 I'm glad the record showed that all of the commissioners are present by Zoom. And now we will do the Pledge of Allegiance. Are you ready for this? I pledge allegiance to flag the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands. The Republic for which it stands under God. And the end of this rule here in Bloor-D ends up as for all. Next item on the agenda is oral communications. In first there are additions and deletions to the agenda. Do we have anything? Before I do that, let me read the introductory comments here. In accordance with current COVID-19 orders, this capital planning commission meeting is not physically open to the public. Limited staff are present in person and planning commissioners are participating remotely by Zoom. As always, this meeting is tabled past live on Charter Communications Cable TV Channel 8. It is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8am and on Saturday following the first rebroadcast at 1pm on Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25. Meetings can also be viewed live from the city's website or with the Zoom link on the website. Our technician tonight is Kingston. Public comments can be emailed or called into the planning commission. Members of the public may submit public comment once for each item. By email or phone call, instructions for both can be found at the beginning of the agenda and they're also on the screen right now. Item 2 on our agenda calls for public comments on any item that is not on the agenda. If any member of the public intends to offer any such comment tonight please email or call now to let us know. Probably take care of other matters. We'll go back to additions and deletions to the agenda. Do we have anything? No additions or deletions. Hearing nothing. We'll go to public comments. Maybe we should give the public a few more minutes, a few more seconds to respond. We'll be waiting. We'll come back to public comment in case anybody is a little bit late. Commission comments? Any other commissioners? Any comments? I have a question. I'm just wondering what the status is of the Monterey Avenue palm tree application for removal? At this point I believe they're still working on their the Arborist Report planner, Sasanto. Do you have any newer updates? According to them recently regarding this project however I have heard from the individuals with their current dealings with PG&E that a lot of projects are taking a lower priority given other county events. So at this point we have an incomplete application before we bring it. Any other commissioners have any comments? I have a couple of important issues I wanted to raise or get updates on. One is the NAFTA's company in the corner of Claire's in 41st. They again had a whole ready of signs up on Labor Day holiday. Has anything further done with them or are they just going to continue to do this forever? I'll let planner Sasanto respond. He's been managing that. The day following Labor Day that they were seen to have signs on were cited for that and it was discussed with their own site staff. I hadn't seen that on other pages going out to the site but that is still open. Okay and the other one I had I think it's the new is the with the prior owner we had an issue of blocking the public walkway there that goes around the building with their tables and prior to the COVID shutdown I don't recall any problem with them but now that they reopen to serve customers they're blocking that walkway and I don't think they know anything about it. I'll just pass that on. I did want to announce that the the coastal commission certified our LCP amendment for the sign ordinance as well as the secondary dwelling unit ordinance so at this time the new standards do apply citywide. We're now up to May 7th 2020 and it's a little hard to remember the meetings four months ago but does anyone have any corrections or additions to the May 7th minutes? It's not and we have a motion to approve. I'll move approval up a minute. Do we have a second? Okay we'll call those. Commissioner Welch? I. Commissioner Welch? I. Commissioner Christensen? I. Commissioner Wood and I forget Ruth and the chairman also approved it. It takes us to the consent calendar but before we do that I'd like to ask the public members express any interest in public comment? Apparently not. One moment. No you're not. Okay thank you. So the consent calendar has two items on it. One is 606 Escalona Drive which is a design permit for a second story addition to a nonconforming two-story single family residence located within the R1 Soaring District sounds almost the same. Do any of the commissioners desire for moving to those items? I do not but I do have a question. Since a long since we've had a need of an situation I forget on the consent calendar due to proximity I'd like to close this. So I don't know if you want to break them out. It seems like on the consent calendar we don't have to approve it. Okay well thank you for that. We'll do it in two separate both. I'm sorry? I'm sorry I need to ask you I have to ask that I have to approve my own item eight. Okay we still have a quorum on both items. So let's give the public an opportunity to remove either of these items for public hearing. We'll take a minute or so and see if anybody in public wishes to have either of these items heard as a public hearing. So far nobody has requested a hearing. Is that correct? That is correct. We'll move on to the two public hearings and if anyone be relatedly request that either of these we need to move the content items so that if anybody relatedly requests a hearing on either of them we'll go back and do that action. So do we have a motion on the content items? So can do we have a second? Questions? Are we asking to vote on them separately? Are we doing 4A separately than 4B? Oh good point. Yeah I forgot about that already. So I move approval consent calendar item 4A. Okay like it. Roll call vote. Reduce Commissioner Welch. BQ's also. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Welch. Aye. Chairman Aye. So do we have a motion? That passes. We have a motion for item B. So move. Do we have a second? Second. Okay Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Welch. Aye. Commissioner Welch. Aye. Commissioner Christiansen and Chairman Aye so that it is passed. That takes us to public hearings and the first public hearing the property is the 1860-43rd Avenue. This is an application for a variance for a first-story patio encroachment into the required side yard setback for a two-story single-family residence located within the R1 single-family residential zoning district. We have received some written comments on that and staff report please. Mr. Chairman I have a question. I think I should now give tonight this requesting a variance for a first-story patio encroachment into the required side yard setback. Next slide please. The existing residence at 1860-43rd Avenue is a two-story single-family residence surrounded by one two-story single-family residence shown here. Next slide please. In August 2019 that can apply for a building permit for an interior remodel foundation improvements in new windows. The site plan is littered a four-foot by 20-foot one inch wood frame landing in the south yard side yard. After one revision of plans were approved by the planning set up in October 2019. In January 2020 the atmosphere has been an agenda for door and window changes that included the same four-foot by 20-foot one inch wood frame landing in the south side yard setback. That has been approved by plan on January 16th 2020. Next slide please. On April 17th 2020 the atmosphere has been an agenda for interior improvements related to the building plan check from the city's third-party planning check consultant, CSG consultant. The second agenda plan is that it included an 11-foot three inch by 29-foot eight inch raised concrete patio on the floor planning on sheet A2. The new patio is not shown on the site plan on sheet A1. The building department typically sends all exterior modifications to the planning partner for review but it isn't since the building department inadvertently neglected to send the plan to the planning department for review and building department granted the permit. Next slide please. On July 15th 2020 staff conducted a final section of the project on the site that the staff noted that the patio was located seven inches from the side lot line well within the required three-foot side yard setback for next less than 30 inches in height as shown here. Next slide please. The patio has built in 10-feet six inches wide by 30-feet feet with several top outs at 11-feet two inches in width. The top outs all have a large TDC pipe extending through the rear of the Asian line to feature plans used on the patio. Staff informed the owner that there are two options which remove the area of the patio within the three-foot side yard setback or apply for variance. On August 31st 2020 staff included a variance application to keep the patio in the side yard setback. The application includes a letter from the applicant and a letter from a support from the neighbors of the adjacent property to the staff who potentially would be impacted by the non-performing patio. The application also includes a quote from a contractor stating that bringing the patio is compliant by moving the three-feet closest to the fence would cost $10,000. Next slide please. Proceed up to Capital Injustice Code section 1715-120-G the X and R1 building district that are less than 30 inches in height must maintain the three-foot side yard setback. The patio has built, as mentioned, is not complied with its development standard. In order to keep the patio in the current one, it must maintain the variance from the planning commission. Next slide please. To improve the variance, only wish and that may be finalized, but there are special circumstances that applicable to the property. They deprive the property of privileges and enjoy the other properties of the city and the same done in the last occasion and that the grant of variance does not complicate the grant of special privilege. In relation to the variance finding aid, special circumstances that applicable to the budget property is that a 50-feet wide is wider than the standard of 40-feet, the majority of the last one is three. Next slide please. In relation to the variance finding aid, the majority of the last one is 43-feet that have not been formed in residential structures that do not complied with the side of the setback requirement, shown here with yellow stars. Therefore, the grant of variance of the side of the setback requirement would not constitute the grant of special privilege in terms of implementation plan of other properties in the city. Next slide please. The applicant is preferably to mitigate the privacy issues caused by the proximity of the patio to the adjacent neighbor. Finds only a six-foot tall fence with two feet of land at the top. This mitigation measure compiles the extent type regulation. The staff suggested that the staff can place planters along the portion of the patio closest to the neighbor to act as a three-foot buffer shown here in blue. But the applicant did not go to the suggested planters in the plan. If the plan is a condition to approve the variance, the condition may out of condition requiring planters considered an appropriate mitigation tool. Next slide please. So that's the applicant's planning to issue an approved project based on the condition required in the planters. Do we have any questions for the staff? I wanted to... This is a fence already there. Well, there is a fence that is only five feet five and high with five feet five inches high with no roof on top. So there's a new fence that extends the whole safety plus two feet wide. Okay, so they're