 Good morning everyone and happy new year. Thank you for joining us for today's Planning Commission meeting. Today's date is January 12th, 2022, and the time is 9.33 a.m. Today's meeting is completely remote via Zoom. There are a couple of different ways to follow the meeting or to participate in the public hearing. To both view and participate, I recommend using the Planning Commission Zoom meeting link, which is posted on the Planning Department's home page at sccoplanning.com. Alternatively, if your computer is not equipped with a microphone, you may provide comment by telephone. Please dial 1-669-900-6833. And when prompted, enter collaboration code 817-360-8104. Again, this information is posted on the Planning Department webpage if you forget that phone number or the collaboration code. And a couple of instructions now about providing comments during the public hearing. For each agenda's public hearing item, time will be provided for members of the public to contribute their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either remotely raise their hand by selecting the hand icon on the Zoom link, or if calling in by telephone by remotely raising your hand by pressing star nine on your telephone. I will call on participants by either a last name or the last four digits of your telephone number. If you're participating via the Zoom link, when I call on to speak, you'll see a pop-up on your screen that says Unmute. Please accept the pop-up, state your name for the record, and provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone, you must unmute yourself by pressing star six. Members of the public will be provided three minutes to speak. If at any time you have difficulty connecting to today's meeting via the Zoom link or calling in via telephone, please email our support staff, Michael Lam, at michael.lam, that's LAM, at Santa Cruz County dot US. He will be checking email periodically throughout the meeting and is on standby and ready to assist. Okay, the peers were situated. I will now turn over the planning commission meeting to the chair, Ms. Judith Blaisenby. Good morning, Judith. Good morning, and happy new year, everyone. Welcome to this January 12th, 2022 meeting of the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission. The time is now 9.35, and I will call this meeting to order. Should we have a roll call, please, Ms. Drake? Yes. Commissioner Gordon? Here. Commissioner Shepard? Here. Commissioner Dan? Here. Commissioner Villalante? Here. And Chair Leisenby? Here. Okay, the second item on our agenda today is election of officers for the commission. And Ms. Drake, will you moderate that for us? Yes, Chair. So typically it's been the planning commission's procedure to rotate in the vice chair from the previous year into the chair position for the new year. And the current vice chair is Commissioner Gordon. So I will take a vote on the planning commission. Well, I think we need to make a motion first. Oh, okay. I will move to recommend Tim Gordon as chair. Okay. And then I will nominate Rachel for the vice chair. Okay. I think that has to be a separate motion. We've usually taken them as separate actions. I agree. Okay. So I have a nomination for Tim. It needs a second. I'll second it. Okay. I'll do the vote. Commissioner Dan? Yes. Commissioner Villalante? Yes. Commissioner Shepard? Yes. Commissioner Leisenby? Yes. And Commissioner Gordon? Yes. All right. Congratulations. And I'd just like to thank Commissioner Leisenby for her role as chair this year. It was challenging. All of our meetings were remote and you did an excellent job. Thank you so much. Well, thank you. You're correct. It was a challenge, but it was my pleasure to serve. And I look forward to seeing Tim Gordon, our commissioner of the first district as the chair. Thank you. So I turn the meeting over to you now. Commissioner Gordon. I'd just like to say thank you really quick also for the opportunity to be the chair this year. And I would like to echo that. Commissioner Leisenby had been a great example over the last year and I really appreciate that. Most of the commissioners here are more experienced than I am. So obviously any feedback or assistance as I step into this position would be appreciated. And looking forward to this year. Thank you. Welcome. Welcome. So now we'd like to hear if there's a motion for a vice chair. If Commissioner Shepard had started that. Yeah. So I'd like to move to nominate Rachel Dan as vice chair. I'll second that. Take it to a vote. Commissioner Leisenby. Yes. Commissioner Fialante. Yes. Commissioner Shepard. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. And Chair Gordon. Yes. All right. Question carries. Thank you. Welcome vice chair Dan. All right. Thank you for all for that. Item number two will be closed out at this time and we'll move on to agenda item number three additions and corrections to the agenda. Ms. Drake, do we have any amendments at this time? No, there are none. Moving on to item four, declaration of ex parte communications. Do any commissioners have any declarations that they'd like to make at this time? I have none. All right. Hearing none, we'll move on to item number five oral communications. This is the time where the public has the opportunity to speak for two minutes regarding an item that is not on this agenda. Ms. Drake, do we have anyone that would like to speak? Okay. So I will remind attendees this is for comments that are not related to items on the agenda. And you will have two minutes to speak. So if we could get two minutes on the clock, I am seeing one hand raised by caller Chuck Schillings. Good morning, Chuck. Will you please restate your name for the record in case I have your name incorrect? Yes, my name is Chuck Schillings. Good morning. You have two minutes. Oh, so, okay. I'll go ahead and start then. My name is Chuck Schillings. I live in Live Oak and I'd like to suggest an idea for increasing the county's housing stock. Because this idea seems like a small detail, the commission and planning department may not have considered yet, but it does represent a significant opportunity for realizing the county's housing goals. There are many existing ADUs in the county. The great majority are significantly smaller than the 1,000 foot maximum that's currently allowed by the county. In fact, recently, ADU size was limited to only 640 feet. Many owners want to increase the size of these ADUs up to 1,000 foot maximum, adding additional bedrooms and bathrooms, but aren't doing it due to high building costs. Many would do it, however, if there was a more economical path. To provide that path, I am proposing provisions similar to the following be included in the county's upcoming tiny home ordinance. It is, a tiny home shall be allowed on a property with an existing ADU to the extent the combined footage of the ADU and the tiny home does not exceed the 1,000 foot currently allowed by the county. So for example, if an owner has an existing 640 foot ADU, they also be allowed to add up to a 360 foot tiny home. Enabling owners to more economically reach the 1,000 foot maximum utilizing tiny homes makes sense because it both increases housing and preserves neighborhoods by staying within the county's current size requirements. And it could represent an even greater opportunity for increasing housing