 all participants on line when you're ready to go yeah when you're ready okay you can hear me okay yes okay I will call to order the regular meeting of the technical planning session and we will first have a roll call then I'll give commissioners Christensen you need to speak up please commissioners Christensen commissioner Christensen I'm here Commissioner Ruth Commissioner Ruth here Commissioner Wilk here Commissioner Welch here chair Newman here thank you in accordance with the current shelter-in-place order from Santa Cruz County Health Service and Infected Order in 2920 from the Infected Department of California this planning to make the meeting was not physically open to the public as you can see we have limited staff to the present in the council chambers during the meeting the rest of the commissioners will participate remotely this meeting is tablecast live on charter communications able to do channel 8 and it's being recorded to rebroadcast on the following Monday and Friday at 1 p.m. on charter channel 71 and time-staffed channel 25 meetings can also be viewed live from the city's website www.cdc.org our technician tonight is yet to be named Ben Thomas I'm sorry Ben Thomas Ben Thomas is our technician thank you despite being physically close to the public participation by the public is still possible public comments and the emails the planning commission for their attention during tonight's meeting do that you need to do the following in your email identify the item you look to comment on in the subject line email comments will be accepted from starting now up until I announced a public comment for the particular item closed these emails comments will be read aloud not just three minutes or displayed on a screen these public comment period will remain open for three minutes emails received by public comment at ci.capital.ca.us outside of the comment period out on above will not be included in the record we want to thank you for your patience tonight as we've asked for the x's and b's of the time for the safety of everyone involved next we will do the pledge of allegiance so everyone we really don't have a flag in sight but we'll begin now I pledge allegiance to flag anyone else in the United States of America unneeded to be that was not much better than last month okay next is all communications first there's any additions or deletions well we did receive additional public comment this afternoon and we'll get into that with the individual items but no deletions or additions to the agenda okay for some reason there's that you're noticed about how do you know the parts of the block that's now some okay next item is public comment normally this is the time for the public to participate commenting on items that are not on the agenda and so does anyone think in any comments that are not items on the agenda I'm checking right now we have any already it's not we will give the public three minutes to let us know if they have anything they want to offer so they start there right now and we are getting one public comment that our feed is hard to understand so chair I think it is a little fuzzy if you can try to readjust your mic that's much better okay and with that I don't think we have any additional public comments this evening well we've got two more minutes so can I take those two minutes by asking the question that Peter Wilk yes that'd be a good news for that time so when when the chair and I have to recuse ourselves can we do that just by having the chair put us on mute so we can continue to watch the meeting I know that's interesting because when you refuse yourself you're supposed to be out of the room but we don't have a room so yeah but we always go in the other room and watch the proceedings anyway yeah yeah I think it would be cleanest we don't have to be on mute so we can't participate then that's the same thing I think the objective of having the recuse committee is out of the room that they don't influence anyone by facial expressions or actions so so we'll turn our video off yeah so as long as we can't see you we can watch it okay and I can control that I have a question is Commissioner Christiansen present yes Sam okay I didn't hear you on the roll call oh yep and you bring the other comments while we wait for the public comment and are we gonna have any staff yes I have prepared staff comments okay let's go ahead with that and if any public comments coming in the next minute or so we'll reopen that okay this evening I'm going to give you an overview on our efforts to date on the shelter-in- place order regarding planning and building typically I would do this during the director's report but I thought since we do have two recusals tonight I would go ahead and do that up front during staff comments so as you know on March 31st the shelter-in-place was placed into order in the County of Santa Cruz supplemental order went to place last Friday on April 30th and under that supplemental order construction all construction was open up prior to that only essential services were allowed to continue so as of last Friday all construction is allowed to resume and also on May 6th yesterday there was an additional order easing restrictions on low-risk businesses so I'm going to give you an overview of the supplemental order and what that means for construction and also the order easing restrictions on low-risk businesses so for construction in the order that came out there it opened up all of construction and it specified that anyone working under under that allow allowance must have a distancing protocols in place which was there's strict or there's great guidance included within the order as appendix a it's on our website it's also available on the county health website and in that appendix a and this is for all businesses as they begin to open under our shelter in place as we enter into phase 2 of this it outlines exactly what businesses must include so there must be signage on site there's also standards to protect employee health such as possibly taking temperatures as they come to work monitoring folks health making sure if they are sick that they're they stay home anyone that can work from home should work from home under those standards also is crowd prevention and outlining ways in which to keep six feet apart so for checkout stands at your grocery store you see the lines that have been put on the ground similar for all businesses as they as we slowly open things keeping putting in measures to make sure people are six feet apart also prevention efforts for unnecessary contact that we're practicing within our building inspections right now if if the building inspector does not need to touch something then we're doing everything correctly so we ask folks that if something has to be looked at behind a cabinet that they make sure all cabinets doors are open before the building inspector gets there and we also ask that the person the onsite person not be on site during our inspections at this time and then also increased standards for sanitization and also included in the May 30th order was appendix B and that appendix B is for construction requirements so every site is required now to have a COVID-19 supervisor to enforce the guidance that's included in appendix B and it outlines safe distancing practices and a lot of the practices that we saw in the safety protocol in the previous slide this site specific supervisor is required to be on the construction site at all times while construction activities are occurring it can be one of the construction workers that is on the site working so they can kind of wear two hats while they're on the site and they're required to put together protocol and review the protocol with the workers and visitors at the construction site so they're the people that are keeping the the site safe and making sure everyone's educated on what protocols are in place at each site and next this is the order that came out yesterday easing restrictions on low-risk businesses so this is as of tonight at midnight or tonight at 1159 the restrictions have been lifted for retail