going to replace that fence. Excuse me, Chair Newman. And we do have brought written comments from the applicant from the neighbor and we should take a minute to see if anyone wants to provide any additional comments by phone or by email. So we'll wait one minute. Looks like we have a hand raised under the participants. I do. I'm going to Debbie Hale. I'm going to allow to talk at this time. Debbie, are you there? Hi, my name is Debbie Hale and I'm here with my husband Andy Ward. And we're the neighbors and we get me to the top of the property and we just wanted to let you know that this is just part of our property that there's largely faces of wall. There's only one window that faces in the direction of the patio and we can't even see over the fence because the bar is set back. And so we have no concerns with the patio being in the location that it's at in terms of interfering with our enjoyment of the property. And it wouldn't really make any difference to us if they took a plan to stay there or not because we can't even see them again. It's a place where the property that we own is used during the stay time. Well, to be a little bit more clear on that, our use of the property, that's where we keep our dry stands and we don't really spend any time there. There was some discussion of, I'm sorry, this is that Andy Ward that is Debbie's husband. There was some discussion of the fence or putting a lot of, moving necessarily to that but it's really not necessary. There is an existing fence there that we installed when we bought the house, and it's perfectly adequate. I don't really see a need for any additional things Thank you. Do we have any other indication of anyone else who wants to address the commission? If not, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for the commissioners. Anyone wish to comment or raise some questions or? The commission will help. I'll take a couple of questions and comments. I tend to agree with the staff for recommendation. The concern I have though is the precedent that we might be setting and so as a result I'd like to have noted that there was a mistake on our part on the city's part of the building sector that this is not something that we would normally approve but that the notion of that was approved in error should somehow be in the record. For another reason and in the future people will use this as a reference or precedent that's in the record. Secondly I also don't think that there's a need for the planter or the tent addition for the reason paid by the neighbor. Thank you. That's all. Anyone want to carry on next? Thank you. Mr. Welch here. I agree. This is a a little bit of a critique with me. This area of reach where we really don't allow some in some areas the residents who use the whole area of their property. This was the mistake on our part of the area I was talking about. This is an area that's not going to have a structure on it as far as living space and everything. I really want to thank the neighbors for supporting that. It's not something that is prevalent. We would like to see these things. I think that's great. Thank you. I'm sure I agree both of what Peter and Commissioner Welch stated as well. I think that in addition to what Commissioner Welch was saying is that I'd like to have it noted that they consulted the neighbors possibly that in something so minor as I feel it's been precedent forever to come up again. I think it could happen the same way. It seems appropriate that this is a different sense. This is how they can both admit that this is how they got it through. We will have the neighbors letter in the record. Great. And also the testimony. I have a few thoughts on this. It is the state of that when the city makes a mistake in approving plans and that the state is later discovered even if it's completely built that it's unfortunate for the African and any city attorney and municipal lawyer that is absolutely mistaken a lot that you don't waive the ordinances because the city doesn't think it lands but I think the variance is a good solution to this. I do think that a lot being oversized is a special circumstance that justifies the variance. If it's too small I don't understand how being too large can justify variance but I think those justifies the variance of the state and the financial impact of that. The statute says special circumstances including the shape of size doesn't say that other things can't be a certain circumstance. I think the findings should focus on the fact that one, the city approved the plans in error from the three-foot setback of safety, partner safety and privacy do not in this situation require that the improvements be removed. So I think that would be a better basis for a better finding for the variance. Question Commissioner Newman. You met, you talked about legal precedent so is you being a lawyer? In your opinion that there would be no case for the applicant should we deny this to bring a lawsuit to recover the repair of the property against the city? Correct, yes of course I speak as a planning commissioner and I as a lawyer, we have a city attorney when we have legal questions but that is my, I mean it's always my understanding and I've seen it in many, many circumstances to a high career where counties or cities have made mistakes in improving plans and later the applicant has been forced to if sometimes significant expense may change because later inspectors that didn't comply with the ordinance but it seems very unfair because you think of the city of Bruce as their fault that's not the way it works. However I think we have a way around it here that makes sense which is the variance. So I'd like to make a motion except that there are so many addendums to the staff approval I'm not sure I can capture them all I'd like to have the variance justification changed I think you included the, also in your modification the notion that we