1
00:02:58,510 --> 00:03:05,370
Is there a reminder this meeting is being able cast live on charter communications cable TV channel 8 and is being recorded?

2
00:03:06,030 --> 00:03:09,750
Meetings can also be viewed streamlined from our website.

3
00:03:10,690 --> 00:03:16,310
Our technician tonight is Mary and Kooley. Oh, excuse me, our technician tonight is Alex Saeed.

4
00:03:17,110 --> 00:03:25,670
As a reminder, if you do get up to speak, please sign your name so that we get it correct in the record and turn off your cell phones during the meeting.

5
00:03:25,670 --> 00:03:29,670
Please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance.

6
00:03:50,850 --> 00:03:52,430
Roll call, please.

7
00:03:52,950 --> 00:03:53,310
Commissioner Welts.

8
00:03:53,950 --> 00:03:56,910
Commissioner Westman, Commissioner Ortee.

9
00:03:57,390 --> 00:03:58,290
Commissioner Newman.

10
00:03:58,790 --> 00:03:58,950
Chair.

11
00:03:59,010 --> 00:03:59,310
Chair, persons.

12
00:03:59,770 --> 00:03:59,970
Here.

13
00:04:01,830 --> 00:04:04,730
Are there any additions or deletions to tonight's agenda?

14
00:04:04,810 --> 00:04:05,570
No, Madam Chair.

15
00:04:07,170 --> 00:04:10,550
Are there any public comments since tonight is a special meeting?

16
00:04:10,830 --> 00:04:14,830
We're only going to be taking comments on the items that are on the agenda.

17
00:04:14,830 --> 00:04:21,050
But if a member of the public is here to speak and can't stay the full links that the meeting will

18
00:04:21,050 --> 00:04:24,830
We'll hear their comments now. Otherwise we'll hear them with the items.

19
00:04:26,350 --> 00:04:31,990
And Betty here who's got time constraints. Excellent. Commission comments.

20
00:04:35,230 --> 00:04:45,710
So are we going to do our comments on the matrix that you gave us before we talk about our new topics or will that happen at the end?

21
00:04:45,710 --> 00:04:49,030
I think this would be an appropriate time if you'd like to go through it now.

22
00:04:49,310 --> 00:04:50,930
I'd rather do it at the end if we could.

23
00:04:51,610 --> 00:04:55,190
Just because I would like for everybody to get a chance to review their comments.

24
00:04:57,330 --> 00:04:58,210
And if...

25
00:04:58,210 --> 00:05:00,570
Okay, we're about the ones we've already done.

26
00:05:01,510 --> 00:05:01,650
Right.

27
00:05:02,190 --> 00:05:06,370
I'd just kind of like to get through tonight's because if we start to run late,

28
00:05:06,690 --> 00:05:10,150
then I'd like to do those maybe we even do them at another meeting.

29
00:05:10,410 --> 00:05:13,850
Because I'd like for everybody to get a chance to really give their comments.

30
00:05:13,850 --> 00:05:19,050
But I'm thinking it might be yeah, not so I can just leave mine for you since I won't be here for another

31
00:05:19,750 --> 00:05:22,190
Okay, well hopefully we'll get to him at the end.

32
00:05:26,440 --> 00:05:28,300
Yeah, approval of the minutes

33
00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:29,880
That's approval

34
00:05:30,880 --> 00:05:33,200
I'd like to ask for a correction on page five

35
00:05:35,420 --> 00:05:36,300
paragraph five

36
00:05:37,870 --> 00:05:40,810
Can we change jury to court

37
00:05:41,510 --> 00:05:43,850
It makes a little makes a little more sense

38
00:05:50,510 --> 00:05:54,930
I got that

39
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:04,460
I have a motion to we have a second.

40
00:06:04,700 --> 00:06:06,100
I'll second it.

41
00:06:06,160 --> 00:06:06,660
All in favor?

42
00:06:07,320 --> 00:06:07,580
Aye.

43
00:06:11,710 --> 00:06:12,050
Okay.

44
00:06:12,230 --> 00:06:13,510
Moving to the public hearings.

45
00:06:14,530 --> 00:06:17,770
Tonight we will be hearing zoning code updates.

46
00:06:18,290 --> 00:06:21,790
I'm issue one protecting unique qualities of residential neighborhoods.

47
00:06:22,670 --> 00:06:30,550
Issue 16, a height in residential neighborhoods and issue eight non-conforming uses and non-conforming structures.

48
00:06:30,550 --> 00:06:34,170
Okay, thank you Madam Chair and commissioners.

49
00:06:34,390 --> 00:06:42,370
I welcome to our fifth meeting on the zoning code update and I think this will be our final meeting for the issues in options paper.

50
00:06:43,250 --> 00:06:49,070
Tonight we'll be discussing protecting the unique qualities of residential neighborhoods during the general plan outreach,

51
00:06:49,670 --> 00:06:55,490
the theme of protecting residential neighborhoods, character and unique qualities came up again and again.

52
00:06:55,490 --> 00:07:10,330
It also came up during when we reached out for the zoning code update and tonight it will hopefully come to consensus on how to make sure that we protect the neighborhood character.

53
00:07:11,190 --> 00:07:18,630
Within the general plan, a new residential development should strengthen and enhance the unique qualities of neighborhoods.

54
00:07:19,950 --> 00:07:25,890
There was also a policy stating that mass scale and height of new developments must be

55
00:07:25,890 --> 00:07:28,570
compatible with existing residential neighborhoods.

56
00:07:29,610 --> 00:07:34,790
And also that architectural character of new development should complement the unique qualities

57
00:07:34,790 --> 00:07:40,250
of the neighborhood and overall the overall coastal village and character of Capitola.

58
00:07:41,030 --> 00:07:46,630
To protect the unique qualities and ensure compatibility with an updated zoning code,

59
00:07:46,630 --> 00:07:49,390
We must identify those qualities and then draft standards

60
00:07:49,390 --> 00:07:51,390
to support compatible development.

61
00:07:52,090 --> 00:07:56,230
So within your packet, I've broken up the different neighborhoods

62
00:07:56,230 --> 00:07:59,570
and some of the unique qualities within those neighborhoods

63
00:07:59,570 --> 00:08:02,010
that are really guided by development standards.

64
00:08:02,310 --> 00:08:07,130
So not all the unique qualities, such as a design feature

65
00:08:07,130 --> 00:08:09,690
on a home or within the yard would be listed there,

66
00:08:09,790 --> 00:08:12,490
but really those qualities that can be regulated

67
00:08:12,490 --> 00:08:13,850
within a zoning code.

68
00:08:16,470 --> 00:08:20,930
Capital is residential neighborhoods are full of charm and identity.

69
00:08:21,770 --> 00:08:27,630
Some of the inequalities of the neighborhoods include inviting front yards, including the landscaping,

70
00:08:27,750 --> 00:08:32,430
walkways leading to the homes, and front doors typically oriented towards the street.

71
00:08:33,030 --> 00:08:35,250
There's less emphasis on the car.

72
00:08:35,350 --> 00:08:38,530
Driveways are not allowed to exceed 40% of the lot with.

73
00:08:38,530 --> 00:08:44,110
garage is having increased setback standards. Also the neighborhoods are known for being compact with

74
00:08:44,110 --> 00:08:49,650
little space between homes, except in some areas such as Cliffwood Heights, which have a little more space.

75
00:08:50,810 --> 00:08:56,190
And there are typically larger backyards due to the 20% requirement for a rear yard setback.

76
00:08:57,790 --> 00:09:03,630
Compatibility is often measured by mass and scale and height, relative to buildings and it's surrounding.

77
00:09:03,630 --> 00:09:09,150
building mass is regulated through the floor area ratio in Capatola. Also, the overall scale

78
00:09:09,150 --> 00:09:14,190
is determined through maximum height limits. So now we'll take a look at how this

79
00:09:14,190 --> 00:09:21,430
translates into setting up a new code. Within our existing code we utilize the floor area ratio.

80
00:09:25,350 --> 00:09:32,550
The current code, so within the floor area ratio we quantify the total maximum building square footage

81
00:09:32,550 --> 00:09:34,370
for a new structure.

82
00:09:35,030 --> 00:09:45,370
And within the code, we also use Florea ratio to limit to include garages, which influence

83
00:09:45,370 --> 00:09:46,310
your massing.

84
00:09:46,450 --> 00:09:52,910
But there has also been requirements for any decks beyond 150 square feet count towards

85
00:09:52,910 --> 00:09:53,930
your Florea ratio.

86
00:09:53,970 --> 00:09:59,630
And we recently had a conversation about changing that, where within Capitola, one of the

87
00:09:59,630 --> 00:10:06,770
unique features is the front facade of the home being welcoming one modification that was

88
00:10:06,770 --> 00:10:13,570
directed by this board was that we changed the floria ratio to include exceptions for

89
00:10:13,570 --> 00:10:21,270
decks for the front facade also for homes that are adjacent to open space to allow homes

90
00:10:21,270 --> 00:10:26,910
along so Cal Creek or oceanfront properties to have decks that don't count towards the floria

91
00:10:26,910 --> 00:10:32,610
ratio. There was clarification that the real corridor is open space but not to allow it there

92
00:10:32,610 --> 00:10:37,290
because it could have impacts on adjacent neighbors. And then within restaurants and hotels

93
00:10:37,290 --> 00:10:42,770
within the general plan they have a maximum floor area of one typically within the commercial

94
00:10:42,770 --> 00:10:50,070
areas so there we wouldn't count decks towards the restaurant and hotel floor area ratio.

95
00:10:51,090 --> 00:10:55,930
And then there was also the discussion that when we came back for this discussion on neighborhood

96
00:10:55,930 --> 00:11:02,450
character that you wanted us to re-emphasize, bring back Dex and continue to talk about the subject.

97
00:11:02,850 --> 00:11:05,590
So I thought I'd include this slide tonight.

98
00:11:06,270 --> 00:11:11,330
The next subject for neighborhood character that is determined within his own encode is height.

99
00:11:12,130 --> 00:11:17,470
This was also talked about this sort of previous meeting and asked that it come back during

100
00:11:17,470 --> 00:11:19,870
our neighborhood character discussion.

101
00:11:20,850 --> 00:11:25,190
height right now is regulated at 25 feet within the single family zone.

102
00:11:25,230 --> 00:11:29,670
There is a height exception of up to 27 feet for half-story designs.

103
00:11:30,010 --> 00:11:35,290
And buildings that use historic design elements during the previous discussion,

104
00:11:36,470 --> 00:11:39,870
there was consensus to take out the exception for a half-story design

105
00:11:39,870 --> 00:11:43,370
and also that the historic design element,

106
00:11:44,030 --> 00:11:47,130
it just was not clear how the exception could be applied.

107
00:11:47,870 --> 00:11:52,230
For tonight I was going to introduce four new options within height.

108
00:11:53,010 --> 00:11:56,230
One is 27 feet for a roof pitch greater than 512.

109
00:11:56,870 --> 00:12:02,790
I believe that the historic design element exception was put in place for steeper roof pitches.

110
00:12:03,110 --> 00:12:10,030
So it's clear to apply by stating what that roof pitch would be and how to go higher with the allowance of the.

111
00:12:10,530 --> 00:12:16,050
Also during a previous meeting we talked about 20 allowing a height exception for larger lots.

112
00:12:17,470 --> 00:12:24,470
And I also added lots with a width of 60 feet because if it's the height, having an influence

113
00:12:24,470 --> 00:12:31,090
on neighborhoods that you want to avoid by having an adequate width for a lot, you can

114
00:12:31,090 --> 00:12:33,790
ensure that the impact won't be as large on the neighbor.

115
00:12:34,650 --> 00:12:41,310
And then also how a height exception for lots on steep slopes, so I'll go through those now.

116
00:12:41,310 --> 00:12:58,770
The first is a height exception for a roof pitch greater than 512 in these images you can see what the different roof pitches look like and how a more traditional roof is typically has a greater pitch and how that could be applied.

117
00:13:01,910 --> 00:13:10,030
Next height exception for a lot sizes within this image. This is a map that the different lot sizes are broken down.

118
00:13:10,030 --> 00:13:16,330
Here, the light green are parcels up to about 7,000 square feet.

119
00:13:16,770 --> 00:13:24,290
The darker green is from 7,000 to just under 8,000, and then the blues as they get darker

120
00:13:24,290 --> 00:13:27,810
and into the purple, the parcel sizes get larger.

121
00:13:28,630 --> 00:13:34,150
So within this map, you can start to see trends of the area, the small neighborhood near

122
00:13:38,210 --> 00:13:45,330
And then also Cliff Wood Heights, so the two areas of town that really have a pattern of larger lots.

123
00:13:46,690 --> 00:13:55,610
So, in creating a new standard for additional height, we can utilize this map to say which threshold you'd like that new height established at.

124
00:13:55,610 --> 00:14:05,010
So, once you get into any of the colored parcels on this map, or 6,000 feet, or greater,

125
00:14:05,730 --> 00:14:15,010
and once you get into the 7,000 to 7,99, that's the darker green, and once you get into blue

126
00:14:15,010 --> 00:14:19,650
and purple, you're really looking at the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood and some areas along

127
00:14:19,650 --> 00:14:26,650
and then some parcels in the smaller neighborhoods that have been joined, so when there's

128
00:14:27,770 --> 00:14:29,490
merge, I should say.

129
00:14:30,850 --> 00:14:36,210
Next is an exception for when there's a wider lot to allow homes to go higher.

130
00:14:36,370 --> 00:14:39,450
So in this image, you see your typical 40-foot wide lots,

131
00:14:39,910 --> 00:14:43,790
and in a situation where two lots have been merged and there's 80 feet,

132
00:14:43,790 --> 00:14:47,730
possibly allowing for an additional two feet on those wider lots,

133
00:14:47,730 --> 00:14:52,970
knowing that their shading won't be shading out the neighbor next to them.