than building new ADUs because there are probably more existing ADUs than new ones that can be built in the near future. In conclusion, I asked the commission to recommend including in the upcoming tiny home ordinance a provision allowing ADUs and tiny homes the same property if combined they stay within the county's 1,000 foot limitation. This will increase housing if allowed because I and others will do it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any additional members of the public who wish to speak on any topic, not agenda is on today's meeting agenda. If so, please raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone or pressing the hand icon. I'm not seeing any additional participants. Chair Gordon, turn it back over to you. Thank you, Ms. Drake. And just want to comment quickly on that for Mr. Schilling's appreciate the feedback and just wanted to comment that a good way to pass that information along is to write a letter and send it to the planner in charge and it will definitely get to the rest of the commission. So thank you so much. At this time we'll close item number five and move on to item six consent agenda items. We have one here, AB 361 resolution. I believe this is a teleconference plan and so we had heard this last year so unless there's other discussion we can hear a motion to pass or pass. So move. We have a second. Second that. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. On to our regular scheduled agenda items. Item seven is approval of minutes. I'll move approval noting that the date on our published minutes was corrected. So I'll move the minutes with the corrected date. Thank you, commissioner. I'll second that but I would like to comment that I was present up until I was kicked off the platform. So it says in item seven, eight and nine that I was absent, that I was on the line. I just couldn't connect by audio. That's right. Okay. A motion and a second. All for the motion. Aye. I'll post the motion passes and we'll move on to next federal item, item number eight. This is application number 201378. It's a project located at seven, six, nine, five Soquel Drive in Aptos, also called the Aptos Library. Do we have the applicant and staff available, Ms. Drake? I am checking now, actually. I'm not seeing, I'm seeing the applicant. I'm looking for staff here. They were here before. I'm here. Ms. Drake, I believe they're there but under Michael Lamb, several people, a staff have not renamed themselves, I believe. Okay, thank you very much. Jonathan, are you with us this morning? I am. Good morning. All right. Good morning, Jonathan. Will you please load the PowerPoint for item number eight? Great. Good morning, Jonathan. I'll turn it over to you. Good morning, commissioners. Jonathan DeSalvo, planning department staff. The item before you is a proposal to demolish the existing Aptos Branch Library and construct a new library building measuring approximately 12,490 gross square feet in size. This project requires approval of a commercial development permit, variances to reduce the front, side, and rear yards by six feet from the required setback of 20 feet to 14 feet, approval of a master site plan, design review, assign exception, and preliminary grading approval. Next slide, please. The project site is located on a corner lot at the intersection of Soquel Drive and East Ledgard Way in the Aptos planning area. This area is anchored by neighborhood and regional serving commercial uses along the Soquel Drive corridor, also containing institutional uses and a mix of low to medium density residential uses. Next slide, please. To develop the project, existing one-story library building measuring approximately 8,800 gross square feet would be demolished. Existing library was constructed in 1973. Next slide, please. The surrounding pattern of development consists of a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. The project site is bordered to the north and northeast by single-family residential uses. Five parcels border the northeastern property line containing four single-family dwellings. The parcel at the intersection of Arden Way and East Ledgard Way is residentially zoned but does not contain a residence. Rather, the parcel is owned by the Soquel Creek Water District and contains unmanned water utility infrastructure. Abunding the project site to the north of the library parking lot is a non-performing single-family dwelling located in the PA zone district, a commercial zoning designation. To the south of the site across East Ledgard Way is a Wells Fargo Bank in the church. Directly across Soquel Drive is a Catholic church and the Abtas Center shopping mall. The site is well-served by transit and a bus stop is located along the Soquel Drive frontage of letting the project site. Next slide, please. The proposed development would provide landscaping and right-of-way improvements along both street frontages. From the street, the proposed building would be one-story with a gently pitched roof. The site slips up from the street and the proposed site plan would result in a step design following the natural topography of the Epsilon grade. Although the specific siting materials may change depending on the final cost of construction, the range of possible materials would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The project plans include the base bid as well as more expensive options if the library can raise additional funds prior to construction. Cement plaster for all siting is proposed as the base bid and alternative more expensive options include adding composite siting at select locations. Next slide, please. The subject property consists of two abutting lots measuring approximately one acre and a quarter acre in size respectively. The site is located in the public facilities or PF zone district. The proposed library would replace an existing library use as a conditionally permitted use within the zone district and the zoning is consistent with the site's public facilities or P general plan designation. A portion of the associated parking lot is located in the professional administrative office or PAs on district, a designation in which libraries are also conditionally permitted consistent with the professional administrative office or C-O general plan designation. Next slide, please. The PF zone district contains standard minimum 10 foot setback requirements for all yards. However, on PF zone parcels adjacent to residential districts, all minimum yards are increased to 20 feet. The Northeast property line of the subject site is bordered by a residential zone district, therefore all required setbacks for 20 feet. The project proposes a reduction to the required setbacks to allow for minor encroachments of roof use up to a maximum of six feet at several locations on the site for which variances are sought. Other than minor encroachments of the roof use all components of the proposed building would meet all site standards. Next slide, please. The placement of the proposed library building is skewed to utilize the full potential of the site solar orientation. The massing effectively sets the corner of the block while respecting neighborhood scale. Three distinct outdoor spaces are proposed at the rear of the building to provide flexible spaces for reading and library programming. At the adjoining