Community Workshop #3
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023
Time: 6:00 PM
Place: Point Arena City Hall - 451 School Street
& via Zoom https://zoom.us/s/84888251095
DISCUSSION TOPICS:
1. Results of Community Housing Survey and Property Owner Survey
2. Updated Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) Regulations
3. Potential Housing Project on Vacant Property Owned by City of Point Arena
4. Opportunities to Simplify and Streamline Permitting Procedures WORKSHOP MATERIALS:
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY REPORT
A. Survey Final Report & Analysis
B. Revised ADU & JADU Ordinance
C. Map of City-Owned Property (24001 S Hwy 1)
D. Existing Zoning Regulations (Planned Residential Development, Comprehensive Development Plans, Site Design and Architectural Review) - 1 -
TOPIC 1: RESULTS OF COMMUNITY HOUSING SURVEY AND PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY As part of the LCP update process, the City conducted two surveys: the Community Survey and the Property Owner Survey. These surveys were developed with input from the public and were intended to gather responses from the community on their preferences and ideas for the LCP amendment process.
The results of these surveys provide valuable insights into the community's priorities and concerns. The Community Survey and Property Owner Survey: Final Report & Analysis (Attachment A) presents the tabulated survey results and key findings from both surveys.
By considering the community feedback provided in these surveys, the City Council can ensure that the updated LCP reflects the community's vision and values related to housing development in Point Arena.
- 2 -
TOPIC 2: UPDATED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) & JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (JADU) REGULATIONS
The City Council adopted a revised ADU ordinance in 2020 ("2020 ADU Ordinance). Coastal Commission staff reviewed the 2020 ADU Ordinance and provided extensive comments. The Housing Update team met with Commission staff last fall to review their comments on the City's 2020 ADU ordinance and to discuss approaches to resolve the issues identified. Subsequently, a modified ADU ordinance was prepared and informally reviewed with Commission staff. Following those initial consultations, "Revised ADU Regulations" (Attachment B) were prepared for review the Council and community. The Revised ADU Regulations presented in Attachment B accomplish the following:
▪ The 2020 ADU Ordinance was a stand-alone ordinance. The Revised ADU Regulations are woven into the City's existing Zoning Code.
▪ The Revised ADU Regulations address updated State ADU laws that were enacted after the 2020 ADU Ordinance was prepared.
▪ The Revised ADU Regulations retain a similar permitting framework for ADUs as in the 2020 ADU Ordinance. Certain types of ADUs would be exempted from the requirement to obtain a coastal development permit (CDP) and those requiring a CDP would be approved administratively (i.e., without a public hearing). ▪ The Revised ADU Regulations establish objective standards for protection of coastal resources that, if met, would be the basis for an exemption from the CDP requirement.
These standards also respond to issues raised in the Coastal Commission's initial response letter to the 2020 ADU Ordinance.
▪ The Revised ADU Regulations establish an administrative CDP process that is consistent with State ADU laws.
The Housing Team is seeking Council and community feedback regarding these draft Revised ADU Regulations before bringing it forward for formal Council action. While much of the language in the Revised ADU Regulations is dictated by State ADU laws, some provisions are crafted specifically for Point Arena. Specific provisions for which we seek input or which are noteworthy include the following:
➢ As proposed, Section 18.25.060(5)(f) reads:
(f) ADUs and JADUs are intended to increase the supply of non-transient housing. Restrictions regarding use of ADUs and/or JADUs as short-term rentals are as follows:
- 3 -
i. ADUs and JADUs may be rented, but only with a rental agreement with terms greater than 30 days. ADUs and JADUs may not be used for short-term rentals. ii. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU or JADU, a deed restriction, approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office which shall identify the prohibitions on the use of an ADU or JADU for short-term rentals and all other pertinent restrictions. Said deed restriction shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon any future owners, heirs, or assigns.
Coastal Commission staff have suggested that, as a way of ensuring that ADUs/JADUs increase the supply of non-transient housing, the City should consider prohibiting any residence on a property containing an ADU or a JADU from being used as a short-term rental.
The Housing Team is seeking feedback on this suggestion. ➢ Section 18.25.060(8) establishes parking requirements for ADUs as follows:
(a) No parking is required for a JADU.
(b) No more than one parking space shall be required for an ADU, regardless of the number of bedrooms.
(c) Tandem parking shall be permitted.
(d) When a garage, carport or covered parking structure is either converted to an ADU or demolished in conjunction with construction of an ADU, replacement of those off-street parking spaces for the primary unit shall not be required.
This is noted because off-street parking was a topic of Council and community discussion for a recent project which included ADUs. The above parking standards are established by State ADU laws. While the City could require less parking for ADUs, it cannot require more. ➢ Section 18.25.060(9) establishes objective requirements to ensure protection of coastal resources. If an ADU or JADU meets these objective requirements along with all of the other requirements in Section 18.25.060, it will be permitted with an administrative CDP that must be approved within a 60-day timeframe. If it does not meet the requirements, the streamlined administrative process for the CDP may take longer than 60 days and the permit may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied.
This section of the Revised ADU Regulations is one where a considerable amount of negotiation with Coastal Commission staff has occurred and more may be required after submittal of the revised ADU amendments for certification by the Coastal Commission. - 4 -
➢ Section 18.35.120(1) modifies the LCP's definition of categories of development that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a CDP by noting that JADUs and attached ADUs are exempted if they are consistent with all of the development standards in Section 18.25.060.
The Housing Team has received pushback from Coastal Commission staff on the added language based on the Commission's unwillingness to exempt ADUs in other jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, we believe there is a solid rationale for exempting attached ADUs and we recommend that the City continue to push for this expanded exemption. ➢ Section 18.35.165 is an entirely new section that establishes a "streamlined administrative process for ADUs." The process involves the following steps after an application for an ADU and/or JADU is submitted:
▪ Planner shall determine whether project is exempted or excluded from requirement to obtain a CDP. If it is, a certificate of exemption or exclusion will be issued and applicant can proceed with building permit application. ▪ If CDP is required, project will be reviewed for consistency with objective standards in Section 18.25.060 and, if it is consistent, City Manager or his/her designee shall approve the CDP within 60 days of submittal of the application. ▪ If the project is not consistent with the objective standards in Section 18.25.060, then a CDP shall be processed and the City Manager or his/her designee shall either approve, conditionally approve, or deny the CDP based on findings and, if necessary, conditions.
▪ No public hearings are required. CDPs that are approved are not appealable to the City Council. CDPs that are within the Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction are appealable.
This section is noteworthy as it establishes the framework for streamlining CDPs for ADUs and JADUs.
Coastal Commission staff has indicated that, rather than withdrawing the LCP amendment application that is in process and starting anew, the City Council can adopt a resolution authorizing staff to transmit the Revised ADU Regulations as an updated version to the previously submitted LCP amendment. After receiving feedback from the Council and community at the February 7, 2023 workshop, the Revised ADU Regulations will be modified as needed and brought back to the Council for formal action and then transmitted to the Coastal Commission.
- 5 -
TOPIC 3: POTENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT ON VACANT PROPERTY OWNED BY CITY OF POINT ARENA
Background
The City of Point Arena owns two vacant parcels on the east side of Highway One adjacent to the Cypress Meadows subdivision (Attachment C):
▪ APN 027-061-022; 24001 S Highway One; General Plan/Zoning: Highway Commercial;
1.66 acres (includes the cul-de-sac).
▪ APN 027-061-020; 24001 S Highway One; General Plan/Zoning: Highway Commercial;
0.59 acres.
The total acreage is 2.25 acres and, when the cul-de-sac and right of way are netted out, the developable acreage of the City's property is approximately 1.7 acres.
Highway Commercial zoning designation
The Highway Commercial (HWC) zoning allows multi-family development with a number of restrictions, including the following:
▪ Residential density is capped at 15 dwelling units/acre; ▪ At least 15 percent of the project area must be set aside as permanent useable open space (which space is in addition to patios, decks and yards); - 6 -
▪ Residential units may occupy no more than 25% of the land area; ▪ Residential units must be located on the rear 40% of the lot.
Based on the 15 units/acre density cap (applied to the gross area of the parcel), roughly 34 units could be developed on the City's property. The requirements that development be located on the rear 40% of a parcel and that 15% of the property be dedicated to useable open space (in addition to patios, decks and yards) would hinder the feasibility of a housing project.
State Density Bonus Law
Fortunately, for affordable housing projects, State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) allows a density bonus of up to 80%. Realistically, given the need for on-site parking and useable open space, the capacity of the site is likely within the 15 units/acre density range.
For this site, the utility of SDBL lies in its requirement that cities and counties provide incentives or concessions for affordable housing projects, including a waiver or reduction in development standards if such standards would preclude construction of a project at its permitted density. Use of these SDBL provisions would provide flexibility in the application of the HWC development standards cited above and would make development of an affordable housing project feasible on the City's property.
See "Guide to California Density Bonus Law" at https://www.meyersnave.com/wpcontent/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law_2021.pdf for a summary of how SDBL can be used to address constraints to development of affordable housing projects.
Next steps for an affordable housing project
Moving forward with a development project on the City-owned property would involve the following steps:
1. Interview Prospective Affordable Housing Developers. Two non-profit affordable housing developers, Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) and DANCO were contacted by the Housing Team. Both have expressed an interest developing the City property. Both entities have a strong presence in Mendocino County and a good track-record in developing and operating affordable housing projects. The interview process would give the Council an opportunity to get to know the prospective developers, hear about their existing projects, gain an understanding of how they would approach conceptual planning for the site; etc.
2. Select an Affordable Housing Developer. After interviewing the developers, the City Council would select one to partner with on the project. An agreement ofsome sort would - 7 -
be established spelling out the responsibilities of the developer and the City during the planning and permitting process.
3. Perform pre-development studies. The developer would be responsible for performing necessary resources studies, geotechnical/soils report; and preparing site analyses, conceptual development plans, cost estimates, etc. The City may be able to assist with funding through a CDBG planning and technical assistance grant and/or other housing grant programs.
4. Permitting process. The developer would submit and the City would process applications for required planning permits and then building permits.
5. Enter into Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). A DDA is essentially a purchase and sale agreement that spells out how the City's property will be transferred to the developer and the attendant obligations of each party.
6. Assembling construction funds. Developer would be responsible for assembling financing for construction of the affordable housing project. There are a number of State and federal programs that provide funding for affordable housing.
7. Construction. Construction would likely take 12-18 months to complete.
8. Occupancy. The Developer would be responsible for operation of the affordable housing project, including screening prospective tenants for eligibility based on established affordability levels.
The Housing Team recommends that the City Council consider directing staff to move forward with an affordable housing developer interview and selection process in order to jump-start the planning process for an affordable housing project on the City-owned property.
We recommend that the process start with a request for submittal of a letter of interest and Statement of Qualifications from prospective developers. The interviews should be conducted as openly and transparently as possible - which points towards conducting the interviews and accepting public comments and questions at a future City Council meeting. After deliberations, the Council would select one developer to partner with on the housing project.
We further recommend that the City consider applying for a State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planning & Technical Assistance grant to help offset staff and consultant costs during the pre-development phases of the affordable housing project and to obtain funds that could be directed to site analyses, surveys, engineering and other pre-development costs. - 8 -
Assuming that the CDBG program calendar for 2023 will be similar to that in 2022, a Notice of Funding Availability may be issued in April with grant applications due in June and awards announced in September of 2023. The City is eligible for up to $250,000 in CDBG Planning & Technical Assistance funds that could be directed towards the affordable housing project. - 9 -
TOPIC 4: OPPORTUNITIES TO SIMPLIFY AND STREAMLINE PERMITTING PROCEDURES The LCP Update process presents an opportunity for the City of Point Arena to consider modifications to its permitting requirements to simplify and streamline the process for applicants.
As noted in the Housing Team's December 12, 2022 report to the City Council, the Zoning Code has specific sections for coastal development permits, planned residential development, and comprehensive development plans. Requirements for other permits (i.e., conditional use permits, site development and architectural review permits, and variances) are scattered throughout Chapter 18.30 and Chapter 18.25. The proposed reorganization of the Code that was reviewed at the Dec 12, 2022 Council meeting, will help clarify permitting requirements and will address other short-comings (like the lack of a procedure to extend a permit beyond its initial two-year term). The reorganization of the Code and the associated revisions will make it easier for applicants, staff and decision-makers to understand and move through the permitting process.
In terms of streamlining and simplifying Point Arena's permit procedures - the Housing Team recommends that the City consider modifications to three sections of the Zoning Code which have a considerable amount of overlap and duplication:
➢ Section 18.30.130 Planned residential development (PRD) ➢ Section 18.30.140 Comprehensive development plans
➢ Section 18.25.150 Site development and architectural review Attachment D presents all three of these Zoning Code sections. Short summaries are provided below:
Section 18.30.130 Planned Residential Development-
▪ The Planned Residential Development (PRD) process is required for:
o new development and land divisions on parcels of 10 acres or more in the Suburban Residential (SR), Urban Residential (UR) or Multifamily Residential (MR) zones.
- 10 -
▪ The PRD process is intended to encourage and allow flexibility in application of development standards; to preserve open space; and to facilitate comprehensive public review.
▪ The PRD process is performed in conjunction with a Coastal Development Permit. It eliminates any requirement for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Design and Architectural Review or Variance.
