Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress

This is the regularly scheduled meeting of the Calistoga Planning Commission. Tonight's meeting is being shown on Channel 28 live on YouTube and on Zoom. You may also listen by phone. Details are posted on the agenda which is available on the city's website. For anyone watching at home, you may submit comments remotely during the meeting at the email address shown on the agenda. Additionally, if participating via Zoom, you will be able to provide oral testimony during the public comment and public hearing portions of this meeting. Simply use the raise your hand feature in Zoom. Public comments are limited to three minutes each. May we have the pledge, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States Thank you. May we have the roll call, please?

Chair Pinsky?

Present.

Vice Chair Boot Canary? Here. Commissioner Gorman? Commissioner Kaiser?

Here.

Commissioner Towey?

Here.

OK. Are there any public comments online? Anybody online?

There are no public comments online.

So moved.

All in favor or second?

You turn on your mic.

Sorry.

All second.

OK. All in favor? Aye. Aye. OK. All right. Minutes are approved. So we now go to the public hearing. Andrew.

All right, let's go ahead and give our clerk a chance to get the PowerPoint going. Okay, this evening I will be presenting Zoning Ordinance Amendment 202602. This is an amendment to Chapter 17.37 of the Zoning Ordinance on Accessory Dwelling Units. So for tonight, why are we here? Basically, the Department of Housing and Community Development requires that cities in California keep ADU ordinances current with state ADU law. On December 5th, 2025, HCD informed the city of Calistoga that its latest ordinance on record was from 2020. And the city of Calistoga had amended its ADU ordinance in 2024. And in response to the letter, we did provide them a copy of that update. However, since then, 20 plus new state laws on ADUs had been passed. So basically, each year, the state continues to amend its ADU regulations. and the cities have to continuously keep their ADU regulations current. One of the new regulations is that within 60 days of a city approving an amendment to their ADU regulations, they need to submit those amendments to HCD for review. If the city fails to do that, they'll be null and void. For tonight, we have three main objectives. One is the mandatory compliance. That's the majority of the red line revisions. There's not a whole lot to consider. This state is basically mandating that we update our ordinance to meet their new rules. However, there are a couple of discretionary items for the planning commission to consider. Two of these include size and height. I'm sure that some of you have discussed this before, looked at it. The city has reviewed it. There's been city council discussions on this topic and we can take a look at them again with your recommendations. Finally, the Planning Commission can also discuss the ADU Incentive Program that the Planning and Building Department will be administering. However, the incentive program was not codified, so it did not require any amendments to Chapter 17, mainly due to a lot of it depending on Measure D funding and being a financial decision on one part, and two, certain constraints about various fees that are involved that involve other departments. So for that reason, we have drafted a resolution. We have put a lot of work into the incentives. We'll get into it a little bit, but it will be going directly to city council for approval. So that was a big question that some people had as to where those incentives are at and why are they not included in tonight's agenda, and that's pretty much why. So real quick, what is changing at the state level? Basically, there is clarification on the number of units by type. There's clarification that the measurement of ADU should be by interior livable space. And there's also clarification on the allowance of unit combinations. Now this part, I did prepare a couple little slides because it is a question that our department gets a lot, exactly how many ADUs can someone with a single family home build? It does vary by condition, but I put in a little diagram that kind of shows the largest extent that can be reached in Calistoga. There's also some revisions to lot coverage, exceedance, as well as parking. There's a section that has been added to keep our processes in line with the state mandated processes for reviewing ADUs, as well as an appeal process, should anyone disagree with our incomplete decisions, or I guess in a certain SITUATION WHERE WE MIGHT FIND OURSELVES FORCED TO DENY AN ADU WHICH WE DON'T REALLY SEE LIKELY HAPPENING. USUALLY WE WOULD SAY THEY'RE MISSING INFORMATION BUT THERE IS THERE SHOULD BE IN OUR ORDINANCE A CLEAR PROCESS FOR PEOPLE TO APPEAL THAT. SO THAT HAS BEEN ADDED. There's also been some revisions on occupancy, which we can discuss if there are any questions on, as well as the legacy and non-conforming units, which is an interesting update from the state. It basically states that any unpermitted ADUs or JDUs that were built prior to 2020 can be permitted through the city so long as there aren't any life safety issues that our chief building official may call out. OK, just for that clarifying note on the number of ADUs or JDUs that can be built and the combination, given the fact, this is an example. This is just a chosen lot somewhere in the city without specification. But should you have a primary single family dwelling unit as well as a detached existing structure, that could be a shed or a barn or a detached garage, Should this condition be in place, you would be able to build one JDU or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit up to 500 square feet within the existing primary dwelling unit, as well as one new ADU up to 1,000 square feet, in addition to one converted ADU up to 1,000 square feet currently as our ordinance reads. or as amended actually with the proposed amendments. So hopefully this helps for anyone watching at home that might have questions as to what's the extent, how many, what's the maximum possible. This is the maximum possible, but keep in mind the conditions have to be right. They're not always in place for every unit and every parcel. So going on to the two items where the Planning Commission can make recommendations in terms of adopting the amendments to the ordinance. One is the size. Now, in terms of JDU, the state has defined junior accessory dwelling units. Within their definition, it clearly states up to 500 square feet. So that is pretty much set. Now, the state also dictates that jurisdictions have to Allow people to build at least an 800 square foot ADU, which our ordinance does. And with the unified amendments, we would land right at a thousand square feet. So there was previously some distinction in different bedroom types. However, we are now directed to remove those and just have, you know, across the board, 1000 square foot limitation. Um, yes, go ahead.