134
00:14:53,910 --> 00:14:56,410
And also looking at an exception for steep slopes.

135
00:14:56,550 --> 00:14:59,910
These are some homes in the back as viewed from river.

136
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:09,000
You, they're on the back of warf, and how this is definitely, they were built under a different height standard or they received a variance at the time.

137
00:15:10,820 --> 00:15:15,680
So now under how we measure height, the home would have to step down with a lot.

138
00:15:16,760 --> 00:15:42,560
There is reason at times for allowing greater height on steep slopes and this example you can see the approach of a driveway going to a garage and it means if it were to meet the front yard it's set backs and then you are to build the garage sometimes you run out of room to have the full depth of a garage that's needed so in this image you could fit the smart car.

139
00:15:44,560 --> 00:15:50,920
But if you went up to an additional two feet, the garage could come out further and then you

140
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:54,320
could fit a standard vehicle or truck possibly.

141
00:15:55,020 --> 00:15:59,540
So I did want to mention within this slide, it's a good argument for a variance here.

142
00:15:59,620 --> 00:16:04,000
So this may not be one that you want to add to your zoning code, and typically when you're

143
00:16:04,000 --> 00:16:08,140
looking at variances, you're looking at specific circumstances tied to the lot, and this

144
00:16:08,140 --> 00:16:11,320
be a great example for why you would support a variance.

145
00:16:15,520 --> 00:16:20,640
So in talking about hi, this is just to re-emphasize the four new options that we can

146
00:16:20,640 --> 00:16:21,760
be looking at tonight.

147
00:16:24,200 --> 00:16:28,660
Next to another neighborhood characters, you're going through the R1 zone, there are certain

148
00:16:28,660 --> 00:16:35,600
lots along Riverview and there are a few in Deepohill that are at 30 feet wide and they're

149
00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:39,520
narrow compared to the majority of lots or 40 feet plus and

150
00:16:39,520 --> 00:16:45,760
wet throughout the city. So this is a map showing all of the

151
00:16:45,760 --> 00:16:49,040
lots that are 30 feet wide so you can really see the presence of them

152
00:16:50,180 --> 00:16:53,120
along river view and then a few within Deepohill.

153
00:16:55,600 --> 00:16:57,840
Currently the code

154
00:16:57,840 --> 00:17:03,380
requires a side yard setback of 10% for the first story and then 15% of the

155
00:17:03,380 --> 00:17:09,280
with for the second story on a 40 foot wide lot, it's not problematic and it typically creates a

156
00:17:09,280 --> 00:17:15,940
great design. Within a 30 foot wide lot, your bottom story is at 24 feet for the first story,

157
00:17:16,060 --> 00:17:23,400
and then the second story is limited to about 21 feet in width. So here it's to possibly add an

158
00:17:23,400 --> 00:17:30,080
exception for lots, 30 feet wide or less to not have to have a second story additional setback.

159
00:17:32,760 --> 00:17:42,160
Another pattern you see throughout the single family district is secondary structures that are located in the rear yard.

160
00:17:42,800 --> 00:17:50,000
This is an upper river view. You can see the yellow dots or secondary structures.

161
00:17:50,860 --> 00:17:59,720
Then I went on GIS and did my best job I could of estimating through the aerial images of how many

162
00:17:59,720 --> 00:18:06,260
driveways exist that lead to a secondary structure. It may be a garage, it may be a unit

163
00:18:06,260 --> 00:18:10,600
I'm not sure, but there's quite a few that have pavement leading to a secondary structure

164
00:18:10,600 --> 00:18:15,800
in the back. Within capital, it's due to the parking issues and many of these neighborhoods.

165
00:18:16,520 --> 00:18:21,240
These are often a good thing to have additional, you know, longer driveways in which people

166
00:18:21,240 --> 00:18:26,160
can park in and if it is a driveway and the garage in the back to be able to utilize that

167
00:18:26,160 --> 00:18:33,160
space as well. So currently many of these would be non-conforming because the setback requirement

168
00:18:33,960 --> 00:18:38,840
for an accessory structure is eight feet from the rear property line and a lot of these

169
00:18:38,840 --> 00:18:46,260
looked really close. So to maintain this pattern that you see within our neighborhoods it could

170
00:18:46,260 --> 00:18:51,400
be you could either decrease the rear yard setback for accessory structures or you could add an

171
00:18:51,400 --> 00:18:58,100
section under your non-conforming area to state that a non-conforming garage, and specifying

172
00:18:58,100 --> 00:19:04,440
that it's a garage so that you're mitigating the helping to mitigate the parking, located

173
00:19:04,440 --> 00:19:07,060
with a setback may be upgraded but not expanded.

174
00:19:10,770 --> 00:19:16,950
So within the options for Neighborhood Character tonight, the first is to maintain the existing

175
00:19:16,950 --> 00:19:21,150
code and I've taken out the height exception as directed at a previous meeting.

176
00:19:22,050 --> 00:19:29,810
That same height requirements, front yard, garage, subbacks, rear and side yards and second story.

177
00:19:30,910 --> 00:19:37,150
The second option is to introduce tailored development standards for individual residential neighborhoods.

178
00:19:37,490 --> 00:19:39,330
So here's the map from the general plan.

179
00:19:39,770 --> 00:19:44,150
An example of how to do this would be each of these neighborhoods becomes an overlay zone.

180
00:19:44,750 --> 00:19:49,410
And within the overlay you would make development standards for each overlay.

181
00:19:49,410 --> 00:19:59,910
And here's an example for height, so in this example, Cliff Wood Heights could have a height limit up to 27 feet and the others would remain as they are today.

182
00:20:02,880 --> 00:20:07,180
And then next is allow case-by-case deviations to the R1 standards.

183
00:20:08,680 --> 00:20:17,800
To do this, we could have findings that wouldn't be a variance, but just findings that the deviation that's requested reflects the prevailing character in a neighborhood.

184
00:20:17,800 --> 00:20:25,100
So looking at surroundings and making sure it's compatible and that also will not negatively impact adjacent properties.

185
00:20:25,820 --> 00:20:30,860
So those you would look at individual case by case deviations when they come before planning commission.

186
00:20:32,600 --> 00:20:40,060
And then the fourth option is something that has been created from the outcome of our other discussions is a hybrid option

187
00:20:40,060 --> 00:20:42,700
and it's some of the ideas that I introduced tonight.

188
00:20:42,700 --> 00:20:48,660
Introducing development standards based on specific characteristics of the lot or the design.

189
00:20:49,360 --> 00:20:53,720
So within this option we could create new height exceptions as presented.

190
00:20:54,780 --> 00:21:01,320
Within the side yard second story, you could have an exception for lots of 30 feet wide or less,

191
00:21:01,440 --> 00:21:06,480
and then also exceptions for accessory structures in the rear yard.

192
00:21:06,480 --> 00:21:12,520
So, from there, we could appreciate discussion from the commission, thank you.

193
00:21:13,980 --> 00:21:14,260
Thank you, Katie.

194
00:21:15,300 --> 00:21:18,960
Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item this evening?

195
00:21:20,400 --> 00:21:24,280
Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission questions for staff comments.

196
00:21:26,970 --> 00:21:30,430
First question is, I didn't understand the part about

197
00:21:31,310 --> 00:21:35,970
Explore any ratio exceptions for restaurants that have a 1.0 flow area ratio.

198
00:21:38,210 --> 00:21:52,210
So, for a hotel, within the general plan, there is a limit for the Florea ratio, and when calculating the Florea ratio, we took out the requirements for a deck.

199
00:21:52,590 --> 00:22:03,850
So, if there was a dining deck on a second story of a hotel, that would not count towards the Florea ratio calculation, the maximum Florea ratio for the general plan standards.

200
00:22:03,850 --> 00:22:12,590
That was actually one of the questions I had because when I went back and I read what we had done.

201
00:22:13,110 --> 00:22:17,230
You know, I look at a place like Zelda's.

202
00:22:17,250 --> 00:22:20,870
You know, their deck is bigger than their restaurant is.

203
00:22:22,150 --> 00:22:30,510
So, for me, I suddenly became very uncomfortable with having an exception from the floor area ratio,

204
00:22:30,510 --> 00:22:33,690
because that's what parking is going to be based on.

205
00:22:34,610 --> 00:22:38,510
So I'm not at all comfortable with leaving

206
00:22:38,510 --> 00:22:41,370
that exception in there.

207
00:22:43,130 --> 00:22:44,870
You know, I don't know how other people feel.

208
00:22:45,110 --> 00:22:47,550
But I didn't realize we were talking about,

209
00:22:48,170 --> 00:22:51,870
because if you were a smart developer on your hotel,

210
00:22:51,870 --> 00:22:54,870
I mean, you'd have a huge outdoor dining area

211
00:22:54,870 --> 00:22:57,430
that was a deck, and then you don't have

212
00:22:57,430 --> 00:22:59,010
to provide any parking port.

213
00:22:59,010 --> 00:23:06,290
So, similar to the basement conversation that we had previously, we could require, we could

214
00:23:06,290 --> 00:23:11,630
do the calculation for parking to include it for the parking requirement, but if you

215
00:23:11,630 --> 00:23:19,090
wanted it not to count towards the massing, because for basements, I believe the direction

216
00:23:19,090 --> 00:23:24,430
was to not include basements towards the floor area ratio, but it will be counted towards

217
00:23:24,430 --> 00:23:25,310
the parking requirement.

218
00:23:26,190 --> 00:23:35,290
And I thought when we were talking about the restaurants that it was the number of seats that is going to determine the parking requirement.

219
00:23:35,590 --> 00:23:39,850
So if you've got a big deck or whatever, it's the number of seats.

220
00:23:40,110 --> 00:23:41,990
Aren't we changing it to square footage?

221
00:23:41,990 --> 00:23:43,910
We have to take a turn in the parking requirement.

222
00:23:44,110 --> 00:23:46,250
We're getting rid of the whole counting of seats.

223
00:23:47,610 --> 00:23:54,510
So one clarification, I mean the code currently faces parking standards on floor area and not floor area ratio.

224
00:23:55,310 --> 00:24:05,110
Which is more of a mass. So I think it's kind of alluded to in terms of considering the parking requirements. You would look at any areas where you could have seating.

225
00:24:07,300 --> 00:24:20,040
I feel comfortable accounting it toward parking but not accounting it towards glory area because I think we're I don't really know how it will apply and allow someone to

226
00:24:20,040 --> 00:24:28,780
Garner more seating in reality because there's still going to have to grapple with the parking problem.

227
00:24:29,500 --> 00:24:42,300
But I do think any time we can encourage people to be outside, it's good for retail for the ambience of an area and it's good for human beings to be outside.

228
00:24:42,300 --> 00:24:49,560
So, I'm principle, I like the idea of encouraging outdoor activities when we're in other.

229
00:24:49,980 --> 00:24:56,940
Right, I hear what you're saying, my concern is that, for example, if someone comes in and they want to build a hotel.

230
00:24:57,700 --> 00:25:06,860
And as part of their hotel development, they're going to have, let's say, five by 10, 50 foot deck on each room.

231
00:25:06,860 --> 00:25:18,560
When you start adding all of that to the building, it's certainly going to increase the size of the mass of the building.

232
00:25:19,680 --> 00:25:27,040
And I understand that you want to encourage people to have outdoor decks.

233
00:25:27,040 --> 00:25:36,800
But I'm not certain that we want to just completely exempt them and not count them at all.

234
00:25:37,020 --> 00:25:42,820
Do we want to put some limit on the size of the deck that we don't count?

235
00:25:42,980 --> 00:25:49,300
I mean, I like your ideas, as long as they're going to be accounted in the parking calculation.

236
00:25:50,940 --> 00:25:56,460
So they could be a percentage of the interior of the building, you know, no greater than

237
00:25:56,460 --> 00:26:01,880
x percentage of the interior of the building so that there's some balance between interior

238
00:26:01,880 --> 00:26:06,740
and exterior and it's we've built in some safeguards of, in other words, a little bit

239
00:26:06,740 --> 00:26:07,400
on the exception.

240
00:26:11,740 --> 00:26:16,900
And you could separate it out between areas that are common space that are shared, such

241
00:26:16,900 --> 00:26:22,640
is your dining area that counts towards your parking, but if it's a hotel and you have

242
00:26:22,640 --> 00:26:30,360
a small deck per suite, then maybe you don't count that towards the overall parking space

243
00:26:30,360 --> 00:26:36,680
because that's part of the suite, in which you would be fine with me if there was a limit

244
00:26:36,680 --> 00:26:42,000
that you don't count decks that are say more than a hundred square feet. That's pretty

245
00:26:42,000 --> 00:27:03,260
good side deck but you don't want someone to you know build a penthouse and you know I mean the deck is going to be part of the building it's not like it's going to be part of the mass and the size of it and that's so important to

246
00:27:03,260 --> 00:27:11,760
I think the people in Capitola that, I agree with scale, we want to encourage the outside space,

247
00:27:12,060 --> 00:27:17,800
but I don't want us to do something that we later come back and regret and say, oh my gosh,

248
00:27:18,120 --> 00:27:20,480
how did they get to do that?

249
00:27:20,620 --> 00:27:26,240
So if there's some limits on the size and that it does count for a parking, then it starts

250
00:27:26,240 --> 00:27:28,480
to make more sense to me.

251
00:27:28,480 --> 00:27:34,980
But in the neighborhoods, are we including the residential and the commercial or are we really

252
00:27:34,980 --> 00:27:42,800
specifically talking about neighborhoods and residential structures that have decks attached to it?

253
00:27:43,220 --> 00:27:46,080
The whole restaurants and hotels were exempt.

