 You get the chance to work mobile a lot and continue to do a waterfall and stuff. Does that appear to work, Katie? Yeah, it's showing your notes though, so you might want to on a plate setting to do some tapes. When you get to that, okay? Bad. There you go. The mute, the unmute. Are we going to get Courtney today, do you think, Katie? Yeah. Yeah, she, I know she's 29 attending, it's not like she's holding on. So, one, she says she's on her way, but... Okay, well, it's 5 o'clock, so let's go ahead, let's see. Alright, let me know when we're live. This started the webinar on the webinar plan movie. Can you let us know when you have it live? That's for live on YouTube. Yep. Well, then let's get kicked off. I'll start by saying hello and welcome to the Capitola Planning Commission Special Meeting of April 21st, 2022. And according to the California Senate Bill 361, this meeting is not this real. Public commissioners and staff are meeting via Zoom, and there are several ways for the public to watch it participate. If you have any information on how to join the meeting, you can assume application or landline or mobile phone, along with how to submit public comments during the meeting tonight. It's available on our website, cityofcapitola.org, and on the published agenda meeting agenda. As always, this meeting is cablecast live on charter communications, cable TV, channel 8 in the city of Capitola, and on channel 25 throughout Santa Cruz County. The meeting is being recorded to be re-broadcast the following Monday and Friday at 1 p.m. The meeting can also be streamed live on YouTube or from the city's website. And our technician tonight is... We have one? Olivia Philly. Hi, Sean. Olivia Philly. Olivia Philly. Thank you, Olivia, for supporting us tonight. Yeah, let's get on with the roll call. Do you want to give us the roll call? Sure. Commissioner Christensen? Commissioner Newman? Here. Commissioner Ruff? Here. Commissioner Westman? Here. Chair Wilk? Here. Now we'll move on to oral communications. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? No additions or deletions to the agenda. I have to admit that I haven't been at my computer for the past couple hours, and I will check to make sure no public comment came in. Okay, because that is the next item on the agenda. Item 2B is public comment. This is the time for the public to weigh in on items that are not on the agenda. So, if there's anybody on Zoom who wants to raise your hand, it depends on topics that are not on the agenda. Now is the time to do so. It looks like we do not have any attendees on Zoom this evening, other than the panelists. And I'm now going to the public comment. And no new public comment is not related to this evening's agenda. Very good. Now we'll move on to commission comments. I'll do any commissioners who wish to speak on items that are on the agenda. Seeing no hands raised, and one staff comment. Do we have any staff comments on non-agenda items? No staff comments on non-agenda items. Very good. We'll move right on then to item 3, public hearing. These are agenda items, and the first item is item 3A, the ordinance adding chapter 17.82. Staff you a presentation. Yes. This evening we have Ben Noble, Ben Noble Planning here. Ben has been working on both our objective standards under the SB2 grant, and also helping us with our SB9. We're going to start with the objective standards for multi-family and mixed-use residential then. And you're on mute. On mute. Okay. Thank you, Katie. Good evening. So, this item is a draft ordinance to allow residential development of up to four units in the R-1 agreement. The ordinance will implement, excuse me, adopted state law. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Objective standards. Okay. All right. So, this item is the draft ordinance that establishes new objective standards for multi-family and mixed-use residential. And I staff request that the planning commission considerability to the city council of positive recommendations that's not enough. So, preparing the objective standards has been funded by state grants and tenders to help facilitate the increased housing production. As discussed at the March 31st commission meeting, these standards will help protect the city and ensure quality of development and light new state housing costs, including ST-35, housing accountability, access to facilities. As a public process repair, as these standards began in early 2021, we had the planning commission study session and city council study session through the Public Policy approach. There were two stakeholder meetings in 2021 to use these inputs on draft standards. And then the planning commission study session on March 31st to receive feedback on the planning commission previously reviewed the draft standards at the special meeting on March 31st commission meeting. And the planning commission input at the meeting included requests to add an intent statement to the appropriation and to state standards to add landscaping standards to the parking application to the street and to allow entries that do not date to the street. So, following the planning commission meeting, that incorporated revised standards into a new chapter in zoning work. The draft ordinance also includes references to the residential, mixed-use, and commercial zoning districts. The standards would apply to multi-family, mixed-use residential projects in all zoning districts that allow you to do the steps that are built. So, these standards would apply in the RM district, the MUM district, the D&C commercial district, the regional commercial district, as shown in the program. So, this slide showed the organization of the new zoning work chapter. Within chapter 17 and 22, section 010, 020, and 020 describe the purpose of the standards, where they apply, and how and how an applicant may reflect deviations from the standards themselves that are found in sections of 040 through 090, which is the sixth category. Continuing the standards in each category and the planning commission may approve deviations of standards through the design permit process upon finding that the project includes an alternative method for keeping the standards. So, the standards before the planning commission tonight are the same as those previously reviewed by the planning commission with a few exceptions. So, in the circulation and streetscape sections, we added that the intent of the standards is to promote social engagement along property directions and along other intent statements. In the RM and MUN zones, there's new language that would allow for a fourth-foot sidewalk instead of a sixth-foot sidewalk if the new sidewalk ties in. And within this section, there's also new street-tree standards that are consistent with current city parking. Within the parking and vehicle access section, we've added new standards that require perimeter landscaping when parking is located between a building and a street. These standards include a requirement for a minimum four-foot season shift, as well as one tree for every third season. Within the building placement orientation and entry section, we've added a requirement for projects without a street-tree in the primary entry. And these requirements include at least one pedestrian walkway for the interior of the sidewalk and the sidewalk every 50 feet, landscaping with harnesses between the building and the street, the prohibition of continuous solid fences that might create a wall effect, and a maximum building with staples. So, that's a summary of the revision to the standards in response to Planning Commission feedback incorporated into the draft ordinance. The staff recommendation is for the Planning Commission to review the draft ordinance and consider forwarding a positive recommendation. So, the next step if the Planning Commission does forward a positive recommendation with no or only minor revision to it, this is what we're doing council. We're hearing on May 12, the 