 Okay, hello and welcome to the Capitola Planning Commission meeting of July 15th and we're glad you're joining us. This meeting tonight is not physically open to the public. Commissioners and staff are meeting via Zoom and there are several ways for you to watch and participate. There will be a slide on the screen showing you how you can participate and if we can have that slide up, there it is. So there's several different ways by calling in and raising your hand, the way to be unmuted so hope you can join us and as always this meeting is Cablecast Live on Charter Communications, Cable TV Channel 8 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99. Our tech tonight is Armin Toyd and thank you Armin for doing this and with that maybe we have the roll call please Edna. Sure, Commissioner Christensen? Here. Commissioner Newman? Present. Commissioner Westman? Commissioner Westman? She's muted. Commissioner Westman you have to un- I'm here. I'm here, sorry. Commissioner Wilk? Here. And Chair Moot? Here. Thank you. Okay, I will have the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible for all. I'll be glad when we can do that live. Okay, next item on our agenda tonight is oral communications and Katie or Matt do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda? We do not have any additions or deletions to the agenda. However, we've had quite a few public comment come in for an item that's being continued. So I just wanted to start by just stating that the tree removal in the Cherry Avenue right of way will be continued to the September 2nd hearing this evening. And then we'll move on to the consent agenda. At this point where there's no staff report that lists all the details of this application, so it would be inappropriate to discuss the application prior to it occurring on September 2nd. So just an announcement for the public that that is on consent. The recommendation is to continue to September 2nd so that PG&E has time to look at other alternatives and then we'll be bringing it back on September 2nd at 7 p.m. Thank you. Thank you, Katie. Next is public comment. If there's anyone out there that would like to address the commission tonight about any items that are not currently on the agenda, now's the time. We'll give you a little bit of time to weigh in here if you have something to add. I am not seeing any attendees raise their hand at this time. Okay, with that then we'll move on. We can always come back if someone's a little tardy. Commission comments. Anything to add from the commissioners? No. Okay, we'll move on from there then. Staff comments. I do have a comment that I'd like to start this meeting with. A very valued member of our team has decided, Matt Orbach, our associate planner has decided to take a new position with another city and I just want to reflect on what an excellent addition he has been to the Capitola team. He's been here for over four years at this point, started off as assistant planner, promoted to associate planner two years in and just has really been an asset to our team. Highly motivated individual who always gives 100% and I've just enjoyed the last four and a half years working with him. And I know he's given his all for the city and appreciate all the time he has been here and wish him all the best in his new endeavor. So thank you, Matt. Thank you, Katie. We're going to miss you. Thanks. It's been an honor and privilege to work with you folks here and do a lot of great stuff here for the City of Capitola and I wish everybody the best and the best for the city. I got to grab a great opportunity with the City of Watsonville. It's a much larger city with a very different set of issues that are going to be pretty fun to work on. So just taking that opportunity. You're going to miss you. I'll miss you. Yeah, that's about to you. Thank you. Good luck, Matt. Yeah, good luck. Great help. Thanks. I'm sure our loss is Watsonville's gain. Okay. Moving on then. The next item is the approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes tonight. One from the May 6th meeting and one from the June 3rd meeting. I can't recall if everyone was president of both those meetings. I don't have those in front of me right now, but probably best to take them separately. Those are any additions or corrections to the May 6th meeting? No, I'll make a motion to approve those minutes. I'll second. This is Commissioner Wilk. Okay. We have a motion and a second then to approve the minutes for May 6th. Do you have the roll call, please, Edna? Commissioner Christensen. Armin. Commissioner Christensen. Edna, may we have the roll call, please? Yes. Can you hear me, Cheruth? Well, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. Commissioner Newman. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Wendland. Aye. And Commissioner Ruth votes aye. So the motion carries. Those minutes are approved. Now we have the regular meeting of June 3rd to approve. Any additions or corrections to those minutes? There is none. There is first or a motion to approve? Move approval. This is Commissioner Newman. Commissioner Wilk will second. I have a motion and a second. Call the roll again. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. Commissioner Newman. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. And Chairman Ruth votes aye. So those minutes are approved. So that brings us to our consent calendar tonight. And the first item A, the tree removal on Sherry Avenue, right of way has been continued to our September meeting. So we'll just... Point of order. I would like to... I would... This is from Commissioner Wilk. I would like to remove that from the consent calendar for discussion. For tonight or for the September meeting? For tonight. What's up? What's up? And continue. Yeah, continue to September. Can't we deny that continuing? And hear it tonight. And discuss it tonight. And at least acknowledge the inputs for tonight and discuss PG&E's alternative motives perhaps or I think there's a lot of issues that at least should be brought on the table. There are 42 people who have commented on this and they shouldn't be ignored. I don't think they're being ignored. It's just being continued. But let's get a consensus from the commission. I think it's advertised as an agenda item that's going to be continued for tonight. And I know several people who are very interested in this item and they're not watching our meeting tonight because they know the agenda listed it as an item that's being continued to September. So I think it would be a disservice to discuss it tonight when we've already told people it will be continued to September. And I appreciate all of the comments that I've received. I think we all take them to heart, but it would be inappropriate to discuss it tonight. Yeah, Susan, I think those are valid comments and I think we will just not discuss it since it has been continued and we can discuss it at that point. So the next item... I think it's an interesting point of order as to whether or not... Now it's just an academic question from my standpoint whether or not we can pull anything from the consent calendar because I thought it was... We were able to do that. Anyone was able to pull an item from the consent calendar by rule. Well, then let's get a consensus from the council. From the commission. Commissioner Newman, I agree with Susan. Commissioner Westman. And I also think that since we've had so much reaction from the public that it would be good to get input from PG&E in terms of how they want to address that before we get too deep into this. Okay, Commissioner... So this is actually the conversation I wanted to have as part of pulling it from the consent calendar. But all right, I'll withdraw my concerns. Okay, so we're going to move on to the... We're on the consent calendar. I would like to pull 4855 Topaz Street for discussion. And if we could have a staff report on that, please. Either Matt or Katie. That would need to be one. Okay. Tonight we have 4252 Bow Street. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 291 square foot attached garage and construct a new 282 square foot attached garage and a new 630 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit at 4855 Topaz Street. Next slide, please. This is the street view so everyone can see the front yard because this is going to come into play a little bit later. Next slide, please. This is the street view. Also look from a slightly different angle of the existing residents at 4855 Topaz Street. The existing residents here is a non-performing two-story single-family resident. It's located in the Jewelbox neighborhood which is surrounded by one and two-story single-family homes. And I simply put this in here just so you can see the roof sketch of the existing garage. Next slide, please. Excuse me, Matt. Before you leave those pictures, if you could back up to that last picture. Sorry, George. Yeah, I just want to point out that picture is probably about four or five years old because that tree on the left now is much larger and those plants in the planted right-of-way in the front are no longer there. Okay. I believe that it's from 2020. So I apologize for using a year-out-of-date photo on that. This project is not proposing a removal of any of that, any of the trees or any of the landscaping. So sorry, Sean. Can you go to the slide with these site plans? So here's the site plans showing the location of the ADU and the proposed garage. The new garage is located 10 feet closer to the front of the lot to accommodate the new attached ADU addition off the back of them. The proposed attached garage complies with the 20-foot front yard setback. I did show that picture even a full lot of it to show that the current front yard is almost fully paved other than the small landscaping strips along the front property line and landscaping services at the front of the residence and around the base of the two trees in the front yard. The option is required to add one parking space to the ADU due to the existing site constraints of the parking... due to the existing site constraints, the parking space for the ADU will be in the front yard setback. Code requires that parking for an ADU in the front setback should be a ribbon or Hollywood design which we discussed not too long ago with our ADU code update and it's designed with two parallel strips of pavement. Unfaved areas between the strips shall be landscaped with turf or a lowering ground cover. So given that the yard is fully landscaped to comply with the standards the option is proposing to add a strip of turf or a lowering ground cover in between the two paved areas that will serve as the paver parking strip areas. Next slide, please. The proposed floor plans. You can see kind of on the top... on the right-hand image on the top part that only is being added on the lower left is the garage. Next slide, please. And here are the proposed elevations. Okay. Proposed elevations. The proposed design includes the new pitched roof of the garage that matches the existing residents with competition shingles and the new attached garage and the attached ADU have horizontal sliding to match the existing single-family residents. I shall also point out that this is another one of those projects where the ADU is an administrative approval. So it's not really up for discussion tonight. What is up for discussion is the relocation of the garage because the ADU will be approved administratively. Next slide, please. So that staffer has been... the planning commission approves the project based on the conditions of approval and findings. Thank you, Matt. The reason I brought this up was a concern I have for the ADU parking space. I know the ordinance allows the parking in the front yard setback, but I was out there today and I attempted to park where that parking space would be. That tree that looks like a little stick in the picture is now much larger and I'm in a small car there were no other cars in the driveway and I had a very difficult time to get into that space. I don't think a larger car could do it. I know on Depot Hill that house that was on, I believe, was on El Salto or Escalon, I can't recall which, but we allowed them for their parking to encroach in that unused right-of-way area. And if you look at that, I guess it would be the planned map that shows the plot plan on there. There is room... Next one, I believe. The one that shows the parking space. That one. This one. Okay, there is room between that tree on the right and the front of the house to park a full-size car if we allow them to use that area between the curb and the property line. And it becomes a usable space at that time and will probably alleviate some parking problems this will create in the neighborhood. So, you know, while I see and know that we allow parking in the front yard setback, I think it has to be a usable parking space and this is not a usable parking space as proposed. Those are my comments. So, can I ask a question of Chair First and Ruth? Sure. The tree that's there, because I went out and looked at this, too, seems like it's not quite 6 inches in diameter yet. I think we measure trees 20 inches up and if they're more than 6 inches in diameter, they need to have a permit to have it removed. I mean, I think this tree is pretty borderline on that. Would it be acceptable to you if that tree was moved and another tree was located on the property? You think you would be able to get into the parking place then? Probably, yeah. If you're coming from the west, you can get into it easy. If you're coming from the east, it would still be extremely difficult. I'm not sure if the property would want to remove that tree because it's the same kind of tree as the other tree and they kind of make a nice canopy over the front yard. But I think it's entirely possible to move the parking space just to the left of the second tree. Are you talking about one that would be perpendicular to the street? Right. Yeah, the problem is they would have to request a variance to not have the parking space entirely on the lot and that's not how the application has been taken in. Matt, we just did that for that house on Depot Hill. I think you discussed the fact that that was used for parking and would like to keep it clear from people parking, but that was not actually counted as one of their required parking spaces. The alternative design that you're proposing would require a variance. Okay. I'd be willing to support a variance, but I can't support it in its current configuration. It'll be after the commission. I have a quick question. Commissioner Christensen has a question. Does that parking space, the one that Commissioner Ruth is questioning, is