 Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for the Planning Commission hearing. Today's date is March 24, 2021, and the time is 930. Today's hearing is completely remote where you're using a Zoom video conferencing meeting platform. So for you at home or viewing this hearing or who may wish to participate in this hearing, I wanted to take a moment to explain some of the technological pieces of the remote hearing. So to participate in the hearing, you may connect with us via the Zoom video conference link, which is posted on the Planning Department's homepage at sccoplanning.com. The meeting link is also provided here on this slide. Alternatively, you may participate in today's meeting by phone. Please dial 1-669-900-6833. And when prompted, enter collaboration code 883-326-03683. You may also simply view today's meeting by watching us live on television on Channel 25. I wanted to cover a couple of instructions about participating in today's meeting as well. You will be muted by our support staff until you are called on to speak. And following each public hearing item, time will be provided for speakers to contribute their testimony. When the public hearing is opened, any member of the public may provide comment. To provide comment, I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony via Zoom on their computer to remotely raise their hand. This will indicate to us that you wish to comment. When we call on you to speak, you'll see a pop-up on your screen that says Unmute. Please accept the pop-up, state your name for the record, and provide your testimony. Members of the public will be provided three minutes to speak. For participants who wish to provide testimony via phone, when the public hearing is open for the item you wish to provide testimony on, please remotely raise your hand by pressing star 9 on your telephone. I will call on callers by either your name or the last four digits of your phone number. When you are called on to speak, you must unmute yourself by pressing star 6 on your telephone. I just wanted to point out that star 6 also will re-mute you yourself, so please just press it once to unmute. If at any time you have difficulty connecting to today's meeting via the Zoom link or calling in via telephone, please email myself at jocelynjocelyn.drebus. I will be checking my email periodically throughout the meeting, and I will be able to assist you. Okay, so now that we are situated, I will go ahead and turn over the meeting to the Planning Commission Chair, Judith Blazenby. Good morning, Judy. Good morning, Jocelyn, and everyone, and welcome to the March 24, 2021 virtual meeting of the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission. The time is now 9.33, and I will call the meeting to order. Ms. Drake, may we have a roll call please? Yes, Commissioner Gordon. Here. Commissioner Shepard, looks like you're muted. Here, sorry. Commissioner Dan. Here. Commissioner Schaefer-Freitas. Here. And Chair Leesonby. Here. Are there any additions or corrections to today's agenda? No, there are not. Thank you. Do any commissioners have declarations of ex-party communications? I do. I have been contacted by a few people in regards to today's discussion. I have all members of the community. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, that brings us to the point of the agenda for oral communications. The Planning Commission will now hear remarks or statements on issues of concern from members of the public, and you will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Okay, so this is the time if you wish to comment on anything not on today's agenda. Please raise your hand by remotely raising your hand or pressing button on your phone. And I'll provide two minutes for you to provide comment. Chair, I'm not seeing any. I don't see any either. Okay. So we'll move on to the scheduled items and item number five is the approval of the minutes from the March 10, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. So Commissioner Dan moves approval. Is there a second? I'll second it. Thank you. Chair, I would like to abstain from the vote because I was not at the meeting. Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer Freitas. So at this time we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those that are muted. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I was an eye as well. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so then we move on to item number six on the agenda. And this is the study session to consider updates to regulations for accessory dwelling units and development of regulations for tiny homes. At this point we have not yet drafted an ordinance. We are looking for your feedback on policy direction. And we intend to return with the draft ordinance at your April 28th meeting. Next slide. So first, I'd like to provide just a little bit of context and explanation as to why we are pursuing this regulation update at this time. So as you may remember in January of 2020, there were new state ADU laws that went into the draft ordinance. So I would like to give you a little bit of context and explanation as to why we are pursuing this regulation update at this time. So we are looking for new state ADU laws that went into effect. Last year we moved quickly to update our code to comply with these new laws. But at the time there was not guidance available from the state on how to interpret some of the confusing provisions in the state law. And this past fall the California Office of Housing and Community Development, HCD, released an ADU handbook which provides an opportunity for us to assess whether our local code is aligned with HCD's interpretation of the state law. Also, after working with our revised code for a year, a staff has identified some areas where we can simplify and clarify our code so that it's less confusing and easier to understand. So for those reasons we are currently considering certain updates to the county's ADU regulations. At this time we are also considering adding some regulations to the county code regarding tiny homes. The Board of Supervisors has provided direction to staff to pursue tiny home regulations in two phases. The first phase which is being addressed at the study session would allow tiny homes to be used as primary dwellings or as ADUs. The regulations would add clarity regarding the rules for tiny homes on foundations and would create new rules allowing tiny homes on wheels to be used as permanent residences. Phase two of the tiny home regulations would involve exploration of policy updates that would require general plan amendments as well as environmental review. Since tiny home villages and tiny homes off the grid have been discussed as options for the phase two work. Next slide please. So now I'll go ahead and present some topic areas where staff is considering changes to the county's ADU regulations. I'll summarize staff's position on and direction that we're going currently on each issue. This is a detailed explanation included in the staff report and I'd be happy to go into more detail on any of these issues as needed. So first regarding the number of ADUs on a parcel. We are proposing to modify the county code and allow for one ADU and one junior ADU or JADU per single family property. We're considering changing this rule in order to align with the HCD handbook and mitigate for potential neighborhood impacts from allowing more ADUs on single family properties. Similarly, in order to reduce potential parking impacts or neighborhood 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. Regarding duplexes, the HCD handbook clarifies that duplex structures are considered multifamily structures under ADU law and are subject to the ADU rules for multifamily properties. So we will be, we do intend to update the code to reflect that. Halfplexes, which are two single family dwellings on separate properties that are attached at a property line would still follow the single family ADU rules. Daisy. Yes, when you are explaining this which is going to be very helpful because this was kind of confusing because it's so complex. Would you mind saying, here's what it is now. And here's what will be with the proposed change in each case. So, single family properties, allowing ADU, a single ADU per property and a JADU, how does that differ from what's allowed now? Yeah, I'd be happy to explain that. So, currently, our county code allows for one ADU plus one junior ADU per single family dwelling. And in most cases that equates to one ADU and one JADU per single family property. But in some cases, on single family properties, there may be dwelling groups which are multiple single family dwellings on one property. And in that case, our county code currently allows for one ADU and one junior ADU for each of those single family dwellings. So what we are proposing is to revise the code to align with the HCD handbook and in the case where we have dwelling groups on single family properties, we would be still limiting to just one ADU and one junior ADU for the whole property. And then for multi-family properties, currently what we allow is two detached ADUs plus up to 25% of the multi-family units can have a conversion ADU. The HCD handbook clarifies that jurisdictions have the option to make that an either or. So we are thinking about changing the code to require applicants to either do two detached ADUs or the conversion ADUs and 25% of units, not both of those ADU types. The reason for that being that there is a parking impact related to allowing two detached ADUs plus the 25% of units having conversion ADUs, given the fact that ADUs within the urban services line generally do not require parking and conversions of garages do not require replacement parking. So that does cause a parking impact. Daisy, can I ask a question about that one? So say you have a four unit multi-family property that's owned for that for multi-family. So does that mean that only one of those four units could do an ADU? Yes. So under our current rules, we would allow one of those units to do a conversion ADU from a non-living space such as a garage. Right. Plus we would allow for two detached ADUs on the multi-family property. So three of the four. So I thought, and so my memory may not serve me, but I thought that last year we were heard about a state bill that was signed that spoke to this issue that I thought was a little bit more liberal with allowing ADUs for condominiums and apartment multi-family unit, but I think it spoke specifically to condominiums. So am I wrong on that or is this relate to that? I thought it was more liberal, but maybe I'm wrong. Yeah, so in any of these cases with the state ADU law, the intent of the law is to encourage more ADU construction. And so local jurisdictions always have the option of going beyond the minimum requirements in the state law. And last year, the new law that went into effect in January for the first time was requiring us to allow ADUs on multi-family properties. That was a big change with the law that went into effect last year. I think I'm remembering now all it said was that the CCNRs couldn't prevent an ADU, right? Yes. Yeah, that was a different law that also went into effect last year. So if you have an HOA, you can't have CCNRs that disallow for ADUs. I guess how does that work, though, functionally? So if you live in a multi-family complex or condominium complex, say more than 25% of the people want to build an ADU, they just have to work that out themselves at the condo ward? Yeah, it's an interesting kind of place where there wasn't really any guidance on that from the state level. And we haven't heard of any kind of conflicts related to that yet, but I could guess that that would start to be a concern down the line. And then on the last issue that Renee brought up, and I'm sorry, and I hope it's okay that we're interrupting you with questions, but it is helpful to be able to do that. So on a single family property, I'm assuming that this is like an our zone property where there's dwelling groups. How does that happen? And what's an example of that? Is that something that is more in the rural areas? You know, there's a lot of funky kind of properties here in the county, a lot of different areas. It is more common in the rural areas where you have larger parcels. Would that be a non-conforming property then? Because it has two dwellings on it that's zoned just like say it's R16 and it's just supposed to be like one single family home, but there's like two. Yeah, so the way we're talking about. Yeah, so the way our single family zoning works is it requires like for instance R16 would require one single family dwelling per 6,000 square feet of property area. So if you have a 12,000 square foot lot area, you could potentially have two single family dwellings built on that property without requiring subdivision. Okay. Yeah, so that's that's how our code is usually we see those all the time, lots, but that exact situation is what we see all the time. So but that's legal right now if you have a 12,000 square foot lot, you can have two houses on them. Right, depending on the lot. Right, depending on what your zone district is. And you know how you know what what size your lot is what the density requirements are for that zone district. Okay, I was assuming in that case it would be a non conforming situation but but you're saying if that's not correct. Yeah, it is true that a lot of the dwelling groups that we do have in the county are non conforming situations though, because they're over density. I would say it's a 8,000 square foot lot and you have two dwellings on there in that situation under what was being proposed here. What you, what the handbook is saying is that each one of those houses could also have an ADU and a JADU and what you're proposing is one or the other or limiting that. Is that right. Yeah, so, so, so basically what the what we interpreted from the state law last year without having this guidance from HCD was that the state law was requiring us to allow for 180 you plus one junior ADU for each single family dwelling. So we thought our interpretation was that we needed to allow for it for if you have a dwelling group to allow for an ADU plus a junior ADU for each of those dwellings and that dwelling group. What it clarifies in the HCD handbook is that their interpretation is if you have a dwelling group, you may only have one ADU plus one junior ADU for the whole parcel. So we have the option of keeping our code the same way it is right now, or we have the option of changing it to align with the HCD guidebook. In that case. And the HCD guidebook is statewide. Yes, jurisdiction. Right. Okay. Yeah, HCD is the agency that actually reviews our ordinance at the state. Thank you. Well, I had another question to my question is, I feel a little like this is a little surreal because we're talking about what you can and can't do, but then we've got to look at the resource base for what we can and can't do so. We'll talk about it later on in the presentation, but it's sort of like one sentence so we, we change on the regulations and the way we're talking about. What's the connection with the resources, specifically water, we're heading into another drought year I think it's irresponsible not to look at if we are going to be able to support this with water and sewer so what's the connection and what's the review process through through all these regulations. Yeah, I guess I'm not sure exactly how to answer that question. It's a bit of a general question. We permit the land use but how do we, how do we permit whether there's water and sewer capacity. How is that taken into consideration I mean right now if you divide a property, you build something you have to have a will serve notice from the, from the water department and and environmental has to also say yes, it can hook into the sword there's capacity. What's how does that work and all these applications. Right, yeah so that's so that's still required for you projects. If you have a new construction, you are required to, or local agencies can charge new connection is for that. If you have a conversion to you. There's not a requirement for that new connection. What about tiny how what about the tiny house piece. Yeah, the tiny house pieces are really that's that's a really good question and that's a kind of. That's a policy area where we're more at the beginning of putting together regulations for that. And so, so I don't have a good answer for that, that question except that we would require. Currently, you know with the phase one option for tiny homes we would require connection to our utility our utility systems, because that's baked into our general plan and we wouldn't be able to disallow that without a general plan amendment. Well, here in the valley, a water connection costs more than these tiny houses, so I don't know how you're going to get around that and water is this, you know, unfortunately, particularly in the valley. What water is a limited resource so I think before we see an ordinance going to have to figure. Figure that out for sure. I want to I want to know that we can manage the resources or infrastructure we have as we move into this ordinance and I think that's very important and I think it's under addressed and what what you've given us this is all about the planning aspect. And not about how these people are going to enjoy the resources that other homeowners have. One thing I would I would say just to respond to to that concern is that with the proposal we have regarding the number of ad use allowed. We are proposing to reduce the number of ad use allowed from what is currently in our code. That's what we're presenting here on the slide. We're talking about the tiny houses. Yes, right exactly and then for the tiny homes, what we're proposing as the phase one policy project is allowing for tiny homes to be primary dwellings or ad use, but not to add additional density or be allowed in to primary homes and ad use so we're not talking about adding density or adding additional utility connections beyond what you would usually be allowed to do on any given parcel. So are you saying that if you had a vacant parcel and you wanted to put a tiny home on it, you would be required to have a water connection. If you put a tiny home on a, on a parcel where there's already one or more homes, you still would you would or would not need to register your water use in some way. Yeah, you would still you would have to my understanding of and and we can certainly discuss this more is that you would need to connect into this the same systems that standard dwellings connect into. Well, it sounds like I'm pressing you at a time when you just starting to think about this but I think that the ordinance needs to be very clear how resources will be needed out shared or required, because it looks like we're heading into another drop period, and, you know, five years ago we're all ringing our hands over that so we've got to put these two things together and these ordinances. I'm going to add a little bit to that. So, right now there's you know jurisdictions do a differently different water environments do a differently throughout the state. For an ADU some places you can attach to the main house and other places you need a separate meter. In this case you do need to provide the right amount of water and have that water approved before you can construct. So we see this in a lot of jurisdictions where there may not be water and they need to allocate that