2022. If the Planning Commission recommend major revisions to you and then you will then continue to hearing for a second time before the presentation. So, with that, that completes the presentation and we're available for it. Are there any questions of staff from the commissioners? I have one. And I'm trying to find this statement in the proposed ordinance, and I can't offhand, but it's where it discusses the width of the building and it says the width shall not exceed 50 feet. It's an item B1. I didn't make it real clear in my notes, but it states that no building shall be more than 50 feet on the width, than 50 feet on the width on the street side. And directly underneath that, about two sentences down B section BQB, it addresses buildings that exceed 50 feet in width. So, I'm not quite sure how you can have a prohibition in one statement. And then a couple statements later address buildings that exceed 50 feet. That was a little confusing. Yeah, there is B understanding. Yeah. I think that is a big catch on your part. It is an error in the ordinance. I think that B1 is an old language that should have been reused. Can you tell me if B50 is in correct or they cannot? Well, if it exceeds 50 feet in length, it needs to incorporate a prominent resupply. Okay. So, there is not a prohibition of more than 50 feet in correct? Correct. Okay. When I read that, one section, I remember that same kind of reaction, one section refers to width and one section refers to length. But I think they both mean the same thing. Yeah. It is a mention of a building that is parallel to the street building. Does that come out in its entirety then? Yeah. The B1 should be reused. Okay. Other questions? I have a question since we are talking about language. Oftentimes when you have options presented, like windows and doors, street-facing windows and doors with one of the following, you get several options. One of the options is the options will say like all street-facing windows and doors must feature build-up profile and framing. And you use that, you know, in other options, whenever you have an option there is always one of the options that has the word must in there and seems to me that that is the must that should be that. Because it is a little confusing to say it is an option but the word must in there semantics something to think about. You don't need to pull it up on the screen then? Well, I can try it out. No, mixed use project. Recept entries must feature design elements. Must have open railings, you know, it is an option but you just use the word must and when you are talking about options it seems to be there is a better way to say that. So, I am trying to find what is within entry design. Because 82-12 Yeah, that is the page on 82-12 and that is just one of the windows and doors on 2A but it happens throughout. You also do it on page 82-8 mixed use project 2A Recept entries must feature design elements. Same page residential projects 1B3 must have open railings around the railings. So, I would just, you know I would give it a once over and give it a must. So, commercial if we were to make some cases like this where there are options to revise the language in this manner would this address your comment? So, let me go back to that. So, all streets facing windows and doors Holy close, I got to close this. Okay, all streets Yeah, ERVAS you know, yeah Oh, is that feature built up? Yeah, just give it a must. That is, if it makes semantic sense. All streets facing windows and doors feature built up procloutry. Yeah, I mean that close nicely and gets her a must. Same with the shell, right. But that doesn't work. The B doesn't work. For all streets facing windows glass in Yeah, in Yeah. What we'll do is we'll go through the entire argument that sort of language appears Yes, that would be great. I think, you know, the minor point might be cleaning up a little bit. Thank you. Other questions? Okay, if there are no more questions of staff, let's we move on to public comments now. Any public comments on this that we're seeing tonight? There are no attendees on the Zoom meeting. There are no public comments. Okay, so with that we can then want to deliberation from the commission. I guess what you're asking us is do we have minor or major comments on this but anybody want to start off with comments? We'll get back to participants so I can see them raising their hands. Would you like me to continue sharing my screen or should I stop sharing it? You can I think sharing because we'll probably ask you to come back and forth. I'm still playing with my screen as well. Okay, so Mick Ruth has his hand up and the lights to get. Just a comment says I probably the biggest stickler on the council regarding design trying to protect the character of our community and you know, I'm going to give this ordinance my blessing because I think it does a good job in any regard. Commissioner West, you had your hand up for a second? I think I'm trying to put it up. There we go. Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Ruth. I think that the staff and Mr. Noble have done a nice job on this ordinance. I think it will put in place a lot of design features that will enhance our community in the future particularly on projects where there's not going to be a lot of discretionary review. So I'm happy with the ordinance how it is. Very good. Any further comments? Deliberation concerns? I don't see anybody else wanting to chime in. Well, let me let me just ask the other commissioners. Does your silence indicate consent that you have no further comments and this is acceptable? This is Commissioner Newman. I'm prepared to move this along to the council with the edits which I think are clean up. I think it's the syntax correct. Before you make a motion or if the motion is required let me dive in because I don't like it and I assume that we're going to probably vote in the majority of this but so let me throw in some wider comments before I make my major concerns. On 8212 doors you have options. Street facing windows glass 3 inches I'm suggesting there might be a third option which is just have windows that open. I'm trying to understand the intent of having these specific window design issues in there and it occurs to me you just don't want a facade of glass of black glass. You just have to trim it out so it occurs to me that you can get the same thing you could have like a modern design but the windows open then you would meet the intent of okay now you are you know you have a kind of user friendly or neighborhood friendly approach. Is that something that anyone would consider adding as an option? Anything? I'm sorry. Mr. Westman? Well I have to say for me personally I'm actually comfortable with the wording that's in the ordinance because I think it's important you know in this kind of document where you're supposed to have these objective standards and there will be projects that will be built under these standards that will never come to the planning commission so for me personally I like having some of that detail in there. Oh I thought you were saying yeah could we add just one more option you know and here are all your different options and let's just add another option so it's not a recess window it's not a framed window it's a window that'll you know let's say hey I'm sorry? That sounds pretty vague. Yeah that sounds my reaction okay I'll draw my comment the other comment I have on a minor issue is having to do with refuge storage areas mentioned this before page 8214 1B excuse me B B1B I can't break these containers unless we locate it and have a minimum height of 5 feet for cartons and 7 feet for dumpsters where do those numbers come from and or Katie? Yeah so I would say that those numbers would need to be an appropriate height because um I looked at some of the various enclosures and it seems to me that 4 feet is 24 the carts that Greenway provides and 6 feet is playing high for dumpsters and it's not a huge thing