do acknowledge it was the state error. Yes, so would you want to maybe re-state your this particular circumstance that warranted a variance here is that the patio was installed with approval from the city of Capitola in error and now that the error has been discovered we determined that the purposes of the setback which are fire safety and privacy don't really require that given the city error that we forced the applicant to remove the patio. So just does that take good notes yes. So I would move a staff recommendation on this item with the modification of the special circumstances as stated by Chairman Newman. Did you also want to exclude the planter and the fence improvement? Good call, yes I would also like to exclude the planter and the fence and the requirement. Okay, do we have a second to that motion? Wait a second. Okay, does everyone understand the motion? Okay, we don't need to read it back at this point so roll call vote. Hi, Commissioner Welch. Hi, Commissioner Richardson. Hi. Commissioner Welch, aye. And Chairman, aye. So that passes unanimously. The value is that takes us to our next and final public hearing which I know that all the commissionings have been excited to get back to the zoning closed but we are getting close to the end after report on that please. Yes. Okay, can you are you seeing two screens or just one on your are you seeing two screens or one? Two, okay. Okay, now one. Okay, good evening Planning Commission. First I just want to clarify on that just one thing is that we did not charge that last applicant for the variance permit so that question didn't come up but I wanted to let you all know that that was a free review due to the error made by our internal staff. Tonight I'm here for probably the 50th. No, probably close to the 50th meeting on the zoning code update and this may be our last zoning code update prior to submitting to the coastal commission. Tonight also with us is Ben Noble of Ben Noble Planning who has been through this entire process with us and he's been here even longer with the general plan update so Ben is on the call and will also be here to answer any questions. I'm quickly going to give you an overview of the process then we're going to talk about what the City Council did more recently and then there are two other changes that, well they're kind of big, they're items that we felt like we could not take this for adoption without having the Planning Commission review so we'll get there and I'm sorry that didn't come out in the staff report but it only came up later after it was published so here goes. As you know currently let's see if I can get the, there we go. Right now we're operating with two zoning codes, one for inside the coastal zone and one outside, the original adoption of our zoning code was in 2018, since that time we've been working with the coastal commission staff to bring the, our zoning code to a point that they would certify. The process within the, to have a zoning code submitted for an LCP update requires that Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council and then the City Council will adopt the document. In this, we went through this process in March of 2019 with the Planning Commission giving a positive recommendation to the City Council. Once we took it to City Council there were quite a few, in regards to our coastal overlay zone, there was quite a few concerns about possible, not, the standards not being in line with the, with the law, the state law for what the function of the coastal commission is. So we we've spent a good amount of time on that and on July 21st after I think it was six City Council meetings reviewing the most recent changes, they recommended that staff publish the document for six weeks for public review. Return to Planning Commission is a requirement at this point because substantial changes were made. So the Planning Commission will review tonight. If you need more time we can hold a special meeting in two weeks. If the Planning Commission moves forward tonight the City Council will be looking at this. We'll give them an update next week on the 18th and then two weeks following that will be the first reading and then we'll be submitting for the LCP update to the Coastal Commission. And when you submit an LCP update to the Coastal Commission it can either get reviewed by the Coastal Commission and approved and certified. Oftentimes the Coastal Commission will make an approval contingent upon red lines that they put into your document. At that point we can either accept all of their red lines and it'll be a certified document or we cannot accept the red lines and propose revisions and the third option is that we don't accept the red lines and decide no further action and then we result with two codes which we've been experiencing for the past two years and are hoping to move out of that stage. So there were four larger items that went back before City Council. The first was the discussion on monarch cove in the monarch cove in is made up of three parcels on the parcel one that you see has an office with a carport and one bedroom cottage the second parcel in the middle it's actually a piece of right of way two bedroom cottage and the third parcel has the 11 bedroom in. There is an existing standard on there for residential uses by the owner and their family members of up to three units per parcel. This is to have a single family home on three parcels as long as a minimum of six guest bedrooms are available for visitors use within three parcels. So there's this allowance for single family as long as you keep having guests. So the owner of the monarch cove in has been running this in for a very long time and they're at a point in their lives that they'd like to retire so they've been working with staff and trying to figure out a way to keep this property available to the public to enjoy without having to run a full in or six