businesses it's limited to curbside pickup only you're not allowed to go into a an establishment to buy something but you can order ahead and pick it up by this outside very this is in line with what restaurants have been doing but very clear that you're not allowed to go into the building appendix a which I showed you previously or I outlined previously requiring signs and safety in terms of distancing that applies to all of these businesses as well so that every business will have to have that appendix a displayed in some fashion and educate all of their employees of all of the distancing protocols that are in place for each business so as of tomorrow we'll start to see more businesses open and with that that concludes my overview all of our applications actually I should mention this all the applications as staff we're taking everything in electronically at this point we do have a bin to collect plans that they can be dropped off so it's been working really smoothly with the applicants so since last Friday we've been issuing building permits and we've been asking people to be a little bit patient with us we're trying to move through them as quickly as possible we've got one full-time employee and a half-time building official so we're trying to get through those as quickly as possible but it is taking some time so we've been issuing permits this week and then planning applications continue to come in and mostly through our electronic means but also there are applicants are welcome to drop off paper plans at City Hall so with that I'm happy to answer any questions I have a comment yes I would like to see this city the planning department whoever would assume this responsibility to see about getting the village businesses open other than restaurants and bars most have only one or two employees and they could limit the customers in there I see no reason why we couldn't ask the county to open those businesses or in fact take an action ourselves to allow them to open I can discuss that with internal staff there right now the way in which works is that we have to go through the whatever the order is in place but there is some flexibility in getting approvals by the health official so I will I'll carry forth that message okay thank you Kate well I assume we have not received any additional public comments do we have any commission comments in none next item is approval of the minutes of March 5 2020 we have any additions or changes to the minutes it's not and we have a motion to approve a motion to approve the minutes that's the motion Courtney sorry commissioner Christiansen okay and all in favor I guess we have to do by roll call who made the second can we clarify motion yeah we need a second mission or Ruth made the second okay ready to vote any any discussion mission or Ruth hi mission will I make their Christiansen I missioner well the pie yeah okay I assume we've covered all the staff comments yes yes we have okay I'd like to and that also I would cover the directors report item 5 correct and I'd like to this is director Hurley and I think every time we speak it would be very helpful if you introduce yourself before you speak that I did get one comment from the public asking saying it's difficult to understand who's speaking so please introduce yourself before you speak is the director going to have any additional report at the end of the meeting no okay and next I'd like to skip the item 6 which is any commission communication other than what we've already had any missioner have any additional communication hearing none we'll allow those for the public hearing and both myself and missioner will are ineligible for these two hearings because of proximity of property so we I will send the meeting over to life chairman Luke and mission will tonight will probably not return since he's the last two items on the agenda thank you okay good evening to the members of the public that are listening we have two public hearings tonight public hearings are intended to provide an opportunity for public discussion of each item listed as a public hearing the following procedure is as follows one the staff presentation to public discussion and we will hesitate after the staff presentation to allow time to submit any emails or comments three the planning commission comments for we will close the public portion of the hearing and five the planning commission will make a decision their first public hearing tonight is 319 Riverview Avenue this is a design permit and conditional use permit for reconstruction of an historic structure with new addition for a second unit located within the CV central village zoning district okay Katie or Matt whoever's doing the presentation please take it away all right thank you vice chair Ruth this is associate planner Matt Orbach tonight the applicant is proposing to demolish and reconstruct an existing 1777 square foot historic structure and build a 2876 square foot two story addition which includes a second residential unit in the CV central village zoning district project requires a design permit conditional use permit and an appealable coastal development permit next slide the existing residents at 319 Riverview Avenue is an historic one-story single-family home with a large shed located in the rear yard adjacent to the Riverview pathway the residents in shed are located on a 9714 square foot lot which is the largest lot in the Riverview Avenue neighborhood by far the portion of the lot between the Riverview pathway in the Soquel Creek is approximately 1590 square feet and must remain as open space next slide the property is located in the central village zoning district and the environmentally sensitive habitat area or Esha the lot is also included in both the Riverview Avenue residential overlay district and as a contributing structure within the old Riverview historic district which is on the National Register of Historic Places the home is in disrepair and in need of major rehabilitation the houses on Riverview Avenue are a mix of one two and three-story residential structures many of which are historic so here you have the existing site plan and let's point out a few of the landmarks here so Soquel Creek is on the left the 1500 square foot open space then the Riverview pathway existing shed the existing residents with the porch called out and then the Riverview Avenue street on the right this is the proposed site plan as you can see the shed's been removed and the reconstructed historic residents relocated to the northwest of its existing location next slide the proposed first-story plan includes a reconstructed historic residence which was as I mentioned relocated and the deck is extended it also includes a two-car garage and a two-car carport for four on-site parking spaces next slide please the proposed second-story plan has the reconstructed historic residents relocated and the deck extended the deck of the second story extends to the ridge line of the reconstructed historic structure here are the existing and proposed east elevations from Riverview Avenue next slide these are the existing and proposed west elevations from the Riverview pathway or the Soquel Creek click please just a call out here the reconstructed historic structure is proposed to be raised three feet from grade to provide additional flood protection for the structure this will match the floor height of the reconstructed historic structures on the adjacent properties to both the north and the south here we have the existing and proposed north elevations next slide and the existing and proposed south elevations click please one important item to note is that the sight lines from a six-foot person standing on the Riverview pathway are shown here the more sharply angled upwards one would be the portions of the structure that go almost all the way to the Riverview pathway while the lower one would be the ridge line where the upper-story deck extends to any modification to a historic structure must comply with the secretary of the interior standards to qualify for a CEQA or California Environmental Quality Act exemption