 Are we live? That's correct. Okay. Good evening and welcome to the November 4th meeting of the capital planning commission. Once again, we're moving through zoom and hopefully one of these days will be meeting live again. So there are several ways that you can join in the meeting. You can watch it live on charter communications cable TV channel eight and tonight our technician is Kingston. But you can also join the meeting via zoom and if we can have that screen up Sean, please. There we go. You can see there's various ways you can join the meeting and I know we do have people tonight that are wishing to comment on some of the items on the agenda. So those are the ways you can do it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. Call me with a roll call please. Yes. Commissioner Christensen. Right here. Thank you. Commissioner Newman. Here. Commissioner Westman. Here. Commissioner Wilk. Here. And chair Ruth. Here. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Through the flag. Of the United States of America. And to the club. And. nation. Undergone. Indivisible. With. Okay. It brings us to the second item on the agenda tonight, which is or communication. the agenda. Okay. This is the time for any public comments for items that are not on the agenda. So if you wish to address the commission for some other reason, besides what's on the agenda, now would be the time to do it. So we'll give you a little bit of time to join the meeting to comment on some item that's not on the agenda. I'm not seeing any public comment in our inbox. Okay. And we'll move on to item C, which is commission comments. Are there any comments from the commissioner? I have one. This is Susan. Since we have Chloe with us tonight, I just wanted to thank her for the sort of bi-weekly newsletter. She puts out on an email to all of us. I think it's very well done. And it's nice to hear about what's going on in the community. So I think that's a real asset and I enjoy it. Thank you so much. Yeah. Ditto for that. Thank you, Chloe. Any other commission comments? Very none. And then we'll bring it to the staff. Any staff comments? Katie, Sean. No staff comments. No, for additions and deletions, I should have mentioned that we have had a few last minute public comment come in this evening. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. For one, for one 15 Saxon and two items to the outdoor dining. And those, those made it to the planning commission in time and they had time to review those comments. Okay. Thank you, Katie. An hour to the approval of the minutes. We have the minutes from two previous meetings tonight to approve. The first is the minutes from August 19th of 2021. And the second is the minutes from August 19th of 2021. I move to approve. This is commissioner Wilk. I'll second it. Commissioner Westman. We have a motion and a second to approve the meetings from the minutes from August 19th. May I have the roll call, please, Chloe? Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Newman. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. Chair Welk. Excuse me. Chair Roof. Aye. Thank you. That will be it in another month, Chloe. Item. Item B is, um, the planning commission minutes from September 2nd of 2021. Is there a motion to approve those minutes or any additions or corrections? I move approval. This is commissioner Wilk. I'll second it. This is commissioner Westman. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve those minutes from September 2nd. Is there a roll call, please, Chloe? Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Newman. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. Chair Roof. Aye. Okay. The motion carries those minutes are approved. That brings us to item 4, the consent calendar. We do have a request to approve those minutes from September 2nd of the roll call, please, Chloe. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Newman. Aye. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. Commissioner. We do have a request tonight to pull the only item on the consent calendar off or public discussion. That would be item a 115 Saxon Avenue. So with the consent of the commission, we'll pull that off for public discussion. Any objections? Okay. Hearing none. This is a design permit to convert a roof to second story deck. We have a second story deck on a single family, non informing residents located at 115 Saxon Avenue. Proposed second story deck is located on the side of the property adjacent other residential uses, which requires planning commission approval through the application. So we have a second story deck on a single family, non informing residents located at 115 Saxon Avenue. Proposed second story deck is located on the side of the property adjacent other residential uses, which requires planning commission approval through a design permit. The existing two story residents as it appears today, surrounded by one and two story single family homes in the Deepo Hill neighborhood. The existing structure is not performing because it encroaches the rear and side required setbacks. An aerial of the site with the adjacent 117 Saxon Avenue. We have a second story deck on the side of the property adjacent to the second story, including a parapet glass wall extension and new doorway to allow the flat roof to function as a second story deck. That is approximately 342 square feet under the zoning code update that went into effect earlier this year, covered and uncovered exterior spaces such as decks, porches and balconies do not count towards the total floor that 342 is not included in the FAR. The deck area shaded in blue above is closest to two single family residences, which are both located on the property at 117 Saxon Avenue. Design criteria F requires that the city consider and minimize privacy impacts of adjacent properties with building permit features such as entrance doors, entrances, doors and decks. In considering the adjacent residences, the applicant has proposed constructing an 18 inch tall privacy glass feature on top of an existing 42 inch tall wall facing the rear and side property lines. They would be built on that orange line seen here. The existing first story structure is set back four feet from the side property line, which complies with the first story setback. To comply with the six foot setback that applies to upper stories, the applicant has proposed construction of an inset railing two feet from the existing parent wall. The blue line represents that setback for the new railing and there's an example that the applicant provided, which would not be visible from the street or from the adjacent residence. These are the existing and proposed elevations. The proposed project will have limited visual impact on the existing appearance of the residence, except for the privacy glass extension and the new deck doorway. With that staff recommend planning commission approved project based on conditions of approval and findings. Thank you, Sean. Are there any questions for staff before we open this up to the public? I have a question. This commissioner will. So I read that the. Second story complies with the six foot setback requirement, even though there's a. Noncompliance on the. First story, is that correct? No. It's interesting. The first story does comply with the first story setbacks of four feet on the side. And the second story. Is that correct? If it were functioning as a deck all the way out for the full. Lot coverage or of the structure's coverage, it would be within that six feet, which is why the African has that railing set two feet in. The non-visible railing. Right. And is there a. Is there a 10% side yard or. 1510 E requires the 10% is that, is that what's noncompliant? The first story setback. For the side is 10% of lot width, which in this case would be. Four feet from a total lot with a 40 feet. So I thought you said the side yard setback was noncompliant. Did I miss something that that would be on the opposing. Property side. Oh my okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff before we open it up. Hey, hearing none. We will open this up for public comments. I believe we've had a human communication from Mr. Shink at. The adjacent property on El Salto. So if there's someone wishing to speak now's the time. Raise your hand. Let us know that you're there, please. We do have a public comment request. No comment. We do have a public comment request. No comment. No comment. I'm a nonchalant tank. So I'm going to. Okay, Mr. Shank. Go ahead. Wonderful. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you very much. And. I did submit kind of a detailed demo. I'm hoping. You have a chance to peek at it. I think, you know, just to summarize our main issue is that. This structure in as Mr. was asking, you know, on the setback and conforming or not and I would call it a four foot parapet wall on the second floor is where I look at the second floor component as being second floor. I mean, this is gonna be a second floor roof deck. And that second floor is four feet. It's not set back the extra two feet, the extra 50%. It's all at the four foot level. And if this were to happen in activating this large roof deck on the side yard at the midpoint of the side yard, it puts it squarely right in our backyard in four feet away. And it's that issue that I think just makes this inappropriate. I did go back and read a bunch of the notes and comments and staff reports to counsel during the many years of discussion on the zoning change here. And it was really clear that the side yard was the, where they had concerns about relieving the uncovered deck from being counted as FAR. The front seemed almost like it would be fine, et cetera, which is why we're at this review because it's a side yard. And in this circumstance, being right on the property line midpoint, it's very intrusive. And I don't think that was the intent of allowing people to add a deck or a balcony and have it not included in the FAR. It's not supposed to have these kinds of impacts. I'm grateful that my neighbor, I'll say attempted to address it by adding a glass wall on top of this wall that's already too tall and too close to the property line. But it just makes it more impactful. It's more shadow, it's more glare, it's more structure right on the property line. And then as we can imagine, it becomes activated, right? A roof deck, balcony, people are outside. You get, I would imagine, I would hope there'd be restrictions, there's nothing addressed in here. But I could imagine umbrellas and heaters which are lights effectively, all these things literally right up there on top of our kitchen and backyard. And again, I just don't believe, it's up to you guys to interpret, obviously. But I didn't find anything that led me to believe this was the intent of this allowance for added structure. And there's a point made, I tried to add some comments to a few of the slides that were in the packet here. But there's points that there's all these other second floor roof decks and balconies in the neighborhood. And there are many, but those obviously happened in the past, compliant with code then, which meant the building wasn't as big. It wasn't maxed out on FAR. The overall impact was such that it was then permitted. And the vast majority are on the front yard or the back yard or face, the impact is on the public street, not midpoint of a lot on top of somebody's back yard. And it's really, that's where, and I look through and I'm not as technical as staff, clearly. But I just looked at the findings in these things and I thought, I don't know how you say this second floor wall is compliant with the R1 zoning. Because it's four feet from the, I mean, if it was a one-story element the first time around, and this was a few years ago, and I brought up this issue of its impact, just the structure and its impact on our property. And I was told that it's not a roof deck, it's not an anything, it's just a parapet wall and that's all that it is. Well, now it's a roof deck, so it's a second floor. And the second floor wall, it's anyway, I don't know how we can say it's compliant with the zoning code, because, well, I don't think that it is. And then all these words around not impactful or just all these things around design review is intended to obviously have a very subjective element, but be, it seems like the, how many times it says to be wary of not impacting neighbors. And you guys can imagine sitting in your own backyards and 15 feet in the air, four feet away on a house that's already maximized in terms of its FAR, and has multiple other exceptions, the setbacks on the back and no parking and those kinds of things. This would just be yet another impact on us. And I love roof decks, I love being outdoors. All those things are wonderful. If this were on the front of the property, I would have no issues. If it were on the back, now I don't want to put it on because it was some other neighbor, but being midpoint of our lot on top of our private space, it's too big of an impact to just say it's not, that it complies and all of these things, all these different findings. And so my thought was, if this were to proceed, it would be, if I were wanting to, if I were the applicant and wanting to do this, I would figure, I would, I don't think it would be unreasonable to move that wall