guest rooms. So to bring you back during the 2018 adoption it was updated to allow single family dwelling as long as it meets the development standards of the R1 zone. We took this to the Coastal Commission staff they added a note saying single family dwelling can be permitted as a CUP but it's allowed only if ancillary to visitor accommodation use. So only if it's secondary to accommodation use. The Planning Commission reviewed this and during their recommendation they said allowed in conjunction with visitor accommodation use or a grant of public access to a viewpoint. When this recommendation got to City Council the City Council changed the land use table to add vacation rental as a conditional use for the site and then under single family it remains a conditional use and the note was modified to say allowed in conjunction with overnight accommodations use of at least one of the properties or a grant of public access to a viewpoint. So it's similar to where you landed but just using the terms in the zoning code for overnight accommodations. Also during the review by City Council the property owners provided a little site plans of where the proposed viewpoint dedication could be. I want to make it clear that this is not set if they were to move forward with a single family home they would have to come in with an application to establish exactly where the proposed viewpoint would be but just to give you an idea of what they were thinking on the left of the slide you can see the pathway that goes out along Marnock Cove. Here's a picture of the viewpoint as it is today and then this was drawn up by a local artist of what they're thinking in terms of a dedication. So that's the update on the first topic. I was thinking I would give you and go through all of the overviews and answer any questions at the end of my presentation. If anyone has any questions in between feel free to let me know but I was just going to go through these quick and then we can go to questions. So topic two was chapter 44 the coastal overlay zone. This as I said went through a really in depth review by staff and our legal staff to make sure there was no overreach that goes beyond what's allowed by the state law. There are many changes within your packet there was a document of all the changes that occurred within chapter 44 and I have slides on this we can go back to this if there's questions on that chapter. Topic three is village parking. This is the section of the code that we the Planning Commission has struggled with over the past couple years as applications come in to the city for requesting parking within the village and then there's some the language is very unclear in the code now and this the latest update is to clean up that language. So here you see an active city street and you can see there's very few curb cuts and it's very pedestrian friendly as and folks can walk along it and experience parades and here we are in Capitola again another pedestrian friendly street very few curb cuts. When we looked back at the language within the mixed use zoning district and the intent in our coastal land use plan it's clear that the purpose of the confusing language that was previously in our code is to protect those pedestrian walkways and not create more curb cuts and to allow development as long as the parking is in the near vicinity. So we've reworded this section of code we've also when it went to the city council they cleaned up under B the Planning Commission may permit offsite parking before it said for non-residential uses but they struck that so it's for non-residential and commercial if the spaces are within walking distance and within this language we also added so it's extremely clear where you can and cannot do things figure one which shows exactly where the residential overlays are that are referenced in the section of code what the commercial core is and also identifies the mercantile and theater sites. So we can come back to that if you have questions topic 4 the village hotel in height for the village hotel in height the original 2018 code we got comments from the coastal commission requesting they fixed one of our APN numbers they also added standards for the maximum height adding a standard of 10 feet below the top elevation and also specified that that standard would include all rooftop architectural elements such as chimneys, copulas etc and all mechanical arbiters such as elevator shafts HVAC units etc and then they also added where the viewpoints are to make sure that when reviewing an application to make sure that there's still a green edge above the top of the hotel and they suggested the Capitola beach, cliff drive and the Capitola wharf when this went to planning commission there were changes made to the viewpoints here you can see the Capitola wharf viewpoint makes sense the southern parking lot of cliff drive makes sense we removed Capitola beach because it's so much lower than the hotel so here's the planning commission recommendation removing the 10 feet and the architectural features that would be on top of a roof and then the clarification of what those viewpoints are when this was reviewed by the city council they said they agreed with the planning commission not to have the 10 feet but they said let's keep in those architectural features that are typically found on a rooftop architectural features and make sure that they're under that height so they couldn't go above that visible green edge and they also appreciated the revisions the planning commission made and the viewpoints and added existing mature trees shall be maintained on the site except that trees that are unhealthy or unsafe may be removed because there are quite a few that I was concerned with some of the trees on the site and not requiring that the unhealthy ones be saved the next topic I'm going to hand over to Ben Noble of Ben Noble planning and Ben I can run the