▪ The PRD regulations establish a common open space requirement of 50% of the total acreage.
Section 18.30.140 Comprehensive Development Plans-
▪ A Comprehensive Development Plan is required for:
o all development proposals governed by the PRD process (in addition to a Coastal Development Permit application).
o development consisting of mixed uses and live-work space in the Commercial (C) zone
o Conditionally permitted residential uses in the Highway Commercial (HWC) zone.
A Conditional Use Permit is also required.
▪ Requires comprehensive planning for all contiguous properties (if total acreage is 10+ acres) under one ownership regardless of location/scope of development proposed. ▪ Allows for flexible application of development standards if public benefit findings can be made.
▪ Requires recordation of conditions, covenants & restrictions. ▪ Requires submittal of very detailed plans and studies.
18.25.150 Site Development and Architectural Review (SDAR)- ▪ SDAR is required for "relocation, construction, external remodeling or additions to structures, and alteration of the natural contours of the land" ▪ Regulations include criteria for:
o siting new development, including ridgeline development o design features, scale, architectural character
o landscaping, landscape plans and tree removal
- 11 -
o utilities
o signs
o grading
o driveways, fences, walls
o land divisions.
▪ Regulations include required contents of applications. ▪ SDAR is to be conducted concurrently with Coastal Development Permits and, if required, Conditional Use Permits.
Possible modifications to the Zoning Code that would simplify the permitting process and remove barriers to new housing development include the following:
1. Meld the requirements of the PRD, Comprehensive Development Plan and SDAR sections into one comprehensive, unified set of SDAR regulations that can be administered concurrently with the Coastal Development Permit process.
2. Expand the universe of projects that are exempted from the requirement to go through the SDAR process.
3. Consider simplifying design requirements for land divisions easier. The existing PRD regulations are an impediment to the simple subdivision of land to create more parcels for housing.
4. Establish a Planned Development (PD) process whereby developers of properties that meet some minimum size requirement can utilize the PD process to obtain flexibility in the application of development standards in exchange for preservation of open space and other public benefits. Most importantly, the decision to utilize the PD process would be optional, not mandatory. We recommend 3 acres as the minimum rather than the current 10 acres, as this would offer the flexibility in development standards to a broader range of projects. The PD process would be conducted concurrently with the SDAR and Coastal Development Permit process. It could supplant the need for a User Permit.
The Housing Team seeks feedback on the above recommendations and welcomes any other suggestions for simplifying the City's permitting processes. We will return at a future Council meeting with proposed redline edits to these three sections of the Zoning Code for further review and comment.
Attachment A
- 1 -
Community Survey and Property Owner Survey: Final
Report & Analysis
Background
The City of Point Arena is in the process of updating its Local Coastal Plan (LCP), a set of regulations that govern development within the city, in order to address the critical lack of affordable housing in the community. The LCP plays a critical role in protecting the city's natural resources and promoting sustainable development, and its update is an important opportunity to ensure that the city's development is consistent with the community's vision and values.
As part of the LCP updating process, the City conducted two surveys: the Community Survey and the Property Owner Survey. These surveys were developed with input from the public in order to gather responses from the community on their preferences and ideas for the LCP amendment process. The surveys were released on September 13, 2022 and formally closed on November 17, 2022.
The results of these surveys provide valuable insights into the community's priorities and concerns. This report presents the key findings from each survey. By incorporating the feedback from these surveys, the City can ensure that the updated LCP reflects the community's vision and values.
Goals
The overarching goal of both surveys is to provide detailed information about the community’s preferences and priorities to the City Council to help inform decisions regarding Point Arena’s LCP Amendment Process. That said, each survey has a number of other specific goals which are outlined in below:
Community Survey
● Engage a broad cross-section of the community in the process. ● Understand the dimensions of the housing crisis in Point Arena, including the types of housing that are needed and the demographic categories that are currently underserved by the housing market.
● Get a sense of the community’s priorities for future development. ● Gauge the community’s sentiment towards vacation rentals. ● Generate general awareness of the LCP amendment process among community members Property Owner Survey
Attachment A
- 2 -
● Gauge the willingness of property owners to develop housing on their properties. ● Understand the impediments to development as seen by property owners.
Design Principles
A number of specific decisions were made in an effort to increase participation in and engagement with the surveys. These design principles include:
● Focus on accessibility and clarity:
○ Make both surveys, along with all outreach materials, available in English and Spanish. ○ Prefer shorter questions over longer questions, when appropriate. ○ Avoid jargon, acronyms, and unnecessarily technical language. ○ Avoid asking the same question multiple times in slightly different ways. ● Ask non-prejudicial questions:
○ Avoid leading questions that suggest the answer in their structure. ○ Ask questions that are relevant to the personal experience of the respondent. ● Encourage completion:
○ Total survey length of less than 10 minutes.
○ Avoid questions that might lead to abandonment of the survey, including excessively personal questions, unnecessary demographic questions, and potentially offensive/exclusionary language.
○ Avoid “required” answers wherever appropriate.
The community was included early and often in the design process, in particular at the City Council meeting on June 21, 2022 and at the City Council Workshop on July 26, 2022. Community partners (details below) were included in the survey design process in advance of the survey rollout.
Methodology
In order to implement the survey, a number of methodologies were used. In this section we will discuss how these techniques were used in service of the goals and principles above, and in order to avoid potential pitfalls.
● “Where do you live?”
○ This critical question allowed us to segment respondents based on where they live.
Being as this survey is focused on the City of Point Arena, responses made by residents of the City may have a particular weight. In the “Results and Analysis” section below, all Community Survey data is reported for both the entire survey population and the crosssection of Point Arena residents. Some of the cross-sectional analysis uses a segment Attachment A
- 3 -
that includes Point Arena residents and people who rely on the City for goods and services. Because those who live close to the City are also stakeholders in its future, they were included in these cross-sections.
● Likert Scale Questions
○ A Likert scale is a type of rating scale used in surveys to measure the degree of agreement or disagreement of a respondent with a statement or question. The scale usually consists of a series of statements, with a range of responses usually ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Likert scale questions are commonly used in social science and market research to measure attitudes, beliefs, and opinions, allowing researchers to assess the intensity of a respondent's agreement or disagreement with a statement, providing more nuanced insights into their attitudes and opinions. ○ We have utilized Likert scale questions throughout the survey, to gauge both directionality and intensity in responses. These questions have yielded some of the survey’s most thought-provoking results.
● Data Representation
○ The majority of responses are represented in the following formats:
■ Pie Chart - A pie chart is a circular statistical graphic, which is divided into slices to illustrate numerical proportion. It is used to represent the composition of data, where each slice represents a category and its size is proportional to the quantity it represents, making it easy to compare relative proportions. ■ Vertical Bar Graph - A bar graph, also known as a bar chart, is a chart or graph that presents categorical data with rectangular bars. It is useful for comparing data across different categories
■ Stacked Horizontal Bar Graph - A stacked horizontal bar graph is a variation of a horizontal bar graph, where the values of individual items are stacked on top of each other, allowing for multiple levels of comparison in a single bar. It is used to represent the composition of individual components within a whole, showing the contribution of each component to the total value.
■ Raw Data Tables - In the Addendum you will find raw data tables including written responses to questions. It is recommended that you review this section, given the numerous insightful written responses.
● Duplicate Protection
○ In order to prevent survey vandalism, we checked the IP addresses of all responses for duplicates. While there were several IP addresses with two or three responses, this is likely multiple people responding using the same internet connection. While it is conceivable that an advanced actor used IP-blocking software to circumvent this safeguard, it is very unlikely.
● Comparisons to Census Data
○ We compare survey results to data from the US Census Bureau on several occasions in the Results & Analysis section below. Except where otherwise specified, this data comes from the American Communities Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. This data is Attachment A
- 4 -
relatively low quality, due to Point Arena’s size and location. As such, this data has a substantial margin for error, as illustrated in the Census data table under Question 7. ○ While the 2020 census was completed several years ago, we are still awaiting the release of the Demographics & Housing Characteristics File which should include higherquality data. This is currently slated for release on May 31st, 2023.
As a final note under methodology, it is important to say that through a carefully considered methodological approach, we conducted a survey that serves as a useful “snapshot” of community sentiment. These results should not be considered the final word on how the community feels about housing issues. For one, only a portion of community members took the survey, and, while we went to great lengths to widely publicize and make available the survey, it is certain that the population of respondents is not perfectly representative of either the population of Point Arena or the surrounding area. Additionally, the survey was conducted over a couple of months in late 2022. It is possible that community preferences will evolve and change as the LCP amendment process moves forward and the community becomes more involved and informed on issues related to housing.
Survey Rollout & Community Partners
Survey rollout began on September 13, 2022 and continued throughout the survey’s duration. All outreach communications were made available in both English and Spanish. ● Email - An email blast to the City’s entire email list. ● Social Media - Posts were made on the City’s social media channels throughout the survey process.
● Website - Links to both surveys were made available, along with background information around the LCP process, on the City’s “Housing” webpage. ● Every Door Direct Mail (EDDM) - 848 mailboxes (every PO Box in Point Arena and both mail routes in the 95468 postal zone) were stuffed with a flier that included information about the survey, a QR code linking to the survey, and detailed instructions about where and how to fill out a paper copy.
● Posters - City staff canvassed the town with posters containing detailed information about the survey.
● Flyers - Stacks of flyers were available at several public locations around the City, and were also distributed to our community partners.
● Press/ICO - We have distributed the press release to the City’s press list and the survey will be publicized in the upcoming issue of the ICO
● Schools - Students brought home to their families a flier that included a QR code linking to the survey, and detailed instructions about where and how to fill out a paper copy.
Community Partners:
We engaged a number of groups with deep roots in the community to ensure broad accessibility, to provide input into survey design, and to fill in any gaps that may exist in our outreach strategy. These community partners include:
Attachment A
- 5 -
● Action Network
● Mendonoma Health Alliance
● South Coast Organizing for Radical Equity
● Point Arena Unified School District
We would like to heartily thank each of these partners, along with all other members of the community who helped to make this survey a success.
Community Survey: Results & Analysis
In this section, we present and breakdown the results of the Community Survey.
Demographics
Question 1
A large majority of survey respondents either live within the city limits or rely on the city for services.
This result confirms that our survey was well-targeted to the community of Point Arena and the immediately surrounding area.
Question 2
Attachment A
- 6 -
According to Census 2020 data, 34% of Point Arena residents are 50 and older, while 28.6% are under
18. Of Point Arena residents that responded to the survey, 62.5% are 50 or older while we received zero responses from people under 18 years old. In a perfectly representative sample of adults living in Point Arena, we would expect 47.9% of respondents to be over 50 years old. This means that young adults are somewhat underrepresented in our sample, but not dramatically. This skew towards an older population is a common characteristic of surveys.
Question 3
A significant proportion of respondents report household income below $60,000. This suggests that we were successful in reaching across socioeconomic barriers to different segments of the community. We will use this income data for cross-sectional analysis below.
Question 4
Attachment A
- 7 -
While the majority of our respondents were home-owners, we received a significant number of responses from non-home-owners as well. According to data from the Census 2020, 43.7% of units are owner-occupied versus 56.3% which are renter occupied. This suggests a slight oversampling of home-owners versus renters.
Personal Housing Information
Question 5
Question 6
Attachment A
- 8 -
The average household size in our dataset is 2.41
which is almost exactly in line with Census 2020
data which has an average of 2.53 for owneroccupied-units and 2.28 for renter-occupied units. The graph to the right shows that there are
28 respondents living on under $60,000/year with
a household size of 3 or greater. Notably, 20 out
of 28 of the respondents are renters.
Question 7
Attachment A
- 9 -
- Many homeowners do not pay a mortgage
- Most renters in the area report paying rent of
between $500 and $1,499.
- Most renters reported paying more than the
American Community Survey data at right. This
could suggest sharp increases in rent.
- The chart at right highlights the low-quality of
the ACS data for Point Arena, with margins of
error over 30% in some cases.
Census Bureau - ACS 5-Year Estimates
Question 8
Question 9
Attachment A
- 10 -
A significant majority of properties have a single dwelling on them. This suggests untapped potential for infill development and ADUs.
Question 10
Question 11
Attachment A
- 11 -
Housing Policy Questions
Question 12 - (note that the y-axis is not in the same order for each chart) - Positive support for ALL types of development with the exception of mobile home parks, indicating a strong community preference for development across the board. - Rental housing is the top priority by a significant margin across the dataset. - Strong support for ADU development, which is the second most-supported priority. - Relatively weak support for “for-sale housing,” although over 60% still support its development to some degree.
- Notable lack of enthusiasm for the development of mobile home parks.
Attachment A
- 12 -
In this cross-sectional analysis we look at respondents below certain income thresholds. You can see that support for rental housing increases progressively, and even support for mobile home parks— although weak in the aggregate—grows as we look at lower income brackets. For-sale housing, on the other hand, falls even lower. One reason for this could be that homeownership feels like an unattainable goal to many people in this category.
Question 13
Attachment A
- 13 -
There is a strong sense in the community that
low-income housing should be prioritized.
Housing for the homeless and senior housing also
received particularly strong support. We received
36 written responses to this question (see
Addendum section below). Many of the written
responses advocated broadly for housing for any
and all segments of the community. Another
common theme was developing housing for
medical professionals and/or educators.