just meet the correct area for a parking space? Yes. Thank you. It was a very interesting question because the feasibility of these Hollywood style strip spaces that are parallel to streets are going to run into this challenge in a lot of cases. And this was kind of an exception that was allowed under the state law that may not have been fully thought through in terms of functionalities. So you bring up some great points, but I do believe that if you were going to require them to do the other parking arrangement, it would require a ransom to come back at a different meeting so it could be advertised correctly, noticed correctly. Okay. But I have some more clarification as the commissioner will. So Commissioner Ruth, you said you tried to use that space. So you pulled in the driveway and tried to make a hard right turn into that space. Right. And it was too difficult without a three-point turn or just... Well, in order to land on that space, I would say before I completed my turn, the car was probably maybe four or five inches from the trunk of the tree. And I still had a ways to go. So it's very tight. That's why I don't think it will be usable. And I was in a small car. If you have a medium-sized car or a full-sized car, an SUV, that space is totally unusable. So you mean between... I'm just trying to envision this. The trunk of the tree on one side and then the planter or the house, I guess, itself or the... Well, that tree sits right on the apex of the turn you have to make. Right. So you're saying that you would scrape the passenger side door with any car any larger than yours? You got it. No, not... This is Commissioner Westman. I have a procedural question. Matt indicated that the ADU unit is not up for discussion tonight. That's strictly a ministerial permit. And so this parking space that's being provided for the ADU, isn't that part of the ministerial permit, not what we get to comment on? That is actually correct. The ADU parking space is associated with the administratively approved ADU. And Commissioner Westman, yes, that is correct. Go ahead, Katie. So that is how we should review this. That is part of the ADU that should be reviewed administratively. Just for clarification, there are a couple items, like with it, that just for additional information, but I don't think it can be reviewed this evening. If we were to look at adding an additional space through it, a different means for the ADU, we have a limit for how many for driveway cuts in the width of a driveway in the R1 district, because we try to allow street parking and encourage street parking. And that's why you don't see many Capitola homes with more than one parking space. And within our new code, I'm just going to read a section of this to you. So within the R1 district, the width of the parking space in the required front yard, it may not exceed 40% of the lot width up to a maximum of 20 feet, except that all lots may have a parking space up to 14 feet in width, regardless of lot width. And then there's a new allowance for the Planning Commission to allow larger parking areas within the front and exterior side yards with a design permit if the larger parking area incorporates design features such as impervious materials and enhanced landscaping, which minimize visual impacts. But typically when we have an application that comes in with two driveway cuts, we'll have a review by also the Public Works Director to see what the impact is to on-street parking, because once you make an additional cut, you do lose one. And in some instances, two spaces along the street. But I do think the review of the parking space, because it's tied to the ADU, should not be included in this review, because if we just had the application for an ADU, it would be approved administratively. So since this is purely an administrative approval, is the only thing we're allowed to discuss tonight the proposed garage? That's correct. Okay, we'll all withdraw my concern then. I do think if there was a suggestion on the tree, we could relay that to the applicant. And if you are suggesting removing the tree to make... Yeah, I'm not suggesting removing the tree. Okay, well with that, if there's no further discussion, we'll call for the question. Is there a motion to approve? Do we want to do the whole consent calendar now? We didn't vote on the other item either. Well, we didn't have anything to vote on. We just continued it. We do need a vote to continue it. And because this item was pulled off the consent agenda, I would suggest that we should... Okay, so procedurally, since this was pulled off the consent agenda, we've heard the commissioner comments. We should open the public hearing and then I would suggest after we have a motion and a vote, we should return to the consent agenda to also make a motion on the PG&E tree. You've lost me, Katie. Because there's been... What are we opening a public hearing on? 4855 Topaz, since the commission discussed it, we should open the public hearing. Okay. Well, I'm a little confused as to what the action should be other than an approval. So you took it off the consent calendar, and now it's just a regular agenda item, so you have to go through the regular regular roll. Okay, but it's not a public hearing. I just pulled it off for discussion. That doesn't make it a public hearing. This is Commissioner Newman. I think as Commissioner Ruth retracts his pulling in from the consent agenda, it just goes back to the consent agenda. Which I have done. You are corrected. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar for the consent agenda? I'll make a motion to approve the two items on the consent agenda. I'll second. Okay. Edna, are you here to do the roll call? Yes, Chair Ruth. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Christensen. Hi. Commissioner Newman. I'll abstain because I'm really disqualified on the top house. Commissioner Westman. Hi. Commissioner Wilk. Hi. And Chair Ruth. Hi. Thank you. And motion carries consent calendar is approved with the three on Cherry Avenue continue to the September meeting. So that brings us to public hearings. Item A is 4875 Opal Street. Design permit for the construction of a new single family residence on a vacant lot on the corner of Opal and 49th. The house we're considering is not directly on the corner, but it's just inside from the corner. Chair Ruth and good evening commissioners. This is Sean here. The applicant is proposing to construct a new two story single family residence. This property is a vacant lot within the single family zoning district. The front view of the property. It's surrounded otherwise by one and two story single family homes in the jewel locks neighborhood. As mentioned, it's adjacent to the corner property of 503 49th Avenue, which is a separate legal lot, but is owned by the same party. The planning department is also reviewing a separate development application for that corner property, which is expected to go before the planning department this September. The proposed site plan parking is provided by a single car garage and a two car driveway. The proposed home is only actually required to have two parking spaces, one of which must be covered. However, the applicant preferred having a third space. In the rear, there are also included two trees for planting that would secure the 15% canopy coverage for new