 Hello and welcome to Capitola Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 2022 in accordance with the current Santa Cruz County Health Order and the Governor's Executive Order in 2920. This meeting is now physically open to the public. Commissioners and staff are meeting via Zoom and there are several ways for the public to watch and participate. The information how to join this meeting using Zoom or a landline mobile phone along with how to submit public comment during the meeting tonight is available on our website cityofcapitola.org on the slide shown on now and on the published meeting agenda. As always, this meeting is cablecast live on Charter Communications, cable TV channel 8 and AT&T Universe channel 99 is being recorded and replayed on the following Monday and Friday 1 p.m. on Charter 71 and Comcast channel 25 meetings can also be viewed live on the city's website. I'm wondering if this is an old introduction, but anyway, that's most of the information and our technology tonight is Olivia Felly and with that, let's begin the meeting with roll call. We have a roll call, please, Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Neumann, Commissioner Ruth, Commissioner Westman, Chairwick, here, okay, we have a quorum and we'll move on then to oral communication. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? There are no additions or deletions to the agenda this evening. Okay, with that, we can move on to public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on matters that are not on the agenda that be given the three minutes to speak on items that are not on the agenda but are of interest to the community and the planning commission at large. So you're able to come on either by Zoom or by e-mail, are there any public comments? I see three attendees on Zoom and none of the attendees have their hands up. Okay. Move on then to commission comments. Are there any commissioners to speak on items not on the agenda? My screen so I can see you all and I don't see any hands raised, so let's move on then to staff comments. I just wanted to announce that at next week's meeting on August 25th, the City Council meeting, they're going to a hybrid and from that there, we have a draft hybrid admin policy that's been put together. The City Council is going to review that at next week's meeting and then once they have reviewed that, I'll send that out to the planning commission and we will follow their suit in terms of our hybrid meetings. The initial conversations on that was that they'd like to have three City Council members at each meeting and then two to remain at home so there's social distancing between the seating. So at the end of each of their meetings, they're asking for who would like to attend the next council meeting. So I think as we do the same practice here at planning commission meeting, we're planning on going into our hybrid at the next hearing, the next meeting. So at the end of this meeting, I will be asking if there's three volunteers to attend the next meeting in person and then two to stay remote for that first meeting. And they also wear an agreement that if anyone feels more comfortable at home, that's absolutely fine, but a maximum of three. Thank you. Okay, very good. Let's move on then to the consent calendar. We have one item on the consent calendar, item A, 3720 Capitola Road and 1610 Bowel Avenue. Would you want to give us a rundown on that, Kate? You know, there's a request to continue this item. It's a conceptual review for a teacher assisted living facility and they've requested to continue it without a date certain. Okay. So yeah. So that's A and then item D is 1350 49th Avenue and the rundown there is that you had a presentation on that at your last meeting. There were questions about the encroachment and I'm not always attached to the staff report from the city attorney's office and that's the update there. So yeah, basically we wanted clarification from legal before we approved the encroachment and now we have it. So with that, does anybody wish to pull anything from the consent calendar, either the public or the commissioners? I would just like to comment on 1350 49th Avenue. Okay. Go ahead. I don't want to pull it because as I said in the last meeting, I think it's a good project and we now have some cover from the attorney's office, but I think technically it's still defective. The owner of property has to be the one to apply for a permit in capital under our ordinance and the owner of the adjacent property who has buildings that extend over the property line can't get a permit to do work on the adjacent property. There's just so many legal issues that could come up if, for example, we had to file a notice of violation, which property would you file it against, liability, just a host of issues. I don't agree that we can just give a permit to a property owner and to do work on the adjacent property. So I'm going to support it with that qualification. Did you want to pull your vote or did you want to? No, I think we have cover from the city attorney's office. I just think in the future we ought to be careful about that. I mean, you could take an example of where someone wants to grade an easement on a neighbor's property. I mean, the property owner has to get the permit and be responsible for what's going on on their property. And so this does not set a good precedent. Just did. Are there any other comments before we entertain a motion on the consent item? Seeing no hands raised, does anybody wish to make a motion on the consent calendar? I'll motion to approve the consent calendar. Item A and B. We have a motion. Do we have a second? This is Commissioner Westman. I'll second it. We have a motion by Commissioner Christensen and a second by Commissioner Westman. Any further discussion? If not, let's take a roll call vote on the consent items. Luis, we have that vote for that roll call, please. Yes, please. Commissioner Christensen? Yes. Commissioner Newman? Aye. Commissioner Westman? Aye. Commissioner Ruth? Aye. Yes, aye. Chair Wilk? Okay. So I'm confused. I couldn't hear you. You