other than the fact that I often have a 4 foot wall that screens my carton can and the notion that a lower wall can actually be more welcoming it does screen the can but it does seem to be less of a barrier, less of a huge fence with something you can rest your elbow on it's more welcoming so again those numbers just seem to be off to me does anybody else care? I agree there too I have too large numbers they don't need to be that high there's too so I'm wondering if we can come up with some wording that you know says that the enclosure should be 1 feet 1 foot above the height of the cans or the dumpsters that they're trying to screen because dumpsters in particular do come in different sizes and we don't know in the future exactly what size cans people are going to be using if we suddenly go to a can that's much shorter, much smaller the whole idea is just to screen the cans so rather than maybe have a fixed height in there we say what we want is for it to screen the cans as a dumpster I was thinking that we should just do the way with any measurements and say screen from public field by a solid enclosure I think that works just as well I would never read that okay Bandy will you accept that modification? yeah okay thank you very much for that session in general my comments are I will repeat what I said before and won't go through all the details since everybody else likes this approach but I find it much too prescriptive in terms of specifying numbers windows arbor recesses you name it all those things I would give it a just a lot of these kinds of details I think we can still have the general notion of dimensions recesses but when we get into specific design there are many areas where I think we just get a little too close I like the idea of having options this or that or that or that but even so there are many cases where I think we just get into too much detail a notion of specifying an arbor or a window in a garage door a garage door if it's a decent size I would think that that's enough of a specification but I seem to be in a minority so I will deliver the issue for you do you have any comments on the item the only thing I really can everybody hear me the only thing I really I think that it should be I mean I agree with you commissioner will but I do feel like there should be a degree of you know description just because it's never going to be up for discretionary reviews so but I agree with that this seems to be a good I think it's a good outline for the ordinance especially like all of the massive diagrams that were included in the agenda or in the it just seems to kind of lay it out pretty well unfortunately Courtney you're encouraging me to speak more a little bit of encouragement so I just feel that I'm not going to get any progress with the page by page I'll find all of my ability to get issues so I think in general it is it is a good document it's 80% there and I don't know I don't need to have any more discussion on this if someone wants to make a motion or if anyone else wants to discuss more I'll make a motion but Mr. Chairman if you have any solos on I believe this is not going to be very broadly used because of the conditions under which it becomes equitable so I don't think you should worry too much about it I think we have to enact this but I don't think it's going to take over the city's planning process all right and I will move that we recommend this to the city council with the minor editing changes that the commissioner suggested earlier on that the chairman suggested well second again I thought your first comment was the motion okay we have a motion by commissioner Newman and a second by commissioner Ruth to approve document with minor adjustments as noted could we have a roll called well are there any further discussions on the motion or clarifications or amendments I have one question I apologize but there's two inquiries on the agenda are asking for direction and I'm wondering is that am I missing this part which is on page 3 that's the next item I apologize I'll show back to you so it's very very nice of you do we have a motion and a second can we have a roll called well sure commissioner Christensen commissioner Newman commissioner Ruth commissioner Westman hi chair well no move on to item B which is FB9 as we have that presentation yeah I'm going to be doing that again the title slide is visible okay so the second item tonight is hearing on the draft ordinance that implements FB9 that would allow for residential development of the four units within the R1 general district that this ordinance would implement recently adopted state law and the draft request that the planning commission consider forwarding to the city council of positive recommendations so as we did that at the March 31st and 22nd FB9 which will affect of January this year requires all of the eating house counties in California to allow the development of the apartment FB9 also requires to allow an urban loss split within a single family living with two units allowed on each side so if you do an urban loss split on an existing parcel to create two parcels you can have two units on each of those parcels four units on the original parcel FB9 does allow cities to limit the size of these units to 800 square feet and requires that the minimum parcel size for an urban loss is 1200 square feet for each newly created parcel so you must have an existing parcel of at least 2400 square feet to qualify for an urban loss split so that's what FB9 requires here's a map of all the R1 zoning districts in capitol the yellow areas are the areas where FB9 applies and it also it applies both within and outside of the coastal coastal zone down here with the football area so this item was before the finish mission on March 31 and at the beginning of the finish mission we viewed models of the four units to be accommodated on the football parable in California and so the consensus feedback from the commissioners was that four and three and four unit projects on lots left will allow in order to prioritize front yards and to accommodate a shared access drive on site parking so based on the input the act revised the graph FB9 that was previously in the commission and this argument includes the zoning code and the subdivision code so the zoning code includes a new chapter 1775 FB9 evidential development that contains the rules of the features for developing FB9 units there's also an amendment to the ADU ordinance that was prohibited in ADU on urban loss but also 15 years so the ordinance might also include a new chapter within the subdivision ordinance with regulations that apply to urban loss there's also a new urban loss split definition that would add it to the definition so the new FB9 development chapter contains standards for projects on lots 5,500 square feet or more as well as standards that are less than 5,500 you found that that plot size is the breaking point where development becomes more constrained and different standards so the good news is that for FB9 projects on 5,500 square feet or more the priorities of many communities to express can be a common way so as shown in this model and on the screen the draft ordinance for loss of 2,000 square feet or more would limit buildings to maximum height of 2 stories with 20 feet at the plate height and an additional 2 feet for a pitch school in the street at the perimeter in terms of step back we're able to require a minimum of 52 foot front step back with other step backs that we can hear and hear and on lots 5,500 square feet or more we're also able to require parking located behind the street funding building with one single driveway providing for shared access to parking so and then also for maximum unit size with a project that has 2 units there's the allowance for 1200 square feet for a unit whereas a project with 3 or 4 units on a lot the maximum size is 800 square feet per unit and the reason we've done that is to encourage and incentivize a 2 