water for certain things like especially like in the city of seaside right now is a is an example right at the top of my head. And that is a certain amount of water rights towards ad use and that's what can be built with those wrap water rights. So there are instances where that has happened and it does get mitigated. Changing the land use does not necessarily affect or change the ability to provide water, or give you essentially a right to build without water. You know with all, Tim, I invite you to come to San Lorenzo Valley where they are much closely connected. All I can say is thank you for that information and I would hope the county is going to look at these other jurisdictions because I think this is something I'm just saying I'd like to see that explained in the ordinance. I'm not taking position. I just think that it's not much traded in the materials you gave, give us, we've looked carefully at planning issues but I'd like to see them tied to, you know, services, resources, very clearly because I think we're in our, in our part of the county. That's what's going to be looked at carefully because they're both scarce and limited and very expensive. Thanks. We'll continue on for now and perhaps we can talk a little bit more about this issue. A little bit later when we get into the tiny homes. So let's see, where was I in terms of let's see I talked about duplexes. Okay so regarding ad use proposed on properties with non conforming zoning conditions such as multifamily structures on single family zoned properties. Staff is proposing to keep me, which is that we refer applicants to county code section 1310 to 61, which are non conforming structures and uses code. And it does require discretionary review for intense intensification of non conforming uses. And in the case where you have what Commissioner Dan was describing when where you have a dwelling group that's non conforming to density a single family dwelling group that's non conforming to density. In that case, we do not require discretionary review but you have to choose one of the single family homes to be the conforming home and then you can do the ad you and junior ad you for that home. And then regarding junior ad use the building code does not allow for three dwellings attached to each other under single family building occupancy standards. This is something that we that has been clarified with the fire district staff and building staff and therefore a single family dwelling with an attached ad you cannot also have a junior ad you. And and and be evaluated using single family building code standards it would bump it up to be a multifamily building in terms of the building code which has different building code requirements. The building is also made in the hcd ad you handbook so for that reason, staff is planning to update the county code to not allow for a junior ad you and an attached ad you on the same single family dwelling. And staff is planning to continue to allow junior ad use to be constructed on properties with dwelling groups, which is a little bit more lenient than what is allowed in the hcd handbook. Okay, next slide. So regarding ad you dwelling size and floor area calculations, staff proposes to update the code to clarify that ad you size should be counted in terms of habitable square footage, rather than gross square footage. In other words a garage or storage area outside the living area of an ad you would not count towards the calculation of the unit size. So staff proposes to keep a maximum size for conversion ad use. However, this proposal is not in alignment with the hcd handbook so we certainly welcome discussion on this point. And if there's support for the proposal of keeping a maximum size for conversion ad use staff will need to include an explanation in our ordinance to hcd as to why we are proposing a difference there and the reason why we are proposing to keep in a maximum size for conversion ad use is that the intent of the state laws to allow for our provide for smaller dwelling units that are secondary to single and multifamily dwelling units and if you have for instance a let's say a 3000 square foot accessory structure on a parcel and you have a 2000 square foot single family home on that same parcel. What the hcd handbook is saying is that you can go ahead and convert 3000 square foot structure to an ad you are reading the letter of the law staff is not fully in agreement with that interpretation. So, we welcome discussion on that point. Let's see staff proposes to continue to allow additions as part of junior ad use in order to provide more flexibility for applicants. Regarding large dwelling units staff proposes that an attached ad you or junior ad you should count as part of the overall structure counted in the large dwelling unit calculation, because the square footage adds to the bulk and mass of the overall structure. This is already the interpretation that staff has made but it's not clear in the in the county code and so the proposal would be to add in some clarity regarding whether or not ad use should be included in those large dwelling unit calculations. Staff proposes to clarify in the code that the 800 square foot 16 foot tall ad you that is allowed regardless of a parcels existing for area or a lot coverage shall not be counted as an 800 square foot for area credit, but rather as an allowance for the ad you for instance, if you have a 20, you'll see you have a 5000 square foot lot and you have an FAR of 0.5 and your existing single family home is 2500 square feet. You could go ahead and add an 800 square foot ad you exceeding the 50 the 0.5 that they are. But, but what we would interpret there is that the ad you does add to the floor area on the parcel and so you wouldn't be allowed after that to come in and build another 500 square foot of additional space in your primary dwelling unit. So that's that's also certainly up for discussion and either way we need to add some clarity on that point because it's been a point of confusion for applicants and staff. And finally, staff proposes to remove the existing 2% allowance for FAR and lock coverage on small parcels with ad use because the state law 800 square foot ad you allowance does address the same policy. Issue and it's been confusing for staff and applicants to understand how those two provisions of our code work together. Next slide please. Regarding setbacks staff proposes to apply the four foot setback to street sideyards not just interior sideyards so currently we have a four foot setback. So the state law requires a four foot side and rear setback or ad use. And we had interpreted that to only apply to interior sideyards between properties. But the HCD handbook makes clear that that would also apply to quarter lots to street sideyards so we're proposing to add in add in that provision in our county code. In the process staff proposes that the existing regulation, this allowing separate driveways for ad used in the urban area should be expanded to be applied throughout the county. The reason for that being recognizing the importance of protecting resources reducing grading and otherwise concentrating development on rural parcels. So regarding parking staff is proposing to remove the special parking requirements in the coastal zone, because this has been a barrier to ad you construction we've received a lot of feedback on this provision in our code. And we are currently what we, what we have in terms of parking is for ad use that are within a half mile of bus stop or transit stop. We do not require parking for the ad use but that prevent that that special provision doesn't not apply in the coastal zone currently. What we are proposing is that we would remove the difference in the coastal zone such that within the coastal zone if you have an ad you within a half mile of the transit stop, you would not be required to provide parking for that ad you. We would also remove the difference between the coastal zone and outside the coastal zone regarding replacement of garage parking that is converted to ad use. I have a question. If you were building an ad you for a disabled person, could you, if it was specifically designated for special needs, could you require some parking there, or if you had seen your ad use I mean. My understanding is that is no. I mean you'd be required to, I guess, you know, build the unit itself to meet you know ad requirements but my understanding is that you would not, we cannot require a provision of a parking space associated with that ad you. Okay. I think that's fine, considering that the people are going to use ad use are all able bodied, relatively young people but as people become seniors or have disabilities and they need to be close by I don't know how to conjoin these two requirements but it's a concern. Yeah, I mean the, the, the one, you know, area where we, where we can kind of have these special requirements is in the coastal zone so if there is some concern about provision of parking for seniors or other populations, we, we could add that into our code, specifically within the coastal zone outside the coastal zone we are required to meet the state law minimum which is no parking for ad use within a half mile of transit stop. Well I'd like to hear what other commissioners say on that. Great. And let's see. Also in terms of parking, we are proposing to apply the same parking allowances to junior ad use that are allowed for standard ad use. The HCD handbook clarifies that junior ad use that we could require parking for junior ad use if we if we would like to they don't they're not subject to the same allowance of the point of the half mile distance from transit or placement parking for garages. But we are proposing to have the same allowances for junior ad use that we do for ad use in terms of parking. Then what about tiny homes. Yeah, so tiny homes. You know, we may be interested in making some kind of special parking requirements or allowances related to tiny homes specifically. I think if we were to just adopt tiny homes without any special parking regulations then a tiny home that was being used as an ad you would be subject to the same parking regulations that that that all ad use are subject to. And similarly, a tiny home that was permitted as a primary residence would be subject to our usual parking regulations for for primary residences, which is dependent on the number of bedrooms. Thank you. So starting design staff proposes to remove the the existing subjective requirement in our code that ad use quote, shall be compatible with the main dwelling. And we are not currently proposing to add any objective design standards. We are proposing to add objective standards for ad use that involve additions or alterations to historic buildings that is allowed in the state law and we are we actually already have a provision in our code in title 16 with with some objective standards. So we're proposing to link to those existing standards. Well what about tiny homes can you build a tiny home that's 45 feet top. So for tiny homes. A couple slides a little bit later on tiny home specifically but so tiny homes. We could think about having some special development standards related to tiny homes. If we didn't add special development standards related to tiny homes, then they would be subject to the usual development standards that we have for residences which is a maximum of 28 feet. In some cases and we have a reduced height for ad use in some cases as well. I do know that tiny homes on on wheels are subject to special dimension requirements related to being able to be towed on the highway. So that that kind of affects the height that you can. Well, I was being facetious but I was just trying to make a point. I think that tiny homes have their own requirements based on the fact that tiny homes on wheels have to be towable. Yes, tiny homes on wheels need to meet certain standards to be able to be registered with the DMV to be towed. Yes, but tiny homes don't have to have wheels do they. They do not and so if it kind of depends you know how we choose to define tiny homes and whether we would like to add any special development standards to tiny homes that are different from our development standards that we have for prime for standard dwellings and ad use. Madame chair woman. Yes. I asked that we let staff go through the presentation is so complicated and jumping back and forth I'm getting more confused than less confused. So, I would prefer that we just go through the presentation. First, if that's acceptable. Okay, thank you. We will miss Allen's presentation and we'll hold our questions until the end. We're halfway through right now anyway. Okay. All righty so next slide. So, let's see regarding ad you the ad approval process. So per state law ad use and junior ad use on properties zone for residential or mixed use development must be approved immediately, which means that they only require building permit. The HCD handbook clarifies that residential or mixed use zone quote should be construed broadly to mean any zone where residential uses are permitted by right or by conditional use. So, the HCD handbook staff is proposing to update the code to remove the discretionary review requirements that we have in certain non residential zone districts. So these districts include commercial agriculture timber production parks and combining district D which is for future park development. The staff is proposing to allow for disaster victims to rebuild ad use. First, and primary dwellings second with the caveat that the development envelope for the primary dwelling would need to be shown on the ADU plans. We've received a lot of feedback and questions about this from CCU fire victims. In terms of occupancy, our code currently requires owner occupancy on properties with junior ad use and on properties with ad use that were permitted prior to 2020 staff proposes to add some flexibility to the code by recognizing relatives of the property owner as qualifying as the owner for the purposes of meeting this requirement. The caveat of the commission may wish to consider is removing the owner occupancy requirement for ad properties completely as many other jurisdictions have done. Let's see regarding fees staff is proposing to require impact fees for junior ad use and require utility connection fees for ad use and junior ad use that are built concurrently with a single family dwelling. These are not fees that we currently charge, but these changes are in alignment with the HCD ADU handbook. Staff is planning to add clarification that no public improvements can be required for the creation or conversion of an ADU. So for example, an applicant is not cannot be required to improve sidewalks or carry out street improvements or access improvements to create an ADU. There's been some confusion on this point with staff and applicants. So it would be helpful to add this to our code. So that concludes my summary on the policy proposals for the ADU regulations. And now I'll go ahead and talk about tiny homes. Next slide please. And so for the phase one of tiny home regulations as directed by the board of supervisors. So we've been thinking about what to include in an ordinance there. Tiny homes are not currently defined in our county code, but they're generally considered in the industry to be small housing units, less than 400 square feet that are either on foundations or on wheels, and maybe towed to different locations. These homes are built to resemble homes, rather than vehicles. Tiny homes on foundations are essentially just very small houses subject to the building code. Tiny homes on wheels. On the other hand, although they look like small houses do need to be registered with the DMV and are generally built to antsy standards or some some kind of park trailer standard rather than building code standards. Currently the county code only allows for tiny homes if they are on permanent foundations. Tiny homes on wheels are considered to be recreational vehicles and our code does not allow permanent habitation of recreational vehicles, except in designated RV parks. In terms of building code regulations, Appendix Q of the residential building code has already been adopted and has been in effect in Santa Cruz County since January of 2020. Provisions of Appendix Q apply to tiny homes on foundations and includes special standards for ceiling height, loft, ladders and stairs, and egress windows. In addition to the provisions of Appendix Q, it may be appropriate to add local amendments to the state building code for tiny homes. For instance, staff is exploring the idea of alternative foundation designs that could also allow for tiny homes on wheels to easily be converted into more permanent dwellings. Other special standards for tiny homes could also be appropriate. In terms of zoning regulations, we are planning to create a new code section dedicated to tiny homes in order to clearly define tiny homes and delineate how they are related to manufactured homes, mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers. The key difference that we see is that tiny homes are built to resemble standard homes and would be allowed outside of RV parks. The devil is certainly in the details in terms of how we will differentiate tiny homes on wheels from travel trailers. And this will be a can be accomplished with development design and use standards. In terms of development standards, we can require that tiny homes must meet all of the same development standards as standard primary dwellings and ad use as I was mentioning, or we could add special standards for tiny homes. For instance, staff is considering whether it may be appropriate to allow tiny homes on wheels to be parked in existing driveways or setback areas. Staff is also considering whether or not tiny homes on wheels should contribute to floor area or lock coverage. Staff is considering allowing efficiency kitchens and tiny homes, even if these homes are allowed as primary dwellings where we usually require full kitchen. And staff is planning to add some design standards for tiny homes related to siding roof pitch and other aesthetic elements that may serve to make tiny homes resemble small dwellings rather than vehicles. Lastly, staff is considering new standards for tiny homes. Since tiny homes are being considered specifically as a housing solution, it seems appropriate to disallow vacation rentals and tiny homes. The code should also recognize that tiny homes on wheels may be owned separately from the parcel where they're located and may be driven off the property. Staff is considering including a provision in the code clarifying where the threshold is where a tiny homes anchoring or foundation system would cause it to be considered part of real property rather than personal property. And we'll be looking at other local jurisdictions to see how that where that threshold is in other ordinances that have been adopted. Also, there will be a need to develop a permit for tiny homes on wheels that have been built and certified offsite and towed onto a property so that can be staff can keep track of the location of these homes within the county and ensure that they're meeting the established development design and new standards. Next slide please. So in terms of schedule, staff is currently in the process of researching and preparing this ordinance. After receiving initial direction from the Board of Supervisors in January on March 3 we took the conceptual policy project to the Housing Advisory Commission. Then we returned to the Board of Supervisors for more specific direction on tiny homes policy development on March 9. Last week we held a community meeting to gather some feedback on ADUs and tiny homes. And then after today's study session we will be drafting the ordinance and then we'll take it back to your commission. Final ordinance adoption is anticipated for August at the earliest. Next slide please. And can I just ask a question. The community meetings. How are they advertised. The community meetings. Let's see. So we held one community meeting that was last week and it was advertised on the planning webpage and on the ADU webpage. And there was also direct email to the county's list of people who are interested in ADUs. Our list of architects, developers, contractors, and our list of those who are specifically interested in housing issues. It's about 350 people on those email lists. And we had at the March 16th meeting we had approximately 100 people attend. I'll address this later because I don't want to interrupt your flow, but I never heard about it and that doesn't address the general community. Okay. At all. So, Go ahead. All right. So, let's see. So as I was mentioning, there was a high level of participation at the community meeting. 