 Good evening. Welcome to the City of Capitola Planning Commission meeting of October 5th. This meeting is open to the public with both in-person attendance at the City of Capitola Council Chambers at 420 Capitola Avenue and remote attendance. Planning commissioners and staff are attending in-person and remotely via Zoom. There are several ways for the public to watch and participate. Information on how to join the meeting via Zoom and make public comments during the meeting is available on our website, CityofCapitola.org, on the meeting agenda. The public can also live stream the meeting on the City's website or on YouTube. As always, this meeting is cable cast live on Spectrum Communications, cable TV, Channel 8 and AT&T Uverse Channel 99 and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Mondays and Fridays at 1 p.m. on Spectrum Channel 71 and Spectrum Channel 25. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City's website after the meeting. Our technician tonight is Walter and as a reminder, please turn off your cell phones during the meeting. So we will have a roll call. Commissioner Estee, President, Commissioner Jensen, President, Commissioner Wilt. Please unmute yourself, Commissioner Wilt. Sorry, here. Vice Chair Christensen, and Chair Westman. Here. Thank you. We'll do the Pledge of Allegiance. Next item is oral communications. And the first one is additions and deletions to the agenda. And I know we've had some additional materials that are available for the public on the table and staff can mention if they would like. But I would also like to ask the planning commissioners if we could rearrange our agenda slightly. And that's on two items to move. They're all on the public hearings to move 421 Riverview Avenue to be the last item on the agenda because both Commissioner Wilt and I have to recuse ourselves from that. And I know Commissioner Wilt is evidently trying to catch a plane. In that note, too, I would like to move item D, the colors and materials discussion before we talk about the citywide housing element because I believe we've gotten some new information on the housing element as late as yesterday and staff has been working on that. So I think the housing element item is going to take a little longer than we had originally anticipated. And I guess there is a third one. It would be nice if our director could do the director's report under staff comments. So Commissioner Wilt and I would be available to hear that. So if you're in agreement with that, anyone has, no one has any objections. That's how we will change the agenda for tonight. Anything else from staff on the agenda? Good evening, commissioners. We would just like to inform you that staff has received three additional materials for tonight's agenda. Those are for items 5C and 5D. They've been added to the agenda packet and presented to you as well at the dais. Thank you. Okay, the next item on our agenda, did anyone have anything else? The next item on our agenda is public comments. Can you hear me? Sorry, I had one thing to add, too. Alright, John. Yes, for the item 4B, excuse me, 511 Escalina Drive, we'd like to note that if the Planning Commission does make a motion on that while it's still on consent, staff recommends that they modify condition of approval number four and replace the word west with east. It's just a clean up that Commissioner Estee had noted. Thank you. Okay, moving on to public comment. This item is for a short communication from the public concerning items that are not on tonight's agenda. All speakers are requested to print their name if you would like to have your name accurately recorded in the minutes. Members of the public may speak up to three minutes and we look forward to hearing from you. Hi. Hi. My name is Goran Klabic. I worked here one time, excuse me, I worked here one time security in Capitola many years ago. My main concern today and sometimes also in the past was that I don't know who is doing that but at the J Street Park where the restrooms are like the men's restroom that I have to use. There are always paintings. Somebody is idiotic enough to paint over some illegal paint the doors so that the public works has to come back and rearrange everything and puts money, taxpayers' money in consideration to repair this. And it's not only that. I've been talking about also about garbage on the McDonald's and CVS premises which are accumulating and people are ignorant enough to throw garbage away on the side street. And I don't think this is the responsibility of the state of California or anybody to remove it but you have to take the businesses in accountability. That's all I want to say. Thank you very much. God bless you all. Thanks for listening. Thank you for your comments. We'll direct staff to notify the appropriate departments about those two problems and hopefully they can do something about them. Particularly the bathrooms at Jade Street. That's a public facility that we own so it should be taken care of. Thank you. Anyone else interested in making a public comment? Seeing none, we will move on to commissioner comments at this time. Okay, so then we move to the approval of the minutes for August 17th, 2023. Does anybody have any corrections or additions they would like to make? I move approval. And would someone like to make a motion? I'll make a motion for approval. Okay, we have a motion in second. All of those in favor of this? I don't think we will call. Hi. So it passes unanimously. Excuse me, chair Westman. Can you hear me? This is Katie. I think we skipped over the staff comments and I was going to do my director's report. I'm sorry about that. No problem. So we will go back to staff comments so we can hear from Katie in the earlier part of the meeting. Okay. Thank you. I apologize for not being in person tonight but appreciate the opportunity to bring you updates over Zoom. I just wanted to give you a few updates in terms of the wharf. The wharf construction has begun and we're anticipating construction to take up to one year. You will recall that the Planning Commission looked at revisions to the bathrooms previously and also there was tree removals at the entrance to the road for the wharf. And I just wanted to let you know that those tree removals are still, we still plan on doing the replanting but due to the construction and also the enhancement project that's occurring is being planned out right now that the trees will be planted but at the appropriate time once they won't interfere with construction and also larger trees are typically available. There's a shortage of trees right now in general for choices. So larger trees we're hoping will be available in the springtime but I just wanted to let you know that that condition of replanting has not been forgotten. We're just trying to incorporate it correctly into the updated plans and the wharf enhancements. I also wanted to let you know that the City Council approved the contract for the mall redevelopment study for the land use study. So we're working with Cosmont to get that started. So I've been working with them this past week on getting them information so that they can launch into that study. Also I previously mentioned but I just wanted to bring it up again because it is that we we received a REAP 2.0 grant for a total of $128,000 and this will be to implement land use planning methods that are identified in our six cycle arena or six cycle update for the housing element. So that's great news because as you can see we're committing to many things within our six cycle and that funding will go a long way. So 128,000. Also at 1098 38th Avenue we've told you before that there is an affordable housing project 100% affordable around 50 units proposed by mid pen. The City Council will be looking at approving a loan from the city at their November 9th hearing and then just wanted to give you a reminder that we have a special meeting coming up on October 19th for the recommendation on the housing element to the City Council. So thank you. Those are my updates for this evening. Thank you very much. I would like to ask staff to let prior commissioner Ruth know about the tree removal and planters as part of the Wharf project because when he was on the commission that was an item that he was concerned about. So staff could just send him a brief email and update him on that. I would appreciate it. We can do that. Thank you. Okay. So now we're moving on to the consent calendar and we have two items on the consent calendar and the first one is modifications to permit 220140 for the blanket CDU for street dining decks in capitol central village. And the second item is a design permit amendment for 511 Escalona. And as Sean mentioned there was a slight change in the staff recommendation. Would anyone on the commission like to pull either one of these items? I don't need to pull. I'm just a comment. Just make a comment regarding 511. I just appreciate that staff work with the applicant in addressing the issue with the door that was permitted before working together and cleaning that up. So just a comment. I appreciate that third time addressing it. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to pull either one of these items separately? No one would someone like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar? I'll move that we approve the consent calendar. Would we have to motion to include that? I'll second with the changes. Commissioner Asti. Commissioner Jensen. Commissioner Wilk. Vice chair Christensen. And chair Westman. So now we're moving on to the public hearing part of our agenda and as we have rearranged that the first item will be what was listed as item B at 1435 41st avenue best western. It's a conditional use permit amendment to add five guest rooms by converting double bay suites to standard guest rooms. Could we have a staff report please? Yeah, I'm just loading it now. I have a presentation for you in just a second here. Okay. Best Western at 41st Avenue is proposing a conditional use permit modification. I've got an aerial photo here showing the property with parking in the rear and facing 41st Avenue was built in circa 2000 with 54 rooms. The proposal this evening is to add a net of five guest rooms by way of internal conversions. So just to get into this, there is no design permit because all of the changes are internal. On the first floor there was a manager's apartment that took up two bay units and so the proposal here is to add two net new guest rooms and then on the second floor the conversion relates to two suites into four standard guest rooms for a net of two more and then on the third floor it's a combining one suite for a net of one guest room. So the primary because all the work is interior, the primary planning consideration was parking and the property was originally laid out and designed with 60 parking spaces. Current code requires one space per guest room and then one per 300 square feet of office and the combination of office is 275 square feet. So there's one space required for office and the proposal is 59 guest rooms so it complies with current standard with parking. So that is it. It's a modification to a use permit. It will require a building permit and building staff has done an interior walkthrough and there will be some amount of likely disassembly or demolition in order to do the inspection sequencing that would have gone with the permit. With that we are recommending approval with the amended and updated conditions and findings that are attached. Any of the commissioners have any questions of staff before? Just a question. So when you said there's going to be decent deconstructive work done so it was some work done previously that like is covered up then that way you're not. Yes so there with these suites specifically there was half baths where a sink unit was was converted to a tub and shower and so the plumbing that was done in the wall and there may be a new electrical outlet. So that may need to be opened up to see how that was assembled inside the wall. If that conversion was proposed and permits were issued prior to the work being done the inspector would be looking at that in progress as work was completed so. Thank you. Okay we will open the public hearing on this item is there anyone in the public who would like to speak to us about the 1435 41st Avenue. No one is there anyone on zoom. So we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. No comment. Okay so with someone like to make a motion I'll make a motion for approval for the best question on 41st Avenue for the approval of changing I think was it. Well I guess just the project number 230397. I'll second. Okay we have a motion and second can we have a vote. Commissioner Estee. Aye. Commissioner Jensen. Aye. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. Vice Chair Christensen. Aye. And Chair Westman. Aye. Okay so the next item we're going to hear is item D listed on our agenda as colors and materials and this was a topic that the planning commission decided that they would have a discussion about. Yeah so I'll be doing this presentation as well. So this item is before you tonight primarily for discussion and possibly for discussion. So I'm going to take a look at the direction to staff and the topic being colors and materials that are both required to be submitted and defined and design review applications for single family properties. And then the second half of it is what is the city zoning ordinance regulate in terms of colors and materials. So the first part of that is what does staff routinely request of and my slide has got two pretty typical exhibits that we'll receive. The one on the left is a little bit more simple. And the one on the right is a rendered elevation with call outs of different materials. The one on the right just with with written description. So this is typically what we see it's in PDF form. We don't ask for physical samples just typically what fits on a sheet of standard paper descriptions and some graphics with regard to the code. There are basically three sections that deal with requirements for color materials and ad use and the objective standards do require exterior materials to match the primary structure and there's a design review criteria that's incorporated into the findings for design review projects by reference but two of them specifically a talks about community character and balance and compatibility with the surrounding area and then criteria K talks about quality materials and use of natural materials and long lasting materials. And then the last one is post decision. So this would be after a project is approved by the planning commission. What can staff through the community development director change and we can change up to 25% of the building facade at a post decision level. So I believe your item on 511 Escalona was before the commission because they had a comprehensive change to the exterior. So we had a good case in point but this is what the code lays out relative. So I would note that exterior color paint applicants maintain that flexibility throughout the process. It's not regulated. And so procedurally you you saw on the first slide what we ask for and then we allow a bit of flexibility with how that's presented. Sometimes it's not even a separate sheet if their renderings are in the plans and they're descriptive enough we can accept that. So that is kind of a run out of procedurally and then how the code ties into color and materials for design permits. Happy to take questions. Any questions before we open the public hearing. Brian, I'm sorry, maybe I didn't hear you correctly. You said right now that if it's detailed on the plans is not required. Sorry. Yeah, so we were generally pretty flexible with with how we will accept this information. So a lot of times it is a separate standalone exhibit and then sometimes the plans are detailed enough to where we don't need that. And that's for materials and colors. Yes. If they noted on there is hardy sighting and certain color and it's a standard color that wasn't up to your discretion be not needed as an additional item that be submitted. Correct. Thank you. More interested in the materials if if somebody walks in with a plan and it kind of looks like a castle that's got you know a lot of blocks and ricks and that kind of stuff and it doesn't hit the community. What's your what do you do? You tell them you got to you got to it within and all sort of the guidelines of what the community looks like now. We don't regulate architectural style. So compatibility is also a subjective concept. So, you know, I think within the discussions with staff we could maybe ask an applicant to look a second time at the community. I don't know if they would like to comment on this item. I don't know if they would like to add ability if we thought it was out of character, but ultimately they would have an option to come before the commission to make make findings. Is there anyone here on in the public who would like to comment about this? Is there anyone in the public on zoom who would like to comment on this item? Okay. So we'll close the public portion and bring it back to the commission. I don't know if they would like to comment on this item. So perhaps we can give him the opportunity to speak first. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Westman. Let me my arguments basically are in the presentation. That's attachment to the. To the agenda. Basically what I want to do is minimize the stress. I don't know if you have any questions. I don't know if you have any comments on applicants. Where where I'm coming from from this is I was an applicant who went through a planning commission. And city council review. On a major remodel and I found it very, very stressful. There was a lot. You know, a lot of ropes you have to pull and hope she have to jump through and. I think that's a good reason. I think that's a good reason. I think that's a good reason. Over the course of years, ask Katie things like, well, why do we need a landscape plan? And she'd give me perfect reason like, well, you don't want to have roots near a near a power line or, you know, what have you. So a lot of these hoops that you jump through are necessary, but I was never given a. A good reason as to why. We needed to specify the color of our house. To get the information to the planning commission and my thought is if we can remove some little bit of stress from an applicant who's going through very difficult time trying to get their dream project done. And we can just say, hey, you know what? We're not going to. We're not going to ding you on color or tell you that you need to present a color board ahead of time. Maybe you haven't decided on your color yet. Well, can we just take that off the table and move one little bit of stress off of the applicants. Plate. So that's kind of where I'm coming from. And like I say, the other arguments I think are in my presentation that you've all read, hopefully, and I don't need to go over those again. So thank you. Well, I would like to comment on. Um. So yeah, I would agree with Commissioner Welk on the colors that doesn't mean since you can literally paint your house, go through the approval process, get it all signed off. And the next day you could paint it, whatever color you wanted, and nobody has any say it's sort of a silly requirement. I don't, I don't think that's true on the material side. Like my castle example, I wouldn't want castles to show up in the middle of. I don't see any need. I won't disagree this time. I agree. So my comment just goes maybe a little bit farther than I think I agree completely with the color thing. I could understand the materials. I think a good architect designer is going to obviously have those detailed on a set of plans because usually those are going to be a set of plans that they'll carry forward to go get a bid. And so the more information that's noted on the plans would be maybe get more accurate bid. So I would think a good architect designer would probably have the information. And I think that would be a good idea to expand it and going to what commission has referred to as, you know, how these projects come in. And I know if we go back and look at the history, and I've also built my house in Capitola, went through the process. But back in the day we had the architectural review board. And I thought the process was great. I thought to attend it in a forum that was just at the back table. It was a very positive, shared thoughts back and forth. I went back and looked at some of my notes. And Katie was here at the time with suggestions that she encouraged me to make changes to the house that she thought represented in Capitola. And at that time I was new to the area. And so I thought that was valuable. And so I would like to, and I don't know if we have to be another item for discussion to be brought up at another meeting, but I would like to make a recommendation that we looked at bringing that back to have some review on that. Hopefully that provides a little bit more to a client than it's a less stressful process of having it so formal as submit this, submit that, and going back and forth. I also think it'd be great for staff to have another, maybe, perspective on, you know, from a professional or a community member who would sit on that group. And so that's what I would like to see. And I don't know what the process would be to have that expanded or what other commissioners thoughts are beyond that. I also think at the same time, you know, I'll bring up the opaque window thing. You know, it seems like it's, you know, staff has a code. It says opaque windows. I think there's some precedent set by this planning commission that maybe that's a little bit different thought. And so those sorts of things to be kind of looked out and looked over and reviewed at that time. And so those items maybe would be addressed before they got here. And we would understand the back and forth about that. I'd also would love to see, and I don't think it was at the time, and maybe it wasn't no one attended, but also an invitation maybe to the neighbors to come because at the same exact time, I think neighbors might be, when the plans are so far down and you finally see them and the product's already designed, a neighbor might be out, oh my gosh, you know, that window is going to bother me. But my gosh, if I asked my neighbor that's been 20 years next door to me to move that, that could cost five or $10,000. Let's say it's a huge structural issue. And so to try to work through some of those things early and the neighbors talked and they said, you know, do you know, you know, and I know we shouldn't be looking at projects from a neighbor perspective because neighbors change, but I think it's just, it allows the community and everybody to work a little bit better together. So those are my couple of my thoughts that I'd like to share. So it seems to me we sort of have three points we need to cover. I have absolutely no concern about what color someone's going to paint their house and to be honest in all the years we've been here, I can't remember. I am telling someone to, you know, change their color. I can remember as a staff person asking the applicant if they were really sure that that was the direction that they wanted to go in, but I don't remember the planning commission ever denying an application over color and I don't think they have to tell us what color they're going to paint their house. So we sort of need to change our definition of facade because like Paul, I'm very concerned about, you know, the materials side of it. So, you know, in the staff report, we talk about a single family residential project facade means combination of exterior materials and color and I think it should just be exterior materials. We also have one other area in our ADU ordinance, which I didn't hear anybody mention and that's in the ADU ordinance right now. The ADU is supposed to match or be compatible color wise with the existing residents there. So maybe we ought to just get some comments about how you feel about that. So can I jump in? I would like to limit this to something that everyone can agree to and I think the notion of having the... Can you hear me by the way? Yes. Yes. So the notion of having the ADU compatible with the existing house, okay, that makes some sense. The notion of specifying materials, I can bind to that, but what I'd like to do and I would like to move that we recommend to staff that any reference to color with terms of materials and color board or any association with color that would associate with the primary building house color that that be removed and no longer be required. So that's my motion. Yeah. I think that typically what we do get on plans if someone's talking about, you know, stucco or the kind of roof they're going to do, they typically indicate colors of those kinds of materials. And for me, I would like to see those material colors. You know, we certainly can't give staff some flexibility to, you know, modify those, but because those are things that are going to be around for a long time. The color someone paints their house is pretty transient. You know, it's like a teenage kid dyeing their hair. You know, it's not a permanent kind of thing. But when you're talking about the roof materials, the siding materials, those things, for me, I get, it's good to know. And I guess it's really, you know, sort of the roof and windows, because those are the things that probably would never would be painted. Yeah, I guess for staff, typically you would request the materials to be shown on all the elevation views, right? Yes. So there's really no need for a separate materials board in that sense. The plans were defined to that level. Yeah, we would need to see color. Yeah, the plans to show it, we don't need anything separate. So should we expand the list beyond just a color board, but a color and materials board? I remember going through a long time ago and we actually had to, samples in a materials board. They don't need to submit a separate colors and material, color and material board, as long as the materials and the color of the materials, not the paint on the house, is indicated on the plan. Yeah, one question. Just speaking of roofing, as we see a trend of metal roofing, does the city have a requirement on the reflectivity rate on metal roofing? I have not seen a reflectivity value in the zoning ordinance. I know other cities do have it, and so especially metal roofing, so I could agree with, not picking out the color, but there are different colors that have a higher reflectivity