 Okay, so I will call the meeting of the Capitol Planning Commission to order. And for obvious reasons, this Planning Commission meeting is not physically open to the public. Limited staff are present in the council chambers and Planning Commissioners are participating remotely via video call. Members of the Planning Commission can use the reaction choices in Zoom to indicate they would like to speak similar to raising a hand. As always, this meeting is cable cast live on Charter Communications Cable TV Channel 8 and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8 a.m. and on Saturday following the first rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25. Meetings can also be viewed live from the city's website with the Zoom meeting link also available on the website. Our technician tonight is Noel Kava and this is his inaugural effort at being technician. Public comment 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. You may not submit more than one email or call per item to call in comments. And this will be on the screen also is before the item you wish to comment on call the phone number and enter the meeting ID displayed. Press the hash key when prompted for participant ID. To raise your hand to make a comment, press star nine and sign. Wait to hear that you are unmuted and then make your comment. You will have up to three minutes to speak. If you are watching the meeting via Zoom, you can use the participant option to raise your hand and make a comment when unmuted by our moderator. To email comments, identify the item you wish to comment on in your email subject line. Emailed comments will be accepted starting now up until I announced the public comment for that item is closed. Each emailed comment will be read aloud for up to three minutes or displayed on a screen. Emails and calls received by outside of the comment period outline will not be included in the record. And before we start the main part of the meeting for members of the public, if you're going to have public comment or if you're going to want to have the consent calendar item at 1515 Prospect Avenue heard as a public hearing, it would be good if you could go ahead now while we're doing some other items to either email or call in for those. So next we'll do the roll call and I'll go through this, Commissioner Welch here, Commissioner Wilk. Here. Commissioner Christensen. Here. Commissioner Ruth. Here. And chair is obviously here. Now the Pledge of Allegiance. Should we have a flag someplace online? No, I guess not. Okay, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with all liberty and justice for all. Okay. Next is oral communications and the first subpart of that is additions and deletions to the agenda. Do we have any? No additions or deletions to agenda this evening. Okay, then next is public comment which is what I just mentioned previously. That's an opportunity for anyone in the public to comment on an item that is not on the agenda. Yes. We do have public comment. Ed Bahtorf, council member Bahtorf is on the line. Okay. And other, before we get Councilman Bahtorf, other people can continue to submit their requests while he's addressing us. So Mr. Bahtorf, are you with us? Thank you, Chair. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you for this chance to speak. I just want to take this opportunity to thank commissioner TJ Wealth for eight years of community service. I selected him eight years ago because he was a dedicated person to the community of Capitola. I think he served the community well. He started off eight years ago finishing up on the general plan and has worked on many projects over the eight year period, finally ending up with another big job on the, Mr. York, meeting ID, follow-up on the ground. Coastal commission plan. I just want to see it and acknowledge a couple of things about TJ. Why I think he was a good person to be a planning commissioner. I think you all know he has a tremendous love for the community. And what I really admire is that I believe he was the voice or the representative, the homeowner project that he's built, benefit of the community, was fair to the homeowner. And I want to thank him for eight years of service. And those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. And let me just add to that that four years ago, commissioner Wealth tried to escape from the job and was not going to continue his second term. And I don't know whether you or whoever convinced him to stay with us and we're very glad of that. So I will second Mr. Bottdorf's comments about the great service that has been provided by commissioner Wealth over the last eight years. Any other public comments? No one having sent anything in over the period of time that we've allowed. And we'll move on to commission comments. Mr. Wilk? Yes, please. So I would also like to thank commissioner Welsh for his service. I've learned a lot from him in my two years on the commission. His reasonable voice and wisdom will be sorely missed. And I wish him all the best in his new endeavors and thank him for his service. And then I have a silly, a sillier issue. But I noticed that on the application and on many applications, there's always the Arkansas Committee comments. And inevitably on the Arkansas Committee comments, there's someone either Danielle or Kalish says, hey, you need to have a drainage site plant. For whatever reason, it's always, you always have to wait until you get to Arkansas before you realize, hey, I need a drainage site plant. And it occurred to me that that happened so often that maybe there's a better way to communicate that like earlier in the process. So I mentioned that to Katie and she's staff and they said, yeah, that maybe there's an opportunity to get the word out a little bit earlier, perhaps on the application. So I just like to kind of give that action on the staff and put that in the record so that at least we'll take a look at it and see if there's a way we can get the word out a little earlier on the drainage site plant. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone, any other commissioners have any comments to make at this time? Any staff comments? Yes, I too wanted to give my thanks to Commissioner Welch for his time on the Planning Commission. I can think back to eight years ago or about seven and a half years ago when I was applying for the planning for the job here in Capitola and watching Planning Commission videos and to study what was going on in town. And I remember seeing Commissioner Welch during those hearings when I was and since that time, I think that TJ has always done an incredible job of representing the city as well as having an understanding of the individual applicants that come through and has always looked at all projects fairly and I really appreciate his eight years here at the city working as a Planning Commissioner and look forward to him participating on matters as a resident in the future. So thank you for your time, Commissioner Welch. Thank you. Okay, that will take us to the consent calendar. There is one item. Oh, thank you. Approval of the minutes, I skipped. So we have minutes for August, September and November and I'm not sure why we skipped October, but there must be a reason. And so I guess, do we have any additions or corrections to the, we'll take them as a group, the three sets of minutes? Chairman Newman, I will have to abstain from the August minutes. I was not in attendance for that one. Okay. And are there any other commissioners that did not participate in any of the three hearings? Yeah, Commissioner Christensen here. I didn't participate in, I think it was the July minutes. Okay, well, this is August, September, November. Oh, I'm sorry. You're good with those? Yes, I think Commissioner Christensen was also absent the August minutes. Oh, I'm sorry, August, I apologize. That was, I'm right or wrong. Well, good, let's do August separately and then we'll do September and November after that. Do we have a motion among those who can vote on the August minutes to approve? I'd move approval for the August minutes. And do we have a, okay, we'll have a roll call. Commissioner Ruth? Aye. Commissioner Wilk? Aye. And Chair votes aye. So those minutes are approved. Now we'll take September and November together. Do we have a motion to approve? I'll move to approve September and November. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, Commissioner Ruth? Aye. Commissioner Wilk? Aye. Commissioner Welch? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. And Chair votes aye. So that takes twice. So that takes care of the minutes. And now back to where I was on the consent calendar. This is given the public more time. Has anyone from the public indicate, did they want the 1515 Prospect Avenue design permit application to be pulled for a public hearing? No public. Staff, any response from the public in that regard? Good evening, Chair Newman. I haven't had any public comments by email. Okay. And there's no. And do any of the commissioners care to have that item heard as a regular hearing none? I will entertain a motion. Anyone cares to make it? I move approval of 1515 Prospect Avenue. Okay, just for those listening in who might not have the agenda in front of this is a design permit for first and second story additions to a non-conforming single family residence, a new detached accessory dwelling unit and a revocable encroachment permit for a wall in the public right away. Any discussion? Not, we'll have a roll call vote. Oh, did we get a second? Hold on a second. Okay. Commissioner Welch. Hi. Commissioner Welch. Commissioner Christensen. Commissioner Ruth. Hi. Commissioner Christensen, are you, did we lose you? Apparently we did. Well, we still have a, the chair votes aye. So it'll be four votes aye and one, I don't know if it's an abstention or a absence, temporary absence. Commissioner Christensen is logging back on. She's back on now. Oh, Commissioner Christensen, your vote on the consent item. She needs to connect to. Are you muted? Are you muted? I'm here, I'm sorry. Sceptical difficulties, apology. I vote aye for. Okay, good. That'll be unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. That takes us to the public hearings. We have two public hearings and the second one Vice Chair Ruth will take over. But the first one is 2110 41st Avenue. This is an application for design permit and conditional use permit amendment to modify the site layout and building design and add two new canopies with vacuum drops at master car wash, the car washing facility located within the regional commercial zoning district. So staff report, please. All right, thank you, Chair Newman. Sean, you can go ahead and take me to the next slide, please. So 2110 41st Avenue is located on the east side of 41st Avenue between Mattress Firm and Kentucky Fried Chicken. The 25,090 square foot lot is in capital as main commercial corridor along 41st Avenue. Current site design approved under a conditional use permit number 06050 includes a one story main building attached to a car wash tunnel and a large trellis with vacuum drops, as shown here. Next slide, please. So here's the existing site plan. Under the current business model, the business offers both exterior only and full service vehicle cleaning services. There's the trellis with the vacuum drops shown in red, the vacuum equipment shed in green at the bottom, the detail room in yellow, car wash tunnel in blue, and there's some water recycling tanks in orange along the north lot line there. Next slide, please. There's the proposed site plan, option A. The applicant is proposing to change to a do it yourself flex express business model in which customers pay for services that itself service kiosk stay in their cars throughout through the car wash tunnel and then have the option of utilizing vacuum drops and other cleaning materials to detail the inside and outside of the vehicle in the two red areas here. The proposed site plan includes a reduction in the size of the main building, the addition of two new freestanding canopies with solar panels and 12 vacuum drops, two new self-service kiosks and a new drive-through lane that circles the southeast and north perimeter of the lot and leads to the car wash tunnel. The, as I mentioned, the vacuum canopies here in red, the two new self-service pay kiosks are in yellow. The green arrows here indicate the new driveway along the south lot line and then the recycling tanks in the car wash tunnel stay the same. Next slide, please. These are just a few renderings of the option A plan with the canopies with the solar panels. Next slide, please. So here's proposed site plan, option B. The plans that also includes this alternative site design that does not have the freestanding canopies with solar panels. This one actually instead has the individual freestanding vacuum stations at each parking space. The owner has indicated they prefer option A with canopies but with current construction costs and limited supply of goods would like to have an alternative design approved as well. In order to accommodate this staff added a condition of approval regarding the design options to ensure that the alternative, which is not constructed expires upon the issuance of the building permit. You can see all those little freestanding vacuum stations here in red, the same areas that would be under the canopies and the other option. Next slide, please. So this is the renderings with the freestanding vacuum stations. They have this sort of little blue arm that extends out from them that you can see here in the upper right image. Next slide, please. These are the proposed rear, front and side elevations. The north side really isn't visible because it's closer to the lot line and it's not visible to the general public. This is an image of option A that has the canopies. Next slide, please. Here's the proposed floor plan. As I mentioned, the blue area of the car wash tunnel is going to stay the