Please let me know if I can assist you in any way in completing action on this LCP amendment, or if you have any questions. We appreciate the City’s close coordination and collaboration on this LCP amendment.
Sincerely,
Kiana Ford
Coastal Planner
Central Coast District Office
Enclosure (Via Email): Adopted Staff Report with Suggested Modifications 901
Item 8 C.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
[email protected]
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
Th13a
Prepared April 19, 2024 for May 9, 2024 Hearing
To: Commissioners and Interested Persons
From: Kevin Kahn, Central Coast District Manager
Rainey Graeven, Central Coast District Supervisor
Kiana Ford, Coastal Planner
Subject: City of Capitola LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Site Redesignation)
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Capitola is proposing to make changes to its Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Designation Map, which is a component of the LCP’s Land Use Plan (LUP), as well as the LCP’s Zoning Code Map and portions of the Zoning Code text, which are components of the LCP’s Implementation Plan (IP), in relation to the Monarch Cove Inn, formerly known as the El Salto Resort. The Monarch Cove Inn site (of which there remain three parcels) is currently zoned VS (Visitor-Serving) with a corresponding visitor-serving land use designation and the City-proposed amendment would convert the entire site to be zoned R-1 (single-family residential) with a visitor-serving (VS) overlay and a corresponding single-family residential land use designation. In other words, the amendment seeks to facilitate the conversion of the site’s existing overnight accommodations to residential uses.
The Monarch Cove Inn site is located at the downcoast end of the City’s Depot Hill area, itself just downcoast from Capitola Village, and it sits atop 80-foot-tall coastal bluffs overlooking Monterey Bay. The project site is the last visitor-serving overnight accommodation in the area, and it dates back to the late 1800s when it was used as a summer retreat for English families. The property went through various changes over the decades, including diminishing in size as sections were sold off or lost to fires, but it has generally remained in its current state since the current owners acquired the property in 1989. The site consists of a 11-room bed and breakfast inn, comprised of a 9-room Victorian house, two separate stand-alone cottages with one-bedroom suites, an outdoor deck area (used for weddings, etc.), office and storage buildings, two small parking lots, a public walking trail (that winds through the property and along the coastal bluff), and open space areas. The property has a long history of operating as overnight accommodations, both before and since adoption of the Coastal Act, and offers a unique visitor-serving experience with sweeping views of the Monterey Bay. However, in recent years, the financial feasibility of operating the bed and breakfast at the site has been called into question (and several attempts at major development upgrades have 902
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
been met with neighborhood opposition) and the owners have sought to convert the entire site to residential uses.
The City sought to change both the land use and zoning designations at the site to better facilitate residential uses when the City’s IP underwent a comprehensive update in 2021. However, Commission staff recommended the Commission not certify such designation changes at that time, as doing so would be inconsistent with applicable Coastal Act provisions that prioritize public recreational access and visitor-serving accommodation uses, including specifically oceanfront properties such as this one.
Such a conversion would result in the loss of an exceptionally unique offering that is open and available to the general public for overnight accommodations use. At that time, Commissioners were interested in understanding whether a different balancing between visitor-serving overnight accommodations uses and residential uses could be identified for the Monarch Cove Inn site, one that didn’t completely change the site to residential uses, and thus the Monarch Cove Inn provisions were removed from the Commission’s amendment approval, and the Commission directed staff to work with the City and the property owners to come up with other alternative solutions.
And while the City’s proposed amendment is essentially a redo of that which was proposed in 2021, all parties have worked together since the City’s submittal to craft an amendment that more appropriately balances visitor-serving and residential needs given the unique context of this site. The site is large, comprised of some 52,000 square feet spread across three separate parcels, with the majority of the visitor-serving components on the seaward parcel. Thus, in analyzing this unique site holistically, it is apparent that the majority of coastal resources and visitor-serving amenities are contained on the seaward-most parcel, including sweeping views of the sea, public walking trails (including to the monarch butterfly grove along the downcoast side of the property), and the overnight accommodations (mostly contained in the large Victorianera house). In contrast, the most landward parcel mainly contains storage and support services (such as office space) for the Inn, and the middle parcel contains the only ingress/egress to the site and provides parking spaces for both overnight and day-use visitors, and thus provides an important connection point to access the visitor-serving resources on the site. While additional overnight accommodation units and the Inn’s storage/office are critical to support the Inn itself and ongoing visitor-serving use of the seaward-most parcel, the storage and office space can likely be reimagined and reconfigured onto the seaward parcel.
Staff is therefore recommending a number of modifications to the proposed amendment to preserve the seaward parcel and a portion of the middle parcel under a visitor-serving zoning designation with a corresponding visitor-serving land-use designation, while converting the landward parcel and a portion of the middle parcel to a residential zoning/land-use designation with a visitor-serving overlay. This change is approvable in that it appropriately provides for a mix of uses, including additional residential uses on the landward property at a similar scale and character to the nearby residences, but also importantly protecting the numerous visitor-serving resources for the public on the seaward property. Suggested modifications are thus included to effectuate this mix, including with policy language that also protects the site’s trail connections, ingress/egress, and overall compatibility between residential and visitor-serving uses at 903
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
the site and nearby neighborhood. Importantly, and based on a thoughtful collaboration, City staff and the Monarch Cove Inn property owners are in agreement with and amenable to such modifications.
In conclusion, staff thanks the City and property owners for helping craft a mutually agreeable amendment that respects the Coastal Act and LUP, and can provide some finality to the land use questions at this site, including providing for the residential uses the owners seek and the visitor-serving uses the Coastal Act and LUP protect for the visiting public. With the suggested modifications, the LUP would conform to the Coastal Act and the IP would be consistent with and adequate to carry out the LUP, which are, respectively, the standards of review. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Commission approve the amendment with the identified suggested modifications. The required motions and resolutions are found on pages 5-6 below.
Staff Note: LCP Amendment Action Deadline
This proposed LCP amendment was filed as complete on March 20, 2024. The proposed amendment affects both the LUP and IP components of the LCP, and the 90- working-day action deadline is July 29, 2024. Thus, unless the Commission extends the action deadline (it may be extended by up to one year), the Commission has until July 29, 2024 to take a final action on this LCP amendment.
Therefore, if the Commission fails to take a final action in this case (e.g., if the Commission instead chooses to postpone/continue the LCP amendment consideration), then staff recommends that, as part of such non-final action, the Commission extend the deadline for final Commission action on the proposed amendment by one year. To do so, staff recommends a YES vote on the motion below. Passage of the motion will result in a new deadline for final Commission action on the proposed LCP amendment. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.
Alternative Time Extension Motion: I move that the Commission extend the time limit to act on City of Capitola Local Coastal Program Amendment Number LCP3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B to July 29, 2025, and I recommend a yes vote. 904
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS ........................................................................ 5
2. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS......................................................................... 7
3. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS................................................................... 11 A. Background and Description of Proposed LCP Amendment .............................. 11 B. Evaluation of Proposed LCP Amendment .......................................................... 13 C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)..................................................... 20
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Project Site Map
Exhibit 2: Project Site Photos
Exhibit 3: Proposed Land Use Designation Changes
Exhibit 4: Proposed Zoning Map Designation Changes and IP Text
CORRESPONDENCE
905
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
1. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
Staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, approve the proposed LUP and IP amendments with suggested modifications. The Commission needs to make two motions on the LUP amendment and two motions on the IP amendment in order to act on this recommendation. In each case, the proposed amendment in each category needs to first be denied, and then approved if modified, to complete the staff recommendation.
A. Deny the LUP Amendment as Submitted
Staff recommends a NO vote on the following motion. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the LUP amendment as submitted and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners.
Motion: I move that the Commission certify Land Use Plan Amendment LCP-3- CAP-22-0061-2-Part B as submitted by the City of Capitola, and I recommend a no vote.
Resolution to Deny: The Commission hereby denies certification of Land Use Plan Amendment LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B as submitted by the City of Capitola and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the Land Use Plan Amendment as proposed does not conform with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Certification of the Land Use Plan Amendment would not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act because there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures which could substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the environment.
B. Certify the LUP Amendment with Suggested Modifications Staff recommends a YES vote on the following motion. Passage of the motion will result in certification of the LUP amendment with suggested modifications and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only upon an affirmative vote of the majority of the appointed Commissioners.