unit project rather than a 3 or 4 unit project because a 2 unit project would be more compatible so for S9 projects on lots less than 5,500 square feet the ordinance establishes different standards for projects with 2 units, 3 units and 4 units right now are the standards that will apply to a 2 unit project on lots less than 3,500 square feet and so on a 2 unit project we're able to require no more than 2 square feet we're also able to require on the front back of 15 feet as well as parking located behind the street funding that we provide for a 1 step back there so on a 2 unit project the standards would require a project that looks similar to this on a 3 unit project on a smaller lot development becomes more constrained and one of the concessions we need to make in order to accommodate 3 units is to allow greater height and in this case on a 3 unit project what we're saying is that you can have a 2 and a half story project where your third story is built into your roof development so you have a plate height of 20 feet for your first two stories and then you have a maximum height of your roof at 33 feet with a floor area allowed in that roof development so that's a way to accommodate 3 stories on that may be more like a two story building also in order to accommodate 800 square foot units on the 300 square foot units on the smaller lot we do reduce the minimum step back to 10 feet in order to allow for a 3 unit to be able to accommodate and then so the ordinance also establishes standards for 4 units on lots less and these are the lot or these are the projects where development is the most constrained and where a number of concessions need to be made in order to accommodate for 800 square foot units and based on planning commission's feedback at the last meaning what the ordinance said is that parking needs to be interior and it needs to be accessed from one driveway and one curb cut but you can have up to 3 stories and building located at the sidewalk of the zero or step back and this is obviously not a all together satisfactory design scenario from the neighborhood of the compatibility standpoint but SD9 does require to allow up to 4 800 square foot units and on smaller lots this is the design scenario that I think we have consensus these objections it's quite possible that a project like this would never come forward on a smaller lot but if it does I can interrupt so on this particular view we are showing the parking in the rear but there's zero setback on the sidewalk and I thought that those are the two things we wanted was parking more parking but also the setback to sacrifice setback for the parking so on a small lot it is not possible to provide for interior parking and maintain a front parking so you haven't choose one or the other and I would have chose setback for the parking I think that my recollection is that it was not a unanimous position among all things commissioners but there were two census and a majority of commissioners that preferred this scenario over one where there are more parking states that chose to keep the buildings I agree with Commissioner Wilk on this one I mean yeah so an alternative for a unit project on a smaller lot is to require the setback with the parking that was one of the other options that the commissioners presented with we have no Hollywood parking the Hollywood stuff we have is crisp so it has some setbacks landscaping so at least there's two of us who prefer that we need to take a straw full well I think Commissioner Westman oh I'm sorry I couldn't see the hand because I have to yeah okay Commissioner Westman go ahead before I get into the parking versus front yard discussion I actually have a question for Ben when you showed us the three unit project on the block plus 5,500 square feet for them to be able to put the third story in the roof we end up with a height of 33 feet and when we look at the four units and we just do a standard three story we end up the way I read it with a height of 31 feet because it's 28 for the plate and then 3 feet for the roof yeah I was sort of wondering if on the three unit one the 33 feet could be a bit left we end up with 31 feet on both of them or was it decided that the pitch of the roof needed to be deeper to get the rooms in there yeah so that's the number that's very bottom loop for us here tonight and I think the reason he came up with he arrived at 33 feet is that he determined that that was necessary in order to accommodate the 800 square feet okay if he could just look at that one more time and sort of check that out it would be nice if it could be a quarter tube lower but on the four unit one for me having a curb has the entire front edge of the building and cars parked in front of it I don't think aesthetically it works for the neighborhood it eliminates more parking in these neighborhoods where parking is particularly usually at a premium anyway so I prefer the four unit design of being proposed in this ordinance Mr. Weston can you clarify what you just said which one are you preferring the one that's being presented to us tonight because if we try and have a front setback the only way my recollection is from the last meeting the only way that works is to have four cars parked in front of the building which means that you know basically almost all of the building's frontage is going to have to be a curb cut to accommodate all of those driveways rather than the approach that we have here yeah I thank you for clarifying I agree with Mr. Weston on that point and also I had a good question for all of your masking diagrams have a pitched roof including the three unit diagram that we just showed up with the 33 foot height limit I either forgetting or didn't read that there's any option for flat rooms if there is somebody does come in with an option for a flat room does that do they have other limitations for how high their plate height can be so a flat room would be allowed and it would be limited to 28 foot okay so it would just be capped off with a plate height and there wouldn't be an allowance for a roof pitch and that just would be kind of the three feet would just be eliminated okay and then for the other one that's the 33 foot height for the three unit on a smaller lot but if they are proposing a flat roof in this circumstance that would be a 20 20 foot plate height but that would make it pretty possible to get three units I mean excuse me that's a three story building with legitimate living space in there how would you say that would work alright so a full three story building under these standards just would not be allowed if you want three stories of house of living space it would need to be able to okay so it would have to be pitched to have few dormitories it would have to have all of them basically the exact okay that was my question and I do agree with Commissioner Watson about on that with the parking in the front of with the giant curb had it I just my experience with small kids family housing it seems that having so much parking in the front just alienates the neighborhood from the unit and even though the diagram that were being presented shows the massive structure being right up against the sidewalk I still think that's better than having cars like so Mr. Ruth do you have your hand up again yeah I I don't agree with Commissioner Winston or Mr. Christensen if you could imagine we're talking to smaller lots now most of these lots are 40 by 80 most of those lots exist in the jewel box in other parts in Riverview Terrace you know just think most of the houses in those areas are single story cottage type houses there's a smattering of second story houses in there but just imagine for a moment a three story unit right up to the sidewalk next to one of those cottage style houses even when you're in your front yard you're blocked off from any light and air always you've got this thing looming up only four feet from your front yard 33 feet in the air I just think if you look