Question 14 - (note that the y-axis is not in the same order for each chart) Attachment A
- 14 -
- Across the board, there is a strong sense that vacation rentals should be regulated/limited within city limits.
- There is not robust support for an outright ban on vacation rentals. - Many respondents indicated that they are unfamiliar with current regulations regarding vacation rentals, suggesting that there is an opportunity for community education and communication.
Question 15
Attachment A
- 15 -
When pooling “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” responses, “people can’t afford to build” is the most common response by a significant margin. The other 3 top responses point to permitting and regulations. Clearly, there is a strong sense that these are the primary impediments to development, rather than site constraints like water or vacant land. In the aggregate, these responses validate the City’s work to amend the LCP, simplify the permitting process, and remove other barriers to development.
We received 18 written responses to this question, which can be found in the Addendum section below. While there were numerous interesting responses, a prevailing theme in many further emphasized the “onerous, expensive, and density restricting permitting process.” One representative response said that, “[When building,] I felt as if I was continually jumping through hoops, one after another with no preparation.”
Question 16
This question is similar to Question 12 (“The City should focus its energy on the development of…”), but is site-specific rather than general. While the response is similar, we see increased support for apartments and co-housing on the City-owned site.
Attachment A
- 16 -
Question 17
We received 12 written responses to this question, which can be found in the Addendum section below. New development on vacant parcels at the north end of town is a clear priority, however, that response may be cued by the prior question (i.e., an error in survey design).
Question 18
Attachment A
- 17 -
After reviewing the survey to this point, these results will not come as a shock. Still, they again underscore the urgent need for housing development in the community. A nearly unanimous 95.7% of Point Arena residents strongly agree or agree with the statement that Point Arena needs more rental housing. 37.5% of residents report having considered moving away due to concerns over housing costs.
Question 19
For Point Arena residents, nearly 87.5% of respondents want to see at least 10 new units in the next decade. More than 55% want to see 25 or more units. In a community the size of Point Arena, this is a great deal of housing. These results suggest that the Council has a mandate and a responsibility to act boldly to generate new housing in the coming years.
Attachment A
- 18 -
Note that, in addition to the data above, we received 87 additional comments through our open-ended comment box at the end of the survey. Many of these comments are insightful and contain thoughtful suggestions for housing in Point Arena. We recommend that readers of this report review the compendium of those comments, which is available in the Addendum section below.
Attachment A
- 19 -
Property Owner Survey: Results & Analysis
In this section, we present and breakdown the results of the Property Owner Survey.
Property Information
Question 1 Question 2
Question 3 Question 4
“Other” responses ranged from “an outbuilding”
to six residences.
A fair number of respondents indicated at least
one vacancy. This suggests that there may be
unoccupied homes available in the city.
Question 5 Question 6
Attachment A
- 20 -
Among the “Other” responses, four respondents
indicated zero while the other two indicated five.
Attachment A
- 21 -
Housing Policy Questions
Question 7 Question 8
Many land-owners (15 respondents) expressed a
desire to develop more housing on their
properties, especially ADUs and rental housing. 9
respondents were interested in splitting their
parcels and 8 were interested in establishing a
vacation rental(s).
Almost half of the respondents cited a lack of
financial resources as a barrier to development of
housing on their properties. “I don’t know where
to begin” was the second most common
response, indicating a potential opportunity for
the City to provide information to help bridge this
information gap. Other common concerns include
permitting and zoning.
Question 9 Question 10
Attachment A
- 22 -
Nearly half of respondents expressed an interest in ADU development. This is an encouraging response, given the ongoing efforts to streamline ADU development regulations, the City’s recent actions to establish an ADU Loan program, and the upcoming creation of an ADU Toolkit to assist property owners.
Question 11 Question 12
These comments aim to explore the quality of Point Arena’s housing stock, and the availability of funds to complete needed repairs. Encouragingly, 20 out of 21 respondents plan to complete repairs of >$1,000 in the coming years while 11 out of 21 foresee over $10,000 worth of repairs in that time frame.
Attachment A
- 23 -
Summaries
Community Survey:
While the Community Survey surfaced many interesting results and insights from the community, the common thread throughout the responses is a strong and urgent call for more housing, especially housing that is available for renters and low-income families. While cross-sectional data analysis does provide some fine-grained differences between segments of the population, this conclusion was consistent across segments, whether we looked at renters or homeowners, people in Point Arena or those that rely on it for services, low-income or high-income, etc.
Property Owner Survey:
Respondents to the Property Owner Survey signaled an encouraging willingness to develop housing on their properties, in particular ADUs. Many indicated that permitting, zoning, and regulation are significant impediments to future development, which gives the City a clear place to consider streamlining and improvements. Others noted a lack of the financing or baseline information to move forward with a housing project, revealing other potential areas where the City can help facilitate the creation of additional rental units going forward.
Attachment A
- 24 -
Addendum - Individual Responses
Note that in order to preserve anonymity, identifying features have been removed from all responses.
Responses that have been edited are denoted with an asterisk. Rude or vulgar statements may have been censored or deleted.
Community Survey - Individual Responses
Q11 - If your home is unhealthy and/or unsafe, which conditions are present? Mildew - seasonal
*I have several people living in trailers and mobile buses because they cannot find nor afford housing, so the county wants me to kick them out -- but they will be homeless if I do that -- where is the logic? They are in clean, maintained, safe spaces but the county regulations are not humane *It’s a converted 2 car garage: not to code in general
*A family member owns this house. We're lucky enough to be able to pay for most maintenance, but we do worry about exterior mold, flickering lights/electrical wiring, our older septic system, and the cost of PROPANE heating, which is also the most polluting and climate-harming fossil fuel. We should promote solar panels and all-electric heat pumps for space and water heating, in Gualala and PA and throughout Mendocino County. dead trees
things stop working and landlord doesn't fix
New building but some of the building materials are rapidly breaking down under the salt air & extreme weather conditions.
Q13 - The City should prioritize development of housing for… All people
People just regular people
First time home buyers
More expensive homes also to offset costs of the other types of housing listed All housing available increases available housing for everyone. Just develop everything you can Everyone
artists and community members, ex-pot trimmers who are being forced to move away due to cost.
Attachment A
- 25 -
People who live and work in town such as teachers nurses medical first responders young people who want to stay in the community they were raised in or work here (away from the big city), living with roommates or decent apartments.
There are many families of 4 living on FAR LESS than 64k Middle/high income families
Singles or small families to assist with staffing in businesses and schools medium-sized families...4 or fewer people
i dont think the city should be focused on development at all. we have a quiet coastal charm which draws tourists. development will destroy that. Why do we want to create worker/low income housing for jobs in Sea Ranch? Workers are going south. let Sea Ranch add more worker housing. More development will tax the existing infrastructure (sewer, water, power) creating the need for costly upgrades. Existing homeowner should not pay to increase capacity
normal people, average incomes, who can't afford to buy, but work here.
All families
Single income earners
families with children
Zoning (and lessening of Coastal Commission restrictions) to allow more housing on individual parcels, so there can be co-housing communities.
Renovating existing structures for long term local residential use Everyone who wishes to live here.
Veterans
Persons employed in the greater Mendonoma area
Modest quality homes for everyone.
Shouldn't pick sides
Teachers
Workers: Medical, hospitality, utility, construction
Middle-income households
Middle Income
Employees working locally
Working families
Attachment A
- 26 -
all the teachers, health workers, etc. that we need here.
Smaller family of 2
Q15 - Do you agree with the following statements? I believe the lack of new housing in Point Arena is because…
Not enough long term rentals, owners need to be incentivized.
Used to be some nimbys in town (and area) that prevented options for development. They clashed with Bill Hay who wanted to develop Mill St. to meet up with Riverside, Bill was going to finance a swimming pool for our town. That would have been a win/win, now we have lose/lose. 1. Bill moved the address of the water Co. to Gualala. 2. No new housing for young low income families. We need housing for workers. 3. No swimming pool for senior health and local kids to learn to swim. infrastructure needs
we need more ADUs
outside investors don’t understand what makes a town special - development by non locals makes small town change too dramatically
non-sustainable living practices (like use of propane or firewood for home heat) The burden of extensive environmental review for small projects is ridiculously expensive Properties & Businesses bought should be Kept OPEN!
Vacation rental market is taking up too much of the housing options. i believe only local residents should be allowed to vacation rent their property. Non locals buy housing, then take profits out of the community. development should be on an individual basis. No big developments or too much low income housing. People aren't working here; they commute to Sea Ranch.
Too many units that could be rental housing are on the vacation rental market properties are overpriced and certain entities can afford to buy them up and keep them vacant.
It would be helpful to know what one faces when building in PA. I felt as if I was continually jumping through hoops, one after another with no preparation. We have lost good citizens here because of the permitting process. They chose to leave and go somewhere else nearby instead.
The city should be exempt from the Coastal Commission regulations (as is San Francisco and other incorporated cities along the coast). It is nearly impossible to build on land within the city limits that hasn't already been cleared, due to all of the protections and restrictions. We are 100% for protecting large areas of land (that is what the Stornetta lands are for), but there should be room for people, too. The city must find it very difficult to grow, with all of the restraints set forth by the Coastal Commission.
Restrictions on SIZE of property is limiting who can own land and build on it.
Attachment A
- 27 -
No incentive for commercial (speculative) builders, just well off retired people like me The main cause of the housing crisis is the onerous, expensive, and density restricting permitting process that has disrupted supply while demand has grown and prices rise. We shouldn't be surprised that landlords will charge as much as they can. The City can't "fix" the problem by adding more regulations and restrictions.
Water is too expensive
Q16 - What do you think would be the best use of the City-owned vacant parcel (2 acres) located across Highway 1 from City Hall?
Recycle center and apartments
Senior housing, apartments, tiny houses, co-housing. Affordable/rent controlled housing.
Apartments, divide into lots for duplexes.
Senior housing, apartments
Senior housing, divide into small lots, tiny houses, co-housing. Flat above town is a natural for development.
Please include this as a possibility.
Senior, Co-housing
Apartments, Co-housing.
Low Income
Senior housing, divide into small lots, tiny houses.
Apartments, Divide into small lots, Co-housing
Mixed population (senior, multi family, ag worker) affordable housing Skate park or outdoor recreation space
LOW INCOME Apartments
There is logic to senior housing there, as the original transfer to the city was identified as being for a senior center, but any housing that can be created there within the parameters of the Highway Commercial zoning would be great.
How about a mix of housing
planned development including co housing, tiny houses, and senior housing mobile home park with shared community laundry facilities Affordable housing of all kinds
Attachment A
- 28 -
recreation center with skatepark and pool. Lets build a healthy community and raise property values. City needs to focus on making safety. clearing trees that threaten powerlines and roads. upgrading sewer water systems. Not more development. Take care of what we have.
I am not sure. Several of these choices seem very good to me: senior housing, tiny houses or co-housing.
Whatever it is it would help to have the rent be affordable for those not making vast sums of money. Cost of living is sky-rocketing while wages really are not.
Any of the above. We considered purchasing a property (3.94 acres) across from city hall for a co-housing development, but could not build due to the wetlands and the Bishop pine protections. This is why the city needs to be exempt from the Coastal Commission regulations. A housing development would have been a wonderful thing for the city of Point Arena. There are acres and acres (and miles and miles) of protected land to the north of this parcel. This parcel should not have been protected from development. mixed age housing with a tiny house component
not clear to me
Sell it and let new owner decide. City shouldn't be in development business. low income housing
Live/work spaces - Hwy commercial
Q17 - Which location or locations should be prioritized for new residential development in Point Arena? (choose up to 3)
City-owned lots where the City can actually guarantee low-income housing instead of living in the delusion that property owners will actually want to provide what is needed most because it will not create more capital for them.
Accessory Dwelling Units should be encouraged
Really anywhere, but infill first. The closer to downtown, the less of a need for a car. unsure need more ino
Utilize all existing structures to accommodate residential demands not clear to me
Everywhere
All of above
Any empty lot
Would love coordination with Wildflower in the east side rehab project for maybe mixed use housing/visitor lodging.
Attachment A
- 29 -
Development in Hay annexation- and - Live/work combinations in available locations Q20 - Please share any other comments you have below:
There needs to be housing for workers: people in service, teaching, in medicine, etc but that is not reliant on their employment. We also need less restrictions and more clarity on the county rules (Coastal Commision, Cal Fire Dept.,etc) and more affordable permitting. We need more rent control and accountability for landlords to follow already existing state moratoriums/rent hike restrictions while providing clean and well maintained units.
Thanks!
Out of state buyers are killing the city by closing buildings.
Adequate housing is a challenging goal. Good Luck!
What is Jeff Hanson doing with building across from Wildflower? Apartments? Scuttlebutt says Port Rd apartments are no longer low-income or moving away from low-income- has anyone confirmed this? What is being done about displacement? Some core service workers... Thank you! Want to support ADU's for affordable housing in the coastal zone, would try to build one! Thanks!
Point Arena does not have the current services for its residents to support a small or any enlargement of housing. And water may be a concern, too.
*I own property bordering city limits. 80 acres of rangeland (non conforming RL in unincorporated mendo county) My property has access off lake street and windy hollow… 60 acres are flat and lots of water. Ready to build. If point arena annexes my land I can do a development for tiny home community, apartments, Single family homes, or whatever benefits the community! Please get in touch and let’s discuss. *I work for an affordable housing org based in Sonoma County. It would be great to see more mixedpopulation affordable rental housing (or affordable homeownership projects) in Point Arena to attract people to live and put down roots in the area and not simply rely on vacationers or those passing through to help the community make ends meet.
