 So those are the ways you can participate tonight. We have several items on the agenda. So let's get started, Mayor. The roll call, please add that. Yes, Commissioner Christensen. Aye. I vote here. Commissioner Newman. Here. Commissioner Westman. Here. Commissioner Wilk. Here. And Cherute. Here. Thank you. Yeah, first item of vote. Tonight, we also have the Pledge of Allegiance. I almost forgot. So if everybody will please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of the Nation and one nation under God's command indivisible with liberty and justice for all. OK, now our first item of business tonight is oral communications. Katie, do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda tonight? So we do have, we received additional public comment regarding 106 Sacramento that came in later, right before the meeting. We sent this to your email, but we also will have that available if you did not receive it. We can do a read aloud during that item if you'd like. And there was another public comment that was sent in at 1.30 today regarding the application on 47th Avenue, item 4D, 1485, 47th Avenue, from resident Ron Burke. And those are the two new communications that came in today. Thank you. OK, thank you, Katie. Our next item is public comment. I know for items not on the agenda, and I know we did receive one concerning the roundabout or proposed roundabout or thought about roundabout at Capitol Avenue and Bay Avenue. Katie, do you have any information on that one? So that public comment came in as general public comment to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. I don't know if it was specific for the Planning Commission meeting this evening. OK. So I'm not prepared to comment on it this evening, but they. OK, we'll just accept it then. And move on to commission comments. So are there any comments from members of the commission? OK, hearing none, any staff comments? Yes. I wanted to bring up a couple of things on the consent agenda to comment on consent agenda item 4A. I'd like that continued to October 7th because there's additional work to be done on the outdoor dining ordinance. Originally, we were recommending continuance to September, and I'd like to continue that to October 7th. On item 4B, there was an errata sent out for one additional condition to be added to that item because the site plan did not match the survey. And then a clarification that also item C on the consent agenda, the noticing said that the ADU would not be appealable to the Coastal Commission, and that is incorrect. It is located in the Coastal Zone. And due to the location on Depot Hill, it is appealable to the Coastal Commission after all appeals have been exhausted within the city. So. OK, thank you, Katie. Is someone trying to make any comment? I do not see any hands up. OK, I could hear somebody talking in the background, so I wasn't sure. OK, so our first, our next item of business is the approval of minutes from our regular meeting until July 15th. Are there any additions, corrections? Is there a motion to approve as submitted? This makes for a will if I move to approve the minutes. I'll second it. OK, Commissioner Christensen seconds. May I have the roll call, please, Edna? Yes, Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Newman? Aye. Commissioner Westman? Aye. Commissioner Wilk? Aye. Commissioner Root? Aye. The minutes stand approved. And that brings us to the consent calendar, which is, there are four items on there tonight. It looks like we probably should take them one at a time since some of us have to be excused. Some will be pulled for further discussion. Some are continued. So the first item, item A, is going to be continued. So when, Katie, do we know? October 7th. OK, September 7th. So we won't be hearing the ordinance. October. October 7th. We won't be hearing the ordinance on temporary outdoor dining tonight. That'll be continued to the October meeting. So our next item, Edna? Do we need a motion on that? I think we do. Yes. I will so move. And I'll second it. I have a motion to second to continue. Item A, the ordinance submitting the capital zoning code to the October 7th meeting. Roll call, please, Edna? Commissioner Christensen? Commissioner Newman? Aye. Commissioner Westman? Aye. Commissioner Wilk? Aye. Chair Ruz? Aye. Thank you. I have a motion to carries that I will be continued. And that brings us to item B on the consent calendar. Is anyone wishing to pull this item? Well, I need to recuse myself from this particular item. This is Commissioner Westman. OK, Commissioner Westman is recused from this item. This is Commissioner Newman. I have a question for staff on this item. Is that OK? Go ahead. And this applies to this item as well as the public hearing on Magellan. I must have missed something, but I thought that the planning commission did away with the 80% rule for nonconforming structures. And now I see that that's the rule being applied here. Did the city council bring back the 80% rule? No. What happened there is if we had moved forward with our nonconforming draft, it would not have been approved or certified by the Coastal Commission. So when we submitted our Coastal Commission certification, we carried through with the old code, and we're going to revisit that at a later date. So the old code still applies due to not being able to certify the new nonconforming within our package. OK, well, that helps. I didn't miss that. But that raises the problem I had. And the reason we did away with it is that it's not being applied correctly in my view. Because the way it's being applied is that they're comparing the cost of the new construction based on $200 a foot to the value of the existing structure. It's supposed to be its present value, and they're using the same $200 a foot. And if you take, for example, the building on 47 that we're going to deal with later in the agenda, if they were making a nonconforming addition, would it be reasonable to say that that structure has a present value of $200 a foot? If you would like. So there's the methodology that we use. We tied to the building code and pricing related to the building code per square foot. So we actually get those numbers from our building official. Because this has definitely been raised before because the numbers don't come close to what actual numbers are for valuations. So if you'd like, I could bring an explanation of that to the Planning Commission at another hearing. It's not just the cost per square foot of new construction, which comes from the building code, but it's the fact that the ordinance says the present value of the existing building, which is not something you can get from the formula in the building code for new construction. So anyway, I'm disappointed that we still have that rule in place because it was pretty clear the Planning Commission wanted it out. Maybe at the end of the meeting we can find out why it was taken out. Why it wasn't taken out. Katie just explained that the Coastal Commission is responsible. I thought she said it was going to be coming back to us at some point. Okay. So are there any further comments on 523 Oak Drive? If not, is there a motion to approve with the errata included in that approval? It's the Commissioner Welk. I move approval of this consideration. This consent item B. Is there a second? Do we have a second? Okay, the chair will second the motion. We have the roll call, please, Edna. Commissioner Christensen. Take that. Is there a question? Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Newman. I'm going to vote no just to protest the formula. Commissioner Welk. Aye. Chair Booth. Aye. So the motion carries and 523 Oak Drive is approved. 106 Sacramento Avenue. Does anyone want to pull that off the agenda and move it down into the hearings? We do have some public comments on that. So I think it'd probably be best if we moved it down into public hearings at this time. Any objections to that? No. Okay. And item B, Mr. Newman and myself have to recuse ourselves. So Mr. Wilkes, I'll let you take over for item B. Okay. Item B, the consent calendar item 1485 47th Avenue. This is a new construction and it's on the consent calendar. So do we have a motion to approve this item? Or are there any comments or any comments on this item? Well, we did receive a letter from Mr. Burke asking us to pull the item from the consent calendar. And I think if we were having a meeting that was open to the public, we would have asked if anyone in the audience wanted to pull an item and he would have done so. But I think we should pull it and talk about it. And I don't know if we want to do it now or put it down in the agenda. Well, I'll take that as a request from you, Commissioner Weston, to move this to the office consent calendar and we'll move it down after the Sacramento one, I guess. Okay, thank you. Okay, so now I can move, take it, give it back to Chairman Lee. Okay, thank you, Mr. Wilkes. Okay, spring to our public hearings tonight and our first public hearing is for a design permit for a secretary addition to a non-conforming single-family residence at 208 Magellan Street. And the presentation, please. Point of order. Didn't we agree that we were going to take the consent items first before we went into public hearings? That's what I thought, but you suggest that we move that to item C. Oh, I thought we were moving after Sacramento, which would be item C on the consent calendar. So don't we have, I thought we had Sacramento on the public agenda followed by 47th Street on the public agenda. And then we would take those in that order. Okay, yeah, I thought you moved item D, suggested to go to item C under public hearings. That's what I heard you say. So let's take item C from the consent calendar first then. This is 106 Sacramento Avenue and here are the staff report on this, please. Thank you and good evening commissioners and chair, Ruth. I'd like to also note, I was going to note it on the Oak Drive project, but all the applications tonight, including this one have been reviewed under the new code. I thought that was important to note as we transition still. So without due, the applicant is proposing to construct a new 1183 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit or ADU located at 106 Sacramento Avenue. The proposed ADU is a detached two-story structure and new construction ADUs that are two stories or are constructed on the second story of an existing structure require a design permit and planning commission approval. This is the existing residents and property as it appears today, ongoing work can be seen on the primary structure, which is a part of an active building permit. The existing residents at 106 Sacramento is a one-story single-family residence. The lot is located in the Depot Hill neighborhood along the coastal bluff and it's surrounded by one and two-story single-family residences. This is the proposed site plan. The ADU is shaded in blue near Sacramento Avenue. A covered parking space is provided on the ground floor of the ADU as a garage. While reviewing the permit history for this project, staff determined that the property was developed with an orientation facing the former Grand Avenue, which would be the South. Planning commission previously approved applications with the shown setback orientation for remodels in 1989 and more recently in 2018. Facts for new construction ADUs are generally less restrictive than primary dwellings and other accessory structures. Minimum rear and side setbacks are four feet, which apply to the first and second stories on both regular and corner locks. So as you can see here, both floors of the proposed ADU are four feet from the exterior side yard facing Sacramento Avenue, which complies with zoning standards for accessory dwelling units. Property is located along the coastal bluff and must also comply with the setback for geologic hazards. Staff confirmed that the proposed project is outside of the 50 year geologic hazard setback as shown in red. These are the proposed floor plans. The ADU is, as I mentioned before, 1182 square feet, which complies with the maximum allowed size of 1,200 square feet for detached ADUs. These are the proposed elevations. The design includes horizontal siding and stucco to match the primary dwelling. The, there's also a 150 square foot second story deck that faces the bluff. And the roof pitch matches the, or I believe it does match the slope of the existing structures. And here is the proposed landscape plan, which includes numerous all trees along Sacramento Avenue, both adjacent to and within the public right of way. As you can see towards the north, immediately adjacent to the ADU. The proposed landscaping in the public right of way requires a separate revocable encroachment permit. With that, staff recommends Planning Commission approve the project based on conditions of approval and findings. Okay, thank you, Sean. Any questions for staff on this particular project? Mr. Wilke. Go ahead, Mr. Wilke. Commissioner Wilke, I have a question about the view shed. I believe we're going to hear from the public, but wasn't that addressed in the comments that this is or is not affecting the public view of the coastline? Did you address that? Director Hurley, you may want to respond to this. Okay, in our local coastal plan, we have viewpoints that are identified. The viewpoint at the end of the street at Sacramento is a protected viewpoint at the end of the street. Views from residential, from residents adjacent to this property are not protected. So it's really, the public view is protected at the end of Sacramento. The ADU is set, I think, 74 feet back from the bluff, and therefore we could not make findings that the ADU is in conflict with that public viewpoint. So these additional olive trees would not affect the view from the end of Sacramento Avenue? Standing at the end of Sacramento Avenue, we could pull up the landscape plan. If the Planning Commission wanted to make findings towards the end of these olive trees, thinking they're too large, but really, when you're standing at the end of Sacramento looking out, I think your view of the ocean is maintained. I just recall we had a complaint on a different piece of property where they were complaining about a hedge that would be high, and they complained that it obstructed their view, and we concluded that it did not. These obviously will be larger than that. I guess I don't have a problem with it. I just haven't really visited the property recently to get more of a sense of it, but I was just