back, set it back to make it compliant with zoning. And then there's the consideration of, do we allow the roof deck there? And then there would be some conditions, whether it's, and I wouldn't do a clear glass if that doesn't help with the privacy component, mid side yard, but maybe it's a frosted glass, whether it would be some other material or something to retain some private, my bedroom window is not far from this second floor deck area. And then down below, as I say, is a kitchen on one side and the other side, it's a kitchen in the bathroom. And anyway, some to retain the privacy would be important. And then I do think thinking about whether it's, or this case, but for others, are there any restrictions on the use? Could you put, well, it's not covered so it doesn't count as FAR, but somebody put a big, you know, those big tent structures or big huge umbrellas up there and a heater and light, you know, there's umbrellas with lights on them or whatever it is, all these things that we're fearful of that would add to impacts. And there don't seem to be any conditions there, nor are there, it sounds like there will be no decking or anything, it's just they're gonna have a roof deck literally on their roof. And that's great if they're gonna do it. Typically people put down some sort of material, a decking of something, which then raises the height and that would need to be taken into consideration from a privacy perspective for the height of any treatments that were added to the exterior edges. But again, I just think this structure is too close and right out of the shoot, the second floor is already too close. And then to add to it by activating it and such, it's just too much. And I'm happy to answer questions or talk about other ideas about maybe how to move forward, but fundamentally that's my big issue. Okay, thank you, Mr. Shane. Yeah, now's the time to make your best case because typically we don't come back to allow people to engage in a dialogue with the commission once we end the public portion. So if you've made your best case now, we're gonna ask if there's any other public comments for people wishing to speak on this item. John, do we have any other hands raised? I do not see any other hands raised at this time. And there's no new emails either. The owner is present, but I do not see their hand raised. Okay, well, then we will bring it back to the commission for discussion and whatever action the commission chooses to take. Who would care to lead off on this? I would, this is commissioner Westman. I would be happy to start because I was involved when the project was originally approved. Go ahead. Okay, and I think perhaps commissioner Newman was also on the planning commission at the time that this came to us. And it was quite clearly indicated to the commission at that time that this area was not going to be a deck and was never going to be a deck. In fact, the planning commission, I think included a condition that they changed the window that they now wanna convert to a door. So it would be obvious that there wouldn't be any access to this outdoor space. And I understand that some of the regulations have now changed and that's the reason they're coming back. But for me to be able to vote in favor of it, I would almost ask that we continue this item for one month to see if the two neighbors can work out some sort of agreement that works for both of them because it's hard for me to approve a second story deck like this that's clearly gonna have such impact on the neighbor next door. So I'd like to see them have some time to work it out rather than the planning commission try and design solutions for them. And then they could come back and I guess we could find solutions if they haven't been able to. So those are my comments. Thank you, Susan. Question for commissioners Westman. Yes. Yeah, this is commissioner Wilk. I'm curious about the approval of the four foot wall on the second story. When this came around the first time, was there any discussion as to why they would want to enclose the roof with the four foot parapet wall that wasn't compliant with a six foot setback? They indicate my recollection is, and I'm going back several years and perhaps staff could look up the minutes, but my recollection is that we were assured that that was just an architectural feature that they wanted to have because this area was never going to be used as a deck itself. And as I said, we voted on it on the basis that it would never be used as a deck. And maybe commissioner Newman remembers other things that I'm not remembering, but I believe we were both there. Thank you. Commissioner Newman, do you have any insight to add? Well, apparently the recusal rules have changed because I'm told that I'm recused on this item now. Oh, I'd better abide by that. Okay, thank you for that. Katie, do you have any, or not Katie, but Courtney, I'm sorry, do you have anything to add? Okay, can you hear me now? Yeah. Sorry. Okay, I just wanted to see the aerial view of the adjacent property again. I see, okay. So I think my overall question is there, there isn't anything prohibiting them from having that second story deck. I mean, the roof deck there. Sean or Katie, can you hear me? It requires a design permit. Right. Well, question. It sounds like it requires a variant because the wall is the second story tariff wall, the four-foot wall doesn't have a six-foot setback. Now they try to modify that requirement by adding a railing that is invisible. So hence could be ignored or taken down without anybody seeing, but effectively what has happened is they have the four-foot, they have a second story wall that is not a decorative feature anymore. It is now a roof deck wall that doesn't have a six-foot setback. And I would be curious to know what the rationale from staff is for that. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, I was out there today and looked at the site from both Saxon Avenue and El Salto, in fact, through Mr. Schenck's backyard. And actually I went across the street to get on someone's front porch to get a higher elevation so I could look and see. And it's definitely intrusive. I just can't imagine that this is something that the commission would want to approve because it basically destroys the privacy not only Mr. Schenck's backyard, but the neighbor and also I believe it's 205 El Salto. So, you know, my experience has been, I had one of these in my neighbor directly to my south, but he had a five and a half foot wall along his deck. And I know we've done that in at least one other case to protect privacy, but in its current configuration, I just, I can't support the way it is. So Katie, I know Mr. Wilkes asked you a question regarding the need for a variance. If you could respond to that. Yes, so I was trying to go back to the 2017 approval, but I apologize, I don't have enough time to look it up the end, but I'm almost certain that it was considered part of the roof. And that's why the roof for the first story and that's why it was compliant at the four feet. If they had built a second story there or if this had been designed as a deck, if they came in with a proposal today, we would have them, they'd be required to meet the six foot setback. In our review, we just think that by putting that divider and additional two feet in the fence, that that would bring this into compliance because it would still be that roof element, but with the new wall. And maybe that's how we could deal with it instead of like a fence creating a second wall there, but that is how we were looking at it, that it wouldn't need a variance because that is part of the parapet roof for the structure for the first story. And then by building that new wall, they're meeting the intent of the zoning code of not having the second story deck within six feet of that property line. So that is why we didn't require a variance on this. Thank you, thank you, Katie. Mr. Wills. Well, I guess it's a fine point, I guess. I mean, you're saying that the last two feet complies with the original agreement by the planning commission that, oh, it's a design feature only and the deck now because it has this fence is the only part we have to worry about. Just to me, yeah, so I can see why you agree that it did need a variance, but man, I tell you, it sure seems like that's really playing games. So I don't know, this is a tough one for me. Yeah, thank you. Well, if I'm reading the commission right, it kind of sounds like if a vote were taken, it may fail and commissioner Westman has suggested we continue this to see if the neighbors can work out an agreement. That's probably in the best interest of the property owner because it doesn't sound like he's going to get what he wants if we took a vote tonight. So what's the pleasure of the commission? Would you like to vote on it? Or would you like to continue it in hopes that the two property owners can reach an agreement? I make a motion. Yeah, go ahead, Courtney. I make a motion to, based on commissioner Westman's suggestion of continuing this application. And I will check it. Yeah, this is commissioner Westman, I'll second it. Okay, all right. Any discussion on the motion before we call for the vote? Very none. Then Chloe, can we have the roll call please? Yes, commissioner Christensen. Hi. Commissioner Newman. I'm seeing. Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. Commissioner Westman. Hi. Commissioner Wilk. Hi. And chair Ruth. Hi. So this item will be continued until staff brings it back to the commission. Okay, that brings us to our public hearing tonight. We have three of them tonight. Our first public hearing is 111 Capitola Avenue. This is the English Ales House requesting a change in their alcohol sales to include beer and wine. Katie, Dawn. Yes, this is my item this evening. Sean, I'll need you to allow me to share the screen or to turn off your screen so that I can share mine. Stop sharing. Thank you. Good evening planning commissioners. Before you tonight is an application at 111 Capitola Avenue. This is an amendment to a conditional use permit for English Ales, who's located within the mixed use village zoning district. Are you seeing my screen? Okay. Yes. Okay. English Ales Brewery received a conditional use permit back in December of 2019. Their CUP was very specific, that it was for an alcohol sales type 23, small beer manufacturer license from the Department of Alcoholic Average Control for onsite beer consumption, tasting, and sales. So with that permit, it's where English Ales is a brewery and they're allowed to have satellite brewery tasting rooms. So it was just for beer. This, one of the conditions on the permit that it was very specific in the approval limiting the establishment to that type 23 license and any modification to that license would have to come back to the Planning Commission for review it was in that condition. So the current request before you this evening is to amend the CUP to modify the license to a type 42 beer and wine license. And this is so they can offer their guests a variety rather than to offer wine in addition to beer. When looking at a conditional use permit the Planning Commission must consider characteristics of the proposed use, operating characteristics, if there's available and adequate public services and infrastructure, potential impacts to the natural environment and the physical suitability of the site for the proposed use. Also the Planning Commission has the ability to attach conditions, to make sure that the application is consistent with the general plan, our local coastal program, as well as our zoning code and any specific plan. So in our review, this went before now Chief Daly or almost soon to be Chief Daly. He was interim at the time and he reviewed this application and saw no new impacts regarding this proposal and provided a letter of support. And staff in our review also did not find any new impact from adding wine to the allowed sales at 111 Capitola Avenue. So our recommendation this evening is for Planning Commission to approve the amendment to the CUP based on the conditions of approval and finding. With that I'm available for questions. Thank you, Katie. Any questions? Oh. Mr. Westman? No, I don't have any questions. Okay. I have a comment. Courtney? I just wanted to say that I really think that this little establishment in their business has been a really great contribution to that stretch of street. Thank you Courtney. Okay, if there's no further comments then we'll open up the public portion of this. Is there anyone in the public wishing to speak to this item? I believe the owner is on the meeting this evening. Sean, maybe if you open it up for him to speak if you'd like to, I'm not sure. Mr. Blackwell, are you there? And Sean, are you able to unmute him? Sean, are you unable to unmute? Oh, sorry about that. My mic was muted. Yes, I did just unmute him. If he can unmute his own mic and speak if he wishes. I don't see his hand up, however. Okay, well we'll continue then and bring it back to the commission or act. It shows that Mike muted actually on my screen. Yeah, mine too. Yeah, Peter, if you press your space bar you should be able to, we should be able to hear you or press unmute. Nothing seems to be happening, so let's continue. So bring it back to the commission. Any concerns, questions for staff on