The coastal commission needs to get out of the way. It should not take five years for permits! We live on the Sea Ranch and go to Point Arena for entertainment, dining, medical/dental appointments and occasional shopping (we have been co-op members). Point Arena has an unusual culture and spirit and its Attachment A
- 30 -
housing infrastructure should support that. Tiny houses and co-housing would seem to be more supportive than conventional development.
The permit process sucks There should not be a review committee Housing should be beautiful and elegant Prefab=ugly
Leave point arena alone! i live here because I like the small town I live in rolling hills development and am not really in touch with impoverished members of our community. I moved here to live in the woods. I like the small town and I don't want Ft Bragg or Mendocino or Gualala.
Tourists are a necessary evil
I am a big fan of co-housing -- and the idea of allowing homeowners to have ADUs on their land as a way to increase housing without too much new construction, which is not green, nor is it cheap. Change the ADU regulations and expand the current Point Arena Housing off Port Street. concentrate on efficient running of what is presently here. do not waste time or money on coast guard building in cove. Immediately start rebuilding cove campground bathroom \shower building Please put a moratorium on vacation rentals, please prioritize teachers and low income people. Please put a stop to investment groups buying out the town.
Let's not just think about housing, but also commercial development, i.e. lets attract restaurants and small tech companies....
thank you for coordinating this survey — and I hope that you will share the results and coordinate policymaking with the Gualala Municipal Advisory Council and The Sea Ranch Association as much as possible.
There's too many vacation home and empty homes not being used. Priority should be given to teachers, nurses and doctors.
Please do better vetting proposed developments by LLC's The need for affordable housing has been a serious issue for years. Something needs to be done now. I hope this survey leads to actual housing within 5 years and not just another dead end. We tried to develop a live/work space but gave up after thousands of dollars, red tape and no results. Make the process faster and affordable.
We need low income houses please!!!
Market forces will continue to dominate the housing market, but the city can and should do all they can to lower the barriers for local people to provide housing in the city. The city could engage the necessary consultants to do a general survey of environmental/ archeological constraints within the city limits, and exempt parcels that obviously do not need to be examined time and again for non-existent resources.
Affordable housing is absolutely crucial to this area
Thanks for producing this survey.
Point Arena needs to encourage service businesses, such as a laundromat, if it increases rental housing, which seems to be needed.
Attachment A
- 31 -
Housing is a major problem on the entire coast, I would be happy to develop more residential housing on my (small but buildable) current properties if financing or other assistance was available.
I favor two to four unit housing with an owner living onsite and encouraging ADUs. Love duplexes wherever possible.
Empty spaces in town NEED to be developed and filled with living spaces and Businesses that are OPEN. Do NOT Allow more property sales to people who then KEEP IT CLOSED, for whatever their reasons. This is So detrimental to our town.
Fix and put into use existing structures on main st Strongly incentivize property owners to add affordable rentals
There is a housing shortage, I agree.
Thank you!
My husband and I have had to move several times due to rental houses being sold or our rent being increased beyond what we can afford. Because purchasing a house is so expensive right now, we have considered buying a tiny home and a piece of property to have some security with our living situation, but the laws and regulations make that difficult to do. I appreciate the effort to resolve some of these housing problems! we live in our small town because we enjoy our quiet coastal lifestyle. More people will destroy that More traffic, parking hassles, increased demand on limited resources. we don't want to pay more taxes for more infrastructure.
I like the small town atmosphere of point arena, however, we do need one or two public parking lots available free to all.
Had to move away from area almost 20 years ago due to financial reasons. Miss it terribly.
Better affordable housing is a laudable goal. A strong effort to subdue drip dealers and drug use would make point arena more attractive to developers.
Thanks for asking our opinions
I'm all for tiny houses especially those on wheels. Though quality varies they can truly be works of art and the flexibility they provide (they can be moved, sold, rented or traded) is a boost to all who are new home owners.
Low-income housing, particularly apartments, need to be invested in now, if Point Area has any hope of retaining a local economy of services and goods for residences. Failure to provide housing for persons working in the service sector will only restrict the pool of available workers and constrain the operations of businesses serving the residential community. The result will be more high-end businesses catering exclusively to the tastes of vacationers.
If the original Air B&B business model still existed, then vacation rentals would have to be owned by an individual that lives there at least a few weeks a year. But with faceless corporations buying all properties they only take from the local economy and do nothing to help sustain it. Which is why so many of the small businesses struggle to stay open, no workers, because there's nowhere for them to live. I lived in the area for 8 years, but recently lost my rental (it's going up for sale) and had to move up the coast away from where I want to live because of a complete lack of housing. Not just bad choices, but NO choices, nada.
Attachment A
- 32 -
We need more affordable family housing.
Places are closed because people can't live to work here I haven't lived here very long, but there's a clear need for housing for a wide range of people (mostly with modest means).
I ended up building myself a place to live and work in anticipation of having difficulty finding affordable rentals and/or available rentals. It was a miracle that I was able to do so and I am thankful that I did. It is important to have a safe, comfortable home. Not having housing makes everything else in life very difficult. This is a wonderful community in spite of all of our challenges. Good luck solving and/or managing this burgeoning crisis in PA, in Mendocino county and in the US.
While respecting PAMB habitat, other constraints by the Coastal Commission should be exempt within Point Arena City Limits. The City is surrounded by rural lands that should continue to fall under Coast Commission rules.
I know multiple people unable to find housing in PA, or on wait list at apartments for 2+ years. Also know older people isolated on Old Stage or other places wanting to move into walkable town of Pt. Arena.
As a family who wants to develop a co-housing space, we feel the zoning and Coastal Commission restrictions are just too onerous. We are hoping it won't be impossible. There isn't enough housing anywhere in California. (And thus), housing is far, far too expensive. There are way too many restrictions. The process is slow, complicated, and way too expensive. We, as a human community, need to be more creative and allow for less restrictive zoning and allow for more creative types of housing communities: apartments, co-housing, tiny homes, etc. as well as single family homes. Everyone should have a home. Yes, protect wild lands, but not in existing human communities where the communities need to live and grow. Let's protect the Stornetta lands and all of the beautiful county, state, and federal park lands, but let's allow the city to build homes for its residents. (Thank you for this survey!)
Housing should be available at under $1000 for a 1 or 2 bedroom home, so the people who work here or live on Social Security, can continue to live here. We have few workers, because of lack of affordable housing.
It is the pinnacle of foolishness to develop open land for any purpose while there are vacant buildings in the downtown area that can reasonably accommodate multiple units. This will preserve the character of the town and provide work and housing. Second, DEMAND that all currently unused residential units be available to local residents for immediate rental. Out of town buyers allowing residential units to sit empty must not be allowed. It should be required that rental units like apartments or multi unit buildings be offered at market value for no more than a certain period of time then offered to limited income residents thereafter for a minimum lease option of 2 years. (1 year available at renters request). It’s absolutely vital that home ownership is promoted for long term local people and not out of town individuals or investors.
There is a strong need for AFFORDABLE housing, period. What we don't need are more huge high-end houses for wealthy people. We need housing that working families, teachers, healthcare workers, etc. can afford. That includes senior, disabled, low-income, large family, etc. It needs a multi-pronged approach. Mother-in-law units should be legal to rent out. Property should be available for tiny homes as long as it doesn't devolve into a slum-like trailer park situation. Permits to build should be easier to obtain in a timely manner and a reasonable cost. We don't need more vacation rentals but if LOCAL homeowners want to rent out their Attachment A
- 33 -
property they should be allowed to. We don't need more out-of-towners buying up local property and turning it into vacation rentals, which sucks money out of the community.
I can barely afford to live in Gualala.
All the above applies to the whole Mendonoma area from Stewarts Point to Manchester. Housing of all types is badly needed for all ages and health conditions. I'm glad to see the Council reaching out to residents and asking submission of their viewpoint on the problem; thank you.
The lack of affordable housing within the entire area is impacting services vital for health and safety. RCMS can not pay nursing, PA and Physician staff to work here and daily commute in is unreasonable.
Thanks for taking a survey
Our schools and health care system are suffering because of the lack of affordable housing. People in our community deserve better education and better health care and it's never going to improve if we don't do something about housing.
Affordable housing for the offspring of residents.
I have lived in Gualala for over 45 years. I go to Point Arena a lot. They don't have enough housing nor does Gualala, that is affordable for those who work in low paying jobs. Therefore, many businesses are not open all the time due to staff having no place to live.
Decreased permitting hassle, time and costs for ADU's would be a good place to start and something the City can control. Also, developing rentals on the City owned property across from City hall would be good.
Thank You!
I realize this is financially and structurally extremely difficult, however, a by-pass route around the town center would allow a safer, more pleasant and attractive small business district while the alternate route would allow for heavier traffic flow. The issues of fast moving trucks and other vehicles on Highway 1 will increase as added housing brings more residents into our small city. The town is not designed for a significant increase in pedestrian use on Main Street if Highway 1 continues to be the main north/south route.
More commercial development as needed and tourism is needed to help fund the city through taxes Co-housing options, and less expensive permitting for additional units on existing properties If the City can accomplish providing affordable homes to low-income families, single families, and seniors, the City can stand as a contributor in alleviating the housing crisis in CA. Thanks for the survey! With the hotel being rebuilt should take some demand off of vacation rental homes. If short-term vacation home rentals go down maybe the homeowner would do long-term rentals? New housing should be for our local community not for people wanting to move into our area we need to support our people
The biggest issue is water. How much clean water is there? How will the city deal with the added sewage? Attachment A
- 34 -
Pretty much the only homes being built around PA are by retired folks from out of area. The homes built east of town hall got off to a great start, but then they stopped! bike/pedestrian lanes or trails as part of infrastructure. Downtown parking added and vacant buildings occupied.
I like the idea of using all of the empty buildings downtown for housing, but it's probably hard to pull off.
For PA to thrive long term it needs to appeal to families. Childcare, quality schools, job opportunities. Cheap housing is not the only answer. Senior living is important and making PA a desirable place for families to live full time is key to healthy growth
It needs to grow a bit. Needs grocery stores, gas stations.
A Tesla supercharger would be a great addition for the city. Good location would be the Garcia River Casino. It would bring a lot of tourists. Besides tourists we don’t need more cars on the road.
In answering the last question, I wouldn’t consider in-fill or commercial conversions as new development.
There seems to be opportunity for more of that, particularly the commercial to residential conversions.
Would love to see EDBG opportunities. Sustainable water availability for the whole community needs to be seriously evaluated in any development plan. A housing advocate task force to liaise with the County, and other permitting or code authorities. Fill current needs soon, reassess, readdress needs, annually.
I have concerns about attracting young professional people when buying property is out of their price range.
Why pick this place if you don't envision a bright future here? I believe you should edit this survey to clarify the term, “rental housing” To include the terms long OR short term rental housing.
*Although the current permitting process I'm going thru is better than it has been in the past (thanks to City staff being proactive and creative), we've still had to get over a number of time consuming and expensive hurdles to get workforce housing permitted. My past experiences have been insanely difficult, bordering on the ridiculous. For instance, I was forced to install a 24' wide street that connects to Highway One which is only 16' wide, and the CM of the time originally asked for 30'!! PA needs to empower its City Manager to have much more flexibility in the interpretation and creative application of its zoning and planning rules. The CM should have the power to override a rule or guideline when it does not make sense in a particular situation.
Rigid interpretation of codes is anathema to actually getting housing built, and Housing Elements tend to be worth nothing without a will by the City and its Manager to build homes. I'm really hoping that the City does more here than just put a bunch of feel-good intentions on paper, then file the Element away to gather dust....
I am one of the lucky ones.
Accessory dwelling units, tiny homes, RV's etc. for rentals on existing property should be welcomed and the city should focus its attention on clearing the obstacles as much as possible. I would be fine with 10 ugly trailers and port-a-potties on my neighbor’s large front yard (as example) if families can have an affordable roof over their head. Lack of housing options is the #1 barrier to medical staff, teachers, waiters, chefs, street sweepers, shop keepers, bank tellers, therapists etc.. We have to address housing Stop corporations from buying more than a few properties within the city limits.
Attachment A
- 35 -
Property Owner Survey - Individual Responses
Q8 - What are the primary factors that prevent you from creating more housing on your property/properties? (check all that apply)
Property borders the creek. Stupid place to build.
City of Point Arena and their planner make it virtually impossible to develop unless you are a millionaire. City prefers prefab lowest aesthetic type houses vs. designed by owner unique designs.
The planner does not work with you, they only put up hurdles and make the process impossible and too expensive
*Former staff are the biggest obstacles
I have been discouraged by the very high costs for subdividing my property. I do not wish to develop the property myself, but if I could subdivide a parcel that I could market for development without a HUGE out of pocket expense, I would be interested.