Does that mean that if somebody wants to build a 600 square foot unit, they can't? It has to be 800?

Oh, no, no. They can build 600. That's their chosen.

So the 800 is the current max?

Yeah, it really isn't an issue in Calistoga, but in other jurisdictions, some people, you know, some jurisdictions may have ordinances that say, you know, 600 is the max. And they say, no, I want to build 800. And the state says, I get to build 800. It's more or less for those occasions. So... But the state does have in place a 1200 square foot limitation on ADU ordinances size limitation when there isn't an existing size limitation in place. So with that said, we could increase that size limit up to 1,200 square feet to align with the state regulations. We could also go above that, but there's extra work that would have to go in place. We'd have to ensure that there's general plan consistency with that. So this is where we stand. Staff recommends that you consider it. We don't necessarily have you know, a clear direction. We'd like to get your intake and recommendations on it. Looks like our director has a comment.

I just want to clarify that, you know, the state minimum is 800 square feet. Right now we are at... Sorry. The cities must allow anybody to do an 800 square foot unit. We have that number... We've extended that number up to 1,000 square feet. The state also then allows a maximum of up to 1,200 square feet. So I think if that's clear.

It requires 800, but you go to 1,200.

Correct.

And we're at 1,000.

Correct. And keep in mind, with 540 plus jurisdictions across the state, not every jurisdiction has clear direction on these regulations. So that's where the state says, OK, if your jurisdiction, your county, or your city doesn't clarify this, you can lean back on what the Department of Housing and Community Development has established for these units. But it doesn't mean that the city can't go in and make more specific regulations we just have to allow at least the 800 square feet so before diving into further discussion on that we'll give that a second there's also the height limitation now similarly the state says that a city or county or a local jurisdiction cannot basically limit an ADU to anything less than 16 feet. We have to at least give them 16 feet in height to build an ADU. But it doesn't say that there's any height limitation on that. Our current ordinance has that 16 feet in place. And one thing that we've noticed from the public is that this does create a limitation on the potential to build an ADU above an existing garage. Many people have their existing garages and they want to keep using those garages, but they'd like to put an ADU in place. And in order to do so, that height limitation should be increased to at least about 20 feet. However, the city council has discussed this. This is another topic where there's You know, some there's there's large concern about two story structures, especially in close proximities to neighboring yards and neighboring structures. So it is one of those things where, you know, the council has discussed this and a good number of people feel like the the added height or a two-story ADU is not something that Calistoga should pursue. Bringing that up for you to consider, the Housing Advisory Committee did review this. We had a discussion on it and they recommended setting the height limit to be the same as the primary structure, which for most residential zoning districts falls at 25 feet. Another approach could be that the height should be no higher than the existing primary structure or whatever is being proposed so that you don't have a situation where you have a single story primary dwelling unit but then an ADU that goes above that dwelling unit. But all of this is up for your consideration and discussion and any recommendations that you would like to make. Moving on, just to get an idea of where ADU permitting is in Calistoga, in the last 10 years, 41 permits have been issued and the average size of those ADUs fall at 607 square feet. You can see there was quite an uptick around between 2021 to 2024. That has gone down the last two years, primarily due to construction costs, material costs. ADUs, like anything else, are growing in the cost to build. So it has slowed down some development and people pursuing those options. With that said, we can also have a discussion on the ADU Incentive Program. As mentioned, this program will be administered by the Planning and Building Department and it does not require an ordinance amendment as we've I guess, decoupled them and we're gonna be bringing it forward as a separate resolution. A big reason to do this is to make sure that there, in the original proposal, in the ordinance amendments, there was similar to impact fees being waived for ADUs under 750 square feet. We were looking at the connection fees that would have been waived under previous proposals. This does impact our Department of Public Works to some extent, and so what we will be bringing forward is a proposal to not waive but cover those fees through Measure D funding for the first, at this point right now, is the first five ADUs each year that do agree to record a deed restriction for rent level limitations up to 180% AMI. With that said, it's open to discussion. I believe there might be some opinions on this. In addition to that main primary component of the incentive program, there's also aspects of coordinating with the Napa County Affordable ADU forgivable loan program, which works in a similar manner to that deed restriction. And I guess measures will be taken to incorporate pre-approved ADU plans. But again, these are... These are things that are at the programmatic level that the department can manage. So we are here to take any direction or recommendations that the commission has on those items, but it is not a motion item.

