 We have the roll call, please. Commissioner Christianson. Commissioner Newman. Oh, here. Commissioner Westman. He's muted. Commissioner Westman, you're muted. All right. Yes, I'm here. Commissioner will. Here. And chair booth. Here. Okay. Thank you. All right. Good evening and welcome to the capital planning commission meeting tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Once again, we are not physically present and it's not open to the public, but we are online. And the meeting is via zoom. There are several ways you can join the meeting, which are displayed on the screen. So you may call, you can enter the webinar. If you do raise your hand. So. We have a couple of public hearings tonight. You're interested. That's how you join. So with that, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Katie. Are there any additions or deletions to the. Agenda. I think we need to take. You must be on mute also. I think we need to take it one step back to do the pledge of allegiance prior to. I'm sorry. Oral communications. Thank you. Yeah. Well, the pledge of allegiance. A pledge of allegiance. To the flag. And to the republic. One nation. Under God. Indivisible. With liberty and justice for all. Now we can get to our communications. Katie. Any additions or deletions to the agenda? I did not see any additional public comment come in and there's no changes to the agenda this evening. Okay. Thank you. Okay. That brings us to public comments. This is for communications from the public. Or anything that's not on the agenda tonight. And so we're just requested to sign in and. If you have anything that. Comment on that's not on the agenda. Now is the time to do that. I will wait a few seconds to see if anybody wants to join in here. Doesn't appear work. Having anyone join the meeting for. Comments that aren't on the agenda. That brings us to commission comments. Commissioners, any comments? I have one. Susan. Yes. Last night I watched the community meeting that. Supervisor. In the first district had on the Kaiser hospital. And. I'm quite concerned about the traffic impacts on Capitola, particularly at the gross road intersection. I think that ultimately this is going to have some impact on how much and what kind of development capital is going to be able to do at the mall without that whole intersection being a whole interchange being redone. So I would just like to ask staff to follow that for us and keep us a bit informed. About what's happening. With the traffic part of gross road on that project. Thank you. I've, Susan, I've contacted the supervisor. Requesting that they open 40th Avenue. It is one of the possible recommendations in the EIR. And. He appears very reluctant to consider that. But I think at some point, the city should possibly even embark on some legal action to force the county to open that to relieve some of the traffic pressure on. The gross road intersection. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. Perhaps we just as a follow-up, we did submit comments to that effect when this first opened up and I'll keep an eye on it and see as it moves and keep you updated. Katie, if we could convey to the council. That perhaps a lawsuit should be considered to force the county to open 40th Avenue to relieve some of the pressure. I think that would be appropriate. I'll discuss that with. The management. Thank you. Okay. Any further commission comments. Very none. We'll bring it back for staff comments. Do we have any comments from the staff tonight? I do have one comment. There's been a number of new bills that have come through at the state level. I'll be working with our city attorney and putting together going through and seeing exactly what we're going to need to do to be prepared come January 1st. And I plan to bring a presentation to the planning commission on the new bills. And what we'll need to be working on in the near future. So just wanted to let you know that's on the horizon and hope I'll shoot for the next meeting, but definitely prior to the end of the year to give you a full update on what needs to occur within our municipal code and major changes. As I'm sure you've read in the paper with SB. Eight and nine. And changing. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And I will move on to the next item. Nine. And changing the future of single family residential development and allowing for duplexes and for plexes within. Single family zoning. So I'll bring you up to speed. And I actually have a memo that I'm going to send out to you. This week. So thank you. They've been very busy in Sacramento trying to take away our local control. Item three, the consent calendar. Tonight we have one item on their 1500 Warf Road and it's a sign program for Venetian court. And that item is going to be continued until our regular meeting on November 4th. Do you have anything to add to that, Katie? I believe Commissioner Newman may have to recuse from that decision. I think that's, is that correct, Sean? Okay. Just for proximity. Yes. Okay. So do we have a motion to continue this item to November 4th? I'll make a motion. This is Commissioner Westman. Commissioner Wilk will second. Okay, we have a second by Commissioner Wilk. May the roll call please, Ed. Commissioner Westman. Commissioner Westman. Did she say Westman? Yes. Commissioner Newman. Epstein. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. Yes. And Chair Ruz? Yes. The motion carries and that item, the sign program for Venetian court will be continued to November 4th. That brings us to our public hearings tonight, which we have three, I'm sorry, four. Our first item is 142549th Avenue. This is for an approval for new construction of a single family home with an ADU at the corner of 49th and I believe it's Opal Street. Sean or Katie? That's correct. And good evening, commissioners. Chair Roof. Before you is a application that proposes to demolish an existing cottage and construct a new 1,391 square foot single family residence with a 446 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit or ADU located at the corner of Opal Street and 49th Avenue, 1425 49th Avenue. The application includes a coastal development permit and design permit, which both require planning commission approval. The corner lot as it appears today, surrounded by one and two story single family homes in the jewel box neighborhood. The adjacent vacant property at 4875 Opal Street, seen in the background is a separate leave a lot that is owned by the same party. That site was approved for the construction of a single family residence by the planning commission this past July. The four plans can be seen here. The area shaded in blue on the second story represents the ADU living space, which can be accessed from either the primary dwelling unit or from the exterior by a private second story deck and exterior staircase. Proposed ADU is located on the second story and is therefore subject to full review standards, including floor area ratio. Combined the two units total 1,837 square feet for a maximum floor area ratio of 57%, which is within the allowed range for this lot. The elevation seen here. The primary residence and attached ADU utilize horizontal siding, gable roof ends and traditional rafters and braces, along with a composition roof. The primary dwelling includes a second story deck facing 49th Avenue. Seen here are the two proposed trees along Opal Street. They're coastline oaks and would meet the requirements for 15% canopy coverage. On lots with new development. This is the site plan along the highlighted parking plan with parking spaces and sell shaded in blue. The project requires three parking spaces, none of which need to be covered. The applicant has proposed three spaces, including two uncovered spaces and one single car garage. The maximum allowed width for parking areas within the front or exterior side step back area is 20 feet. The proposed configuration as seen here from end to end of the two parking spaces measures approximately 41 feet wide, which exceeds the maximum allowed width and therefore requires an exception by the planning commission. Planning commission may grant an exception to allow a larger parking area if they find the proposal incorporates design features that minimize visual impacts to the neighborhood. The exception is not a variance or minor modification does not have requirements or findings beyond the section shown above. The applicant has proposed semi permeable pavers for most of the parking area with turf grid center strips in front of the garage and under parking space number three, which you'll see in just a moment. The applicant has also proposed landscape improvements on the property within and within the fronting public right of way, which include plannings and a 30 inch tall fence. That notes that the parking layout shown on the landscape plan is inconsistent with the site plan, including one space that is not contained on entirely on private property. A corrected layout as shown above would reflect parking configuration on the site plan, but it would place parking space number two on top of turf and other landscaping, not typically used as a vehicle bearing and which the staff does not believe meets the spirit of the code. Staff has added a condition that requires the applicant to revise the site plan and landscape plan changing parking space number two into a ribbon style parking space with parallel parking strips and low ground, low growing ground cover in between. In addition, the planning commission could condition parking space number one to utilize a ribbon style parking space as well. With that, staff recommends the planning commission either approve the project as conditioned or continue the item and require the applicant to modify the parking layout on the site and landscape plan. Okay, thank you, Sean. Are there questions or comments for staff before we open the public hearing? This commissioner will have a clarification. I'd like Sean to address. And that is on the landscape plan view where they show the cars, basically one, two, three, you're saying that that is not acceptable because if you go back to that, could you just go back to that landscape plan real quick? Sure. Well, the landscape plan doesn't show number two there. It shows it parked right behind number three, right there. So when you're saying the reason that that is not acceptable is because as shown, that car actually pokes out beyond their official lot line. Is that correct? That's correct. The space in between the building and the property line is insufficient for a full parking space. If they wanted a configuration right there, it would actually require variance. And is that, so that lot line, that's kind of unique for this property, isn't it? I mean, to have it so far away from the street edge. That's one thing that staff noted is along 4 9th Avenue, the public right of way. And in this case, an unutilized right of way is deeper than on many other areas and similar lots. That's correct. Okay, thank you. And just to be specific, it's 14 feet from the property out to the curb and gutter. And typically we see about 10 feet in areas like Tupo Hill of unutilized right of way. Have you determined how many other homes on that street encroach into the public right of way for their driveways? Okay. I think there's quite a number that have that same issue. Are there any other questions or comments for staff? The hearing none. We'll open it to the public. And now is the time for any concerned parties to address the proposed development of a single family home on 1426 49th Avenue. Okay, we have the applicants representative, Dennis Norton, and Dennis. Hey, Dennis. I'm here. Dennis, are you there for me? Yeah. Go ahead, Dennis. Okay. If you look at the width of the parking area at 41 feet, what that does is it actually includes 20 feet of that 40 of the 41, 20 feet of that is actually the third parking spot, which for an ADU you're allowed to park in the front street. That is not our favorite place to put it because we'd like to put landscaping across there. And I think you bought up important points are Mick, is that when you go up and down that street that the easement being that wide almost 80% I counted of the parking, the parking in front of the garages are into the easement. So it's not an unusual feature. It doesn't come into the sidewalk. It doesn't come into the public area. 49th is one of the wider streets in that area. And I would be doubtful that the city would ever be interested in widening that street up any closer to the house than they are now, unless they want to make it a four lane highway. But the parking is really resolved fairly well. It has one covered parking spot. We have one to the right of the parking spot into the partially in the backyard. And then the one in front of the driveway. We placed it as is directed for an ADU where we're allowed to put it in and take it out. If we can take it out of the front easement, we would have to put it in the front space. And we went a couple of rounds on this thing. And what was asked of us is that take some of the hardscape out of it. And that's why we put some of that hardscape that's underneath could be like a turf block on that line. So it's at least green. But our preference is to have that parking spot right behind the garage as everyone else in that neighborhood is pretty much is enjoying. It's much easier and much better in the process to design an ADU into an existing dwelling. And it is to have existing dwelling trying to design an ADU into it. And so the project has merit in the fact that we're getting some extra housing here along with the raised house and not taking up too much of the square not taking advantage of a larger house with large square footages. So the owners are at this point they're gonna keep both houses. It's a family that owns it. And that lot has been sitting vacant for many years. And we're gonna end up putting sidewalks all the way on both frontages. It'll be a nice addition to that neighborhood. And I don't think we're asking for anything that isn't enjoyed right now by the neighboring