254
00:27:47,100 --> 00:27:49,240
Yeah, I think we're just talking about restaurants and hotels.

255
00:27:50,260 --> 00:27:51,120
That was my question.

256
00:27:53,790 --> 00:27:56,290
I'll pull up the definition that we currently have.

257
00:27:56,290 --> 00:28:02,790
the other way the other place in our ordinances where we apply these kinds of things is front

258
00:28:02,790 --> 00:28:10,050
front porches covered front porches of a certain I think it's 250 square feet up to 250 square

259
00:28:10,050 --> 00:28:16,030
feet are not covered in right in four areas. That's fine. So I think we're moving in that same direction

260
00:28:16,030 --> 00:28:20,490
where we have a certain either a percentage or a square footage.

261
00:28:20,490 --> 00:28:21,410
So,

262
00:28:24,260 --> 00:28:26,820
my next question, ready for it?

263
00:28:26,820 --> 00:28:27,920
I have a specific answer.

264
00:28:29,300 --> 00:28:33,790
My next question is clarification of this.

265
00:28:33,790 --> 00:28:39,990
This seems like an awful lot of commentary on the difference between 25 feet and 27 feet,

266
00:28:40,370 --> 00:28:42,090
which is simply a small difference.

267
00:28:42,270 --> 00:28:44,010
You see, maybe.

268
00:28:44,750 --> 00:28:49,490
And I'm kind of curious as to when the plants you see and what's going on.

269
00:28:49,490 --> 00:28:51,870
I mean, how is this two feet?

270
00:28:51,990 --> 00:28:55,390
Other than slope, lots with China stand problem there.

271
00:28:55,770 --> 00:28:56,810
I mean, are we talking about the difference

272
00:28:56,810 --> 00:28:58,390
between two stories and three stories?

273
00:28:59,030 --> 00:29:00,730
And that's really important in the flood plane now

274
00:29:00,730 --> 00:29:02,910
because the first story you can't build on.

275
00:29:02,950 --> 00:29:04,690
So you have to be able to go three stories

276
00:29:04,690 --> 00:29:06,150
to build anywhere in Riverview now.

277
00:29:09,320 --> 00:29:11,820
So the reason for the hate exception

278
00:29:11,820 --> 00:29:15,740
from my perspective is going through this process

279
00:29:15,740 --> 00:29:19,700
and talking with stakeholders was to allow more flexibility

280
00:29:19,700 --> 00:29:20,760
and design.

281
00:29:20,760 --> 00:29:33,340
So, some of the architecture and design groups that really was asking for more flex to the new zoning code to allow more flexibilities.

282
00:29:33,740 --> 00:29:46,800
So, that's why the minimum 512 pitch I put in there, but that's really the root of where this request is coming from.

283
00:29:46,800 --> 00:29:50,960
The 27 has been put in there because that's what we've had.

284
00:29:51,260 --> 00:29:57,160
That's only really going to apply to old stock buildings because nowadays, I mean, people are, as I say, are.

285
00:29:57,260 --> 00:29:59,980
They're going to want to use a different suituring 25 and 27 to get.

286
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:12,820
The third story. That's what it means. I think you can get three stories, 25 feet. There's a couple of examples of your probably have lower ceilings. So it might have a flat roof.

287
00:30:13,040 --> 00:30:18,760
Right, you have a flat roof. There's a design element. I mean, if you want to do three stories, have any kind of pitch in your roof, 25.

288
00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:20,200
That's a lie.

289
00:30:22,380 --> 00:30:26,840
Yeah, a story sounds across the street from Gail is three stories and it's 25.

290
00:30:27,120 --> 00:30:31,260
What's the downside to 27? I mean, is that like a terrible thing for the nation?

291
00:30:32,960 --> 00:30:38,380
It could allow the scale to be a bit different, you know, the scale is very low in many of

292
00:30:38,380 --> 00:30:44,120
the neighborhoods in capitalists, so your floor to top of wall would get higher, you could

293
00:30:44,120 --> 00:30:53,440
essentially under a 25 or 27 foot height, you can have your 10 foot ceiling. It's really

294
00:30:53,440 --> 00:30:58,100
a matter of the design and looking at the scale as they come through. I don't think there's

295
00:30:58,100 --> 00:31:06,580
huge difference between a 25 and a 27 foot height. But as you allow to 27 feet, you could

296
00:31:06,580 --> 00:31:10,500
see your wall height get taller, which could throw off scale in neighborhoods.

297
00:31:10,860 --> 00:31:15,200
You already have 27 feet in the village. We're just talking about the.

298
00:31:15,200 --> 00:31:20,100
Do other communities? I mean, this is a big deal. 25 feet around the state.

299
00:31:21,560 --> 00:31:23,940
Ben? No. We, we, we.

300
00:31:27,100 --> 00:31:31,120
You know, for me, I know we had this discussion about the village and it kind of plays

301
00:31:31,120 --> 00:31:36,960
the fact before we built our house we actually had plans drawn and actually went to the city

302
00:31:36,960 --> 00:31:37,880
with them.

303
00:31:38,000 --> 00:31:45,160
And the height of our house, a two story house was 26 feet, six inches because it had the glass,

304
00:31:45,240 --> 00:31:49,280
you know, some of, that's a long, long, the ridge, and that had another six inches.

305
00:31:49,280 --> 00:31:56,040
which was, and the house, this is, you know, our latte PY, but it was going to be a problem

306
00:31:56,040 --> 00:32:00,820
getting through this, we did actually get the plan through, but we ended up lowering the roof design.

307
00:32:01,400 --> 00:32:07,720
So in that house, we had a nine-foot roof height on the first floor and then vaulted two things on the second

308
00:32:07,720 --> 00:32:09,720
and you easily can get to there with the second.

309
00:32:10,100 --> 00:32:15,660
Which, to me, I'm not, I think, as Ed's character in design and neighborhood, but I'm not me,

310
00:32:15,660 --> 00:32:20,940
what I'm not really open to is all these flat roofs I just to me I just think they take away from

311
00:32:20,940 --> 00:32:26,220
character and design and I was talking with the staff before the meeting about I was looking

312
00:32:26,900 --> 00:32:34,300
from brand down over the village the other day and a good example of it to me was the apartments that

313
00:32:34,300 --> 00:32:41,260
are down on the corner of Espenod you can kind of see it's hard to see and that's going to zoom in there

314
00:32:41,260 --> 00:32:45,100
the apartments and then right next to the six sisters so you know the

315
00:32:45,100 --> 00:32:49,260
apartments are done and if you look at the design I mean the six sisters

316
00:32:49,260 --> 00:32:54,840
obviously have character and design that capital I hope would like but and it's a

317
00:32:54,840 --> 00:32:59,280
two story with a dormers so you could you could actually yeah it's

318
00:32:59,280 --> 00:33:02,980
have to get in and get that view huh well here you go so here you go so now you

319
00:33:02,980 --> 00:33:07,260
have basically the same roof height a three story versus a two story and then

320
00:33:07,260 --> 00:33:10,820
actually it could probably get some dormers in that to me the character of the

321
00:33:10,820 --> 00:33:18,300
sisters over the three story flat roofs is quite significant. So that's why I was in

322
00:33:18,300 --> 00:33:21,680
favor of a plate height, the top plate height, then allowed the roofing to be a little

323
00:33:21,680 --> 00:33:25,980
more flexible. Because it adds a lot more character than just, that's what we're going to

324
00:33:25,980 --> 00:33:30,400
end up with. Those apartments, I think, if we just go with a flat 27 foot and that's what you're

325
00:33:30,400 --> 00:33:33,940
getting. I think you're going to put a lot of these down in the, and we already have a couple

326
00:33:33,940 --> 00:33:40,340
of them in the village. I hate to see that up in our neighborhoods as well. Right, but for me,

327
00:33:40,340 --> 00:33:46,340
You know we've got the three story building there and if you put you know a fairly steep pitch roof on it suddenly

328
00:33:46,340 --> 00:33:48,220
I mean you have quite a tall building

329
00:33:48,220 --> 00:33:53,620
That's what I'm saying you do a plate height, so if you look at the six sisters for the top plate is where the ridge line comes down

330
00:33:53,620 --> 00:34:02,340
That's the limit, but it allows the character of a roof line in there as opposed to letting your plate height go all the way to the 27 feet maximum

331
00:34:02,340 --> 00:34:03,480
Does that make sense?

332
00:34:03,600 --> 00:34:08,480
So what you're saying is that you only want to have two story structures

333
00:34:08,480 --> 00:34:15,760
Well, in this one they may be able to get a dormer up in the third floor if they wanted or something so you could have some access in the six sisters

334
00:34:16,400 --> 00:34:21,140
But it gives it more character than just a flat roof of a full third story

335
00:34:21,140 --> 00:34:24,500
And I bring up a point about flat risk because I agree with you

336
00:34:24,500 --> 00:34:29,720
I think the kinds of flat roofs we used to see back in the 60s and 70s were for economic reasons

337
00:34:29,720 --> 00:34:33,320
They were the cheapest way to build a house together a lot of volume

338
00:34:34,100 --> 00:34:40,180
traditionally we'll see them in older buildings not very attractive. But what I

339
00:34:40,180 --> 00:34:44,300
see now I'm not even sure it's the character of Capitola but I see more

340
00:34:44,300 --> 00:34:49,780
modern articulated homes with flat roofs now that are really a lot more

341
00:34:49,780 --> 00:34:54,260
attractive and very stylized and and I do we we've we've approved several of

342
00:34:54,260 --> 00:34:57,020
them and we've got them in Capitola. Yeah there's one on El Camino media that

343
00:34:57,020 --> 00:35:01,200
you've got but it's really got like a one or two maybe one one half one 12

344
00:35:01,200 --> 00:35:06,400
a picture of it's got a little bit of a pitch to it, so I don't know if I don't see it say,

345
00:35:06,840 --> 00:35:08,840
I want to get, I know what you're saying about.

346
00:35:09,000 --> 00:35:12,380
Yeah, I'm not opposed to saying that people couldn't have a flat roof.

347
00:35:13,280 --> 00:35:20,600
I think if we allow a top plate height, it limits the look of the apartments on the right is what it does.

348
00:35:20,880 --> 00:35:25,120
And you can still have that I think the house on that community media that I'm thinking of,

349
00:35:25,200 --> 00:35:30,480
would still be able to meet the current criteria if we talk about the height and still have that design.

350
00:35:30,480 --> 00:35:35,580
I love the contemporary, it's one of my favorite houses, but I think this is what we're

351
00:35:35,580 --> 00:35:35,600
getting.

352
00:35:35,900 --> 00:35:38,360
Just three story boxes, well I'm afraid we're getting in a little bit.

353
00:35:38,400 --> 00:35:38,840
Thank you.

354
00:35:38,940 --> 00:35:39,520
Our city.

355
00:35:39,920 --> 00:35:41,460
We have one.

356
00:35:43,080 --> 00:35:44,500
What's right across from the market?

357
00:35:46,280 --> 00:35:49,240
The little market down here in the village on that, that's not San Jose's.

358
00:35:49,460 --> 00:35:49,740
That's stuck.

359
00:35:49,920 --> 00:35:50,380
When is that?

360
00:35:50,380 --> 00:35:53,580
See, I actually like that little three story house in there.

361
00:35:53,640 --> 00:35:59,000
I think that's great in, I think, it fits in, it fits in, it fits in that little

362
00:35:59,000 --> 00:35:59,260
part.

363
00:35:59,260 --> 00:36:02,860
the plate height approaches, it won't work in the floodplain.

364
00:36:07,080 --> 00:36:11,200
And the new little house that's being built

365
00:36:11,200 --> 00:36:16,140
right at the end of Riverview Avenue, right before I like that house.

366
00:36:16,280 --> 00:36:20,360
And they've gotten basically three stories in there

367
00:36:20,360 --> 00:36:23,200
in the 27 foot, and it looks great.

368
00:36:24,320 --> 00:36:27,260
So I don't think I want to go with the plate height, either.

369
00:36:27,820 --> 00:36:33,020
That was one of the questions I was going to ask because we had that link, the discussion about how you measure the height.

370
00:36:33,760 --> 00:36:42,780
And I don't see that discussion reflected in anything, does it belong in the height provisions or does it belong in the neighborhood provisions?

371
00:36:43,400 --> 00:36:51,120
But I think we should let Council know that we have a recommendation, whatever that recommendation is, for how you measure it.

372
00:36:53,420 --> 00:37:19,290
But I mean, to Ed's point about, you know, 25 feet versus 27 feet, I'm not certain that, you know, it's that big of a deal to go to 27 feet, you know, maybe we should go to 26 and see if that sort of solves the problem.

373
00:37:19,290 --> 00:37:27,050
But what is the rest of the commission think about the option that says that if the larger lot sizes?

374
00:37:27,850 --> 00:37:35,910
Yeah, I'm comfortable with the larger lots size. Maybe if we have lots larger and we came up with some number.

375
00:37:36,250 --> 00:37:43,930
A lot of 60 feet wide and larger is going to be the definition for 27 feet.

376
00:37:44,530 --> 00:37:52,270
I think it was at the last meeting, it was a lot size and I believe it was 7,000.

377
00:37:52,710 --> 00:37:58,430
Can you go back a couple of slides because you had a diagram of lots that are 40 feet wide, lots that are 60 feet wide?

378
00:37:59,410 --> 00:38:07,570
And my question is, are we still going to allow the applicant to position the house with a four foot setback?

379
00:38:07,570 --> 00:38:15,570
doesn't make any difference how wide the lot is. If the house is still, you know, at the, at the, at the, at the least allowable setback,

380
00:38:16,990 --> 00:38:21,990
there'll be plenty of open space on one side, but one neighbor will be. So, in other words,

381
00:38:22,490 --> 00:38:29,810
if that 80 foot, you're showing a larger side yard setback there. Are you saying there would be a larger side yard setback required?