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 and questions addressed the policy content directly and I have summarized those comments here, along with some written comments that have been provided to you as late correspondence I believe. Let's see. So for ADUs, there was a question about whether the fact that ADUs are exempt from public improvement requirements also extends to fire district requirements, such as road with. So staff is checking on this, but our understanding is that fire district requirements would still apply. Since, whoops. Since those are related to life safety issues. Let's see, there was community support for removing parking restrictions in the coastal zone. Also regarding parking, there was a question that came up about whether we had any data such as parking complaints to support the proposal of reducing the number of ADUs allowed on single family and multi family parcels. We do not have a specific type of data available currently, but we do assume that most ADU residents do own a car since per census data, 94% of Santa Cruz County households own at least one vehicle. The staff concern is that parking is not required for ADUs and most urban areas of the county and we cannot require replacement parking for when garages are converted to ADUs. At this time, most county residents do own cars and this cars do need to be parked somewhere. So, therefore, there is an assumption that the ADU construction will impact demand for on street parking. There was a concern that the 800 square foot allowance for ADUs should indeed be treated as an FAR credit. Similarly, similarly to the 225 square foot credit that we have in our code for garages. There was a support for removing the design standard requiring ADUs to be built or resemble or to resemble or match primary dwellings. There was a proposal to have the county code be a little bit more lenient than state law by requiring ADUs constructed concurrently with the primary dwelling to be subject to the same 60 day review period as standalone ADU project. And there was also general concern about whether or not the county is meeting the 60 day review period for ADU projects. That's less of a code issue than a more of a permit processing issue. Regarding tiny homes, there was support for tiny homes as a home ownership option for folks who cannot otherwise purchase land or homes in Santa Cruz County. There especially was support for tiny homes as an option for CZU fire victims. Trailers are already allowed as a temporary housing solution while people rebuild but tiny homes may also be appropriate as permanent housing. The point was made that septic systems are very expensive. And the county should investigate allowing alternative systems such as composting toilets. This would be something that would be considered as I mentioned as part of the phase two tiny homes policy project in cooperation with the environmental health department. There was also concern that in general careful thought and analysis should be applied to ensure that there are not unintended impacts related to updated regulations for ADUs and tiny homes. Additionally, there was a general comment about the format of the meeting and a call for focused outreach and coordination with licensed industry professionals for future updates of the ADU code specifically. Okay, next slide please. Okay, so staff recommends that the commission conduct a study session to discuss the proposed code amendments that I've summarized and to consider any additional amendments that may be appropriate to include in this ordinance. Based on your direction, we will prepare draft ordinance and then return for a public hearing at your meeting on April 28 or at a later date, if the commission would prefer. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Miss Allen. Any other questions from the commissioners for Miss Allen. And then make a suggestion. Chair, I believe we'll probably all have questions. Do you want to just go in order. So it's a little bit more organized since I imagine each commissioner has questions. Okay. So we'll take district by first. That would be me. Any questions. Yes. I just second I got to turn this off. Let me start with the community meeting. I understand that you contacted all the relevant groups that are interested in these issues but that list of 300 is not a list of the general public. It's really is hard to communicate with people. I understand that. But I think if you're trying to have a community meeting, I think as this ordinance develops, you need to have community meetings that include the general public and maybe in the districts. Because I do think that everyone's calling me now. I do think that this is an important issue and I think you'll get a lot of valuable and constructive feedback, especially since housing, you know, possibilities are different in each different district in the rural areas and the urban areas. So, I think, I think you're getting good feedback from the people immediately concerned but this is a general county issue that's going to affect all the county. I never heard about the community meeting, the community organizations I've never heard from them usually if there's a big issue that's going to impact the whole county. Here in the valley here from the Chamber of Commerce you hear it from the Valley Women's Club you hear it from the fire district you hear it from the neighborhood social media. I think it's published in the Scott, you know, the press banner and all the Sentinel, I, you know, more social media, I didn't hear anything about this so going forward when we get out of the study session when you have post ordinance and you're going to have a community meeting. I think you need a much broader base to get really good feedback so it can get broad and cited later as we always do saying, I never heard about this you didn't consult me and so on. More public participation on these important issues, obviously, maybe a couple, this is a big change and I think at least one more community meeting held in the district would be useful. So, that I would like to see that and then I also had questions about a couple of things. To organize my thoughts I'd like to go to another commissioner while I look at my notes instead of just bumbling around. Go ahead. Okay, I've been district four so I will go. I have a question on the proposal to do away with governing documents in, let's say, homeowners associations and go ahead and supersede any objections there are documents say about having an ADU or a family home. What would happen in age restricted communities, would that supersede the requirements for age limiting. Yeah, I think you may be referring to the state law that went into effect last year that disallows HOA is from prohibiting the construction of ADUs. Yes. My understanding is that there is some flexibility there. Well, first of all, it's only for single family developments that that law applies. And so that may impact the kind of concern that you have about, well, no, I was thinking, especially about the single family homes, where their occupancy is limited to persons over the age of 55. Okay, so in those communities, you wouldn't be able to have CCNRs that prohibited ADUs from being constructed on those properties. That's the state law. Yeah, could we carry over our age restrictions. Yes. Thank you. District three. Thank you. I just want to thank staff for the presentation. This is some of this is new territory so I really appreciate you putting up with all of our questions. I just wanted to start with tiny homes and I distinguish tiny homes on wheels from tiny homes on a foundation. And I think that that's a helpful way for me to distinguish those two. I kind of see tiny homes on a foundation is just a small ADU. And so my first question is, is that how staff is proposing to treat tiny homes, or is that proposing to treat tiny homes on a foundation as something different than an ADU, a detached ADU. Yeah, so, so the main difference I would see is that if you, if you have 400 square feet, then you have the option of using appendix Q of the building code, which allows for construction of lofts. A slightly reduced ceiling height differences in terms of egress windows. But in terms of other standards related to ADUs such as setbacks, zoning standards related to ADUs. Staff's preference is to have not have a whole new set of standards. If we can, it would be preferable in terms of implementing the rules, if we could use the same development standards that we apply to ADUs generally. Okay. I mostly wanted to ask you questions about tiny homes on wheels. So, I probably like a lot of people have friends with Airstreams. I have a friend who has a Bambi parked in his driveway. How is that different from what is being proposed of tiny homes on wheels? Could he permit his Bambi as a as a dwelling unit? If we move forward with this. In that situation, I mean, I don't see a distinction. I mean, you can move Bambi, you can move the tiny home. I mean, I understand there might be some restrictions about an RV park in a tiny home, but as far as, you know, what he's doing, it seems like there's no distinction. So I'm wondering what, what will be the distinction. Rachel, what's a Bambi? I don't know. What's the type of Airstream? It's the smallest version of an Airstream. Yeah, so that's a really good question. And I think that's, that's where, as I was mentioning in my presentation, the devil is really in the details in terms of what standards we want to add to tiny homes that would potentially distinguish them from other types of park trailers or travel trailers like Airstream. So, for instance, something other jurisdictions have required is like skirting around the bottom to, and some kind of temporary type of foundation structure to make the tiny home kind of semi permanently fixed in a certain location and also standards related to the construction and look of the tiny home using, for instance, wood construction, that kind of thing, siding, roofing materials. But in terms of where it gets confusing for me as a staff, is it what is the actual kind of certification that's available right now for tiny homes on wheels is the same as what's available for say an Airstream. Right. So like the instance right now you're saying, what's that you're saying it is the same right now. And so, so for instance, there's several different certifications for that you can get for a park trailer or travel trailer. The certifications are generally intended for recreational use and not for permanent habitation and what some other jurisdictions have done is just allowed for tiny homes that meet those different certifications to be used for permanent habitation, and they just specify which certifications we that they allow for another potential option might be to require construction to like appendix q standards, the building code, and then some kind of temporary foundation or alternative foundation option for tiny homes on wheels to allow them to be parked permanently or semi permanently on a location and be counted as housing units. So that's really that's where the real kind of tricky area, I think this policy project comes into play. Yeah, I think it's really tricky to, and I'm not opposed to it I'm just trying to figure out how how it will work and then what the compatibility issues are with neighborhoods. So for instance, are we thinking about allowing tiny homes parked in driveways, for instance, and then how many could everybody on a block have a tiny home in their driveway, and I assume that would be a rental probably does a tiny home have to be like attached to a particular parcel or could it kind of float around and or could we have a system where people like put up an Airbnb yeah you can park in my driveway and then you just sign up for each month I mean, this is kind of the uncharted territory that I think we're in. I guess I do the only thing I feel a little certainty on is that we should have some rules about parking them on streets. I do know in the first district I have a friend who lives in a neighborhood and there's a tiny home parked on the street that is problematic for neighbors for a bunch of safety reasons so that's kind of the only thing that I think we should be careful about because then also if it's supposed to be attached to electricity like you're going to have cords, you know running across sidewalks and or I don't know. So, and then the other. Lastly, I guess I'm the question for me is would if we are contemplating, you know, permitting system for tiny homes, would that the tiny home be in addition to the already allowed adu and jadu, or would that be, or is that what we're deciding, would that be an addition or would that count as one or the other. Is there state guidance on this yet. Where do we go. Yeah, yeah, that's like that's a great question there. There's a really state guidance on it and what we're proposing in the kind of phase one tiny home policy option would be to not allow for increased number of units on any given property and so the tiny home could function as an adu or as a primary residence on a parcel but wouldn't be a primary residence and an adu on a parcel then we wouldn't allow a tiny home in addition to that. I mean that's that's certainly open for discussion and one thing that we were considering is whether to kind of allow for that perhaps as part of a phase two. And then the home policy project because effectively that's increasing density on on these parcels and it really gets into the territory of a general plan amendment and environmental review. The photo of the tiny home that you showed was a lot taller than a lot of the tiny homes that I've seen photos on. Are we also thinking about having height restrictions that might mirror adu height policies currently. I mean I think that it probably makes sense to do that we wouldn't want you know to have one set of rules for adus about height and then a whole other set with tiny homes that could go up like 28 feet or something. So just two more issues. One of the one of the issues that you brought up was about attached only allowing one attached adu. From my perspective. I guess I want to hear why what what what the thinking was behind not allowing to attach to adus. I mean I guess I'm like if you have a single family home and you have an easy way to split it up into into you know to extra Why is that not allowed. I have family in Italy who split their home up you know three different ways for all the children and it seems to work for them so I but but I don't know there might might be some thinking that I don't know about. Yeah. So that's an area where we could get a little bit more nuanced in our code for sure. We, we are considering making a change in our code because we've come into conflict with fire district staff when they've been reviewing adu projects. So if you have a single family home and you build an attached adu which is a completely independent dwelling unit. And then you also build a junior adu and this is assuming the junior adu is independent it's not that some junior adus actually share space with the primary dwelling like for instance they might share like a bathroom so that would be more like a guest guest wing type of junior adu but if you have a junior adu that's just a 500 square foot independent unit that's also attached the same single family dwelling, then in the building code that's considered three separate dwellings that are attached to each other and it's and it becomes a multifamily production in terms of the building code that that building on standards that that the project is subject to. So one thing we could do in our code is just make that clear, and just that you know, perhaps applicants have an option of still considering that that there's that extra hurdle that once you do have those three attached independent units, then you do you do get into multifamily construction requirements. I say those that's something that might require like a state legislative fix them to clarify that. Um, well, I don't know how big of a deal this is but I could just see in some situations maybe that is like they have a really big house then you're older and you don't need all the extra space now but you want to keep your yard. Um, and so it just seems like it might be useful to allow some flexibility, but I understand that it seems like it triggers some other things in the code. Yeah, I don't want to take up too much of your time on that but that that's just that was just something for me to think about. Um, and then as far as the community meetings I do agree with Commissioner shepherd that I think that, you know, especially with regard to that to the tiny homes because this is a new thing for a lot of people who lived in the county a long time that probably is really good to also go to the neighborhood groups and and get some feedback and that might also be helpful for everyone in this process. We have five of neighbors and all the associations advertising on next door. So we get like a whole variety of people. Renters young people. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. And district two. I think you're muted. There we go. Thank you. I'm very grateful for the staff presentation. I thought it was very helpful. This is such a complicated process. Even for planning commissioners that have been involved in this for years. It still is so new and bra in terms of, for me, the real issue is the neighborhood impacts and having some clarification, like, I don't think there are more community meetings. I can think in my district that there are areas in the coastal zone that are impacted by this by some of the proposed changes and there should be more discussion so that people are aware of it. It would almost be helpful to have like a typical R16 or R18 or 10,000 square foot area. And this is what if these regulations are approved. This is what the impact could be. It could be an ADU or a junior ADU, what the whole tiny homes implication might be. I mean, I just, it would be nice just to have a scenario of what to expect what could be the maximum neighborhood impact, including parking requirements. I'm still unclear and maybe I wasn't listening clearly enough. Are there parking requirements right now for the tiny homes. So tiny homes right now on wheels are not allowed in the county except in RV parks. Right. Tiny homes on foundations would be considered small houses, and they would be subject to the parking requirements that we have for ADUs and for primary residences. So are you proposing in these changes to allow the tiny homes with wheels? Is that being proposed or not? Yes. So we were, staff was directed actually by the board of supervisors to create that policy. So if you had that policy, would they have parking requirements similar to the tiny homes without wheels? We could, or we could add special development standards for tiny homes on wheels if we wanted to. For instance, we could think about removing parking standards for tiny homes on wheels, potentially. Or we could have them be subject to the same parking requirements that ADUs and primary dwellings are subject to. So is there a possibility that there would be a property because you're suggesting now that these requirements in some cases be tied to a property rather than a dwelling per se? Is there a possibility that there would be a property that would have an existing single family dwelling, an ADU, and a junior ADU, and a tiny home? So we could think about adding a policy that would allow that. What staff is currently proposing as part of a phase one of the tiny home policy would be that a tiny home could be used as an ADU or as a primary residence. And you wouldn't be able to, the scenario you described, you wouldn't be able to add a tiny home because you would already have a primary residence and an ADU on that property. So that's what you're currently proposing? That's what we're currently proposing with the idea that additional density could be proposed potentially as part of a phase two of a tiny home policy project. There's also been a lot of interest in, for instance, tiny home villages, you know, kind of dwelling groups of tiny homes, which wouldn't be allowed right now except on very large parcels or very high density zone districts. So that's another thing that would be kind of part of that, potentially part of that same kind of phase two policy project. And the idea behind that is that there would be certainly additional community outreach related to that phase two work. Okay. Thank you. And I'm looking forward to comments from the public. I would like to hear from them also. Thank you. Okay. District one, Commissioner Gordon. Good morning. Thank you so much for the presentation is really helpful to clear up some things. I do have a fair amount of things to discuss, I would say, and so I just want to be conscious of Mr. Schaffer Freitas comment about the public comment and understand if we should go to that or just in response to that or if I should just go ahead and because there might be a lot of questions. I know some of them might be the same as what I'm going to bring up. Why don't you, why don't you start? Okay, thanks. I appreciate the process help still getting used to this. So there is a lot in this presentation. So I think just like generally in process wise I kind of wanted to understand, make sure I understand what's going to happen. We're going to provide recommendations today based on specific items. You're going to take that and drop the code that will then come back to us to look at right. So that's like, you know, one chance to review an entire new code section. I just want to understand if that's, you know, historically been enough time for the commission to be able to do that, or is that something that can I jump in? Yeah, please. We, you know, for complicated issues like this, sometimes we can get it done with one meeting when we get a new code, but sometimes, you know, the commission always has the opportunity to, you know, provide feedback and then it can come back again. You can always continue. So, so you shouldn't feel too under the gun. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, that sounds great. I guess just in general, I kind of want to start with ADU changes and I do have, I agree with a lot of them, I think there's a few that we could adjust a little bit. You know, in general, I would say, and just kind of repeating what you said, Daisy, about in your presentation that, you know, the general idea they use is to promote housing, right, and to make it easier and not more restrictive. And so a few things, as you mentioned that are going to, you know, kind of do the opposite, in effect, and make it more restrictive for ADUs. And so that I think that's where my general concern kind of lies. And so there's a few specific ones I think we should talk about. And there's, in particular, there's one point that I wanted to bring up that is in the ADU handbook from the HDD or the material that we were sent. The HD5852.2 says local governments could elect to allow more than one ADU and a lot. And ADUs are automatically a residential use deemed consistent with the general plan and zoning. So, I feel like that's really, you know, the intent, like, not only can you do these things that the state has said but you could, and we could elect to actually allow more than just what the minimum is. And just so everyone knows kind of where my mindset is on that, I think, you know, I want to be conscious about doing it appropriately. But I want to make sure that we're following the intent, which is to provide more housing. And through this, I just want to let the other commissioners know that I kind of want to go through these specific topics so if there's questions or comment, feel free to interrupt me. While I go through this. So, the first one I want to talk about was the number of ADUs allowed based on dwelling groups or single family homes, something that Commissioner Dan brought up before. You could have, and this happens often and, you know, especially like the live oak areas, there's some larger parcels that are, you know, two homes on a half an acre, you know, and then, and that is different than two homes on a 6000 square foot parcel. So I'm a little bit concerned about just the general generalities of that but I would suggest that more often than not they're on a bigger parcel so I would lean towards allowing an ADU and a junior ADU per dwelling as opposed to per parcel, because we don't see. I think we see more of the prior than the latter. That would be my suggestion. And I believe that that follows with the HCD handbook, but I could be wrong there. So that's one. The multifamily dwellings, allowing either two ADUs or 25%. I think we should allow both. And I'll tell you there's there's some, some reasons for that are twofold. Number one, it can help us get projects to the right density where we might otherwise not be able to get. Typically the ADUs are smaller conversion area. ADUs like for example be in a garage or something like that so it can provide more affordable by design housing in a parcel or property that may be, you know, creating so I say single family homes. But then we take away their ability to create that 25% ADUs were essentially removing some affordable by design housing. So that's on a few projects already and I'll tell you it's been very beneficial to be able to do both as so much so is that some projects made or may not even work any, you know, work at all without it. So my recommendation is to keep both. How many units should be allowed on for semi detached dwellings. I was a little unclear on this one still. So when you say a half plex. I'll explain that one more time. Yeah, definitely this has been a point of confusion for for me as well as staff so half plex is generally considered in the industry to be to single family dwellings on two separate lots that share a wall at the property line. And there aren't a lot of, there's not a lot of construction like that here in Santa Cruz County that I've seen it's. Can I tell you where it is. It's in seascape. If you go to seascape. There's tons of these you just go down the main road and look to the left and the right there. They're all over. Okay, but that's the only place where I see him. It's like a town home, except that there's not, you know, there's only two attached it's a town. Okay, right. Okay. Can I, you said to interrupt you so yeah. You also should be looking at what applies to rural districts and what applies to urban districts. So some of what's being proposed might be more applicable to urban districts and not to rural districts and I'm not being specific here but we often create ordinances with those differentiations and think you ought to keep that in mind you should think of what can happen in the coastal zone what happens in designated you know in the urban services line and what happens outside the urban services line and that might be something to look at in crafting these ordinances and some of these issues that we're discussing now. And I think might get more community support. It really needs to be community input. Otherwise the community at large is going to feel very blindsided from this. It'll be more difficult to pass it. Thanks. Yeah, I appreciate that and and I agree there's there's a lot of different scenarios right so it's hard to generalize this in a way, and I think the state's purpose is to generalize it so that we don't. We don't limit right as much as we could, but that's not always, you know appropriate so. In the semi detached say it's like townhomes tip technically you own the lot, like seascapes a perfect example. They could have you know I don't know how many homes are there hundreds. They could 25% of those residents could build an ad you is what you're saying. It wouldn't be that every single residents could build an ad you because technically it's a multi family property with an HOA. Yeah, that's that was definitely a point of confusion that I think was made more more clear with the HCD handbook. And if you have a situation where you've got an ownership, you know, you know, multi family structure, but it's an ownership, you know, condo structure, are multiple attached townhomes, and that's considered a multi family dwelling from the, from the point of the ad you regulations, I don't think that the ad you regulations at the state level do a great job of addressing that kind of ownership situation. Because, as we mentioned earlier you know how do you decide who gets to do their conversion ad you and, you know, it kind of the state law kind of leaves that that open as to how, you know, individual properties would kind of their individual communities would So it's still a little bit of a gray area I suppose, but it's, it's pretty clear in terms of the ad you handbook that we would apply the multi family rules to that that case in terms of the numbers of ad is allowed. And that's what you're suggesting. Yes, a little bit tricky I think because that's a new rule right so these communities are going to have to update their CC and ours and create a path for that. And that could be, I assume a choice specific. So not something we would probably need to worry about. The non conforming use one this is a really interesting one too. I would like some examples because, and I thought that was a good request from one of the commissioners like, I apologize can't remember who said that. But this one is really could be really go go a lot of ways right so see you have a single family home on a multi family property that's an acre. The intent is to develop that property to current general plan. Right. That's why it's on that way and at some point in time that will likely happen. So when we allow, and that's the purpose for not allowing changes on on non conforming uses so that they can at some point in time become conforming right. So when we allow to add a to use even to a single family home, for example, on a large multi family ladder, you know, we're allowed we're getting that extra unit now but what are we giving up later is later it makes it a lot more difficult to develop that so you know, and that's just multi family there's commercial there's, you know, red single family residential all the zones. So I would appreciate a few more examples there and understanding how we deal with that I mean, ideally I want to provide everyone with a to use and the ability to make a to use. But I'm a little, I'm a little confused on that one. I also point out that the zoning, and the general plan are not an agreement in a in a tremendous number of the communities in our county. And that. So you can have something zone but it's not an agreement to the general plan because it got zoned in 1979 and it's not updated and so on so it's, I don't think it's as rational as we've, we've intelligibly and carefully zone for what to happen on a certain property. I think there's old zoning that exists and there's one house on it and it might be, it may well be that the owner doesn't even know what the zoning is it's just been that way. So, I don't think there's a, I don't think our county has achieved total rational zoning that matches community goals with what everything is zoned, maybe more in the city. Certainly not in the unincorporated area, it's a mishmash, you know, there's only 10 years ago where we had all these subdivisions on paper that still existed and most of those have been eliminated now but it's not that rational as I think you're assuming. Yeah, I think that's good point I mean part of the challenge is not having an updated general plan is, you know, you all are far more involved and aware than I. That makes it challenging. Yeah, I mean I can I can answer your question about the, like the process for you know the non conforming those non conforming situations which is basically that if you have in the one case where you have a dwelling group a single family dwelling group. If that is over density, then we allow, we do allow one one of those single family dwellings to be designated as the conforming unit and then we allow for an ad you and junior ad with that unit. Non conforming situations like a, for instance, a single family dwelling on a commercial parcel or over density multifamily dwelling or a multifamily dwelling on a single family parcel. So all those kinds of different situations, we do potentially allow for intensification of use of a non conforming use but we require a level five zoning zoning administrator approval for that. The reason why I included that in the presentation is, you know, you, there's a provision in the state law, the state ad you law that we can't require correction of non conforming zoning conditions as a condition of approval for an ad you. And it, it, it could be that that could be interpreted to extend to this type of situation where we, where it could be interpreted that we need to go ahead and just allow for ad use and junior ad use to be built, I, you know, on properties that have these non conforming uses. We have the staff has interpreted so far that that that provision of state law is just relating to, for instance, non conforming structures such as if you have a house that's built too close to the property line we can't require a correction of that situation as a condition of approval for an ad you and that structure. So we've interpreted that a little provision of state law a little bit more narrowly, but it could be that we could expand that interpretation. However, for you know the reasons that that you mentioned regarding intention for for the zone that what what what the county intended to be constructed in on those properties and that those zoning districts. So that's why we do have that level five process usually to allow for ad use on those non conforming properties. Okay, so I, I just want to understand that I would be, I want to make sure we don't put the county at risk right so if that interpretation is fairly broad from each CD and from the state code. And then we're going to take a more narrow interpretation that may or may not be construed as maybe against the intent of ADU regulations is there a way to double check that with, you know, unlike make sure right before someone comes because what I don't want to have happen to somebody say oh well the state code says this and I'm pretty sure that's right. I'm going to apply for an ad you ad use are super tight financially and most people don't, you know it's taking everything to have to build one of them. So, when they spend 1015 $20,000 on design or whatever it takes to get through design and permit and then to a level five, and then we say no it's a non conforming use you can't do it. They just lost all that money and energy and wasted everyone's time. Is there a way to like really specify which things are non conforming for ad use and which things are not and make sure that it's right. One thing that we can do is we can send a letter to HCD staff requesting an interpretation on that specific provision in our code prior to sending them a new ordinance for their review. Just highlighting that that kind of nuance in our code they hadn't commented on that previously in our code, but they look at a lot of different ordinances so it's helpful if we can direct their staff to specific issues that we may want them to look at something that we can do. Okay, I think that'd be helpful and I'm sure they get this question from a lot of jurisdictions now and so it might have a standard answer that just hasn't been put out there. I appreciate that. I think that clarity will be really helpful for the general public and us. If I'm not commenting on something in your report then I just agree with it. I just want to let you know that I think the biggest thing in there is parking I think that we should not restrict. We should not require parking for ad use. I think that is the general intent across the state conversion or new and I, and I, you know, and I would suggest that we follow that. So just to clarify we do require one space for per ad you but there are a lot of exceptions to that rule the biggest one being the location half mile from transit, which ends up exempting most ad use in the urban service area. And to clarify there okay I appreciate that is that is that is that essentially what the state is saying that we can do or. That's the state law that's kind of a letter of the state law and then what we had done last year is put in special special parking requirements within the coastal zone. Since the Coastal Act supersedes the state law so we are allowed to do that. But now are proposing to remove those special parking requirements in the coastal zone so the same kind of rules would apply throughout the county. So I'll give you an example then so say or maybe I can walk through an idea so say I was single family home zone R16 pretty standard I have a two card driveway. I'm going to add an ad in the backyard. I cannot add the ad you because I don't have a parking space. Well depends where your property is located so if you're located within a half mile of the transit stop which is most parts of the urban area. Then you wouldn't we wouldn't require parking for the ad you that was a new provision from the state law that that went into effect last year. And we also cannot require correction of a non conforming situations such as the other part of if the property is already under parked we can't require that additional parking be provided for the primary dwelling. You could deny the ad you essentially. Is that actually like an effect preclude a lot of ad use from being built the parking requirement. Our understanding I mean maybe there's there's others who could speak to this from, I don't know. Maybe Jocelyn from development review but my understanding from talking with