residents. And I may also make a count of the number of houses that are corner lots on that street which are quite a few. And 60%, 65%, excuse me, of the houses their entrance is from 49, not from their side street. So it's a common practice when you go up and down that street for the driveways to be on the 49th street side instead of the side street as we have designed here. I'm open to any questions, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Dennis. Are there any questions for Dennis? I have a question. This is Commissioner Wilk. So I guess I'm a little confused of Mr. Norton's request here. So the staff basically wants us to approve the application with the exception of turning that parking lot 90 degrees. And I'm hearing the applicant say what they prefer is to have the parking arrangement as shown in the original landscape plan and not have that 90 degree parking space at all. But that would require a variance. And so are they basically requiring or asking for that variance? Can I answer that? The reason that we put the parallel for the street parking spot was so we wouldn't have to ask for a variance. And legally we can do that. That's, you allow in your ADU ordinance to allow parking in the front. We prefer not to do that. And I think if I was owning that, if I own that house I would be parking right behind the open garage. I would not be parking sideways there. But we try to make it look like a landscape area as well. And that's why you're seeing a discrepancy between the landscape plan and the site plan is correct. If you look at the site plan, if Sean could show you that. I'm just trying to understand what the process would be if we wanted to say, okay, just have the three parking spaces all be on the same line. Have the parking spot behind the garage actually be the one that counts and not have to actually put this one in front of the house just to meet code. And so what I hear from staff is though that is that we could do that, but that would require a variance. And I'm just trying to noodle my way through how that would all work. If we in fact said, okay, we like give the picture as shown on the landscape plan as opposed to how staff proposed, would you in fact want that arrangement? The original landscape plan with the parking in front of the garage, not perpendicular. That's a question for Mr. Norton. Yeah, I mean, I think that anybody uses that is going to park right in front of the garage because there's such a huge distance between that and the street. And ideally you would like to have the area where we requested the parallel parking just landscaped area. Yes, that would be the best for the layout in this lot. It meets it, it only meet, I think it's short and correct me if I'm wrong, Sean, by four feet of being illegal. I think it's 16 feet now and what we need is, we need 20 feet. And I think we're allowance for one at 18 feet. Is that correct, Sean? No, that's not correct. There would have to be a 10 by 20. So my question then for staff would be is if we agreed, and I'm not saying we do, but if we agreed with Mr. Norton and we wanted to do the parking that way and have the landscaping in front of the front door just pure landscaping, is there a provision in this meeting to do that or would you have to go back and request a variance? At this point, we do not have an application for a variance and we did not notice this item as a variance. So I would suggest if that was the will of the planning commission that the item could be continued, we could re-notice with a variance. But just, so that would be the correct way in which to proceed. And we do have our minor modification allowances for parking, but it only allows, I think it's up to 10%. So to go from a 20 foot depth to 16, it would require a variance. It would not fit under minor modification. I have a question regarding consistency of our procedures. And correct me if I'm in error here, my memory might not be 100% correct. But I thought on Depot Hill on El Salto Drive, we approved an encroachment permit for a driveway that was too short. So the driveway would extend into the setback area. And then we had the house on Lincoln Avenue who wanted to construct their wall and we required them to have an encroachment permit because they were encroaching into the city right away. So here we have a fence that's not requiring an encroachment permit. And we have a driveway that they're going to require a variance when other houses that we've seen haven't required the variance. So I'm just a little concerned about our inconsistency, I guess I would call it as to why we're not allowing an encroachment permit for this driveway when we allowed one for another residence. My recollection of the house on Depot Hill was that they actually did apply for a variance which we granted to them and then they got the encroachment permit. The ordinance requires them to provide these three parking places. And so you can't make an exception from the ordinance by granting an encroachment permit. They would have to get a variance in an encroachment permit. And for me, the reality of this situation is I think Mr. Norton's very correct. They're gonna park the car normally where the three parking spaces are with the car parked in front of the garage. And they have a choice of having some paved strips in their landscape area which can be counted as a parking place or they can apply for a variance. And I think the commission seems to be making it pretty clear we would go along with that variance request if that's the way they wanted to go. Well, you know what would probably happen is they'll put those parking strips in the landscaped area and a year from now they'll chair them out and re-landscape it and we're right back to where we would have been if we granted a variance. Right, so, but if they do it the way they propose they sort of get what they want without having to go through the expense and delay of asking for the variance. Yeah, no, I understand that. Any other comments or questions? Just one more. Let me go back to Mr. Norton. Would the applicant be willing to go with a variance provided that they were confident that the planning commission would be willing to grant it? Is that a direction that the applicant would wanna proceed or would they prefer us just to approve the landscape, excuse me, the staff recommendation? I'd prefer that it be approved like we have submitted. What people will do, they'll do. You know, they'll still park behind it but putting a couple of landscape strips in that third parking spot and making it work over there it will become a landscape area more than likely. But I just, to be honest with you and this is not the fault of the staff. This is, you've been under staff for a couple months and the burden's been on the planning department to get this stuff approved. And this actually came into application at the same time as the last house that was next door that we got approved two months ago. And the process has become very burdensome. And so what I would prefer is approve it as we have it. Approve it, excuse me, as we have it drawn now and not go back to a variance procedure on this thing. Approve it and believe me, these people will do the right thing in design to make this corner right. It is, we're not asking right now for an exception because you already have approval for a parking spot on the street, on the property adjacent to the street. That is a legal thing for you to do. It wasn't before but it is with the ADU. So what I'm requesting is not asking for an exception to any role that you have. Thank you, Dennis. Any other questions from the commissioners? If not, we'll open the public hearing to any member of the public who wishes to speak on this item. Did we see anyone, Katie? We did have somebody wishing to speak with their hand up Paula, but it seems that they've put their hand down. If they'd like to speak, please raise your hand Paula. No, I guess her hand came down. Let me check and no, we do not have any public comments on this at this time and there are no hands up for the attendees. Okay, thank you, Katie. With that, then we'll close the public portion, bring it back to the commission. Who would like to lead off or who would like to make a motion? I would make a motion to approve the staff recommendation for this, approve it with the conditions and findings that are in the staff report. Okay, thank you, Susan. Do we have a second? I'll second. This is commissioner Wilk. Been motioned by Susan Westman and seconded by commissioner Wilks to approve the application. Edna, will you have the roll call, please? Commissioner Newman. Abstain. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. And Chair Moot. Aye. Thank you. Motion carries. Good luck, Dennis. Okay, that brings us to public hearing B. This is the prototype ADU program and we have some designs to look at tonight. Katie. Yes, can you see my screen? Yes. And can you see it? Nope. Sorry, I was having some technical difficulties tonight. My screen, stop share. Well, I'll just jump in and hopefully our group that's with us tonight from work bench will not have the same technical difficulties as they'll be running this next slide, the next slides. So with us tonight is the owner of work branch, Gemalai Cannon and Omar Hassan, who's also, he's the project lead. And we also have Samantha Soder here and Samantha is with, or is the owner of the Meta Planning Group and she is doing all of the informational packets that will come out and documents for the public on ADUs and work bench is working on the ADU prototype. So they've all been a pleasure to work with. We've gone through a couple iterations internally of their ideas and taking all the input that came in from the public. And at this point, I will hand it off and I think is Omar going to present this evening or? Yes, hi. Good evening, everyone. Thanks for being here tonight. Thank you. We're really excited to share our work so far. I am going to share screen right now. And if I could just get a thumbs up that everybody's able to see the screen, the presentation, awesome. Thank you so much. So thank you for the time tonight. We're really excited to share our progress. It's been a real pleasure working with Katie and we've got a lot of exciting things to show you all. So I'm going to just dive right in. Tonight, we're going to run through some of the background information to let everybody know how we got to where we are today. And then we'll talk about unit plans and then we'll talk a little bit about exterior design. And so starting with background information, we got a lot of information from the city and a lot of really helpful starting points thinking about the different neighborhoods, residential neighborhoods of Capitola and sort of the buildable lot sizes for ADUs. So thinking about the average lot coverage and what space would be left over in the typical lots of each neighborhood for an ADU to be placed in. We started with these dimensions. And so noting that the most narrow, usable dimension was 10 feet, we use that as a starting point for the smallest unit plan and grew the units from there. So you'll see when we get into the unit plan designs that the smallest one does use 10 feet. And so we use the survey that was completed by people from the city of Capitola and from that we pulled information about ideal unit sizes, ideal unit styles and sort of the design priorities as we start to think about ADUs for homes in Capitola. We also reviewed some of the current ADUs that have been recently submitted to the city thanks to Katie. And then we conducted an internal design charrette where we started to think about our previous ADU work and the types of unit plans that we find to be really efficient and successful. We started to think about different architectural styles and really dug our teeth into the design part, thinking all the time about sort of the character of Capitola. So these are precedents from the city of different unit styles and homes from around town and thinking about how our ADUs could sort of compliment or live in harmony in tandem with these existing homes. And so now we'll get into the unit plan design. Essentially, we're proposing three different unit types with one exception, a studio unit, a one bed unit and a two bed unit. The exception here is that we have three variations of the studio plan. The idea here being that we provide the smallest usable accessory dwelling unit in the studio, which is a 10 by 25 that can hopefully be used in any size yard. And then from there, we get slightly larger studio units with a little bit more space and a little bit more storage. And we'll get into that as we go through the plans. So this is the smallest unit design that we could provide that fits within that 10 feet that we know is the most likely buildable lot in Capitola residential neighborhoods. So this unit is a 10 by 25 foot unit. It's really tight and efficient. When you enter the front door in the middle of the unit, there is basically no circulation and you have access to all parts of the home from that point. So there's a full bathroom here, an efficiency kitchenette and a space for a bed and then some millwork or built-in storage. We also have the option here to do lofted storage on top of the bathroom area because we know that in these really tight living spaces maximizing your storage space is really critical. And so we also think that this could have a vaulted ceiling. So even though the space is really small potentially on the inside, it could have a really nice high ceiling on the inside, which will feel really good. And so when we get to the variations on this, when we bump up the unit with the 12 feet, we're then able to accommodate a washer dryer in the corner. This is a space for a potential mechanical unit depending on the mechanical design which we will get into in the future phases. It could also be exterior storage or some other form of storage that could be used. And just slightly more living space, more space for a dining table and even more storage along this wall. When we move up once more, we go to a 12 by 32. And in this case, we're