 And welcome to the Capitola Planning Commission, meeting of April 7th, 2022. It's in accordance with California Senate Bill 361. This meeting is not physically open to the public. Commissioners 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 the Zoom application 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. As always, this meeting is cable cast live on Charter Communications, cable TV, channel eight in the city of Capitola and on channel 25 throughout Santa Cruz County. The meeting is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Monday and Friday at 1 p.m. Meetings can also be streamed live on YouTube or on the city's website. Our technician tonight is Olivia Philly. And with that, why don't we go ahead with the roll call? Louie? Yes, please. Commissioner Christensen? Hello? Here. Hi, here. I'm here. Do you hear me? Yeah, I hear you now. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Neumann. Here. Commissioner Westman. Here. Here. Here. Let's move on then to oral communications. Are there any additions or and or deletions to the agenda? Planning commissioners, there are no deletions to the agenda. However, we did receive some public comment, one on 106 clips and the other on the prospect as application. And I want to just check in. Did you all receive those and have time to review that public comment? Yes, that was the two emails. The two emails? Yes. Okay, thank you. Very good. Okay, let's move on then to public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to weigh in on any item that is not on the agenda or make any announcements to their choosing. They have three minutes to do so. Katie, are there any members who want to raise their hand or submit an email? So I do not see any email for public comments. Now I'm checking on Zoom and there are no hands raised from the Zoom. So no public comments. Okay, very good. Let's move on then to commission comments. Are there any commission comments on items not on the agenda? No. Very good. Let's move on then to staff comments. Same question. No staff comments this evening. Okay, next item is the consent calendar. These are items that are to be brought forward before the committee and voted as a single item. There is only one item on the consent calendar, 1835 48th Avenue. Does anybody wish to pull this item? If not, or make comment on it. If not, I'm willing to hear a motion for approval of the consent calendar. I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar. This is commissioner Westman. Perfect. Commissioner Westman. We have a motion to approve by commissioner Westman and a second by commissioner Christiansen. Without any further comments, Louie, could we have a roll call vote? Christian. Aye. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Aye. Consent calendar passes. We'll now move on to public hearings. These are intended to make the public have an opportunity for public discussion of each of the items. We'll follow the following procedure, staff presentation followed by planning commission questions followed by public comments, followed by deliberation and filing decision. Item one on the public hearing agenda is 18, 20, 41st Avenue, Suite A. Staff, do we have a presentation? Yeah, thanks, chair Wilk. I will be delivering the staff presentation here, sharing my screen. So this application is for a initial use permit modification submitted by Bevmount. The shopping center is a capitalist station and specifically Bevmo is adjusting a bit of their their business model and the way they operate with regard to delivery from the store to customers and associated hours of operation of the delivery. Little bit of, well, first I'll just talk I'll frame their proposal. So right now they are, this type of a service is not offered in-house only by third party app and online based. So they're looking to manage to bring this delivery of their products in-house. And they are expanding a little bit of their inventory percentage to sell more non-alcohol related products. And they're proposing alcohol delivery, basically all hours not prohibited by state law and delivery of non-alcohol products 24 hours a day. The existing use permit is in good standing, never had any code enforcement action. So Bevmo is in good standing. It was established in 2008. There's some language in both the staff reporting conditions to regulate hours and then delivery to store behind the store, there's a residential proximity, but there was not any discussion of delivery from store to customer. So we needed to address that with this proposal. So our analysis, we worked side-by-side with police department. We kind of did a sweep of other jurisdictions in the county as well as looked at what other app-based personal shopping services are available and then also just available online information of hours of both liquor store and convenience stores. What we found is other than maybe a handful of pre-existing, long-standing liquor stores and convenience stores and Santa Cruz by and large, either market-driven or regulated, these stores closed between 10 p.m. and midnight. And so in looking at this delivery, we didn't want to go so far as to create a new precedent. And so with a recommendation tonight, we are recommending that they stop the alcohol delivery at midnight while the other delivery could continue. So specifically, this is just paraphrasing some of the conditions. So stopping at midnight, we had to amend a couple of the conditions to differentiate of delivery to store from a warehouse or other versus to store or from store to customers. So there's some minor modifications to language there. And then we want to do not introduce a new impact to the adjacent residential neighborhood. So we're asking that they stage out of the front door after regular business hours. That'd be at 9 p.m. cut off for these delivery drivers to load and stage from the front door. And then we're also recommending a one-year follow-up. So it'd be just a simple return trip to the planning commission to report out any issues that had come up in the one year. So with all of that, we are recommending approval with the conditions as discussed. And I will just note the applicant is not intending to make a presentation, but they are on standby for any questions. So I'm available for questions as well. Is the police department available for questions? I have a question on their report. I don't think they had availability this evening, unless that changed last minute, Katie. Yeah, our captain who's been working on this non-vacation this week, but she, we've met with her several times and we're prepared to answer questions for them, hopefully. Okay, well, I'll wait until our discussion then. We can discuss it as a group. Are there any other questions of the presentation by any of the commissioners? I had a quick question. This was Richard Christiansen. I'm wondering what, you guys said that it was a study of the deliveries that are available to midnight. Is that, I mean, could you get an Uber Eats deliver, you know, a couple bottles of wine after midnight from Safeway? Is that, was that kind of the comparison or is it more of, you know, the gas stations and liquor stores are closed? Is that more of the comparison? Yeah, I think what we looked at was just like, just from a market standpoint, how late are stores that are selling liquor open? And both from the regulatory side and just, you know, what are posted hours of operation. And so what we found was, yes, you can get a personal shopper to go shop for you, but, you know, only two stores that are open. So, you know, I think that's why we're making the difference between the non-alcohol related products. So we want them to be competitive. And allowed to compete with the market for that delivery. And then the other was, you know, the kind of the other side of the coin is, you know, we don't want to create a new precedent with this, allowing this business to operate past midnight selling liquor where we didn't find any others in Capitola, Watsonville just doesn't allow it. Santa Cruz has an ordinance that requires a city council approval. And the staff person we talked to said, nobody had actually pursued that. They all just decided to stop business at midnight. So a little bit more details of kind of what we went through to come to this conclusion, but it's a combination of both regulatory and what we just see out there as posted information. Thanks, that was a serious. Any other questions from the commissioners? It's not, let's move on to public comments. Do we have any, well, you mentioned that the applicant is available, but doesn't wish to make a presentation. Are there any other public comments on Zoom or email? I am not seeing any hands raised on Zoom. And our public comment email, there have been no messages received. All right, then let's move on to planning commission deliberations. Does anybody wish to weigh in on this topic? No one else does. I do have a question and it's what I kind of wanted to discuss with the police captain. And the thought is, so Santa Cruz is the nearest 7-Eleven. They sell beer and alcohol and wine 24-7, right? So they're open 24 hours a day. So I or someone who wanted to go out and get liquor between the hours of midnight and 2 a.m. There's a good chance that the party had already been started and now they just need to resupply. So that would create the risk of a DUI. So now all of a sudden you have someone driving Santa Cruz just across town to pick up more liquor. And now we've got a traffic hazard. So to me, the notion of that person staying home and getting their alcohol delivered to them is safer than not. So I kind of wanted the police to weigh in on that. Did you ask them that question by any chance, Katie? We did. You know, the flip side to that is that if liquor were to be delivered to a home having a house party between the hours of midnight and 2 a.m., it felt like they could also be contributing to an issue of people driving home after getting more alcohol delivered to a party between those hours. So really after midnight, the access is to, as you stated, the 7-Elevens. And there are those drivers available that you can order a personal shopper to order a beer or wine, and it would be delivered to your home. There aren't many liquor establishments that are open past midnight. And however, several bars and capitals stay open until 2 a.m., but not many. So they felt like the risk was higher by allowing more alcohol to be delivered to parties after midnight than if somebody wanted to order a beer or wine, they could do so through the local 7-Elevens using an Instacart or other service like that. So they really weren't, they don't want to, they didn't really want to add to a, they create a service that hasn't been established in the county. And as we did the research, looking as Brian did the research, looking at our neighboring jurisdictions, there really isn't this service available for hard alcohol after midnight. And so allowing, they thought it was reasonable to just stop delivery of alcohol at midnight to be kind of consistent with what is out there at this time. Thank you, that's a very thorough answer. Are there any other, is there any other discussion on this issue? I did have a comment. Go ahead, Mr. Newman. So the only question I had is I'm really not sure what the effect of a one-year check-in on the conditional use permit is. The commission, as I understand that we don't have any power once a conditional use permit is issued to modify it. So I guess we could refer it to reinforcement if we thought that there were violations going on. But other than that, I don't see what the point of it is. Maybe there's something I'm misunderstanding about that. If we're just a one-year conditional use permit and then it was up for renewal, that would be a different story. And would you like me to respond to that? Sure, go ahead. So this has been a practice we've used for some of our, one of our newer application comes in where we haven't had delivery of alcohol in the past. We have, with our food trucks, we recently did a one-year check-in and it was successful. But I do think I don't have the condition in front of me, but we could, on the condition date that conditions could be modified depending if there's new impacts realized over the year, so. I think that would be a good idea to, so the applicant was aware of that, that one year that there was some teeth in it. Okay, Commissioner Westman has her hand up. Yeah, I had my hand up, but I think Katie did a good job. I do believe that we can have a review of a youth permit and add additional conditions, as long as we put it in the youth permit that it will be reviewed and there's a possibility of additional conditions that one year review. So, but Katie took care of that. So for me, I really don't have any problems with this if we stick with the midnight timeframe. I think that makes a whole lot of sense and it's hard for me to believe that Bevmo's gonna succeed or fail on the amount of liquor that they sell between midnight and two o'clock that is going to be delivered to people's homes. So, I would be willing to make a motion to approve the application with the conditions adding the comment about that there could be additional conditions at the one year review period on the conditional youth permit and staying with the midnight delivery number. I'll second the motion with those amendments. We have a motion by Commissioner Westman and a second by Commissioner Ruth. Are there any further discussion on this? If not, okay, let's take a vote. Could we have a roll call, please? Sure. We should have presidency. Aye. And a new man. Aye. I'll vote for Commissioner Westman. Aye. I don't want to say no just to get my point across, but it's unanimous. Okay, we are able to move on then to item B, which is 106 Cliff Avenue. Do we have a staff presentation? That's one moment. Everybody see that? Okay. All right, good evening, commissioners. The application before you is for 106 Cliff Avenue. The application includes a design permit, historic alteration permit, coastal development permit and variance request to a three-story, the store three-story single-family residence at 106 Cliff Avenue, as I mentioned. The site, as shown here, the properties located in the Depot Hill neighborhood surrounded by a variety of historic properties for second and three-story structures along the Cliff Avenue street facing the Capitol Village. The application is including 673 square feet of additions and modifications to the primary dwelling unit. And for the demolition of two non-historic structures located along the rear property line, to construct a new accessory structure that includes an accessory dwelling unit and a two-car garage. The new ADU is 698 square feet and the detached garage is 457 square feet. Just to be clear, these are detached from the primary dwelling unit, which is why I refer to as detached, but they are themselves attached to each other. That is any clearer. It's the proposed site plan. All parking is located in the rear, in and in front of the detached garage. The colored circles indicate the existing proposed and proposed removal trees. The two green towards the side of the structure would be new. The four trees being proposed removal are in orange towards the rear