whatnot we reduced it to 5000 square feet just to provide an opportunity for the neighbors to know what was going on and to weigh in. And I have not heard anecdotally that this has been an issue but maybe it's because we lowered that threshold. So, but the way I'm reading it it looks like you could have a 5000 square foot house which is a very large house, and then construct a 2500 square foot. So if I'm correct, right, so that would be for putting them together a 7500 square foot house, of course, would be two units. So, is that a possible under this suggestion that could happen. Yes. You know, so what what was happening up in Bonnie Dune was then the 7500 square foot house would be have 20 rooms in it. And since there's no discretion or design review was going up and then you'd have, you know, 40 students up there and 20 cars and whatnot. Again, I haven't heard that this has been a problem lately, but I wonder if that's because we lowered the threshold. If you have any additional thoughts after public comment on that I'd be interested to hear them from a staff perspective. Okay. I just like to agree with Commissioner dam it's kind of past history but at the time it was a real issue. So that's something I think staff probably needs to wrestle with. And maybe that planning commissioner for that district from Melanie will want to think about it too. From a staff perspective, I have not heard of that particular issue related because we were more or less sound recently. Yeah. Okay. At this time, I will open the public hearing. And I think because of the time right now, we might take a 10 minute break at 1130 so that we can, you know, if we're still in the midst of testimony. Okay. So do we have participants waiting. We do chair. Let me go to the list here. I'm seeing a caller with the first name Brian. I will go ahead and unmute you. Please state your name for the record you have three minutes. Brian. I had a question regarding the multifamily zoning with the 280 use. I've been told that one. 180 you counts towards your flurry ratio and one does not but reading through the. The state law it says ad use do not count towards flurry ratio and to ad use may be constructed on multifamily. Is that still the position that one counts and one doesn't. Right now it's just public comments so you can ask the question and then we can go through all of the public comments and then we can ask staff to respond at the end. Okay. Did you have any other comments Brian. No, no. Great. Thank you. Thank you. The next caller is. I'm seeing is labeled orchard house. Please state your name for the record. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Mono Morales. Can you all hear me? Yes. Good morning. Okay. So the city of Watsonville has already allowed multiple ad use per parcel. And I worked with their, their staff and city council on this. As far as I know, they did not have to go through any exhaustive environments or view because they passed it. Rather quickly. And, you know, to the point of having multiple ad use, you know, the state passed a law saying we're not passed having enough houses and we have to allow one ad you and one junior ad you across any residential parcel. And that's if you're in a corner of San Francisco, or a huge lot in your own example here, Daisy. You, you showed 5,000 and 10,000 four foot lots. They could have the same number of ad uses somebody that's 100,000 square foot live. That just doesn't make common sense. And also your example, there are some that you gave that have multiple use. And that's really an example of what frustrates and confuses the public. You can have one lot that's almost identical to another one they got the same zoning same size they could be even right next to each other. And one of them can have multiple ad use for a lot and another one chance. So I would encourage everyone here to say hey, let's come up with a policy that's based just on the size of the lot. You know, if the average lot is x number square feet and have 180 you per size of this lot that would clarify it make it easier and really encourage this kind of development which is what we want. And Daisy at the end I'm hoping you guys can address this is considering all the public feedback and the demand for housing and this type of housing. So how is it possible that the staff can possibly recommend that we continue on with our failed policy of allowing the bare minimum number of units on a parcel that the state demands. I think that the people of Santa Cruz we deserve better than that. If the state says hey you can have an option of without environmental rule, having more of these type of units, then we should take that. And I need this is counterproductive, and it's just going to continue on with home prices and rents becoming extraordinarily out of reach. We already had 20% last year increase in prices. If we don't continue to build that we're going to have another 20% coming on, and it's going to further get out out of hand. So guys, this is something that takes years to do and this is something that we could do now. This is the cheapest, most affordable and fastest type of housing to build. Let's take advantage of this. Thank you. Thank you. The next caller is just labeled as guest so I will go ahead and unmute you. Please save your name for the record. Thank you. This is Marcus ethnic and Daisy I want to thank you for a very good and comprehensive presentation so thank you for your work and and your team. I have really support the idea of removing the owner occupancy requirement for ad use, so anything that's a great move, and Commissioner for it is I think you could support that, and the whole entire commission. That would be good. It's, it's absolutely a step in the right direction. Secondly, I would just concur with what Brian said that there are larger lots here within the county certainly within the urban services line there's a lot of land available, and not allowing an additional ADU on a single parcel, you know it's a missed opportunity. And so I think with the right rules and the right lens that could be done successfully. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, the next caller is cove. Good morning cove please state your name for the record. I think you're amazing. Okay, there I am. Co Britain, Matt's and Britain architects. A lot of positive changes, I think we're proposed so thank you to Daisy. There's still some of a fair number of nuts and bolts things, which I've mentioned in the email to all of you. One of the issues is building code issues. Daisy touched on this. And it has to do with occupancy. And it's something that the building official and the board of supervisors can address as part of this package and probably should address, none of time here to go into the ins and outs of that but state has been recent clarification regarding the occupancy issue specifically towards job is which the building official provided me, which might be helpful for staff. He is has a policy right now regarding from what I'm hearing it's not one of my projects that landslides as far as impacting the access driveway can prevent an ADU again this is a policy issue it's not a building code issue. As we're all aware. Many of our roads in the county of Santa Cruz are subject to landslides landslides are a little bit like snow worse, but you clear them away you do not prevent homes or ad use from being built because an access driveway might be subject to a landslide. Any more than you don't prevent people from living in Santa Cruz because highway 17 is subject to landslides. And then this is something I think that the board should be informed of and, you know, make a decision about it or influence the policy parking, the parking issue. There's been some great studies about it ad use do not have substantive impact on parking. Coastal Commission may not like that. But it's true. So we're giving up housing for no real particular reason in regards to parking for so year long housing, weighed against seasonal use. I know a bunch of surfers that would love to have an ad you close to their favorite surf spot. So I would really turn this back on the Coastal Commission staff and go what empirical evidence do they have that an ad you impacts each access. Even if we built every single ad you possible, you know, it's just not the worth the weight and the lack of ad use for that reason. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, and I'm seeing a caller with a hand raised by the name of minco. Good morning, please state your name for the record. Good morning. My name is men go to us. So first of all, Daisy. Excellent job in presenting the changes and your presentation. The point I would like to make is that last year in Watsonville with a different mayor, I ran into an issue where on a multi family property, we were allowed to build to ad use. We tried to get it into an affordable housing situation. I'm trying to get the rent as low as possible by connecting the two newly built details ad use into one structure that was not allowed. It was a duplex and therefore not an ad you and got into lots of other building code issues and became cost prohibitive. So we're building to separate detached ad use the cost difference is about 10%. I know the county has been way more realistic, I think it have allowed to, if you're allowed to build multiple ad use to attach them together. But my proposal or my question will be to make it very specific, because it helps reduce the cost it helps reduce barriers, the current legislation and everything else is very ambiguous. And I think it would help accelerate adoption. Thank you. Thank you, Minko. All right, I'm looking at our list of callers and participants here. I just wanted to remind everyone that if you are calling in and you would like to speak, please raise your hand by pressing star nine on your telephone. And I just want to give it a moment to make sure that we have everybody that would like to speak. And let me check my email and make sure we don't have a, I don't see anybody emailing me with issues to connect. I do see a hand raised that just was raised by Leilani. Good morning, please state your name for the record. Hello. Leilani, the thing, design. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. I would like to thank Daisy again, she did do an excellent job and this is a convoluted situation for a lot of us that try to figure out these codes. My question this morning has to do with one of those, one of those real life situations where. So I have a friend who has almost two acres outside the urban services a 1.98. She has an existing 2700 square foot house that she wants to become her ADU after she builds her primary residence. I'm trying to understand this conversion aspect of it. Does that mean that she could keep 2700 square feet as an ADU if her new residence was 5,400 square feet, because then she would be 50% of the residents, and she'd be happy about. Did we lose you? It looks like Leilani dropped off. Leilani, if you can hear us. If you'd like to call back in, or I do see you on here. There you go. Am I back? You're back. Sorry, I'm in a really rural, not very good perception area. Did you hear most of what I said, or I guess you don't know, but I think where you left off is a two acre prop parcel and a rural area a friend of yours would like to see. And then you dropped off. Oh gee. Okay. She has a 2700 square foot existing house. She'd like to turn that into a detached ADU. She'd like to build a primary residence. So in this conversion concept, would she be able to keep this 2700 square foot house which is under 28 feet high and build a 5,400 and 10 square foot house, and she would meet the current ADU ordinance. Okay. All the questions, all the questions will be addressed at the end of the public hearing. Yes. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thanks Leilani. Hold tight for some answers to your questions hopefully here at the end of the public hearing. All right. Do we have any additional members of the public who wish to speak on this item, the proposed ADU amendments. If so please raise your hand by pressing star nine on your telephone, or pressing the hand icon on the zoom up. I'm going to check my email and make sure there's nobody with connection issues and I'm not seeing any emails. All right chair, I will turn it back over to you. I'm not seeing any additional colors at this time. Okay, thank you. So I'll bring this close the public hearing and bring this back to the commission. Thank you for joining me to address any of the questions from the public. Charlie's me. Oh yes, I'm sorry, Daisy, if you if you would like to yes, please go ahead. Sure. Yeah, so there was a question from Brian regarding the ADUs for multifamily dwelling and whether how they count towards floor area for the lot. The state law rule is that ADUs do count towards floor area and lot coverage, except that you may have an ADU up to 800 square feet. That does not count towards FAR and lot coverage and that can be that can exceed the FAR lot coverage allowed for the parcel so if you are in a situation where you had an existing apartment building that was at maximum build out for the for the parcel based on FAR and lot coverage, then you would be able to build one ADU up to 800 square feet on that parcel, or potentially to ADUs 400 square feet each. For instance, and then there was another question. Let's see. Oh, I just wanted to clarify there's a question from Mando more or less about the about allowing multiple ADUs on a parcel in a way that would be related to the overall size of the parcel. And I just wanted to clarify that what we, what our current code allows and what we are proposing keeping in our code would allow for ADUs associated with dwelling groups so you so based on the size of the parcel so if you the larger your parcel depending on your dwelling you could potentially have more single family dwellings on that parcel and then for each of those single family dwellings, you could have 180 you and one junior ADU. Now I do understand that's not the same as allowing multiple ADUs on a parcel and it's, it involves potentially more review for those primary dwellings on that parcel that we do have that. So that's the provision in the code and then the last question I heard was from Leilani regarding the existing 2700 square foot house. So our existing code would limit the size of the conversion ADU to be 50% of the primary dwelling, but the proposed ordinance would remove the maximum size for the conversion ADU. So what size the conversion ADU was, as long as you're meeting your development standards. And those are all the questions I heard. Okay, I'm looking through the questions. And Mr. Britton had a question about the impact on traffic of the ADUs. Well, what I heard was that it might make it might be appropriate for