382
00:38:30,110 --> 00:38:35,370
There would be. You could have, you could have a 10% of the total width of the width of the right.

383
00:38:35,370 --> 00:38:42,590
Yeah, okay, so that's 80 foot lot of paid feed if it's 40 foot but it's got it, but four is it's for the minimum

384
00:38:42,590 --> 00:38:48,430
Or is it I think three is the minimum and seven's the maximum. Yeah

385
00:38:48,430 --> 00:38:49,610
I think this

386
00:38:50,290 --> 00:38:51,230
gets everybody

387
00:38:52,490 --> 00:38:57,330
Everybody to a comfortable spot. I think I think this is one of the ways we go about it now

388
00:38:57,330 --> 00:39:02,850
I noticed you dropped the historic you said we dropped the historic part of that now

389
00:39:02,850 --> 00:39:08,070
Why did we, I, another thing I don't recall why we did, why would we have done that?

390
00:39:08,270 --> 00:39:16,030
Why, what I'm trying to do is get it to, so that people have as many incentives as possible to maintain and upgrade their historic home.

391
00:39:16,410 --> 00:39:17,910
And this could be one of them.

392
00:39:18,450 --> 00:39:23,010
So, I think the historic elements were mainly roof pitch.

393
00:39:23,730 --> 00:39:27,830
It was because you have these historic homes, they have a steeper roof pitch.

394
00:39:27,830 --> 00:39:30,770
And that's, we were allowing the 27 feet,

395
00:39:30,770 --> 00:39:33,190
because it was, I steeper roof pitch, not.

396
00:39:33,650 --> 00:39:38,230
So she just changed it from historic to specify

397
00:39:38,230 --> 00:39:41,270
that it's roof pitch and not some other historic.

398
00:39:41,270 --> 00:39:44,090
And so you're saying historic would be included within that.

399
00:39:44,210 --> 00:39:45,690
Because it doesn't exist in roof pitch.

400
00:39:45,990 --> 00:39:48,130
If there were an existing historic home,

401
00:39:49,450 --> 00:39:52,830
it could remain historic and keep its roof pitch.

402
00:39:52,970 --> 00:39:54,470
We wouldn't require it to come lower.

403
00:39:54,590 --> 00:39:56,730
And that's something we'll talk about with non-conforming structures.

404
00:39:58,350 --> 00:40:04,950
But within this it was, I read it as the 27 foot building height for historic design elements

405
00:40:04,950 --> 00:40:05,770
as for an addition.

406
00:40:06,170 --> 00:40:10,730
So if there were an addition to say a historic home, they could go up.

407
00:40:10,730 --> 00:40:13,330
I think, 124 central is a good example of that.

408
00:40:13,330 --> 00:40:15,050
There was an addition off the back.

409
00:40:15,670 --> 00:40:20,070
They, as long as they comply with their side yard setbacks, or all their setbacks,

410
00:40:20,230 --> 00:40:25,430
they were allowed to go up to 27 feet and that was so that they could have a similar roof

411
00:40:25,430 --> 00:40:27,530
pitch to the building in the front.

412
00:40:29,210 --> 00:40:32,130
One of the problems with that particular part of the ordinance

413
00:40:32,130 --> 00:40:36,550
is that the term is that phrase, historic design elements.

414
00:40:37,350 --> 00:40:40,690
That whole thing left a big loophole that could be interpreted

415
00:40:40,690 --> 00:40:41,250
anyway.

416
00:40:41,510 --> 00:40:44,970
And of course, applicants, you know, I would too want to interpret it

417
00:40:44,970 --> 00:40:46,950
the most effective way for themselves.

418
00:40:47,450 --> 00:40:50,170
It was not the intent, the original intent.

419
00:40:50,470 --> 00:40:51,730
So I'm hoping that goes away.

420
00:40:53,630 --> 00:41:05,990
So you could clarify that within the options to allow up to 27 feet for a roof that mimics

421
00:41:05,990 --> 00:41:11,850
the, you know, for an addition to a historic structure so that the roof pitch of the new

422
00:41:11,850 --> 00:41:19,210
condition, compliments the historic, the existing historic, was being used when there wasn't

423
00:41:19,210 --> 00:41:22,750
an existing 20,000 foot. So, I think I would have.

424
00:41:23,250 --> 00:41:33,870
So I think if we go to option four, sort of the hybrid option, and go through that, it makes

425
00:41:33,870 --> 00:41:41,510
it a lot clearer for me. So what we're saying is that, you know, the existing code, the

426
00:41:41,510 --> 00:41:52,610
going to be 25 feet. And that we took out the, I'm looking at number four, the hybrid one.

427
00:41:53,510 --> 00:41:56,330
Yes. Don't make it go back to the, all of the options.

428
00:41:57,030 --> 00:42:01,690
Didn't you have one that's all right? Pretty much, yeah, sort of number four in summary.

429
00:42:03,090 --> 00:42:08,790
The hybrid option? Sorry. I mean, the hybrid option that's working for me.

430
00:42:10,980 --> 00:42:11,720
Sorry.

431
00:42:12,540 --> 00:42:13,880
Is that one done?

432
00:42:15,520 --> 00:42:15,700
Okay.

433
00:42:16,080 --> 00:42:17,780
So this is the hybrid option.

434
00:42:19,800 --> 00:42:28,420
So it seems to me that we're saying that it's 25 feet with the following exceptions,

435
00:42:28,740 --> 00:42:31,200
those options that we talked about.

436
00:42:31,980 --> 00:42:35,980
And those all work for me, you know,

437
00:42:35,980 --> 00:42:44,420
lots that are 60 feet or wider, lots that are greater than 7,000 square feet, you know, roof

438
00:42:44,420 --> 00:42:55,820
pitches, graders, and 5, 12, and, you know, I personally wouldn't include the 27 feet for

439
00:42:55,820 --> 00:43:02,400
lots with steep slopes because like you said, they absolutely can come in and get a variance

440
00:43:02,400 --> 00:43:09,560
And looking at those lots that you showed us, I mean, even the 27 feet, it's not going to work for them.

441
00:43:09,600 --> 00:43:13,880
They're going to have to go more than that because those lots are so steep.

442
00:43:16,460 --> 00:43:22,560
So, I would leave that one out, but the other two work for me.

443
00:43:22,560 --> 00:43:33,720
So the 27 with the roof pitch greater than 512, even in a 40 foot lot, I thought we were thinking

444
00:43:34,860 --> 00:43:35,400
that.

445
00:43:35,920 --> 00:43:39,840
That was for the historic buildings.

446
00:43:40,060 --> 00:43:42,920
And that was an alternative to having an exception for a start building.

447
00:43:42,960 --> 00:43:48,400
I like the idea of having the exception read more that the historic building can be improved

448
00:43:48,960 --> 00:43:56,700
Consistent with the existing first line. Right and leave out the fight. Oh wait. So it's okay. Yeah, that's kind of arbitrary no

449
00:43:59,600 --> 00:44:04,800
And is this I don't really care if you leave the 27 feet in on lots with steep slopes. I just

450
00:44:05,400 --> 00:44:10,440
Feel it sort of meaningless. Yeah, I just know and I really like the non-conforming garages

451
00:44:11,240 --> 00:44:16,200
Yeah, I'm hoping to be able to get rid of the word non-conforming in our ordinances. There's no way you can

452
00:44:16,200 --> 00:44:22,240
I'd actually like to see that the not only for existing non-conforming garages, but I'd

453
00:44:22,240 --> 00:44:31,420
like to see us allow exceptions for garages, because having a garage, if it's got, you know,

454
00:44:31,480 --> 00:44:36,820
it's a single story garage with a well-flopped roof, and it's on the back end of an existing

455
00:44:36,820 --> 00:44:42,800
garage, it seems to me that it's a good thing for everybody, it gives you, you know, partying

456
00:44:42,800 --> 00:44:49,940
is talking about roofs on garages. This is talking about the existing non-conforming garages

457
00:44:49,940 --> 00:44:53,280
that people have right now. This is not building a new one.

458
00:44:54,360 --> 00:44:59,000
Exactly my point. I'm saying that I'd like to see it so you could build a new one.

459
00:45:00,880 --> 00:45:10,040
That a new back end of a garage doesn't have to necessarily be eight feet off the back end. It can be four feet off the back end.

460
00:45:10,680 --> 00:45:13,540
It's a single story, garage edition.

461
00:45:14,140 --> 00:45:20,560
I think in a lot of cases it would give people that currently have their houses set way far forward.

462
00:45:21,140 --> 00:45:29,360
It would give them an alternative for taking a garage out the back of the house and getting a two-car tandem garage on their property.

463
00:45:29,360 --> 00:45:34,460
Um, using space that otherwise is behind a garage and they're not necessarily going to use it.

464
00:45:35,500 --> 00:45:36,220
Are you with me?

465
00:45:36,900 --> 00:45:40,400
I think it's a good thing to allow people to do that.

466
00:45:41,360 --> 00:45:49,760
And in the gentleman who was here the other night, I think it would have been a good alternative for him to be able to extend his existing garage without picking the whole house up in the living room.

467
00:45:51,780 --> 00:45:59,940
Well, he had house behind his existing garage, so he would have just used the space that was his house he wouldn't have had to.

468
00:45:59,940 --> 00:46:00,800
It

469
00:46:03,650 --> 00:46:09,290
would have given him options in design that would have potentially enables him to...

470
00:46:09,290 --> 00:46:11,570
Why isn't this hard to learn on conforming this session?

471
00:46:12,210 --> 00:46:12,970
It can be.

472
00:46:13,630 --> 00:46:14,930
You can do it all once.

473
00:46:15,070 --> 00:46:18,070
Well, Linda, excuse me.

474
00:46:18,630 --> 00:46:24,790
Chair Cho and Smith is suggesting that the rare yard here, the eight feet, be decreased to...

475
00:46:25,650 --> 00:46:31,650
You mentioned four feet, and I think she's also suggesting that there be a height limit introduced

476
00:46:31,650 --> 00:46:37,070
for secondary structures within the rare yard for garages, so it would be appropriate to have

477
00:46:37,070 --> 00:46:42,150
this discussion now if it's going to change the development standards for accessory structures.

478
00:46:43,670 --> 00:46:48,250
Yeah, and it could even be simpler than that where you're recommending adding an

479
00:46:48,250 --> 00:46:56,450
exception for existing non-conforming garages, I would just add an exception for garages located within

480
00:46:56,450 --> 00:47:05,220
that backs period and therefore new development come in and be closer to the rare property

481
00:47:05,220 --> 00:47:10,540
line as long as it's within a certain height limit as well and yeah you need to set

482
00:47:10,540 --> 00:47:15,460
the height limit so it's not a they're not putting a room back there and calling it a garage

483
00:47:15,460 --> 00:47:28,360
that it's actually a rise but I think it's a it's a design option for helping with

484
00:47:31,400 --> 00:47:31,420
our

485
00:47:31,420 --> 00:47:33,960
people with cars and garages. Yeah,

486
00:47:36,940 --> 00:47:39,380
I think people put cars and garages really. It's just

487
00:47:39,380 --> 00:47:44,740
more storage. I think it would be. I don't know. I put cars and garages or housing.

488
00:47:48,850 --> 00:47:49,670
I've seen it

489
00:47:49,670 --> 00:47:57,150
used very creatively back when you could have a 10 by 12 accessory structure. That was less than

490
00:47:57,150 --> 00:48:07,490
feet, you know, why? I've seen it accommodate a ten down. I can live with our

491
00:48:07,490 --> 00:48:11,710
shorter people. I mean, basically what you're saying is that, you know, if you

492
00:48:11,710 --> 00:48:19,590
have a lot, you're going to have a long driveway going back to a garage. And we

493
00:48:19,590 --> 00:48:25,650
have a number of those right now in sort of the Riverview Terrace neighborhood. And

494
00:48:25,650 --> 00:48:32,210
I could live with a new structure being built with that kind of garage.

495
00:48:33,210 --> 00:48:43,470
If we have something about the driveway linked so that you have, you know, parking in that longer driveway.

496
00:48:44,630 --> 00:48:52,490
Because I agree with Gayle, I mean I bet I could go through Riverview Terrace and there wouldn't be enough garages.

497
00:48:52,490 --> 00:48:56,230
the rear garages that are people or parking cars in,

498
00:48:56,330 --> 00:48:58,110
that I could count them on one hand.

499
00:48:58,330 --> 00:49:00,530
I mean, that's just, it doesn't happen.

500
00:49:06,380 --> 00:49:10,400
But we are assuming that they're meeting most

501
00:49:10,400 --> 00:49:12,480
of their parking requirement in the driveway

502
00:49:12,480 --> 00:49:15,420
and the existing garage, and then we grant them

503
00:49:15,420 --> 00:49:18,960
a second tandem part of their garage in back.

504
00:49:21,300 --> 00:49:23,720
The only way we would be able to work that,

505
00:49:23,740 --> 00:49:26,620
so we wouldn't use that as part

506
00:49:26,620 --> 00:49:30,960
requirements that are you saying? We would not, we would not allow them to count that as

507
00:49:30,960 --> 00:49:37,020
their parking requirement. They could use that face. Well, there are a couple things that

508
00:49:37,020 --> 00:49:43,060
I think fit into it. For a lot of neighborhoods, doesn't, isn't there, you can't put a driveway

509
00:49:43,060 --> 00:49:48,460
up next to your property line. Isn't there some setback that you have to have to land

510
00:49:48,460 --> 00:49:55,680
vaping two feet. And the current driveways and river

511
00:49:55,680 --> 00:49:59,820
of U.T. Harris don't have that setback. 90% of my

512
00:49:59,820 --> 00:50:05,320
recollection is on the property line. So by the time you

513
00:50:05,320 --> 00:50:12,380
have to set it back for a 40 foot wide, a lot suddenly that

514
00:50:12,380 --> 00:50:16,520
house is getting very, very narrow,

515
00:50:19,720 --> 00:50:21,740
but it, it does give,

516
00:50:26,210 --> 00:50:27,950
I just think that we have to be

517
00:50:27,950 --> 00:50:34,070
able to address the parking and garage is count in the park, right?