parking lot, the project re-oriented parking spaces from angled to straight, accommodating parking for 73 vehicles inclusive of the required accessible and electric charging spaces. The proposed trash enclosure would be located between the parking lot and the library containing both trash and recycling receptacles and would be fully enclosed. A number of off-street improvements are also proposed, some of which include reconstruction of existing curb, gutter and sidewalk along Soquel Drive and East Ledgard Way, a new belt bus shelter and pad extension of new curb, gutter and sidewalk along the site frontage heading Northwest along Soquel Drive, new accessible and pedestrian access ways along the back of sidewalk, a new crosswalk stop bar and legend at East Ledgard Way and various stormwater drainage treatment and attention improvements. Next slide, please. All trees proposed for removal are relatively young and none are considered significant trees per county regulations. A existing trees would be retained along the Northern residential fence line to preserve residential buffering. The landscape plan includes planting 24 replacement trees, a variety of shrubs and vegetation as well as hardscapes designed to complement the proposed site plan and building. Additionally, the parking lot would contain biotreatment basins, a landscape island and peripheral landscape areas with a generous greening and tree planting plan to soften its appearance. Next slide, please. The proposed floor plan would include spaces for children, teens and adults to access traditional books as well as online materials. Separate spaces will be available for community events, meeting rooms, library collections, reading and study rooms, library programming and staff areas. The outdoor spaces proposed at the rear of the building include a staff outdoor area, a children's area and an adult area. A teen patio is located adjacent to the teen area at the front of the building. Next slide, please. The submitted design contains sufficient varying architectural elements, fenstration and wall planes to break up the parent mass and bulk of the building, ensuring that it will not read visually as a monolithic structure. The zone district height limit is 35 feet and the project as proposed would reach a maximum height of 22.5 feet, about 12.5 feet below the height maximum. Additionally, building heights are intentionally lower along its northeastern edge to preserve neighbors' privacy and views. The proposed project complies with requirements of the county designer view ordinance and that the project will incorporate site and architectural design features to reduce the visual impact of proposed development on surrounding land uses and the natural landscape. Next slide, please. In the rear yard, the roof eve encroaches into the 20 foot setback at four separate locations. The respective encroachments measure approximately five feet, three feet, two feet and three feet. In the side yard, the eve encroaches approximately six feet. In the front yard, it encroaches into the setback at four locations, measuring approximately six and three feet. The intent of the county code in requiring increased setbacks for PF zone parcels adjacent to residential zone districts is to apply added protective measures to buffer residential uses from perceived impacts associated with neighboring public facilities. The project is not expected to create adverse impacts for the following reasons. First, the library building itself would meet all setback requirements saved for minor portions of the roof eaves at select locations. Second, building heights are intentionally lower at the portion of site closer to adjacent residential properties. And third, the eaves draw the roof light even lower to grade, further protecting the privacy of adjacent properties. Additionally, portions of the existing library are located within the 20-foot rear yard setback at approximately 13 feet from the rear property line. And the proposed replacement building would be located further from adjacent residential properties as compared to existing conditions. As detailed in the staff report, findings for variants have been met to allow for minor encroachments of the roof eaves as proposed. Next slide, please. Approval of a sign exception is required to permit 196.5 square feet of cumulative sign area where the zone district only allows 50 square feet. As shown here, signs for the library are proposed at three locations on site, including two pedestrian-oriented signs along Soquel Drive and the East Ledgered Way intersection and another at the building entry. Next slide, please. The proposed signage program would be in proportion to the size of the library building as associated site improvements. No signage would be directed towards or be visible from adjacent residential zoning. The project site is not visible from a scenic corridor as designated in the general plan. All signage would be constructed of aluminum and is designed to be consistent with the architectural character of the building. The pedestrian level sign at the intersection of Soquel Drive and East Ledgered Way would be subtly and indirectly illuminated via two in-grade LED well lights. Condition of approval, condition of approval Roman numeral for a two prohibits illumination of signs when the library is closed. Next slide, please. Today, the department has not received any public correspondence pertaining to this item. As proposed and conditioned, the project is consistent with all applicable codes and policies of the zoning ordinance and general plan. The project also implements general plan policy 7.15.2, which specifically calls for expanding the Aptos Branch Library. Staff therefore recommends approval of occupation number 201378 and acceptance of a notice of exemption for further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. This concludes my presentation. Staff is available for any questions. I believe the applicant has also prepared a presentation as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeSalvo. At this time, do we have any commissioners that would like to ask questions to staff on the project? If no one else has anything, I did have a couple of questions. Just regarding the design, this is a request for a design approval. Is that correct, design review approval? Yeah, one of the approvals is design review, it's correct. I just had two questions on that. Number one, the plans and rendering for the materials sheet shows a TPL roofing. Is that throughout? Even on the sloped roofs that could be visible from the street? Or those look like they could have, like they might be rendered as like a metal roofing, but I'm not sure. And if this is more appropriate for the applicant, I can ask them as well. Yeah, we can definitely loop in the architect. I believe that they are also proposing PV for substantial portion of the roof that it slopes towards Soquel Drive, otherwise I believe it's mostly TPO. But yeah, we can, if the architect wants to jump in. If we could, if when they present, if they could address that item, that'd be ideal. And then the other, I just wanted to be really clear in it, you stated this, but I just want to make sure that, you know, the renderings do show this nice beautiful wood siding, but the reality is where it is today is a stucco building, is