Motion: I move that the Commission certify Land Use Plan Amendment LCP-3- CAP-22-0061-2-Part B for the City of Capitola if it is modified as suggested in this staff report, and I recommend a yes vote.
Resolution to Certify: The Commission hereby certifies Land Use Plan Amendment LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B for the City of Capitola if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the Land Use Plan Amendment with suggested modifications will meet the requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Certification of the Land Use Plan Amendment if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there 906
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
are no further feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the environment.
C. Deny the IP Amendment as submitted
Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion below. Passage of this motion will result in rejection of the Implementation Plan amendment as submitted and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.
Motion: I move that the Commission reject Implementation Plan Amendment LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B as submitted by the City of Capitola, and I recommend a yes vote.
Resolution to Deny: The Commission hereby denies certification of LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B as submitted by the City of Capitola and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Implementation Plan Amendment as submitted does not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan.
Certification of the Implementation Plan Amendment would not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the Implementation Plan Amendment as submitted.
D. Certify the IP Amendment with Suggested Modifications Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion below. Passage of this motion will result in certification of the Implementation Plan amendment with suggested modifications and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present:
Motion: I move that the Commission certify LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-CAP22-0061-2-Part B as submitted by the City of Capitola if it is modified as suggested in this staff report, and I recommend a yes vote.
Resolution to Certify: The Commission hereby certifies LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B, if modified as suggested, and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Implementation Plan Amendment with the suggested modifications conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the Implementation Plan Amendment if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment.
907
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
2. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
The Commission hereby suggests the following modifications to the proposed Land Use Plan (LUP) amendment, which are necessary to make the requisite Coastal Act findings, and the proposed Implementation Plan (IP) amendment, which are necessary to make the requisite LUP consistency findings. If the City of Capitola accepts the suggested modifications within six months of Commission action (i.e., by November 9, 2024), by formal resolution of the City Council, the modified amendment will become effective upon the Executive Director’s notifying the Commission that this acceptance has been properly accomplished. Text in underline and cross-out format denotes proposed text to be added/deleted by the City, and text in double underline and double cross out format denotes proposed text to be added/deleted by the Commission.
1. LUP Map Changes. Modify the proposed LUP Land Use Designations Map for the seaward Monarch Cove Inn parcel (APN 036-143-31) and a portion of the middle parcel (APN 036-142-28) (as shown in Exhibit 3) from an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) land use designation with a VS (Visitor-Serving) overlay to a VS (Visitor Serving) land use designation with a VS (Visitor-Serving) overlay.
2. IP Map Changes. Modify the proposed IP Zoning Map for the seaward Monarch Cove Inn parcel (APN 036-143-31) and a portion of the middle parcel (APN 036-142- 28) from an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning designation with a VS (VisitorServing) overlay to a VS (Visitor-Serving) zoning designation with a VS (VisitorServing) overlay (as shown in Exhibit 4).
3. IP Text Changes. Modify proposed IP Sections 17.28.010(B)(3) and
17.28.010(B)(4) as follows:
17.28.010(B)(3): Visitor Serving – Monarch Cove Inn (VS-MC). Applies to the Monarch Cove Inn site (APNs 036-143-31& 036-142-27) and the portion of parcel 036-142-28 that is located between the two Monarch Cove Inn parcels and the southwestern portion of APN 036-142-28 as depicted in Figure 17.28-1. The VS zoning overlay designation on the Monarch Cove Inn site acts as both the base zoning district and an overlay district (i.e., the permitted land uses identified in Table
17.28-1 are the only permitted land uses allowable on the site and the applicable land use regulations and development standards are limited to those identified in this chapter).
17.28.010(B)(4): Visitor Serving – General (VS-G). Applies to all other parcels with a visitor serving subzone overlay designation including the residentially zoned parcels formerly associated with the Monarch Cove Inn (comprised of APN 036-142- 27 and the northeastern portion of APN 036-142-28 as depicted in Figure 17.28-1).
The -VS zoning overlay designation on the Inn at Depot Hill site (APNs 036-121-38 and 036-121-33) acts as both the base zoning district and an overlay district (i.e., the permitted land uses identified in Table 17.28-1 are the only permitted land uses allowable on the site and the applicable land use regulations and development standards are limited to those identified in this chapter). 908
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
4. IP Map Changes. Modify “Figure 17.28-1: Visitor Serving Districts” as follows:
5. IP Table 17.28-1 changes. Modify Table 17.28-1 as follows:
TABLE 17.28-1: PERMITTED LAND USES IN THE VISITOR SERVING OVERLAY ZONE Key
P Permitted Use
M Minor Use Permit required
C Conditional Use Permit required
– Use not allowed
-VS Subzones
Additional
VS-G VS-R VS-SB VS-MC VS-ES Regulations
Residential Uses
Employee Housing C [1] – – -C –
Multifamily Dwellings C [2][11] – – - C [2]
One Caretaker Unit for On-Site Security C C C C C
Single-Family Dwellings C [3][11] – – -C [3][12] C [3]
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Community Assembly C C – - –
Cultural Institutions C C – - –
Day Care Centers C – – - –
909
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
Habitat Restoration and Habitat
Interpretive Facilities
C C C C –
Parks and Recreational Facilities C C – C –
Public Parking Lots C C – - –
Public Paths and Coastal Accessways C C C C C
Public Safety Facilities C – – - –
Public Wharfs C – – - –
Schools, Public or Private – – – - –
Commercial Uses
Business Establishments that Provide
Commercial Places of Amusement or
Recreation, Live Entertainment, or
Service of Alcoholic Beverages
C [4] C [4] C
-
–
Business Establishments that Sell or
Dispense Alcoholic Beverages for OnSite Consumption
C C C
C
–
Restaurants
Full Service C [5] C [5] C [5] - –
Lodging
Hotels, Inns, Bed and
Breakfast, and Hostels
C C – C C
Campgrounds [6] C – – - –
Recreational Vehicle Parks C – – - –
Vacation Rentals with onsite
manager
--C[12] – – C[12] –
Utilities, Major C C C C C
Utilities, Minor P P P P P
Wireless Communications Facilities See
Chapter
17.104
Other Uses
Access Roadways C C C C C
Accessory Structures and Uses, New C [7] C C C C
Accessory Structures and Uses
Established Prior to Primary Use or
Structure
C C –
C
–
Change of Visitor Serving Commercial
Uses within a Structure
C [8] – – - –
Food Service Accessory to a Lodging
Use [9]
C C – C C
Home Occupations C – – - – Section 17.96.040
Expansion of a Legal Nonconforming Use
within an Existing Structure
C – – - –
Legal Nonconforming Use Changed to a
Use of a Similar or More Restricted
Nature
C – –
-
–
910
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
Live Entertainment C C C - –
Offices Accessory to Visitor Serving Use C C C C –
Parking Areas to Serve the Primary Use C C C C C
Retail Accessory to a Visitor Serving Use C C – C –
Temporary Assemblages of People, such
as Festivals, Fairs, and Community
Events
C [10] C [10] C [10]
C[13]
–
Weddings C C C C –
Notes:
[1] Permitted only as an accessory use.
[2] Multifamily dwellings shall comply with development standards in the multifamily residential, medium density (RM-M) zoning district.
[3] Single-family dwellings shall comply with development standards in the single-family residential (R-1) zoning district. [4] May not be located within two hundred feet of the boundary of a residential zoning district. [5] Drive-up and car service is not allowed.
[6] May include moderate intensity recreational uses, including tent platforms, cabins, parks, stables, bicycle paths, restrooms, and interpretive facilities.
[7] Intensification of the primary use is not allowed.
[8] The new use may not change the nature or intensity of the commercial use of the structure. [9] Permitted only to serve guests of the lodging use.
[10] Events may not exceed ten days and may not involve construction of permanent facilities. [11] Prohibited on the former Capitola Theater site (APNs 035-262-04, 035-262-02, 035-262-11, and 035-261-10) and the Inn at Depot Hill (APNs 036-121-38 and 036-121-33). For the residential Monarch Cove parcels (APNs 036-142-27 and the northeast portion of APN 036-142-28), single-family residential uses must meet the provisions of Section 17.28.030(G). [12] Allowed in conjunction with overnight accommodation use (at least one on property) or grant of public access to a viewpoint. [12] Vacation rental allowed on VS-MC only with 24-hour, full time onsite staff in residence during times of occupancy. Vacation rental allowed on the residentially zoned parcels formerly associated with the Monarch Cove Inn (comprised of APN 036-142-27 and the northeast portion of APN 036-142-28) without a 24-hour, full time onsite staff in residence. [13] Limited to a single two-day or less event per year.