518
00:50:35,230 --> 00:50:42,910
Yes. So if somebody is not going to park their car in the garage, then being able to set

519
00:50:42,910 --> 00:50:47,730
the garage farther back is helpful with parking in that it makes a long driveway.

520
00:50:47,730 --> 00:50:56,450
If they are going to use their garage as parking cars, and those people who use their

521
00:50:56,450 --> 00:51:02,790
garages have expensive cars which make sense for them to use them, then perhaps they'll

522
00:51:02,790 --> 00:51:08,630
decide to do a tandem to car garage, which, again, increases the parking.

523
00:51:09,230 --> 00:51:14,730
Well, it seems I kept, we're going to let people keep their non-contraming garages, which

524
00:51:14,730 --> 00:51:21,530
built on the side property line and the rear property line and rebuild those then and we're saying

525
00:51:21,530 --> 00:51:29,190
that's okay and it probably does make some sense to let people do new development where you

526
00:51:29,190 --> 00:51:36,150
have a garage in the back as long as you know we have something about heights and it four feet away

527
00:51:36,150 --> 00:51:43,650
and it will end up being two feet from the side property line because the new ones would have to meet

528
00:51:43,650 --> 00:51:45,750
that requirement in the code,

529
00:51:47,810 --> 00:51:49,290
it would probably work.

530
00:51:49,310 --> 00:51:51,630
I think that would be interesting to ask the council

531
00:51:51,630 --> 00:51:55,510
doing this and see how people tend to come to council meetings

532
00:51:55,510 --> 00:51:56,830
as well when these things are reviewed.

533
00:51:57,070 --> 00:51:59,850
And so it'll get a little bit more airing at that point.

534
00:52:02,040 --> 00:52:07,160
So I could go along with the, I would use the same height

535
00:52:07,160 --> 00:52:09,720
restrictions as you do for accessory structures.

536
00:52:10,100 --> 00:52:12,480
So I think that can't be more than 15,

537
00:52:13,680 --> 00:52:17,840
But a garage is going to be at eight to eight.

538
00:52:18,440 --> 00:52:23,520
I think a garage needs to be a little taller than eight feet doesn't it?

539
00:52:23,580 --> 00:52:26,280
I mean if you're going to put a pitched roof on the garage,

540
00:52:26,920 --> 00:52:33,720
then it seems to me that you want it to be a little taller than eight feet

541
00:52:33,720 --> 00:52:35,940
or you're just going to have flat roof garages,

542
00:52:36,780 --> 00:52:39,020
which don't put you like flat roof garages.

543
00:52:39,020 --> 00:52:42,020
I don't know that against drivers, you can see issues.

544
00:52:42,380 --> 00:52:42,600
I don't know.

545
00:52:42,600 --> 00:52:44,740
The one that I saw that was so uniquely done,

546
00:52:45,320 --> 00:52:47,980
the pitch was, so the fence, the back fence was here

547
00:52:47,980 --> 00:52:49,200
and the pitch went this way.

548
00:52:50,020 --> 00:52:52,180
So it really, even though it was closer to the fence,

549
00:52:52,360 --> 00:52:55,360
it did not intrude in any way on that house

550
00:52:55,360 --> 00:52:56,940
that was behind it.

551
00:52:57,380 --> 00:52:59,340
So when I say eight feet,

552
00:52:59,380 --> 00:53:02,020
I'm talking about sloping it that way.

553
00:53:04,700 --> 00:53:07,320
Front end of a car and, you know, a work area.

554
00:53:07,420 --> 00:53:08,260
I'm all about garage.

555
00:53:08,260 --> 00:53:12,000
If you can build a garage, I'm on board with that.

556
00:53:17,210 --> 00:53:17,850
I think he knows.

557
00:53:18,350 --> 00:53:20,070
How about 12 feet?

558
00:53:20,290 --> 00:53:22,210
I have clarification for you.

559
00:53:22,250 --> 00:53:29,250
And the existing code, and I think it actually has a wall plate, top of wall plate, and a total height.

560
00:53:30,830 --> 00:53:35,390
So the width of a detached garage or cardboard in the rear yard is limited to 21 feet.

561
00:53:35,450 --> 00:53:39,990
The height is limited to 15, nine feet to the top of the wall plate.

562
00:53:40,790 --> 00:53:48,850
However, the Planning Commission may approve an exception to allow additional height if necessary to match the architectural style of the existing grammar structure.

563
00:53:49,790 --> 00:53:51,270
That works for me.

564
00:53:57,780 --> 00:54:01,320
Okay, so I'm going to re-sumerize what I just heard on this slide.

565
00:54:02,560 --> 00:54:05,900
We'll maintain the front yard setback of 40 feet.

566
00:54:06,060 --> 00:54:09,280
We'll maintain the height limit as it is in the code today.

567
00:54:10,320 --> 00:54:12,260
Side yard standards will remain the same.

568
00:54:12,260 --> 00:54:19,680
So we'll keep the two foot landscaping buffer along the driveway leading to a rear garage.

569
00:54:20,560 --> 00:54:28,880
The setback from the primary structure or a main at three feet, and the rear yard requirement

570
00:54:28,880 --> 00:54:37,120
will be decreased to four feet and the height 15 and the height 15 and the height 15 and the height.

571
00:54:37,460 --> 00:54:37,800
Exactly.

572
00:54:38,660 --> 00:54:43,100
So here, so this person comes in and they want to redo their garage.

573
00:54:43,100 --> 00:54:44,680
It's an old garage, it's listing.

574
00:54:45,060 --> 00:54:46,820
It's right on both of the property line.

575
00:54:47,300 --> 00:54:50,420
They don't have any room to bring it in to feed.

576
00:54:51,460 --> 00:54:55,100
Are we going to allow them to rebuild it, but not expand it?

577
00:54:55,300 --> 00:54:55,420
Right.

578
00:54:55,420 --> 00:54:58,440
And that's the exception for existing non-conforming.

579
00:54:59,060 --> 00:55:03,100
The other one is for who garage is being built, right?

580
00:55:03,940 --> 00:55:06,300
And we can discuss that more when we get to non-conforming.

581
00:55:06,320 --> 00:55:09,660
And if this existing one wanted, they wanted to add any space.

582
00:55:09,900 --> 00:55:11,960
They would have to really go with the two foot

583
00:55:11,960 --> 00:55:15,480
and that they would have to conform to the existing code.

584
00:55:16,000 --> 00:55:16,240
Yes, right.

585
00:55:23,450 --> 00:55:23,910
OK.

586
00:55:24,770 --> 00:55:25,170
OK.

587
00:55:25,850 --> 00:55:29,830
So now we could under the height exception,

588
00:55:31,210 --> 00:55:35,330
removing the 512 pitch, but better defining the historic,

589
00:55:37,570 --> 00:55:41,010
that 27 foot on lots greater than 7,000 square feet.

590
00:55:41,050 --> 00:55:46,150
There were quite a few lots at the 6,000 square foot threshold

591
00:55:46,150 --> 00:55:51,010
that are in clip-foot heights and in other neighborhoods is to 7,000.

592
00:55:51,010 --> 00:55:53,930
Do you want to look at that map again before we set a threshold?

593
00:55:54,690 --> 00:56:02,390
What's the average square footage of all of the white lots that you... do we have an average square

594
00:56:02,390 --> 00:56:07,550
footage of those lots that don't fall into the 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 category?

595
00:56:08,690 --> 00:56:09,970
I don't know it off of.

596
00:56:09,970 --> 00:56:10,050
Okay.

597
00:56:11,450 --> 00:56:11,530
Okay.

598
00:56:12,650 --> 00:56:18,550
Typically, like it live with six downs and square feet, that's a pretty big lot.

599
00:56:18,950 --> 00:56:20,290
I could, I could love with six downs.

600
00:56:20,710 --> 00:56:20,730
Okay.

601
00:56:22,510 --> 00:56:22,650
Okay.

602
00:56:22,650 --> 00:56:22,670
Okay.

603
00:56:25,670 --> 00:56:32,370
And then 27 feet on lots with widths that are greater than 60 feet wide and then removing

604
00:56:32,370 --> 00:56:36,010
the steep slope because that will be a variance.

605
00:56:36,010 --> 00:56:44,370
Just a question, Camino Medio is the other steep slope, but it's kind of the steep slope of me in the other direction.

606
00:56:45,930 --> 00:56:51,610
Do those houses all adhere to the 27 or 25?

607
00:56:53,940 --> 00:56:54,340
I am.

608
00:56:54,340 --> 00:56:54,980
There are 27.

609
00:56:55,100 --> 00:56:56,040
I think it's 27.

610
00:56:56,300 --> 00:56:59,820
And they're considered central village, so they're still getting into that in this all right.

611
00:56:59,820 --> 00:57:10,560
And there are some areas on Riverview Drive that are steeper than others and they are sort of in the center of Riverview Drive, maybe we're sunset comes in around there.

612
00:57:10,840 --> 00:57:18,840
I've been into those homes and some of them are three stories as well. They go down because they're pretty steep slope there.

613
00:57:19,940 --> 00:57:22,840
Do you feel strongly that we need to remove that one?

614
00:57:24,960 --> 00:57:31,780
I just feel that, you know, it doesn't, I don't feel, you don't have to take it out.

615
00:57:31,960 --> 00:57:39,640
I just don't think it really does anything because I think most of the lots I know of that are going to be that steep.

616
00:57:39,660 --> 00:57:44,420
They're going to need a variance anyway because 27 feet wouldn't do it.

617
00:57:44,880 --> 00:57:50,840
I think it's better to stay away from my variances as a matter of policy if we can, because there's...

618
00:57:50,840 --> 00:57:53,380
And then leave it in, it's fine with me.

619
00:57:56,750 --> 00:58:02,230
Okay, it's in the exception for the 30 feet wide lots.

620
00:58:02,750 --> 00:58:04,910
Yeah, that works well, I think that's a good one.

621
00:58:08,030 --> 00:58:12,770
One thing we can do to address that, too, is we're going to have to define what a steep slope is then.

622
00:58:12,890 --> 00:58:19,270
We can make that rotate with steep 25% or something, so that it's really the extraordinary steep lots.

623
00:58:19,850 --> 00:58:22,410
And not something with a gentle slope that gets an exception.

624
00:58:29,020 --> 00:58:29,840
Okay, thank you.

625
00:58:29,840 --> 00:58:40,020
The next discussion is on calculations for the non-conforming structural alterations in your packet last week.

626
00:58:40,060 --> 00:58:49,840
Commissioner Newman pointed out that we had two examples within that packet of non-conforming structural alterations and how we calculate that.

627
00:58:51,060 --> 00:59:00,660
So I can run through this if folks have questions on how it's calculated currently, but it's based on 80% of the total existing value.

628
00:59:02,020 --> 00:59:04,260
So we, the building official and a plan comes in.

629
00:59:04,480 --> 00:59:14,440
We hand him the plans and he goes through and does the calculations based on what's existing, what's new construction, and then what portion of the building will be remodeled.

630
00:59:14,440 --> 00:59:21,420
And if it's over the 80%, they're required to bring it into compliance and oftentimes we've

631
00:59:21,420 --> 00:59:26,400
seen a trend of, with the historic building we don't necessarily want the non-conforming

632
00:59:26,400 --> 00:59:33,600
structure to go away, so therefore they're asking for a variance to the non-conforming valuation.

633
00:59:34,460 --> 00:59:38,560
And I just want to specify that in this conversation we're talking about the structure,

634
00:59:38,560 --> 00:59:44,680
not the use when we're looking at this. So if it doesn't comply with height, setbacks, parking,

635
00:59:45,560 --> 00:59:45,980
that's...

636
00:59:45,980 --> 00:59:47,260
If they are, also...

637
00:59:47,260 --> 00:59:57,600
Inflory, I wish you a good quick question. The current fair market value is that a calculation

638
00:59:57,600 --> 00:59:59,980
of square foot at the current...

639
01:00:00,660 --> 01:00:04,640
Market value, where does that deliver coming?

640
01:00:05,120 --> 01:00:16,540
So it's an estimate, so if you have a home that was custom built and would sell for a $500 square foot,

641
01:00:16,540 --> 01:00:25,580
versus a home that was built as affordably as possible, say 140 square foot. They're both calculated

642
01:00:25,580 --> 01:00:31,980
of the exact same. It's $200 per square foot for how we evaluate it.

643
01:00:33,100 --> 01:00:35,620
So, and that number come out of the building code?

644
01:00:36,040 --> 01:00:37,140
It comes out of the building code.

645
01:00:38,420 --> 01:00:39,580
Okay, so that's a tax.

646
01:00:39,720 --> 01:00:40,580
Not the tax.

647
01:00:40,880 --> 01:00:42,020
No, it's a tax.

648
01:00:42,020 --> 01:00:47,660
It's a number that goes in the building code and they do it by area and the number varies

649
01:00:47,660 --> 01:00:50,140
depending on whether you live in this area.

650
01:00:50,420 --> 01:00:53,440
Time out. Time out. That's for new construction.

651
01:00:53,440 --> 01:01:05,440
So this has been in my experience inconsistently applied by different building officials over time in various ways, which is one of the problems I think that we need to address in a new code.

