Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh, Commissioner Verber, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance, please? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Roll call, please. Commissioners George Sjin here. Deborah Van Essen here. David Collins here. Jeff Beu here. Steven Berber here. Lori Bennell.

Okay, this is our time for public discussion. Uh, this time is provided to the public to address the planning commission on items that are not on the agenda. State law prohibits the commission from taking action on any of these items. Each person will be limited to no more than five minutes of discussion time and the total time allotted for discussion shall not exceed 30 minutes. No time for public discussion. Okay. So, now we are uh reorganizing. We have uh I'd like to set a motion for moving Commissioner Van Essen into the chairman role and Commissioner Collins into the vice chair.

I'd second that. Discussion. You can do both at the same time. Y. Okay. Thank you. Any comments, questions? Second. Okay. Second. Right on. We're going to do a roll call vote. Okay. So, David Collins, George, Jeff Au, yes. Deborah Vaness, Steven Berber, yes. Awesome. So, I'm in charge. Give her the G. She may wish to use it. I don't have a I don't have my chief chief. That's all right. I think I can remember. You're good. We still got to do vice chair, too. No, we did. We did both.

We did both. We did both. We're done. Let me Yes. Did a good job. Yes. Yes. So, I going forward I I'd like the Yeah. But I think we're okay tonight because um well, first we'll do the approval of the minutes of our last meeting which was November 17. Motion second. Roll call also or

roll call tonight. That probably make it easier. So Jordan Salen, Deborah Vaness, yes. David Collins, Jeff Beu, yes, Steven Berber. Yes. Right on.

Um, tonight we do have public hearing. However, since there is no public here, I'm not going to go through the specifics of what we have to do for public hearing, opening it up and etc, etc. Um, I guess we can do that, right? Do I have to? Okay. Right. So we are going to open the public hearing. First thing on the agenda is the um Ion Iona is that correct? Y Iona development agreement. Um and planning director if you can explain that to us please.

Thank you madam chair fellow commissioners. Um as you remember October of last year uh in front of the planning commission was a vehicle electric vehicle charging station that was approved. Um it was adjacent to the Lita uh hotel and the Starbucks out there. It's kind of a a dirt site that's kind of tucked back in the corner if you recall. Um during that approval process, there was conditions of approval that were part of the staff report. Um and one of those conditions was to enter into a development agreement with the city prior to receiving their building permit. Um so this is just in fulfillment of their uh conditions of approval for the project. Um this is in front of you tonight for consideration. We just took all pretty much took all the conditions of approval from the staff report and put them into the development agreement that's in front of you tonight. Uh we did send this to the applicant. They reviewed it. They signed it um or an agreement with it. So this is a recommendation tonight that you guys will be making to the city council. The city council has the final vote on this. But um with that, I'll turn it back over to you, Madam Chair, and be happy to answer any questions. So we we do a development agreement with anybody who develops in the city. Correct.

We don't um we don't with not not with every project. Uh we do with most of our residential developments we do because of the the the complexities of those. Um and then some of these other uses which uh we are considering more of like passive uses in town. We are looking at doing development agreements with with projects like this. So uh you will see some of these coming through from occasion now uh moving forward with certain projects. Okay. So for everyone we would have to um we would have to approve the development agreement.

Yeah. So like I said it is a condition of approval that that they're just fulfilling. So that's why it's coming back in front of you this evening to fulfill that condition so they can get started on the project. But normally going forward, this would just be part of the um it could be part of the original I mean it could be a um a part of the original application packet. We could run it that way as well. Um this one here we actually um because of the kind of the timing on it and they need they wanted to kind of get approvals going. Um we went through that process first and just made it a condition. But yeah, in the future you could see it as just part of the application packet. Um, so it could have been at the October meeting is what you're asking and we could have had it that way too

and and I'm thinking going forward I it just seems to me that it would make good business sense for the city to have a development agreement when somebody's doing a development. Right. Right. I mean we're not you're not going to see them for every single project. Um but but you you will start seeing a little bit more of these coming through.

Um Tommy, you want to kind of chime in on that at all or It's hard It's hard for me to say.

Um, yeah, I think it's I think it's more of a project by project determination just from a staff. I think it's really just kind of as we're working with the applicant and seeing the um, you know, the improvements that we're looking to get out of the um, you know, specific um, project. I think um just on a case by case to basis I think um you know there's a threshold that I think staff will uh reach where it's like where we go from you know what this is not just a you know a low-level project or you know I wouldn't put it in that term but I guess uh it it exceeds a certain threshold where staff uh starts to um desire to memorialize some of these obligations within a more formal agreement like a development agreement and so it just it varies by the project I would say

is it more the complexity of the project the um what the use will be is there I think it it does I mean it gets into a little bit of the complexities of it but and it does certainly get into the different uses that that you're going to see come before you. So you're going to see them with certain projects and other projects you you might see your typical conditions of approval without a development agreement. Okay. Does the development agreement is it just trying to attain alignment within all parties so that we're all speaking the same language? for comparing apples to apples. It's alignment is what it seems like to me.

Yeah. And it it is and it's ensuring obviously it's ensuring all the conditions of approval are being met which is the case with every project but yeah it is kind of that alignment um you're talking about fair enough. Thank you. Any more discussion or questions? Anyone like to make a motion?

It's on our sheet here.

The planning commission recommends that the city approve the amendments to No, that's the wrong one. Shoot. Ah, come on. Thought it was all the way at the top. Where'd it go? Hang on. Recommends city council approve the development agreement with Iona LLC for the electric vehicle charging station project located at 1504 West Colony Road. Second. Awesome. Now, let's do roll call. David Collins. Yes. George Salgen. Jeff Beu. Yes. Deborah Vaness. Yes. Steven Berber. Yes. Awesome.

The next item on our agenda is one of our favorite ones, a zoning text amendment for accessory dwelling units. And then I did want to say I did get one um written public comment for this which I printed out for you guys. Um and for the sake of reading this um I will include this in the minutes for this meeting. So

director

hey thank you madam chair fellow commissioners. I do I won't go through the staff report but I did put together a PowerPoint that I'd like to kind of cruise through for you guys. Um, if you are uh have any questions since there's not a lot of people here, if you want this kind of feel free to stop me and maybe ask during the the presentation or you can save them to the end, whatever you whatever you'd like. Um, so this is obviously an amendment to the uh to uh section 1686 of the RIP municipal code. Um, it's regarding accessory dwelling units and what they call junior accessory dwelling units. um that basically tonight is a public hearing. Um and so the agenda tonight would be um first of all staff will uh present the item which we'll go through in this uh slideshow here. Um then we'll go on to commissioner questions. Uh we will then receive any public comment which doesn't look like anybody's here at this point but um if there is anybody that desires to speak on that they can at that point. Um we'll then turn it back over to the commission for deliberation. any further questions and then uh we would hope to get an action on the uh recommendation um for the amendment in front of you tonight. So little background here um basically uh this uh this the Ripley municipal code for accessory dwelling units was last updated in 2021. Um since that time um you know we adopted uh adopted the ADU ordinance 2021. There was some changes prior to that 16,1 17 and 19. But since that time in 2022, 2024, and now in 2025, um the state legislature has been very busy um putting some additional regulations in place. Um so we are just trying to bring our or existing ordinance into compliance with state law. So in uh 2025, there's a couple assembly