applicants is that it has been an issue in the coastal zone for certain properties especially like in the harbor area. You know really small kind of properties that really can accommodate any more parking on site and because our current code does require one space for ad you and the coastal zone and does not currently include that exception for parking near transit. That that has killed some ad you projects and in the coastal zone area. Okay, thank you I appreciate that I had a similar question I think Commissioner Dan brought about about the. Multiple attached units and so what's the direction there that we want to figure out a way to allow that as opposed to just saying it can't be done. Well, what staff had been proposing was to simply not allow for an junior ad you and an attached ad you on a single family property. But I believe what Commissioner Dan was suggesting and we were kind of discussing was the idea of adding a little bit more nuance into the code to simply explain that. So we're to add an attached ad you and a junior ad you on a single family property it. It requires a multifamily it bumps it into a multifamily building code construction requirement. Currently the code allows for an attached ad you and a junior ad you and doesn't address this issue at all, and it's caused some problems with review of ad you projects by the fire district. We're saying that if we went to multi family. First off that yeah that seems like a big, big, big challenge right. It's yeah and it's just. Yeah just to be clear and what I'm talking about is the building code, like classification of the building construction type, not the zoning. Okay, definitely understand that. I would like to see some clarification there as exactly why that would be counted I know junior ad you doesn't have certain things it has a cooktop it doesn't have a stove or a whole range you know there's like things that make it a little bit less of a unit and I'm wondering if that was the intent was to make it so it's not actually three full dwelling units you know it's kind of like two and a half if you will. And so in that case there's probably been some thought to why that junior ad you is the way it is, as it relates to building permits and building code, but I can't imagine that, you know, that hasn't been figured out somewhere so I'd really like to see. Maybe there's other jurisdictions that have done it or if we can get a list like here's the things you know that this is why you can't do it or what the problems are and maybe we can address those as opposed to just saying now you can't do it. You know, feels like it's something we could have become. Sure, yeah we can definitely provide that I mean I. As planning staff I've been kind of educated to this issue by talking through it with fire district staff and building staff. And my understanding from them is that this is also how it's been interpreted at the state level from, you know, building code perspective. And it certainly would be helpful if we can provide you with that information and clarification and see exactly what we're what we are allowed to do with with our zoning code here. I appreciate that I think again it kind of speaks to what a lot of the other commissioners said like helping make the general public aware of what the rules are right so we can and aware of this process so we can get good feedback and make sure that we, you know, do this right so that I was not 100% clear on the 800 square foot credit. I'm not sure if others already understand this process but I don't really quite get it. Now I'd appreciate a fuller explanation as well. Yeah, so, so the state law. So one of the provisions of state law that went to effect last year allows for instruction of up to an 800 square foot ADU on a property or even if the property is already at its maximum floor area ratio and law coverage. So, so that really addresses a major barrier to action for sure. Where the gray area has come for implementation of this rule is whether or not ADU whether or not that that ADU square footage actually counts towards the FAR and the lot coverage on the parcel or whether it's counted as like a credit. So, like the using the kind of example I brought up before like let's say you have a 5000 square foot lot. You've got a 2000 square foot home by our FAR rules you're allowed to build up to 500 additional square feet on that parcel. Let's say you want to build an 800 square foot ADU. The way staff has been interpreting that is that now what you've got is a 2800 square foot, you know, construction on a 5000 square foot parcel and you're over your FAR and maybe you're over your lot covers depending on how the house is constructed. And so, at that point we would not allow any additional construction on that parcel. After the ADU is constructed. There's an alternative way to to look at that which is that the 800 square foot ADU is a credit and so if you build an 800 square foot ADU. You're still at 2000 square feet in terms of the square footage that's counted on the parcel and so you still have 500 square feet that you could build as say in addition to your home or another accessory building or something like that. So, staff has interpreted you know in the first way that I described the reason for that being that our interpretation is that the state law is providing for reducing a barrier to building accessory dwelling units, but the intention of the state law is not necessarily to allow for a whole lot of additional mass on the, say the primary dwelling or just additional kind of floor area in general on parcel. But it's certainly, you know, you can certainly look at that issue from from both ways. So it's, it's, you know, it's open for interpretation and it has caused a lot of questions. And so it is important that we do whatever we decide it's important that would be clarified in the code. And this is something that we, we could ask each another thing we could ask each CD staff as to how they would interpret that specific issue if, if the commission would like we could we can include that in a letter to each CD requesting that. I appreciate that. I think you know the more advice you can get from the people making the rules for us to follow the better so I think that's a great idea. I'm wondering how much of this kind of solves itself like if you have a 2500 square foot home in a hundred square foot, if you want a 5000 square foot parcel, you may not even be able to fit all that within setback so we got to remember there's still like setback requirements, you know, FAR is it's just one thing and so and of course there's a million different ways to do it but I'm not sure if it maybe solves itself so I wonder if you've seen that have you seen it where you just physically can't even fit the hundred square feet even if you wanted to. Um, yes, but we've also seen it where where folks are able to fit that maximum FAR you know beyond like for instance they'd be able to build an 800 square foot ADU and then also another 500 square feet on the parcel and are kind of requesting that they be able to do that. And so even though it may solve itself on most parcels it's it's useful to have that clarification in the code for those situations where maybe the there's you know smaller setbacks required you know on our smaller parcels and there may be situations where people are really kind of pushing the envelope there and we need to know kind of where our where our limit is in terms of what we can allow. Yes, the smaller lots are going to have more of an issue here and that's the you know decent chunk and that's the local area and that area you know where they can be really tight and so that's where it gets completed. Okay, I appreciate that. Yeah the less gray areas so we can reach out to HCD and get some clarification that'd be great. And then I don't know if anyone else had questions on that one. I think removing the 2% rules a great idea. I think that setback on side yard sounds appropriate. At least that it meets the intent there. The second driveway was an interesting one to me, because I feel like in certain circumstances that would be appropriate. So to say that, especially when we're saying hey, you need to have parking and we're promoting the, you know, create parking. And the only way to do that is to create a secondary driveway through an alley or something I suppose it seems like a really limiting factor that may not be necessary but so is there a way to quantify that or allow that in certain circumstances or just saying no completely. Yeah, so I'm just I just pulled up our existing so our existing county code says that inside the urban services line. Our junior ADU shall be accessed by a separate driveway or right of shall not be accessed by a separate driveway or right away and less access via a second driveway would result in a superior site plan. In terms of safety and protection of environmental resources as approved by a public works director designee. So that's, that's how our code currently read so there is a provision in there that would allow for a second driveway. So that's the safety or environmental standpoint. But it's certainly, you know, it's not something that's required by state law, it's just something that's in our local code and we certainly, you know, can change it any any way we'd like to. Okay, well, I understand that public works has requirements about how close to driveways can be, you know how much, and we have requirements about how much frontage there needs to be you can drive ways on the same parcel with an X amount of 20 feet or whatever it is so there are certain requirements there that already will preclude a lot of it. But I would say, you know, say you have a really large parcel or double frontage like having an extra driveway where allowed by code already should be allowed or you know should be allowed in certain circumstances for you to use so I'd like to see that if possible. I think the intent is probably you don't want all driveways right on the street you wanted to be, you know, look a little nicer. Yeah, it's kind of a in the urban area I think the intent was this has been part of our code for a long time it's not not a new part of our code but I believe the intent was to just reduce the number of curb cuts in the urban area and then also maintain the kind of look and feel of it like a single family neighborhood when you have the ad use. And then in the rural area the idea is that if we can minimize the amount of grading and driveways that we need to allow for then that that can be beneficial in terms of environmental resources. That's a little bit different in the rural area that's the kind of portion that that staff was considering changing, adding that regulation to also apply in the rural area. But we could also, you know, make the current code section less restrictive than it currently is. That's another option we have. That's a good one to bet when you go out to the neighborhoods. And this wasn't one that really stuck out at me but now thinking about it Tim when you're bringing this up I think maybe one of the reasons why that was in the code the way it is to distinguish the ad you from the primary dwelling like, you know what is it that makes an ADU and ad you well it's because it's supposed to be accessory to the main structure and on the same parcel and it's not its own unit. We have a lot splits, like we build driveways I mean that's so that so it's more like if we're doing that for all of our ad us we might as well split the lot and make it its own lot right it's its own family home so that it's an interesting an interesting issue I didn't really, but didn't like stick out at me as one of the main ones I'm concerned about but now when you think about it it's like okay yeah well how is this going to play out in 20 years. What does that really look like you know. Could I interrupt here and ask, do you have any more questions. Yeah, I do. Okay we've been in session for almost two hours now. And I don't know how many participants do we have on the phone. Chair it looks like we have about maybe about nine. Or so. Okay. Do you think, do you think it's going to take much longer time we could, we could take a break after you finish if you'd like before we go. I'm happy to take a break. Absolutely. Yeah, I do have a, maybe a third more questions and I think some conversation around the tiny homes that I think would be really helpful for everyone and so maybe we could do it like if you just have like questions that would be great but if like issues that you want to discuss that are going to be discussion topics I would suggest saving that after we hear from the public so that we can all kind of interact with each other on those. Oh, okay. I have to leave at one today, and I have just a few comments that I'd like to give. So get in that window. Won't take me five minutes. Can, can you reduce your remaining comments to questions. Commissioner Gordon. Sorry, one sec to just make sure I find the questions here. Okay. You want me to go ahead commissioner Gordon because then I can get on and get off while you gather your thoughts. Sure, please go for it. Thank you. Okay. So I wanted to talk about you mentioned specifically tiny homes and ad use and timber production job zones a change to that. Why. Yeah, so currently in the TP zone district, we require a level to discretionary review prior to getting a building permit to do an ad you. The reason why we are considering removing the discretionary review requirement in TP is the HCD handbook clarifies that the ministerial review or building permit review. The requirement for ad use applies not only in residential zone districts where ad use are allowed or where residential use is allowed by right but also in any zone district where residential use is allowed, even as a conditional use. So, in the TP district, you know, currently we allow homes but they, there is a discretionary review process. And that's why we have a residential use there and that's why we had also a discretionary review process for ad use, but in order to be in in alignment with the HCD handbook or proposing to remove that discretionary review requirement. Well, I don't think that makes sense for the primary residents that was carefully crafted when we change the TPU possibilities for when and when, when you could build because the whole point was to preserve that pretend production but allow one home. So I don't see throwing out the baby with the bathwater you might not be able to review anything for an ad you once there's a house there but I don't see why you should. I don't understand that. Let me clarify so we're not proposing to make any changes related to the approval process for a primary dwelling. Okay, good. Just the ad you review process. So, and then okay my next question was. So, if you have a home, which has right now three or more than one illegal dwelling units, you can go and you will be able to go and make them legal. Well, because you could apply to make them into ad use right. Well, it, it depends on a few things it would depend on whether they were building permits for those structures. Let's say there were let's say I'm talking about my district now let's say there were not you have just created a housing unit in your garage you've turned one of your homes into a little apartment. You're, you probably do not currently comply with either zoning or septic or anything you've just done it. Will you be able to convert them all and make them legal. No, it would well would depend on the zoning on the property and if it's a, if it's a single family property. Then you know depending on what we decide regarding dwelling groups, you might be able to do one ad you and one junior ad you per dwelling on that property, or you might be able to do one ad you and one junior ad you for the whole property. But you would certainly have to go through the process of obtaining a retroactive building permit for whatever had been constructed and if that's not possible then the structures program is available for an alternative certificate. Okay, and then verify that we are contemplating a scenario where you could have a residential street that ends in a dead end cul-de-sac with homes with single driveways up and down the street and then a couple homes in the cul-de-sac. Are we are we looking at a scenario where each of them could have a little Bambi or whatever in their driveway and that could be a second unit. So the whole street could double in population. Potentially. I'm not I don't know that we're really thinking about air streams necessarily those are more like park trailers. Well that was my mother question what's the difference between an RV and a tiny home, because that's confusing, because my scenario that I just described would be essentially tiny homes on wheels. What's the difference. So an RV specifically can be driven and so that's different from a tiny home a tiny home is cannot be driven under its own power but would be towable. But in terms of the difference between a tiny home and a park trailer or travel trailer it really comes down to you know what what certifications we're going to require what permits we're going to require and what use development and design standards we're going to require. Sounds like you're going to have to have those requirements very clearly delineated. And let me just clarify that Bambi also cannot drive on its own power, you need to hook it up to a vehicle just like the tiny home that's why I think it's a good question to to delineate. I'm not saying that you need to come up with a solution to my questions right now I just pointing out that people on the street may have strong feelings what pro or con as the case may be to seeing their street to seeing all these additional habitations on what is basically dead end street. And then and then you get all, what is the, what are the implications of this. If there's an emergency fire, blood, whatever, mostly fire in the current scenario, and then brings up just availability of resources to serve specifically water. I just want to bring up that those things really will need to be thought out carefully, as well as frankly traffic issues I mean, let's face it on the planning commission when people build new projects are increased density mostly what we hear from the neighbors about is having heavily and loudly and loudly, and the fact that when people have visitors and in some of the newer projects we've built, the neighbors all complain about where all their visitors friends are going to park and so on. So, I don't think you can just say well we don't need parking at all and I don't have any solutions but I think the general public. They're going to have quite a bit of concerns to say well no one's going to need a car, but a lot of people who are going to live in ad use and tiny homes and whatnot are going to be seniors who may still in fact need a car, or people with special needs and people who have to commute so and don't work in Santa Cruz so I think we can't just bury our head in the sand about issues of density parking and resource delivery so I'm not against it or for it I just don't see a lot of talk about it yet and I know you'll be looking at that stuff so it sounds like a lot of other agencies are going to need to give input that control those parts of our, our built environment. I understand that you are thinking of changing the owner occupancy issue to allow family members and that's fine but I certainly don't think that will be community support for removing the owner occupancy