 All right, this meeting is in session. Hello and welcome to the City of Capitola Planning Commission for December 1st, 2022. This meeting is not being broadcast, because our broadcast system is not working. But you can watch it on Zoom or on YouTube. Our technician tonight is Eric Johansson. And we'll also be changing the order of the items on the agenda to have the director's report and staff comments come before the items on the calendar, because a couple of us have to recuse ourselves towards the end. So we're going to make it convenient for us. So welcome, everyone. And let's start with a roll call, please. Commissioner Christensen? Here. Commissioner Newman? Here. Commissioner Ruth? Here. Commissioner Westman? Here. Chair Wilk? Here. Please rise to 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. OK, moving on to oral communications. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Yeah, a couple of items to note. For item 6B, this is the El Toro Bravo sidewalk dining. The applicant did make a change that was sent to the Planning Commission. There's an enclosure, and the material of the enclosure changed from a trex material to redwood. And then for item 6E, 401 Capitola Ave. This is the Capitola Taphouse. We received a letter from the applicant after the packet went out, which was sent to the Planning Commission. And then today, just before 5 o'clock, we received an email, which is also sent to the Planning Commission. But we've got all of these items at the back table as well. And they're in front of the Commission at the dais. All right, very good. Thank you. OK, let's move on to item 2B, public comments. This is an opportunity for members of the public to come to the podium and address the Commission on items that are not on the agenda. So if you have other issues that are not on the agenda tonight, but you think should be issues that should be aired, now is your opportunity. You have three minutes to do so. Anybody on Zoom? We have five attendees, but no raised hands. OK, we'll move on then to Commission comments. Now's your time for the Commissioners to speak on items not on the agenda. Go ahead, Mr. Sturge Newman. Since I'll be leaving early this meeting and this is probably my last meeting, I just want to say that it's been a real pleasure working with all of the Commissioners and the staff over the last year or two years. It's been a great, great experience. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, Ed. Anyone else? We have one more meeting, Ed. We do? When do we get sworn in? Or the new Commission gets sworn in? Oh. Well, if we don't have an opportunity to thank everybody at that meeting, I'll also take this opportunity to thank members of the Planning Commission for your community service and the time you spent on this. It's kind of a thankless job, but actually can be a lot of fun. And I think it really serves a genuine community service. So I appreciate working with all of you and hopefully we'll do so again in the future. We'll look forward to it. OK, how about the Director's Report? Yeah, a couple of items here. So I think at the last meeting, Director Hurley, he was going to bring forward a report about the city tree just out front and its removal. So that is taking a little longer than expected and will be at the next meeting. And then we've also placed in front of you a calendar for the 2023 year of forecasting when the regular meetings would be. This item is just really an FYI for the Commission. The Council hasn't adopted the calendar formally. No decision to make here. If you have feedback, we'd love to hear it. But the one item that's pending is the Council is looking at maybe taking a summer break, so no meetings in July. Oh, and I wanted to take this opportunity to just say we have one consent calendar item, 121 Cabrillo Street. At the public counter, we had a neighbor come in and say they wanted to potentially speak on the item or submit a letter. None of that happened. I don't know if they're here, but just wanted to give them an opportunity to pause during that item to, yeah. Thank you. Okay, very good. Let's move on then to item four, approval of minutes. There are two minute items. Anybody want to make a motion to approve both of them or pull one of them or comment on one of them? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of October 20th and November 3rd. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Any comments? Could we have a roll call vote then? Commissioner Christensen. Hi. Commissioner Newman. Hi. Commissioner Ruth. Hi. Commissioner Westman. Hi. Chair Wilk. Hi. Minutes are approved. Item five is the consent calendar. We have one item as mentioned, 121 Cabrillo Street. Does anybody wish either here in the audience or on Zoom wish to pull that item? Commissioner Westman. I don't wish to pull the item, but I did notice on this item, there's a second story deck as part of the construction of this house. And I wondered if staff could just give us the dimensions of how far that deck is from the various property lines and would it conform to our new footprint that we talked about at the last meeting for having a second floor deck? I'm not sure it would comply with all the objective standards created in that pending change. I can tell you that this deck is somewhat recessed. I have a couple slides on it we can pull up as well. If you just want to look at that quickly or we can pull the item and go through it. But from, I would say that at a minimum, it's 20 feet from all property lines, including the sides and the rear. It's 28 feet from the, I believe that's the north side. It's 21 feet from the south side and then 20 feet from the rear. So it's well in excess of any required setback. All right. Thank you for that information. Is you okay with the consent agenda? Okay. And no comments on Zoom or in the audience to pull it. Let's go ahead and hear a motion if anybody wishes to move to, to approve the consent calendar. Anyone? I'll also move. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. A motion by commissioner Newman, a second by commissioner Christianson to approve the consent calendar. Can we have a roll call vote please? Commissioner Christianson. Aye. Commissioner Newman. Aye. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Chair Wilk. Aye. The consent calendar proved unanimously. We'll move on then to public hearings. These are items where we have the opportunity for the public to discuss each item individually. We have five items, which we'll discuss in order. One at a time. The idea is we'll start with a staff presentation. We'll have the planning commission get a chance to question the presentation and get clarification on what exactly the applicant is looking for. At that point, item three, we'll have a chance for the public to comment. Well, you'll come up to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. We will have three minutes to make your comment. There'll be no dialogue. It's a comment. And then, and then we'll absorb those comments one at a time. And then after that, we will go to our deliberation and finally a decision. So let's start out with item six A, two, two, one, zero Derby Avenue. Do we have our staff presentation? Yes, just one moment while I pull that up. All right, good evening commissioners, Chair Wilk. The application before you is for a design permit and minor modification to construct first and second story additions to an existing residence at 2210 Derby Avenue. The project is located in the North 40s neighborhood in the Clairs Court subdivision. This is a part of the R1 zone, by the way. This is the existing residence as it appears today. It's a single story, single family home. This is the proposed site plan. The project adds 780 square feet of first and second story space to the residence, which complies with the maximum floor area ratio of 48% for a total of 2,228 square feet. The proposed parking arrangement as shown above will be discussed subsequently in the minor modification discussion. This is the front or east existing and proposed elevations. Existing are on top, proposed below. The remodel includes stucco and stone veneer, a cable and valley roof, and composite shingles. The additions are designed to blend with the existing residence and overall design. I'm just gonna go through the rest of the elevations here. These are the rear elevations. Again, existing and proposed. This is the south side, excuse me, south side and the west side. The project increases the overall floor area by more than 10%, which is why parking must come into compliance. The existing spaces shown here are substandard in terms of both width and length. On average, they come out to 19 feet three inches deep. 19 feet three inches deep. This project would only be required to provide one covered parking space, but given that it's a two car garage, the applicant is requesting minor modification for both spaces, both existing spaces. Each dimension is less than 10% substandard and therefore the minor modification request is eligible here. These are the staff analysis on findings A through C. I have the next three on the subsequent slide. In relation to the minor modification request, staff was able to make supportive findings for the minimum covered parking dimensions. I can go through these one by one if you'd also like and I have the findings themselves on a hidden slide I can pull up. And then these are slides D through F. I'm gonna mix it up one moment. All right, the proposed additions do exceed 10% of the existing floor area like I mentioned before. The existing garage space is less than 10, the required 10 foot by 20 foot, which is required for garage spaces because the existing covered spaces deviate less than a percent. It's