bills. 462 um is primarily a procedural and emergency response bill uh not a development standards bill. It it basically it streams it streamlines ADU approvals. Um it strength strengthens the 60-day ministerial requirement that we have to make sure we approve applications within 60 days of receiving them and allows ADUs to function as interimm housing after disasters. something that we haven't necessarily had to deal with, thank goodness, but um in other areas of the state, there have been some of that. Um also is uh Assembly Bill 1154, which was passed in 2025. Um it's it's a targeted update for JADUs. Uh the bill primarily reduces uh regulatory barriers and clarifies standards um to make small inhome units easier to build. Um, biggest takeaway from this bill is the elimination of the owner occupancy requirement under certain circumstances. So, in the past with junior accessory dwelling units, we had a requirement for owners to live on the property either in the junior accessory dwelling unit or the primary the primary dwelling unit. Um, that restriction has now been removed by state law. So, we cannot require that. So, in essence, somebody could buy a house, put a a junior accessory dwelling unit in it, and rent both units out and not live on the property. Um, and then Senate Bill also, Senate Bill 543 was passed in 2025, which is primarily a clarification and enforcement bill. It's not a major expansion of um development standards. It just uh really eliminates ambiguity in AD law, which there was quite a bit of it. Um, standardizes permitting procedures statewide. Uh, strengthens state oversight of local ordinances and extends ADU protections to JADUs. So in

practice, uh SB543 ensures that cities apply ADU ADU laws correctly and consistently across across the state uh with limited room for local interpretation. So they're they're kind of removing kind of that wiggle room that that states had in these in these uh ordinances. And so, uh, the city basically, right, because of these, the city needs to update our ADU regulations, um, in our RI municipal code. So, I'll go through several sections of these. These are all kind of key takeaways from, um, I think the proposed ADU ordinance. We'll do a comparison of um, of of um, a little bit later, we'll be doing some comparisons of uh, state law versus versus city current city ordinances. so we can kind of compare where the state law is headed and where the where we're off base maybe a little bit um and updating our ordinance. So, one of the key takeaways is the introduction of a stateex exempt ADU. Uh that's one of our the big clarifications on this state law created two distinct categories now of accessory dwelling units under a certain section of the California government code uh 66323. You'll hear people refer to stateex exempt units as those 66 323 units or so-called stateex exempt ADUs are those that meet specific criteria um such as size and configuration and they must be approved ministerally which all ADUs are required to be approved ministerally. It can't be something that comes in front of the planning commission for discretionary review um with very limited local control on these stateex exempt units. Uh these units are subject to strict state standards. um including reduced setbacks and capped heights. Um all other ADUs fall into what we refer to as non-exempt ADUs. So there's

that other category. Uh while these uh uh must still be approved ministerally, uh cities retain the ability to apply what they call objective standards um such as height, um maybe some different setbacks and design requirements like making sure that the ADU matches the primary unit as far as um material like roof material, siding, stucco, that type of stuff. You can make sure the colors match the main unit as well. cannot do that with stateex exempt units, but you can do this with the non-exempt units. Um, just so long as those standards do not conflict with state law or preclude construction of an ADU. So, you can't put a standard in place that would preclude somebody from building an ADU on their property.

Sure. review when it came to uh even the 66 323s as far as the materials, the color, window placement. No, not anymore. You can build a an ADU now, stateex exempt ADU, say uh you can have a certain style house on your property and build a stateex exempt ADU. It doesn't match it whatsoever wise reading of the material. I thought it I thought it said we still had at least control over that aspect of it. Even um uh trees and whatnot to shield a neighbor's yard from

now. Fully lost that kind of ability with these new state laws coming through. Yeah. My reading it was the same read that you had and then I read AB1 1154 and I and it narrows the the criteria here. So, a question on AB 1154. In the language that I read there, nowhere does it say it just says a bathroom. So, could somebody put a porta potty out and that will allow the owner of the property to not reside. Do you see the Pandora's box for like the Jedus? Yeah, the Jed. Um, uh, no, we wouldn't allow them to put a a a portaotty out in the yard to do that. They would have to be hooked up to city utilities and stuff. It would. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And

I believe I mean I'd have to defer to the city attorney on that, but I do believe that would be the same interpretation there. Okay. Yeah. Are kind of confused between these stateex exempt and non-state aren't aren't all of them state exempt? No, they're not. So, we'll get in a little bit later on some of the size requirements, but state stateex exempt are units up to 800 square feet. So, a person has to be able to build an 8 at least an 800 foot accessory dwelling unit on their property for it to be a state exemption.

Yeah. And so that that would classify it as a state exempt if it's 800 or less. Um they they are required to have 4 foot sideyard setbacks um if it's not a conversion. So, if you're converting an existing building, say in the old part of town where there's some garages that are on property lines, um you you have to allow them to convert that even though the setback might be zero. So, they can convert those into an ADU. Uh but a new ADU has to be at least four feet off the side in the rear property line. Um and that's per state.

Yeah, that's per state. Now, if it's above 800 square foot, then then you get into the non-exempt ADU where we can start requiring um you know, screening ma matching the main house as far as window coverings and material, roof material, uh roof pitch, things like that. Um if it's a non-exempt. So, the states really got into saying you're allowed to have an ADU to the extent to the extent that uh even like on a front setback on a house like a front yard setback and even a sideyard like on a a corner lot if if you can't fit a eight at least an 800 foot ADU on your property um and still comply with like the front setback, you would have to reduce those front setbacks. So your house maybe sits back at 20 feet, but you might have to let the ADU be 15 feet, have a 15 foot front setback because you cannot preclude them having at least an 800 foot ADU. Now, I don't think we'll run into that uh we'll run into that uh scenario too much here because just because they might want to put it in a certain spot doesn't mean they automatically can have it there. If they can have an 800 foot ADU somewhere else on their property, we can make sure that they still comply with the setbacks. But if it there's no no other place to put this thing and that's that's the only spot it could go. We would have to work with them on setbacks and things like that for state a state exempt. Can you point me to which bill said said what you were telling me about

this guy can because what I had read was that you had some discretion in terms of like materials ro roof pitch lighting shading color palettes that but that it had to form as be form formulated as a checklist not as a design opinion. So, can can somebody tell me where it it count? I can get you the uh the most recent copies because I think I think what uh what can be confusing with this is um just reading the um uh the legislation, but uh once you read the actual like the government code that it's recottifying, uh it all the ecosystem makes a little bit more sense. And so, I'm happy to give you a copy of that later. Please do. I would appreciate that because that's contrary to course

what I had read earlier. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. No, no problem. That's fine. You know what? Since you brought it up, you talked about we'd have to make an exception, a front yard, etc. Um, what about our rules as to lot coverage?

So, for state exempt, it doesn't even come into play. You can't you cannot consider it. Um, for non-exempt, now when you get into the non-exempt categories, we can consider lot coverage. So, um, if somebody were to want to build a th00and square foot ADU and it's going to exceed the lot coverage, we could tell them no on that. They're exceeding the, you know, the floor area ratio or the lot coverage and they would have to reduce it. But they can't, you can't force them to reduce it less than 800 square feet because then that now you're precluding a stateex exempt ADU.