getting to the point where you can have some kind of living room where you might have a couch and a TV. So the intent between these three is to provide studios of various sizes that can fit in the smaller buildable lot areas. Once we move up to the one bedroom, we start having more opportunities to have some articulation in the massing. So you can hear sort of the sort of a generic mass here of what that plan looks like. In this case, we tucked the entry door around the corner. So you have a sort of recess area that kind of feels good as the front door entry to this unit. You enter into the living room and a nice full kitchen here. And then same case, you have a full bathroom. And again, we could potentially do lofted storage above the bathroom as storage is a necessity. And then in this case, we also have a washer dryer and then a full bedroom with a closet. And then when we get into the two bed version, this one's slightly different than a true two bed because the intent here is to provide as much flexibility as possible. So what we're showing here is sort of a flexible space where you could put an optional wall separation to make this a true bedroom or you could potentially see this as more living space. So it could be your living room with an office. It could be an extended living room. You could have a more generous dining area or it could become a full two bedroom unit with still one full bath and a washer dryer. And so with all of those, this is sort of the unit mix that we're proposing which is three variations of the studio and a one one bedroom and one two bedroom, which could also be seen as a one bedroom plus in some aspects. And then when we get into the exterior design, part of our survey that we sent out, we asked residents about unit styles. And so we sent out this survey and we got responses back that the craftsman style at the farmhouse and the beach cottage were sort of the most desirable in terms of what might fit in people's backyard than what might match to their home's aesthetic. So keeping that in mind with our five unit types, if each one comes in three different styles, you end up with five units and 15 design options. So hopefully with this like sort of small kit of parts of different unit styles, you're able to get a lot of variety in terms of exterior design and fitting things into your home. So starting looking at the craftsman version, we're just looking at the one bedroom here. As an example, in future phases, we'll do the same exercise for all the unit types, but just zooming in on the one bedroom, this is the craftsman where we have a shingle base and some base trim and also some articulated windows with some nice trim package that matches sort of the craftsman style. And we can pick a light fixture that matches the craftsman aesthetic and gable roofs with an overhang. And here we're proposing horizontal siding everywhere else above the shingle base. And then when we jump to the farmhouse aesthetic, you'll see the way we're able to accomplish this is we're keeping the windows in the same location. So structurally it is the same. We are changing trim packages around the windows and the siding changes as well. So in this case, for the farmhouse, we're showing a bored and batten siding. The articulation on the door is slightly different. The articulation of the windows matches that farmhouse style more. Again, we can get more of a farmhouse aesthetic, exterior light fixture, and again showing the roof overhangs on this option as well. And then for the final version, this is the beach cottage. For this version, we were thinking that we could potentially go slightly more contemporary because I think there is an argument to be made that if you have a really iconic craftsman home, you might not want a craftsman look-alike ADU in your backyard. You might want something that looks pretty different from what your home already looks like. And so this is an option that provides maximum glazing. The windows are still in the same spots, but they are taller here. And for this instance, we're proposing no roof overhangs and really minimal trim and gutters, and also proposing like a wood look siding or potentially a real wood siding in this case. And so these three units are all the one bedroom unit coming in three very different styles. And we think that each of these could potentially land in Capitola and compliment a home very nicely, we hope. And I think that summarizes all of our work until now, I feel like I blew through that. So I'm looking forward to some good conversation here. Thank you, Omar. I have a quick question. Are the siding materials you recommend in the window treatments, are those readily available currently? Yes, well, that's a good question actually. They're readily, they're mostly readily available. They're not as inexpensive as they used to be. But that's kind of the impact of most things in the building world right now. But we've still been able to get hardy, the board and batten is pretty simple, it's just more expensive. And on the beach cottage one, you could do vertical hardy if you wanted, you could do redwood, you could do any number of looks or finishes on that, just the intent is that it's run vertically. Yeah, okay. All right, thank you. Any questions for our presenters tonight? No, I like what I see so far. I think they've done a nice job of providing some standards but with that flexibility in them so people could have the unit that fits more into their particular neighborhood or space. I've got a question. This is from Mr. Wilk. I'm not sure whether this is for staff or for the presenter, but the idea of having these pre-approved designs is to minimize expense and encourage the ADUs so the applicants can come in and get pre-approved designs and then maybe since they're pre-approved architectural plans too that both design and construction costs will be minimized. So my question is, could you, if you just approved only the footprint, the not the external finishes, but only the floor plan, and you chose to do your own exterior style perhaps to match your house exactly. Who knows, you may have some sort of gingerbread thing and you wouldn't want to match your external. That would be okay from a pre-approved option as far as staff is concerned, is that correct? So I understand your question to be if somebody wants to opt to use one of our prototype designs but they have a different exterior siding and they want to make it match their home, could they utilize the same floor plan to amend the exterior siding? Well, not just siding, but perhaps different roof pitch or I don't know exactly how sure they would go but they would definitely use these floor plans, that footprint, that plumbing, that exactly those details but the external finish might, they might want to do it different than any of these three and the question would be how would staff care? I mean, would that be just as cheap and pre-approved as these three designs? I think that question will come up occasionally with owners for sure, so it's a great question. Depending on what they're requesting, I would have to work with our building official to see exactly what would be required in order to change the plan but most likely for a change of the window style, I think they would just need to see documentation of exactly what they're proposing the change out to be. Do you have any comments on that? If we allow variations in the style, what's the point of having a prototype? Well, that's what I'm trying to understand is how far the whole process goes. Well, wait a second, we've gotten way out of the context of the original meeting we had here in which I have a very clear recollection that these were not pre-approved in the sense that they had any advantage in the permit process over any other design, it's just that people got a ready-made design and they didn't have to spend money making their own design, but it's not as though this one's pre-approved and if you have another one that's in stucco and shingle, you have to go through some approval process, they all have the same process. Yeah, they still have to. That's right, that was the understanding when this came up the first time. They will be building permit ready but they have to be approved for site specificity, like to make sure they fit within the site, they'll need to go through sanitation district, water district, fire. So yes, they will go through a building permit but they will be building permit ready meaning that they're going to meet today's building code but they will have to be approved through the building department in order prior to being built. And any changes to it? I have nothing to do with the siding or the roof pitch or the things that Peter has been talking about. Yeah, they would have to, if they wanted to modify any part of this plan, they would have to show us a change, pages that show the changes, which is something that we'd require of any applicant. I agree with Commissioner Newman. It was my impression that these were going to be plans that had been architecturally designed so that they would meet all building code requirements. And if someone wanted to build one of these, the advantage to them is they don't have to pay an architect, they don't have to pay an engineer, they don't have to pay a designer to design the plan. If you're going to start changing the roof pitch, then it seems to me you start getting into engineering questions and other things just like you would in any building. What we were trying to do was offer something to the public that was basically pre-put together at no cost to them. But they would still go through the building permit process, but the building department will have already looked at these and said that they meet their current code requirements. Yeah, that was my understanding also. I'm just curious to stuff. What kind of changes can you make that triggers the fact that it no longer conforms to the prototypes? I mean, can you change the siting? Can you change the window style? How much leeway does the applicant have in changing the actual style of the prototype design before it's triggered to come to the planning commission? But most ADUs don't come to the planning commission anyway. Unless their second story, their two-story, a number of them, I think, can be approved administratively now. Yeah. I can answer the building department questions. So if we change the roof pitch or we widen the windows or change the location, you might be able to get away with the location of the window changing as long as the width is not changing, because those details will all be in the set. So the roof pitch, the window locations, the door framing, all of that stuff is gonna be identified in the building details. So if an applicant wanted to do a deeper roof pitch or flat roof, that would have to go back through the building department. We can pretty easily put some other details on the plan set for, say, like a suckle finish or a shingle siting, like a shingle siting so that those details are in there. And if an applicant wants to use a different siting from a building standpoint, we could include the details easily. Katie will have to answer what has to go through planning or what would trigger a different planning review process. So. Okay, thank you. And just to be clear, for each property, they will be built to the standard for building code, but they will still go through the building permitting process. Well, the direction this is going seems a little unfortunate to me. I think we need to be clear here that, I mean, are we trying to force people into these few pre-designs that, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them, but are we trying to basically have everyone have the same design because there's gonna be big advantages in the permitting process and capital if you use this, one of these three designs. If so, I think that that's a harmful to our community in the long run. And it was never what was presented the first time that we talked about this grant to develop these. It was just that there was gonna be an advantage to not having, like Susan said, not having to hire an architect and an engineer, but if it's gonna be a difference between two days in the building department versus five months in the building department, then everybody's gonna have to do these designs. And I think that that is more harmful than good. Now, let me clarify. So if an applicant brings in an ADU design to the building department and it complies with the building code, it should be reviewed within the typical building review timing of six weeks to get first comments. If an ADU application comes in for prototype ADU, there's still a lot of work that has to happen within the building review and circulating to the public works department, planning for setbacks. So it'll get in the queue. We've just saved them time, we've saved them time in terms of design, but not in terms of the review at the building department. So it still is site-specific. There's going to be a soils analysis that takes place on each property. Planning will review it for setbacks and location standards, public works. It'll get routed to all the different sanitation, water, fire. So I don't want it to sound like it's a fast track through building. It's not. It will go in the queue like all of the others and we'll have the first review comments within six weeks. That's what I understood. And I think we have to be careful because we keep falling into that trap, so to speak, of thinking that, well, if I take one of these prototypes then I'm home free and if I don't, I have to deal with the bureaucracy for the rest of my life. And I don't think that's the impression we want to give to the public that is considering an ADU. It's great that Samantha's on the call this evening because as she puts together the guidance documents, we'll make sure to be clear on that point. Yeah, I'm taking notes, the conversation. So yeah, those are really good comments and that's a lot of what my role is gonna be is outlining the process, all the different variables. So people know what to expect and then they can make