curious of the staff's opinion as to whether or not it was affecting our views to the view shed. And I thought that was addressed in the staff report, but maybe I'm mistaken. Thank you, Mr. Roe. Yeah, the public comment we have from the neighbor, I think he references a Southern California city that probably has an ordinance that protects the view shed for residents, we don't have that here. So let's open it to the public for a few minutes. If anyone wants to comment. This is Commissioner Westman. Commissioner Westman? Yes. First, I would like to thank the staff because I asked them a lot of questions about the setback on this property and they got back to me quite quickly and were very helpful. But I do agree with Commissioner Wilk about the two olive trees that are going to be planted in the public right of way. I think there is a potential for those to block some of the view when you're looking down the street. So I would request that there has to be a separate encroachment permit for that, that there be some language included that if the tree do start to significantly block the view that we have the opportunity to ask them to remove them. Okay. Thank you, Susan. Okay, any other comments from the commissioners before we see if there's any members of the public wishing to address this item? Seeing none, we'll give the public a few minutes here to respond, make any comments. We have Michael Morrissey on Zoom. He is the owner of the property and I'm going to, you should be able to speak now. Michael, it looks as if your mute is on. There you are. Yeah, there I am. Yeah, I just wanted to say good evening to everybody and that both my wife and I are on the Zoom to answer any questions that might arise from the applicant's perspective to address the question that Commissioner Westman just made. We were actually asked by the city to add those two additional trees to the right-of-way to help block the, essentially the ADU from the public to provide some buffer, if you will, from a visual point of view. That wasn't our intent to put those in. That was something we did after the fact. I think we'd be very happy to not actually include those if the Planning Commission made that recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. Any questions for Mr. Morrissey, the applicant? Very none. Any questions for the applicant? Oh, I've changed my mind. Thank you. Okay, okay. Yeah, I can understand why the Arkansite Committee probably did that because that big two-story white stucco wall there is not going to be very pretty to see from the street. So those, unfortunately, we have to use trees to hide a building that's not going to be very attractive. So maybe we need to look at our design criteria a little more. Any member of the public wish you to speak to this item? We have Lee Lehman with... I'm sorry, Katie, can't hear you. Lee Lehman and... Okay, Mr. Lehman, are you there? Yes, I am. Go ahead, please. Sure. So myself and my wife, Olivia Lehman, in conjunction with Edward Beale, owner of the property at 112 Sacramento Avenue, Capitola, California, are in opposition of the ADU proposed for 106 Sacramento Avenue, Capitola, California, due to four conditions. The proposed structure will invade the privacy of residents living at 112 Sacramento Avenue. The height of the second story of the proposed ADU will have a direct line of sight into the two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, and dining room of the residential home located at 112 Sacramento Avenue, Capitola, California. Number two, the proposed ADU is to be constructed in an extremely unstable location along the quals. The threats of the soils poses a threat to homes located at 111, 112, 101, and 104 Sacramento Avenue. There is also a very real concern that this ADU structure poses a threat to any individual that is on the beach below the proposed ADU. In that, if and when the cliff fails, there is a high probability that it would cause great bodily harm and or death to any persons on the beach below. Number three, this area of the cliff where the ADU is proposed recently failed, allowing an area 23 feet by six feet by 11 feet to dislodge causing an estimated 56 cubic yards of cliffside to disengage from the cliff face and crash onto the beach below. The geological survey conducted by the owners of 106 Sacramento Avenue is, in reality, a best case scenario and is in no way an accurate description of the immediate area. Number four, furthermore, the proposed ADU at 106 Sacramento Avenue will eliminate all views of Monterey Bay that currently and have existed since 1958 from the kitchen, dining room, and two bedrooms of the residents located at 112 Sacramento Avenue, Capitola, California. Two weeks ago, my wife and I observed humpback whales breaching just outside the kelp line in front of our home. If this ADU is allowed to be constructed, never again will we be able to witness such a spectacular event from our home. I trust the city of Capitola Planning Department will consider these statements and not allow the construction of the completely unnecessary ADU at the proposed site located at 106 Sacramento Avenue, Capitola, California. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Lehman. Are there any other members of the public out there that wish to speak on this item? Okay. I do not see any additional hands up and I just want to make sure, did each of the planning commissioners, were you able to read the public comment that came in later this afternoon? Regarding this item, it was forwarded from Sean from Edward Bell. Beal? Yeah. Yes, yes. Wasn't that the same comment we got from him earlier? Slightly different. Slightly different. Okay. Okay, so that, check the webinar again. I don't see any additional hands up. So I think we've received all public comment at this time. Okay, there may be no new email comments. Okay, so we'll bring it back to the planning commission at this time. We would like to lead off with any comments, questions? I had a question. What? Courtney? I just, I'm just listening to the neighbor and looking at the site and familiar with the site. I just was wondering at what, there's a street that's adjacent. I'm wondering what privacy issues he's having. He said that that unit, the second story would be looking directly into other people's yards. There's a public street directly adjacent to that property line. I'm just, I'm curious as to what he was referring to. Corda, I believe it's a house across the street on Sacramento. Yeah, no, I understand where 112 is. I just wanted to know if he's saying that there's a direct view into the neighbor's kitchen and yard and all that other stuff. I'm just, I don't see how that's possible. This one, I'm kind of getting it. He is available to comment. I just want to, okay, anyway. Would you like further comment? No, I was just wondering if anybody else had any other input? If there was something I'm not seeing. Yeah, I can, I have a thought on that. I think that the real issue here from the neighbor is the view shed. His letter with Mr. Beale's letter was very passionate about that. And we can appreciate his feelings in that regard, but it has always been the policy. In the 15 years I've been on the planning commission, Ruth probably has more history of this, that we