Wow. So kind of in short here the the distinction is important because uh you know stateex exempt ADUs are governed almost entirely by state law uh where we have really no say over these things whereas the non-exempt ADUs allow for a measured I kind of a measured level of of local control through what they call objective standards. So, if we get too uh I guess uh kind of too out of line with our kind of our standards even on our non-exempt um you know the state can come in and say our our our municipal code isn't in compliance with state law which kind of renders it um null and void and then you fall back to state law. So, we're trying to dance that that fine line there with the um the design criteria and stuff for the non-exempt as well. But yeah, great questions on those. Um, so also what the some of these other bills did is they did um expanded ADU allowances. Um, so our existing ordinance basically says you get one ADU and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot. So single family can have a junior accessory dwelling unit and a and an another accessory dwelling unit. So essentially three units per lot. You say per lot, does that mean it could be a 5,000 square foot lot, could be a halfacre lot? What's the

you can't take into consideration anything for lot size or anything? Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Y

um so kind here for single family dwelling units uh for the ADU allowances. state law creates a a separate entitlement um for uh junior accessory dwelling units, a conversion accessory dwelling unit within an existing space and a new detached ADU up to 800 square feet. So when combined, you can have a junior ADU in the primary house or as part of the primary house. You can convert a detached structure like a garage, game room, pool house into an ADU and you can also build a detached ADU up to 800 ft on the lot. So um when combined this can result in multiple accessory dwell dwelling units on a single lot and uh cities are not permitted to require an applicant to choose between them. So if somebody is creative enough and can fit them all on uh you could end up with primary dwelling unit but three other units. So you can have four units on a lot and you can have these to where we used to have the owner occupy at least one of the units on the lot. So there was a little more hopefully upkeep of the lot and more control over some of the stuff as far as maintenance and make sure the property upkeep was done. Um that's been removed. So now someone can buy a house and add all these units on it and have four rentals and when we get later into the slideshow you'll see that a lot of the parking requirements are are removed out of the state law. So now you've got four units on a lot and where does everybody park? Well, they're all going to start spilling out on the street to some extent if they can meet a lot of these exemptions, which which most of them can. Um, so yeah, that's kind of where we're being led with the state law. And you get into multifamily, which we don't we haven't seen really many of these yet come through. Obviously, a multif family could be a it's uh what's considered multifamily is a duplex uh and and above. So, a duplex, triplex, or small apartment complex. um they

could add ADUs. So um a multif family property um containing two or more existing dwellings on a single lot. Um basically state law requires that these properties must be allowed to add both conversion ADUs within existing structures. So if there's existing structures, they can add they can convert those to ADUs up to 25% of the existing units. So um and in newly constructed detached ADU is up to a maximum of eight units or the number of ex of existing units whichever is less. So on a multif family property if there's four units there they can add four up to four um detached ADUs and they can also do some conversion ADUs. So, part of the revisions in front of you tonight, the city's existing ordinance uh under permits uh ADUs basically the way it's written now since it we adopted it in 2021. There's a lot that's changed since then. Um size requirements for these you guys like kind of a state law versus the city of Ripen here. So, the state law in 2026 uh requires at least one ADU up to 800 square foot must be allowed. Um so, not subject to lot coverage or minimum lot sizes as uh Commissioner Veu had asked. It's kind of spelled out in that one there. Um and then, uh attached ADUs up to 50 you attached ADUs you can do up to um let's see where that one was. Up to 50% of the primary dwelling or at least 800 square feet. So that's for the attached ADUs. So um you know if you have a 3,000 square foot house uh that would exceed kind of the our maximum requirement. Um so you can you can limit them to 50% of of the house. So well let's just take a 1,800 foot example. So somebody had an 18800 foot

house. They would be limited to like a 900 foot ADU 50% of the unit house. But at no point can you preclude up to 800 ft. So if they had a 1,200 foot house, half of that's only 600 feet. You'd still have to let them do an attached 800 foot ADU. So in essence, the ADU would be, you know, a little over half the size of the of the main house. And then for detached, uh, you must allow at least 800 ft. Um, and cities may set maximum above those minimums. So, you'll see later in our ordinance, uh, it was carried over from our our 2021 ordinance that we we cap that maximum at 1,000 square feet. A lot of other jurisdictions we're seeing is kind of a,200 foot is what they're maxing out at. Um, and there are some others that are a,000 too. So, we've we've capped it out at a thousand. Um so the our current standards u basically the uh current allows ADUs up to thousand square feet max like I did just mentioned. So we're not changing that at all and state law doesn't mandate that we do that. Um however the uh attached ADUs uh basically the way that code's written right now it's non-compliant. Um they the limited to 50% of the primary dwelling. However, does not clear it doesn't clearly ensure that a minimum of 800 ft can be built. So that's kind of where we're off base on that a little bit. We currently say 50% but we have to at least get that 800 foot language in there. Um and then for the detach ADUs um it is compliant. However, uh again subject to the same thousand foot max. Uh we do not different clearly differentiate between state exempt ADUs. the less than 800 square feet and the non-exempt which is greater than 800 square feet. So, it's a little bit of clarity language there. Before when we did this other ordinance, there wasn't such thing as a stateex exempt uh and a non-exempt ADU.

Ken, can I ask you a quick question on 1686 uh 050 non-exempt ADU standards? I just want to understand this a little bit better. Think I I think I get it. But uh on uh D number 030, you said? Yeah, it's uh it it has to do with with uh an ADU is the ADU is approved if it's located within a one block within one block of a car share vehicle. Are you talking about Uber and Lyft?

No. Oh, uh, car shares, if you're I don't know if we did we I think we didn't put the definition of a car share in there because it's defined in state law, but a car share is more of like um I'm trying to think of the Have you heard like a like a park and ride? No. Or like like a Turo that have you ever heard of the TUR? Yeah, I've used

somebody's car like it's a it's not a it's not an Uber or Lift. It's basically like a a car rental that is is within the vicinity of your ADU. So, um, a car share would be like something like that where they can rent those. That is that correct on that, Tommy? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, and back on the ADU size there, does um, and where we're a little bit out of line yet on our ordinance doesn't explicitly provide for a guaranteed ministerial pathway for an 800 foot ADU or contain clear exemptions for lot coverage or similar constraints. So, we do we do have to update our ordinance to to include those um, since the introduction of the state exempt ADU. Um, next is the height limits. Uh basically um state law allows for a 16T height that must be allowed. It applies to all jurisdictions. It's a baseline standard across you know across the state. Um an ADU is considered um basically uh it can go up to 18 feet if it if it's um within a half mile of a transit or multi- or on multifamily lots. Um, so basically it's considered within half mile of transit if it's is within a half mile walking distance of a major transit stop, high quality transit corridor or a bus stop or fixed route service. So just for information, a major transit stop would be uh an existing rail station um bus rapid transit uh neither of neither of which we haven't written. a bus rapid transit station um which is a high quality permanent transit stop designed to emulate um the speed or comfort of like a light rail, a ferry terminal. Again, nothing that we're concerned about in Ripen, a major bus intersection or a planned transit uh planned major transit stops that are

included in the regional transportation plan and program to be completed before or within one year of the housing. So there's been discussion for quite some time of the ACE train coming through ripping here and we do have some property that the city has set aside for that. Um you know that's being pushed back. So even that now being that would be a that would fall under the um the major transit stop category, but it's being pushed out enough to where it wouldn't qualify anybody at this point because it's it's pushed out so far that it's not expected within the next uh 12 months or one year of the housing of a housing being developed. So uh we'll kind of keep up on that. Um I know city engineer is is working with um ACE on that to see kind of when when they want to when they're planning that. It could be a five or 10 year window. Now at this point I think they're focusing more on heading north to the Sacramento corridor area with their a stations and and stops at this point. And then also uh it it's um the height limits can be go up to 18 feet if it's in a high quality transit corridor which is an existing corridor with fixed route bus service providing service intervals of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. Uh we don't have those here in Ripen. What we do have would be like a transit stop. We do have a couple uh hard stops for our buses that run through here. Um, so we when if a an ADU or JDU is being constructed um or an ADU is being constructed in within a half mile, that's when you have to worry about kind of that extra height limit allowance.