eligible. I already covered some of that. I'm sorry, my slides and my notes got all mixed up here. That's really all there is here. I put verbatim, the findings included in the staff report above. This is a similar request to the previous one we heard on 216 Central Avenue. The main considerations for why the request is relevant to the existing site or use or structures is a combination of the fact that this home was developed under development standards that were not the city of Capitola's. This was developed and constructed prior to the subdivisions and corporation into the city of Capitola. So that's the first one and then the second one would be that in order to make two compliant spaces in this situation they would actually need to demolish not just the rear wall but the interior sidewall which would affect the elements of the laundry room, kitchen, dining room and the exteriors on the front and rear of the house. Even if they were to try and only make one compliant space they would still need to demolish the rear wall. So that was the keystone finding I think. So as I mentioned before, staff was able to make supportive findings on all A through F and with that we're recommending approval of the application. Questions to the staff? Commissioner. I just have one. Did we get any comments from any of the adjacent neighbors about the new two story windows? No, we did not. I have a question. Has the applicant been made aware of the 15% canopy coverage? I believe that was discussed earlier on when we looked at landscaping as a whole and clarified what was being done to the site. At this time the applicant's only looking to modify the landscaping and driveway as necessary. So there's likely they're gonna have to do some improvements to the driveway. These first story additions are gonna affect some of the front yard because it's expanding forward a bit but beyond that they're proposing to keep the front and rear landscaping as is and not remove or plant any trees. The existing canopy coverage is about 15% but typically we don't require that element to be met when we're not looking at new development or new units. Is that true? I thought if you had a major modification you needed to meet the 15% requirement. Yeah, there's two different sections. In chapter 12, which is the city street trees does require us to do an analysis of the percentage of canopy coverage and then in the zoning ordinance we're required to look at it and require it when there's a major project. So in this case I actually ended up doing an evaluation of the canopy and it was just under 16% and they are proposing no change. So I think in this case we're okay. They are compliant but we usually would require it, we're required to analyze it but we're required to make it a condition with a major project. So the only reason I bring it up is that I think if this is a remodel and they do plan on maybe taking that tree down at some point that they should be aware that there is a 15% canopy coverage so that if they wanna take that down and just put in a bunch of ice plant they need to consider trees or ask for an exception. Since they're not doing that it won't be an issue but it should be in the back of their heads. Right, yeah, no removals are among the conditions of approval so if they were looking at that a part of this project or sometimes subsequently they would still need to look at it and have it evaluated for meeting the tree removal findings and as well as complying with the replacement ratio. Yes, okay, that's all the questions I had. Let's see if we can now, if no one else has any questions we can move on to public comment. Anybody wish to speak on 210 Derby Avenue? The applicant wish to speak or architect? I did see that we had a raised hand on Zoom. I don't know if that's related to the project or not but I can take a look at that. Let's go ahead and let them in. All right, Diane, I'm gonna enable you to talk here. Go ahead, Diane, are you on mute? We can't hear you. Diane, if you'd still wish to speak you're gonna need to unmute yourself and let us know you're there. Let's just assume that Diane has gotten shy and we'll move on. So anymore, no one else from the public wish to comment, we will then move on to commission deliberation. Wish to discuss this application. Yeah, this is a good example of where the minor modification really fits because the standard for satisfying it is much less than the variance. It's not governed by state law requirements and so forth and it is the situation where a lot of parking spaces are actually nine feet wide anyway. So I think it's a perfect example of proving on that basis and I support the staff recommendation. Anyone else? No, I agree with commissioner Newman. Wouldn't wish to make a motion. Would he like to make a motion? Okay, I'll move approval with conditions as stated. I'll second it. Motion and a second. Any further deliberation? Let's have a roll call vote. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Newman. Aye. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Chairman? Aye. Chair Wilk. Aye. All right, motion approved. Congratulations and good luck on your project. We'll move on to item 6B123 Monterey Avenue. We have a staff presentation. Thank you, Chair Wilk and commissioners. First item, we've actually got three items that are related to the city's program for going permanent with outdoor dining that started as a COVID relief. So the first of these is El Toro Bravo at 123 Monterey Avenue is required by ordinance. There's a couple of different permits and finding sets that we need to look at and analyzing these. So this is a design permit, coastal development permit and a major encroachment permit. This is in the mixed use village zone. This exhibit shows you the front of the existing business, the bench and trash can are no longer there, but I've put in a two-dimensional footprint of where the sidewalk dining would go here. I'll note that the frontage of the building and the curb, there's a bit of a taper and a turning of the sidewalk. So the shape is not perfectly rectangular, but does taper, it's about 175 square feet. And I'll note also just as the additional materials we mentioned that the enclosure would be redwood and painted to match the building, not treks. It was in the packet. So here's the site plan. This is that frontage. You can see the front door. And this is the 175 square foot footprint. The blue is the enclosure. So this would be a 30 and a half inch short fence or wall. And then there's six seats proposed in counter style and then three two tops and a couple of planters. And so some of the other applicants that don't need to come to the commission are proposing the prototype. This one is a bit of a blend, but they did mostly pick from the prototype for the outdoor dining program. These chairs in antique bronze and table are from the prototype. And this umbrella as well would be in red. This is square six foot umbrella. There would be one at each table. And then the heater and string lights were also out of the prototype. So the string lights deployed on wouldn't actually be deployed in a pole. They would be mounted to the top of the enclosure. And then a couple of custom planters. This is like clay with a high fire glaze finish. And so with that, pretty simple. We're recommending approval of the sidewalk dining. Questions? I have a question just cause I wanna make certain I understand and I don't know if staff can answer it or if I have to wait for the designer. But on the eating area where the six chairs are being proposed, the way I read the plans that that's gonna be a flat level surface, there's no backboard or anything to keep like a pedestrian walking down the street to bump into drinks that are on there or to have things slide off onto the sidewalk. Is that correct? It's just flat. There's no little raised lip or anything to keep things on there. There is a profile view of this. And I looked at that profile view and looking at that, it seems to me that it's just, the fence comes up and then it's just flat. And for purely a functional point of view, it seems like there needs to be at least a couple inches or something higher than where the eating area is. So we don't have, as I said, problems with pedestrians bumping into stuff that's there, they don't want, there's things sliding off forward. Yep, it's not on the, I understand the comment, it's not on here, but it would function kind of like a back splash, kind of a rail above the countertop. We can ask the applicant if they feel about that. Thank you. Other questions? I've got a point of clarification. Since this is public property that they are using, could you just state what our rent is for this? What city's getting back basically? I went down on the record. Yeah, it's for sidewalk dining, $18 a square foot annual. So at 175, it's 3,150 annual. Thank you. Okay, those are the questions. Let's move on then to public comments. Do we have the applicant wishing to speak or anyone? Let's start with the applicant if they have an option to, or if they have any comments and then we'll move to public. Do we have the applicant here? Do you want, would you like to go first? Sure. Well, could you please come forward to the podium and let us know what you're thinking. They didn't realize it. My name's John Barron and my wife and I own El Toro Bravo and in regards to the eating surface, there would be six inches lower than the top of the fence. Okay, because that really wasn't clear on the drawing that we had. So that answers my question on that. Thank you. Okay, any other comments from the audience? Please step forward and one at a time and you'll have three minutes. Could you please, could you also sign in so that on the minutes, is