6. IP Text Changes. Add section 17.28.030(G) to IP Sections 17.28.030 as follows:
17.28.030(G): Monarch Cove Inn/Monarch Cove Residential Properties Additional Requirements. The following additional requirements shall apply to the VS-MC subzone (i.e., APN 036-143-31 and the southwest portion of APN 036-142- 28) as well as the Monarch Cove residential properties (i.e., APN 036-242-27 and the northeastern portion of APN 036-142-28) as depicted in Figure 17.28-1.
Approval of any proposed development on these sites shall only be allowed if:
a. Adequate parking and fire/safety ingress/egress to serve both inland (residential) and seaward (visitor-serving) properties is provided.
b. Adequate public access is provided from El Salto Drive to the coastal bluff and to existing rights-of-way along Escalona Drive and area trails, including as may need to be relocated inland due to coastal erosion. Such public access shall, at a minimum, be provided parallel to the northern property boundary of APN 036- 143-31 to connect with the existing public rights-of-way. c. Unless determined to be infeasible, ingress/egress to any new development on the inland residential property shall be provided from Escalona Drive. 911
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
3. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
A. Background and Description of Proposed LCP Amendment The City of Capitola is a coastal city seaward of Highway 1 in central Santa Cruz County, located downcoast of Pleasure Point and upcoast of the Seacliff/Aptos areas of unincorporated Santa Cruz County. The City’s coastal zone is roughly one square mile, making up approximately 60% of the City, and it is primarily a mix of residential and visitor-serving commercial and recreation uses. The coastal zone includes a mix of residential neighborhoods (e.g., the Jewel Box, the Upper Village, and Cliffwood Heights), visitor-serving commercial and mixed-use neighborhoods centered around Capitola Village (which includes Capitola Beach and the Capitola Wharf, as well as visitor-serving shops, restaurants, and overnight accommodations), and significant public recreational areas (such as at New Brighton State Beach on the City’s downcoast end). The City is a very popular visitor destination, and much of its coastal economy is visitor-dependent.
The Monarch Cove Inn is an 11-unit bed and breakfast facility set within multiple buildings on some 1.5 acres of property located at the downcoast end of Depot Hill, a mostly residential neighborhood just downcoast from Capitola Village on top of approximately 80-foot-tall bluffs that offer beautiful sweeping views of the Monterey Bay (see Exhibit 1 for project site map and Exhibit 2 for photos of the site). The history of the Monarch Cove site dates back to the late 1800s when two English families seeking a summer retreat locale bought lots throughout Depot Hill and built a settlement called “The English Cottages,” which included Victorian era bungalows as well as traditional English gardens. The property was leased in 1909 to a San Franciscan when the owners returned to England for an extended stay, and he ultimately purchased the property in 1911 and renamed the property “El Salto,” and enlarged the El Salto estate throughout the 1920s, adding guest cottages, staff living quarters, fruit orchards, and a four-car garage. That owner then sold the property to a local Capitola resident who remodeled the units so that they could be used as summer rentals, then the El Salto Resort. The property was sold again in 1960 to an investment group, and then two years later Elizabeth Blodgett acquired title to a majority of the original holdings. In the late 1970s, Ms. Blodgett purportedly proposed a number of development projects that never came to fruition. By 1982, Ms. Blodgett had sold a number of the lots, and a fire destroyed some of the cottages. In 1989, the City deemed the resort unsafe, and the resort closed temporarily. Ms. Blodgett then sold most of the remaining property to her son, Robert Blodgett, and he completed renovations and reopened the resort in 1989.
Ms. Blodgett operated her portion of the resort until 1998 when she sold the last of her property (the three lots immediately west of her son’s parcels), which was subsequently converted to residential use.
Thus, most of the original El Salto Resort was converted to residential uses over the years, with the exception of the downcoast-most portion of it (then renamed as the Monarch Cove Inn), which became a 9-room bed and breakfast inn with two separate one-bedroom stand-alone cottages and an outdoor deck area used for weddings. While located about a 15-minute walk to the Village, the Monarch Cove Inn’s location on Depot Hill offers sweeping, unparalleled views of the Monterey Bay and coastline and, if visited during the monarch butterfly migration season (mid-October through mid912 Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
January), large clumps of monarch butterflies hanging from the adjacent eucalyptus trees. Thus, the site has a long history of operating as overnight accommodations for Capitola visitors, both before and since adoption of the Coastal Act and it offers a unique visitor accommodation experience. However, in recent years, the overnight accommodations at the site have become outdated and a number of maintenance needs have been identified, thus affecting its appeal as a visitor-serving experience.
The current owners explored the possibility of investing in major development upgrades to the site in 2001 and 2014, but both proposals were met with neighborhood opposition and ultimately abandoned.
The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) was originally certified in 1981 and underwent a comprehensive update of its Implementation Plan (IP), and of the LCP’s Land Use Plan (LUP) Land Use Designations map, in 2021.
1 At the time of this update in 2021, in
addition to other substantive changes, the City proposed to re-designate and re-zone two existing visitor-serving overnight accommodation operations, the Monarch Cove Inn and the Inn at Depot Hill, to single-family residential (R-1). The City’s reasoning for the rezoning of the Monarch Cove Inn site was that it needed substantial work and expansion to keep it operational into the future as a functioning and financially feasible overnight accommodation, and that its location at the downcoast end of a residential neighborhood constrained options, including in terms of residential neighbors’ opposition to improvements of this nature. Thus, the City reasoned that the site was better suited to residential uses, which is also what the owners of the site were seeking as well. Staff, recognizing the Coastal Act and LCP’s strong protections and prioritization of visitor-serving uses, could not find the City’s proposal to re-zone and redesignate the two inns consistent with the Coastal Act and LUP, and instead recommended a number of modifications in an effort to preserve their existing visitorserving function. However, the Commission opted not to take action on either the staff recommendation nor the City’s proposal as it related to the Monarch Cove Inn site. 2 At
that time, Commissioners were interested in understanding whether a different balancing between visitor-serving overnight accommodations uses and residential uses could be identified for the Monarch Cove Inn site, one that didn’t completely change the site to residential uses, and thus the Monarch Cove Inn provisions were removed from the Commission’s amendment approval, and the Commission directed staff to work with the City and the owners of the Monarch Cove Inn to come up with other alternative solutions.
In 2022, the City resubmitted the same language that the Commission considered in 2021. As submitted by the City, the proposed amendment includes land use designation changes, zoning designation changes, and corresponding IP text amendments. As submitted by the City, the land use designation changes entail converting the existing land use and zoning designations for the Monarch Cove Inn site from Visitor Serving (VS) to Single Family-Residential (R-1) with a VS overlay. The proposed IP text amendments also include removing IP Chapter 17.30 in its entirety, and creating a 1 See LCP-3-CAP-20-0082-2.
2 City staff agreed with Commission staff on the modifications for the Inn at Depot Hill, and thus those changes to preserve the visitor-serving uses were adopted by the Commission and are in effect currently. 913
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
Monarch Cove subzone (VS-MC) within IP Chapter 17.28. The VS-MC subzone would allow the Monarch Cove Inn site to be used as a single-family residence in conjunction with an overnight accommodation use “or [the] granting of public access to a viewpoint,” whereas the LCP currently prohibits single-family residential uses on the Monarch Cove Inn site. More specifically, the proposed amendment would:
• Identify the three Monarch Cove Inn parcels that would be subject to the newly created VS-MC subzone (i.e., APNs 036-143-31, 036-142-27, and 036-142-28). • Add a series of allowed/conditional uses in the VS-MC subzone, including singlefamily dwellings and visitor-serving/overnight accommodation uses. • Add a new footnote to the “single family dwelling” use in the VS-MC subzone to mandate that single-family dwellings shall comply with development standards in the R-1 zoning district, as well as to specify that single-family dwellings are allowed in conjunction with overnight accommodations or granting of public access to a viewpoint.