Ken, you said um well, in some of the reading that I did, it showed up to 25 ft was allowable by the state. Are we capping it at 18? No, these are so these are mostly for um detached um attached units can go up to 25. Okay. Can we have no transportation currently? Is that what I'm hearing? We do have some bus services that come through and there are some fixed stops and those are what we would consider our transit stops here in town.

What about ACE train? the ACE train like I said the ACE stop that we have purchased property down there for since it's not here yet we don't have to worry about that at this point but as if there if it does get located here at some point or within a year we know it's coming then then they can take advantage of some of these height allowances I guess if they're within that certain distance so Ken if we were to compare this to our standard building permit for a residential dwelling single family house in the city of Ripen how would to equate the rules and regulations from the state in terms of permitting versus the ADU JADU permitting process that the state is requiring us to. Is it much softer, kind of softer?

Um, well, I mean, the process is similar in the sense that you, you know, you can go walk into the building department, you own a lot in town, you can walk into the building department, get a building permit for a house. Um, however, with a a standard house, you're looking at regular setbacks. You're looking at the municipal code. So, you're looking at, you know, rear yard, sideyard, front yard, setbacks. You're looking at height restrictions. Um, two-story homes here. Most single family lots out allow for a two-story home, which is up to 35 ft in height. Um, that's pretty tall house. Um, ADUs are even if they're attached, they're being uh restricted to 25 ft. So um that is a little bit lower than what our code allows but um process is similar but what we're being like what is being kind of I guess in a lack of a better term forced upon cities is these reduced setbacks to allow these units to be put in place

and also the ministerial process seems to be much faster for the ADU process. you have your your time limitation is 30 days at some point, 60 days at some point, but there's a time requirement like you're put on the clock as a city to approve. Is that the same? Yeah.

For the state with a with a residential, we're not necessarily held to that from with a a single family residential. I would say that our our permitting process is is just as fast probably for single family residential. uh where you get into kind of some delays and and it doesn't even really affect ADUs in the sense that um you know we can get through a plan check uh within this time frame pretty easily. Um even on a single family home, we'll send a we'll send a plan check back for comments. You know, you redline it, send it back, and then we're waiting for maybe two or three or four months back to get plans back from the architect where they've corrected those uh redline comments. U sometimes it goes back two or three times two back and forth where they don't address everything. So, you know, we could we could redline a plan for an ADU uh within that 60day time frame and then if they sit on it for 6 months, it's it's not I mean, it's not counting on our time because

they can't just wait you out and say, "Okay, well, we're not addressing these comments that you guys made." It's automatically approved, you know. So um in that sense the process I mean they are mandated in a sense you know for ADUs but they're not they're not really pushing us out of what we normally do I think for for single family homes. Thank you. Can impact

uh we'll get through that. There's another slide here for impact fees which I'll go through on that. Uh that's a whole another can of worms. Um and then uh let's see up to so up to 20 foot is allowed. It includes a it's a twoft roof pitch allowance to match the primary dwelling room uh dwelling roof pitch. Um you know that is just a taller unit. I guess obviously I mean guess there's could be some arguments if you're trying to match the primary the pitch of the primary house. it it it's a little bit complimentary, but um I think you got to remember these things could be 4 feet off your back property line and four feet off your side property line. So, it's impacting you as a a a nearby neighbor quite a bit being that close. Um and then you cannot uh that last point there's you cannot limit ADUs to one story. Our our current ordinance says you can't you know you can't build a two-story ADU. um that that's kind of taken out of that's been taken out of our hands at this point. Um state law regulates heights basically only, not number of stories. So if somebody could figure out how to build a a second story and a 16 foot type house or an 18 foot, we couldn't tell them they couldn't do a second story or twotory ADU. Um so Ripen's current standards where we're at our detach is limited to 16 foot or one story. Again, that's not compliant really anymore. 16 foot is is really the same height limit that's allowed across the board, but we don't have those extra adders in there that that's required by state law. And we specifically state it has to be one story. So, we have to remove that out of our current or our proposed ordinance. And u the attach uh the 25 foot limit. Uh Mr. Salin there as you talked about uh um we didn't really define it in our previous code. Um but uh now we're having to define it really define what it is.

Um next is setbacks. We've talked a little bit about this already. So you know you get applies to new detached ADUs and applies um regardless of zoning standards for state exempt. Um so if you're on a small lot, you're on a large lot, you know, you got different setback requirements for large lot versus small lot. Obviously, you're seeing some homes being built over here on Fulton Avenue, which is our medium density zoning. They're smaller setbacks in our larger single family lots, but regardless of that, the the ADUs, a stateex exempt ADU gets 4 foot side and 4 foot rear setback. Um, and and cities cannot impose greater setbacks uh that prohibit a feasible 800 foot ADU to be built. Um, so and then also the 4 foot side and rear setback still applies to non-exempt ADUs. So once you get out of that state exempt ADU and you get up to maybe a larger ADU that's not not not meeting the requirements for stateex exempt, you know, we do have some discretion on like I said design and compatibility at that point. But we still have to allow the 4 foot uh side and rear on that which is being pushed by state law. And then conversions. Uh obviously, uh if you're converting a building that's already there, um no setbacks required whatsoever. Um there is, uh kind of a little bit of um leeway on this one as far as they give us here is they a conversion ADU has to be limited to to the structure that's there. So there's a 400 foot detached uh garage structure. um it it can only be a 400 foot ADU. They do allow like a 150 square foot addition to that as far as for ingress or egress if you're having to get somebody in and out of the house or to add like a front door accessibility to it. Um but other than

that, you can't add on to it and make it up to 800 feet and still be considered a conversion. At that point, you're considered a new ADU and the setbacks would kick in. a um stateex exempt ADU. They are considered a stateex exempt ADU. They are. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Um basically for the most part our current standards uh for the most part the the city's current ordinance is compliant. However, it does have some ambiguity. So, uh the proposed revision just making the the clear distinctions for state exempt and non-exempt. Again, we didn't obviously this didn't even exist when we did our last ordinance update. So having to add those in um to to have some clarity there. Um this gets into the design standards. We've been talking a little bit about this. Obviously stateex exempt ADUs are limited to local um limited to local standards. Uh but cannot impose standards that preclude an 800 foot ADU. That's kind of I think Tommy had gone through that. I think Kim and I have been button heads and pushed back and forth on this quite a bit. Um but uh state law is pretty clear on that. Um we can't we can't impose design standards on these things. Um anything like that. Non-exempt ADUs. Uh objective standards are allowed. Like I said, objective is kind of a um a pretty that's a pretty key word there. Objective. We can't just arbitrarily come up with a different setback for an ADU for instance or or something different on an ADU. It has to be very objective. So if the main house is blue, the ADU's got to be blue. If it's got, you know, you know, uh tile tile roof shingles on it, the ADU's got to have tile matches exactly type stuff. Windows, you can do things like that. Uh we can also kind of introduce I don't know what this would really look like. Um, but you know, we could look at uh uh screening requirements um for an ADU, like a non-exempt ADU between neighboring properties. It'd be kind of tough with like only a 4ft area. Um, but we also can um uh we can actually have some standards in there about windows looking into neighbors yards, things like that for the non-exam.

And again, these must be ministerial. um in nature uh verifiable. They're not they're not subjective review to where there's opinions kind of in in play on this. Um so the city's uh current standards that there's no distinction between stateex exempt and non-exempt. Again, we this is something that was before uh before it time. Um and it applies design standards to all units across the board. So that wasn't compliant. We have to obviously make sure that um the state exempt don't fall into that category.