Yeah, Andrew, if you could please remind the commission about the connection fees and impact fees and how they are, which projects are categorized as...

know what point are they required sure yeah um so currently connection fees are required for any new adu that would be constructed so however a conversion of an existing structure would not require an adu and you can Yes, connection fees. So impact fees for any ADU that's over 750 square feet would require impact fees. Anything below that will not require that. And that currently lives in our ordinance. That was a previous state mandate. And we are not proposing any changes to that. Connection fees are required for all new ADUs and JDUs across the board. It's the conversions of existing structures that do not require them. Those conversions can be expanded by up to 150 square feet. Let's say you have an old shed or barn and you build an ADU in it, but you need a little bit of extra space for ingress and egress. You can add 150 square feet for that purpose alone, only that purpose. But aside from that, if they want to go larger, we do have some situations where someone has an old structure, it's existing. They want to convert it to an ADU, but they want to add more than that 150. Well, then we would consider it new construction and the connection fee would be required for that new structure. However, through the incentive program for the first five who do that and agree to limit the rent on that ADU to 180% AMI for a certain amount of years, currently it's at 15 years, however that's subject to change upon approval, then we would cover that fee for that property owner through Measure D funding, so.

And that fee, the connection fee, and the connection fee is for water and wastewater. That fee is $28,500.

Yes, it is a significant hurdle and obstacle for people to overcome as they pursue the construction of an ADU and providing more housing throughout the city.

And that fee is also for an attached ADU? Correct.

So can we dive into these deed restrictions?

Yeah, we can. There's still some legal aspects that are being worked out. But yeah, we can discuss those.

So I understand the intent of it.

Sorry to interrupt, but we probably should wait for discussion after we open public comment.

Okay. Oh, okay.

Just leave this open for questions and clarifications.

Yeah, let's wrap up the presentation and then see if we have any public comments and then we can circle back to this. Sorry, Lauren. Okay, some additional considerations and motion language suggestion for the commission. We did receive one public comment letter at the end of the day today was from the California Housing Defense Fund. They did highlight that there is no size limitation on conversions of livable space. This is... You know, this is an interpretation of state code. Our legal counsel did not call this out, and it's something that the state hasn't specified, but they haven't necessarily, you know, they haven't specifically said, you cannot have a limitation on this. In the section that they address, they just simply don't specify any limitation on it, so.

So does that mean if I have a 1,500 square foot shed per them, you can convert it as an ADU even though We're limiting it to 1,000 or 1,200?

That is their interpretation of this, yes. And just to be clear, I'll kind of skip between these two sections. I'm going to jump down that our city attorney recommended that after you provide your recommendations to approve this or approve this as amended based on whatever direction you give us, that you also make a motion to approve it basically to direct staff to make any additional changes to the ordinance that may be required by HCD as they want us to send this to HCD for their review before moving on to City Council. Sorry, that was a little long-winded in the way I explained that. Let me kind of clarify. After you make your recommendations, we're going to send it to the state to take a look at it and make sure they're okay with it before going to city council. Because going back to their new rule, after the city council approves it, we have to send it to them within 60 days. They can either accept it or they will provide findings and make us change things. And we don't want to necessarily have to come back and do this all over again. So that's kind of how the strategy that we're taking in that approach. But going back to their comments, they are reading the new state laws in that capacity. Let's say you have like, let's say a 4,000 square foot barn, a very large existing structure. And because the section on converting those structures doesn't have that specific square foot language, they say, well, that means there's no rule or regulation for it and it could be done. Our legal counsel has reviewed it, and we had the 1,000 square foot applied to them consistently with all ADUs, conversions, and newly constructed ADUs, as well as the 500 square feet for JDUs. It seems to be held, but also our legal counsel recommended that we run it by the state too. So if that is the case, the state will provide that clarification when we send it to them for review. Another thing they called out- Just clarify.

Oh, yeah. The state came out now with new regulations that we're now trying to comply with. Yes. The old regulations they had, did they have any size limitations or statement of any size as far as an existing structure for conversion?

They had no clarification on that.

What we have today is the same as what was 10 years ago. Yes, so if it was compliant that it could possibly be compliant today with the size limitation because we have that we had before we have it now. Yes, thank you.