• Add a new footnote to the “temporary assemblages of people” use in the VS-MC subzone to limit such events to a single two-day event or less per year. • Add the VS-MC subzone to the general development standards for visitor-serving zoning districts to identify the maximum impervious surface allowed on the site.
In short, the proposed amendment would allow for residential uses on the Monarch Cove Inn site, whereas currently they are not. The amendment would thus facilitate the conversion of the site from one of a visitor-serving nature to one of residential. See Exhibit 3 for the proposed land use designation change and Exhibit 4 for the proposed zoning change and IP text.
B. Evaluation of Proposed LCP Amendment
Standard of Review
The proposed amendment affects both the LUP and IP components of the City’s LCP.
The standard of review for LUP amendments is that they must conform with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The standard of review for IP amendments is that they must be consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP, as amended.
1. Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment
Applicable Coastal Act Policies
The Coastal Act places a very high priority on public access and recreational opportunities for all. In addition to Coastal Act Sections 30210 through 30214 that require maximum public access to and along the shore, Coastal Act Section 30221 protects oceanfront lands that are suitable for recreational uses. For otherwise allowable development, Coastal Act Section 30222 gives priority to the use of land suitable for visitor-serving recreational facilities over private residential, general 914
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
industrial, or general commercial development. Therefore, the proposed LUP amendment must protect oceanfront land, such as the blufftop area in question here, for recreational uses, and must prioritize the use of suitable private lands for visitor-serving facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation. Coastal Act Sections 30221 and 30222 specifically state:
Section 30221. Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area.
Section 30222. The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
Analysis
As submitted by the City, the proposed land use map changes would redesignate the Monarch Cove Inn property (which consists of 3 parcels: APNs 036-143-31, 036-142- 27, and 036-142-28) from the current “Visitor-Serving” land use designation to an “R-1” (single-family residential) land use designation with a VS (visitor-serving) overlay. The proposed re-designation would provide for full residential conversion on this important visitor-serving property, thereby raising Coastal Act conformance issues as more fully discussed below.
As submitted by the City, the proposed single-family residential designation would mean that the LCP would prioritize residential uses at the site with the allowance for visitorserving uses, as opposed to the existing designation, which prioritizes visitor-serving overnight accommodations and related visitor-serving uses and prohibits single-family residential uses (and only allows ancillary residential/caretaker units). It is important to note that, in the Commission’s experience, when such visitor-serving sites are converted to residential uses, they are rarely, if ever, replaced or converted back to visitor-serving uses. Indeed, one need look no further than many of the properties formerly associated with the El Salto Resort that were sold off and converted to residential uses and have since remained that way. Thus, the Commission in implementing the Coastal Act has traditionally taken a fairly strict reviewing lens for proposed conversions such as this one, including to make sure that there is adequate remaining visitor-serving uses in the surrounding area, to replace whatever is lost, or to deny such requests.
As proposed in this case, redesignation of the whole site from VS to R-1 would likely lead to permanent loss of the overnight accommodations at these sites. The City of Capitola, and especially the Village and its adjacent beach area, is a very popular destination for visitors to the Central Coast, and the Monarch Cove Inn is one of only two overnight accommodations in the Depot Hill area of the City (the other being the Inn at Depot Hill with its 13 guest rooms), and the Monarch Cove Inn represents a unique visitor-serving experience with expansive blue water views, a blufftop coastal trail, an adjacent monarch butterfly grove (hence the Inn’s name), and a more rustic and 915
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
nostalgic small-scale Inn experience that also offers close access to the Village, Capitola Beach, and New Brighton State Beach, but in a quieter and more serene locale. In sum, the proposed amendment would facilitate the conversion of this important and exceptionally unique visitor-serving space to private residential use, and the general public would lose out on the ability to stay and recreate in this area, all of which raises core Coastal Act compatibility concerns. And to be clear, these are the same concerns Commission staff raised as part of the previous rezoning proposal back in 2021.
That all being said, it is also true that the site is quite large and could likely cater to both residential and visitor-serving uses. The Commission similarly recognized this during the previous proposal in 2021, and thus directed staff to understand whether there were other alternatives that would allow for retention of VS uses at the site while also providing some additional residential uses here as well. In other words, this need not be an all or nothing endeavor, but rather a mix of uses could be potentially appropriate.
Commission staff, City staff, and the property owners thus worked together to understand where and how such mix could be effectuated.
To do so, it is important to understand the site’s geography and amenities as they exist today. The Monarch Cove Inn is composed of three parcels: a seaward parcel containing the 9-bedroom Victorian house, a carriage house and open air pavilion, walking trails, and open space that overlook the Pacific Ocean and Monterey Bay (APN 036-143-31) and is approximately 24,000 square feet; a landward parcel containing the Inn’s office buildings, garden, employee parking spaces, and a smaller auxiliary cottage with a one-bedroom suite (i.e., attached kitchen and bathroom) totaling approximately 18,000 square feet (APN 036-142-27); and a middle parcel sandwiched between the two larger parcels that contains the only ingress/egress to the site, parking spaces, and another small auxiliary cottage with a one bedroom suite, totaling approximately 10,000 square feet (APN 036-142-28) (see Exhibit 1 for a map of the site).
In looking at the site holistically, the majority of the coastal resources and visitor-serving amenities are contained on the seaward-most parcel, including sweeping views of the sea, public walking trails (including to the monarch butterfly grove at the eastern side of the property), and the bulk of the overnight accommodations contained in the Victorian house (nine of eleven units across the entire property). 3 The loss of such coastal visitorserving amenities to private residential uses would not only be inconsistent with the Coastal Act, but would also impact the public who frequently visit the property to avail themselves of its green spaces and natural environment. In contrast, the landward parcel mainly contains storage and support services to operate the Inn. Lastly, the middle parcel contains the only ingress/egress to the site and provides parking spaces for both overnight and day-use visitors, and thus provides an important connection point to access the visitor-serving uses on the site. While the landward parcel does currently help serve the main Inn facilities, the storage and office space currently on it can likely be reimagined and reconfigured onto the seaward parcel. In other words, the landward 3 The Victorian house has nine rooms with queen-sized beds, two of which have attached living rooms, and one of which has an attached kitchen. Each cottage contains one-bedroom suites with attached kitchen and bathroom. Each room (either in the main house or in the cottages) has its own entrance. 916
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
parcel does not raise the same degree of Coastal Act conversion issues as the seaward one does, and that understanding can help inform a framework whereby the landward portion of the site is converted to residential uses while the seaward side is retained for visitor-serving purposes.
As such, Suggested Modification 1 retains the existing Visitor Serving (VS) land use designation on the seaward parcel (APN 036-143-31) and a portion of the middle parcel (APN 036-142-28) (which provides access to it), while allowing the landward parcel (APN 036-142-27) and the remaining portion of the middle parcel to be converted to an R-1 land use designation. The end result is as depicted below, with purple demarcating the VS portion and yellow the R-1:
This configuration/redesignation can be found consistent with Coastal Act Section 30221 since it would protect the oceanfront parcel for public use and visitor-serving overnight accommodations. The Monarch Cove Inn site is well-equipped to enhance such public access opportunities, as it provides the only overnight-accommodation in this part of the City, and provides pathway connections to the blufftop and monarch butterfly grove, and the conversion would ensure these amenities continue at the site.
The landward parcel and portions of the middle parcel would thus be available for residential uses4 and also for limited overnight accommodations uses as well (thereby not affirmatively precluding these uses), and the owners have indicated that they are amenable to the proposed modifications, as is City staff. 5 Accordingly, as modified, the
proposed LUP amendment can be found consistent with the Coastal Act. 4 And may also be eligible to be subdivided, thereby potentially allowing for multiple single-family zoned parcels including opportunities for multiple units (e.g., via the City’s SB9 and ADU ordinances). 5 In addition, the existing zoning designation currently allows one of the units on the site to be used as a caretaker’s unit, and this allowance for a caretaker’s unit would be retained under the proposed amendments. And thus, the proposed modifications would not affect the ability of the owners or Inn staff 917
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
2. Proposed Implementation Plan Amendment
Applicable Land Use Plan Provisions
Similar to the Coastal Act, the LUP contains policies and implementation strategies related to maximizing public access and recreation; protecting environmentally sensitive habitat areas; protecting public views, including to and along the immediate shoreline; and protecting visitor-serving uses, including by ensuring that sites designated for visitor-serving uses and recreation (e.g., visitor-serving overnight accommodations such as hotels, motels, and campgrounds, food/drink establishments, rental facilities, and beaches/parks) remain designated for such uses. These policies include:
LUP Policy II-1: It shall be the policy of the City of Capitola to provide safe and adequate pedestrian access to and along the shoreline as designated in the Shoreline Access Plan (see Maps II-1,2, and 3).