So Ken, really quick on we're talking a lot about like what's acceptable in terms of the structure itself and I can I'm fearful of imagining a bunch of leantos and tents and whatever in people's yards that they call an ADU. But aside from that, is there I didn't really read anything in here that talks about the quality of the applicant or the person that's going to live there for 30 days or longer as a requirement. Is there any live scan? Is there any Megan's law? Is there any like how do you know who's going to be living in our neighborhood? You don't. Okay. You don't.

Thank you. Um let's see. Next slide here. Owner occupancy. We did discuss this just a little bit earlier. Um, basically, uh, we used to have the owner had to occupy the the property if it was a Jedu on it. They did, um, it was interesting when they first came out with the ADU revisions uh, starting back in like 2016 where they were really starting to kind of get into um, mandating a lot of these things. Um, the state at that time was trying to solve the housing crisis, right? So they're saying from the from 2020 to 2025 we could not require owner occupancy on the property um for ADUs which our previous uh ADU standards or or regulations which we called secondary dwelling units at that time we required the owner to live on the property. Um, so for a while there they said, "Okay, well for from 2020 to 2025 you cannot require owner occupancy, but in 2025 that that'll go away and you can start requiring that again." So there was like a 5-year period that they were kind of exempting people from having owner occupancy requirements. Well, um, since then the states obviously I I kind of knew this was going to come down the road. They've actually codified it now to where you can't have owner occupancy at all anymore. They've taken that 2025 sunset off. So, what that does, um, and it is, it is a little frustrating in a sense because it does, it just opens up a lot of these properties in town, um, that quite honestly are probably great properties for like some of our like first home home buyers, you know, younger families, uh, younger kids that might be looking at, you know, some of these older homes in town that are are, I guess, modest in price that they can maybe get into. um these things are getting they're getting outbid because these investors are buying houses these houses and and adding ADUs to the lot. So um it does affect kind of just our

community in more than one way in the sense that some of these younger buyers are getting outpriced and and not being able to even stay in our town coming in buying up homes. They're not going to live in them. They're never going to worry about what what that neighborhood feels like. They'll they'll add a couple of ADUs on these things and the rest of the neighborhood is just you just have to take it. Yeah. It's not going to be your neighborhood anymore.

Yeah. And and the state's kind of theory on this was like, you know, adding more units, you know, adding more inventory makes things more affordable. It's kind of their theory, right? So adding more ADUs or adding more housing units or places to live, it makes things more affordable. So you'll start seeing rent prices come down and such. You know, Ripen's such a desirable town. And I we've seen several of these being built. I mean, they're renting for $2,000 a month, you know, for an ADU that's 750 square feet. So, it's not I mean, in a town like Ripon, it's not working that way. Maybe in a San Francisco or, you know, very populated area, there might be some of that. Uh but that's that's kind of the one size uh that one sizefits-all for the way the state does some of these things. So, uh the owner occupancy has been removed. Um it's been removed for Jadus as well. Um there's only one caveat there that if the J so a JAD a junior accessory dwelling unit can be built without a bathroom and you can share the sanitation facilities with the main house. So if the JAD has if they are sharing that sanitation facility with the main house we can require owner occupancy in one of the two units. Other than that we cannot require owner occupancy. under 500 square feet.

So kitchen is that why a JDU has a bedroom or what? I mean, so a JDU has uh it's it's George was kind of right on it's 500 feet or less. So it's a little bit smaller. Um it does not have to have its own bathroom facility, so you can share with the main house or you can build one with a bathroom facility in it. And then the kitchen's kind of um you have to have a kitchen facility, but it's really stripped down from what an accessory dwelling unit requires. It can be what they call an efficiency kitchen, which is kind of like a um I mean you almost get away with a hot plate at that point, you know, um very very minimal um as far as as a kitchen kind of like an extended stay hotel room. Yeah.

So owner occupy again like I said that's uh that's kind of gone away with some of the new legislation that's come. basically uh we require owner occupancy and and it was going to kick back in in 2025 is the way our code reads. That's not compliant with state law and and uh we do need to add the Jedu language into our into our code to be compliant as well. Um parking so you know state law maximum one parking space per ADU or per bedroom whichever is less which I'm trying to understand that statement there. Um it's kind of the way state law is written, but um basically one parking space per ADU. So off- streetet parking, but there's um basically parking is not required if it meets certain criteria there. And the criteria is kind of broad there. If you're within a half mile, walking distance of public transit, um you can't require parking, off- streetet parking. Um, if the ADU is located within an existing structure, so if you convert a pool house or a detached garage or or part of the main house, uh, you can't require off- streetet parking. Um, if the ADU is located in a historic district, you can't require off- streetet parking, which um, we don't have any historic districts here in town. Um, the ADU is located where on street parking permits are required, but are not available. Um, again, doesn't make a whole lot of sense in that statement. Um, but if if you can't, um, if you're not handing out permits, uh, then I mean, you can't site somebody for living in an ADU and parking their car in an area that has permits. Um, and you can't require on on-site parking. And, um, if the ADU is located near a car share vehicle, basically, you can't require either. Um, so there's quite a few uh

quite a few um exceptions for parking here. Um, which kind of tends to crowd our streets.

Yeah, I was going to bring that up that we have some narrow streets. We have some wide streets, but primarily they're especially downtown they're narrow. And I would imagine that's where a lot of advantageous homeowners would want to build a ADU or JADU. If you only allow one parking space per ADU per bedroom, who's not going to say that the vehicle is owned by the person who owns the primary residence? Because right now you have one resident, I could name dozens that have five vehicles, seven vehicles for one house and they're mostly in their parking, you know, in their driveway and then some are on the street and they, you know, they move around. But if you add all these ADUs, I'm looking 10 years down the road. If you add all these ADUs, I mean, you got a parking, you got a street nightmare. I mean, you have to pull over on some streets to allow

vehicles to go by. So, it just,

you know, it's um you know, a lot of our areas that are kind of like ground zero for for these ADUs are kind of our older part of downtown where you've got detached garages that are kind of just ripe for being converted. Um, and we can't require we can't require off- streetet parking. um you got uh or or you know there's a bus stop at the uh library here in town. So draw use a half mile from that and you're covering quite a bit of that area anyway. So all anything any ADU in those areas can't can require off streetet parking. Um and and I' trust me we Michael and I talked to a lot of people who get very frustrated over this. I mean, all a sudden a house next to him's converting into something and and they it's I mean, there's not it's kind of nothing we can do about it. Um, our hands are tied. Wish we could do something more about it, but we just it's and it's out of our hands at state level at this point. Very frustrated. I get I get your frustration. Um, so our current ordinance requires off- streetet parking. Um, if you convert your attached garage, in which case it must be replaced. So, we're out of out of compliance there in state law. So, we're we're updating our ordinance or the proposed ordinance updates it to be compliant with the parking I guess exceptions. Um, Commissioner Salin asked about uh our fees. So, we'll kind of go through these a little bit. Um, uh, they're very specific on on on what you can charge for fees. The state law basically uh impact fees. So, every house pays impact impact fees when they build. you pay transportation, water, sewer, storm, parks. You pay, you know, parks and wreck and police department fees, library, and all that. So, there's a host of fees. I think a um single family home permit for Ripen now is probably roughly 60,000 to cover all the impact fees, the impacts that the house

is going to have on town. Um the state is very specific on these. So, you can't no impact fees for ADUs that are 70050 square feet or less. you build a 749 foot ADU, can't charge impact fees. Um, so ADU is larger than 750T, now you can charge impact fees. So you look at our whole impact fee sheet, but it's a a proportionate share of the main house. So main house is 2,000 square feet. ADU might be a thousand, you can charge them 50% of it. So that's for um new construction. um and ADUs over 750. So under 750 is uh you can basically that's obviously creating um ADUs within an existing space. Um so ADUs created from existing space cannot be charged connection or capacity fees and JDUs um are not charged connection capacity fees. So when you get into ADUs that are under 750 ft, you can charge uh like for a new construction, you can charge connect what we call connection capacity fees. Those are basically a water and a sewer fee. Has to be proportionate again to the main house, but you're not getting all your impact fees. You're not getting you're not getting your parks and wreck fees. You're not getting your storm or your library or police department. Um but you know, that is affecting parks here in town. Obviously, you're getting people they're living in these using parks, but they're not they're not paying their fair share in the parks fees.