informed decisions. If they wanna go above and beyond these plans, they know what that means or if they wanna do something really streamlined and cost effective, they know how to make that choice to a print. So I appreciate those comments. It's gonna help my role very much. I have a question. If someone chose one of these designs and said, yeah, I would like to do the farmhouse, can they get a complete set of working drawings from the city? That is the outcome of this will be that these drawings will be available to the public. Yes. Okay, thank you, Katie. Any other questions for staff? Hey, hearing none, we'll open the public portion. Are there any members of the public out there that wish to address this item? We have local designer, Dennis Norton. Okay, Mr. Norton, Dennis, are you there? Very, very interesting and productive discussion here. In the 35 years that I've been designing whole house in Capitola, I've never used the same set of plans twice. You have hundreds of variables and everybody's backyard, the size, the setbacks, the shapes of the lot, the size of the lot. And so yes, maybe these will fit in partially. There'll be some lots that are larger that'll be able to put this in. You're not the first one that tried to do this. He, when he was developing in Capitola, if you wanted to buy a Depot Hill lot, you were gonna pay $1,000 for a lot on Depot Hill. And he gave you a house with it, it cost you 2,000 with a house. And he had these little square houses which are still some on Depot Hill that he moved from lot to lot until somebody bought it and they would buy it and that would be their 14 by 14 square house that they owned in Capitola. So there's been this before and architecture is in the eyes of the beholder and the designer. I think that the best process for this is, I like the idea of being able to give a client something like this and say, this is the type of project that the city would approve of parameters but going into engineering and stepping on those bounds there won't work because there's just too many variables in a process like this. And there's the engineering part of it is different on every single house. Even the movement of a window or a door, the location of the front door which changes on every house. So it doesn't make sense to go into beyond the design phase. I think these people have given you a good start to what can be acceptable in the community. They have, I think staff has to be real clear that it doesn't necessarily make it so this fits in every lot. If you'd like to see that 380 years since the ordinance came into effect and I have two free in process right now, one of them is my own backyard and it's more on the more modern contemporary type of design. And the first plan that they showed was it. It was a separate bathroom studio with a loft and it's been extremely popular. You go that first one, the studio small, that is it right there. That is the same thing that I did and I offered a loft in it. And you have a lot of variables such as even the height limit. I'm not so sure that, I'm hoping that the designers here had taken that into consideration. But designing houses for the hundreds of different variables and pallets that you would have to work into I think is an exercise not worth going to. I think you've done well. Stay with the design end and let staff use these designs as a guide and a pallet for clients that come in that are looking to do ADUs. Good start. Thank you. Thank you, Des. We have- Is there anyone else in the queue? Yes, we have Linda Smith. Linda, go ahead. So I just want to say that I completely agree with everything that Ed Newman said. I agree with most of what Dennis Norton said, but the defining things to an absolute gives me kind of a steppered wife kind of a feeling. And I would encourage you to adopt characteristics, but not a full prototype. Give people the opportunity to design something that works for their property that meets the spirit of what you want to do, but don't pin them into making it look like one of those three designs, especially if they have a modern home that they've just built. Yeah, thank you, Linda. I think they still have that option. Yeah. I hope they still have that option. Yes, they do. Okay. Thank you, Linda. Anyone else out there? No, I'm not seeing any public comment emails and there are no hands up in our attendees. So. Okay. Okay, so we'll close the public portion then, bring it back to the commission for discussion. Anyone care to lead off? I will. So it's my understanding that we're doing this simply to try and make it easier and more affordable for someone who wants to build an ADU and one of these designs fits their criteria. And we got a grant from the state who wants to make building ADUs easy. And so this is about as easy as it can get. You again, don't have to hire an architect. You don't have to hire an engineer. The city is going to give you a full set of plans that you can use to build if this particular design fits on your life. And it's just an attempt to save some people some money. And for anyone who doesn't want to do one of these designs, there's no requirement that you do a design that fits into one of these categories. You can come in with any kind of design that you want and go through the process. I mean, I don't think this limits anyone in any way about what they can do or design in their own ADU. I agree. Gives you an easy option if you care to take it. Anyone else? If not? What is the action required on this, Katie? We were just... We just accept this report. We were hoping to get any design feedback and ask if we're headed in the right direction and then we'll put... I didn't want to have them put together all of the different exterior options for each studio, each one bedroom and two bedroom. They just went through that exercise with the one bedroom. But if you give us the thumbs up that you're, it looks like we're headed in the right direction with the footprints and the different materials that have been suggested, then they'll put together the full packet and come back and we'll just move forward with this project. It looks like we're pretty close. So any changes that you'd like to see, this would be the time to tell us for any changes with them. My opinion, I think they've done an excellent job. Comments from the commissioners, feedback? Yeah, I agree. And I think they've done a very nice job so far and I think they ought to keep going forward. I agree. Any comments, commissioner Newman? Very done. Then... No, I was... I'm sorry, I was muted. I was just gonna say we received a grant for this project and obviously we want to use that grant and proceed. I think we're headed in the right direction here. Okay, Katie, does that give you enough direction to proceed? Yes, thank you. Okay, then we'll move on to the next item, item C, which is the outdoor dining and design permit ordinance. Okay. Sean, are you taking this one or Katie? Oh, I've got this one. Sean is gonna help me with my slide show though because something's going on with my PowerPoint this evening. So Sean, if you could pull up the slides, please. Just one moment. So while Sean is pulling up the slides, I'll just jump in. Tonight we're going to be looking at the draft ordinance for outdoor dining, including street dining and sidewalk dining. This is, we've been working closely with the city council since COVID-19. Since the beginning of the pandemic. If you go to the next slide. So since spring of 2020 when the shelter in place started, the city council issued an emergency order and permitted temporary outdoor dining permits. Today they're still in place and they're due to expire come January 3rd of 2022. In this past year, we've continued to bring, continuances for the temporary outdoor dining to the city council and they've directed us along the way due to the fluctuation on cases to continue to keep the temporary outdoor dining active. But last April, the city council also directed staff to develop a program for permanent outdoor dining program. So we began work on that back in April of 2021 and first brought our initial thoughts of what would be included in this program in June on June 24th and then got more direction from the city council on July 22nd. So the next items that I'm going to go over are just the key program elements to the outdoor dining which we were tasked with and how they fit within the draft ordinance that we proposed. So along the way, having learned from our recent update to our zoning code, I first also reached out to the coastal commission to see if we move forward with a permanent program, what are the items that our coastal commission will be requesting because essentially it will come down to them in the end when we go for our certification. The coastal commission staff initially expressed concerns with the outdoor dining related to the coastal act and the goal of maximizing public access and public recreation. They suggested that the outdoor dining essentially converts public space which would otherwise be used to access the coast into private space for businesses. In follow-up meetings, it seemed that this area in which their opinion was stated is a bit gray. They have mixed feelings about it because they also noted the benefit of having seating that's shared in which the public can access. So next slide, please. So in asking the coastal commission what they would look for in a future program, they asked first that we reduce the displaced number of parking spaces that were originally permitted under the temporary program. And within the temporary program, I want to say there was somewhere between 55 or 60 spaces that were utilized. They also asked that the initial program be temporary from one to five years. It should require a coastal development permit, extension after, and then so that there's an opportunity to evaluate the program and see how it's been operating, make any changes that are necessary and ensuring that it is consistent with the LCP and Coastal Act. And they also asked that the funds that we take in for these parking spaces be reinvested into coastal access, including a shuttle program, coastal park beautification, coastal access signage, new bike racks, sidewalk improvements, and maintenance of existing parking. So currently we did a calculation on what we pay annually in the village to maintain our coastal access, maintain parking, maintain our sidewalks, beach area, and it's well over $800,000. So it seemed with the money that would come in for these parking spaces, we would have to set up a separate account for the funds to go into, and those funds would have to be utilized towards maintenance and other coastal, just reinvesting into coastal access, which we thought we're already spending that much more money than this is going to produce on that. So that would work. Next slide, please. So one big thing to understand is because this property is on the city's public property, we can't just put all of the administration of this ordinance into the ordinance itself, but we also need to create an administrative policy that's really clear on how the city's going to manage this program of leasing out parking spaces, the lottery system. So I plan to bring to you, it was not ready for your packet this week, but it's almost there. The administrative policy at the next Planning Commission meeting, so that you can look at both the ordinance and the admin policy together, and you'll see that the admin policy really looks at how the city as the property owner will lease the right of way out for outdoor dining. It'll include the details for the allocation of spaces, the fees, and the lease terms, whereas the ordinance really specifies the permit review process, operating and development standards, required findings for approval and enforcement. Next slide, please. The city council asked that we put a cap on the number of parking spaces. Right now, it's proposed to be not to exceed 25 parking spaces within the village, and to limit businesses to the parking spaces fronting their business. Next slide. Also, the allocation of the parking spaces in preliminary discussions with the city council, we talked of a lottery system for the 25 parking spaces. Breaking it down, the draft admin policy breaks this down to say, we'd open the application for 45 days with a required $500 deposit per space. That $500 would be credited towards the maintenance deposit. If the total requested parking spaces are less than 25, then we would award the spaces to the applicants. If the total request exceeds 25s, then we'd assign one or two spaces to each applicant and then hold a lottery for the remainder of the spaces. Katie, before you leave that one, on step three, I'd like some clarification on that one. So if the total exceeds 25, how can you assign one or two spaces to each applicant? What if there's 30 applicants? And also, how do you hold the lottery for the remainder of spaces if all the spaces are requested? It doesn't make any sense. Okay. Well, let's say that there were 12 or 10 restaurants that each asked for two spaces and then there were three restaurants or two restaurants that asked for three spaces. That's 26 spaces total. We would assign everyone two spaces, that's for the 12s, we'd get to 24. And then we would do a lottery between those other three restaurants that are each trying to get three spaces. A lottery would put in those three names and two out of three would get their three spaces in one person, one applicant would not. What if the total request exceed 25 spaces though and there aren't enough spaces to go around then how do you apply this step to it? I don't think, I would have to tell you how many restaurants we have in the village that would be able to do this, but I don't think there's more than 25. So they would at least all get one. And then the lottery would be for whether or not they get a second space. So I'd like a follow-up on that if you're done making, cause I have a question as well. So does a parking space refer to a parallel parking space? What about all those restaurants that have vertical parking spaces? It refers to one