Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, I'm going to call to order this regular session of the city of Atascadero Planning Commission meeting. Today is Tuesday, December 16th, and Commissioner Omali is going to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Roll call, please. Whoa.

Commissioner Frell, present. Commissioner Heath is an excused absence. Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Omali, present. Commissioner Pachio present. Vice Chairperson Anderson here. Chairperson Keane here. Thank you.

You're attending in person or listening to the commission meeting tonight. Welcome. Um we'll open public comment. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on this agenda and over which the commission has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation and you can come up to the dis and then the commission may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Hi, my name is Linda Eicada and I'm here to urge you to submit comments on behalf of Atascadero to help retain local authority inciting cell towers and its infrastructure. A federal cell tower takeover is quietly taking place in Congress and at the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC. Please oppose HR2289. It is up for a vote in the House any time. And the FCC deadline for comments um is December 30th. I sent you this article. It has this picture on it. Stop the federal cell tower takeover. I sent that today. If you didn't happen to see it, you can look for it. Um anyway, in it there is a sample letter um that can be modified to reflect our community values. I provided links in my email also for that. It's in the body of the um of the article. Um, please do what you can to oppose the federal telecom takeover. They want to blanket America with towers and ant antennas without our say. We would be in standing with the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National

Association of Counties, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors who express strong opposition to these bills. So, um, anyway, we wrongly assume these towers are safe. People that live too close die at a higher rate. Children have died at schools with towers. Some injured people have won in court against the telecoms. Of course, the telecoms want to eliminate our voices. Property values drop and towers can catch fire. Telecoms tell cities what the law is, which may not be accurate according to people in lawsuits. Therefore, local control is necessary to responsibly site towers to maintain health, property values, and safety, yet provide robust cellular coverage. Please help us retain local authority by submitting comments opposing HR 2289, a list of other bills listed in the article, and the proposed FCC rules. And please share this widely. We need lots of people to contact our electeds to oppose this telecom take over and retain local control. It's easy. It only takes a few minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. U moving on to the consent calendar for um public comment on the consent calendar. Commissioner or chairperson Keen if you just want to close public comment. So I'm closing public comment for public comment and then opening public comment for the consent calendar.

That's correct. Okay. Uh, are there any members of the public wishing to provide public comment on a consent calendar item? Okay, seeing none, I will close that. Um, are there any commission members who wish to ask any questions about or pull any item from the consent calendar? Madam Madam Chair, I'd like to abstain since I wasn't here for for ratification of the minutes. Okay. Okay. So, seeing no questions, um, can we get a motion in a second? I'll make the motion. I'll second. Who seconded?

Oh, yes. Roll call, please. Vice Chairperson Anderson. Yes. Commissioner Frell, yes. Commissioner Jones, abstain. Commissioner Ali, yes. Uh, Commissioner Pachio, abstain. Chairperson Keane, yes. Thank you.

So, I think that leaves us with how many yeses and how many nos was that? Oh, okay. Yes, we're good. The vote, the motion passes. Okay. Um, any planning commission business? No. Okay, we will move on to our staff reports. Any staff reports? No staff reports tonight. Just our public hearing item.

All right, then let's go to our public hearing. It's about the draft PC resolution for ADUs. Somebody in the audience is very excited about this. I bet he had a part in drafting it. No. No.

Um, so this this is what is happening to be um our annual ADU update. Every year the state um changes the law and um it was a year ago minus a day that we were here before you adopting the last ADU code update after state law changes. So a little bit of background, our ADU ordinance was first adopted in 2003. This was sort of before a lot of the state law control of ADUs and it was more of just an allowance for ADUs throughout the city. We had already allowed guest houses at that time and so this was a way for us to uh increase housing opportunities and sorry we lost the screen. uh increase housing opportunities um and allow those units to um be factored into our um our housing allowances in our arena. Um state law seems to change on an annual basis for this particular law. Um I think there are numerous bills passed every year that affect these government code sections and so we do come before you um on an annual basis to make updates to reflect state law. There are a couple provisions in state law that actually make our ordinances null and void if we're not consistent with state law. So, we do have to make these updates regularly to our code. Um, some of our current ordinance updates were prompted by HCD's review of our ADU ordinance. They are required now to review all jurisdictions ADU ordinances for compliance with state law. and they have submitted um letters of non-compliance to almost every jurisdiction in the state that they've reviewed. Um I'm happy to report that our letter was fairly short compared to other jurisdictions, but they did point out a few inconsistencies um that we need to make modifications for. In addition, Assembly Bill 1154 was adopted by the legislature um and it made a minor amendment to junior ADU requirements in terms of owner