slides while you can everyone hear me? we can okay so Katie asked me to walk through the next two topics these are two issues that came up as staff was finalizing the building ordinance before one has to do with drive-through standards for drive-throughs so there's a current requirement in the CR building district where drive-throughs are allowed to permit that the drive-through is prohibited within 100 feet of a residential building district or residential use including residential properties outside of the city limits that's actually a footnote in the alive use table and city staff has found that there's not a clear rule for measuring that 100 feet so staff has prepared a recommended rule of measurement for this standard and it's shown here on the screen so the distance with this recommendation would be measured from any site feature designed and reduced for drive-through service this is a vehicle aisle or lighting to the property line of the residential district this rule of measurement seems to make the most sense given the intent of the paper so the other issue that came up is rooftop decks and currently within the zoning code there's a table that identifies all the different types of projects that require design permit for single-standing, multi-family and non-residential uses and the rule currently for residential uses is that a design permit is required for up or for decks and balconies on the side or near the home that are not adjacent to public building space so the question came up recently as to whether or not a rooftop deck requires a design permit and so staff thinks that this is something that should be clarified we all sort of searched our memories to see if this is something that was discussed in the zoning code previously reviewed by the planning commission and the city council we couldn't exactly recall if this had come up we do think that it is something that should be clarified and if indeed the desire is required design permit for any rooftop deck on the table in the zoning code the design permit requirement should be amended to stay back so the way that we were handled out is to add the table of 1721 within chapter 1720 to make it explicitly clear that all rooftop decks require a design permit both for single-family homes as well as multi-family projects. Thank you Ben. Thank you Ben. Yes? The definition of a rooftop deck does that mean the deck on the highest roof of a multi-roofed house home or if you have two roots one on the second storey or third storey or whatever the rooftop deck only refer to the highest roof? That's a good question. Can you give us something that you thought about? You know we do have standards for upper floor decks so I think in this scenario that you're referencing it sounds like there would be a portion of a home or business that you could walk out into an upper floor deck that's actually part of that floor and within our single-family for an upper floor deck and balcony on the side or rear of the home that does require a design permit and that's clear so the rooftop deck would be the deck on the very top of the home, the structure. Thank you. I apologize I could not hear that clearly. I'm sorry, can you hear me now? Yes. Are we talking about any questions with the coastal overlay or just in the items that you have a lot of science to do? Let's open up to anything. I have a lot but I'm looking at as you know I'm not a big family because of future and I can't overreach today. I can't compete into city responsibility and kind of take away some of our areas of control. I would say that the purpose data is much better than it was initially expected by the coastal commission but I have a couple questions about some terminology and items they put in there and simply back to some of the various discussions we have tonight like about monocode so I think the city council addressed the issue with the viewpoint and there's an area of a high monocode that appears to be in no man's land so he's not sure who owns it, the monocodes that they own that would allow a viewpoint of resheds so I think that's great but under item on page 205 of Ivan G and coastal resources that talked about public use I just have not been able to find that in the Coastal Act. There are policies talking about it but it's not in the Coastal Act that you can start trying to put viewsheds into our code when we're going around viewsheds so that's just one question I can ask on how we deal with that. Another one is on page 206 and item 0, shoreline protective protective devices which obviously is a funny concern for those people who are on the block but it's the last difference that I'm not sure where the definition is but it says design is protection against coastal hazards for results in the impacts of shoreline processes so my question is what are the shoreline processes and where is that, where can we find that is that in that glossary or is it found in the book about new and old glossaries so I'd be concerned about waves crashing against the bluffs of this glossary erosion is that just part of the process and they're saying that we can't prevent that which I would hate to tire hands if I'm not here and so that's another question I have to have. Not a fan of their legal development presenting process that is what it is. Another one is on page 210 and item 0, shoreline it talks about the environmental assistance category which I understand but also it says in areas designated as highly scenic in our LCP. I don't recall a highly scenic area, I remember seeing views just but do we have a highly scenic area and what is that and what are those areas and would be a concern of mine and then we get into the coastal commissions I think pushing their way in by policy talking about how we can do improvements in our property and so does the statement from our code and it's talked about, this is item 4, A4 and this is 1744-080, A4 and it talks