LUP Policy VI-2: It shall be the policy of the City of Capitola to protect, maintain and, where possible, enhance the environmentally sensitive and locally unique habitats within its coastal zone, including dedication and/or acquisition of scenic conservation easements for protection of the natural environment. All developments approved by the City within or adjacent to these areas must be found to be protective of the long-term maintenance of these habitats.
LUP Policy IV-1 [in relevant part]: The City shall designate the following areas as visitor-serving and/or recreation uses: The Capitola Village commercial area (retail, restaurants, lodging, etc.) […] El Salto Resort properties; […] LUP Policy IV-2: Areas designated as visitor serving and/or recreational shall be reserved for visitor support services or recreational uses. Permissible uses include, but are not limited to hotels, motels, hostels, campgrounds, food and drink service establishments, public facilities, public beaches, public recreation areas or parks, and related rental and retail establishments. Residential uses are also permitted on dual designated “visitor-serving/residential” parcels; specifically, a portion of the El Salto Resort, and in the Village area. Development can be accomplished through private or public means.
Consistency Analysis
The LUP speaks to protection of locally unique habitat areas, including through ensuring compatible development adjacent to such areas that “must be found to be protective of the long-term maintenance of these habitats”; additionally, the LUP protects public access “to and along the shoreline”. Finally, the LUP specifically states that the Monarch Cove Inn properties (formerly referred to in the LUP as the “El Salto Resort” properties) shall be designated for visitor-serving and/or recreation uses, and that “areas designated for visitor-serving and/or recreation shall be reserved for visitor to reside on the property as caretakers, but would require the site to maintain a reasonable number of overnight accommodations that would be served by the caretakers (i.e., the site could not be modified to provide one unit of overnight accommodation and one caretaker unit, rather, the caretaker unit would be understood to service some number of overnight accommodations that is relatively equal to that which exists on the site currently).
918
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
support services or recreational uses” and that permissible uses include “hotels, motels, hostels, campgrounds […]”, etc. It also provides the potential allowance for a dual residential and visitor-serving commercial mix.
The proposed IP amendment would re-zone the Monarch Cove Inn site (i.e., all three parcels) to R-1 with a VS overlay, raising the same visitor-serving conversion issues as discussed in the preceding LUP amendment section. The IP text component of the amendment would also allow single-family residential dwellings as a conditional use on the Monarch Cove Inn site in conjunction with at least one unit of overnight accommodation or the granting of public access to a viewpoint (see IP Section
17.28.020 on pages 4-6 of Exhibit 4). In other words, the amendment would allow for a rather significant reduction in the number of overnight accommodation units (from 11 to as little as a single unit) or elimination of all existing overnight accommodation units with a formally recognized public trail/viewpoint. While the language here does mention a trail, it is rather vague and doesn’t specify any performance standards to ensure its protection over time. The access provided here is important, including connecting El Salto Drive and the greater Depot Hill neighborhood with the coastal bluff and Monterey Bay views, as well as connections to the public right-of-way at the downcoast edge of the property, and potential future connections to the planned coastal rail trail.6,7 Loss or impairment of the access in this area would be significant, as the coastal trail on the property provides benefits similar to the now extinct coastal trail on other portions of Depot Hill, which is no longer in use because of erosion and private residential backyard encroachments into the public right-of-way. The Monarch Cove Inn site provides more flexibility to maintain such public access to the surrounding area given its large size, where other areas in Depot Hill are constrained by private residential dwellings.
As described previously, the majority of the visitor-serving resources at the site, including the overnight accommodations contained in the historic Victorian home, are contained on the seaward parcel, as well as public walking paths, green open space, and access to the monarch butterfly grove. Conversely, the landward parcel mainly contains support buildings, such as offices and storage, and does not provide the same level of visitor resources. Thus, and including to match the LUP as suggested to be modified, the Commission includes Suggested Modification 2, which changes the proposed zoning designation for the seaward parcel (APN 036-143-31) and the northwestern portion of the middle parcel (APN 036-142-28) to VS (Visitor Serving).
This R-1/VS split is approvable given the context because the LCP speaks to such adjacent visitor-serving and residential uses at the site (see LUP IV-2), would maintain access to the shoreline (see LUP II-2), and would provide for compatible development 6 Vehicular access at the site is notably constrained, as the only ingress/egress is via El Salto Drive, which dead-ends at the project site. Available parking for daily visitors, overnight guests, and staff is accommodated via street parking and two small parking lots located on the landward parcel and the middle parcel.
7 The public pathway was originally formed as a condition of coastal permit P-80-11 as an offer to dedicate for two easements to be made from El Salto Drive to and along the blufftop for views of the shoreline. However, the permit was never exercised, and the easements were never recorded.
Nevertheless, the pathway currently exists on the property and is frequently used by the public, constituting an important visitor-serving resource which is afforded protection under the LUP. 919
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
adjacent to the blufftops/monarch butterfly grove (see LUP VI-2). Additionally, the landward parcel would maintain a visitor-serving overlay in addition to the R-1 designation, thus not precluding visitor-serving overnight accommodations from existing in the future on the landward parcel.
Suggested Modification 3 implements the zoning map change into the IP’s text, including by clarifying that the proposed R-1 zoning and VS-G (Visitor-Serving-General) overlay only applies to the landward parcels and not the seaward, visitor-serving ones.
The end result of this modification is to retain overnight accommodation uses on the seaward parcels while providing for a mix of visitor-serving and residential ones on the landward side. And Suggested Modification 4 simply depicts these changes into the corresponding IP Visitor Serving District map.
While the above described suggested modifications generally refer to the site’s zoning designations and overlays, Suggested Modifications 5 and 6 make changes to describe the specific site development parameters and allowed land uses. Overall, the changes would remove single-family dwellings as a conditional use on the seaward visitor-serving Monarch Cove Inn site (VS-MC in Table 17.28-1, see Exhibit 4) to prevent the applicable parcels from converting to a private, residential use and conversely, to preserve the overnight accommodations and public access at the site.
The modifications also require that, as part of any CDP review at the residential or visitor-serving sites, that adequate fire and vehicular ingress/egress is provided to serve all development at the sites (particularly for the Inn site, which may necessitate residential access from Escalona Drive), that public access is provided, including from El Salto Drive to the bluff, adjacent public rights-of-way, and potentially new trail connections along the rail trail, and that there is adequate space for parking. In other words, the language provides an important reviewing lens for future development proposals on both the residential and visitor-serving properties to ensure that uses on both sites remain viable, and that protect and provide for public access in the area.
In sum, the suggested modifications would eliminate the proposed R-1 use on the seaward parcel and portions of the middle parcel at the Monarch Cove Inn site and make clarifying changes to provide for a mix of uses on the inland portion. Such a conversion is appropriate in this context given that doing so maintains the majority of the overnight accommodation units and preserves other visitor-serving amenities (e.g., access to blue-ocean water views and public trails) at this unique site. Additionally, in recent years there has been a push across the state to increase housing stock, particularly in coastal areas,
8 including to help offset skyrocketing rents and home
prices and general unaffordability, while still preserving moderate- and lower-cost accommodations. Here, the conversion strikes a balance between these two objectives by preserving overnight accommodations and visitor-serving uses in the coastal zone while allowing for residential uses that would presumably add a number of new units to the area. Lastly, in a City-wide context, there are a number of other overnight accommodations available to visitors within the City (including the Inn at Depot Hill, the 8 And the Commission has frequently discussed the balance between encouraging housing and preserving/protecting visitor-serving overnight accommodations in the coastal zone, including during its December 2023 hearing when it held an informational briefing on housing. 920
Item 8 C.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
Capitola Hotel, and the Venetian, all of which are located within the coastal zone), and visitor-serving uses have historically been preserved in the City, including via Commission action.