architectural historian Leslie Dill reviewed four revisions of the project for compatibility with the secretary of the interior standards upon the fourth submittal miss Dill found that the proposed residential rehabilitation and addition project has been designed to comply as well as feasible with the standards and that while the proposed project does not strictly meet the guidelines outlined in standards five and six due to the nature of the resource and the reasons for significance the project appears to meet the intent of those guidelines therefore the project qualifies for a CEQA exemption capital and municipal code section 17 6 0 0 3 0 c states that in considering an application for conditional use involving a material change of an historic feature the planning commission shall weigh the benefits of the proposed change against the detriment to the public welfare caused by a change in the feature in approving any such change the commission shall make one of the following findings either one that the action proposed will not be significantly detrimental to the historic feature in which the change in use is to occur or the applicant has demonstrated that denial of the application would result in hardship that is so substantial as to outweigh the corresponding benefit to the public of maintenance to the historic feature or structure based on the historic report the finding can be made that the project will not be significantly detrimental to the historic feature in which the change in use is to occur next slide please based on the federal emergency management agency or FEMA national flood insurance program flood insurance rate map 319 riverview avenue is located in a special flood hazard area zone AE the firm sorry flood insurance rate map shows that 319 riverview avenue is located in the regulatory floodway with a base elevation place flood elevation of approximately 19 feet next slide please here the existing and proposed west elevations again click please for reference the red line here is the FEMA base flood elevation of 19 feet and then one more please and then as I mentioned previously this is showing that the reconstructed historic structure will be raised three feet new residential structures in this flood zone are not allowed to have conditioned or habitable space below the base flood elevation historic structures however are allowed to be reconstructed with conditioned or habitable space below the base flood elevation the proposed project complies with these restrictions and conditions of approval requiring a no rise study and an elevation certificate will be included in a project approval under conditions 25 and 26 there's also an existing pathway between the residences at 319 riverview avenue and 317 riverview avenue that leads from riverview avenue to the riverview pathway the path is not designated on the city of capitola's coastal land use plan shoreline access map however the california coastal commission expressed concerns related to the elimination of the pathway proposed in the plan set that went to the architecture and site review committee on november 13th 2019 in subsequent revisions the gates were removed from the proposed site plan and landscape plan and those plans were updated to show the pathway remaining condition of approval number 27 has been included to ensure that the pathway is kept free from obstruction so that the public access to the riverview pathway is maintained with the inclusion of this condition of approval staff was able to make the required findings for the appealable coastal development permit project is also located in the so-called creek so-called creek riparian corridor which is an environmentally sensitive habitat area under the capital and municipal code so-called creek riparian corridor regulations the project must comply with the following requirements a development in areas adjacent to the so-called creek riparian corridor shall be cited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade the area the proposed development is located 39 feet from the bank of the so-called creek there are no significant proposed changes to the riverview pathway or the portion of the lot between the riverview pathway and the so-called creek and the large mature cypress tree is to remain the development is cited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade the area b a minimum 35 foot setback from the outer edge of the riparian vegetation shall be required for all new development on the heavily developed east side of the lagoon and creek from stockton avenue to center street the setback requirement shall be measured from the bank of the so-called creek the proposed development is located on the east side of the so-called creek and is 39 feet from the bank so the proposed development complies with this requirement c the applicant shall be required to retain a qualified professional to determine the location of the outer edge of riparian vegetation on the site and to evaluate the potential impact of development on riparian vegetation this actually is on the heavily developed east side so this requirement is not applicable d removal of native riparian trees within the so-called creek riparian corridor shall be prohibited unless it is determined by the community development director that such removal is in the public interest by reason of good forestry practice disease of the tree or safety considerations the proposed project does not include the removal of any native riparian trees within the so-called creek riparian corridor and the large mature cypress tree located between the riverview pathway and so-called creek is to remain e snags or standing dead trees shall not be removed unless an imminent danger of falling project as mentioned before does not include the removal of any standing dead trees next slide please f coastal development permit applications within or adjacent to the so-called creek riparian corridor shall contain a landscaping plan which sets forth the location and extent of any proposed modification to existing vegetation vegetation and the locations kinds and extent of new landscaping a landscape plan is included in this plan set for the proposed development approval of the landscape plan by the community development department is included in the conditions of approval under condition number six g conformance to the capitol erosion control ordinance shall be required a drainage plan shall be provided for all projects adjacent to or in the riparian corridor in order to ensure compliance with this requirement the public works department added conditions number 10 and 11 to the conditions of approval so with that staff recommends the planning commission review and approve project number 180609 based on the conditions of approval and findings okay thank you matt are there any questions for staff from planning commissioners commissioner christensen any questions i don't have any questions of the time commissioner wilkes any questions for q's commissioner wilkes any questions i think for commissioner wilkes oh i'm sorry he's recused himself yeah okay commissioner wilkes any questions i have no questions at this time okay i do have i do have one uh i spoke to caroline swift on tuesday and at that time she hadn't reviewed the latest changes to the plan but she did note that it conformed to the state standards um per leslie bill now she's going to link the email today and actually i didn't see that until not long before the meeting so i'm wondering does she raise any new issues in that email don't believe any of those issues were new we as you mentioned the architectural historian reviewed four different revisions of the project and all of those items i believe were covered it was a difficult project from many angles and we met with the applicant and the historian multiple times actually together to revise the plans make improvements changed the massing uh and i believe we got it to a point well obviously we got it to a point where the architectural historian was comfortable providing a positive recommendation okay and then i didn't notice anywhere on