PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HALF MOON …...Motion Carried: 3-0 1.B Mitigated Negative Declaration, Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit and Architectural Review for a new residence

Emergency Operations Center (EOC)537 Kelly AvenueHalf Moon Bay, California 94019

Rick Hernandez, ChairBrian Holt, Vice ChairJohn Evans, Planning CommissionerJames Benjamin, Planning CommissionerLes Deman, Planning Commissioner

AGENDA

CITY OF HALF MOON BAYPLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2018

7:00 PM

This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address thePlanning Commission on any matter not listed on the Agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the PlanningCommission to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the Agendaand will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item. Those wishing to speak on an agenda itemare asked to fill out a speaker card. Speaker(s) will be called forward at the appropriate time during theagenda item in consideration.

Please Note: Please Provide a Copy of Prepared Presentations to the Clerk

Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the Agenda are on file in theOffice of the City Clerk at City Hall and the Half Moon Bay Library where they are available for publicinspection. If requested, the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with adisability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132.)Information may be obtained by calling 650-726-8271.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in thismeeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification willenable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

http://hmbcity.com/

MEETING WILL CONCLUDE BY 10:30 PM UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THEPLANNING COMMISSION.

1

http://hmbcity.com/

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Draft MinutesDraft Minutes PC 5.22.18

PUBLIC COMMENT

1. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS

1.A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCESTAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution

EXHIBIT A

ATTACHMENT 2 - Capital Projects List

1.B PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CITY ORDINANCE REGULATING ACCESSORY DWELLINGUNITSSTAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution

ATTACHMENT 2 - Proposed Ordinance

ATTACHMENT 3 - 3.13.18 Memorandum

ATTACHMENT 4 - 4.24.18 Memorandum

ATTACHMENT 5 - Redline Ordinance

ATTACHMENT 6 - Excerpts of 2014 Coastal Commission Staff Reports

ATTACHMENT 7 - Proposed Chapter 18.33

ATTACHMENT 8 - Written Correspondence

DIRECTOR'S REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT

2

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199384/5.22.18_Draft_Minutes.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199559/Staff_Report_Annual_FY18-2019_CIP_Review.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199560/Attachment_1_Resolution_CIP_18_19.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199561/EXHIBIT_A.PDF

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199562/Use_this_one_Attachment_2_FY_2018-19_Project_List.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199563/Staff_Report_Ordinance_Regulating_Accessory_Dwelling_Units__PC_Hearing_.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199564/Attachment_1_ADU_Reso.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199565/Attachment_2_Proposed_Draft_ADU_Ordinance.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199566/Attachment_3_3-13-18_Staff_Report_-_Policy_Considerations_for_Ordinance_Regulating_Accessory_Dwelling_Units.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199567/ATTACHMENT_4_4-24-18_STAFF_REPORT_-_Draft_Ordinance_Regulating_Accessory_Dwelling_Units.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199568/Attachment_5_ADU_Ordinance__Redline_from_April_.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199569/Attachment_6_Excerpts_of_2014_Coastal_Commission_Staff_Reports__.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199570/Attachment_7_ADU_Ordinance__State_Law_Requirements_Highlighted_.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/199571/Attachment_8_Written_Correspondence.pdf

MINUTES

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) / 537 KELLY AVENUE Chair Hernandez called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. PRESENT: Chair Hernandez Vice Chair Holt, and Commissioners Evans and Deman ABSENT: Commissioner Benjamin

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Chair Hernandez led the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of:

April 10, 2018 – Approved 3-0

April 24, 2018 – Postponed due to Lack of Quorum

May 8, 2018 – Acknowledged

PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. Mike Ferreira: Expressed concern about the Surf Dunes PUD pending

application. He stated that the City should reject the application for not being consistent with the certified LCP.

2. Christina Conklin: Opposes Surf Dunes Project. Agrees the City should not accept the incomplete application. City needs to look at a 50-year erosion plan prior to allowing development and consider the effects of sea level rise on the coastal bluffs.

3. Robert Cooney: Spoke against Surf Dunes Project. Feels the project is out of scale for this community. Asked about ownership of the land.

4. Karen Perry: Against the Surf Dunes “atrocity.” The proposed project would put coastsiders at a risk in the case of emergency, due to wall to wall traffic.

5. Robert McCall: Strongly against the Dunes Project, Supports the Sierra Club’s letter against the Project. Highway 1 is already far too crowded; this project will only make it worse. Imagine trying to pull out an RV across the highway, blocking both lanes, with the existing traffic as bad as it is. 3

May 22, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3

6. Susan Suer: Strongly disapproves the Surf Dunes Proposal. Not against development, but feels the hotel is too much for the area. Supports the Sierra Club letter, also objects to the proposal for fire pits in the proposed project.

7. Ian Dickey: A contractor in Miramar, described the Dunes Project as not “building within the Community.” He cited impacts of RV parks, especially on the State Parks and beach areas, including noise, garage, traffic, high volume use that will overrun the bathrooms and other facilities. Neighbors to the project will lose their investments and the sewer system currently has issues with capacity, adding this project will destroy it.

8. Marc Gradstein: Stated that he is against the Dunes project proposal and heartbroken by the thought of the project. Currently HMB hotels are at 70% occupancy, why do we need more hotels when what we have aren’t full? The project will increase flooding when it rains. We should ask, do we need it? If the answer is not yes, that should be the final answer.

PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS:

1.A Notification of Director’s intent to approve a temporary use in the PUD Zoning District at 2 Miramontes Point Road – PDP-18-014

• Commissioner’s acknowledged.

• Going forward, would like to acknowledge this through an email as not to spend time with this as an agenda item. (Staff noted that this item was processed pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance requirements and consistently with past practice. Staff can review options with the City Attorney.)

M/S: Hernandez/Deman Motion Carried: 3-0

1.B Mitigated Negative Declaration, Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit and

Architectural Review for a new residence at 32 Jenna Lane, PDP-15-051 Planning Commission Clarifying Questions:

• Why is there landscaping in the riparian buffer?

• Does the new proposal conform to the buffer?

Public Comment 1. Matt Berman: Concerns with trees and hedges blocking site. Would like to

clarify that tree maintenance will be done regularly to cut tree tops to 7 feet along the eastern property line.

2. Fayden Holmboe: Neighbor. Says it’s heartbreaking to see what is currently in his view. 44 trees (spite trees) have been planted near his fence. 70 Trees in total, all that need to come down. How will the trimming be enforced to safeguard from extending beyond 7 feet?

4

May 22, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3

3. Mike Ferreira: Signed off on 2001 permit. A 100-foot buffer zone was required at that time.

Planning Commission Discussion The Planning Commission discussed the following topics: the future trail linkages, landscaping height and maintenance, and space between adjacent single-family homes.

M/S: Holt/Hernandez Motion Carried: 4-0 With the conditions to:

o Revise the landscape plan with appropriate species to remove existing plantings and provide for new landscaping to maintain 7-foot height at maturity along the eastern property line.

o Record the 7-foot height limit for the landscaping along the eastern property line on the deed.

o Revise the plans to indicate how the trail can be extended to other spans of the trail.

DIRECTOR REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT

M/S: Deman/Holt Motion Carried: unanimously 4-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM

Respectfully Submitted: Approved: ____________________________ _________________________________ Joe Butcher, Admin. Assistant Rick Hernandez, Chair

5

BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT

For meeting of: June 12, 2018

TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director Jennifer Chong, Management Analyst TITLE: Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2018-19 General Plan Conformance ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION

1. Review the Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 projects; 2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) with findings that the proposed FY 2018-19 capital

projects as contained in the City’s Five Year Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the City’s General Plan.

BACKGROUND The primary purpose of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is to catalog and schedule capital improvements over a multi-year period. A CIP lists the specific improvement projects envisioned in the General Plan and infrastructure master plans and matches those projects with sources of funding most appropriate. The CIP is an analysis and implementation document: a tool that links the vision and policies of the General Plan and associated master plans to specific measures including physical improvements and other supportive means, such as preparation of additional studies and planning efforts, to implement the General Plan. A CIP further proposes a schedule for those projects based on the availability of funding and relative prioritization. For FY 2018-19, the CIP includes twelve (12) programs and twenty-nine (29) projects which are divided amongst eight (8) categories. The categories include: Drainage Improvements, Economic Development, Operational Improvements, Parks Improvements, Public Facilities and Building Improvements, Sewer Improvements, Street Improvements, and Trail Improvements. Programs involve work that must occur annually, such as crosswalk installation and repair. Projects are individual, nonrecurring endeavors, such as the improvements at the Ted Adcock Community Center. The Planning Commission, pursuant to State law, is charged with determining whether the capital projects contained in the City’s CIP for the ensuing year (in this case, FY 2018-19) are consistent

6

Planning Commission Staff Report FY 2018-19 CIP Review for General Plan/Local Coastal Program Consistency Page 2 of 4 June 12, 2018

with the City’s General Plan. This action is to occur following City Council’s conditional adoption of the CIP on June 5, 2018, pending the Planning Commission’s approval. A summary of the proposed programs and projects are provided in Attachment 2. Half Moon Bay Municipal Code describes the functions of the Planning Commission in Section 2.24.050. In particular, Section 2.24.050(A) specifically calls for the Planning Commission to “Perform those functions set forth in the planning and zoning law (Government Code Section 65000 et seq.) including those functions specified in Government Code Section 65103.” California Government Code Section 65000 (et seq.) calls for a wide variety of planning functions (General Plan updates, review of plans and studies, zoning and subdivision administration, etc.) to be conducted by the Planning Commission, including the annual CIP review for consistency with the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (Government Code Section 65103(c)). DISCUSSION

The CIP is composed of a list of “capital programs” and “capital projects.” Capital programs are designed to fund a variety of smaller, community-enhancing projects that individually, would not meet the threshold for a capital project. For example, the Parks Master Plan Implementation Program for FY 18-19 includes a variety of smaller projects including electrical enhancements and security lighting at Carter Park, installation of fencing at Smith Field and Poplar Beach, park furniture enhancements and replacements, and installation of automatic locks at the park restrooms. The projects for each program are identified by staff annually based on safety concerns, funding availability, and feedback from the City Council and community. Programs are also influenced by City planning documents such as the Parks Master Plan and the Storm Drain Master Plan. Capital projects are projects which involve the purchase, improvement or construction of major fixed assets and equipment which are typically large in size, expensive, non-recurring and relatively permanent. Examples of capital projects include the construction of traffic and transportation systems, public buildings, parks, water delivery systems and sewer systems. In some cases capital projects include preparation of additional studies, strategic plans, or other planning endeavors. In general, the City has designated $30,000 as the threshold for placement into the CIP (as opposed to operational budget). In coordination with the General Plan and the Annual Capital Budget, the CIP assists the City in delivering capital improvements in an efficient manner. Specifically, an adopted CIP provides the following benefits to the City: • Facilitates the scheduling of public improvements that will take place over one or more fiscal

years; • Facilitates the scheduling of public improvements that will require expenditures and

appropriations over two or more fiscal years. Capital improvements are typically carried out

7


and paid for over several years. Consequently, a scheduling tool is needed that forecasts anticipated needs and available funding several years into the future;

• Allows individual projects to be easily compared against the goals and policies of the General Plan as well as the City’s Strategic Plan;

• Facilitates the orderly management and scheduling of capital projects consistent with adopted master plans;

• Provides a forum for additional citizen input regarding capital projects and capital project financing;

• Makes the City eligible to receive certain grants from the State and the federal government; and

• Assists in future updates of the General Plan and master plans by identifying situations where additional infrastructure is needed.

Major CIP Components The total budget for the FY 2018-19 CIP is $12,886,500. The twelve (12) capital programs account for approximately $8.5 million, or 66%, of the CIP budget with the twenty-nine (29) projects accounting for the remaining $4.4 million. Due to ongoing flooding issues caused by heavy rains, emphasis in FY 18-19 has been placed on the three sewer programs which make up approximately 42% of the total CIP budget (~$5.4 million). The single, largest project for FY 2018-19 is the “Highway 1 Safety - South” project, which is budgeted for $1.25M. However, the City expects to receive a $3.05M grant to fund this project. Other notable projects moving forward in FY 2018-19 include the Main Street Bridge project, Carter Park Improvements, Bikeway Connectivity – North, and completion of the Ted Adcock Remodel. Additionally, a variety of site assessment and plans are scheduled for FY 2018-19 in response to the completion of the draft Parks Master Plan. Further details for each project identified in the FY 2018-19 CIP can be found in Exhibit A to the Resolution. General Plan CIP Consistency All of the proposed capital projects are consistent with the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan and provide for plan implementation in varying degrees. For example, the General Plan encourages safe, multi-modal transportation. The CIP includes a number of projects within appropriately designated locations to advance these goals. The General Plan encourages active and passive recreation. The projects included in the CIP for FY 2018-19 have been determined by staff to be consistent with and advancing the goals and policies of the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The CIP project list is a generalized description that is typically clarified through the design process initiated by its listing in the CIP. More precise General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan policy analysis of a particular capital project occurs as the project is defined more clearly, environmental assessment is undertaken and in many instances, community input is received. The Planning Commission will be

8


asked to act upon discretionary approvals (Coastal Development Permits) and environmental reviews for many of the projects listed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA) This CIP review for General Plan/Local Coastal Program consistency is not considered a project under the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, a CEQA determination is not necessary or required. CONCLUSION Staff opinion is that the proposed FY 2018-19 CIP is consistent with the General Plan and requests that the Planning Commission find that the program is consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan and adopt the attached resolution. This action will allow the Five Year CIP to be finalized and printed as the City Council conditionally approved the CIP on June 5, 2018, pending approval from the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution and Exhibit A 2. FY 2018-19 Capital Projects List

9

ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. P-18-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY Fiscal Year 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program General Plan Consistency

WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay has an adopted General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan, which serves as the Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay updates its five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, the CIP projects scheduled for implementation in fiscal year 2018-19 include Streets, Sewers, Drainage, Parks, Trails, Public Facilities, Economic Development and Operational Improvements; and WHEREAS, 2013 Circulation Element Goals and policies support the establishment and maintenance of a functional and cohesive transportation network for all travel modes; and WHEREAS, 1993 Local Coastal Land Use Plan provides for public works improvements; and WHEREAS, 1995 Recreation Element provides for strategic planning for existing and new and development of new and maintenance of existing recreation facilities; and WHEREAS, the Half Moon Bay’s General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan support the provision of needed new and upgraded public facilities, economic development and operational improvements; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65103 specifies that the planning agency shall annually review the capital improvement program of the city; and WHEREAS, the Half Moon Bay Planning Commission is the planning agency authority for the City of Half Moon Bay; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby finds with regards to the specific improvements proposed for the fiscal year 2018-19 CIP including Street improvements are consistent with the 2013 Circulation Element; Sewer and Drainage improvements are consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan; Parks and Trails improvements are consistent with the Recreation Element; and Public Facilities, Economic Development projects, and Operation Improvements are consistent with the General Plan elements and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan as required pursuant to California Government Code Section 65103.

*****************************************************************

10

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 12th day of June, 2018 by the Planning Commission of Half Moon Bay by the following vote: AYES, Commissioners:

NOES, Commissioners:

ABSENT, Commissioners:

ABSTAIN, Commissioners:

ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________ _______________________ Jill Ekas, Director Rick Hernandez, Chair Community Development EXHIBIT A

11

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 54

12

Category: Project Number: 563

Project Location: Lead Department:

Type: Status:

Duration: Fund Number: 14 Fund Name: Storm Drain Capital

X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED

TO DATE FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 TOTAL ALL FY

50,000$ 50,000$

15,000$ 25,000$ 40,000$

500,000$ 190,000$ 130,000$ 130,000$ 130,000$ 1,080,000$

25,000$ 35,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 120,000$

-$ -$ 590,000$ 250,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 1,290,000$

297,505$ 292,495$ 250,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 1,290,000$

297,505$ -$ 292,495$ 250,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 1,290,000$

Previously Approved

PROGRAM TITLE: STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

Public Works

Fiscal Sustainability ADDITIONAL DETAILS:

DESCRIPTION:This program includes the design and preparation of environmental studies and bid documents for

prioritized improvements identified in the Storm Drain Master Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan CIP.

Projects scheduled for FY 18-19 include the construction of storm drain facilities at Highway 1 to alleviate

storm water flooding along Kelly Avenue; design and permitting of retention wall adjacent to Pullman

Court and Champs Elysee along Roosevelt Ditch. Future year projects include assessment and potential

improvements at Wavecrest.

JUSTIFICATION:The City owns and maintains much of the storm drain system. Major maintenance and capital

improvements are necessary to meet State and Federal laws as well as protect public health and safety

and property.

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL (please check all that apply)Infrastructure

Healthy Community/Public Safety

Drainage

Citywide

Capital Maintenance

Accomplishments in FY 17-18 include completion of design for storm drain facilities at Highway 1 to

alleviate storm water flooding along Kelly Avenue and submission of the plan to CalTrans for

issuance of encroachment permit.

Ongoing

Construction

PM-CM

TOTAL

General Fund

TOTAL

Inclusive Governance

EXPENDITURES

Engineering & Design

Prof.Serv/Env.

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS


13

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

FY 2018-19


14

Category: Drainage TBD

Project Location:

Type: Previously Approved Priority: High

Duration: Q1 FY18-19 TO 14 Fund Name: Storm Drain Capital

X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


100,000$ 100,000$

100,000$ 60,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 200,000$

800,000$ 800,000$

110,000$ 110,000$

-$ -$ 200,000$ 910,000$ 60,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 1,210,000$

200,000$ 200,000$

160,000$ 60,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 260,000$

750,000$ 750,000$

-$ -$ 200,000$ 910,000$ 60,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 1,210,000$

Anticipated O&M Impact -$

PROJECT TITLE: SEYMOUR DITCH EROSION PERMANENT REPAIR

Project Number:

Seymour Ditch, west of Seymour Pedestrian Bridge Lead Department: Public Works

Capital Maintenance Status:

Q4 FY25-26 Fund Number:

DESCRIPTION:

image

This project involves finalizing the design, environmental, and the Coastal Developmemt Permit (CDP) of

the Seymour Ditch. The project will require partnership with San Mateo County, resource agencies and

adjacent property owners (Peninsula Open Space Trust), analysis of alternatives, design of preferred

alternatives, permitting for the preferred alternative and ultimately construction on the ditch, which is

300 linear feet across. Budget also includes costs for monitoring the ditch for 5 years following

completion of the repairs.

Infrastructure



JUSTIFICATION:The Seymour Ditch is experiencing significant erosion at the outlet to Poplar Beach. Temporary repairs

were completed in FY 17-18 but a permanent repair is needed.

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL (please check all that apply)

Fiscal Sustainability ADDITIONAL DETAILS:Inclusive Governance Temporary erosion repairs were completed in FY 17-18.

EXPENDITURES

Grant - State

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM

TOTALSOURCE(S) OF FUNDS

General Fund

Fund Reserves


15

Category: 579

Project Location:

Type: Rolled Over Priority: High

Duration: Q1 FY16-17 TO 14 Fund Name: Storm Drain Capital

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


75,000$ 75,000$

40,000$ 40,000$

500,000$ 500,000$

10,000$ 10,000$

-$ 625,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 625,000$

125,000$ 125,000$

500,000$ 500,000$

-$ 625,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

PROJECT TITLE: ARROYO DE EN MEDIO EROSION REPAIR - MIRADA ROAD

Drainage Project Number:

Mirada Road and Arroyo De En Medio Lead Department: San Mateo County Public Works



DESCRIPTION:

image

This project is a joint effort between the City and San Mateo County to address major

erosion to the 145 foot long ditch which is causing damage to public improvements near

Mirada Road. The City and County have jointly filed a Coastal Development Permit with

the Coastal Commission to complete permanent repairs. San Mateo County is the lead

agency on the project, with the City making a monetary contribution.

Infrastructure



JUSTIFICATION:County repairs are needed to stabilize and maintain access to homes off of Mirada Road

and to maintain public access to the Coastal Trail (Mirada Road). The City portion of the

work involves stabilizing the bank of Arroyo De En Medio which in turn will help protect

the County's Coastal Trail Bridge.




This project was initiated in FY 16-17 and will carry over into FY 18-19 due to delays in the

design and permitting process. Sand mitigation issues and costs may result in delay,

additional costs, or withdrawal of CDP.

EXPENDITURES

San Mateo County Contribution

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund


16

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

FY 2018-19


17

Category: 564

Project Location:


Duration: Q1 FY16-17 TO 25 Fund Name: General Capital

X

X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

990,611$ 85,000$ 100,000$ 1,175,611$

-$

-$

990,611$ 85,000$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,175,611$

100,000$ 100,000$

862,397$ 862,397$

75,000$ 85,000$ 160,000$

53,214$ 53,214$

990,611$ 85,000$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,175,611$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

General Fund

Grant - Coastal Commission

Grant - Ocean Protection Council

TOTAL


Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


Fund Reserves



"Prior Years Actuals" were included to display more accurate summary of costs for the project.

Funds were previously expended from operating budget before this project was added to the

CIP.

EXPENDITURES

JUSTIFICATION:The City is required to maintain an up-to-date General Plan and Local Coastal Program.


Mandated Status:


DESCRIPTION:

image

This project involves the creation/updating of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program.