same. The lobby area has been reduced a bit in size to accommodate these parking spaces up against the building with vacuum stations and then also the employee parking which I'll cover later. And then this green area is the mechanical room. It already housed the mechanical equipment for the car wash tunnel but now they're also going to be including the mechanical equipment for the vacuum. The vacuum drops in this main building as well rather than in the outbuilding where it was located previously which will help with the noise. Next slide, please. In terms of parking, the zoning code does not have a specific parking requirement for a car wash use. The original conditionally used permit required eight onsite employee parking spaces. The current parking is out of compliance because they only have three onsite parking spaces. However, under the current proposal, it includes eight onsite employee parking spaces that were required under the previous conditionally used permit. And those spaces are shown here in blue. So since the new management plan required less employees, additional parking was not required. Next slide, please. Next slide, thanks. So there's one new aspect here. The new zoning code contains residential transition standards to protect residential parcels that are adjacent to commercial parcels from potential negative impacts of commercial land uses. And this was the first project since the adoption of that code to require compliance with those standards. So in case you're wondering why I went through those one by one and in such depth in the SAP report, that was why we wanted to make sure you were getting familiar with these new standards. The project as originally proposed complied with the standards for setbacks, daylight plans and loading, but not the landscaping standards. I commented on that at the meeting and after the Arkansite review meeting, the applicant revised the plans to provide a 10 foot strip of landscaped planting area with a tree screen along the rear lot line that is adjacent to several residential properties, except in the area where the existing car wash lane is located because that part of the existing site design is not changing. So the design before you tonight complies with the residential transition standards. Next slide, please. The applicant is also proposing a new monument sign along 41st Avenue, which is shown here. The proposed monument sign is seven feet, six inches tall with a sign area of 33 square feet and a two foot tall ledge stone veneer base. The proposed sign complies with all of the design standards for monument signs. Next slide, please. The conditional use permit is required for land uses that are generally appropriate within the zoning district but potentially undesirable on a particular parcel. Conditional use permit is a discretionary action that enables the city to ensure that a proposed use is consistent with the general plan will not create negative impacts to adjacent properties or to the general public. The planning mission is allowed to attach conditions of approval to a conditional use permit to achieve consistency with the general plan, local coastal program and or zoning code. When evaluating a conditional use permit, planning mission must consider several characteristics of the proposed use, including those listed here. These considerations are analyzed in depth in the staff report and with the inclusion of a condition of approval requiring a new masonry wall along the rear property line, which I'll cover in the next slide. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan will not create negative impacts to adjacent properties or the general public. Next slide, please. So currently there's a retaining wall that runs along the rear of the property, which is shown here with the yellow line because the adjacent residential properties on Derby Avenue are at a much lower grade than the subject parcel. The retaining wall is topped with an older wood fence shown here in the two photos on the right. The applicant is proposing to install a new six foot tall wood fence on top of the existing retaining wall as part of the proposed project. However, in order to mitigate potential negative noise impacts from the car wash use and to address past noise complaints from the adjacent residential properties, staff included condition of approval number 19, which requires a six foot tall solid masonry wall along the rear property line between the subject property and the adjacent residential development. Solid masonry wall is actually a requirement in the CN zone between commercial properties and adjacent residential development. So this requirement, we don't feel it's unprecedented. Also to ensure that the existing masonry wall is adequate and safe for the continued surcharge of vehicles and the additional masonry wall, the building officials requiring an engineering analysis and potentially a soils report as well prior to issuance of a building permit. Next slide, please. So that staff recommends planning commission review and approve the project based on the conditions of approval and findings. Thank you. Excellent analysis by the staff. Thank you. We worked a lot with the applicants on this and moved very quickly actually. So do we have any questions to the staff before we go to the public hearing? I have questions. Please. This is a commissioner Wilk. So sorry I didn't get to these questions but they just occurred to me during the presentation. So you mentioned that he has two options that he's proposing for the applicant is and you want the second option whichever one he doesn't choose to expire upon issuance of the building permit. Is that correct? Yes, that's the way it's worded. So I was wondering if that's a little too soon in the sense that he, you know, perhaps during the early stages of the building he may want to switch to the other option. And I was wondering why that would expire so soon? Should there maybe, maybe put a, well, could you please explain why you had the expiration date at all on there? I'm trying to think back to why we... Why did you expire one option? I'm trying to remember the conversation with Katie on this. I'm blanking on why we went to expire. I can chime in. Yeah. I think simply because there are two designs that are they're asking for two designs to be approved. It seemed like upon issuance of a building permit at that point they've made a substantial investment in a building permit and they've gone through all their, the drawing stages. We could, I know the applicant's architect is here. If they would like that modified to extend later. It just, that's the point where they've really made a substantial investment. They've probably done all their homework on what materials are available and timing and cost because it does cost money to go through the building permit stage. And so that's what we thought was the reasonable time in which to expire the other design approved under this permit. But we can also, I do see their