at this diagram the way that driveway is active there's no room for additional cars and either side of that driveway so you're not eliminating any on-street parking by allowing parking across the whole frontage because this design eliminates any on-street parking the way it's configured I just think it just makes the neighborhood more livable more a nicer place to live if you don't have a 30 foot structure right up on the sidewalk I much prefer to see parking in the front you know I I live across the street from one of those and parking in the front it doesn't present any problems at all but if that building were 30 feet all right up to the sidewalk it would just really ruin the neighborhood but I can't support this aspect of it Mr. Weston you had a rebuttal my concern is that we have areas where we have parking in front you know go up on you know 4648 Avenue in those areas and you know it's continuing to be a problem how do we improve the situation on those streets I could have a compromise position where perhaps you know we there's no reason that we have to have only one option for four units on lots plus 5,500 square feet and you know I could live with the idea that we could have two options here and one would be this design or the other one would be parking in front as long as the parking in front was on parking strips not just a paved area in front of the building so my suggestion would be perhaps you know since this is such a difficult situation maybe we come up with two options for the four units on lots less than 5,500 square feet Chair Wilk we do have the different options that will share with the planning commission with the last meeting available look at the I also do want to point out that there's more in the presentation of four units to complete if you would like to I'm sorry we kind of shank eyes at you in the middle of the presentation but I would like to get we seem to be split on this the setback issue on this particular slide I was hoping that I could hear from Mr. Newman to decide okay settle back for the parking you know I mean this kind of brings to the front the difficulty in what we're doing here and how there's pressure pressure on our development standards in all different directions you know in a way this is just a harbinger of what's to come is the housing needs and the pressure from the state to liberalize housing rules continues we're going to have to start to prioritize what's most important to us we're not going to be the same capital 20 years from now that we are now we aren't the same that we were 20 years ago where everything was a bungalow single story so all of us have to think about what we're willing to give in on whether it's setbacks, whether it's parking whether it's my case I think I think we're going to have to start to give up on the idea that houses have to be single story or two story and 22 feet high and we're going to have to start going upwards I don't see any other long-term solutions to that I don't think having two options as commissioner Westminster gets to really helps the other commissioners concerns at all because it just leads it up to the developer as to whether to violate the commissioner was concerned or not so that doesn't really solve the problem if I have to come down on one side of the other I'm going to come down on like the commissioner westman and christianson's view that we should give in on the setbacks in this situation can you commissioner fosa I'd just like to add one more comment please go ahead I would just I would just venture to get that if you hold the people in this city when they stand in the front yard if they would look next door and see a car or two or three cars parked there and be able to view down their street or to look at a wall I think they choose a ladder I mean the former they would choose being able to see some cars there and look over the cars to see down the street that's my final comment on this well I agree other comments I see some more hands fill up I don't know if there are any digital hands or more comments no no I just forgot to lower my hand I am honored go ahead if anybody else noticed that there hasn't been any public attendance to either one of these meetings I just think that this seems like a pretty significant proposal or change because sd9 is under the red radar red it just seems a little strange that there wouldn't be any public confidence well it's not really clear how meaningful it can end up being for capitol how many people are going to want to subdivide their small r1 locks in capitol and build four units right right but a developer might we don't know that yet how that's going to we might be just waiting our time so I'm going to butt in here a little bit so we have this option one and two that's been presented to us tonight about areas where that are going to be exempt from having these kinds of subdivisions take place based on input that we've gotten from the coastal commission it seems to me that when you look at that map a lot of the really small locks that we look at in river view terrace or up on depot hill or in parts of the dual box certainly if we go with option two these standards aren't going to apply there is that correct so that's the way I'm reading it so I think that's a good lead into the rest of the presentation alright we're going to be trying to finish the presentation then and we can circle back to any open issues but just to be clear that standard is for areas that would not be allowed to be live with the parking exception okay then great so as I mentioned previously FD9 would be the coastal but there is language within that that FD9 shall not be construed or in any other way also or less than the effect of the application of the California coastal so that's the same language that is included in state law relating to ABU what that means is that cities that have areas in the coastal will need to find ways to harmonize the requirements of FD9 with the requirements of the Coastal Act as well as sort of their certified LCB so one of the ways in which this ordinance aims to accomplish that is to prohibit FD9 projects in certain areas specifically within map areas of geological hazards flood hazards and environmentally sensitive habitat areas so here's a map that's showing the boundaries of the geologic hazard area as it's currently mapped here's a map showing the flood hazard areas currently and then here are the environmentally sensitive habitat areas and so looking at all three of these maps most of these areas are not zoned R1 and FD9 does not apply there but there are some R1 areas adjacent to the Topel Creek and on Prospect Avenue where FD9 projects does not be mapped but it's limited geographic in terms of where FD9 prohibitions would apply but it is also true that these maps will change over time particularly to expanded areas of geological hazards resulting from the level of Prospect Avenue defined as a coastal bluff so I think this is the area of that it's included in the geological hazard area but it is not a coastal bluff we looked at that with the recent application of the 1410 process okay and then so parking is another issue that overlaps with the LCT because the coastal act includes policies that cities must maintain and enhance public access to the shoreline so under FD9 cities cannot require more than one off street base per unit and then also can't require any parking within one half mile walking distance of a high quality transit corridor for a major transit stop and so there are definitions for a high quality transit corridor and currently there are none in capital though there may be some in the future for a major transit stop and so as I said previously the FD9 statute includes language that allows for cities to deviate from requirements in FD9 if it's necessary to conform with the coastal act with certified LTP so for that reason we have included language that would always require at least one parking space in certain areas