So in addition to that, the comment letter also called out some conflicting language on lot coverage, and this does highlight a point that needs to be made in the fact that there are other sections of our ordinance, especially for each zoning district. When you look at allowable uses, what you can do, a lot of them say you can build an ADU or this amount or that, a very prescriptive description of ADUs within those different zoning districts that are, Basically obsolete at this point or will be obsolete fairly soon and they would be inconsistent with the changes that we're making to chapter 17.37 so when we move it on to City Council for review and adoption We recommend all of those sections when they reference ad use to simply say ad use and JD structures Must meet the requirements of chapter 17.37 the one that we're looking at today and that way we won't have to go back and change those individual structures and they're Their call out on lot coverage is addressed in the red line revisions. I guess with that said, that concludes my presentation at least. We can open it up for public comment and then come back to further discussion.

Is anybody online?

I see no hands raised online.

Okay. Then we will close the public comment and bring it back for our discussion. Okay.

Well, two, I guess three key discussion points. Two could be recommendations on size and height. Size, whether to go up to 1,200 square feet and align with the state or keep it at the 1,000 square feet that it currently is at. And then whether or not to amend the height limitation or increase the height limitation. And then further discussions for comments and suggestions on incentives.

So in your chart of the previous 10 years worth of ADU history, you have an average size. But do you know what the largest one we've approved?

Actually, that's a good question. A couple of years had their averages in the 800 square feet. I am going to maybe defer this question to our assistant planner and acting clerk, Lauren Clark.

I don't know at the top of my head, but I know that people have kind of been right underneath the limit. There's been a couple that have been right underneath the 1,000-foot limit.

Okay, and with all of the new construction that's going to be happening out on Grant, and God help us if Yellow Rose ever gets built, I'm sure that people are going to want to build bigger ADUs DO YOU THINK THAT THIS COULD BE AN ISSUE?

I CAN'T FORECAST WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE, BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, I THINK, AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE GENERAL size that people go with ADUs has been right around 1,000 square feet here in the Napa Valley. I don't see, for a number of reasons, people going beyond that, but I can't forecast what market trends are going to occur down the road.

Would it become a conditional use or a zoning variance if we had the 1,000-foot limit and somebody wanted to build something a little bit bigger? Would they be able to come back to the commission and ask for a variance?

That's a great question. My immediate answer would be no, there wouldn't be a variance process because this is a state mandate. And I think I'd stick with that. I mean, there could be other ways they could get creative with what they call the structure. But basically, I don't have a concern of going from 1,000 feet or 1,200 square feet, but I think 1,000 feet is the sweet spot, given the size of Calistoga and the average size of parcels within this community. I mean, there's definitely more room on parcels like the Yellow Rose parcel. Some of the parcels have been developed on Grant where you're looking at acre parcels. But I think for the most part... WHERE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THIS TYPE OF HOUSING IS MORE IN THE INFILL AREAS AND AREAS ON SMALLER LOTS. SO IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT ADU ON A SMALLER, YOU KNOW, 7,000, 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. SO I THINK THAT SHOULD HELP SHAPE HOW YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION ON WHETHER TO GO TO 1,000 OR 1,200 SQUARE FEET.

Yeah, some clarification in addition to that. This is the simplest form of an ADU ordinance that aligns with the state. Some jurisdictions have split it up into streamlined ADUs versus a higher level of discretion for things that go above and beyond. Whereas the city has stuck to the basics, like all of these ADUs would be considered streamlined ADUs. They're ministerial. You can come in and get a building permit to do it. There's no discretionary review for these, which is also per state guidelines.

And no design review either? No.

I think that's a really important distinction here is that we are, the city is interested in seeing ADU development as a way of addressing affordable housing and workforce housing. So we as a city have made decisions in the past and moving forward and making sure that this process is streamlined and is straightforward for folks.

So if I could ask a couple questions, both related to this, but not directly. The housing development that we approved between Michael and Maggie on Grant Street, we had a stipulation in there that they put in ADU units in a certain number of them. I think it was eight. Do you know if that is occurring? And they were attached ADUs.

YES, THEY WERE ATTACHED AND INTEGRATED WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. YES. AND THAT IS OCCURRING. YES.

OKAY. AND THE OTHER, I HAD AN ARCHITECT APPROACH ME A COUPLE WEEKS AGO KNOWING THIS WAS COMING UP AND HE WAS HAVING difference of opinion on what the code was saying. I don't know if this is gonna clarify it. So he was of the opinion that an ADU can only be one story. If it's attached, it could be the height of the existing house. He was working on a project where they were going to put an ADU on top of an existing structure, would be, and then they had issues about setbacks and everything, and you probably know the person who talked to you about it, and we're just wondering if there's, is there any, is there going to be enough consistent regulations in code for an auxiliary building and an ADU, or is there going to be two different sets of rules for setbacks and heights?