So, Ken, um just along those same lines then, um as we, you know, hopefully it doesn't happen, but I know that's the state wishes that it happens. If as so many of these get built and we start to approach capacity in terms of sewer and water treatment and all of that kind of stuff, we have we have no recourse. We're gonna have to redo our water treatment plant. We're gonna have to float a bond. We're gonna have to pay for it as a city. The state's not going to kick in a thing, are they? No. So, basically, we're taking this and we're paying for it.

Yeah.

In a nutshell, yeah, that's kind of um Yeah. Then there there are some exceptions like uh you know you could require um I guess you could make some findings but I mean we never have this issue but because we've always built like our utility systems we build the first sewer and storm or kind of I always kind of compare them to a car like you know you got a we got a Cadillac system here in town. We always kind of make sure our size our lines are sized appropriately oversized to handle kind of all the loads that are in them and stuff. We don't have flooding in town. you go to Modesto or during storms, you see flooding because they don't have a very good storm system there. Um, we kind of tend to overbuild and and do a really nice system. It's less on maintenance and all that stuff, but you know, if you were having a sewer line that wasn't sized enough and people wanted to keep adding ADUs and it's reaching capacity, then there's there's ways that that you could fight some of that, like adding more ADUs, I believe, on that sense of it. Um, I don't think we'd ever hit that problem. And just uh just as a coloring comment to that, there's jurisdictions across the state are like having these real discussions about, you know, can our facilities handle that? Like, you know, can a fire truck make it through or make it down this street? And I'll tell you that um HCD is the real arbiter of uh these discussions. So people are going to HCD and they are being extremely aggressive in their interpretations of the law uh in favor of the state's objectives not the uh needs of the local jurisdictions. So um yeah it's just it's it's a ve it's a significant uphill battle from where we sit as a local juris implementing jurisdiction here. So,

so a question regarding the growth of ADUs and Jadus over the next decade or even five years. What's the anticipated number of permits that you expect and what's the population increase that we can expect? Boy, we have uh I didn't really run those numbers. I would say over the last five to seven years though, we've seen probably 60 ADUs in town. And prior to that, I could probably count on one hand how many accessory dwelling units we built in in

so a modest amount. And do they pay uh payroll taxes? Uh they pay I imagine they do if they're working. Uh they're contributing to the tax base of RIP to some degree and sales tax and others. And but I'm just wondering if there if we're being shortsighted on the property tax side. Is it is there a reassessment done when there's an ADU? I just wonder. Yeah, I there is a reassessment. I mean, our the the cities I mean, I I'm not um just kind of a really nutshell finances for the city. I mean, our biggest our biggest um revenue source is sales tax. That's the biggest followed secondly by property tax. A lot lower.

Uh we get a little bit from No, we don't. So, we So, that's our So, definitely sales tax is the biggest generator. the second in our in our kind of our finances would be the property taxes which is a a long way second right

um and then you've got like your franchise fees so PG& pays franchise fees and stuff to operate and ripping you jolt garbage and those type of things um so sales tax is definitely the biggest so you know obviously people are are filling up here in town and spending their tax money town that that helps I guess but um uh these properties do get reassessed u obviously just like if you're putting a swimming pool in your house, uh you're, you know, you're you're getting reassessed because you've done some improvements to your property. Um but Prop Prop 13 really kind of limits what how much that goes up, too. I mean, so you put a $200,000 swimming pool and pool house in your backyard, your your property taxes aren't going up by that amount, right? It's kind of limited to what they can. Um, so you're seeing a a tiny maybe we'd see a little tick of on on the property tax side, but not much. Um, let's see. Utility separate utility connections um cannot be requested for ADUs within an existing structure. So if you're converting uh an existing structure that which could mean a detached structure or part of part of your house, we cannot require separate utility connections. Um and then you also in taking into consideration you must avoid requirements that unduly burden ADU development. So um we would be looking at a case by case on this. We are going to be requiring uh separate uh connections to the city sewer and water for new newly constructed ADUs. Um but this would be a case by case with the city engineer if there's a uh something that's an outstanding or extraneous circumstance that would require not having them hook up.

Not attached Um so we're generally aligned with state law on on fees and utilities. We have been for some time. Um the primary updates are to remove discretionary language and ensure that all requirements are clearly proportional and consistent with state limitations. Um just a few more slides here then we'll kind of wrap up. Um the application process uh basically state law there's no discretionary review or public hearing process. So it's not something that would come in front of the commission. It's something they can walk into get a permit kind of over the counter. We do review it at the planning department to make sure they are consistent with our ordinance um which is supposed to be to the most part mirroring state law. Um so we do review it in that sense and then after they get the clearance from planning they can they could submit plans to the building department. Um from submitt to a complete application they they have a 60-day timeline. Um again we are kind of well below that but that's kind of what states put out there. Um we have to determine if that the application is complete within 15 days. Um again not a problem with us. I mean we are very specific and we we will be updating our applications too to to make sure all the submitts are required that we need um and they must identify all missing incomplete items after we notify them if there is any incomplete or missing items and they're allowed to cor correct any deficiencies on their their um application if there's any. And uh they may appeal that decision if we if we say it's incomplete and they don't agree with us. that can appeal uh the decision which is uh would be the planning director's decision which would then come before you as a body to

determine if it's uh a complete application or not. Um so basically our current standards we provide the ministerial approval. Uh so we are compliant with that but we don't include uh we don't really spell out I mean we've been following this but we don't spell it out. So we are uh being a little clearer on this in our proposed ordinance. It's a 15-day completeness review. Uh the written deficiency uh notice requirement, we are required to put it in writing what they're deficient on if it's not a complete application. Uh we do have to tell them about the resubmitt process um and u the appeal process if it if it's incomplete, they don't agree with us. So that that's all stuff that's being that's in our proposed ordinance. Um and then amnesty basically state law applies to ADUs and JDs that constructed before uh 2020. Um local agencies shall not deny legalization of these units. Uh the review is limited on those. Um and we must allow corrections to bring it unit into compliance and no penalties or impact fees. So, we do have, if you kind of drive around town, you can see there's a lot of uh there's in the old part of town especially, there's what we call like bootlegs um accessory dwelling units. It's just they've been there probably for 40 or 50 years type of deal. Um they could they could legitimize their ADUs. Uh what we're limited to on those is just um your basic safety standards. Um, so you can't you can't uh deny them due to zoning non-conformities or non-compliance with our ADU standard. Um, we are limited to health and safety standards only. So there is a section of the California Health and Safety Code that defines what those are um what those uh health and safety standards are. It's a lot lower than like if you're building a brand new

ADU though. So um pretty much just basic living standards uh and limited fees. um we could charge a little bit of fees in sense uh if we're are going out for inspections and trying to inspect these units to make sure they are compliant or they have to correct some things. So, you know, our our building department's time will get charged out on those, but that's really the only thing we can charge on those.