have never refused a development that complies with development standards because it affects the view of the ocean view of an adjoining property. Yeah. That's what's behind all the other points. Yeah, otherwise I'd have an ocean view house. You would too. So any other comments from any commissioners on this? This is Commissioner Westman. I agree with Commissioner Newman's comments. If the rules had not been changed, which they have been regarding the ADUs, there would normally be a 10 foot setback along this side property line. But with the new requirements that we have from the state to allow these kinds of ADU units, we have a situation here where you have a project that conforms to our new standards. And I appreciate their concern about their views, but I don't see that we really have any recourse other than to approve the project since it does conform. And this is Commissioner Wilk, I have a bunch of questions. Go ahead. Based on all the things I've just heard, I just bring up a whole bunch of questions. First of all, can I look at that landscape plan again? Because I'm not sure which trees we were talking about. So the trees I thought that would be affecting the view shed would be the ones at the bottom of the stream. But I think everybody else is talking about the trees right on the street. So I'm not sure whether to, I don't care about removing those. It was the ones on the end that I was kind of worried about. And I thought maybe that's what Commissioner Westman was also referring to were the ones on the bottom or the ones closest to the ocean. Is that your concern, Commissioner Westman? Yeah, my concern was that the view shed is looking down Sacramento Avenue the way it's worded in our local coastal plan. So I was concerned about the two trees that were going to be in the right of way next to the unit because potentially if they got large, they could block the view looking down Sacramento Avenue. Oh, I see. Okay. I was thinking instead of if you walk all the way down to the end of Sacramento Avenue, I wanted to look right and left. If you looked left, you wouldn't, those old trees on the end would block your view. Okay, we're talking about two different things then. Yeah. In any case, I don't object to the olive trees, but I would approve or agree with your amendment should you choose to provide it. I'm also curious about the privacy line of sight of the ADU. That would be looking through the olive trees across the street into a neighboring house. Is that what we're all agreeing? That's. Katie, is that, we think, if I don't know, no, I don't know where else they would be looking. That is correct, across the street and I also. Okay. So I just don't see that that's the real issue since it's across the street and the trees would be eventually blocking it. So. Commissioner Rope, I just did want to add that one of the comments came from the neighbors, do south or do north, excuse me, so behind up here. Right. I thought 112 was next door on the same side of the street. That's correct. Okay. So that's the view. So that, the ADU looking north or I guess up on this view on this sheet would look into the house next door and I would think that's a legitimate concern. Do we know what the distance is between? I can't believe it's about 35 feet. Do we have any, any precedent or ordinances about that kind of thing with regards to, you know, windows, I imagine if a window was five feet from another window, better looking in the kitchen, there might be, there might be a concern there, 35 feet. I don't. Go ahead, Katie. Typically. This is commissioner, go ahead. I went up there and looked at it this afternoon and I think it actually is a bit more than 35 feet because the property at 112 has their driveway located next to the property at 106. So you're really probably talking about more 40 or 45 feet away from where their residence is and where this ADU is going to be located. Okay, so that doesn't sound to me, that doesn't sound that overbearing or imposing. And the, thank you. Also the precedence we have typically for screening for privacy will allow, will, there've been requirements in the past to plant more trees along property lines. However, I don't think that is what the neighbor is seeking because as stated in the public comment, they'd like to maintain their views of the ocean. So that would be the, well, I would typically mitigate. I was taking notes as he went down his line item, one, two, three, four. Number one was the line of sight windows into the kitchen like Courtney mentioned that I wanted to address all his concerns, just that was the main one. This is a planer's motto again. I wanted to note that one of the objective design standards for full standard reviews of ADUs is in regards to privacy impacts. So number, or letter B is privacy impacts. And some of the examples our code gives for mitigating privacy impacts is clear story windows or high elevated windows that don't provide a view egress as well as opaque windows and fencing. And as Director Hurley had mentioned in the past, we have, what the planning commission has approved other view obstructions or privacy considerations. But the code typically does specify when the structure, the ADU is close to a property line that has an adjacent residential, a resident or residential use next door, which this is typically further than the code would require some sort of mitigation for. Yeah, that's been my experience when we addressed this in the past that it was, it wasn't 45 feet away, it was like five feet away or 10 feet away. My next item was item two, which is the soil instability and then the beach collapse. Now you've got that red line there, right? Which shows that it is beyond the concern, at least according to our studies, beyond the danger of the falling into the ocean, so to speak, that's how I interpret that red line. That's correct. Okay. And then three, okay, I guess those are all my questions and comments. Yeah, I don't have a real big issue with this application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Roque. Any additional comments from the commission? I have one. I think the concerns that have surfaced, perhaps some of them could have been alleviated through the Arkansas Committee working on the design and conjunction with the property owner. It concerns me that we have to shield the two-story height along Sacramento Avenue with trees, basically because of the design of the building. And for that reason, I think our Arkansas Committee needs to take a tougher look at design on these things. And this one just kind of leaves me cold and that's where I stand on this one. I completely agree with you, Commissioner Roque. Thank you, Courtney. Any comments? Okay. Is there a motion to approve or deny the application? This is Commissioner Roque. I moved to approve it, but I would like to include verbiage that includes Commissioner Westman's concerns. And maybe she could restate those. Yeah, my condition would be that when the encroachment permit is issued for the olive trees going in the street, that there be a provision that we can require them to be removed if they become a visual problem for the looking down Sacramento Avenue. And I'll second the motion with that. We have a motion and a second to approve with the