the commission to remove the special parking restrictions for ADUs in the coastal zone and then challenge the coastal commission to provide data backing up their position that there should be parking requirements, and certain areas of the coastal zone. We don't have data to share here at the county currently regarding traffic or parking impacts from the ADUs. Okay, and there was one other question about attaching two separate ADUs. Yes, so, yes, so what I heard there was, well, what I can clarify that in the state law, the state law allows for two detached ADUs on a parcel with a multifamily dwelling. The state law does not clarify whether or not those ADUs can be attached to each other. In the county we've interpreted that, yes, it's okay for those ADUs to be attached to each other in some other jurisdictions such as Watsonville that is not allowed. And what I heard from the caller was that they would like us to make it more clear in our ordinance that that is our interpretation. And that would mean that those ADUs can be attached to each other in the draft ordinance. And would that exceed the possibly exceed the square footage limit. That would be unrelated to the square footage requirements for the parcel that's just regarding the placement of the ADUs on the parcel. Okay. I'm going to ask commissioners for any discussion or questions. I'd be happy to go. Commissioner Gordon. Thank you. Thanks to everyone who called in I thought there was a lot of really great questions and detail brought up with some real life experiences I was really good to hear. So just a couple of questions for Daisy that I, that I, or I guess maybe just one more that I didn't hear maybe I just missed it the landslide as an access road issue. Is that like, how do we deal with that. Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't hear that as a question as much as a comment but I was referring to how our environmental planning staff reviews. Building permit applications for ADUs in areas where there are landslides and I really can't speak to the details on that since that that's kind of outside of, of the policy work here. Actually, there could be something added into Title 16 of our code related to that issue. But I would think in general it would be more of a more of a practice issue to to address with environmental planning staff rather than something to put into our zoning ordinance. Understood. Okay, thank you. I had a question on the multi family dwelling ADU FAR. So you mentioned in response to one of the questions that the FAR counts that you get like 800 square feet and then after that it starts to count right. So to clarify that a little bit, do conversion or JADUs count towards FAR ever even in that scenario. Yes, those do as well. So say you had 100 unit multi family apartment building, you could technically make 25 conversion ADUs. But in reality, what you're saying is that our FAR would limit that to 800 square feet additional in total if the building which was already maxed out which it most likely is. It would be limited. Yes, it would be limited by the overall FAR and law coverage for the parcel. Okay, so that effectively our multi family, like the ability to do multi family ADUs is like not really possible in a lot of situations is how that is how I read that. So can we remove the FAR requirement. As as it relates to those multi family ADUs even in the dwelling groups issue right where you have to, as you went through we have to two dwellings, each of them getting ADU and a junior ADU. Oftentimes, that will be extremely limited by this regulation. Yeah, the commission has the option to do anything that is more lenient than state law. So that is a state law is what you're saying. That's in the state law. Yeah. Okay. That's the state the state law minimum is is what we've gotten there for multi family dwellings. Okay. Thank you. I have, I think I'm in agreement with most of these items I think that there's a few things that I would like to see adjusted if possible. I think that the only one at AD regulations is one of those. What we just talked about as well as the inability to do both conversion and two additional ADUs. I'd like to see that change still I know that the city of Santa Cruz is already adopted both be nice to have our regulations in alignment so that it makes it easier on the public. You know, doing both really promotes housing promotes ADUs. A lot of callers call in, especially the first or, you know, they talked a lot about tiny homes and what that ordinance pass. You know, and get through all this. But one thing, you know, they noted and a lot of people knows they want more housing, they want it easier and they want it faster, because there's nowhere to live. So limiting such a large opportunity on multi family housing. In my opinion does not follow the county and the state's recommendation to make this process easier and faster so I really advocate to do and there instead of or so to ADUs and 25% conversion, and also to remove the effect that they count towards FVR because that effectively makes that code, not even possible to utilize. So I think we have to do that and I appreciate that one of the members of the public brought that up. The other item that I think is an easy win for us is the driveway access. You know, we're asking for additional parking to be created but a lot of times you, you know, you'll see a standard lot has a parking or driveway with, you know, one or two parking spots and that's it. So we're asking people to create parking where that's not available in the lot, and it can get far more detailed right you can't have your whole front yard be parking lot it's something different everywhere but, 20% or something or less can be driveway. So you can't physically actually create an extra parking spot because it doesn't fit within the zoning code. So I personally advocate for no parking radius. I know that's a bit probably a bit of a stretch today. But at a minimum if people have the ability, based on meeting other like public work standards, adding an extra driveway seems like an easy win to help promote the ability to actually create that extra parking. It kind of doesn't make sense to say hey you have to create more parking but we're not letting you create the driveway, you know, so I think that that would be an easy win and I'd hope I could get some support to make that adjustment. The other item I'd like to mention, I don't know that, you know, we will make any decision on changing it here but the 16 foot height limit as some of the members of the public mentioned and I know, as Commissioner Dan stated this is, you know, a lot of history that I wasn't here for. But practically it can be challenging, you can't necessarily get to two stories in 16 feet, unless you do the bare minimum and a flat roof and you know, and so what that means is that we're saying to the public yes you can do 800 square feet. But if you don't have a lot, the big enough lot you can't actually do that because 16 foot is your max height so you can't go to stories. Or a lot of times you could see you know 400 on the ground floor 400 on the upper story that creates a little bit bigger nicer house for someone, you know that gets you at least a good size one bedroom, you know, potentially to you know one in a den kind of a thing where that 16 foot high limit otherwise will limit people to just one story. Ideally, we, you know, it'd be great to I