 And I'll ask the pretty clerk to start us out with a roll call. Yes, Council Member Bertrand. I'm here. Council Member Brooks. Oh, she's not. Oh, okay, thank you. Council Member Brown. Present. Vice Mayor Keiser. Here. Mayor Story. Here. And then at this time, I'll ask the city clerk to receive our meeting with an announcement. Thank you, Mayor. In accordance with California Senate Bill 361, this meeting is not physically open to the public. Council and staff are meeting via zoom and there are several ways for the public to watch and participate. Information on how to join the meeting using zoom or a landline or mobile phone. Along with how to submit public comment during the meeting tonight is available on our website cityofcapitola.org and on the published meeting agenda. The public can also live stream the meeting on the city's website. We're also streaming it on YouTube. As always, the meeting is cable cast live on charter communications cable TV channel eight and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8am and on Saturday following the first rebroadcast at 1pm on charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25. And our technician this evening is Olivia. Thank you, Olivia. Thank you, Mayor Story. Yeah. Thank you, Chloe. And also thank you Olivia for being our technician this evening. And next we have a pledge of allegiance and I'm going to ask how Vice Mayor Kaiser and she'll lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the United Nations, the United States of America for ever. And for the public, public and state law nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Vice Mayor Keiser. Next we have additions and deletions to the agenda. Does staff have any additions or deletions? Staff has no changes to the agenda tonight. In that case, we'll move on to a record on closed session from our city attorney. If anything, Mayor and Council Members, closed session was held on the item on the agenda and there is no affordable action. Thank you. Thank you. And then do we have any additional materials for this evening? Okay, we're moving right along. Brings us to oral communications. This is the opportunity for members of the public to address the Council on items that are not on tonight's agenda or for items that are on tonight's consent agenda. If you'd like to address the Council, just raise your hand and zoom or you can dial star nine or moderator will allow you to speak and you'll have up to three minutes to speak. You may also send an email to publiccomment.ca.capitola.ca.us and your email will be read for up to three minutes. Larry, I see one hand up for public comment. We have a story we have similar with the phone 1310. 1310, okay, will you start the clock and allow that person to speak? Yes, they're muted. Hi guys, I hope everyone's doing well this evening. Can you all hear me? Yes, we can hear you, go ahead. Excellent, so I just have the one question. I'm sure you all know next week is police week and I'm wondering if you would go over how the Council is honoring our local office. You know, public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Council. It is not a dialogue between members of the public and council meeting in terms of the question and answer session. So if you would like to make a statement or a statement of appreciation for natural police week, please go ahead and do so. But the council members will not be answering questions off of public comment. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate your response and have a great evening guys. All right, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak during public comment? Your story, I do not see any hands raised. Now we do have an email that I can share my screen and have read if that's okay. Okay, thank you. So I remember how to do this. Here's the email. I will, oh, they changed things. Sorry, they changed the, there it is. Dear Council member in Capitola, I have been reporting to the authorities lately the gang signs and taggings which are visible though illegal action by some idiots. Hopefully something can be done against this nonsense because according to my knowledge, this illegal actions account to public destruction of city Capitola property. Thank you very much for your attention. Sincerely, boring Colby, US citizen, army veteran. Well, I just want to thank that person for their email. We do not have any other emails for public comment and I do not see any attendees with their hands raised. Okay, seeing no other public comment, I'm going to close the public comment portion of our meeting and take us to item six, which is staff and city council comments. Let's begin with staff comment. I have one comment for you. And it's just one minor collection to item seven C on this evening's consent calendar. That's the travel policy. There was a minor typo in it that the maximum rate that's reimbursable for tips in one place says 15% and another place says 18%. The proposed ceiling is in fact, 18% of the maximum reimbursable tip amount. I just wanted to make that correction noted. And in addition, I think we have one other staff comment. Chief Daly, thank you. Okay, thank you, Dean Andrew. And Mayor Story Council, I just wanted to update everyone that this coming Saturday, we're going to have a second annual state follow-up. So let's take a little hiatus through the pandemic, but we're happy to bring it back. So this Saturday from 11 to four, it's the integrator state park. We partnered with our rec department. So we'll have a shuttle between the park and Shore Life Church. And then we're going to have togos, left coast sausage in a boardroom and PC from Santa Cruz boardroom and the Santa Cruz apparel to be out there kind of DJ in the concept. It'll be a really good event. Youth outreach, random pop-up event with the people that were networking with the village. So if you're welcome to come out, it'll be this Saturday. It should be a lot of fun. And like I said, it's Saturday 11 to four at the integrator state park. So thank you. Right. Thank you, Chief Daly. But that's not like a lot of fun. Any other staff comments? Seeing none, I'll ask, are there council comments? Yeah, council member Brown. Thank you, Mayor Story. I have a couple of brief comments this evening. First, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work of our police and law enforcement in the city and throughout the county and the state and truly throughout the nation. I'm probably telling like a broken record and noting that I come from a law enforcement family and that my grandfather worked for Capitola PD for many decades, so it's personal to me to take a moment to acknowledge all the hard work and to thank you for your service. I also believe that if it was last week or this week was also a public work week. Also to our public work staff, thank you as well for all of your work to keep our city as fantastic as it is. Again, just from our police to our public work to really all the staff in our city is just absolutely phenomenal and I feel very lucky to work with you and to be in the city that you're all taking care of in this way. And then also I wanted to share, as I mentioned at our last regular meeting, May is Community Action Month and as some of you may know, for the past seven years I've been CAB's public sector representative for the city of Capitola on their board of directors. Board of Directors CAB of course is the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County and it's been the county's designated community action agency tasked with eliminating poverty and creating social change through advocacy and essential services since 1965. We're also part of a national network of over 1,000 community action agencies across the country who are celebrating community action this month. And it's a time for us to reflect on our mission, our partnership, our values of equity and inclusion and the difference that we make in the community. And so I just wanted to share in 2021 that difference for the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County included serving over 10,000 low income people, including with rent assistance for nearly 2,000 people to avoid evictions, food assistance for over 1,000, job readiness support and placement assistance for over 500 youth and adults, COVID information for over 1,300 people including indigenous language speakers and impacting over 7,800 immigrants and their families with immigration, legal education and advocacy services. And so to celebrate and raise awareness of Community Action Month, CAB is co-sponsoring events highlighting housing issues, immigrant voices and experiences and climate resilience through the month of May. And CAB will be posting highlights of its work on social media on Impact Wednesdays, weekly in May. And for more information about this, you can follow CAB on social media or on their website at cabinc.org. And I just also want to share that it's truly been an honor to work with CAB for the past seven years. It's really one of the organizations that I've worked with where you see their impact every time you come to the board meeting, every time you tell someone you're with CAB or organizing or excuse me, affiliated with CAB, there's always a great story about what fantastic works they do. So I just wanted to again, share that information about Community Action Month. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Any other council members have comments? Seeing none, I have a few comments and first I'd like to start by joining Council Member Brown in acknowledging that next week actually May 15th is the 21st with National Public Works Week. And that is an opportunity and a time to thank our Public Works Director and our Public Works staff for all the hard work they do to keep the city clean and safe. And so thank you and I would encourage members of the public if you see a public work through out there, give them a high five and a thank you for everything they do for us. Thank you Steve and Jen. And I also want to join Council Member Brown in acknowledging that next week and actually May 15th is National Police Week. It runs from May 15th through the 21st. And that is also an opportunity for us to show our support for the fine officers that we have in our community. And this is particularly a time of remembrance for officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. They make the greatest sacrifices for us. So I would encourage members of the public to remember that next week is National Police Week. And if you see a capital police officer or a sense of sounding sheriff to give them a high five, thank them for what they do. And that we really do appreciate your service. So I also wanted to report out on the Arts Commission meeting that was last Tuesday. There were some, a lot of arts projects that are in line to be completed. The first is the Arts Commission approved the call to artists and that's where artists are gonna be solicited to make proposals concerning the stump that is in the lower Monterey, or the lower village and beach parking lot. And so we'll be seeing some activity there on that stump. We also, the Arts Commission approved the call to artists for artists to do a project on the railing along the Monterey Avenue going from the village up to Ward Park Avenue. It's done on the right side of the railing and next to the sidewalk. And there's proposed projects to put an art installation at that location. The Arts Commission in assistance with city staff have also finalized the upcoming Planet Concert and just wanted to let everybody know that those are gonna be starting on June the 15th and they will run until August 31st. Every Wednesday starting at 6 p.m. there'll be a series of 12 concerts and you can go to our website and to get more information about the particular events that we'll be playing at the end of August. There will also be two free outdoor movies. So that's my report on Arts Commission activity and then let's type on Council Member Brown. Did you have your hand up once again? Yeah, I'm sorry, my apologies. There was something I forgot to add previously. No worries. And it's kind of related to the upcoming police week. So I'm a member of the Criminal Justice Council of Santa Cruz County and we had our meeting today and I just wanted to report out. Last year, the Capitol Police Department was part of a report that the Criminal Justice Council compiled on Public, excuse me, Santa Cruz County Regional Public Safety Agency policy review and analysis. And it looks through the policies of Capitol PD, Santa Cruz PD, Watsonville Sheriff, you know, the whole County. And we believed at the time that we were one of the first in the state to do a report like that and the chair of the CJC, Supervisor Friend, let us know today that that report was submitted to the National Association of Counties for a nationwide award and we received it. We received the nationwide award for this report and they don't believe that there's actually any other agency in the country that have done this kind of work in looking at regional public safety agency policies. So I just wanted to, again, thank you to our Capitol Police Department for the other law enforcement agencies, for Supervisor Friend who chairs the CJC as well as Santa Cruz County Council member Justin Cummings who is a part of creating the survey. Everyone who is involved, it's a really exciting thing to see our regional agencies come together to do something like this and receive national recognition for it. Thank you for the additional time, I appreciate it. Yes, well, thank you for coming back and sharing that that sounds like a very awesome award to receive and congratulations. Thank you for your work on the CJC and for all the other members and to achieve this accomplishment. So any other comments this evening and Council members seeing none, I'm going to move on to the consent items. These items will be taken with one vote unless there's a Council member that would like to pull an item for further discussion. With the Council member which to pull one of the consent items. Seeing none, is there a motion to approve? I move approval of the consent. The motion by Council member Brown, is there a second? I'll second. Yes, seconded by Council member Bertrand. And we have a roll call, so please. Council member Bertrand. I approve. Council member Brown. Aye. Vice Mayor Keiser. Vice Mayor Keiser, I'm sorry. Sorry. That's a mayor's story. Aye. The motion passes unanimously of the Council members who are present this evening. And so that will bring us to item eight this evening which is our general government public hearing. The first public hearing is an application from the capital of village and law business improvement association to replace the order sign of Stockton Avenue and Kepzel Avenue. The recommended action is to consider an application from the capital of village and law improvement association to replace the sign hanging at Stockton Kepzel Avenue are there with a surfboard style design? Can we have a staff report please? Absolutely, good evening Mayor and Council. First I'd like to thank all the support mentioned tonight from the public works department. The crew worked hard and the officers worked really hard. So I appreciate the support that Council has given us not only today but over the years that we've had this department together. So I appreciate it. Moving forward, the item for you tonight let me share my screen. Oh, it's an adventure. There we are, are we good? Looks good. Thank you. So items tonight as you mentioned is that it was considering applications from the BIA to replace the existing sign on the arbor which is a parking directional sign with a sign based on a surfboard. So we'll put background here in the city approved administrative policy for regarding decorations in the village and we're counting this as a decoration that does fall under the guidance of this policy. The hang signs and banners. The BIA applied in last year at this time to replace the existing sign under the arbor with new signs comprised of two surfboards. The Council at that time continued to hearing and requested the BIA to return better mockups of the proposed design. Those proposals where they were gonna use actual surfboards, I actually have a picture of it but it was hard to tell exactly how it was in order. The current proposal, the BIA submitted a new proposal with continuing to surfboard design. They consulted a local design shop and the design graphic variety better represents the actual color response and layout that'll be done. So just to make sure we're all in the same place here and this is the corner of Stockton Avenue and Capitol Avenue and this is the arbor and this is the sign that we're existing sign that's there today. Get close enough so you can read it. It is, welcome to Capitol Hill. It's a part all day parking in the picture. So this sign was put in as part of the Parks Permission Project to re-sign directional signs through the parking lots behind City Hall. There were signs that started here and then continued along both Capitol Avenue and led people to the parking lot. There was a similar sign like this to on the back of the police department. And then there are signs that are still in today up in the parking lot that point to how could those things are supposed to get to the door. So there's a line. Many of the signs, the directional signs have been replaced by a yet subsequent version of how to get people into the parking lot behind City Hall. So the sign behind the police department has been replaced with a blue and white sign that has been more universally accepted weight P for parking. Many people felt that this wasn't as clear on the sign or the design here. So many of the directional signs have gone this is not the only one remaining except for the ones in the parking lot themselves which direct pedestrian back to the village. Those are actually reprinted and reformatted I think a year and a half ago and replaced. So those still exist. So this was the proposal last year, very fundamental design, hard to tell exactly how they were going to look, what colors the surfboards were going to be and everything. So this was the submission that the council continues. This is the submission that's in front of you today. You can see it has a wood grain, different colors. It continues with the blue lettering and the white piece on a blue background which is kind of universally identified with a parking symbol. You can go a little closer. The proposed sign will be 96 inches wide by 28 inches high. To give you an idea, the existing sign is 90 inches wide and 34 inches high. So this will be a little longer six inches longer and six inches narrower. The narrowness will actually allow probably lower down a little bit further so it may be more visible. This design by a pleasure point design is a digital print laminated on aluminum. That's how our street signs that the city has made or done. When we do the connections to the Arbor, it'll be designed so it doesn't swing and this was recommended and supported by the board of directors of the BIA. I'll mention now that I believe two members, at least two members of the BIA are present at this meeting and they're available to discuss and answer any questions the company has about this line. So the recommended action is to consider this application from the capital village or from business association to replace the sign hanging to Stockton Avenue, Stockton Capital Avenue Arbor for the surfboard style design. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Some council members on the staff report. And Steve, I had a quick question assuming that the replacement sign was approved. There, could we use the old sign that I assume that that one would be removed and that's part of the proposal. And if so. The old sign will be removed. Will it? Yeah, it will. And is there any place that it could be used? We could use it. We could look at, you know, might be a little confusing to have those signs in the back of the state department. We could certainly look at it and try and find another area for it. I need to, the goal right now is to try and get a uniform design back again with the white P in the blue background. But we could look at trying to find an area for it. Okay. Yeah, because we have the sign similar to that up in the upper parking lot, you know. And so it seems like it could maybe fit in. Of course, I know the arrow could make this automatically. Hopefully, you know, something that could be reused instead of just being decided. Any other questions on the staff report? And yeah, vice mayor, type it. Thanks. I was just gonna piggyback on your comments, Sam. Maybe somewhere at the top of, it might be our PC territory, but at the top of Monterey near Park Avenue, because then that way the arrow could point down in towards the parking lot. And sometimes people who can't find parking in the village, they may not know. And so they're exiting the village and then they might be, yeah, that could work. I'm not sure. But repurposing that would be awesome. We'll look into it again. Yeah, that's a good recommendation, vice mayor, type it. Any other questions? Say none. I'm gonna take this out. And if members of the public that would like to address the council on this item, if so, please raise your hand in tune or you can dial star nine. The moderator will allow you to speak for up to three minutes. Or if it's preferred, you can send an email to public comments at CACAPOLA, or strike that public comments at ciACAPOLA.ca.us. Larry, yes, I see one hand up. Larry, if you could. Anthony. Hi council. Thank you for letting us leave you on the agenda tonight. The biggest thing for us is we wanna get the guests out of their car into the parking lot as soon as possible as they come down, stop in the Espenot, back up and it makes it hard for pedestrians walking and just the general direction of putting the guests in the parking lot as quick as possible. For us, it's a brightening sign up so they can see it. We've already worked with Steve. He's already trimmed back the arbor so that the shade of that doesn't cover the current sign. So with the brighter sign trimming of the arbor, I think it'll enhance the viewpoint from the customers in the car and get into the parking lot as quick as possible. So I hope you guys would consider updating the sign and putting this one up. So I'd sum it right around the corner. Thank you. Thank you, Anthony. We have a second hand on this item, Larry. Yep. Karen, Hannah. What's that, Karen? I think it's greatly livens up that little corner. It's a much more contemporary look for the village, which I think is way more appropriate than the 1880s version of the signage. And it's fresh, clean, and I think that it's gonna be a big improvement because it'll be easy to read. So I hope you'll consider it. Thank you. We have Vicki. Hello. Hi, Vicki, go ahead. I'd like to say that I sit at the David Ling office across from this location for this sign that we're trying to get approved. And I look at the existing sign every day and it's rather faded and looks a little sad to me. And I think it would be really nice to have this kind of updated and current and fun surfboard sign and the international symbol for the parking blue, I think fits very well. So I hope you consider it. Thank you, Vicki. Mayor Suri, I do not see any other attendees with their hands raised and we do not have any emails on the sign. Okay, seeing no other members of the public wanting to address the council, I'm gonna close public comment at this time and bring it back to council for further deliberation and possible action. Are there council members that would like to leave us on this? Yeah, that's another one. Thank you, Mayor Suri. I know that when the BIA came to us with the original sign proposal back in 2021, we had a lot of questions, we had a lot of feedback, we had a lot of requests for them to bring us additional information. And so I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the time that they've put into this as the council's representative to the BIA. I've been on the meetings when they had the vote on this design, they discussed the process that went into creating it, the color scheme, the font, all of that good stuff that back in 2021, we had asked them to do. And so I think that this is gonna be a good addition to that corner, especially because it focuses specifically on pointing people towards parking, which we know we need to get them to. So again, just appreciation to Carn and Anthony for their leadership at the BIA and everyone who took part in this. And I'd like to move approval of the sign. There's a motion for approval. Is there a second? Yeah, I'll second that. Thank you. Okay, I'll second by Mayor Kaiser. Are there further comments by the council members? Seeing none, Chloe, I'll ask for a roll call vote. Council member Bertrand. Council member Bertrand. You're on the, my normal way of the space where it didn't work, so I approve. Council member Brown. Aye. Vice Mayor Kaiser. Aye. Mayor Story. Aye. Thank you. And that motion passes unanimously to approve the BIA's new sign. We look forward to seeing it go up. And thank you as well everyone for their work to, you know, beautify that color. So with that, we'll let's move on to the next item on our agenda for this evening, which is the women on waves, surf and swim contest. The recommended action is to consider expanding women on waves, surf and swimming contest a previously approved general special event on a one day to like two days of that. Chief Dally, you're going to lead us on this? Yes. Oh, thank you. Perfect. Good evening Mayor and Council. And let me begin by sharing my screen. There it is. How's it looking? Andy, you're sharing, you have your notes slide. That's what you're showing. You're sharing the notes? Yeah, I mean, we can see it. It's still a note. Yeah, well, I can zoom in on the one slide. Okay, if you can do that. All right, well, good evening, Council, Mayor and Council, tonight I'm going to be presenting on the women on waves surf and swim contest. We'll be touching on what exactly is the women on waves. We'll provide a little bit of the background and how we got to this evening. And then we'll touch on what their request is to see if we can go next slide, Mayor Larry. I can do it. Okay, so women on waves is a women and girls surfing and surfing, it's surfing and swim contest. And it's there to highlight and celebrate women surfing while raising money for nonprofits. It's a long and advanced build. It's the one that's been the leader of this organization, which is Ola Chica, it's her brand. And like I said, they do a surf and swim contest. They also have vendors throughout the day. It's a cell event, apparel, sunscreen, jewelry and arts and crafts. They have booths along the Esplanade, the grassy area there and at the Esplanade Park. They also provide a cancer screening tent and the impacts are limited to the Esplanade Park and Capitola Beach. We do not require any road closures and then it's primarily focused just on the Esplanade and the surfing and the surf and the beach. Right, a little bit of background. So this has been a very successful bit for Capitola. It's actually one of the few ones that's kind of started as a minor permit. So they back in 2018, they had a minor event permit which typically is those that are under 200 people and have a little to low impact from the city. And so they had that permit for 2018 and it was actually a very, very successful event that year. And so at that time, because of the size of the event it was actually a really sunny day with lots of swell. And so we requested that they come back to the council to talk about upgrading that permit from the minor to a general. And so that was done in 2019. Council granted the general permit and then unfortunately the pandemic kept shortly there after. And so for 2020 it became a virtual event. And then this last year, 2021 it was again a very successful event. And so they returned back to council to see if they can extend it from a one day to a two day event. And because it's a significant change to the permit it has to come back to council. And so understanding that, just a brief summary on our special event permit, the general is anyone of those events of 200 or more that have significant impacts to the city services and in minor events are those that are less than 200. And so with that, the women on waves and we have a lot of here at the police department it's available to take any questions but their request at this point is to expand their current permit from a one day event to a two day event. And so the recommended action at this point is considered scanning the women on waves and women on waves swimming and surf contests from a previous approved general event from a one day to a two day event. And that event takes place on October, typically in the month of October and the request that it would take place on October 22nd and 23rd of this coming year. And with that, I can stop sharing and I'm open for any questions and I see a lot of this here in Captain Ryan's office. Thanks Chief Gally for briefing us on the request. I'll ask the council members questions for Chief Gally. Yeah, thanks Mayor Coyle. Thanks Mayor. So I guess