occupancy. So, we went ahead and integrated that change into our code update for the January 1st um deadline for that law. So, a couple of the changes, the most major change was multifamily ADUs. Our current code ordinance requires that they do build out their multifamily property to density before they add any additional ADUs. Through state law, ADUs either play a diminished development impact fee or they pay a zero development impact fee. And so when the city council looked at this law originally, they said, "Well, that seems a little bit unfair to the city for people to just add units to their multifamily property that don't pay any fees when they really could be adding regular units that do pay fees and then we'll let them add on the ADUs on top of that because they are truly meant to be in addition to." Um the state came back with their ruling and said no, anybody can put an ADU on any property regardless of how many units are there today and it's simply based on zoning or development of the property. So we are modifying our code to clarify that ADUs can be built on any multifamily property regardless of the density they are currently built out to today. The next issue that the state came up with was setbacks. our council had adopted larger setbacks for larger units. Um we felt like this was consistent with state law because they allow us to limit units to a thousand square feet and we said that's great. We'll do 1,000 square feet at all of the state requirements. But if you want to go up to 1,200 square feet or you want something much taller, we're just going to do an extra setback to allow sort of that um neighborhood character and that lack of overlook to happen when we're on larger parcels. Um the state said no, regardless of what size of unit you adopt versus what you were allowed to do, the minimum setback will be 4 feet for new ADUs. And so we did modify our

code section to reflect the 4ft minimum requirement for new ADUs regardless of size. We don't get a ton of ADUs at the 4T. Our parcels are generally fairly large and people are pretty respectful of standard um setbacks and sighting of ADUs. Um, there have been a couple at the four feet, but we just blame it on state law now. So, that's what that is. Again, the changes to junior ADU law. There used to be a provision in state law that required owner occupancy somewhere on the property if you built a junior ADU. Um, I think junior ADUs were originally kind of seen as as that extra little garage conversion for a family member or a master bedroom conversion. Um but over time in state law they morphed into separate units. Um but they never got rid of that owner occupancy provision. Um so this state this state law um and our code update will remove the owner occupancy provision providing that they don't share a restroom with the primary unit. That is still allowed per state law. And in those cases you can require owner occupancy of those units. It would be weird to have two renters sharing a bathroom. I think it'd be weird to have an owner and a renter share bathroom, too, but that's that's what the state law says you can do. And then there are a couple minor amendments. So, our fabulous city attorney team went through our ordinance and made sure everything was tip-top shape. Um, there were a couple section references that were out of date, so we modified those. Um there was also a deed restriction section and the state said well state law says you can't do any deed restrictions that put additional requirements on these ADUs. Our deed restrictions are simply just notification of what the state law is. Um, we believe that that is an important thing to do so that when new owners come onto a property, they understand that their ADU can't be rented for less than 30 days as a vacation rental and they

understand some of the size limitations and state law that their potential property is under at that time. Um, we are modifying our deed restriction section to just require an agreement. Um, we don't really want to argue with the state about language necessarily, but we do want to require that certain things are signed by property owners and put onto the property so that there's notification of what the requirements are in the future. We're not placing additional restrictions on units. We're simply stating what the state law is so that people can be aware of what their um property standards are when they purchase a property. Um and then um at the state's request, we also added a clarification that constructing an ADU somewhere on your property will not mean that we ask for sp fire sprinklers in the existing residential unit on the property. We've never done that before. Maybe other jurisdictions have and so the state is requesting this um this amendment to code for clarity. So with that um staff is recommending that planning commission adopt the resolution before you this evening. um to update uh chapter 5 of title 9 dealing with accessory dwelling units for consistency with state law and HCD's determinations. As always, the commission has some alternatives. You don't have all of the alternatives that you normally have. Um, you cannot necessarily recommend denial of these code updates as they are required by state law, but you can recommend some modifications providing they are still within the parameters of state law and or you may determine that some more information is needed and continue this item to another date. So with that, that concludes our presentation and we are available for any questions that you might have.

Does anyone have any questions? Hey, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair. U Miss Gleason, I'm curious. I didn't notice, and maybe I missed it in the staff report, um our city's tool for uh amnesty for existing ADUs that might not be permitted. I saw some reference that ADUs would be unlawful if not following the permit process, but there was state legislation I thought that created an amnesty program to bring people in so that the building and planning department could make sure that those structures are safe and not lose that housing inventory. Is is that in before us tonight or is does the city have a program for compliance on that?

So, we don't have a specific ordinance adoption because that mostly deals on the building permit side um and we do follow state law on that. So, our ordinance specifically deals with the creation of new ADUs to a certain degree. Um, but I know there is state law that requires a health and safety checklist be posted online to ensure that nobody has to turn themselves in before they know if they can move forward with um permitting that structure or not. Um, and we do regularly um help people um go through the permit process for previously unpermitted accessory dwelling units. So, so we do have a process to bring them in to be compliant with state law and not lose that inventory for our citizens.