parking space. So even the diagonal space would count as one space. So I'm imagining how a restaurant could make, take advantage of one diagonal parking space for using for anything. How about a diagonal restaurant? It was three chairs maybe could fit in that. I don't know how it would work. So how are we gonna do this? Are we gonna let Katie make her presentation and then us ask questions? Are we gonna ask them as we go through it? I think it might be best if we go through the presentation and then look at the ordinance itself and get comments on each section with that. Or I'm happy to stop on each slide and get comments. The allocation of parking spaces that will be in the admin policy and maybe better to discuss at the next hearing because you don't have it in front of you. So what I'm hearing is that there's going to be another hearing because we don't have all the information tonight. We don't have an admin policy. We don't have a prototype. We really don't have all of the information we need to make a decision. So I mean, it makes a difference to me how we're going to approach this. I'd be happy to stop on each slide and discuss what's in the slide. Or at the end, so I'll look to you. I can either stop on each slide or at the end I can pull up the ordinance that's drafted and we can go through the sections of the ordinance. I feel that it would be almost not a good use of our time to go through items that are going to be in that policy without having the policy in front of you. So maybe pulling up the ordinance at the end would be the better approach. Right, because I expressed some concerns to staff about how this has been noticed because there hasn't been any notice given particularly to the people who live a known property in the village. The only notice was to a notice of general circulation that went in the paper. And while I think that this is ultimately going to be a good thing that's going to happen in the village, I do think it's a big enough change that we ought to at least make the people who live and work in the village aware that this is all going on. And my approach to it is slightly different if we know that there's going to be another hearing. If we're gonna go to the ordinance and make a recommendation on that, then for me I've lots of comments on details in the ordinance itself. So I'm just trying to get a sense of what we're doing tonight and which direction we're going in. I would like to bring back, I'd like to get general comments this evening on the ordinance and bring it back to you with revisions and also and package it with the admin policy in November. So if that's any indicator, and I do agree with you that staff, what we can definitely send out notice to everyone in the village, it's a there's a mix of uses in the village and we should definitely get the word out there because this is a huge change for the village. Thank you. So would you like to comment on each slide or shall I run through the slides and then gather comments? Let's just continue and see what happens. Okay, so next slide please. So for Parklet Designs, the city council allocated $10,000 in city funds to create a prototype design, which we're all now very familiar with what a prototype design is after our ADU discussion. On the slide you can see two prototypes. This is, these are used in Los Gatos. You may have seen them if you've been up there. Within how the ordinance is structured, a prototype design could be approved administratively. A custom design would require Planning Commissioner and review of a design permit and likely a coastal development permit. Next slide please. For fees, we would set the fee at zero for a dining deck to be reviewed. We would not provide any construction assistance to businesses. We're seeing some cities are actually providing funding to help construct dining decks. We would charge a rent space of $3,400 per parking space per year with an annual CPI adjustment. Next slide please. The lease term would be three years. Next slide please. So improvements in the street right of way, we would allow street dining on the streets in the village within the parking areas. Next slide please. We would also allow sidewalk dining on Monterey Avenue and Warf Road. I put a picture here of also the reef dog. They've got a COVID permit for temporary sidewalk dining. Next slide please. And for maintenance, maintenance would be subject to a lease agreement and deposit with the city. Provisions requiring outdoor dining decks be maintained and kept clean. Unmaintained dining decks would first receive a courtesy notice with elevated enforcement including fines and removal. Cost for removal will be covered in their deposit. Next slide please. For safety, the prototypes will be designed to have engineering safety measures within them and then any custom design would also have to be engineered to have safety measures within. This is an example of Lupalos and Santa Cruz and you can see they have the ballards. So their design has been engineered for safety. Next slide. And the permit review process and administrative permit would be required for a prototype street dining deck and a design permit for the custom street dining deck. Next slide. So this is within and speaking with the coastal commission staff, they would allow the prototype design to get a blanket coastal development permit which would be issued by the planning commission. So once we hire a designer or architect to come up with the prototype design, we would work with them to ensure that the prototype design meets the ordinance and then we would bring this design to the planning commission for a blanket coastal development permit. What that means is that the design, it could, once it's approved by the planning commission, it can be applied to multiple properties within the coastal zone. So that prototype design can be at Britannia Arms as well as over at Margaritaville. So that design, we do have a unique circumstance in Capitola that we've got diagonal parking. So we will have to consider that and work through some design solutions due to our angled parking. And then upon approval of the blanket CDP is applicable to any restaurant to utilize the prototype design. Next slide, please. And then within the ordinance, we have operation and development standards. There are minimum sidewalk widths, five feet in the village, four feet in other zoning districts. There are limits, it limits the location to eating establishment frontage only. That does include drinking establishments under our, it's eating and drinking establishments under our zoning code. References to the sign regulations. Currently, these outdoor dining would not be allowed to have any signs. There are little sidewalk signs that we allow in the village, but they're required to be on the sidewalk. So we would have to modify the sign requirements within the sign regulations in the future should we want to allow signs within the outdoor dining. There's a requirement for bicycle parking to bicycle should be able to be parked per parking space that's utilized. The program is limited to eating and drinking establishments. It prohibits amplified music. It establishes maximum hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. There's an exception for when there's an event. I can't really think of any event that would go later than 10 p.m. in the village, a special event, but we built that in just in case. But that would have to be authorized by the city to extend the hours past 10 p.m. And then a requirement for trash removal and maintenance. Next slide, please. There's also a standard for good standing and enforcement. So the ordinance requires that a business is in good standing that the business is in good standing with a city with no abatement violation or code enforcement issues related to an ABC license entertainment permit or use permit in the past two years. Enforcement includes inspections, enforcement remedies and revocation of permits. Next slide, please. So with that, staff is recommending, I'm actually going to modify this from what was in the staff report. I'd like to get input this evening from the Planning Commission on the ordinance in direction. I would like this continued to the November hearing or re-noticed for the November 4th hearing. And at that time I can bring forward the admin policy and also take a first stab on any modifications that you would like to the ordinance if you'd like to provide that type of direction this evening. So thank you, that concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions. Okay, thank you, Katie. Who would like to lead off? You want questions or comments? We should probably start with questions and then open the public hearing, correct? Because we do have... Okay, I'll save mine for the comment session. Other commissioners? I'll save mine for the comments as well. Comment. I have a question. If I have an outdoor seating area down there, can I sublet it? Can I prepare food on site? Are they with a butane-operated grill? No, it has to be utilized by the restaurant that is in front of it, but it's something that we should make sure to include in our admin policy or in terms of it cannot be subletted. Okay, with that then we'll open it to the public. Are there any members of the public out there in addition to address this item of outdoor seating for restaurants in the village? Yes, we have Linda Smith. Okay. And Linda. Linda, wanna go ahead? Linda, are you there? I believe she's on mute. There we go. Am I on mute? You're good now. Oh, thank you, thank you. So thank you, because I know what you guys do and I've done it before and I really appreciate the opportunity to come and talk to you. And Ed left, but that's okay. So I'm a big fan of outdoor seating. I'm a big fan of the opportunities that it gives our visitors to Capitola to come and enjoy that whole environment. And I'm really happy to see us doing that. I'm gonna skip through all of this because I sent it all to you and I hope you read it. But I have two concerns with tonight's proposal. They're simple, they're straightforward and they have to do with the bicycle requirements and the quote unquote platform requirement. I've been around a lot and I've seen a lot of outdoor dining areas that have come through this whole pandemic with us. And the bicycle thing, I'm a big supporter of bicycle traffic, but the requirement to have two formal bicycle rack requirements per space that's being taken up is gonna be really, it's gonna clutter our streets in the village and it's gonna be unwieldy. So I would really like to see what kind of designs in the prototype design could possibly mitigate that concern. Otherwise I would encourage you not to mandate that concern today or reduce it or allow for some kind of a centralized design. The other concern that I have has to do with the platform. And I've seen a lot of platforms and they've been done well where they build the whole thing and they bring it in and they set it up. And in San Francisco and Los Gatos in places that I've been, they work. But Capitola has a unique character and I would just encourage you to make sure that the designers of the prototype take into consideration where we are, what it costs to do what we do, phase it in from an implementation standpoint so that our businesses can do it well and do it slowly, but don't mandate concrete platforms that can't be moved because you've got a lottery system and that's gonna really screw it up three or four years from now. And don't make it so that it's so complicated that they can't implement it in a manner that is in the spirit to what we have today. Because I think what we have today works in a lot of areas. And once staff went out and said, hey, if you're not interested, go away. And if you are interested today, I think we got a flavor for what could be a nice evolution for the visitor experience. And we need to maintain that. If you phase it in, don't phase it in based on number of spaces or number of people who can participate. Phase it in from how those participants can build towards whatever prototype it is that you decide meets with the permanent character of Capitola. And that permanent character of Capitola needs to be Capitola, not Lasgada, not all the other places along the coast. It needs to be what we can do. And I think you have enough participation today. I mean, when we did the trial thing, it was two places actually had the opportunity to participate and they said it was too expensive, it wasn't worth their while and then we're gonna do it. Today, those two places are participating beautifully in the whole outdoor dining thing and they're garnering a lot of benefit from it. Don't limit it to just those guys being able to participate in the future. Let them all participate, but phase it in so that they can. And that might mean you gotta come up with, you know, what kind of barriers, what kind of stuff, plantings, and how they need to dress it up and what kind of arbors they can have and what kind of canopies they can have and then let it evolve. It's an evolution, not a revolution. I request you keep it simple. And other than that, thank you for listening to me. I really appreciate the fact that I could come and talk to you. Because I don't know where you are. Thanks for your input. Okay, do we have any other members of the public wishing to speak? Yes, we do, we have, I'm not sure exactly who it is, but it says. You're muted, Katie. Yes, the next person is just the initial A. Okay, Mr. A, Mrs. A, Miss A. Can you identify yourself please and tell us what your concern is? Am I live? Yes. Yeah, can you identify yourself please? Yes, my name is Mary Mae Kittrick. Oh, thank you. And am I live? Are you hearing me? Yes, we can. Okay, thank you. Any visual contact with anybody? And I have lived in the village on the Esplanade for 10 years and I am feeling like the whole outdoor dining program is moving in the direction of assumption that it is gonna work and a lot of details based on bike racks and planning and transportation. I don't feel that the emergency epidemic response is appropriate for a permanent zoning change