said Commissioner Ruth or Commissioner Wilk? Commissioner Ruth first and Chair Wilk last. Do we have an aye from Commissioner Ruth? Yes. Yes, you did. Okay. I didn't hear that. Okay. And aye from the chair. Okay. So it's unanimous. Let's move on then to public hearing. Item A, Warth Road tree removals. Do we have a staff report? Yes, we do. Good evening, commissioners and Chair Wilk. The application before you is actually an application with the city serving as applicant. And here with us, we also have the public works director, Steve Jesper. This is a tree removal application to remove two pine trees at the intersection of Warth Road, Stockton Avenue and Cliff Drive. The staff is deferring the application to planning commission due to the potential of the project. So we're going to move on to that. So we're going to move on to the intersection of Warth Road, Stockton Avenue and Cliff Drive. The staff is deferring the application to planning commission due to the potential for public interest. And here are the trees we've labeled them in case there's references T1 and T2, similar to the Arbor support. The trees proposed removal are two Canary Island pine trees located within the public right of way. The Venetian Motel office and 1504 Warth Road, it's a condominium behind it. The trees are between 50 to 55 feet tall and are in fair condition. They are not heritage trees and are not located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area. In considering their removal, the public works department hired an independent arborist to evaluate both trees. For the planning commission to approve the removal of a non-heritage tree, at least one of the findings for removal must be made and there must be no feasible alternatives. The findings, which include health of the tree, safety considerations, and property damage are shown above, will be addressed in the following slides. I'm just going to go over these briefly as they were covered almost verbatim in the staff report. But as a summary, staff and the arborist did not make a finding that the trees were dying or at a high risk of falling. With respect to the second potential condition, or finding rather, the staff and the arborist did not make a finding that the trees posed a substantial concern for safety either. And here, before we go to the next finding, are several photos of the area around the pine trees. The assessment of both staff and the arborist was that there were numerous instances of damage radiating from the root zones of both trees. So with that, staff and the arborist made findings on both tree number one and tree number two, that there's an unreasonable level of property damage that has occurred to the public improvements around these trees. Possible alternatives to the removal were considered. And the arborist recommended that the preservation of number one be taken into consideration with some suggested mitigations. Those are listed on the screen. Staff believes that the removal of only one of the two trees would likely result in continued damage to the surrounding space, and is therefore recommending the removal of both trees and subsequent replacement with more appropriate alternatives. That, staff recommends the approval of the project based on the findings and conditions of approval. Very good. Thank you, Sean. Are there any planning commission questions of staff presentation? Mick Ruth has his hand up, Commissioner Ruth. Go ahead. Yeah, Sean, do you have an estimate of what it would cost to repair the damage that's occurred? I do not have an estimate. I can ask Steve to speak on that. He may have an idea, though. Can you see the ability to promote Steve to a panel? I am actively doing that. Let's hold for Mr. Jesper. Well, Commissioner, can you hear me? Yes. Oh, good. Sorry. To answer Commissioner Herber's question, the amount to repair the damage is probably in the range of $10,000 to $15,000. We can go in there and grind it much cheaper, but to actually move and replace and do what's proper there is probably not the right change. Thank you, Steve. Mr. Christensen, do you have a hand up? Yeah, I was just curious. To grind out the stones and fix the sidewalk, the damage, whatever it has been made so far, and to replace the tree is what you guys would prefer, is what I'm understanding. Is that correct? Great. Thank you. We would like to remove both trees. The neighbors there have been on us for years about the damage to the sidewalk and the needles falling. That's why we did the Arborist report to see what their health was. With one tree being recommended to remove from the Arborist, we think it's wise at this point just to remove them both. We will re-landscape the area after we do the sidewalk improvements in the area. And probably go to some form similar to the other side of Stockton Avenue Bridge utilizing palm trees and lower landscaping bushes or things like that. We do not have a sight distance problem that we do at the other intersections, so it's slightly different, but we have not come up with a formal plan, but I think that's my description is pretty accurate. So you're thinking of replacing those kinds with palm trees? Correct. Correct. In that location? Well, somewhere in that plan is men's kicked area, yes. And that would probably be far cheaper than trying to mitigate trimming with the Arborist suggested by trimming the roots and trying to mitigate intrusion. Is that right? Yeah, I think even with the Arborist's opinions and recommendations, we're talking about trying to save one of the two trees, and I think it's likely we will continue to see damage to the sidewalk, and eventually I think we'll be back before the commission trying to remove the other tree. Whether that's a year from now or 10 years from now, I don't know, but I think since we're removing one, let's go ahead and remove both. Thank you. Mr. Newell, you have your hand up. A quick question of Mr. Jesper. Do we have any idea of the natural life of this species of tree? I do not. I'm sorry. Thank you. But they are worth saying anything about that, Sean? I believe they classified