Correct. Okay, thank you. And then one more question. Um, I wasn't here for the origin of the height limit, but I'm curious how the 18 feet on the structure is measured. Is that from the approach side of the street or the greatest height on the structure? So, state law actually sets some of those height restrictions based on setback and location and zoning district. And so, those are copied verbatim from state law. State law does not necessarily state how those are measured. So, we measure height the same way we would any other structure. Um, which is from the average of finished grade. So, if you're on a very slope lot, you take the average, you go up to the peak of the roof.

I'm I'm wondering if Well, my other commissioners, I'll ask her a little grace here. I think about a lot of the topography of our community and the easy spots, especially on the western west edge of town and on the eastern side, not far from here. And I think of Chalk Mountain. Um, the slope when you approach from a street side on some of our significantly steep lots that already have houses on it, the easiest part's already been picked. And I worry that even that net average might deny somebody the ability to build a complimentary ADU next to their structure. So if the city does have the flexibility to just choose how we measure it, I would like for on for us to consider on slopes that are quite steep that we consider that measurement from the the curb so that it's in character and in keeping with the home now. But when you think about some of the homes built in this community, the the the approach from the street, the house might only appear to be 12 feet tall, but it might be 32 feet to have an adequate foundation.

Yeah, the house off of San Marcos and Los Altos is a great example of that. Um, we can definitely bring a couple recommendations forward to city council that addresses some additional height either based on slope of parcel um that either looks at it from the lowest point or has greater allowances from um the midpoint. Um so we can definitely bring that forward to council if that's included in the recommendation.

I don't want to hold up tonight's proceeding for that, but I I do think the topography of our city would would necessitate that to be sure that we can create more inventory on existing parcels. Thanks. Um two questions. One kind of on that is that something that we can include in this part? Yeah, you can do a recommendation for staff to present uh options on a different definition of height for purposes of ADU ordinance. That could be a part of your recommendation. Um, and if someone's trying to build an ADU where that height is greater, would I know that we have like some standards where they can just go through the process. Would that come before the planning commission if someone was trying to build an ADU that was above that height with our current ordinance or would we just say no, you can't build? ADUs are required to be ministerial and so I don't know that we would have that option, but um our our standard height in a single family zone is 30 ft. So there is quite a difference between um the state's height allowances and what our code currently allows as just a regular single family home. So I think um you know we have a couple options where we can increase height either or measure height either from the lowest point to ensure that somebody can build that one-story ADU or we can just increase the height if you're on a lot over a certain slope um that allows for that. So, we can bring those two options forward to city council. I don't have

perfect words worked out for you right now. Yeah. Um, but I I think the gist of it would be kind of those two options. Either measure from the lowest point and maintain the state's height or increase height allowances and measure our standard way. Okay. And then my other question is um and maybe I just missed it is the definition of sanitation facilities. Is that like known as bathrooms or does that include like septic tanks and other parts of sanitation? That that is a restroom. Okay. Mhm. This the state law is fairly clear on. State law says that's what a restroom is. Okay. Just I just wanted to make sure. Any other questions? Anybody? No. She answered it already.

Oh, awesome. It's like we've got this connection or something. And I was dazzled by your presentation, by the way. Thank you. Stealing my line. is trying to be dazzling. Tori makes us

It's a requirement. Um, okay. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item? No. Okay. Then I will go ahead and close public comment. Uh, any other commission comments, motions, anything? Yeah, Madam Chair, I just like to encourage I I think I feel some energy towards that height measurement, but I want to be sure that we're being that the rest I want to take a straw poll, see if the rest of the commission's in favor of looking for that flexibility given the topography of our city for the height measurement. Yeah, I think that staff um probably can um with their experience in planning kind of figure out like what that slope would be and that that height and give those options because um I agree there are some pretty wonky properties.

I just want to be sure. Yeah, I'm asking ours to consider that as part of the motion today. Thank you.

Okay. I I would just like to say that uh it it seems that an eitheror because of each project is different and it requires so much um subjective um consideration that giving that additional flexibility would definitely give the staff a little bit better ability to to help people build projects that don't necessarily fit into a cookie cutter type of situation. So, exactly what Kelly was saying was the eitheror method is probably a really good way of looking at it. I like that. So, an either or uh depending on staff's recommendations and they could always the the the applicant can always come and and contest it, but I think that they know what they're doing. We will definitely bring more than one option to council for their consideration and allow them to have a ton of information to make a decision based on.