entertainment. I think we have a large population of residents in the village. I counted 98 private residences within 200 feet of the proposed outdoor dining in the village. Those are people that are impacted by voices, banging, clanging dishes, and use in the evenings of the table during the dark when people are not at the beach. I have filmed and documented and logged a lot of the use in the village over time to show what it means to live here. And I think we need to back up from details and look at, does this make sense? We've all been in an epidemic. We've all been understanding and accommodating. A permanent ordinance is a whole different matter. And I'd like a chance to meet with people individually. I'm unable to show my documentation on Zoom. I'm unable to explain living in the village or going through my logs of table use, parking on safety, residents pedestrian and bicycle on safety. And I'd really appreciate it if we could step back and look at what we're really meaning. Does this make sense? I think to keep pushing forward like we're in a crisis, epidemically isn't really logical for a permanent zoning change. I've lived in the county since 1973. I lived in the Esplanade for 10 years. I'm retired. I know what it is to be here today. And I'd like a chance to show my data and to talk about what the reality is here of including new activities in a historically represented and respected village with multi-use zoning that includes residential use. Thank you for respecting the fact that I'd like a chance to somehow be able to explain my overview and understanding of living in the village. And by the way, there are 84 tables already outdoors, already in existence with ocean views on the Soquel Creek. I'm not sure this whole program is making sense. I think it was started through stress and fear and a temporary emergency. So thank you for being willing to meet with me. Thank you, Mary. Next. Okay, do we have anyone else in the public? Next, we have. I need to comment on this item. Austin, Austin Crager. Mr. Crager, Ms. Crager. I'm a Ms. Crager. Yes. Okay. I also come at it from a bigger picture perspective and looking at is this really something Capitola needs? What is, who's the winner in this situation? I'm a former resident of Capitola and I spent 20 years in Los Gatos and I now live in Santa Cruz. So I'm really familiar with what all the cities have done with the COVID emergency. And it's been fabulous, the accommodations that were permitted for businesses, for restaurants to keep running and have these outdoor cafes and makes me feel like I'm back in Europe. Yay, we're in California. We can have outdoor dining and we should. The bit I don't understand is how permanent outdoor dining on the non-ocean side, how that makes any sense in Capitola where from a visitor perspective and also I feel for the residents, there's no parking already. Now you're gonna take out all the parking and put in outdoor space on the non-ocean side that is inches away from passing vehicles. And I did that a few times during pre-vaccination. I gotta tell you, it's really not very pleasant to sit out there. It's not so bad in Santa Cruz or Los Gatos because it's a little bit different. You're not literally right on the street as much and there's parking with Capitola. It's almost impossible to park unless you really know what you're doing. And now that people are vaccinated, people are going into the restaurants. They're eating insides. I would venture to say 98% wanna sit on the ocean side. They don't wanna sit on the street. So I was really surprised when I heard that this was being considered. And I think with more and more people vaccinated, why would we want permanent extra spaces near the parking lot and have fewer places to park? I don't see who the winner is. I mean, will restaurants make more money? Well, that's a good thing. But I don't see it as a good visitor experience. I don't see it as a good dining experience and there's no parking for visitors or for residents. So I'm not understanding why this is a proposal. That's all I have to say. Thanks for listening. Okay, thank you, Ms. Krueger. Do we have anything else, Katie? Yes, next we have Dennis Norton. Okay, Dennis, go ahead. Thank you. I guess I'm with you for the whole evening tonight. The villages have been in need of new vitality for a number of years. In reality, our village is a giant parking lot. We tried to solve that by adding a remote lot that people should park there. They should not be parking in the village. They should park there. And we had a decent shuttle system. That could be viable further than what it is right now. The village has already proved itself this summer. It's been the highest vitality and the best use of the village mostly by visitors, not necessarily local people, that we've seen in years. The businesses have done wonderful. And the reason is, is we added outside parking. There was a parklet program in the city a few years back. I don't know if it's still active. And the only thing that kept businesses from buying into the parklet, they could have done what we're asking them to do now, was that it was too expensive where you had to pay the full meter fee for all the lost revenue for the city. So nobody ever took out a permit to do that. But you can look around town and the outside restaurants are successful. Most people I know wanna go to the village and sit outside and most restaurants do not have ocean views. Only a few do. So giving the opportunity, like it's been given in this last summer, it will be a wonderful thing, the vitality of both for, I'm saying for the residents more so than even the visitors to our community. One thing is, is that you can't change the level of the street at any place. You can't do, I think Linda's a little confused. They're not gonna build concrete platforms out there. You have drainage that comes along those curb lines. So the reason for the platform is, is that you put the platform up on the curb so the drainage goes underneath it. So nobody's ever proposed to fill in spaces with that type of platform. It would be a wood platform. And most jurisdictions have done that. North Beach, Los Gatos and Santa Cruz to a certain point. Santa Cruz is actually very successful to their outside dining too. And I think they're moving right now to keep it. And so it's a better place for people to go in our community. It's a better place for people to visit. We don't need to have all the parking down in the village. That land is too valuable. Every parking space you take out of there, we'll put two to four people in the restaurants instead and you make it more user friendly in which this is the first movement towards doing that. The other issue is, and I think the problem with the existing setup is that it's not safe. If you've looked at Santa Cruz and you look at Los Gatos, they have barriers between the outside seating area and the road driving by. The area in front of Paradise Beach Grill is really bad. You have people sitting there with their exhaust of the car right next to, there's no separation of people in the street. So one thing in the design that is extremely important is to make it safe. And we've had an accident twice on that road there where people went off the road, taking out parking meters. So this will be the best movement that this city can make to that village in a long time. And probably next to bringing the bandstand in there, that this is a real need in our community. And if you want to beat that village to be viscer-friendly and serve the people who live here, we need to start eliminating some parking and get people to use their remote lot and walk down to the village. And everybody is learning to do that. A lot of people are. You don't need to drive down into that village. It'll be a more scenic and beautiful place to visit in. And remember, the village doesn't really belong to the merchants down there. They are one of you. And the other owner is the city of Capitola owns this. More land is owned by the city of Capitola in the village than anybody else. So it should be a city's decision as to how it's treated and how it's managed. And I'm hoping you go forward with this and I support staff completely and it's about time. Let's make this village work for everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Dennis. Do we have anyone else, Katie? So we don't have any more people on Zoom that would like to speak, but we do have a couple of written comments. Sean's gonna pull them up on the screen and have the computer read the comments aloud. I think there's two this evening. Right. I don't know if you can hear that. No, but if you look close, you can read it. Read it. That I would like to say that I don't think the outdoor seating should be permanent. I think it greatly reduces the amount of parking. It makes more difficult to get through the area. Capitola, there is more noises than I've ever noticed before. Thanks, Hal Barker. I have one more. Okay, is this one large enough for everyone to read? Yes. I can read this aloud for you if you'd like. I think it's large enough for everyone to read, Sean. Thank you, though. Has everyone read it? Yes. Okay. All right, so if we have no other comments then we'll close the public portion, bring it back to the commission. We have a staff recommendation. So perhaps we should address the issues that people have or what you like or don't like about this ordinance. So is Commissioner Newman gonna start as our ordinance expert? Well, okay, I just have a few quick comments. Because we have had, spent a lot of time on this, partly because some of the public presentations were a little bit lengthy. So one thing, Miss Cougar brought up the fact of dining in the parking area. And it makes me recall that when I first came to Capitola about 50 years ago, all the restaurants on the Esplanade were oriented to the road. Where you now have windows looking at the ocean, they had storage and it was blocked off and every single one was oriented so that people were basically facing the street when they came into the restaurant and dined. And slowly one by one they flipped it over to where the ocean became the focal point of the restaurants and people wanted to have outdoor by the ocean and see the ocean. And now we're coming full circle and we're gonna dine in the parking lot itself. I just think that's kind of interesting. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I am concerned about the aesthetics of it. And I know that Katie in the ordinance is trying to address that through the prototypes and so forth. I think the Coastal Commission condition number three about applying the rent money to the coastal access is a complete nothing burger because we already spent 10 times that much on coastal access so we can just use that $80,000 and allocate 80,000 less from the general fund. So that goes nowhere. But my biggest concern as this thing unfolds and I'm waiting to see is the lottery and allocation of the parking spaces. Because I have a hard time seeing how it makes any sense to have one parking space for people dining between two cars that are pulling in and out. Right now the restaurants have several spaces and it's a little dining area. But if it's basically just a couple tables in between some parked cars, I'm just not seeing how that's gonna work and how the lottery is gonna play out if everyone ends up with one or two parking spaces. That's all. Thank you, Rhett. Anyone else? Susan? I agree, I think that ultimately this could be a good thing for the village but I think the aesthetics of it and how it's going to work are extremely important. And we keep talking about this prototype and in going back and looking at all the prototypes that the staff has shown at the council meetings and most of them you see are for the parallel parking. And the main dining areas in Capitola are gonna be in the diagonal parking places which create a whole different problems that need to be solved. I was actually in Sonoma this last week and they have diagonal parking and they've come up with some really good solutions and some solutions that were very bad. So for me, I think we're getting the cart before the horse. I think we've gotta see some prototype design so we know what we're talking about and how this is going to work in the village and will it work with two spaces or do you have to have with diagonal parking four or five spaces to make it reasonable for it to work? So I would like to see the process slowed down a little bit and I don't think that's a burden on anybody because the council certainly has the authority to extend the temporary dining that's going on down there right now. I think the city of Santa Cruz just extended their temporary program to December of 2022. But without information about a design, how it's gonna work, how it's gonna fit in dealing with safety issues, dealing with drainage issues, I think the ordinance is lacking in a lot of areas. So I would like to see the city move forward with developing this prototype at least for the diagonal parking. I think there's some effort to do the parallel parking in conjunction with Santa Cruz but we have a unique situation here. If you go down and you look at the parking spaces, they're not even standard sizes because of the curve and the Esplanade and how it works. I also had concerns about some of the details in the ordinance itself. I won't take up everybody's time by going through each one of those tonight. I actually met with Katie and Steve Jesberg and indicated some of those. One I will mention and that is that we've lumped the outdoor dining with the sidewalk dining and with the outdoor dining, we're saying that they need to have a prototype for it to be an administrative permit. And I think we need to look a little more at the sidewalk dining because this was shown tonight. This current ordinance says it can only be on Monterey Avenue but we have an example where it's working on Capitola Avenue at the Sandwich Shop. So I would like to see either some prototypes developed for the sidewalk dining or not have the sidewalk dining be an administrative permit. If