additional condition on the olive trees. There are the roll call, please, Edna. Commissioner Christensen? Commissioner Christensen? Oh, hi. Commissioner Newman? Hi. Commissioner Westman? Hi. Commissioner Wilkes? Hi. And Chair Root? No. Motion carries on a four to one vote. Okay. Now, Commissioner Wilkes, you're up for item D on the consent calendar, 1485, 47th Avenue. Okay, yes. This is an item that has been removed from the consent calendar and is now in the public hearings. Staff, do we have a presentation? Thank you. The project before you is a proposal to demolish an existing single family resident and construct a new 1,824 square foot, two-story single family residence located at 1485, 47th Avenue. The application includes a coastal development permit and design permit for a new two-story residence which requires planning commission approval. The current residence is a non-conforming two-story residence. The lot is located in the Jewelvox neighborhood on the corner of Garnett Street and 47th Avenue by one and two-story single family residences. As stated in the staff report, the current structure has been declared uninhabitable and unsafe by the Capitol Building Department. The proposed plan for the new home is shown here and on the site plan with parking shaded in blue. The proposed residence requires two parking spaces, one of which must be covered. The proposed parking arrangement has two parking spaces, including a garage and single car driveway. So the proposed floor plans, the new residence as much four is 1,824 square feet for a maximum floor ratio of 57% and the proposed elevations. The design of the two-story residence includes stucco siding, wood trim along windows and doors and open gable roofs with composition shingle. A narrow covered porch spans most of the exterior side facing 47th Avenue. Shown here is the landscape plan and highlighted in green are the proposed two Japanese maples on either end of property which will secure the requirements. About 50% can be coverage on lots with new development. With that, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project based on the condition of approval and findings. Thank you, Shown. Are there any questions to staff? Hearing none, let's open this up to public comments. We have any public comments on this item. We have resident Ron Burke. Ron. Yes, hello, commissioners, can you hear me? We can. Yes. Excellent, thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to speak. First, I want to say myself, as well as a number of neighbors, we are so happy to see this house being developed. It's come a long way from its origin. What has been called the 10 Deep Inn. It's one of the few houses that are left that has a name before. Capitola had street numbers. So it's got a history to it. And the design, I sense this neighbor's has spoken with and shown the plans. It says a little bit of elegance. It's very nice. We really appreciate both Mr. Hoffaker, the designer and Mr. and Mrs. Harwood, the owners and what they're doing here. Just a kind of a roundabout comment from my position where you said or used, you kind of said, you might say, if you're in City Hall, there are increasingly standards being, I'm going to say, that California things have to be objective in nature and not so much subjective. Subjective doesn't hold us much weight, but you know, as well as I do, we just want to make sure we do the right things. And speaking with the number of neighbors in neighborhood over the last several years, there's just a notice that there's some things we're squeaking by that just don't quite seem to fit. And I'm not being at the point as we've got that out here in the structure, just to make sure a few things maybe are codified to make sure they're taken care of. I'm completely sensing or sensing that the owner and the designer can do the right things to the community. But just to make sure that some things have come by that maybe we're conditioned or whatever is appropriate. So I have a small list there. Three of these things are very small. The first one is WIC Trimber on the windows and a recent plan submitted. There's the notes on the middle. These are both all, these are all by the way on sheet A4, page 8080 or packet. There's mention on the very middle, there's a text block there about the option about having wood or not having wood. I just want to point out is worst case. I'm sure this is not going to happen, but if the windows happen to be vinyl windows maybe the skinnier, cheaper ones with no wood trim and stuck up against that's pretty much unsightly. If they happen to be the larger format size like a milk art has when they call classic, that's wonderful. But just to give a little stature, it's not in the plans. Hopefully that's going to be the case. Number two, the front post size. There's several posts across the front just to make sure they're large enough format. I'm assuming they're going to be a larger size to match the boldness of the structure just to make sure. Number three, light fixtures. This has been a problem. A number of neighbors have remarked both existing structures retrofitted as well as brand new structures of lighting that is emanating more outward than downward. And being an entirely dense community, we want to make sure that the lighting is appropriate and we're downward, not obtrusive to neighbors even walkers by. We have one dentistry here. It's a block away from us across the street. It can be pretty blinding at night down the street. It can be that, that's so. And lastly, number four, this is a more moderate one. This applies to both the east and north elevations as two street elevations with plain stucco and having a collinear between the first and second floor with no articulation. Just a little bit of concern, and I and a few neighbors have expressed about maybe there's something could be done to break up that collinear lineage top to bottom, since it's all stucco especially. If it was a siding or a lopsiding or what have you that'd be different, but the stucco, I think that's just, it just doesn't seem to come across that fits as much neighborhood. Everything else, wonderful structure. I think they've done a great job and I look forward to having a cool drink sometime with a new owner. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burke. Are there any other comments? Katie? Let me see. Hello? Yes, sorry, I'm checking. Yes, we have one more hand up. John, you may speak. Hi, it's John Hoffaker. I wanna thank you all for your time and your comments. One, just to answer some of the concerns, one is the simple one of the post columns, I plan probably seven and a half inches, which is a six by six wrapped in finished material. Definitely not a four by four post, though. And, well, that's the, an articulation on the north side. I was trying to do some brackets and a cover over the doors going out on the first floor level and then a first floor roof going up to the second floor master bedroom. So I was trying to break up the elevation so that there's a very limited continuous stucco going up. And I can't remember the other one, so. The light fixture. I wanted to put some input in. And the trim around the windows. Oh, the trim around the windows is, we started out with maybe doing some horizontal siding and then the owner wanted to go up the stucco maybe with the integral color in it. And sometimes that gives a more modern look to it. And sometimes in the really modern looking houses, not cottage looking houses, there's less wood trim. So I was giving the owner the option to go either way without trying to be dogmatic about how it was going. I think it could look good either way, but that was the intent, okay. Any other, well, can I, any other questions of the architect? I have one. So the comments that struck my attention, Mr. Burke was the light fixtures and only from a safety hazard. I'm not one who wants to tell an architect how to design his house, but from a safety standpoint, the notion of lights facing the street, facing oncoming traffic, that kind of thing. Will your light fixtures be downward facing? I plan to have all the light fixtures downward facing and to have soft light under the porch. So the main street will have porch lights under the soft so no wall lights, there'll probably be a wall light next to the garage for lighting the driveway. But I prefer having the little cone lights that shine downward. Yeah, again, my only concern would be public safety, cars driving by, bicyclists, that kind of thing being blinded by. I totally agree. Yeah, I totally agree. I'm a big believer in non-light pollution and safety. Very good. Any other questions? All right, Sean, are there any more public comments? There's no additional public comment. All right, let's bring it back to the commission. Are there any other comments by any of the commissioners? I'd like to say that this is a great, this is Commissioner Christensen. I think I'm really excited to see something go in the spot. I've seen this house every day my whole life. And I think this is a nice proposal. I wanted to make that comment. Thank you, Courtney. Any other comments? No, this is Commissioner Westman and I'm prepared to make a motion with adding a couple of conditions if you're ready. I'm ready, because I don't have any comments. Okay. Well, I would move approval of the application with the following additional conditions. One, that the post size on the design be shown as six by six as the architect indicated that's what he was planning on doing, that all exterior lighting be down-facing and that the design include the brackets and covers over the doors on the north elevation to break up that surface. And with those additional conditions, I would recommend approval if there is a second. Is there a second? I'll second, sorry, Commissioner Westman. All right, are there only three of us? The other two are recused? Yes. Okay, let's bring this to discussion because I don't think your amendments are appropriate with the exception of the light fixtures. I personally would like to approve this. Well, I'd like to approve it as is and you just trust the architect that he's not gonna create any safety issues with the light fixture. So... The other two conditions the architect mentioned in his statement, those were things that he planned on doing. Just because he planned on doing it, I don't think that we should force his hand. In terms of his drawing, his drawing is as it is and he's got his options in there and again, I don't feel as a matter of principle that we should be designing his house for him. So I guess I would ask if you would be willing to remove your amendments. No, I wouldn't be willing to remove my amendments. All right, so we have a first and a second. Are there any other comments or questions or concerns or debates? If not, let's have a roll call vote. Commissioner Christianson? Let me make sure that Steph has the motion as it's presented. Steph, could you read back the motion? In my notes, I have the post size shall be six inches by six inches. All exterior lighting shall be down-facing and to include a bracket over the door on the north elevation. Can I add that there's a condition in the design permit review criteria that addresses the lighting to be downward? It seems to that for none of it. I agree. It's item Q. I'm happy to pull that out if there's already a condition in there. Very good. So Commissioner Westman, are you happy with the motion as read? I am. Okay, then let's have a vote. This is one moment. Sorry. This is Planner Sasanto. I wanted to add that the architect raised his hand again in case you wanted to feedback from him before voting. I guess I would want to ask what the proper Robert's rules of order are for bringing the public back in. I don't think that's appropriate unless the commission specifically requests it. Could you read the revised amendments to the conditions prior to vote? Yes, so the first condition is post size will be a minimum or will be six inch by six inch. All exterior lighting will be down-facing and the design will include a bracket over the door on the north elevation. So let me bring this back. I do want to have the architect weigh in on this just in case if there's some confusion about what we're asking. So if the commission doesn't mind, I would like to ask John to state his concern. I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, good man. Thank you for this. I'm a designer and visual and not a words person, but a bracket over the door and including on the north side, two brackets, one on each side of the double doors going out of the bedroom. The only other door is the garage door and putting a bracket above the garage door is just the wording just seems kind of funny. So I'm not clear where I'd be supposed to be putting the bracket. Well, perhaps I can clarify that, John. What I was referring to was what you stated, the two that you have on the north side and simply wanted to re-seat that they are going to be there and those will provide some break up articulation on that side of the building. Great, I agree. Okay. Thank you. I think all the questions have been clarified and let's proceed down with a real call vote. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Let me say Commissioner Christensen. Okay, aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. And Vice Chair Wilk. No. Motion passes two to one. With that, let's bring back Commissioner Ruth to carry on with this meeting. And Commissioner Newman. Thank you, Mr. Newman. Thank you, Mr. Wilk. Okay, that brings us to our first official public hearing tonight for 208 Magellan Street. This is an application for a design permit for a second story addition to a non-conforming single family residence with a minor modification for a reduced second story side setback. John. Actually, this evening, I'll be presenting this item. So. Okay, can you see the presentation? Yes. Clearly, okay. Before you this evening is an application for a design permit for a second story addition at 208 Magellan Street, located in the R1 zoning district. This is a view from the front of the home as experienced from Magellan. The applicant is requesting a new second story addition and in the area that's in dark blue in the slide. Here is the front image, the drawings. The existing home has T111 vertical siding and they're suggesting putting horizontal lap siding on the second story of the addition to the home. And I'll go through the rear elevation. There's new sliding doors proposed on the back. And here are the two side