9 The modifications identified are thus necessary to ensure that existing lands designated for visitor-serving uses are protected for such uses, while also providing for much needed housing. Thus, the proposed IP amendments with the suggested modifications can be found consistent with and adequate to carry out the certified Land Use Plan.
C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 21080.9 of the California Public Resources Code—within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—exempts local government from the requirement of preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in connection with its activities and approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of LCPs and LCP amendments.
Instead, the CEQA responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission; however, the Commission's LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP or LCP amendment action.
Nevertheless, the Commission is required, in approving an LCP or LCP amendment submittal, to find that the approval of the proposed LCP, as amended, does conform with CEQA provisions, including the requirement in CEQA section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment (see California Code of Regulations Title 14 Sections 13540(f) and 13555(b)).
The City of Capitola’s LCP amendment consists of an LUP and IP amendment. In this case, the City exempted the proposed amendment from environmental review (citing CEQA Sections 15061(b)(3)), deeming the modifications to be minor in nature without the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. This report has discussed the relevant coastal resource issues with the proposal, and has addressed all comments received. All the above findings are incorporated herein in their entirety by reference.
Therefore, the Commission finds that there are no other feasible alternatives or mitigation measures under the meaning of CEQA which would further reduce the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, and the proposed LCP amendment, as modified, conforms with CEQA.
9 In the 2021 IP update, staff recommended modifications to the former Capitola Theater site to ensure future development would be used for visitor-serving uses. See adopted staff report for LCP-3-CAP-20- 0082-2 pages 8 and 37.
921
Item 8 C.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
Th13a
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2 PART B (MONARCH COVE INN
REDESIGNATION)
MAY 9, 2024 HEARING
EXHIBITS
Table of Contents
Exhibit 1: Project Site Map
Exhibit 2: Project Site Photos
Exhibit 3: Proposed LUP Map
Exhibit 4: Proposed IP Map and IP Text
922
Item 8 C.
Depot Hill Neighborhood
City of Capitola
Capitola State Beach
Project Site
New Brighton
State Beach
Exhibit 1
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
923
Item 8 C.
Project Site
Office Buildings
Small Cottages
Victorian Mansion
Wedding Deck
Walking Trail
Public Right-of-way and Public Trails
Monarch Butterfly
Grove
Exhibit 1
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
924
Item 8 C.
11-bedroom Victorian Mansion
Exhibit 2
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
925
Item 8 C.
Wedding Pavilion
Exhibit 2
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
926
Item 8 C.
Wedding Pavilion
View from Victorian Mansion
Exhibit 2
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
927
Item 8 C.
Exhibit 2
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
928
Item 8 C.
Exhibit 2
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
929
Item 8 C.
General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Proposed Modifications for Monarch Cove Inn Parcels
Existing Land Use: Visitor Serving
Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential with Visitor Serving Overlay Exhibit 3
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
930
Item 8 C.
Zoning Map/LCP-IP Proposed Modifications
for Monarch Cove Inn Parcels
Existing Land Use: Visitor Serving
Proposed Land Use: R-1 Single-Family Residential with Visitor Serving Overlay Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
931
Item 8 C.
Chapter 17.28
VISITOR SERVING OVERLAY ZONE
Sections:
17.28.010 Purpose of the visitor serving overlay zone.
17.28.020 Land use regulations.
17.28.030 Development standards.
17.28.010 Purpose of the visitor serving overlay zone.
A. General. The purpose of the visitor serving (-VS) overlay zone is to provide the visiting public with a range of opportunities to enjoy Capitola’s coastal location. The -VS overlay zone accommodates a range of visitor serving uses including overnight accommodations, dining establishments, and active and passive recreational facilities.
Specific permitted uses depend on the resources present on the site and the surrounding land use and environmental context. The -VS overlay zone implements policies to maintain and enhance visitor serving uses in Capitola consistent with the general plan and local coastal program (LCP).
B. Visitor Serving Overlay Subzones. The -VS overlay zone is divided into subzones (see Figure 17.28-1) with unique land use and development standards:
1. Visitor Serving – Rispin (VS-R). Applies to the Rispin site (APNs 035-371-01 and 035-371-02).
2. Visitor Serving – Shadowbrook (VS-SB). Applies to the Shadowbrook site (APN 035-111-04).
3. Visitor Serving - Monarch Cove Inn (VS-MC). Applies to the Monarch Cove Inn site (APNs 036-143-31 & 036-142-27) and the portion of parcel 036-142-28 that is located between the two Monarch Cove Inn parcels.
43. Visitor Serving – El Salto (VS-ES). Applies to the El Salto site (APN 036-143-35).
54. Visitor Serving – General (VS-G). Applies to all other parcels with a visitor serving subzone overlay designation. The -VS zoning overlay designation on the Inn at Depot Hill site (APNs 036-121-38 and 036-121- 33) acts as both the base zoning district and an overlay district (i.e., the permitted land uses identified in Table
17.28-1 are the only permitted land uses allowable on the site and the applicable land use regulations and development standards are limited to those identified in this chapter).
Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
932
Item 8 C.
Figure 17.28-1: Visitor Serving Districts
Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
933
Item 8 C.
(Res. 4223, 2021; Ord. 1043 § 2 (Att. 2), 2020)
17.28.020 Land use regulations.
A. Permitted Land Uses. Table 17.28-1 identifies land uses permitted in the -VS overlay subzones.
Table 17.28-1: Permitted Land Uses in the Visitor Serving Overlay Zone Key
P Permitted Use
M Minor Use Permit required
C Conditional Use Permit required
– Use not allowed
-VS Subzones
VS-G VS-R VS-SB VS-MC VS-ES Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Employee Housing C [1] – – - –
Multifamily Dwellings C [2][11] – – - C [2]
One Caretaker Unit for On-Site Security C C C C C
Single-Family Dwellings C [3][11] – – C [3][12] C [3]
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Community Assembly C C – - –
Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
934
Item 8 C.
Cultural Institutions C C – - –
Day Care Centers C – – - –
Habitat Restoration and Habitat Interpretive
Facilities
C C C C –
Parks and Recreational Facilities C C – - –
Public Parking Lots C C – - –
Public Paths and Coastal Accessways C C C C C
Public Safety Facilities C – – - –
Public Wharfs C – – - –
Schools, Public or Private – – – - –
Commercial Uses
Business Establishments that Provide
Commercial Places of Amusement or
Recreation, Live Entertainment, or Service of
Alcoholic Beverages
C [4] C [4] C
-
–
Business Establishments that Sell or Dispense
Alcoholic Beverages for On-Site
Consumption
C C C
C
–
Restaurants
Full Service C [5] C [5] C [5] - –
Lodging
Hotels, Inns, Bed and Breakfast,
and Hostels
C C – C C
Campgrounds [6] C – – - –
Recreational Vehicle Parks C – – - –
Vacation Rentals with onsite
manager
– – – C –
Utilities, Major C C C C C
Utilities, Minor P P P P P
Wireless Communications Facilities See Chapter
17.104
Other Uses
Access Roadways C C C C C
Accessory Structures and Uses, New C [7] C C C C
Accessory Structures and Uses Established
Prior to Primary Use or Structure
C C – C –
Change of Visitor Serving Commercial Uses
within a Structure
C [8] – – - –
Food Service Accessory to a Lodging Use [9] C C – C C
Home Occupations C – – - – Section 17.96.040
Expansion of a Legal Nonconforming Use
within an Existing Structure
C – – - –
Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
935
Item 8 C.
Legal Nonconforming Use Changed to a Use
of a Similar or More Restricted Nature
C – – - –
Live Entertainment C C C - –
Offices Accessory to Visitor Serving Use C C C C –
Parking Areas to Serve the Primary Use C C C C C
Retail Accessory to a Visitor Serving Use C C – C –
Temporary Assemblages of People, such as
Festivals, Fairs, and Community Events
C [10] C [10] C [10] C [13] –
Weddings C C C C –
Notes:
[1] Permitted only as an accessory use.
[2] Multifamily dwellings shall comply with development standards in the multifamily residential, medium density (RM-M) zoning district. [3] Single-family dwellings shall comply with development standards in the single-family residential (R-1) zoning district. [4] May not be located within two hundred feet of the boundary of a residential zoning district. [5] Drive-up and car service is not allowed.