the plan or in the conditions that the public path will be marked as a public right of way uh you know it's funny my wife's family bought their house on the river in 1949 and she grew up there she wasn't aware that path even existed and i don't i don't imagine many people do so i'm wondering if it can be marked yeah it's it's not identified in the local coastal plan shoreline access map um i think uh coastal mission just caught one bit when reviewing the project and the fact that it had previously been open and had been proposed that gates on it and so requested that those gates be removed they're they're requested not uh include any signage requested signage so we didn't include that in the condition okay okay they're item on that now sorry one more item on that vice chair ruth was the archaeological question that carillon swift brought up i verify that this is not in the archaeological review zone so that's not a requirement we did not need to put those extra conditions on this project okay did that raise any questions for any other commission members not not for me not for me either just to share a question then we'll uh open this up to the public uh you may send an email um and we will allow three minutes to hear any comments from the public on this item the applicant sent a letter in and asked that it be read into the the meeting so i'm going to read that for you um this came in this afternoon so dear commissioners this unique property probably has more development and building restrictions than any parcel in the city of capitol if not in santa cruz county let's start with this property is in an appealable coastal zone it is in a floodplain of socal creek and is in a historic district this parcel is three times larger than any parcel in the vicinity of this developer parcel it is 9714 square feet which may be the largest residential parcel in the village proper 2730 square foot has been designated as open space with a river bench land and river walk the developer part of the parcel is in the theme of floodplain to a depth of eight feet nine inches this means that the bottom of the joist must be eight feet nine inches above the existing grade and the finish floor has to be a minimum of 10 feet above existing grade all new condition living areas need to be elevated to a minimum of 10 feet above existing grade garages and unconditioned areas like entry and storage can go into floodplain with a bit of building restrictions the existing house is in a historic district it is not a contributing structure in the district it is not listed in the capitol architectural survey or the historic context statement of the city the existing house is not savageable as a structure in any part the building and the shed will have been removed from the property have to be removed from the property there is nothing there that can be saved but the living part can be duplicated to the exact structure unit one that and detail plus or minus of what exists now in the lot we intend to reproduce this home this house living area to exactly what you see now but bring it forward on the lot up to the pathway as most other houses are located along the pathway historic houses can be rebuilt into the theme of floodplain the interior will be altered but it is not subject to design review of historic review this structure will be a separate living structure of 1232 square foot two bedroom and two bath home we will be raising the house three feet to protect from flooding as it has been the practice along soquel creek this will be considered unit one of a duplex development as is owned for the property a new house unit two will be built behind unit one separated by an upper deck area that gives the picture that they are separated structures the second unit is a 32 foot is 32 feet from the path this structure is governed by FEMA regulations and the living will have to be located at the second story level with the garages and entry on the lower level the total footprint of this house is less than is less that the footprint of all the surrounding structures lot size divided by structure in design we created separation of the two structures by placing a 10 foot wide deck between the structures if you walk the pathway in the historic district you will see that it is not uncommon to see riverside structures silhouetted by a neighboring structure to the rear this unit two house is only 1,958 square feet of living consider this is a 9,700 square foot lot on page five south elevation you can see the rear structure is remotely visible from a six foot person walking down the pathway this house was intentionally set back to not dominate unit one as agreed by leslie dale we are providing a four car garage with the structure with the many restrictions on design and development on this property we have made a very accommodating design that takes historic requirements and neighborhood concerns into consideration we fit into the city of capitol zoning regulations including parking open space setbacks height and we feel that we make all secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation standards and the city historian has agreed this is not a big house we thank leslie dale and city planning staff for their observations and requested changes we did complete some significant design and masking changes as recommended we went through five sets of changes over one and a half years to get her approval please take into consideration the fact that the unit two house is in the femo flood plain and is required to be built as a second story the rear house does not have to mimic the historic house in fact it shouldn't this project actually has less lot coverage than the neighboring two houses to the property it should be remembered that this is the cv zone thank you for your consideration thank you the la monaco family and denis norton and we have additional public comment i'm sorry k there are no public comment no there is more um okay okay we've had ample time for public comments to be submitted do you have the public comment yeah there's another one so uh sorry i was trying to find the feature that reads it out loud to you so you don't have to hear me read but i'm going to read this one to you as well because i can't find the future um this is from vineyard fam at sbcglobal.net nelson and leslie vineyard we live directly across riverview from the proposed construction the meeting tonight is the first review of this proposal that we are aware of as it was posted on the site that posting was no longer up today so we were not sure it was still being reviewed i was shocked to see in the agenda packet that this project was reviewed on march fifth we were not made aware of that hearing and have never seen plans for construction as when today's hearing was posted we were in shelter in place sadly by now it appears the plans are to be approved by the city for the record we would like to have it noted that this is a huge structure further deteriorating any beach quaintness or bohemian nature of this neighborhood this area is overcrowded as is and a duplex will congest the neighborhood further not to mention the loss of views on the creek and the green parkway on the other side it is very sad to see approval of cramming in as large a structure as possible time after time on this block i don't know why we never made we were never made aware of the earlier review when i feel our comments could have been taken into consideration nelson and leslie vineyard okay thank you this is the house directly across the street yes okay thank you okay so there's no other public comments there is a mission there's another public one more two more public comments okay okay the proposal as presented is a complete demolition of a historic property while the structure is in need of repair it is no worse than many other properties in the historic district that have been successfully renovated while still maintaining the historic nature feature size location on lot materials and character of the original structure the proposal retains absolutely nothing from the original beach bungalow other