elevations. Within this application, there's a request for a minor modification. This is new within our new code, a new allowance, to allow a second story to be built at the same setback as a first story. Within a minor modification, an applicant can ask for up to 10% relief in a setback standard or a parking require, like the distance of a parking spot. So they're asking for the full 10% to be able to build the second story directly above the wall plane of the first story. So the setback requirement for a second story is increased in the R1 for the second story and on this lot, the requirement is nine feet 10 inches. The applicant is asking permission for a minor modification to be able to build it at eight feet eight inches. And as you can see in this slide, the second story would be in alignment with the first story. There's a cost savings associated with placing a second story at the same location of the first story due to structural engineering and being able to carry more weight. On this slide, I've listed all of the findings to approve a minor modification. In our staff report, we've gone through each of these findings. I do wanna point out that finding C is a bit similar to a variance, but the difference is that within our new finding for a minor modification, typically a variance, you have to find unique characteristics that are tied to the property. And we don't typically look at the unique characteristics tied to the structure or the use within a variance. So you have a little more flexibility within a minor modification. And I think that was what the planning commission was after when we put together this new allowance for minor modification. So in looking at what they're proposing with the eight feet eight inches that is existing on the first story, which is a larger first story setback than it's typically achieved throughout that neighborhood to ask to do the second story at the same area does not seem to have an impact on adjacent structures and it seems to be consistent with the neighborhood. And the unique characteristic is more of the structure, the fact that it is setback further on the first floor. And so that alleviation at the first floor setback could be carried up to the second story. And approving this would be consistent with the general plan or LCP and our zoning district purposes. And it would not establish a precedent. Throughout that neighborhood of Cliffwood Heights there's unique setbacks. There's actually issues with setbacks throughout that neighborhood. And typically they're too close to the lot line. So this being eight feet eight inches on the first story and then to carry that up to the second story is not typical. And then there'd be no impact to our coastal resources. So in our evaluation, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this project based on the conditions of approval and findings in the staff report. With that, I'm available for questions. Thank you, Katie. Are there any questions for staff? Hearing none, we'll open the public portion to comments from the public and now it's the time to speak to this item. If you have any issues, you can call in on Zoom or there's phone numbers you can call in. Okay, I'm checking the public comment right now. There's no emails that have been received. And now I'll check the Zoom webinar and we do not have any attendees with their hands raised. Okay, thank you, Katie. Okay, with that, then we'll close the public portion and bring it back to the commission for any comments or questions. If none, is there a motion to approve? I'd like to make a motion to... Courtney? Commissioner Christianson. I'd like to make a motion to approve. I don't have a problem or have any comment on this proposal. I think it's with the street adjacent area. Thank you. Just a little second. Hey, then we have a motion to second. Hey, we have the roll call, please, Ed. I have a question before we vote. Just to clarify from my own mind, is this minor modification under the new code is the revised version of a variance in certain circumstances, correct? I mean, under the old code, it would have required a variance. Correct. It's, we built in an allowance for up to 10%. So you wouldn't have to go through the variance and the review criteria is a little less stringent. The standards are a little more lax. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have the roll call, please. Commissioner Christianson? Hi. Commissioner Newman? Hi. Commissioner Westman? Hi. Commissioner Wilk? Hi. And Chair Ruth? Hi. Thank you. Motion carries and 208 Magellan Avenue is approved from Magellan Street. Okay, that brings us to our last public hearing tonight, which is 1855, 41st Avenue. These are the food truck vendors that have been allowed to locate at the mall. Katie? Okay. I'm pulling up my slides again. Can you see that? Yes. Okay. So this you'll recall last February, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for mobile food vendors at the mall. Within that approval, the Planning Commission approved multiple sites on the mall, as well as up to three food vendors. The mall is located in the regional commercial zone. This is also under the new code, something we didn't have before. We built in an allowance for, if you wanted to have food vendors more than four times a year, it would require Planning Commission approval. Any business wanting to have food vendors less than four times a year can come in for an administrative permit. So this one condition that was placed on the permit is that there'd be a six month review of the application. And that review would be to ensure that all impacts of the conditional use are adequately mitigated. And also provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to modify conditions to improve the overall operations of the mobile food vendor use. Here you see a picture of the current setup for the food vendors, and typically they would be parked behind the planters. So as I stated previously, this application was approved on February 4th and allows up to three mobile food vendors. The two food vendors that have gone through the business licensing and permitting process have been Tequiza's Gabrielle, and they come three to four days per week. And Saucy's, which is planning to come two days a week, but they've been out of town for approximately six months. So I don't think they've been there very often. The location that they have been utilizing is north of the main mall entrance. It's visible from 41st Avenue. They built these wood planters with stanchions and they're utilized to separate the use from the drive aisles. And both entities have obtained all the necessary permits. There was a requirement for a capital business license, as well as a complete fire safety inspection from Central Fire District. And when they first were permitted, Matt went out and did a pre-inspection prior to them operating and ensured that all the conditions, there were quite a few conditions placed on the original permit that were in your packet. I have slides with those conditions if there are any specific questions related to specific conditions. I'm not gonna pull those up unless asked for because they're quite extensive. I will say in my task of doing the update and review for the six months, the three times I've been