or family members. Provision, I think there's big support for that. And then finally, I think public support for allowing people to have vacation homes or, you know, vacation rentals using these new housing. This new housing is not going to be very well supported by the community that we already have such strong feelings about that. So you were saying that you were thinking that they will not allow tiny homes to be used for vacation homes I think you better. I would strongly suggest you stick with that. So I think those are some of my comments but I think you got to look at the bigger issues that you usually look at with any kind of development. And I understand that you're constrained by what the state has made it out. But we still have to look at this and in the context of our community with specific issues and problems. Otherwise, we might as well not have local government if we're just going to do whatever the state says we need to do we've always interpreted it. And finally, once again, I would make a plea for looking this on a nuanced basis what applies to urban areas where we have services and zoning as well established and what applies to rural areas which have huge amounts of old zoning, special circumstances, existing issues, and then the coastal zone which basically is ruled by the coastal commission so you've got to we have many ordinances that have slightly different allowances and rules for the three kinds of communities we have. And then finally, once again, I'm sorry to be a broken record, you really will. I think it will really serve the county government to get this out to the public and have a lot of community input through social media through the existing print media. I know that people don't think people read the paper anymore but it for the San Lorenzo people do read the Scotts Valley banner a lot it's become a community newspaper, and all the social media like, like Rachel was suggesting, I think we want to get a lot of input from the community so we get something that's possible. Thank you. Okay, back to you. Let me make a comment. Yes, madam chair person. It's seeming to me as the morning goes along that this is a very complicated agenda item. And I'm looking at what was proposed that this go back to staff and that they bring it to us on April 28 for a public hearing in other words, with everything fleshed out. I imagine doing that I, I just see so many questions and what is that. And I'm just curious of fellow Commission members. So that public who are listening. If we're going in the direction of asking for more time and more community meetings and more discussion of this. Do other commissioners have that sense of direction for today. Yes, I think this needs a lot more work and I would love to see it come back after we've given our feedback before we go to the ordinance hearing. Okay, I agree as well because even when there are community meetings, we as commissioners unless we are there, we don't get a lot of feedback. Right. So we're kind of blind when we're trying to reconsider this. Okay. So, for the public who are listening, we're giving our assurance that we're going to hopefully have some more comments and meetings and discussions, and that this is not the final say that in regards to this. Okay. So, if it's okay with everybody let's take a 10 minute break and then we'll go straight to the phone, the people on on phones, and we'll come back to your commissioner board and I promise. That's good. Thank you. Okay. 10 minutes there will reconvene at 1153. Okay. I don't see that as Drake is online here. Oh, okay. So we are now back in session. It is 1153. Should we open this up now to the phone callers. Would you like to open the public hearing chair. Well this is, this is not a public hearing. I'm sorry public comment. Okay. Let's see. Okay, so this is the time if you are a member of the public who has been patiently waiting to comment on this item which is the study session on the 80s and tiny homes to raise your hand by pressing star nine on your telephone or your hand icon. I will call on you to speak so I'm seeing a couple of hands of raised. I will start with cove I'm guessing this is cove Britain and we please state your name for the record you have three minutes. Good afternoon. Yeah, or just about cove Britain that's Britain architects. It's been a long day. It's a longer date yet still I'd like a little leeway on the three minutes considering that this is a study session, but that's up to you all. Based on that, some of the critical issues that I think should be addressed are my put a letter out regarding this is the time frames for processing permits. I know these are zoning ordinances but the part of the legislation is about what time is allowed to produce or review and ad you. I'm going to the question of attached to do and attached a to you. That's a complex building code question it's not really a zoning code question. It's funny enough years ago I did some similar analysis for the county fire department, obviously not residential but dealing with occupancies, and it's an occupancy issue. And really should not be addressed by zoning code. There's three choices in dealing with that particular issue. One is to actually bring the structures up to that particular occupancy which is similar to an apartment building or motels. One may also the building official may look at the actual code regarding occupancy, you know how you assign occupancy there's no definition of ADU. So that gives authority to the building official to assign it to the most appropriate thing. And it's certainly the occupancy level of that meeting the number of people in occupancy are much more similar to like congregate residents which is the same thing as, you know, in the same residential group that most homes would be. It's not about multifamily versus not single family it's really dwelling versus multiple dwellings and what's triggered there. Going to the credit. I'm going to get going to the credit of the 800 foot or whether it's an allowance. We've seen the particular situation where a neighbor has a maxed out property and may add an 800 square foot ADU where we have a client that has a 640 square foot ADU. That chair that the timer is automatically set for three minutes and to cut off public comment at that time I don't know if you would like to allow time. If we do we have only nine people. It appears, I'm not sure if everybody wishes to speak but that appears to be about how many people we have on the calls. Okay, so can we can we just do without the timer for an extension. If we only have that few people we can, we could allow a little more time. I think we'll need to leave at one. I do think we ought to allow you know if you want to allow five minutes that's fine but I don't think we should allow unlimited testimony. Some of us are technically challenged and we can't set it for five minutes. Can we miss Drake. The timer is set by our support staff. So I would have to, we can see if they're able to reset the timer, or just allow six minutes set it twice then. Okay, I was just going to say we could do that. Okay, let's do that. Okay, but do we have to individually do we need to see the timer it's really for us and takes up my whole screen. I think that's for the benefit of the member of the public who's speaking I can't control the timer and how it appears. We get Mr Britain back on and set the timer for another three minutes. Okay, thank you. Yes, so go for going back to you again. So go ahead and unmute. Okay, thank you very much for the additional time. Going back to the eight hundred square foot credit allowance issue again. So here we have a situation where a gentleman has a 640 square foot. 80 you existing now, but he cannot max out his property. There's the question of fairness those neighbor can and he can't. And it's also the, what, sorry, this, we call them stupid human pet tricks in the industry is that we start doing things to obtain that credit. So, do you start taking the kitchen out of the adu and then put it in the new accessory structure to make it the adu so it's new that you get the credit. What I'm going to explain here is that I think the, the effort here is to simplify the process for people, the guard, the garage 225 square foot credit is very simple works well, and not to make things complex, because it creates a hindrance to the process. Going to the large house ordinance. We had a project where the house was exactly 5,000 square feet, because a lot of that was garage, no neighbors were objecting it's up in posthample, whatever the HOA was fine. And the gentleman wanted to add 500 square feet for a home office. And we were going to do it at Jadu to make up it to avoid the hearing as it takes a long time to get to a hearing, a daddily would have been approved. But again, I go to the concept that that's a design review issue being applied to a Jadu and ADU and I think that's specific like disallow. That's where I'm looking at some of the things that are being written that are hindering the process versus benefiting them. But I also appreciate that there's a lot of things in that are being done that are helpful. I want to suggest quickly. HCD might be helpful to cross reference to the AC HCD and look what things that are trying to be resolved or what things are being discussed. Small point. CCC doesn't actually supersede this it's parallel like building code would be parallel with zoning. I don't know how much of the impact that is. But again, thank you to the commission and thank you to Daisy and planning staff for the hard work. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I will go back to our list of callers and next I will call on Dana and Junker good morning or good afternoon we please state your name for the record you have six minutes. And please unmute yourself by pressing star six there you go. Good afternoon everybody. Hi there, Dana Junker. I'm a realtor and a homeowner in Santa Cruz County. And my concerns with the rural areas of the county. So in the county in the rural areas we have septic systems and wells. And this, you know, the state wants to promote a the building of ad use and junior ad use. And most people who build these are probably going to be doing it from an investment perspective. And, however, in the rural areas, the fire marshal nobody really addresses the fire marshal and the environmental health department and what their requirements are for building these ad use and junior ad use. If you look at from specifically from an investment lens. The requirements make the building of the ad use and the junior ad use so cost prohibitive that it prevents people from going above board on it and we have so many, so many non conforming and illegal structures in our in our county because of this. An example of this would be the fire marshal is not supposed to require fire fire sprinklers in the ad use. In alternative they require in the rural areas to have 60,000 gallons of water storage. And for you who don't know what that means I mean that's literally, you know, 5000 gallon tanks, holding this water. You know, so I mean that's 12 5000 gallon tanks holding this water. You can imagine how much that would cost to create. And then on top of that pressure pumps. So, you know, associated with that. And, you know, logically speaking, in a fire situation they cut the power. So therefore we have no pressure to pressurize the water. So it just it just doesn't even make sense from a functional standpoint. So from a cost cost standpoint, and then the and then the environmental departments are constantly changing what they require and so 99% of septic systems are non conforming. And so if you make changes to them then you're completely changing your septic system. And it just it that's just an area that the planning department and the state, for instance, just never address. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, and it looks like Dana was finished in the three minutes so we will move on to the next caller. If you wish to speak on this item. Please raise your hand now or press star nine on your telephone to make yourself visible to me on my screen. And then callers, I see Michael Pesano raising his hand. So good afternoon Michael, please unmute yourself and state your name for the record in case I haven't named you correctly. Hi, yeah, this is Michael bison. I know about the ad use I didn't hear all the whole meeting, but part of the transportation plan is if your ad you is within what a bus stop that travels every 15 minutes then there's no parking requirements on that. Another thing I wanted to mention was, was there any thought of allowing a detached bedroom as an ad you maybe just with electrical no water. That's just my two thoughts there. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item. Please raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone or pressing the hand symbol on the app. Not seeing any additional speakers chair maybe I'll check in one more time and and let you know if someone's having a hard time connecting if they wish to speak. Okay, in the meantime, we'll go back to Commissioner Gordon. I just lost all my pages here sorry give me one second. Okay, so I think here I might have ended. I was, I think I was at the rebuilding after fire disaster section and so I, and I do want to clarify it and I appreciate the distinction between question and comment period and so I want to make sure I'm in the right spot now that I can proceed with some comments as opposed to just questions or questions that I need to make that distinction. Yeah, that's okay. Okay, thanks. Alright, so rebuilding after fire this easy fire lightning complex should we allow 80 construction before construction of primary dwellings. I have received feedback from some of the public on this stating that. That would be really immensely helpful and so I appreciate seeing that in here and I think that that's a great direction. I was, I guess my question was, is that being able to build an ADU before the sink before the residents going to apply everywhere just to the CZU lightning complex and disaster relief areas. My idea was that this would apply only for reconstruction after a disaster, not specific to the CZU disaster but any future, any, you know, the CZU disaster any future disaster but not to ADU construction generally. Okay. The owner occupancy I know that we heard separate from Commissioner Shepard I believe I think she stated that that would be a challenge. I don't have as much history with that but I would suggest that I think that it's beneficial to remove owner occupancy just from the standpoint of being able to actually create more units. I understand there's a lot of history there but that would be my personal recommendation. And again happy to receive comment on this while I'm going through these sections so the public improvements required for ADU. We are not going to require public improvements correct. Correct. Yeah, and that's that's already in the state law we just didn't have anything in our code. I'm kind of clarifying that and it had been a point of confusion with applicants. Okay. There's still a question that one of the questions we received from several several people during the community meeting was how does this apply to like fire district requirements for like access roads and driveways, you know, that kind of thing. And my understanding is that if it's something that's required for like, you know, life safety access and it would still be required but we need to we need to check on that so that's that's something I actually have already asked HCD staff to clarify, whether that's something that's that they can they can provide some clarification on. Yeah, I think that's a good point and one of the callers brought that up there's some. The challenge is the kind of thing you know we are at the planning stage, which is, can this be allowed or not, and how right and then once you get through that, you have to get to building fire life safety all those things and that's where a lot of the complication comes, and a lot of confusion for the community especially right and if you don't understand all of the little nuances to every single site. That can be a real problem. So, one of my question this a little bit more general but is there an integration that's going to be done or you know I know we had a community meeting but it sounds like there's feedback from a lot of people 100 people at the meeting I probably have some experience where they said, a my, you know I tried to build this ad you I'm not supposed to have to build, you know do sprinklers but not to do 60,000 gallon of water which is 12 tanks, which makes it completely infeasible. How do we marry the two or is that process. We are working on that or. Um, yeah, I mean we do do some coordination of between planning and zoning staff building staff certainly we're all within the same planning department and then coordination with fire district staff as well. Fire district staff is currently reviewing the proposed updates to our to this, the ad ordinance, for instance. Regarding the buyer sprinklers that is one place where I didn't put it in my presentation here but we are planning to because it's no change it's just something that we are planning to add into the zoning code. So that's a reference to the fact that additional fire safety measures may be required even if sprinklers are not required because that is a surprise for applicants at times in the rural area. You know the fire the fire district you know that those districts are their own agencies, and they interpret the state law this you know just as we interpret the state law here at the county so we try to coordinate the best the best that we can with all of those agencies. Is there a chance at some point in the future that, or is this already being done where the county combined you know not just planning but building fire can host some sort of ad you, you know, help like tutorials or meetings or something to help the public understand what to do in these situations. Kind of just a general kind of educational session on adu permitting and things to look out for. Yeah, yeah, that's that's a great idea that's something that we definitely could could do dependent on staff workload and you know various other priorities and certainly would would be helpful to the public I know there are a lot of resources out there we do have we did build a website for the county that kind of concentrates all of our adu resources so people have access to that. But beyond that it is useful often to have kind of office hours or some kind of educational options in person as well. And I apologize that that's not really like the purview or the timeframe for that conversation and I can definitely follow up with that at a later date I just popped into my head. Based on some community feedback so thank you. A couple last quick questions on the ad use is there any incentives for low income that we need to account for and any of these plant plans that are coming forward. No, not that I'm aware of the county does have a low income or like a ad you forgivable loan program. If you build an ad you and put it out to low income. Render for I believe it's a period of 20 years, then you get the loan forgiven. So that's one program that we do have here at the county. There are no specific low income requirements attached to it so that sounds good. Code brought up an interesting question that I might be helpful to understand if we can talk about it. It looks like he's