that correct? Yeah, so there's various options that are presented in the plans. They have the base bid as well as more expensive options if they're able to get the funds together for more expensive siding. So yeah, composite siding would be one of the more expensive options and cement plaster siding, I believe, is the base bid. I'm just gonna thank you. I think just a general comment, it would in the future when we have the design, you know, when there's options, which I think are really helpful. I think that right now construction is so crazy, it's impossible to know where it's gonna end up. And you might, you know, when we go to bid this project, wood might be crazy expensive, which it already is. So options are really helpful. I think just as a general note and a design review, it would be helpful to see what those look like in color schemes, if that's not actually what we're voting on today. That's, those are my only two comments and questions. And if any other commissioners had anything, I'd be happy to hear that. Otherwise we can move on to the next part here, which is the applicant's presentation. Okay, so if we could load the PowerPoint submitted by the applicant team, that would be wonderful. And it looks like we have Damon Adlow with DPW and the architect team who will be presenting. So let's get that loaded up and great. Great. Good morning, Damon, will you be presenting this morning? Yeah, good morning, Jocelyn, I will be presenting, but I'd also like to introduce the architecture team and I think they'll be able to answer some of the questions that the folks had today. But I would like to just start out by first of all, thanking you for this opportunity. You know, this project's been in planning for a while. So it's nice to see it at this stage. I also want to thank Jonathan for his report and that is comprehensive presentation. I think you covered a lot of the items and described the project well. Just want to introduce here a few of the Anderson Broulet Architects Team, ABA. And today we have Anshu Pathak, Mark Shoman and Anissa Miranda. And they've just done a really great job, in my opinion, listening to the community, listening or following the criteria documents and then also basically, you know, maximizing the site and hopefully giving, you know, the community an amazing asset for years to come. I'd like to just start with a few slides. Some of these are a little bit repetitive from what Jonathan showed, but I just want to go in a little bit more detail with them. I do want to note that the project is primarily funded by Measure S for libraries, which was a bond measure that was passed for county libraries. So we're grateful that voters were in support of all these improvements. Also do want to note that there was a facilities analysis that was performed on all the branches. And it was noted that the Aptos library basically had the second highest used in the system and a footprint or I should say space that was smaller than necessary. So hopefully, you know, the new design which goes from roughly, as Jonathan mentioned, from 8,800 square feet to a proposed 12,490 square feet will accommodate the library's needs and allow them to expand their programs. I also want to note that, you know, there early on there was analysis for either expansion or tear down of the building and that was analyzed and it was determined that a tear down rebuild approach was actually more cost effective in order to improve the building itself. And also I just want to say that there's a lot of community support. We've had a total of four community meetings and associated outreach and it's been a very positive experience so far. Let me see. So yeah, let's start with the slides. Like I mentioned, you've seen these but I just want to note a few things. This is a bird's eye view from Soquel Drive and Ledgert and I just want to show that the building is roughly in the same footprint. The new building being proposed in the same footprint as the existing building and then there is like Jonathan mentioned some of the terracing in front and this is going to be heavily landscaped and will be a nice face on Soquel Drive. Next slide. And this is another bird's eye shot from the other angle on Soquel Drive showing the new entry. The entry is being pushed down slightly to work with the grades there, improve sight lines and allow for a little bit of better pedestrian and vehicular relationship near the entry. Next slide. And another image from Soquel Drive showing the relationship between the landscape and the building. Next slide. Okay, and as mentioned, this is also something that Jonathan showed but I want to get a little bit closer and kind of show the open floor plan that's being proposed but still allowing for over, excuse me, open floor plan in the main area but still allowing for separate programs that are unique and discreet to take place within the site. And also this is a reflection of roughly, well, it depends on the area but it's between 25 and 40% increase on the interior per zone. Next slide. And this is an image of some of the outdoor spaces. I also wanted to include this. The footprint of the building did increase, obviously, but we were able to retain some of the outdoor spaces. So this is something to note that I'm pretty proud of that was included the patio spaces that are associated with each indoor space. So there's again, the opportunity to expand programs to the outdoors and then also the relationship with the windows and the doors trying to create an indoor outdoor feel for the individual spaces. And I think I'll probably end it there. I just do wanna add though that we're just all really excited about the project and feel like it's gonna be a great community asset. And yeah, I'm really excited to move forward. So again, appreciate the opportunity. Maybe I think there were two questions here. One for the roofing material, maybe general percentages of the roofing material types. And then we could talk about the siding material a little bit, maybe I'll jump to that because I would like to actually a little bit more detail, talk about what's being proposed. The materials themselves can be described by the architects. But I just wanna talk to you guys about the plan as far as donations and how we may realize the wood siding. So there has been a pretty amazing campaign, fundraising campaign with the friends and friends of the public, Santa Cruz Public Libraries, and there have been discussions to apply some of their donations to some of the material changes. So it's currently looking as if we, I should say that there's a really good opportunity for us to have some of the nicer materials on the outside but currently as noted, construction costs are pretty expensive. So we wanted to make sure and have the project with several alternates to make sure that we're including the entire program that the community needs and then be able to apply the nicer materials. But maybe Mark or Aung Shoo, you guys could jump in and talk about the roofing material and then the siding material in more detail. I'll start with the roofing. Good morning, everybody. Again, thank you for this opportunity. The roofing material is the same completely on the building including the slope portions. The imagery you see probably shows the slope portions. It perceives steeper than it probably