there a sign in sheet or do we forget that? Yes, oh yeah, here. Sometimes we forget. So without taking up time, I'll sign in. So I live next door to El Toro Bravo. They've had the tables out there for the better part of the year. And so I walk that sidewalk twice a day and it has been, I've fallen over the guy that wired the lines there twice. And it's a very important piece of sidewalk. There's loading trucks there. There's people coming and going. There's 35 cars crossing the street. Everybody's finally through that and it is not appropriate to have any tables there. I am asking the city to protect the public's right, which doesn't have the ability to have a voice in this, to use a sidewalk safely and comfortably. It's just, there is not room. I eat at El Toro Bravo. I live next door. I've never seen it full. Sometimes people will get, take away to eat at the beach. They could put in windows that open. There's lots of room to expand air in the restaurant and have air purifiers without high grading and the public's right to use a very difficult piece of sidewalk that is overcrowded and over busy all day. The tables are very, not speaking from person. I think that's hard to tell from the models. So thank you for listening to, you know, my experience as a member of the public that uses the sidewalk. Thank you very much. Any other comments from the public? Let's move on then to commission deliberation. Do you want to start on this one? I don't really have a problem with this. I think it's existed there for quite a while now. I think this will dress it up and make it a lot nicer. Hi, are you done? I don't want to cut you off. You know, I agree with the member of the public in that, you know, it's hard to give up these sidewalks because they do get very crowded and congested. You know, the city council has adopted a program where they have said that, you know, to have this outdoor sidewalk dining, they can do it as long as, you know, they follow a certain set of rules. And I think one of the rules is that they have to keep five feet of the sidewalk clear. And I know currently there's a post sort of in the middle of it, which the plans show that will be removed so that there will be five feet clear there. And I think we're ultimately going to find out that these sort of choke points in the village do create problems for us, but you know, the way the council set up the current regulations and the plan that they've provided to us conforms to those regulations I don't see that we have, you know, any choice but to approve it and certainly give this a try. The one condition that I would like to add on, which I don't think is in the staff's condition is I wanna make certain that no part of the umbrellas encroach outside of the sort of fenced in lack of a better term area, you know, we certainly wanna make certain there's no pointed umbrella on any part of any of the sidewalk. So if staff could add that condition to it, then I could support the application. Very good, other comments? Courtney, go ahead. I tend to think that these outdoor dining areas are gonna complement the street really well, especially the storefront of El Toro Bravo. I know that it is making a pinch point, but I feel like the rest of the village, as Commissioner Westman said, is, you know, pretty slim. So I don't have a problem with it either. I think it'll be nice if we'll maintain. Well, I've got, I tend to agree, or I'm sympathetic with the member of the public who also came up. I went out there and took a look at it and I think one of the things that Commissioner Westman pointed out is that there's a little bit of a little creepage of the posts into the five foot area. So it seems more of a pinch point than it will be in the final design when they actually have firm boundaries and we have the firm five feet. I think I agree with Commissioner Westman's additional amendment or condition about the umbrellas. We don't want eyes poked out. But also, I also agree that where there's the planning commission, we're not the elected officials and we have to go with the direction that the city council points us in. And it's been clear that they want outdoor dining. And so this is as compliant as you'd want to get. I mean, they meet the prototype requirements. They're well within the five feet. And we get a little bit of revenue out of it. So I don't think there's really a reason to reject this application. And I appreciate the applicant for wanting to improve their property and improve the city of Capitola's dining experience. So. Go ahead. I just have one more little point. Could we have a condition in there that whatever colors are used gets approved by the plant community development director since they're gonna paint the redwood. Okay. So provide. I don't agree with that amendment if you put it in. You don't? I don't. And I agree with you. I don't, I don't want to restrict them that much. I'm not restricting them. I just think, you know, we want something that's compatible with the billy. But it's okay if you don't want to do it. I'm not gonna live or die on that one. Okay. Well, they did, they did sit in there. They said they were gonna paint it to match. Right. That was one of their items. Is they're gonna paint it to match the building. Yellow? Well, I don't know. But it's the idea is not to create a mural, I guess. So I think the color is much less important than this walkability issue, which does really concern me. I mean, Capitola has been known for its walkability and what's happening now is making it in a lot of places more difficult for people to, for pedestrians. And that's getting lost in the direction that the city is going. And I'm, I'm conflicted by that because I think it's, we're losing a valuable part of our community as we continue to make it more and more difficult to get around on foot. But I guess I can't really justify taking it out on this applicant since so many others are doing the same thing. Other deliberation? So I reluctantly will go along with it. Kitty, we have a motion. I think a lot of us are reluctantly going along. Yeah, I'd move approval with the additional conditions that Commissioner Westman proposed. Both of them? Yes. Is there a second? Deliberation? Well, I, I think she should remove her second item. The, the color, the color approval. All right. I have confidence in the planning staff that they're not going to be way restrictive. It's kind of a principle to me, I think. Okay. So. Give it staff discretion on a lot of different items. Well, we have a motion and a second. We've had some discussion. Let's, let's vote on, let's vote on that. Should we have a roll call vote? Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Newman. I'm going to vote no and wait for the next motion which eliminates the color. Oh. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Chair Wilk. No, motion passes three to two. Wait, do you see that color? All right, congratulations. Your project has been approved. Good luck. And let's move on then to item 6C which is 111 Capitola Avenue. And at this point I will turn the gavel over to the vice chair because both commissioners, Newman and myself must recuse ourselves on item B, C, D, excuse me, C, D and E because of proximity conflicts. Which is the rest of the calendar, so I guess we're going to, so we'll be leaving you and good luck on your deliberations. Do we have another meeting in December? No, we have one in January. Oh, okay. I think we attend that one. Well, happy holidays. Well, we have to to start the meeting, don't we? No, no, they just swear, man. Okay, all right, well, happy holidays, everyone. Okay, so we'll keep this moving along. So the next item on our agenda is a coastal development permit, design permit and major encroachment permit for a custom street dining deck at English Ales at 111 Capitola Avenue. And can we have the staff report? Yeah, thank you, vice chair. Similar, thanks for the introduction. Same permitting stack, but this is in the parking spaces in front of the business rather than on the sidewalk. It was also part of a COVID relief measure and it's now proposing to be a more semi-permanent type of installation. This is the front of the building. And so it's the two parking spaces directly in front. And the proposal is to use the existing planters, but also mix in some custom furniture. And so that's why we're reviewing it this evening. They're not following the protocol entirely. So the proposed deck, and this would be just about curb level or maybe a little bit above, depending on the crown of the road, is proposed to be dark brown treks with a seating plan, including four tops and then a two top that would be the ADA seating in the space. Proposed table is a custom aluminum black table. And then the chair is a matching black chair but was actually from the prototype sourcing list. Umbrella is custom with solar LED lights on the under ribs. The heater and the lights that are proposed weren't exactly out of the prototype, but I put a slash prototype here just because these type of items are basically, there really is no commercial grade for these items. These are just sort of stock items and they're essentially matching the prototype but with different sourcing. The bike rack requirements. So to offset the loss of two parking spaces, the code requires two bike spaces per space. So in this case would be four total bike parking spaces are proposed in the side of the building. So this would mean removing the picket fence and installing two side by side bike spaces. I did visit the property in the photo here. It looks a little smaller than it is in real life. It does look passable to have two bikes. They would be kind of in parallel to the building that wouldn't be side by side blocking