my question for, so having a second day, is it basically two days worth of a contest and having all sort of the same events each day or is it gonna be broken up into two different things? Is my question, it would be broken up into a two day event, so it'd be a contest on both days. Okay. Just for the attention of the just spreading the event out from a one day event into a two day event. Great, thank you. Any other questions from council members? Seeing none, I had a couple of questions Chief Gally on one I noticed in the application that it had mentioned that they're going to be bringing our type in of porta potty. As we asked for not, I was just wondering since we have public restrooms there, whether that will be required or is necessary, then maybe it would save them a little money on expenses? Sure, the reason that we requested the portable toilet is because with a general ban, it depends on the numbers and impact that we had that extra toilet. And so the projecting numbers, I think we're looking at 250 to 300 people, 250 to 350 people, and so that's where we've required that extra restroom. I think, okay. I'll defer to your judgment on that then. And my other question goes to us, I noticed the early start time, 7.30 a.m., and that there's an amplified music. And I just wanna maybe request that the amplified music not start at 7.30 a.m. on a Saturday and Sunday morning if you give the residents that lived there maybe a little quiet in their morning until maybe a little bit lighter, or if you give them the full swing. So I just wanted to maybe make that request of the event survivors, of sending that back after 6.30 a.m. Absolutely, we can put conditions on the common noise and we can do so. We take them into consideration at the time, especially in the morning start times, so absolutely. Good, yeah, thank you. And so with there being no further questions, I'm gonna just check and see if there's any members of the public that would like to address the council on this permit request application. There's a story, I do not see any attendees or people on phones, if their hands raised, and we have not received any public comments, emails on the site. Okay, yeah, just to reaffirm that anybody wants to send an email, they can send it to public comment at ci.ca.ca.ca.us. We do not have any other email. Okay, it looks like nothing's coming in, so I'm gonna close the public comment portion on this item and I'll bring it back to council for further discussion and potential action. We have any, oh, council member Brown. Thank you, I'm excited to see that this could become a two-day event. I think it's always important to essentially work on granting access to these kind of ocean sports to women and to people of color and I know that we've got other organizations in the community that do the same and so I'm really excited to see that this could become a two-day event. So I'd like to go ahead and move approval for the general special event permit for a two-day event. Would that be the correct language for that motion? I think that that would serve the purpose, yeah. All right. And is there a second? I'll second. I have a comment too. Okay, well, let's, a second by council member Bertrand and go ahead, council member Bertrand. Yeah, I, thank you very much, Mayor. I saw this conference very early on when it was almost a labor of love of someone took it on that I think, you know, because she was so motivated and I too agree with Kristen. It's wonderful that it's gone for two days. Every time I go down there, well run and, you know, chiefs, if you decide that they need more help or whatever, they definitely will cooperate with you as you see fit. That's my impression with the group. And, you know, I have the sense that they've gotten, you know, I can't say more professional because I don't know what a professional group is like this, but, you know, it's a well run machine and they seem to do a great job. So I'm totally in support of it and that's why I second him. And thank you, council member Bertrand. Seeing no other comments by council members, I'm going to ask the clerk to take a roll call vote. I agree. Hi. Hi. Hi. And the motion passes unanimously of those council members who are present this evening. And so congratulations. You're on for a second day. We really enjoy having you here and look forward to a full weekend of, you know, certain and waves. And now we just need the waves to cooperate so you can have an exciting competition. So thank you for bringing this to us. And we look forward to seeing you on, it's October 23rd and 24th, just, would I get that right? I want to. 20 seconds, 23rd. Okay. October 22nd and 23rd is when the event will take place. So thank you. I'm going to now move us on to the next item, which is Senate Bill 9, residents of development and urban block split ordinance. This is not as fun as the previous item, but let's see, well, let's get through it. And the recommended action and I'm going to read it. Some members of the public know what we're shooting for, but it's one to introduce by title only and raising further reading of the text from ordinance of the city of Papacela adding municipal post chapters 16.78 and 17.75 and adding municipal post section 16.08.020. Amending section 17.74.04 for the implementation of government post sections 6.411.7 and 6.58 by 2.21 related to urban block split and Senate Bill 9, residents of development. And then the second item is to adopt the post resolution authorizing the medal for the California Postal Commission for the certification of the amendment to the local postal program, adding the municipal post section and I'm not going to repeat them of the same ones that I just stated. And then the amendment and relating to, yeah, those are such a reputation what I just said. So I think we're ready to disagree with the staff report. Okay, thank you, Mayor Story and Council. We'll try to make this fun, but I'm not sure what we'll try it about. I'm sure you can do it, yeah. So this evening we have Ben Noble of Ben Noble City and Regional Planning and I think he's a familiar face to all of this point. Ben's responsible for helping the updates in general plan for Capitola and then our zoning ordinance has been doing work for the city for, I think over a decade and a half at this point. So with that, I'm gonna hand this presentation over to Ben who's been instrumental in this SB 9 ordinance. Thank you. Yeah. I'm gonna pull up the presentation. You know what? I'm seeing the agenda packet, not the packet. Yeah. There we go. There we go. Okay, so thank you, Katie. Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council. Again, my name is Ben Noble. The consultant that has been working with Katie on the SB 9 implementing ordinance. And this item was presented to the council at the previous meeting, so we're going to give a relatively streamlined presentation tonight since you have already become, had the previous opportunities to come familiar with this area. So as the mayor summarized, this is a set of implementing ordinances for Senate Bill 9, SB 9, which has recently adopted state law relating to multi-unit development within single family zones. And so there are two main components to this draft ordinance before the council tonight. The first component is amendments to the zoning code, which is title 17 within your municipal code. And that consists of a new chapter after 1775 entitled SB 9 residential development. And then another small amendment to the zoning code related to accessory dwelling units and how the ADU rules relate to SB 9 projects. And the second main component of the SB 9 implementing ordinance is a new chapter within the subdivision ordinance, which is title 16 of the municipal code. So new chapter 1678, urban law split, as well as one other small amendment to the subdivision ordinance, adding a definition for urban law. So to review SB 9, SB 9 was adopted last year and went into effect on January 1st of 2022. It was adopted by the legislature of the state and signed into law by the governor. And what it does is it requires all cities and counties throughout the state of California to allow a lot split within a single family zone. It's called as an urban law split. And then on each of those new laws, SB 9 allows up to two units. And so if you have an existing parcel within a single family zone, that's at least 2,400 square feet under SB 9 an applicant and request a ministerial over the counter approval of up to four units. SB 9 does allow cities to limit the size of those units to 800 square feet. What this means for cities throughout California is that within single family zones, such as the R1 zone in Capitola, cities must allow up to four 800 square foot units on a typical size R1 block. So Capitola is not alone among cities and counties in the state in trying to figure out how that's to implement requirements of SB 9 at the local level. Here's a zoning map that shows all of the areas that are zoned R1 within the city of Capitola. So those are the brighter yellow areas. This map also shows the boundary of the coastal zone, which is that purple dashed line. And SB 9 applies in both the coastal zone and outside of the coastal zone with some ability for the city to fine tune some of the rules to address the requirements of the coastal, I'll talk about a little bit more. So this SB 9 is broadly applicable to all R1 zoned areas in the city, including a diversity of neighborhood types, such as cliffwood height with relatively larger lot and the jewel box with smaller lot. One of the challenges to implement SB 9 in Capitola is to figure out what rules will work in a diversity of characteristics within the different neighborhoods. So within the SB 9 ordinance, there are development standards for these SB 