about additional improvements at 10% and less for improvement to the structures previously being undertaken and when it comes to permitting I think it would be nice to keep it to the mental to have a close to design permits and we have control of that and I see and you have some areas where we do have some control in that area but along the coastal area, especially in the block area require quite a bit of maintenance just because I have a neighbor who has replaced their wooden windows three times in the last 20 years or so that they own their house that alone can reach the 10% as one does their not cheap so I have a concern about that in movement staying on the Big 11 getting all the increase in the existing structure and 10% I think I just need to overreach for them and that's what we are worried about when we do our development in their homes those are just, I mean I think a lot of us are really nervous about burden and I just wonder if that type of has worked again and maybe seen a lot to this at the beginning but there we are talking about a private piece of property on long code and we are arguing about a private property which to me is just absolutely ridiculous and thankfully I think we can have at least a common ground with that piece of property behind the product code but I would hope that city would never support the confirmation pushing a private property only to have public access and a public consent. Those are my concerns I know so I think we may be sensitive Thank you. Good question is for us then I guess if you have raised quite a number and maybe have more issues with the coastal commission changes so do you want to continue to pursue this and maybe set another bearing and go through them one by one and make recommendations at this point or are you just making comments and okay with it moving forward? Well I would look at clearly the support from the planning commission to maybe do a room on wordsmithing so we better understand what we are agreeing to and that would be great. If not then I guess I mean if you move this one I kind of hold this up I think we've been along with the coastal commission for a number of years now. Not that I feel that we are knowing the same noble as you guys I know your sentiments we got into I don't leave up to the rest of you. What happened? Your sentiments we got into the coastal commission. I mean you've made clear in other circumstances the concern I have is that there's so many different parties involved in this process that it's hard to see how it can come to an end and we have the planning commission our legislative body is really the city council and so maybe a lot of these things the city council has weighed in on and then the coastal commission has negotiated with our staff to try and work through some of the issues and now it's back to the planning commission it was always different for our use and it's not everyone getting together for a constitutional convention like happening in 1790 my concern is whether we would have them get to an end. Well and I understand this is one of the things that I would try to balance as we represent the residents of the next one. So I'm not going to speak this I would ask maybe with a couple of these that we just have a better understanding of what those terms mean and maybe it's in the glossary so when it comes I can see there's going to be a point where we start living homes along the block and there's going to have to be a discussion about do we or do residents have the ability to protect their structures and the coastal acts are very clear on this that private entrepreneurs have right and the quality will support that but I think this is a time I don't know we just had another block of collapse this last week so if we own South Wing it's going to happen but it's not going to be long before it's in the two of our neighborhoods homes it may not be your home, it may not be my home but there are residents of Capitola and I think we have a responsibility to look out for that and this is the time to do it. It's either now or I don't think we're going to divide the new LCP in the next four or five years so those are my concerns is that we give our residents some tools to work with when it comes time to protect their homes but that's what I'm hoping what are the other commissioners that I've thought about how we should proceed do you want to comment on your Commissioner Wilk Commissioner Wilk so my approach is we had our shot with the coastal commission we had them in, we talked to them, we negotiated with them we forwarded our comment to the city council they struggled with it, they appreciated our efforts and then modified it and to me this is more of a rubber stamp leaving where we had our shot and we put our input and as you say the city council is the governing body so we advised them, we have done that and so as a formality it has to come back to us so to me as a formality and we should get on with it and approve it. Commissioner Wilk, are there Christians in any thoughts? Yeah, I think Commissioner Wilk raises some valid points but again I tend to agree with Commissioner Wilk I think we've discussed these issues in the past but I think if individual commissioners have issues at this point I think they should submit those as an individual commissioner to the city council for their final determination and Commissioner Richardson? I agree with Commissioner I agree with everything Commissioner Wilk is saying but I just I feel like the council will acknowledge if we offer input at this point Okay, nobody's mentioned the two wording changes that were recommended that don't have to do with the coastal commission I assume that means that everybody's okay with those proposed changes there's a lot of I don't agree with everything that's in this area that's been changed as it's gone along I don't really agree with the final result of the hotel site but