Hurdles and permit (coastal commission); cost of utilities I need to finish remodeling one of my properties first
Permits
Q9 - If you are interested in creating housing on your property/properties - what type of housing? (check all that apply)
Studio apartment for caregiver/ garage conversion
minor subdivision to sell to a developer to create housing Residential units (5) for Pt. Arena teachers with rent discounts Vacation Rental or Residence. the subject property is zoned harbor Commercial, Individual small homes
Q13 - Please share any other comments you have below:
Attachment A
- 36 -
I actually would be interested in finishing one more unit *On mill st there is a 100’ setback from the creek for building which is unrealistic, I suggest moving it to 30’-40’. All homes are city septic so there should be no problem being close to the creek. I would not intentionally put any creek ecology at harm. Great to keep engaged with the community! Keep it up and thank you!
*Regrade Lake St. so rain doesn't rush into my driveway.
Water and Sewer hook-up fees are very expensive. If adding an ADU can the existing hook-up be shared?
The City of Point Arena made my development process impossible. The planner does not work with the applicant, does not offer information freely, puts up too many hurdles, reviews the plans in a haphazard way so that every new resubmittal gets a totally new set of obstacles for the property owner to navigate. Trying to develop in Point Arena is nearly impossible. I would suggest that the City not have its own planner but use the County Planning Dept. instead. The City Planner did not appear to have any discretion and made the process painful and impossible. I eventually gave up when the planner required design review for the design we were proposing, yet approved of the ugliest pre fab housing down the street. You have a completely broken planning process.
Tree removal costs not included
*I have spoken with the LCP planning consultant about my experience trying to get my property through the development maze, and why I was deterred by the large amounts of money I was told would be required for all the preliminary studies, etc.
I'm very happy to be providing reasonably priced rental housing to a local family. I'd like to consider adding an ADU for either full time rental or vacation rental, but I want to keep the rental housing I currently own available to local residents.
The current cost of infrastructure {water, sewer, electric, approach) is prohibitive. Not knowing if coastal commission will accept or reject is a major deterrent.
My dream was to build 5 residential units for Pt. Arena school teachers to aid them with housing close to the school.
Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 1 -
POINT ARENA ZONING ORDINANCE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT ADU/JADU REGULATIONS
(Note: Red underlined text indicates new provisions. Informative notes are shown in italicized text. All zoning code citations referenced in this document are based on the proposed reorganized Zoning Code table of contents)
A new Section 18.25.060 will be added to the Point Arena Municipal Code as follows:
18.25.060 Accessory Dwelling Units & Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (1) Purpose. This Article provides for the regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) as required by Section 65852.2 and Section 65852.22 of the California Government Code, as amended. Section 65852.2 and Section 65852.22 establish specific requirements for the regulation of ADUs and JADUs with the goal of increasing statewide availability of smaller, more affordable housing units. In accordance with Section 65852.2, ADUs and JADUs are not considered new residential units for the purpose of calculating residential density. This Article is intended to protect coastal resources when regulating ADUs and JADUs, while also complying with the standards in Section 65852.2 and Section 65852.22 to the greatest extent feasible. (2) Applicability. The provisions of this Article apply to all lots that are occupied with a legally established single‐family dwelling unit (or where a single-family dwelling is approved in conjunction with the ADU or JADU) and in zoning districts that allow an existing dwelling or single‐family dwelling as a principally permitted or conditionally permitted use. The provisions also apply in part to mixed‐use properties where multi‐family housing is legally established as required under Government Code Section 65852.2(e).
(3) Reporting. All owners of ADUs and JADUs established in accordance with this Chapter are required to report annually, or upon request by city, on whether each JADU and/or ADU is rented to a tenant qualifying as low-income or moderate income, or if the unit is occupied but not rented, or unoccupied.
(4) Permits Required. ADUs or JADUs may be permitted in any zone that allows residential uses as a permitted or conditional use. ADUs or JADUs may be permitted in accordance with one of the following determinations:
(a) Determined to be exempt from the requirement to obtain a coastal development permit pursuant to Section 18.35.120(2)(a); or
(b) Determined to be excluded from the requirement to obtain a coastal development permit pursuant to Section 18.35.125; or
(c) Determined to require an administrative coastal development permit pursuant to Section
18.35.165.
(5) General Standards for all ADUs and JADUs.
(a) An ADU and/or JADU shall only be permitted on a parcel that contains an existing single- or multi-family dwelling, or for which an application for a proposed single- or multi-family dwelling has been approved.
Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 2 -
(b) A JADU may only be located within the walls of an existing single-family dwelling. (c) An ADU may be attached to an existing single- or multi-family dwelling or located in a detached, separate structure.
(d) An existing accessory structure may be converted into an ADU consistent with the provisions of this Article.
(e) ADUs and JADUs may be rented separate from the primary residence but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence except when the primary dwelling and the ADU are built by a qualified non-profit corporation and the ADU will provide low-income housing in accordance with California Government Code Section 65852.26. (f) ADUs and JADUs are intended to increase the supply of non-transient housing. Restrictions regarding use of ADUs and/or JADUs as short-term rentals are as follows:
i. ADUs and JADUs may be rented, but only with a rental agreement with terms greater than 30 days. ADUs and JADUs may not be used for short-term rentals. ii. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU or JADU, a deed restriction, approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office which shall identify the prohibitions on the use of an ADU or JADU for short-term rentals and all other pertinent restrictions. Said deed restriction shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon any future owners, heirs, or assigns.
(6) Development standards for JADUs established within an existing or proposed residence. (a) A JADU may only be established when either the single-family residence in which the JADU is created or the JADU will be occupied by the owner of the residence. (b) No more than one JADU may be located on a parcel.
(c) A JADU must be contained entirely within the walls of an existing single-family dwelling, including attached garage, or within the walls of a proposed single-family dwelling (d) The total floor space of a JADU may not exceed 500 square feet. (e) A JADU may be located within an existing single-family dwelling that does not meet setback requirements and it would not be considered an expansion of a legal non-conforming structure unless the conversion increases the non-conformity of the structure. (f) A separate entrance to the JADU shall be provided.
(g) A JADU may share a bath with the single-family dwelling or have its own bath. (h) A JADU is required to include an efficiency kitchen which shall include a cooking facility with appliances, a food preparation counter, and storage cabinets that are reasonable to the size of the unit.
(i) For the purposes of fire and life protection ordinances and regulations, a JADU is to be considered part of the single-family dwelling.
(7) Development standards for ADUs.
(a) No more than one ADU may be located on a property except on properties with zoning classifications that allow multi-family uses and which have existing multi-family dwellings. On Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 3 -
such properties, multiple ADUs up to 25 percent of the existing multi-family dwelling units may be allowed up to a maximum of two detached ADUs.
(b) ADUs shall conform to height, setback and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction within the zone in which the ADU is located except that:
i. an existing, legally-authorized accessory structure which does not meet setback requirements may be converted to an ADU or reconstructed to the same dimensions and converted to an ADU, and
ii. a minimum setback of no more than four (4) feet from the rear and side property lot lines shall be required for an ADU, unless a greater setback distance is required for fire and safety, and
iii. an ADU of up to 800 square feet in floor area and 16 feet in height shall not be precluded if it cannot meet front setback, lot coverage and open space requirements. (c) The floor area of a detached ADU may not exceed 1,200 square feet. (d) The floor area of an attached ADU may not exceed 1,200 square feet or 50 percent of the floor area of the existing or proposed single-family dwelling, whichever is less. However, in no instance shall the floor area of an attached ADU that provides more than one bedroom be restricted to less than 1,000 square feet nor shall the floor area of an attached ADU that provides one bedroom of less be restricted to less than 850 square feet. (8) Parking requirements for ADUs and JADUs. (Consider putting this in Off-Street Parking Section
18.20.070, with cross-reference here)
(a) No parking is required for a JADU.
(b) No more than one parking space shall be required for an ADU, regardless of the number of bedrooms.
(c) Tandem parking shall be permitted.
(d) When a garage, carport or covered parking structure is either converted to an ADU or demolished in conjunction with construction of an ADU, replacement of those off-street parking spaces for the primary unit shall not be required.
(9) Coastal Resource Protections for ADUs and JADUs.
(a) ADUs and JADUs may not be located within 100 feet of the boundary of an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) unless contained entirely within a legally authorized existing or approved residential structure that will not be repaired or improved to the extent that it constitutes a replacement structure under section 13252 of Title 14, California Administrative Code. All new development associated with an ADU (well, water storage, septic improvements, parking and driveways, vegetation removal for fire safety, etc.) must also be located more than 100 feet from the boundary of an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. An exception to these requirements may be authorized through the administrative coastal development permit process in circumstances where the development is consistent with the standards established in Chapter 18.30.025, 18.30.030 and 18.30.035.
(b) ADUs and JADUs may not be located within 125 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff unless contained entirely within a legally-authorized existing or approved residential structure that will Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 4 -
not be repaired or improved to the extent that it constitutes a replacement structure under section 13252 of Title 14, California Administrative Code. All new development associated with an ADU or JADU must also be located more than 125 feet from the edge of a coastal bluff. An exception to these requirements may be authorized through the administrative coastal development permit process where the development is consistent with the standards established in Section 18.30.020.
(c) ADUs that are visible from a public viewpoint to and/or along the coast shall be of a similar architectural style, building materials and colors as the primary residence on the property. (d) An ADU that requires excavation of more than 50 cubic yards of material, shall require an administrative coastal development permit process in order to determine consistency with standards established in Section 18.30.040.
(e) The following standards are established for the protection of agricultural resources on parcels zoned Agriculture Exclusive ("AE"):
i. A detached ADU may only be permitted if it is located within 500 feet of the existing or proposed primary dwelling. An ADU established within an accessory structure existing as of the effective date of the ordinance establishing these requirements is exempt from this requirement.
ii. Development associated with (wells, water storage, septic improvements, parking and driveways, vegetation removal for fire safety, etc.) shall not encroach beyond the existing residential development footprint onto lands suitable for agriculture. iii. An exception to these requirements may be authorized through the administrative coastal development permit process in circumstances where the applicant can demonstrate that the ADU will not impact the long-term productivity of the agricultural land.
(f) An ADU may not interfere with any public right of access to and/or along the coast, or public trails.
(g) An ADU may not be permitted in an area mapped as a "natural hazards" area on the LCP Opportunities & Constraints Map unless a report, prepared by a licensed engineer can demonstrate that the proposed development is consistent with the standards established in Section 18.30.015.
(h) An ADU may not be permitted on a property with known archaeological resources unless an administrative coastal development permit is applied for and received and where reasonable mitigation measures shall be employed to protect archaeological resources. (10) Water and Sewer/Septic Availability for ADUs and JADUs (a) No additional studies are required for development of a JADU and/or ADU that is connected to the City of Point Arena wastewater system and the Point Arena Water Works water system. (b) For properties not connected to the City of Point Arena wastewater system, JADUs that will result in the creation of an additional bedroom and all ADUs, the applicant must submit a percolation test from a licensed on-site wastewater disposal system designer (performed within 5 years, or for a re-certified test, within 10 years) demonstrating that the existing septic system Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 5 -
has sufficient capacity to handle the increased demand. If septic system improvements are needed, such improvements shall be subject to all requirements of this Article. (c) Prior to approval of an ADU that relies on an on-site well, the applicant must submit documentation from a licensed well driller documenting sufficient water production and/or storage to meet the demands of the ADU. If a new well and/or water storage facility are needed, such improvements shall be subject to all requirements of this Article. (11) Protection of Historic Resources. Improvements associated with ADUs and JADUs located on historic properties as defined in Section 18.30.060 must be designed to complement the architectural design of the historic structure(s) on the property. Exterior materials and colors shall be selected for compatibility with the natural- and man-made setting.
Section 18.30.070 of Chapter 18.30 Procedures and Administration will be revised as shown:
18.30.070 18.35.170 Required hearings.
The planning commission shall consider all applications for variances, conditional use permits, coastal development permits, and design review approval.
At least one public hearing shall be held on each application for a variance, conditional use permit, design review or coastal development permit, thereby affording any persons the opportunity to appear at the hearing and inform the city of the nature of their concerns regarding the project. Where a development involves applications for a combination of permits, the required hearings may be scheduled concurrently. No public hearing shall be required for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units second dwelling units proposed in UR, SR, and RA zones or administrative permits for signs.
Hearings will be set for the earliest available meetings, satisfying the requirements of Section 18.30.220 18.35.430 and any other county, state or federal agency minimum noticing requirements. At the public hearings, the planning commission shall hear any person interested in the proposal. The public hearing may be conducted in accordance with existing local procedures or in any other manner reasonably calculated to give interested persons an opportunity to appear and present their viewpoints, either orally or in writing. The hearings may be continued from time to time provided that the notice of the time of the continued public hearing shall be distributed to the persons and in the manner provided for in Section 18.30.220 18.35.430.
An applicant’s request for postponement, shall be granted at the city’s discretion. The city shall, to the extent feasible, notify all persons the city knows to be interested in the public hearing of the postponement. The city shall not grant a request for postponement unless it determines that sufficient time remains under applicable deadlines for its action on the application.
Any request for postponement of a hearing by the applicant shall be in writing or stated on the record in a planning commission or city council meeting and shall include a waiver of any applicable time limits for city action on the application. Where a request for postponement is granted pursuant to this section, the applicant shall provide another set of stamped, addressed envelopes consistent with the requirements of Section 18.30.220 18.35.430.
Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 6 -
The 180-day time period described in Section 65950 of the Government Code may be extended once for a period not to exceed 90 days with the written consent of the applicant and the city. [Ord. 179 § 6.07, 2001.]