rate, and so if you're in a certain area, the reflectivity rate could be very high, and so that'd be just one thing. I would caution when we say we remove color, we might want to note that, and I don't know if other commissioners have comments regarding that. I'm touching on that. The reason I disagreed with this before, and I acknowledge Commissioner Wilk's concern about taking the, alleviating the stress of the submittal process and the planning process, the only thing that I really value about colors and materials boards is fleshing out the design and presenting it to the panel, presenting it to the commission. Really having intention being brought into your design is part of every jurisdiction, at least I've ever submitted to, so it really doesn't, having black and white drawings in front of the commission is great. I think having a really well thought out, fleshed out design makes it complete, and having voting on something like that, really it just kind of drives the point home that we value what our town looks like, how it looks, where the design intention, the streetscape, everything like that, so although I'm not going to disagree with Commissioner Wilk this time, I think just touching on that and understanding that, I just don't see any other town or city not requesting colors and not requesting materials, not requesting reflectivity. I think for me where I'm coming from is that I'm concerned about the things that are going to be here for 25, 30 years, and that's going to be the roof, that's going to be what kind of sightings are going to be, are we doing aluminum windows, vinyl cloud windows, you know, what, during that time people do routinely, I think he's telling us they can't hear, so I'll try and talk into my microphone a little more. I think people do routinely repaint their house during those times, and that's not something the city regulates, so it's not something we should regulate the first time it gets painted. But the other parts of it are important to me, and you know, maybe we're not going all the way that Commissioner Wilkes wanted, but we're making a step to make it easier and not have, you know, the color someone's going to paint their house be an issue. Well, that's, I mean, while we're talking about it, I do agree with, that the Arkansas Committee was very effective in kind of helping direct those decisions, but if we're going to limit it to what the motion was addressed then... Right, I think we need to sort of bring up the Arkansas Committee as sort of a separate issue because it's really not part of this agenda item, but you know, we can bring it up, and I agree with you having us look at bringing back that body, because I thought it was very effective in, as Commissioner Jensen said, it was an opportunity for the neighbors, for the staff, for the applicant, for everyone to sit down in a quite informal setting before things got, you know, engineered and final drawings were made because I agree when you ask people to make changes after there have been final drawings and engineering work and those kinds of things, it does start to get expensive and one of our goals later on tonight is to, you know, facilitate having housing built. So, I think having that early review would be good. So, we want to have a motion on the colors and material boards and the ADU colors, and then we'll go to the Arkansas Discussion. I think... Commissioner Wilk, did you make another comment? Did you make a motion, right? So, if you can hear me, I already made a motion which was to direct staff to eliminate color from new bills. Basically agreeing with you that when it comes to materials, the notion of showing the material and its color, you know, with regards to those longstanding things, you're talking about windows, roofs, that's fine. I am just really worried about exactly what you said, Commissioner Westman, I'm painting, I'm getting on a paint brush and I'm painting my house and I have to tell you ahead of time what color I'm going to buy from Sherman Williams. That's what I object to. And so, I would like to staff to come up with appropriate wording in their application to eliminate that concern that they have to supply a color board for the color they're painting the house, but include the notion that, yeah, you have to include the color of the rock that you're, you know, making your chimney with and your roof and whatnot, that's fine. To your point of, we want to look at the longstanding things. So, again, my motion is to direct staff to eliminate color from the requirement on an R1 applicant. Okay. And just to clarify, you also mentioned in your previous discussion that you have no concern about, there's no need to change our current ADU ordinance saying that those need to be compatible. So, I think we have a motion. Does everyone understand it? Do we need to? I'm sorry, was that motion just for the color? Okay, the way I understand your motion is that we are going to eliminate a requirement that someone tells us what color they're going to paint their new house or major remodel or whatever, but they will continue to tell us what materials they're going to use and what colors those materials are going to be, like the roof, the window, rock or, you know, things that are going to be permanent. And they have the option of doing that two ways. They can either, in staff's interpretation, put it on the plan. And if the information there is adequate and shows us that's fine. If it's not adequate on the plan, they would need to separately submit a piece of paper showing them the colors of the permanent items. So I think that's what our motion is. I'll second it. Okay. We have a motion and a second. We probably want to have a roll call vote. Commissioner Esti. Hi. Commissioner Jensen. Hi. Commissioner Wilk. Hi. Vice Chair Christensen. Hi. And Chair Westman. Hi. Okay. And then the other item was brought up, I think the planning commission could direct staff to come back at a later date and talk about the architectural and site review committee. Do we need to bring it back? How it worked? And we can have a discussion about that at another time. Everybody in agreement with that? Yep. Okay. Yes. That does that item. Have a good trip, Peter. Thank you. So I believe that commissioner Wilks is going to be leaving us now. Just as any commissioner would leave a regular planning commission meeting. So they had, so he will no longer be part of our panel or discussions. That will be. Thank you. Thank you very much. So now we are going to move on to the cities. And I see the applicant here. I know Mr. Norton's representing for 21 Riverview Avenue. We did move that item to the end of the agenda as both commissioner Wilk and I have to recuse ourselves from that item. So we will get to you, which is going to be a little later. So the next item is the citywide housing element update and a presentation from our community development director. Okay. Good evening. Planning commission. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Okay. Tonight I'm going to be giving you an update on our housing element. And we also have our, from our city attorney's office, which is the citywide housing element update. So I'm going to be joining us for any technical questions regarding housing law. So with that, I'm going to jump in. Tonight's topics is first, I'll give you an overview of a housing element just for anyone. Participating in this call that isn't aware of what a housing element is. And then the majority of my presentation will be on the 90 and our next steps. So what is a housing element? It simply is, we look at what our needs are for the community in terms of housing and how we can best accommodate those, our existing needs and our future housing needs. And a lot of that is set up by the state. The date that our housing element is due to the state is December 15th. And right now we are on track. And we're moving into the next meeting. So we're moving into the next meeting. And that is showing you the. The update process and we've come quite a long way. The past 90 days are draft housing element has been under review by HCD staff. And we're moving into adoption hearings next. So this meeting tonight is to update you on what's occurred in the past 90 days with. The HCD staff. And we're moving into the next meeting. And we're moving into the next meeting. And we have a week experience, very collaborative with HCD. Here on this slide, you're seeing our first public review draft in the back that was submitted. That was published in May to our, to the public. We received, we had. Public outreach meetings, planning commission, city council meetings. We got a lot of great input. And then we took that input. We revised the draft and we submit, and we're moving into the next meeting. And the next meeting that I presented to the planning commission on this topic. Was for that update. Since submitting to the HCD. We've received two rounds. Well, now three rounds of comments from the HCD. And with each round of comments, we have. First, I have to just. Compliment our team. Veronica Taman associates, RM design, and then Layla from. The city of Capitola. And then we also have. Great team. And the minute we'd get comments and have, and hear from the HCD, everyone would go to work. To revise and. Our draft element with. Strategies that we thought are appropriate for. The city of Capitola. And then post the revisions for seven days for the public to weigh in. And then we have the HCD. And then we have. The HCD updates in our. On our website, as well as in our newsletter, that are then a new draft is available. And. And it worked. We got great thoughtful comments from. The mall. Yimbi other local entities, such as the RTC. We just had a lot of public comment and engagement throughout this process. And then we got a second round. So the first round of edits that went out on the August 29th draft were in red line version for the September 19th update. We highlighted all those changes in yellow. So you would see all the red lines in, in blue. So blue lines. And then with the highlight, the new highlighted areas where the revisions from September. And then most recently, two days ago, we had a lot of comments from the HCD. So tonight in my presentation. I'll be going over what changes were made during those different iterations that I just showed on that slide. But I'll also be bringing into you what we've heard from the October 3rd, HCD letter. So first, I want to say that. All of the. All of the changes that were made in the HCD. Were in the direction given by the planning commission initially and city council was what well received to buy HCD. And our comment letter was five pages long, which is really a compliment to the work that's been done. And dedication to housing for this future. Six cycle. So we're in a really good place. We're in a really good place. And the HCD. And the HCD. October 3rd letter are really a request for additional information and to give more details on some of the items we're proposing. And data that exists. They're also asking for more analysis on our mall, the capital and mall where that's such a big part of our housing element update. As well as programs for. Housing opportunities within our R1 and multifamily. And it's the folks that don't. Qualify for affordable housing opportunities, but they can't because our housing is so out of reach. The missing middle. Doesn't get the same opportunities to purchase homes when they're just above our area, median income. And then. So some more that the HCD is asking for more in terms of housing. So we're going to be discussing the HCD. And then we'll be discussing the. HCD and the multifamily neighborhoods. As well as another subject matters, they update to the community benefits overlays. Another request of HCD. So with that, I'll jump into what changes have been made. This slide just shows you the different contents within a housing element. So I'm going to go in order by the. The sections. There's in the introduction, we provided an overview of the public, the housing needs and opportunities. We added discussions on trends and redevelopment. We're definitely seeing more applications for housing and not so much for commercial. So when commercial is redeveloped, including. Housing on the site, which we've seen some examples of that was added. We also had to add criteria of how, how do we determine the sites within the sites inventory? So within the table. And then we'll go to the site inventory. We'll see there's new columns that have been added to discuss what the floor area ratio is, the building age, and the improvements to land ratio to make sure that it's a, that there's room for, there's opportunity on those sites. So all of that has been added to that table on the. Sites inventory. And then additional analysis was requests was added for density to the site inventory. And then we'll go to the site inventory. And then we'll go to the non vacant sites and why we're the likelihood for redevelopment. And then the capital them all site a lot more detail on the previous application and proposed density. And changes to our sites inventory. So I'm going to. With that, the, in our October third letter. The HCD is asking for us to elaborate more on the capital and the core plans that you've made just before. Again we're asking for the capital, not