than to mimic the front facade with all new materials the riverside gardens and setback placement of the original structure will be totally lost with the proposed changes the new placement of the front of the house within two feet of the public pathway will undoubtedly interfere with the public's use of this beautiful capitol riverwalk the city will be sacrificing the natural beauty and harmony of this delightful village landmark the massive 2.5 story addition dwarfs the original historic property dwarfs the neighborhood historic properties at 317 and 323 and completely encloses in dwarfs the historic property at 321 riverview avenue on two sides built within 12 inches of the existing walls of 321 there will not be enough room to swing a hammer between the two houses all the way up to 25 feet in the air that is two and a half times taller than the existing roof line of 321 the structure will completely eliminate all light into the courtyard of 321 which the city historian carolin swift claimed was a historic feature of 321 surely this courtyard can no longer be of any concern of the city or its historians if they approve this proposal to enclose it by 25 foot walls on two sides miss dills reporting concerning secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation clearly states the proposed project does not meet the guidelines outlined in standards five and six by approving the proposal the committee is setting a precedent that all future submissions must also be approved as long as they demonstrate an intent to satisfy the standards as carolin swift stated this project puts the entire historic district at risk by approving the project or anything close to this enormous structure on this lot the committee can no longer reasonably expect to behind behind its arbitrary rules and regulations to protect the historic district it must allow other historic homeowners the same flexibility to build 2.5 story structures without meeting the arbitrary line of site setbacks to pretend the addition can't be seen from the street or the river that was sent in by j star and i believe there's one more this is john p milner sight lines are also required from the front or side or street side according to previous approvals or denials the new structure is two and a half times taller than the previous structure and obviously within the sight lines parking the location of the garage will eliminate street parking in front of 319 and in front of 321 any parking in front of 321 would necessitate that vehicles block egress from 321 courtyard creating a danger to its occupants street parking should be eliminated from the front of 321 this next one at the end of the i think that's okay yeah we've had two public comments okay and then one two more um two more yes this this is from rich did a the historic architect report contained phrases like effects on historic district not considered what impact might arise if it were has any other historic structure been reconstructed in toto thank you rich did a and then we have a public comment that says i own the property property immediately south of the property and support approval i have a few technical comments a boy okay so there's no more public comments that have been submitted we can bring it back to the planning commission at this time we'll close the public portion of the hearing yeah there's one more that just says any way to show us and i'm not quite sure what oh who is speaking we already discussed that so please make sure to this is katie hurley the director that's been reading the public comment and it seems um oh we have a public comment from a phone that says i have a comment please let me comment share you did not say how to mail in the comments so i'll bring back up the slide so they can see the public comment how to on the top of every slide to make public comment you should email which um must have been done if it showed up in the public comment but public comment at ci as in city dot capitol dot ca dot us again public comment at ci dot capitol dot ca dot us okay we'll we'll allow another minute for public comments we did receive one more public comment i own the property property immediately south of the property and support approval i have a few technical comments and that goes on about public path but that can be dealt with later please approve the application steve woodside 317 river view okay okay thank you katie with that we'll close the public comment portion and we'll bring it back to the planning commission members for discussion commissioner welch any comments questions uh the only comment i have is based on the fact that this uh historic district repairing area floodplain and the coastal review zone they've done a good job of trying to meet all those standards okay thank you commissioner welch commissioner christensen um i i i see i mean like they've gone back and forth with um trying to meet all the standards but have we heard from the people that own 321 it's a smaller um adjacent residence the single story is to have they have they put any input in are they katie yes this is uh director hurley speaking we i'm not exactly sure because in the emails that we received we did not it wasn't clear where which homes they lived in so i apologize but i at this point i'd have to say i do not know if the smaller house that um is along the street has commented this evening i'm not sure okay um i just had a further comment i appreciate the consideration of the pathway and i know how tired tired any exhausting it can be going back and forth with all the different requirements so i appreciate the effort okay thank you commissioner christensen i just have a couple of comments uh i know the lamanakos have owned that property for at least five or six decades that i'm aware of maybe even longer and during that time they've watched riverview avenue from stockton avenue all the way to the trestle developed with a lot of two-story homes uh they've never taken that opportunity and i think this time they are taking that opportunity and they've done a really dynamic job to preserve the historical aspect of the property yet make it useful for the future so that's my comments i think we're ready for a vote may i have the roll call please unless there's any other comments roll call please we need a motion a motion first oh i'm sorry we need a motion and a second this can make for welch i would uh move that we approve the conditional use permit and design review 18-0609 at 319 review a second so commissioner christensen's second okay a motion by commissioner welch and a second by commissioner christensen to approve the project with the attached conditions may the roll call please commissioner christensen hi commissioner welch i vice chair ruth hi the motion carries on a three zero vote okay that brings us to the next public hearing which is item four is it four anyway it's public hearing b 115 san jose avenue this is a master conditional use permit for the mixed-use capitola mercantile including specific allowances for to-go food establishments tasting rooms retail sales personal services and designated shared seating areas with on-site consumption of beer and wine located within the central village zoning district where the staffer court please thank you vice chair ruth this is associate planner matt warbach again i want to apologize head of time this report is a lot more text heavy because it's mainly about conforming with the regulations here so the applicant is proposing a little closer into the microphone it's very difficult to hear sure it's usually the last complaint about my loud voice the applicant tonight is proposing a master conditional use permit that includes designated shared seating areas with on-site consumption of beer and wine for the capitola mercantile within the central village zoning district as you mentioned the permit would allow various a variety of use types to be considered as permitted uses in the structure and would allow some businesses that sell alcoholic beverages to utilize the interior and exterior quasi public seating areas as a shared premises