[6] May include moderate intensity recreational uses, including tent platforms, cabins, parks, stables, bicycle paths, restrooms, and interpretive facilities.
[7] Intensification of the primary use is not allowed.
[8] The new use may not change the nature or intensity of the commercial use of the structure. [9] Permitted only to serve guests of the lodging use.
[10] Events may not exceed ten days and may not involve construction of permanent facilities. [11] Prohibited on the former Capitola Theater site (APNs 035-262-04, 035-262-02, 035-262-11, and 035-261-10) and the Inn at Depot Hill (APNs 036-121-38 and 036-121-33).
[12] Allowed in conjunction with overnight accommodation use (at least one on property) or grant of public access to a viewpoint. [13] Limited to a single two-day or less event per year.
B. Civic Uses in the VS-R Overlay Subzone. The planning commission may allow additional civic uses in the VS-R overlay subzone beyond those specifically identified in Table 17.28-1 if the planning commission finds the additional civic use to be consistent with the purpose of the VS-R overlay subzone and compatible with existing uses present on the site. (Res. 4223, 2021; Ord. 1043 § 2 (Att. 2), 2020)
17.28.030 Development standards.
A. General. Table 17.28-2 identifies development standards that apply in the -VS overlay zone outside of the mixed use village (MU-V) zoning district.
Table 17.28-2: Development Standards in the Visitor Serving Zoning Districts -VS Overlay Zone Additional Standards
Parcel Area, Minimum 5,000 sq. ft.
Impervious Surface, Maximum VS-R: 25%
VS-SB, VS-MC, and VS-ES: 50% [1]
VS-G: No maximum
Floor Area Ratio, Maximum 0.25
Setbacks, Minimum See Section 17.28.030(B)
Height, Maximum 30 ft. Section 17.28.030(C)
Note:
[1] In the VS-SB overlay subzone, the impervious surface requirement applies to the parcel located directly adjacent to Soquel Creek. In the VSES overlay subzone, the impervious surface calculation excludes the portion of parcel 036-142-28 located outside of the Monarch Cove Inn.
B. Setbacks. The following setback requirements apply in the -VS overlay zone:
Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
936
Item 8 C.
1. The planning commission may require front, side and rear setbacks through the design review process to provide adequate light and air, ensure sufficient distance between adjoining uses to minimize any incompatibility, and to promote excellence of development. Where a side or rear yard abuts residential property, a setback of at least ten feet shall be provided.
2. Front and exterior side yards shall not be used for required parking facilities.
3. For the visitor serving El Salto parcels located adjacent to the bluff top, new development shall adhere to the setback and development provision provided in the LCP natural hazards policies and in Chapter 17.68 (GH Geologic Hazards District).
4. To protect the waters and riparian habitat of Soquel Creek, new development on the Shadowbrook Restaurant and Rispin parcels shall adhere to the LCP natural systems policies and Chapter 17.64 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas).
C. Height Exceptions. With a recommendation from the planning commission, the city council may approve additional height up to a maximum of thirty-six feet in the -VS overlay zone outside of the MU-V zoning district when all of the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed development and design is compatible with existing land uses in surrounding areas, the general plan, and the LCP.
2. Streets and thoroughfares are suitable and adequate to serve the proposed development.
3. The proposed development does not produce shadows which may adversely affect the enjoyment of adjacent streets, buildings, or open space.
4. Major public views of the shoreline, as identified in Capitola’s local coastal program, are not blocked by the proposed development.
D. Landscaping. See Table 17.72-2 in Chapter 17.72 (Landscaping) for minimum required landscaping requirements for visitor serving properties.
E. Lighting. In addition to outdoor lighting standards in Section 17.96.110 (Outdoor lighting), the following lighting requirements apply in the -VS overlay zone:
1. All exterior lighting shall be minimized, unobtrusive, down-directed and shielded using the best available dark skies technology, harmonious with the local area, and constructed or located so that only the area intended is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled and that light spill, sky glow and glare impacts are minimized.
2. Lighting of natural areas (such as creeks, riparian areas, the beach, etc.) shall be prohibited past the minimum amount that might be necessary for public safety purposes, except when temporarily permitted in conjunction with a temporary event.
3. The location, type and wattage of exterior lighting must be approved by the community development director prior to the issuance of building permits or the establishment of the use.
F. Coastal Development Permit. If a proposed development is located in the coastal zone, it may require a coastal development permit (CDP) as specified in Chapter 17.44 (Coastal Overlay Zone). Approval of a CDP requires conformance with the CDP findings for approval as specified in Section 17.44.130 (Findings for approval). (Res. 4223, 2021; Ord. 1043 § 2 (Att. 2), 2020).
Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
937
Item 8 C.
Chapter 17.30
VISITOR SERVING DISTRICT – MONARCH COVE INN
Sections:
17.30.010 Applicability.
17.30.020 Purpose.
17.30.030 Architectural and site approval.
17.30.040 Conditionally permitted uses – Monarch Cove Inn.
17.30.050 Accessory uses.
17.30.060 Height.
17.30.070 Lot area.
17.30.080 Lot coverage.
17.30.090 Yards.
17.30.100 Parking.
17.30.110 Loading areas.
17.30.120 Landscaping and lighting.
17.30.010 Applicability.
The regulations set forth in this chapter apply to the Monarch Cove Inn parcels. (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.020 Purpose.
The purpose of the V-S district is to accommodate the visiting public with a range of opportunities to enjoy the city of Capitola’s coastal location. (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.030 Architectural and site approval.
A design permit shall be secured for the establishment and conduct of any conditional or accessory use in a V-S district as provided in Chapter 17.120. (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.040 Conditionally permitted uses – Monarch Cove Inn.
The following are the conditionally permitted uses allowed on the Monarch Cove Inn parcels and the portion of parcel 036-142-28 that is located between the two Monarch Cove Inn parcels:
A. Accessory structures and accessory uses appurtenant to any conditionally allowed use; B. Hotels, motels, hostels, inns; bed and breakfast lodging; C. Food service related to lodging;
D. Assemblages of people, such as festivals, not exceeding ten days and not involving construction of permanent facilities;
E. Accessory structures and uses established prior to establishment of main use or structure; F. Habitat restoration; habitat interpretive facility;
G. Live entertainment;
H. Public paths;
I. Business establishments that provide commercial places of amusement or recreation, live entertainment, or service of alcoholic beverages and that are located within two hundred feet of the boundary of a residential district; J. Weddings;
K. Business establishments that sell or dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption upon the premises; Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
938
Item 8 C.
L. Other visitor serving uses of a similar character, density, and intensity as those listed in this section and determined by the planning commission to be consistent and compatible with the intent of this chapter and the applicable land use plan;
M. Offices and limited retail use, accessory to visitor serving uses; N. One caretaker unit for the purpose of providing on-site security; O. Access roadway;
P. Residential use by the owners and their family members of up to one unit per parcel on the three parcels, as long as a minimum of six guest bedrooms are available for visitor serving use within the three parcels; Q. Nonfamily residential use during the off-season months (November through April). (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.050 Accessory uses.
The following are accessory uses permitted in a V-S district:
A. Signs complying with the applicable regulations set forth in the sign ordinance; B. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use. (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.060 Height.
No structures shall exceed thirty feet in height. Exceptions up to thirty-six feet in height may be granted subject to approval by the city council upon the recommendation of the planning commission when the following findings can be made:
A. The proposed development and design are compatible with existing land uses of surrounding areas and the general plan;
B. Streets and thoroughfares are suitable and adequate to serve the proposed development; C. The proposed development does not produce shadows which may adversely affect the enjoyment of adjacent streets, buildings or open space;
D. Major public views are not blocked by the proposed development. (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.070 Lot area.
The minimum lot area required shall be five thousand square feet. (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.080 Lot coverage.
There shall be no specific maximum lot coverage set except as follows:
A. Sufficient space shall be provided to satisfy off-street parking and loading area requirements, notwithstanding that all parking may be provided within a structure(s); B. Front yard and open space requirements shall be satisfied; C. For the Monarch Cove Inn parcels, the allowable impervious site coverage (e.g., buildings, paving, decks, etc.) is fifty percent. (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.090 Yards.