was a little confused I thought that we were eliminating the height but then as reading through it in here and from you again it's not. It's not really a limb, it's not eliminating the height restriction in most cases. It's just in a few right, is that correct. Yeah, right so the proposal is to remove the 16 foot height restriction in the case where your FAR your ad you exceeds the FAR and lock coverage. But the other height regulations for ad use would still apply, one of which is that a detached ad you is limited to 16 feet within the urban services line. Understood. Okay, which I think is going to be a majority of, you know, most people if they have the option want to do that because it does get a little tricky when you're, you know, practically attaching a new ad to an old building becomes hard to detail, more expensive for foundations, you know, your, your current building can sometimes get looked at as needing to be upgraded to meet fire code and things like that whereas if you just do it detached it becomes a lot easier to build that So personally I'd advocate for that, you know, to be at least allowed for two stories, which 16 feet doesn't quite do. I think there's just sorry just to clarify that's for you would advocate for that for the detached ad use within the urban services line. Yes, thank you. Have you done that. I'm just going through my notes here really quick. I think that's it for me right now so again I appreciate it I appreciate everyone's comments it's really great to see people call in and, you know, have those real life situations so I just appreciate that. And I look forward to hearing the rest of the commission. Thank you. I had a question for Daisy. Yes, go ahead, Commissioner. Um, so I want to just clarify so I really make sure that I understand so if you have a 5000 square foot house. Currently, you can build 2500 square foot ADU. So whatever size your house is you can build half of that in the ADU. All other things being equal. It depends on the type of ADU and the size of your parcel. So, if you so if you have an existing structure on your parcel on your parcel that is 2500 square feet currently you could convert that to be an ADU. We limit new construction detached ad use to 1200 square feet. That's so new construction has the size limit. But if you know that I think it was Felicity was asking so I have her friend has a 282800 square foot house and she wants to build a 5000 square foot house and turn her 2800 square foot into an ADU. And that's perfectly fine. That would be conversion ADU correct. Wow. Okay. I do not agree with Matt about the height limit. Having said on the planning commission for a long time. The most common complaint for any development that we see consistently on the planning commission is about neighbors building to a height where they their people next door lose their solar access which or they're in the shadow and more importantly they lose their privacy. That is the biggest neighborhood issue we hear time and time again. So, I think the what you are proposing to keep the 16 foot height is something that I would support now, because otherwise, that's going to crop up immediately and all the time. So, I would, I want to support that. I just those were the two issues I wanted to clarify as far as saying that ADU could ignore the fact that they are in a landslide zone. In my district probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given what we've experienced fairly recently and also long ago in the earthquake and also in the Love Creek slide so I think those rules are there for a reason. I wouldn't support changing them. Are there any other comments or discussion or questions. I'm sure I can go next unless Melanie you are ready. I'm happy to go after you share. I'm ready. Just really quickly. I just want to reiterate from the staff report on page 49. This is the, there's no longer an owner occupancy requirement. So that's in what is being proposed and I support that. Secondly, in regards to parking. This is a real concern of mine and something that I heard from constituents in this area who feel that their streets are already fairly congested and impacted by tourism. And visitors and I would note that the coastal zone areas are very special areas in terms of the parking dilemma. It's in the issue between parking and more housing opportunities coastal zone areas are impacted by tourism. And we also have this multi layer in those coastal zone areas of both ordinances regarding vacation rentals, and then ordinances now that are going to regulate ADUs and in particular new construction ADUs since junior ADUs and converted ADUs and now just do not have the same parking requirement. So I, I consider these areas very special in that discussion, because they're impacted both with vacation rentals and now with ADUs. And the parking is so important to address in regards to how it will at least maintain the livability of those areas. So I am very much in favor of changing page 46 of the staff report and under letter. Let's see it's under the five I believe under parking, which begins on page 45 and continues on to page 46. I would like that text to read instead of a B and C that's there right now. I would like to point Opal Clif and C Clif to change that to the Lota, the LIBO development area, the Solstice, the C Clif, Aptus, La Selva district area, and the DASDA, which is the Davenport Swanton area. And of course I would refer to my fellow commissioners who represent the LIBO and Davenport areas, but at least for the C Clif, Aptus, La Selva area, I would like to maintain that area. And I believe I'm correct staff when I looked at the vacation rental for these different areas that they do have parking requirements of one parking space for a one or two bedroom unit and two parking spaces for three bedrooms or more. So we've already got that parking requirement. Is that correct staff in the vacation rentals? Perhaps Jocelyn could answer that question. She's more familiar with the vacation rental ordinance. I'm sorry, would you mind repeating that? Are you inquiring about the parking requirement for vacation rentals under the current amendment code? Yes. The parking requirement is one on site space for one to three bedrooms, I believe, and two for four or more. I can double check that. That's what I read. Yes. That's correct. That's just for new vacation rentals. Right, right, right. So we've got that requirement. We've got that going on in our coastal areas. And I would, I think it'd be a lot more prudent and reasonable to mirror that in the ADU and keep the requirement for new construction. So as I suggested in my revision on page 46 under number five are to change those to the three special districts that we have right now in the coastal zone. And that's the end of my comments. I can, I can make some comments now, chair. That's okay. Yes. So just to respond to some of the suggestions that my fellow commissioners made, I just made some notes. So I'll just go through them to give an indication of where I am. Commissioner Gordon mentioned the driveway. I support his comments on that. I agree with what he suggested regarding the multi family units. I think that that makes sense. It's consistent with the city of Santa Cruz and is more flexible. However, I'm not supportive right now of eliminating the FAR requirements. I just would like a little bit more due diligence from staff about what that might