this item? No. I have a general concern. It just kind of popped in my mind. You know, we have a lot of concerns about noise and unruliness by the surrounding neighborhood and yet we continue to allow liquor licenses and more wineries and more bars inside the mercantile on now on Capitol Avenue. I'm just wondering, and I have no objection to this, but I'm just wondering, will we continue to do that? Is that something we really want in terms of how our community, the village is growing? It's kind of a random thought that just made me, I don't think there's any reason why I would ever want to not approve this and that would be a consideration, but no, I don't have any objection to this. I actually have the same concerns and while I'm not going to vote against this particular application tonight. She froze up. You know, you can't walk more than 200 feet in the village without stopping to have a drink at some place that's available, so we'll bring it back to the commission for a vote then. Is there a motion to approve or deny the application? We should allow Susan to finish her comment if she can get that on her own. It was my understanding that. There she is. Now you're muted. Okay. There you go. Anyway, I just would like to later on have staff sort of come back. Susan, I would suggest turn off your video and then hopefully we'll be able to hear you. Sometimes that helps. So listen, tell us where we stand. Yeah, you can just ignore me. It's okay. I'm going to go find what's going on. I think I know the problem. Okay. Well, we hope you can vote one way or another on this issue. So is there a motion to approve or deny? We have a motion. I will so move. I move approval. This commission will. Okay. Do you have a second? I'll second. You have a motion to second then. Chloe, may I have the roll call please? Commissioner Christensen. Now she's muted. Are you available for roll call? Hi, I'm so sorry. I shouldn't, I did not mute myself. So I don't know what happened. Commissioner Christensen. Hi. Commissioner Newman. Hi. Commissioner Westman, are you back? Hi. Great. I'm back. Great, thank you. Commissioner Wilk. Hi. Chair Ruth. Motion carries and the English ale tasting room now be able to serve wine along with their beer. Mr. Black, well, I see you have your hand up, but you got what you wanted. So we're going to be moving on to item B 1500 Warf Road. This is an application for a sign program on the walkways and gates at Venetian courts. Katie or Sean? You're muted. The application for you is a master sign program for information and directional signage for the Venetian court condominiums located at 1500 Warf Road. The application includes a postal development permit, both of which require planning commission approval. The Venetian court comprises a group of separately owned condominiums located between Stockton Bridge and the Capsule Warf. This is also the site of the Venetian Hotel, which is a separate entity with its own signage. This is the site plan with the proposed and existing signs blown up for more visibility. Signage would be located along the Seward pathway and down the central passage. Friangles represent the existing gateway signs and circles represent the proposed freestanding signs, the seven in all. This is the proposed freestanding sign style. Or the signs would be placed along the pathways. Each pathway sign would contain identical text and measures 18 inches wide by 18 inches tall. These are photos of the existing signs on the gateways. One sign is mounted on each of the three primary entrances. The proposed sign program specifies a maximum sign width and height of 18 inches. However, the existing gateway signs are 16 and a half inches wide and tall. Venetian court pathways have been identified within the Capsule land use plan as providing public beach access. The implementation, oh, sorry. Implementation policy 11 for Venetian court area directs the city to maintain existing public access along the pathways. The proposed signage includes specific language that identifies both private property as well as beach access. Further and future alterations to the number of signs or sign content would be subject to permit amendment by the planning commission. With that, staff recommends the planning commission approve the project based on conditions of approval and findings. Okay, thank you, Sean. Any questions for staff before we open it to the public? Are you hearing none? Now's the time for any member of the public to address this item. Proposed signs prohibiting certain uses on the Venetian court walkway and seawall. So now's the time to speak. We did receive an email on this, a letter. I can put read aloud on if you can, if you'd like. Yeah, could you please, Katie? Okay. And Sean, if you don't mind, stop sharing your screen and I'll share. 21, city of Capsule planning commission 420, Capsule Avenue, Capsule, California 95010. Subject, 1500, Warth Road, hashtag 21-02878N, common walkway C through H. Dear planning commissioners, Nick Rouse, Courtney Christensen, Ed Newman, T. J. Welch, and Peter Wils. I am writing to ask for your support and approval for the new signage requested for the Capsule of the Venetian condominium. The new signage will provide benefits for the owner, public, and the city of Capsule by educating visitors who are unaware that these are private homes. I have listed the benefits to each of those groups below. Benefit to owners the number of visitors to the Venetian has increased dramatically in recent years as they have been highlighted on visitor maps, Google, and Twitter. Most visitors are respectful and polite, but a growing number are climbing and sitting on the beach houses to try and get a better photo than their friends or others who have posted previously on social media. Climbing on the beach homes causes with such alleges to crack causing water damage. Educating the public that these are private homes, not part of the hotel or city of Capitola will help reduce some of this behavior. Benefit to public educating the public will give visitors the information they need to act appropriately when they are visiting the Venetians. Most people will behave appropriately if given adequate information. The goal in educating the public is to let them know that they are welcome to access the beach but that these are private homes and to please respect the owners or renters using them. It will help avoid conflicts with the owners and make everyone's time in Capitola more enjoyable. Benefit to city of Capitola social media is drawing a greater number of visitors to the Venetians and the Capitola village. In most cases, the owners politely ask those climbing on the home, stairs, and even roofs of the Venetian homes to please respect their home. Unfortunately, some visitors do not comply and still behave inappropriately. They believe this is public property and they can do what they please. This is when the police become involved which takes up their valuable time and resources. With proper signage, we could at least point to the sign and show that although there is beach access, these are not public property and are privately owned. My Venetian beach house has been in my family for over 50 years and I realize how fortunate I am to be able to own one. I grew up in Capitola and later graduated from Aftis High School. My wife and I live at our Venetian beach house most of the time from September through May each year now. I am asking for your help in educating the public and visitors so that you can make our time and their time in Capitola more enjoyable. Sincerely, Michael Newell 1500 Warf Road number for Capitola, California. That was the one letter we received is an email. I'm not seeing any hands raised. Craig Noon is available. Oh, his hand is raised. Don, can you provide him access? Hello, can you all hear me? Yeah, Mr. Noon, go ahead. Great. Hi, nice to meet you all. As Katie mentioned, my name is Craig Noonis. I'm here in my capacity as the HOA president for the Venetian court residences. And I'm also a board member for the Capitola Village and Warf Business Improvement Association. And in fact, a couple of our other Venetian court residents, Janelle Cox and Mike Gardner, are on that board as well. In our BIA role, the importance of bringing visitors to our merchants and dining establishments and hotels can't be understated. However, the substantial increase in visitors to the village, that's had a kind of an unintended consequence on our Venetian court residences. And so the application before you aims at kind of coexistence of that continued growth of visitors to the village. It's good for our shop owners and dining establishment owners, but consider sort of the safety and security of our residents. The application in front of you comes from 22 homeowners of the Venetian court. And that was put together in partnership with the city of Capitola and the California Postal Commission. The reason we kind of took this sort of shared approach on if that's normal or not, but we felt it a requirement, is the Venetian court residences, they're a historic landmark, a central part of the city's identity. The need for our joint relationships is particularly evident when you do an online search on Capitola. What you see on Google is not images of Capitola Beach or the Espanol, nine out of 10 images are of our colorful homes. The, we are codependent and extricably bound to each other. And we think that's a good thing. And along those lines, we've partnered with the city planning department on the development of this application. Beyond the city of Capitola, we know that because of our proximity, the coastal commission, they also have a really important objective to preserve public access for all California beaches, including our most favorite one in our backyard. And again, given our location, our residents kind of become ambassadors for this clean and safe beach. And we know we have an important stakeholder in the coastal commission. And thanks to the help of the planning department, we're able to include them in the development of this proposal. I put together kind of the challenges that we face as residents in the, oh no. That doesn't sound good. The, I put the challenges that we have kind of run into in PowerPoint presentation in the materials. A couple of points is in 2020 and early part of 2021, there were 72 911 calls involving our address. And I can tell you from firsthand experience that the majority of disturbances from our residents go unreported, except occasionally to me, despite our encouragement to do otherwise. We have been subject to theft, vandalism, graffiti, trespassing on porches, balconies and roofs, as you heard from Mike, late night partying intoxication. I've seen the police deal with drug overdose is not 20 feet from my home. My wife will not stay here if I'm not in town and she's not the only one. This is not the happy capital village we all know and love, but sadly it's part of our lives here at Venetian court residences. Currently, there is no real visible signage within the Venetian court. There are the gate signs at the perimeter. And so there's really been no way to inform the public about our own safety and security requirements. And we think if we can appropriately inform them, most people come through here just awesome and we think they would comply. The benefits of the signage that we put together, it just helps people understand they're 100% welcome to walk through the patios and climb over the wall to the beach. It advises them just like the beach, there's no smoking here. And also like a lot of our city sidewalks and for the safety of our residents, their kids and their pets, the signage would also state there are no bike, skateboard, scooters and skating allowed. And finally it explains to beach goers that they should make their way to the beach rather than gathering, obstructing in our patios or the sea wall both for our residents as well as others trying to make their way to the beach. So like I said at the beginning, it's vital for us to draw people into town for the health of our business owners. And as Mike mentioned with social media and the BIA marketing efforts, which have been super good, the influx has grown significantly over the last half dozen years with our private homes being one of the main attractions and in some ways that's cool if we can manage it. Our application for the four signs around our homes is kind of our best attempt to balance the ever-growing visitors to the village with our need for safety and security around our home. So it probably went longer than three minutes. Sorry, but thanks for your time this evening and consideration of our application and continued partnership on this. Okay, thank you, Mr. Nunes. For you, Levi, I do have a question. It's my understanding that the seven-inch police calls have originated from only one or two residents. Can you confirm that? Is that accurate? That is not accurate. It comes from a variety of locations. If you look on the police report, you can see it's anything from kind of traffic altercations and residents who've complained about public drunkenness and the like. So it's all over the map and it's really kind of our little community here, not from a single location. Okay, and just I have one other question. The majority of those places down there serve as summer rentals. You