652
01:01:06,220 --> 01:01:11,300
What the current building official is doing is what I would call replacement cost of the existing structure.

653
01:01:11,640 --> 01:01:17,060
So you have a 800 square foot house that's just about to fall down in its non-conforming.

654
01:01:17,060 --> 01:01:23,660
And it's virtually worthless as a structure, but it gets $200 a square foot valuation.

655
01:01:25,360 --> 01:01:28,580
Even though it's depreciated to almost zero.

656
01:01:29,300 --> 01:01:37,000
And that's the current method that's been used in the last least this series of my time on the planning commission,

657
01:01:37,020 --> 01:01:37,760
but wasn't before.

658
01:01:37,760 --> 01:01:52,620
So, the one point I want to make is that we need to come up with a code that we're sure will be done consistently in the future, one way or another, and I have other questions when we can.

659
01:01:53,020 --> 01:02:04,160
Well, for me, I would like to completely get rid of the whole valuation thing, because what I see happen over and over is someone comes in for a remodel.

660
01:02:04,160 --> 01:02:11,080
They get to keep their existing setbacks and then once they get into the construction of the house,

661
01:02:11,540 --> 01:02:17,180
not by their fault, something else comes up and so then the whole thing gets torn down,

662
01:02:17,620 --> 01:02:21,080
and the whole valuation thing is going out the window.

663
01:02:21,540 --> 01:02:28,040
If we come up with a system that we simply talk about square footage,

664
01:02:30,120 --> 01:02:43,720
Then it's clear that, you know, if the whole thing comes down, you know, there's more square footage in there, you don't get into this argument about value and number.

665
01:02:45,300 --> 01:02:48,860
And, you know, I point out this example all the time.

666
01:02:48,960 --> 01:02:53,760
There are two new houses that got built about two years ago on Riverview Drive.

667
01:02:54,660 --> 01:03:02,340
And, they both got completely torn down, except one of them came in as a remodel.

668
01:03:02,860 --> 01:03:08,340
So, they still have a short driveway and this huge big new two-story house.

669
01:03:08,340 --> 01:03:15,280
and the one that came in as a new house has the 20-foot drive way that can be parked in.

670
01:03:16,780 --> 01:03:22,300
So I just want to get rid of valuation and go to some sort of square foot each formula.

671
01:03:22,540 --> 01:03:28,960
I think it's fair. I think it's clear to the applicants. I think everybody understands it better.

672
01:03:28,960 --> 01:03:42,180
When I first came to Capitola, among builders, the notion was, if you left any wood in the air, you could keep all the air.

673
01:03:42,820 --> 01:03:45,880
Yeah, you could keep all you had to do is keep one wall.

674
01:03:47,340 --> 01:03:55,500
And they would leave that one wall up while they did all the construction of front, and then knock that one wall down and put out a new wall back there.

675
01:03:55,500 --> 01:04:02,600
You know, I think that's kind of going the same place you were as what would be a good system, I kind of took it back one level and said,

676
01:04:03,360 --> 01:04:12,100
what are the goals here? I mean, we've got a town that developed over a period of time with different rules.

677
01:04:12,400 --> 01:04:16,800
So now we come along and we've got a bright new city council that connects some new rules.

678
01:04:16,800 --> 01:04:25,920
What, to what extent do we want to impose those ever on the people who have had houses in the past if they want it?

679
01:04:25,940 --> 01:04:32,340
I mean, one rule is simply that you can rebuild, but just not add regardless.

680
01:04:33,100 --> 01:04:35,480
I'm not on use because that's a different discussion.

681
01:04:36,580 --> 01:04:40,600
But on setbacks and FAR and those kinds of things.

682
01:04:40,740 --> 01:04:45,820
If you have an existing house, your method rules when it was built that you can continue to have it.

683
01:04:45,820 --> 01:04:46,060
Yeah.

684
01:04:46,900 --> 01:04:53,400
I looked at the square footage version also and I think they both have some pros and cons,

685
01:04:53,800 --> 01:04:58,100
but you know, you look and cap a total of some of the homes, my home, for example,

686
01:04:58,280 --> 01:05:01,240
and I know a lot of the other homes have no foundation.

687
01:05:02,060 --> 01:05:07,760
So you really, and that's you're going to jack up a bunch of termite and festive wood to

688
01:05:07,760 --> 01:05:12,280
put a foundation under it, you really are left with tearing the whole thing down and that's

689
01:05:12,280 --> 01:05:17,320
what it comes down to, and so I think it's more fair, it puts people more in the same

690
01:05:17,320 --> 01:05:25,280
park by doing it by either saying rebuild as is or using a square footage as a model instead

691
01:05:25,940 --> 01:05:31,160
of the 80% value that to me, I got caught in that whole thing, so I understand it very clearly.

692
01:05:32,000 --> 01:05:38,260
This is all really good discussion, but point of order, I think we slipped through issue one

693
01:05:38,260 --> 01:05:41,500
and into 16 without opening it to the public.

694
01:05:41,700 --> 01:05:46,800
So at this point, I'd like to open to the public and ask if there's anyone here that would

695
01:05:46,800 --> 01:05:52,080
like to discuss the issue of height and or this issue of non-conforming structures.

696
01:05:52,880 --> 01:05:59,200
I'd like to put off the non-conforming uses for a minute until we get through this one.

697
01:05:59,300 --> 01:06:03,880
But if there's anyone here who would like to speak on either of those items, please come forward.

698
01:06:04,940 --> 01:06:06,840
Seeing none, we'll continue with a moment.

699
01:06:06,840 --> 01:06:11,340
lines out there, I know, I know you have some wisdom for us.

700
01:06:11,660 --> 01:06:12,540
No? Okay.

701
01:06:13,360 --> 01:06:13,960
I converted.

702
01:06:15,220 --> 01:06:19,040
I completely agree with what you guys had said about existing homes.

703
01:06:19,200 --> 01:06:27,080
I think when people move into capital and they buy a home that's a certain size,

704
01:06:27,540 --> 01:06:32,320
their expectation and what they're really paying for is that house.

705
01:06:32,320 --> 01:06:39,920
And if, by some disaster, flood, fire, or other disaster, they lose that home, then they're

706
01:06:39,920 --> 01:06:42,960
allowed to build it back in its same size.

707
01:06:43,060 --> 01:06:48,600
And it seems to me that we, I mean, that's a minimum good thing.

708
01:06:49,000 --> 01:06:56,100
But we lose out when people come in and they could really give us a better design.

709
01:06:56,260 --> 01:07:01,260
They could give us a better house if they were allowed to tear it down and build something

710
01:07:01,260 --> 01:07:07,420
new. But they're not willing to give up the 30% in some cases, you know, score footage that

711
01:07:07,420 --> 01:07:12,220
they'd have to give up to meet all of the current setbacks. And I haven't really heard

712
01:07:12,220 --> 01:07:19,860
that we hate what we have. I've only heard that we don't want to keep building great

713
01:07:19,860 --> 01:07:24,360
big houses and we've had some that got built that were, you know, bigger than we want.

714
01:07:24,440 --> 01:07:29,860
We want to keep the cottage the smaller scale. So letting people rebuild what they already

715
01:07:29,860 --> 01:07:36,660
have seems to me to be a good thing and it makes everything a lot easier and so it would

716
01:07:36,660 --> 01:07:41,800
be for more than just disasters it would also be for a try or neglect or just a desire

717
01:07:41,800 --> 01:07:43,780
to build a new house.

718
01:07:44,340 --> 01:07:50,060
But if they want to go up in any type of square footage at all, they're going to have to meet

719
01:07:50,060 --> 01:07:53,040
the other standards that we're saying.

720
01:07:53,500 --> 01:07:58,040
So they want to keep the exact square footage that they've got now, they can keep their set,

721
01:07:58,040 --> 01:08:06,640
they're non-conform, whatever non-conforming, any additions have to conform to the current

722
01:08:06,640 --> 01:08:06,920
roles.

723
01:08:07,280 --> 01:08:13,820
So, option three is to remove evaluation cap for structural alterations to non-conforming

724
01:08:13,820 --> 01:08:14,360
structures.

725
01:08:14,640 --> 01:08:20,500
And in this, you would state that the existing non-conformities can exist and can be repaired.

726
01:08:21,500 --> 01:08:25,820
They cannot be the non-conformity, cannot be increased, but you could have an addition.

727
01:08:25,820 --> 01:08:31,540
And once you get into an addition, if it's greater than 10%, the parking has to come into compliance.

728
01:08:32,840 --> 01:08:38,540
The new addition has to meet your height requirements, your setback requirements, your floor area ratio.

729
01:08:39,280 --> 01:08:48,800
So there is, I've actually worked with a code prior that had applied option 3, and as a planner, it's a lot more easy to operate under,

730
01:08:48,800 --> 01:08:55,980
because as people come in, you realize that sometimes someone setbacks doesn't, they don't

731
01:08:55,980 --> 01:09:00,320
meet setbacks, they don't meet height, but in the new addition area, they're in compliance

732
01:09:00,320 --> 01:09:05,220
and you don't run into that issue all the time of saying, oh, you know, under an old, you

733
01:09:05,220 --> 01:09:10,340
your house is built under an old code and it doesn't quite fit anymore, but it's not, it'd be

734
01:09:10,340 --> 01:09:15,380
one thing if we're hearing that there is a pattern in town that you absolutely want to get rid of,

735
01:09:15,380 --> 01:09:20,160
that there are homes that are having an impact, but if you don't can identify what it is that

736
01:09:20,160 --> 01:09:23,420
you want removed, option 3 sounds like a good option.

737
01:09:23,600 --> 01:09:29,280
I think the things that we identified several years ago that got built too large several

738
01:09:29,280 --> 01:09:34,920
years before that, we're going to have a lifespan far beyond any of us being here and somebody

739
01:09:34,920 --> 01:09:40,720
else can, you know, life will have changed at that point and let them figure those out.

740
01:09:40,720 --> 01:09:50,920
So, I mean, I'll talk about, I live in a house and the house's next door to me were built on the property line.

741
01:09:53,040 --> 01:10:01,800
And so, and so the only thing we just had three feet between their house and our house, which became,

742
01:10:02,360 --> 01:10:05,220
it mean it was dark, it was always damp, it was always.

743
01:10:05,220 --> 01:10:16,260
So, they tore those houses down, and I wouldn't like to see them rebuild the identical

744
01:10:16,260 --> 01:10:22,620
house that they had back on the property line again, because in all honesty, I think

745
01:10:22,620 --> 01:10:29,700
them moving their house, three feet meeting the CPAC requirement, ended up with a better

746
01:10:29,700 --> 01:10:34,480
situation for them in and for us.

747
01:10:35,640 --> 01:10:41,220
So I'm hearing what Ed says, if a house gets destroyed

748
01:10:41,220 --> 01:10:44,180
in a flood or something, we want to be quite generous

749
01:10:44,180 --> 01:10:47,060
and let them tear it down.

750
01:10:47,340 --> 01:10:49,980
But if you're just going to tear down an old house

751
01:10:49,980 --> 01:10:52,720
and build a brand new house, the same size,

752
01:10:53,060 --> 01:10:56,980
but leave it right there on the property line.

753
01:10:56,980 --> 01:11:04,260
When the building code have protected you in that situation, I think that you can't build on the property line anymore.

754
01:11:05,680 --> 01:11:14,200
Well, you can build on the property line if you do a firewall and have protected openings with wireglass and those kinds of things.

755
01:11:14,440 --> 01:11:17,300
You can still build on a property line, I believe.

756
01:11:18,220 --> 01:11:18,700
So,

757
01:11:21,980 --> 01:11:28,780
you know, I hear that somebody's going to completely tear down their house and build a new house.

758
01:11:29,600 --> 01:11:35,140
Why wouldn't we want it to fit into the neighborhood a little better?

759
01:11:35,920 --> 01:11:38,180
When they still have to come in here for a design review,

760
01:11:38,420 --> 01:11:41,080
and couldn't we at that time, and the neighbor could come in and say,

761
01:11:41,260 --> 01:11:45,060
you know, I don't want it to be on the property line and so forth.

762
01:11:45,060 --> 01:11:47,260
I mean, it doesn't automatically entitle them.

763
01:11:47,800 --> 01:11:49,900
I think it wants your building plan

764
01:11:49,900 --> 01:11:51,620
show that you're removing walls

765
01:11:51,620 --> 01:11:53,540
and you're getting rid of a home,

766
01:11:53,560 --> 01:11:54,940
it has to come into compliance.

767
01:11:55,240 --> 01:11:58,440
So you would only allow the existing non-conforming

768
01:11:59,060 --> 01:12:02,380
to stay, but at that point that it's taken down, unless,

769
01:12:02,520 --> 01:12:04,000
you know, there is a section of code

770
01:12:04,000 --> 01:12:06,940
that is very specific about a blood and meat,

771
01:12:07,060 --> 01:12:09,180
actually let them tear it down and build

772
01:12:09,180 --> 01:12:12,260
and rebuild it as long as it stayed the same size

773
01:12:12,260 --> 01:12:14,980
without meeting any of the setback requirements.

774
01:12:14,980 --> 01:12:25,240
And, you know, I think we want to improve areas in situations as new homes get built.

775
01:12:25,780 --> 01:12:31,980
I agree somebody gets to keep their non-conforming house forever and they can repair it.

776
01:12:32,040 --> 01:12:39,080
But they come to a point if they're going to completely tear it down that it seems like they

777
01:12:39,080 --> 01:12:46,080
have to conform to what we make, everyone else who is building a new house conform to.

778
01:12:47,240 --> 01:12:51,120
I think that can be handled by the Planning Commission in reviewing that application.

779
01:12:52,060 --> 01:12:56,980
By saying that they have the right, they can do it.