there comes a time where it's a big code it's a lot better than what we had and we've been going at it this was actually the first part of the general plan process that ended in 1984 but then we decoupled the zoning code and it's been going on for six years since then so it comes a time where we have to kind of like just move on and it certainly is all in all a good effort and there are some issues that Commissioner Wilk has pointed out that might not be ideal and we can fight with the coastal commission for a long time but I don't really think that's a good way to go and that's what the city council's job is anyway do we need to do this by motion or is it just consensus or a motion please oh this is a public hearing by the way so if anyone in the public had wanted to speak I assume by now they would have either put up their hand or emailed us or phoned in had we heard from anybody so we'll close the public hearing and do we have a function so what are we moving, are we moving approved the zoning code and what are the proposed changes that staff has presented I still move any further questions or comments so who would all call Commissioner Christiansen to make a quick comment in between there our city staff and our attorneys have done a great job trying to get this done and I understand that it's likely to go up a long time I just want to make that quick for a pass on my vote because I think you agree with this and Ben too, we don't want to leave you out then okay okay so back to the voting Commissioner Christiansen Commissioner Ruth, aye Commissioner Wilk, aye Commissioner Welch and I vote aye so that passes 4 to 1 and we have just the city council and anyone who wants to comment just individually with the city council can of course do that so next item is the director's report okay I have a couple items for you this evening first an exciting opportunity exists now for small businesses there's a new grant opportunity through the county of Santa Cruz this is open until October 11th has opened up a grant opportunity for any small business impacted by COVID-19 the county received close to three quarters of a million dollars that is available to small businesses that are located within the county or any of the four incorporated cities including Capitola to aid in maintaining their business and workforce the grants are for 15,000 dollars and will be awarded to provide immediate financial support to businesses small business is defined under this grant as a business having fewer than 25 people grant funds maybe used to reimburse payroll expenses due to business interruption lease payments for business premises and all the specifics of this are listed on our website on the front page but applications are due no later than October 11th and also on our website is the link to www.sccvitality.org and I just want to show again on our front page of our website under what's new it's the top item and it's under Capitola business recovery information and secondly I want to give you another update on our free temporary outdoor permits currently we're issuing free temporary outdoor use agreements that allows businesses to move outdoors to maintain social distancing we typically turn these around within 24 to 48 hours we've had 22 issued and they've gone out to restaurants, bars, tasting rooms, hair salons and massage these will be continued on a monthly basis until social distancing requirements are no longer in place so couple I just wanted to get that grant information out as well as just an update on the temporary use agreements and lastly and we did get that information out to the BIA and the chamber so that information is being hopefully circulated to all the small businesses in Capitola and lastly the city council reviewed the inclusionary housing ordinance they gave some policy they had a policy discussion on August 27th the council is they were open to looking at new alternatives other than just the 15% of required onsite affordable housing during a development so looking at allowing an increase in lieu rather than providing the housing on site also alternatives of dedicating property which could be utilized for affordable housing sometimes there's great grant opportunities out there but because we don't have any sites available for affordable housing we can't take advantage of those grants that are available from the state and federal government so the first reading for the draft it will be published tomorrow there are still some items in there that we need to get clarity from the city council so once we have the section on this and exactly where they land I'll be bringing a full update on the IHO to the planning commission and my last update for you which I mentioned during staff communication is that the coastal commission certified our LCP amendments to secondary dwelling units and signs we haven't had a rush of sign applications but we have been busy with secondary applications so that's the latest update I'm not sure if Matt or Sean could tell you how many have come in in the past couple weeks since it's been allowed Yes Permit There would be a conflict that's that area is identified within our land use plan or coastal land use plan as an access point so they're not allowed to they have to keep that area open on the back portion behind the restaurant there is some area in which we've allowed them to have outdoor seating six seats to be exact but that face out to the Zelda's deck they have a permit for that but along that covered portion in between the two buildings that would not be allowed and that concludes my update so last slide is the commission communications congratulations to AISP and yeah the court season is picking up okay so the next planning commission meeting is five weeks I think it's after the election so we'll have some new council people at that point in time maybe and we'll see you then the meeting is adjourned Good night