of the property and the blue represents the large coast redwood, which is proposed for preservation. The applicant did include a harbor support by Nigel Belton supporting those removals on the basis of either the condition of the trees, the proposed development, or both. Now on to the elevations. I've done side by side, so it should be easy if we need to refer back to them. This is the existing and front. The existing and proposed front, excuse me. The blue area indicates the new massing, and this is the most publicly visible elevation. Most of the elevations are located on the side and the rear of the structure. And within the existing roofline, there is a new step gable in the front and a cross gable to the side. The design will also recreate the original front porch, which was converted to condition spacing late 1900s. It's the existing and proposed south side elevation. The existing and proposed north side elevations. Most of the massing, as you can see, is actually focused on this elevation and towards the rear of the structure, partially obscured by existing rooflines. This is the proposed rear elevations that existing and proposed. A new second story deck is also proposed in the rear accessible from within the residence and by an external spiral staircase. The structure includes a unique third story with three spaces of varying ceiling heights. The entire turret space and a portion of the central space currently exceed four feet in height and thus count towards the FAR calculation. In order to gain additional floor area, the applicant is posing to reduce the ceiling heights of the forward and central spaces to less than four feet. The applicant referenced the above photos noting the limited function and size of the existing spaces. This is from the side, one of the side elevations and the areas in blue approximate the new third story ceiling heights as they would be from the outside. Stealing heights? I mean the second story ceiling height? That would be the third story ceiling height where it says proposed. Shown above our cross sections representing new ceiling heights which would not exceed four feet as shown above. During review staff raised concerns regarding the proposal to bring down ceiling heights in order to gain floor area in other areas. Typically the floor area exemption is utilized for remainder spaces such as below staircases and to design roof pitches and attic spaces that were not intended as condition areas to not count towards floor area. This is the first instance that staff could find where an application proposed to lower internal ceiling heights in order to exempt existing floor area. Staff is deferring to the discretion of the planning commission whether lowering internal ceiling heights is an acceptable application of the code. The application includes a detached ADU as mentioned before. The ADU is designed and proposed to be subject to the limited standards covering our code. If this came in by itself, it would be a ministerial application and I should say by itself and not including the garage element, but the ADU itself complies with those limited standards for a maximum size of eight under square feet, maximum height of 16 feet and the four foot reader and side setbacks. It also complies with the objective standards to lend a attached or detached accessory dwelling unit on a historic site. Briefly covering some of the historic findings themselves. Early review by Mr. Bergstein, our project architectural historian came back with some recommendations and some notes of what was considered significant on the structure, notably the complex roof map, seeing the pitched, the high pitched roofs, gable roofs, the Southwest corner tower, and a lot of the cladding on the exterior and the number of the original windows that have unique sashed pattern from the V group siding. So following the initial staff meeting with the applicant, we gave back feedback regarding these recommendations. Mr. Bergstein subsequently reviewed the revised plans, which the applicant had adapted based on those recommendations and found them to be in compliance with the standards. I just noted some of the main points that would cover the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation, being that they preserve a majority of visible windows, original windows, maintain the unique shingles and shingle patterns on the front and side elevations, recreate the covered front porch, remove the existing non-original sash windows that were added sometime when that front porch was enclosed and locates much of the new massing to the rear and side to minimize public visibility. And he also noted that the new proposed ADU and garage structure was also in finding with the standards that it was distinct and complementary of the existing structure. There are a couple variance requests with this application. The applicant is requesting variance for two different height standards, one for the maximum height of a chimney or some sort of projection, and then for that of the actual massing itself. The blue areas again represent the new massing. The lower red lines that you see the solid red lines indicate a height of 27 feet. And then the dashed line above represents a height of 28 feet. Those are the maximum heights that would be applicable to this project given that it is a historic structure. I'm gonna cover that a little bit more in the next slide. That the maximum allowed height for chimneys is 28 feet regardless of whether or not it is historic findings here. The structure is historic and protected within capital zoning code and within CEQA. The primary structure is on a sloped lot with steep existing groups which impose difficulties in designing compatible additions that also comply with the height limitations for the zone. The starved properties represent the few properties along Cliff Avenue that actually do exceed the allowable height limitations. And then the one to the top represents the only property in this area that staff could find where they had a existing chimney that also exceeded any height limitations that we allowed. And to cover some of that slide again, this is a table showing the various height limitations that apply to the R1 zone. Typically you have a maximum height of 25 feet for the primary massing that is actually increased to 27 feet for historic structures such as this, especially when they are trying to match it with the existing roof lines, which the applicant has done here in the staff's opinion. And then for chimneys, they are allowed to exceed the base height of 25 feet by three feet. And the code explicitly states that that is regardless of whether or not it's a historic structure. So it's 28 feet for both historic and nonhistoric structures. The proposed variance would allow increase to the massing height by eight inches and an increase to the chimney to 41 feet instead of 28. Staff was able to make findings to support the variance for the massing on the additions. Staff could not make findings for D, C and E to support a variance for the proposed chimney. The structure does already have an existing chimney. And if they wanted to create some new heating, they could find other means for locations to do so. And again, as staff know, there's not much of a precedent for this in the area or in the zone to allow something of this stature and that it wasn't something that enhanced the original design. The architectural historian noted that this did not appear to be an original feature. So that didn't see that this would enhance the historic nature of it in any way. Sorry, could I interrupt? I know this is a little bit out of the norm, but on number B or letter B, privileges enjoyed by other properties. So do you just mention that other properties on Cliff Avenue that have chimneys that exceed the maximum? So isn't that justification for B? Did I miss something? We could cover that more at the end, if you'd like, but I would say that typically when the planning department reviews variance applications in regards to whether or not it's enjoyed by the properties, we try to focus on what seems to be a trend rather than just a singular example. All right, thank you. Sorry to interrupt. To summarize that in the staff report, staff recommended that the commission approve the project but deny the variance for the chimney. However, as brought up earlier in this presentation, staff does still have concerns about setting a precedent for floor area by lowering ceiling heights. The commission may continue the application and provide direction for modification if they have similar concerns. With that, I will hand it over to the commission for any questions and comments. Any questions or comments by the commissioners? Let me see if there's hands raised. Any questions? Susan, Commissioner Westman raised her hand first. Yeah, I wondered if you could show us an elevation that shows the existing chimney on the house. I don't remember seeing that. It's, let me see if it's not actually shown on the plans. I'll see if that photo we included captures it. I don't think it does. That's correct. One moment. Yeah, you can tip and so. I can put up a photo if you'd like but the chimney only protrudes, I think a couple feet above the roof line and the rest of it's a metal vent. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make certain I hadn't missed it. Very good. Commissioner Newman, you also have your hand up. What is the proposed use of the 3 foot 11 inch height area? I believe they thought as being, I mean, I'd rather let the applicant specify that but I imagine as attic space or do you mean the space above it? No, I mean that space, so. They've been referring to it as attic space so that's my assumption. So don't we have situations where people have attics that aren't included in their floor area ratio calculations and storage areas that are not really livable space? Yes, that's true. And that's why I mentioned that as an explicit example of where this exemption does often apply but usually that's in a design phase where the architect or designer would actually design route pitches and plate heights to make sure that space did not exceed four feet or if it did, they understood that those areas would actually count towards their floor calculation. Yeah, thank you. Commissioner Rue. Yeah, this is the question for Sean. How does the ceiling height, adjusted ceiling height affect the cupola and how will that be utilized? That the latter part of your question, I think I would, it would be best deferred to the applicant as for how it would appear. I can pan back to the image I have that's superimposed the new height, if you'd like. Yeah, could you please? Yeah, we did ask to clarify with the architect whether or not this would have a visual impact because it was our impression that it would drop below the top part of the window and that this is an estimation, but it does appear it would. The architect clarified that they did not believe it would have any visible appearance or alteration from the outside, but you may want to clarify that. So does the upper portion of the cupola then become unused space? With windows. That's my assumption. And the ceiling height of the cupola is certainly more than four feet, correct? I'm not sure how high that goes up, but if there's another ceiling above that or if it extends to the top of the spire. I thought it, when I was in there years ago, I thought it extended to the top of the spot there. I think there's a picture of it, isn't there? There is. In the presentation. It does not angle up, but yes, we have a picture. So you can see a part of it does climb, but I don't know how high that goes. Certainly more than four feet it appears. Any other questions, Commissioner? I just like some more clarification on that from the applicant. I agree. I agree that this business with the cupola seems very cleared. Let's see. I'm not sure what the appropriate, Robert's rules are on this. Should we, Katie, should we just get our comments to staff or should we also include comments to the applicant at this point? Why don't we wait until public comments when the applicant is there and then we can ask questions at that point? Yes. Does that make sense? Okay. Then Commissioner Newman, if you're done, let's move on to Commissioner Christensen. Do you have questions as well? I just had a quick question to staff. I'm wondering if since the turret is, or the cupola is original and it could be considered a unique historical feature, I mean, it does present a challenge with their design. Is there a way to use that as the support in their variants of saying that that's the unique situation that they're having to negotiate? And maybe just this whole discussion is kind of just semantics about pushing the ceiling height down? Is that? I can chime in there. So the Planning Commission could consider, it's in the variants, we just looked, the applicant brought it in to show a decrease in floor air by dropping the ceiling height, which is something we have not seen in the past and it meets like the definition but it doesn't quite meet the intent in our overview. However, you are allowed to grant a variant floor-floor area ratio within the code. So if that were something that you'd want to consider that has been open to the Planning Commission. I just, my intuition is it just seems really silly to try to just say that they're gonna lower the ceiling height in an existing cupola. It just doesn't sit right. I just feel like it would seem better for precedent all the other future applicants that we're just to say, we understand it's a cupola. We understand that it has a height that's greater than four feet but we're allowing it because it's an existing historical, architectural element and we don't need to fool ourselves by lowering the ceiling kind of thing. But I don't know, it's just my first thought. I'm going to reach for the floor area exceptions and see if there's anything there for historic but I think we only allow an exception for height for historic. Sean, correct me if you already know the answer to that. Well, while she's doing that, let me just say it occurs to me that there's one thing to ask for a variance of floor area ratio. It's another thing to create floor area by putting in false ceilings. It seems like anybody a homeowner could do that and say, okay, I'm gonna cut every room in my house in half and say, okay, it's really under four feet. Taking the false ceiling, get approval, take out the false ceiling, boom, I'm back to. So I know saying this applicant would do that but I mean, it opens the door to gaming the system for other applicants. So I'd rather would have rather seen this as a request for variance to floor area ratio than to say, oh no, we're compliant because we brought the ceiling. That's kind of what I'm agreeing with that sentiment. I think that, but moreover, I'm understanding what the applicant is saying. He's saying that my attic space is useless. I don't really wanna count that as floor area because I'd like to put a useful addition on the structure and just eliminate the attic space altogether. And okay, that's understandable. I will be perfectly fine with considering lowering those ceiling heights to meet the code and just kind of just ignore that space. But the cupola just seems like it