it as maturing. So not at a point where it would be in its decline is my take on that. Courtney, do you have your hand up again or hand up still? Yep. I forgot to lower it. Thank you. I have a couple. Any other questions? I have a couple. The sidewalk is the only item in question in terms of damage. Is there any sewage or power or anything online? Anything else that is in danger from a safety-wide or from a public works impact? I'm not aware of any utility sort of being impacted by the trees. Okay. And you say you're planning on replacing the two pines with two palm trees, generally when we ask a public applicant who wants to remove their trees, we ask one of two things. Either replace two to one, which means you should replace those palm trees with four palm trees. Or always say, well, let's just worry about canopy coverage. And so it's a 15% canopy coverage, but we obviously would be reducing canopy coverage going from pine to palm. Is there any thought of increasing canopy coverage or planting more trees elsewhere on public property to meet the intent of those kinds of rules? So we are currently working on a project to do all of our tree mitigation. I will say the second tree for each one we removed. We removed a bunch from City Hall, I want to say eight, approximately a year and a half ago. We are now currently working on a project to do a tree replanting along the lower parking lot in City Hall, mainly along Bay Avenue. That corridor there, there's several trees there that are falling down from actual causes. So we're not mitigating those, but we will add two more trees to mitigate the two trees so we can get to four trees from the site. So two on site and two at the lower parking lot. Question of staff. Katie, I'm trying to recall if we've ever used sidewalk displacement as a rationale for allowing an applicant to remove a tree before. I recall there's places up on Depot Hill where there's a lot of trees that are pushing sidewalks around and nevertheless we say you've got to keep that tree because it's big or heritage or something. I do recall an application in the avenues and I apologize for not knowing exactly the location, but it was disrupting I think a driveway as well as the sidewalk and it was allowed to come down. That was Capitola Avenue. That Capitola Avenue and I think there was another one maybe in the avenues above the jewel box. There was one on. It was on private property, not public. There was one on Capitola Avenue as well. There was one on Capitola Avenue. There was one on Capitola Road. There was a big cedar tree on Capitola Road. That's right. Well, we had a hearing on Capitola Avenue just a couple. Yeah. Members getting bad. Okay. Any other questions? Staff. Okay. Then we can move on to public comment. Are there any public comments on this issue? I'm not seeing any new comments in our e-mail. There were a couple that came in before the packet was published and they were included with the staff report. I'm also not seeing any hands raised. All right. Very good. Then let's move on to signing commission deliberation. Does anybody wish to discuss this merit or be merit of this item? I'm willing to start. I have some concerns primarily because I've seen this. I think it's been probably the last 18 months or so. We've allowed three or at least two of the largest trees in Capitola to be removed. Not because they were diseased, but because basically the owners didn't want to provide the maintenance and they were fearful of falling limbs. That's the big pine that we allowed on 49th and the big cedar tree, which is one of the largest trees in the entire city on Capitola Road. And then we had the one that was causing some property damage, which wasn't really major on Capitola Avenue. I just think we have to do more to protect our trees. And for an investment of 10 to $15,000 to repair whatever damage is there, I think those two trees are worth it. And, you know, I don't see a major problem if we attempt to maintain those trees and make a minor expenditure to repair the damage because those are two important trees. They're very visual as you come down the hill, either hill, down Cliff Drive or down Warf Road. I just hate to see us removing all our large trees because we don't want to maintain them or we don't want to repair some minor damage. It just doesn't make sense to me. What else? I'll take the other side of that. I think our tree ordinance is a bit restrictive for my taste, but it is what it is. The thing about older, large trees is that they're not going to last forever. So if we, the upside to replacing these trees besides the sidewalk and so forth is that you get newer, younger trees that 20 years from now will be much better off with or 10 years from now than we will with the trees that are there right now. So it's kind of an investment in the future really to do this. So I'm going to support the staff's recommendation, but I do find it interesting that the applicant is the city of Capitola and the city of Capitola recommends approval. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right. Commissioner Westman. Well, I actually agree with both Commissioner Ruth and Commissioner Newman. I agree with Commissioner Ruth. I think there are some large trees that we have allowed to be removed, which perhaps we shouldn't have. But in this particular case, I don't think the kind of tree, the trees that we planted are really the trees that should be there. And sometimes we all make mistakes when we plant trees. Some of you may remember that I used to live on Bay Avenue and there's some very large redwood trees in front of the house I used to live in, which shouldn't really have never been planted there, but I confess I did it. And in this case, I think removing these trees and planting two trees that will be more appropriate in the future is the way to go. Thank you. Okay. I tend to agree with Commissioner Ruth. Just looking at the, looking at the code and the rationale for removing these trees, I think it's a contorted rationale. The rationale is one of public safety. I mean, if they're not diseased, it means