Section 18.30.110 of Chapter 18.30 Procedures and Administration will be revised as shown:
18.30.110 18.35.115 Coastal development permits.
(1) Permit—When Required. In conformance with Section 30600 of the California Coastal Act, in addition to any other approval or permit required under this title, and as specifically excluded in subsection (2), a coastal development permit shall be required for any use, building or other development, as defined in California Coastal Act Code Section 30106, except as specifically exempted in Section 18.35.120 or excluded in Section 18.35.125. (2) Each coastal development permit application shall be submitted with all of the application requirements contained in relevant sections of Chapter 18.30 18.35 and all other applicable provisions in the subject development’s zoning district. (3) Coastal development permits for ADUs that are not specifically exempted per Section 18.35.120 or excluded per Section 18.35.125 shall not require a public hearing and shall be subject to the streamlined administrative process established in Section 18.35.165.
Section 18.35.060 of Chapter 18.30 Procedures and Administration will be revised as shown:
18.35.120 Coastal development permit exemptions. (2) Development Not Requiring a Permit.
The following categories of development shall not require a coastal development permit, but shall not occur where prohibited by this title:
(1) Improvements to existing single-family residences except as noted in subsections (a)(1) - (f). For purposes of this section, the term “improvements to existing single-family residences” includes all fixtures and structures directly attached to the residence, including JADUs and attached ADUs when the improvements are consistent with all of the development standards established in Section
18.25.060 including those standards established for protection of coastal resources, and those detached structures normally associated with a single-family residence, such as garages, swimming pools, fences, storage sheds and landscaping but specifically not including guest houses or accessory self-contained residential units.
The exemption shall not apply to the following classes of development which require a coastal development permit because they involve a risk of adverse environmental impact:
(a) Improvements to a single-family structure if the structure or improvement is located: on a beach, in a wetland, seaward of the mean high tide line, in an environmentally sensitive habitat area, or within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff; (b) Any significant alteration of landforms including removal or placement of vegetation, on a beach, wetland, or sand dune, or within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff, or in environmentally sensitive habitat areas;
(c) The expansion or construction of water wells or septic systems; Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 7 -
(d) On property not included in subsection (2)(a) that is located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance, or in significant scenic resources areas as designated by the city or Coastal Commission, improvement that would result in an increase of 10 percent or more of internal floor area of an existing structure or an additional improvement of 10 percent or less where an improvement to the structure had previously been undertaken pursuant to this section or Public Resources Code Section 30610(a), increase in height by more than 10 percent of an existing structure and/or any significant nonattached structure such as garages, fences, shoreline protective works or docks;
(e) In areas which the city or Coastal Commission has previously declared by resolution after public hearing to have a critically short water supply that must be maintained for the protection of coastal resources or public recreational use, the construction of any specified major water using development not essential to residential use including but not limited to swimming pools, or the construction or extension of any landscaping irrigation system; (f) Any improvement to a single-family residence where the development permit issued for the original structure by the Coastal Commission, regional Coastal Commission, or city indicated that any future improvements would require a development permit. (2) Improvements to any structure other than a single-family residence or a public works facility except as noted in subsection (b)(iii). For purposes of this section, where there is an existing structure, other than a single-family residence or public works facility, the following shall be considered a part of that structure:
(a) All fixtures and other structures directly attached to the structure; (b) Landscaping on the lot;
(c) The exemption in subsection (b)(i) shall not apply to the following classes of development which require a coastal development permit because they involve a risk of adverse environmental effect, adversely affect public access, or involve a change in use contrary to the policies of the LCP:
i. Improvement to any structure if the structure or the improvement is located: on a beach; in a wetland, stream, or lake; seaward of the mean high tide line; or within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff,
ii. Any significant alteration of landforms including removal or placement of vegetation, on a beach or sand dune; in a wetland or stream; within 100 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff, or in an environmentally sensitive habitat area, iii. The expansion or construction of water wells or septic systems, iv. On property not included in subsection (b)(iii)(1) that is located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance, or in significant scenic resource areas as designated by the LUP, an improvement that would result in an increase of 10 percent or more of internal floor area of the existing structure, or constitute an additional improvement of 10 percent or less where an improvement to the structure has previously been Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 8 -
undertaken pursuant to subsection (b) or Public Resources Code Section 30610(b), and/or increase in height by more than 10 percent of an existing structure, v. In areas which the city or the Coastal Commission has previously declared by resolution after public hearing to have a critically short water supply that must be maintained for protection of coastal recreation or public recreational use, the construction of any specified major water using development including, but not limited to, swimming pools or the construction or extension of any landscaping irrigation system,
vi. Any improvement to a structure where the coastal development permit issued for the original structure by the city or the Coastal Commission indicated that any future improvements would require a development permit, vii. Any improvement to a structure which changes the intensity of use of the structure, viii. Any improvement made pursuant to a conversion of an existing structure from a multiple unit rental use or visitor-serving commercial use to a use involving a fee ownership or long-term leasehold including, but not limited to, a condominium conversion, stock cooperative conversion or motel/hotel timesharing conversion. (3) Maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels or moving dredged material from those channels to a disposal area outside the coastal zone, pursuant to a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(4) Repair or maintenance activities that do not result in an addition to, or enlargement or expansion of, the object of those repair or maintenance activities, except as provided in subsection (e). (a) The exemption shall not apply to the following extraordinary methods of repair and maintenance which require a coastal development permit because they involve a risk of adverse environmental impact:
i. Any method of repair or maintenance of a seawall, revetment, bluff retaining wall, breakwater, groin, culvert, outfall, or similar shoreline work that involves:
▪ Repair or maintenance involving substantial alteration of the foundation of the protective work including pilings and other surface or subsurface structures,
▪ The placement, whether temporary or permanent, of rip-rap, artificial berms of sand or other beach materials, or any other forms of solid materials, on a beach or in coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries and lakes or on a shoreline protective works,
▪ The replacement of 20 percent or more of the materials of an existing structure with materials of a different kind, or
▪ The presence, whether temporary or permanent, of mechanized construction equipment or construction materials on any sand area, bluff, or environmentally sensitive habitat area, or within 20 feet of coastal waters or streams;
ii. Any method of routine maintenance dredging that involves:
Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 9 -
▪ The dredging of 100,000 cubic yards or more within a 12-month period, ▪ The placement of dredged spoils of any quantity within an environmentally sensitive habitat area, on any sand area, within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff or environmentally sensitive habitat area, or within 20 feet of coastal waters or streams, or
▪ The removal, sale, or disposal of dredged spoils of any quantity that would be suitable for beach nourishment in an area the city or the Coastal Commission has declared by resolution to have a critically short sand supply that must be maintained for protection of structures, coastal access or public recreational use;
iii. Any repair or maintenance to facilities or structures or work located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area, any sand area, within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff or environmentally sensitive habitat area, or within 20 feet of coastal waters or streams that include:
▪ The placement or removal, whether temporary or permanent, of riprap, rocks, sand or other beach materials or any other forms of solid materials,
▪ The presence, whether temporary or permanent, of mechanized equipment or construction materials;
(b) All repair and maintenance activities governed by these provisions shall be subject to the LCP permit regulations. These provisions shall not be applicable to those activities specifically described in the document entitled Repair, Maintenance and Utility Hookups, adopted by the Coastal Commission on September 5, 1978 unless a proposed activity will have a risk of substantial adverse impact on public access, environmentally sensitive habitat area, wetlands, or public views to the ocean;
(c) Unless destroyed by natural disaster, the replacement of 50 percent or more of a singlefamily residence, (as measured by 50 percent of the exterior walls), seawall, revetment, bluff retaining wall, breakwater, groin or any other structure is not repair and maintenance but instead constitutes a replacement structure requiring a coastal development permit; (d) The installation, testing, and placement in service or the replacement of any necessary utility connection between an existing service facility and any development approved pursuant to this division; provided, however, that the city may, where necessary, require reasonable conditions to mitigate any adverse impacts on coastal resources, including scenic resources;
(e) The replacement of any structure, other than a public works facility, destroyed by a disaster.
The replacement structure shall conform to applicable existing zoning requirements, shall be for the same use as the destroyed structure, shall not exceed either the floor area, height, or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10 percent, and shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the destroyed structure. i. As used in this subdivision:
“Bulk” means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure.
Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 10 -
“Disaster” means any situation in which the force or forces which destroyed the structure to be replaced were beyond the control of its owner. “Structure” includes landscaping and any erosion control structure or device which is similar to that which existed prior to the occurrence of the disaster. (f) Any activity anywhere in the coastal zone that involves the conversion of any existing multiple-unit residential structure to a time-share project, estate, or use, as defined in Section 11212 of the Business and Professions Code. If any improvement to an existing structure is otherwise exempt from the permit requirements of this division, no coastal development permit shall be required for that improvement on the basis that it is to be made in connection with any conversion exempt pursuant to this subdivision. The division of a multiple-unit residential structure into condominiums, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, shall not be considered a time-share project, estate, or use for purposes of this subdivision.
[Ord. 179 § 6.11, 2001.]
Section 18.30.120 of Chapter 18.30 Procedures and Administration will be revised as shown:
18.30.120 18.35.125 Categorical exclusion.
(1) Geographical Area. Categorical Exclusion Order No. E-81-3 issued by the Commission on May 6, 1981 is intended to exempt from coastal permit requirements the following defined categories of developments within all zones of the city of Point Arena except as provided in this section. (2) Categories of Development.
(a) Except in areas seaward of the first public road, construction of accessory structures or buildings of less than 500 square feet in floor area and less than 15 feet in height, changes in landscaping and site excavation or filling more than 100 feet from any perennial stream or mean high tide line which will not change the existing elevation more than two feet at any point.
“Accessory structure or building” means a detached and subordinate building or structure, other than a sign, or the use of which is incidental to that of a main building or use on that lot.
On any lot on which is located a dwelling, any building or structure which is incidental to the conducting of any agricultural use.
(b) Except in designated riparian corridors or unstable areas identified in the LCP:
i. Fences up to six feet and freestanding masonry walls up to 36 inches in height; ii. Standard electroliers not over 35 feet in height above finish grade; iii. Temporary structures build in conjunction with special events. (c) Any construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, improvement, removal, conversion or demolition of any building or structure less than any of the following criteria:
i. Curbs, retaining walls and planter boxes up to 18 inches in height; ii. A small tool or storage cabinet with not more than 100 square feet of projected roof area. Multiple cabinets shall require approval. Lot line setbacks are to be observed.
Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 11 -
(d) Except within a geologically unstable area or area within 100 feet of the Hathaway Creek Fault, discussed in Section 18.25.20018.30.015, or a riparian buffer area described in Section 18.25.22018.30.025 (the geologic and riparian areas are clearly designated in the city of Point Arena land use plan), any excavation or fill or combination thereof, less than both of the following criteria:
i. 1000 square feet of surface area including the removal of groundcover. This does not include groundcover removed for agricultural or grading for road and trail maintenance purposes;
ii. 50 cubic yards of material.
This shall not apply to any excavation or fill:
i. Within public sewer, water main, storm drain or power line easements, and within public streets;
ii. Which will encroach upon or alter in any way a drainage channel, tidal area, water course, floodplain or area subject to inundation. This does not include the maintenance of existing ditches.
Groundcover removal for road and maintenance purposes in a riparian corridor or unstable area is not subject to this section.
(3) Conditions.
(a) Any amendment to the certified LCP which affects the land area to which this exclusion applies shall require the approval of the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Commission Regulations and the Coastal Act of 1976 (PRC Section 30514). (b) The city of Point Arena shall maintain a record of any other permits which may be required for categorically excluded development which shall be made available to the Commission or any interested person upon request pursuant to Section 00154 of the Commission LCP Regulations. (c) This exclusion shall apply to the permit requirements of the Coastal Act of 1976, pursuant to PRC Sections 30610(e) and 30610.5(b), and shall not be construed to exempt any person from the permit requirements of any other federal, state, or local government agency. (d) This exclusion shall not apply to tide and submerged land, beaches, and lots immediately adjacent to the inland extent of any beach, or of the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, potential public trust lands as identified by the State Lands Division in the trust claim maps, or wetlands as identified in the power plant siting wetland resource maps. [Ord. 179 § 6.11, 2001.]
Section 18.30.150 of Chapter 18.30 Procedures and Administration will be revised as shown:
18.30.150 18.35.160 Coastal development permits for signs and ADUs Sign permits —Streamlined administrative process.
(a) Coastal development permit applications for signs which may be found categorically exempt under CEQA guidelines shall be granted under the administrative process set forth in Section 18.30.230 18.35.435 except that local actions on coastal development permit applications for signs that are appealable to the Commission shall be subject to the hearing Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 12 -
process set forth under Section 18.30.220 18.35.430. Coastal development permit applications for signs which are not found to be categorically exempt from CEQA shall also be subject to the hearing process set forth under Section 18.30.22018.35.430. [Ord. 179 § 6.11, 2001.] (b) Coastal development permits for ADUs shall be granted under the administrative procedures set forth in Section 18.35.165.
A new Section 18.35.150 will be added to the Point Arena Municipal Code as follows:
18.35.165 - Streamlined administrative process for ADUs.