architect, Bill Kempf is here. And when you go to public comment, you may wanna see if they feel okay with that condition or if the timing should be changed. We can address that when we get into the commission discussion. That's a good point for me. So let me ask my other questions in the meantime. And that is, my other two questions involve the retaining wall and the fact that the neighboring houses are so far below. They're basically a mountain side down below this property, at least think that way. And so I was wondering if the tree screen requirement landscape requirement that is between business and residential is necessary in light of that. Because it's not like they're going to experience the noise directly because it's gonna like, basically be shooting over their house tops if there's any noise. And the same with the view shed, it's not like they're gonna be staring at a car wash. They're basically staring at the retaining wall and the trees, they're just gonna probably just block more of their afternoon sunlight. So I'm wondering if the tree screen is something you considered waving. I did think a lot about that because really, like I said, the wall is not actually a requirement, but the trees are and the wall seem to actually address a lot of mitigate the noise concerns a lot more. Versa we as staff don't have the ability to waive those requirements. So that's just not within our power to wave that. Okay, and then the third question involves the wall versus the fence, the fence is there. Now I can see that maybe a wall would be required just in case there was some art of control car that you will want careening down in the neighborhood. But again, from a, I don't know if that's the purpose of requiring a wall, but again, because of the vertical distance between the two properties, I would think a wall, it doesn't add any benefit in terms of privacy or noise abatement. And I'm wondering if that requirement is all that necessary. Could you explain maybe why that's in there? That was just, it was similar to a requirement in the CEM zone as I mentioned in the presentation. And that was just a staff addition as a mitigation measure. If the clinician does not feel that is appropriate, you are welcome to change that. Like so they did propose a six foot tall wood fence on there. And if you think that's adequate, then we can remove that condition. Those are my questions, thank you. And maybe we'll hear from the applicant on those issues. So any other commissioners? If not, we'll open the public hearing. And I know Mr. Kemp is available and probably would like to address us. So I don't know if anyone else from the applicant also. We do have, Ia is listed as it, from the public is wanting to speak. Is it okay if I allow her in to talk? Well, let's do the applicant first. Okay. Okay. I mean, she can listen and obviously. Yeah, we'll go there, we'll go to her second. So we'll bring in the. So Mr. Kemp, are you with us? I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, thank you to Matt for all his help in getting us this far. We've reviewed the conditions of approval and I can't speak for David. We didn't connect today, but we didn't, I didn't see anything in there that was overly onerous. The only thing I would like to talk about is this rear wall issue. And I believe one of the commissioners brought up some of the issues that I've been thinking about. And I'm just wondering if the neighbors below would really want to look up at what would basically become a 12 foot tall masonry wall in their backyard. I was more in favor of having the wood six foot wall on top of the retaining wall, because it seemed to soften things quite a bit. So that, that was kind of my thinking there. The other question about having to require a soils report for a wall that's already there, I thought that was an expensive condition for the project. So I'm not sure that I could understand where if we were re-engineering that wall where a soils report would be needed, but if the wall is found to be found, I'd like to remove the requirement for a soils report. What about the alternative A and alternative B options? Well, I, so I'm trying to figure out how this is going to go forward. We are, we are definitely talking about submitting with the plans for the solar system. And so once we submit with the solar system, the solar array, canopies, we will be getting to a point where that pro, that design would be cost, would be big by the contractors and we would get a sense of where that's going and whether that's going to be affordable for the owner. But I definitely think that there could be a point pretty close to permit issuance where there may be a discussion about changing to the less expensive alternative and just having the vacuum drops. So I'm not really sure what I would modify in the learning. So Mike, this is Commissioner Wilt, if I can interrupt. Chair. Yes. So my thought was that between the, I think there's like a, you've got six months between the building permit before you actually have to start activity. And my thought was that perhaps you get the building permit in anticipation of starting work and for due to COVID or whatever, there's a delay. And then that delay, expenses might change. Who knows what might happen. You might say, dang it, I need to go to the other option. And I just hate to unnecessarily tie your hands for no reason, that's all. Yeah, I agree. Well, we'll talk about that when we get to discussion. I think that's a good point. Any other questions of Mr. Kemp? I have a couple. One is, is this concept, this car wash concept existent in Santa Cruz to your knowledge? This concept is very similar to changes that were made up the street at the Cruz car wash where the customer actually stays in the car through the car wash. But at Cruz car wash, I believe they have staff that does the vacuuming afterwards. This is supposed to be a more user friendly self-service kind of operation where the car owner would actually do their own cleaning of the interior. Well, I use one in Scottsdale that is this concept. And I think it's great. I think it's a really modern approach to car washing because we don't need so many parking because there really aren't many employees involved in the operation. Well, we agree. We felt the employee parking requirement was a little onerous and we would love to get a couple more parking spaces in there, but we were just trying to stick with the existing crew. Then the sign, I had a question about the sign because it has a car with a surfboard on the top. Which I don't think will go through your car wash and what are you gonna do when the first person tries to drive through with a surfboard on the top of their car? I would let David speak to that, but I hope he has good insurance. Okay, any other questions for Mr. Kemp? Do we have any other, oh, there is one public person and is anyone else from the developer, from the owner standpoint applicant? If not, take the public member, are you with us? Yes, so this public member has written an email as well as is here with their hand up, so I'm gonna allow her to talk and she can decide whether or not she wants to read her email out loud or just speak to the planning commission. Okay, what is your name? And I believe you're on mute, there we go. Hello, can you hear me? We can. Yes. Hello. Yes, state your name please. Hello. Can you give us your name please? We can hear you. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, but you can't hear us apparently. Hello. We can hear you. Hello. Katie, can you speak to her? I can't. Hello. Yeah, we can hear you. Hello. Hello. Yeah, we can hear you. I thought you just clicked me. You should be able to do that. Hello. Hello, we can hear you. Hello. We can hear you. I think we get to just the comments. Yeah. We can hear it at all. I guess we'll have to read the email. We can start with the email and then come back. You have the email, Katie? Yeah, I'm opening the email. Let me see if I can share the screen. You know, I'm afraid to share the screen right now because she's dialing in to the instructions that are on the page right now. So I'm just going to guide you on it. Follow by town. Oh my. Okay. Okay. All right, we have the email that we can now see. Does everyone have that? Yes. Yeah, can you hear it? Can you hear it? Can you hear it? I just want to hear them. Yeah, can you hear us? Can you hear me? Yes, now we can hear you. So you can't hear us. Oh, we can hear you. Hello. We can hear you. Oh, okay, great. So my name is EO Walton. We live behind the car wash. I wanted to comment about what Mr. Wilk said. The noise is excessive already back here. The noise is also excessive across Derby. As you mentioned that the noise kind of goes over us. It drops right into our yard, but it also goes to the houses across the street. The I do agree or we do agree that an additional mason wall on top of the already existing over 12 foot wall, which is there, would not be an appealing thing. However, the current fence has gaps between it. We've always had an issue for eight years of privacy because people can look directly over, which they do. They throw towels over there. Food is thrown over the fence. A number of different issues. Our children often report water coming over into the yard from the car wash. And then we did send an email because we didn't know if we'd be able to get to comment about these issues. And also the retaining wall about the soil report. The reinforcement bar was put in 1989 and it was only guaranteed for 25 years, which were passed. And we have had issues for eight years of water seeping out of the wall, not down the wall from the car wash, but out of the wall and issues with cracks. And we were told eight years ago by Daniel the inspector at Capitola that it was out of code eight years ago. So obviously we have grave concerns about the wall. Now they did, they looked at the wall for a long time. It was done in a very haphazard way with inspection, never with an engineer. So I'm hoping that I'm very glad to hear in this that there will be an engineer's report, but I would really like to also see the soil's report. It's catastrophic if that wall doesn't hold. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other public comments? Mr. Kemp, do you care to respond at all? You're muted, Mr. Kemp. I've never been to the other side of the wall. So I guess it would be something that we should definitely look at from a safety standpoint. And I can definitely discuss it with my client and the owner. And we can get the analysis done. I'm not sure, but he had said that there has been some investigations done since he's owned the car wash, but I'm not familiar with those, we can't speak to them. But I wouldn't have an issue with there being some kind of condition that would require it to be being safe. Okay, thank you. So with that, I will close the public hearing and it seems like we have a few issues for the commissioners to discuss who would like to start. I'll start. Peter, can I interject for one sec before you start? Sorry, this is associate planner Orbach. I just wanted to give an answer really quick about that soil's report. So I did discuss this with the building official prior to sending out the packet. And she preferred that that requirement be in there, not necessarily because she wants to use it or think she will need to use it, but just so that she can and already has that pre-authorization to use it should she need to. So I think it would really hinge on what the engineering reports uncovers as to whether she would use that or not. So that's why she preferred to have that in there. What does the condition say that there will be a soils report or that the building official has the right to require one? It says prior to building permit issuance, property owners shall provide an engineering analysis and a soils report for retaining wall along the rear property line to ensure that the wall can continue to support the surcharge of vehicles adjacent to the real lot line and the tall masonry wall on the top of the retaining wall. That's different from what you just said. That's an absolute requirement. Maybe we can change that, but we'll talk about it. Yeah, there's a lot of sort of border plate things in here that read like that that she doesn't always require. A lot of times when we do the elevation certificates and no rise studies, she has the power to not require that if she doesn't think it's necessary. Well, let me just suggest then when you write the conditions, if they're not absolute requirements, but they're a matter of the building department's discretion that that's what you say. It did originally say possibly and then that question came up about whether to say possibly or make it a requirement. And she said we should make it a requirement. So I'm happy to put possibly back in there if that was a solve this problem. Okay, I'll get back to the commissioners then. Commissioner Wilke, you wanted to lead off? Okay, yeah. So I appreciate the neighbor chiming in on this because the wall retaining wall safety was not an issue that occurred to me. Although when I looked over the fence into their backyard, I'm sorry to, I can see how easily people can do that. I did, you know, I saw a huge drop off. And if that wall goes, that is, that's a disaster. So the engineering report is absolutely critical for the safety of the neighbors. So I appreciate that comment. And I, and I'm looking forward to this engineering report being, being signed on it because otherwise I'm not sure what's gonna happen. So it's, you know, the soils report should be optional based on the engineering report. Before I forget, I'd like to thank the applicant for investing in Capitola. I appreciate the investment in our city. But yeah, with regards to my other comments, I would recommend that we just eliminate the option expiration or perhaps put six months on it just to avoid any potential heartburn to the applicant, not that he'll necessarily