residential development applications. These are the proposed floor plans. Here are the proposed elevations. The new residence amounts to 1,834 square feet for a maximum floor ratio of 15.9%. The proposed residence has incorporated privacy considerations with high second story windows and a recessed balcony door on the west elevation. The proposed second story deck, as previously mentioned, is in the front, which faces Opal Street and the adjacent corner property at 503 49th Avenue. Here is the proposed landscape plan. The landscape plan was not revised to reflect the latest driveway design and the proposed tree varieties. Condition of approval number six, which is included in all new residential development applications, requires the applicant to submit a landscape plan for the issue of a building permit. With that, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project based on the conditions of approval and findings. Thank you, Sean. Interesting note that this is the last vacant parcel been divided into two lots now that exists in the dual box area. With that, we'll open the public hearing if the applicant is present. We can hear from the applicant if the applicant is present. Thank you, Mr. Norton. Are either of you present? I don't actually see Mr. Norton present. And I don't believe the property owners are either. Okay. If there's any members of the public wishing to comment on this item of 48 75 Opal Street, a new single family home. Now is the time to join the meeting. And I'm not seeing any public comment on this item either in our email system. I'm sorry, Katie, what was that you said? I couldn't hear you. Within the public comment email, there are no public comments submitted on this item. Okay. Okay, then we'll move on and bring it back to the commission. Who would like to lead off? Or if anybody would like to lead off? Is there a motion to approve this application? As a commissioner will, I move to approve this application as with that comments. And I'll second it. This is commissioner Westman. And then we have a motion and a second to approve the application to construct a new single family home at 48 75 Opal Street. They're the roll call, please. Commissioner Christensen. Commissioner Christensen. Yes. Commissioner Newman. Yes. Commissioner Westman. Yes. Commissioner Wilk. Hi. And Cheruth. Thank you. So motion carries and there will be a new home at that site. So that brings us to item B. And this is the SB two pre-approved ADU program that we've been mentioning for a while, but haven't been able to bring to you. So now we've completed our public survey and everything and have our, you know, contractor contracted. And so I'll jump right into it. I'm going to be Katie. This will be Matt. His last presentation to the planning commission. Back to me. All right. So tonight we have the SB two pre-approved ADU program overview, something we've been mentioning for a while, so I'll jump right into it. I'm going to get a little bit of background here and then we'll get into survey results. And at the end, there will be an opportunity for the planning commissioners to give us some feedback on the design and the size elements of this as well. So using SB two funds received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The city of the capital is contracted with workbench and meta urban design to create an ADU program. That's accessory dwelling unit. We'll be using that term a lot. Program that includes guidance documents and for prototype design. The purpose of this overview is to review the SB two pre-approved ADU program, including the project timeline, deliverables and opportunities for input from the planning commission and the public. So SB two grant funds were made available to jurisdictions to accelerate housing production. For the city of capital of this will be achieved by assisting property owners with ADU development. There are two main deliverables for capital ADU program. The first is to create guidance documents to inform the public and design professionals with capital ADU standards and the permitting process. Second deliverable is producing architectural and building plans for four ADU prototypes that would fit on a typical lot in capital one and will be available at no cost to capital and residents. So a little background on how we got here on February 8, 2021, the city published a request for proposals to develop this ADU program. Our fee was published for 28 days and the city received four proposals from qualified applicants. We put together a committee, a selection committee composed of our local architect Frank Fanton, planning commissioner Christensen, myself and building official Robin Woodman. We reviewed the submittals and identified workbench as the top applicant. A little background on workbench here. Workbench is a woman owned architecture and construction company based in Santa Cruz with expertise in ADU design and development. The workbench proposal included a subcontract with Samantha Singer, who is the owner of Meta Urban Design to assist with creating the ADU public outreach tools. So let's have experience with ADUs having recently created prototype ADU designs for the city's seaside and currently working on an ADU toolkit for the city of Milpitas to icon back in this part of our review and got great reviews. Brian Rubin is in attendance tonight. The planning commission has specific questions for the workbench during or after the presentation, and if we're still going, I believe Samantha will be joining us a little bit later as well. So in terms of deliverables related to the guidance documents, we will be getting a detailed step-by-step ADU handbook, a quick reference ADU brochure, an ADU application, ADU checklist for plans to middle, a frequently asked question document, public facing imagery such as graphics, and an update to the text of the ADU page on the capital website with links to all of the previously listed items. What these items will do is define the types of ADUs, provide illustrations showing what these building forms can look like on a typical capital a lot, explain the new state regulations for ADUs, the illustrations and graphics to still really technical ordinances and state laws into more easily understood information, create content that describes the benefits of ADUs, and direct users to external resources to excite and inspire them about adding an ADU to their property. They'll also present and explain the prototypical ADU plans that are going to be developed as part of this and the other deliverable to help property owners identify the best options for their individual properties. And it will also guide property owners through the design and permitting process. The other half of this is the prototype designs, and in terms of those deliverables, there will be four detached ADU floor plans that will include several architectural styles, as well as options for different interior and exterior finishes. The plans will be designed to fit into a typical property in Calcuttola, which I know I've said that a few times now, but I will define that a little later after the end of the survey review. And we'll cover a range of sizes from the minimum size of 220 square feet up to the maximum limited standard ADU size of 800 square feet. And these prototypes will be developed to the point where building code compliant and