look like in a real world situation because it what it seems like that what might be allowing is expanded development on multi family sites. If we had an apartment building, what we would really be allowing is instead of conversion of existing space like parking or storage, it would be expanding the footprint of the complex. So that might be, that might be okay, but I just feel that I don't know enough right now to, to vote affirmatively for that change. I agree with commissioner shepherd on the height and this I just agree with her comments on that. That's the bulk of the complaints that we get from neighbors. We don't hear we're not hearing from a lot of neighborhood folks today but believe me we have heard from them in the past and height is the one of the main issues along with parking that causes a lot of consternation between neighbors so I think that keeping the 16 foot height limit is is advisable. I appreciate what commissioner shape or freight is suggested with regard to parking and making that consistent with the designated areas that we've created for vacation rentals. I think that makes a lot of sense. I think that's a consistent policy perspective. If we've designated these areas as being special and vacation oriented, we should make sure that there's sufficient parking for the public to access the coast consistent with the coastal act. I do not believe that any commissioners mentioned this yet but I do support the step back suggestions for ad use taller than 16 feet where those taller ad use are allowed. I think that's an excellent idea and I know that with the pleasure point design guidelines that's one of the design guidelines and that plan to have second stories that are stepped back and I think that when I've seen those developed in that area they it is it makes it for a much more neighborly neighborhood there. So I think that that is the concluded concluded my comments there. And then I just want to say again, I want to recognize the staff work on this, and that it, this is an ever evolving policy area, and you have new state laws being introduced. So at this time it seems like the legislature just can't get enough of modifying the ADU code, which makes it really tough for our local planners to constantly trying to analyze, you know, our code with the new state law and then you have each CD putting out a new handbook and then you have to take that handbook and try to figure out what the intent is and so I think that, you know there has been some frustration in the public with the development community but I would just say. I think our staff has done an excellent job trying to manage all of that in the ever evolving policy. And I want to appreciate that personally. Thank you. Okay, I have just one question for you Daisy, and that's on the design review or the abandonment of the ability for the county to require certain designs and materials or colors. And that applies I believe doesn't it to even if they are in discretionary review instead of just ministerial. Not exactly so. So, if you have an ADU that for some reason requires discretionary review like let's say you need a variance or a minor exception to one of the development standards, like setback or height. In that case you might require discretionary review. And if in the discretionary review process staff needs to make certain findings. And those findings can or do include overall kind of neighborhood compatibility of the project. So, so in that way it is something that is taken into consideration once once an ADU project is become it is upgraded to a discretionary review. But it will be pretty rare that that will happen especially because we're removing now discretionary review for ADUs in based on zone district. And that would mean to be a situation where the ADU is either in a coastal development permit process, or, or needs a variance or a minor exception, or if the ADU is in an L historic landmark area. Yes, yes, or in the L historic landmark area. Thank you. I thought that had been absolute so I was questioning how we would be able or how anyone would be able to control the design in the historic landmark areas. So is, is anyone ready to make a motion. Can I, can I ask one other follow up question to apologize there's two. There is one thing that was brought up about having additional ADUs on larger parcels, and is there a path forward to have that discussion. Yeah, in some ways and so, you know, how do we, what's the process there. Well, let's see so the current code and what is proposed allows for dwelling groups and dwelling groups with being the number of single family dwellings on allowed on the parcel is based on the size of the parcel on the zone district and the density requirements. And then an ADU and a junior ADU would be allowed for each one of those single family dwellings. So in that way the ad is allowed on a single on a single family parcel are is proportional to the size of the parcel. In terms of changing the code to allow for multiple ADUs for one single family dwelling. So my last understanding is that we would need to look into environmental impacts from that and determine whether or not we needed to do environmental review on that change. The reason why is because ADUs are subject to an exemption in CEQA but the exemption is for meeting state law. If we're if we're going beyond state law, in a way that we're allowing multiple ADUs on one parcel, we need to potentially think about the environmental impacts from that. It's possible that it would not require a CEQA initial study it's possible that it would be exempt for some other reason but staff has not done that analysis. Just jump in one of the path B to answer your question is there a path. One of the path B to subdivide the parcel for talking about a 20,000 square foot parcel, and you want to add dwellings, the path is to subdivide that parcel and do a lot split. Right, and then you can split the lot and then you'd be able to put single family dwelling, the JADU and an ADU by right on that other parcel. Yeah, I mean we also allow even without a lot split we allow you to do that to have a you know multiple single family dwellings with ADUs and junior ADUs. But I think the question is, if you can have avoid avoid the process involved with getting a new single family dwelling approved and simply get building permits to do multiple ADUs on one parcel. I mean, I think that that would be a separate discussion right because I'm not fundamentally change what it is we're doing here we consider an ADU a specific thing. But if we're going to, you know, that you know it's defined in a certain way so that would change the definition really, which I'm not opposed to doing I just, it's a little Wild West, in a way. I wouldn't. That doesn't feel comfortable me to do a very quickly after a brief discussion so I'm not going to support that. I'm not the board, you know that's appropriate. I would suggest if that's a concern that we asked the board to look at I mean the board can look at that and I'm sure it will come up at the board hearing. I'm just uncomfortable with making changes to staff suggestions, this quickly with very little discussion. Understood. Thank you. Tim, I wouldn't be so shocked if there's going to be a state bill that does just that. Yeah, I just, I just wanted to add is, I do support keeping the 16 foot height limit for detached ADUs and the state is mandating. The fact that very, you