where that exception in cases of proximity to a major transit corridor or transit hub would not be available and there are two areas that were mapped that are before the planning commission as options. Option one are the area of the most parking impacted areas in deep coastal and close to the village and Riverview Terrace neighborhood in option two expands that to include more Riverview Terrace neighborhood in portions of the jewel box and so it is sort of a little bit confusing because it's essentially a double negative that's now just showing areas where the parking exception would not apply so it's a little bit hard to follow but really what this is saying and either the gray or the blue area at least one parking space would always be required without the ability to benefit from an exception from that parking space requirement so we're looking for planning commission feedback on this particularly option one area or option two blue area and I see there's a there's a handle yeah I have my handle Commissioner Roof when you look at this map most of the jewel box area that's in blue is in closer proximity to beach access than most of Depot Hill and so I disagree with the way this map is configured also the Depot Hill has permit parking which the jewel box area does it and the parking impacts in the jewel box are much greater than the parking impacts in Depot Hill so I don't think the map prioritizes the areas properly and I think that needs to be discussed in depth Commissioner Newman are they parking as much as we can and I think I'm sort of agreeing with Commissioner Roof as far as the jewel box is concerned included option two as well as option one as areas where the parking requirements are in effect so I'm a little confused here of are you done with your presentation I am almost done I have let's let Ben finish let's let Ben finish so I do want to pause here for one second I'm sorry but in the staff report I had written that we were asking the planning commission to decide between option one or option two what I meant to draft was between option one and option one and two together point of clarification, thank you Ben Okay and then the one minor cleanup provided that the finishing recommendation including the provision which we were in Commissioner Newman pointed out that there was a little cleanup that was needed in the language to make sure that what was written was actually what we meant and so we would recommend modifying the language in the provision so that it is clear what is intended so that's shown on the screen that we're having feedback on there's language in the draft that we're in but I think it has been in the ordinance for a while including in the prior versions that were reviewed by the planning commission requiring a separate utility connection for each development on a lot this is not a requirement that is mandated by FB nine and so we're interested in planning commission to feedback on whether or not this requirement should remain and so with that draft recommendation is for the planning commission to consider forwarding a positive recommendation to the city council to without the ordinance and just like with the objective standard if the planning commission recommend adoption with minor revision to move forward to the city council for a hearing on May 12 the planning commission directs after the major revisions to the ordinance we would take that back to the planning commission for the second hearing that would occur on May 22 so with that I will end my presentation. Katie do you want to go ahead and talk about what specifically you want which topic you want to address first? let's start with the really easy one I think but the utilities so I think in our EDU ordinance we require separate hookup for and I think that was straight from the state law and under this there is no requirement for the utility connection to be individuals that could tie into the same utilities on the same lot it's a cost savings to applicants and we would love to hear you say that start with Commissioner Newman hmm so that's an easy one for me I support keeping it the way it is those of us who remember the old days when Commissioner Ruth was just a little boy hahaha the apartments used to be master meters so they would have one utility connection for an apartment and that is no longer done because it turns out that there's a huge increase in utility usage when the individual users are not specifically charged for their usage and so nobody in their right mind would ever build an apartment building now that it was master meter and the same not the flock I think applies to these smaller subdivisions Commissioner Westman I agree with Commissioner Newman Commissioner Newman maybe that's the key to discouraging developers from building these units if we require them to be master meter we should for just conservation reasons I also tend to agree with Commissioner Newman and Westman and it seems to me that if we want to encourage multiple families and not to have these units turn into a commune or whatever we would want to have separate utilities for that very reason so that you can easily rent them out separately Commissioner Christensen do you have any yeah I was just on this year's class I mean I think correct me if I'm wrong but they are available to be both separately is that right not most of the same lot so when you subdivide and each lot can be sold but the two units for a lot can not be sold um yeah I would be leaning towards keeping it separately meter each unit so do you need a vote on this Kate? oh you know people forgot to have public hearing so oh we did I'm sorry that's my fault do we have any public comments so checking public comments um there is no written public comments and I did notice this twice the paper so there is no attendance on this one yeah commission again only ask the question do you want to formally vote on this if you have your feedback I think that was consensus to keep the separate utility connection we can move on if there is a motion we'll want to make sure that this will actually we're not making any changes so we won't do a motion and now if we can go to the map then I do want to clarify that originally so people hill the unique factor of people hill is that it is all within the appeal zone for coastal commission so that was one thing we took into consideration when drafting this map but I definitely here and understand commissioner was concerned in in the jewel box there is there it is over parked and that's why we included it in the option two I want to say you're welcome to create a third option if you think that we should include the rest of the jewel box but maybe not include the neighborhood near new Brighton Middle School and you know this is up to you we have Sean making this map so you'll send it it's on your direction so these were option one and then option one combined but you are also creating other guidance and doing a lot of fun maps let me get a question of clarification so what you're asking is these areas that are marked in either blue or gray are basically creating more restrictive parking requirement in other words you have to have at least one off-site parking unit so if if we want more off-site parking and more and as a result more curb parking the more areas we include the better off we are that's the idea yes but it has to be in harmony with the coastal act so it really has to have the areas that we put into this map should really tie into areas in which the public couldn't park you know to walk down to the beach so we wouldn't want to include everything all the clear streets I think that wouldn't pass much there but really those areas that are really close to the beach and as the public may park at so we have the city split in the two sections the coastal zone and the non-coastal zone so it would include the entire coastal zone we could but it may be I could see the coastal commission saying we didn't mean to go that far