The General Plan is the "blueprint" for the future of Half Moon Bay, including the planning

policies and regulations to carry out the community's vision. It defines the community's long-

term goals for land use, housing, conservation, open space, transportation, safety, noise and

more.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM UPDATE

Economic Development Project Number:

Citywide Lead Department: Community Development


18

Category: 537

Project Location:



X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


4,000$ 4,000$

-$

20,789$ 46,211$ 67,000$

4,000$ 4,000$

20,789$ 54,211$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 75,000$

50,000$ 13,000$ 63,000$

10,200$ 1,800$ 12,000$

50,000$ 23,200$ -$ -$ 1,800$ -$ -$ 75,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact 2,000$

Inclusive GovernanceThis project was extended through FY 20-21 to account for reporting requirements for

the grant funds received.

TOTAL


Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

EXPENDITURES

PM-CM


Measure J

Grant - State

JUSTIFICATION:The charging station(s) will encourage residents and visitors with electric vehicles to travel

to and within Half Moon Bay. This project will further emphasize Half Moon Bay's

commitment to sustainability programs and efforts.


Community Enhancement Status:


DESCRIPTION:This project includes the purchase and installation of three level two, dual-port electric

vehicle charging station at City Hall, the new library, and the Ted Adcock Community

Center. This also includes electrical work that is required to support the new stations.

Infrastructure



PROJECT TITLE: ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION(S)


Downtown Half Moon Bay Lead Department: Public Works


19

Category: 559

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED TO

DATE FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 TOTAL ALL FY

25,000$ 25,000$

5,000$ 5,000$ 10,000$

11,400$ 198,600$ 85,000$ 295,000$

10,000$ 10,000$ 20,000$

11,400$ 238,600$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$

100,000$ 100,000$

190,000$ 50,000$ 240,000$

10,000$ 10,000$

200,000$ 50,000$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact 3,000$

Donations

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

Fund Reserves

JUSTIFICATION:This project is identified as an economic development tool and community identification and

enhancement.





Fiscal Sustainability ADDITIONAL DETAILS:Inclusive Governance Four (4) downtown wayfinding signs were fabricated and installed in FY 16-17.

EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:This project is a follow-on to the signage plan that was approved by the Planning Commission

and City Council in 2015. This phase includes the fabrication and installation of the remaining

Wayfinding and Entry signs along Highway 1 and Highway 92. CalTrans encroachment permits

will be required for many of these signs, which may cause further delays to the project.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: WAYFINDING AND ENTRY SIGNS (PHASE 2)


Citywide Lead Department: Public Works


20

OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

FY 2018-19


21

Category: 555

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

250,000$ 50,000$ 300,000$

-$ 250,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$

50,000$ 50,000$

250,000$ 250,000$

-$ 250,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

PM-CM


General Fund

TOTAL

Fund Reserves

JUSTIFICATION:The City currently does not have an ERP. The inclusion of an ERP will increase efficiency of

staff.

Strategic Plan Status:


Construction



Inclusive GovernanceThis project includes the scope and budget originally allocated for the "Permit System and

Asset Management Software" project.

EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes the preparation and formation of an RFP, proposal, evaluation, and

implementation of the City's first Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System. The ERP

includes integration of accounting, human resources, utilities, and potentially other

elements as needed. The City also opted to purchase a module for Permit Tracking.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: FINANCIAL SOFTWARE - ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING

Operations Project Number:

501 Main Street Lead Department: Finance


22

Category: 586

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


50,000$ 50,000$

125,000$ 125,000$

25,000$ 25,000$

-$ -$ 150,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$

150,000$ 50,000$ 200,000$

150,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

TOTAL


Inclusive GovernanceStaff is evaluating potential means to partner and collaborate with other Coastside agencies

to meet GIS needs. This project was moved from FY 15-16 due to staffing capacity.

EXPENDITURES

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


Fund Reserves

JUSTIFICATION:The City currently utilizes an outside service for GIS. The City lacks the ability to

update infrastructure mapping and to create map layers and presentation maps.




DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes the identification, purchase, and implementation of hardware

and software to enhance the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) capacity. FY

18-19 will focus on identifying potential partners and software/hardware needs and

beginning the implementation of the system. FY 19-20 will focus on additional data

integration.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: GIS IMPLEMENTATION

Operations Project Number:

501 Main Street Lead Department: Public Works


23

PARK IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS


24

Category: Parks TBD

Project Location: Citywide

Type: Community Enhancement

Duration: Ongoing 17 Fund Name: Parks

X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

-$

70,000$ 70,000$ 70,000$ 70,000$ 70,000$ 350,000$

30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 150,000$

158,000$ 158,000$

-$ -$ 258,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 658,000$

258,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 658,000$

-$ -$ 258,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 658,000$

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS


Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

Equipment

TOTAL


PROGRAM TITLE: PARKS MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

Infrastructure

Project Number:

Lead Department:

Status:

Fund Number:

EXPENDITURES

ADDITIONAL DETAILS:

TOTAL

Maintenance

Public Works

NEW

DESCRIPTION:This program was developed in response to the findings in the Parks Master Plan. This program will focus

on completing the priorities identified in the Parks Master Plan that are not substantial enough to be a

stand alone Capital Improvement Project. Projects staff will undertake in FY 18-19 include: installation of

fencing at Smith Field and Poplar Beach; electrical enhancements and secutiy lighting at Carter Park;

parking lot enhancements at Frenchmen's Creek; park furniture enhancements and replacements at

various locations; and installation of automatic locks at park restrooms.

JUSTIFICATION:


General Fund

This program includes the play structure replacement projects at Ocean View Park, Frenchmen's

Creek Park, and Kehoe Park.


Fiscal Sustainability


25

PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

FY 2018-19


26

Category: 583

Project Location:


Duration: Q1 FY16-17 TO 17 Fund Name: Parks

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

130,000$ 45,000$ 175,000$

-$

35,000$ 35,000$

130,000$ 35,000$ 45,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 210,000$

45,000$ 45,000$

165,000$ 165,000$


PM-CM


General Fund

TOTAL

Fund Reserves


Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

EXPENDITURES


Inclusive GovernanceThis project was initiated in FY 2016-17 and will continue into FY 18-19 in order to

complete CEQA.

JUSTIFICATION:The project was identified by the City Council as a high priority during the February 9,

2016 retreat.




ADDITIONAL DETAILS:

DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes the development of the RFP, selection of the consultant, and

preparation of a Parks Master Plan including an assessment of current parks and facilities

and potential future park sites. The Master Plan will include an assessment of potential

safety and security issues, irrigation systems, and other needs identified in the project

scope. FY 18-19 will focus on CEQA compliance and plan adoption.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: PARKS MASTER PLAN

Parks Project Number:



27

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


50,000$ 50,000$

-$

250,000$ 250,000$

-$

-$ -$ 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$

75,000$ 75,000$

225,000$ 225,000$

-$ -$ 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact 5,000$

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

Fund Reserves

JUSTIFICATION:The current restroom is aging and in constant need of repair. Park users have

identified this as a priority for them.






Inclusive GovernanceThis project was previously scheduled for FY 19-20 but was moved to FY 18-19 due to

expressed concern from the community.

EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes the design and rennovation of the restroom at Ocean View

Park. This project will relocate and expand the facility to better serve daily park

users.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: PERMANENT RESTROOMS - OCEAN VIEW PARK

Facilities Project Number:

Ocean View Park Lead Department: Public Works


28

Category: TBD

Project Location:

Type: NEW Priority: High


X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

150,000$ 150,000$

1,000,000$ 1,000,000$

15,000$ 100,000$ 115,000$

-$ -$ 165,000$ 1,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,265,000$

300,000$ 300,000$

165,000$ 800,000$ 965,000$

-$ -$ 165,000$ 1,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,265,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

PROJECT TITLE: CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS


Carter Park Lead Department: Administration



DESCRIPTION:

image

The Parks Master Plan identified John L. Carter Memorial Park as an opportunity to create

a more actively utilized space be adding improvements to facilitate greater opportunities

for performances and day camps. The purpose of this project is to develop a long-term

plan for the site and identify projects that may be completed in the near-term to improve

the site.

Infrastructure



JUSTIFICATION:This project was identified as a project in the Parks Master Plan completed in FY 2017-18.


Fiscal Sustainability ADDITIONAL DETAILS:Inclusive Governance

EXPENDITURES

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

Fund Reserves


29

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


27,000$ 27,000$

15,000$ 100,000$ 115,000$

90,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 290,000$

3,000$ 10,000$ 13,000$

-$ -$ 45,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 445,000$

45,000$ 45,000$

100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 400,000$

-$ -$ 45,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 445,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

Fund Reserves

JUSTIFICATION:






EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:

image

This is a multi-year project that involves significant improvements to Smith Field. FY 18-19

will focus on conducting a site assessment. Implementation of identified improvements

from the assessment is estimated to occur in FY 19-20. FY 20-23 will focus on completing a

Master Plan of Smith Field with latter years of the project designated for implementation

of findings from the Master Plan.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: SMITH FIELD SITE ASSESSMENT AND MASTER PLAN

Parks Project Number:

Smith Field Park Lead Department: Public Works


30

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

75,000$ 75,000$

-$

10,000$ 10,000$

-$ -$ 85,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 85,000$

85,000$ 85,000$

-$ -$ 85,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 85,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


Fund Reserves

JUSTIFICATION:This project wast identified as a project in the Parks Master Plan completed in FY 2017-18.





Fiscal Sustainability ADDITIONAL DETAILS:Inclusive Governance This is a new project.

EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:The Parks Master Plan identified the Johnston House and Train Depot Property as an

opportunity to add low-impact activities and facilities for family picnicing, as well as

enhancements to the historic nature of the site. The purpose of this project is to develop a

long-term plan for the site and identify projects that may be completed in the near-term to

improve the site.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: TRAIN DEPOT AND JOHNSTON HOUSE SITE PLAN


110 Higgins Canyon Road Lead Department: Administration


31

FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS


32

Category: 601

Project Location:

Type:

Duration: 25 Fund Name: General Capital

X

X

X ADDITIONAL DETAILS:X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

90,000$ 90,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 375,000$

10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 50,000$

-$ -$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 425,000$

150,000$ 50,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 425,000$

150,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 425,000$

Fund Number:

DESCRIPTION:



This program ensures the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA

requires all public agencies to adopt a Transition Plan to evaluate and identify physical barriers that

prevent public access to services and programs. In FY 2017-18, the City issued an RFP and contract for a

consultant to develop the ADA Transition Plan. The focus of FY 2018-19 will be the completion of the ADA

Transition Plan and the identification of future improvements.

JUSTIFICATION:This program will ensure City compliance with the Americans with Disability Act requirements and to

improve accessibility and safety for the disabled commmunity.



PROGRAM TITLE: ADA TRANSITION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

Finance

Previously Approved

Project Number:

Lead Department:

Status:

General Fund

TOTAL

Facilities

Citywide

Mandated

Ongoing

EXPENDITURES

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM



33

Category: 604

Project Location:

Type:

Duration: 48 Fund Name: Public Facilities

X

X

X ADDITIONAL DETAILS:X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 225,000$

5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$

200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 1,000,000$

-$ -$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,250,000$

60,000$ 190,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,250,000$

60,000$ -$ 190,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,250,000$

Fund Number:

DESCRIPTION:



This program covers inevitable, unexpected, and emergency events that are prevelant in a coastside

community including coastal erosion, storm repair, flood response and other similar events. This program

was activated in FY 2017-18 to address flooding issues at Roosevelt Creek at Pullman Court and to address

the drainage instability at the Wavecrest/Highway 1 outfall.

JUSTIFICATION:These types of emergency events often require immediate response from the City.



PROGRAM TITLE: EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM

Public Works

Previously Approved

Project Number:

Lead Department:

Status:

General Fund

TOTAL

Facilities

Citywide

Capital Maintenance

Ongoing

EXPENDITURES


Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction



34

Category: 562

Project Location:

Type:


X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


186,000$ 186,000$ 186,000$ 186,000$ 186,000$ 930,000$

14,000$ 14,000$ 14,000$ 14,000$ 14,000$ 70,000$

-$ -$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 1,000,000$

187,790$ 12,210$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 1,000,000$

187,790$ -$ 12,210$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 1,000,000$

Fund Number:

DESCRIPTION:


Inclusive Governance Efforts in this program in FY 2017-18 were postponed due to other, higher prioritized needs.

This program includes the City's share of repair and replacement of cracked and deteriorated sidewalk

segments identified and prioritized in the 2016 sidewalk survey. Each year, a scope of repair/replacement

work will be scheduled based on funding availability and prioritization of needed repairs. The focus of FY

18-19 will be completing the removal and replacement of approximately 300 locations previously

identified through the sidewalk survey and coordination with utility companies to repair locations affected

by their underground utility vaults and boxes.

JUSTIFICATION:Sidewalks are required to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and be safely navigable by

the general public.



PROGRAM TITLE: SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AND REPAIR PROGRAM

Public Works

Previously Approved

Project Number:

Lead Department:

Status:

General Fund

TOTAL

Streets

Citywide

Public Safety Enhancement

Ongoing

EXPENDITURES

Construction

PM-CM



35

Category: 598

Project Location:

Type:


X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 500,000$

25,000$ 25,000$

-$ -$ 125,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 525,000$

25,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 425,000$

100,000$ 100,000$

100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 525,000$

Fund Number:

DESCRIPTION:


Inclusive GovernanceIn FY 17-18, staff a hired a contractor to perform necessary removals and structural pruning to the

most sever of hazards that were identified in the assessment.

This project is a follow-on to the Street Tree Assessment project completed in FY 2016-17. It includes the

scheduling of programmatic pruning, removal, and replacement of approximately 2,500 City owned trees

and potential cost share for trees jointly maintained by City and property owners. In FY 2018-19, the focus

will be to establish a pragamatic grid pruning cycle to maintain the structural integrity of street trees by

focusing on a manageable quantity of pruning annually.

JUSTIFICATION:The urban forest is an asset of the City and all who live and visit the community. Maintenance of trees is

critical to the ongoing health of the urban forest and reducing the impacts of tree roots on sidewalks and

utilities. Furthermore, trees represent one of the most significant hazards to public health and safety

when not properly maintained.



PROGRAM TITLE: URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Public Works

Previously Approved

Project Number:

Lead Department:

Status:

General Fund

TOTAL

Streets

Citywide

Community Enhancement

Ongoing

EXPENDITURES

Construction

Maintenance


Fund Reserves


36

FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

FY 2018-19


37

Category: TBD

Project Location:


Duration: Q1 FY18-19 TO 48 Fund Name: Public Facilities

X

X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

-$

75,000$ 75,000$

-$

-$ -$ 75,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 75,000$

25,000$ 25,000$

50,000$ 50,000$




PROJECT TITLE: MUNICIPAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES


353 Kelly Avenue, 537 Kelly Avenue, 110 Higgins Canyon Road,

501 Main StreetLead Department: Public Works

DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes the installation of double-paned windows at the Ted Adcock

Community Center (TACC) and lighting upgrades at TACC, the Sheriff's Substation, the

Train Depot, and City Hall.

Infrastructure



JUSTIFICATION:In FY 2017-18, the City successfully applied for and accepted grant funding from C/CAG

to assist municipal energy upgrades.


EXPENDITURES


Grant - C/CAG

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund


38

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


50,000$ 50,000$

-$

190,000$ 190,000$

10,000$ 10,000$

-$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$

-$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$


TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

JUSTIFICATION:In FY 17-18, the City assumed responsibility for direct recreation programming for the

community. Small improvements (including ADA) have been made to the Community

Center but additional improvements are needed.






EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes a major remodel of the Ted Adcock Community Center kitchen and

restrooms.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: TED ADCOCK COMMUNITY CENTER REMODEL


537 Kelly Avenue Lead Department: Public Works


39

Category: 605

Project Location:



X

X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

75,000$ 75,000$

-$

-$

-$ -$ 75,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 75,000$

-$

75,000$ 75,000$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

County Contribution

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

JUSTIFICATION:The Substation is comprised of four modular buidlings that are well beyond their normal life

expectancy. The assessment will deteremine if its feasible to do temporary repairs to keep

the building operational and recommend a long-term implementation plan.







Due to enhancements made to the Ted Adcock Community Center in FY 2017-18, the

focus of the assessment will be the Sheriff's Department. Depending on the

recommendations from the assessment, improvements may be funded through the

Emergency Response Program. Funding for implementation has been programmed for

FY 19-20 in the "Sheriff Substation Project."

EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes the completion of an assessment of the City's Sheriff Substation and

creation of a prioritized list identifying repair and replacement needs. This project will result

in a prioritized and itemized maintanence schedule for operational sustainability of the

Substation.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: SHERIFF SUBSTATION FACILITY ASSESSMENT


Citywide Lead Department: Public Works


40

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


100,000$ 100,000$

50,000$ 50,000$

750,000$ 750,000$

10,000$ 75,000$ 85,000$

-$ -$ 160,000$ -$ 825,000$ -$ -$ 985,000$

160,000$ 200,000$ 360,000$

625,000$ 625,000$

-$ -$ 160,000$ -$ 825,000$ -$ -$ 985,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

Grant - State

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

JUSTIFICATION:The parcels are located in and around Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA). APN

048270080 was formerly used as a construction staging site for the sewer treatment

plant. APN 048270080 joins the restored wetlands/frog pond which is designated ESHA.

Development of this site for a corporation yard or use other than open space/passive

recreation is infeasible.


Q4 FY 20-21 Fund Number:




Inclusive GovernanceThe City will also be exploring potential mitigation banking through this restoration

project.

EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes the study, design, bid, and implementation of a restoration plan for

the easterly portion of APN 048270080 and APN 048270070 which in total span 373,500

square feet. FY 18-19 and FY 19-20 will focus on design and pursuit of grants, with

implementation planned for FY 20-21.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: RESTORATION AND WATERSHED PROTECTION OF CITY PARCEL


APNs: 048270080 and 048270070 Lead Department: Public Works


41

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

-$

50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 300,000$

-$

-$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 300,000$

50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 250,000$

50,000$ 50,000$

-$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 300,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

TOTAL

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

Fund Reserves

Prof.Serv/Env.



EXPENDITURES


JUSTIFICATION:City Council directed this project to be added to the CIP.



Fund Number:

DESCRIPTION:This is an annual allocation for a high-visibility community project(s) that will be

identified by the City Council each year. City Council will be asked to identify the

project(s) within the first quarter of the Fiscal Year.

Infrastructure


Ongoing

PROJECT TITLE: COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT


TBD Lead Department: Public Works


42

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

-$

100,000$ 100,000$

-$

-$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000$

100,000$ 100,000$

-$


Grant - State

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

JUSTIFICATION:Many of the streetlights are in need of repair and upgrades.






EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:This project involves repairing and replacing of the streetlight on Main Street and

converting them to light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: STREETLIGHT UPGRADES ON MAIN STREET


Downtown Main Street Lead Department: Public Works


43

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

75,000$ 75,000$

-$

10,000$ 10,000$

-$ -$ 85,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 85,000$

85,000$ 85,000$

-$ -$ 85,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 85,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

JUSTIFICATION:This project wast identified as a project in the Parks Master Plan completed in FY 2017-18.






EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:In late 2017, the City acquired 555 Kelly Street which completed the City's ownership of

the eastern strip of the Shoreline Station Center property which includes the Emergency

Operations Center, Police Station, Skate Park, Ted Adcock Community Center, and parking

lots. This project will seek to identify the best uses of the City's properties over the long-

term, and identify projects that may be completed in the near-term to improve the site

which may include modifications of the City owned portions to enhance the community's

access to the variety of services offered.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: COMMUNITY CENTER SITE PLAN


535, 537, and 555 Kelly Street Lead Department: Administration


44

SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS


45

Category: 506

Project Location:

Type:

Duration: 06 Fund Name: Sewer Capital

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


57,500$ 57,500$ 57,500$ 57,500$ 57,500$ 287,500$

75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 375,000$

390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 1,950,000$

40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 200,000$

-$ -$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 2,812,500$

562,500$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 2,812,500$

-$ -$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 562,500$ 2,812,500$

Prof.Serv/Env.

PM-CM

TOTAL

ADDITIONAL DETAILS:


The project budget has increased based upon the completion of the Sewer Master Plan and

increased emphasis on and preventative maintenance. In FY 2017-18, the City completed in-house

design and construction of the flow diversion at Miramontes Street and Ocean Avenue. The City

also completed in-house design of multiple point repairs throughout the City, with anticipated

construction completion in July 2018.

EXPENDITURES


This program addresses minor collection system deficiencies and preventive maintenance that are

identified through regular maintenance activities, and typically do not require significant planning or

design (e.g. point repair maintenance and inflow and infiltration (I&I) repair). In FY 2018-19, staff will

focus on the approximately 100 point repairs throughout the City and subsequent CCTV inspections.

JUSTIFICATION:The City owns and maintains the sanitary sewer conveyance system and it is imperative to have a routine

sewer maintenance and upgrade program to reduce the likelihood of sanitary sewer overflows.



DESCRIPTION:

TOTAL

Construction

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS

Sewer Fund

PROGRAM TITLE: SEWER MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

Public Works

Previously Approved

Sewer Project Number:

Citywide Lead Department:

Mandated Status:

Ongoing Fund Number:



46

Category: 516

Project Location:

Type:


X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


230,000$ 230,000$ 240,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ 940,000$

100,000$ 100,000$ 110,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ 550,000$

2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,100,000$ 2,300,000$ 2,300,000$ 10,700,000$

100,000$ 100,000$ 110,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ 550,000$

-$ -$ 2,430,000$ 2,430,000$ 2,560,000$ 2,660,000$ 2,660,000$ 12,740,000$

2,430,000$ 2,430,000$ 2,560,000$ 2,660,000$ 2,660,000$ 12,740,000$

-$ -$ 2,430,000$ 2,430,000$ 2,560,000$ 2,660,000$ 2,660,000$ 12,740,000$

Prof.Serv/Env.