know, removing the parking requirements. I just want to register that that will result in many planning commission hearings where we will hear with people. Lots of lots of people who say they couldn't park on the street beforehand and now there's even less parking and blah, blah, blah, but there's nothing we can do about it. And what I'm understanding Daisy so we have to I think we should definitely obey have to obey what the state is mandating in the coastal zone, however, I think what we're looking at is expanding those areas that are still going to be looking at some parking for ADUs. And we've expanded that but what are we leaving out why are we got pretty much got the whole coastal zone now don't we. You know, it's actually just the basically the pleasure point neighborhood, which is, it's called the live oak designated area and the vacation rental ordinance, and then the Davenport neighborhood and then the Salza, which is the C cliff that's the Salva beach area to the south or west of highway one. So it doesn't include basically the more rural areas along the coast. Which are they. I mean, the coastal, the coastal zone extends for instance all the way up into Bonnie June, the North Coast. And then all the way down, you know to to the border with Monterey County. So it wouldn't include those rural areas. So we'll just have to, you know, and that's going to be at the discretion really of the coast of the Coastal Commission in the end. I may or may not agree with that. But I would be in favor of adding those areas suggested by the other commissioners for sure. And I'm also would definitely support the 10 foot setback. A four foot setback is not very much when you live right next door to your neighbor so I definitely want to say our motion should include that you suggested that change and I would definitely support it. Okay, and then just to clarify that would be what we were, what staff was discussing in the presentation was an eight foot second floor step back right rear. Well as a weren't you suggesting increasing the four foot rear yard setback or did I make that a memory there. We can't, we can't do that because that's that's the state law but we, we can put a setback for 80 years that are over 16 feet tall. Okay, I would support that. Save ourselves hours of people feeling betrayed. Chair had one other question there. Which was I was hoping that Daisy could help understand help us understand that they are for multifamily, a little bit better possible and I appreciate the support for that I wanted to understand so what is what counts towards that they are right now the garage does it count towards FAR addict space like. Are we. Yeah, so garages do count towards FAR currently except we do have a credit of 225 square feet that we apply to garages. Okay. So let's say you were doing a conversion ad you in. Let's say you had a multifamily, you know, building and you were doing conversion ad use and 25% of the units. The garage spaces would already be counting towards FAR with the exception of 225 square feet. So it, there wouldn't be a large difference in the calculation of FAR before and after. Is that per unit per garage or was that like on a multifamily project is that 225 feet in total for the project. I might ask Jocelyn to chime in again on this one my understanding is it's per parcel for multifamily is that correct Jocelyn. Yes. Okay. So the conversion part of it is is still like a little unclear between multifamily and then the rest of things so essentially you can convert as we've heard a 2500 square foot house to an ad you and build whatever you want as a main house. And that doesn't count towards FAR, but you're saying in the multifamily conversion if you converted 10 garages to ad use, you probably couldn't actually do that because you're most likely already maxed out and you're saying that those conversions do count towards FAR. Well, yes, but what I'm saying is that the FAR the garages are already counted towards FAR so you wouldn't be increasing your FAR by doing those conversions. I understand that but we're we're accounting for FAR differently in different scenarios is that correct. That just seemed really confusing and I feel like it could be streamlined pretty easy at this point. Yeah, I mean I feel like I wish I had another another diagram to help us. But I. So if you have a an existing structure, most existing structures on a parcel are already counted towards FAR. Right. And so if you convert those structures to an ad you, you're not impacting your FAR on the parcel. I said you can. I'm sorry. You can, you can have a credit of 800 square feet FAR on a parcel attributed to the ADU. But in the scenario of the 2500 square foot house. You could that won't count at all towards FAR, because say your limit was 2500 square feet. You could have another 2500 square foot home effectively at 5000 square feet of coverage. No, no, no, no, you know you would still be subject to the FAR limit on the parcel. That's right and confused. Yeah, you would still be subject to all the stand the development standards on the parcel it's just that there's no maximum size for a conversion ADU. Yeah, and that was clarified by each CD so we cannot, we cannot have an maximum size for an ADU for conversion ADU in our in our code. But you still, you know, have the maximum FAR and lock coverage allowed for the parcel for the zone district, and the primary dwelling and the ADU will be subject to that except that the ADU can exceed that FAR and lock coverage by up to 800 square feet. Got it. That makes sense in all scenarios. Exactly. So you understand that for. Okay, like some of the projects so the multi family one is still sticks like it doesn't like doesn't correlate because if you can do to new ADUs. Then they're limited to 400 square feet each right let's say. Okay, yeah if you're maxed out on your FAR on the parcel, or maybe you can do them at all because you're already maxed out right. So it just seems like a really limiting factor. I think I might, I think I've killed that one. So, but maybe I don't know if any other commissioners had questions on that one but I would still really strongly hope that we could remove that even maybe just for the multi family projects, because it will prevent a lot of the ideas that would otherwise possible. Well, I, I might be able to get there if I could understand better what the change you're proposing would actually result in, because my understanding is as proposed a multi family complex could convert space like garages or storage into ADUs. So that Daisy presented so I guess I'm not understanding what it is that it's, what's the limitation is and then what the change would result in, and what the impact of that could be because a lot of, you know, in the city and I think of situations in the county as well, apartment complexes sometimes are adjacent to single family homes and, you know, an expansion of a multi family can have some impacts not just with parking, and, but you know other other things and so I guess I just want to tread a little bit more carefully here understand at least before I can support something. I get where you're coming from now so I think the clarification is that, and correct me if I'm wrong Daisy that you're not when you're converting, you're not building new square footage right you are simply changing one space to another. So say you had the hundred unit complex and you're converting and