Those kind of units, can we apply because they're not the 66323 units, can we apply some sort of design standard Um, at that point I took a question. I would have to defer that to the attorney. Would that be considered like a conversion unit then since they're already existing? So I was saying since the in an amnesty amnesty situation is not a 66 323 unit, can we apply some sort of a design standard?

Um, that was not my reading of a law revisit that. But um yeah, the the state law was only um talking about having a program for doing that though I don't and I don't believe it has anything to do with object I I don't believe that you can include objective standards in there but I don't let revisit that for a minute because we're having to we are having to remove the requirements to comply with current zoning or development standards. Um so there is no

um you can't you can't assess development standards Um, like I said, what you're really kind of what you're really kind of uh boiled down to on that is just safety. Um, you know, if there's unsafe electrical in the house, um, you know, say there's a water heater, it's not vented properly, those type of things. Um, minimum living standards doesn't even require air conditioning. You do have to have a heat source. So, you'd have to have a heater, but you can't. Yeah. So,

uh, you're ba basically boiling down to just minimal minimal standards for safety on it. Um if you go now if we go out and the building inspector finds that you know the structures deteriorating and starting to fall down those things can be corrected as a life safety type of standards that that would be corrected but I I don't believe we can be we can require compatibility design standards anything like that on these units.

So just a a comment Ken and maybe clarification on proportionality. When I look at it, it talks about a 2,000 square foot primary dwelling with a proposed thousand foot ADU. That proportionality is some amount in relation to the total amount. In this case, an impact fee. And then down below it says, yes, school districts are authorized to but do not have to levy impact fees on ADUs. So envision again I go back to a decade you know in time that we're going to have these families living in these ADUs that have that are not paying their share. I mean I hate to go down into the weeds on this but that's kind of what I'm seeing is like they're they're escaping it seems like these are ghost dwellings that are escaping a lot of primary responsibility of ownership or even renting.

Right. No, you're right. um you know back in the day if you could put a second unit on your lot um or or build another house we would you know charge you impact fees on it. You're paying your fair share. These seems uh the state's really been clear on this and they you're right they are taking this out of our control. Um I would say that the the school district does have some ability to charge impact fees if it's over I think 500 square feet um their proportion share and I would encourage them to do that. I mean, we send them over to the school um to to pay fees on those. I um I'm not sure where the school stands on these, but um that's up to them kind of their own, but I would hope they would be doing that. At least gathering some of that, you know, but you can get 450 foot units in here a school can't do anything about. You're right. And you can have a it is there is impact with them to not just city things, but yeah, school districts and everything. So, um I'm sure uh we have probably uh gone through quite a bit with you guys here. Um basically just a a quick summary. We've we had we have to establish stateex exempt ADU framework. This kind of what are the big takeaways from this? We didn't have that even covered in our 2021 version. Uh wasn't even existent. Um uh we you have to we have to expand the ADU allowances to meet state law. Again, those are like adding more than one ADU per lot or JDU. You know, there's if they're creative enough, they can they can figure out how to kind of add a bunch. Um, we're definitely, I guess, not in the business of coaching people through that process. But, um, if they know how to navigate that, we we kind of have our hands tied on some of these. Um, had to, uh, update the development standard, size, height, and setbacks. Obviously, stateex exempt has a little bit different than non-exempt. Um, so we're having to separate those out. That

was some of the summary updates there. Um, did it remove the non-compliant provisions for owner occupancy um there where we had owner occupancy requirements starting to kick in in 2025 and and also for the Jedu. Um, align the parking fees and utilities sections with the state requirements. those didn't change a lot um with the state um you know the recent legislation that's come through but um they're just tightening those screws a little bit more you know making sure uh the consistencies there I guess across the whole state um and then update the application procedures and amnesty provisions that we have. So um to wrap it up a little bit and then turn it back over to the commission here the the staff recommendation is is here on the screen. We are asking that you um um recommend that the city council adopt the ordinance amending the section of uh 1686 of the Ripen Municipal Code. Um as you can see on the screen here, it's also in your staff report. And then I hear the hearing final steps tonight. Obviously questions, you guys been asking some of those, which is great. Um I'm not sure I've been able to answer them to your satisfaction very much tonight, but um kind of is what it is what it is. um public comment. Uh we don't have anybody here, but we did have that that one letter that came in that we will introduce into the um the record tonight.

Um so basically what what's he saying? He's he's he's saying we're still not in compliance. Yeah, I'll let city attorney because I the only thing I can say I can see that he's saying is that we have to allow the applicants to develop one conversion ADU and one new I mean that's the only as far as I can tell on the second page he talks about that but everything else we are we are up to date we are compliant. Yeah, that's true. And yeah, so um I shouldn't say commissioner, I would what is the title? Not mayor, not president. What are we or is it madam chair?

Chairman words. Some of us not have way with words. My apologies. Uh madam chair. Uh so yeah, there's a little bit of confusion here. I guess uh to summarize this really quickly, I would say that um this uh this letter um misreads our ordinance uh in a just a a small um there's a small error there. They do get the state law right. And just to review um

so he referenc he references SB543 which clarified something about stateex exempt ADUs. They um in Ken's presentation, there's there's four categories of stateex exempt ADUs. Two that apply to single family and two that apply to multifamily. So, because Ken, like Ken said, don't deal with a lot of multif family, I'll focus on the single family. There's um category one of the the single family is the um conversion ad, the conversion of an existing structure and then a JADU. That's that's category number one. Category number two is the detached new construction structure. So if you count those all up, you have 280. If if and SP 543 clarified this last year before this new law came into effect. People were scratching their heads because the law was poorly written. I do we get both? Do we get do we get both category one and category 2 or do we just get one? And so some jurisdictions were saying no, you just get one. Well, state law changed and they said you can have any combination of the three units that are described in those two categories. So that's clarified.

So yeah, pick with fits and you know it's pro applicant as you know consistent with everything. Yeah, you could have you could have one or all. So that was that was what was clarified by SB543. The letter is correct about that. So if you add all those up, you have two ADUs and one JADU. If you read our if you read our ordinance and if you read the provision that he has issue with is 16.86.040 or 060 right

section A1 and in that we say that except as otherwise provided in this chapter remember that only one ADU and one JADU may be permitted per lot regardless of zoning. This is a section of our ordinance that talked about general standards that apply to uh ADUs throughout our throughout our city and there's a there's a number of provisions within there but on its face that seems like it would conflict because we're only saying one ADU and one JADU but you actually get two ADUs and one JADU by the state exemption. That's why I wrote except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Earlier in the chapter, we talk about stateex exempt ADUs and how we're going to implement them consistent with state law. And that's captured in our ordinance. So, the exception to the rule is stateex exempt ADUs. When we're talking about non-exempt ADUs where these standards apply and so as staff deals with these applications, they'll come in. But fundamentally, this is a misreading. This is a misreading of our ordinance. And so, um, I think he's I think this, uh, this commenter is trying to say that, you know, we we're we're unduly limiting these these, uh, units, which is just not the case.