for the money and for the programs to commit to facilitating redevelopment and future monitoring. So our team is working on that. That information to update. So, excuse me. Six, like. Go ahead. Go back. What exactly is the data on the metric? Excuse me. A lot. Consolidation usage, a column for that. What is, So for lot consolidation, that would take place on smaller lots in which there's an opportunity to consolidate the lots. So there are quite a few, I think there's, when you look at our map, you'll see some of the numbers are followed by a letter and those are the smaller lots that could be consolidated. For one example, that's a larger lot is the Sears building and the Takara site. And what it means is that in redevelopment, we foresee those two being redeveloped together. And there's, for sites that near the intersection of Capitola Ave and Bay Avenue, there's a property owner that owns multiple sites that are next to each other. So those also are shown as lot consolidations. So we added that column so that to provide more detail for HCD so that they can see the likelihood of those being redeveloped together. You think that will address the small sites paragraph in the HCD letter? Yes, yep. All right, thank you. So I think we're adding a new table to the next version to expand on those lot consolidations and why we think they'll be consolidated in the future. Okay, my next slide just shows our allocation this time around. So in the fifth cycle, we were assigned 143. I think we're all getting more comfortable with our sixth cycle number of 1,336. Again, as the planning commission and as the city, our job here is to plan for the units, but we obviously don't have the funding to actually develop these. So we've got to put the land use tools together so that the private sector can develop these. So in terms of our site inventory map during the latest revision, we removed, in terms of the mall site, we removed the coals. They do have a long-term lease there. We added the Macy's site because it is dated like the rest of the building and there's an opportunity to do redevelopment there. We removed all the state sites. So I was hoping to get participation from the state. I had reached out to the state parks for New Brighton, but it was, there was very little response. So the New Brighton State Park site has been removed as well as the DMV. And you need a letter from the state with intent to move forward with a project in order for it to be included in your housing element. So with not having that, it's appropriate to remove it at this time to get certified. And then we added two parking lot areas within shopping plazas. So one is at the King's Plaza area. We added for 50% of the parking area that's there to allow that as a site, parking would still be required and would have to be replaced and then parking added for housing but they could go vertical and also at the Bay Avenue site for the part, half of the parking lot. So what did this do to the overall inventory? It created more units within our regional commercial zone and also within our community commercial zone. And the units that were added, there's much more to the low and very low income sections so that when a development project comes forward, we will not be at risk of the no net loss. So right now with the updated numbers, we have a healthy 16% buffer, which when we initiated this project, we really wanted to move forward with a healthy buffer being between 15 to 20%. Any questions? Okay. So for the mall site, and this is at the direction of the feedback we're getting from the mall as well as from Yimbee, the group Yimbee Santa Cruz, the existing lease at Coles is the long-term lease, as I mentioned, there's also portions within the central mall and the parking areas outside of Target and Macy's that have long-term commitments. So those were taking that into consideration in the update by removing the Coles site. And then we also got feedback of over-reliance on the mall and the risk of no net loss findings because so many of the more affordable units would be at the mall site. So that's been amended. The current draft, the original draft had 853 units, the current draft has 641. So less reliance on the mall. So do you want questions now or do you want to finish your presentation and have us ask them at the end? Questions could be okay as we go through because I don't want to, that's a program. Because- Right, I talk about the mall site, but I'll save that till the end. Okay. In terms of constraints section, we added a lot to this area of one step that we'll be taking is we're going to remove the affordable housing overlay, the density bonus provisions by the state we've committed to updating our chapter on that. And they are more flexible than our affordable housing overlay. So it doesn't make sense to keep that in play. We've also expanded on the information on our tools regarding maximum density. Also looking at the cumulative impacts to the city's land use controls. We highlight within our constraints the recent efforts regarding ADUs. A lot of cities are committing to many of the steps we've already taken with ADUs with our guidance document and our prototypes. So we've just made sure the HCD is aware of what we've done in the past. There were also questions about residential care facilities and the conditional use permits there. So we've clarified that. And then there's updates on, it shouldn't say the city's water rights, but really what water is available to the city. We have water available to us through Santa Cruz water as well as Soquel Water District. So we've updated the information on those districts and made the finding that there is enough water in order to meet our housing needs. Can you elaborate a little bit on the tools regarding maximum densities? What are we changing there? So I think it's more of we added an explanation on our, that we have no maximum densities, that we allow, so really just that, that's a great tool for planning in that a developer can come in and build a range of product from many small units to less larger units. So just provided more information of the state on that. Okay, because they seem to think that we have a, at least in residential area, maximum density of 8.3 units per acre. I don't know how they come up with that number. So that they come up with because we do have a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. So that's where that comes into play. So for our single family, we have density limits, but for within our new mixed use and commercial districts, we do not, we do have them within our multifamily and single family residential. That's okay, got it. It's mostly, yeah, it's sort of irrelevant. Katie, sorry, just on the update on Cindy Water, right? Is that updating, I know we talked about before regarding the Soquel water treatment that they're gonna be doing. Yeah, it talks about, we expanded on like the study that was done by the city of Santa Cruz, actually, and their findings for how much water they'll be able to deliver in the future with their long range planning, as well as Soquel Creek's new strategies for water. So it really, I think the information we had in there was not the most current and actually Commissioner Jensen, I think you brought this up at one of our meetings. So we added, it's now up to date to reflect the current studies that are out there. Okay, for our housing plan. So this is where we get into our programs and we talk about our deliverables. So housing program 1.1 is to provide more diversity in housing to all of capital, for all of capital as residents. And within here, we have our ADU assumption. We also have that we're going to be removing the affordable housing overlay and that also a commitment to when the mall metro station becomes a high frequency transit area that will update our housing documents on that. When we, in our most recent submittal to the state, again, I mentioned this at the very beginning that the state really wants us to figure out more ways in which to provide housing within our single family neighborhoods and create more opportunities for that missing middle. So, and they want us to have some strong commitments in there. So this is one of the kind of a bigger item that I wish I could have incorporated this into your staff report and I apologize, but it's really with only just getting these comments two days ago, I met with our team. Actually, the day we got the comments we started brainstorming how we can react to these comments or what we can do. And Veronica Tam recommended that we revisit our low and medium multifamily zones, revisit the density limits, which are pretty low right now. And we can revisit them and consider adding like if the low density I think is at 10 units per acre possibly bumping that up to 12 units per acre. So it incentivizes a developer to come in and rehab and possibly add a couple more units to a site. And then the other strategy which they've incorporated in other jurisdictions and their housing elements which the HCD has accepted is to allow duplexes on corner lots within the R1 zone with objective standards. So this would actually allow for a little more variety within our R1 right now within our R1 district. We have our SB9, which all the units have a maximum square footage allowance of 800 square feet. We also have our ADU standards which allow different maximum floor area based on how many bedrooms. And by allowing duplexes on corner lots this is just another part of the menu that people with single family homes in a corner lot could look at instead of an SB9 or an ADU they could actually modify their home into a duplex. And because it has two front edges on a corner lot it would be less impactful because you could have an entrance facing each street front edge. So I have that in a slide later. All of my recommended actions I have on one slide at the end so we can discuss all of these items towards the end. Any questions on that? Before you go too far just go back to one side with that 50 ADUs over the next eight year period that's the assumption. That is the assumption that we could include and it's based on our last eight year period. So although we're seeing a lot more traction with our ADUs right now that would go beyond this, we have to base it on our last cycle. And do you still have top hand this year how many ADUs so far? You know, I believe that from November of 2022 till June of 2023 or May of 2023 I think we had 11. So I'm not sure if that's the most up to date number I have. So we're trending up. There's definitely a lot of interest in ADUs these days and you're not seeing it because they're administrative. In the paragraph where they tell us what to do they have examples of additional things and one of which is targeting funding. Does that mean we're supposed to fund some development of the ADUs and things like that? Or what are the, what do they want us to do? You know, I think there's different ways we could go about that but it's most likely applying for grants to bring more targeting grants with strategies for that missing middle. So if we could come up with programs within applications to help. So that's, I think that's what they're asking to do but it wasn't specific enough to know. No, it's a lot of motherhood in this letter which is kind of irritating. Yeah, it's really not written for like, I'm really glad we have Veronica Tam and RRM and Layla on our team because it is, it's you really have to be in the ins and outs of these letters to really understand what they're getting at. Okay, so staying, the majority of their comments were on our housing plan because they really want to see deliverables. So within program 1.3, they were asking for additional assistance to facilitate ADUs. So within that we've committed to updating our prototypes to comply with building code every two years and also updating our ADU guidance document to be consistent with state law or any updates we do to our zoning code. Within program 1.4, this was we, we said we could expand our community benefits zone to key commercial corridors to facilitate mixed use development. We did get comments on that program 1.4 and they, Yimbi has met with HCD as well and brought up their concerns regarding incentives for community benefits and you recently got an updated letter from Yimbi as well and it's one area that they've been asking for us to modify. So really the comments are based on looking at the impact of the community benefits so far on housing supply and we haven't had any successful applications since that went into place. So they're asking us to look at the application process including the discretionary hearings and also to consider moving forward with more objective standards. So in our recommended amendments, the recommended amendment will be to revisit the community benefits overlay and to incorporate objective standards and reevaluate those incentives that are included in there. Any questions on that slide? Well, I'll just ask my question right now. I mean, I agree, I think that we need to revisit our community benefits ordinance and I think we do need to figure out what it's going to take, particularly for the mall which is such a huge part of our housing element to actually come forward and redevelop and provide those housing units. But I guess I get a little confused