you get those 25, you're not making the building any bigger by doing that the only place that the building gets bigger is with the two additional ADUs right. So say you're maxed out. You can, you know, do those two new ADUs, they can only be 400 square foot each. So the two new eight standalone ADUs is the only place where you will see additional square footage, but that's already technically allowed. It's just how it relates to your total FAR that would limit it. In some circumstances, the FAR would remove the ability to create those two additional ADUs, even if you wanted to. But you could still convert space in the existing building. Yes, without creating new square footage. Right. So it's a pretty minimal change on the multi family. And then there's still all the rest of the codes that apply right you still have to have your setbacks you still have to meet, you know, there's height standards there's the parking for those new ADUs that all the rest applies it's just saying like okay maybe you have an apartment with a really large yard that, you know isn't really used or there's just some extra space or something and you can actually fit two more ADUs there. Then that's a lot. So probably. Can I just verify. So are you proposing that what we would allow is that the two detached ADUs for multi family would be allowed. Any, any side, or regardless of FAR and lock coverage up to, you know, the maximum size that's a lot like 1000 square feet, 1200 square feet, or would be like the 28, like to 800 square foot ADUs. So, is there a limit right now on the maximum size you can build an ADU. Yes. I would meet that same limit. It just wouldn't count towards FAR in the multi family categories. And the other part of that and I would say conversions as well because there is that credit for FAR that I'm sure everyone uses. I know, you know, on the garage space. So what that means is say you have a, you know, 400 square foot garage space. Well, if you at some point got a credit for that of 225 square feet. Well then you might be at your FAR. And what I think that's already, excuse me, I'm sorry I'm thinking through this while I'm talking. There's going to be some challenge from a staff standpoint I would assume to go back and see whether or not a project actually applied for and receive that 225 credit. So say you, you know, you want to convert your garage on a multi family project. How does staff handle that you actually have to go back and say oh no you got a 225 square foot credit so we're not going to allow you this on this product parcel but, maybe we don't know whether you got the credit so we're just going to assume you did or assume you didn't. How would that work. Yeah, staff would just calculate the existing square footage of the primary dwelling and would take reply the FAR credits and our code. It's not work. Am I correct in that. That could cause a problem if you wanted to convert a full, let's say you got a two car garage 400 square feet. You could have a problem where maybe you could only convert half of that now because 225 square foot gets removed from the, from the FAR. Yes, but you also have an 800 square foot credit for the ADU. It's a multi family project right so back to the 100 unit example, 25 garages want to get changed well 800 square foot credit is, you know, two garages. I guess I would say I'm sorry, go ahead to sorry. No, no, no, go ahead. It's almost noon and this is sounding a little confusing to me because you're going so fast. I would propose that maybe that we could suggest the board look at what you're considering but I'm not sure I'm comfortable if I don't really understand and it's all I don't want to spend another half an hour on this so maybe that's something we could suggest that the board of supervisors look at. I don't know if I'd be ready to, I'm not sure I even understand what you very clearly I think we need to think about moving this long I have to leave at 1230. Rachel, can you. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. I would echo your shepherd's recommendation that we move this along and I'm prepared to to make a motion, but I realize we haven't heard from the chair yet. Okay, I just have, I just have one question of Daisy. And that's on section six item K. And it's on page 13 of 16 of the clean ordinance. And it says that the annual review of impacts of this ordinance will be the impacts will be reviewed annually by the county is that the planning department. Yes, so that is in our existing code and my understanding is that we are required to keep that in our code. Let me just bring up the section. I don't think she's questioning it I just think she wants to know more about. Yeah, I'm just I'm just going to pull it up so I can take a look at it. But might it might alleviate some of the concerns about parking and water and all these other things if we refer to that annual review. So, so we as part of our growth goal report that we do every fall, we do report on the ADU ordinance. We report on the number of ADU is constructed and number of building permits and any changes to our regulations. I believe that is what this provision in the code is referring to. Well at that review we don't make any changes it's just reporting the numbers. So that's all you're saying that that's all a review just means totaling up what happened. I know that there are sections of that report that deal with specifically ADU construction in areas that are environmentally sensitive that kind of thing. So it would not involve a review for possible changes or modifications. It's really just reporting what what's going on. Okay. Right, just analyzing the impacts. I don't think it does that I think it just says this is how many have been constructed. Yeah, it's an impact. It's the growth goal report is really a report on building construction and permits issued over the last year and how that relates to the county's overall growth goal under measure J. And so that ADU report is included within that growth goal report that we do annually. It's not it's not a review of for instance environmental impacts or Well, in the second paragraph it says if the executive director determines that specific enumerated cumulative impacts are qualitatively threatening to specific coastal resources that are under the authority of the coastal commission, the executive director and the county in writing, and then in 60 days the county has to reply or respond. But that would protect I would think the coastal, though some of the concerns in the coastal areas, parking and water and. So I would think that the coastal commission's review of the ADU ordinance itself is probably going to be a more effective platform for the coastal commission to kind of think about those impacts, rather than the growth goal report which is more of a It's a large report and ADU ADU report is just a section of that report that's done that's submitted annually. Okay. So Melanie, you were going to make a motion. Yes, and I, and I welcome any support from my fellow commissioners because I, I'm not sure I'm going to cover everything. So I first would like to start out with. I move that we approve or adopt the resolution included in the staff report beginning on page one, or I don't know what page 14 I guess I should say, with the following changes that. And I'm going to the mock up pages. And that page, let's see 46, which is section D Roman numeral five special coastal zone