know, typically they set up their gear on the walkway. They set up their chairs. They might set up a little barbecue. Yeah. So the Venetian Court Homeowners Association and the owners of those summer rentals want to prohibit that kind of activity? No, so those are our patios and so they're for use of the residents. We coach the residents that they should not be blocking access to the beach because we've got to abide by that. And so I've had to walk around and kind of make sure people are not getting too comfortable in setting up their chairs on the patios and blocking people who are passing through and trying to get to the beach. Okay, how do you differentiate the walkway and the patio since it's all one state? Yeah, the patio is kind of what is from our house to the seawall. And we need to ensure that there is ample room for folks to pass along the full length of the walkway. You can hop over the wall at any point, but I think it's in our best interest to make sure that folks can get to where they're trying to get to without any of those altercations that Mike mentioned. Okay, I think I disagree with you on that point that the entire walkway is your patio. Are there any other questions for Mr. News? If not, Mr. News, thank you. We're going to continue the public portion here to see if there's anybody else wishing to speak. Do we have any other people wishing to make comments? Sean or Katie? I do not see any more hands raised in Zoom and I'm going to check the public email again. And there are no new comments on public email. Okay, thank you, Katie. Okay, with that, we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Who would care to lead off? Hi, this is Commissioner Westlin. I will if no one else wants to go first. Go ahead, Susan. I agree with you that I don't think the walkway is a patio area. I think the walkway and the wall have always been used by the public quite freely to get access to the beach. And I would be supportive of their sign plan and proposals if we made a couple of minor word modifications. And on their proposal where they say, do not sit, stop, water, or obstruct patio slash wall, I think the patio slash wall should be stricken and just say the pathway. Because I don't think we want to create the impression that the walkway itself is actually people's private patio. So I would vote for it if we could make that minor word change. Other comments? Courtney, is that your hand up? No. Okay, no other comments? I'll have a comment. And one of the things in looking at the staff report, the coastal commission recommended language is slightly different than the applicant's proposal. And the coastal commission doesn't include the seawall. And I've lived in this town, getting closer to 60 years now. Fitting on that seawall has always been something people have been allowed to do. So I would certainly not vote for this if we prohibited people sitting on the seawall. I can give you an example of how this can be abused is that my son and two granddaughters, ages 10 and 12 at the time, in the winter time, sat on the seawall and were asked to move with nobody else around. So I think if we include that in there, this language can definitely be abused. And I think it can be utilized to discourage people from using that walkway and sitting on the seawall. So without that change, I definitely can't support this sign program. Okay, so could you sort of repeat the language that you want to have? I think the coastal commission language and the staff report is sufficient. It doesn't mention anything about prohibiting sitting on the seawall. That would work for me. The coastal commission's language. I'd be very interested to hear Mr. Nunez's response to that change to see if he has any rational argument against it. Is there a consensus to open up the public portion again? I don't guess. Okay, Susan, would you like to try a motion? Yeah, I will make a motion that we approve the sign program but use the language suggested by the coastal commission. Is there a second? Second. Anyway, we have a motion to approve it with the language that's been suggested in the staff report by the coastal commission. We have the roll call, please, Chloe. Yes, commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Newman. Well, I am recused again, in this case it's not because I lived in unit 21 at one time. That was before social media and I think it was before there was any media. Commissioner Westman. Aye. Commissioner Wilk and chair Ruth. Aye. A motion carries with that amended language then. Okay, that brings us to item C, which is the outdoor dining ordinance. So tonight, we do have a Katie's presentation. Katie has proposed several questions within her proposal and probably best if we take those questions after she gives her presentation and we hear from the public and then we can respond to those questions that she's proposed in her written presentation to us. So Katie. Thank you, chair Ruth. Can you see my screen? Okay, thank you. Yes, I'm gonna go over the presentation and there are quite a few questions. So I appreciate that we'll get our public commenter first and then return to those questions. So tonight we're looking at a draft ordinance for outdoor dining. I do wanna mention that you've received quite a few emails today that I understand all the planning commissioners received in advance and were able to read through. Okay, quick history here. In spring of 2020, the city council emergency order went into effect which permitted temporary COVID-19 outdoor use permits and that's what's continuing to happen through those are set to expire on January 3rd, 2022. Last April, the city council directed staff to develop a program for permanent outdoor dining programs on June 24th of this year. The city council reviewed survey results from both the public and the businesses in the village included that in your packet tonight. In those results, we saw there was public support for a permanent program. There was support from not only a lot of capital residents but as well as many village residents. And there was also feedback from the businesses that they would like to some of the businesses that they would like to be involved in a future program. So taking in that information on July 22nd, the council provided direction on some key program elements. And the first time planning commission got to review that we published a draft ordinance in early October and the planning commission took their first review of this on October 7th at that hearing. Planning commission was very clear that they would like staff to put out more notice than is required for your typical ordinance. So we, at that point, we mailed out postcards to every resident within the central village zoning district and we placed public notices around the village and on the majority of the outdoor dining. And I think it's been effective because whenever I walk through the village I seem to get a comment or two from businesses. So, and the planning commission continued this tonight. Tonight I'm going to go over the ordinance. The major changes that have taken place since the first visit looked at this in October. I will try to be quick because there's quite a few items attached to this. So the first is the location. There's both sidewalk dining proposed in the ordinance as well as a street dining decks. The sidewalk dining is limited in the mixed-use neighborhood zone, mixed-use village zone, community commercial and regional commercial. Within the mixed-use village currently in the streets are limited to Monterey Avenue and Capitola Wharf. And this evening I'll be looking for direction to see if you would like to modify the proposed location for the sidewalk dining. It doesn't include any other streets or areas. Second is the location of the street dining decks. The street dining decks are only allowed within the mixed-use village. To be clear, dining decks within private plazas and private property could come forward but they would have to be through a conditional and amendment to their conditional use permit. So only within the public streets are they allowed in the mixed-use village. And the streets are limited to Esplanade, Monterey Avenue and San Jose Avenue. And originally the ordinance included Capitola Avenue and at our last meeting with Planning Commission, it was suggested to remove Capitola Avenue. Right now we have that struck through. And I just wanted to be clear. There was some public comment made about Lawn Way and that is correct that that is in our village residential overlay. And we allowed that under the COVID temporary use permit. That would not be allowed as this ordinance is drafted today. The Lawn Way area would not be allowed as a right-of-way. It is right-of-way and it would not be allowed for use for outdoor dining. For the maximum number of on-street parking spaces, there's a cap of 25 spaces. And I just wanted to introduce the idea of the prototype design for anyone that's listening in for the first time. And I, the city council, during the earlier review, we talked about creating a prototype that will work within a local architect, designer and create a prototype that's been vetted by the city and paid for by the city. That once, the Planning Commission would approve this design. We bring it forth for preliminary review to get comments from the Planning Commission and eventually have a blanket coastal development permit for the prototype design. But it would be available, once it's approved, it would be available to any business that opts into the outdoor dining program to utilize and with the intent here is to save the business of money and as well as create a very nice design that will fit within our community. So, and anyone opting into the prototype design, it would be an administrator review rather than a Planning Commission review for a custom design deck. So that's what the prototype design and explanation of it so I do talk about it quite frequently. So in the first slide here, the administrative permit would be for prototype street dining decks. It would not have to go before Planning Commission. It would fit under this blanket coastal commission permit. A design permit would be required for sidewalk dining areas and also custom street dining decks. And one question I had, during the last meeting, the Planning Commission made the change of the sidewalk dining areas who were directed should be included under Require Planning Commission review. And I wanted some feedback this evening if that is only in the mixed-juice village or would you allow sidewalk dining areas to be approved administratively in say the community commercial zoning district or mixed-juice neighborhood? So I'll be asking that later. And as I just explained, within the prototype design, there's, in talking with the Coastal Commission, they would support a blanket coastal development permit for those. So once the design is created, we would bring this to the Planning Commission for approval of a coastal development permit and it would be applied to all properties in the coastal zone and any restaurant could opt to utilize the prototype design and move forward with the building permit application. Another modification we made to the code since October was we were given feedback that the fourth requirement for a design permit to use high-quality durable materials that can withstand inclement weather was very subjective and there was a preference to have more objective standards. So we added a new criteria for within the design that says allow materials include finished or painted wood, glass, ornamental steel or iron and decorative masonry. Street dining decks where the primary invisible material is plastic, fabric, woven bamboo or chain link wire fencing are not allowed. So I'll be looking for direction on that this evening and if there are any other material that you would like to specifically allow or prohibit. Next, within the ordinance, there's a requirement for good standing and so anyone that wants to opt into this, we would do some research and make sure that there've been no code violations or abatement issues in the last 24 months and another item you'll see within the draft ordinance is that there is a use for the permit fees in the coastal zone. The ordinance states that for sidewalk dining and street dining decks in the coastal zone, the city shall utilize no less than 50% of permit fees to receive for coastal access programs, maintenance and improvements. So those fees that come in for utilizing the parking spaces, 50% of those fees will have to be programmed towards coastal access programs, maintenance and improvements. That was a request from the coastal commission and now I'm gonna go over our operational and operational and development standards. There were quite a few requests for modifications and additional items within this when we met in October. So these first items have been here since October, the minimum sidewalk width for the sidewalk dining, the five feet throughout the village and then four feet in other zoning districts. There is a limit on the location to the eating and establishment frontage and then if they wanna extend beyond that frontage, it has to be approved by the permit grantor. And then a program, it's limited to eating establishment so only eating establishments could opt in and then there's a maximum