need our help, but why burden him unnecessarily. And then with regards to the general retaining wall versus the fence, I agree with a neighbor who would prefer a fence, but not a slotted fence, which is currently, it's more of a picket fence that you can see through. So a solid wood fence, I think would be preferable to the wall. And I would like to propose that we go in that direction as opposed to the further retaining wall. And then finally, with regards to this tree screen, I guess if the applicant's okay with it, more green if you send to me that I would, I would entertain also maybe eliminating, but I'm willing to hear others' comments before I make a motion. Thank you. Hey, who else? Commissioner Rood, any thoughts? Yeah, I think staff addressed all the potential problems that could occur out here, especially with the wall and the soils report and engineering requirement. I can go along with making the soils report optional, depending on what the engineer's report states. And I can go along with a solid fence too. Okay, Commissioner Christensen. Yeah, I just had a, I agree with Commissioner Welk and Commissioner Rood's comments about the soils report and the engineering, but what the neighbor was saying concerned me a bit with just the availability of the public being able to access and view her backyard. I think that the tree screen is pretty important. Just having any type of buffer from the public to actually see through, not just a solid fence, but something to actually push them off the fence so they can't just throw towels or throw something or just look over. I think considering the residential area around 41st Avenue is pretty important. So I would say, if anything emphasizing the tree screen would be pretty important in my mind, but just a comment. Okay, Commissioner Welch. So as far as the solid masonry wall, I'm a never, I could go either way on that. I think a solid wall, a fence from the neighbor's perspective makes sense as far as the visual aspect. I don't only think I think of, and maybe it's mismanagement coming back, but is all of the people driving through on their own around that area, the wood fence wouldn't help much to help stop a vehicle, should it go? Not make that term, but the masonry wall, it seems like it would help. But I could go either way. I think the tree screening would add a little bit to that, maybe from the sound and so when I'm just gonna, I could go with the staff on how they want to perceive that. I would hope that Mr. Carson would maybe look at, working with the homeowners in the back to come to some type of consensus on what they do with that. I think maybe an issue and reading the email and listening is fewer employees there. The music probably won't be an issue and maybe the employees working won't be an issue. So having said that, I think overall the project is something that I can support. I hate to see the full service go away, quite honestly. Again, and I hope it works out well for me. I look at the backing out of those slots with not the workers, but just the people who come there to get their cars cleaned in and out, backing out, it just, it looks like it's gonna be a little bit congested. It could be a problem, but overall I think the project's good and I could support it. Okay, so we've got a lot of the deep field. I'll go ahead and to Commissioner Christensen, you wanna add something? I just had a quick question for the applicant if for staff, is there gonna be any, you know, supervision? I mean, how many, I don't know if I picked up if there was gonna be any supervision on site, even though it was self-serve. Like I said, in the business management plan, it said minimum three, maximum five, I believe, so on the busiest weekends, they would have five people working. Okay, so there's somebody monitoring, you know, what people are doing on site. Okay, so just to hit some of the details here and more wording than anything else, I think on the two alternatives, I don't see any reason why we can't change that condition to read that the alternative that isn't built expires when there's a final inspection. That's exactly what I wrote down, Chair Newman. I changed condition 17 on my paper here to at project final of a building permit and then the rest reads the same. So basically it puts it off from building permit issuance to building permit final. That accomplishes the city's objectives. I'm glad you can read my mind too. Then I do think that the wording on the soils report needs to be cleaned up a little bit. I think it should read that the soils report is required if in the discretion of the building official, it's necessary if that's okay with other people. The trees seem like a good idea. I didn't hear the neighbor objecting to having trees blocking their sun. So the trees seem to be a good idea and a solid wood fence seems to me to be the best compromise of the various issues in the back there, but I'll see where the motion goes on that. And just in response to Mr. Welch, I'm on the other side of this. I'm happy to see this semi full service kind of car wash having used one very successfully. I think they're really a good option, better than the ones where you don't drive through and you go in and clean your car. So you drive through, clean your car and then you come out and vacuum it if you want. Anyway, that is a personal preference. So do you think further or do we wanna try an emotion? I'll try emotion. Okay. So I might need help on this because I don't have the paperwork in front of me, but basically I'd like to approve the staff. I move that we approve the staff's recommendation with the following three modifications. First to modify the building or the option expiration to the final permit, as opposed to the initial building permit. Second to allow for a solid wood fence in addition to the option of a wall. And third to make the soils report optional depending upon the result of the engineering report. In the discretion of the building official. And the discretion of the building official. Okay. One second. All right. Do we have any further discussion? If not, we'll go right to the roll call. Commissioner Welch. Hi. I hearing some chatter. Commissioner Christiansen has her hand up. Oh, no, that was from before. Okay, now, okay. Well, now that you put your hand up, you can vote. Oh, aye, aye. Yes. Okay. Commissioner. Aye. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. And chair votes aye too. So that's unanimous. And we'll move on to the next item which commissioner Ruth is going to handle because I am recused and commissioner Wilk is recused due to proximity of properties. And then I will come back for item six, seven and eight to wrap this up. Okay. Thank you Chairman Newman. Chairman Ruth. Oh yeah. This is public hearing B. It's a consideration for a coastal development permit for the installation of anchors for 15 removable ballards which are security barriers at three intersections within Capitola Village. Capitola Avenue and Stockton Avenue, the Esplanade and Monterey Avenue and Monterey Avenue and Park Place. Staff. Thank you Vice Chair Ruth. Sean, next slide please. On September 11th, 2020, the city was awarded a grant from the California Office of Emergency Services for removable ballards to improve pedestrian safety during special events. The grant is intended to be used to provide critical infrastructure security, protect from all threats and hazards, enhance community preparedness, prevent violent extremism and promote inter-jurisdictional collaboration. As we all know, the capitol of villages hosts several large special events each year such as the capitol of public safety car show, annual Worf to Worf race and capitol art and wine festival which provide a venue for large crowds for which the capitol police department is tasked with providing security and safe access. The current method used to section off the village during those special events makes use of manned heavy concrete or plastic jersey barriers. Next slide please. The city of Capitola is proposing to install 15 removable security barriers or ballards at the three priority intersections in the Capitola Village. Those intersections as you mentioned are Esplanade and Stockton Avenue, Capitola Avenue and Stockton Avenue and Monterey Avenue and Park Place. The streets at each of the intersection locations are approximately 25 feet wide and will each require five removable ballards. Next slide please. Proposed project will install anchors for removable pipe and concrete ballards. An example of that is shown here. Ballards are designed to provide enhanced protection while at the same time allowing access to pedestrians and preventing the need to have barriers permanently staffed during the events. Next slide please. Capitol is local coastal plan requires the issuance of a coastal development permit for the installation of the ballards because it does not qualify for any of the exemptions under the capitol and municipal code chapter 17.46. Ballards provide both a visual deterrence and physical means of preventing vehicular traffic from entering the special event area. The proposed project creates a safer means for the public to access the coast and recreational opportunities in Capitol Village during special events and is consistent with the purpose of the local coastal plan. Proposed project complies with the required findings of the coastal development permit as shown in the staff report. Matt, can I interrupt you for one second please? Yeah, that's it. On that slide it says Park Avenue. Just to clarify for anybody that's watching this, it's not Park Avenue, it's Park Place. Oh, Park Place, okay. Thank you for the correction. So with that staff recommends, sorry, next slide please. Staff recommends the planning mission review and approve the project based on the conditions of approval and findings. And I believe we do have public works representative Kailash Mazumdar on the line as well who can answer questions as the project applicant for the city. Okay, thank you Matt. Are there any questions from the planning commission? Hearing none, then you said the building official is ready to speak. I believe Kailash Mazumdar should be on the line. Okay, Kailash, are you there? On Assistant Planner Susanto or Community Development Director Hurley you should be able to see if Kailash is on there and available to speak. Kailash is now a panelist. He will need to unmute his. This is Assistant Planner Sean. I see Kailash is online, but he's muted. There we go. Kailash, can you hear us? You have to undo your mute button. He's now unmuted. He can hear us. Oh, he can hear us. But we can't hear him, maybe. Can you undo your mute button? Oh, he's on his phone. A lot of technical difficulties this evening. He's not muted anymore. He said he's on his phone. I have a quick question there, Commissioner Root, while they're trying to get that on board about the ballers I thought maybe Kailash would know. And maybe Sean knows the ballers themselves that are in place when they're not in place and they just have the metal cover. How are those metal covers secured in the road? Do we know? I don't know the answer to that one. Yeah. Yeah, there was just a message. He was questioning how to unmute himself on his phone. I think that original thing said it's like a pound nine, star nine, or... Oh, there we go. Oh, we have to unmute him. He should be unmuted. Kailash, are you there? Well, maybe we can move forward. Is there any commissioners that have any questions for Kailash regarding these ballers? I think this is pretty straightforward. Yeah, I just had the one question for the way those metal plates are secured in the ground. It could be a busy, some of the streets get pretty busy with some low vehicles that I just went, you know, I'm sure that these are a number of areas that they're secured to the ground. I was just curious how that was. So that was my only concern. Other than that, I agree it's pretty straightforward. Okay. Is there a motion to approve any further discussion? If I may, Kailash sent a message saying ballards will have caps so that they don't rattle and create hazard. So they will be capped and locked. I saw the cap. I just curious how they set in there. So they didn't get ran over and pop up in the air, but I'm okay with that. So I'll make a motion to approve. Okay, do we have a second? I second. I think it's appreciated. Okay. Thank you, Courtney. Let's have the roll call, please. Commissioner Wilkes. He's recused, he is. Oh, he's recused. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Welch. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Okay, that motion carries and that brings us to the next item on the agenda and Mr. Newman, welcome you back. Thank you. Good job. Director's report. I have a few things to report this evening. First, I wanted to follow up on a few code enforcement issues that have been ongoing. At Mattress Firm, they have come into compliance there. We did have a couple different fines that went out to Mattress Firm and a large blow up sign was placed on their rooftop at one point. At that point, they, I think the local manager called more of a regional manager and he was extremely helpful. I think he drove down to Capitola that day to remove the blimp that was on top of the building and assured us that it won't be happening anymore. We had Planner Orbach drove by over the weekend, over the holiday weekend and did not see the signs go up over the holiday. So that was good. They had taken them down the Wednesday prior. So we're hoping to have continued compliance there now with the fact that the regional manager is now involved. And across the street at 401 Capitola Avenue, you may recall we issued a conditional use permit for to go food establishment, food and drink. And they were issued their third red tag recently for making improvements that were not following their building plans. Underneath the, within the Capitola municipal code, when a permited is not