still on maybe it'd be helpful for him. And for the rest of us time frames you know he's saying the permitting processes takes a long time is challenging there's discretionary review or maybe there doesn't need to be. Is any of that going to be addressed or do you have any response to that for help there. Definitely and we did get a chance to also talk about the same issue at the community meeting last week. So, we are proposing to remove discretionary review for ad use within those certain zone districts where we currently require discretionary review. We're also planning to remove the design standard from our ad you know code. So, both of those things kind of address addresses kind of that that concern and there's still a discretionary review for standard kind of issues such as you know variants requirements coastal development permits, that kind of thing. In terms of the length of time for reviewing building permits, the state law requires a maximum of 60 days to to either what but from the time that you receive that we receive a building permit application for an ad you our staff has 60 days to issue in completeness letter and with you know a list of items that the applicant needs to complete, or we need to issue a building permit within those 60 days and the the concern I think is that it's very rare that you would that you would have an application that would be approved on that first submittal. There's usually something that needs to be updated in the plans in order for that application to be approved and each time you submit the resubmit the plans the 60 day clock starts again. And also, we do not apply that 60 day requirement to ad use that are used along with new primary dwellings. That's in the state that's in the state law as well so if you have a primary dwelling and you know bacon parcel and you're just building a new house and you're building an ad you along with it on the parcel, the whole, the whole project is subject to whatever the timeline is for the main house. So, removing some of the discretionary items is in the works and then the building side and 60 days response. Yeah, 60 days to respond and you know it's certainly there's always ways to improve our efficiency in our permit review I know we just we've really been ramping up our plan review this past year with the pandemic and understanding is that permits are being processed more efficiently through that process but there's always there's always room for improvement for sure. As far as ad use I think I think I got through it all I appreciate you guys listening to that. I did have some tiny home stuff though but I just want to say I actually have to leave at 130 so and I think we all have things we want to say so if it's going to go past that I would But maybe I'm hoping we can wrap up and continue this before that. I will, I will, I will speed it up. We are definitely going to continue it so if we run into time constraints will will be you know this is going to be complex and more will be visiting again I I'm sure that I'm going to have to leave at one earlier than Rachel but I am expecting I am very in favor of a new one so. Okay, well I think the only thing I have on the tiny homes that would be like really current in today then it's just the differentiation between a tiny home like the trailer the Bambi if you will a tiny home in a mobile home right and so mobile homes have strict requirements that they have to follow through the state. And if they to be built right and to be considered a home or manufactured home right. And if we, if we allow tiny homes, I assume that the consideration would be that they, those tiny homes need to follow at least state level guidelines on as like as far as manufacturer homes. And this is just my assumption but tell me if I'm wrong, my assumption is that we wouldn't be able to just approve an RV or something as a home because they don't, they don't meet fire life safety they don't have the right requirements for insulation, you know all kinds of they don't last as long they're not meant to be lived in like that. But I just want to understand if you know, and I know that you're going to come back to this but has that been a direction that you've been considering or planning and that what we should expect to see. Yes, definitely so the direction was not that RV is or potentially park trailers would be allowed to be approved as tiny homes on wheels, the idea would be was I believe the idea from the board was that tiny homes on wheels would need to meet strict standards in terms of their certification for their, their construction and then also use development and design standards. But there is a, it's a little bit of not knowing exactly which certification standards we would allow or expect in terms of the construction for the tiny homes on wheels. And that's where I'm from a South perspective, we need to do a little bit more research on how this has been tackled in other jurisdictions where there has been approval of this kind of thing. That's it done. Okay, thank you. Can I ask, can I ask one more question about about that I didn't really understand her answer. Okay. Would you restate that. In other words, the supervisors have said, it's going to be different requirements for tiny homes and RVs because RVs don't meet state standards for requirements that homes have is that what you said. Yeah, well the direction that we got from the board of supervisors is that they would like for there to be a policy that would allow for tiny homes on wheels to be used as primary residences or ad use. The intention was not my understanding that we would have extend that same allowance to RVs or standard park trailers such as air streams. That was my understanding to I just want to be clear about that. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner shepherd, do you have other questions. I'll let you go first and then Commissioner Dan. I think why would be reiterating myself this needs to have several public meetings. I would suggest you have them in the districts, and I would also suggest that this is a work in progress, and should come back to us at the appropriate time when you've answered some of these questions and some of the community meetings. And I do not feel that most people in the county, yet have any idea about this, frankly, I know the housing community does, and I respect their advocacy. A lot, but I do not think most people know anything about it yet and we need to do some, we need to get some public input. So maybe I should ask counsel about this because it's currently this is scheduled to come back for a public hearing on the 28th of April. So do we have to request a report before then or how do we how should we handle this. Okay, we can simply continue that for further study. I don't know that there's a legal issue there. Okay. So chair chair there's not much of a, yeah, I think, because I couldn't. Commissioner shepherd just said there's not really an legal issue it's up to the chair and you know you can, you can ask the planning department whether or not they can have additional study sessions or just push back the ordinance draft. I mean, I think that I could just make a motion that we continue the study session to our first meeting in April. And then, you know, with regard to public meetings, you know, I can add something about public meetings before this ends up in front of the board of supervisors, which I think is the critical decision point. I just would support that. Yeah. So when the time is right, I can do that. So I guess I'm still very unclear and we don't have to decide this now but I just want to put this out there how we would permit tiny homes on wheels. You know, where would they be permitted to be with the permit be attached to a particular parcel. What are the requirements could they be parked in a driveway. I mean, I do tend to agree with commissioner shepherd on this I remember, you know, like for instance, people for a while people were putting up these 10 things in their driveways and like, you know, there's just like one or two nobody complained but when lots of people started doing it, that became an issue and then so we had to set up rules about that. So I would suspect that if we get a bunch of tiny homes and driveways, we was, you know, the board members would start hearing about it. And I just know that in the city of Santa Cruz things are a little bit different. The city of Santa Cruz, but in the city of Santa Cruz one of the main complaints that council members here are is about RVs parked on the city streets and the impacts of those RVs and all sorts of impacts, whether it's water sewer trash density. You know, all sorts of things. And so I think that with, you know, tiny homes on wheels, we need to be cognizant of those impacts, and and, you know, I understand that there's kind of an intellectual distinction being made here and I can see how that could be made. But from my perspective, I just don't really see the distinction yet. So I think that for the tiny homes on wheels. You know, it seems like you could trailer it pretty much anywhere just like you, you, you could a Bambi so I think that that's I see that as very distinct from a tiny home on a foundation. So that's that issue. So Commissioner Gordon brought up an issue about large parcels or just multiple homes on a parcel and used a large parcel as an example to not limit 80 years and I would guess I would just suggest in those situations. What about putting a minimum parcel size to that if we were going to allow that we might as well just, you know, say okay then like for large parcels I think use the half an acre okay for parcel 25,000 square feet you know you can you can have, you can do this but that's just something to think about. I definitely support no vacation rentals for tiny homes whether it's on a foundation or not I think that if we're doing this to provide housing, then we have to actually really be serious about that and not allow the monetization of these units. Oh, I mean you can obviously they'll be rental so it's monetizing your property but not monetizing them for vacation rentals. I actually again this is more of a city of Santa Cruz issue but the owner occupancy issue. I like staff compromise of maybe the owner doesn't have to reside but a relative. I do think that you know in the city we have issues with neighborhoods becoming multifamily student housing is the university getting out of their commitments to have to provide the housing themselves and so we have you know neighborhoods that are, you know, are 100% students and so I think that the again the ADU distinguishes itself as an ADU because of those requirements to have it be owner occupied otherwise, you know you have an ADU and now you can have a JADU. It's really what's it's really multifamily housing that you have there and you can have, you know, literally 20 students on a single parcel in that situation so I would tread carefully on that. And I think that that is what distinguishes an ADU from a single family home. And then lastly, the issue about fees I support where staff is going I would just put it out there for the commission and staff to think about that. You know, while when we're increasing density the reason why we have fees like parks fees and childcare fees is because when you add people into your neighborhood they need these services like childcare and the parks and I think we've seen in the pandemic how critical, you know, especially open space and parks are and especially when you, when we, you know, are densifying our neighborhoods, those open space amenities become even more important. So I understand we want to encourage ADUs by reducing fees wherever we can and those are the fees where we have discretion at the same time. I know that we need funding to provide more open space in the county so so since we're going to be continuing this that looks like I'll stop there. So I don't know how much help we're really providing the staff there's so much in here that I think you're looking for feedback on I mean just said, talking about tiny homes, and all of the issues that are going to go into creating, creating code for this. So maybe we can get into like, you know, for instance, the stuff at the bottom of page nine of the staff report with regard to tiny homes maybe we can kind of focus more on that. The next time all of the issues that you're bringing up here that we need to think about. But I really appreciate the staff work and then the staff presentation and answering all of our questions. Thank you Commissioner Dan but we have not yet voted on your motion. Can I can I make that make a motion. I hear from everybody else and then and then hearing from everybody. I know you kind of waffle there but would you like to state your motion. Well actually I feel like I'd like to let all the commissioners say something and then and then. Can I just make a suggestion for the motion. I wonder how the other commissions would feel and how separate feel is maybe we need to separate this maybe it needs to. Maybe the adu modifications. And changes because of the new accommodation we need to make state policy is a somewhat of a separate set of issues or could be considered separately from the tiny homes which is like the new boy in town and has many many more issues and vague areas. What what do you think. I agree. I agree also I was going to go in that same direction and separate the two. I agree. Absolutely. I think that's the right move. And when I when it's when I have the opportunity like that. Suggest one more modification. I'm not in room. Potentially it could be helpful that on the tiny home one in particular that staff continues to, you know, start to draft something while we, if we're also going to do community outreach, so that we can have a little bit more informed. Discussion. As to some of these topics. I think that's a good idea. I mean, people at large are familiar with what an adu is. We've had them around for a while. We are really bringing our ordinance into much more closer accord with direction from the state. I think it's a cleaner set of issues. I think what, what you really need to involve the community and is the tiny homes, which a lot of people still don't really know much about. So what, what does staff think about dividing this up into into those two top separating the two topics. Um, yeah, I actually was going to suggest that myself based on the discussion here today. The adu. Well, originally our work plan for this ordinance was just the adu updates and then we added on the tiny home piece per board direction. Um, but it, it, it is clear that there are kind of a wider range of issues to maybe talk about regarding the tiny homes. There's a lot more unknowns. So it may be too much to squeeze in on on one ordinance. Because that's how it feels is squeezed, which is not a good way to make public policy. How about we, if I were to make a motion something to the effect of, you know, schedule the public hearing for the updates to the adu code and then continue the study session to a date blank on to focus on tiny homes. Would that be kind of capturing and then I'd add something in there about conducting community outreach and community meetings. Does that sound staff to staff. Does that sound doable. Does that sound like what would be helpful. Um, yeah, I think that that's definitely that's definitely one direction to go and we can certainly do that I do think that the on the adu piece. Um, at this point with with the community input that we did receive, as well as the input from your commission and from the housing advisory commission. I've pretty clear understanding of where to go with that those ordinance updates at this point. We can do additional community meetings on that topic if it's if the commission would like us to do that but we don't for that type of. I was just thinking of the tiny homes for the community outreach. Yeah, and so we definitely can do can do that for the tiny homes and we and certainly I know that district five and district one staff have already approached us about doing district community meetings on this topic. And that that could be a useful thing to do and virtually or guys virtually for now. So we'd be we'd be happy to do that and one thing to think about would be whether the phase one phase two kind of tiny home policy strategy would still make sense in that case. What the board had directed us to do was do a phase one tiny home policy which would be wrapped up with the adu ordinance and would allow for tiny homes as primary dwellings or ad us with no impact on density. And then a phase two that would involve other other things other, you know, changes to density off grid issues septic issues that kind of thing. And we, we can certainly go in a different direction. And I'm just bringing that up as a, as a question that I would have from a staff perspective to whether we want to like open up those community meetings to kind of cover a wider range of tiny home questions and concerns or whether it would still be just the kind of a phase one set of policy. I think you probably want to get as much input as you can. This is a significant policy new policy. I think you should open up and hear from the wider community. I want to once again emphasize the 300 people was a lot, but it's all people who already know about this topic or an advocacy groups. It's not the general public. You haven't heard from the general public. I think that from what I remember the board discussion to there were similar kind of concerns distinguishing between the tiny homes on wheels and the tiny homes that would kind of be treated more as like a small adu. So, I think that we would be pretty safe kind of splitting the issue in that way. So I do, I do still want to make sure that the other commissioners get a chance to make their comments before I make a motion. So I just want to defer to them. Okay. Commissioner Schaefer Fridays. Yeah, I won't be long. I agree with most of everything that has been said. I don't have any strong disagreements with what other commissioners have mentioned my concern in my district is the areas that are in the coastal zone and I just wanted some background information on on the removal of the parking restrictions in the coastal zone and and how that came about. From staff. Sure. Um, so we have gotten feedback from a number of applicants in the coastal zone that the requirement to provide parking for adus in the coastal zone was a barrier to doing an adu project on their property. And we also the, the Coastal Commission at large actually prepared a memo last year I think it was in May or June of last year, after we had already updated our ordinance. And that memo the Coastal Commission stated the position that they would support local ordinances that adopted the state law as written without special provisions in the coastal zone. Um, and so that for that reason we're fairly confident that if we make this change that it will be approved by the Coastal Commission. That was my suspicion is that we would probably be approved by the Coastal Commission. But I just I wonder if the people who you heard from were you felt were representative of coastal zone communities as opposed to developers realtors that type of the thing. Because I think that parking is definitely an issue in the coastal areas and it seems like there would be more concern from them than maybe you've heard, and that maybe you've heard from selected groups. Yeah, I mean the most of the feedback that I guess I have heard