because the city council just allocated money to study this and figure out with the developer what they're going to need to have in this community benefits overlay and what those objective standards are going to be. And so while I think we need to do it, I think we need to hear what the developer and this study comes up with as ideas for what they need to have to make this work rather than us just trying to come up with what we think it's going to make it work. And it seems a little backwards to me. So I, yeah, I just want the, because I want our community benefits to actually generate something. And just to invent them out of the air without working with the mall developer isn't going to achieve that. And we're in the process of doing it. So anyway, sorry. No, I think that actually leads into this next slide as well because we have more that that, I think that study will speak to. So within our program 1.6, this is looking at multifamily residential parking requirements. So that's something we'll be doing as an update to the code. And then, and we did not get any new comments on that from HCD. So they're satisfied with that commitment. And then within program 1.7, there's a new program for new shopping center redevelopment. So this, we mentioned the land use study that Chair Westman just mentioned. So the land use study that we just got the contract signed and are moving forward for the mall redevelopment, but the deliverables go further in and state that will develop land use policies and zoning development standards to facilitate subdividing, clustering, shared access, range of housing choices and a strong sense of place and cohesive urban design within our objective design standards. So it does go a little deeper than it goes beyond that land use study to start prescribing what those next steps are. So we can discuss that in further detail towards the end. In terms of program 1.8, we were adding a new religious facilities housing program. And this is just to implement state law that was passed to allow units on religious facilities. And program 1.9 is a new commitment to support our SB9 program. So within that commitment, it's really to one provide counter hours for folks to come in and be able to meet with staff and talk about SB9. The second commitment is to create a guidance document similar to our ADU document to support SB9 and make it easier for people to understand and that's it for that. What we heard from the state in our recent letter is for the new religious housing program that they had concerns with us not meeting the there's a requirement of 20 dwelling units per acre. And then to also address the underutilized buildings, parking and where the new development will take place. So we're going to expand on our explanation of the new religious facility housing program because really we're implementing what's required by state and there's nothing that we really have to change. It's just really providing more clarity for HCD about what we were proposing because the sites that we were proposing were well under with the in terms of sites that we were identifying within our map where the number we're proposing is much less than they could apply for under the new state law. So we just need to clarify that yes, we're basing it on underutilized parts of the properties within these churches or within existing structures. Also within the housing program, there was a request made by the public to encourage developers and contractors to hire local labor. We put that in, there's not a requirement for this because that could be seen as a barrier to housing. So it's just to encourage, but hoping that's effective. And program 4.2 is a commitment to our emergency rental housing assistant program. So this is our, we have this in play. So that when someone's going through a crisis, there's a way to apply for emergency rental housing assistance to not lose your home or your residency. And program 7.1 is changes to the fair housing actions table which were to support more housing for capital residents. So that's been done. In terms of affirmatively furthering fair housing, we've updated this to include more description on the housing laws. We've also added a lot more of the information regarding residents and displacement and local knowledge. So there's a lot more to this based on their request, HCDs request for more information. We've updated all the tables and the maps and we've prioritized contributing factors. The one area that the HCD is asking for more information on is the new housing and mobility strategies. And this is what we discussed earlier. So really within AFFH is how do you create those additional opportunities within our single family and residential neighborhoods. So we'll be revisiting low and medium multi-family zoning and looking at the strategy for allowing duplexes on corner lots. So this is the final slide that kind of brings it all together of what we need to do prior to this final adoption. So number one, again, adding mobility strategies. I'd love the planning commission's feedback tonight on revisiting the density limits for low and medium density and allowing corner lots to become duplexes as long as there's objective standards in place. Also moving forward with an amendment to the community benefits overlay. And then staff will be working on additional information for the mall, the religious sites, the small lot consolidation and our constraints. And the number four I've added, this isn't from the HCD comments, but it's from, we need to manage this moving forward. And there's been so much added in this last in these fast rounds of edits with the HCD that the dates that we had originally committed to need to be reevaluated to make sure that staff can, every year we have to report on how, on our progress with our housing element. And I just need to revise the timing for commitment. So it's more realistic for our staffing. So. So that was actually an item I was going to bring up as well. I mean, there are so many commitments in this and so much work that needs to be done. I mean, the city is going to have to look at hiring another person because of the size of our planning department if we're going to accomplish this. Even if you just look at the things that are gonna be done in the next couple of years, because most of them require zoning ordinance amendments and we all know what a problem that is because we've got not only does the city have to go through that whole process, but then we have to take the whole process through the coastal commission again, which creates time and burden in staff time. So you mentioned earlier that we had gotten some IMBA grant for like $128,000. Is that like money we can use to hire additional people to work on this? And I do think we need a realistic timing commitment because the last thing personally I wanna do is promise we can do things that we know we can't do. I mean, I think we wanna be genuine and we wanna be honest about this and we wanna come up with a housing element that is going to provide additional housing is going to work and it's gonna be something that will facilitate more things being done rather than being artificial in any way. So anyway, sorry, interrupt you, but that's fine. And the same thing's true about the transit-oriented development, we need to know what's going on so we can make appropriate changes. Yes. Okay, my last slide here is next steps. So I'm gonna bring the same update to city council next week with any feedback from the planning commission that I get tonight. And then on October 19th, we have our special meeting and this is when we've put out the public notice for this, it'll be in the newspaper, when the recommendation to city council on the housing element. And then after that, we do need to re-notice and state what the planning commission's direction was, the recommendation. And so we've got to wait till November 9th for that city council hearing for adoption. Our statutory deadline will be ahead of, it's December 15th. So we're in a good place and I do wanna bring up though we've all heard of builders remedy in the past. There's, the HCD gets a 60 day period in which to review our update. So that will begin, we'll submit it on November 10th on that Friday. So it'll be early January, when their comments will be due back to us in conversations with Veronica Tam, we will be requesting an expedited review and asked that they have their review done by December 15th so that we won't be subject to builders remedy. If they can't provide that, they'll be, I think it's about a three or four week period that we would be subject to builders remedy, but it's highly unlikely because the builders remedy requirement for affordable units is higher than our inclusive, it's at 20%. Our inclusive is at 15% for affordable. And also you typically see builders remedy come into play when you have a city that doesn't allow residential in many areas of their city, Capitola. We allow residential in almost all of our zoning districts except for open space. And so we're really in a good place to the risk there if we're to get this passed on the first go is low to us for the builders remedy. So I just wanted to bring that up. So tonight I'm looking for planning commission comments and on the update and then in preparation, I'm at like direction tonight to move forward with adoption hearings and any feedback on the next iterations proposed. So can we go back to the slide where you had the couple items listed that you wanted us to comment on? Yes, yeah. So we should probably go out for, well, if you have questions, I can answer them, but we also should go out for public hearing. Okay, so do we want to sort of stop this and open the public hearing and then we'll come back and get comments from the commissioners? So this is a public hearing item. So if there's anyone in the public or anyone on Zoom who'd like to comment, please come forward. Three minutes to make your comments and if you want to give us your name, we appreciate it. Hello commissioners, my name is Jeanine Roth and I am a lead with Santa Cruz EMB which we've heard a lot about. I want to first of all thank you for the discussion tonight. And I also want to thank Director Hurley for all the open conversations that we've had with her. It's been a very good dialogue. She's been open and responsive and we see a lot within the evolution of the housing element. I know there's a fair amount of information in the HCD letter. If you look at our website, we've posted all of our input that we've provided to the city and also to HCD. A lot of it was around missing middle, around the analysis that they talk about around the site inventory. I will note that Santa Cruz used their REAP grant for a missing middle study. So I'll just let you know that that's something you talked about as well. In your packet today, you see our input on the latest revision. It is really, it's somewhat additive but I want to say that it actually very well builds upon the amendments that Katie is presenting or Director Hurley is presenting tonight. The first one relates to the development standards and as the director put it, capital should put the land use tools together so that private and non-profit sectors can build. And as was also mentioned, the incentives for community benefits has actually not really been used to build anything. The incentives are not there for actual development. As well, your affordability fee, your affordable fee feasibility assessment that was done in 2020 or 2021 concludes that no rental development in Capitola makes sense with an inclusionary rate, inclusionary fee, nothing makes sense. So our position is that there are constraints to development that should be addressed. And to Commissioner Westman's point of view point, it's not, our recommendation is not that you prescribe the removal of those constraints in the housing element, but we think you have an opportunity to add to the program that looks at the community benefits and to leverage the work that's gonna be done for the mall to actually benefit development along the other transit corridors that you have. You have a lot of sites on 41st Avenue. You have a lot of sites on Capitola Road but your review of the, oh, let me just go on. The same thing for the inclusionary that you have an opportunity to look at those incentives. Decreasing the processing time, use objective standards. It's as simple as that. I think we've already heard it. The last thing on transit oriented development, what we suggest is just come up with a very proactive statement in pursuing Capitola Mall as a high quality transit area. It's very reactive now. We think you could be very proactive. We're encouraged by the conversations that Vice Mayor Brown is already having or that we've had with her that it can be done. So let's be more proactive on that. And thank you all very much for your time on this. Thanks for being here. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address us on this issue? Anyone on Zoom? Okay, seeing no one else, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and bring it back to the commissioners. So we lost Katie's chart, but the first item she had was about changing the zoning density and the low and medium density residential areas. And I don't know how people here feel, but what I heard was it was not a huge change going from like 10 to 12 or that, which certainly wouldn't be a problem for me. No, the state thinks it's 8.7 and going to be 10 or 12 would be probably it's gonna be. And for me personally, I think doing duplexes on corner lots makes a lot of sense. I don't think that would have any particular negative impact. So what would be described as like once a comment and it's gonna be objective standards, what would that look like? Well, I think we've gone to objective standards, which means we no longer have these vague phrases like it should fit in the neighborhood, but come up with things that height's gonna be 27 feet, the setback's gonna be five feet. Some objective standards that can actually be measured as part of making this change rather than just using the standards that would be used for a single family outcome. You know, probably they have smaller setbacks than they have to have two driveway, you know, there's differences between a duplex and a single family out. Yeah, I think that's why it's so clarification. Yeah, I think it would be about the orientation of the building to the street, the orientation to the parking that there be, you know, so they kind of blend in with the single family design-wise, but also creating really clear standards. So a developer knows what's expected of them when they come in with a project. Okay, so those, I remember those first two, what else do we need to give you comments on? Okay, the next is amending the community benefits overlay. So this is really just revisiting our community benefits overlay, considering more objective standards in there, as well as looking at what are the incentives in terms of height and FAR, and do we, you know, just reevaluating those as well? Well, I already said, I think that's something that we should do, but I think we need to, the changes we make need to be based on the information that we're going to get from, you know, the small study. So we have something concrete that we're actually gonna work with, not just guess if building should be 48 feet high, 52 feet high, you know, we'll have something real that we can work with, but I'm sort of dominating the conversation. So if anybody has anything else, go ahead. I think that's a really important point that when the applications come in and understanding the context of each density and how the subjective standards fit each project would go a long way than us speculating. What else, Katie? The other items are really, our group just needs to provide more information. So the list of additional information had to do with the Capitola Mall, which I'm in communication with the Capitola Mall right now trying to get more information on leases and phasing. Religious sites, we need to incorporate more information which is just those, the assumptions that we made in identifying religious sites, like there's one on Capitola Road that has a single family home on the property and we made the assumption that that single family home that they own could be, have two units in it. So we just need to add the details of that. Also the details of the small lot consolidation. So we're putting together a new table and an explanation on the small lot consolidations. And then again, for the request on the items within our constraints section that they needed more information on. So aside from that, it's really then my request for the revisions to the timing commitments because I think we're over committed at this point. And I need to look at that and make sure we're grouping the right items that can be addressed within each year so that we can manage this project, the implementation moving forward. Yeah, as I told you, I think in our meeting that I agree with Commissioner Westman that we're way over promising on things that we can do in the next two years. I mean, the staff we have in the board club, we have just processing normal things. Yeah, I don't need there. So hopefully if we can get a little information out like this grant, how that from EMBag could that be used to pay for some consultants to supplement our staff and all that could work. And I would very much like to thank Katie and all of her team because I think they've done a pretty amazing job on putting this together. I will confess though, it's not very environmentally friendly. I had to actually ask for a hard copy of the housing element to read because I was finding myself getting the lost when I was reading it online and trying to go back and find things. I guess I need to do sticky notes and write things down. So I would say if there are any of the other commissioners who would feel more comfortable actually having a hard copy, I don't think we need all the appendix stuff but just the housing element itself for our next meeting, I think staff would be happy to accommodate you and provide you with that. Is there anything else? Yeah, I have a couple more questions. Go ahead. Did we respond? The city responded, I guess, to the Merlone-Guyer letter of a couple of weeks ago and can one of their, or it will one of the responses be the contractor where I forget their name, doing the land use study. Are they going to involve Merlone-Guyer in that study? Yes, so I've been in contact with Merlone-Guyer and for some of this additional information that we need, I think their comments were actually extremely helpful for us to understand those long-term leases but now we need to get a little more detailed there. We also provided some clarity to Merlone-Guyer that one of the really great updates within our last zoning code was that we're allowing multifamily on the same property. If there's commercial on the site, you can put multifamily next to it. It doesn't have to be vertical. So your first story does not always have to be commercial and then housing on top, it can be next to the site. So if Coles were to want to put housing out front, they could Merlone-Guyer wasn't understanding that. That was one of our updates to the code. It was something that they were asking for. So we have provided response to them to clarify some of the items that just their assumptions were incorrect and then also thanked them for the comments and have asked them for more information. So we are in contact and then I did let them know that Cosmont will be reaching out to them regarding that study. So they'll be involved. They won't sit on a technical committee but they'll be involved. The other question, the state also or HCD rather wants us to update or actually add in realistic capacity analysis. You didn't talk about that, but I assume Veronica or somebody's going to go through this spreadsheet and analyze the likelihood of 100% non-residential development, et cetera, et cetera. Yes, yeah. So that's part of our updated tasks and so that will be included. Veronica seemed to think that we actually, the information we have there is that more of our, they've been smaller projects but most of the projects we're seeing move forward in our commercial area. Office space on Bromer that added two units above it. There is the furniture store. I think it's a real estate office on 41st Avenue that put another two units above it. So we are seeing the trend of adding residential. So we're building that. And then of course, the Capitola Beach Suites is a larger project with mixed use but way more residential. So we'll be responding to that but it's not the trend that we're seeing for 100% commercial projects coming in. So that's why we don't have evidence of that. So yeah. And then lastly, probably more from my colleagues would request we put back in the two state sites that we had in the first draft, the park, a park in the DMV, even though OECD said take them out because that's state property and you guys can't do anything. You can't tell us what to do with our property. Well, if they're gonna tell us what to do with our city, they should at least talk to their colleagues and departments and public works and parks and recreation and department of motor vehicles because the DMV, as an example, is constantly moving to online everything and they have a huge parking lot which is an obvious target in a great location. We should just force the state to tell us that they're not gonna do that in my opinion. I agree. Well, I personally agree with you that because I think the DM side is one of the better sites than Capitola to be redeveloped. I do think at this point, HCD sort of said we need to take those two sites out but I think it's ridiculous that the state is going forward with all of this and because the state of California owns an enormous amount of property and it seems like that they ought to be making some commitment to reuse some of their sites but I would leave it up to Veronica and Katie to make that decision about whether they think that's a good move or a bad move for us. I don't know. Yeah, no, I agree. I think that if you just, you can make a recommendation, make a vocal. You know, I have a suggestion. Okay. You could direct me to add a strategy that the city continue to reach out and try to engage with the state to create housing opportunity sites on their properties. And I, you know, with like not really a deliverable other than us keeping, we can try to engage with them and keep that conversation going and then it's kind of up to them how they react but without jeopardizing our, whether or not we'll get certified, so. What do you think about that? That's fine. That's a reasonable politically correct compromise. Thank you, Katie. Okay, so do we have anything else we need to discuss on the housing element tonight? I don't think so. So we will close this item. I think you've gotten direction from us. So you don't need a motion. Thank you. Yes. And we will look forward to finishing our discussion on October 19th and 6 PM on October 19th. And I would like to thank the applicants at 421 Riverview Avenue for sitting here. So patient. While we went through this item and I am going to be leaving the meeting because I need to recuse myself because I live within 500 feet of this application as did Commissioner will. And so I will turn the meeting over to the vice chair and she will finish up tonight's meeting. Thank you all. Have a good evening. Sorry, I'm just catching up on my, the 421 Riverview Avenue. It is a design permit to construct a detached garage with second story ADU. The application includes a variance request for the required front setback for detached garages. Two ADU deviations for the ADU required second story front setback and privacy mitigation. Second story front setback and privacy mitigations and an exception to exceed driveway width. The project is located within the R1 single family residential zoning district. The project is in the coastal zone and requires a coastal development permit which is appealable to the coastal, California Coastal Commission after all possible appeals are exhausted throughout the city. And then we have a staff report. Thank you. Like to note that the site is also located within an identified flood hazard area. I think you've covered everything else for my first slide. This is the existing site as it appears today. This is the proposed site plan. The two, the new two-story structure would be located in front of the existing dwelling shaded in green there with a breezeway connecting both the structures on either side. These are the first and second story floor plants, garage on the right, ADU on the left. The new structure has a combined area of approximately 900 square feet. All habitable space is located in the second story which does not have internal access to the garage. This is the proposed front and north side elevations. The new structure has stucco siding to match the primary dwelling. A horizontal board accent on the front center and metal and glass garage doors. Garage, excuse me. The breezeway continues the Mansard tile roof pattern of the primary residence. And the shaded windows indicate opaque window treatments for privacy along the north property side. And these are the proposed rear and south side elevations. So the variants included in the application is to construct a detached garage within 20 feet of the front property line instead of the required 40-foot front setback which is required for detached garages. The site is located within a special flood hazard area which limits all new habitable space construction to be above or at the base flood elevation or the 100-year flood line. With the current site configuration complying with a 40-foot setback would not be possible without demolishing some or all of the existing residents. Due to floodplain restrictions, those demolished habitable areas cannot be rebuilt elsewhere at grade. As such, there are circumstances and limitations on the subject property that are unique to properties within the floodplain which is one of the primary findings that you would need to make. Staff was able to make that finding as well as all other supportive findings including that the variants would not be a grant of special privilege. As noted in the report, this portion of Riverview Avenue has an irregular development pattern with creek side homes having their principal elevations facing the creek rather than the street. And with the properties developed along closer to the street than is commonly seen. The aerial shown above reflects the report analysis