Upon submission and acceptance of the prescribed application form and fees, an application for a JADU or ADU and associated physical development shall be processed as follows:
(1) City Planner shall determine if a JADU and/or ADU is consistent with the requirements of Section
18.25.060 and specifically exempted or excluded from requirement to obtain a coastal development permit in accordance with Section 18.35.120 or Section 18.35.125. If proposed development is exempted or excluded, a certificate of exemption or exclusion shall be issued by City Planner and applicant can proceed with filing of a building permit application. If the proposed development is not exempted or excluded, a coastal development permit is required. (2) For an ADU or JADU that requires a coastal development permit, the City Manager or his/her designee shall act on a coastal development permit without the requirement of a public hearing. A notice of intent to approve a coastal development permit shall be issued in accordance with the standards established in Section 18.35.430.
(3) For applications to create an ADU or JADU where the proposed work is consistent with the objective standards established in Section 18.25.060, action shall be taken within sixty (60) days of filing of a complete application for a coastal development permit exemption, categorical exclusion or coastal development permit. The 60-day time period for acting on a complete application for an ADU or JADU submitted with a permit application for a proposed single-family dwelling shall not commence until after the application for the single-family dwelling has been acted on and all appeal periods have ended.
(4) For applications to create an ADU or JADU where the proposed work is not consistent with the objective standards established in Section 18.25.060, the timeframes prescribed in subsection (3) above shall not apply. The application shall be administratively approved, conditionally approved or denied by the City Manager or his/her designee based on findings and, if necessary, conditions. A public hearing shall not be required.
(5) Coastal development permits for ADUs approved by the City Manager or his/her designee are not appealable to the City Council.
(6) Any coastal development permit approved by the City Manager or his/her designee for an ADU located in an area within the appeal jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission shall contain a statement that the permit will not be effective until the appeal period to the California Coastal Commission has expired and no appeal has been filed with the Coastal Commission.
Section 18.30.190 of Chapter 18.30 Procedures and Administration will be revised as shown:
Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 13 -
18.30.190 18.35.315 Appeals for local actions on coastal development permit applications. (1) Planning Commission Actions Appealable. An action taken by the planning commission on a coastal development permit application may be appealed to the city council within 10 working days of such action.
(2) Administrative Actions on ADUs. An action taken by the city manager or his/her designee on a coastal development permit application for an ADU may not be appealed to the city council. If the ADU is located within the Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction, it may be appealed to the Coastal Commission if an appeal is filed with the Coastal Commission within the ten (10) working day appeal period.
(2) (3) Filing Requirements. Coastal development permit appeals to the planning commission or city council shall be addressed to the appellate body on a prescribed form and shall state the basis of the appeal. Appeals shall be filed in the office of the city clerk within the appeal period provided in Section 18.30.100. 18.35.315. There shall be no fee for filing an appeal. The city clerk shall determine from the records whether the appellant submitted comments on the issue being appealed to each previous appellate body. Only if such comments have been submitted shall an appeal be accepted, unless the appellant can demonstrate that there were valid reasons why he or she could not attend the hearings or submit written comments. (3) (4) Notice of a Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be conducted on all appeals. The notice and conduct of hearings by the appellate body shall be governed by the provisions of Sections 18.30.200 18.35.430, 18.35.235 and 18.30.170 through 18.30.220, and shall conform to the manner in which the original notice was given and the original hearings were conducted, if any. (4) (5) Time Limitation and Vote. The planning commission or city council shall determine an appeal not later than 60 days following the date of the hearing. If both the applicant and the appellant consent in writing, the time limitation for a decision may be extended from time to time. The action from which an appeal is taken may be reversed or modified only by the affirmative vote of a majority of the authorized membership of the appellate body. (5) (6) Failure of Appellate Body to Act. Failure of the appellate body to act within the time specified shall be deemed concurrence with the previous decision rendered. (6) (7) Conditions and Findings. The appellate body may impose or prescribe conditions as are in its opinion necessary to ensure conformance with this title and the Point Arena general plan. The appellate body shall make a written determination of its decision together with its findings in support of the decision.
(7) (8) Finality of City Action. A local decision on an application for a coastal development permit shall not be deemed complete until: (a) the local decision on the application has been made and all required findings have been adopted, including specific factual findings supporting the legal conclusions that the proposed development is or is not in conformity with the certified local coastal program and, where applicable, with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 14 -
Coastal Act; and (b) when all local rights of appeal have been exhausted as defined in Title 14 CCR 13573.
(8) (9) Final City Action—Notice.
(a) Notice After Final Local Decision. (This section shall not apply to categorically excluded developments.) Within seven calendar days of the city completing its review and meeting the requirements of subsection (7)(8), the city shall notify by first class mail the Coastal Commission and any persons who specifically requested notice of such action by submitting a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the local government (or, where required, who paid a reasonable fee to receive such notice) of its action. Such notice shall include conditions of approval and written findings and the procedures for appeal of the local decision to the Coastal Commission.
(b) Failure to Act—Notice.
(i) Notification by Applicant. If the city has failed to act on an application within the time limits set forth in Government Code Sections 65950 through 65957.1, thereby approving the development by operation of law, the person claiming a right to proceed pursuant to Government Code Sections 65950 through 65957.1 shall notify, in writing, the local government and the Commission of his or her claim that the development has been approved by operation of law. Such notice shall specify the application which is claimed to be approved.
(ii) Notification by City. When the city determines that the time limits established pursuant to Government Code Sections 65950 through 65957.1 have expired, the city shall, within seven calendar days of such determination, notify any person entitled to receive notice pursuant to subsection (8)(9)(a) that the application has been approved by operation of law pursuant to Government Code Sections 65950 through 65957.1 and the application may be appealed to the Commission pursuant to Title 14 CCR Section 13110 et seq. (This section shall apply equally to a local government determination that the project has been approved by operation of law and to a judicial determination that the project has been approved by operation of law.)
(9) (10) City Action—Effective Date. The city’s final decision on an application for an appealable coastal development permit shall become effective after the 10-working day appeal period to the Commission has expired unless either of the following occur:
(a) An appeal is filed in accordance with Title 14 CCR Section 13111; (b) The notice of final local government action does not meet the requirements of subsection (8)(9).
When either of the circumstances in subsections (9)(10)(a) and (b) occur, the Commission shall, within five calendar days of receiving notice of that circumstance, notify the local government and the Attachment B
REVISED ADU ORDINANCE (02-07-23)
- 15 -
applicant that the effective date of the local government action has been suspended. [Ord. 179 § 6.16.5, 2001.]
Attachment C
MAP OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
Address: 24001 S Highway 1, Point Arena, CA
APN 027-061-020 (parcel adjoining Highway) 0.59 acres
APN 027-061-022 (interior parcel) 1.66 acres, including cul-de-sac
1.11 acres, excluding cul-de-sac
Total acreage 2.25 acres
Total developable acreage 1.70 acres
Zoning designation Highway Commercial (HWC)
Attachment D
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD)
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
SITE DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
18.30.130 Planned residential development (PRD).
Development governed by the planned residential development process shall require a coastal development permit, and shall conform with all the provisions below. The planned residential development procedure shall be required for any proposed use, new development or project, including, but not limited to, land divisions, proposed on parcels of record of 10 acres or more or on any two or more abutting parcels of less than 10 acres that are in the same ownership or under the same control and which total 10 acres or more, and if the parcel is zoned SR, UR or MR. All uses principally or conditionally permitted in those zones may be included. (1) For the purpose of this PRD review process, “new development” does not include:
(a) The demolition and reconstruction of any single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure; (b) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of its use, which do not increase either the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure by more than 10 percent; (c) Repair and maintenance activities of an existing structure that does not result in an addition to, or enlargement or expansion of, the object of the repair or maintenance activities.
(2) The purposes of this procedure are:
(a) To encourage and allow flexibility in site design, building layouts and design, and land usage, and in the application of development standards; (b) To ensure that open spaces and natural features are preserved and integrated into new developments; and
(c) To allow careful and comprehensive public review of proposed large-scale projects.
A comprehensive development plan shall be submitted in connection with a coastal development permit application for a PRD, and may be submitted in other circumstances involving less than 10 acres where the proposal is limited to planned residential projects within the SR, UR or MR zones.
A coastal development permit for development governed by the PRD process may be granted in lieu of any required variances, conditional use permits, and design review approvals, and shall be granted prior to or concurrently with any required tentative subdivision map, and/or parcel map, for any or all of the parcel or parcels for which there is a CDP application for a PRD.
Residential Density and Other Standards. Residential densities calculated in number of dwelling units per acre shall be the same as in effect for the underlying zone, although individual lot sizes and yard, setback and building height requirements, may vary from the strict requirements of said zones. Common open space shall make up 50 percent of the subdivision or residential development project. For proposed developments within MR zoning district, the 50 percent open space requirement shall supersede and be required in place of the 15 percent useable open space regulation set forth in Section 18.20.040(3)(g). [Ord. 179 § 6.11, 2001.]
18.30.140 Comprehensive development plans.
(1) Comprehensive development plans shall be prepared to describe and support land use or development proposals in connection with a CDP application for development governed by the PRD process for large lots and projects, as well as under circumstances as may be defined and required in this title, including, but not limited to, conditional residential and mixed uses in C and HWC zones, and may be prepared in other circumstances at the discretion of the property owner.
(2) Comprehensive development plans must include all parcels larger than 10 acres or parcels in common contiguous ownership totaling 10 acres or abutting parcels under the same control totaling 10 acres, so that development for all such parcels can be planned for comprehensively.
Plans are expected to consist of text and maps sufficient to describe the overall concept of the proposal (the concept plan), and in sufficient detail as to also provide the planning commission with complete information about the proposal and its impacts. Comprehensive development plans shall adhere to the provisions of the underlying zoning district to which they attach, except as provided herein.
(3) The purposes of the plan is to supply all of the relevant information required for comprehensive review, and, if appropriate and warranted, to facilitate creative and flexible modifications of standards and requirements of the underlying zones of this title, and to ensure that greater public benefits will be achieved, to encourage the preservation of open space and to protect coastal resources, by preparing and adhering to an overall plan for the use of property in one or joint ownership than would otherwise be the case. (a) General Requirements. Comprehensive development plans shall consist of maps and a text describing in detail all features of the land use or development proposal on a lot or assemblage of commonly-held contiguous lots.
(b) Specific Requirements.
(i) Uses permitted: all uses principally permitted or conditionally permitted in the underlying zone.
(ii) Standards for development shall be those of the underlying zone, provided however that said standards may be modified by the planning commission or city council as they relate to height, required yards, building heights, and minimum ultimate lot sizes. Modifications of said standards shall only be approved upon the planning commission or city council making written findings that such modifications are in the public interest and that greater public benefits will be assured, that coastal resources will be protected and enhanced, and that coastal resources, including, but not limited to, visual resources, will not be adversely impacted. Such benefits include, but are not limited to, improved or innovative site and architectural design; greater public and private open spaces; preservation of natural resources, species, features, and habitats; preservation of view sheds; and preservation of historic features. Terms and limitations contained in the comprehensive development plan’s required components in subsection iii below shall be recorded as conditions, covenants, and restrictions on the land.
(iii) Information that must be submitted for all projects subject to the PRD process or otherwise subject to comprehensive development plan requirements, and including information on all parcels totaling 10 acres or more if in common contiguous ownership or abutting parcels under the same control which total 10 acres or more, as applicable:
1. A proposed plot plan for the development, including project boundary designation, perimeter of the ownership, location and dimensions of any existing property lines and easements;
2. Locations of proposed land uses, structures, roads, trails, parking, yards, pathways, open spaces, easements and other public and private facilities as well as building envelopes, maximum heights and other dimensions of all structures, setbacks from property lines and road rights-of-way, and percentage of lot coverage of development;
3. The use of adjoining properties and buildings within 50 feet of the property line;
4. Existing features of and proposed changes in the topography of the site, including the location and extent of any grading or earth moving, drainage channels, or water courses;
5. The locations and capacities of existing utilities;
6. The location of existing structures and of trees in excess of three inches in diameter;
7. The approximate timetable and phasing of proposed site preparation and development activities;
8. Proposed open space plan;
9. Proposed parking, recreational areas, common areas;
10. Other information as applicable, which may include, but not be limited to, economic/market analyses, habitat inventory and plan, archeological analysis, visual quality analysis, public services and facilities plan, utility services plan, land subdivision plan, showing exterior lighting, roof plans, noise abatement measures, view sight lines, location of ESHAs, geologic hazard areas, and other features necessary to evaluate the specific proposal and judge it in reference to this title, other relevant city ordinances, and the general plan;
11. Geologic studies as otherwise provided for in Section 18.25.200;
12. A proposed parcel or subdivision map, if subdivision is proposed;
13. Such mitigation measures as may be specified as a consequence of environmental impact studies;
14. Conceptual landscaping plans;
15. Conceptual engineering plans, including site grading. (iv) The city may also require the following information to be submitted:
1. Architectural elevations and sketches for buildings, signs, and fencing, including material and color specifications;
2. The width and location of surrounding and adjoining streets, roads and trails, and proposed street and trail alignments;
3. A detailed landscaping plan including all details and methods of irrigation and maintenance, and type of plant materials;
4. Detailed engineering plans showing site grading, including finished grades and drainage.
[Ord. 179 § 6.11, 2001.]