and then I'm aware of is coming from specific applicants whether they be property owners or, you know, developers design representatives. I mean, there could be more outreach done to coastal communities or targeted outreach to coastal communities to give them the information that this is something that's being considered and make sure that they're aware of that. I would I would appreciate that. If you could range to do that. I think it would be it might prevent some problems in the future in terms of miscommunication or not enough communication. Okay, I, okay. Let's see. Other than that, I agree also with separating out the tiny homes. I think that's going to be a big help to do that. And I agree with the direction that we're going in terms of having the first meeting in April for continuance of this and to study it more. Okay, Commissioner Gordon, did you have some more comments or questions. You know the only thing that I just want to really understand is in the next study session as we come back and I'm going to agree with everyone on that I think separating and having some more time on this is really important I appreciate those comments. I just wanted to understand, pretty clearly, is staff going to have a little bit better outline of what the tiny home process and potential code could look like for us because I think that'd be really helpful for me to really see the buckets right so like will you know we presented a lot of questions I feel like we could probably get some feedback before the next session so we could be really productive in it. I just want to understand if that was the plan or. Yeah I mean in order to come back the in the first meeting in April, you know we would have to get the staff report done for that like this week so I mean we wouldn't have any new information. We just have you know a timeline we have to meet in order to prepare for these meetings so I would request at a minimum it be the April 28 meeting to come back in order to have additional information to her staff to share with commissioners. I'll lean to the other commissioners to respond to that I like to hear some input as well so I appreciate that response thank you. I definitely feel that staff probably needs that additional time and to continue it to the April 28. It just seems like there are so many details that it's, we wouldn't get a comprehensive enough report in that chart of the timeframe. I agree with that. Just to clarify, since I'm thinking how to craft this motion or I thought I had heard previously from commissioners and staff that we are good with moving forward with changes to the ADU ordinance and that we could accomplish that at the April 28 meeting. Is that correct. Well I think we asked a lot of, we asked a lot of questions about that. I think at the next meeting staff could have answered our questions. No, no, I'm just talking. I'm talking and I guess it's more of a, I want to ask staff and then I want to hear from the commissioners but as far as when we were talking about splitting the issue. It seemed like for the issues regarding ADU is it seemed like there was more clarity. This is not a new. This is not a new issue for us in ADU that we could move forward with those changes to those code changes at the April 28 meeting, and then hang back and learn more about the issues surrounding particular on tiny homes and particularly tiny homes on wheels. Is that gathering what, what we're all thinking here. Does that reflect. Am I reflecting what I heard. Well, we have given staff our opinion on the ADU issues. Our opinions do not necessarily agree. So they're going to see what, you know, we've given input on that we don't all agree on, you know, the relative the ownership issue and some of the other things so they've given us a proposal we've given them a response and they need to come back with a revised ordinance or a revised proposal and you're saying maybe we could actually have a formal hearing on that on the 28th but issues relating to tiny house we want to continue that for more full development of the topic. Is that what you're saying. That's what I was suggesting. I could approve that. Okay, I just daisy is that, is that, I mean, does that sound all right. Is that something you guys could do. I mean, does that make sense to split the baby. Yeah, I mean I think I think that is something that staff can definitely accomplish for the April 28 meeting having what we can do is have a draft ordinance prepared for the ADU and then in the staff report we could summarize the topic areas where differences in feedback that we received from commissioners and then at that hearing. We'll pass it out. Kind of cashed out and make decision on those on those issues. I mean I remember Melanie remembers the cannabis ordinance we had to, I think we had 18 separate motions. We can figure it out. Um, but one of the things that we were talking about was that we wanted more community knowledge of what is happening so I have no problem with the April 28. I think that's just on the ADU. Um, but I'm wondering is there some way, such as what we talked about with the coastal zone areas but just getting out the word better. I'm going to be discussing this and that it will be a public hearing and here are some of the more significant issue areas that the community might be aware of so that we could use that as the opportunity or the tool to increase public participation and awareness of what we're doing. I would give it to staff to craft that and figure out how to do that but that would be my desire that we get better publicity about what we're doing on the 28th. Agreed. Let me let me take a shot at a motion just to move this along. Okay, we can see where we go. Okay. So I'll make a motion to approve the staff recommendation, except with regard to number two. I will modify it to say to consider proposed ordinance for ADUs. And then I want to add a few added directions to this. The next one would be that staff before the April 28 meeting to consider the ordinance for ADUs that staff do outreach before this meeting, particularly on the coastal parking issue. And then that outreach be not be to neighborhood organizations, board members. Let's not forget social papers. Let me finish and then you can make additions. And now I lost my train of thought extensive outreach. Before that meeting. Number three that we continue the study session. On tiny homes to a date to be determined by planning staff unless you give me one right now. And then number four, that before the study session on tiny homes that staff also do some outreach to neighborhood organizations. Board members, newspapers, a variety of, you know, extensive outreach and that you could contact board members and ask for a list of important community groups in their districts in order to do outreach to those folks. So I think that that that encompasses. The second we can modify it. I'll second it. And I'd like it repeated again. Okay, let me try it. So I'd like to move the staff recommendation on number two of the staff recommendation that it is modified to say schedule a public hearing for April 28 2021 to consider a proposed ordinance for ADUs. The rest of that direction is the same. And then number three, that before the April 28 meeting, where we will be considering the ordinance changes for ADUs that staff do some outreach to community groups. In particular, to make sure those folks know that there's some changes to the parking requirements with regard to ADUs. So that the community is aware of that. That number three, we continue the study session for the purposes of discussing tiny homes to a date to be determined by planning staff. And that number four, before the issue of tiny homes, returns to the board of supervisors. So before the issue before an ordinance on tiny homes gets in front of the board, that staff do extensive community outreach to neighborhood groups, newspapers, and getting a list of community important community organizations from board members to reach out to, in order to conduct those community meetings. And discussion the only thing that I would, I would like to mention is that in number three of your actions in your motion. You said before the April 28 meeting that staff do outreach to community groups, etc. And you specifically mentioned coastal parking, which I appreciate, but I think that there's more than that. So what I would like to amend it to is that staff to outreach on some of the more significant issues in the ADA proposals, including parking in coastal areas, so that I think there's more that staff might want to mention in their outreach program. Great. Hold on. We need a second first. Is there a second to that motion? Because if we don't have a second, then we can't modify it. We can't discuss. Did you second it? Yes. I think Commissioner Schaefer Freida seconded previously, but wanted a response. Okay, so you did, or okay, I wasn't aware. Yeah, I did. So have a second. Great. I totally accept the amendment. Okay. Okay. I just didn't know that it had even gotten a second. Okay, great. Yeah. No, I think that's a great addition. So I'd like to, I'd like to suggest that for the ordinance on the ADUs that's coming back and the end of April. When you, that I'd like to suggest your definition of getting the word out that you've given for little homes or tiny homes, be the same kind of notification in other words. You suggested that staff ask us which are the community groups we're talking about, which makes a whole out of sense and would be helpful for them. So I'd be glad to provide where I think they ought to contact. And I certainly still think the local papers, including the Good Times, the Scots Valley, Prospanor, the Sentinel and so on, and the local social media groups. But I mean, if you want us to give you some feedback, I think we need to get this out, unable to use that we are a man to get as well as tiny homes. That's my point. Right. So I think staff got the message loud and clear. Yeah, yeah, definitely not the message. And one question I have regarding the tiny home item is. Is there a direction from the commission regarding the number of community meetings or manner in which we should conduct community meetings before we come back for another study session. Well, I think we're still limited to virtual right. So, I mean, I think that what I heard you say was that you already had some requests for certain districts to have them in their districts and I think that's appropriate. I think that reach out to each district and ask if they would like, like a district specific one. And then go from there and, and then also when they're scheduled, if you, in addition to all the other, you know, outreach that you normally do. If you let board members know then they can put it, you know, in their public outreach and their Facebook and their newsletters and I think that's a great idea. Many of the supervisors have columns and, and virtual plenty of virtual areas that they're active in that people look to get updates. I think do think that's a great idea and I would suggest that if you have virtual meetings. You don't make them at 9am on a weekday. They really need to be when people can attend. So if you were having these public meetings in real time, you probably have them in the evening and I know everyone's reticence to do evening things but that's when people can attend mostly. One of the great advantages to virtual meetings to as they can be recorded. And so if we can record them also then we can put them up on the website and then we can link to them. It's really like, you know, I know that my boss has a newsletter and we can link to things that are, you know, up on the website town halls that people couldn't attend. That's that's a very good point. Yeah, I just to clarify, the community meeting that occurred last week. It was held from six to seven 30 and it was recorded. It's up on the website. The planning department as well as the ad website. So if commissioners would like to access that recording that is available. And we did also advertise the meeting at the housing advisory commission meeting and the board meeting, but we didn't do a newspaper advertisement for for it. So there's certainly more outreach that that could be done. And we definitely got the message on that one. Any other suggestions or proposed amendments to this motion. No. Should we call. Yes. Okay. Should we have a roll call vote. Whatever you want to do. Either way, but you're muted Jocelyn. Sorry about that. Maybe she's okay. I'm back there. Sorry about that. Okay. So we'll call commissioner shape or frittis. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner Gordon. Yes. All right. And Charlie's and B. Yes. Great. I think we got, I think I got it recorded there. The, the motion. So thank you very much. Okay. So there's, I just wanted to make one comment before we get away from this. The tiny homes. I did buy a travel trailer at one point. And it is delivered on wheels. And then after you get it, you can put it on the foundation, or you can leave it on the wheels and just put a skirting around the bottom of it. I'm a little confused when we want to make such a distinction between. The tiny homes on wheels and tiny homes on a foundation, because I think at one time in their lives, especially if they are. What are these manufactured homes? They will all be on wheels. One minute. Hmm. The food. Well, I do want to think. Go ahead. No, I was just going to say, that's why we need to look at all this careful, the distinction between on wheels on foundations, when's an RV, a tiny home, and when is it not, and all that. This is open questions yet. Right. I want to thank Salon for your great presentation and fielding all of our questions and comments. Agreed. Thank you. So we have a couple of more items before we adjourn. Thank you. Madam chair, I just did have a one comment related to this. Motion we just passed, which is I'd like to request that the planning director come to our meeting when we discuss this. I think having her there would be a very helpful and good idea. She's here. She's been here. Good. I am here. All right. Thank you. Good to hear your voice. Thank you. Thank you for coming to my home meeting and Daisy, and you all have done a great job. It's a complicated topic. Thank you for your patience. So do we have a planning director's report? Nothing specific to report. You know, we're working on the budget. Which we hope will be stable for next year. plan to once COVID settled down a bit more to have more of a presence at the county building, as well as of course, we will continue our virtual, you know, public counter and public services. So there's there is definitely some operational challenges that we continue to work through. But we are working on that. We're still working on organizational structure for a one stop development permits and center that we hope to kind of leverage off the resource or the recovery permit center, you know, that four leaf is doing down in the county building basement. And that's a great pilot program actually for having all of the agencies come together under one structure. And we hope to leverage that and be able to make progress next year with the one stop development permits center. So in terms of permit processing, and an organizational structure, there's there's a lot going on. We, in terms of what items that are at the local post at the coastal commission, we just got back some additional questions from coastal staff regarding the safety element and coastal buffs and beaches policies that we has submitted last October. So we'll be needing to get material back to them. So that is still not scheduled for an actual coastal commission hearing. If I had to guess, it won't be before them until fall at the earliest. Yeah, and then just a comment, I think that it's I like what you've decided in terms of breaking out the ADU changes to comply with state law at this time and try to get those done first, because those are a bit more straightforward and it's a high priority that we can, you know, facilitate construction of as many ADUs as possible. And and the tiny homes is a more complicated conversation. So I think that it's a little bit different than the board's direction, but but I think that you guys thought through it really well. And hopefully that will be received well and allow us to do a very deliberate appropriate job with that with plenty of community outreach. We do have I maybe that Jocelyn was going to mention this, but we the Live Oak Permit Parking Program changes is something that the Department of Public Works has been working on for a while. And they are about ready to actually submit an application for coastal development permit to modify that program. They will be the department that you know, they've done all the work on it. And so they will be the department determining the schedule but and and doing the analysis and staff presentations and that but I did want to alert you that that will be going on to a planning commission agenda at some point. And we continue to work on the EIR for the sustainability and code update. We're working on the EIR for the Kaiser Medical Office building. There's lots of interesting projects going on. So we're busy. And I guess that's my report for now. Thank you. And a report on upcoming meetings, meeting dates and agendas. Yes, well I we do have I think we do have items for the April 14th meeting. And we as we just discussed, we have at least one item for the April 28th meeting. As Kathy mentioned, we are very busy. So I do think it will will continue rolling along with fairly full meeting agendas in the in the coming upcoming future. So that I'm glad that Kathy mentioned that Live Oak parking program permit because you probably will receive outreach from members of the public related to that permit application because it is coming to the planning commission. And it's been a hot topic in Live Oak and throughout the unincorporated county. And as Kathy mentioned, DPW is the lead on that. I think we are going to bring Dominican to the planning commission in May. And so there's a kind of the two big ones that are definitely coming up in the next two months. And that is all I have. We've been making changes to our agenda online. We had some comments from the public about our agenda and how we present information about meeting links, etc. And we did try to make improvements on that for this meeting. I think that we will be switching over to a different meeting platform sort of a sort of an internal meeting sort of program that we use for creating agendas and posting them online the board and planning commission. So I think in the future we will all be we'll all have the same look and I'll have the same links for all of the meetings that we have. So it should be better for the public but I just wanted to update the planning commission that additional work is being done around sort of that and transparency and ease of use for the public in finding information. So hopefully we can get that squared away soon before we're all back in the office and having to address these remote hearing issues. But that is all. Yeah. Well, thank you. And county councils to report. I hello nothing to report. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. And again, I want to thank everybody all the commissioners and the staff and everybody who helped put this meeting together. It's been long but it's been successful. So the meeting is adjourned. It is 108. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.