PM-CM

TOTAL

ADDITIONAL DETAILS:


This program merges recommendations from the Sewer Master Plan, Risk Model, and field

observations into a single, multi-year CIP. The focus of FY 17-18 was repairing pipes with severe

structural defects and/or problematic operating characteristics (surcharging or inaccessible

manholes).

EXPENDITURES


This program involves major repairs, line replacements, and capacity improvements as identified by the

Sewer Master Plan, CCTV inspection, and regular maintenance work. This program also funds emergency

repairs as needed. FY 18-19 will also focus on erosion repair near Smith Field and the replacement of

mains on Loryn Lane to reduce localized flooding and stormwater intrusion

JUSTIFICATION:The City owns and maintains the sanitary sewer conveyance system. This program provides for regular

replacement and rehabilitation of the system consistent with the City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and

other planning documents.



DESCRIPTION:

TOTAL

Construction

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS

Sewer Fund

PROGRAM TITLE: SEWER MAIN REPAIR PROGRAM

Public Works

Previously Approved



Mandated Status:




47

Category: 507

Project Location:

Type:


X

X

ADDITIONAL DETAILS:

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

-$

2,300,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 2,900,000$

115,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 195,000$

-$ -$ 2,415,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 3,095,000$

2,415,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 3,095,000$

-$ -$ 2,415,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 3,095,000$

EXPENDITURES


Prof.Serv/Env.

PM-CM

TOTAL


DESCRIPTION:



This program was created by combinging previously approved pump station and force main

repair and replace projects (Ocean Colony, Pelican Point, and Bell Moon). In FY 2017-18, the City

completed preliminary design and environmental analysis of rehabilitated pump station and new

force main at Ocean Colony.

This program is a multi-year effort including design, repair and replacement of the City’s pump stations

and the force main serving Ocean Colony. The specific projects are: 1) Bell Moon Pump Station

generator replacement, 2) Ocean Colony Pump Station rehabilitation and force main replacement and,

3) Pelican Point Pump Station generator replacement with other related work. The focus of FY 2018-19 is

the Ocean Colony Pump rehabilitation and force main replacement. Future year improvements will

focus on minor repairs.

JUSTIFICATION:This project addresses known pump station deficiencies that require action in the near term and

provides reliable emergency power generation at the pump stations.



PROGRAM TITLE: PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

Public Works

Previously Approved



Mandated Status:

TOTAL

Construction

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS

Sewer Fund


48

STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS


49

Category: 572

Project Location:

Type:

Duration: 11 Fund Name: Streets and Roads

X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


65,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 305,000$

5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$

-$ -$ 70,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 330,000$ SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS

70,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 330,000$

-$ -$ 70,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 330,000$

Previously Approved

PROGRAM TITLE: CROSSWALKS AND ADA RETROFIT PROGRAM

Public Works

Streets Project Number:


Mandated Status:


EXPENDITURES


DESCRIPTION:This program involves annual evaluation, prioritization and construction of improvements, including

sidewalks and curb ramps, to comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). This program also includes

the placement of new and improved crosswalks to improve pedestrian safety, often in conjunction with

ADA related work. The focus of FY 2018-19 will be identification of additional areas of concern throughout

the City. Future years will be better defined after the completion of the ADA Transition Plan.

JUSTIFICATION:This program maintains the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and improves

pedestrian safety.

ADDITIONAL DETAILS:Accomplishments in FY 2017-18 include design, construction, and repainting of multiple

crosswalks throughout the downtown corridor.

Infrastructure




Construction

PM-CM

TOTAL

Gas Tax

TOTAL


50

Category: 514

Project Location:

Type:

Duration: 11 Fund Name: Streets and Roads

X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


90,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 290,000$

10,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 50,000$

1,200,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 3,200,000$

25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 75,000$

-$ -$ 1,325,000$ 120,000$ 1,025,000$ 120,000$ 1,025,000$ 3,615,000$

473,095$ 475,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$ 2,388,095$

78,805$ 375,000$ 453,805$

773,100$ 773,100$

773,100$ -$ 551,900$ 850,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$ 3,615,000$

Previously Approved

PROGRAM TITLE: PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM

Public Works




ADDITIONAL DETAILS:

Inclusive GovernanceAccomplishments in FY 17-18 include completion of 95% design and issued bid documents for 8

street segments.

EXPENDITURES


DESCRIPTION:The program involves the ongoing re-sealing, re-paving and reconstruction of streets throughout the City.

FY 18-19 will focus on the construction of the designs completed in FY 17-18 and creating Benefit

Assessment Districts at Belleville Boulevard and Poplar Street in order to rehabilitate and reconstruct the

streets with "Complete Street" elements. The City will be focusing on resealing streets in the latter years.

JUSTIFICATION:This program is intended to maintain or enhance the City's Pavement Condition Index (PCI) at 65 or

better and improve safety and aesthetics.


Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

TOTAL




SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS

Gas Tax

PM-CM

General Fund

TOTAL

Fund Reserves


51

STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

FY 2018-19


52

Category: TBD

Project Location:


Duration: Q4 FY17-18 TO 11 Fund Name: Streets and Roads

X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


-$

580,000$ 580,000$

-$

-$ 580,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 580,000$

153,000$ 153,000$

66,576$ 66,576$

39,375$ 39,375$

9,728$ 9,728$

311,321$ 311,321$

-$ 580,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 580,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact 3,500$

PG&E In-Lieu

Private - Deferred Street Agmt

TOTAL

C/CAG SRTS-GS Grant

Correas Street UUD

Fund Reserves

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS


JUSTIFICATION:Originally, Correas Street was proposed to be slurry sealed as part of the Library project.

Upon further investigation, it was determined that the pavement structural section was

failing. The project was packaged with other improvements at the intersection and recieved

grant funding for the green infrastructure and safe routes to school portions of the project.



Inclusive GovernanceThis project received funding through the C/CAG Green Infrastructure and Safe Routes

to School program, as well as credits from PG&E.

EXPENDITURES

Construction

PM-CM

TOTAL



DESCRIPTION:

image

This project involves reconstruction of the pavement of Correas Street from Purissima Street

to Chruch Street with full-depth pavement section. The project also includes bulb-outs at the

corner of Purrissima Street and Correas Street, incorporation of green infrastructure, and

crosswalk markings.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: CORREAS STREET RECONSTRUTION PROJECT


Intersection of Correas Street & Purissima Street Lead Department: Public Works


53

Category: 538

Project Location:



X

X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


385,000$ 100,000$ 485,000$

125,000$ 50,000$ 175,000$

3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 6,000,000$

250,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 1,250,000$

-$ 760,000$ 150,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,500,000$ -$ -$ 7,910,000$

300,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,800,000$

50,000$ 50,000$

2,350,000$ 650,000$ 3,000,000$

560,000$ 560,000$

500,000$ 500,000$

50,000$ 2,650,000$ 4,150,000$ -$ 1,060,000$ -$ -$ 7,910,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

Public Safety Enhancement Status:


DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes operational and safety improvements to Highway 1 between North Main

Street and Spindrift Way. It also includes lane intersection improvements for signalization. This

project includes the development of a multi-use trail on the east side of Highway 1 from Main

Street North to Spindrift way. This project is principally funded through a grant from San

Mateo County Transportation Authority and also includes development-related impact fees

from the Pacific Ridge Subdivision (Ailanto).

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: HIGHWAY 1 SAFETY - NORTH


Highway 1 North, from Main Street @ Highway 1 to Kehoe Avenue Lead Department: Public Works



This project was initiated in FY 16-17 and will carry over into FY 19-20 due to delays by CalTrans

review and permitting process. Developer funds are from two (2) Letters of Credit on file from

Ailanto.

EXPENDITURES

JUSTIFICATION:Highway 1, between Main Street and Kehoe, contains pinch points that impact traffic flow. The

Pacific Ridge Subdivision requires the installation of a traffic signal at Terrace Avenue and

Highway 1. This project allows the City to coordinate development-related and overall safety

improvements for pedestrians and multi-modal transit riders.


TOTAL


Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


Grant - Measure A

Developer Funds

Gas Tax

General Fund

Fund Reserves


54

Category: 523

Project Location:



X

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


225,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 375,000$

225,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 375,000$

1,000,000$ 1,900,000$ 2,900,000$

75,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ 475,000$

525,000$ 100,000$ 1,250,000$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 4,125,000$

50,000$ 50,000$

375,000$ 650,000$ 3,050,000$ 4,075,000$

375,000$ 700,000$ 3,050,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,125,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$



DESCRIPTION:

image

This project will provide operational and safety improvements to Highway 1

between Wavecrest Road and Seymour Street. It also includes construction of a

signal at the Higgins Canyon Road, Main Street and Highway 1 intersection, as well

as controlled pedestrian/bicycle access to serve Naomi Patridge Trail and Smith

Field Park. This project is principally funded through a grant from San Mateo

County Transportation Authority.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: HIGHWAY 1 SAFETY - SOUTH


Highway 1 South, from Seymour Avenue to Wavecrest Road Lead Department: Public Works


Inclusive GovernanceThis project was initiated in FY 16-17 and will carry over into FY 18-19 due to delays by

CalTrans review and permitting.

EXPENDITURES

JUSTIFICATION:The Highway 1 and South Main Street intersection does not function efficiently

with the current design. Furthermore, this will provide a critical controlled east-

west pedestrian/bicycle crossing.


TOTAL


Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


Grant - Measure A

Fund Reserves


55

Category: 759

Project Location:


Duration: Q1 FY16-17 TO 09 Fund Name: Main Street Bridge

X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED TO


800,000$ 800,000$

242,922$ 242,922$

6,683,657$ 6,683,657$

100,000$ 100,000$ 600,000$ 800,000$

40,000$ 40,000$

-$ -$ 140,000$ 1,142,922$ 7,283,657$ -$ -$ 8,566,579$

40,000$ 50,000$ 550,000$ 640,000$

98,078$ 279,921$ 377,999$

1,142,922$ 6,405,658$ 7,548,580$

-$

-$ -$ 1,182,922$ 148,078$ 7,235,579$ -$ -$ 8,566,579$

Anticipated O&M Impact -$

General Fund

Grant - Federal

Gas Tax

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

Maintenance


Fund Reserves

PM-CM


EXPENDITURES

PROJECT TITLE: MAIN STREET BRIDGE PROJECT


Main Street, South of Stone Pine Road Lead Department: Public Works



ADDITIONAL DETAILS:

Inclusive GovernanceStaff secured approval from CalTrans to advance the funding to begin design FY 17-18. Project

timeline is dependent on federal funding availability for consturction and permitting by CalTrans.


JUSTIFICATION:The Main Street bridge is more than 100 years old and is in need of a seismic retrofit

and major rehabilitation.

image

This project includes a major retrofit and rehabilitation of the Main Street Bridge. This

project will bring the bridge into conformance with current ADA seismic requirements

and extend the useful life an additional 75 years.

Infrastructure



DESCRIPTION:


56

Category: 593

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


95,000$ 95,000$

61,000$ 61,000$

1,488,000$ 1,488,000$

60,000$ 60,000$

50,000$ 50,000$

-$ 156,000$ -$ 1,598,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,754,000$

156,000$ 96,000$ 252,000$

300,000$ 300,000$

1,202,000$ 1,202,000$

-$ 156,000$ -$ 1,598,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,754,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

PROJECT TITLE: POPLAR COMPLETE STREET PROJECT


Poplar Street Between Main and Railroad Lead Department: Public Works




DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes the design and improvement of a 3,012 foot strip of Poplar Street from

Main Street to Railroad Avenue as a "Complete Street" project. Anticipated enhancements

include pedestrian access, storm drainage improvements, and possible bike lanes.

Infrastructure


The project will provide a safe and inviting access to and from Poplar Beach and the Coastal

Trail for residents and visitors.

JUSTIFICATION:

Prof.Serv/Env.



This project recieved grant funding in FY 17-18 from the Metropolitan Transportation

Commission. Budget has increased due to the awarding of grant funds, accounting for

recorded Deferred Street Improvement Agreements (Property Owner Contributions), and

better defined scope. Project design has been initiated in FY 17-18 and construction

anticipated in FY 18-19.

EXPENDITURES


Grant - Federal

TOTAL

Construction

PM-CM

TOTAL

Fund Reserves

Property Owner Contribution

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS

Inspection


57

TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

FY 2018-19


58

Category: TBD

Project Location:

Type:

Duration: 17 Fund Name: Parks

X

X

PRIOR YEARS

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


20,000$ 30,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 80,000$

120,000$ 120,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 510,000$

20,000$ 20,000$

-$ -$ 160,000$ 150,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 610,000$ SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS

135,000$ 150,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 585,000$

25,000$ 25,000$

-$ -$ 160,000$ 150,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 610,000$

PROGRAM TITLE: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Public Works

NEW

Trails Project Number:




DESCRIPTION:This project includes the implementation of the projects identified in the Bike and Pedestrian

Master Plan. The focus of FY 2018-19 will be the design and construction of a Class IV bicycle

lane on Main Street from Stone Pine Road to Highway 1.

JUSTIFICATION:

Infrastructure



TOTAL

ADDITIONAL DETAILS:


Construction

PM-CM

TOTAL


General Fund

Grant - State


EXPENDITURES


59

TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

FY 2018-19


60

Category: 580

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


43,730$ 66,270$ 110,000$

15,000$ 36,000$ 51,000$

-$

-$

43,730$ 81,270$ 36,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 161,000$

125,000$ 36,000$ 161,000$


PM-CM


General Fund

TOTAL


Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

EXPENDITURES


Inclusive Governance This project was initiated in FY 2016-17 and will carry over into FY 2017-18.

JUSTIFICATION:The City does not currently have a comprehensive plan for pedestrian trails, pathways and

bikeways. This plan makes the City more competitive for grants and will assist in the

preparation of future CIPs.




ADDITIONAL DETAILS:

DESCRIPTION:

image

This project includes a Master Plan for pedestrian trails, pathways, and bikeways. The Plan

will refine locations, alignments and design, improve multimodal safety and operation,

identify potential sources of funding, and help prioritize future capital projects. FY 18-19

will focus on CEQA compliance and plan adoption.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN




61

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED TO


10,000$ 20,000$ 30,000$

7,500$ 10,000$ 17,500$

4,000$ 188,500$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 392,500$

10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 30,000$

4,000$ 216,000$ 140,000$ 110,000$ -$ -$ -$ 470,000$

-$

186,324$ 186,324$

33,676$ 140,000$ 110,000$ 283,676$

-$ 220,000$ 140,000$ 110,000$ -$ -$ -$ 470,000$

Anticipated O&M Impact 2,000$

Measure J

Park In Lieu Fee

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

JUSTIFICATION:While San Mateo County is encouraging coastal tourism and SamTrans now provides a free shuttle

to Poplar Beach on weekends, the Poplar Beach Gateway Area is in need of a more user-friendly

design and aesthetic. The pathway to Poplar Beach has deteriorated as a result of deferred

maintenance and is a safety hazard.







Accomplishments in FY 17-18 include the purchase and installion of new refuse/recycle containers,

educational/environmental signage, and new fencing, rehabilitating the Ped/Bike Trail from Railroad

Avenue to the Coastal Trail, and making temporary repairs to drainage in select areas.

EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:

image

This multi-year project will create a Master Plan for the Poplar Beach area, improve parking and

access, create a phased program for erosion mitigation, bluff restoration, creation of gateway

elements, and initiate work on the easterly re-alignment of the Coastal Trail between Poplar Street

and Kelly Avenue. The focus of FY 18-19 will be to complete the Master Plan.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: POPLAR GATEWAYS MASTER PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION


Railroad Avenue to Coastal Trail Lead Department: Public Works


62

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED TO


30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 150,000$

20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 100,000$

75,000$ 325,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 850,000$

25,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 85,000$

-$ -$ 150,000$ 390,000$ 215,000$ 215,000$ 215,000$ 1,185,000$

150,000$ 390,000$ 215,000$ 215,000$ 215,000$ 1,185,000$

-$

-$

-$ -$ 150,000$ 390,000$ 215,000$ 215,000$ 215,000$ 1,185,000$

Anticipated O&M Impact 2,000$

Measure J

Park In Lieu Fee

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


General Fund

JUSTIFICATION:The Coastal Trail has experienced a significant amount of erosion and poses a safety hazard to users.

Improvements will help to protect the trail.







EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:

image

This multi-year project includes improvements to the Coastal Trail with the intention of increasing its

current life span by 5 years. The focus on FY 18-19 will be temporary restoration repair of critical

locations identified in the erosion study provided by NCE and conitnue to work towards reducing

access on the bluff. Includes temporary and permanent fixes and fencing.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: COASTAL BLUFF PRESERVATION


Costal Trail from Poplar St. to Kelly Ave. Lead Department: Public Works


63

Category: 597

Project Location:



X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED


10,000$ 90,000$ 100,000$

10,000$ 35,000$ 45,000$

130,000$ 280,000$ 410,000$

35,000$ 35,000$

-$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ 350,000$ 590,000$

90,000$ 60,000$ 150,000$

140,000$ 140,000$

150,000$ 150,000$ 300,000$

-$

-$ 90,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$ 590,000$ Anticipated O&M Impact -$

General Fund

Park In Lieu Fee

Grant - State

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


Fund Reserves

JUSTIFICATION:This project will provide a safer means of access for pedestrians to Poplar Beach.






Inclusive GovernanceA portion of funding will be from park in lieu fees generated from the Carnoustie

Subdivision.

EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:This project involves the assessment of options, design of preferred alternation, and

construction of formal access from the bluff top to the beach near Poplar Beach parking lot

(118 linear feet). While every effort will be made to accomodate access, it is unlikely that this

accessway can or will be fully ADA compliant. The City will ensure full compliance with ADA

for access at Poplar Beach Parking Lot and blufftop gateway areas. Work effort will include

permitting through the California Coastal Commission. For FY18-19, the City will focus on

interim improvements to address immediate safety concerns.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: VERTICAL ACCESS AT POPLAR BEACH


Poplar Beach Lead Department: Public Works


64

Category: TBD

Project Location:



X

X

X

PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED TO


30,000$ 30,000$

20,000$ 20,000$

260,000$ 260,000$

40,000$ 40,000$

-$ -$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$

315,000$ 315,000$

35,000$ 35,000$


Fund Reserves

TOTAL

Prof.Serv/Env.

Construction

PM-CM


Grant - Measure A

JUSTIFICATION:This project will fully connect the bicycle and pedestrian path from downtown Half Moon Bay to the

northern City limits. The County has a proposed project to connect the Coastside trail to the northern

City limits.





Fiscal Sustainability ADDITIONAL DETAILS:Inclusive Governance This project is funded by SMCTA Measure A Bicycle and Pedestrian program.

EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION:This project includes the design, permitting, environmental clearance, and construcion of a Class I

multi-use path parallel to the east side of Highway 1 between Roosevelt Boulevard and Mirada Road.

The project will extend the current Class I path from the existing terminous at Roosevelt Boulevard

north to the City limits. The path will be apporiximately 10-foot wide and will be extended for

approximately 0.26 miles north.