and identifies the south side or creek side properties that do not comply with the front setbacks for either dwelling, detached garages or both. The orange marks indicate those non-conforming dwellings. Marks in red indicate the non-conforming garages. And although the studied area did not include the north side of the street, it even more visually can be seen to follow that similar trend of limited front setbacks. The first ADU deviation is with respect to the second story front setback to construct it at 18 feet from the front property line rather than 20 feet. Staff was able to make supportive findings for this request with similar considerations as to the variance request. Similar sized ADUs located on the ground level are typically approved administratively and with 15 foot setbacks. Due to the floodplain restrictions, this is not feasible on this lot, as mentioned before. At its present size and location, the proposed ADU has limited alternative placement while meeting other setbacks and fire separation with the primary residents. It can be seen as being four feet from the north property side and five from the south, which are about as close as you can get. And it has similar setbacks from the primary residents. This is the second ADU deviation request, which involves a waiver of the objective privacy requirements on the south side of the structure. ADU standards require upper story windows within eight feet of a adjacent residential lot, be either clear story windows or have opaque treatments for light egress only. So this waiver affects two south side facing windows, which wrap each corner of the ADU. Staff was also able to make supportive findings for this request due to the relative location of the adjacent residents. As you can see above, the new south facing ADU looks towards the neighboring driveway and the front side of that residence, which poses limited privacy impacts. This is the front half of the lot. The applicant is proposing to remove four olive trees that are on the corners of the driveway, two towards the primary residence, two towards the street. The applicant is proposing to replant two trees towards the street in similar locations. And the rearward removals are directly related to the proximity to the new structure, as well as the required egress for both units going around the structure. And the two forward ones are proposed just in conjunction with the revised driveway and landscaping. This would meet the required canopy coverage for development applications. I'm just gonna hold for a moment. The final thing that staff would like to bring up is in respect to the landscape and the driveway requirements in the R1 zone. New driveways in this zoning district are allowed, widths up to 40% of the lot width, up to 20 feet, except that driveways may be at least 14 feet wide. This property has a lot width of 30 feet and an existing driveway of 21 feet, which is well in excess of what would be allowed, which is 14 feet. The project would replace the existing asphalt driveway with semi-permeable pavers and reduce that width to 20 feet, which, again, still looks easy, allowed 14 feet up for this lot. Planning commission may, however, allow larger driveway widths when it, if it finds that the landscaping has been designed to enhance the site and minimize visual impacts to the neighborhood. The proposed landscape plan does not include or specify any natural ground cover beyond those two mentioned replacement trees, as well as two large potted plants. Staff recommends that the planning commission consider whether the site plan proposes landscaping sufficient to meet that visual requirement. And as an alternative, staff suggests that the commission consider adding the following condition of approval, which I've, I'll just read to you now. At prior duitions of a building permit, the applicant must include a landscape and revised site plan that it reduces the driveway width to 18 feet, requires soft landscaping along the sides of the driveway. The front landscaped areas must include natural vegetation, the majority of which are planted, rather than, planted in the ground, rather than in pots or some sort of raised area. So with that, staff recommends that to consider whether to approve the project as proposed with the attached conditions and findings or to require landscape modification. Thank you, staff. Is the applicant present? Good evening, honorable members of the planning commission. I'm Dennis Norton. I represent Steve and Louise Owens, who are actually in the audience here right now too. And, you know, if you ask anybody that lives on the street here, they'll tell you that a front yard is the river. And so that's really how those houses are designed. The zoning, unfortunately, it's been a mismatch over years. If you say that you need to have 40 feet for a detached garage, there's no other house on the street that can do that. Nobody has 40 feet. So you could not have a detached garage in adding those properties. But as the map was shown by staff, is that 80% of the properties in this thing are not conforming to the front setbacks. It's not unusual for a Capitola, but this area particularly, we support the staff conditions. We have questions about that's a narrow road there and making a turning radius into two spaces is tough enough. I think we narrow it down with too much landscaping. We can put a four foot on both sides, but a 20 foot wide, it gives a little room for us to give a turning radius coming off that street because the street is not even too carbide. So we need some kind of radius that we can work with that planner or allow us to pull maybe the planner back a little bit. Not against having planners, not against staff. We accept the conditions of approval. And I think it's a good project. And we've been talking about ADUs all night. It's a perfect example of where ADUs do fit. And there can be more on that street there, but there's gonna have to be some concessions all along. So we appreciate your consideration of the variances. Thank you for consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Before you leave, a follow up question. So could you just elaborate on what you're talking about with the planner? I'm sorry. Because of the road being real narrow. Yeah, so can we bring up the slide you're referring to? And what staff is recommending is 18 foot for two cars to approach in there. That's really, really tight considering that we need to have some kind of radius to get off the street. So we're asking that we will do planners on both sides as suggested, but we would like to have 20 feet and width there. And that's really, your normal car size in the city is that you call for in your codes is 10 by 20. And so that gives us exactly what that is right there. Other than that, we agree with the staff's presentation. Thank you. Sorry, but you made an additional comment and said, or if that wasn't possible, they could be shortened. Is that where you're? We can move the planners back a little bit and make them a little shorter. So we have that radius to get in there, but if you see, and I'm sure you've walked that street many times, but there's no parking along that street that parallels the thing. So you need the offside here. In this case, we're providing a small house with an ADU with four parking spaces or beyond what's required, but we feel that this is a good use of this property in the front. And we're gonna take it all out. We're gonna do pavers in the front. So we'll be changing the landscape considerably. What we had designed was to one side do a four foot box planner, adding triumbo sides, and then doing some design type containers along the side there to give us some architectural feature on the other side. Thank you. Thank you very much. That was great. Do you have any further questions? I think we skipped over the questions from. The only other question was, did you get the commission? Tinted windows in on the south side. I mean, tinted windows on the south side instead. Yeah, well, what it is is they're only to the front ones and there's nobody, there's a single story house back behind it. So it's our south exposure. I mean, we need to have some sun in there. And so we've already eliminated the ones. Everything's on north side, it's eliminated. It's just the east and the south. And it's only the windows that are towards the front of the building, not in the back. Okay. Thank you. I think we did skip over the commission comments and questions in the beginning, but is there any more questions for staff? I just wondering if they would mind commenting on what was proposed about widening the driveway. I mean, I think it'd be good to have that feedback or if there's. Sorry, could you say that again? Well, what the, you know, right now showing 18 feet where I hear is that they're asking like, could it go to 20 or when the planners be shortened? I mean, is there feedback from the staff or what your thoughts are for that? As to why we are recommending 18 feet rather than 20. Yeah, well, I mean, or if we went to 21, I mean, obviously I know it's two feet by me. Is there any additional things that were, I mean, overlooking? So the suggested condition, it was a way that we felt that would better meet that visual requirement that I read. I can read that for you again. It was in the report that basically says that the landscaping and surface area should be enhanced such that it minimizes the visual impact that the, excuse me, that the driveway has on the street. So the larger it gets, the more of an impact it has. So the more you would need to do to offset it, that recommended condition would do a number of things, including add to the required amount of landscaping that have on the sides of the driveway as well as reducing the driveway modestly so that it would reduce that impact. So it approaches that consideration from both ends. Okay, thank you. Was there any consideration for other, I mean, I know that you were showing the site area across the different driveways, but in terms of the consideration of the driveway with, you know, being 18 or 20, there's a lot of other driveways that are pretty much go from end to end. Is that like a, that was in consideration? That wasn't something we looked at because looking at examples of similar nonconformities in a neighborhood isn't a required finding like it would be for a variance. This is something that's written in the code that simply specifies the planning commission does have the discretion to allow a different width provided it can make the finding that it would, it's designed to minimize the visual impact. That's the only finding that would need to be made here. So if we required planters or soft scape on either side, it would be, I mean, reasonable to ask for a 20 foot driveway. I mean, reasonable. Potentially, yes. I just wanted to clarify. Do you have any more questions? No, I can go, will I make a... Well, I think we have to open to the public hearing. That's right. I like a follow-up question. Just around if there's a way that that, if we were going to, as a commission, say address that other than tonight to say one way or the other where we go, would that be something that they could go back and we could direct them to work with the applicant to see like if turning ranges are an issue around that, could that be addressed and looked at from maybe different, maybe the architect could draw up a different layout and how turning ranges work in some way if the planters or boxes were pulled back, maybe that would help soften up the area but also meet staff's issues. So I was wondering how, just from a process standpoint, how that could be handled at the same time before we went out. Would that be addressed in a landscape plan? It certainly could be if you'd like to provide a different condition of approval, for example. I think it's specified that the staff has some flexibility with where to allow that or to allow some sort of apron area tapered, tapered front, perhaps to make that difference at the front so that at the very edge of the street it's 20 feet wide. It drops to 18 within the first three feet or so. Yeah, thank you. I was just wondering how that could be included, I guess, thank you. Do you have any more questions? Can we open up to the planning hearing? Yep. Thank you very much for having me speak. My name is Dean Matsuo. I own the property at 419 Review to the south of the proposed units and the property. And we didn't really have a problem with the unit what Steve wanted to do, the owners wanted to do with that, the problem is between the two homes and this touched on it, the homes were very eclectic the way people built them, the owners we both bought about the same time. The owners prior looked like they had an arrangement where we have an arch on the side of our home that goes to the side and into the back because the entrance is actually in the back. So there's a courtyard there and we share the property and his property line is actually our arches on his property line we found out after the fact. And on the advice of my attorney, he said that we should try to resolve this. I sent them an email last week stating that we'd like him to try to work so that we don't have to remove the arch and incur the cost. I do believe that when we put something permanently fixed to our home, we