There's a lot there to unpack, but... So per Andrew's presentation, right now you could technically do a JADU or ADU in a proposed home or even an existing home, I guess, over 16 feet in height. But if you're building new construction ADU, you're going to be limited to 16 feet in height as the code reads today. one of the things before you is that discussion about whether or not it makes sense to increase that height to allow things like an ADU to occur or be constructed over the top of an existing one-story garage. And then the rest of your question was related to how the differentiation between an ADU and any other accessory structure.

Yep.

ADUs or ADUs, accessory buildings, they're totally different types. They're living spaces versus storage. Well, an ADU is an independent living unit. It has concessions for complete living, you know, cooking, cleaning, washing, sleeping, so forth.

I understand, but I'm just talking about the size of the structure, you know, if it's an ADU versus just a barn. Is there that much difference in the code, and will there remain that way?

There's a whole section on accessory structures and in a lot of ways they have, I guess, more capacity to go larger and higher depending on the certain condition. If you remember in Hideaway Cottages, there was a handful of Accessory structures for that resort that were above that limitation, but because there was a certain setback met they were able to go that high there's situations where a Guesthouse or a pool house that doesn't exactly meet the definition of an ad you can go above that square footage because they are specifically listed as acceptable accessory structures however, the key thing is that The use, essentially. I mean, it's that term dwelling. It's where you're, you know, if you look at the definition of a guest house, it's meant for temporary use, not permanent living. So when we're looking here at dwelling units, we are looking at the state definition for a place of permanent human habitation.

Okay. So somebody could build, call something permanent. a guest room or whatever is still put in the full kitchen.

They cannot put in a kitchen. So the definition, and then we've also amended our definition of a kitchen to provide more clarification on that because that was causing some confusion.

Okay, because I'm thinking about my own situation where the house was built, a garage was built as a separate structure with a unit on top of it, which was plumbed for a kitchen but never installed.

If you install a kitchen, it would meet the definition of an ADU. okay so i can call it something i can call it whatever i want to and go as high as i want no not as high as you want but higher than the the the adu limit higher than the current 16 feet and also just for clarification the the height section for attached adus it says an attached adu shall not exceed the height limitation that applies to the primary dwelling unit or 25 feet whichever is lower So it really depends on the house and the structure in place and how this ADU is attached. It goes on to say, this clause shall not be construed to permit an attached accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories. So there is some limitation on that. Should you wish to provide further clarification or changes, you can make those recommendations tonight.

How do the commissioners feel about a 20-foot limit rather than 16 feet?

Let's take one step back. If we could come up with a way how we're going to evaluate each thing and then have a good discussion about it instead of a specific, you know, so like height restrictions. You know, what are the considerations we should be examining, discussing, and eventually making a vote on?

Can you bring that slide back up? Yes. Please.

Or should we start with going chronological order and go with size first and then height? Sure. Just to have a structure. Just so we don't bounce it all over. Yeah. That sounds good. All right. Once we enter. So I think the size question is a little more straightforward, a little less complex. We are currently allow them up to a thousand square feet. And would you like to increase that up to the state limitation on size of twelve hundred square feet?

I, for one, think the thousand square foot that's existing is fine. I live in a five hundred square foot. dwelling and it has uh one bedroom and a kitchen and a bathroom and a living room and it's definitely a livable space so i think that it's fine unless other people have different opinions why not give the 1200 square feet if people want to have that

ability to do that, does it hurt anything? Does an extra 200 square feet impact too much? If that's what a desirable space they want, why put a certain limitation? Do we stay within the requirements that the state is mandating?

So that would mean that the setbacks and the separations would have to conform. And if it didn't, then it wouldn't be allowed.

Yes, that is correct. There are no changes to the setbacks laid out at the state, which are currently four feet in the rear and side yard where this would be applicable.

OK.

So would you like to, should we start making formal motions now, or do we want to wait and do this at once?

Well, we have two opinions that have been stated and two commissioners as part of the discussion. I guess we could take a roll call vote if there's no other questions or discussion.

Molly, do you have anything that you want to? I agree with Rick. Can you turn your mic on, please?

Because I don't want people to have to come back.

Okay.

Okay. I think that's what I would concur on the 1,200 foot.

Alright, well if we have anyone who would like to make a motion to recommend increasing the height limitation for accessory dwelling units to 1200 sorry not height size limitations for accessory dwelling units to 1200 square feet.

Can we just, under Section 17-37-060A, unit size change, just cross out red line 1,000, make it 1,200? What page is that, Rick?

There's not numbered. What?

Yes. No, no, we don't have to make a motion. There's going to be other changes, possibly. I'm just going to say, because we have a resolution. If we could just red line...