Infrastructure


PROJECT TITLE: BIKEWAY CONNECTIVITY PROJECT - NORTH


Bike Trail from Roosevelt to Mirada, east of Hwy 1 Lead Department: Public Works


65

ONE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES

DESCRIPTION FUND PROJECT NO.PRIOR YEAR

ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED TO

DATE FY 18-19

Storm Drain Master Plan Implementation 14 563 -$ -$ 590,000$

Seymour Ditch Erosion Permanent Repair 14 TBD -$ -$ 200,000$

Arroyo de en Medio Erosion Repair - Mirada Road 14 579 -$ 625,000$ -$

-$ 625,000$ 790,000$

General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update 25 564 990,611$ 85,000$ 100,000$

Electric Vehicle Charging Station(s) 25 537 20,789$ 54,211$ -$

Wayfinding and Entry Signs (Phase 2) 25 559 11,400$ 238,600$ 100,000$

1,022,800$ 377,811$ 200,000$

Financial Software - Enterprise Resource Planning 25 555 -$ 250,000$ 50,000$

GIS Implementation 25 586 -$ -$ 150,000$

-$ 250,000$ 200,000$

Parks Master Plan Implementation Program 17 TBD -$ -$ 258,000$

Parks Master Plan 17 583 130,000$ 35,000$ 45,000$

Permanent Restrooms - Ocean View Park 17 TBD -$ -$ 300,000$

Carter Park Improvements 17 TBD -$ -$ 165,000$

Smith Field Site Assessment and Master Plan 17 TBD -$ -$ 45,000$

Train Depot and Johnston House Site Plan 17 TBD -$ -$ 85,000$

130,000$ 35,000$ 898,000$

PARKS

TOTAL PARKS

TOTAL OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

TOTAL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

TOTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS

OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 3

66



ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED TO

DATE FY 18-19

Emergency Response Program 48 604 -$ -$ 250,000$

ADA Transition Plan and Implementation Program 25 601 -$ -$ 100,000$

Sidewalk Replacement and Repair Program 25 562 -$ -$ 200,000$

Urban Forest Management Program 25 598 -$ -$ 125,000$

Municipal Energy Efficiency Upgrades 48 TBD -$ -$ 75,000$

Ted Adcock Community Center Remodel 48 TBD -$ -$ 250,000$

Sheriff Substation Facility Assessment 48 605 -$ -$ 75,000$

Restoration and Watershed Protection of City Parcel 48 TBD -$ -$ 160,000$

Annual Community Enhancement Project 25 TBD -$ 50,000$ 50,000$

Streetlight Upgrades on Main Street 48 TBD -$ -$ 100,000$

Community Center Site Plan 48 TBD -$ -$ 85,000$

-$ 50,000$ 1,470,000$

Sewer Maintenance Program 06 506 -$ -$ 562,500$

Sewer Main Repair Program 06 516 -$ -$ 2,430,000$

Pump Station and Force Main Repair and Replacement Program 06 507 -$ -$ 2,415,000$

-$ -$ 5,407,500$

Crosswalks and ADA Retrofit Program 11 572 -$ -$ 70,000$

Pavement Management and Traffic Safety Program 11 514 -$ -$ 1,325,000$

Correas Street Reconstruction Project 11 TBD -$ 580,000$ -$

Highway 1 Safety - North 11 538 -$ 760,000$ 150,000$

Highway 1 Safety - South 11 523 525,000$ 100,000$ 1,250,000$

Main Street Bridge Project 09 759 -$ -$ 140,000$

Poplar Complete Street Project 11 593 -$ 156,000$ -$ 525,000$ 1,596,000$ 2,935,000$

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS IMPROVEMENTS

TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

SEWER

TOTAL SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

STREET IMPROVEMENTS

TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS


67



ACTUALS

ENCUMBERED TO

DATE FY 18-19

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Implementation 17 TBD -$ -$ 160,000$

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 17 580 43,730$ 81,270$ 36,000$

Poplar Gateways Master Plan and Implementation 17 TBD 4,000$ 216,000$ 140,000$

Coastal Bluff Preservation 17 TBD -$ -$ 150,000$

Vertical Access at Poplar Beach 17 597 -$ -$ 150,000$

Bikeway Connectivity Project- North 17 TBD -$ -$ 350,000$

47,730$ 297,270$ 986,000$

1,725,530$ 3,231,081$ 12,886,500$

TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS

TOTAL TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS

TOTAL FY ALLOCATIONS


68

BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT

For meeting of: June 12, 2018

To: Chair Hernandez and Planning Commission From: Jill Ekas, Director of Community Development Sara Clark, Deputy City Attorney TITLE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CITY ORDINANCE REGULATING ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of the draft ordinance regulating accessory dwelling units to City Council (Attachments 1 and 2). For this action, the Planning Commission should review the draft ordinance, staff report and presentation, and consider community input. BACKGROUND: Background regarding the City’s existing code, state law regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and California Coastal Commission guidance is provided in the attached memoranda to the Planning Commission from the March 13, 2018 (Attachment 3) and April 24, 2018 (Attachment 4) study sessions. On March 13, 2018, the Planning Commission provided policy direction regarding revisions to the City’s ADU ordinance. The Planning Commission provided specific feedback regarding Measure D, water meters, occupancy restrictions, zoning districts where ADUs should be permitted, unit size, coastal development permits (CDPs) and exemptions, parking, and the potential impacts caused by ADUs. On April 24, 2018, the Planning Commission and community members provided additional feedback regarding a draft ADU ordinance. Specific feedback was provided regarding owner occupancy restrictions, design standards, fees, short-term rentals in ADUs, ADUs in Planned Development, Open Space Reserve, and Urban Reserve districts, Measure D certificates and parking requirements. Staff has incorporated this feedback into the proposed ordinance and has addressed questions in the discussion section below.

69

Planning Commission Staff Report Proposed Amendment to City Ordinance Regulating Accessory Dwelling Units Page 2 of 6 June 12, 2018

City staff also reviewed the draft ordinance with Coastal Commission staff. Their feedback has been incorporated into the attached version, as discussed below. DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would rescind the existing Chapter 18.33 in its entirety, replace it with a new Chapter 18.33, and make conforming amendments to other aspects of the City’s code. Where possible, the proposed draft has retained language from the existing Chapter 18.33. A summary of the City’s existing ordinance is included as part of the March 13, 2018 memoranda (Attachment 3).

Overall, these amendments are proposed for two purposes: 1) to better conform the City’s ADU ordinance to State ADU Law within the context of California Coastal Commission guidance; and/or 2) to clarify or improve the current code and review process for the sake of reducing barriers to the production of affordable housing. As discussed in the March 13, 2018 memorandum, the proposed ordinance creates two categories of ADUs: (1) those that are “wholly within” an existing single-family residence or accessory structure (which are entitled to very streamlined review), and (2) those that involve new development, either as an attached or detached structure (on which the City can impose more restrictions, within limits established by Gov. Code § 65852.2 (the “State ADU Statute”). Changes from April 2018 Draft The features of the draft ordinance are discussed in the April 24, 2018 and March 13, 2018 memoranda. The key changes from the draft provided for the April 24, 2018 meeting include:

• Clarifying that a Wholly Within Existing Development ADU constitutes development under the Coastal Act if it changes the intensity of use, which is defined as an ADU that primarily involves the creation of new habitable space. As an example, this would apply to a garage conversion.

• Limiting the application of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) exemptions for ADUs to those that expand existing uses by 10 percent or less. This threshold is consistent with existing City code applicable to additions to single-family homes.

• Clarifying that administrative CDPs do not go into effect until after the Planning Commission and City Council have an opportunity to request review of the community development director’s approval.

• Clarifying that proposals must comply with existing CDPs.

• Limiting ADUs to Planned Unit Development districts that already contain existing single-family residences (Ocean Colony, Jenna Lane, and Pacific Ridge).

• Limiting ADUs on Open Space and Urban Reserve (OSR/UR) lots to those with existing single-family dwellings with specific allowances clarified for nonconforming lots.

• Clarifying when and under what conditions residential structures can be added to or altered on OSR/UR lots with existing single-family residences.

• Creating a carve-out to the short-term rental ban for ADUs for those property owners lawfully operating such rentals at the time the City adopts the ADU ordinance.

70


o Options for Planning Commission Consideration: Community members also commented that small ADUs (less than 300 to 400 square feet) may also be more appropriate for short-term rentals. The Planning Commission could also consider creating an additional or alternate exemption to the short-term rental ban for small ADUs. This exemption may provide additional visitor-serving uses and provide financial support to homeowners, but may create an incentive for homeowners to add smaller units rather than larger units that could provide affordable long-term housing. Alternately, such an additional allowance could be applicable only to legally established small ADUs that existed at the time this ordinance takes effect, regardless of their past use as short-term rentals.

• Eliminating ADU-specific requirements for building height. Instead, the standard building height limits for each zoning district would apply.

• Modifying the objective architectural and design standards based on Planning Commission feedback.

• Implementing the parking policy discussed at the April 24, 2018 meeting, which would only require parking for ADUs in certain areas within the City (where limited street parking impedes coastal access). ADUs in all other areas would not be required to provide off-street parking. While this approach deviates from the State ADU Statute (which states that local jurisdictions cannot require parking for ADUs located within ½ mile of public transit), Coastal Commission staff concurs with City staff that this proposed approach is consistent with Coastal Act protections for coastal access.

• Clarifying that ADUs can only be proposed on lots with multi-family units in conjunction with the City’s density bonus program. To qualify, the ADU would be restricted for occupancy by qualifying lower income household and the rental rate would be maintained accordingly.

• Clarifying that when a property owner elects to construct an ADU with another structure, the City prefers to process such proposals at the same time. This modification is based on Coastal Commission staff feedback to avoid piecemealing.

o Option for Planning Commission Consideration: As drafted, a property owner who receives approval for both a new single-family residence and a new ADU could first build and occupy either the single-family residence or ADU. This creates the possibility that a property owner may build and occupy the ADU but never build the single-family residence, though staff considers this circumstance to be relatively unlikely. The Planning Commission could also consider conditioning occupancy of the ADU on construction of the single-family residence.

Other edits are intended to provide greater clarity and ease of implementation. These edits can be reviewed in the redline provided as Attachment 5.

71


Responses to Questions Raised at the April 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. Both the Planning Commission and community members raised a number of questions at the April 24, 2018 meeting. While staff provided answers to many of these questions during the meeting, these answers are also summarized here:

The State ADU Statute states that local jurisdictions may not impose any “local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth” on ADUs. Gov. Code § 65852.2. Why is the City requiring Measure D certificates? In 2014, the City proposed exempting ADUs from the Measure D Certificate program. Coastal Commission staff objected to this proposal, noting that (a) the proposed exemption would conflict with Measure D and the City’s Local Coastal Program, and (b) the cited Government Code section does not apply where the growth-control ordinance implements the Coastal Act. See Attachment 6. As a result, the City rescinded the proposed exemption. Staff has reviewed this history with Coastal Commission staff, who concur with the ongoing validity of this analysis. Can we allocate “fractional” Measure D Certificates to ADUs to account for their smaller size? Measure D was adopted as a voter initiative in 1999. It requires each dwelling unit to obtain a “Measure D certificate” prior to approval. As Measure D does not allow issuance of fractional certificates, any modification to allow such certificates would require a voter approval. Given that Measure D certificates have not been full allocated in at least a decade, staff does not recommend pursuing this option at this time. Will Measure D Certificates issued for ADUs push out other affordable housing projects? In the event the City receives more applications for Measure D certificates than can be issued under the City’s growth limitations, the City reviews all applications according to Section 17.06.120 (a process known informally as the “beauty contest”). Affordable housing projects receive a significant number of points in this review (i.e., 35 points for deed-restricted, below-market rate housing). As such, affordable housing projects are not likely to be turned away because of ADU applications, which may receive only five points. Why is the City allowing ADUs in Planned Development Districts? Three of the City’s Planned Development Districts—Ocean Colony, Jenna Lane, and Pacific Ridge—have been developed as single-family neighborhoods similar to the City’s R-1 district. The City sees no practical reason for treating such neighborhoods differently under the proposed Ordinance. This position is supported by recent changes to the State ADU Statute. Rather than requiring local jurisdictions to permit ADUs in “single-

72


family and multifamily residential zones,” state law now requires local jurisdictions to permit ADUs in “areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use.” Gov. Code §§ 65852.2(a)(1), (e). A reasonable interpretation of this change is that the state legislature intends for ADUs to be permitted in all locations that allow single-family or multifamily use, which would include the City’s developed Planned Development Districts. Coastal Commission staff also supports this position. Why does the proposed ordinance eliminate the reference to nuisance abatement found in Chapter 18.33.070(B)(7)? The City’s existing enforcement chapter (Chapter 18.26) already declares any building or structure built or maintained contrary to the zoning ordinance to be a public nuisance. See Section 18.26.010. The specific provision was removed to avoid redundancy. What aspects of the new Chapter 18.33 are requirements of the State ADU Statute? Attachment 7 is a marked-up version of Chapter 18.33. The highlighted sections are based on state law requirements and are intended to provide a general understanding of how the State ADU Statute shaped the proposed ordinance. Is it possible to require occupants of ADUs to show evidence of a local job or occupation, in order to reduce impacts on traffic? Staff has considered whether the City could impose restrictions on ADU occupancy based on the location of the occupant’s employment. Such a restriction would be difficult to enforce and may run afoul of certain state and federal housing laws that prohibit discrimination. Why are there separate CDP exemptions for guesthouses? The Coastal Act establishes that certain types of development are exempt from CDP requirements. Public Resources Code Section 30610(a) exempts improvements to existing single-family residences, which has been interpreted to include “garages, swimming pools, fences, and storage sheds” but not “guest houses or self-contained residential units.” 14 C.C.R. § 13250(a). However, section 30610(b) exempts improvements to any other structure, including guesthouses. For this reason, two separate statutes and regulations are referenced.

CEQA The proposed code amendments are exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code § 21080.17, as they implement the provisions of Government Code § 65852.2.

73


Summary The Planning Commission has held two study session on ADU policy and ordinance options. Community input was received and considered at both sessions. Staff has also been announcing the forthcoming draft ordinance at various City and community meetings as well as through the City’s broadly distributed ENews and posting on the local Next Door website. Newpaper notification of this June 12, 2018 Planning Commission public hearing ran in the Half Moon Bay Review on May 30, 2018. The draft ordinance was posted on the City’s website on June 1, 2018. At the time this staff report was finalized, one written comment had been received on the draft ordinance and is provided in Attachment 8. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance, consider community input, and adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of the ordinance to City Council (Attachment 1).

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Recommending Approval of Ordinance

2. Proposed Ordinance

3. March 13, 2018 Memorandum

4. April 24, 2018 Memorandum

5. Redline Ordinance (April 2018 to June 2018)

6. Excerpts of 2014 Coastal Commission Staff Reports

7. Proposed Chapter 18.33 (highlighted to indicate language required by the State ADU

Statute)

8. Written correspondence received on the draft ordinance

74

ATTACHMENT 1

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION P-18-XX

RESOLUTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

PDP-18-027

Amendments to the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code, Titles 17 and 18, Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance,

comprising the Local Coastal Implementation Plan, to comply with State law by replacing Chapter 18.33

Second Dwelling Units in whole with Chapter 18.33 Accessory Dwelling Units and additional code

amendments related to implementation of the new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Chapter.

WHEREAS, the State of California enacted changes to Government Code 65852.2 to

impose specific requirements on local government regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs),

which became effective on January 1, 2017; and

WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission issued memos on April 18, 2017 and

November 20, 2017 to provide guidance to jurisdictions located within the California Coastal

Zone for implementing amendments to their Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) to be consistent with

revised Government Code 65852.2; and

WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay, which is located fully within the Coastal Zone, seeks

to revise its regulations as they pertain to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in order for them to

be consistent with Government Code Section 65852.2 and the California Coastal Act, pursuant to

the Coastal Commission guidance; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study session on March 13, 2018 to consider

policy options for amending the City’s ADU regulations; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a second study session on April 24, 2018, where

it considered a first draft amendment to Municipal Code Titles 17 and 18, Subdivision and Zoning

Ordinance by replacing Chapter 18.33 Second Dwelling Units in whole with Chapter 18.33

Accessory Dwelling Units and additional code amendments related to implementation of the new

Accessory Dwelling Unit Chapter (ADU Ordinance Amendment); and

WHEREAS, both the March and April 2018 Planning Commission study sessions were

noticed through the City’s ENews, community announcements, agenda posting, and other means

and community members provided public comment on the topic at both study sessions; and

WHEREAS, the City has prepared a revised draft ADU Ordinance Amendment based on

community input and Planning Commission direction;

75

ATTACHMENT 1: Resolution Page 2 of 3

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the

matter on June 12, 2018, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given

an opportunity to be heard; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony presented

for their consideration; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found the ADU Ordinance Amendment to be

consistent with Government Code Section 65852.2 and the Coastal Act in so far as the ADU

Ordinance Amendment attempts to comply with the standards in Section 65852.2 to the greatest

extent feasible while including several limited modifications to protect coastal resources; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that an 800 square foot size limitation for

new development ADUs is consistent with the City’s LCP for with respect to managing the scale

of development and lot configurations within the City’s neighborhoods; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that requiring ADUs to provide parking

within certain neighborhoods adjacent to publicly accessible beaches will protect coastal act

resources, namely coastal access; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the ADU Ordinance Amendment is

consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan, in that it includes mechanisms to ensure

protection of coastal resources and requires ADUs to comply with the Plan’s limitations on

residential growth; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the ADU Ordinance Amendment is

consistent with the City’s Housing Element, which contains a policy to “encourage the

development of affordable second units,” because the Amendment is intended to reduce barriers

to the creation of ADUs;

WHEREAS, documents and other material constituting the record of the proceedings

upon which the City’s decision and its findings are based are located at the City of Half Moon Bay

Community Development Department, located at 501 Main Street, Half Moon Bay; and

76

ATTACHMENT 1: Resolution Page 3 of 3

WHEREAS, the ADU Zoning Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental

Quality Act under Public Resources Code § 21080.17, which provides an exemption for

amendments that implement of the provisions of Government Code § 65852.2; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made the required findings for approval for the

project, as set forth herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the City of Half Moon

Bay, as the Advisory Body to the City Council, does hereby resolve and recommend that the City

Council approve PDP-18-027, to amend the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code, Titles 17 and 18,

Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, comprising the Local Coastal Implementation Plan, to

comply with State law by replacing Chapter 18.33 Second Dwelling Units in whole with Chapter

18.33 Accessory Dwelling Units and additional code amendments related to implementation of

the new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Chapter.

THIS RESOLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Half

Moon Bay Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing held on June 12, 2018, by the

following vote:

AYES,

NOES,

ABSENT,

ABSTAIN,

ATTEST: APPROVED:

_______________________________ _________________________

Jill Ekas, Rick Hernandez, Chair

Community Development Director

1008116.1

77

ATTACHMENT 2

Chapter 18.33 Accessory Dwelling Units

(to replace existing Chapter 18.33)

18.33.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

A. Increase the supply of smaller units and rental housing units by allowing accessory

dwelling units to locate on lots which contain an existing or proposed single-family

dwelling;

B. Establish standards for accessory dwelling units to ensure that they are compatible

with existing neighborhoods; and

C. Comply with state law regarding accessory dwelling units (California Government

Code Section 65852.2) and the California Coastal Act (California Public Resources Code

Sections 30000-30900).

18.33.020 Review and approval.

A. Accessory Dwelling Unit Applications. Accessory dwelling unit applications shall be

submitted to and processed by the community development director as follows:

1. Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation. Accessory dwelling units require a

residential dwelling unit allocation pursuant to Chapter 17.06 and Chapter 18.04,

provided that no processing fee pursuant to Section 17.06.040 shall be required.

2. Coastal Development Permit. All accessory dwelling units shall conform to

Chapter 18.20, as provided below.

a. A Wholly Within Existing Development Accessory Dwelling Unit, as

defined in Section 18.33.030, that does not involve the removal or

replacement of major structural components (e.g., roofs, exterior walls,

foundations) and that does not change the size of the structure or intensity

of use, does not constitute “development” as defined in Public Resources

Code Section 30106 and Section 18.20.020 (C) and does not require a

coastal development permit. A Wholly Within Existing Development

ADU changes the intensity of use if it primarily involves the creation of

new habitable space.

b. An accessory dwelling unit that is contained within or attached to an

existing single-family dwelling unit or accessory structure and that does

not expand the floor area, height, or bulk of the existing unit or structure

by more than ten percent is exempt from the requirement to secure

approval of a coastal development permit pursuant to Public Resources

Code Section 30610(a) or, for existing guest houses Section 30610(b).

This exemption shall not be granted if one or more of the criteria in

Subchapter 7, Title 14, Section 13250(b) or, for existing guest houses

78

ATTACHMENT 2: Proposed Draft Ordinance

Page 2 of 29

Section 13253(b), of the California Code of Regulations, as may be

amended from time to time, is met. If any criteria is met, the applicant

shall obtain a coastal development permit pursuant to Chapter 18.20 rather

than an administrative coastal development permit pursuant to this

Section.

c. Any other accessory dwelling unit shall obtain an administrative coastal

development permit, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 30624.

Such an administrative coastal development permit shall be processed as a

“local coastal development permit” per Chapter 18.20 except:

i. The community development director is the approval authority

for an administrative coastal development permit;

ii. The city shall not be required to publish any notice in a

newspaper; and

iii. Any administrative coastal development permit issued by the

community development director shall be listed on the Planning

Commission and City Council agendas at their first scheduled

meetings after the permit is issued. If, at either meeting, one-third

of the Planning Commission or City Council so request, the permit

issued by the community development director shall not go into

effect and the applicant shall instead obtain a coastal development

permit pursuant to Chapter 18.20. Administrative coastal

development permits shall not become effective until after the

Planning Commission and City Council have had an opportunity to

complete this review.

d. No hearing shall be required for the issuance of the administrative

coastal development permit, the issuance of a standard coastal

development permit pursuant to Chapter 18.20, or any appeal for any

accessory dwelling unit.

e. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with any existing coastal

development permit issued for the property.

3. Building Permit. Accessory dwelling units require a building permit issued in

conformance with this code, including Section 17.06.050.

4. Unless otherwise required by the Coastal Act, the community development

director shall act on all required permits within 120 days of receipt of a complete

application.

B. Non-Compliant Proposals. If the requirements in this Chapter are not met, the

proposed accessory dwelling unit cannot be approved under this Chapter.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicants may seek approval of the unit, addition, or

79


Page 3 of 29

renovation under the city’s generally-applicable standards and procedures, including a

variance pursuant to Chapter 18.23.

C. Conversion of Existing Residence. An existing residence, in conformance with the

above regulations, may be converted to an accessory dwelling unit in conjunction with

development of a new primary dwelling unit.

D. Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit. An existing accessory dwelling unit may be

enlarged or modified only in accordance with the requirements of this Section.

E. Density. To the extent required by California Government Code Section 65852.2, an

accessory dwelling unit built in conformance with this Section does not count toward the

allowed density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located.

F. General Plan and Zoning Designations. Accessory dwelling units approved in

compliance with this Chapter are a residential use that is consistent with the city’s general

plan, local coastal land use plan, and zoning ordinance.

18.33.030 Standards for Wholly Within Existing Development Accessory

Dwelling Units.