9 projects. And one of the things that we found working with the Planning Commission is that on lots that are 5,500 square feet or more, we're able to accommodate up to 4,800 square foot lot using development standards, which the Planning Commission generally supported and thought were reasonable. So on a lot that's 5,500 square feet or more in the neighborhood such as cliffwood height, we can accommodate 4,800 square foot unit with a 15-foot front setback, two stories in height and one on-site parking space per unit located behind the front buildings in access from one single shared driveway to preserve existing on-tube parking. And these development standards were priorities to the Planning Commission and a project, a SB 9 project under this ordinance on a lot 5,500 square feet or more would be required to comply with these standards. So I think the Planning Commission in their recommendations of this council felt pretty good about these larger lots. It becomes more challenging on smaller lots. The good news is that for a two-unit project on a smaller lot, that's less than 5,500 square feet, we can still accommodate the Planning Commission's priorities of keeping the height to two stories, keeping a front 15-foot setback and requiring parking to be located behind the front building with a shared driveway. And so this would be a two-unit project. And one of the things that we did in the ordinance is that we allowed more floor area for a two-unit project than for a three- or four-unit project because we wanted to encourage two-unit projects because the design that is achievable for a two-unit project is superior to what is possible for a three- or four-unit project. And for that reason, rather than limiting the unit size to 800 square feet for a two-unit project, this ordinance would allow up to 1,200 square feet per unit. Now, on a small lot, the four-unit, it becomes much more challenging. This is a smaller lot and fitting four 800 square-foot units on this lot while accommodating on-site parking becomes challenging. So the Planning Commission was faced with a situation where they had to give up on a lower priority standard. And the majority of the Planning Commission, but not all Planning Commissioners, supported standards that would allow for one parking space to be located behind the main building with one shared driveway accessing that parking. But to achieve that, we needed to increase the allowable height to three stories and we needed to allow buildings to be located within the front setback. Otherwise, it's just not possible to accommodate four 800 square-foot units. So if, under this ordinance, if an applicant were to propose an SB9 project with four units on a lot less than 5,500 square feet, these are the development standards that would apply. And as I mentioned, it was not a unanimous recommendation on the development standard for the smaller lot from the Planning Commission. Three of the five Planning Commissioners supported what you see before you option B, which is what's in the draft ordinance before you. The Planning Commissioners also looked at other options, including option A, which would keep the building height to two stories, would have the building setback from the front property line by 15 feet or more, but would require four on-site parking spaces to be located between the building and the street with one continuous curb cut along the street on it to accommodate those parking spaces. So there were two Planning Commissioners who preferred option A, but the majority of the Planning Commissioners preferred option B, which is the standards that have been incorporated into the ordinance that's before you tonight. So that was the main topic of conversation among Planning Commissioners when they ultimately voted on their recommendation and was the one item where there were differences of opinion. So one other aspect in the SB9 ordinance is that there are some standards and provisions that relate specifically to protecting coastal resources consistent with the California Coastal Act, as well as the city's local coastal program. So there's language within the SB9 statute that says that SB9 does apply within the coastal zone. But that SB9 shall not supersede or in any other alter or lessen the effect of the California Coastal Act. So the way the Coastal Commission has been interpreting this is similar to how they interpret state ADU law, which has the same language, which essentially is that those cities with areas in the coastal zone should look for ways to harmonize their local SB9 ordinances with the requirements of the Coastal Act and their certified local coastal program. So given that what this draft ordinance does is it prohibits SB9 projects within a number of specific areas that are identified in your local coastal program. So those are geological hazard areas immediately along the bluff. For example, the 100 and 500 year flood hazard areas in the village and near the creek, as well as environmentally sensitive habitat areas. So within those limited geographic areas, SB9 projects would not be allowed. The one other thing related to the Coastal Act within this ordinance has to do with parking. So there are some specific geographic areas identified where one onsite parking space would always be required, that no exceptions are possible. And the reason that this is in there is because there's language within SB9 that says that if an SB9 project is within a certain distance from a car share vehicle, that no onsite parking is required. And because of the priority of preserving public coastal access within Papatola and challenges associated with parking and maintaining and preserving coastal access, we've included the provision within the draft ordinance that would always require at least one onsite parking space within these gray areas without the ability for there to be an exception due to proximity to a car share vehicle or transit facilities. So one last thing in the presentation is in response to council comments on the draft that was presented on April 28th, we did make an amendment to the language that concerns eligibility for SB9 development, just to clarify that since the state law and this is something that the city attorney has reviewed and signed off on as well. So we made that minor revision that is shown in underlying strike through within the packet board. So in terms of environmental review, that this ordinance amendment is statuatorily exempt from SIPA under the government code because it implements SB9. So with that, that's recommendations for the city council to introduce and waive further reading of the zoning code amendments and the subdivision ordinance in order to implement SB9. And this recommendation from staff is consistent with the recommendation from the planning commission. And then also for the city council to adopt the resolution authorizing staff to submit the zoning code amendments to the coastal commission for them to certify as part of the city's LTD amendment. So with that, that concludes my presentation and Katie and I are happy to get answering the questions that you made. Thank you, Dan. Council members have questions on the presentation? Council member Bertrand. I do have a question. There's a section in 16.7, 8.02 that deals with urban lot subdivisions. And I know what it is, but maybe then you're familiar with it or Katie, you're familiar with it offhand. So it talks about, you can't do subdivisions next to a lot that's already been subdivided according to this ordinance. Is that the intent there? Yeah, so Katie, would you like me to? I could point out what page it's on if that's what you want. If you could just give me the number again, I can make sure I'm looking at the page. Yeah, it's in 16.7, 8.02 under section 8, excuse me, A-8-E on the agenda, it's page two of eight, okay. Hey, I also wanted to point out to everyone, Leila from my office is here. She worked with staff on drafting this ordinance. Thank you, Sam. Leila, thank you guys. So the section reads either the owner of the parcel being subdivided, which is what we're talking about, or any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using the urban lot split as provided for this chapter. I'm just trying to understand the intent. I sort of think you don't want things subdivided right next to other lots that have been subdivided, but maybe that's not yet. So that's why I'm asking a question. Council member, I think that has been in answer that as well. So the intent behind that was in order to ensure that the lot splits that are occurring are only for the purposes of the urban lot split, which allows you to split one lot into two. What we don't want and what state law is also trying to avoid, is folks doing a series of urban lot splits, which would then you end up with basically a mini subdivision, which would normally fall under the other provisions of the subdivision map act. So that's why there's that catch all in there. Yes, you can do an urban lot split, but not if you're working with your neighbor to also do more urban lot splits. And then suddenly you have multiple parcels when the intent was just to have the one split. Okay, I understand it. So if I did a split, I'm in close with heights. If I did a split on my lot, and then a year later, the neighbor next to me on one side or the other one to do a split, that doesn't apply. Is this if I do it in concert with other property owners? Correct. Okay, so in a year from now, someone else could do it next to me. So this isn't meant to prevent a whole thing that's the string of splits. It's just the concert of doing it because you have another ordinance or another legal mechanism to deal with subdivisions. Exactly. Okay, thanks, Laila. I appreciate that. Other council members have