hours of operation are from seven a.m. to 10 p.m. Some changes that have happened, so standards for sidewalk dining areas, we limited the area to tables and chairs and then also stated that design elements that are required for ABC permits to comply with the separation such as fences, ropes and planters may be included in the design but shall not exceed 36 inches in height. Signs, previously we just in the first draft of the ordinance we had a reference to our sign section of the code and we were asked for more specificity. We added an allowance for one informational sign that could be up to two square feet. You see quite a few of these on the existing temporary decks that are out there and this will be limited to two square feet and must be informational with the message such as watch your step for paying customers only and we're looking for feedback on that tonight. Stormwater, this is a new standard that we added but the dining deck shall not block the drainage flow along the gutter line or access into any drainage inlet or other drainage stormwater facility. The utilities, the updated ordinance requires that the outdoor dining not interfere with utility boxes, water hydrants, storm drains and all other related facilities. There's new standards for trash and maintenance that trash is picked up and properly disposed of, flower boxes and planters contain live healthy vegetation and that all tables, chairs and equipment and structures are kept clean and operational. Sound, we were given direction at the last meeting in the prior draft. We said that it prohibited amplified sound including amplified music. It's been updated to prohibit amplified sound and all music and then for bicycle parking there's quite a bit of discussion on that during the October meeting. Right now as drafted the ordinance requires two bicycle parking spaces for each parking space that is removed and then updated ordinance includes an alternative to pay an in-luffy towards the central bicycle parking location in the village. We're extremely limited in areas for bicycle parking in the village so if we were to create this in-luffy it would likely be going towards the removal of a couple more parking spaces to create space for bicycle parking because we are that limited in our opportunities within the village. So I'll be asking for direction from Planning Commission tonight if it would support an in-luffy towards the central bicycle parking location within the village and activation. We added a new standard for outdoor dining shall be open for use a minimum of five days a week except in cases of inclement weather. So that's just to make sure that the spaces are activated midweek and not just limited to the weekends. And we also modified the enforcement. We really wanna make sure that enforcement can be done expediently and we modified this that it would be subject to the lease agreement and the encroachment agreement and that way we can work through our administrative policy and first give warnings, then tack on fees and then have the ability to revoke and encroach the lease and revocable encroachment permits. The Coastal Commission has reviewed our ordinance and has given us, they provided red lines which we are in the draft ordinance. They asked us to reduce the amount of spaces from what was originally under the COVID-19 permits which we've done with the 25. Originally we had more than 50 spaces used for the temporary permits. They requested that the program be temporary so that we can do a review within one to five years to make sure that the program is operating within our local coastal program. And then they also, as I mentioned previously, asked that funds from this program from parking spaces be utilized towards reinvested into coastal access. That concludes all the overview and the changes that have taken place so at this evening's meeting, we're looking for a Planning Commission recommendation. The next steps, if we get a recommendation this evening to move forward, I will take this to City Council for our first reading on November 23rd, followed by a second reading on December 9th. And then we would submit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission in December. It takes a couple of weeks to put everything together and they get 60 working days in which to take this to a hearing and for final action. So I would think that if all goes perfectly, we'd get that approval by March. And then concurrently, while we're moving forward with the ordinance, we'll be working on our prototype design. Right now we have two architects putting together proposals for us. And I think that we could have something in front of the Planning Commission possibly in January but definitely by February. And then for the first review of the informal draft. And then once we have our Coastal Commission adoption of the ordinance, we could move forward with the blanket Coastal Development Permit Review of its sign by the Planning Commission. And then once we have that blanket CDP, we could post the lottery for spaces. So also published along with the ordinance is our administrative policy. So because this is on the dining decks and sidewalk dining areas are on city property, there's administration that goes along with that in terms of the lease and how we will manage that right of way. So our administrative policy really provides the guidance for them. I won't go over everything in the administrative policy. I just tried to highlight what is different or just those items that are not within the ordinance. So the size limitation of five parking spaces are 900 square feet per restaurant. It outlines the process to the lottery and it also has the details of the revocable encroachment permit including the deposit, the insurance, no sub-lead letting. I think that was a question that came up last time. Violations, signs, revocation and construction timing. So with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance and recommend approval of the ordinance to the city council as amended. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Katie. Are there any questions for Katie at this time? I did, I had a question. Commissioner Newman? Yes. When I was reading the ordinance, one section I noted that you haven't mentioned and I wanted to learn a little more about it was the 17.96.175 that's titled Outdoor Dining on Private Property. And it's not clear to me, first of all, and that's with a conditional use permit. So first of all, is that in any particular geographical area? Is it throughout the city of Capitola or what? Yes, so that is throughout the city of Capitola. Most, I think all restaurants within Capitola have to get a conditional use permit in all zones. So it would be, well, not in all zones, in all commercial and mixed use zones. So it would be applicable to our commercial and mixed use zones where commercial is allowed. We created, can you see the screen on the screen, the ordinance? Right. Okay. Yeah, so this 17.96.175 is, So? It would be an amendment to their conditional use permit. So any restaurant in Capitola that is in a shopping center or anywhere where they have a parking lot or private property can expand into that with a conditional use permit. Do they have to have any parking to support the additional tables? So the prior, so we do have an exception for outdoor dining decks within our parking ordinance. We do not have an exception for outdoor dining on private property within our ordinance, but however, the governor did just pass a new law that a city cannot, and I think it's effective for three years, but a city cannot require parking for outdoor dining. So for the next three years, if someone were to come in for an outdoor dining permit on private property, you would not be allowed to require parking. So what are the criteria for a conditional use permit? So I'll take, for example, 405 Capitola Avenue, which was approved with no parking, and now they have property on which they can put outdoor dining. So the criteria tied to this would be all of the criteria within a conditional use permit, of which I believe there's, I want to say about 18 criteria. Well, more on this later, but it seems to me that this ordinance, I mean, especially with that provision in there, this ordinance just blows up our complete commercial parking rules, and we ought to, if we're going to do this, we should just do away with commercial parking rules completely. One suggestion I could make in reference to this is that the way that this is worded, I definitely think it could be applied towards any area within a private property, and we could specify that it cannot displace parking if that were the commission within the 1796175. Let's take, for example, the cookhouse, at I think 711 Capitola Avenue. So they were approved, and there's a certain number of parking spaces in that shopping center based on the square footage for different uses, et cetera. And now they put, it started with COVID, which I understood, but now post COVID, which we may be in soon there, they have a dozen tables or so outside the building, which probably triples their capacity and there's no additional parking requirements. So that shopping center is now completely, it just makes a complete mockery of our parking ordinance. I don't know, I mean, I didn't notice that so much when this came up the first time till I noticed this provision for outdoor dining on private property. I do think, I definitely hear what you're saying the new standards that are by the state, we really don't have control over, but if you wanted to control not displacing parking within this section for outdoor dining and not allowing it within the parking areas, I think that is something we could amend into this section. However, if in the same example, the cookhouse were to put their outdoor dining in the front setback, I hear your point that they've just intensified the use without providing parking in the parking lot, which... We've denied expansion of restaurants or lack of parking. I mean, all that should just be thrown out if we're going this direction, it just doesn't make any sense to say you can't expand the interior of your restaurant that you can, because you don't have parking, but people can add all kinds of tables all over the place with no parking, anyway. It's almost a catch 22, it doesn't sound like there's an easy solution to that one. Is the state law, has that taken effect or it's going to take effect? I believe it, I can check on that. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. Well, when we get to discussion, I don't wanna take up too much time, we get discussion, I'll have some thoughts on where to go with this. Thank you, I just have one question, Katie, about sidewalk dining, where the sidewalk has to be five feet wide, or I believe outside the village has to be four foot wide. We don't mention how much of that sidewalk has to be unobstructed. Are we just leaving that up to the restaurant owners? Or are we going to have a provision in that ordinance that says two feet, three feet, whatever has to be unobstructed for people to get by? That is the area that has to be unobstructed, the five feet unobstructed in the village. Okay, okay, I must have read it wrong. So I should make sure that it's worded correctly though, because if that wasn't clear. Okay, is that applied to the wharf as well? Excuse me? Does that apply to the wharf as well? Does it only need to walk around the wharf with five feet clear? I believe so, but that can also change, like you can zoom in on that. That is considered the village, yeah. You're worried about spreading out on the wharf. Okay, well let's open the public portion. If there's anybody wishing to speak to this item. Do we have any hands raised, Katie or Sean? Yes, it looks like we have three hands raised. And Sean, can you leave the charges here? Mr. Chairman, before we take public hearing, can I make a comment? Certainly. And I know we want to involve the public as much as we can in everything we do, but I noticed that a lot of our speakers are going on and on and on. And most of the other hearings that I've seen, like before the Coastal Commission or other, they do impose some kind of time limit on people. And I think that would be good. Yeah, we've done that when we have numerous speakers, when we only have one, I don't think we've done that, but I'll tell you what, how about if you're the timer and we'll give them a max of four minutes? Okay. Okay, okay. Our city clerk is prepared, she's got her timer ready and she can do the timing and you'll hear a noise when the four minutes come to the conclusion. Okay. Thank you. So who's our first speaker tonight? Our first speaker is Mike. I'm gonna enable him to speak now. Okay. Okay, can you hear me fine? Yes, we can. So I completely support the outdoor dining. I think it's been a fabulous addition to the city of Capitola and I think it's really helped the merchants in a hard time and I think it provides a good experience for the visitors to come here. My only caveat is that we've taken up a lot of the parking spots that are available for people with a village permit and have done nothing that I'm aware of to add some spots where the village permits can park since the others have been taken up. And I would just ask you to kind of consider the impact that's made on parking for people with village permits with still completely I support the outdoor dining and what is done for the city of Capitola. Okay, Mike, would you care to identify yourself for the record? Sure, my name is Mike Newell. I live actually in the Venetians in number four most of the year, which is where I'm at today. And yeah, that's who I am. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Newell. Okay, who's next? We have English Alesbury. Okay. Can you hear me? Yeah, go ahead. I'm old enough that I don't know how to on these contraptions. I'm sorry. Anyhow, my name's Peter Blackwell. I have the Takumon 111 Capitola Avenue. Thank you so much for the earlier approval. The outside seating was probably a lifesaver for everybody, particularly Alesbury because we were only there about 17 days before we had to close down for COVID-19. But when we were able to reopen, it was a boon to us. I understand the problems with parking and I noticed that our Capitola Avenue has been taken off of your proposal and I'd like to request that you consider putting it back in. We only take up two parking spaces. That's the least of any other restaurant. Most of the others are five plus. We take up two more parallel parking so we don't stick out on the road. There are cars that park on either end. So we're not really subject to passing traffic causing any problems. I don't think it's been any point over in no problems with us in the past 19 months or so. So I'd like to consider that, including less than that and failing that, we have some property in the front. Part of it, it's private property, front of the building, left or right side of the door, whichever way you're looking at it, connect from the front to the right and it's about 14 by six, something like that. If we can't have a parklet, perhaps you would agree to allow us to pave that piece and put some seating there. We won't, we don't encroach on the sidewalk and we wouldn't be encroaching on the road and consequently we would be taking up two parking spaces. So that would be the second option that I'd like you to consider. The first of course, being to be able to continue with the two parking spaces. Okay, thank you, Mr. Blackwell. We can consider the first tonight but we can't consider the second. You'll have to work with staff on that proposal, okay? Thank you. So do we have another speaker wishing to address us, Sean? Yes, we do. Our next speaker is Linda Smith. I've just unmuted. Linda. Go ahead, Linda. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, first of all, hats off to staff for the comprehensive plan and the speed with which it's being processed. I think it's really gonna make a difference for us in 2022. You guys are doing a great job. I really appreciate most of the changes that were recommended by the Planning Commission in October, specifically the prohibition of all music, not just the amplified music. I also like the requirement to activate the space. Closed dining decks do not reflect well and staffing issues can be overcome when people would prefer to sit outside, which I expect to continue a lot of days of the week in the right season. I've organized my comments to the requested direction and so I'll number them. Number one, I encourage the commissioners to allow the sidewalk dining to continue on Capitola Avenue. The ReefDog table and chairs do not interfere with ample passage on the sidewalk. They facilitate the enjoyment of yet another unique dining experience and they don't create a safety hazard. I really love to see that continue. Two, I encourage the commissioners to allow the dining deck on Capitola Avenue to continue as well. As I've indicated before, I have experienced a definite slowing of traffic when the dining decks are present. So I've enjoyed the space at Capitola Ales and I don't feel it's a safety hazard, but quite the contrary. Number three, to require a design permit to be processed through the planning commission for all sidewalk dining is concerning. Perhaps there's a simple definition that can be established as a guide so staff could approve administratively, especially for the examples that are on private property and the ReefDog on Capitola Avenue, which I've already said I'd like to see continue. Number four, I can encourage the commissioners to minimize the specific limits on materials further than are already stated. You could add materials and that would be great, but I'm really hoping to have the prototype come out with available characterization because it's nice to see the difference in architecture, it's nice to see the difference on the street. Business, then number five, business identification and informational signs can be very helpful and not invasive when implemented correctly. Perhaps there's a way to allow for both while limiting the size and the quantity so you avoid the clutter effect. Number six, an inland feet for the central bicycle parking location is better than the clutter effect and the confusion of having each site have a bike rack. And I'm thinking about one site has a bike rack that's not being used and another side's full or doesn't have a bike rack. And so somebody parks and then crosses property and you wind up with a whole problem you didn't think about. Number seven, I've already indicated the requirement for activating the space is a really good add in my view. And I'd just like to make one more comment about the platform requirement. And I think that a built platform may do a couple of bad things. That it allows for complication that doesn't really get you any benefit. And so I'm hoping that this prototype design will allow for characterization and maybe it's in the flexibility of material or in so they all don't look exactly the same. And thank you for listening and considering my comments and thank you most of all for making this the priority for Capitola. Thank you, Linda. Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission now. Is there anyone else, Sean? Yes, we do have another. We have one more. Okay. I'm gonna enable Doug to speak now. Okay, cool. Guys hear me all right? Yes. Okay, cool. Thank you very much you guys for all this work you've done this planning department and with the hardest sector of our city, our service industry. I would go right to the point. Of course, every restaurant and bar situation is different here, but understand many took on debt that loads that still need to be repaid. Some property owners never gave breaks to back rents and we still owe them. Most of the service industry is suffering an unprecedented lack of employees. Adding outdoor dining doesn't add employees like that last lady said. We need employees. Hard to get the sales to attain them. So the service industry is in a serious recovery mode. We have a lot to make up to to survive. This is where we need your help. We need to recover. The outdoor dining is key to that recovery. That's why the governor passed SD 314. This recovery bill gives the outdoor dining and to go alcohol an extended period with no additional fees so the service industry can recover. In the spirit of SD 14, now is not the time for the city to seek more income from the service industry. Using SD 1314 as an example, the city should request fees, I'm sorry. Using SD 314 as an example, the city's requested fees for outdoor leases, permits and rents should be temporarily waived. Now is not the time to try and fill the city of coffers. Now is the time to help us recover. Remember that with recovery will come more taxes payable to you. This is especially in the special district tax that goes right from the local businesses to the city's account. This increase in special district taxes will help the city recover from the estimated parking income losses. This increase in tax income could even possibly be more money's paid to the city than the 25 parking spots that are being lost. I'm gonna need to do the math on that with me. Give us a chance to recover you guys. Don't charge the hardest hit with permit fees, leases and rents. Follow the example of the state and temporarily eliminate the fees. If they can do it at state level, we can do this locally to you guys. We really appreciate your help in this. It's been an amazing challenge. We love doing business in this city. We just love to continue to do business in the city, but we do need your help and willing to work with you, but you gotta work with us on these fees. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Doug. We do have another hand raised. Okay, is it a new speaker, Sean? I believe so. Their name is A. Okay. This enabled them to speak. Yes, hello. My name is Eric Fawcett. I'm a resident of Capitola in here for 40 years. I'm standing up in the middle of the road today, right in front of this steamroller that seems to be coming down the street. It's called a temporary outdoor dining ordinance. I wanna emphasize the temporary part of this thing. I have seen and heard a lot of, suppose it is information about what's going on here, and yet whenever I find myself looking at that information, I see that it represents something different. For example, we're talking about the cost of those parking spots. For a year, the total cost for 29, not 25 parking spaces as you seem to maintain, I walk around town, I count 29 parking spaces. We'll bring in a yearly revenue of $101,000. I understand also that the city is considering making a loan to one of these establishments of $130,000, and I'm wondering where is all of this money going to come from to pay for the lost revenues, to help support the businesses? I'm 100% behind the temporary outdoor dining ordinance, but making it permanent without due process, and that includes probably allowing the city of Capitola to vote on this issue. The numbers are not adding up. Like I said, there are 29 parking spaces. All of your paperwork mentions a maximum of 25. And going into the survey, and the questions and answers that were given there, I find that there's no real way to follow the numbers through that survey. For example, in question number two, concerning the loss of parking, the graph shows that over 50% of the people are not concerned, and that a few people are concerned. Well, let me take those very same numbers and change them just slightly in their labeling. We have 53.85% that are not concerned about the loss of parking, whereas we have 46.14% of people that are concerned to very concerned. And that represents to me pretty much with a survey, with a margin for error, that you have 50-50 on the support of this whole thing to begin with. The next thing being that I think this whole thing is being steamrolled right through the city of Capitola and the residents of Capitola and the residents are not being heard. I'm going to urge you to delay any zoning changes until after the COVID crisis has been completed. At this point, COVID restrictions say we can all dine indoors now. And there is no call for additional outdoor dining. Is the city encouraging itself to support business or are they just simply passing out money for outdoor dining? And I think this whole thing needs to be revisited in a very real way in addressing the idea of temporary. Sir, your time is just about up. Can you wrap it up, please? Thank you. That's as much as I have to say. I want to encourage you to delay the changes and reconsider this whole steamroller. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we'll bring it back to the commissioners. Is there anyone else, Sean? Sheriff Ruth, we have some public comment to share that through the email. Okay. So do the read aloud here. You folks read that? You know, I thought I'd do the read aloud, but it's not going, so I'll read it to you. This is from Don Campbell. I would like to voice support to the permanent use of parking spaces for outdoor dining. It makes them work less than experience for visitors and diners. And it's good for the business too. I also wish it could also include the outdoor seating for English Ales and Capitola Avenue as it does not disrupt the flow of traffic. Thanks for your consideration. Don Campbell, 402 Rosedale Court, Capitola. We have one more. You're going to have to work for me, but you're going to have to work for me. You're going to have to work for me. Sorry, that's a little too tough. I'm not quite sure how you control that. There we are. At 117 Longway in the Capitola Village, please note our opposition to the use of parking spaces as extensions of existing restaurants. While we encourage this temporary measure as a great way for the restaurants to keep their businesses open during the pandemic, there seems to be no specific reason to make it permanent. The traffic in the village is already very congested as cars slowly circle around the narrow streets trying to find an available parking space. In order to park near their residents, village residents who do not have a parking space on their property must join the village visitors in the hunt for a space. There is no traffic control in the village and cars are often back up and sit idling for up to 10 to 15 minutes. The hunt for a parking space process is not only time-consuming but usually futile, leaving residents to have to walk a quarter mile from the city parking lot with packages, groceries, luggage, etc. This is very difficult for many, especially for the elderly and disabled, and there are not enough handy-cap spots in the village to accommodate them, and permanent elimination of more parking spaces will create greater difficulty. Other possible alternatives to using existing parking spaces use the parking lot board indoor space at the working-tile for the San Jose restaurant instead of street spaces. Those called San Jose to residents permit parking only, allow residents permit parking on Capitola Avenue and the beachfront spaces. Another very concerning issue is safety. It seems unnecessarily risky to see people in the street just a few feet from vehicles, especially with the number of establishments selling alcohol in the village. Also, while patrons are sitting in the parklets, they are closely exposed to exhaust emissions from idling cars. We know that air quality is degraded by traffic congestion slash emissions, so logic would suggest that a car idling just a few feet from people eating would be quite harmful. Respectfully submitted. Beth Wilson Bandy. 