should just be addressed in a different way. It should just be addressed in a way that says we're not lowering the ceiling or doing anything silly. We're just considering it as an historical feature and usable space, not usable space, kind of it's a moot point, you know? But. I have some questions that are not actually on this, on the cupola. I have a question on the side setback on the north side. If we can bring up that slide that shows the north side. So, yeah. Is that the right picture? The, where they have the overhang that was added in the 60s on the, is that on the left there? Is this the north elevation? Go back a slide. I don't think that's the one. No, that's not it. So, this is the north and it's the one on the left-hand side if you're looking from the front. This is where we're traveling from the side. So, if we're looking from the front, basically facing north, the left-hand side is where there's currently a path through with steps going up and then the overhang which was added in the 60s, according to the historic reference. Do you want the west elevation? So, when, so we're look, so, yeah, you're right. I want the west elevation. Do I want the west elevation? Yes, the west elevation. Yeah, there we go, there we go. So, currently on the left side of that, you see that overhang that, correct me if I'm wrong, is why I'm asking. That overhang was added in the 60s and then currently that's a visual sight all the way to the back yard and they're proposing that they put a wall in the back of that overhang so that that sight line disappears and then that extension, which is already non-compliant with a six-foot setback then becomes like a one-foot setback from the property line, is that correct? I mean, just make sure I'm understanding this. So, we're looking at that porch. So, over at the top of the screen, you see that angle blotlight and then you see in the upper left-hand corner the light, you see the steps coming up and then onto the porch. So, currently not shown in this picture is an overhang on that porch so that they can walk in the side door and not be rained on, which was added in the 60s, according to the report, I think. So, currently the way this is shown, you see a decent setback from the property line, six feet or more, but this redesign then takes the wall, which is they're gonna put on the back of the porch and extends it almost all the way to the property line, which then encloses the back portion of the overhang, which was also added in the 60s to make it further non-compliant with the six-foot setback. My question is, is aren't we effectively allowing a zero-lotline exemption on this? I mean, we're basically eliminating the setback. So, I wanna point out, and it's hard to see on this image, but we have it on the engineering plans as well as the existing conditions survey and the architect had superimposed it here. There's a faint outline dashed line along here that shows the existing extent of the uncovered and the covered porch areas that wraps around the back. This line right here that gets closest to the northern property line is shared with the existing porch area, which does have, which also has an existing covered porch. So, the applicant has redesigned that but is not from our staff review on this exacerbating that area. There's also a second-story deck that wraps around and they're maintaining the extent of that as well. As far as new, they're showing that the new massing the additions would still meet the first or second as applicable size setbacks. All right, well, you've answered my question. I do have an issue with that, I can discuss it later. Are there? To be clear, they are meeting the first and second-story setbacks for the new addition and they're not exacerbating the non-conforming porch. So, that wall that they're putting on the back, what are they calling it, a fence? So, what you're seeing is because it's two-dimensional when you're looking at the view from the street, you're actually seeing, I don't know if you can see my cursor, but if you were to stand, Sean, if you can put your cursor at the top of those stairs and you were to look straight back without looking at an angle, you would be viewing the new addition, that wall that jets out, I'm gonna guess about four or five feet where Sean's pointing. That's what you're seeing from that front elevation, but in actuality, they maintain the setback from the blue, the turquoise blue property line is way out. Sean, do you know what that measurement is? Yeah, this measurement here is about eight feet from these points to the property line, it's about eight feet two inches. Okay, so I think you convinced me, but let me make sure that I understand this. So that porch, that is the back of that porch, that there is not a wall that goes up and covers the first story that goes from the house to the, basically to the lot line. You're saying there is not a wall there, that's an illusion, what you're doing is looking through the porch and seeing the house in the back. That's correct, if you were to stand towards the center of the lot and look back, I think you'd still be able to see towards the rear of the lot, but if you were standing over here, maybe looking straight, maybe not. All right, that clarifies a lot. That was difficult to see from the drawings, but that's, okay, thank you, that was very helpful. Any other questions of staff? If not, we can move on to public comments. Go ahead. Okay, I was gonna say that architect is here and has his hand raised for public comment. Yeah, let's get the applicants first. Go ahead. Co-written, Sean, I think you're going to have to... I can, but I was gonna suggest that because we do have, it looks like you might have already sent it to the commission, but we did receive a public comment that Mr. Ritten may want an opportunity to respond to. You know, I think it'd be best to allow Co to answer the planning commissioners' questions first and then we can move on to public comment and additional answers if necessary. Understood. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Ritten, we've unmuted you there, so. Can you hear me? Yes, yeah. Okay, sorry, it's always, thank you so much. You know, it's a late evening. I have to say my youngest daughter just got an award graduating from college, and so I'm still here. So that might not mean anything, but I appreciate that you're here, and I'm sure this is a long night for you all. So the ceiling height up in the attic, and I have to say I really appreciate Commissioner Christensen's comments about it, because it's a difficult situation because that space is unusable, period. And I don't want to lower the ceiling height in there, and frankly, I can barely walk into that space. So why is that space counted as square footage? Well, I understand the Capitola's ordinance is regarding that, right? Because you're trying to avoid having that massing and so on, but this is a very old home, and it has conditions that are unusual. Nobody would ever put in a turret like that currently because it would count as square footage, even though it's unusable. The only thing I've ever heard that's been used by, and which I wouldn't encourage anyway, because that's just a personal preference, is some guy that used to sit there and play as drums. You know, it's not usable space, and it's not actually accessible in a legally way to get there. So we're willing to drop the height on it. We don't want to, but it's not usable. We're not trying to game the system. We're just like going, we're being penalized for square footage that is unusable. And if anybody was designing a new house, they wouldn't include it. And seriously, it's fine to continue this hearing, to discuss that more. My client is not here and so on, but I think it's a good discussion because it's like going, what do you do with these old houses? But then again, how often do they come up? So I think this is an unusual also project because this is one of the older homes in Capitola, one of the tallest ones, and it also violates various zoning codes at this point and building codes for that matter. So how do you deal with these and how do you do them in a good way? And I believe my client and I, I have really made a great effort to do so, but I think it's not a bad discussion to have. I want to say also that I think Sean has done an exceptional job, frankly. And the presentation, which I really appreciate. I don't agree with some things. I was somewhat disturbed that we hadn't been informed that they were challenging the chimney. And I have to go to the chimney, this becomes a problem because chimneys are, or wood burning fireplaces are as of right. Everybody in frankly, the County of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Capitola and the city of Santa Cruz have the right for a wood burning fireplace. Whether you agree with that or not, they all have that right. And so if this wasn't a public hearing, how would that be handled? Because if you install the wood burning fireplace, it has to have by building code, a certain clearance from the roof. That's just the way it is. So I go, well, we have to have that. My client understandably wants one because it's consistent with the style of architecture that they have, Queen Anne, you would want a wood burning fireplace. I don't, that's a preference, but everybody in the County of Santa Cruz and Capitola has that right. So do you want to make the precedent that you're not allowed to have one unless it meets the current height limits? Frankly, I think that's a bit of a problem in Capitola's code that happens, that it doesn't recognize that particular conflict that you just have to have a chimney that's above the height limit. If the existing roof is above the height limit, if that's understandable, I'm like going, let's say you had a old house, you wanted to put a wood burning fireplace, you needed to put it someplace, for whatever reason, in a different place, it is allowed axiomatically, but you would have to get a variance for the height of it because the existing roof exceeds the height limit. Again, how often is it gonna happen? How many times are we all gonna see a house of this height? Not often, but I did send a shot from a book showing historical and it's not unusual to have a chimney of this height or this style of house at all. But if staff and the Planning Commission wanna discuss how we can make it more attractive, my client is more than happy to discuss that with you all. But he feels very, yeah, very convinced that he wants a wood burning traditional fireplace in his house and I certainly support them. Yeah, for now that we're allowed to, for now we're allowed to do them and for this type of house, I would hate to see a gas fireplace there, they still look like not much and venting them out the side is unattractive and it's appropriate for this house, stylistically and so on. So other than that, I don't have much to say frankly, the neighbors appear to support the project, I have not heard anybody objecting, maybe somebody is objecting, it's the first time I've heard it, but both my client and I are happy to continue this and have more discussion on it. So I think it's brought some good discussions. It's like, do you count these type of spaces that are unusable in historical houses that are historic, historical. Historic houses, yeah, they're unusable, there's nothing, I've been through that space, I can't get to the turret without bending over, it's not usable space, should it be counted in this situation, but maybe it's a variance versus us having to play stupid human pet tricks. I certainly respect that. So I'm gonna leave it there and just respond to whatever questions you have. I have a question, Mr. Britton, that you're saying that the cochula is inaccessible, you're saying that there is no stairway or drop-down ladder to the attic, how do you get up there? No, there's a stairway to an attic room that has full height, we counted that as square footage by the way. So think of, you have a three-story house, there's no question we have a three-story house. And there is a room at the back of the house that we counted as square footage because it's clearly accessible, but there's a door to a space that doesn't meet, it's not a 6-8 door, let's put it that way, it's a attic access door. And so you can go through that door, I can go through it, but I go through it hunched over. My wife's not so much and my kid wouldn't be so much, but it's not a space that's viable to use, it's not a legal space under building code, meaning that it's not viable. I mean, if you guys wanna give us a variance to make it viable, love to do it, my client wanted it and I said, no, that space enlarging that and making it viable, it's problematic on so many levels. Yeah, it would violate the historic character of the building, it would violate building code, and I like it, you know. That answers my question, one other question that was actually brought up by Commissioner Ruth was the height of the cochlea, is that open or is there a roof? It's tall, I can stand in the center of it, straight up. But if I go try to step by the window, no, I can't. It's not a usable space, yeah, but you can't get to it, you can't get to it through a usable space. And again, I don't wanna lower the ceiling height, I'm just like going, why count it? All right, thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, I have one. Commissioner Ruth has got his hand raised. Yeah, Mr. Britton in the cochlea, the third space, with the floor, with the ceiling being dropped down, it appears that it's like just the windows midway, is that the case? No, we could drop the ceiling so we have blind windows, you wouldn't be able to tell from outside, but I agree with Commissioner Christensen, it's silly, but you guys tell me how to best address an unusable space that's being counted square footage. I mean, I don't know what the public benefit is. Maybe there is one, I don't know. So we're just trying to go, look, we would like to use the square footage that this cochlea represents and we'll drop it down. Nobody from the public will ever see. Yeah, I agree. It seems ridiculous to me to drop the ceiling. It's completely ridiculous, but you guys tell me. You could also say no, but all it does is I make the ADU bigger, which, so what? You know, it's sort of like the garage gets smaller and the ADU gets bigger, you know? And that's where I'm like, I just don't quite know what to do. And I have no problem, again, continuing this for a discussion of like, I ask the applicant not to keep repeating himself because we do have a long meeting. Sorry. Okay, very good. Are there any other questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you, Mr. Britton. Are there any public comments? We did. We have one more person on Zoom that would like to comment. Sean Galina and I'll need Sean to allow him to speak. And then we do have a written comment as well from Carolyn Swift. John Galina, I believe you can speak now. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah, my name is John Galina and I live behind 106. If I live on 113 Central, been here for 25 years. And just had a few things to say about it. And also my brother's architect is on Zoom, meaning to, if I don't speak well in these terms. But the main thing I had was, you know, with the ADU, they cut that chimney right in the middle of my backyard, about 10 feet behind. And, you know, I have a two story house and the height of that chimney is like right at my second floor. So I'm concerned if it's solid fuel earning chimney that that smoke's gonna end up right on, you know, my backyard and in my second floor. So I was wondering if that could be gas instead. I understand I heard the whole thing about wood and the historic house, but I don't the ADU has to have that historical wood burning situation. And then also, I mean, if you agree with that, that it's, you know, with the wood, because, you know, you will just also, the winds primarily blow from the west and the northwest, which would put it right into my house. And then if, yeah, well, that's one thing, that's the main thing that I have. And also that there's that tree, that coastal redwood tree, if you look on the drawings, you can see the canopy comes very close to that chimney top. And is that, you know, with the arborist or, you know, or just safety reasons, having it, or they're gonna have to keep cutting that coastal redwood back to make for that chimney. So it doesn't get too much heat near the tree. Is that gonna be an issue? So, you know, a shorter that I just like see the chimney gone, if that's possible, the owners in the architect think that's okay. Maybe it was the gas spented out the side, somewhere away from the tree, and not even have a chimney there. That would be really great. And plus the chimney goes above the 16 foot height limit that 80 users supposed to have. So that's another height thing. So that was my main considerations. But the other thing I was hoping or looking at was the had a variance for the garage height. Garages are only supposed to be 15 feet. And they wanna make the garage almost 16 feet like the ADU. And I'm wondering instead of bringing it all up to 16 feet because it's all connected, if we could just all have it at 15 feet, that would decrease the bulk and the, you know, of the unit a little bit at all. And it would still have that consistent roofline that they wanted. And it wouldn't be a little bit less imposing if it was all at 15 feet instead of that 16 feet. The, my second point, my third point, oh my, out of time, so that means is if, if they ever have to do redesign the back of the house at all, they're pushing back the Southeast corner quite a bit about 15 feet, which is gonna, you know, of course, take away a bunch of my ocean view that I have that I like. If they would ever consider flip flopping the deck and the room on the second floor, taking bedroom number two and moving it from the Southeast to the Northeast corner and taking the deck and moving it from the Northeast to the Southeast corner. That way I would just be looking over a deck instead of then to have my ocean view instead of having a bedroom obstructing the ocean view. I would still have their deck is to have their rooms wouldn't change anything. The deck would also be a south facing, so it would be sunny or warmer deck. And it would also have an ocean view because they could see the ocean off that deck where the deck is right now, you can't see the ocean. It's just all blocked. So they'd have an ocean view deck. Yeah, so you finish up. So that, I just was hoping that maybe they would consider that if they had to redo anything. I think you, Mr. Glean it out. The chimney on the ADU is my biggest concern. Thank you, Mr. Glean. Those were great comments. Katie, are there any other applicant or any other members of the public with their hands raised? No, it looks like I do have one comment that was written in. That was me. You go ahead and read that. Hi, Katie. I was sent the planning commission agenda and I noticed the remodeled proposed for the Hooper House at 106 Cliff Avenue. I'm not writing to comment about the plans. I do feel so that while the visible history is used to create and justify proposed alterations, the invisible history should also be taken somewhat seriously and not be metaphorically kicked to the curb. Therefore, I'm wondering if I could offer a few details that I think planning commissioners might want to be aware of because they relate to the story of the house. According to my long ago research, the house lot, lot 11, block M, was sold by FAA into Catherine Lenzen shortly after he opened the Depot Hill subdivision to buyers in 1888. Catherine was the wife of well-known San Jose architect Jacob Lenzen. When Catherine died in 1890, the capital of property went to Jacob and his children. His son, Theodore, was also an architect and is believed to be the designer of the Cliff Avenue house. Reflections of the past and anthology of San Jose edited by Judith Henderson includes a description of the Marine Social Club founded in the 1870s. Several of the early members built summer homes on Cliff and Central Avenues in Capitola, including the Lenzens. Jacob and Theodore were also listed as designers of the San Jose City Hall, Hall of Records, Odd Fellows Hall, the original O'Connor Hospital, the San Jose Normal School, the Agnews Asylum, the San Jose Hotel Vendome, and many others. It concluded that they had made large contributions to the appearance of dwellings and business houses in the Santa Clara Valley. Members of the Lenzen family, Michael and Maria of San Jose, sold the Capitola summer home in 1907 to Joseph Hooper, Harry B. Hooper's father. It's more likely the house was built around 1890 as it states in the Capitola Historic Survey than in 1904. As far as it is known, Capitola has only one Lenzen building. It's my hope that its future will be handled with care. Fund regards. Carolyn. That was from Carolyn Swift. That was actually sent earlier today in this project. And with that, there's no more emails, and I'm gonna just check the Zoom again for attendees. It does look like we have another hand up. It's a phone number that ends in N1, I mean, 915, and they are now allowed, I think now. Let's keep this short. These comments have been coming, going very long. We have a long agenda, please. You have three minutes. Thank you very much. This is Becky Steinbrenner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the good discussion I've heard tonight. And I want to thank the applicant for preserving the large redwood tree and the other tree on the property. A lot of times I see them just being cut down. So that's all I really want to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Katie, can we move on to planning commission deliberation then? We can, yes. Alrighty, we want to chime in first. Susan Westman, you may speak. I will start. Ryan hit all of our points. First, I would like to thank the architect because I think they have done a very nice job on the design of the remodel of the building as well as the ADU unit that's in the back. For the cupola, I'm agreeing that I think trying to lower the ceiling is a pretty silly approach. It seems to me that we could let staff determine if it's best for us to simply put a condition on this maybe even have a recorded that that is not going to be habitable space, that it's going to be an attic or staff may recommend that we go and do a variance for the floor area ratio, but trying to modify that by lowering the ceiling or raising the floor doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I have no problem at all with people having wood burning fireplaces. I actually have one in my house and what heats my house. So I don't see any problem with having a wood burning fireplace. I do have a little difficulty where this one is located that it requires a chimney that needs to be 71 feet. I mean, excuse me, 41 feet, I think it was 41 feet. So I would like to know if there's any way they can still have a wood burning fireplace in the main house, but come up with a chimney design that's not quite so large as that particular one. My biggest issue with the house is sort of the second floor rear yard deck. Everybody knows that I'm not in favor of them. We have denied them on several other projects and I don't see any real justification on this project because just because it's a historical home that there should be a large second floor deck on the side and rear of the property. I think it does have an impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. I can agree with the neighbor who's concerned about the chimney on the ADU. One of the things that we recognize with the ADUs is that they're being put in what typically would be sort of a backyard setback of a home and we're allowing them because we want to have more additional residential units, but I'm not certain that it's necessary for an ADU unit to have a wood burning fireplace, which does sound like would have a negative impact on the neighbors. So at this point, that's where I stand on some of the issues. And I look forward to hearing from my other commissioners. Thank you. I'll go ahead. Any other hands raised commissioners, Christensen. I'm just curious, I wanted to clarify, is the ADU under review at all right now? If they weren't coming in for another issue, would we be reviewing the ADU at all? I think the chimney exceeds what our standards are for ADUs and height. That's true, Katie. I will have to make sure of that, but I don't think we have any exception to the 16 foot height for the ADU. And because of that, that could be under review, but otherwise the ADU, as long as it meets the standards for the ADU, there would be no review by the Planning Commission on that. What about this concern about the 15 foot height? You said that the community member mentioned, Mr. Gleana, I think said that it should be a 15 foot and the 16 foot height is a variance, or is it mistaken? It's not a variance, is there an exception of the code to allow the garage to have additional height relative to the main structure? Other comments that Commissioner Rues. Yeah. In regards to the CUPALA, I don't agree with Susan on this one, I would like to see a variance to make that space usable. It just seems like such a ridiculous idea, as Courtney pointed out, to lower a ceiling in there where it's four feet high and not be able to utilize that space. I think a variance would add to the usable space and we should consider it. I've had the opportunity to tour some of the historic neighborhoods in England and Wales and seen a lot of the old Victorian homes there and tall chimneys are pretty typical. So I don't really have a problem with the chimney. I think it really adds the historical nature of the house. On the second story deck, if you look at the way the neighbors to the, I guess it'd be the north or the neighbors to the west and the neighbors to the south on each side, the way those houses are configured and with the ADU in the backyard, I don't see a lot of privacy issues on this deck. And I'm one that's always been adamant about the second story deck, but I don't see the issues with this deck that some of those other ones we've had before us have presented. I just think Mr. Britton has really done an excellent job in keeping the historical nature of this house. And those are my concerns or my comments. I would support a gas-fired stove in the ADU as I have personally been subject to a chimney and about the same proximity to my house and the prevailing winds blew all the smoke right in my backyard. So those are my comments. Thank you, Commissioner Ruth, Commissioner Newman. It seems to me that we need to continue this matter and the applicant has pretty much invited us to do that. There are a number of issues that need to be focused on. For one thing, we have to notice a variance for the cupola. Everyone seems to agree that just lowering the ceiling height to three feet 11 is a silly solution. And a variance is a much better solution. So everyone seems to support that, but we do have to notice it. So we're gonna have to come back anyway. And then there are a few other issues here that maybe can be pursued in the re-hearing now that there's been a lot of input from the commission. The only one that I'll address right now is the chimney height. And I don't really understand Mr. Britton's insistence on the right to a wood burning stove. I don't think that that over trumps all design standards in the city. So I think they still have to satisfy our design standards or qualify for a variance. And I think the staff report with regard to denial of the variance is fairly convincing to me. So I would leave it open for the new hearing, but that's my preliminary thought on that. Thank you, Commissioner Newman. And I'll throw in my comments as well. I think that the unusable space is nevertheless considered square footage. So that's 325 square feet that we officially have to count. So that means, so how do you take care of that? Well, you don't add as much to the rest of the house. You don't mass the rest of the house. You have, you want to add 600 and some odd square feet. Well, you're going to have to take into account the fact you already bitten into that with the 325 square feet that exists already. I'd be willing to, again, look at a variance. I think there's a lot of reasons why we have a variance. Again, the architect talked about the historic nature of the home. I think this is a very unique case. So it gives us a lot of window to accept that variance. I don't know that I would want to agree with that variance. He's adding a lot of structure, including the garage and the ADU. And now he wants to not account 325 square feet. To me, that's a lot of mass and you're adding to the neighborhood. But I'm willing to listen to the other commissioners on that. I don't have a problem either with the chimney height. The reason being that, again, because of the Queen Anne style, I think Mr. Burton's letter showing the history of the Queen Anne design is adequate, rational enough to allow that variance. I also agree that the wood burning stove in the ADU is something that we should consider a problem, both the neighbors and to the health of the coastal redwood tree. So with that, I think my side setback issues have been properly addressed. So I don't insist on a change there. But yeah, I think there's room for modifications in this design can make everyone happy. But I'm willing to listen to a motion. Oh, wait, we have another comment. Thank you, Mr. Westman. So the variance that we're talking about for the cupola and the upstairs space is the variance to the floor area ratio that was referred to by the community development director before, you know? Right. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that with this. Thank you. I also wanted to ask, could we, since we're getting direction, it looks like we're headed towards a continuation, get feedback on the second story deck from all commissioners just so we can. Before we do that, Commissioner Ruth had his hand up. Oh, no, I was just scratching my head. Oh, well, you're on the line. You're an hand up. You have a hand. So let's put our hands on the deck. So Commissioner Ruth has already weighed in and would you like to reply to his thoughts, Commissioner Westman? You still don't like the second floor deck? I'm still not in favor of the second floor deck. I'll go back and look at it since it's going to be continued. But right now I would say no. Commissioner Newman. I need to take a look at it too. And since we're gonna have another hearing, they'll give me an opportunity to do that. Commissioner Christensen. At this stage, I have no problem with the second deck and I agree with Commissioner's sentiment of privacy. I don't have a problem with it either, except that I am sympathetic to the neighbor, although we don't guarantee an ocean view. If we are going to allow a second floor deck which we generally don't do, it would be nice to accommodate the neighbors which is just kind of my two bits. So that's comments on the deck. So I'll move to continue this item. We want to continue it to a date certain so we don't have to republic notice. We do have to republic notice because there's going to be a variance. You're correct. Thank you. All right, I have a motion for continuance by Commissioner Newman and a second by Commissioner Christensen. Can we, but there's no further discussion. Let's have a roll call vote. Thank you, Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Aye. This item is continued. We'll get to go over this one more time. And I only just say I appreciate the applicants for putting up with it. This is a big project and you're doing a great job with a real big project. And thank you for your forbearance of all of our questions and issues because this is a big community issue as well as a private one. With that, we can move on to item C, which is 410 prospects. Do we have a staff report? I believe you're on mute. Thank you for that. Okay, so I'm going to try and go through this one as quickly as I can. It's a thematically similar to the last. It's a application for design permit, historical alteration permit, coastal development permit and variance request to a historic two-story single-family residence at 1410 Prospect Avenue. So this is the proposed site plan. The project includes the demolition of an existing 1,606 two-story home as well as the construction of a 1,422 two-story residence in its place with a 796-square-foot basement. That basement is not included in the 1,400-square-foot number. Proposal would also remodel and relocate an existing nonhistoric garage. And it also includes a variance request to construct the new residence to retain current nonconformities for required setbacks and for area ratio. You can see here, again, like last time, noted some of the proposed removed and replaced trees. In orange, there are two trees in front of the subject property. One is a deciduous tree and one is a cypress. The applicant is proposing to remove both and replace them with one tree that is also off the site and one tree that is in the front yard, which would be a Japanese maple and a gold medallion tree. At maturity, this planning plan would meet the 15% canopy coverage requirement for development. See here is a dashed line and brown that indicates the extent of the basement area. The basement is contained within the proposed first-story footprint with the exception of two white wells. Previous application and presentation, I'm putting each elevation side-by-side existing proposed. First one is the existing proposed front elevation, existing to propose south-side elevations. I want to note, too, we have to come back to this. Their fame, but the architect has outlined the current extent of the home underneath the proposed design. So that kind of gives you an idea of massing and general design by comparison. So I can go over that as we go. This is the existing proposed north-side elevations and this is the existing and proposed rear elevations. These face the capital village. There's also a second-story deck like the last application on the backside. This does not face any other residences, but now we can discuss that as we want. The preliminary evaluation by historian Leslie Dill found that the existing structure to be historically significant more in its neighborhood context than in preserved design or materials themselves, noting that much of the original structure had been modified, added to, or has original materials been covered or replaced. Staff met with the applicant and architectural historian and on the basis of a replacement structure, recommended that a proposal for a new structure should maintain the historic pattern and streetscape and scale of the existing site. Mr. Bergstein subsequently reviewed the proposed design and found it compatible with the standards for secretary of interior standards for reconstruction, citing standards four through six as most applicable. I cover what those are here, or at least the findings that Mr. Bergstein provided. Just to kind of cover that, the project can maintain the unique streetscape and continuous roof lines and scale with similar scale and massing as the existing structures. The new project shares materials and architectural features as the original, including the asymmetric roof pitch, front dormer, double hung windows and cladding. The application also includes a variance request for both the maximum floor area ratio and the minimum setback requirements. Staff reviewed the project with respect to the required findings for variances at the rest and the staff report. Of note, the application require a variance for the front, first and second story setbacks and the rear. The rest of the non-conformities on the garage are all existing and the applicant has either maintained those, not exacerbated them or actually improve them by relocating the existing garage entirely within the subject property. A bit of visual first of the existing site. The project site is a shallow, irregularly shaped lot and small by capital standards. The highlighted areas represent the building envelopes that would comply with setback requirements for the far one primary structures. The darker blue shows the first story envelope and the light blue shows where a second story extent could be as well. Let me just go back to this photo again. For reference, this is Prospect Avenue from South to North. The subject property is the second to the end and it's one of the smallest. Staff reviewed the existing characteristics of Prospect Avenue along the bluff and found that the subject plot is one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood and of the eight nearest properties, five properties appear to exceed floor area ratios allowed within the zone of any standard. With respect to setbacks, most homes on the bluff side of Prospect Avenue also do not comply with the front side or rear setbacks for a combination of the three of the nearest eight properties, seven do not comply with setback requirements. Recommend that the commission approve the project based on the commission's approval and findings or continue the application and provide direction on what would need to be modified. Very good. Are there planning commissioners questions? I have one, Mr. Rooks. Commissioner Rooks, go ahead. Has the applicant submitted a landscape plan for the area along the path? Are you referring to the coastal access path behind the property? Yes. They have not that that is actually beyond the subject property, it's on the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission property. At this time, they're not proposing to do anything on that site except to remove an existing low line deck back in the backyard that encroaches into RTC property. How much does the RTC property extend on the west side of the path? I actually don't have that exact figure, but I can pull up the site plan because I think I did leave a knot to see where the extent of that pathway is. The line right here is the property boundary on the rear side facing the bluff and the trail. The trail's noted in light gray right here. I don't have an exact measurement on that. I can get one for you if you'd like, but it looks like at minimum it's probably 15 feet away. Yeah. Well, there's no doubt the property owner is going to utilize that RTC property. I don't know, I'd like to see how we control what happens on that property because it's going to get utilized by the property owner. I can only add to that as it's time that our staff, both in planning and in public works, did speak both with the architect as well as a representative from the RTC about how they are looking at handling easements, new easements on their property, specifically along this area among others because the encroachments are not unheard of in their railway corridor. As mentioned that there's nothing at this time that's been proposed. We did discuss it with the applicant about what they were intending to do and they basically gave them the option that if they wanted to do some development there, it was either going to have to be included in the package with some indication that they had the tentative approval of the RTC or that they actually had a lease in hand before we could consider it. And the applicant opted to not make any action at this time other than to say that they're going to be removing the deck, which is a necessity for the construction of the home as it is. Okay, what kind of engineering is tests and soil tests are required for the basement? We also spoke with our building official about this and also with the architect. They've already obtained some engineering on the structure of the civil engineering as well as from what I'm told, a geotechnical report. And speaking with our building official Robin Woodman, I was told definitively that a geotechnical report would be required for the scope of this kind of work and especially with her familiarity of this area being slightly sandy loamy soils. So no one at this time, both in public works planning or in the building department felt that a geological report was necessary from the available knowledge and the existing reinforcements of the site and that it wasn't being actively eroded by city ocean, but that a geotechnical report would be emphatically required. So that's within the conditions already. Okay, thank you, Sean. Any other questions to staff? Any other hands raised? I have one question. So on 106 Cliff Avenue, we have identified that style with a clean and style, very well known. Is there a style of this particular house? I know it's an old house, but is it consistent with any kind of recognized architectural style? So I don't actually have the evaluations in front of me and it's been a little while since I read them from the back, but my understanding was that they actually didn't have a specific design or represent a development pattern. And that was both in fact that it was just, it seems that it was built and modified over time to address whatever needs of the current owner were. That was noted by a first historian, Leslie Dill. Yeah, the reason I ask, and my next question is probably gonna be for the applicant, but I worry that since this has been called historical and it had a historical review that the applicant perhaps unnecessarily tried to meet a style of architecture that no one can particularly insist on. So I'll wait and ask the applicant a question on that. So with that, then we can ask for public comment. Is the applicant here? And they wouldn't do they wanna state their case or are there any other public comments? Yes, so we have Derek Fanol saying fine. Derek, you should be able to speak now. Can you hear me now? Yes, yes. All right, well, it's been, it's taken a while to get here, but I'm glad you stayed for the duration this evening anyway. I'd like to thank staff for all the work they've done. This is, there's a lot of thought has gone into this. What we tried to do with this. To answer Peter's question, no, it's a generic style and it just has to do with pattern, the historical value has to do with pattern of construction and in this house being built in 1901, there were six or seven houses that all shows up in the historic report. A lot of these houses were, you know, weren't grand houses on the other side of your grid, yeah, but not so much on this side. They were pretty much all worker bees. So you had fishermen and plumbers and whatnot. That's how this whole segment of Gavitola was built, actually. And so the historian's point was, yeah, you can replace it but we don't want to lose the value of what it does to the neighborhood. It needs to reach as much as possible the way that it was before the work was taken down. So that's where we started. And as we went along, we tried every wish way to get rid of as many non-conformities as possible. These property lines were all over the place we were over on the front side by a couple of inches, two and a half inches, I think. The garage was over the property line. There's some of it, and the rear was over, well, it wasn't the rear, but definitely the two sides and the front, so that's kind of how this all developed. And the only way to get them a usable space was to put an upper-level deck in. And obviously, you know, it's a great view there that you're not going to bother any neighbors. I don't think there's any downside to the deck on this particular property. We have started a conversation with RGC. They worked slowly, and we chose not to sound left and right with them, but we will in the future get their response. So I'm glad to answer any questions you might have. A couple things that I might throw in is that, yes, we've already started different engineering. We already have a geolifted technical report. We have engineers already on board ready to go. We can make sure that this is safe and sound. And this is a great contributor to the neighborhood. I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have. Yeah, so let me jump in since I kind of started down the path of asking the historical question. The reason I asked that is because as I walked around it and saw that the existing house that shingles and your proposed house has shingles and the windows are about the same size, and made me wonder that if, in fact, you got a clean sheet of paper and there weren't all these historical requirements, would you and the applicants end up with the same design or did you feel unnecessarily constrained by the concern that the Planning Commission would insist on something historically accurate? Well, I look at it as a challenge. So, and I think we've met the challenge. I think we've done a good job of it. Would it be the same if we started out with an historical context? Yeah, probably it would be different. And I guess what I'm ahead with that is I'm gonna ask you to redesign it or giving you permission to or whatever that goes. But just the notion of things like minor changes that you might come along with, in my opinion, they tend to come back, if they're quote unquote significant changes, they're made to come back as part of the Planning Commission and I wouldn't think that things like we decided not to go with the shingles or we decided to go with a different window style or whatever practical reason that hopefully that wouldn't drag you in front of back in front of the Planning Commission. I just also wanted to thank you for remaining in the community and continuing to contribute your significant architectural talent and design wizardry to our city. So, are there any other questions of the applicant? I mean, the architect, the designer, he'd like to do the one that has a question for you. Go ahead, do it. So, it's my understanding that with a historical structure such as this one, that if you don't get a sign off from the historical architect that you are replacing something in time, that then you have to go through the process of doing an environmental impact report to remove a historic structure if you wanted to build something completely different. Is that correct? It can go that direction, yeah. But there's, it can't. So, some advantages to you to putting back a structure that meets sort of the integrity of what is on the streets now? Yeah, so if you look at the front of this house and it shunted a nice comparison, we tried to make it feel like it does today when it's redone. So, it has the same basic building on the street. And I get that. I didn't try to make it be something else or make it be modern or use a different, it's a very modern house. I think you've done a very nice job on this one. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions of the designer? All right, so let's move forward with other public comments. Adi, do we have any? I think you're muted. Adi's muted, yes. Do we have any? Sorry, that's not very well. Jeff Holm, J-E-S-S-L, you're muted, but it's your turn. Yes, good evening, commissioner. My name is Jeff Lucchetti. I have a home at 5055 Jewel Street, directly to the house's question. And I received the planning package last Friday evening and started to take a look at it and it raised concerns for me with regard to the design and how it might affect some of what I have. And so I met with the architect yesterday and we looked at it carefully and tried to decipher what was really happening with the second floor rear of the house. And we think we figured it out, but we weren't able to get it pinned down. The architect was supposed to raise this issue with you this evening and asked if staff could possibly assist in resolving the issue, but lacking that request from the architect, I would ask for continuance of the matter. There are too many discrepancies in the applicant's drawings and the staff's report. This makes it difficult to understand exactly what's happening here. I can give you a couple examples. On the project data sheet for the architect, he indicates that the proposed height is 23 feet. And on the development standards from the city, the staff is indicating that it's 24 foot four inches. So there's a discrepancy there. I don't know what's what it is. Secondly, on the second story side yard, the first story side yard is 10 foot set back. On the second floor it indicates five foot nine with a variance. I'm not sure how that's happening because that would suggest that it extends over the side of the house. So that's a bit confusing to me. When you look at the project data sheet from the applicant, the rear yard, first and second floor says 20 foot set back. And when you look at the development standards on the city sheet, it says that on one side it is nine foot eight and on the other side it is seven foot seven. I can go on if you'd like, but there's enough inconsistencies between the two reports here that I feel it's necessary to continue this to let the applicant and staff decipher what was really happening here. The drawings that are issued with the packet are on a half a scale and there are no dimensions on the drawing that would lead me to what's actually happening here. So I would like further opportunity to review it and work with the applicant on my concerns. Thank you. Let me ask you a question, Jeff. I can't remember your last name. Do you have any overarching concerns like mapping or the second story deck or setback or something that not detailed specific but an overarching concern? My primary concerns is a view that this variance is allowing to this interview with the view that I have in my house. And I would say normally speaking when you design within the zoning code and you wanna build a second floor, you have every right to do so and your neighbor has no right to complain because you are working within the standard set by zoning. In this case, they're asking for many variances and that is impacting what I have and keep them over here. I think that the biggest issue I have of mapping on the project is the second floor. The second floor area has been increased significantly and when you push the structure back five feet that they're doing, it becomes taken out of the cypress tree so on and so forth, it becomes quite top-headed to me. All right, thank you. Are there any other questions from the public? Yes, there's more of a comment. So next we'll take the caller that's the, their phone number ends in 915. Yes. Just a basic question. I wonder about the purpose of this new basement. I am happy to see that there is in the conditions of approval a lot of language about making sure that there is, there are qualified and in the basement here. I do not see discussion about high-water tear water if that has been discussed, if there have been any testing for the groundwater level. I do know the Soquel Creek Water District has a groundwater monitoring well near that house and having visited once, I think that at certain times of the year, the groundwater level can be quite high, there's a table there. So that needs to be evaluated and those are my main concerns, that's being used, but that needs to be identified. I'm very aware of stats of the landfill these days. Thank you, Ms. Darnbrooks. Right, that's right, Ritter. Other comments from the public? You're on mute again, Kate. All right, next we have Steve Calz. Steve, you'll just have to un-hear yourself. We cannot hear you. Can you hear me? Yeah. Hello? Hello. Steve? Um, my name is Steve, probably great across the street. We're ready to do a quarter. Steve, you're breaking up a little bit, is there a way to maybe shake yourself off? Steve, there's something you can, you're right, we're missing every other word. See if I can go over with somebody. Computer, get out of here. Yeah, and it also helps that there are no other devices on your house, with the same zoom on. There's no other devices, it's done. But you're, you're eligible, so go ahead. Well, I checked on the property where it was on the street for about 30 years and a little bit. I went into the property right next to over 14, yeah, 1,400 plus seconds. Um, yeah, I can probably move back in like, we're not gonna turn the garage, which is gonna be replaced, which I just couldn't replace. I have three major issues, number one, that the mapping of the proposed residence obviously really has to still move to the right. I think that was something like over the night issues. So that's what I think, I think the type of street is, is, has been like that, I think it's like a line over the years that you don't think it is, right, it's got angles, so I think we might receive that last thing. So one, it's for a new, new journey. And if you could completely change the house, watch, participate a lot with you. Then the third thing that I don't understand is why you're currently in a whole state, by supporting Ken, parking on the left side of the residence. He's promoting the new two parking spaces with a name. So if you agree, you're not going to have this almost a lot of prospect with, I like getting used to the three parking spaces. One, the right, the two, from the left. One, the left, at least one, is shifted to the right, of the proposed structure, to the right, I think we're going to have a 5B distance. Impact are more or less, it's going to come as 8B to margin. Okay, Mr. and Steve, I'm going to have to touch off your time is up. Let me try to summarize, because you're breaking up, let me try to summarize your issues. One is you don't like the fact that the house was located, it was then moved to the right, that's parking, and you think that accommodations could be made to improve the parking, and then the Cypress Tree, you'd like to preserve that. Are those your three items? Yeah, yeah, that's essentially it. I'm going to write it and move to, I'm going to write it to the next gentleman, we might be no longer, you know, Steve, I'm sorry. You're really breaking up, we're going to have to move up, I apologize. But again, I apologize. Katie, are there any other public comments? There's public comments, I'm going to now check the email, and note an email for our next item. Very good, let's move on to Planning Commissions and Liberations then, does anybody want to weigh in first on this issue, or submit a motion? Commissioner Rue. Yeah, I just say, I don't know if any of you have had the opportunity to go inside of this house, but I've been in there and I'm not sure architecturally how you would define it other than maybe glorified shed. If you lay down on the living room floor, you would wind up in the corner towards Depot Hill and such a, it would just slow. So, you know, I think the possibility of preserving it are pretty nil, and my other concern is the basement and hopefully the staff can decipher the engineering report that comes back and proceed from there. Thank you, Commissioner Christensen. I agree with Commissioner Rue, I think it's going to be a great refreshment to this building, there's no preserving it. I think I read in the report that the structure doesn't really have the architectural historical significance, just as old. I think that Mr. Nalski did a good job in revamping everything, especially for such a small coasted dam with a partial. Yeah, I think it's, I don't have a problem with it at all. I think it's great. Thank you, Commissioner Westman. I pretty much agree with everyone's comments. I don't think this is the building that really can be preserved in remodeled, and I think that the architect has done a nice job on creating and design and still fits into the neighborhood. I do wonder if we want to continue the item since the issue of some discrepancies on the measurement was raised by one of the members of the public that said, unfortunately, with these kinds of projects, six to eight inches does matter, but other than that, I'm in favor of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Newman, any comments? No comments. Commissioner Christensen, you still have your hand up, does he have more comments or? No. Okay, I'll. I would make a motion to approve. Do we have to continue? Here's, we have a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second it. We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Christensen and a second by Chair Will. Any discussion on this, on why we should or should not? Approve this project. I would like to see the discrepancies of the measurement, resolve first. That's my plan, I agree that there are discrepancies in the measurements. I mean, we have a commenter saying that there are discrepancies, can staff verify that there are these many errors? Thank you, Chair Will for that opportunity. I was looking at some of the hard copy plans here in my office while we were getting some of those comments. I'm not sure if the caller was referring to going between what was on the planning, on the plan sheet table as opposed to what's in the staff report analysis. But if so, I mean, we don't normally require that their figures match ours or mostly looking that their project meets development standards. Sometimes they're not gonna match exactly. But as far as the development table itself, I did go through it a bit. The existing and proposed types are accurate. So there is no issue based on that and the plans measure to. And the one thing I did know was on the side yard, second story, the proposed cell should say, it doesn't say 10 feet, it should say north and it also does that's like the south by dimension. So the setback numbers are correct. It doesn't articulate whether or not the top setback is north or south of the following figure does. So that was the only discrepancy I noticed. You might have mentioned the different setback standard that I'm not sure. I did actually get calls from a number of the people submitting some of the comments tonight on this project. Beginning of this week, I believe. And that was noted while they called us is that it wasn't typo. So I thought it was amended maybe it wasn't, but that should be accurate. And if there's any other questions about the other comments that were raised, I can go down the list. Yeah, I would hate to have to have a continuous just on a bunch of draft and cleanup issues. That's kind of what they are. I'm sure staff is going to be able to ensure that and the building inspector is gonna make sure that everything is decoded and the drawings are accurate. That results, that results my question. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Commissioner Wilk. I also looked at the plan quickly and the development standards table and they seem to match up. I do see however that the architect is raising his hands and the neighbor approached him on this, would you like to share with him again on this? To see if there are no problems that could be cleaned up. I would. Okay, okay. Mr. Ben Osteen, do you think? I'm here on center stage. I also noticed the way, I think it was the way it was put together not only that, but because of the angle and because of where the house is located and just because where the garage is located, the death back they seem odd, but I think they're correct. You know, when we do it, it's all done in CAD and the numbers don't lie. So all I can tell you is I think what we put together is solid and there may be a, people are having a hard time reading. All right, thank you, Derek. Are there any other questions before we call for a vote? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Louis, can we have a vote, all of you please? Sure. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Neumann? Aye. Commissioner Ruth? Aye. Commissioner Westman? Aye. Hi, motion passes, and good luck with the project. Very good, now we can move on to item D. I know we're not at least a bit tired yet, so we have plenty of time and energy to talk about parklets. We have staff reports. We do. So, the presentation will be made this evening by Michael Arnone. Since Michael Arnone and Jennifer Koefret have been working with the city on designing a parklet for the village, a proto-type design. And first, I just wanted to give an overall update. This is quickly at our last planning commission meeting, but our ordinance is under review currently by the Coastal Commission. We are hoping that it will be reviewed next week in April. But we've had a couple of roadblocks and some items that we need to work with the Coastal Commission on. So, the whole pool for May, and we'll continue to keep this planning commission and the city council and the public updated. We'll be sending out, we're going to be discussing a possible continuation of the temporary program at the April 28th meeting, and we'll get noticed out to the businesses in the village so they're aware that we're re-looking at this. But the purpose of tonight is to look at a proto-type design. We wanted to get some preliminary feedback because once the Coastal Commission does certify our ordinance, we will be taking this design forward to you for a coastal development permit that any business will be able to utilize and free of charge, they've educated the construction that the design will be free. So, with that, I will hand it off to my learn-own, and Jennifer, would you like to share your slides, Michael, or shall I? Either way, Jennifer can share her screen if you can do that, Jennifer, and then you can kind of move through to your own page, so. Sure, sure. We'll try to get through this very quickly. I know it's late, you've been sitting for a while, so I'll let Jennifer go ahead and introduce the product, and we'll just talk through it. Okay, there we go. Is, can everyone's in? Still in there. Okay, yeah, so like Kay said, we're here to share the conceptual design guidelines for the Capital of Parklet. We're still in kind of the design development phase of this at this time, but the main goal at this point was to provide a design that kind of complemented the existing streetscape of the Capital of Village, and also made it so that there was consistency between all the Parklets that are implemented by the business owners, so we have a design framework that they can work from, and also a design concept that's fairly easy for them to implement, that doesn't require a lot of complex construction. So the concepts that you'll see in this document work for both the tangled parking places and the parallel parking places that are in the Village, and the components that are part of this concept are the dining platform that you see here, raised planters, a railing detail, wheel stop, trend strain to address the stormwater runoff and drainage, as well as like the dining amenities that the business owners might wanna implement things like strain lights and obviously the dining furniture and the umbrellas. The main difference between the concepts that we've come up with is the actual planter itself. Jennifer, before you leave that previous slide, could I just do a clarification? Sure. So I'm looking at the bike rack and the wheel stop and imagining a car next to it in the parallel or in the exit parking. How does the bike get there? Is the wheel stop, should the wheel stop be on the other side or? I think the purpose of the wheel stop is to kind of keep people from turning into that space. And so yeah, it's not ideal for the bikes to park there. I mean, if they ask if this is an ideal, they can squeeze between, but perhaps we're kind of around from the sidewalk. Yeah, I mean, there's a good, there's two to three feet of space and you look at the scale between the end of the left end of the wheel stop and where that line is. If the car is actually parked between the lines, then the bikes should be able to get through there thoroughly easily or they left over the wheel stop or like Jennifer said, they come at it from the sidewalk. The wheel stops also could be, that's not sure in a certain way. We can get them slightly smaller than that as well. I'll give you more of it. Thank you. I'm sorry, go ahead. That's okay. Yeah, so going into the elevation and talking about the difference between the two planters. One option would be a fiberglass planter. Another option would be a concrete planter. The dimensions are similar. The main difference between them is the weight of the planter. The concrete planter is about 1500 pounds where the fiberglass planter is 465 pounds. So that weight creates a more sturdy, kind of solid barrier between the roadway and the parklet. Aside from that, one minor difference is the height of the planter. The fiberglass planter is about half a foot taller which it doesn't seem like is a lot but you can kind of see in the elevation the difference is different and it kind of gives a more feeling of enclosure or sense of enclosure with a taller planter. But I think the key thing to focus on would be that safety aspect between the two planters. Moving on to the parallel configuration for the parallel parking spaces. We've gone with a little bit longer planter so there's more of a barrier there, less railing space, kind of see it in the elevation here. A better barrier between the road and the parklet. Yeah, part of that is the parallel spaces we're talking about are on cap out. You know, the brewery right now has one. And it's, you know, if you go back to the plan view, that's about the right dimension. It's exactly the right dimension, it's 42 feet. So that's kind of what they have now in terms of the size of the space. But, you know, there, because of the amount of traffic and the narrow nature of cap out, you know, we felt that it was the security of the thing is a little more important on this street. So, you know, I think that's why the planters are a little closer together and they're done that way purposely for the safety. And the wheel stops as you can see are on either end for people that are parking on those, you know, spaces that are adjacent to a little wild parklet here. Okay, so, and then moving on to the actual components themselves, for the platforms or the deck, we have two different kind of options. One would be a wood frame deck with a leveling mount that allowed the grade to be, you know, a grade change between the crown of the road and the curb, so that the deck can be leveled. In terms of the actual decking itself, it could be like a plastic wood decking or a cycle plastic wood decking that would be pretty durable and low maintenance or someone wanted to do something like a natural red wood decking, that would be an option too. And then another option in terms of how the deck is supported are these bison pedestals which are typically used in like a roof, roof top decking. And these pedestals are what, you know, frame or support the deck and they're adjustable to level the deck. And in terms of the decking material, there's a wood tile that's kind of like a parquet or a concrete tile. Yeah, you know, we should interject here that the platform that we're talking about is at the same elevation as the sidewalk and top of curb. So there is no step down. This would be totally accessible. And that was, you know, one of the goals that we have. So that's why this platform is raised. However we do that, but that's the reason because we want the platform to be level with walking. Right, right. And then addressing the way that stormwater can proceed through the gutter using some kind of a steel frame and a steel trench grate. This would be the platform on this side. And this is the curb inside walk here. So there's a clear space for stormwater to run through and a way to access that gutter as well as a detail that runs along the perimeter of the platform that allows water to flow from the crown to the gutter. And in terms of the railings, a simple wood railing, a metal railing with a horizontal ticket or maybe even some kind of a decorative metal screen that, you know, this is what bridges the space between the two planters. This is an image of the fiberglass planters to give you a sense of what it would look like. Again, the concrete planters, these are just images pulled off of the website of the manufacturers. They're not the exact dimensions of the ones that we're showing on the plan view. The suggestions of the bike rack. Wheel stop. And then we kind of picked a couple of different types of the furnishing, you know, as we get farther into the, you know, narrowing things down, there would be a schedule that the business owner would choose from, you know, to be able to order these things and the colors, different types of chairs, depending on kind of what looks they want to go with. Another option would be a set. And in different price points within me as well. Examples of umbrellas and stands. And then also string lights if they wanted to incorporate that for nighttime with some kind of a way to spend them with a deck mounted pole. And then also part of that would be, or part of the final plan would be a suggested plant list with flat end shade plants, all plants that are drought tolerant and that do well in planters. Excuse me, Jennifer. I noticed that Commissioner Weston has her hand raised. Would you want to interrupt the presentation with a question? Of course. Yeah. I just wanted to make certain I was reading the plan strike. So when these dining areas come up next to the sidewalk, you show no railing between the sidewalk and the platform. Is that correct? Correct. So there's nothing to sort of protect the diners from people going down the sidewalk or to stop the dining from, you know, somebody moving their chair out onto the sidewalk. Yeah. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. So getting back to the final two slides is the suggested plant list or plants to choose from list that would be drought tolerant and appropriate for their plan shade requirements. Unless I don't really have anything else to share, that's kind of the end. If anyone has questions, I'll turn it back over to the fish. Yeah, I'll just, let me just throw in one thing. There are going to be some site-specific, you know, things a lot to figure out. Again, as Jennifer mentioned, this is kind of just a schematic of, you know, a concept that, you know, you can look at and decide on. But there are manholes. There are some, you know, utility grates and things like that that are in the street, depending on where these actually go. And so in that case, you know, we'd have to come up with a way of having a removable portion of the deck surface. You know, and again, it's site-specific to exactly where we are in the village. And that's something we've thought about. It just, you know, we haven't, we're not showing a solution yet because the problem actually doesn't exist yet. So, but we do think about it and it's something that we'll have to be addressed, you know, when you can't build. I've got an overall question. You mentioned that there's the, all these different options, like for example, on the railing, you said, okay, there's these different railings. Ari, you're suggesting that the applicant would have a choice of those railings or you're asking the planning commission to pick one? Um, I think both. I mean, I think we could offer two options. Say maybe the wood railing and the metal railing. But if there's strong opinions that we just want to do one, I think that would work as well. Also, I just want to comment in the staff report, we had raised the, there's two types of planters proposed and we thought it would add, you know, to the overall feel and look of the village to be consistent with one planter and then give options for the railings in between. So we're hoping to get some feedback preferences for fiberglass versus concrete. Mr. Ruth has his hands up. One hand anyway. And I do believe we have, once we get to questions, there's definitely no response to all of the questions. Yeah, Mr. Ruth, you're on me. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I have a question regarding that, just the deck construction. The curb height is typically five inches, maybe six at most. And you've got the pedestals, but trek decking requires joist every 16 inches. So I'm wondering how you fit them, the pedestals and the floor joists and the treks decking within five inches height to make it match the level of design. Yeah, it depends on which approach, you know, they want to go with whether they're going to use, you know, the tile style or the decking style. And there's other ways of doing this. You know, some of the other ones we looked at have, you know, the joists that are just shimmed follow the contour of the street and are anchored that way. And then the decking sits on top. So there's, in terms of construction, again, Nick, we haven't gotten to the point where we're doing a construction detail for this. I think the purpose and Katie can kind of continue this, but I mean, it's really just to kind of give the concept, you know, which style of things you like at this point. Yeah, just think there's not a lot of height to accommodate everything that has to be put into the construction in one of these decks. Thanks, Mike. Okay. Thank you, Christensen. I work with the pedestals in the past and I think they're a great solution for this type of decking with either the device and pedestals of a leveling mount but it doesn't require a training system. Okay. Do, so we're here. So you're requesting comments on the presentation. And so. Are we getting here from the public first and then make our comment? Is that how we do this? Okay. Well, I just, yeah, this is a presentation, just a general comment. So yeah, I'm sorry. Well, yeah, we have a staff presentation and we've asked most of our planning commission questions and now let's go to public comments. Okay. It looks like we've received an email from Doug Conrad, the owner of Capuchola Wine Bar and I'm going to have that read aloud right now. April 7th, 2022. Planning commissioners. What a surprise this has been and unfortunately still moves the views to be. Business is still far from being that like it was before coming. The beach is not as cold as before. Parking spots once always filled all day for hours. The sidewalks are less crowded. Our tourists and local still have not returned to the village since we had before the pandemic. This is why restaurants and bars are still in a recovery mode. Asking us to invest now in the city's new park let program is bad timing. We are still in a recovery mode and for the city to ask restaurants and bars to incur this high expense at this time is especially difficult. Or something would be impossible. We asked planning to make the recommendation to city council to extend the temporary park let program to align with the rest of the state's outdoor dining program. The state has extended outdoor dining and to go out of hall service until December 31st, 2026. This will give time for business to recover across our state. The time will come when the village business can afford to participate in the city's program. When that happens, I would suggest focusing more on the safety for our customers sitting in the parking spots. Then Jose Ali in particular cars can achieve a high rate of speed and the current plans show no protection from traffic. Our free pleasures are not traffic barriers. Every park kitchen having up five parking will at least six, eight, five ideally more. Or can't need the ability to be anchored to the ground expect a stainless steel leveler safe on labor. But anchoring and leveling to the ground would be safer and less costly for many reasons. Thank you for your time. Please recommend to council continuing the temporary parket program to align with the rest of our state's zoning and recovery. Then when we can invest directly, we can build something safe as we all can be proud of. Thank you. Now I'm gonna call the rad. Holder, down to the line bar. Okay. We've seen a few more email comments and no more no-zoom attack on their heads up. Okay, so now we can move on to planning commission deliberation and comment. Anyone want to chime in? If not, I will. My general comment on this approach, I like what you've done and it gives me a lot of insight into what we're addressing. I like the notion of the planters and their placement and like, okay, that's the consistent look of Capitola are these planters and these locations. I don't like the design of the planters. I mean, perhaps just a flat boxy planter could maybe improve on the design. Every single part that's gonna be lined with these things, maybe there can be some distinction in the planter. I would tend to prefer the fiber glass typically because it's probably easier