It sounds like, you know, reading the tea leaves, it's going in that direction. So, for now, we can have the 1,200 square feet in section 17.37060A1. A1, A3. And A3. Yep. To 1,200. Okay. So... That's that. We've taken care of the first item. I guess on to height. Okay.

And I would propose that we raise it to 20 feet.

Okay.

So that allows people to, if they have an existing garage that they want to put an ADU on top of, that would be fine. There's ample examples of that throughout the city where there's a one-story house but a two-story garage and building over it. Yes.

I would say with the stipulation that it doesn't exceed the height of the main dwelling.

What if it's on a hill? It's still feet. So it shall be limited to 20 feet or the height of the existing primary structure, whichever is lower.

Because it's on a slope. In that case, I couldn't even build my garage.

How tall is your house?

It was built as a one-story house, but they built a two-story garage and studio. But...

You're kind of grandfathered in, I believe.

Well, no, I know that, but for the future, going forward, you know.

I think, by my opinion, and we can have discussion on it, would be to keep all ADUs no higher than the existing structure. Oh. You know, not have one-story house and then a two-story ADU. That would be, that's my thought.

You know, one thing to keep in mind in this regard, you know, if you look at, know that height limitation and the main concern for these two-story structures is privacy and proximity to your neighbors we're seeing that in newly proposed projects we see that where these are in place and we often see that throughout ordinances in terms of setbacks you know the higher you want to build the further back you should go so that people aren't peering down into a neighboring property. That's kind of a big concern there. There are ways to address that in terms of limiting window placement on any walls within that proximity to a neighboring or requiring opaque windows that are not transparent that cannot be seen through or you know there's a handful of options you could limit it to interior yard facing windows. So Those are some stipulations you might wanna consider adding to it if you allow the 20 foot height increase. Or if you wish to recommend allowing it. I know it's adding a little more to consider, but I felt like it should be brought up for your consideration as you discuss this.

Okay, well.

I would be comfortable with the 20 foot height recommendation.

Okay. Okay. All right. So do we need a motion on that or can you just?

We can go with the 20-foot height recommendation. And because, you know, I brought forward the windows and the privacy concerns, but without getting prescriptive and specific, we could potentially, if you would like staff to explore options for privacy concerns as we bring this forward to city council, we can do so.

I know like in my closet, my walk-in closet, we have access windows that are up at top. So no one can see inside the closet, right? Yeah, windows above six feet.

Above six feet or something like that. Or skylights.

There's various. So I think I guess I can live with that if we have that kind of restriction as far as the ability to assure privacy to the neighborhood. Molly, any comment there?

I'd like the staff to explore privacy options.

OK. All right, we have that noted. And I think that is the extent of the amendments to... What about the deed restrictions? On the deed restrictions side, well, here in the ordinance, this is kind of interesting. It's where state law says you cannot have any deed restrictions on ADUs. But then they also get into occupancy. If you have a JDU that shares a restroom, then you need to basically... The exact language is that... you need to allow a certain level of access, I believe. Let me find that section. But it basically requires a deed restriction as that's the only way. So from the state level, the deed restriction stuff is kind of conflicting. But in terms of deed restriction on the incentive program, that would be a separate topic. That's the next discussion. If that's what you want to move on to.

Well, are we done with everything else?

Let's take a motion on that part of it.

OK. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the resolution as drafted in the 14 pages, I believe it is, with the amendments of 1,200 square feet for the ADUs and for 20 square feet for height restrictions on ADUs.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

OK. May I have a roll call, please?

Commissioner, excuse me, Chair Penske? Aye. Vice Chair Bucaneri? Aye. Commissioner Kaiser? Aye. Commissioner Tovey?

Aye.

The motion is carried, thank you.

Okay, with that said, I'll go ahead and move the slide over to the incentive program. And open it up for discussion and suggestions and recommendations to move.

So when you and I were talking the other day, you said that the only way that these are enforced is by either voluntary or people ratting out their neighbors.

Well, I did mention we are complaint driven, and if it's simply a deed restriction that we would require, let's say we are going to waive your connection fees. You're building an ADU that's less than 750 square feet, so your impact fees might be waived, but you still have this $28,000 plus connection fee. Well, through this incentive program, The city will cover that fee. So it does not affect public works in their budget and their impacts. And we would require you to deed restrict the property to 180% AMI or less. So there's a range of rent level that you have to put in place. So if that if it stands. If that's the procedure, if that's the implementation alone, then it would be to a certain extent up to some good faith to the property owner to go ahead and pursue that and without any safeguards in place, which again will be explored. There's some legal aspects that need to be reviewed before we bring all of this to city council. There's monitoring, there's some potential monitoring options that we could do with the Napa Housing Authority. They oversee some of our affordable housing units. We looked at the Napa County Affordable ADU Forgivable Loan Program. they provide upwards of $100,000 in a forgivable loan if you deed restrict it to an income level for five years. And in order to do so, they require that the tenant provide their income level when they sign the lease. And that is the extent of it until maybe a new tenant comes within that five years. Then they need to revisit and you know update the information of the new tenant to ensure that it's someone making that income level that can afford that rent and then there's a i guess a form of a a little bit of an audit at the end of the five years before that forgiveness is in place okay so it's a little trickier to do with an impact or a connection fee okay well i guess uh i'm wondering can people game the system uh get the incentive uh

even get this forgivable loan from the county, and then not rent it out.