is. We made sure that from the ground you can't see those sloped portions. That's why the reason we went to the TPO both for efficiency and costs. At one point the roofs were steeper and we had metal roofing on there but as they shallowed also to facilitate the photovoltaic cells or panels that will be going on there, the decision was made to simplify the roof system. As far as the siding goes, it's a cedar-like siding that we are hoping to do. Short of that, if we can't do that, we will be painting the plaster a color that is responsive to those materials. So even if you don't have the actual material there will be a separation of the massing. So what you see right now is kind of a wood mass with these plaster boxes sitting off of it. That will still be a different color so that it breaks down that massing. Omshi, do you wanna add anything to that? I just wanted to add a quick note about the roof slopes. The maximum we have is an inch and a half to a foot. So it's very gradual as you can see. Just wanted to add that. Any other questions, I guess? That answered mine. Thank you everyone for the presentation and the explanations there. That was really helpful. Do any of the other commissioners have questions of the applicant at this time? Commissioner Lazenby, I think you're muted there. Okay, yes, I just had one question about the roofing. When you mentioned photovoltaic cells are they in the roof itself, each single or in the makeup of the roof? No, there'll be your traditional panels that sit just above the roof. There's a couple of reasons we do that. One is for viability long range. If something goes bad it's easy to replace. The second thing is, and this is the part I love about it is it literally will shade that roof. So not only is it generating electricity during the summer months or any all year round, but it's shading the roof so we're not now gaining the heat from the sun into the building. So it kind of does two fold by presenting it that way. Plus again, long-term maintenance, replacement and costs are all those reasons. And it's very low, it's not, you know. Those panels would be on the side visible from SoCal? Yes, it's the slope side. Actually all it sits on just the slope portions. Again, as Aung Shoo mentioned, it's very shallow slope. So we did the study from SoCal and you have to be pretty far down the road in order to see any roofing or panels. So when you're standing across the street or especially as a pedestrian, certainly in a car, you won't see those panels. Thank you. They're a little off the eve, yeah. Okay. Any other commissioners have questions? I have one follow up. Is this building gonna be all electric? It'll be a net zero building and all electric. I think we're not providing gas, right? No, we're not. It's only electric. So good carbon footprint or a small carbon footprint. So then the PV panels will cover most of the roof is my assumption, but can you confirm? I'm sorry, I missed that. Well, the PV panels cover most of the slope roof or will there be some that's... It's likely that'll cover most of the roof. I might jump in here. It just has yet to be determined because it's gonna be based on user or assumed use at this point, it's still being designed. But I think it's safe to assume that it's most of the roof, especially on the Southern exposure. If I may add, it's about a little less than 50% of the roof based on the initial calculations done and with the solar consultants. Thanks. So the drawings actually have the footprint shown. On sheet 8-10. Great, thank you. Sure. Any other commissioners have questions? How would you hear them? Otherwise, we can move on to the public comment portion of the item. And now is the time we'll hear from the public regarding the matter. Members of the public will have three minutes to speak on this item. Ms. Drake, do we have any members of the public that would like to speak? All right. So I am seeing a hand raised by Bill Parkin. And so if we could get three minutes on the clock, I welcome Bill. Will you please restate your name for the record? You have three minutes. Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. Bill Parkin, I represent Deborah and Michael Downing. They live behind the library. And first of all, I wanna thank staff, Damon and staff for working with us. We had some concerns. We're very supportive of the library, but we had concerns about the oak trees that are along the fence line in the rear of the library. Those were originally slated to be removed and now they're gonna remain in place and they offer a real buffer from the library in the parking area. And so I'm hoping that we're very clear that those oak trees are staying. The second thing is, is the IV in the back, we talked to staff about the IV, the existing IV, which harbors a lot of rats and it would be great to remove that IV. It looks like the county's gonna do everything it can to remove the IV. I know it's invasive and difficult, but I really hope we make great efforts to take care of that. The next thing is, as I noticed in the staff report, the variance, it's a setback of 20 feet except for the eaves. And this staff report says about 20 feet. And in fact, if you look at the table, it has listed about 20 feet, about 20 feet, about 22 feet and some odd inches. I just wanna be clear that the footprint of the building is gonna be at 20 feet, that it's not just give or take six inches or 12 inches either way, but it's at 20 feet and we're only talking about the roof eaves. The only other question I have is about roofing materials and whether there'll be any glare facing the neighbors. And I don't know if staff has any thoughts about that. And then the last two things deal with sort of the demolition and construction, which is it would be really good if we could have a way to contact staff in the event there are serious issues with, for instance, dust from the demolition. And then in terms of a parking plan for the property, Art and Way is a privately maintained road, which parallels SoCal, you go up ledger and you hang a left and Art and Way is right behind the library. And that's privately maintained and it's difficult to maintain and there's no CSA there to fund it. So we're hoping that heavy equipment and other types of parking from the construction won't be on Art and Way, but I just hope that we can have an open line of communication with the county about those issues. Again, my clients support the library are excited about this project. But again, the main issues were the oak trees, the ivy, any glare from the roof, making sure the variance at least in terms of the footprint that the footprint is still 20 feet back, dust control and the ability to contact staff and issues concerning parking on Art and for construction vehicles or heavy equipment. And I'm happy to answer any questions. I know three minutes isn't a lot, but I really appreciate the county working with us and in terms of being good neighbors to this really important project. If I may, I can answer a few of the questions. If, is that all the time? Sorry. Probably let's make it through all of the public hearing portion of the meeting and then we'll turn it back over. That's okay. Oh yeah. Thank you. Yep. Okay. So if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item, which is the proposed demo and replacement of the Aptos