the whole way. So there'd be a path on one side and then bikes in parallel to the building on closer to the building. One concern we had is this bike rack is just, is pretty, it doesn't look very secure. So we've added a condition that we want this permanently affixed either to the ground and that would mean bolting and hardware and maybe a little footing or to the building. So we've added a condition of approval for that. Alternatively, if the applicant can't figure that out there is an in-loofy option. So there are other ways to handle the bike parking. This shows the existing condition. So this was the rollout during the COVID relief program. This gives us an opportunity to kind of refresh this area with some more permanent type of tables and chairs and new umbrellas. The planter would stay the same. It would be raised to mount on top of the deck and the proposal is to paint it to match the building. There was I think a bit of a mishap with matching the paint. It turned out a little purple but this is also an opportunity to match the building which is what the applicant is proposing. So with that we're recommending approval of this design for street dining at English Ales and that can take questions. If the bike racks were placed side by side between the buildings wouldn't they encroach on the adjacent property? If they were side by side they would. Yeah, that was a. So how else would you put two bike racks in there? So I'm gonna try to draw it in with the mouse. So one set of these dual bike racks would be here and this would be the walking aisle you would get to here. The walking aisle on the neighbor's property? Potentially. Do they have an opinion? We can ask the applicant if they've talked to the neighbor about this bike parking. Another option would be to shorten the end of the deck by four or five feet and follow the prototype. Any other questions to staff? All right, we'll open the public hearing and if the applicant's here we will allow you to speak first and. My name is Peter Blackwell. My wife and I own English Ales. With regard to color first let me just explain why their colors are what they currently are. It's a result of sending the color blind person to the store to match the color and that being me that I have the original colors from the building with regards to the part of the bicycle rack of the building. Okay, any other questions for the applicant? Just maybe the tripping hazard because I know when we talked about the prototype designs they were supposed to be flush with the sidewalk. So there was no tripping hazard. I'm curious how you're going to mitigate that. What, two and a half inches? About two and a half inches and there'll be a ramp I think it's one in 20, a small ramp that goes up but then the railing, well not the railings but the ropes, what do you call them? The rope and stanchion. That's it, rope and stanchion. They will be on the front and the only part that will be accessible by foot will be through the ramp and the ramp will come down to the height of the curb. Right, so the rope and stanchion will be there all the time? Yes. Why not a more permanent type rail? Love to do it. Pardon? I'd love to do it. If you'd love to throw that in I would love to do it. It would be much better than a rope and stanchion but I went with the recommended but I can certainly put a more permanent rail in there. Was that what staff recommended? We didn't consider the tripping hazard. The proposal was- Was it the rope? Staff recommended that? We're, the applicant is proposing the prototype rope and stanchion so- It was from whatever, they have a bunch of prototypes sent to me and that seemed to be the one that everybody was going to follow. But if I can put a lower rail I'd love to do it. So can we, can I ask you why you didn't go along with the prototype? Prototype what man? The whole thing you mean? Like using the concrete planners to provide some protection for the people sitting there and- Yeah, sure. I think they don't like K rails. They're really ugly from my perspective. But if you wanted to beef those up a bit, the planters are contained within plastic planting units that sit on in there. So if you wanted to beef up the planters, I could always, oops, did I do that? I could always pour our rock in there, maybe up to about two feet, which would give it every bit the substance that the K rails have. Plus the fact when they get hit, how do you and they get chipped? They're permanently hitting chip. You can't take that away. You have to buy a new one. Take it forward out and replace it forward. Thank you. Yeah. Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak on this application? Anyone on Zoom who would like to speak on this one? Yeah, no hands raised. So I guess we will bring it back to the commission for deliberation. Let me just start. Sure. This will get approved either at this body or the city council if this body doesn't approve it and it's appealed. But I opposed Parklets along Capitola Avenue when they were first proposed and the city decided to make it an allowable policy. And I still oppose that. I think that's not the proper place for Parklets along that thoroughfare. I think it detracts from the streetscape and I don't think it's particularly safe. And to me it just kind of detracts from the village character because they look like they've just been tacked on. To me they look kind of tacky down there. So I'm not gonna support this application because of that. And perhaps if it doesn't fly with this body the applicant can appeal to the council or I'm sure it will probably be approved but I don't believe we should be putting those Parklets on Capitola Avenue. I think that they don't, I think they enhance the streetscape a bit if they're done and maintained well. I think that the deck making it level with the sidewalk decreases the tacked on feeling. I do have to say that I would like them to be attractive as possible. And I think that your Parklet right now is attractive. I mean it's even being purple it's nice and. But I don't think that it detracts from the cityscape. I think it enhances it. And people walking it makes it feel like more of a village experience. You're gonna sit and have a nice beer at a cafe or a sandwich or something. So I support the Parklets. I support this application. I think that I would like to see a consistent streetscape that kind of goes with our prototypes. But I kind of feel like there's businesses want to make their feelings unique. So if that's the case then I think that I don't have much of a problem with it. Anything else? Thank you. Well, when this whole thing started with COVID I thought the city did an excellent job of responding to the businesses because there was a huge need right at that time to give the businesses some opportunity to have a place to do business because the state basically closed down their indoor dining space. And so we were all willing to see whatever went up go up as long as it could function and be used. For me we're sort of entering a different phase right now. And that new phase is that we are looking at adding some outdoor dining opportunities in the village and we wanted to make certain that they were attractive, that they were safe and that they were going to be a nice compliment to what goes on in the village. I agree with Commissioner Ruth. I was very opposed to having them on Capitol Avenue. And when we went through the process of doing our prototype design one of the things that we came up with was using the concrete planters and other things to make it safer for the people who are going to be sitting out there in the street. And so I felt that having that prototype design might make it tolerable to have them there if that was followed. And I never envisioned that when we talked about allowing deviations from the prototype design that we were gonna have people come up with things that were completely different. I thought more they were going to use the prototype design and perhaps enhance it in some ways. They had some artistic feature. They wanted to add to it that it but it was going to be consistent with the theme in the village. When we do things like park benches or street furniture as we refer to it, we have always in the past had some continuity and consistency with that development. It's hard for me to support this application the way it's being presented right now. As I said because I thought that at least with the prototype design some of the safety issues were going to be dealt with. It's hard for me to support it with a deck that's not flushed to the sidewalk because I agree with Commissioner Christensen. It makes it look like it's sort of an add-on there. I do think it is a trip hazard. There's going to be a number of times when that facility's going to be there and they're not going to be operating it as a restaurant. I have to say I was pretty disappointed in the plans that got presented to us by staff to make these decisions on these projects because I thought the plans were actually inadequate to answer all of our questions. In our prototype design we require a clearance from the sidewalk, the curb area to the deck where there's going to be drainage going on and it's hard to tell from this plan if any of those things are going to take place. So for me at this point I don't think I could vote in favor of the particular program that's been proposed and I agree with Commissioner Ruth. The applicant will have the opportunity to go to the council. They may get a different answer from them but there would have to be a lot of improvement done to this design to get me to support it. Yeah, I would encourage, because it's likely this is going to the council it sounds that way, that the council hold the design to the prototype design. And if we could include that in a minute so the council could see that. And I think it would benefit the applicant to do that also. Right, I think the prototype design would provide some security for the applicant, for the people who are living there, for the cars that are driving by it. This is going on public property so whatever happens there's going to be a liability for the city no matter what disclaimers or adopted are said so I agree with that comment. So does somebody want to make a motion? I would move that the application be denied. Courtney's not going to second it so I'll second that. And can we have a roll call vote? Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Ruth. No. Commissioner Westman. Well, wait a minute. I'm sorry, aye. Yeah, aye, it was a motion to. I had to deny it so do you want to read? No. Thank you. You're confused, you confuse me there. I apologize. I'll go ahead and start over. Commissioner Christensen. No. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Okay, so our next application is going to be for a 311 Capitola Avenue. It is a coastal development permit, design permit and major encroachment permit for a Customs Street Dining Deck for Reef Dog Deli at 311 Capitola Avenue. And can we have a staff report? Yeah, thank you. So same as the prior applications, this is a design permit, coastal development permit and major encroachment for a street dining deck in the mixed use village zone. This is a front of the Reef Dog Deli. Their frontage only faces one parking space so this is a single parking space that they are proposing to install their deck. And this also was used during COVID in its temporary rollout and this is to make that permanent. They're also proposing a trex deck and they are proposing 10 total seats, all two tops and to use their existing furniture which is powder coated steel and this yellow here on top of the synthetic grass and to reuse their recycled wood clad planters as well as the umbrella. So this is also custom. These are the umbrellas that are there. I'll just go back. You can see them in the photo and they are proposing a prototype for the bike parking. So this would be the inverted U. They only need two parking spaces so it'd be this, the prototype only has one option here but it would just be the single inverted U not the double hump U. And they are proposing the string lights out of the prototype as well as a heater. They would not need a rope and stanchion though because there is no liquor license at this property. And so with that, we are also recommending approval of this dining deck for reef dog and I can take questions. Any of you have any questions first down? So they are proposing a deck, not the lawn. Correct, yeah, the trex deck would replace the lawn and they are showing a little more detail as well with the hatch. There's a storm drain inlet at the frontage here and they are showing a hatch with screens along the side. I'll have a quick stamp question just so, again, I understand this drawing that was submitted to us. So they are proposing to have their bicycle parking outside of the parking space because there's an area between where this parking space ends in a driveway. There's a little remainder space between the curb cut and the end of the parking space. And did we get comments from Public Works about this particular storm drain? Public Works did go to the property and advised that a hatch would be needed but they didn't, I don't think they did an actual plan review. Okay, thank you. Okay, we'll move on to the public part of this item. Is the applicant here? Would you like to speak on behalf of your application? So I'm aware that the applicant was not gonna make it this evening but I was not sure if a representative was gonna come but the applicant is not gonna be here. Well, if the applicant's not here, is there anyone from the public, general public who would like to comment on this application? Okay, seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the commission for deliberations. Yeah, my comments are exactly the same as the previous application. I do like the bike rack better though. I have, I'm not saying that I'd change you my opinion. I definitely, my impression of the prototype was that people, like you said, we're gonna fall in line with what we, our feedback and what we kind of wanted our cityscape to look like. And then I kept hearing, you know, that everybody wanted this unique application based on Capitola's unique qualities. And so considering, you know, the importance of the businesses in the city, you know, listening to that feedback was important, but also I really feel cityscape is equally as important. So, you know, like you mentioned, Commissioner Westman, that having consistency across the board is, I mean, I, in my own opinion, I don't like the wood and I just want the concrete because it's consistent and it's, it makes a nice cityscape. It makes it, you know, you start at one end, you understand what's happening at the other. It doesn't create a lot of objectivity. Like I said, I'm not trying to change my opinion about this outdoor dining. I enjoy outdoor dining. I think it's a great compliment for the restaurants around there. I don't have any problem with the furniture. It's just the surround. And I mean, same goes for English Ailes, honestly, but I just felt that supporting the business was, just wanted to pay respect to that. So, I'm leaning towards your side. I know. Commissioner, you've made, okay, well, I have a couple of additional comments and allow staff some of these questions. One of the main concerns I have about this particular application is that storm grain because while we have had droughts for the last five or six years, the business next door at 309, which at one time was a laundromat. It's been some other things, routinely floods in normal winter because there's a tremendous amount of water that comes down Capitola Avenue if we have a regular amount of rainfall. So, I had some concerns about this going over that storm drain. Again, this plan doesn't give us any detail about what's gonna go on from the edge of where the treks deck is gonna go in and the curb, how that flow is going to work, which we had in our sort of prototype design because we had recognized that that was going to be an issue. And I even wonder if this is a deck area that it would be more appropriate to move it in the direction of where the driveway is so you could actually have it so the deck is not over the storm drain itself. But since the applicant's not here, that's not really an idea that we can discuss. I again also had some concern about the plans and trying to figure out what was going on from the plans themselves. And I could pull out my phone because I went down there and I took a picture of their yellow furniture in a couple of the tables and they're in pretty bad shape. They're all nicked up and chipped and dented. So I didn't know if the applicant was proposing to have those all redone but use sort of the original furniture or what was going to go on there. And again, I agree with Commissioner Christensen. I think that we wanna support the businesses in the village. And I think for us as a planning commissioner, commission, one of the way we support them is being consistent with our rules and regulations. The rules and regulations need to be transparent. Our staff needs to work with the businesses but we need to treat everyone the same. It doesn't make any difference if someone's a real nice person or someone's not a nice person. It's interpreting the rules and making certain that everyone is treated the same way. So again, with this application, it's hard for me to support it. I don't think it follows sort of the spirit when we adopted the program and developed the prototype for these outdoor dining areas. I'm not saying I object to the outdoor dining though I again don't think we should have them on Capitol Avenue but that's a decision that the council's already made so I don't get to override that but I can't support this particular application. So I'll wait for a motion. I would move the application be denied. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call vote? Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Okay, so our next application by my agenda here is for, sorry about this, I usually don't do this. The next application is for 401 Capitol Avenue. It's a conditional use permit, parking variance and coastal development permit to establish a restaurant that serves beer and wine with no on-site parking in the MUN mixed neighborhood zoning district. We have a staff presentation. Yeah, thank you for that intro and description of the permits being requested. This property at 401 Capitol Avenue is in the mixed use neighborhood. I've got a photo here. You can see it just across the street and down toward the beach next to the trestle. The staff report gets into a lot about context and adjacencies in the neighborhood. So I wanted to show another slide showing the immediate surroundings and the mix of land uses that are immediately adjacent to the property. We've got mixed use neighborhood up Capitol Avenue in professional office. We've got the fire district next door. The trestle and train and city hall are noted as public facilities. The boundary there is the, where the village zoning boundary is and there's also a mix of commercial, the reef dog application that we just reviewed actually is just off the map here and there's mixed use village residential up Fan Marway and then an R1 district and Riverview Avenue. This is just a street view of the building just for a little context and background. It's a 1265 square foot building was somewhat recently constructed and completed in 