only require approval of an administrative ADU permit and a building permit, which we'll be able to be applied for concurrently. The project is currently in the information gathering and conceptual design phase. After tonight, the planning mission will also have opportunities to review and provide input on the schematic and final design. During the next step of the schematic design review, the commission will review the draft floor plans and exterior elevations for the floor prototypes and provide feedback on any design changes that would like to be incorporated into those plans. Workbench will then make the recommended changes to the plan. The design process will continue through the fall planning commission to the council review of the final design tentatively scheduled for November. Following approval of the architectural plan, the building plans for the approved design will be created with the final project deliverable tentatively scheduled for approval in March 2022. As mentioned earlier, there was a public survey that was shared between June 22nd and July 14th. This was hosted by the Workbench people as part of their website, but they linked to it from the city website and there were notifications that have been out on social media from the city's accounts, such as Facebook and Instagram. Survey was designed to solicit input on the level of interest in building ADUs, size and architectural style preferences, and other relevant design questions. Survey received 56 responses, and I have a few following slides here that highlight some of the important feedback that was received via that survey. So question one was, what best describes you? And 40 out of 56 survey respondents indicated that they own property in Capitola and reside in Capitola. The results of question three indicate that the largest number of respondents live in or near the Riverview Charis, Cliffwood Heights, Jewelbox, and 41st Avenue, West Capitola neighborhoods as shown on the map from our general plan here. The results of question five show that the largest number of respondents would use the ADU for living space for friends and or family. Only 17 respondents actually indicated that they would use the ADU as a long-term rental unit. Significant numbers of respondents also indicated that they would use the ADU as living space for visiting guests or as a home office, music, art, studio, hobby space or something similar. Most respondents would like to build a detached ADU on their property, which is a good news for us in terms of receiving feedback from respondents regarding size and design that's very specifically relevant to this project because all four of the pre-approved ADU designs will be detached ADUs. Questions seven and eight were closely related, soliciting feedback on how much of their backyards respondents were willing to cover with an ADU and what size ADU they would prefer. Most respondents were interested in preserving half or as much as possible for their backyards and 40% of respondents preferred the smallest size ADU to accommodate their needs. In the same vein, the results of question nine indicate that the overwhelming majority of respondents are interested in studio or one bedroom units, 28 respondents and 22 respondents respectively. And in question number 10, 68% of respondents indicated that they preferred a mini kitchen as opposed to a full kitchen. Questions seven through ten show interest in smaller ADUs with less kitchen amenities as opposed to larger ADUs with more kitchen amenities. Questions 11 solicited feedback on architectural style. This is where it gets a little bit more fun. Staff consulted local historian Carolyn Swift to identify typical quote unquote typical architectural styles here in the city of Capitola. The styles that we identified included craftsmen, farmhouse, beach cottage vernacular and Spanish colonial. The modern style choice was added in a little bit later based on the fact that it's just a currently popular design for ADUs in other regions of the state and country. Respondents were asked to identify the top three choices. The overall top choice was beach cottage vernacular, shown here in D. I know that the words will be hard to read there. Followed by craftsmen and farmhouse which are B and C that you should see 26 votes with 42 votes for the beach cottage vernacular. Modern received 17 votes of Spanish colonial and only received five votes. Question 12 got a little bit more specific and solicited feedback on siding material types. Respondents were asked to identify their top three choices as well here. The overall top choice was horizontal siding followed by a board and baton and shingles. Vertical siding also received 15 votes. Stuckover received nine votes and stone only received two. And the last one here I asked about roofing materials. This one also includes an option of prefer a range of options to choose from. Once again they were asked about their top three choices. The top answer was composite composition shingle with 34 votes followed by standing theme metal with 29 votes and then prefer a range of options to choose from with the third eyes of getting with 24 votes. Spanish style only received four. Question 14 and 15 dealt with the cost and time expectations related to the ADU permitting and construction process. 45% of respondents estimated that their budgets for permitting and construction of the ADU will be less than $100,000. And 54% of respondents expected total permitting and construction process to take less than six months. These expectations indicate that guidance documents and average materials should definitely focus on educating property owners about the cost and time required for permitting and construction of ADUs so that they can have a realistic expectation heading into this. That's the overview of what we have gotten so far from the public. At this point I'd like to give a little feedback from the planning commission on some of the same items that were covered in that survey. So I divided this into two parts. The first covers ADU sizes and the second part deals with architectural styles. I can either stop at the end of the ADU sizes section and we can discuss it there and then move on or I can cover both and then we can circle back and get the commissioners' opinions on both at the same time. Do you have one that you would prefer? I have a question on procedure or process. So this whole activity you come up with these four prototypes and is the idea of those prototypes with the existing plans to specify that those are the only approved de-catched units or those are the ones that you can have for free and thereby save the cost of creating your own plan. It's the latter of those two. It's definitely designed to help streamline and expedite and reduce costs for property owners who are interested in that. These are definitely not the only types of de-catched ADUs you will be able to have. As I mentioned earlier with the maximum size of 800 square feet as well, you're welcome to go bigger than that up to 1200 square feet. This is designed for the specific set of people who are really trying to keep time and costs down on the project. That makes a lot of sense now. Secondly, we're going over styles and materials. Again, is this the idea of saying that these are the Capitola approved materials and none others will be approved? This