but you're welcome to provide that direction right now as it stands the two exceptions what is this one is for car share so it's a if someone came in and someone who is in a local car share they could utilize the extension the other one is for any transportation that has 15 minute intervals right now the capital doesn't have any of those right now no one is subject to the exception but once over time as more housing comes in hopefully our metro follows and there will be more stops so then at that point the areas in the map will be required to provide parking okay commissioner Ruth at every end just a question so if we can find option one and option two is that something the coastal commission will accept I believe so I think that is equally walkable in areas that people do need a lot to get down to the village and the beach okay I think that's the way we should go did we want to include any additional areas you were suggesting perhaps more of the drill box the entire drill box is included well yeah there's two I guess in it I think the upper village part is a little bit of a stretch in terms of parking for coastal access but I don't see any reason not to include it if we can get away with it and it has really severe parking issues I tend to agree as well to do options one and two does anybody other commissioners want to weigh in seems to be the consensus so far yeah I agree with one and two thank you again do you want a do you want a motion on this or are you happy with this verbal consensus I think we can tie that end at the end with the final motion so I will I'm taking notes of what to add to the motions I've got include one and two for the parking okay and now the discussion on four units on a smaller lot I do want to quickly share my screen just to bring up a couple of images okay can you see my screen yes so the image you're seeing here is the 40 by 80 lot and actually on a 40 by 80 lot with 3200 square feet we are able to squeeze in I think it's a four foot say front yard it's a five foot setback but as we get smaller we're going to go to the next 40 by 70 lot which is better showing in this presentation at that point under option D there's a zero foot setback and when we had this discussion with Planning Commission last we looked at these options in between A with all the parking in the front versus B I think there was a majority that made for B totally once you're larger at a 40 by 80 typical lot size we have the total there is the ability to have a five foot setback and I think by code we're requiring a four foot setback but understanding that it's going to be a given take once depending on the lot size so I'll stop sharing and without a lot of discussion so it seems like during the discussion we had a three to two majority sacrificing front yard is for parking so Nick and I were emphasizing the largest setback but we are in a minority so we can just tell I mean we're just passing out of the council and they'll make the final ruling on that and they can know that this was a split decision Commissioner Ruth, do you have your hand up? Yeah in the staff report the SD9 item under discussion under the discussion part there's a number of units allowed is guaranteed regardless of setbacks so I'm curious how that statement relates to us even requiring setbacks so we can require them if they'll fit but if they won't fit somebody comes in with a 40 by 70 lot and they can have the four 800 four foot units on the lot they're not required to make the setback whereas if they were on a 5500 four foot lot and we now have proof and those are 800 four foot units to comply with our setback so it's just by guaranteeing allowance so no matter what they get the 800 ok so again it seems like it is a 3 to 2 preference with the presentation has been presented a 3 level preference ok and then there was one more edit that then showed in in this presentation for parking is to re-working that the two sections within that lots went in the SD9 to reference that not correctly are there any other sections of code you'd like to discuss for the other members I had a few sort of nitpicks if we're at that point I'd like to throw out there if I had them so I'll go through the coordinates I think I just have about four of them and only one of them is really substantive the first one is a 16.7 8.040 A1 and that is in connection with an AAM block split application the requirement that the AAM can submit a title report that's less than 30 days old doesn't really accomplish what you want to accomplish because you could have a 30 day old title report that doesn't convey the current situation so I would recommend changing that language to read a title report showing the current ownership in all current leagues and in conferences 30 days old then at same sections 16.7 8.040 A3 B I thought I raised this but this is really picky but is there any reason why only a survey by a licensed land surveyor and not also a civil engineer because we have another place where you have either civil engineers correct this one is really picky 16.7 8.060 A the fourth line down I think which should be which the fourth line down A the property was acquired by the car owner that should be which the one that is substantive or it's really a question on my part I just don't understand it which is 17.75040 A B is on page 49 only on a G 2 the guarantee allowance of 800 square feet of floor area is in addition to the maximum floor area of a property in the R1 zoning district I guess I should be able to understand that but I can't does that mean if the floor area ratio allows for a certain number of square feet you can have 800 more correct so that would apply if there were we can almost remove that because it's covered in other areas but if there weren't existing single family homes they were protected as well but I think that can be removed that's carried over actually from our ADU ordinance and do you think that's necessary to keep or because I think we're very specific with allowance of the 800 square feet I think was paragraph one that covered that yeah well that would make me feel good because I still can understand it any other comments on the ordinance paragraphs from other commissioners let me see my back up I see no other hands up so how do we want to handle this Katie we've gotten a lot of comments not 100% agree on all of them so I I think we have we understand the concept of how much we will bring to the city health goals that put those and let them know that that was not completely consistent and we're ready to take a motion and let him commit to this city council I do have one additional item that a planer so brought to my attention and we don't define how we say 800 square feet throughout the document wrote the rest of the zoning code we talk about floor area there's a lot of exceptions to what's included and what is not included in floor area so I do think it would be helpful I don't think the way this has been drafted that any of those exceptions to floor area would be applicable to the SB 9 ordinance and we should probably add some reference to that unless the planning commission would like the exceptions to floor area to be applicable to the SB 9 ordinance so thank you Sean for that catch and an example so an example would be an 800 square foot home on three stories the staircase is only counted once another example would be an 800 square foot SB 9 project with a second story desk the in where we're changing it to counts towards the floor area and the teachers with that would not be counted Sean can do you want to give any other example or I can pull up the phone the arrow don't ask basically whether or not we want to to put some exceptions into the 800 square feet basically allowing them even more square footage effectively or to insist that the exception well no by removing the exception you would limit the 800 square feet to something left correct it would include it all so it would include it would include it there it