questions on the staff report? Seeing none. I had some questions. And one I'd like to focus in on that split though that's the planning permission that will conflict between height and off-street parking. And I was wondering if during that discussion that there was a recognition or then I think that just because you try to accommodate the rodges, whether or not those rodges would be new. Seems like you would still potentially end up with a lot of on-street parking. I think that that's what the planning commission was trying to avoid it. But what's the guarantee in this ordinance to compel people to use off-street parking or use the garage? So I think as we realized on the smaller lot it would have to go to additional height. The buildings have to be designed with a garage because there's not enough available space to allow them to have an uncovered parking space because you're now forcing there's just not enough open space in which to put uncovered parking. So that's really the reason why you're seeing in all of our examples garages. And the other point about the split vote with the planning commission, the two commissioners that would have preferred to have the parking in the front, some of the comments that were made were the reasons for that vote was to preserve the front yard setback. So even though the cars would be in the front yard and it's not a lawn or a beautiful green space, it preserved that setback of where the structures are typically built in the R1 zone. So that front side is 15 feet back and kind of follows the pattern of the street. I remember commissioner Ruth commenting on the fact that when you walk outside of one of the SB9 proposals you'd be able to look or you could maintain that view down the street with homes still 15 feet back and with the ordinance as proposed and in some instances the structures being all the way to the front, you'll lose that view corridor down the street. So Mike. No, thank you for that clarification. My next question goes to the intervention for requiring an upgrade parking. There were two, one is near a bus corridor or center, which that's understandable if you can discern that. But the other exemption is there's a ride share vehicle nearby. Are there more heightened definitions of what may qualify as a ride share vehicle and nearby or? Right, so that's language that's directly from state law and it's similar to language. Yeah, I understand. And I'm just wondering if anybody's attempted to try to define that or whether it can be directly interpreted and apply. Yeah, so there is a definition for you will use for that. Oh, and just to clarify, I mean, I said it does say within one block. I've seen that, but there's some dimension on it. But I'm still not sure what qualifies as a park share vehicle. So in terms of terms of terms used in this provision, there's high quality transit corridor that's defined in the public resource code. And I think that's a bus with headway 15 minutes before our last major transit stop, which is also defined in public resources code. I don't know that off the top of my head, but we can look at that. So that's, those are good defined terms. The car, the car share vehicle, you know, I would, I don't know off the top of my head if there's a accepted definition that we would use for that, maybe council, the attorney knows on that, if not, I would imagine that we could add a definition within the ordinance that would add clarity to that. Yeah, I can chime in. I definitely agree, Mayor Story, that it is not the clearest definition in state law. Like you said, it limits the car share vehicle within one block, but it doesn't really say how often the vehicle has to be there or whether it can be a privately owned vehicle or whether it has to be, you know, owned and operated by the company, et cetera. So we can definitely go back and add a definition that will help clarify that. I think that's, yeah, I think that's wonderful. Right, thank you for that. And my last question is assuming that we, well, I don't know that we really have any choice. This will pass, but once it does, are we able to claim these additional potential units under our RENA allocation to count forward that effort? Yes, so we cannot. All right, no, go ahead. I'm sorry to cut you off. Perfect, yes, we can count future units towards our RENA calculation. And it'll all be dependent on when they hold their building for a minute, whether or not it would count in the current cycle or in the next cycle, but yes, a new unit built through SB 9 can be counted in our RENA. We'll get credit for it. You know, under the RENA, we're required to just provide opportunity sites. And since these opportunity sites are gonna be in all R1 zoning for all lot over 2,400 square feet, will those all count as opportunity sites? So that is a little more dicey. We would not calculate the, we would not currently when we identify our sites for RENA, like ADUs would be another example of areas in which we have the allowance to have more development. Although they are counted and they count once built, they'll count in terms of identifying future sites, we would not look to our R1 neighborhoods and identify the additional potential within the R1. Thank you. Unfortunately. That's the best last time it's been signed. But yeah, I felt maybe it was a good effort. So, well, thank you for responding to my question. I think we have maybe a follow-up question from Councilman Dr. Tran. Oh, thank you, Mayor. I do, a couple of questions. In terms of the driveway, there was a couple of comments about the width of driveways. Well, to you, I think max. So is that fire approved by the fire department? And then in another case, there was a driveway that would sort of look like a tunnel. So should there be a stipulation of the height because some of these fire vehicles are kind of tall, might make the design very difficult for that building. So those are my questions and I got two others. So any development projects that would come through would have to be reviewed by fire for compliance. And those, the examples we gave you, they're very, you know, trying to just figure out how we could fit the score footage on the lot, but they'll have to be fine too in order to comply with fire regulations. We didn't go that far in our design. Okay, does that come back to us? I mean, staff does that, and that's basically how you work that out. Yeah, SD-9 applications will be reviewed administratively by staff, so they won't go in front of Planning Commission or our city council. Thank you so much. And also in terms of separation, there was a couple of those in discussion about the buildings right up against each other. Are they conjoined like, you know, same foundation everything or do they have to have like a quarter inch separate? I was just wondering what's going on there. They can have a sharing ball between the two units. Planning Commission thought it was important to maintain the side yard setbacks on the like exterior periphery of the original R1 lot, where they create a new lot line in between. The Planning Commission said as long as, you know, the impact is on them to have a zero lot line. So that internal lot line, which is what buildings can be built right up to that property line, the new property line. No, well, that makes sense. They're sort of like twins. And there's a mention of accessory units, and I wasn't sure what that meant. I can't recall where it came up, but I think I read it early on. And so accessory units not like an ADU that's an accessory house, but so it just throws people for a loop. I don't wanna waste time on it, but it comes to mind. Yes, Council Member Bertrand. The accessory unit would, I'm not sure exactly what portion of that you were reading, but there is an allowance for accessory dwelling units to be built in addition, or an accessory dwelling unit to be built in addition to a two-unit development. However, according to SB 9 and also included in the draft ordinance before you, there is an exception for if a property owner has partaken in the lot split as well as a two-unit development, it's done both of those things, then they would not be eligible to also build an ADU on top of that. But if they are just doing a two-unit development on one lot and they have the room, they would be eligible to also build an ADU. Okay, thanks again. Yeah, I sort of thought that having an accessory unit in the four-unit placement would be excessive. So I thought that sort of was addressing. Okay, thank you very much. You got it for me. Thanks again. Any other questions from Council Member? Seeing none, I'm going to take this opportunity to see if there's members of the public that would like to address the Council on this item. So you may raise your hand in the green application of VAL-STAR 9. The moderator will give you three minutes to speak, or if you prefer, you can write an email to public comment at ci.college.ca.us and the moderator will read your email for us in three minutes. Larry looks like we have one hand up. Yes, Mayor Story, we have someone dialing in with the 310 area code. Yes, Sam. Hello, everyone again. Please bear with me. Public speaking is definitely not my favorite thing. It's my understanding that hypotheticals pretty much never count towards our ring of calculation. Which is approximately 1,300 units. What I'm really curious about is, I know with SB 10 and SB 35, high-quality bus corridors and train corridors affect how people are actually able to build up even higher and larger. And I was wondering if under SB 9, train corridors also affect that calculation and if there is something I'm missing there. So yeah, that's my question. Before we get to responding to that, I want to see if are there any other members of the public that want to come in on this item? Mayor Story, I do not see any attendees with their hands raised and we have not received any emails on this item. Okay, I'm going to close public comment. I'll bring it back. And I don't know, Ben, if you want to address that question about whether train corridors affect the SB 9. Yeah, the requirements of SB 9 apply uniformly to R1 zones regardless of their proximity to a train corridor. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to now bring this back to council for further discussion and possible action. There are council members that would like to start us off. Council member Bertrand, you're on mute right now. We can't hear you. Okay, and I do, and I'm not sure how to phrase the motion because it's a little complicated but I do want to make a statement. I was glad there's a mention there in provision for community land trust. So I'm particularly happy about that and certainly a good way to make sure affordability is preserved as ownership changes. And so that's sort of a comment. I didn't know if that was part of the law or staff put that in, but I was glad to read it. So I'll make a motion, Mayor, if you could give me some guidance but I just don't have the text in front of me. Well, if you would like, I could read this. Yes, there's the recommended action. Thank you so much. I will read it at the sufferance of the board and anyone else listening. I moved the recommended action, which is the title has been read, no further reading of the ordinance, but it's chapter 16.78 and chapter 17.7 adding municipal 16.08, 0.02 and amending section 17.74, 0.04 for the implementation of government code section 66411.7 and 65852.21, which are related to urban lot splits and Senate bill nine residential development. And number two, adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the middle of the coast to the California coast definition for the certification of an amendment to the local coastal program adding the initial code chapters 16.8 and 17.75 adding municipal code section 16.08, 020 and amending section 17.74, 0.040 for the implementation of government code section 66411.7 and 65852.21, which are related to urban lot splits and Senate bill nine residential development. That's my motion. Thank you. That's all we received for there. Is there a second to the motion? Second. It was seconded by council member Brown. I would like to propose an amendment to the motion at the end and the first amendment would be pertaining to the no off street parking qualifications and the ones pertaining to car share vehicles located within one block. I would like to suggest that we direct the staff to the extent that they're able to provide a definition and clarification of what may constitute a qualifying car share vehicle and that is clear and I think meets our purposes of that extension. And two, I would like to ask staff to also look at and to the extent that they're able under the statute to provide us with the maximum qualifications for our Rena off street parking site. Really, you know, the SB nine last year with and, you know, and development. So those are my proposed amendments to the motion. Mayor Farmini. Yeah. I think the definition is well placed. I have a question of staff. It's either Ben or others or Katie. So the idea you mentioned that we don't usually put arena numbers on our books in this manner. An example you use Katie was the ADU. That's not a zone that accounts for the arena. So when the state's looking at us. So, you know, I see the intent of what it's saying because we do have to meet arena numbers as Kristen brought to our attention to M bags. We definitely have a big increase. So I want to get a sense. Is this something we can do and it actually stands for arena numbers. Just to clarify my amendment was to the extent that they could. Well, I could go along with that. And I see why you said that. But I just want to know if this is a reasonable thing we should even go on. So in terms of adopting the ordinance, I think it would be appropriate to utilize that direction for our housing element when we get into it to get direction to try to apply SC9 towards our arena allocation. And we can work with the HCD on that and see if that would be considered, you know, these laws are new and I'm hopeful that in the future maybe they'll give a percentage towards single family housing or single family neighborhoods since they are requiring more density. But I think, I don't know how we would place that in an ordinance. I think that's more general direction for during the housing element to seek opportunities with ADUs and SC9 development to be included in our arena. So I can take that as a staff and move forward with that recommendation for when we start our housing element. I don't think it would be appropriate to put it in the ordinance at this time. And then adding a definition for car share is definitely something we can place in this ordinance for the second reading. Okay, thank you. If I can share this, I mean, that was my intent concerning the arena number. Okay. That it would, yes, but you guys would just look at this and when we are doing a housing element, that's when we have to identify those opportunity sites, whether we can get credit for the SC9 development. That's the plan. That's my point. So, it makes sense when you do the housing element update, it sounds like you do that anyway. So this ordinance doesn't need to direct it at this point or am I mistaken? I just don't want to have something that we don't need at this point. To be clear, it will not be included its guidance and it will be implemented during the housing element. That's my understanding from the mayor. Okay. But the amendment to the ordinance is to add a definition of car share. Okay, I will accept that guidance. Thank you very much, Sam. And there's a second that needs to be changed. Yeah, it's Council Member Brown. Are you okay with those amendments? Yeah, I'll accept. Okay, thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Chloe, can we have a roll call vote? I agree. All right, and that motion is acted to manage the story of the Council Member Silverpregent. So now we'll move on to the next item, which is HD. And this is objective standard for multi-family and mixed-use residential ordinance. Recommended action is to introduce by title only, waiving further reading of the text and ordinance of the City of Coca-Cola, adding municipal code chapter 17.82, with fabulous objective standards for multi-family dwellings and mixed-use residential development, amending section 17.16 residential dwelling districts, section 17.20 mixed-use dwelling districts, and 17.24 commercial and industrial dwelling districts, the reference chapter 17.82 objective standards for multi-family dwellings and mixed-use residential development. And two, to adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the Medal to the College on the Postal Commitment for the Certification of an Amendment to the Local Coastal Plan. Yes, and maybe it's going to lead us in this one as well. Yes, actually, I'm gonna once again introduce that noble. We've worked hard on this effort. This is, we utilized our SD2 grant fund to draft these objective standards. It'll put us in a much safer place for future multi-family residential and mixed-use projects that come through the City of Coca-Cola. So with that, then, take it away. That look good? Okay, so this is part two for the residential development standards tonight. So the prior item was for SB9 projects and SB9 projects alone. And this item is for multi-family and mixed-use development projects, not anything to do with SB9 projects. So the standards that we're talking about, in this ordinance, would not apply to an SB9 project. So they're separate things. And for this ordinance, that's before the Council tonight, it's an amendment to the City Zoning Code that would establish a new chapter with these objective standards for multi-family and mixed-use residential development. That's the main part of the ordinance and also included in the Zoning Code amendment is a simple reference to these new objective standards that live in the zoning district chapters so that readers are less likely to overlook that this might apply. And so these standards would apply to new multi-family and mixed-use residential development in all zoning districts that allow these users to accept for these MUVs. And the reason we excluded the village from this is because as part of the comprehensive zoning code update recently completed, there are adequate objective standards for multi-family and mixed-use development that were established as part of an effort to codify previously existing design guidelines. We felt that there were enough standards in place. We didn't need to tinker with the village standards and we could just apply these standards to the other zoning districts where these users are left. And the way the ordinance is organized is that we grouped the standards into five categories related to site planning, building massing and building detail design of the facade and the roof sort of addressing the key components of good urban design from a site to a building scale. And for each of those categories of standards, each of those groups of standards, there's an intense statement. And this intense statement is important because it helps the reader understand what we're aiming to accomplish with these standards, but also because it provides a mechanism for the city to allow for adjustment to standards on a case-by-case basis if needed. So for example, on the screen right here is an example, intense statement for parking and vehicle access, which explains the goal, what we're aiming to accomplish with these standards. So related to parking and vehicle access, one of the standards