for consumption of alcohol the property is centrally located within the central village along san jose avenue and esplanade the capitola mercantile contains 11 commercial tenant spaces totaling 8735 square feet which are currently a mix of retail and restaurant establishments click please the development also includes the adjacent building to the south which includes a two-story structure with a residential space on the second floor a 535 square foot garage on the first floor and 180 square foot commercial space on the first floor currently occupied by left coast sausage works the mercantile is surrounded by one and two-story structures with retail restaurant and hotel uses here are the couple of pictures just so you can get a little bit of color before we go into the text so what is a master conditional use permit a master conditional use permit explicitly allows a variety of principally permitted and conditionally permitted uses as permitted uses within a specific location a tenant may change one use to another use administratively if the proposed use is established as an allowed use in the master conditional use permit master conditional use permits are regulated under the capitol and municipal code next so now i'm going to go through each of the requirements and i warn you there are a lot a to qualify for a master use permit more than 10 000 square feet of building must be located upon a parcel or multiple adjoining parcels under one ownership at the time the first tenant use permit is utilized the total square footage of the capitol and mercantile and the adjacent structure with a residential unit and one commercial suite the two structures that will be regulated under the proposed permit is 10 635 square feet so the project qualifies for a master conditional use permit b the property must conform to the city parking and landscaping requirements i split these onto two slides so this first staff analysis is just in terms of parking in terms of parking the existing uses in the capitol and mercantile require 44.45 parking spaces but there are only 41 parking spaces provided on the site however under conditional use permit 05035 which permitted the expansion of carousels from a takeout restaurant to a standard sit-down restaurant 41 parking spaces were found to be adequate because uses in a mixed use development have different peak use time periods and therefore combined require less parking than if the same land uses were separately developed the uses included in the proposed master conditional use permit would maintain parking at the current level of 41 spaces the second half is about landscaping here so in terms of landscaping 2835 square feet of landscaping is required to meet the 10% landscaped open space requirement for the cv zoning district the proposed site plan provides 2842 square feet of landscaping which meets the 10 requirement and now we're on requirement c which is the main component of a master conditional use permit when improving any application the planning commission shall determine the uses allowed by the master use permit by selecting from those principal permitted uses and conditional uses as listed in the zoning district regulations which are without the imposition of conditions not in the master use permit compatible with the master use and the surrounding properties and i split these up into the principally permitted and conditionally permitted so you'll see a couple slides here the proposed master conditional use permit includes the following principally permitted uses to be permitted administratively one retail business establishments two personal service establishments such as nail or hair salons massage health spas three beach rental equipment four art galleries five antique sales six all permitted uses within the zoning district next slide please the uses which typically require a conditional use permit but would be allowed to be permitted administratively under the proposed master conditional use permit are listed below followed by required mitigation measures that would be required for the use seven takeout restaurants including but not limited to fruit and vegetable stands meat and fish markets candy and ice cream stores local home food products coffee roasters oyster bars and seafood baked goods and spices and herbs these would be limited to a maximum of six seats and a maximum of 160 square feet of open area to customers for consumption eight business establishments slash tasting rooms that seller dispense beer and or wine these would also have a maximum of six seats a maximum of 160 square feet of square feet of consumption area they require a letter of necessity and convenience from the capital chief of police all new businesses that seller dispense beer and or wine except for beer or wine manufacturer tasting rooms will still require california department of abc or alcoholic beverage control license not more than 50 percent of the combined leasable commercial floor area of the mercantile 3,212 square feet may be utilized for this use type not including the shared premises areas this included in condition number 13 as well i did want to point out the staff report and the master conditional use permit draft document published with the planning commission agenda packet contained an incorrect number for the total leasable commercial floor area for the mercantile so any project approval tonight should note that the total leasable commercial floor area is the previously stated three thousand two hundred and twelve square feet and that the master conditional use permit and condition of approval number 13 be modified to include this number i also wanted to note that uh this use type does not include businesses that seller dispense distilled spirits those types of businesses would require an abc license and a conditional use permit with planning commission approval uh the number nine use is commercial entertainment establishments such as theaters and amusement centers these would be limited to a maximum suite size of 1400 square feet and just to note that the existing gaming arcade uh in the mercantile complies with the 1400 square foot limit so that was it for the for the uses now we're going to move on to d hereafter prior to the leasing of any space upon the subject property the holder of the master use permit must inform all prospective tenants or tenants renewing their extending leases of the conditions of the master use permit and the requirements of the section this requirement is included in as condition of approval number eight and is included in the master conditional use permit document as well we took that step because in doing research previously it's it's sometimes hard to find where these are located so we echoed the conditions of approval in the master conditional use permit so they can be found in the same location uh e after a master use permit has been issued tenant use permits shall be approved by the community development director upon inspection of the property and verification that it and its landscaping are in good repair and that all other conditions of the master use permit are being met this requirement is included as condition of approval number nine as and is included in the master conditional use permit document f a tenant use permit may be revoked in the manner provided in section 1760120 if the tenant is the cause of violation of a condition of the master use permit this requirement is included as condition of approval number 10 and is included in the master conditional use permit document as well and g any approval of the master use permit may include size limitations for each category of allowable tenant use permits subject to the following limitations no tenant use permits may be issued for any activity use that will occupy over 12 000 square feet a building area above this limit activity uses must obtain an ordinary conditional use permit there are sorry next slide please there are three size limitations included under the proposed master conditional use permit first the master conditional use permit includes commercial entertainment