2015. And adding to that background, Planning Commission approved in 2014, the new building. I did include setback and parking variances, for four spaces with that application and also had a coastal development permit. The original use was for retail. In 2019, there was a change of use that came before the Planning Commission to change out the retail use with a takeout restaurant with six seats. And then the current proposal, just to recap a little more detail, there's 26 seats proposed in the modified floor plan and then there's an expanded area for kitchen, food and prep area that is currently customer space. So looking at the floor plan, I'm gonna use the mouse to point at a few things. We've got the double door entry. This is existing again. So this is the customer area. We've got a point of sale counter, a half restroom. There are stairs up to a loft space and then this is the existing kitchen equipped with a hand wash sink, a prep sink, a three compartment sink, a dishwasher and a mop sink. And then this is a walk-in cooler where the beverages are chilled for the tap system. This is the proposed plan. So you can see the seating, there's 13 seats inside, 13 on the front porch. And then the highlighted in green area is the new kitchen and prep area showing equipment of an ice storage, bin and commercial toaster as well as a sandwich prep table with under counter refrigerator. And then I'll note there's 20 taps on the wall facing the front door and then 12 on facing the point of sale counter for a total of 32. So looking at all of the entitlements, both a restaurant and alcohol sales require a CUP in the mixed use neighborhood, parking variance. I mentioned there already was a parking variance for four spaces. The code requires that we analyze only the increased intensity of this use. So overall it would require 11 spaces. However, they get the credit of the four existing spaces. So the request before you is a variance for seven net parking spaces. And then it is in the coastal zone. So a coastal development permit requires us to analyze impacts to coastal resources. So a little deeper into the use permit. So this is a discretionary review. Findings focus on consistency with the general plan zoning ordinance and the local coastal program. This is something where we look to context, the surroundings, adjacencies. Our analysis took us, you know, this is more of a qualitative type of view than quantitative. There's nothing measurable in the code that we really look to when we're analyzing use permit applications. So we're looking at purpose sections. We're looking at the general plan and specifically we found three general plan sections to talk about intensity and scale. We looked at this tap system and the proposal for beer and wine. There's 32 taps at this location. That's one tap for 14 square feet of customer area. So it's on a scale that appeared to be kind of more of a beverage first and food as an accompaniment rather than food first and a beverage as an accompaniment. It's also in a transitional area that talks a lot about not being so focused on visitor serving and lively village activity. It's supposed to be transitioning into more of a residential district of the city. And the general plan also specifically talks about avoiding spillover parking in the neighborhoods. And one of the hinge points of this application is that they provide no parking and are proposing intensification. So parking is relying on offsite parking exclusively. So that leads me into the parking variance. Again, this is discretionary. This was a fairly straightforward evaluation because variances are supposed to be a remedy to an inherent hardship with a property and not a granting of special privilege. In 2014, the commission struck that balance and issued a variance for four spaces. And that was deemed to be the appropriate relief for this property. It does have some limitations but has been given the opportunity to take advantage of a four parking space variance and operate as either retail or a takeout restaurant. And the intensification is not predicated on an established right or a remedy to some inherent property condition. It appears to just be a voluntary growth in the business that is creating the need for more parking. The conditional, excuse me, the coastal development permit. So this is an evaluation of impacts to coastal resources. So the two big prongs here are environmental and habitat protection as well as recreational and visitor serving. So when we were looking at the local coastal program, we got the very first policy talks about how consideration of new development should be limited to available parking. So we were not able to make findings for the coastal development permit and parking and visitor serving and coastal access are all integral. And so this project has an impact on those available resources without providing any parking on site. A bit of just other information. I mean, the staff report is pretty detailed but the applicant is running a parallel permitting process with ABC with a type 41 license. And a type 41 license requires that a business be a bona fide restaurant and have a bona fide kitchen and it's supposed to be a meal serving establishment first with an accompaniment of a beverage. We really struggled with thinking that that is fits with this application. This is not something that really weighed into our findings but is noted in the staff report because we feel like that they're going to have a problem ultimately with ABC in meeting this requirement. We talked with the representatives. I know the applicant has a different takeaway of their discussions with ABC but my takeaway was that this kitchen and even as proposed wasn't satisfactory to meet this requirement. You know, we certainly don't want to be in this position coming this far down the line recommending denial across the board with an applicant. So I also want to disclose that we sat down with the applicant twice for about an hour be the community development director and me early on before we really got into spending too much of the deposit and we're encouraging the applicant to take a different path and or take a refund of the deposit because it was pretty clear early on that we weren't going to be able to support this. So we were able to give full disclosure and the applicant wanted to be heard tonight. As far as communications, we have three letter. These are in your packet three letters of opposition. The applicant did provide two letters stating their intense for the application. The most recent one has a number of statements and signatures of support. And then today, just before five o'clock we received another email of support. And so again, we were not able to meet make findings for the variance, the use permit or the coastal development permit and we are recommending denial of the project. Is the applicant here and excuse me, would anybody like to ask the staff any questions? Okay, is the applicant here? This is your opportunity to speak. She can see her three minutes to me. Will you, does that something that you would allow? You're going to speak on her behalf for three minutes. Yes, and I'm wondering if she could tack on her three minutes to mine. We typically don't do that. How about we give you five minutes? That's very generous. Thank you. Thank you commissioners. My name is Amy Chang, I'm the owner of the facility. Thank you Amy. Thank you commissioners for your time and thank you to the staff for all the time I know you've spent. Amy fell in love with Capitola in 2019. In fact, she thought that was a house she could live in initially when she sought but when she realized it was a business she bought it anyway. And she's so proud to be a small business owner and a place where community can gather. COVID and the economy have hit everybody hard and she operates in the red every month. Her business is akin to a family friendly juice bar with taps for self service of coffee and kombucha. That's why it looks beverage heavy. That's how it is right now. It's a beverage establishment. She hopes that by adding food, beer, wine and seats it will enable customers to stay a little longer, spend a little more and help her sustain her business here. The proposed business will close at 8 p.m. Alcoholic drinks are strictly limited by technology to two per adult. It will still be family friendly. Children will be sitting with their parents. It is a light bright environment. It is not a dark bar or restaurant with a full bar where people stay for hours and heavy drinking happens. It is not 32 taps of alcohol. It's 16 taps that were gonna be designated for beer and wine and the other taps are the kombucha and the coffee. The staff report lays out the findings you have to make A through E and says they cannot be made and it boils down really to parking and alcohol. Finding A, this use is allowed in the MUN zone. The staff report says it's allowed, restaurant with beer and wine. The issue is the parking. With regard to parking and B, C and E all contain parking in the findings, this project is actually consistent with the general plan and the local coastal program. The policy that staff references 1-1 states that development intensity will be limited to the availability of parking and other alternative transportation systems such as a shuttle bus and remote parking. There's no period after the word parking. It's not mandated that Amy has to be able to pour concrete and build seven parking spots. Policy 1-1 states it's limited to the availability of parking and other alternative transportation systems such as shuttle bus and remote parking. So it contemplates the big public parking lots that are right behind here, that are rarely full in all my years of coming to