18.25.150 Site development and architectural review.
The following regulations shall apply in all zones:
(1) Purpose. The small scale of the community and its unique townsite, affording spectacular views of the coastline and ocean horizon, define the character of Point Arena. Maintaining this character is essential to the continued desirability and viability of the city. The planning commission is established to review new developments in order to ensure their consistency with the character of the city and to minimize their impact on important vistas. The planning commission will also assess existing buildings for architectural or historical significance. A design assistance committee, appointed by the city council may be established to provide design review recommendations to the planning commission.
(2) Applicability. Relocation, construction, external remodeling or additions to structures, and alteration of the natural contours of the land shall not be undertaken until approved by the planning commission. Any such work shall require a coastal development permit as prescribed in Chapter 18.30. Approval from the planning commission need not be obtained for remodeling which does not affect the external profile or appearance of an existing structure. (3) Development Siting Criteria. The planning commission shall be guided by the following criteria when evaluating development, including landform alterations and construction of structures:
(a) New development shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on scenic areas from scenic roads or public viewing areas to the maximum feasible extent. If there is no feasible building site location on the proposed project site where development would not be visible, then the development shall be sited and designed to minimize impacts on scenic areas from scenic highways or public viewing areas, through measures including, but not limited to, siting development in the least visible portion of the site, breaking up the mass of new structures, designing structures to blend into the natural hillside setting, restricting the building maximum size, reducing maximum height standards, clustering development, minimizing grading, incorporating landscape elements, and where appropriate, berming. (b) Where there is no feasible alternative that is not visible from scenic highways or public viewing areas, the development area shall be restricted to minimize adverse impacts on views from scenic highways or public viewing areas.
(c) Avoidance of impacts to visual resources through site selection and design alternatives is the preferred method over landscape screening. Landscape screening, as mitigation of visual impacts shall not substitute for project alternatives including re-siting or reducing the height or bulk of structures.
(d) Prominent ridgelines and other intervening ridgelines that are visible from a public road, a beach, public viewing areas, or public hiking trails, shall be protected by setting structures below the ridgeline to avoid intrusions into the skyline where feasible. Where there are no feasible alternative building sites below the ridgeline or where the only alternative building site would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to ESHA, structures shall be limited to one-story (18 feet maximum from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower) in height to minimize visual impacts.
(4) Design Criteria. The planning commission shall be guided by the following criteria when evaluating development, including landform alterations and construction of structures:
(a) The alteration of natural landforms caused by cutting, filling and grading shall be minimal. Structures should be designed to fit the site rather than altering the landform to accommodate the structure.
(b) Structures in, or adjacent to, open space areas should be constructed of materials that reproduce natural colors and textures as closely as possible. (c) Materials and colors used in construction shall be selected for compatibility both with the structural system of the building and with the appearance of the building’s natural and man-made surroundings. Preset architectural styles (e.g., standard fast food restaurant designs) shall be avoided.
(d) Plant materials should be used to integrate the man-made and natural environments, to screen or soften the visual impact of new development, and to provide diversity in developed areas. Attractive vegetation common to the area shall be used, and native vegetation shall be used to the maximum extent practicable. Invasive plant species that tend to supplant native species and natural habitats shall be prohibited. Landscaping for MR, C, HW, and I zones shall conform with the provisions of Section 18.25.140. (e) On-premises signs should be designed as an integral part of the structure and should complement or enhance the appearance of the surrounding area. (f) New development should include underground utility service connections. When above ground facilities are the only alternative, they should follow the least visible route, be well designed, simple and unobtrusive in appearance, have a minimum of bulk, and make use of compatible colors and materials.
(g) Off-site advertising signs are not allowed unless erected by a public agency. Such signs should be well designed and be clustered at appropriate locations. Sign clusters should have a single design theme. The construction of new billboards is prohibited. (h) When reviewing the design of commercial or residential buildings, the planning commission shall ensure that the scale, bulk, orientation, architectural character of the structure and related improvements are compatible with the rural, uncrowded, rustic, unsophisticated, small, casual, open character of the community. In particular, residences of more than 2,000 square feet in floor area and multiple-family dwellings or commercial buildings of more than 4,000 square feet in floor area shall be considered out of scale with the community unless they are designed and situated in such a way that their bulk is not obtrusive. Residential and commercial developments involving multiple dwelling or business units should utilize clusters of smaller structures with sufficient open space between them instead of a consolidated structure.
(i) Structures visible from the beach or a public trail in an open space area should be made as visually unobtrusive as possible and shall incorporate colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. The use of highly reflective materials is prohibited.
(j) If a residence structure is removed, or destroyed by fire or other natural causes, on a lot that is otherwise usable, the owner shall be entitled to construct a residence in the same location with an exterior profile not exceeding that of the previous structure even if such a structure would again significantly obstruct public views of important scenes, provided any other nonconforming conditions are corrected.
(k) Developments shall be planned to avoid removing trees, if feasible. At least two trees shall be planted for every one removed to accommodate development facilitated by the general plan. Visually attractive native trees species, such as bishop pine and sargent cypress, shall be the preferred species used, as they require less water, herbicides, pesticides, and are valuable to wildlife resources.
(l) In order to protect the natural setting of the hillsides that surround the city, hillside or ridgeline development shall be scrutinized with “view from the valley floor” considerations.
Proposed development on the crest of bluffs or canyons shall be specifically analyzed in relation to views from the low-lying areas of the city, important view corridors, and scenic gateways. Development shall not silhouette against the ridgeline without adequate visual buffers, and development on lower slopes shall be visually screened by existing or landscaped vegetation to minimize visual impact.
(m) Avoidance of impacts to visual resources through site selection and design alternatives is the preferred method over landscape screening. Landscape screening, as mitigation of visual impacts shall not substitute for project alternatives including re-siting or reducing the height or bulk of structures.
(n) All new development shall be sited and designed to minimize alteration of natural landforms by:
(i) Conforming to the natural topography;
(ii) Preventing substantial grading or reconfiguration of the project site; (iii) Eliminating flat building pads on slopes. Building pads on sloping sites shall utilize split level or stepped-pad designs;
(iv) Requiring that man-made contours mimic the natural contours; (v) Ensuring that graded slopes blend with the existing terrain of the site and surrounding area;
(vi) Minimizing grading permitted outside of the building footprint; (vii) Clustering structures to minimize site disturbance and to minimize development area;
(viii) Minimizing height and length of cut and fill slopes; (ix) Minimizing the height and length of retaining walls; (x) Cut and fill operations may be balanced on-site, where the grading does not substantially alter the existing topography and blends with the surrounding area.
Export of cut material may be required to preserve the natural topography. (o) The length of on-site roads or driveways shall be minimized, except where a longer road or driveway would allow for an alternative building site location that would be more protective of visual resources or ESHA. Driveway slopes shall be designed to follow the natural topography. Driveways that are visible from a scenic road, a beach, a public viewing area, or public hiking trail shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landforms and vegetation.
(p) All new structures shall be sited and designed to minimize impacts to visual resources by:
(i) Ensuring visual compatibility with the character of surrounding areas; (ii) Avoiding large cantilevers or understories;
(iii) Setting back higher elements of the structure toward the center or uphill portion of the building.
(q) Where feasible, long continuous retaining walls shall be broken into sections or shall include undulations to provide visual relief. Where feasible, retaining walls supporting a structure should be incorporated into the foundation system in a stepped or split-level design. Retaining walls visible from scenic highways, trails, parks, and beaches should incorporate veneers, texturing and/or colors that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape.
(r) Fences, walls, and landscaping shall not block views of scenic areas from scenic roads, parks, beaches, and other public viewing areas.
(s) Public works projects along scenic roads that include hardscape elements such as retaining walls, cut-off walls, abutments, bridges, and culverts shall incorporate veneers, texturing, and colors that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape. (t) Land divisions, including lot line adjustments, adjustments, shall be designed to minimize impacts to visual resources by:
(i) Clustering the building sites to minimize site disturbance and maximize open space;
(ii) Prohibiting building sites on ridgelines;
(iii) Minimizing the length of access roads and driveways; (iv) Using shared driveways to access development on adjacent lots, where feasible; (v) Reducing the maximum allowable density in steeply sloping and visually sensitive areas;
(vi) Minimizing grading and alteration of natural landforms; (vii) Landscaping or revegetating all cut and fill slopes, and other disturbed areas at the completion of grading;
(viii) Incorporating interim seeding of graded building pad areas, if any, with native plants unless construction of approved structures commences within 30 days of the completion of grading.
(u) Subsequent development on a parcel created through a land division shall conform to all provisions of the approved coastal development permit that authorized the land division, or any amendments thereto.
(v) Cut and fill slopes and other areas disturbed by construction activities shall be landscaped or revegetated at the completion of grading. Landscape plans shall provide that:
(i) Plantings shall be of native, drought-tolerant plant species, and blend with the existing natural vegetation and natural habitats on the site, to the maximum extent practicable.
(ii) Invasive plant species that tend to supplant native species and natural habitats shall be prohibited.
(iii) Lawn shall not be located on any geologically sensitive area such as coastal blufftop.
(iv) Landscaping or revegetation shall provide 90 percent coverage within five years. (w) No permanent structures shall be permitted on a bluff face, except for engineered stairways to accessways to provide public beach access. Such structures shall be designed and constructed to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. (x) Landscaping permitted on a bluff face or hillside for restoration, revegetation or erosion control purposes shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species endemic to the area. (y) Where necessary to ensure the protection of scenic and visual resources in accordance with the policies and standards provided herein, a coastal development permit shall be conditioned to require the recordation of a deed restriction or other legal document which provides that any or all future development beyond that authorized by the CDP, including that which would ordinarily be exempt from a CDP, shall be subject to a new CDP or permit amendment.
(5) Review Procedures. The planning commission shall prescribe application forms and information requirements for use by those proposing activities. Applications for new development in scenic areas as defined in LUP Chapter X Policy 3.6, and/or visible from public viewing areas and scenic roads, as defined in LUP Chapter X Policy 3.5 or those located in a scenic corridor as depicted on the city of Point Arena scenic corridors map, shall include a visual analysis that includes:
(a) Grading plan, if any grading is proposed;
(b) Cross sections of the project site showing the proposed grading and structures; (c) Line of sight analysis showing the view of the project site from public viewing areas; (d) Photos of the project site from public viewing areas and/or scenic roads, with story poles placed on the site to indicate the proposed location and maximum height of all structures and stakes placed on the site to indicate the extent of all proposed grading; (e) An analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed development on the identified public views;
(f) Project alternatives designed to avoid and minimize impacts to visual resources; (g) Mitigation measures necessary to minimize or mitigate residual impacts that cannot be avoided through project siting and design alternatives.
If a conditional use permit or other approval is required by the planning commission or the city council, the review of the design shall be subsequent to other permit considerations and may occur at the same meeting, subject to fulfillment of public notification requirements. Otherwise the procedure for submittal and consideration of the application shall be the same as for a use permit as provided in Chapter 18.30.
Where view considerations are involved, the applicant is encouraged to contact property owners within 100 feet and show them the layout and profile of the proposed structure. The commission shall not approve or conditionally approve any application unless it finds that all of the applicable criteria have been considered and the minimum adjustments required to achieve the objectives applicable to the area where the development is located. (6) Standards for Determination. All applications for a coastal development permit shall be subject to an on-site investigation in order to determine whether the proposed project has the potential to cause adverse impacts upon scenic areas as defined in LUP Chapter X Policy 3.6, or from or along scenic roads or public viewing areas as defined in LUP Chapter X Policy 3.5.
Where applicable, proposed structures shall be accurately indicated as to footprint, height and rooflines by story poles with flags. All proposed grading and the proposed location of access roads or driveways, including the centerline top of cut and toe of fill, shall be accurately indicated by stakes. Both poles and stakes shall remain in place for the duration of the approval process. The applicant may also be required to provide other visual aids such as photographs with superimposed structures.
These requirements may be waived by the city staff where it is determined through onsite investigation, evaluation of topographic maps or photographic evidence, or by other means that there is no possibility that the proposed development will create or contribute to adverse impacts upon scenic areas.
(7) Required Findings and Analysis. Written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing scenic or visual resources must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development located on a site or in an area where it is determined that the proposed project causes the potential to create adverse impacts upon scenic areas from or along scenic roads and public viewing areas. Such findings shall address the specific project impacts relative to the applicable development standards identified in this section and Section 18.25.160. The findings shall explain the basis for the conclusions and decisions of the city and shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Findings for approval or conditional approval shall conclude that the project as proposed, or as conditioned, conforms to the certified local coastal program. A coastal development permit for the proposed development shall only be granted if the city’s decision-making body is able to find that:
(a) The project, as proposed, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location on the site or other reasons; (b) The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions; (c) The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative;
(d) There are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources; (e) Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse scenic and visual impacts, but will eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.
If found to be necessary to conform to the development standards contained in this chapter or any other applicable policy or standard of the certified LCP the proposed development shall be modified, by special condition, relative to height, size, design, or location on the site and may be required to incorporate landscaping or other methods to avoid or minimize the adverse scenic impacts of the proposed development.
If special conditions of approval are required in order to bring the project into conformance with the certified LCP, the findings shall explain how the special condition(s) alleviate or mitigate the adverse effects which have been identified.
Mitigation shall not be permitted to substitute for implementation of a feasible project alternative that would lessen or avoid impacts to scenic and visual resources. [Ord. 179 § 5.15, 2001.]