included in this category is the requirement in most circumstances for parking not to be located between the building and the sidewalk. And the reason for that standard and others within this category is that we wanna encourage a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, walkable neighborhood. We don't want parking facilities to dominate street furniture. We really wanna encourage residents to walk by and take transit to that destination. So that's an example of an intense statement that's in the audience. And as I mentioned previously, an applicant may request the deviation from one or more standards through the design permit process. And that's a request that would go to the Planning Commission who would be able to approve the deviation upon finding that the project incorporates an alternative method to achieve the intense statement. So if an applicant is requesting a deviation, that project would not be eligible for streamlined ministerial approval under SB 35. And so SB 35 is the state law that allows for an applicant proposing a project with a certain percentage of affordable housing and that also meets other eligibility requirements to obtain streamlined ministerial approval without a public hearing. So if an applicant is requesting a deviation from one or more standards that project would not be eligible for a ministerial approval under SB 35. So here's a way of an example of this concept of deviating from standards. Within the objective standards, there's a section on building mapping and the intent of these standards to a large extent is to break up larger buildings into smaller volumes so that they appear more compatible with apicals existing context. So we wanna avoid monolithic blocks that are out of scale and out of character to the current context. So to address that issue, we've included standards for masking breaks. So if you're a smaller building, you're subject to a relatively modest sort of inset within the front building wall to create a little more visual interest. If you're a much larger building, there's a requirement for a larger inset to break up the mapping of the building so that it might read more as a series of connected volumes rather than one single monolithic volume. And so this is a standard that we think generally would work well for a project of the scale. But there is the possibility that a project could come forward where there might be a better method to achieve the intent of the mapping standard. And we really wanna provide a pathway for an applicant to propose this alternative method and to let the planning commission determine through the design permit process if that alternative method is actually preferable to the standard. But there may be some cases where that's the case. And so we wanna maintain that flexibility. But the city still has that protection where if a project is requesting ministerial approval through SB 35, that there is a mapping break standard in place to ensure that the city is not required to approve a monolithic block that would be really out of scale and out of character to come to this context. So this is just to provide a bit of an example of why we've included this ability to deviate some standards and how it might be utilized. Okay, so two more slides left. So this is a project under CEQA as an amendment to your zoning code. But staff's recommendation is that the common sense CEQA exemption would apply to the zoning code amendment because there's no possibility of the project to cause a significant environmental impact. What this project really is doing is codifying through objective standards existing subjective requirements that are included in the design permit criteria as a way to protect the city in case of development projects coming forward that are requesting street lighting for approval. And all non-ministerial projects that come forward that are subject to the design standards would also be subject to the city's review of the part of that development competition. So with that staff's recommendation is to introduce and waive further reading of the zoning code amendments with these new objective standards and that would be consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation and this ordinance would be for them. And then also to adopt the resolution authorizing staff to submit these amendments to the city's commission to certify the SQC. So that concludes my presentation and we're happy to answer any questions. Yeah, thank you once again, Dan. And are there any questions and counsel on the staff presentation being done? I'm gonna now ask if there's members of the public that would like to address the counsel. On this item, let's go, you can raise your hand and zoom. Or about star nine. Moderator will allow you to speak in more of up to three minutes. If you prefer, you can also send an email to the public comment at ci.capitola.ca.us. And then I see that we have one hand up. Yes, Mayor Starr, we have a person with the 310 area code. Hey folks, it's me again. So streamlined ministerial approval essentially means no public input and waiving SQC while I'm following correctly. And as far as SB 35 goes, SB 35 is deeply affected by train corridors. It allows mixed huge residential and commercial buildings I thought too. And I was wondering if what you guys are talking about right now applies to these larger buildings that people are going to be able to get approved. And if they can override our local planning commission if we don't approve them. I also think that what you guys are putting in here, I know a little bit about this stuff. I've written some policy and these are very wise protections from the town to incorporate into its code. So thank you again. And I feel I'm getting better at this. Hey, are there any other members of the public that would like to address the council on this item? Mayor Starr, I do not see any other attendees wishing to speak. And I do not have any emails on this. And then at your discretion, that's wondering if you wanted to address the question about SB 35 and again, train corridors. Right. So I guess the answer to that would be that these new objective standards apply in all areas where multi-family and mixed-use residential development is allowed outside of the village. And we have tried to draft these standards in a way that would be accommodate a range of intensity so that these standards would work for lower intensity multi-family projects as well as higher intensity multi-family projects and mixed-use projects that might be more appropriate around a transit hub or transit train corridor area. Thank you for that. So with that, I'm gonna bring this now back to council for further deliberation and possible action. The council member that would like to address the agenda item. Again, I'll make the motion that I need. Yes, thank you very much, Mayor. You know, I have the floor. Don't thank me. I didn't do that. Okay, maybe there you are. Thank you, okay, thank you. I move the recommended action. Number one, introduced by title only, waiting for the reading of the text and ordinance of the city of capital adding municipal code chapter 17.82 to establish objective standards for multi-family dwellings and mixed-use residential development. Amending section 17.16, residential zoning districts section 17.20, mixed-use zoning districts and 17.24, commercial and industrial zoning districts to reference chapter 17.82, objective standards for multi-family dwellings and mixed-use residential development. And two, adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the middle to the California Coastal Commission for the Certification and Amendment to the local coastal plan. Okay, excuse me. The motion by Council member Bertrand is absent. I can second that. Nothing to do by Vice Mayor Coyle. Until we have a motion. And before I call for a roll call vote, and I just want to thank Katie and Ben who have the staff who worked on this to assure that we're in compliance with state laws. But at the same time, preserving the quality of our neighborhoods and really the look and feel of that column. I think you have a sense of, you know, we kind of accomplish both of those goals at the same time, and I know it's a difficult path. So thank you. And with that, I'll ask for a roll call vote. Council member Bertrand. I agree. Hi. And I, and the motion passes unanimously of those Council members who are present. And that now brings us to, yeah, yeah. Sorry, Sam, I always seem to have questions. This is a question for Katie. So passing these two ordinances, well multiple ordinances, does this set us up better for doing the housing element? It seems to me, we're not going to have conflicts because we're totally in line with California. Yeah, I think at this point we're up to date on the new state legislation. It really puts us in a better time to put a lot of staff, our resources towards the housing element. It definitely positions us much better in terms of working on and focusing in on the housing element. So yeah, it does. Okay, that's what I thought and you sort of made some comments to that effect in a sense. So I just wanted to address that. Thank you very much, Mayor, for giving me that option to have one last question. You're welcome. So with that, I am now going to adjourn this meeting until our next, well, special meeting which is going to be held on May the 19th, 2022 starting at 6 p.m. at this location. And then our next regularly scheduled meeting will be on May 26th, 2022, starting at 7 p.m. So once again, thank you to staff for helping us to keep the city running and a wonderful site. Thank you, Ben, for your assistance in this matter. And as always, to thank you yourself and to thank the others. Thank you. Good night, everyone. Good night. God's killing.