parking requirements to keep in the language under Roman numeral five except to replace a with the live oak development area replace the C clip after the silver district area and replace C with the Davenport swat and swanton development area. So that would be one change. The second change would be, and I believe it's on page 42 again at the corrected report. And that commissioners talked about changing the setbacks when there is a 16 foot height. Is that correct. Yes, that was proposed in the staff report. Okay, so I believe this would be the appropriate section. Oh, you said it's already in this. Oh, it's not in this mocked up copy yet though. So that would be the section seven lowercase a under setbacks to put that language in. And that's the staff proposal during the presentation for the eight foot step back on ad use above 16 feet tall. Was it 10 foot. We proposed eight feet. Okay, well then I'll keep it at eight feet up to you that recommendation. So with those changes, I would move approval of the resolution. I'll second that. I'd like to make a friendly amendment if possible to suggest that the changes with regard to driveways. And that commissioner Gordon mentioned to allow some flexibility. What was that change to you know, Daisy. Um, yeah, so that would be. I'm just going to the right place in the ordinance. So that would be on page 40 of the staff report. This is number five access. We would move that section where we're requiring. Where we're limiting. You driveway access. Okay. I believe that was commissioner Gordon's proposal. Okay. And. Go ahead. The motion maker and the seconder have to accept that. Yes. I'm okay with that. If we can. Okay. And that would take care of the correction on that I had called out. Our Daisy, did you already do that? That would be the other impact fee. Correction and section H three. Okay. Well, I'll add that in as well. Okay. If it's okay with my fellow commissioners, I don't think I correctly followed the language in approving and adopting the resolution. So I would like to suggest that the language be that we direct staff to file the California environmental quality at notice of exemption. The clerk of the board. And I would like to add that to the resolution. I would like to add that to the resolution. And I would like to add that to the resolution. The amendment. D minimus waiver provisions to coastal regulations. With all the changes that have been proposed. And thirdly direct staff to transmit the amendments. To the California coastal commission. And I second that. I just wanted to read purposes of discussion. I believe commissioner Gordon's. Proposal about the multifamily units is not captured in the motion. I would like to make a friendly amendment. I would absolutely appreciate that. I would love to do that. Make a friendly amendment to. Adjust page 39, I believe, of the staff report to allow multifamily dwellings. To have. 25% conversion. ADUs and two additional ADUs as opposed to, or two additional. I won't support. I wouldn't support that. I don't support that. I don't support that. I don't support that. I really think the supervisors should take that up. And clarification that does not adjust any FAR. At all. It's just. Bringing us up to meet. The code like other, like the city has. It's no relation to FAR. That maximum still is there. It's just allowing. The ability to have both conversion. And. To new ADUs. Using part of it was out of that. And I do support that. Yes, it was an either or 27%. Or two. And then the end. So I would support that as well. So Renee, does that sway you? I just want to get this moved up to the board. So I'll go along with it. Okay. Any more discussion. Then let's take a roll call vote. Okay. Commissioner Gordon. Yes. Commissioner Shepard. Yes. Commissioner Schiffer. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. And chair. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Daisy. And all the staff. That was excellent. So we're moving on quickly to the planning directors report. Hi, this is Kathy. Let's see. I guess my big news since we're having a planning commission meeting today, it coincides with the day that I'm going to formally announce my first day of retirement. And I'm just going to let you guys know that later today, there'll be a letter going out. And my first day of retirement will be August 23rd. And Carlos Palacios has indicated his intention to appoint the assistant director, Paya Levine as interim planning director. And, you know, Carolyn Burke, who's currently managing the environmental planning section is going to be put into a special assignment role to assist. And then, you know, they're going to be pulling together. You know, to free up her time so she can really concentrate on pulling together. A unified permit center. Sort of a one stop type thing with bringing the permitting agencies together. So there's a lot of exciting changes. Related to that that are going to be happening. But the most exciting for me, of course, is my retirement. congratulations. Thank you. I would like to echo that. You've been a great planning director to work with Kathy, always very professional and thorough. And I'm just so thrilled that you're going to be retiring and have more time to spend with your family, especially your grandchild. I know how important that is to you. So I'm just delighted for you. Congratulations and thank you. Thank you. I'd just like to echo what Melanie just said. And I know we'll get to appreciate you more in the coming weeks. But one of the things I just always loved working with you, because when we sat down with a difficult situation, you would always find a way and a path to a yes. And that is not an easy thing to do. But I just really want to appreciate that and just how incredible you are to work with. And I'm going to miss you. But I thank you all. Thank you. I'll miss you all too. Kathy, how many years have you been planning director? Well, I first became a plan director in 1994 for the city of Capitola. But here at the county of Santa Cruz, I started in May of 2010. So it's been 11 years. I can't believe it. Well, I remember interviewing you, because I sat on that panel and I voted strongly for you. And I was right. Congratulations. Thank you for that. Thank you for that. I'm very grateful to have worked here for 11 years. It's been a great experience and very rewarding. Thank you. And best of luck. Report on upcoming meeting dates and agendas. Yes, so we only have one agendized meeting for the Planning Commission in June, which is June 9. And we do not have any regular items on the docket. So we will not be having a meeting on June 9. We have one consent calendar item that we have a reservation for. But we will go ahead and have that added to whatever next regular agenda that we have. So no meetings in June. Have a nice month off. And I'm guessing hopefully by July we'll have a few items for you. OK, thank you. County Council's report. Good afternoon, Chair. Nothing to report other than a hearty congratulations to Kathy, Loi. We're going to miss you. But I think that is a wonderful, wonderful news. Thank you for sharing that with us all and wish you the best. Thank you. Thank you. And since it is now 1209, I will adjourn the meeting and we can go on a, what, a month-long break instead of the 10-minute break at 11.30. Thanks, everybody. It was a good meeting. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Bye. Bye.