will be related simply to those four designs that will be designed for people trying to keep costs and time down. As with most projects, we really don't regulate siding materials. Someone wanted to go with something different. They can. This is just to give your individual feedback as a planning commissioner on those styles so that it gives a little bit of direction to work bench in terms of what to put on the outside of these when they bring back their schematic design for you at the next meeting. Once again, let me clarify just to make sure that I know exactly what's going on here. An applicant as they can now can apply for an ADU and life we have today submitted design to their liking go through the trouble and expense of creating those plans and getting staff approval. That still will always be the case. What you're doing is adding a cost savings and an incentive program that says, hey, applicants, if you use this template, bam, it's free and you can do it and it'll be cheaper for you and it'll be administratively easy for all concerned. Is that correct? Yeah, it gives them, there will be sets a set number of options for each of these pre-approved ADU prototypes and so we're not going to have all of the things listed obviously they're going to have to pair it down to a set number so what we want to get is an idea of what members of the public and planning commissioners would like to see as those limited set of options for these for pre-approved ADU prototypes. So if they decided to come with one of the four that is compliant with everything except they decided to fill with different materials and proofing that that's not pre-approved, all that means is they have to submit the plan separately and have them administratively go through the rigmarole. Yeah, I mean it would go through the same approval process. You're allowed a lot of flexibility and creativity with those aspects of these projects so this is much more about the floor of land and just giving people sort of some ideas to build off of and they're not going to have set prices, this is something I've actually discussed with workbench because you know the price of those materials do fluctuate too so we're not going to have six numbers on these so it's going to be designed with a certain number of options and then if someone wants to go and say stucco which in this survey didn't get a lot of those they're welcome to do that and they can do that as part of that same approval process. So just again bear with me. So in fact the planning commission and the let's say the community at large provided that they didn't like stucco and the stucco does not belong in Capitola. This nevertheless doesn't prohibit anyone from building a stucco ADU. It's just going to be more expensive or slightly more troublesome. Yeah, it's like our restaurant menu where there's a set menu but you know you're welcome to as long as the chef is amenable which our new Capitola chef is, you can make changes to the menu item. Thank you, that was very helpful Matt. Thank you Commissioner Rowe. Any questions for Matt? I just have one quick one. One of the things that concerns me and it showed up in the survey is the majority of these ADU units are being built and we're fast tracking them and making exceptions because we want to provide more housing but they're not being used for housing. Is there any ability that the city has to say that you know if we may, if you get to build one of these ADUs it's supposed to be for housing? No, and unfortunately that's a byproduct of how the state law was written. They wanted to just exercise the construction of these but you know as we've noticed from our self-certification letter that we sent out a lot of these are being used just for family and friends and there's no real way to regulate that under the framework that we have at least at this point given to us by the state law. But the requirement for a commission kind of drives that, doesn't it? Mr. Westman? Can you hear me? That's fine. I didn't think there was anything we could do to require them to be actual living adding to the housing stock or being living units but it seems sort of a shame because we're getting a lot more, a lot coverage and a lot bigger structures on the individual lots without accomplishing the goal that evidently these ADUs were supposed to accomplish. I have a comment to follow Commissioner Westman. I've been talking to a couple different jurisdictions the city of Santa Cruz and County of Santa Cruz and a couple people brought up some really good points in response to that because that was something I thought of as well and they said that the long game is more of what they're looking at and if they have a legal dwelling on their property it doesn't mean that this current owner is going to utilize it as a living space to rent it out to a family or a person besides friends and family but maybe the next owner or in the lifetime of that property it's still a legal dwelling so I thought that was kind of a good point that the city or the state is affording so much more lot coverage and offered living space so that at one point in the lifetime of that property it'll be used that makes sense because I brought up this one point over a while and I thought that was a good response I thought I'd offer. Thank you Courtney. One other question excuse me Commissioner this is Commissioner Welke he's curious are these ADU's do they have a separate address? No it would be an A and B type situation so the postman would say would have a separate mailbox but it would be same address but A and B I have a question Locked in to having four options That is what the funding amount allowed for in terms of what we've worked out with the dollar amount of the contract and what can be produced in this amount of time for that amount of money we originally said four to five but then we leaned in to doing four with multiple interior and exterior design options rather than five without design options so okay any other comments, questions before we open to the public? I saw more presentation too by the way the other question I posed was do you want to stop at each one of these and discuss the size and the architectural styles or would I just go through both of those and then we can discuss them afterwards? I'd like to address that question if I may okay I mean it's great that we got a grant and some money's come into the city I really am skeptical of the utility of this exercise I don't think we should spend any time on commission or opinions of ABU's size the law is the law amount and the people will build what they want to build and you can get all kinds of canned ABU plans online very inexpensively so the extent to which this is facilitating the construction of housing for needed housing in California is in my opinion extremely minimal and I just don't think we should waste a lot of time on our opinion of whether a 200 foot or a 250 foot ABU is we like okay we do have our needs to go through this exercise so that we can get some guidance to work bench on specific sizes so I think this will become more clear after I go through that number one so why don't we just go ahead and go into it and I'll stop at the end of the size section and we can discuss whether you'd like to discuss that more there or move on to architectural styles and do it all at once I did say