Any accessory dwelling unit that is wholly contained within the existing space of a single-family

dwelling or accessory structure shall meet the following development standards and use

restrictions:

A. The accessory dwelling unit is located in an R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, C-G, OS-

R, or U-R zoning district or in the Half Moon Bay Country Club (Ocean Colony) PUD,

Matteucci (Jenna Lane) PUD, or Dykstra Ranch (Pacific Ridge) PUD-X zoning district.

B. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is located contains an existing or

proposed single-family dwelling.

C. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is located does not contain another

accessory dwelling unit or guest house.

D. The accessory dwelling unit has exterior access independent from the existing single-

family dwelling.

E. The existing single-family dwelling or accessory structure has side and rear setbacks

sufficient for fire safety. If the existing dwelling or structure complies with the city’s

setback requirements as described in this code, it shall automatically meet this standard.

F. The accessory dwelling unit complies with applicable building codes and health and

safety regulations; however, the accessory dwelling unit is not required to provide fire

sprinklers if fire sprinklers are not required for the single-family dwelling.

G. The single-family dwelling or accessory structure was constructed in compliance with

all then-applicable city requirements or was in existence on [effective date of ordinance].

H. The accessory dwelling unit may be rented in full or in part for the purpose of

overnight lodging for terms of thirty or more consecutive days, but it shall not be rented

80


Page 4 of 29

for overnight lodging for shorter terms or sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the

single-family dwelling.

1. Notwithstanding the above, the accessory dwelling unit may be rented in full or

in part for the purpose of overnight lodging for a term of less than thirty

consecutive days if the accessory dwelling unit: (a) had been rented as a short-

term rental for at least 30 nights in the six months prior to [effective date of the

ordinance] and (b) the short-term rental was in full compliance with all city

requirements as of [effective date of the ordinance].

18.33.040 Standards for New Development Accessory Dwelling Units.

Any accessory dwelling unit that involves the addition of square footage to an existing single-

family dwelling or accessory structure or the construction of a new detached structure, or is

proposed in conjunction with a new single-family dwelling, shall meet the following

development standards and use restrictions:

A. The unit is located in an R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, C-G, OS-R, or U-R zoning

district or in the Half Moon Bay Country Club (Ocean Colony) PUD, Matteucci (Jenna

Lane) PUD, or Dykstra Ranch (Pacific Ridge) PUD-X zoning district.





D. The accessory dwelling unit meets all non-discretionary requirements for any single-

family dwelling located on the same parcel in the same zoning district. These

requirements include, but are not limited to, building height, setback, site coverage, floor

area ratio, building envelope, payment of any applicable fee, and building code

requirements. The following exceptions apply:

1. Detached accessory dwelling units shall have a minimum side setback of five

feet and minimum rear setback of ten feet. If any portion of the accessory

dwelling unit is located in front of the main building, then the front and side yard

setbacks shall be the same as a single-family dwelling in the zoning district. The

distance between buildings on the same lot must be a minimum of six feet.

2. Notwithstanding Section 18.33.040 (D)(1), if the proposed accessory dwelling

unit is an addition to an existing private garage:

a. No setback shall be required for any portion of the existing private garage

that is converted to the accessory dwelling unit; and

b. Standard setbacks shall apply to the new floor area, unless the accessory

dwelling unit is constructed above the existing private garage, in which case

the side and rear setbacks for the accessory dwelling unit shall not be less

than five feet, and the front setback shall not be less than twenty feet.

81


Page 5 of 29

3. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit required by the applicable district shall

not apply, provided the minimum building site requirements shall be met.

4. The only architectural and design standards that apply to accessory dwelling

units are as follows:

a. If the accessory dwelling unit is attached to a single-family dwelling or

visible from any public sidewalk or right-of-way, the accessory dwelling unit

shall use similar exterior siding materials, colors, window types, door and

window trims, roofing materials, and roof pitch as the single-family

dwelling.

b. The entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall face the interior of the lot

unless the accessory dwelling unit is directly accessible from an alley or a

public street.

c. For accessory dwelling units attached to the single-family dwelling unit,

new entrances and exits are allowed on the side and rear of the structures

only.

5. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2, no passageway is

required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.

Passageway is defined as a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and

extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit.

6. The accessory dwelling unit is not required to provide fire sprinklers if fire

sprinklers are not required for the single-family dwelling.

7. If the proposed accessory dwelling unit is a manufactured home, as defined in

Health and Safety Code § 18007, it shall comply with Section 18.06.060

(Manufactured homes), except subsection (B) (Approval), (C) (Location), (D)(1)

(Width) and (D)(10) (Covered Parking).

F. The gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed eight-hundred

square feet and the gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit and other buildings on

the lot shall not exceed the maximum floor area ratio.

G. The minimum gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than one

hundred fifty square feet or the minimum required for an efficiency dwelling unit as

defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, as may be amended from time to

time.

H. Parking.

1. A minimum of one off-street parking space for the accessory dwelling unit, in

addition to the spaces required for the single-family dwelling, shall be provided

for units within the following portions of neighborhood areas, as depicted on Map

__:

a. Miramar: Bounded by Mirada Road to the north, the California Coastal

Trail and Naples Avenue to the west, Pullman Ditch to the south, and

Highway 1 to the east. 82


Page 6 of 29

b. Casa del Mar: Parcels with frontage on both sides of Pilarcitos Avenue

and parcels with frontage on the south side of Wave Avenue.

c. Alsace Lorraine: Parcels with frontage on both sides of Kelly Avenue

between Balboa Boulevard and Pilarcitos Avenue; and parcels bounded by

Kelly Avenue to the north, the former railroad right-of-way to the west,

Central Avenue to the south, and Potter Avenue to the east.

d. Arleta Park: Parcels with frontage on Poplar Street between Pacific

Avenue and Third Avenue, and parcels bounded by Central Avenue to the

north, Railroad Avenue to the west, Seymour Street to the south, and First

Avenue/Alsace Lorraine Avenue to the east.

No parking space shall be required for any accessory dwelling unit located outside

these areas.

2. A parking space shall not be required within these areas:

a. For a unit that is on the same lot as a historic property listed on or

eligible for listing on either the National Register of Historic Places or the

California Register of Historical Resources;

b. For a unit that is part of a proposed primary residence;

c. When a parking exception has been granted in accordance with Section

18.36.080.

3. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, the required parking space

may be located as a tandem space in an existing driveway or in the required

setbacks, and may have a permeable, all-weather surface.

I. Accessory dwelling units shall not be approved absent a finding of adequate water

supply and wastewater treatment capacity. The accessory dwelling unit can be

accommodated with the existing water service and existing sewer lateral, insofar as

evidence is provided that the existing water service and existing sewer lateral has

adequate capacity to serve both the primary residence and accessory dwelling unit. No

additional water meter shall be required, unless requested by the applicant.

J. The accessory dwelling unit may be rented in full or in part for the purpose of


for shorter terms or sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the single-family dwelling.







83


Page 7 of 29

18.33.050 Combination Proposals.

When an accessory dwelling unit is proposed in conjunction with another proposal for which city

approval is required under this code, the following options apply:

A. The applicant is encouraged to submit the accessory dwelling unit and other

proposal(s) for combined review by the city. If the applicant makes this election, he or

she voluntarily foregoes the streamlining procedures described in Section 18.33.020.

B. The applicant may elect to have the city process the accessory dwelling unit separately

from the other proposal(s). If the applicant makes this election, the streamlining

procedures described in Section 18.33.020 would apply to the accessory dwelling unit

proposal after the applicant obtains city approval for the other proposal(s).

18.33.060 Converted Parking.

When a private garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in

conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, the spaces contained in such

structures shall be replaced to the extent they are required to meet the numerical parking

requirements in Chapter 18.36. The replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on

the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, enclosed spaces,

unenclosed spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts,

provided that the spaces and driveway comply with Section 18.06.040 (E).

18.33.070 Conformance with Certified Local Coastal Program.

New accessory dwelling units shall conform to all applicable requirements of the city’s Local

Coastal Program, the zoning code, this Chapter, and any existing coastal development permit,

including that the proposed accessory dwelling unit will not adversely impact any coastal

resources including any of the following:

A. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or significant vegetation such as native trees,

vegetation, riparian areas, wetlands, riparian or wetland buffers or visually prominent tree

stands as designated in the Local Coastal Program or the zoning code.

B. Significant topographic features, including but not limited to steep slopes, ridgelines

or bluffs, water courses, streams or wetlands or any areas as designated in the Local

Coastal Program.

C. Significant public views including old downtown, scenic hillsides or ocean views from

Highway 1 as designated in the Local Coastal Program.

D. Areas of public access to the coastal trail or beach areas including those as designated

in the Local Coastal Program.

E. Archaeological resources.

F. Prime agricultural land or soil.

84


Page 8 of 29

18.33.080 Declaration of Restrictions.

No declaration of restrictions or deed restriction related to owner occupancy shall be required in

conjunction with development of an accessory dwelling unit. Any declaration of restrictions or

deed restriction related to owner occupancy previously recorded to comply with prior versions of

this Chapter shall be void and unenforceable, although the City retains the right and ability to

enforce any violations of this code. The owner of any property subject to a deed restriction or

declaration of restrictions related to owner occupancy previously recorded to comply with prior

versions of this Chapter may record an appropriate document rescinding the prior deed

restriction or declaration of restrictions.

18.33.090 Incentives.

The following incentives are to encourage construction of accessory dwelling units:

A. Affordability Requirements for Fee Waiver. Accessory dwelling units proposed to be

rented at rents affordable to very low or low income households for at least five years

may request waiver of all city fees, subject to the sole discretion and approval of the City

Council. The city and applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement

governing the accessory dwelling unit and that agreement shall be recorded against the

property.

B. Parking. The covered parking requirement for the primary residence shall be limited to

one covered parking space and one uncovered parking space if an accessory dwelling unit

is provided. The uncovered parking space may be provided in the side yard setback (if on

a corner lot) or front yard setback under this incentive with the parking design subject to

approval of the community development director. The maximum impervious surfaces

devoted to the parking area shall be no greater than the existing driveway surfaces at time

of application. Not more than fifty percent of the front yard width shall be allowed to be

parking area.

85


Page 9 of 29

18.02.040 Definitions.

…

“Accessory building” or “accessory structure” means a detached subordinate building, the uses

of which are incidental to a permitted principal use conducted within the main or principal

structure on a parcel. An accessory building or use is not permitted without a permitted use on

the property. An accessory dwelling unit is not considered an accessory building.

Accessory Dwelling Unit. See “second dwelling unit.”An attached or a detached residential

dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons on the

same parcel as a single-family dwelling. It shall include permanent provisions for living,

sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:

(1) an efficiency unit, as defined in Health and Safety Code § 17958.1 and (2) a manufactured

home, as defined in Health and Safety Code § 18007.

…

“Guest house” or “accessory living quarters” means living quarters within a main or an accessory

building for the sole purpose of providing for persons employed on the premises, or for

temporary use by guests of the occupants of the premises. Kitchens are not permitted within

guest houses. “Guest house” does not include “secondaccessory dwelling unit” as defined in this

title.

…

86


Page 10 of 29

18.03.030 Residential use classifications.

A. Accessory or Second Dwelling Unit. An attached or detached residential dwelling unit as

defined in this title.

…

G. Single-Family Residential. Buildings containing one dwelling unit located on a single lot.

This classification includes manufactured homes and lots containing a primary dwelling unit and

an accessory dwelling unit.

…

87


Page 11 of 29

18.03.070 Accessory use classifications.

A. Accessory Uses and Structures. Uses and structures that are incidental to the principal

permitted or conditionally permitted use or structure on a site and are customarily found on the

same site. This classification includes detached or attached garages, guest houses, caretaker’s

quarters and home occupations and excludes accessory dwelling units.

B. Accessory or Second Dwelling Unit. An attached or detached dwelling unit as defined in

Section 18.02.040.

88


Page 12 of 29

18.06.020 Schedule of uses.

…

Table A-4

SCHEDULE OF ACCESSORY USES

Accessory Uses

Allowed by

Zoning

With a

Use Permit

Additional

Regulations

SecondAccessory dwelling

units

All R

…

89


Page 13 of 29

18.06.050 Exceptions to development standards.

…

E. Development Standards for Exceptional, Substandard and Severely Substandard Lots. This

section sets forth standards for development on substandard or severely substandard lots, which

are defined in the zoning code definitions in Section 18.02.040.

1. Exceptional lots shall be subject to the R-1 development standards set forth in Table B

of this chapter, unless otherwise specified.

2. Development on substandard or severely substandard lots, other than exceptional lots,

shall meet all standards set forth in Tables E and F of this chapter, respectively, unless

otherwise specified. Project design review pursuant to Chapter 14.37 is required for all

development, including additions and accessory structures but not including any Wholly

Within Existing Development Accessory Dwelling Unit, as defined in Section 18.33.030,

on any substandard or severely substandard lot or building site except as provided in

subsection (E)(3) of this section.

3. Coastal Act Consistency. The exception to development standards for substandard,

severely substandard, and exceptional lots set forth in this subsection shall only be

applied in full conformity with coastal development permitting requirements pursuant to

Sections 30600 and 30610 of the Coastal Act and Title 14 Sections 13250, 13252, and

13253 of the California Code of Regulations and Sections 18.20.025 and 18.20.030 of the

zoning code.

…

90


Page 14 of 29

18.07.020 Permitted uses.

…

Table 18.07.020E

ACCESSORY USES

C-D Commercial downtown zoning district

C-R Commercial residential zoning district

OK = Allowed without permit UP = Use permit required

NO = Not allowed UPCC = Use permit required under certain

circumstances

Key Accessory Uses

C-D

Zoning

C-R

Zoning

E-1 Accessory Use or Structure OK OK

E-2 Accessory Dwelling Unit UPOK UPOK

E-3 Mixed Commercial and Residential UP UP

…

91


Page 15 of 29

18.07.025 Use regulations.

The following use categories and any additional regulations associated with an identified use are

to be taken together with the permit requirements listed for each use classification in Tables

18.07.020A through E. These regulations shall apply to both permitted uses and for uses which

are only allowed upon approval of a use permit by the planning commission.

…

E-2 Accessory Dwelling Unit. No additional regulations specified.

…

92


Page 16 of 29

18.07.030 General development standards.

…

J. AccessorySecond Dwelling Units. All accessorysecond dwelling units in these commercial

districts must comply with the regulations contained in this title and state law.

…

93


Page 17 of 29


…

Table 18.08.020E

ACCESSORY USES

C-VS Visitor-serving commercial zoning district

C-G General commercial zoning district



circumstances

Key Accessory Uses

C-VS

Zoning

C-G

Zoning


E-2 Accessory Dwelling Unit OK OK


…

94


Page 18 of 29


…


…

95


Page 19 of 29


…



…

96


Page 20 of 29

18.11.015 Permitted uses in OSR and UR districts.

…

Table 18.11.015

SCHEDULE OF USES IN OSR AND UR DISTRICTS

Key Land Use

Allowed by

Zoning

Use Permit

Required

Additional

Regulations

1 Agricultural:

a • Open Field

Agriculture UR, OSR A-1

b • Retail Sales UR, OSR A-2

c • Livestock OSR A-3

2 Residential:

a • Single-Family UR B-1

b • Single-Family OSR B-2

c • Employee Housing UR B-3

d • Accessory Dwelling Unit UR, OSR B-4

3 Public or Quasi-Public:

a • Park or Recreation UR C-1

b • Campground UR C-2

c • Utility, Minor UR, OSR C-3

d • Equestrian Center UR C-4

4 Temporary:

a • Animal Show or Rodeo UR D-1

…

97


Page 21 of 29

18.11.020 OSR and UR district use regulations.

…

B. Residential.

B-1 Single-Family. In the (UR) urban reserve district, one dwelling unit is permitted for

the owner, manager or operator of the premises, subject to the approval of a use permit in

each case.

B-2 Single-Family. In the (OSR) open space reserve district, one dwelling is permitted on

each fifty acres of land, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case.

B-3 Employee Housing. In the (UR) urban reserve district residential structures are

permitted as housing for those persons employed on the premises, subject to the approval

of a use permit in each case.

B-4 Accessory Dwelling Unit. In the (UR) urban reserve and (OSR) open space reserve

districts, one accessory dwelling unit is permitted per lot, provided that the lot already

contains a single-family dwelling (notwithstanding contrary requirements in Chapter

18.33) and the accessory dwelling unit otherwise complies with the regulations contained

in this title.

…

98


Page 22 of 29

18.11.040 Nonconforming Residential structures on nonconforming lots and uses.

Existing nonconforming residential structures and uses within lands designated open space

reserve and urban reserve may be maintained, repaired, and/or remodeled in accordance with all

applicable development standards such as minimum lot size and width, setbacks, building height,

and lot coverage, and floor area ratio set forth in this title for the R-1 district. The procedures

specified therein for use permits, exceptions and variances shall be followed as appropriate.

On any open space reserve or urban reserve lot with an existing residential structure that does not

meet the minimum lot area standards in Table 18.11.025, a residential structure may be enlarged,

extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered or a new residential structure may be added if:

A. The structure otherwise complies with Chapter 18.11 or does not exacerbate any existing

nonconformity; and

B. The gross floor area is limited to 3,750 square feet or a floor area ratio of 0.5, whichever is

less.

The provisions of this section control over any conflicting provisions in Chapter 18.25.

99


Page 23 of 29

18.20.030 Exemptions.

The coastal development permitting requirements in Section 18.20.025 and exemptions herein

shall be carried out in full conformity with Sections 30600 and 30610 of the Coastal Act and

Title 14, Sections 13250, 13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations. Any conflicts

between provisions in the zoning code and either the Coastal Act or Title 14, Sections 13250,

13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations shall be resolved in favor of the Coastal

Act or Title 14, Sections 13250, 13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations. The

following categories of projects are exempt from the requirement to secure approval of a coastal

development permit:

. . .

C. Miscellaneous Activities and Development. The following activities and development

projects are exempted:

. . .

8. Accessory Dwelling Units.










amended from time to time, is met.

. . .

D. Record of Exemptions. The community development director shall maintain a record

of all permits issued for development within the coastal zone that were exempted from

the requirements of the coastal development permit process. This record shall be

available for review by members of the public and the Coastal Commission. The record

of exemption shall include the name of the applicant, the location of the project, and a

brief description of the project. The community development director shall also provide

notification to the Coastal Commission of the record of exemption within 30 days.

100


Page 24 of 29

18.36.040 Off-street parking facilities--Required number of parking spaces, size

and access standards, and parking for disabled individuals.

…

TABLE A: NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES

Type of Use Number of Required Parking Spaces

Dwellings (single-family) Two garage spaces per dwelling unit. Tandem parking

configurations shall be prohibited except on substandard and

severely substandard lots.

Apartments,

condominiums

Two garage spaces per dwelling unit, plus one guest space for each

five units, with a minimum of one guest space.

In-law units (second

dwelling units)Accessory

dwelling units

As required by Chapter 18.33.One off-street parking space in

addition to the two enclosed spaces required for the single-family

residence on the same site. Planning commission may waive

requirement under exceptional circumstances.

…

101


Page 25 of 29

18.36.080 Parking exceptions.

In cases of practical difficulties and unusual hardship, exceptions to the parking requirements or

development standards set forth in this chapter may be granted. Application for a parking

exception shall be made and an exception may be approved under the following procedures:

A. An application for a parking exception shall be initiated on a form provided by the

planningcommunity development department. An application for a parking exception shall be

submitted concurrently with any other required discretionary permit. The application shall

include a fee set by resolution of the city council. At the time a complete application for a

parking exception is made, the community development director shall determine the applicable

review procedure as provided for herein.

1. The community development director shall review an application for parking exception

if no discretionary permit is being sought in addition to the parking exception or if the

only discretionary permit being sought is an administrative coastal development permit

pursuant to Section 18.33.020. The community development director shall make written

finding of facts showing whether the four requirements in subsection B of this section

have been established with respect to the land, building or use for which the parking

exception is sought, and make a determination as to the granting or denial of the

application for a parking exception based upon those findings.

2. The planning commission shall review an application for parking exception if a

discretionary permit(s) is being sought in addition to the parking exception, at the same

public hearing held for the associated discretionary permit and in accordance with

subsections C through F of this section.

…

102


Page 26 of 29

18.42.040 Amount and calculation of density bonus.

A project that complies with the eligibility requirements of Section 18.42.030 shall be entitled to

a density bonus. The applicant shall elect whether the density bonus shall be awarded on the

basis of subsection (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of this section. The applicant may request a

smaller density bonus.

…

H. Accessory Dwelling Units. If desired by the applicant, the density bonus may be used

to construct one accessory dwelling unit per lot. The unit must comply with Chapter

18.33, except that the accessory dwelling unit may be constructed on a lot that does not

contain an existing or proposed single-family dwelling.

103


Page 27 of 29


The limitations on residential dwelling units imposed by this chapter shall not apply to:

A. Replacements of existing dwelling units on a one-for-one basis.

B. Density bonuses for the provision of low- and moderate-income housing as required by state

law.

C. Any second dwelling unit as defined in Chapter 18.33 or the California Government Code.

104


Page 28 of 29

17.06.100 Residential development projects--Defined.

The procedures specified in this chapter shall apply to any new residential development within

any zoning district on a legally existing lot or contiguous lots under single ownership.

Residential development projects shall include any detached single-family dwelling unit, any

attached single-family dwelling units consisting of duplex or triplex development, or any

multiple-family development consisting of four or more dwelling units, or any accessory

dwelling unit.