117 Longway. Capitola. That's the end. Okay, with that then we'll close the public portion and bring it back to the commission. I know there are several questions we need to address for Katie. So, before we take the questions, are there any comments or questions for Katie before she brings those questions to us? Nope. Okay, Katie. Would you like to start with the questions? Yes. I'm going to share my screen again. The first question I have is for the sidewalk dining. Would the Planning Commission like to modify the proposed locations for sidewalk dining? As mentioned in the staff report on Capitola Avenue, there's that existing sidewalk dining in front of Reef Dog Deli that under the current draft it would not be allowed. It's currently limited to Monterey Avenue and Capitola War. I would be in favor, this is Commissioner Westman, of having sidewalk dining on Capitola Avenue since we're not going to have street dining on there. And the applicant has to meet the requirement of keeping five foot clear, which will determine the locations where you can have the sidewalk dining or not. So, for me, I would be in favor of having sidewalk dining on Capitola Avenue, but no street dining. Anyone else want to weigh in on this one? How can I ask how far that would go on Capitola Avenue all the way to the freeway? We're talking about the Village Zoning District right now. It's my understanding. I believe it would go up to where the Trestle is or maybe a little further. I can't remember where the line is. I believe it's a Trestle. I would be in no with that Commissioner Ruth. I support Commissioner Ruth's position on that. Well, so this is Commissioner Wilk. I've got a question. Is the war considered a sidewalk? And if so, what are we doing about that, Clarence? Five feet? It's considered right-of-way, and it has been included as an area which should be allowed to have sidewalk dining just five feet of Clarence. So for the war for anyone else who wants sidewalk dining the way the ordinance is currently written, they would have to come to the Planning Commission and get a design review permit. And I'm assuming we have the ability to require a larger, clear space than just the minimum five feet? Yeah, at the time that it comes to Planning Commission for a design permit, there are special circumstances tied to it. You could increase that, and I can make sure that that's clear within the ordinance as well. Am I incorrect in believing that sidewalk dining is just an administrative permit that it doesn't come to the Planning Commission? No, we modified that in the updated ordinance. But all sidewalk dining throughout the city of Capitola is required to come before Planning Commission. So what's the consensus here, commissioners? Is it your desire to modify the locations or to leave them as they are? We have two people that want to leave them as they are. One that's proposing allowing sidewalk dining on Capitola Avenue. Commissioner Quirk, Commissioner Courtney, would you like to weigh in? Commissioner Quirk. Go ahead, Commissioner Quirk. Well, my tendency is to prohibit sidewalk dining in general. I agree with the person who talked about steamrolling this thing. There's one thing for having a COVID set of emergency requirements, but we haven't had sidewalk dining, new zoning code, whatever. I don't know why we need to change our zoning code to do anything than what's already there. I mean, they can always, the rest of us could come and ask for a variance. But to just allow sidewalk dining, I'm kind of against the whole notion of sidewalk dining in terms of creating new ordinances to allow it. Okay. Well, that's a whole different issue. What do you propose for this question? Well, the question is, would Planning Commission like to modify the proposed location for sidewalk dining? I guess my proposed location would be, yeah, zero. Okay. And Commissioner Christensen? I concur with Commissioner Westman. I think that sidewalk dining on Capitol Avenue would be appropriate. This is Commissioner Westman. So just a process question. You know, I know that we're going through Katie's questions right now, but when we get to the end, you know, I'm very much with Commissioner Wilk in that I think we're going way too fast on all of this. And so I'm hoping, you know, we're just going to answer these questions and they will have a time at the end to have other comments because, or else my answers are going to be different. I'd like to, I have further comment on this. I see y'all. Yeah. May I? Yeah, Commissioner Newman, go ahead. I'm trying to think of who along Capitol Avenue, other than the one photo we have, which I think his operation there is a very positive one, but I think it would be a mistake to use that as the prototype and expand from that to all of Capitol Avenue in the CD district. And I'm trying to think of who that might apply to. And for example, on the other side of the street, there's a restaurant that would be entitled to do sidewalk dining and you would have to walk in the street now to, in order to walk down that side of Capitol Avenue because there's very little room. And so I think this is all part of what people have been saying about it all going too fast. I think we're just, we're creating a monster here. And we're doing it without enough thoughtfulness. And when we get to that other section that I brought up earlier, I'll expand a little more on that. So I think we need to just step back. I think we have to initiate some controls down there. I mean, I don't know how we let it proceed without engaging in some type of discussion and proposed ordinance or administrative procedures. We just have Anna. So we don't expand it. So clearly there are circumstances to not have sidewalk dining on Capitol Avenue. Correct. Okay. So we can move on. Thank you, Susan. We'll move on to the next question. Okay. Next is would you like any changes to the proposed street locations currently it would for the street dining deck to the Esplanade Monterey Avenue and San Jose Avenue. We've removed Capitol Avenue from the ordinance. Any yeses to this question. I have a change I would like to put forth. I also have my hand raised. Okay. I don't think that we should, the only place on Monterey Avenue that we're really talking about having street dining is at the bridge. And I don't mean to single out one particular business, but that area right there is the most congested part of Capitol Village. It's where everyone goes to drop off their children, their surfboards or whatever to the beach. And for me, I think we should eliminate Monterey Avenue. I don't think we should, we should have it in that particular location in that particular restaurant already has outdoor dining on other city property. There's a valid argument for that since they already have outdoor dining. Yeah. So I would like to comment on this as well. Okay. So I also agree with commissioner Westman, but I'd like to go further in the sense that I think the notion of going through this paragraph by paragraph, going through the zoning code is, is a recipe for disaster. And I think a way to avoid that disaster is to just specify the particular parking spaces that we are going to allow outdoor dining. We're talking about 25 spaces. That's been the edict from the city council that's come down. And there has been a lot of comments as to why certain areas should be eliminated. And I sent out a letter to the planning commission and everyone that basically puts my argument together that we should specify a set of parking spaces along San Jose Avenue and along the Esplanade. And I can go into details of the explanation and reiterate my letter. But I think that's what we should go. I'd like to know if there's any support from the rest of commissioners as to not doing a lottery system or having businesses applied to Helter Skelter. But we say these are the zones, the spaces that are going to be allowed for parklets and none others. And furthermore, once we do that, we could even say whether you rent these out or not, these are parklets. And if you're not going to rent them out, we can turn them into, like Commissioner Westman said, oh, a parklet is something that has public access. So if they're not rented out, we could turn them into, you know, public art exhibitions, put benches in there, permit landscape, you know, allow sidewalk vendors. Maybe that's where you put your bike racks if they're not rented out. So I think we should specify the parklets and that would simplify a lot of this. So do I have any support on that going down that path? I can, I can, I've got two pages of notes as to why I think it makes sense. But if I don't have any support, I'll shut up. Well, for me, I could support that. But I think there's something else that needs to happen first. And that is, you know, everything wraps around this prototype design and how it's going to work in diagonal parking spaces and parallel parking spaces. And until we have that design, we don't know what they're going to look like, how they're going to work in the parking spaces. The restaurant people don't know how much it's going to cost to construct them. Are there going to be decks or they're not going to be decks? So I think we've sort of got the cart before the horse. We need to step back and figure out what kind of, you know, configuration is going to be used in these prototypes because it'll be different from the diagonal and the parallel parking before we can make a lot of other decisions. You know, whether it gets to signage, bicycle parking, all of those things. It all depends on how this prototype works out. And then when we had the prototype, we'd know where they were going to go and what spaces they were going to use. Well, can I suggest that maybe we can get the Art and Cultural Commission involved in the prototype because they've got a big, fat budget and they can do a call to artists. And they're always having trouble getting anything they do approved. So this might be something that would get them fired up and we can get some prototypes out of them. I'd like to add that this is the direction the council is going. We don't have a choice to change the direction. If you want to change the choice or we don't proceed and just pass it on to the council the way it is, let them in. We are proceeding. We are proceeding. So the question is would we like them to modify the free dummy locations? And I'm saying yes. We can specify them very specifically. I'd like to respond to that Commissioner Ruth. But the council makes policy decisions like this. The only reason that it's coming to the Planning Commission is because they don't deal with applications on a day-to-day basis like we do. And so they want input from the Planning Commission based on the fact that we have maybe a little more experience in dealing with applications, conditional use permits. I think it's some, but we get them all the time. So I think that the feedback and what I'm hearing here, the more I hear and the more I'm convinced that this is just an exercise in chaos right now. And I think that's the message that I would give to the council that a short-term temporary extension of whatever they've got going now would help the businesses. And we need a lot of time to think this thing through, think through its arching implications, all sorts of aspects of it. Okay. Mr. Newell, I don't disagree with you. I was responding to Mr. Wolk's request for suggestion that we just designated a 25 parking spaces. That's a totally different direction. Yeah. That's not the direction we're going right now. But it's logical and that's why we need to spend more time thinking about this. Okay. Well, I agree with Commissioner Newman and what he said. And I think we should go to the council because they can easily extend the temporary program that we have in place right now so the businesses won't suffer while we take on to work through all of these issues. Okay. Well, for the rest of this meeting, what would you care to do? Do you want to pursue these questions or stop here and send that query to the council that it needs to continue the temporary program to allow more time for this to be figured out? What's the laser? You can recommend that they put together a, like they have a parking commission once upon a time. And they can put together a Park Let's commission and have a series of commissioners and the councilmen and public