Capitola even in the summer and especially not nights and off season. It contemplates alternative transportation such as shuttle bus and remote parking in a farther way and I would submit public transportation and ride shares like Lyft and Uber, all of which are increasing in prominence and necessity in our state. Further Amy will be adding bicycle parking. Therefore, we believe the planning commission can make the finding that this use is consistent with the general plan and the local coastal program and grant the parking variance. Regarding D and the aspects in B and C of the findings which involve compatibility and public health and safety, this property is right on the edge of MUV and 43 of the sighted 60 residents around Amy are in MUV, not MUN. It has the look and feel with the Trestle and the fire station and the police department and the businesses. It has the look and feel of MUV. So in terms of compatibility with character, look and feel, it is not an incompatible fitting or use. Public safety can't get any safer than being crossed from the police and next to the fire department and it is not tucked away in a quiet, quiet pocket of a neighborhood. It's not gonna be noise impacts, drinking impacts. It's not that kind of business. The issue of the kitchen and the ABC is not for this commission to decide. That's a hurdle for Amy to meet if you pass her project on and she'll have to meet that with them. Grinding a variance requires unusual circumstances with inherent hardship. This property has those unusual circumstances and had them in 2014 with the prior owner. That's why the parking variance was granted then. There's no room to build parking. This different use isn't, you shouldn't punish Amy and say, well, you had the parking variance once. It's still unusual circumstances with hardship. She can't add parking to where she is. Therefore, the topography that doesn't allow for the construction of parking on site should be used as the basis for your ability to grant this variance. It would be inconsistent to have granted it in 2014 and not today. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Okay, is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak on this application and come up to the podium, sign in, you'll have three minutes. No, just your name is fine. Thank you. It's a day walking by. So, I can see what I'm saying on. Beautiful open place. I've seen a lot of people coming in and coming down the sidewalk on the other side usually to that crosswalk and crossing over. They've already parked in the parking lot. It's not like Amy's place is a destination. It's more like a suburb. They walk down, they see beautiful buildings and go across. They have their babies, their strollers. Today, I saw someone from, they're very, very calm people. It's not like, I know in the past, they put up their opposition or written one. Let's see, left is the trestle. The right is the fire department of the parking. So, there would not be disturbing. There's only one house back there. Thank you very much for your comments. I think it's a beautiful building. I know Amy and Amy. Your time is up at this point. Thank you. Very hard worker too. Please come up and speak. Hi, I'm Mario Beltramo. I live in Riverview Terrace. I oftentimes will walk up and down Capitola Avenue and speak with Amy and notice how her business is being run. And I can't help but have commented to her. I really hope that you'll be able to have the planning commission approve this application to allow you to serve alcohol beverages and also to become a restaurant because she is the type of business person and this is the type of business I think that this town wants. This is a great location. It's close. It's very close to the police department and the fire department. I agree with the comments made by her representative. Nothing bad is gonna happen in this area here from an alcoholic standpoint. So, I don't think we have to worry about that. I think allowing her the opportunity to succeed, which you have, is fundamentally associated with the necessity of allowing her to have alcohol and allowing her to have the additional seating capacity that she's requested and that the property will allow. The parking, there's ample parking and public parking, both the lower and the upper parking lots which are very seldom full to capacity and are easy walking distance. So, I really hope that the commission will take those things into account and will recognize and approve of this application. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience? Thank you. Go ahead and come up. Hi, my name is Russ Rogers and I've lived in the community for eight years now in the area for 35. Met Amy this past summer out on the beach and have since visited her place several times. I am not an alcohol drinker, but I do know that in with relationship to businesses that offer food and beverages, alcohol is a key proponent to making a lasting business, making a business last because it's a place of community. And Capitola is about community and Amy is about community. And I would like to see not only her to get this license for the alcohol, but also for, you know, eventual for restaurant use. And I think that this would be a great opportunity for not only Amy to be able to get this, but also for community and for all of us to be there and to participate in her restaurant and to see this happen. So I would love to see this happen for Amy. Thank you. Thank you. You can go ahead and come up while he's writing in his name. Hi there, my name is Leonard Peckett. Don't know Amy very well, but I know her a few times I've been around. And it just seems like her business, like everyone's saying is clean compared to a lot of the, well, it's a clean town, but some of the other bars and stuff closer to the beaches and stuff attracted different crowd. It's a different scene, what she's got, what she's putting on her food, beverage. Seems to be the right thing in this place. And then to have her come this far for this long and to be denied a little bit, another step further to make everything complete for her, it seems, I don't know if it's unfair, but it's just, I don't see how she can come this far and then be denied what she wants to do for the parkings there. Everything seems to be in the right place. It just gotta get that step further so she can continue and stay with us. That's all I gotta say. Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead. Good evening. Good evening. So my name is Susan Wang. So I met Amy actually right before COVID started when I biked down and we biked down quite frequently down to the beach. And this is when she was just setting up and I was really welcoming the business. It has a different fare compared to some of the other business. It's very open, it's very bright, it's very welcoming. It's at a location where I think it brings other business to that particular spot, whereas normally there's not a lot of business around there or walkability because most of the business is more down on the beach. And then COVID hit and I was surprised because every time when I biked down, I was like, oh, she's not open because of COVID. She doesn't have the outdoor sitting capability. And I was like wondering why is she gonna stay open at all because it's a hard time for everybody doing COVID. And I was just thinking it's hard to have a business like that and not be open, not have customers. And now, because even back then, she had plans for this, for her business is to eventually to include food and alcohol. And it will brought in a mix of different people, meaning not just people who, you know, having only the juice bar. So when I heard that she's having this permanent issue where this is like the next step that could really propel the business and she's being held back for it, specifically for the parking. I don't feel that that's an issue because just parking, the parking lot is really right close to her. And there's a lot of foot traffic, people parked elsewhere, people walk around. We don't necessarily park right in front to just go to one place. And most people who go down to Capitola, they could be parking other places that they do the foot traffic. So I don't think it's gonna be an issue. And I think it's gonna be really hard for the business if she's not gonna able to have the alcohol license, the able to serve food that she's probably not gonna be able to have that business much longer, giving the economy the way it is for COVID. And I feel like Capitola, it's a place where we wanna welcome business to flourish and bring tourists, bring other people to enjoy our city. So I feel with that in mind, I don't think not having the, you know, with that in mind, I think the permit is very critical to her survival of this business. And I think the parking's not gonna be an issue. So, yeah, thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? Good evening. I'm gonna interrupt you one moment. We seem to have voices coming out of. We muted. Okay, thank you. Sorry about that. Okay, so as far as the alcohol goes up, any background is in food and nutrition science? Anyone else? It's your turn, your time. Okay, so do we have anyone on Zoom? We have two. So I'm just gonna go in order that they're listed here. So first will be Diane, just a moment. I will unmute you. So I just see a first name of Diane. You're unmuted. You can talk. Can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead, please. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. I was hoping I would be able to speak first to the applicant, but somehow it doesn't happen. So I think there's two issues here. I tried to help Amy out doing the site plan and the floor plan. And I think the parking issue is one that could if not should be approved. I think it was short-sighted to let her open a facility with only five spaces to be served, which is like the tables in the front of the restaurant. She isn't allowed to do any seating inside. So I believe that the parking area could if not should be approved just as has been done up the street in same zone, Capitol Avenue, before the pandemic had 20 spaces inside. They now have 20 spaces inside. They have 20 spaces outside. They also serve alcohol. That's not the issue I'm talking about. So I think the parking to let her have a variance to the eight required spaces to the use she wants. I'm not talking about the burn alcohol. I'm talking about the use she wants to expand her food service, be it sandwiches so that she can run her business and hopefully make it success. I think you might consider them as two issues. The beer and wine issue, I think she's spoken to and other people have, but I just happen to believe that parking is justified because of the location, not the rest of the use permit per se. That's it. Thank you. All right, next we have Andy Belk. You are unmuted. Hi there. Yeah, I've decided to speak in favor of the proposal. I've found myself in, I'm a new resident in Aptos Hills, well, new as in a year ago. And I found myself in Capitola for a couple of different reasons. And I've wandered by Amy's place. And I stopped by with my daughter one day and wrapped in kombucha. And it was very nice. And that was when I got to know her, that she was applying for, you know, to do food and similar. And I stopped by another time after visiting the DMV to get my motorcycle license. So, I think it's a great little spot for, each time, by the way, I parked in the public lot that's behind, I think it's behind the police station or, anyway, to do it further up the road. So, you sort of naturally walk by on the way to the beach. That was where we were going to find our daughter out to go into the beach. So, I think it's a really natural spot to want to stop by on the way to the beach and just grab a bite or grab a little drink before you get to the beach. The other thing I wanted to mention is, somebody else earlier had mentioned motorcycle parking. And I've noticed both the Santa Cruz and Capitola electric bikes have got really, really super popular. And, you know, I think we as a population should be encouraging people to use that about the transport. And, obviously, the parking requirements for electric bikes are similar to those of regular bikes. All right, Roger, thank you. All right, thank you for your comments. So, do we have anyone else? That's all for the Zoom hands raised. So, seeing no one else in the audience who wants to speak or no one else on Zoom, we'll bring it back to the commission for our discussion and deliberation. We'll defer to Courtney to start. Okay, Courtney's turn. I looked this over. I mean, I've seen this building since it was built. I've seen applications for this building in the past. And I think the biggest issue, I see, is that going through the application, I have an issue with the completeness, to be completely honest. And to, I fully support the business that you want to run. I wanna see the kitchen just seems a little pieced together and I'm just wondering how to support a variance when we're comparing the Avenue Cafe down the street, when they have a full-fledged food service and beer and wine? I want to support having a beer and wine license in this location. I think that's actually a great use of this building. I think, I don't even have really a problem with the seating. It's just the haphazard nature that the plan is put together and the business plan is put together. I don't really know what food you're serving, necessarily. And it's just hard to support. I mean, yes, I know it's in the staff report. I read the staff report. I read the business plan as well, where I would like to start at least. I think you hit one aspect on the head where it's just kind of nebulous what the term restaurant's going to mean in this case because we don't know what kind of food you're serving. We don't know how extensive it's going to be. And that's, that kind of leaves us kind of without a lot of direction in that regard. I mean, I feel for you because that's a difficult spot. It's not in the village and it's not in the upper villages kind of caught right in the middle. I'm familiar with that spot because the house that used to be there, I lived there for a couple of years. So someone mentioned that it's not a destination. Per se, when people come to Capitola, that's not a destination. I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of businesses down there that are an actual destination that people come to. Capitola is the destination. And so my concern is, if we allow an intensification of use, we've set a precedent for other businesses to do that also. And that just attracts more people to the village and creates a bigger parking problem. And we can't resolve that. So that's one of my concerns. I think that site, like I said, it's a difficult site. It's probably more suited to retail, which is also probably difficult there, or a vacation rental if it were converted into a home. I just personally feel that it's difficult for me to overcome all these issues that it has with the LCP, the zoning ordinance, and our general plan. And I just don't feel like I can overrule those things because the city spent a lot of time and effort the community did, the people that live here did developing those documents. And if we start overruling and setting presidents for intensifications of uses without requiring the additional parking, I think we're just going down a bad path. For me, I agree a lot with Commissioner Roof. There are a number of great businesses in Capitola Village. And some of those businesses would also like to expand or add alcohol or turn a retail space into a restaurant. And they can't do that because of parking requirements. And to make a variance, as Commissioner Newman mentioned, those standards are outlined in state law. It's not that you can give a variance because you like someone or you think they have a great business idea or it's something that you wanna have happen. So for me, the first hurdle I come to is I don't see how we can make findings to grant a parking variance. And you do have a great building and a great facility and it's my hope. You open the business knowing what kind of business you could have there and what the rules were as the number of tables and seating and how it was going to work. And I feel bad for you that your business plan has not worked out for you. But we need to follow and look at the big picture for our entire community. And whenever I get in these kind of places, I actually did pull out our general plan today and look at that. And we looked at the local coastal plan because those are really the guiding documents for development to take place in Capitola Village. And there's no way that we can make findings for our variance in my opinion. People bring up the Avenue restaurant. That restaurant has been there for at least 40 years if not longer. So it was completely, it was developed under a completely different set of standards at the time as are many of the businesses in the village. There was a time in the 60s when Capitola was almost completely deserted and half empty because the beach went away. And so things happened then and you can't compare what happened then to what the rules and the regulations are now. I mean, we've had three new general plans since the Avenue was put in place. We've completely redone our zoning ordinance and our rules. So as much as we may personally want to help you out, we have to follow the rules that are in place. That's our job as planning commissioners. And so for me, the alcohol use and that aside, I couldn't come up with a basis for granting a parking variance to allow this to be converted to a restaurant. So those are my comments. So again, do we wanna have a motion? Is there a way we could continue this item to make it so she could revise it so she doesn't have to go straight to just a firm denial? You could deny it without prejudice, so she could bring it back. Yeah. I mean, I just, I feel like she's given the chance to revise. I mean, is there? You could give the applicant an opportunity to voluntarily continue, but we do have a complete application and the applicant is owed a decision. So it would need to be. Okay, I can't make the motion, I don't really hope that's to do it. I would move that based on the inability to make the findings that would allow us to approve this, that the application has to be denied. I second. Can we have a roll call vote please? Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Thank you very much and good luck in the future. All right, moving on, on the agenda. The next item is commission communications. Do we have any communications from any commissioner? No. And so I think with. Is this my last meeting or do I come to the next meeting and when the new commissioners start? I thought that you came to the next meeting. That's what I thought. Because we have to open the meeting with the old commissioners. That's my impression. And then the new commissioners get sworn in and the old commissioners who aren't reappointed leave. Okay. That's how I think it works. Are you throwing your hat back in the ring? I was just gonna give my swan song now then. I'll save it. So you get to come back. We get to do it one more time. Maybe we ought to have a going away party for the people who are leaving. I'll bring balloons. I'll go out and have a drink afterwards or something. Well, I appreciate everybody's comments tonight. Wasn't an easy one. Thank you. To adjourn. We're adjourned.