library, please make yourself known. I'm not seeing any chair. Great. Thank you. Yes. Then typically there's time for the applicant to respond. And so Damon, if you'd like to go ahead and respond to those comments, that'd be really helpful. Absolutely. I could definitely answer a few of them and then of course bring in the architect team and plan or to answer a few more. I guess the first question or the comment about the IV, so the IV on the existing fencing, so we're not planning on taking down the fencing. So yeah, we haven't been in discussions and we will try to clean up the area, but there's just concern currently that if we remove the IV, it'll actually disrupt the fencing. It's just the IV itself is so robust that it's just we have to be careful with that. And like I mentioned currently, there aren't plans to replace the fence. So in that effort, we're going to try to do the best that we can with that, but it's a little bit after deconstruction and moving that material, making sure that we still have something solid underneath. So that's basically, we're still looking at that and we're aware of that request. As far as a hard and way with not having heavy vehicles and the potential of dust, so just as far as it does, so this is, we are getting a building permit and we will have a grading permit. There's a lot of controls in place to keep dust down. So that is something that we're aware of and is actually a condition of the, or will likely be a condition of the building permit. As far as notifying staff during construction, so we'll make sure that there's a signpost that has my name, a cell phone on there and I'll definitely be available at all times during construction to answer any concerns that the public may have. And that has been planned. That's typically what we'll do, DPW will do with our construction projects. And then as far as heavy vehicles on Arden Way, I don't think we necessarily put those restrictions on the contractor, but I think that's, that seems feasible for us to include that, not have heavy vehicles on that road. And then I guess the next questions, maybe the roof flare question, I don't know if I'm sure you could potentially answer that question or Mark. Oh, so again, we were careful, first of all, this building is actually lower than the existing library. And we purposely put the flat portion of the building on the backside towards the neighbors for both height reasons and also for this reflection issue. It's very important to have a light color on a roof, again, for that heat gain thing. And so we're very cognizant of creating glare for neighbors. So it's, it's a flat portion behind there with a small parapet. So it should not create any glare towards those neighbors. The one sloped portion that does face towards that northeast is actually facing towards the water company property that is at the end, right up against Leadford. I think I got the name of that street wrong. Anyway, so thank you, Ledger, that's it. So, you know, again, we were very thoughtful about making sure we were addressing concerns that neighbors might have and believe we have. I just wanted to add the flat portions also have parapets. So they're not, they're enclosed. Great, thanks guys. And then I'm not sure who would necessarily answer the setback question, if that would be the architect. You can answer that. Okay, thanks, Archie. Yeah, so all of the built up footprint is within the 20 feet setback on the side and rear, so along the neighbors, as well as along Leadyard, as well as along Soquel. So we are complying with the 20 feet setback on all sides for the built portion of the footprint. I would add also is that if you look at the plan, it's only the corners of the building that reach that 20 foot. If you were to actually take an average of where the walls are, it's closer to 23 to 25 feet, depending on the side. Again, we didn't want to present to the neighbors and to the community as a whole, just a big flat wall. Like you might see in a lot of buildings, we wanted to create variations such so that no neighbors confronted with this, you know, well, flat wall, but they get a variation of space, a variation of landscape and it also created some interesting outdoor spaces for users. Okay, thank you so much for all the input there. I appreciate it. At this time, we're going to close the public comment on this item and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Does anyone have any further discussion or questions? I'd just like to say that, you know, this has been years, I'm sorry, Chair Byte May, I apologize. Please go ahead. Thank you for your update. This project is located in the heart of Aptos and as Mr. Adlo mentioned, it is the second most used library in the system and it's going to be a real improvement for the community to have the increased space, the increased programming that it's going to allow and hopefully the increased accessibility, well, I will, the increased accessibility that will come with it. And I think, although I think there is room to create the findings for the increase in the easements into the, pardon me for the roof easements into that 20 feet because the massing of the building doesn't go into that area. And I think it's a real exciting project. I think it's exciting to hear about the partnership that the library is doing with our community groups, with things like the Aptos History Project that will now bring benefit to our community with the development of this project. So I personally am very in favor of this project. I think we can easily make the findings necessary to move this project forward. So when ready, I'm happy to support this project. Thank you, Commissioner Vialante. Any others? I'll just echo Commissioner Vialante's comments and I am also in strong support of the project. Thank you, Commissioner Dan. This is Commissioner Lacy and me. And yes, I also support the project. I only had one concern and that was about the traffic on SoCal. It's an increase of 19 cars, I think are 19 trips. And this is a most congested way, congested corridor. But I assume if you just have signage there that you can only turn right in leaving the library, then I guess you go up and make a U-turn at some juncture. I guess maybe I'll respond to that. We currently do not have that type of signage plan for the project. I'd want to note Anshu, can you verify that? We do not, I concur with you. We do not have any signage as such planned. The plan's really quick. But I don't believe we have that. Yeah, I would say that also, we're increasing this parking by 19, not necessarily the number of trips. You gotta remember that we're now building a library to meet what is a current need and future need. But my understanding is that that building is overused at this point. So I don't think a traffic study was ever done in regards to determine trips and such. And Damon, you might know that, but. Yeah, it was the recommendation for the parking spaces. I apologize, I don't have the exact number, but it was a minimal increase. But I do just want to note that the use of the building is essentially the same. And that the expansion of programs is really something that was already established. But as far as specifics, I apologize. I don't have that information on me right now as far as the report that was conducted. But I do want to add that there are