out to the site, unfortunately, the food vendors have not been present because they're not there every day and I think their hours are a little bit different than I think sometimes they come in the afternoon and are not always there at lunch. So hopefully you've had a chance to see these. At this point, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission provide feedback on the conditional use permit and allow the businesses to continue to operate within the conditions of approval. So with that, I'm available for questions and I believe somebody is here from Merlone Geyer that can also help answer any questions. Okay, Katie, would that conditional use permit also have the six month requirement on there to come back to us again? If you'd like that, we could do that. I think the way the condition was written, it was only for one six month, let's see. It says it expires in 24 months so there'll be a opportunity at that time if there's a problem. Okay, thank you. Okay, and we have a representative from Merlone Geyer here. Okay, so Kate Jurtburg is here and I've just unmuted. She can now. Hi, I'm the Assistant Property Manager with Merlone Geyer there at the mall and we do pass these conditions on to the food truck vendors as we set up these agreements with them as well and I'm happy to answer any questions you guys may have. Thank you, Mr. Jurtburg. Any questions for our mall representative? Doesn't look like we have any. Okay. Thank you for your input. Thank you. Okay, so that brings us back to the commission. Comments, questions, Mr. Will. Yeah, I just wanted to point out the condition that I wanted to emphasize which is paragraph 8.36.040 required biodegradable and compostable disposable food service ware. Specifically, I wanted to make sure that they were not adding a bunch of plastic garbage into our environment as is not allowed by that ordinance. So I also had trouble finding a time when they were there but I was able to get there once and I did see that they had a recycling bin out and the garbage bin was filled with all kinds of paperware and I didn't see any plastics that were from the establishment. So I'm gonna take that as evidence that they are in fact meeting paragraph 8.36.040 and recommend that we go ahead and extend this permit. Thank you, Mr. Will. Any other comments? Mr. Newman. I drive back the corridor quite frequently and I have to admit I've hardly ever, if ever seen them there, so the impact, it's hard to say that there's been any negative impact. It's probably the charm of their operation that you never know if they'll be there or not or when they'll be there. Not like corporate, you know, a corporate restaurant. Anyway, I don't have any problem with the extension. The extension is for 24 months? Well, it's reviewable in 24 months, it expires in 24 months from the beginning. Sounds good, thank you. Yeah, Mr. Newman, I drive it all the time too. I think there's been one occasion where I've seen the food truck out there and that's it. Okay, so Katie, what is the actual required tonight just to approve the extension of the condition to use permit? Yeah, you know, it's just to direct staff to allow them to continue and that you have no modifications. I don't think you're really taking it that I need a motion, I just need direction. Okay, is there a motion to, did you say we need a motion? I guess you can make a motion providing direction. There's no approval or denial, so just a motion. I'll make a motion that we deem their six month review to have been passed successfully. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, may I have the roll call please? Commissioner Christensen? Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Newman? Aye. Commissioner Westman? Aye. Commissioner Wilk? Aye. Chair Booth? Aye. The motion carries and the food trucks will continue. Brings us to item six tonight, director's report. Katie, do you have a report for us? I do not have a director's report this evening. We'll just, we'll be, thank you. Communications from commissioners, Mr. Newman? Yes, I sent an email with an attachment to Katie. I don't know if she got it or not because I wasn't sure about sending it to all the commissioners with the Brown Act restrictions. And the email contained an article which I thought was pretty well done about the housing crisis in California. And I think it's pertinent for the commissioners to be kept informed on that, it probably already are informed on it because it's an issue with and when the mall redevelopment comes back to us. Did you ever get that, Katie? I did, and I will forward that out to all the planning commissioners tomorrow morning. Or possibly. All right, it's good. Interesting reading, I recommend it. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Newman. Any other comments? I have one, but tonight from the public and I believe a few items from the commission, we heard concerns about the various design aspects of a couple of these projects, landscaping, privacy, articulation of design, lighting, post size, the design feature, window treatment. It just strikes me that the Arc and Site Committee needs to be a little more concise in the job they're doing and not leave these things so open-ended for us and address some of these issues that come up that they can anticipate those. It just seems like we're seeing more and more issues that the Arc and Site Committee is not addressing. So I'd just like to get that in a minute. So the planning or the city council can see that. Katie? I'd like to comment on that because our update to the zoning code actually removed the step of Arc and Site reviewing residential projects unless they're multifamily residential or commercial projects. So single family homes, they're reviewed by, so I'm making it very clear right now that it's not going to get better when it comes to single family homes because we've removed the requirement for Arc and Site review by a volunteer architect. And that was part of the update to the code. So only multifamily residential and commercial at this point will be reviewed. And when one of those projects comes in, we actually hire a consultant to do the design review. So currently one example is the new hotel proposal that you'll be seeing at the next hearing for their conceptual review. That's being reviewed by a third party for the design review, but we no longer have Frank Fanton, who's been on the committee forever doing the architectural review. I believe that the architect and consultant we hire can still make these recommendations to the applicant in hopes that they'll put them in their plan. It just seems like a lot of those issues are coming before us. Well, single family will not be reviewed by the consultant. So it'll be staff review being the planners, building the building. Well, that's us. So it really is up to the planning commission when it comes to the design and the review. Okay. Okay. Well, that's good. So we can review the design and. Yeah, so when we- This is what I've been asking for for a long time. Yep. Okay, thank you, Katie. I have no further comments. Anything else from the commission? So if not, we'll adjourn the meeting to our September meeting and everyone have a good night. All right. See you all then. Have a good night. Bye. Goodbye.