earlier that I was going to go into what a typical lot in capital is by neighborhood so what I did with this is I analyzed typical lots in capital by neighborhood and the results are shown in this table don't worry I'm not going to go through it line by line based on the most common and the corresponding step back requirements and building envelopes there are certain sizes of D-80s that could work in certain neighborhoods however the building envelopes with some neighborhoods would not allow for an ADU at all this will obviously vary based on existing conditions of each individual lots because some lots in the not feasible neighborhoods shown in this chart may have primary resonances with larger rear setbacks or larger side setbacks that would actually allow for the construction of the D-80 but I needed to do something to get at some typical lot sizes with that I put together a list of potential ADU sizes based on what would work in certain neighborhoods and other constraints I've shown above for example it's important to note that once an ADU reaches 640 square feet soco creek water districts if someone's in the soco creek rather than city Santa Cruz actually jumps by $10,000 based on the projected water use for larger ADUs given the survey results showing a preference for smaller ADUs it may be preferable to keep multiple units of the four that we're designing below that 640 square foot mark to reduce cost for property owners. What I'm requesting here is input from you on what you'd like to see in terms of unit sizes either with specific square footage targets you know 220, 400, 600, 800 or just general guidance if we can get through a consensus such as three of the four units should be under 640 square feet. Do we have any say so that it wants to build an 800 square foot ADU and it conforms to all the standards? No once again this is we're only dealing with the four pre-approved prototypes that we're going to be designed as part of this grant people are still welcome to build whatever they want you know within the code outside of that on their own custom project. We're talking only for the four pre-approved designs with the prototypes then. If I voted I would vote to build the first have the design be one, two, three and four you know small one a little bit bigger, a little bit bigger and up to 640 square feet. I vote for all five of them and none of them. How many parking spaces are required for 640 square feet if it's two bedrooms? The way our code reads it's just one per unit and it varies geographically there are certain areas that don't have to provide parking at all but if they do the maximum we require is one parking space. The size and bedrooms don't actually matter under the way we have written our code. So this is Commissioner Wilk so again with an understanding of this is just guidance and so what all this does kind of push people in certain directions who want to get it done quickly if I wanted to push someone in a particular direction I'd want to push them in the direction that minimizes our water use so that would be this because you know it's a good thing you pointed that out about the X feed so I would just prefer one, two and three simply because I would want just one or two people in these dwellings and just to save our water. Maybe a fourth one that falls within that 220 to 520 range because we have four to design so you said one, two, three and then we just say just another one in that range of 220 to 520. Yes. I would concur with that because I think also if we get into these larger two bedroom units which are probably bigger than some of the houses in Capitola we're just encouraging more parking issues in the neighborhood so I'd like to see just one, two and three being our focus. I have a perspective Commissioner Christensen I feel like most people that I've talked to that want to actually build an ADU that they're going to rent in their yard is they're going to they want from my experience they want the biggest amount that they can get on their parcel because they're going to spend the money to build something back there they're like how big can I get that's kind of the number one question I've heard and I see this exercise as more of a kind of a blanket to help direct people's design and execution of building the ADU so we're almost getting out in front of this flood of ADU building making them build it right making them look right kind of thing so I don't feel that excluding the larger ADU is really doing us any favors I think that that's just eliminating a group of people that will see the 640 square feet and be like well I can build an 800 square foot home or ADU so why I just don't see the benefit of eliminating the 800 square foot function I think the point is let's do 1, 2, and 3 we're not encouraging those larger units I think if we've got 640 800 square foot options we're kind of encouraging those and it gets back to Mr. Wilk we're encouraging more water use we're encouraging more parking problems so if we stick with the smaller units people can still build the bigger ones but we're not encouraging those I see what you're saying but we're not getting out in front of those larger ones does that make sense, what's my perspective is that we're kind of just saying well we're not encouraging it but we're not really providing any guidance for those in terms of floor plans and elevations I don't mean to interrupt you Courtney but it was my understanding that this program was being done to help with the financial cost of building ADU that we're going to provide people with free plans and once they go above 640 square feet then they have to pay the extra $10,000 to Soquel Creek so my feeling was since we can only do four of them we did the four that were below the Soquel Creek Water District fee standard those are going to be the people who are going to be most budget conscious and not want to pay the extra $10,000 yeah I mean I see that perspective as well okay thank you Courtney any other comments okay Matt do we have any more no I think for Commissioner Christensen what would be your four if you had you just would like to see them all the way across the spectrum from 220 to 800 including large yeah I just think addressing the large is a good idea okay and Commissioner Newman did you have anything else to add other than I made my point okay okay it sounds like we have a consensus on that only to go up to possibly 520 or 640 I think we'll need to reach a consensus whether to go 123 or 1234 there I think I have enough to give workbench to get started on those designs so we'll work on that in-house with workbench alright so the next is architectural style preferences and I know there's probably going to be some opinions there but I would like input from you on your top three architectural styles it can be the one shown here you're welcome to recommend architectural styles that are not included in this list but I would like to just get your feelings on architectural style well my feelings are I'd like to see pitched roofs and I would like to eliminate the style that has the flat roof I mean if we're going to if we look at the neighborhoods where most of these are going to be built those neighborhoods have pitched roofs and I think the pitched roof is more compatible with the existing designs that we have in our community right now so that's my