That's something we're considering, and we're open to options and recommendations. Again, we are... working on this moving it forward to the city council. Because, yeah, let's say you just have to deed restrict and say, I won't charge rent above this level. And someone could say, sure, I'll do that. I won't charge any rent because I'm not going to rent it out. So there should be some safeguard in place to prevent that. Right.

Okay. Is that something we can do or is that something the council has to do?

We're exploring the options that one, we can legally do what we were allowed to do and what's the extent of how much we can enforce this as well as How demanding it would be on staff's limited time. We've got a small team here and we've got a lot to do and how much monitoring would go into place. And we're trying to find that happy medium of to where we could find it. I think. In some ways, we have all of our arena numbers and our affordable units, and we have an agreement with the Napa County Housing Authority. They help us out with a lot of that. We intend to reach out to them ahead of the city council meeting when we bring this forward to see to what extent can we work with our agreement with them. There are a few other options we can explore, but yes, we are aware of how it could potentially be abused, and we want to make sure that it wouldn't be. And if it were and we were to find out what would be the result or the determination, would you, okay, you need to pay that fee now because you're clearly not doing what you agreed to do. And the deed restriction is a legal contract to do that. Sure. Understood.

Okay.

Does anybody else have any comments about that?

I think administratively it's very difficult. can make requirements that they provide their rent schedule every year. But who do they give it to? How do you know it's accurate? There's a lot of questions like that. They'll give you your tax return because you have a rental property, and let me see what you actually charged and all that stuff, and reporting to the IRS, which is supposed to be accurate. But that means you have staff time to review it. I think there should be some sort of threat that if you don't, we're gonna hit you with the charges plus penalties of some sort. It can't be just for the concessions. It should be that plus penalties. But again, I don't know how you verify that they're actually complying without having a dedicated person knocking on the door, getting a copy of the tenant's tax return or something to find out, or some validation of what their income is. I think it's very difficult. At the same time, we're talking five times $20,000.

So it's $140,000 a year potentially.

So that's significant money. So it's something that we should treat lightly. $140,000, if you catch one or two of them, that pays some. You almost cover that staff person.

Also, should impact fees be included? Let's say it's at 800 square feet. ADU, it's over the 750. That falls more in the ballpark of 43,500. So, you know, if it's five of those that get proposed that agree to this, it's in the 200 to $250,000 range. So something to consider out of measure D funding.

Uh-huh. And so right now we're limiting it to 750 square feet.

No, we have no limitation in place at this point. For the incentives? For the incentives. It'll be the city council who ultimately decides this, and those will be options that will be presented to them to make a determination on. And we would like to bring your recommendations on all of that as well forward.

Does staff think this is the best use of Measure D funding? No. Like, does staff agree with this incentive program?

I think that's beyond staff's scope. I'm not here to necessarily, the council has provided, they've had this conversation, they want to pursue this. They're looking forward to the incentive programs. It's what, in fact, they're actually quite happy that we decoupled it from an ordinance amendment that's going to have to go through further revisions and then they can start addressing this sooner rather than later, most likely October 6th, well, October 6th has been noticed. So within a month, we will bring in your thoughts, prepare, incorporate those into a staff report with the recommended ADU incentive program that will go before them. So they've given us clear direction and we do what they tell us to do. So I believe it's there's pros and cons. You know, my director could speak at length to staff time and how much work it will require and how to find that balance to what we to not push us beyond capacity, but to provide the incentives and to really the end goal is to increase housing opportunities in the city and to ensure that that can be done so.

Because I do agree with Rick that I worry about just misuse of this incentive and the ability to catch it administratively.

So this is good feedback. I think it's really important for us to identify this as a concern and make sure we have the tools necessary to implement this in a way that does actually benefit the community and not just incentivize people to expand their living space.

So then I would make a record of a formal recommendation of the council that that we put some sort of mechanism in place to monitor these restrictions.

It's a fine thing. You want to encourage affordable, appropriate housing to be available. At the same time, you don't want somebody to take advantage of a system.

I'm at the beginning stages of planning an ADU to provide for a long-term caregiver as we age in place. I could easily... Go for these incentives, but I'm never going to rent it. I guess unless you consider the rent part of the person's compensation.