780
01:12:57,000 --> 01:13:01,240
It's not automatically disqualified because it was not conforming.

781
01:13:01,320 --> 01:13:05,260
Doesn't mean that their design is approved by the Planning Commission.

782
01:13:06,480 --> 01:13:11,200
One compromise situation could be where you do observe a bit from three-foot setback.

783
01:13:11,220 --> 01:13:12,940
That's a standard fire code requirement.

784
01:13:13,200 --> 01:13:17,620
You could get an exception to that if you have a fire-rated wall at the exterior.

785
01:13:18,400 --> 01:13:21,400
That's probably something we wouldn't want to encourage as a matter of practice.

786
01:13:22,540 --> 01:13:25,760
So that might be sort of a good middle ground to go with.

787
01:13:26,260 --> 01:13:28,260
Then we're going to take it all the way down.

788
01:13:28,520 --> 01:13:32,800
I think there should be some consideration for the part bringing parking into compliance.

789
01:13:32,800 --> 01:13:36,940
I mean, if they're going to take it all the way down to give a new design they should build.

790
01:13:36,960 --> 01:13:41,440
Back to calculating what's a complete, pretty model and what's, you know, one wall standing.

791
01:13:42,440 --> 01:13:43,340
Well, problem again.

792
01:13:44,840 --> 01:13:50,520
Well, I mean, I don't have a problem with it if we go to, you know, sort of a square footage system.

793
01:13:50,900 --> 01:13:58,200
If somebody's going to take down more than 80% of the house and build a new house and I'd just pick the 80% number.

794
01:13:58,500 --> 01:14:00,320
How does that 80% get calculated?

795
01:14:00,320 --> 01:14:08,180
it. Square footage. If they're going to remodel more than 80% of their house. Square footage

796
01:14:08,180 --> 01:14:15,780
is square footage of the house then it's time to bring it into conformance. But how do you

797
01:14:15,780 --> 01:14:19,360
calculate? Let's say you have a house and it's got a bunch of walls and you're going to take

798
01:14:19,360 --> 01:14:23,740
out a bunch of walls and open up the floor plan. How do you calculate how much of that square

799
01:14:23,740 --> 01:14:30,280
footage you just touched? When we remodel our house, we took it basically down to the frame

800
01:14:30,280 --> 01:14:37,900
took out walls, put in support walls, opened up the floor plan, and had to come in for

801
01:14:37,900 --> 01:14:46,200
variances for the footprint, and we didn't change the exterior structure. The framing

802
01:14:46,200 --> 01:14:51,040
state exactly as it was, but the interior completely changed. And we had to get a bunch of

803
01:14:51,040 --> 01:14:56,300
variances just to keep the house that was there. The size, because if you were to build that

804
01:14:56,300 --> 01:14:59,980
much of the house that the day that you did it, your house.

805
01:15:00,000 --> 01:15:03,080
This was existing too big. It was existing non-conforming.

806
01:15:05,910 --> 01:15:08,810
And now it's even more non-conforming than it was today.

807
01:15:09,510 --> 01:15:16,250
So I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is that this is something that every community struggles with.

808
01:15:16,990 --> 01:15:28,470
And so there are a lot of examples to follow. The bad news is that it's really hard to deal with this issue, no matter how you approach it.

809
01:15:28,470 --> 01:15:34,450
And the vast majority of communities have moved from evaluation approach to

810
01:15:34,450 --> 01:15:38,910
calculating the demolition of an existing structure to one that's based on

811
01:15:38,910 --> 01:15:45,190
floor area. And the best examples from my opinion are ones that take into consideration

812
01:15:45,190 --> 01:15:50,450
through the percentage of removal of both your horizontal and your vertical surfaces

813
01:15:50,450 --> 01:15:55,090
looking at your exterior walls and looking at your roof and your floor as well.

814
01:15:55,090 --> 01:16:02,170
And it's still a big problem that you're going to have an applicant who's going to say that

815
01:16:02,170 --> 01:16:06,650
they're going to demolish 45% of their horizontal and their vertical surfaces.

816
01:16:07,130 --> 01:16:07,930
They get out there.

817
01:16:08,090 --> 01:16:13,210
They find all the dry rot and they end up demolishing 55 and then it puts everybody in a really

818
01:16:13,210 --> 01:16:14,390
difficult situation.

819
01:16:15,970 --> 01:16:23,130
So it's hard, but I think it's preferable to the valuation approach, which I think has worse

820
01:16:23,130 --> 01:16:34,830
problems. And so I think that the other sort of, another option, which is, I think, a more

821
01:16:34,830 --> 01:16:39,970
radical approach that was perhaps suggested by Commissioner Newman, which is to say that

822
01:16:39,970 --> 01:16:48,130
if you have an existing structure that's non-conforming and you demolish it, you're entitled

823
01:16:50,530 --> 01:16:58,610
to recreate it or replace it, following the same standards that existed for the existing

824
01:16:58,610 --> 01:16:59,090
structure.

825
01:17:00,590 --> 01:17:07,130
And, you know, I think that if you were to go that route, one thing that you can consider

826
01:17:07,130 --> 01:17:13,110
is some additional findings or maybe an additional permit, some communities have what's

827
01:17:13,110 --> 01:17:18,990
called a non-conformity permit so that if somebody wanted to do that, there would be certain

828
01:17:18,990 --> 01:17:23,210
findings that would need to be made to make sure that the existing situation wasn't

829
01:17:23,210 --> 01:17:27,770
creating a hardship that needed to be resolved at that time.

830
01:17:32,260 --> 01:17:35,360
So that's three with a little twist.

831
01:17:37,260 --> 01:17:41,620
I can imagine that the findings would relate to, you know, have an adequate separation between

832
01:17:42,320 --> 01:17:46,800
So they can get air and light into their home, they don't, you know, they have some parking.

833
01:17:47,440 --> 01:17:52,460
You know, maybe it's not meeting the current standard, but that it's not completely devoid of off street parking.

834
01:17:52,960 --> 01:17:54,360
Maybe it does comply.

835
01:17:55,220 --> 01:17:57,180
There's flexibility on how we want to go there.

836
01:17:58,460 --> 01:18:09,940
But it's, it's, I mean, it seems like if what we're creating is a situation where we are not going to get anything corrected.

837
01:18:09,940 --> 01:18:18,180
So it works better in the community and I go back to my two houses on a river view, which we're basically torn down

838
01:18:18,180 --> 01:18:25,100
One house because it meets our requirements, which we said was a 20-foot driveway

839
01:18:25,660 --> 01:18:32,620
Can part two cars on off the street in their driveway and I don't know what they do with their garage

840
01:18:32,620 --> 01:18:37,640
the other house, which kept its old setback requirements

841
01:18:37,640 --> 01:18:44,260
And still has a short driveway, so you can't park cars in front of the garage without them

842
01:18:44,260 --> 01:18:48,980
covering the sidewalk, which is what these people do most of the time.

843
01:18:50,300 --> 01:18:57,700
And if we think it's important to have, for example, a 20-foot driveway to improve the parking

844
01:18:57,700 --> 01:19:06,300
situation in Riverview, Terrace, we're now going to say, no, you never have to improve your

845
01:19:06,300 --> 01:19:13,800
working situation. You can just tear it down and build a new house and it can be, you know,

846
01:19:13,940 --> 01:19:21,980
have all the same old, non-conforming setbacks that we're trying to get rid of.

847
01:19:22,120 --> 01:19:27,160
It seems like in those cases, though, they add its furniture. They change the dimensions of the house.

848
01:19:27,420 --> 01:19:28,280
Is that all right?

849
01:19:28,640 --> 01:19:35,460
So I actually looked that one up because I was very curious as how that got built in the way in which it

850
01:19:35,460 --> 01:19:39,420
And they actually did not increase their square footage.

851
01:19:39,720 --> 01:19:43,220
So it was one of those scenarios where it was rebuilt,

852
01:19:44,040 --> 01:19:46,440
but there was an attempt present increase

853
01:19:46,440 --> 01:19:48,420
that required to trigger the parking.

854
01:19:50,200 --> 01:19:53,060
So they ended up tearing down the whole house

855
01:19:53,060 --> 01:19:57,380
because I see some advantages in a community like capital

856
01:19:57,380 --> 01:19:59,760
where it's older to try to encourage,

857
01:19:59,800 --> 01:20:01,220
to keep the same cottage,

858
01:20:01,580 --> 01:20:02,580
because that's what they encourage.

859
01:20:02,580 --> 01:20:08,260
encourages, clean that up, keep in the same cottage style, feel without putting, trying

860
01:20:08,260 --> 01:20:15,260
to, even if they approach that would be, maybe to get the set back with a build a much larger

861
01:20:15,260 --> 01:20:20,600
house and change the character of the community. So I think by this, to me, it seems like

862
01:20:21,160 --> 01:20:27,180
it lends itself to people, maybe rebuilding their current structure and upgrading it, but keeping

863
01:20:27,180 --> 01:20:30,340
that same feel of the character of the neighborhood.

864
01:20:30,340 --> 01:20:59,320
So we're done parking because, I mean, I think what I'm hearing about parking here seems to be going counter to the momentum that has occurred over years now, which is basically to de-emphasize the role of the automobile and parking and planning and in fact capital reduced its parking requirements when I built my house so it was three already two of the small house and then it went down to two and so that's a direction that things are going now.

865
01:20:59,320 --> 01:21:04,780
realize that there's a parking issue, but it has a lot to do with tourism in our community

866
01:21:04,780 --> 01:21:11,080
and not residences, so I'm not sure that we want to reverse that trend in the things we're

867
01:21:11,080 --> 01:21:12,020
doing here.

868
01:21:12,380 --> 01:21:20,760
No, I'm not asking to reverse that trend, I'm simply saying that, you know, I think, for

869
01:21:20,760 --> 01:21:25,780
example in River of Uteris, it would be nice if we had some more houses that provided

870
01:21:25,780 --> 01:21:32,240
parking because we have a real parking problem on the street right now, and sometimes it gets

871
01:21:32,240 --> 01:21:38,980
ugly up there. So if we're going to have someone who's completely going to tear down their

872
01:21:38,980 --> 01:21:47,100
home, it seems like that's the time to address what is a parking issue in that neighborhood.

873
01:21:48,060 --> 01:21:53,920
And what I'm hearing you say is that now they don't need to address the parking issue,

874
01:21:53,920 --> 01:22:02,400
they just get to, you know, go back to the way it was and I think we want to see things

875
01:22:02,400 --> 01:22:07,380
improved. Why do we make people who build the new house provide parking? I mean if we

876
01:22:07,380 --> 01:22:11,760
feel that way we should just not do any parking but not as much as we used to require.

877
01:22:12,740 --> 01:22:18,040
Right. Then we let allow somebody to tear down their existing cottage, build the same

878
01:22:18,040 --> 01:22:23,300
and still make them have to provide parking.

879
01:22:23,480 --> 01:22:24,380
I mean, we can get both.

880
01:22:24,520 --> 01:22:26,380
Why do we have to have one or the other?

881
01:22:26,840 --> 01:22:31,140
Because oftentimes, unless they redesign it,

882
01:22:32,040 --> 01:22:34,780
you're not going to be room for parking.

883
01:22:36,760 --> 01:22:39,960
That's considering that it's set forward in the lot.

884
01:22:40,440 --> 01:22:43,240
But if it's set over to one side,

885
01:22:43,360 --> 01:22:45,220
and it's the side yard that's the problem,

886
01:22:45,220 --> 01:22:52,320
Of course, if we're going to now make them have three feet, there's again not room, but I'm really with TJ, I mean anything

887
01:22:52,320 --> 01:23:02,280
Any way we can incentivize people to rebuild the size or just a little larger that they've got now. That's the direction I think we want to go in

888
01:23:02,280 --> 01:23:05,960
We're not going to get there 100% but it's the direction we want to go in

889
01:23:05,960 --> 01:23:09,220
Yeah, I disagree, but I'm probably in a minority here

890
01:23:10,240 --> 01:23:19,420
I certainly am bored with encouraging the parking as a situation but it has been and it will probably always will be a situation.

891
01:23:19,820 --> 01:23:25,660
I think it's going to be a minority of people that are going to go and rebuild the same types.

892
01:23:26,100 --> 01:23:28,200
I mean, you seem like you have an accept with that.

893
01:23:28,460 --> 01:23:34,220
So in the example that we're using next door on Riverview,

894
01:23:35,220 --> 01:23:39,420
that one would go through today with me to all of our current requirements today that we're

895
01:23:39,420 --> 01:23:41,700
talking about because they had less and less and less.

896
01:23:41,700 --> 01:23:42,900
No, they had less and less and less.

897
01:23:42,900 --> 01:23:43,640
No, they had less and less and less and less.

898
01:23:43,640 --> 01:23:50,260
Okay, so they were remodeling and then they got into it and it wound up being a tear

899
01:23:50,260 --> 01:23:51,420
down and rebuild it.

900
01:23:51,960 --> 01:23:52,800
That's what I'm hearing.

901
01:23:53,020 --> 01:23:55,340
They didn't increase the one for the down.

902
01:23:55,980 --> 01:24:01,080
They didn't increase their square footage so they weren't required to meet the part meet the parking.

903
01:24:01,080 --> 01:24:05,080
But that's what we're talking about doing now, right, so we're not we're talking about the same thing.

904
01:24:06,560 --> 01:24:13,320
So an example that we're getting that we get through today and one of the models that we're talking about the same thing could happen.