A. Front, side and rear yard setbacks may be required through design permit approval in order to provide adequate light and air, assure sufficient distance between adjoining uses to minimize any incompatibility and to promote excellence of development. Where a side or rear yard abuts residential property a setback of at least ten feet shall be provided.
B. Front yards and corner lot side yards shall not be used for required parking facilities.
Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
939
Item 8 C.
C. For the Monarch Cove Inn parcels located adjacent to the bluff top, new development shall adhere to the setback and development provisions provided in the LUP’s natural hazards policies and in certified zoning Chapter 17.68 (GH Geologic Hazards District). (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.100 Parking.
Parking standards shall be as provided in Chapter 17.76. (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.110 Loading areas.
Loading areas shall be as provided in Chapter 17.76. (Res. 4223, 2021)
17.30.120 Landscaping and lighting.
A minimum of five percent of the lot area shall be landscaped to ensure harmony with adjacent development in accordance with architectural and site approval standards. For the visitor serving Monarch Cove Inn parcels, fifty percent of the parcels shall consist of landscaped or open space areas. The planting of invasive plant species is prohibited. All exterior lighting shall be unobtrusive, harmonious with the local area and constructed or located so that only the area intended is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled. The location, type and wattage of the exterior lighting must be approved by the community development director prior to the issuance of building permits or the establishment of the use. (Res. 4
Exhibit 4
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2-Part B
940
Item 8 C.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
Th13a
Prepared May 6, 2024 for May 9, 2024 Hearing
To: Commissioners and Interested Persons
From: Kevin Kahn, Central Coast District Manager
Kiana Ford, Coastal Planner
Subject: Additional hearing materials for Th13a
LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2 Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Redesignation)
This package includes additional materials related to the above-referenced hearing item as follows:
Additional correspondence received in the time since the staff report was distributed 941
Item 8 C.
From: CentralCoast@Coastal
To: Ford, Kiana@Coastal
Subject: Fw: Opposition to Redesignation Proposal for Monarch Cove Inn Date: Friday, April 26, 2024 10:30:18 AM
From: Harry <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 9:42 PM
To: CentralCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Redesignation Proposal for Monarch Cove Inn Dear California Coastal Commision,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed redesignation of Monarch Cove Inn to R1 residential. As a resident of the area, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts that this rezoning could have on our community.
Firstly, El Salto Rd is already a shared space, accommodating pedestrians on public trails, hotel visitors, and local residents alike. Introducing R1 zoning and adding more housing to the area would only exacerbate the issue of overcrowding. The infrastructure and resources along El Salto Rd are already stretched thin, and adding more housing units would only further strain these resources. This would negatively impact the quality of life for current residents and visitors alike.
Secondly, it's important to note that El Salto Rd is a private road and lacks sufficient maintenance compared to public roads. This means that any increase in traffic due to the addition of residential units would put additional strain on the already limited resources available for road maintenance. This could lead to further deterioration of the road and potentially compromise the safety of those who use it.
Given these concerns, I urge the Coast Commission to reject the proposal to rezone part of Monarch Cove Inn to R1 residential. Instead, I believe it is essential to prioritize the preservation of the existing community and infrastructure in the area. Any development plans should be carefully considered to ensure that they are in the best interest of all residents and stakeholders.
Thank you for considering my concerns regarding this matter. I trust that you will carefully evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed rezoning and make a decision that is in the best interest of the community.
Sincerely,
942
Item 8 C.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
Th13a
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2 PART B (MONARCH COVE INN
REDESIGNATION)
MAY 9, 2024 HEARING
CORRESPONDENCE
943
Item 8 C.
1 Ford, Kiana@Coastal
From: Dan Da Man <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 9:48 AM
To: CentralCoast@Coastal
Subject: Public Comment on April 2024 Agenda Item Thursday 14a - City of Capitola LCP Amendment No.
LCP-3-CAP-22-0061-2 Part B (Monarch Cove Inn Site Redesignation).
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Categories: Forwarded
The fact that a simple item has been delayed for several years is a testament to the disfunction of the Commission and it's mission. The owners will be dead by the time you get anything done and not one positive outcome will occur as a result of your inaction!
The property is at the end of a dead end street and the neighbors have complained about the Inn activities for decades and the owners simply want to have it zoned as residential, simple request with City of Capitola concurrence. What is the problem CCC??
944
Item 8 C.
620 El Salto Drive
• 3 lots
Amendment to:
• General Plan Map
• Zoning Map
• Zoning Code
Inn
945
Item 8 C.
Recommendation: adopt a resolution
accepting Coastal Commission
modifications to Zoning Code, Zoning Map,
and General Plan Map as included in
attachment #1.
946
Item 8 C.
Background
• 2012-2014 Owner pursued major redevelopment and expansion of Inn. Application withdrawn.
• 2014-2021 Zoning Code Update included Inn property rezone from VS to R-1 with VS overlay
• April 2021 Coastal Commission certified overall update but excluded Inn.
• Late 2021 New application from Inn Owner. VS to R-1 with Visitor Serving Overlay.
• May 2024 Coastal Commission conditionally certified with amendments.
947
Item 8 C.
Coastal Commission
Zoning Code Certification Process
Submit LCP/IP to Coastal Commission
Approves Contingent on
Capitola Adopting Redlines
Capitola
accepts
redlines.
CERTIFIED
Capitola does not
accept redlines.
No further action.
Submittal lapses.
Capitola does not
accept redlines
&
proposes
revisions
948
Item 8 C.
Proposed Amendments
• Zoning Map and GP Map
Existing Owner/City Proposed Coastal
Commission
Modification
949
Item 8 C.
Proposed Amendments – Summary and Changes
• Repeal Chapter 17.30 Visitor Serving
• Create Visitor Serving – Monarch Cove Inn Overlay
• Residential requires dedication of pedestrian easement • Allows owner an option to retire and revert part of property to a residential use and increased flexibility of site. • Retains Monarch Cove Inn as coastal resource.
950
Item 8 C.
Parking
INN
Parking
R-1
R-1
VS
951
Item 8 C.
Weddings and Events
Existing CUP Condition:
If the Monarch Cove Inn is not operated jointly on all three properties, then lodging may continue, but no weddings or events are permitted.
952
Item 8 C.
Adopt a resolution accepting Coastal
Commission modifications to Zoning Code,
Zoning Map, and General Plan Map as
included in attachment #1
953
Item 8 C.
Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: July 25, 2024
From: City Manager Department
Subject: League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate Recommended Action: Designate the City of Capitola’s voting delegate and alternate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
Background: The 2024 League of California Cities (League) Annual Conference will be held in Long Beach from October 16th through October 18th. At this meeting, the League holds its annual business meeting to consider and vote on resolutions that establish League policy.
Discussion: To vote on these items, the City must designate a voting delegate. Each city should appoint one delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Designation of the voting delegate must be done by City Council action.
The delegate and alternate(s) must be registered to attend the conference, but they need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. At least one voting delegate or alternate must be present at the General Assembly on Friday and in possession of the voting card to cast a vote. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Council Members may use funds budgeted for travel and training expenses to attend the conference.
Report Prepared By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
954
Item 8 D.
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 16-18, 2024 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.
Taking place on Oct. 18, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.
To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.
Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 25. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.
Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.
Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.
Council Action Advised by September 25, 2024
955
Item 8 D.
For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.
Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.
Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.
Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.
Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 25. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].
Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 956
Item 8 D.
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.
6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
957
Item 8 D.
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.
How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.
The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.
The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.
Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.
Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.
Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.
Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.
The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.
Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.
Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.
During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.
Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.
For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.
General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 958 Item 8 D.
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEGATE
2024 959
Item 8 D.
Background
League of CA Cities Annual Conference will be held
10/16-18 in Long Beach
General Assembly is held during the Conference
If a resolution is approved at General Assembly, it becomes CA Cities policy
Policy resolutions & petition resolutions may be
considered during the conference
September 25 – Deadline to appoint a voting delegate
960
Item 8 D.
Discussion
Voting delegates are appointed by each member
City, each City has one voting delegate and up to 2
alternates.
Voting delegates must attend the conference for the
General Assembly (Friday) but are not required to
attend the entire conference.
Council Members Brooks is registered to attend.
961
Item 8 D.
Recommended Action
Appoint 1 member of the City Council as a voting
delegate, appoint 1 to 2 members of the City
Council as alternates.
962
Item 8 D.