volunteers to sit on that committee and come up with several options. Katie, what do you need? Well, I actually, after our last hearing on October and I heard the concerns coming up of the commissioners of this meeting, I brought it up to our city attorney and asked for some advice on this matter and she provided me some clarity that, you know, for this evening, it would be really great to get feedback on the ordinance abstracted, but in your motion to make a recommendation to the council to delay adoption until, and then you could specify what that is. I know Commissioner Westman brought up delaying adoption of the ordinance until the city has a prototype design in place or until, you know, just if we need more time it's something I can bring back to them that we can do. And they're actually looking at the continuance of the outdoor dining program at the meeting next week for the temporary, so that could bring that to them. What's with that actually in the staff report tomorrow of the planning commission for this evening to be a license. It says temporary outdoor dining in order to create more time to work on the ordinance, but I think tonight if we can get, if I can get feedback on those items that you're ready to get feedback on, that would be great. But I think the recommendation can be to the planning commission to the city council to delay the adoption. Okay, let's plow through the questions without a lot of front walks here and see if we can get them done. Okay, so for the locations I'm hearing I could hear two commissioners in favor of removing Monterey Avenue and also... I could support removing Monterey Avenue. That's great. That would be great. Okay, next question. Next question is the permit review process. During the last meeting the planning commission asked that we add sidewalk dining areas to the requirements of the requirements for the divine committee to support planning commission. I just wanted to ask, is that only within the village or would you like all sidewalk dining areas with sidewalks to come before planning commission? Okay, so what is, only village or all? Wait, so they're enacting sidewalk dining throughout Capitola? Yes. I think what I heard from the first discussion is maybe you should consider removing sidewalk dining altogether. I picked off for removing sidewalk dining from this ordinance. I think it should be a separate ordinance not included in this pre-dining program. I agree with you. That would be great. Okay, next question. So, are there... We specified that you were asked to create some more objective standards so we said to the outside dining desks that the street dining desks in a lot of materials will be finished or painted wood, glass, ornaments or steel or iron and decorated as the Masonry. Street dining desks where the primary and visible material is plastic, silver, gold and then blue with chandeliers, wire and stencils is not allowed. So these are the design permit findings for the custom desks or for the proto-tuts? Yeah. Can there be added wooden ladders to those omitted or things that are going to happen? Good question. Okay, next question. So, can there be added wooden ladders to those omitted or things that are going to happen? Good question. Can there be added wooden ladders to those omitted or things that are going to happen? Good question. So that makes that the yes. Line the yes. Okay, was adding that wooden ladders appropriate? No, the yes is there. We didn't like to specifically allow or prohibit other materials. We can't get into each material. Specifically, don't we have to identify them? That's with a prototype show. So we have the same thing on the ADU, right? We have a special consultant come in and he gave us all the different ADU things and talked about material and they actually had something to review not just a question thrown out so I had a quote. I would like to read it. This is a proposal to all that they use the the prototype design desks will be reviewed by the planning commission that submitted that. Any of the designs that come in we created this new standard I think we should let the designers let the designers decide what they want to do. We don't need to design them. This is our public space. My opinion is that this design should be driven by the city because it's our space. And there should be some uniformity. It shouldn't be health or shelter. There should be some consistency and some the unification effort not just this restaurant and a damn building because it's Taiwan needs a network like the Western they should be partners. These should be spaces that we allow to create. I think nothing should be allowed other than what's allowed in the prototype design and how we view that in the material. I would be happy with this if we just said examples of materials that could be used are finished painted wood. The city would discourage the plastic fabric of bamboo and chain link there. That way it's open. Agreed with Susan? That's what it says right now. Okay, next question. Would you like to allow one informational sign with the standard we created limited to working limited to working size and of the final of the information? I think there should be a restaurant signed with their name and a sign for their menu. Agreed. I agree. I'm fine with that. Okay. Is there a sign on that? A variety of objections to the ordinance. I don't have a sign. I think the sign ought to be determined by what the prototype is going to look at and where the sign can go. Yeah. Okay. Next question. Bicycle parking. Currently we require two bicycle parking spaces. We also added an alternate A and LOO for the central bicycle parking location of the village. It was most likely to be within other parking spaces that would have to be removed. So is there support for this idea? A new and LOO option. Or for the parking spaces in general? I agree. Good. I think if we have an in LOO parking program and we're going to take out more parking spaces they ought to come out of the 25 that's been allocated. Not increased in the number of spaces we're losing in the village. Agreed. Agreed with that. Okay. Agreed with that. Next question. Yeah. I'm going to share this with you. I did create this slide after. Can you see this? This is an alternative motion where we've provided these back on the grass orchard. So I'm going to share this with you. I did create this slide after. Can you see this? This is an alternative motion where we've provided these back on the grass orchard to council. Your recommendation is to delay the adoption of the ordinance until the city has a prototype or until everyone has specified that. But I believe that's what I'm hearing. Or otherwise our recommendation, my recommendation or feedback is for the council with your new recommendation to change the plan based on the desire for the... Mr. Newman. Mr. Newman. Okay. I'm going to throw out a motion just to see Carmel in here. And I think the motion would be that we provide feedback as just given to the community development director on the various issues on the draft ordinance. But that we recommend that the city council extend the temporary ordinance, emergency ordinance for an additional period of time and not make any permanent changes until there is sufficient time to fully evaluate a new ordinance and three, that the provision for outdoor dining and private property be separated completely from the proposed ordinance and dealt with, if at all, separately. I'll second that motion. Any questions on the motion? Yeah, I thought Mr. Christian was going to ask questions. Are we going to get a chance to talk about other things in the ordinance? Because I would like to register my concern about the music question. Okay, let's take this motion first. Okay. Are we on the roll call please, Chloe? Yes. Commissioner Christensen. Commissioner Newman. Commissioner Westman. Commissioner Wilk. I'd like you to read the motion back and I'll talk for both. Okay, thank you. I apologize for not doing that earlier. So the motion by Commissioner Newman seconded by Commissioner Westman says that you provided feedback as indicated during this meeting to the community development director and recommend that council extend temporary dining for an additional period of time and not make any permanent changes until there is sufficient time to fully evaluate a new ordinance and that the provision for outdoor dining on private property be completely separated from this ordinance on outdoor dining in the public space. Is there a continuous included in this motion? Continue to December? That was not said specifically. I'm in the motion. I don't think, Chloe, did you mention anything in there about the prototypes behind being first? I don't think that was in the motion. Is there a city council going to deal with this next week? No, council is reviewing the temporary program next week. Yeah. Well, I'd like them to have them in at least so that outcome of this motion. City council is scheduled to review the ordinance thinking on November 23rd. I will bring forward your recommendation but however the, yeah, for just a point of order, the continuance of the temporary program, that's the type of an emergency order and they will be reviewing that next week. That's not really tied to the long-term ordinance. So it is that the recommendation that's being reviewed is not really tied to what you have before each night with this thing, a recommendation to extend. We can bring that to the city council, definitely and present the staff report for all of that was discussed at this hearing but in terms of taking action on that in front of you, it would be good to get clarity on exactly what you would like us to achieve before we bring this into action. I think that depends on what the city council does with extending the temporary ordinance. If they extend it for a year then we have more time to deal with it. Chloe, could we hear the motion one more time? Yes. Provided feedback as indicated during this meeting to the community development director recommend that council extend the period of time and not make any permanent changes until there is sufficient time to fully evaluate a new ordinance and the provision for outdoor dining on private property be separated from outdoor dining on public property. More to friendly amendment? Mr. Wilkes. I would like to make a friendly amendment to include in order to review the prototype design. I would like to try to explain why we wanted to continue with the delay and one of the reasons I think it is because we want to review the prototype design including review the prototype design. Yes. Now I would accept it. I would accept it in a second. Okay, would the roll call please? Yes, I'm going to start at the top if that's okay. Commissioner Christensen. Hi. Commissioner Newman. Hi. Commissioner Westman. Hi. Commissioner Wilke. Hi. Chair Ruth. Thank you. Okay, motion carries. Put that one to rest for tonight. It will come back. And we'll move on to the director's report. Katie, do you have a report? I just wanted to make sure one thing, I know we have a motion passed. Were there, I know that Commissioner Wilke had asked to make an additional comment. I'm going to come back soon. Okay. Okay. For director's report I just want to let you know at the last city council meeting we knew the updated inclusionary housing ordinance was adopted in the second meeting passed. I don't have a presentation for you this evening but I promise to have one to you in the near future because I think it's interesting to see outcomes that are present there. But there's new alternatives to housing developments when they come in. For Lucy, for Lucy, it's increased from $10 per square foot to $25 per square foot and that was that by our next study and I think it's going to create some great opportunities for the city that we should be able to partner with in the process and hopefully be able to build more housing. That's my direction for this meeting. Okay. Thank you, Katie. Commissioner's communications, Mr. Wilke. Thank you. I just wanted to register my concern about the ordinance not allowing any music whatsoever. I can understand what the notion of not hearing a violin and a romantic dinner at Caruso seems to be like I'm missing out on time. Perhaps a guitar or an accordion if you like that kind of music. I just think acoustic music would be welcome and not the annoying problem of anybody else agrees but that's my opinion. I'd like to report. Now that you've done yours, I have one. I do think that this program however it gets adopted it's going to impact the residents trying to find places to live. So places to park, excuse me. And I think it would be nice for us to have some information about how many loading spaces can the residents use those loading spaces? Why are they not allowed to park on Capitol Avenue or on parking on the Esplanade? It seems like we need to do something if we want to keep the residential uses down there and we probably want them since we have this residential overlay district it doesn't allow them to become commercial anyway. So I would just like us to see what we talk about this again. Have some consideration if there's something we could do to help out the residents down there. Okay. Any other communications? I think we're done. Good. Okay. Make a good turn. Thank you. Thank you. Goodbye.