currently planned improvements along Soquel Drive that will add, not as part of this project, but another public works project to continue the sidewalks along there. So that will improve pedestrian access to the site. But as far as the specifics with the transportation plan, I mean, I can get that to the group as necessary. I'm not sure kind of what the next steps would be with that, but I apologize. I don't have that on me right now. Thank you. Does that answer your question fully Commissioner Lazenby? It does, thank you. And Commissioner Shepard, did you have comments or questions? No, I think it's a well-designed project. I think the community is going to really, has been very involved in planning it. I think the neighbors are good. I'm ready to be happy to vote for it. Thank you. I did have one follow up there. On the exterior design, this is also going to be a master site plan correct. So if we are approving it as is shown today, we're approving the wood siding potentially. However, without seeing the color schemes of the Stucco, which is more typical in the design review, will that be able to be adjusted later because we're also doing this master site plan without it coming back to the commission? I'm not sure which staff member that's really of work. If I may jump in, you'd be approving the plans which are attached to the staff report as an exhibit. Those plans contain both the base bids as well as the other options for the siding materials. So typically, and what is also included in the conditions of approval, it's required as part of that building permit submittal that they submit their final plans. But as part of that building permit, submittal. So that would include color, color and material renderings as part of that. And that will be able to be approved at the building department stage without having, it's back checked by the planner and then approved at that point without coming back to us because it's not technically a major design change because it's already in the plans. That's correct. Okay, great, thank you. I appreciate that clarification. My only other comment as I was kind of voiced before is a little bit of worry about having a TPO roof that's visible from what I hear, that's not gonna be the case. And I really hope so, but I'm not sure how often we see slope TPO roofs that are visible, but they're bright, right? And if there's, that can be a challenge. And also aesthetically not necessarily in line with the character of the rest of the area. And so I'm gonna trust that that's the right move, but I wanna make sure that I don't know if there's a way to come back or to double check and say, hey, look, we like really checked and you're not gonna be driving down the road and have this glaring bright white roof on the building. I heard from the architect that that's not gonna be the case and I just wanna confirm that planning staff has double checked and we feel really comfortable with that. Or as I might request that we, as a condition, just double check. Yeah, indeed with the kind of upslope that we have there and what was described earlier with by the architect as far as offsite vantage points of the building, staff is confident that we wouldn't be seeing TPO from the adjacent right of way, but definitely it's up to the commission if they would like to add a condition of approval requesting that they submit and rendering with their building permit application submittal, confirming that the TPO roofing would not be visible from any adjacent right of way. If that's a direction you all would like to go. Thank you for that clarification, I appreciate it. And just in general, I do wanna agree with the rest of the commission that this is a great project. I'm excited to see a new library here. I think that it, you know, done a really good job at meeting the standards and creating something that's gonna be really beneficial for the community. I'm excited to hear about the opportunities to partner on some of the funding. That's a really good like thinking outside of the box to help get something better produced and pushed along a little quicker. And I just think it's a really great job. So thank you to everyone. And that ends my comments and questions. So if anyone wanted to make a motion, I'd be happy to hear it. Commissioner Villalente, it's in your district. Yeah, I know I think motion, I just wanted to check in with the commissioner Gordon. Did you want that to be a condition that we add? I mean, they have the renderings as part of it. I will note that if we did that, I would feel most comfortable saying, taking the little big cells in the panels and the considerations since they do front so cal specifically in the corner of ledger. I mean, I don't think that it'll be an issue in general, but I'm happy to have that conversation. If you'd like that to be part of the, I mean, I'd like to move this project forward, but if you- Well, thank you so much. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the consideration. It would, I would feel a lot better. I would hate to drive by in a couple of years and say, oh, and that roof is like really in your face. So, and I agree that the PV cells are going to make a difference there. And so it was hard in the renderings just as a little more feedback without being, without some of them are a little bit higher, more bird's eye view. So that makes it a little bit challenging to understand exactly what you're going to see. However, if Commissioner Villalente, if you would mind adding that, I would really appreciate it. I think that building department review at, would be perfect. And I trust the planning department check to verify and confirm that in fact, it won't be a challenge. Jonathan, how do you mean that worded so that the, I don't want to stop this project down to its tracks. Should there be a visual impact? Like what discretion should we be providing to planning to approve this project? Just requiring that they submit visuals and give planning discretion to approve it based on those visuals. Would that be appropriate for you at that time? Yeah. One option is to add condition of approval under A to, or as A to D, something to the effect of the applicant shall add a rendering of the roof materials as viewed from Soquel Drive. And then that's tied into the application material, the required application materials for the building permit application. So. I don't know that, I mean, speaking candidly, I don't know that I'd want to be that strict. I think I'd more want to be generally speaking that they'd have to submit some sort of visuals. Of the project as a whole. If they say I have a tiny peak of the roof, that doesn't bother me. I'd like to do more of the planning, I'm more broad stroke. Concern about that as well. Yeah, I'd rather give my, I want to be considered a Commissioner Gordon's thoughts, but I'd rather give planning a more broad stroke discretion on, I don't want to kill a project because they can see the roof a little bit. I'd rather, if that were like, I don't want to be that strict, let's just go that way. We could keep it simple. Applicants shall provide visual renderings of the roof. From what, I just want to add just quickly that this will add cost to the project for the applicant to prepare visual renderings. And I'd like to, I mean, this site will be visible from a couple of