105


Page 29 of 29

17.06.120 Distribution of residential dwelling unit allocations.

…

I. Points shall be allocated according to the community design criteria in this subsection which

incorporate the concepts and principles of the “Build It Green” program and will rely on a

certified GreenPointRater at the time that points are determined.

…

5. Design for Diverse Households (maximum of twenty points).

a. At least one zero-step entrance provided in home: five points;

b. All main floor interior doors and passageways have a minimum thirty-two-inch

clear passage space: five points;

c. At least one half-bath is located on the ground floor with blocking in walls for

grab bars: five points;

d. Fully functional independent second unit is providedProject is or includes an

accessory dwelling unit: five points.

…

HMB.GEN-PLAN 983863.17

106

ATTACHMENT 3

MEMORANDUM

For meeting of: March 13, 2018

To: Chair Hernandez and Planning Commission From: Jill Ekas, Director of Community Development Sara Clark, Deputy City Attorney Date: March 13, 2018 TITLE: POLICY DIRECTION FOR POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CITY ORDINANCE

REGULATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Provide policy direction to staff for potential amendments to City ordinance regulating accessory dwelling units, also known as second units. BACKGROUND: City’s Existing Code: The City’s Zoning Code currently regulates second dwelling units, which are defined as “a detached or attached dwelling unit on a single-family residential lot that contains a one-family dwelling.” These units are referred to in state law as accessory dwelling units or ADUs, and are also commonly referred to as granny flats. The Zoning Code permits ADUs in the R-1, R-2, R-3 residential zoning districts as well as the Commercial–Residential (C-R), Commercial-Downtown (C-D), Commercial-Visitor Serving (C-VS), and Commercial-General (C-G) mixed use districts on lots with existing single-family homes. Property owners must obtain an administrative coastal development permit, an administrative site and design permit, and a building permit (and in the C-R and C-D districts, a use permit) prior to construction. Existing City standards and criteria for ADUs are summarized in Attachment 1 and discussed further below. The City’s existing code is included as Attachment 2. State Law Regarding ADUs: In the 2016 and 2017 state legislative sessions, the Governor signed a number of bills intended to streamline local jurisdictions’ reviews of ADUs. The majority of changes are codified in Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (State ADU Law). At times, language in the amendments is not clearly drafted, leading to uncertainty and ambiguity in what State ADU Law requires of cities. However, it is clear that the intent of the law is to force cities to streamline and relax regulation of ADUs to encourage their development. It is also clear that the state considers ADUs to be accessory uses to single-family residences, and not new residential units. As a result, State ADU Law reduces the ability of cities to impose requirements on ADUs related to certain potential impacts, specifically parking and utilities.

107


March 13, 2018 Accessory Dwelling Unit Study Session Planning Commission Meeting

Page 2 of 9

State ADU Law has a number of components. First, it greatly limits the conditions and requirements cities can impose on ADUs that are located wholly within existing single-family residences or accessory structures (such as garages, cottages, or pool houses). For purposes of this report, these ADUs will be referred to as “Wholly Within Existing Development” ADUs. Second, it imposes a number of basic standards for ADUs that require new square footage, including additions to an existing single-family residence or accessory structure, new detached structures, and ADUs proposed in conjunction with new single-family residences. For purposes of this report, these ADUs will be referred to as “New Development” ADUs. Cities can also impose additional standards and criteria on New Development ADUs, provided that they adopt an ADU ordinance that is compliant with the State ADU Law’s requirements. Finally, State ADU Law creates a third category of ADUs known as “Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.” Junior ADUs are small units created out of existing bedrooms, which contain only efficiency kitchens and retain direct access to the primary unit. State ADU Law is clear that cities can choose to allow Junior ADUs or not. However, if a city elects to allow them, the standards and criteria by which they can be evaluated are quite strict. Coastal Commission Guidance: One area of potential dispute is the extent to which State ADU Law (Section 65852.2) applies in the Coastal Zone. Subsection (j) states: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act . . . , except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.” The Coastal Commission issued guidance on this issue in April and November 2017, stating that “[t]he Commission interprets the effect of subdivision (j) as preserving the authority of local governments to protect coastal resources when regulating ADUs in the coastal zone, while also complying with the standards in Section 65852.2 to the greatest extent feasible” (emphasis added). (Coastal Commission guidance included as Attachment 3). Specifically, the Coastal Commission recommends that cities streamline their review of ADUs through exemptions and waivers, especially for ADUs that are built within existing structures. The City currently requires administrative coastal development permits (CDPs), administrative site and design permits, and building permits for all ADUs, a process that was codified in the City’s ordinance and approved by the Coastal Commission in 2015. This existing process is in substantial compliance with the Coastal Commission’s recent guidance for processing New Development ADUs that are either detached or may pose a risk of adverse environmental effects. For New Development ADUs that would be attached to existing single-family residences and Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs, the City’s existing exemptions could be extended to better conform to Coastal Commission guidance. Note that the City’s local coastal program (LCP) does not include any categorical exclusion areas and therefore does not have a waiver process that could be easily modified to include ADUs.

108



Page 3 of 9

San Mateo County ADU Ordinance in the Coastal Zone: The County of San Mateo recently amended its zoning code to comply with State ADU Law. Details of the County’s new ADU requirements for the Coastal Zone are discussed throughout this memorandum and the County’s complete ADU ordinance is attached as Attachment 4. The County’s entitlement process is similar to the City’s current approach with an administrative review process for issuance of coastal development permits in some cases, such as for parcels located in the Coastal Commission appeals jurisdiction. The County has also provided for exemptions in other instances. DISCUSSION: This Memorandum highlights key policy considerations for the Planning Commission to consider in providing direction on the desired terms for updating the City’s ADU ordinance. Staff has provided initial recommendations on each policy item, as well as alternative options. Overall, these initial recommendations are proposed for two purposes: 1) to better conform the City’s ADU ordinance to State ADU Law; and/or 2) to clarify or improve the current code and review process for the sake of reducing barriers to the production of affordable housing. Generally, conformance to State ADU Law is recommended unless the City can demonstrate that the deviation from State ADU Law is necessary for implementation of the California Coastal Act through the City’s certified LCP. Examples of Coastal Act priorities that may allow for deviations include protection of coastal resources, coastal access, and visual resources. The three types of ADUs raise distinct issues:

• New Development ADUs: The City’s ordinance for this type of ADU already substantially

conforms to State ADU Law, with relatively minor exceptions. Suggestions to address

these areas of nonconformity and to improve the code are included in the discussion

below.

• Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs: This type of ADU is currently not covered in

the City’s zoning ordinance and needs to be addressed for the City’s ordinance to be

consistent with State ADU law.

• Junior ADUs: Providing for this type of ADU is not required by State ADU Law, and

therefore the City’s zoning ordinance is consistent at this time; however, the Planning

Commission may wish to consider adding provisions for Junior ADUs.

The City’s existing ADU requirements are compared in a chart attached to this Memorandum as Attachment 1. The following discussion presents options for ADU regulations including designating areas where they are to be permitted, maximum size for New Development ADUs, policy options for addressing Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs, consideration of Junior ADUs, occupancy requirements for all types of ADUs, consideration of ADUs as part of

109



Page 4 of 9

the City’s annual growth limits (Measures D), and parking requirements for New Development ADUs. Areas Where New Development ADUs Are Permitted. State ADU law permits cities to designate areas where New Development ADUs are not permitted, so long as the designations are based on specified criteria. To conform with State ADU Law, it is important to continue to allow ADUs in all residential districts (R-1, R-2, R-3); and the mixed-use commercial zoning districts (C-R, C-D, C-VS, C-G), so long as the other criteria are met (i.e., parcel developed with a single family home, compliance with floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, etc.). State ADU Law specifies that ADUs should be considered an accessory use to virtually any single family home. Therefore, serious consideration should be given to allow ADUs in the Urban Reserve (UR), Open Space Reserve (OSR), and Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts, where single-family residential development is the primary land use. Covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) in some planned development neighborhoods may prohibit ADUs. It is the homeowners’ association (HOA) obligation to enforce CC&Rs, and not a City consideration. Staff recommends adding these three designations to be consistent with the intent of State ADU Law. ADUs could be explicitly prohibited in the industrial zoning district because of the potentially incompatible nature of industrial land uses in very close proximity to residential development; however, it is not necessary to specify a prohibition as these areas are not zoned for single-family use. These recommendations are based on the following:

1. The City currently permits ADUs in most of these districts. The only proposed change would be to add the UR, OSR, and PUD districts, which permit single-family development.

2. ADUs provide important housing flexibility, by allowing separate units for adult family members, or by allowing smaller, more inexpensive rental units that provide an income stream to existing home owners. Staff believes that the City can best accommodate a diversity of housing needs by allowing ADUs in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts.

3. The proposed restrictions on New Development ADUs (including size, setbacks, parking, prohibition on short-term rentals, etc.) are anticipated to reduce potential impacts to the community.

Options: The Planning Commission may consider identifying areas within these residential districts where New Development ADUs would not be permitted. State ADU law suggests that cities may consider growth limitations such as the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety. Other criteria are also allowed. The County

110



Page 5 of 9

has taken this approach, by permitting ADUs only in R-1 districts; it does not permit them in R-2, R-3 or RM districts. Some cities have limited ADUs based on lot size, although the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which will have the opportunity to review and comment on the City’s ordinance, has expressed concerns about this approach.1

Maximum Size for New Development ADUs. State ADU law contains somewhat conflicting requirements relating to maximum sizes, both setting forth maximum sizes to be included in city ordinances (1,200 square feet) and stating that cities may impose their own maximum sizes. HCD has offered some guidance, agreeing that while cities may impose their own maximum sizes, a “maximum unit size that unreasonably restricts opportunities would be inconsistent with the intent of the statute.” It states, however, that “typical maximum unit sizes range from 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet.” Because of HCD’s guidance, staff’s initial recommendation is that the ordinance limit New Construction ADUs to 800 square feet, a slight increase over the existing maximum of 700 square feet. The City’s lots tend to be fairly small; in staff’s experience, it is often infeasible for ADUs to be constructed to the current maximum 700 square foot size. Moreover, restricting the size to 800 square feet would promote housing diversity (by limiting larger, more expensive ADUs), while falling within the range noted by HCD. It is also important to note that the zoning ordinance imposes FAR requirements for each applicable district on the development of residential lots, which includes the floor area of ADUs. This may further limit their size. FARs will continue to be applied to development of these properties, which State ADU Law accepts as an allowable objective standard, and thus may affect the permitted size of a New Development ADU. Options: The Planning Commission may want to consider a larger maximum size, such as 1,000 or 1,200 square feet. The Planning Commission may also want to consider varying the maximum size based on whether the unit is attached or detached, or based on the size of the existing structure. San Mateo County has taken both approaches, by limiting attached ADUs to 750 square feet or 50% of existing floor area, whichever is larger, and limiting detached ADUs to 750 square feet or 35% of existing floor area, whichever is larger. It is noted that the County’s approach is well thought through and could be appropriate for Half Moon Bay. Adopting similar measures would provide some consistency on the midcoast; however, it does not fully conform to HCD guidance.

1 According to HCD: “Utilizing approaches such as restrictive overlays, limiting ADUs to larger lot sizes, burdensome lot coverage and setbacks and particularly concentration or distance requirements (e.g., no less than 500 feet between ADUs) may unreasonably restrict the ability of the homeowners to create ADUs, contrary to the intent of the Legislature.”

111



Page 6 of 9

Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs. The Coastal Commission has suggested that the City’s Zoning Ordinance should be amended to permit development of Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs in conformance with State ADU Law. These ADUs should be permitted in any existing single-family dwelling or accessory structure, even if the structure is non-conforming, provided the application meets minimal requirements related to exterior access, side and rear setbacks, and the building code. However, to reduce any incentive for a property owner to build an accessory structure without permits and then (legally) convert it into an ADU, the Planning Commission should consider including a requirement that the single-family residence or accessory structure be in existence as of the effective date of the ordinance or be legally constructed. This approach recognizes the Legislature’s understanding that converting existing space to another unit is likely to result in fewer impacts than new construction. Options: The Planning Commission may consider making modifications to these requirements, such as limiting the size of Wholly Within New Development ADUs, or imposing parking requirements. However, as stated above, we recommend that any deviations from State ADU Law are grounded in protection of coastal resources pursuant to the Coastal Act. Making such a finding for Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs may be difficult. Junior ADUs As explained in the background section and the included table, State ADU Law also provides for cities to adopt ordinances permitting Junior ADUs. The intent of this law was to streamline approval for a very specific type of low-cost ADU, in order to increase housing diversity. Staff does not recommend adopting a Junior ADU ordinance at this time. Units that would qualify as Junior ADUs can generally be built using the process for Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs. Consequently, adding a Junior ADU permitting scheme would be largely redundant and unnecessarily complex. Options: The Planning Commission may want to consider adopting a Junior ADU ordinance, to the extent the Planning Commission wants to prioritize development of these types of units. Occupancy Requirements for ADUs. While State ADU Law specifies that cities must allow ADUs to be rented, cities may elect to limit rented ADU occupancy in two ways. First, cities may prohibit the use of ADUs for short-term rentals. Second, cities may require the property owner to occupy either the single-family residence or the ADU. The City’s existing ordinance imposes the latter via a required deed restriction. The Planning Commission should consider imposing both limitations, by requiring owner occupancy of at least one unit as required by the existing code and prohibiting short-term rental of ADUs. Owner occupancy encourages a long-term connection to the community and

112



Page 7 of 9

may therefore reduce nuisance impacts associated with the ADU. Moreover, existing second unit owners have deed restricted their units to impose the owner-occupancy restriction and may view a reversal of this policy as unfair. Short-term rentals present a complex policy question. On the one hand, ADUs have been touted as a mechanism for increasing housing diversity by creating smaller, more affordable long-term rental properties. This benefit may not be realized if ADUs are used for short-term rentals. On the other hand, short-term rentals can provide both increased rental revenue and additional flexibility for property owners. These characteristics may increase housing affordability for single-family residences. Allowing short-term rentals also increases visitor-serving accommodations in the Coastal Zone. The City is concurrently considering a short-term rental ordinance, which may address some or most of the nuisance issues associated with short-term rentals if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend allowing them. However, most cities, as well as San Mateo County, do not allow use of ADUs for short-term rentals in order to promote housing diversity. Options: The Council may want to consider eliminating the owner occupancy requirement and/or allowing short-term rental of ADUs under very limited circumstances (e.g. in the mixed-use zoning districts, for very limited number of nights per year), provided that they meet the requirements of any new City ordinance regarding short-term rentals. Growth Limitations and Measure D Certificates. Staff is still researching the legislative history of Measure D, the various and conflicting references to Measure D in the City’s Municipal Code, and how Measure D interacts with State ADU Law and the Coastal Act, but preliminarily recommends that the proposed amendments clarify that ADUs must obtain a Measure D certificate as part of the approval process. This amendment would ensure that ADUs are counted toward overall residential growth, and matches the approach taken by San Mateo County, which counts ADUs toward the County’s total residential development quotas. However, to ensure that ADU development is encouraged, the Planning Commission may also want to consider:

• Reducing or eliminating Measure D related fees for ADU applications; and

• Further incentivizing development of ADUs in the allocation of points, in the event the growth cap is reached. The existing ordinance already allocates points to new single-family residences that include ADUs. Staff proposes to also allocate points to ADUs on lots with existing single-family residences.

By including ADUs in the Measure D allocations, ADUs will be incorporated into the City’s build-out assumptions pertaining to water supply and trip generation. It should be noted, however, that ADUs are not anticipated to add significant burden on resources, especially given the small demand. In calendar years 2016 and 2017, the City issued a total of six ADU permits. Even if the

113



Page 8 of 9

development of ADUs is encouraged and increased, as desired by City Council, their relative impact as compared to single-family homes and other development is likely to remain small.

Options: The Planning Commission may also consider other options for addressing ADUs with respect to Measure D.

Parking Requirements for ADUs. Generally speaking, State ADU Law permits cities to require one parking space per New Development ADU, provided that the requirement can be met with virtually any type of on-site parking space, including within setbacks or in tandem. However, State ADU Law also prohibits any parking requirements for two kinds of New Development ADUs: (a) ADUs that are located within one-half mile of public transit and (b) ADUs that are part of proposed single-family residences.2 State ADU Law does not define “public transit,” though HCD has commented that it should be interpreted to include, at a minimum, bus and other transit stops. HCD has also opined that cities cannot impose a “tighter headway” requirement, such as limiting it to bus stops that are served every 15 minutes during peak hours. A significant portion of the City falls within a half-mile of Samtrans stops (generally, along Highway One and through the downtown core). The Planning Commission should consider bringing the City’s parking requirements into conformance with State ADU Law. The City’s existing ordinance already requires one parking space per ADU and permits property owners to locate these spaces in setbacks or as tandem spaces. This requirement appears to strike a reasonable balance between ensuring ADU-related traffic is accommodated on-site and not unduly burdening ADU development. Exempting ADUs within one-half mile of Samtrans bus stops from on-site parking requirements would provide some landowners with more flexibility and conform the City’s ordinance to State ADU Law. Options: Although contrary to HCD guidance, the Planning Commission may want to consider interpreting “public transit” more narrowly, such that some or all Samtrans stops do not qualify. In conjunction, the City could exempt the downtown core from the parking requirement, as this area is generally the most pedestrian and transit friendly. The Planning Commission may also consider eliminating the parking requirement for historic homes, in order to reduce potential impacts caused by development of an additional parking spot on-site. The City’s parking code already acknowledges that historic status is a reasonable finding to support reduced parking requirements. Finally, the Planning Commission may consider limiting the number of tandem spaces to two or three cars total. The County has adopted a three car limitation.

2 Note that parking requirements also cannot be imposed on Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs.

114



Page 9 of 9

Summary. Many other considerations pertain to ADUs. The scope of this study session is intended to focus on key policy issues that will ensure the City properly balances compliance with State ADU Law, the City’s Housing Element policy, and the City’s LCP. Staff is researching several other relevant policy and regulations including the water district’s water meter requirement, the fire district’s plan review process, the interaction of ADU regulations and density bonus laws for duplex developments, and other matters. Following this study session, a draft ordinance will be prepared addressing the policy issues described in this report, as well as other items. City Staff will also meet with Coastal Commission Staff to receive their input. The Planning Commission, along with the community, will be provided ample time to consider the draft ordinance, which will eventually be brought before the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – State ADU Law and Current Half Moon Bay ADU Standards Attachment 2 – Half Moon Bay Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.33 – Second Dwelling Units Attachment 3 – Coastal Commission Guidance (April and November 2017) Attachment 4 – County of San Mateo Zoning Ordinance Chapter 22.5 – Second Units

115

ATTACHMENT 4

MEMORANDUM

For meeting of: April 24, 2018

To: Chair Hernandez and Planning Commission From: Jill Ekas, Director of Community Development Sara Clark, Deputy City Attorney TITLE: DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO CITY ORDINANCE REGULATING ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Consider community input and provide feedback on draft amendments to City ordinance regulating accessory dwelling units (ADUs), included as Attachment 1. Staff will incorporate this feedback, as well as feedback from the public and Coastal Commission staff, and bring a revised version of the ordinance back to the Commission for a formal recommendation. BACKGROUND: Background regarding the City’s existing code, state law regarding ADUs, and California Coastal Commission guidance is provided in the attached memorandum from March 13, 2018 (Attachment 2). On March 13, 2018, the Planning Commission provided policy direction regarding revisions to the City’s ADU ordinance. The Planning Commission provided specific feedback regarding Measure D, water meters, occupancy restrictions, zoning districts where ADUs should be permitted, unit size, coastal development permits (CDPs) and exemptions, parking, and the potential impacts caused by ADUs. DISCUSSION: Based on feedback from the Planning Commission and the public, a draft ordinance was prepared for early input from the Planning Commission (Attachment 1). The proposed draft would rescind the existing Chapter 18.33 in its entirety, replace it with a new Chapter 18.33, and make conforming amendments to other aspects of the City’s code. Where possible, the proposed draft has retained language from the existing Chapter 18.33.

Overall, these amendments are proposed for two purposes: 1) to better conform the City’s ADU ordinance to State ADU Law; and/or 2) to clarify or improve the current code and review process for the sake of reducing barriers to the production of affordable housing. As discussed in the March 13, 2018 memorandum, the proposed ordinance creates two categories of ADUs: (1) those that are “wholly within” an existing single-family residence or accessory structure (which are entitled to very streamlined review), and (2) those that involve new development,

116


April 24, 2018 Accessory Dwelling Unit First Draft Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting

Page 2 of 4

either as an attached or detached structure (on which the City can impose more restrictions, within limits established by state ADU law). This memorandum outlines some of the key features of the draft ordinance. Further information about these topics can be found in the March 13, 2018 memo. Coastal Commission Review Based on feedback from the Planning Commission, the draft ordinance attempts to streamline Coastal Act review to the extent permitted by law. Specifically, a “wholly within” ADU would typically be treated as not constituting development, and would not require a CDP. Similarly, a “new development” ADU that is contained within or attached to an existing single-family residence or structure would typically qualify for a CDP exemption. Finally, any other ADU (such as new, detached ADUs) would qualify for an administrative CDP, which could be approved by the Community Development Director after more limited public notice. Measure D Certificates. The draft ordinance clarifies that ADUs must obtain a Measure D certificate as part of the approval process. Staff has reviewed the history of Measure D and the City’s prior efforts to address accessory dwelling units in Measure D, and believes that imposing Measure D’s requirements on ADUs is consistent with the initiative, the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), prior Coastal Commission guidance, and state law. To ensure that Measure D certificates do not unduly burden the development of ADUs, the draft ordinance eliminates Measure D related fees for ADU applications, and adjusts the allocation of points to ensure that ADU proposals can receive 5 points under “Design for Diverse Households.” Zoning Districts Where ADUs Are Permitted. The draft ordinance broadly allows ADUs throughout the City, in nearly all districts where single-family homes can be found (R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, C-G, OS-R, U-R, PUD, or PUD-X). It is important to remember that in all districts, only one ADU is permitted per lot, and ADUs are only permitted if there is a proposed or existing single-family residence. Maximum Size for New Development ADUs. The draft ordinance establishes a maximum size for new development ADUs of 800 square feet. The size of an individual ADU could be further limited by FAR, setback, or height requirements. The existing code currently limits ADUs to 700 square feet and thus this represents a modest increase in the allowable size of ADUs. Occupancy Requirements for ADUs.