establishments with a maximum size of 1400 square feet as a permitted use any commercials entertainment establishments greater than 1400 square feet would require a conditional use permit with planning commission approval second the master conditional use permit includes a restriction for business establishments that sell or dispense alcoholic beverages that not more than 50 percent of the leasable floor area of the mercantile or 3212 square feet may be utilized for this use type not including shared premises areas there are currently four approved conditional use permits for alcohol sales within the capitol of mercantile caruso's restaurant capitol wine bar the daily grind coffee shop and a proposed pizzeria the total existing floor area occupied by uses that seller dispense alcoholic beverages is 2770 square feet which is 43 percent of combined commercial floor area within the capitol mercantile the 50 limitation would allow an additional 442 square feet of floor area to be converted to business establishments that seller dispense alcoholic beverages as i mentioned earlier just uh that there was a error in the staff report and master conditional use permit document so if any project approval should note those the correct floor area of 3212 square feet third takeout restaurants and business establishments that sell or dispense beer and or wine will be limited to 160 square feet of food and beverage consumption area available to customers the operational provision of limiting the seating area of to go food and beverage establishments to 160 square feet is consistent with the new zoning code h the planning commission may deny a master conditional use to all or a portion of any described any area described in subsection a if the planning commission finds that particular circumstances of the property its existing use or its proposed use are such that the ordinary conditional use permit process is necessary for adequate protection of the community's land use interests the planning commission will review the application and make this determination tonight so now we're done with the master conditional use permit requirements i'm going to move on to just some specific areas that we wanted to review so the first one is alcohol the applicant is proposing to include businesses that can sell beer and or wine including tasting with a 60 maximum in the master conditional use permit these businesses except for beer and or wine manufacturer tasting rooms would still require an abc license and a letter of necessity and convenience from the chief of police but there would be no planning commission review the abc does not require beer and wine manufacturers with active abc licenses to acquire separate licenses for tasting rooms in different locations from their primary location however if they wanted to utilize the shared premises they would still have to agree to the same conditions as other businesses utilizing the shared premises and as i mentioned earlier to businesses that sell or dispense distilled spirits would still require an abc license and a conditional use permit with planning commission approval and they would also not be allowed to participate in the shared premises area so what is that shared premises area i keep referring to the applicant is proposing to allow the businesses that sell beer and wine to utilize the interior and exterior quasi public seating areas as a shared premises for consumption of beer and wine capitol the staff worked with staff from the state abc licensing department to establish the boundaries of the shared premises areas for consumption of alcohol will be allowed these areas include quick please the quasi public seating areas in the lobby in the center of the building a proposed outdoor patio adjacent to the northwest entrance to the building and a small proposed outdoor patio adjacent to the southwest entrance to the building next slide please the abc staff also established conditions for abc license applications for the mercantile businesses wishing to utilize the shared premises seating areas would apply for a type 41 on sale beer and wine eating place license the shared premises conditions are as follows one containers must be distinctive in design and color and be easily distinguishable from containers used for non-alcoholic beverages two containers must significantly differ in appearance from containers utilized by other licensees within the mercantile three licensees must monitor the areas under their control four sales service and consumption of alcoholic beverages in or on the patio areas is limited to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily five volume of entertainment must not be audible beyond the area under control of the licensee and six sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is prohibited once licensed all licensees would be responsible for the shared premises including any violations of the law occurring on the licensed premises in the last area that we wanted to cover is the captola wine bar suite 110 which is the current location of captola wine bar is permitted as a retail wine shop and tasting room with six seats or less under conditional use permit 06011 in the 2019 parking study for the mercantile however it was identified as a restaurant use so the parking demand for a full restaurant is already accounted for in the existing on-site parking of 41 spaces staff has listed restaurant on the list of suites with specifically permitted uses within the master conditional use permit the master conditional use permit would make the current use of the property compliant the master conditional use permit also includes an allowance for expanding a future kitchen for the captola wine bar into suite 111 which is the proposed pizzeria next door so that the tenant may expand into a full restaurant use in the future the captola wine bar currently holds a type 42 on-sale beer and wine abc license this license type is not allowed to participate in the shared premises however if a kitchen was added to suite 110 the captola wine bar by expanding into suite 111 the captola wine bar could apply for a type 41 on-sale beer and wine eating place abc license and participate in the shared premises next slide so with that staff recommends the planning commission review and approve application number 19 0186 subject to the conditions below and based upon the findings if the planning commission does choose to deny the application the language from the municipal coach should be included in the motion for denial and i have that language available if it's needed okay thank you matt for your presentation are there any questions for staff uh commissioner welch vice chair i do have one question there's a lot of information there matt just to so i understand that under commission nine that the business is still dispensed with still the the skilled spirits uh have their license and they think they are not allowed to utilize the shared premise area but it didn't really identify like the arcade area is a shared area and that would be a concern of mine is that they would be um we keep alcohol out of there is that something that's still covered under that yes the alcohol would not be allowed in the arcade areas that's not part of the shared premises and it was actually discussed on our site visit with the representatives from the abc the chief of police and planning staff and the owners representative and during that um onsite visit with the abc they they'll have strict regulations about signage and where alcohol is allowed and not allowed so signs would be up prohibiting alcohol from the arcade okay commissioner welch here now very good thank you okay commissioner christensen any questions for staff um i was i was wondering if the outdoor premises i think it was on the outdoor little patios that are existing is there going to be any divisions um proposed from public space to private space and right now it's pretty open um is that anything that's going to be set in place yes there will be fencing provided on the perimeter of those two exterior shared seating areas any other questions