all the other requirements. The safety concern is the raised, or no, it's not even safety concern. It's a property damage concern. And again, even if it isn't a $15,000 investment, grinding down the curb is something you see all the time. That's just how roots are handled throughout the state. And so that's not, I think that's a reasonable sacrifice to make in order to save a tree. Now, if they're going to, you know, they're going to replace these pines, maybe pines don't belong there, but certainly palm trees aren't made into this area either. If they're to replace it with a cypress or something, maybe that would make more sense, although I'm sure that would have a root problem as well. But I, I don't think there's enough rationale to, to have Commissioner Westman, do you still have a hand up or? No, sorry. I forgot to take it down. Okay. Okay. So Courtney, any comments? Okay. Let's look for looking for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the stamp recommendation and the application. Do I have a second? This is commissioner Westman. I'll second it. Do we have a motion by commissioner Newman and the second by commissioner Westman to approve stack up that recommendation? Any further discussion? I have one thing I couldn't unmute my, my speaker. I apologize. This is commissioner. Go ahead. There's a woman that just emailed in that said that she has been trying to sign on to say something and she hasn't been able. Is that something that we can help with? That's not, is that just the technical issue? She, I know. It's just, we're past that point in the deliberations, but I'm going to make an exception because of the difficulties associated with these zoom meetings. Unless the, any commissioners object. I'd, I'd, I'd go ahead and let her chime in. If we can. We do have a motion on the floor. Yeah. Well, but we're also in discussion. No, we closed the public portion. We can read out that. She just, she just emailed me 60 seconds ago. Yeah. As part of the deliberation, um, I, I'm curious to, to deliberate some more. And so I think I would appreciate some more, some more input from the public. I don't need Angela Steely being, I forwarded it to Sean. Okay. Sean, can you read that to us? Not 10 minutes long. No, it's just, um, I, I don't know how to, how to fix it. So anything. This is a planner Freilich. I, I've seen these emails and I had sent her the, she was having trouble with the YouTube link. So I sent her the zoom link. So let's see if she can get on. Well, since this isn't seem to be working, Brian, can you maybe give us the gist of what her emails are? She's saying she just was able to gain access on an email. Yeah. She does not state her position in the email. So, and Brian, can you confirm, do we have any, did she submit to the public comment? Um, yeah, I'm responding to the public comment email. And there she just simply says that she's unable to sign on to the meeting. I copied the link I used to join. So it should, it should work. We'll give her another minute, but we can't pull up the meeting forever. Well, we're waiting for her purposes of those people who may be listening in. We had two, uh, comments that came in and we haven't really, yeah, we haven't really discussed those or mentioned them. Maybe we should just fully summarize what those citizen position was. Oh, and then first of, go ahead, Katie, can you? Sean, can you provide a summary? Yes, we received a couple of comments that were included in the packet. They were, um, they were actually, I think three of them, they were all favorable towards removal. And cited that they had caused a lot of mess and surrounding public walkways and that they felt that they were either unruly to take care of or were hazard. And it would be better to have them gone. Any luck with our chair? Welcome. I'm not seeing that she's been able to log on. All right. Well, I'm going to go ahead and then close the public input. Then we have a motion and a second on the floor. Last chance for deliberation. Let's go ahead then and take a vote on the motion week. We have a roll call vote. Yes. Yes. Yes. Westman. Yes. So. No. Motion passes three to two. Um, good luck Steve. With that, that's the last of our public hearings. We can now move on to the director's report. I have one item to report out this evening on September 22nd. The city council will be hearing the appeal of 1410 prospect avenue. You'll recall that was a single family home there that will be reconstructed. They received a design permit, a variance, a historic design permit as well and a coastal development permit. It was appealed by the RTC as they were concerned with the soil stability. We've had a third party review the soils and we'll be putting together a staff report for September 22nd. The second item that I would like feedback on from the planning commission is if we could get three volunteers to be up to three volunteers to be in person at our next meeting. I volunteer. What is it? It is, I want to say September 1st. This is Commissioner Westman. I volunteer. Hey, King John. Commissioner, am I muted? No, you're good. Okay. I can do that. So that's the three and then so by elimination, Commissioner Swaroop and Newman will zoom in. That's the rule. Thank you. Okay. I'm willing to sell my seat if anybody wants to give me a good, no, I'm just kidding. I'm willing to sell my zoom. Right. Thank you. All right. With that, we'll move on. Oh, is that it for directors report? Do you have any mail? That was it. Thank you. Okay. Council go ahead. This is Commissioner Westman. I just have one comment. And that's to say that I was very disappointed in the repaving of Bay Avenue. You know, I was sort of used to one street, Scott repaved that they would be nice and smooth. And this one still seems to be quite rough. techniques that's being used, and it's not one that I think the city should continue to use. Hopefully, Steve is still on the line. He probably is. Any other comments? Communications? No, item number seven, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Good night, everyone. Good night, everyone. Thank you.