117



Page 3 of 4

Based on feedback from community members, the draft ordinance does not impose any owner occupancy restrictions on lots that contain ADUs. It further allows property owners to remove any recorded deed restrictions related to owner occupancy imposed by the City’s existing code. The draft ordinance prohibits use of ADUs for short-term rentals in order to ensure that ADUs can be used to meet the City’s long-term housing needs. Parking Requirements for ADUs. As discussed in the March 13, 2018 memorandum, state law generally prohibits cities from imposing parking requirements on ADUs that are located within ½ mile of public transit. This requirement would effectively prohibit the city from imposing parking requirements on most ADUs. However, state ADU law affirms that it does not apply to “in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act.” Gov’t Code § 65852.2(j). This provision indicates that the City may deviate from state law to protect Coastal Act Resources. Staff has attempted to balance the requirements of state ADU law with the City’s concern that inadequate parking may impede coastal access within the City. The draft ordinance requires ADUs to provide a single parking space, with the following salient exceptions1: (1) ADUs in all areas east of Highway One (where beach access is less of a concern); (2) ADUs on properties with historic structures; (3) ADUs that are proposed as part of a new residence; and (4) where the Community Development Director has granted a parking exception. Duplex and Triplex Lots. While state ADU law does not require the City to permit ADUs on lots with duplex or triplex development, the draft ordinance proposes to allow such ADUs if they qualify as a very low or low-income unit. Staff is also considering changes to the Residential Density Bonus Chapter to permit developers to build an ADU as a density bonus unit. These changes are not currently included in the draft ordinance, but would be presented as part of the Planning Commission’s final review of the ordinance. Summary. Following this Planning Commission meeting, the draft ordinance will be revised to address input from the Planning Commission and the public. City Staff will also meet with Coastal Commission Staff to receive their input. The revised ordinance will be brought back to the Planning Commission for a formal hearing and recommendation. Additional community input will also be encouraged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1 Other exceptions are included in the ordinance to conform to state ADU law but are generally inapplicable in the City.

118



Page 4 of 4

Attachment 1 – Draft revisions to Half Moon Bay Zoning Ordinance Attachment 2 – March 13, 2018 Staff Report and Attachments from the ADU Study Session

119

ATTACHMENT 5



18.33.010 Purpose.




dwelling;





Sections 30000-30900).


A. Review of Accessory Dwelling Unit Applications. Accessory dwelling unit

applications shall be submitted to and processed by the community development director

as follows:





Chapter 18.20, as further described provided below.











existing single-family dwelling unit or accessory structure (except for an

existing guest house) and that does not expand the floor area, height, or

bulk of the existing unit or structure by more than ten percent is exempt

from the requirement to secure approval of a coastal development permit

pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30610(a) or, unless for

existing guest houses Section 30610(b). This exemption shall not be

120

ATTACHMENT 5: Redlines of April 24, 2018 draft ordinance

Page 2 of 32

granted if one or more of the criteria in Subchapter 7, Title 14, Section

13250(b) or, for existing guest houses Section 13253(b), of the California

Code of Regulations, as may be amended from time to time, is met. If any

criteria is met, the applicant shall obtain a coastal development permit

pursuant to Chapter 18.20 rather than an administrative coastal

development permit pursuant to this Section.

c. An accessory dwelling unit that is contained within or attached to an

existing guest house is exempt from the requirement to secure approval of

a coastal development permit pursuant to Public Resources Code Section

30610(b), unless one or more of the criteria specified in Subchapter 7,

Title 14, Section 13253(b) of the California Code of Regulations, as may

be amended from time to time, is met.

dc. Any other accessory dwelling unit shall obtain an administrative

coastal development permit, as defined in Public Resources Code section

Section 30624. Such an administrative coastal development permit shall

be processed as a “local coastal development permit” per Chapter 18.20

except:


for the an administrative coastal development permitspermit;


newspaper; and







effect and the application shall be processed according to Chapter

18.20; andapplicant shall instead obtain a coastal development





ivd. No hearing shall be required for the issuance of the administrative


development permit pursuant to Chapter 18.20, or any appeal for an any




121


Page 3 of 32





application.


















Dwelling Units.



restrictions:


R, or U-R, PUD, or PUD-X zoning district or in the Half Moon Bay Country Club

(Ocean Colony) PUD, Matteucci (Jenna Lane) PUD, or Dykstra Ranch (Pacific Ridge)

PUD-X zoning district.






family dwelling.

122


Page 4 of 32
























A. The unit is located in an R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, C-G, OS-R, U-R, PUD, or or

U-R zoning district or in the Half Moon Bay Country Club (Ocean Colony) PUD,









area ratio, building envelope, payment of any applicable feesfee, and building code






distance between buildings on the same lot must be a minimum of six feet. 123


Page 5 of 32









3. Building Height.

a. A one-story detached accessory dwelling unit shall be no more than

thirteen feet in height.

b. A one-and-one-half- to two-story detached accessory dwelling shall be no

more than twenty-two feet in height.

43. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit required by the applicable district

shall not apply, provided the minimum building site requirements shall be met.



a. The If the accessory dwelling unit is attached to a single-family dwelling

or visible from any public sidewalk or right-of-way, the accessory dwelling

unit shall use similar exterior siding materials, colors, window types, door

and window trims, roofing materials, and roof pitch as the single-family

dwelling.

b. For accessory dwelling units located outside the standard side and rear

yard setbacks for the district, the The entrance to the accessory dwelling unit

shall face the interior of the lot unless the accessory dwelling unit is directly

accessible from an alley or a public street.



only.











124


Page 6 of 32






defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, as may be

amended from time to time.

H. Parking.

H1. A minimum of one off-street parking space for the accessory dwelling unit, in

addition to the spaces required for the single-family dwelling, shall be provided.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, the required parking space


setbacks, and may have a permeable, all-weather surface. This parking

requirement shall not apply: for units within the following portions of

neighborhood areas, as depicted on Map __:



Highway 1 to the east.












these areas.


1. To a unit that is located east of Highway One;

2. To a unit that is located within an architecturally and historically

significant historic district or a. For a unit that is on the same lot as a

historic property listed on or eligible for listing on either the National

Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical

Resources;

3. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of

the unit;

125


Page 7 of 32

4. Where the unit b. For a unit that is part of a proposed primary residence;

5. To a unit that is located within one block of the designated pick-up or drop-off

location of a car-share vehicle, where such vehicle is owned by a car-sharing

company;

6. Where c. When a parking exception has been granted in accordance

with Section 18.36.080.













Section 18.33.050 Standards for New Development Accessory Dwelling Units

(Multifamily).







One New Development Accessory Dwelling Unit may be proposed for a lot that contains an

existing or proposed duplex or triplex development provided that:

A. The proposal is processed in accordance with Section 18.33.020;

B. The proposal meets all requirements of Section 18.33.040, except subsection (B) and

18.33.080; and

C. The accessory dwelling unit qualifies as a very low or low income unit.

Section 18.33.060 18.33.050 Combination Proposals. .

A. When an accessory dwelling unit is proposed in conjunction with—but it can be constructed

independent of—another with another proposal for which city approval is required under this

code, the following options apply:

126


Page 8 of 32

1A. The applicant is encouraged to submit the accessory dwelling unit and other



B. The applicant may elect to have the city process the accessory dwelling unit separate

from and concurrently with the other proposal(s). If the applicant makes this election, the

streamlining described in this Chapter would apply to the accessory dwelling unit and the

city’s otherwise applicable regulations would apply to the other proposal(s). Because

accessory dwelling units are processed in a streamlined fashion by virtue of their

construction on a lot with a single-family dwelling, occupancy of a new accessory

dwelling unit will be legal only if a single-family dwelling is present on the same

lot.separately

2. The applicant may elect to submit the accessory dwelling unit and other

proposal(s) for combined review by the city. If the applicant makes this election,

he or she voluntarily foregoes the regulations described in this Chapter and the

city’s otherwise applicable regulations apply.

B. When an accessory dwelling unit is proposed in conjunction with—and it cannot be

constructed independent of—another proposal for which city approval is required under

this code, the following options apply:

1. The applicant may elect to have the city process the accessory dwelling unit separate


procedures described in this Chapter Section 18.33.020 would apply to the accessory

dwelling unit proposal after the applicant obtains city approval for the other proposal(s)

on which accessory dwelling unit construction depends.Because accessory dwelling units

are processed in a streamlined fashion by virtue of their construction on a lot with a

single-family dwelling, occupancy of a new accessory dwelling unit will be legal only if

a single-family dwelling is present on the same lot.

2. The applicant may elect to submit the accessory dwelling unit and other

proposal(s) for combined review by the city. If the applicant makes this election,

he or she voluntarily foregoes the regulations described in this Chapter and the

city’s otherwise applicable regulations apply.

18.33.070 18.33.060 Converted Parking.








127


Page 9 of 32

18.33.080 18.33.070 Conformance with Certified Local Coastal Program.


Coastal Program, the zoning code and , this Chapter , and any existing coastal development

permit, including that the proposed accessory dwelling unit will not adversely impact any coastal







Coastal Program.







18.33.090 18.33.080 Declaration of Restrictions.



deed restriction related to owner occupancy previously recorded to copy comply with prior

versions of this Chapter shall be void and unenforceable, although the City retains the right and

ability to enforce any violations of this code. The owner of any property subject to a deed

restriction or declaration of restrictions related to owner occupancy previously recorded to

comply with prior versions of this Chapter may record an appropriate document rescinding the

prior deed restriction or declaration of restrictions.

18.33.100 18.33.090 Incentives.


A. Affordability Requirements for Fee DeferralWaiver. Accessory dwelling units

proposed to be rented at rents affordable to very low or low income households, as

established by the city, for at least five years may request waiver of all city fees, subject

to the sole discretion and approval of the city.City Council. The city and applicant shall

enter into an affordable housing agreement governing the accessory dwelling unit and

that agreement shall be recorded against the property.

128


Page 10 of 32








parking area.

129


Page 11 of 32

18.02.040 Definitions.

…

“Accessory building” or “accessory structure” means a detached subordinate building, the uses

of which are incidental to a permitted principal use conducted within the main or principal

structure on a parcel. An accessory building or use is not permitted without a permitted use on

the property. An accessory dwelling unit is not considered an accessory building.

Accessory Dwelling Unit. See “second dwelling unit.”An attached or a detached residential

dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons on the

same parcel as a single-family dwelling. It shall include permanent provisions for living,

sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:

(1) an efficiency unit, as defined in Health and Safety Code § 17958.1 and (2) a manufactured

home, as defined in Health and Safety Code § 18007.

…

…

Dwelling, Single-Family. “Single-family dwelling” means a building containing one dwelling

unit, but does not include an accessory dwelling unit.

…

“Guest house” or “accessory living quarters” means living quarters within a main or an accessory

building for the sole purpose of providing for persons employed on the premises, or for

temporary use by guests of the occupants of the premises. Kitchens are not permitted within

guest houses. “Guest house” does not include “secondaccessory dwelling unit” as defined in this

title.

…

…

130


Page 12 of 32

18.03.030 Residential use classifications.

A. Accessory or Second Dwelling Unit. An attached or detached residential dwelling unit as

defined in this title.

…

G. Single-Family Residential. Buildings containing one dwelling unit located on a single lot.

This classification includes manufactured homes and lots containing a primary dwelling unit and

an accessory dwelling unit.

…

131


Page 13 of 32

18.03.070 Accessory use classifications.

A. Accessory Uses and Structures. Uses and structures that are incidental to the principal

permitted or conditionally permitted use or structure on a site and are customarily found on the

same site. This classification includes detached or attached garages, guest houses, caretaker’s

quarters and home occupations and excludes accessory dwelling units.

B. Accessory or Second Dwelling Unit. An attached or detached dwelling unit as defined in

Section 18.02.040.

132


Page 14 of 32

18.06.020 Schedule of uses.

…

Table A-4

SCHEDULE OF ACCESSORY USES

Accessory Uses

Allowed by

Zoning

With a

Use Permit

Additional

Regulations

SecondAccessory dwelling

units

All R

…

133


Page 15 of 32

18.06.050 Exceptions to development standards.

…

E. Development Standards for Exceptional, Substandard and Severely Substandard Lots. This

section sets forth standards for development on substandard or severely substandard lots, which

are defined in the zoning code definitions in Section 18.02.040.

1. Exceptional lots shall be subject to the R-1 development standards set forth in Table B

of this chapter, unless otherwise specified.

2. Development on substandard or severely substandard lots, other than exceptional lots,

shall meet all standards set forth in Tables E and F of this chapter, respectively, unless

otherwise specified. Project design review pursuant to Chapter 14.37 is required for all

development, including additions and accessory structures but not including any Wholly

Within Existing Development Accessory Dwelling Unit, as defined in Section 18.33.030,

on any substandard or severely substandard lot or building site except as provided in

subsection (E)(3) of this section.

3. Coastal Act Consistency. The exception to development standards for substandard,

severely substandard, and exceptional lots set forth in this subsection shall only be

applied in full conformity with coastal development permitting requirements pursuant to

Sections 30600 and 30610 of the Coastal Act and Title 14 Sections 13250, 13252, and

13253 of the California Code of Regulations and Sections 18.20.025 and 18.20.030 of the

zoning code.

…

134


Page 16 of 32


…

Table 18.07.020E

ACCESSORY USES

C-D Commercial downtown zoning district

C-R Commercial residential zoning district



circumstances

Key Accessory Uses

C-D

Zoning

C-R

Zoning


E-2 Accessory Dwelling Unit UPOK UPOK


…

135


Page 17 of 32


The following use categories and any additional regulations associated with an identified use are

to be taken together with the permit requirements listed for each use classification in Tables

18.07.020A through E. These regulations shall apply to both permitted uses and for uses which

are only allowed upon approval of a use permit by the planning commission.

…


…

136


Page 18 of 32


…



…

137


Page 19 of 32


…

Table 18.08.020E

ACCESSORY USES

C-VS Visitor-serving commercial zoning district

C-G General commercial zoning district



circumstances

Key Accessory Uses

C-VS

Zoning

C-G

Zoning


E-2 Accessory Dwelling Unit OK OK


…

138


Page 20 of 32


…


…

139


Page 21 of 32


…



…

140


Page 22 of 32

18.11.015 Permitted uses in OSR and UR districts.

…

Table 18.11.015

SCHEDULE OF USES IN OSR AND UR DISTRICTS

Key Land Use

Allowed by

Zoning

Use Permit

Required

Additional

Regulations

1 Agricultural:

a • Open Field

Agriculture UR, OSR A-1

b • Retail Sales UR, OSR A-2

c • Livestock OSR A-3

2 Residential:

a • Single-Family UR B-1

b • Single-Family OSR B-2

c • Employee Housing UR B-3

d • Accessory Dwelling Unit UR, OSR B-4

3 Public or Quasi-Public:

a • Park or Recreation UR C-1

b • Campground UR C-2

c • Utility, Minor UR, OSR C-3

d • Equestrian Center UR C-4

4 Temporary:

a • Animal Show or Rodeo UR D-1

…

141


Page 23 of 32

18.11.020 OSR and UR district use regulations.

…

B. Residential.

B-1 Single-Family. In the (UR) urban reserve district, one dwelling unit is permitted for

the owner, manager or operator of the premises, subject to the approval of a use permit in

each case.

B-2 Single-Family. In the (OSR) open space reserve district, one dwelling is permitted on

each fifty acres of land, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case.

B-3 Employee Housing. In the (UR) urban reserve district residential structures are

permitted as housing for those persons employed on the premises, subject to the approval

of a use permit in each case.

B-4 Accessory Dwelling Unit. In the (UR) urban reserve and (OSR) open space reserve

districts, one accessory dwelling units that comply unit is permitted per lot, provided that

the lot already contains a single-family dwelling (notwithstanding contrary requirements

in Chapter 18.33) and the accessory dwelling unit otherwise complies with the

regulations contained in this title are permitted..

…

142


Page 24 of 32

18.11.040 Nonconforming Residential structures on nonconforming lots and uses.

Existing nonconforming residential structures and uses within lands designated open space

reserve and urban reserve may be maintained, repaired, and/or remodeled in accordance with all

applicable development standards such as minimum lot size and width, setbacks, building height,

and lot coverage, and floor area ratio set forth in this title for the R-1 district. The procedures

specified therein for use permits, exceptions and variances shall be followed as appropriate.

On any open space reserve or urban reserve lot with an existing residential structure that does not

meet the minimum lot area standards in Table 18.11.025, a residential structure may be enlarged,

extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered or a new residential structure may be added if:

A. The structure otherwise complies with Chapter 18.11 or does not exacerbate any existing

nonconformity; and

B. The gross floor area is limited to 3,750 square feet or a floor area ratio of 0.5, whichever is

less.

The provisions of this section control over any conflicting provisions in Chapter 18.25.

143


Page 25 of 32

…


The coastal development permitting requirements in Section 18.20.025 and exemptions herein

shall be carried out in full conformity with Sections 30600 and 30610 of the Coastal Act and

Title 14, Sections 13250, 13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations. Any conflicts

between provisions in the zoning code and either the Coastal Act or Title 14, Sections 13250,

13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations shall be resolved in favor of the Coastal

Act or Title 14, Sections 13250, 13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations. The

following categories of projects are exempt from the requirement to secure approval of a coastal

development permit:

. . .

C. Miscellaneous Activities and Development. The following activities and development

projects are exempted:

. . .

8. Accessory Dwelling Units.


existing single-family dwelling unit or accessory structure (except for an

existing guest house), unless one or more of the criteria in Subchapter 7,

Title 14, Section 13250(b) of the California Code of Regulations, as may

be amended from time to time, is met.c. An accessory dwelling unit that is

contained within or attached to an existing guest house, unless and that

does not expand the floor area, height, or bulk of the existing unit or

structure by more than ten percent is exempt from the requirement to

secure approval of a coastal development permit pursuant to Public

Resources Code Section 30610(a) or, for existing guest houses Section

30610(b). This exemption shall not be granted if one or more of the

criteria specified in Subchapter 7, Title 14, Section 13250(b) or, for

existing guest houses Section 13253(b) , of the California Code of

Regulations, as may be amended from time to time, is met.

…

. . .

144


Page 26 of 32

D. Record of Exemptions. The community development director shall maintain a record

of all permits issued for development within the coastal zone that were exempted from

the requirements of the coastal development permit process. This record shall be

available for review by members of the public and the Coastal Commission. The record

of exemption shall include the name of the applicant, the location of the project, and a

brief description of the project. The community development director shall also provide

notification to the Coastal Commission of the record of exemption within 30 days.

145


Page 27 of 32

18.36.040 Off-street parking facilities--Required number of parking spaces, size

and access standards, and parking for disabled individuals.

…

TABLE A: NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES

Type of Use Number of Required Parking Spaces

Dwellings (single-family) Two garage spaces per dwelling unit. Tandem parking

configurations shall be prohibited except on substandard and

severely substandard lots.

Apartments,

condominiums

Two garage spaces per dwelling unit, plus one guest space for each

five units, with a minimum of one guest space.

In-law units (second

dwelling units)Accessory

dwelling units

As required by Chapter 18.33.One off-street parking space in

addition to the two enclosed spaces required for the single-family

residence on the same site. Planning commission may waive

requirement under exceptional circumstances.

…

146


Page 28 of 32

18.36.080 Parking exceptions.

In cases of practical difficulties and unusual hardship, exceptions to the parking requirements or

development standards set forth in this chapter may be granted. Application for a parking

exception shall be made and an exception may be approved under the following procedures:

A. An application for a parking exception shall be initiated on a form provided by the

planningcommunity development department. An application for a parking exception shall be

submitted concurrently with any other required discretionary permit. The application shall

include a fee set by resolution of the city council. At the time a complete application for a

parking exception is made, the community development director shall determine the applicable

review procedure as provided for herein.

1. The community development director shall review an application for parking exception

if no discretionary permit is being sought in addition to the parking exception or if the

only discretionary permit being sought is an administrative coastal development permit

pursuant to Section 18.33.020. The community development director shall make written

finding of facts showing whether the four requirements in subsection B of this section

have been established with respect to the land, building or use for which the parking

exception is sought, and make a determination as to the granting or denial of the

application for a parking exception based upon those findings.

2. The planning commission shall review an application for parking exception if a

discretionary permit(s) is being sought in addition to the parking exception, at the same

public hearing held for the associated discretionary permit and in accordance with

subsections C through F of this section.