to move them because again, these parts might be coming and going and something that's real permanent might be problematic as the various restaurant owners decide to ignore their rather not renewed releases. So beyond that, I think that the other thing I like just since other than the planters would be the decking. So I don't really care what the decking is, but I think every deck should be the thing like a sidewalk, you wanna have a different sidewalk on every block of the city. So I would wanna consist in deck, but beyond that, I would say that the railing, furniture, and the lighting and all that that could be customized to the restaurants. And I wouldn't have any objection to a lot of stylization there. Those are my comments. Commissioner Wesson has her hand raised. Go ahead, Commissioner Wesson. Overall, I think the design is really good. I think this is a great place to start. It's hard for me to say if I like the fiber glass planters or the concrete ones at this point because I haven't really seen them, you know, I've seen some images taken offline. So before we made that final decision, you know, we might be able to go someplace and actually look at them. If I had to stay tonight, I would probably be inclined to go with the concrete planters just because I think they do create a better barrier between the vehicle and the dining area. I do have major concerns about not having something that sets the areas off from the sidewalk. Sidewalks, particularly on the Esplanade, get very crowded on summer weekends and busy weekends. And I think not having something there to sort of protect the diners and delineate that space is going to be a problem. I think it's also going to be a problem with, you know, somebody deciding that they're gonna push their chair out from the table a bit and suddenly they have a chair on the sidewalk and we have crowds and baby strollers and all of that going on. So I would like to see some delineation in the area where the dining area to the sidewalk is fine with me for there to be some choices about what kind of railings they wanna have between the planters. I agree, maybe we want two or three choices that would be available for the applicants to choose. I do like the fact that the decking is going to be level with the sidewalk rather than have sort of the funky ramps that we have right now that go down to the streets and the dining's on the streets. And I like the lights that are being proposed and the furniture. So those are my thoughts. Let me just chime in then and say that I agree with at least your comment about the sidewalk delineation between the parking lot. Because you're right, that'll be a problem. So, I mean, that'll go for that. Commissioner Newman. Okay, from the standpoint of landscape architecture it all seems nice to me except that I haven't seen the heaters but it's hard for me to have focus on decking and details of design and a program that to me from a land use and zoning standpoint is such a major, potentially major change in our city and has not been adequately dealt with in my opinion in moving to a more permanent solution to these parklets without having really thought through all the ramifications with that just because we had this emergency COVID response. It's really hard for me to digest. Our commercial parking ordinance is just completely destroyed now by all of this. And there are other aspects of our, it's just a game changer, long-term for our community and all the consequences and unintended consequences of it have not been thought through. And so it's hard for me as I say to worry about the size of an umbrella. I agree with the Commissioner Newman. Well, as I do, but when I ask them, they ask the top would be limited to design and whether or not or where we want the parklets. So any other comments to Courtney and her hand back up again? Yeah, just had a quick question. Are there going to be any type of requirements on maintaining the plants from the plants? Like some of them, so they don't die and everything with shabby sensing. So it's like just a question for staff again. Oh, yeah. Sorry, no, I can hear you. I'm sorry. There are maintenance standards within the draft ordinance. Pull that up right now. The maintenance, there's an outdoor dining area and public right of way shall be maintained in a clean and safe condition. That's determined by city, including as follows. All trash shall be picked up and properly disposed of all flower beds and sensors shall contain live, healthy vegetation, all tables, chairs, equipment and structures must be kept clean and operational. And there is. Had your dad answer your question? Yeah, thank you. OK, Commissioner Westman, your hand is back up. My hand is back up. So this may be too late, but I really object to the term parklets because that implies that this is a space that's going to be open to the public. And it's my understanding that the public's not going to have access to this space even when they're not being used by the restaurant. So I would much prefer if we could start calling them outdoor dining desks or something that is the more appropriate term for what they're going to be. Thank you. OK, other comments? Mr. Ruth. Yeah, I'd like to design on paper here. I think they look great. But I think when I sandwich those designs in between our cars, they're not going to look so great. And while I support the design aspect, I just don't support the location we're going to allow them. I don't either. Commissioner Christian, then you have your hand up still? No, no, no. I keep forgetting the lower. Sorry about that. OK, well, this is my first meeting where I actually figured out how to actually get the hands raised. So here, for me, too. OK, I see no more hand raised. Does staff feel that they've gone adequate feedback from the planning commission? I think so. I'm not hearing a preference to, or I'm hearing two. I only heard two preferences on the design of planters. From the end, they're not an alignment. But it sounds like you'd like to see some examples of what we, Commissioner Westman mentioned, maybe taking it with you as an example of the designs locally. Anyone else have to be back on? Well, let me pull the screen on that a little bit. So my issue on the planter, and maybe we can see if anybody else would agree with this, is that the notion of, OK, what is consistent with Capitola? OK, all of these marclings have the same planter in front of them. And we can debate on this later, the width or whatever the space is. But my thought is that's what's consistent. That's what gives Capitola its consistency of that and its consistent depth. I don't particularly like the flat, boxy planter. But my question, I guess, to the rest of staff, do they agree that the planter and their location should be the dominant feature of the Capitola design, of the outdoor dining units? I think the biggest heftier ones are probably the most reasonable ones, because it's only a matter of time before somebody gets mowed down while they're sitting having a cocktail. But you like the idea of having a consistent look from part of the carpet? Yes. OK. And I'll chime in that I believe our public work director also has an agreement with Commissioner Ruth's assessment that the heavier concrete does provide more protection to its weight than the fiber box. I don't think they agree that it does. OK. So there's any other consistent looks that we want to bring out? Again, I suggested that maybe the railing could be something that's very independent. But are there any other consistent looks that anybody wants to see? I agree with Commissioner Ruth. I think you need to have the taller planters, particularly on the street side, to try and provide a buffer from the diners and the cars going by them. And I'll agree with that as well. And I think you said those were the fiberglass ones, so but I'm certain the concrete planter can come in any size because size is one. I believe they can, but if Jennifer, if you could chime in, we did a lot of, I think Jennifer did a lot of pricing and seeing what would be the better, you know, the feasible options out there. And that's how we ended up with these two. That's correct. The finding one that was bigger or taller to have that shift is pretty cost prohibitive. I mean, they just end up being quite big. And finding a local person or a local manufacturer has been challenging too. So the shipping cost is the main item. The concrete planter itself is not as expensive as the fiberglass, but the shipping cost is what makes it more or more in line with the fiberglass venture. The other thing, keep in mind that either the fiberglass or the concrete, there are different colors available. So from parklet to parklet, we can switch the colors. There'd be consistency of the form and the height of the shape. We can even, within one parklet, have different colors if you wanted something a little more like the Phoenician. But different tones and colors, but the same material. There's no ways to, I think, Peter, you're concerned about the monotony of the thing. Keep in mind these two come in different colors. Yes, OK. Go ahead, Courtney. I was just wondering if there's a reason why there's not. I mean, I know you can provide a few options for simplicity sake, probably. But if you consider fields, like a fortune field or anything like that, that would be kind of like the naming control. They can be attached to concrete or back on top of that deck or anything like that. And they just can weather. Yeah, yeah, we did consider that. And I think the general consensus was that they were a bit too rustic in style for the sort of the existing streetscape that's down there. But I'm totally open to suggestions and exploring the avenue people think of as a way to go. OK, any more comments or staff? Do you have any more questions of the commission? I think we've got some great directions. So we'll look more towards the concrete, but at a higher, if we can find a reasonably priced, higher planter. It also sounds like Chair Willes would like to see maybe some other style that's not so weathered or rectangular? Well, I'm not interested on that. If the collection is limited, and as was mentioned, perhaps there could be some color variation or something to give some interest in it. My concern would be mostly, OK, the planters are the look that we're going after in Capitola. So we should pay attention to what those planters look like that they might be all. But the notion of just a blank side might be OK. Let's not focus on that. Let's focus on other things in the park. I mean, on the outdoor dining establishment. You've got to help me. What do we call these? I'm going dining. Street dining desk. Street dining desk. I also heard that you'd like to see some kind of separation between the sidewalks to protect the diners. What's that? Well, I don't know of a separation, but it would be like some sort of barrier, like maybe a curb cut or not a curb cut, but not something that could prevent the sidewalk from being interfered with. So the staff could have a good ride away. We could use the railing that's shown in the slide that's down right now. That railing could be used an anchor to the platform on three sides and have a generous opening to get in wherever the restaurant needs. They want to have that people enter. So yeah, I think that's a really good addition. And that's fairly easy to implement. I would just point out that I've been a lot of places now that we've it's on our minds everywhere we go. We look at the different details, the different cities are implementing. And I really haven't seen any that have a barrier between the sidewalk and the dining area. That's true. Well, I would disagree, because I've seen several. I can see you from photograph. Sure, sure. Yeah, I was just pointing that out that I was in New York recently and then other places. And I didn't notice that. Well, pulling the string on that one that I was just wondering if it could be a better act would be an ordinance that says, OK, the tables that are close to the sidewalk have to be anchored and they have to be x number of feet away from the sidewalk so that dining and creek wouldn't occur. I mean, it might be one of one way to solve the problem. I think it's easier to put up a barrier. It probably would be easier. And they can have a wide opening space to get in. It's just to protect everybody, particularly in areas like the Espanol that gets so crowded on the weekends with strollers and dogs and people and lines go to pieces of my heart. I think we have to sort of establish territory. As a diner, I would refer some separation if I'm sitting in a table next to a sidewalk. Yes, I would, too. OK. Could you bring up the other railing types? I would like to get some feedback on are there any of these railings that are shown that you don't support or would like to bring back other designs? Personally, I think the railing could be depended on the restaurant, let that be a design choice of the other thing. I think the top picture is too solid. I think I need more of a view through it. I want to be able to see that car coming at me so I can jump out of the way. Let's begin late. I think we're getting punchy. I think we've been punchy. And one more question. I'll help you. Any other comments on railing? I actually don't think I'd agree with the permission of Roots that you're right, should be shooting more of an open railing. So they shouldn't be completely up to the applicant. So for me, if they want to, and I think it's in place if they want to continue the planters on around, that would be another option. Probably a lot more expensive. And so most of the best products wouldn't do that. But I could give them that option if they wanted it. You have no spaces, Susan? Or with the spaces, like they're going to have the planters with the various types of railing in between it, same way they're going to do on the front. They could carry that around if they wanted to. OK. And then should the decking be consistent and match throughout? We've built in a few options. Definitely heard support for convenient level with the sidewalks, but we want them to have options in decking or require one type of decking. Oh, for one type. I have a strong opinion one way or the other on the decking. Most of it's going to be covered up with tables and chairs and diners. So I'm sort of open on the decking question. I agree. Either the pavers or the wood would be a great option. So the question is, do you want something consistent or do you want to have multiple options? So you can promote multiple options? Yes. I would just put two options. Two options, yeah. OK. Any other questions? The things that we need from them. OK. We've got a little input and a little discussion on Parklet. So we'll move in on to number five. Dining deck. Dining deck. Gosh darn it. I'll get it right. And number five, directives report. There is no directives report to be next. We do have our special meeting coming up on April 21 at 5 p.m. for our continuance on SB 9 and objective design standard. OK. Any commission communications? By the number six, final commission communications. Seeing none, I will just mention that, as he pointed out, our next meeting is April 21 at 5 o'clock and this meeting adjourned. Thank you very much, everyone.