So, so back to this commenter who is in Oakland, it's Will you answer this or do we have to do we have to worry about this or do we There's nothing There's nothing really to answer. And and to be frank to be frank, I mean this will be uh I mean really this is an organization that's probably scouring the whole state and making these sort of comments, you know, and for us there's no obligation to responds respond to a comment like this. We are confident in the writing. However, uh for this person and and for organizations like this, HCD is going to be reviewing this ordinance. the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Okay.

And that is part of the state law process for this as well. So what we can expect and again to my comment earlier, HCD is being very aggressive in their interpretation of the law and in their interpretation of each city, each city's needs. Um so they they think that they have you know the best uh the best interests of the state as they are determining localities specific situations which I'm sure a lot of you may take issue with and I feel similarly. Now the law the law requires that we submit this to HCD for their review and approval. If HCD comes back with comments and says, "Your ordinance is not compliant with state law for X, Y, and Z reasons," well then we have to either respond and tell them why they're wrong. We can amend the ordinance as they see fit or u more aggressive stances than that then very few and very few jurisdictions are uh going that route. But um so if we are back discussing this again because of comments that are uh received from HCD I would not be surprised because that is very common uh despite some very well-ritten ordinances they are commenting on everything.

So just to forewarn you on that you have

they already have been. Yeah. Yep. And that's and that's a state organization paid for by our tax dollars. Thank you. That's correct. So ACD is a wing of the state of California. Yeah. They're they're the ones that actually reviewed and and and um with our housing element, right? The H we have to submit the housing element to HCD and they're the ones that review all that too. So um obviously public commission um the one of the things I noted was that there was a requirement for pre-approved plans by 2025. Do we have like pre-approved

uh there's not there's a requirement for pre-approved plans. uh there's a requirement that we have the ability to uh have pre-approved plans submitted to us. So like you have to have a program to be able to accept those. We don't have to come up with plans. We don't have to. No, I was reading it the other way like we had to come up with but we have to have a program and that's something that's probably going to be a more of a policy here that we develop in house that um I don't know if we' be adopted by resolution or something, but that we would have to have a policy in place that we could accept pre-approved plans.

Okay. Um some jurisdictions are going that way. They're going a little further and embracing these uh so much so that they're they're putting plans together and kind of greenlighting, you know, development of these more so than other communities. Uh but you know, it comes at a cost. You're developing these plans at, you know, 20ome thousand or so, you know, to develop a whole building set of plans, right?

That people, but and it doesn't mean a jurisdiction can't charge somebody to use them. So, if if a jurisdiction did have a a pre-approved set of plans um that people could utilize, you can charge a usage fee of those. So, it's not like they get automatically use them for free. Um it's just it might speed up that process because it's it's already been plan checked and such. So, where you could, you know, not have to go through a, you know, a plan review and and all that. It's been pre pre-approved. Um but you have to have a you have to have the ability a program to do that. You don't have to have the plans done, but you have to be able to kind of put that in place if if and and other people can submit pre-approve ask to be on a pre-approved plan list. So, um so then the final steps here obviously commit commission deliberation what you're doing and then the action on the recommendation tonight. Um you know, uh city attorney uh Turt said that it was interesting point is is HCD is taking a hard look at these, right? Um, so they're letting communities obviously update their ordinances. Uh, everybody's probably going through a little bit of this now. Some might have done it a little sooner or later. Um, you know, we go through this. City council is going to hear kind of the same synopsis here. Uh, might struggle or wrestle with a few things. There could be a few tweaks here or there things are brought up. Um, and then you submit it to HCD so they can go through it and send it back to you. I don't know why they just didn't reverse that process and say submit us your proposed ordinances so we can comment on these so when they actually get flushed through the planning commission city council you have something that they quote unquote agree with. Um but um I'm I'm done questioning how the state does some things. So at this point I'll I'll turn it over to you madam chair and

open for a recommendation for this hard maybe hard pill to swallow. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments?

Have to comply. If we don't comply, then we end up with potential litigation on our hands and spending more and more money than we're already doing. Would would that be accurate? Uh, yeah. If we're going to try to defend our position, you're right. Yeah, you are spending money trying to defend ourselves. If not, you you're just kind of you're falling back on state standards, which is um as as odd as this sounds. And as much as we have to acquies to state uh laws, um they're even way more liberal than what we have in our ordinance. So, yeah,

I don't think you you definitely don't want to just fall back on state law, period. My only comment on that would be to uh be as compliant with the state as possible given this letter, but also just have very strict comprehensive code enforcement as we move forward and where we can. Correct. Where we can.

We've been at this for some time now, Tommy and I and Michael actually. And uh yeah, so we are we are trying to um meet state law as as much as we can here and make sure we get an HCD compliant uh ADU ordinance. But um yeah, that's where we're at. And I know a lot of going through this. I I know like in the Carmel Monterey, Pacific Grove area, there's

it's constant in the newspaper what they're dealing with. Yeah. All right, we are Anything else? Okay, so we are at a point for potential motion. Can we open and close the public hearing for this item? Oh, all right. So, the public hearing is closed. So, we're ready to move. We're ready to act. Um, is that okay? Make the following motion. I'm not sure if

if I'm Don Kiote and you're Sonopanza, we're tilting it windmills. I'm not sure who's who here, but uh the planning commission recommends that the city council approve the amendments to chapter 16.86, 86 accessory dwelling unit ordinance based on the findings in the staff report.

I'll begrudgingly second that motion. Awesome. Let's do a voice vote real quick. David Collins, yes. George Salgen, yes. Jeff Fu, yes. Deborah Vaness, yes. Steven Berber, yes. All right. Do we have any reports? Planning director?

Yeah, after it looks like a long hiatus. I didn't realize it was November was the last meeting, but um it's been a while. Um we do actually have something for our May meeting that's uh in the pipeline that's coming up. Um uh the Ripen Vet Hospital in town is looking to add emergency vet services to their operation. Um, and because of their location and proximity to housing, they are required to get a use permit to do so because they'll be open 24 hours. Is that the veterinary unit that's over by and no, this ribbon vet here by Oh, they're applying for 24 hours. That's great.

So, they will be adding that operation to their practice. Um, which would require 247 operation. Um, and because of the extended hours, obviously, we have to go through a use permit. Um, so that'll be in front of you guys next month. And I believe that's it unless we get really uh energetic and maybe bring a few ordinances through. U, we are looking to update kind of our development title ordinances. Um, you know, it's been probably 10 plus years since we've looked at our ordinances. There's roughly, I don't 60 60 or 80 chapters in our development title. Uh we certainly don't want to hit you all with we don't want to hit you with all of them at once, but we might start cycling some through like three to five ordinances at a time. Some of them will be very basic updates and others might have a little more substance to them. Uh just to kind of make sure um obviously when you adopt an ordinance as you guys are kind of looking to or recommending tonight to do um you know once you start implementing it is when you figure out where the the holes are in the dam, right? So you got to figure out how to plug some of those sometimes um and then updating them just to be compliant with state law, different state laws and and some inconsistencies. So uh it is a good idea to go through those from time to time to make sure like there's u you know we we are adjusting those accordingly and then and if there's standards that the city wants to make sure are still implemented or add to some of those things and to keep our town um the great community that we love. So, u those smart might start cycling through. We're just kind of using those. I guess if if there is anything as downtime. I don't know if that's true anymore, but um we kind of it is important we get through those and that's probably going to be a couple year type of project. So, we'll see if we can get some of those plugged in to keep you guys a little busier.

Right. Any reports from our city attorneys? I've spilled enough bad news for one night. Any commissioner reports? Anything exciting happening? Nothing. All right. This meeting is adjourned.