…

147


Page 29 of 32

18.42.040 Amount and calculation of density bonus.

A project that complies with the eligibility requirements of Section 18.42.030 shall be entitled to

a density bonus. The applicant shall elect whether the density bonus shall be awarded on the

basis of subsection (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of this section. The applicant may request a

smaller density bonus.

…

H. Accessory Dwelling Units. If desired by the applicant, the density bonus may be used

to construct one accessory dwelling unit per lot. The unit must comply with Chapter

18.33, except that the accessory dwelling unit may be constructed on a lot that does not

contain an existing or proposed single-family dwelling.

148


Page 30 of 32


The limitations on residential dwelling units imposed by this chapter shall not apply to:

A. Replacements of existing dwelling units on a one-for-one basis.

B. Density bonuses for the provision of low- and moderate-income housing as required by state

law.

C. Any second dwelling unit as defined in Chapter 18.33 or the California Government Code.

149


Page 31 of 32

17.06.100 Residential development projects--Defined.

The procedures specified in this chapter shall apply to any new residential development within

any zoning district on a legally existing lot or contiguous lots under single ownership.

Residential development projects shall include any detached single-family dwelling unit, any

attached single-family dwelling units consisting of duplex or triplex development, or any

multiple-family development consisting of four or more dwelling units, or any accessory

dwelling unit.

150


Page 32 of 32

17.06.120 Distribution of residential dwelling unit allocations.

…

I. Points shall be allocated according to the community design criteria in this subsection which

incorporate the concepts and principles of the “Build It Green” program and will rely on a

certified GreenPointRater at the time that points are determined.

…

5. Design for Diverse Households (maximum of twenty points).

a. At least one zero-step entrance provided in home: five points;

b. All main floor interior doors and passageways have a minimum thirty-two-inch

clear passage space: five points;

c. At least one half-bath is located on the ground floor with blocking in walls for

grab bars: five points;

d. Fully functional independent second unit is providedProject is or includes an

accessory dwelling unit: five points.

…

151

F7a

Prepared July 7, 2014 for July 11, 2014 Hearing

To: Commissioners and Interested Persons

From: Nancy Cave, District Manager Stephanie Rexing, Coastal Planner

Subject: STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM for F7a City of Half Moon Bay LCP Amendment Number 1-11

The purpose of this addendum is to modify the staff report for the above-referenced item. Staff worked closely with the City of Half Moon Bay to address their concerns leading up to the time that the staff report was distributed, and has continued to work closely with the City since that time in an effort to narrow remaining concerns. This addendum makes a minor change to the staff recommendation designed to clarify one of the suggested modifications regarding legal lot requirements. Specifically, the City was concerned that the current suggested modification language would confuse the requirements for lots legally created prior to coastal permitting requirements (per Proposition 20 and the Coastal Act). The addendum change makes it explicit that lots that were legally created prior to coastal permitting requirements do not require a CDP to be considered legal (see number 1 below). Thus, the change does not alter the staff recommendation, but rather only provides additional clarity to help address the City’s concern. In addition, the City is no longer requesting changes to the suggested modifications beyond that change, and so certain sections of the staff report’s findings that describe the City’s position must be deleted and/or changed to reflect the fact that the City is now in agreement with the staff recommendation and the suggested modifications (see numbers 2 through 4 below). Thus, the staff report is modified as shown below (unless otherwise noted, text in underline format indicates text to be added and text in strikethrough format indicates text to be deleted). 1. Modify the last sentence in Suggested Modification 1 on staff report page 4 as follows

(where text in bold double underline format indicates text to be added):

… In addition, a lot may only be considered exceptional if the lot was legally created prior or pursuant to the coastal development permit requirements of the Coastal Act and its predecessor statute.

2. Modify the text starting at the bottom of staff report page 15 as follows:

Discussions with City staff have suggested that a lot can be considered legally created if

ATTACHMENT 6: Excerpts from July 2014 Coastal Commission Staff Report

Page 1 of 6

152

scollier

Text Box

Click here to go to original staff report

windu

Highlight

created by “operation of law,” independent of the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Thus, the City opposes the suggested strikeout of “operation of law” in Suggested Modification 1 and requests that it be added back into the amendment for certification. The City also requests that the requirement that a lot be proven legal for the purposes of the Coastal Act (either by proof of a coastal development permit or proof that none was required) be removed from Suggested Modification 1. The City feels that this requirement inserts a legal conclusion into the code definition of exceptional lots. It is unclear from discussions with the City how a lot can be found legal outside of the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act “by operation of law”. Regardless, requirements that lots be found legally created for purposes of the Coastal Act are independently required in order to ensure that less stringent standards are not certified for lots that have not been legally created pursuant to the CDP requirements of the Coastal Act.

3. Modify the text starting at the second full paragraph on staff report page 19 as follows: The City has suggested that in Suggested Modifications 2 and 7 the word “enumerated” be changed to “identified,” in order to avoid the need for a numerical analysis when proposing to reallocate water and sewer infrastructure reserved for priority uses to low income housing. However, such a numerical analysis is required in the absence of an LUP amendment revising the reservations for priority uses that are clearly set forth in the LUP. The City’s suggested change would result in the IP being inconsistent with the priority water allocation that is clearly laid out in the LUP. Absent an LUP amendment to revise the numerical allocations, such a change is inconsistent with the LUP and cannot be effectuated through an implementation plan amendment. Though a change from “enumerated” to “identified” would seem to be a change in name only, failure to reserve the allocations for priority uses set forth in the LUP in order to reallocate those reservations to low income housing would make the IP inconsistent with the LUP. In addition to requesting the “enumerated” to “identified” change, the City requested that the language that references Government Code 65589.7 be undeleted from Suggested Modifications 2 and 7. Though California Government Code Section 65589.7 does require that agencies or entities providing water or sewer services grant a priority to developments that include affordable to lower income households, that provision applies to water and sewer agencies and does not prevent either the Commission or local government entities from adopting Local Coastal Programs consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act. Subsection (e) of Government Code section 65589.7 expressly states that it is intended to neither enlarge nor diminish the authority of a city to adopt a housing element. Therefore, the Mmodifications 2 and 7 adopted herein are consistent with Government Code sections 65589.7 and the Coastal Act. In summary, the LCP (in implementing the Coastal Act) demands that uses designated priority under the LUP be given priority allocations for infrastructure services such as sewer and water. The LCP’s LUP contains numerous policies that mandate the provision of infrastructure supplies to serve Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program priority uses, and includes specific reference to reserving capacity for enumerated priority uses.


Page 2 of 6

153

4. Modify the text starting at the last paragraph on staff report page 26 as follows: The City has proposed that the provision exempting second dwelling units from residential growth limitations be added back in to the proposed amendments in order to comply with state housing law as governed by Government Code 65852.2. Though California Government Code Section 65852.2 does state that second dwelling units “shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy or program to limit residential growth,” however, that provision governs local ordinances rather than local or state government entities implementing state law. When implementing the Coastal Act, a city or county is not acting under its “police power” authority but rather under authority delegated to it by the state. LCP provisions regulating development activities within the coastal zone such as the provision found in Half Moon Bay’s LUP Policy 9.4 are an element of a statewide plan, and are not local in nature. Therefore, Suggested Modification 5 is consistent with Government Code sections 65852.2 because under the Coastal Act's legislative scheme, the LCP and the development permits issued by local agencies pursuant to the Coastal Act are not solely a matter of local law, but embody state policy. (Pratt v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 162 Cal. App.4th1068). Furthermore, subsection (j) of Government Code section 65852.2 governing second units expressly states “[N]othing in this section shall be construed to supercede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for second units.”


Page 3 of 6

154

windu

Highlight

LUP Section 9.4: Residential Growth Limitation. a) The number of dwelling units which the City may authorize each calendar year may not exceed the number of units which would result in a growth of one percent (1%) in the City's population as of January 1 of that year. In determining the number of permissible units, the City shall use the most recent US Census figures for Half Moon Bay to calculate the average number of persons per household. b) The number of dwelling units authorized each year under subsection (a) may be increased by fifty percent for additional dwelling units in the Downtown Area...e) The limitations in this Section shall not apply to replacement of existing dwelling units on a one-for-one basis; nor shall it apply to density bonuses for the provision of low and moderate income housing to the extent required by State law. LUP Policy 10-4: The City shall reserve public works capacity for land uses given priority by the Plan, in order to assure that all available public works capacity is not consumed by other development and control the rate of new development permitted in the city to avoid overloading of public works and services. LUP Policy 10-25: The City will support the use of Level of Service C as the desired level of service on Highways 1 and 92, except during the peak two-hour commuting period and the ten-day average peak recreational hour when Level of Service E will be acceptable.

Analysis of Proposed IP changes Consistent with state law, the proposed amendments would make second-dwelling units a principally permitted use in all residential “R” zoning districts. Actions to approve second dwelling units, as a result of the proposed amendments would require the administrative approval of a Coastal Development Permit and would not be subject to a public hearing. The CDP that is required in the amended second dwelling unit chapter would be part of the Planning Director’s review and approval process which would also require an administrative site and design permit and a building permit. However, the City’s proposed amendments also state that the development of second dwelling units would not be subject to residential growth limitations (Measure D) set forth in LCP Policy 9.4. Further, the required findings for second dwelling units in the proposed amendments would allow a second dwelling unit to be built without a finding that there are adequate services onsite, stating in amended Section 18.33.040.K, “The second dwelling unit can be accommodated with the existing water service and the existing sewer lateral.” Regarding the exception to Measure D being proposed for second units, Measure D was enacted and made a part of the certified LUP/LCP in order to account for constraints on road, water and sewer capacity in the City. Measure D’s reduction in growth was put in place to “ensure that residential growth (did) not outpace the development of public infrastructure and services” (see LCP Amendment HMB-MAJ-2-05 Parts A&B). The Measure D initiative and now the LUP only exempts certain types of development from the phased growth requirements, specifically, only replacement of existing dwelling units on a one-for-one basis and density bonuses (see LCP Amendment HMB-MAJ-2-05 Parts A&B). Exempting all second dwelling units from the


Page 4 of 6

155

windu

Highlight

windu

Highlight

residential growth limitations laid out in Section 9.4 of the LUP would allow second dwelling units to be built without that growth limitation check and increase the population in Half Moon Bay beyond the 1% limit chosen by the voters, inconsistent with policies in Section 9.4 of the LUP. The City’s proposed change would thus result in the IP being inconsistent with the growth allocation policies that are clearly laid out in the LUP. Absent an LUP amendment to address this discrepancy, this change is inconsistent with the LUP and cannot be effectuated through an implementation plan amendment. Finally, second dwelling units must remain subject to residential growth allocations to assure that the phased growth requirements in the City of Half Moon Bay apply to all new residential developments. As stated above, the City has water infrastructure constraints since increases in water supply must come from the Crystal Springs reservoir, an uncertain supply due to SFPUC’s authority to limit supply during times of drought. Further, as conditioned by the Commission, Crystal Springs water from the CCWD must first serve priority uses before allocating to any non-priority use (See A-1-HMB-99-20 and A-2-SMC-99-63 approved December 10, 2003). Further, recent traffic analyses performed for the purpose of the preparing the City’s General Plan Circulation Element demonstrate that many intersections (including the intersection Highways 1 and 92) operate at below LUP-designated acceptable levels of service (E and F). Therefore, Suggested Modification 5 is necessary to assure that the proposed amended IP chapter on second dwelling units remains consistent with the certified LUP’s requirements. Suggested Modification 5 allows second dwelling units as principally permitted uses in all R districts, but would not exempt second dwelling units from Measure D or any other policies that serves to limit residential growth. Modification 5 will assure that the growth allocation requirements of Measure D and Policy 9.4 of the LUP are complied with, even with respect to second dwelling units and will prevent the certification of an IP provision that is inconsistent with Policy 9.4, thereby assuring consistency between the IP and LUP portions of the City’s LCP. The City has proposed that the provision exempting second dwelling units from residential growth limitations be added back in to the proposed amendments in order to comply with state housing law as governed by Government Code 65852.2. Though California Government Code Section 65852.2 does state that second dwelling unit “shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy or program to limit residential growth,” that provision governs local ordinances rather than local or state government entities implementing state law. When implementing the Coastal Act, a city or county is not acting under its “police power” authority but rather under authority delegated to it by the state. LCP provisions regulating development activities within the coastal zone such as the provision found in Half Moon Bay’s LUP Policy 9.4 are an element of a statewide plan, and are not local in nature. Therefore, Suggested Modification 5 is consistent with Government Code sections 65852.2 because under the Coastal Act's legislative scheme, the LCP and the development permits issued by local agencies pursuant to the Coastal Act are not solely a matter of local law, but embody state policy. (Pratt v.


Page 5 of 6

156

windu

Highlight

windu

Highlight

windu

Highlight

California Coastal Commission (2008) 162 Cal. App.4th1068).1 Furthermore, subsection (j) of Government Code section 65852.2 governing second units expressly states “[N]othing in this section shall be construed to supercede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for second units.” Regarding the findings required for the approval of second units, although the proposed implementation plan amendment identifies several development standards applicable to all second units, it does not contain certain development standards necessary to ensure that all second units conform with and carry out all applicable policies of the certified LUP. Therefore, the proposed implementation plan would not conform with and carry out all applicable policies of the certified LCP. For example, allowing second dwelling units in all R districts only on a showing that the primary residence has adequate public works potentially creates a situation of over-allocation of infrastructure and services to non-priority residential uses. Not requiring a second dwelling unit to prove that there are adequate resources available onsite for it would be inconsistent with the policies in the LUP such as policy 10-4 that reserves public services for priority uses. Therefore, Suggested Modification 6 is necessary to assure that the proposed amended IP chapter on second dwelling units remains consistent with the certified LUP’s requirements. To ensure that all second unit development is consistent with the ESHA, new development, public access and visual resource policies of the LUP, the Commission attaches Suggested Modification 6 which inserts development standards that require all second units to not adversely affect: (a) public views; (b) wetland or ESHA; and (c) public access to and along the coast. In addition, second units must assure adequate water supply and wastewater treatment. Only as modified, does the proposed implementation plan, conform with and carry out the policies of the LUP protecting public services, public views, wetlands and ESHA and public access. In addition, the Commission attaches Suggested Modification 6 to make it clear that all residential second units must conform to these standards to be permitted. As modified above, the Commission finds the proposed IP amendment would be consistent with and be adequate to carry out the resource protection and adequate infrastructure policies of the City’s certified LUP. Residential Density Bonus Applicable Policies The City of Half Moon Bay LUP Policies 3-3, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9 and 7-1 require that new development shall be sited and designed to protect coastal resources of import including environmentally sensitive habitat areas, views to and along the ocean and coastal scenic resources and to assure that adequate public utility and service resources are available to the development. In addition, no new development shall be permitted in areas of hazard risks from

1 The Coastal Act specifically requires that local governments assume a regulatory responsibility that is in addition to their responsibilities under other state laws. In section 30005.5 of the Coastal Act, the Legislature recognized that it has given authority to local governments under section 30519 that would not otherwise be within the scope of the power of local governments. Section 30005.5 provides: Nothing in this division shall be construed to authorize any local government…to exercise any power it does not already have under the Constitution and the laws of this state or that is not specifically delegated pursuant to section 30519.


Page 6 of 6

157

windu

Highlight

windu

Highlight

ATTACHMENT 7



[Highlighted to show mandatory language from State ADU Statute]

18.33.010 Purpose.




dwelling;





Sections 30000-30900).


A. Accessory Dwelling Unit Applications. Accessory dwelling unit applications shall be

submitted to and processed by the community development director as follows:





Chapter 18.20, as provided below.
















158

ATTACHMENT 7: Proposed Chapter 18.33

Highlighted to indicate language required by the State Page 2 of 8




amended from time to time, is met. If any criteria is met, the applicant

shall obtain a coastal development permit pursuant to Chapter 18.20 rather

than an administrative coastal development permit pursuant to this

Section.

c. Any other accessory dwelling unit shall obtain an administrative coastal

development permit, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 30624.

Such an administrative coastal development permit shall be processed as a

“local coastal development permit” per Chapter 18.20 except:


for an administrative coastal development permit;


newspaper; and







effect and the applicant shall instead obtain a coastal development





d. No hearing shall be required for the issuance of the administrative


development permit pursuant to Chapter 18.20, or any appeal for any








application.

159




















Dwelling Units.



restrictions:


R, or U-R zoning district or in the Half Moon Bay Country Club (Ocean Colony) PUD,







family dwelling.







160




















A. The unit is located in an R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, C-G, OS-R, or U-R zoning

district or in the Half Moon Bay Country Club (Ocean Colony) PUD, Matteucci (Jenna

Lane) PUD, or Dykstra Ranch (Pacific Ridge) PUD-X zoning district.








area ratio, building envelope, payment of any applicable fee, and building code






distance between buildings on the same lot must be a minimum of six feet.





161







3. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit required by the applicable district shall

not apply, provided the minimum building site requirements shall be met.



a. If the accessory dwelling unit is attached to a single-family dwelling or

visible from any public sidewalk or right-of-way, the accessory dwelling unit

shall use similar exterior siding materials, colors, window types, door and

window trims, roofing materials, and roof pitch as the single-family

dwelling.

b. The entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall face the interior of the lot

unless the accessory dwelling unit is directly accessible from an alley or a

public street.



only.
















defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, as may be amended from time to

time.

H. Parking.

1. A minimum of one off-street parking space for the accessory dwelling unit, in

addition to the spaces required for the single-family dwelling, shall be provided 162



for units within the following portions of neighborhood areas, as depicted on Map

__:



Highway 1 to the east.












these areas.


a. For a unit that is on the same lot as a historic property listed on or

eligible for listing on either the National Register of Historic Places or the

California Register of Historical Resources;

b. For a unit that is part of a proposed primary residence;

c. When a parking exception has been granted in accordance with Section

18.36.080.















163







18.33.050 Combination Proposals.

When an accessory dwelling unit is proposed in conjunction with another proposal for which city

approval is required under this code, the following options apply:

A. The applicant is encouraged to submit the accessory dwelling unit and other



B. The applicant may elect to have the city process the accessory dwelling unit separately


procedures described in Section 18.33.020 would apply to the accessory dwelling unit

proposal after the applicant obtains city approval for the other proposal(s).

18.33.060 Converted Parking.








18.33.070 Conformance with Certified Local Coastal Program.


Coastal Program, the zoning code, this Chapter, and any existing coastal development permit,

including that the proposed accessory dwelling unit will not adversely impact any coastal







Coastal Program.



164







18.33.080 Declaration of Restrictions.



deed restriction related to owner occupancy previously recorded to comply with prior versions of

this Chapter shall be void and unenforceable, although the City retains the right and ability to

enforce any violations of this code. The owner of any property subject to a deed restriction or

declaration of restrictions related to owner occupancy previously recorded to comply with prior

versions of this Chapter may record an appropriate document rescinding the prior deed

restriction or declaration of restrictions.

18.33.090 Incentives.


A. Affordability Requirements for Fee Waiver. Accessory dwelling units proposed to be

rented at rents affordable to very low or low income households for at least five years

may request waiver of all city fees, subject to the sole discretion and approval of the City

Council. The city and applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement

governing the accessory dwelling unit and that agreement shall be recorded against the

property.








parking area.

165

1

Jill Ekas

From: Jill EkasSent: Monday, June 4, 2018 1:47 PMTo: 'Dan Bohnert'Cc: Scott PhillipsSubject: RE: Proposed ADU ordinance

Dear Mr. Bohnert: Thank you for submitting input regarding the draft ADU ordinance to be considered by the Planning Commission on June 12, 2018. Your comments will be provided to the Commission as part of their agenda packet. Any Planning Commission action will be forwarded to the City Council for final approval by the City. The ordinance is also subject to Coastal Commission consideration. Thus, there are multiple points along the way for you to submit your input and participate in the process. In consideration of your concern about neighbor notification, we would like to note that the draft ordinance does require administrative coastal development permits for many potential configurations of ADUs. If the draft ordinance is adopted, notice would still be provided to neighbors within a 300‐foot radius of the project site and a sign will be posted in the yard for ten days prior to action taken on any administrative coastal development permit for an ADU. Again, we appreciate you taking the time to review the draft ordinance and for sharing your feedback. Kind regards,

Jill Ekas Jill Ekas, AICP Director – Community Development Phone: 650‐726‐8264 [email protected] General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update Plan Half Moon Bay http://www.planhmb.org/ City of Half Moon Bay 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 www.hmbcity.com From: Dan Bohnert Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 5:11 AM To: Scott Phillips <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed ADU ordinance

ATTACHMENT 8: Written Correspondence

1

166

jille

Typewritten Text

2

HMB Planning Division, I would like to register my strong objection to adoption of the proposed ADU ordinance. The proposal does not take into consideration the impact on existing neighborhood population or vehicle density. In addition, the proposal does not provide any means for existing homeowner notification or protest of proposed ADU’s in their vicinity. Existing homeowners should not be subjected to this unilateral building code change without knowledge, review and an opportunity for protest. This proposal is a misguided approach to increasing housing stock in Half Moon Bay. If the City/Planning Division believe affordable housing is a requirement, single unit/multi‐unit/affordable development permits should be increased dramatically through the existing processes. Daniel J. Bohnert 370 St. Andrews Lane HMB Please let me know if there is some other means of registering my complaint. I cannot attend the upcoming meeting.

ATTACHMENT 8: Written Correspondence

2

167

jille

Typewritten Text

PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HALF MOON …...Motion Carried: 3-0 1.B Mitigated Negative Declaration, Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit and Architectural Review for a new residence

Documents