would include I'm pulling up the floor area exceptions I have it up to you so do you want to share with me yes this is exactly it so it includes all interior areas and lower rooms and within it includes all entire area and then includes structure without production of features such as interior wall or storage there's the example about the sterile case only counting once number four is interior building with a floor to ceiling height greater than 15 feet of counting twice and then it's go down floor phone feature number five sorry can you scroll up a little are included in floor area the upper floor area greater than four feet height measured between the bottom of the upper floor and the top of ceiling so that would give it a little to the two and a half story scenario and then so all of those three structures other than a single building when was 120 four feet of left and then number six are features that are included from floor area calculation and that's covered in uncovered deck, patios, trellises so this whole list under number six I think that's what you want to specify whether or not to include in our floor area calculation. Right now these are exceptions and for bay windows trellises up to 250 square feet have been enclosed garage under 2005 and it's worth a lot the state law address this and also how we define square footage? It does not so we can say it's just a gross floor area without any of the exceptions under well if we want to if we don't want to really encourage this SB 9 evolution here then we wouldn't want to have well I don't know if that will necessarily discourage it it would just I mean it would decrease the living the actual cost of living right I mean it would control the mapping but it was definitely any you ever seen a 200 square foot video I mean if you're going to start counting all the stretches of stairs and all the trellises and all this I feel like it will start to make pretty unrealistic living space but I understand what you're saying because she doesn't Victor Wefner I would be in favor of not having any exception to the 800 square feet I think that you know these are we don't want the building to end up being any bigger than 800 square feet because they're going to be so crowded on these lots anyway so I would like to see no exception I really agree with the commissioner Westman and Newman and I would as well you disagree I don't necessarily disagree I'm taking into consideration really how much you know it's going to be a really small living space and I guess that's really what discourages this type of development but yeah I guess it just seems like such a I'm trying to practically you know visualize it in my head that would be in support of saying no exception sounds like you have a good sense of case okay so I'm hearing combined parking 1 and 2 and to remove any four area exceptions within the FC9 ordinance and and to include the edit by commissioner Newman so I'll make a motion including the items that Katie just mentioned to move this forward the motion to move this forward to the city council with the the three items that Katie mentioned the no exception including areas options 1 and 2 and to include the edits made by commissioner Newman but you also basically to include the committee commission split votes or comments as really Katie all you're asking for is do you want to move this forward to the city council or do we want to debate more do we want to move this forward yes or no sure or do you have other things you want to study we're happy to okay so excuse me that's your motion your motion is to move it forward including the items that we have discussed today I second that we have a motion by commissioner Westman and the second by commissioner Newman any further discussion may I ask one last question one more Katie do we I can't remember but is the garage counted as or do we do they have to have covered parking I can't like in within that one part of space that needs to be provided so covered parking is not required and the other thing is is there the exception to including a garage towards the work footage has now been removed so there's no exception for the garage so in essence we're suggesting that there are no exceptions and they're going to maximize the amount of FAR that they're going to be proposing there's essentially nobody's going to propose covered parking because they're going to use that work footage to then put in size for usable living and I just want to make sure everybody's informed the same thing is that something that you would want to make sure sure okay we have a motion in a second if there's no more further comments or questions Louie could we have a roll call vote sure Commissioner Christensen hi Commissioner Newman hi Commissioner Roof I think there's just too many things that are minimal to the low availability of our community some of them hi Joe Wilk motion passes four in a month you I guess are authorized to process this and move this forward to city council with that we can move on to the director's report okay I have two updates for you the first is that at the city council meeting next week we will be discussing the outdoor dining the current temporary program at this point the coastal commission staff were still discussing major points in our dropped ordinance it was originally scheduled to be heard by the coast commission in April but it does not look like it will be resolved before the May 31st expiration so that discussion is going to city council next week on outdoor dining we're going to have a program the staff report will be printed tomorrow and then also in terms of prototype designs for outdoor dining we're going to post a Zoom meeting with the restaurant to get their feedback I'm going to be sending out a letter to the restaurant tomorrow about the helpful meeting and I'll also inform them about a prototype design meeting that's going to be held on May 11th and that's just so we can get some feedback from the restaurant owner prior to that one prior to any coastal development from that point forward to planning commission to understand their needs and desires Zoom meeting are we encouraged to attend? You know, it's really a meeting for the restaurant owner and the link will be on our website publicly but I'm not encouraging you to attend we'll report back on what we hear and when that comes forward for our coastal development program those are two items, thank you Thank you Mr. Provost, I just have a quick question for Katie regarding the design of the platforms I know we're going to make them level with the top of the curve but I was down there, I was looking at the crown in the road and of those things that extend out the length of the parking spot in some areas that crown was not allowed that to happen and have that platform be level I'll raise that concern with the landscape architect Are there other communication, final communication? I have something the art and cultural position is interested in the artlet for those the whole outdoor dining area Thank you, I don't know why but they want to do some type of collaboration so I forwarded all of the shared documents for our last meeting to Larry and to just start maybe a conversation where we can start relaying messages back and forth to some type of beautification I have a comment since you brought up the art and cultural commission and that is, I'm also a member of the environmental committee and they're interested in what the art and cultural commission is doing and would like to participate in any signage, environmental signage and environmental activities that would be associated with that so you might get some outreach from the environmental commission soon. Are there any other communication? If not, why are your roots white? What's she doing better? She's in her first day of a new needy. Congratulations. It's going to be a long haul and they do it. We wish her the best. Okay, with that, this meeting adjourns. Thank you. Goodbye.