Well, that would be up to you. I understand. Yes, you're right. I mean, it's even someone without... malicious intent may mistakenly think they're doing the right thing and somehow be out of compliance with some of this. So, um, but yeah, I mean, there are options that staff is exploring. It hasn't all been fully worked out or legally reviewed at this point, but it will be. Um, and so far I have a, some comments to explore monitoring mechanisms, um, and require the charges plus penalties should a violation be identified. And I can say we will be exploring as many options to lean on all of our fellow local agencies and the assistance and the agreements that we have with them, so.

Great, okay. So is there anything else we need to vote on at this point?

No, there's no motion to take on that. So I'm just open to that. I guess since we did bring this up and maybe we should check on public comment if there's anyone online.

There are no public comments.

OK. Is there a director's report?

No formal director's report, but I can give you a quick update on project status. Both the veranda and Cal State Hills Resort projects are moving forward with continuing to have an early start, early opening in spring of 2027 for both of those projects. Let's see. WE ISSUED TWO ADMINISTRATED DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS TO THE 2400 GRANT STREET PROJECT. SO THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON ON AND OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT PROJECT, BUT THEY DO HAVE TWO OF THE INITIAL RESIDENCES THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND HAVE BEEN IMPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY STAFF. The one important thing to note there is that the developer for that project has spent quite a bit of time continuing to engage the neighbors with the process. And I mean, the neighbors, I think, saw all the plans that they proposed before staff even did. And the developer didn't receive any negative comments and staff did not either during the noticing period. Yeah.

And have they done all the drainage work?

The drainage work is underway, but it's still the final reimbursement agreement for that component of the project goes in front of the council next week.

That's the part of the stuff that's going to be forgiven?

No, it's just the off-site drainage work. It's a four-foot diameter pipe that's going to be installed in the middle of Grant Street.

Okay.

So just a couple of those neighbors that the developer talked to are friends of mine, and they were very happy and very pleased that the communication is going back and forth, and it's very open and it's very fluid.

It's very positive. That's great feedback, and I can't tell you how helpful it is to staff to have a developer that is working directly with not only staff but also with neighbors that are developing directly adjacent to the project. So that's not common and I think it's going to result in a good project for the community.

I think they learned their lesson the first time around. Yeah. Okay. Do any of the commissioners have anything to comment on or report? Rick?

Jim? Emily? No, I don't. I've got a couple items. I live on the northeast side of town, and I drive downtown to go to work most days. And personally, the drive is getting uglier and uglier as things go on. And I'll just go from Turn on Moore down 29. On the right-hand side, there's the school property. It's got five storage containers. It's got a dump container. It's got dirt from a job site. It's got construction material on it. Last year, they tried to at least put a fence around with some covering over the fence to hide the construction material. They didn't even spend the time to do it this year. And I know there's an ordinance about visible site of containers. And I'm not sure why that's still not enforced. It's personally a violation. OK, start driving down towards town. And each one of these things by themselves isn't terrible. It's not good, but it does. But when you accumulate them, right down on the other side of the road, you got the PG&E substation. They're doing renovation work on that. They did put up, it was like an eight or 10 foot chain link fence. If we could ask them to put that green paper, you know, cloth around it or the plastic green slats in the fence to just try to hide that station a little bit, I think it would help an awful lot. Then you go to the corner of 29 and Silverado Trail, and we've got another staging area. I believe that's for the PG&E project, but there's construction material. There's piles of dirt and gravel and fence and equipment, and should that be fenced in so it's not a third eyesore within two-tenths of a mile? Then you go down this one, a little humorous in that we do have a merchant that's got the coldest beer in town. And there's a sign there that's the size of a billboard. And I'm sure that doesn't pass the signage code. And that's been up for months. And that should come down tomorrow.

Which sign is that?

Lock Corona Market, if you're driving in town, you don't see it driving out of town, you see it in town, they have kind of a wall up in the middle of the building that goes up the second, I don't like to call it the second story, and it's a six by eight sign that says we've got the coldest beer in town. So we shouldn't have billboards in town. On the plus side, then you start coming to town and Indian Springs, has done a ton of work and they did their sidewalk and their trees and the curb and everything. And I think it's a wonderful job. That is all of a sudden, okay, now you feel good about driving into town. And I think it could be a model for what downtown could possibly look like. I know we're in the process of purchasing the sidewalks from Caltrans and maybe there'll be some money available for some improvements, but I think it is a very good start. Very attractive. And my last one is, it's been up for a little while now, but big kudos to 8 North. I think their repair work, painting, and signage is a major improvement to what that corner used to look like. Again, major improvement, and I thank them.

I would concur. Okay, anything else? If there's nothing else, meeting's adjourned. Thank you.

Amen.