different roadways. And so I think we do need to be more specific in what view impact we're concerned about, Chair Gordon, otherwise I could see the situation of being that they have to provide several renderings. Are we looking at, is the concern coming up Soquel Drive, heading south, or going down Soquel, heading north at the corner of Blood Yard and Soquel? I think we should be more specific about what we're asking the applicant to do here, since it will add time and cost. What if we just stated something simpler, like planning department to review, plans to confirm that the roof, if visible as minimal impacts, something really general to guarantee that the planning department just does a double check says, it looks great, it's gonna be fine. And if not, they make an adjustment. It's a master site plan, so they can adjust the material as needed, it sounds like. So I'll leave it up to planning department to verify. Does that make sense? So something general. Maybe prior to building permit issuance staff shall evaluate potential you impacts associated with the roof along Soquel Drive prior to issuance. And maybe we leave it up to staff to determine how to do that. I think that we'll be getting citizenship plans with the building permit to be able to do that evaluation without requiring visual sense, but I just wanna. That's exactly what I was thinking, Ms. Drake, was that because Ankshu had mentioned that the roof appeal is more peaked in this room, the pictures we had seen at the planning commission, I was simply hoping that we could add something that the new I assumed that would ever was submitted would be sufficient to provide that. I don't wanna add the extra burden of cost. So I don't wanna add any language that would create delay of time. I don't wanna add cost to this project because as we all know, construction is just getting more expensive materials. And as Commissioner Gordon was suggesting, we'd rather have that extra cost go to increase better materials to the project. So I certainly am not interested in adding any sort of conditions that increase the cost of this project. So I'm very interested in either just making the motion as it is or suggestion on language that would meet Mr. Gordon's, Commissioner Gordon's desires without adding extra cost or time to provide. If you have a suggestion, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I just would prefer to make the motion and second trust that the new renderings. Well, Allison, she just suggested, Allison, she just suggested some language. Do you want her to repeat it? Oh, what did I say? Prior to issuance of the building permit, so that would be one of an additional condition under Roman numeral to staff shall... Review, I think you said. Staff shall review the proposed elevations along Soquel Drive to verify there will be no significant view impacts associated with the roof material. I think you should say minimal. I agree with Commissioner Sheffard. I'd rather say minimal than no. I don't want to be like that. I don't want to be that extreme. Minimal view impacts associated with the proposed roof material. Well, that leaves it at the discretion. It calls the attention of the staff that they need to look at it. And that's what our goal is. So I would support that, but that seems sufficient. What about you, Tim? I agree. Thank you so much for talking through that. And I appreciate the support on that matter. So thank you. So you're going to need to make that condition when we vote on it. Yes. And Mr. Adlow, do you feel like that will not add to finding costs for the project? Because that'll be part of the process already. Yeah, we're currently, we've submitted for our building permit. So hopefully it doesn't add time. It may add some small costs because that wasn't necessarily something that's part of the scope. But I think just simply because it's currently with planning in the building department that hopefully it won't affect the time. Okay, then I would like to move the recommended actions with the additional condition of the language that Ms. Drake has added. I assume Ms. Drake, that you caught what you said. We're recording. Yes. So I'll go back and listen to it. Great. Thank you. We have a motion. Back in. Thank you, Commissioner Dan. So, take it up. On this matter? Yeah. Okay. All right. Commissioner Lazenby. Yes. Commissioner Shepard. Yes. Commissioner Beallante. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. And Chair Ordon. Yes. All right. Motion passes. Thank you very much. And then, and project team. Thank you everyone. Appreciate that. With that, the item number eight will close that item and move on to the next regular agenda items. Item nine, planning director's report. Ms. Drake, do we have anything? I see we do have the interim planning director with us this morning, Paya Levine. Paya, did you wish to provide a report? No, I actually don't have a report this morning. Thank you very much, Jocelyn. Great. Thank you. Any reporting upcoming meeting dates and agendas? Yes. So I wanted to inform the planning commission that the next scheduled meeting date, the 26th, we do have one item so far agendas for that date, which is an appeal of a wireless application in Boulder Creek. And we also have one item so far agendized or tentatively agendized for the first meeting in February, February 9th. So we are rolling along. And as everybody knows, I just wanted to just follow up with the commission. I did do a poll earlier this week of the commissioners to see if you were interested in returning to in-person meetings beginning in February. And the consensus was to allow this current wave of Omicron to pass over the county before returning back to the chambers, which I think is a wise idea. And so we are going to give it two months. I will check back in with the commissioners in early March with the target date of returning back to the chambers for the second meeting in March. So I'll be in touch with you on that topic. I also, this isn't a meeting date or agenda item, but I just wanted to also let the planning commission know that because this is an item that you consider that the eight me so way project which the planning commission heard that went to the planning commission two months ago or actually three months ago was considered by the board yesterday and the planning commission's decision was upheld and the appeal was denied for that project. So I just wanted to let the commissioners know in case you weren't following the board meeting yesterday. And that's all I have. And thanks for letting us know on that because I wasn't able to follow yesterday if they're interested to see how it went. So do we have a County Council's report today? No report. I will be with you for the next meeting. And then after that I anticipate Daniel's return. I just wanted to let everybody know that Daniel had a baby girl in December and I believe they named her Lucia and she's super cute. And he seems to be doing very well. Baby's doing well, mom's doing well. And we're on our agenda so we can close the meeting for today. And I appreciate everyone and thanks for your help getting through it. I'll keep working on it. Great job. Thank you. Great job. Thanks everybody. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. Bye. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. A couple weeks.