preference so let's hear from everybody else I don't really have a preference I think that sometimes for neighbors having a flat roof keeps the impact of a building being so close to the rear yard setback you know it lessens that impact so for me a variety of roof designs it's fine I think we should let people build what they want to build and I think they will build what they want to build and I think coming up with a few prototypes to save them a few hundred dollars is pretty irrelevant thank you Commissioner Will Commissioner Gershwin Commissioner Will go ahead oh no I just I mean I like all of them too I just maybe with the exception of E A and B seems the most applicable for most people's style around here yeah I prefer F well we have some pretty clear guidance from the public survey on this anyway so maybe we'll just lean in towards their preferences okay well I do have a couple more just the same ones didn't sound like you had much preference for overall style how about for specifics any finding preferences or I know generally the planning mission as of late has been very open to whatever citing preferences people have but anyone have a strong feeling no no preference here okay and then same with roofing no preference I think they should have a roof well we'll make sure that happens okay so I think that's good you're given a lot of freedom here so I'm kind of excited to see what they're going to put together for this okay well this is a public hearing so we do have to open it up to anyone that has any comments from the public okay let me do my last line just real quick about next steps and then I'm done so where do we go from here next we're going to take the feedback that was received from both public survey and planning commission tonight on preferred unit sizes and architectural styles and we're going to convey that to workbench and then begin working with them on creating these schematic designs and then also meta-urban designs materials as well and then as mentioned earlier in the timeline slide the schematic designs will come back to planning commission right now I have it tentatively scheduled for September but sometime around that point when workbench completes the schematic designs so with that I can hand it back to you and begin to have some public comment okay thank you Matt so this is a public hearing to discuss any pre-approved ADU plans and program for the city of Capitola if there's any member of the public out there wishing to give us your two cents on this program now's the time so there's how you join the meeting and we'll give you a few seconds or a little bit of time here to make your comments Chair Ruth I do not see any written public comments at this time and we have no public attendees on the zoom hearing at this time okay so with that we'll close the public portion and there's no action required on this we've given our direction to staff so we'll bring it back to our agenda and we're on the director's report Katie okay thank you chair Ruth and planning commission I just have a few updates for you at our next planning commission meeting we will be doing the six month review of our food vendor permit for the mobile vendors at the mall so I wanted to encourage you all to when you're in the area please stop by observe what's happening there and write down any any concerns you may have or recommendations because we will be bringing back the six month review at this point I think it has continued with two vendors and but that'll be returning to you in August I also wanted to provide an update on the wristband park right now currently the city is $280,000 short of funding for the wristband park so we do have a grant request in at the state and we're hoping to know by the end of the summer whether or not we'll get those grant funds and so we'll hopefully have funding and if not we'll be looking at other avenues for funding and lastly the wharf the wharf unfortunately we did not get the grant money that was recently applied for so that was $1.4 million we were hoping to get towards that design and construction the planning commission there's still a condition on the original permit that the bathrooms need to come back to planning commission for final review we haven't forgotten that at this point because of the lack of funding we're not putting money into the that creating the design of the bathrooms until we have we definitely have funding to move forward with the project so hopefully we'll be moving forward with wristband sooner rather than later and I'll keep you posted on the wharf and lastly the city council at their last meeting reviewed outdoor dining for a permanent outdoor dining program in the village as you know under our new code we have an allowance for outdoor dining outside of the coastal well actually just outside of the village in our community and our commercial and our neighborhood commercial areas businesses are now allowed to come in and apply for an administrative permit for outdoor dining but within the village it was prohibited under the new code so we'll be working on a program which you'll be seeing soon modifying the language to allow an outdoor dining program within the village at this point the city council recommended that we decrease right now there's over 50 parking spaces utilized for outdoor dining they suggested that the ordinance limit the program to 25 spaces there's also a direction to wave to not collect any fees for the actual permit review but that there would be an annual fee to cover the cost of what's typically comes in for parking and also direction for staff to begin working on I think one of your favorite new topics prototype designs the city council has allocated $10,000 for us to go out and work on a prototype design so this would be a more permanent project in which the city would be developing a design that could be approved administratively so I will be coming back to you for feedback on that design in the near future as well as an updated ordinance so with that that summarizes my updates but at the council meeting next week they'll be getting more information on the outdoor dining program for the future that finishes my director's report and again a big thank you to Matt Orbach for his time here Capitola Thank you baby this is Thomas I have a question about the risk spent fund yes so originally there was like I believe that there was $320,000 that was allocated for that many years ago now was that all spent on the ADU compliance do you know where that money went I believe the money that was allocated for that is still there but I don't believe we had it fully funded at any point so I know for sure that we need $280,000 more in order to fund the park but it definitely was not moved from risk spend to ADU's I can confirm that no not ADU's I thought ADU compliance you know was up ramp ADA it may have gone towards that because that was a project we were required to do in risk spend ahead of the the actual park itself okay yeah that probably worked alright thank you okay thank you Commissioner Welk any other communications from commissioners hearing none then we will adjourn to our next meeting in August and for those of you still watching and are interested in the palm tree that has been continued until the September meeting next meeting is adjourned bye Matt bye Matt bye thank you everyone bye Matt goodbye