someone was coming in and applying for a new business and they wanted to have that, they would have to go through the permit process anyway. I just think we're putting a lot of faith in the whole administrative permit process. And if you look that process up in the municipal code, it says that administrative permits are written and approved by the city manager. So the city manager is going to be able to change those administrative policies and programs at any point in time. And I think something as critical as giving away public property or leasing it for a different use deserves some sort of public input or should at least be done in the public at a planning commission meeting, council meeting, not in the city manager's office. So I think we have some work to do going forward to come up with a program that's gonna be fair and equitable. Right now, the way this is set up, if you're a restaurant and you've got money, maybe you can get a whole bunch of spaces right now, but for the restaurant that would wanna do it two or three years from now, all the spaces might be gone. So I think we have to be a bit more thoughtful about what we're doing, how we're gonna make this fair, how it's going to be administered. And that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have some outdoor dining. We just need to be thoughtful about it. So I'm glad we're gonna have a little more time and get a little more input before we make a recommendation to the council. Thank you, Susan. Commissioner Will. Yeah, I've got a bunch of comments as well. First of all, with regards to the comments from the public, my understanding is that the city council are the people who are gonna decide whether or not we want outdoor dining and I think that's the right place and where that decision to be made. And I think all the city outreach or rather public comments should be addressed towards the city council as to EA or NA should we continue this policy? My understanding is that we've been given direction from the city council to see what we can do to move this forward. And so that's how I'm addressing this, that it's a decision that's been made and it's the implementation that we need to worry about. With regards to the nothing burger that Commissioner Newman mentioned about the coastal commission, with regards to the funds, I would think that the coastal commission is gonna be looking at this closely. And when we put these funds aside for coastal access activity and whatnot, it shouldn't just be a shell game. We should set up this account and put in things that they will, as priority, fund things that they know, we know that they will appreciate as opposed to, oh, we're street cleaning. That's how we're gonna spend their money and we're gonna take the rest of the money and put in the general fund. We should be, I think we should specify what exactly these fees are gonna be placed to spend on to satisfy the coastal commission so that they don't think that we're just playing this silly shell game with them. With regards to the design, the prototype, I think this is something that we'd wanna reach out to the like the BIA, with regards to at least the village parking and park list, I think these are people who get together regularly and they talk about the village in general and they could probably come up with some plans that it would address a lot of these issues. I don't like the lottery notion. I would rather see like a zoning or say, here are the plots of land and here's how big they are so that everybody knows these are the park lot areas. But something other than the lottery process, I think we need to work on that. That's not very good, but we definitely need a lot of public outreach for this prototype. And the reason is because it was mentioned by staff, the Coastal Commission is going to pre-approve a prototype design. So if some other applicant comes in and wants a different one, I mean, they gotta go through the Coastal Commission, that's not gonna happen. So this prototype design better be fully vetted by everybody in the community because that prototype design is what we're gonna be stuck with. And I'm thinking that that's probably a good thing because you maybe want some continuity in the prototype design. So there's gotta be a lot of community outreach on this prototype design. That's not something that I would feel comfortable with approving as just a planning commissioner without the community behind us. It was mentioned several times about how Parklets have been tried before. A former mayor Norton mentioned it. I remember that on the San Jose Street. And so that brings up the question of this $3,400 a year. Again, I would want to go to the BIA or someone to make sure that that's a reasonable rent. And maybe it's too little, maybe, you know, but I do recall that that was a reason that Parklets didn't happen in the past because the rents were too high. And so we need to consider that as well. Definitely need to worry about the safety and emissions issues. And that might define where these Parklets are allowed. I mean, if there's a corner where there's a lot of traffic, you might want to prohibit it there because there's just too many auto emissions and the air is not breathable. And so that, you know, maybe Margueritaville or whatever doesn't get it because that's where all the cars are stalled. Point is I don't think the lottery is the right way to approach it. And that's it, I think. I like that one. Thank you, Mr. Ruff. Yeah, you know, like Mr. Newman, I've probably been in Capitola and now closer to 60 years and 50. And the village has always been kind of an eclectic place. You've got so many things happening down there. You've got bars, restaurants, tourism, the beach, you name it, you know, it's a place that people come to go for entertainment and to have fun. And for those residents that really voice concerns about the activity that causes noise in the village, I think if you move to the village expecting peace and quiet, you've moved to the wrong place. People have been complaining about noise down there for as long as I can remember. So you just can't really expect to have a quiet evening if you live in the village. It just doesn't happen. It never has and it probably never will. I just have a couple of comments. First, I don't think Capitola Avenue should be included in the parklets. I think that's just a major street and we should limit the parking spaces that are going to be converted into outdoor dining to the Esplanade and Monterey Avenue. Perhaps San Jose Avenue, but I would say definitely not Capitola Avenue. And I think in regards to the bicycles, I believe that's the city's responsibility to create a central area for bike parking down there. They could utilize some of the Esplanade Park or some other area down there that's suitable to provide a central area for bike parking rather than scattering it around to each individual site. So those are my primary comments. I think it's gonna be a ways to go. I think it's a good idea for as long as I can remember. There's always been a desire to close off the Esplanade entirely and make it into a permanent pedestrian area walkway park, whatever you'd like to call it. But I think we're going in the right direction. I just think we need to be limited in the areas that we include and be careful that they don't look tacky when it's all finished because right now they do. I actually concur on the idea of Capitola Avenue being eliminated. I mean, it's a major street going through there and can't be a very pleasant place to sit on and eat, particularly in the afternoon or evening when all the rush hour traffic is happening. And I had one question for staff because I believe the comment was made that the Coastal Commission saw these dining areas being open to the public. And it's my understanding that the direction we're going in right now is that they would not be open to the public when they weren't being used for dining that they were going to be closed off. Is that correct? That's correct, yeah. Sorry, that is correct. So in the beginning, they had asked us to make sure they are left open for the public after they close. We talked about the issues with vandalism and they then changed their recommendation after doing some research on other restaurants in which they had that requirement for and the monitoring headaches included with that. So it would not be open to the public. It would be open to patrons, but who could take in the views, so. And I think we need to sort of address when they're going to be open. And I say that because there's one in the village right now where the business I think is only open three days a week. So we've given up a parking area for someone to use. And it's really not being utilized by the business, the majority of the time. So I think we have to think about are we going to have requirements for when they're open, how much they're used, or what happens there? Katie, do you need any other direction from the commission? Well, I did want to ask one question that I would like to see. The commissioner Westman brought up the sidewalk dining and we have combined the sidewalk dining in with the street dining. Would the planning commission like to see us separate that out and have a little bit like sidewalk dining applications come to the planning commission as we have it drafted now that would only require an administrative permit? Would you like to see us set that up with specific standards and have those come to planning commission where there is not a prototype? I think the suggestion was also made that maybe we make a prototype for sidewalk dining and that could be approved administratively and then any custom designs come to planning commission similar to the dining decks. I think it can be. Planning commission issue. Commissioner Newman? I think it should be a planning commission issue for someone to utilize the public sidewalk for dining purposes. I agree. I agree. Okay. And Capitola Avenue, are you all, does anyone, I've heard two people comment on Capitola Avenue and possibly taking that out of the street dining deck areas. I agree. My comment would be that I would like to see a map of the village and say here are the areas that make sense for parklets for the following reasons and here are the areas that are prohibited for the following reasons and the reason for Capitola Avenue, I would think would be more along the emissions issues. You don't want people breathing in exhaust. And so, I think you need to go business by business and say, what are the pluses and minuses of having a parklet here and then draw the map accordingly. And I don't necessarily feel that Capitola Avenue is prohibited, but I think it needs to be considered as pluses and minuses. Three favoring prohibition and one favoring looking at it. Yeah, and I go back to this prototype and how it's gonna be. I think a lot of questions will be answered once we have something like that and have more information about how it's actually going to function. And I understand that in a lot of cities, they have limited the dining areas because they're not parklets anymore because they're not open to the public. They're dining decks or dining areas for the restaurant. And a lot of cities have limited them to two spaces. I think that in Los Gatos, it says it can be the frontage of your building or up to two spaces. Well, that doesn't really work with diagonal parking because as someone said, one diagonal parking space with cars on either side really doesn't function too well because of the angle. So I'd like to see us understand you have to have three spaces to make it work and have the people be able to get out of the cars on either side of the diagonal. And then just lots of questions and issues that we need some answers for before we make a recommendation. Okay. So I guess I'm pushing for the city to move forward with, you know, they've got funds to have somebody do some design work on this course. Okay. Well, I think we've given Katie a lot to work with here. So, Katie, you don't need any action other than that direction we've given you, right? No, I think- We are going to notice the village. I have lots of notes to work from and I'll try to bring back revisions of those items that I think I heard some consensus on but I think we've got our work cut out for us for November 4th. So I just ask that it be continued. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Then that brings us to our last item tonight which is item D and this is a presentation on nonconforming structures and permissible structural alterations. And I believe this is on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Newman. So actually on that last item, I think we do need to continue this to November 4th. I'm happy to re-notice, but just so we can- I can make a motion to continue to November 4th. Do we have a second? I will second it, Commissioner Newman. And then we have a motion and a second to continue to the November meeting. That would be the outdoor dining and design permit ordinance. And then we have the roll call, please. Commissioner Newman. Commissioner Newman. Yes. Commissioner Westman. Yes. Commissioner Wilk. Yes. And Chair Booth. Yes. Thank you. The motion carries and that will be heard once again in the November meeting. Okay, now we're on item D, the nonconforming structures. Katie? Yes. Is there a slide before this, Sean? Sorry. Okay. So in our code, first I wanna just step back. In the history of our nonconforming structures and structural alterations, I put kind of an in-depth history of what we went through during our zoning code update. We had drafted, and I still have, of course, revisions to this section of code. And in those revisions, and I apologize, I didn't attach them to the staff report and that probably would have been better so you could have a clear reminder of the work we had done. But in the revisions, we really outlined how different scenarios would be treated and what types of nonconforming structures could stay and in what situations could a nonconforming structure be rebuilt in place with the Planning Commission's approval. We spent quite a bit of time on this and really had thoughtful discussions and put together a great ordinance that would have been much easier for our public to understand in terms of you figure out where you fit within the scenarios and that's what your process was. And the Planning Commission did a great job of trying to say if the nonconforming structure is not causing an issue to a neighboring structure and not having an impact, then it could probably, you know, it can continue to stay in its place. So, but as we went through this process and going to the Coastal Commission, they had drafted new guidance on sea level rise and specific and in that guidance with specific guidance for residential structures along the coastline in the coastal zone and how to calculate permissible structural alterations. And they wanted to go back through permitting it back to when the Coastal Act came into being and cumulatively add all of those, all of the investments that a property owner had put together over time and once you've hit 50%, you could no longer protect your structure and it was essentially just trying to force property owners to once they've, to no longer be able to reinvest into their properties due to sea level rise. So there's a lot of work to be done at the state level on that. I went down and went to one of the sea level rise discussions on this and the commission had directed staff to continue to work on the policy document. Nothing has been adopted at this point. I think with COVID, the focus has changed. When I've reached out to the Coastal Commission, they've told me that, you know, nothing has happened since that last meeting where many different cities came in and spoke against their policy document. So what we have is the old ordinance that was in place and it is quite confusing the language of it. So this is section 17.92070. I'm not gonna read this to you. I'm gonna ask Sean to go to the next slide where I try to simplify what this says. And what it is saying is that if you add together the cost of new improvements and the cost of improvements over the past five years and you take the present fair market value of the existing structure, if the cost of the new improvements plus the cost of improvements over the past five years is less than 80% of the present fair market value of the structure, then we can go ahead and permit the project. Next slide, please. If it is more than the 80% of the present fair market value when you add those two together, then we cannot permit and they've got to bring the whole project into compliance with, typically it's your setbacks for non-conforming structures. So at that point, they would have to bring the whole structure into compliance if they wanted to. So I ran through a few examples. Next slide, please. Well, first I should say that the non-conforming, the valuations are all based on valuations that our building official adopts and it comes out through the building code. So in talking with Robin Woodman, our building official, she did say it's probably time for us to increase these a little bit, but it's based on building code. They seem much less than what any of us would pay right now to have an addition put on our house, but this is the valuations that they have in place. They're actually not that far off from these numbers. I looked at them recently. Next slide, please. So with the three examples, I looked at a 1,000 square foot home that has a 200 square foot garage and a 100 square foot deck. Next slide. In the first example, I ran through the numbers of a just complete remodel. So they would remodel the 1,000 square foot home, the 200 square foot garage and the 100 square foot deck. At that point, their calculation would be 50% of existing value. So you could totally remodel your non-conforming structure under today's code. Next slide, please. Under scenario two, this is one that we see quite often. The property owner could remodel their entire home and then add a 33% addition and not have to come into compliance with the code. The addition would have to be located so that it complies with the zoning code. So it would have to meet all setbacks and height and all development standards. Parking. Next slide, please. And lastly, the third scenario shows no remodel, but an 80% increase in the square footage of the home and that's where you max out at that 80% valuation. So if you're proposing an addition and not doing any remodeling of your home, you could do up to an 80% addition. The, in looking at how this is structured, it's all based on ratios and percentages. So therefore, there's an advantage to having a large home and applying this ordinance versus if you had a really small home and wanted to do a large addition, you couldn't go beyond 80% of the size of your home. So at, you know, for a 500 square foot home it would have a greater impact than 1,000 square foot home where you could get twice as much of the square footage. So a 500 square foot home could get a 400 square foot addition and not be maxed, and would be maxed out, but a 1,000 square foot home could get up to an 800 square foot addition. So there is some level of fairness that is not across the board with the way the ordinance is written. So I just wanted to provide an overview as requested by Commissioner Newman in discussing this, if there is the option that I could bring back the draft ordinance that we worked on previously and it could be adopted to apply outside of the coastal zone, if you would like. We could also take another run at it to the coastal commission, but I think we should, at this point, we've got a few items ahead of this in terms of right now the outdoor dining as well as we've got our objective design standard. So it's something I could put on our list, but it likely would not move forward till probably end of summer. And at that point, we should really get into a discussion on probably sea level rise and seeing if we can make some specific criteria along our bluffs and close to the water. And I do think that that deserves a very interactive process with the public. It's something really important to our citizens and being a coastal community. So we could bring it forth in the near future to be adopted outside of the coastal zone, but if we want to have it inside the coastal zone, we've got some work to do to get it to a point that in working with the coastal commission. So with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. You know, it appears that property values of so far outpaced construction costs they're showing in the ordinance, it's rendered this ordinance kind of meaningless. I've just looked at my own house, for example, it has a value of probably 1.3 to 1.6 million. That means I could do over a million dollars of improvements before I hit the 80% level. I have a two foot setback in the backyard and a two foot setback on the side yard, on one side. So I could completely rebuild my house on a new house with the same footprint, expand over into the other side yard because I have more than adequate setbacks there and still not meet the 80%. So I don't see that this ordinance at its current configuration really accomplishes anything. So other comments from the commissioners? Go ahead, Mr. Newman. So I thought we got blindsided on this because we spent so much time and one of the best things I thought we did in the process of the new zoning ordinance was and we was dealing with this non-conforming structure, part of the ordinance and we came up with something that I thought was so much simpler, more understandable and advanced the policy that we thought was most important which was that we encouraged, given what the nature of Capitola and all the non-conforming buildings that we encouraged people to improve their property over trying to bring them into conformity. And that was the policy kind of decision behind the new version of the ordinance. And somehow I guess through the coastal commission process it just got completely tanked. And that's very disappointing to me because I think it was much better. And I think Katie and I talked about this earlier today and she didn't mention it yet. The best solution might be just to carve out the bluff houses for the coastal commission because that's what they're really concerned about. And apply a special rule to houses on the bluff and then keep the ordinance that we developed when we developed the new zoning code for the rest of the city. That's what I would like to see. Yeah, I didn't think it was just the houses on the bluff they were concerned about. I thought that their coastal rise concerns like covered all of the properties in the village, the properties coming up Soquel Creek and a number of other areas, not just the bluff. So I mean, you could do it in the area. Go ahead Susan, I'm sorry. You could do it in the area outside the coastal zone. That's a lot of Capitola is in the coastal zone. Yeah. So Ed was your purpose just to address the homes on the bluff to protect them from having major changes or what was the purpose? The purpose is just to get the coastal commission to allow us to implement the new ordinance provision that we developed. I was trying to figure out what dog they had in this fight. What was their problem with it? And I'm still not clear on that. And what coastal policy is being advanced by basically torpedoing our new ordinance that we developed. Okay. Okay, where do we go from here? Well, Susan says that the coastal commission concern is broader than just the bluff houses. And I mean, maybe we can figure out exactly what portion of the coastal zone it is important to them to control the non-conforming rule and carve out just that area. Right, I thought that this got pulled out because at the time the coastal commission has a policy which they have adopted, which isn't law, but it was their policy that they said to us, which basically meant that homes that they thought were ultimately going to be impacted by sea level rise really couldn't do any major improvements or modifications to their home. And their goal was to have those homes ultimately all go away. And it did impact a significant portion of Capitola, I know, including the Capitola village itself. I think we should find out where the coastal commission is. As Katie said, she went to one meeting. I don't think they've done anything in this area for a while, but we should find out what's going on in that arena and then decide how we want to proceed. Yes, if that's their purpose, and going back to our old ordinance doesn't really advance it very well either. Right, but they said they, if we tried to change it, they would require this new criteria. So, I mean, I agree with you. I think the ordinance, this is a very sort of iniquated odd way of dealing with non-conforming that the new ordinance would be much better. It's just sort of a stalemate between the coastal commission and a number of jurisdictions right now, not just Capitola. Yeah, I think the purpose behind the coastal commission was really geared towards retreat and not rebuilding in areas where we're expected to get more and more intense storms and sea level rise. So yes, the areas in the village, the low areas would also be impacted. And essentially once you've, it's the policy was to not allow improvements beyond 50% of the value of your home backtracking to the 1970s. And then you can't, if you have put in more money than that, then you're not allowed to protect your home. So it's really towards coastal retreat and allowing to plan for sea level rise. But when we did submit our first draft to the coastal commission, they came back and gave me a version, a red line version that they'd given, created for Marin County, which really has no, there's no parallel between our really dense village and Marin County and their ability to retreat is much higher than any of our six sisters. So maybe what we should do here, since we have a couple of big items that we need to take care of first is table this for till we get those items completed. And then by that time, maybe the coastal commission will have provided more guidance on this issue. And we can develop some kind of modification to our proposed new provisions. Makes good sense to me. Yeah. I think that's the avenue we probably have to take. All right, thank you. So shall we leave this item with that, with that kind of determination and leave it to Katie to bring this back at an appropriate time when she doesn't have so much on her plate. Agreed. Okay. If that meets the consensus of the commission then, I don't believe this takes any action. We'll move on to the director's report. Do we have a report tonight, Katie? There's, I actually just have one item to bring up tonight. I just wanted to let you know that Edna Basso, who's been very helpful, she actually, as our taking our minutes at our planning commission meetings and great employee to be working with, she actually got a very good opportunity, which she cannot turn down because it's right up her alley in terms of what her mission is in life. And I'm really happy for her. At the same time, there'll be a loss for us. I think Chloe's gonna help us out at the next meeting, but we are gonna be hiring for a development service tech and an assistant clerk. But I just wanted to extend my thanks to Edna. She's here tonight and she's just been an asset to our team. She also helped roll out the economic development grants. She was very instrumental in that and it's just a go getter. The minute you ask a favor, she gets the work done and she does it meticulously. So city's lost, but she's got a great opportunity. So I congratulate her and just wanted to let you all know. So this is her last meeting this evening. Thank you, Edna, for your... Thank you, Edna. Thank you for your help with that. So good luck in your new position. Okay, any commission communications? Just one. I'd like to thank Keegson and Rivera, our technician tonight for sticking with us and broadcasting this. If there's nothing else, we'll adjourn the meeting to our next regularly scheduled meeting in November. Thank you. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Goodbye.