have to get a permit and so forth. So we're looking at probably $5,000 to $10,000 to do this. To make the arch and first we ask for it not to be touched and then just to pull the setback back, pull his property back and work around that. We didn't hear back. The second option was to we would flip the arch, move it out so that it matched up. If he pulled his gate back, he wants to put a gate on the side. If we put a gate there, his gate there, we would put our arch up against that or next to it on our property, we would move it. But we've reconsidered that. That is not an option for us. It still is, but if he'll put the bill for it because if it's $5,000 to $10,000, this project goes worth whatever he wants to do with it and it's gonna be worth $5,000 to $10,000 to go ahead and do that. Otherwise we'll seek other remedies to resolve this issue. It is, we think a solution, we can find a solution. We have the owner that we bought from is still alive. Sally Bookman is still in the area and we can talk to her about it and so we know that we can still go that route if we have to, but that was our suggestion to him. We're still open to that. The other thing I don't know if they realize this but I may be wrong, but once they do put an ADU on that unit, it no longer can be a short-term rental. From what I've read. So we're in a special zone that we can rent out by the week and I know that Steelec's to rent his place out, but I don't know if they've taken that into consideration. Thank you. Dennis, did you wanna? Yeah, go ahead. You attempted to be cooperative with Mr. Dean. I sent him three different designs for this. We're not denying him access to the gate or doing us or putting the whole gate in our property because he hasn't agreed to let us go onto his two-foot strip on his side. He's not offering half access. He's offering one quarter of the access, but the Owens said, okay, we'll just build the gate on our side and he can have access to his backyard just like it is. We're offering him everything that he could want and it doesn't need to connect to his house. And right now it does connect to his house. We offer him that alternative. Then we did another one where it's split the difference to the property lines, both rejected. So we came down to this one here. What we wanna do is we're gonna put all the gateway onto Steve Owens's property, 421, and still offer them the access to get to their backyard or to their side yard. So we're not taking anything from or offering him a pretty good alternative considering he gets rights to go across the property then. And as soon as somebody brings up attorneys and discussions with me, I just, I'm gone. The site plan says, remove, read it. This is an existing arch, right? Yes, we're gonna remove it and then put all the gate onto Steve Owens's property. We're doing all the favors in the world for this gentleman. You're moving this, you're physically moving the existing arch roughly two feet to the north. That is great, yes. And that's what it shows on my site plan. And I need attorneys to give him, you know, whatever it's called, perpetual access to the area. They can go do that. But what we're offering him is a pretty good bundle here that he doesn't have to use any of his property. He doesn't have to attach to his property to his house and we're offering him full access to the gate. So if he wants to legally gain that, he can do that. So you're offering basically to keep what's there existing not to remove the arch. No, what's there now, it splits the property line. It's about one foot onto his property and it's two feet onto Steve's property. There's most of the walkway there isn't Steve's property. There's five feet on one side and they're putting a half on the other. He doesn't have a walkway back there. That's the problem. But what we're doing, we're not denying him to have the property. We're gonna put a new gate in, we're gonna put it on Steve's property and he's gonna have access to it. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Is that, I'm a little... Okay, one more thing. We actually have photos that show that the previous property owners, when they put in the concrete, how they put the concrete up, Steve's property, they put a small strip. The rest of the property was paved by people that had our home because it's all the way back. So we already have photos. We've already talked to attorneys. They say, yes, there's easement. So if they'd like to go, they don't wanna go legal, we don't wanna go legal. But what they've done right now, and it isn't true, they sent one drawing out that said remove the archway and we weren't told, they were just told we were moving it archway. You need to take it down. The second one, they sent, we had to beg to get it. And so there was no third one. And we didn't get a response back to we were actually going to pay to move the archway. But then I saw on the agenda that it said that you were giving an exception to his driveway with. And I'm thinking, okay. You can do the microphone. And the driveway with, and I'm thinking, well, how does that impact now what you're doing here? If you have to do that. But again, we didn't have a problem with him wanting to put his ADU up. It's just that easement area. And right now, if he wants to go that route, we can go that route. It's fine with us. Understood, understood. Okay. So I think this isn't the pathway easement isn't really even addressed within the staff report. I mean, except for the archway being encroaching on somebody else's property and or the neighbor's property. And is that, I mean, is this even within the staff preview? This is a little beyond the scope of the staff report. Earlier submittals did include a more of a good neighbor gate that straddled the property lines. And our input to the applicant was that if that was gonna be an explicit part of this project that they should also include an illegal agreement between both property owners to allow shared use of it. So subsequently, because we did hear that there was a difficulty in obtaining that in this timeline, they modified their plans to show a gate entirely and fence on entirely on their property. So that comment was removed from their overview. And that's- So there was exchange and there was- There was exchange between the staff and the applicant, that's all. Okay. Commissioner Christensen, I just wanna make sure that we've closed the public hearing. Okay, thank you. And I just wanted to just expand upon what Planner Sasanto is saying. So when the development is on a single, as long as their development proposal is wholly within their property, we can move forward. Previously, there was a shared gate proposed in which we would require access agreements and maintenance agreements. So at this point, because this proposal is wholly within their property and they have a right to do, to develop their property, we're okay with this application moving forward because it's no longer a shared access proposed within the development proposal. So understood. So now I'm really confused because the site plan shows it looks like an arch that covers, it's about 50-50 on each property. So these people are gonna remove the part of the arch that's on their property and leave the other part of the arch hanging. Is that what the proposal is? Sean, can you bring up the front facade, the view of the front facade? There's a fence and gate there. We have the proposed elevations in the presentation. Is that what you were referring to? I was thinking just from the street view, just so we can see the gate. I see the little archway. So it's a little hard to see. We could magnify that for you, but you can see the archway. Can you share your screen, Sean, so I can see? So in terms of moving forward with the application because what they're proposing is solely on their property, the Planning Commission can move forward with it, but how they resolve that gate will have to be between neighbors and working together because that's a private property matter where they have a shared gate. And my understanding from the knowledge that we had is that we didn't have any evidence of an easement. So if there is an easement there, then this may modify the plans if development is proposed in the area where the gate is or they'd have to follow that easement. From, Sean, my understanding is that from staff's knowledge, there's no easement in place. We were suggesting an easement prior for the maintenance and access if they were to have a shared gate. So this will have to be resolved between the two neighbors independent of the application. Do we want to bring it back to any more discussion or are we ready to make a motion? Anybody want to make a motion? I was going to make a motion for approval with the condition that we ask staff to work with the applicant on the issue that was brought up about the width of the driveway from the 18 to 20 feet. If that's going to the 20 feet, or if there's a way that the planter box can be shortened that everybody can come together with a proposed solution around that. So let me understand, because I agree with the architect Norden, this street is pretty crowded, so the turning radius issue is going off from Riverview onto the park. You're saying they'll basically have an angle to be 20 feet at the street and then angling down to 18 as you go towards the ADU? Well, I think there's two things I heard was to go to 20 feet or that those planter boxes were shortened so that it would help with the turning radius. So one of those two options can be worked out. To me, what staff was concerned about was a static type, what I think I heard mostly around. And then I hear the applicant saying the turning radius. So if that could be, they come to agreement and the turning rates can be addressed by a shorter planner. And so that both parties worked. I thought that was great. If it can't be, then if the 20, I can be fine with either one, but I'd like to see both kind of resolvously that we can work together. I understand, yeah, that makes sense. I can all second that motion then. Is that clear in terms of a motion? If he'd be get two options. Yeah, sure. That's clear or you could just specify flexibility within a certain distance from the front property line if you just want to put that in. I just don't know what that would look like. I mean, I don't think we need to see a turning radius. I would think that between everybody, I would work it out together. I would hope, sorry, not being clear, but I wouldn't want to say pull back five feet just if that still doesn't work. So as long as a turning radius is identified, that you'd be comfortable with approving a wider driveway or a wider apron, is that? Yes, thank you. Yeah. So yeah, that makes sense. We could just add with accommodation for a turning radius after the 18-foot requirement. Would that be acceptable? Yeah, I would think that'd be fine with me. I could go on there. Anything to add? That's probably a good line. Okay, do we have a first and a second? Do we want to take a roll? Or is that a... How do we do this with two, three commissioners? I don't think I've been present when it was just three of us. Just a roll call? Okay, roll call. Missioner Estee, aye. Missioner Jensen, aye. And Vice Chair Christensen, aye. Okay, so with that, I think that concludes all items on the agenda that we've gone through. We have, we already did the director's report in the beginning. Okay, so commission communications. We do that as well in the beginning. We had a little bit of a mix-up, so I'm going down the list. You could still open up commission or communications. Mission communications, okay. Any commission communications? Just a question. Is there any update on when, sorry to keep asking about the proposed layout or what it would look like from Outdoor World? We talked about that in the past. Do you have any updates on that might be, I know there's going to be some conversation with I think R&M or somebody or what's going to be doing one of those? So I can answer that one. The design team has not been focused on that, although it is a deliverable within our housing element update. So is there a preference on timing for that that you'd like to see? I mean, it should be done by the next hearing, but. And I totally appreciate staff's time. All I was hoping for is that it would come before us before there's another project. And so that it wasn't like at the same meeting and they were showing something, just so I guess maybe a neutral or just an overview informational meeting on what a project would look like before there was a project on the same agenda. Okay, I'm hoping that is completed by the October 19th special meeting because it's one of their deliverables within their project, but I'm, they haven't, I'll ask for another update on that. But hopefully you see it on the 19th. Okay, yeah, just be clear, it's just mostly just when I think you're talking about there's another affordable project coming through. And I would just, I don't know what that timeframe looks like, but it'd be nice to have this. You know, as you're working through the housing element update, if this could just come before that, if you have like a master plan that you're looking at. Excellent, yep. Okay, anything else? Nope, it's okay. And we're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.