following their approval, the city can issue, we can put them on notice of bringing them back to hearing. And I sent out a letter with a correction with a deadline. And if that deadline was, if they didn't meet the deadline in terms of correction, it'll be coming back to the planning commission. I did notice, but prior to the meeting, they took out the improvements that were in the ground, that were going outside of their property line. And if it wasn't designed or approved in their permit, and then also the trash enclosure area, they built a more substantial structure than just the simple screening that was allowed by the planning commission. So that is in the process of being removed. So if all of those improvements are not, if they don't meet the deadline, that will be coming back to the planning commission. But at this point, it looks like they're moving towards compliance. So those are the two updates on code enforcement that I wanted to provide you with. I also wanted to let you know that today, I'm not sure if you saw it during the noon hour, the Governor Newsom's update, that a regional stay at home order was put in place for any of the regions, there's defined regions under the new order. If any of the regions have less than 15% ICU availability, it prohibits, we'd move into the stay at home order, prohibiting private gatherings of any sizes, closing sector operations except for critical infrastructure and retail, and requires 100% masking and physical distancing and all, for all others. If we were to go below this 15%, that it would be in effect for a minimum of three weeks. And then at that point, each week, they reanalyze which regions can come out of that, out of that stay at home order. So it is based on a quantitative data and they did update the Governor's webpage this afternoon to show where the different regions are in terms of their ICU occupancy. We are tied in with the Bay Area and luckily we have the most capacity for our ICUs right now. I think we're at about 25% and other areas of the state are not as fortunate to have as much capacity. We're tied into San Francisco, the whole Bay Area, Marin County and so, there's great information on the Governor's website. And that, again, I just wanna say thanks again to Commissioner Welch for all of his time with the Planning Commission. And it's been a pleasure and that concludes my director's report. Thank you. Any commission come, communications at this point? I guess since this is my last meeting after eight years, I like to just say thanks to Council Member Boddorff for appointing me and not micromanaging me. Doesn't mean I didn't ever get chastised for my perspective from him, but that's okay. That's what it's about. Actually, he never really discussed a position that he thought I should take or that he had about anything. So it's nice to have the freedom to do your job for the best you can. So I appreciate that. Then I wanna thank my fellow commissioners. I've learned a lot over the number of years. There's a lot of wisdom in the groups that come in and out of here. I've seen a few over the eight years and I appreciate your help through the process. And thanks to the staff, Katie and Matt and Sean. As my colleagues know, when people know you're a planning commissioner, you get a lot of interesting knocks on the door, phone calls, texts, emails, and people with concerns about their projects either or any project, whether it's positive or negative. So that in turn gets pushed down to the city staff. So I appreciate your diligence to work with me through those things. As Council Member Boddorff mentioned, it was eight years ago it started with the general plan. And then we moved in with the zoning code and both of those documents and are extremely important to our community to keep it the way that our community would like to see that. So I feel like it was a lot of effort, a lot of work put in by a lot of staff, but it was nice to be a part of that process. And while maybe each of us have different opinions on some aspects of how the code came out or the general plan, it was a consensus. And so it's something I think that our community should be proud of. You know, there's a very important documents just protect our community, which is something important in Capitola. And I took a position pretty seriously. I started really when I built my own house and I went through some issues, not that there's anything terribly negative this way the city treated me, but we had issues and I saw the need that I honestly believe that we need to as commissioners protect both the community, but those applicants to go through the process. And I know Chairman Newman has said that about me that yes, I haven't seen a project that I didn't like and well, there's maybe that's not totally true. I don't know that it was really my job to like every applicant that came before us what they were trying to, whether it's architecturally design color, but if it fit within our zoning code and our general plan, I really believe that it's our role as planning commissioners and city staff to try to help these people achieve what they want for their own place. And so I appreciate you putting up with me through some of these questions. I won't get into the coastal commission. I don't think they share the same perspective as we do of trying to appease and help our community, you know, have the place that they can prosper in and have their own property. So I'll leave it at that. All that to say that I guys all the best I appreciate your input and support on the process and you guys have a great holiday and I look forward to watching you next year. So thank you very much. Thank you. So this is the last meeting of this commission, this particular group of commissioners starting in January we'll have a new planning commission and there may be some carryover and there may be some changes. So I want to say farewell basically to this commission as a group. And I just want to say that I think it was a very good year and that the commission has worked together very successfully to deal with what came before us and to come to consensus in most cases and when we disagreed we did so in a professional and civil manner. And I think it was a good example of how a commission should function. So those who are going to be back next year, which I may be one of, we'll see what happens then and those who are moving on, that's the book to you. Does anyone else have anything they would like to say before we close up the year? If not, we will adjourn the, excuse me. Our next meeting is January 21st. The city council is adopting our planning commission schedule next week. So I'll be sending that out after adoption but again, first Thursdays of each month except for January, July and August will be the third Thursday. So next meeting is January 21st. All right, well, again, farewell to everyone and happy holidays and we'll see some of you in January and others whenever. All right, good night. Thank you. Thank you.