Perfect. Thank you. I'm sure it'll be a dazzling heated debate. I hope you join in to the hearing. And just for clarity, whatever standard it is needs to be objective so that these uh applications can be considered ministerially throughout. So, whatever it ends up being or whatever um is discussed by council, it will need to be an objective standard. Yeah, absolutely. Um can we get the motion thingy on the screen, please? I'm sure there's a better name than timed out, but maybe it is a technical term. If you're a mom, is a technical term.

Do I need to relog in? Um, is that it? And I would recommend if you're wanting to have council look at the flexible height measurements to add um and add that um to direct staff to ask the council to consider flexible height measurements to account for sloped lots. That sums up what I've heard from you tonight. Okay. Someone want to make a motion?

Sure. I'll move it's your it's your addition. Go for it. I I'll move to approve the staff recommendation and add a provision that staff present city council with um standardized height measurements to reflect the topography of lot to ensure that an ADU can be built on a steeper slope. Okay, I will second that. Thank you. Roll call, please. Commissioner Jones, hi. Chairperson Keane, yes. Commissioner Frell, yes. Commissioner Omelly, yes. Commissioner Paceio, yes.

Vice Chairperson Anderson, yes. Motion passes.

Still waiting for my foam finger I put in order. Um, any commissioner comments or reports? Brief announcements on your own activities up to anything interesting? No. I went to the walk around the lake. Did you all go to the walk around the lake? Yes. Yes. I think we need more lights next year, city. It's my recommendation. More lights. Okay. Uh, any report? Sorry. What? We will do what we can, but I think we did get more lights in sunken gardens this year. And I have to say that 600 lit tree looks amazing. Amazing. I drive through downtown just to look at all the lights.

So, and Winter Wonderland was wonderful. Did y'all go to Winter Wonderland? It was it was busy and and Christmy and wonderful. So, we've had it it was not too cold. Yeah. Yeah. The joys of California. Um but we've had lots of fun holiday things. So, thank you to the city for putting all those on. Um, any report from the director or the assistant director? I'm going to say planning manager. Oh, planning manager.

Um, I don't have too much to report. We're rolling into holiday season and so, um, there's a couple meetings that we won't be having that fall a little bit too close to the holidays. Um, but we are going to hit 2026 pretty hard with our general plan update and our comprehensive zoning code reorganization and update that dovetales into the general plan. So, we are going to have a series of um kind of workshop meetings and those will likely be held on city council dates um as part of their agenda. And so, we will let you guys know when those are happening because you are very encouraged to come and listen to some of the conversation. Um, we're going to be tackling some of our zoning code update issues in terms of change of process that we're including for some new application types. Um, some of our new place types and then the zoning uses, use tables that go along with those different zoning districts and place types. And so, um, it's going to be kind of a good discussion. Um, we're trying to do a bunch of touch points on the EIR and the general plan and the zoning code update. So, don't when it comes before you for adoption, you're not looking at the whole thing at once and being very overwhelmed. So, we're aiming for one, sometimes two meetings per month for that starting maybe in February or March. Um, we're also going to try, I think, and implement a new thing in our planning department called Coffee with a Planner. Um, we're aiming for the third Thursdays of every month so that people can have it on their calendars. They can show up and talk about whatever they would like to talk about. We're also going to advertise some of those specifically for some outreach uh touch points for some items and policy discussions that are moving forward. So, um, our first one will be, I think, on the 15th of January we're targeting and that one will be related to uh short-term rentals. Um, so

you did look at that ordinance. Um there there are some uh complications um on moving that forward to council based on some conflicts of interest um that we have not received word on yet. We did like a day ago a day ago. We're working through it.

Um but it's given us a chance to re-review some of um those items and come back with um some options which I think is what planning commission had um requested during that meeting. Um, so we're going to have a couple public outreach sessions where we can invite more people um that may be associated with short-term rentals or have some opinions. Um, we're also going to bring it up again at council strategic planning and get some further direction from them with some options as well. And then you will probably see that item back before you in the spring for recommendation to council. So, um, tell your friends and neighbors about coffee with a planner because it's going to be really fun. Um, and there should be some posts on the social media page and our website about that coming up.

Awesome. Sounds fun. I'll be there. Okay. Um, so our next regular meeting is scheduled January 6. Yes. I'm not sure we have anything at this point. Um, but it is our regularly scheduled meeting and you never know when something pops up last minute. Um, but we will let you know in advance if that is canled. Oh, there was an amendment to it. Uh, the agenda tonight that we were supposed to approve the calendar. That was part of the consent calendar. So, you did approve the calendar.

We did approve it. Look at us. Okay. All right. So, our next regularly scheduled meeting is January 6th. Um, I lost my gavvel. Um, so I will adjourn this meeting and we will Uh we will see you all January 6th.