from any commissioners okay i have none so we'll go to the public input portion and if there's any member of the public that would like to comment on this application for a master conditioner use permit for the mercantile building will allow you a few minutes to submit your comments the email address is on the screen i did we have this is director hurley we've received one public comment from the applicant that i'd like to read to you i'm going to keep the slide up so that other folks can email if they'd like okay so may 8th 2020 city of capitol a city planning commission regarding capitol a mercantile master occupancy plan the mercantile building has a total of 7,110 square feet of net tenant spaces the space has historically been divided into a dozen or more tenant spaces with access from three separate building entrances and the adjacent streets the esplanade and san jose avenue the proposed master occupancy plan assumes that the building will continue to be used much in the same way with the same points of entrance and a group of tenants connected to the corridors and common area facilities such as a restroom such as restrooms what is likely to evolve under this plan is a mix of tenants in the configuration of the individual tenant spaces the master occupancy plan does not amend the zoning ordinance all of the requirements for the use permits and design review will still apply to businesses located within the mercantile building including exterior signage or changes to the building exterior the purpose of this plan is to provide an orderly and predictable method for managing a mix of tenants within the mercantile building the goal is a vibrant vibrant varied and compatible mix of businesses under one roof that creates a synergism of among the tenants and attracts residents and visitors alike the public's taste and expectations evolve and venues with a successful cluster of tenants need to be frequently changed to meet these expectations thus at the heart of this plan is a method for the mercantile to be more nimble and successful at attracting new tenants the mercantile site will have a parking management plan that will provide 41 parking spaces one of the only businesses that that has required parking in capitol village this master occupancy plan treats this allotment of building area and uses to be within the allowed parking supply for the mercantile tenants and no other review of parking supply and demand will be required the parking demand for food and beverage uses is higher than for retail uses the use of the interior space will be balanced between retail and food beverage services finally if some uses do not clearly fit either the food and beverage category or the retail category they can be permitted if they are within the portion of the building allotted to food and beverage category a comparison of this vision would be oxbow market napa a very successful and vibrant single building shopping mall see attached photos the hours of operation will be determined by type of business with a maximum open hour of 7 30 a.m for coffee to 12 p.m for wine tasting mercantile management will be available in capitol village during all open hours please see a list of permitted uses this will become a vibrant marketplace at the time that capitol village is suffering as a retail destination thank you Dennis Norton okay thank you for that any other public comments come in let me see yes uh josh fisher thank you so much for your help with this project we look forward to having a thriving village again in general and bringing the mercantile building back to life as well as making it the heart of the village as it used to be thank you josh fisher on-site rep capitol and mercantile owner operator of the daily grind and left coast sausage works and okay thank you katie i think with that we'll close the portion for public comments and bring it back to the commissioners uh commissioner christensen any questions comments one question um if a in your presentation it said that uh 50 percent building can be um only allowed to sell to still beverages basically if or alcohol is there if somebody has a certain use and then they all said wanted to just wanted to sell um some type of wine or beer and it's over the 50 i think it was 442 square feet of additional businesses available at this point um would they it's just straight up not allowed or is it they can apply through a planning review or is it just limited at that point and just is there anybody who doesn't so because it it's out it's very specific in the master conditional use permit as a limit it would be limited but they could amend the master c up if you wanted to put language in the c up in the master c up allowing them to come to planning commission to go over those limits we could put something to that effect that any any additional uh drinking establishments that go beyond the 50 percent limit would require planning commission approval okay i just was curious i'm just wondering if it was you know a strict limitation or if there was area to to explore if somebody had the opportunity yeah that was something um staff put in it was not required by the d abc so if you wanted to make the um you know if you didn't want to have a 50 limitation you could remove that or you could um state that anything beyond the 50 percent requires planning commission review or you could leave it as is and that would require an amendment to the master c up okay thank you okay commissioner uh welch any comments i just want real quick uh i just remembered we had one time i think had approved for the city had approved a parklet for careers as i believe is that something that has gone away that we're not doing anymore or that's still on the books that application was withdrawn happy thank you and uh any amount i supported okay i just want to say the key for me in this is because i think this is a really great thing mainly because the mercantile has not had a stellar history of following uh city regulations and i i think the master uh conditional use permit program will give this give the city a better handle especially with that condition that says all use permits will be reviewed by city staff so if that remains in there i can uh i can support it so i'm willing to entertain a motion in a second excuse me vice chair ruth this is director hurley he i i did um when we did our site visit one thing that that came up that i think i'm not sure it made it into the conditions but i would like to make it as an amendment into the conditions if it did not currently there's one bathroom available to the public and the second bathroom was just for mercantile staff if we were to allow all of these areas to be utilized by the public and um consumption on site i think it's essential that we make sure both bathrooms are remain open to the public i would agree okay any further comments questions if not uh is there a motion ice chair this is the commission welch again i would move that we approve the master conditional use permit with an added condition that we use uh they utilize both bathrooms and then does that sorry okay then we have a motion in a second to approve with the added condition regarding restrooms roll call please can i can i interject for one second and have asked um commissioner welch whether his motion included the uh direction to staff that the total total leasable commercial floria be amended to 3212 square feet in both the master conditional use permit uh and condition of approval number 13 commissioner welch is i i would uh agree with that support that thank you i'll do the roll call um commissioner christensen i commissioner welch i vice chair ruth i motion carries on a 30 vote okay that brings us to item five directors report i believe we may have already had that anything else to add from the staff not this evening okay uh commission communications any communications from any member of the planning commission then for me okay with that we've reached the point where we can adjourn the meeting is adjourned thank you very much for uh tuning in and we'll see you in june thank you goodbye