905
01:24:15,940 --> 01:24:20,420
So you could set up the the non-conforming to

906
01:24:21,440 --> 01:24:27,240
to allow for a non-conforming structure that does not meet setback or height requirements

907
01:24:27,240 --> 01:24:34,220
It's making to you as an existing valid non-conforming structure, but you could specify that

908
01:24:34,220 --> 01:24:37,280
a non-conforming structure that does not comply with parking,

909
01:24:39,340 --> 01:24:40,560
along in you could specify

910
01:24:40,560 --> 01:24:45,340
certain parts of town, if you'd like, you know, that in parking time.

911
01:24:45,560 --> 01:24:49,360
But you could get more specific about the parking and create.

912
01:24:49,360 --> 01:24:56,920
So it would seem to me that, too, you know, accommodate what Gale wants, what you're talking

913
01:24:56,920 --> 01:25:01,920
about, you know, if you start talking about the small cutting just in that kind of thing,

914
01:25:02,080 --> 01:25:04,320
you're talking about fairly small structures.

915
01:25:06,860 --> 01:25:19,340
So, you know, if you're saying that structures like 1,000 square feet, a lot of the smaller

916
01:25:20,240 --> 01:25:28,340
You're saying, why can't you just say if it's historic that you can tear it down and rebuild it?

917
01:25:29,460 --> 01:25:34,340
Why are you going to let people tear down anything and rebuild it?

918
01:25:35,800 --> 01:25:38,590
And then what is historic in Capitalist?

919
01:25:39,080 --> 01:25:43,100
At this point, I mean we have to wrap it up with that issue.

920
01:25:44,780 --> 01:25:49,040
But that was to my point of, you get somebody who buys

921
01:25:49,040 --> 01:25:54,640
a property in capital, and maybe they live in it for years and maybe not, but they want

922
01:25:54,640 --> 01:25:58,620
to improve on the design of that structure.

923
01:25:59,780 --> 01:26:07,420
And they're limited because if they improve on that design to a certain square footage or

924
01:26:07,420 --> 01:26:11,760
value or how everyone will measure it, if they do that, then they have to bring it all into

925
01:26:12,520 --> 01:26:13,080
conformance.

926
01:26:13,400 --> 01:26:18,040
And in some cases, that means it's going to be 30 percent smaller than it was.

927
01:26:18,040 --> 01:26:23,040
And they don't do it because they don't want to give up the 30% score footage.

928
01:26:26,180 --> 01:26:37,360
So we lose because they just keep maintaining hopefully this old ugly structure because they can't really change it without giving up.

929
01:26:37,840 --> 01:26:48,080
I mean, they could be completely in compliance on parking and height and everything else and want to give a better design to the streetscape and they can't do it.

930
01:26:48,080 --> 01:26:52,780
Well clearly you guys want to go with it so we should stop I think we've covered this one

931
01:26:52,780 --> 01:26:58,920
so the city council finish it so we're going with so many different variables

932
01:26:58,920 --> 01:27:03,280
so many different ways people want to go about it that if it's not going to work for certain

933
01:27:03,280 --> 01:27:08,360
people no matter what way we do it

934
01:27:11,400 --> 01:27:19,520
okay what should we review what we just do yeah well

935
01:27:19,520 --> 01:27:21,220
than but it.

936
01:27:23,560 --> 01:27:27,160
I'll let them recap. Oh bitch.

937
01:27:32,170 --> 01:27:36,110
So I think the major change what you have today

938
01:27:36,110 --> 01:27:48,070
is that if you have a legal non-conforming structure and applicant wishes to demolish that structure

939
01:27:48,070 --> 01:27:58,130
replace it with a new structure, that they can do so, and those non-conformities will continue

940
01:27:58,130 --> 01:28:04,950
to apply to the new structure, but that there needs to be some protection and some process

941
01:28:04,950 --> 01:28:12,490
by which the city can ensure that non-conforming situation previously was not sort of an undue burden

942
01:28:12,490 --> 01:28:19,070
on neighboring properties, and that might be through additional findings or through a non-conformity

943
01:28:19,070 --> 01:28:22,430
permit or some similar type process.

944
01:28:23,870 --> 01:28:26,490
And parking or the shorter driveway could be one of those, right?

945
01:28:27,670 --> 01:28:34,430
And so I think that if you take that approach, which Susan or Commissioner of Westman doesn't

946
01:28:34,430 --> 01:28:42,470
agree with, that sort of the whole problem of defining exactly when you demolish too much

947
01:28:43,850 --> 01:28:49,510
becomes sort of a non-issue as far as anybody can do anything with a non-conforming structure

948
01:28:49,510 --> 01:28:54,410
now and they don't have to bring it into any kind of conformance if they're not making it bigger.

949
01:28:54,870 --> 01:28:56,850
It's subject to finding something different.

950
01:28:56,850 --> 01:28:58,490
It is an oppressive in some way.

951
01:28:58,530 --> 01:29:00,050
And it makes the game out of it.

952
01:29:01,650 --> 01:29:07,790
But with some sort of finding to the effect that the structure is not an area.

953
01:29:07,790 --> 01:29:12,770
the truck and eyes have been parking impacted help kind of reach consensus on this so the

954
01:29:12,770 --> 01:29:19,370
areas like Riverview maybe there is a jewel box that get a lot of parking just that whole areas.

955
01:29:19,810 --> 01:29:26,510
That's the areas that need to come out. I'll just look at for middle ground parking and step back.

956
01:29:27,630 --> 01:29:31,610
Well I don't think there's anything wrong with having a honest disagreement on an issue and letting

957
01:29:34,190 --> 01:29:40,350
And in review of the findings, if we're looking for no negative impacts to adjacent properties

958
01:29:40,350 --> 01:29:45,910
or the public, if parking is an issue that can come up at that time and we discuss.

959
01:29:46,890 --> 01:29:47,250
Okay.

960
01:29:48,010 --> 01:29:48,450
Thank you.

961
01:29:48,550 --> 01:29:50,910
Can I ask one question for you, move on?

962
01:29:51,330 --> 01:29:53,310
We were talking about roof height while going.

963
01:29:53,390 --> 01:29:58,690
One thing I probably should know this, but do we have a code on roof top decks?

964
01:30:12,460 --> 01:30:22,800
I don't believe there's anything in the code. When I have had inquiries, what I generally tell applicants is that it's usually frowned upon and it doesn't ever really hide.

965
01:30:22,800 --> 01:30:30,720
So I heard that we had a 1980, I want to say 1988, moratorium on rooftop decks.

966
01:30:30,880 --> 01:30:37,400
You couldn't build a new one and if you had a flat spot on your roof that did not already

967
01:30:37,400 --> 01:30:42,020
have stairs going to it, you could not put stairs going to it.

968
01:30:42,160 --> 01:30:44,720
I have one of those houses and that's what I was told.

969
01:30:44,720 --> 01:30:54,540
I know we have proved a Mansard-style roof to shield solar roofing, but the solar roofing

970
01:30:54,540 --> 01:31:00,600
never got there and now it's a nice rooftop deck with no chairs and table and everything

971
01:31:00,600 --> 01:31:00,880
else.

972
01:31:01,140 --> 01:31:01,980
I just don't know.

973
01:31:02,300 --> 01:31:04,480
It seems to me like solar barbecue.

974
01:31:05,240 --> 01:31:10,440
And I could see if we have these 27 foot flat top hooks going around, we're gonna have

975
01:31:10,440 --> 01:31:11,100
a lot of it.

976
01:31:11,100 --> 01:31:11,660
I don't blame them.

977
01:31:11,680 --> 01:31:12,760
It's a great view from up here.

978
01:31:12,760 --> 01:31:17,340
But, okay, sorry to deter that topic, but it seems like something.

979
01:31:17,360 --> 01:31:21,400
We're glad to me that we left the character, the neighborhood character, without talking about depth.

980
01:31:21,860 --> 01:31:28,640
And I think we need to go back to that at some point, maybe we can touch on the flat, the roof deck at the same time.

981
01:31:29,020 --> 01:31:35,140
While we're on the subject, would you like to, do you think they should not be allowed by code?

982
01:31:35,720 --> 01:31:39,020
That it will really be finished with the non-conforming.

983
01:31:39,020 --> 01:31:40,400
We're finished with non-conforming.

984
01:31:40,400 --> 01:31:51,340
Well, we're about to go into the multi-family with so I would like to go back to the neighborhood character and talk about the fact that, you know, when I was first on the planning commission, then on the city council and back on the planning commission.

985
01:31:51,740 --> 01:32:03,560
For years, decks were not allowed certainly on side yards and not on backyards in most neighborhoods because they reviewed as being interested with the neighbors.

986
01:32:03,560 --> 01:32:08,560
And so, but we've gotten away from that and we don't really have anything in our code about it.

987
01:32:09,480 --> 01:32:11,520
So we need to have some discussions about, you know,

988
01:32:11,720 --> 01:32:14,800
I don't think we're talking about front yard decks or anything,

989
01:32:15,000 --> 01:32:18,720
but I think anything in the front yard we all agree is a good neighborhood thing

990
01:32:18,720 --> 01:32:23,680
and I'm open to talking about, you know,

991
01:32:23,680 --> 01:32:28,360
I think we should talk about what happened back yard and five yards in different areas,

992
01:32:28,640 --> 01:32:32,020
especially with second floor, second floory deck and story.

993
01:32:32,020 --> 01:32:39,440
Yeah, first story I don't think is a problem because it doesn't make any difference if it's a deck or it's a walkway or it's your yard

994
01:32:39,440 --> 01:32:46,280
You're going to be walking out there anyway and you're not going to be looking into somebody's, you know, we're really talking about second stories

995
01:32:47,860 --> 01:32:50,740
So I feel like in in a lot of our neighborhoods

996
01:32:51,400 --> 01:32:53,360
Second stories are

997
01:32:53,360 --> 01:32:54,800
Second story decks

998
01:32:54,800 --> 01:33:01,920
Regardless of their size can be very intrusive and be very be one more thing that adds to that feeling of

999
01:33:01,920 --> 01:33:09,380
I'm closed in here and I, you know, there's just too many people near me kind of feeling that we're getting capitolis sometimes.

1000
01:33:10,400 --> 01:33:11,800
I don't know, what is the refugee commission?

1001
01:33:12,180 --> 01:33:15,200
But rooftop decks and bread in there with it.

1002
01:33:20,580 --> 01:33:24,260
Just call them above ground decks, above ground decks.

1003
01:33:25,280 --> 01:33:29,740
So currently, on the second story, if it were on the back of the home or the side of the home,

1004
01:33:29,880 --> 01:33:31,820
it would count towards your floor area ratio.

1005
01:33:31,820 --> 01:33:48,900
Under it's not a floor area ratio issue for me. It's a privacy issue and the, you know, again, I think we could go with something if you have a 6,000 square foot lot or bigger than they could be considered.

1006
01:33:50,020 --> 01:34:00,280
But in areas like, you know, most of Riverview terrace, a lot of the jewel box, a lot of, there's any time you put a deck on the side.

1007
01:34:00,280 --> 01:34:07,960
Second story deck on the side or the rear of the house they're absolutely going to be looking in somebody's yard no matter

1008
01:34:07,960 --> 01:34:14,050
Mean it not even the yard right adjacent to them. They'll look into you know yards going down

1009
01:34:14,580 --> 01:34:19,080
So I could be comfortable with not allowing second floor decks

1010
01:34:20,280 --> 01:34:26,830
On the side or rear on lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet

1011
01:34:27,750 --> 01:34:34,770
A common approach to deal with this is to require some sort of permit for a second store,

1012
01:34:35,110 --> 01:34:42,110
it's floor, DAC, it could be a administrative design review or a minor use permit, which would

1013
01:34:42,110 --> 01:34:47,910
sort of notice immediate neighbors, it doesn't have to be a sort of lengthy expensive process

1014
01:34:47,910 --> 01:34:53,890
before the planning commission, but it's a way to maybe allow this in cases where it's not creating a privacy

1015
01:34:53,890 --> 01:35:01,410
impact on neighbors, but make sure that if it would create that impact that it would be screened out.

1016
01:35:01,970 --> 01:35:08,290
You know, it reminded me we had an application that came to the Planning Commission last week.

1017
01:35:09,270 --> 01:35:17,110
And I had three different people come to my house who lived in the neighborhood to express their

1018
01:35:17,110 --> 01:35:22,190
of objections to the application before us.

1019
01:35:22,850 --> 01:35:25,010
And on all three of them, I said, well, you know,

1020
01:35:25,010 --> 01:35:27,330
you should send an email or you should come to the meeting.

1021
01:35:27,710 --> 01:35:29,890
And the argument, oh no, I can't do that

1022
01:35:29,890 --> 01:35:32,510
because I don't want to upset my neighbors.

1023
01:35:33,410 --> 01:35:36,550
And so I think we have to be careful

1024
01:35:36,550 --> 01:35:41,090
about not making rules that rely on what

1025
01:35:41,090 --> 01:35:46,430
the existing neighbors say, because they often don't want

1026
01:35:46,430 --> 01:35:53,270
create a controversy, and this is not going to come out right, but personally I don't really

1027
01:35:53,270 --> 01:35:59,450
care what the existing neighbors say because ultimately they're going to be new neighbors

1028
01:35:59,450 --> 01:36:06,010
and our goal is to try and build neighborhoods that are going to function well over a long

1029
01:36:06,010 --> 01:36:07,150
period of time.

1030
01:36:09,430 --> 01:36:20,330
So I find Duke on some time just to say no to because to me, it takes away a little opportunity for design and in comfort of some homes.

1031
01:36:21,010 --> 01:36:27,030
And there's got to be some restriction to understand, but it's not much different than have a window that looks a second story window that looks into me.

1032
01:36:27,130 --> 01:36:31,250
I mean, you could have a nice big window and you get the same view as you get from the deck.

1033
01:36:31,250 --> 01:36:39,030
So just that though, it's noise, and I think that we could actually work with square footage,

1034
01:36:39,330 --> 01:36:44,270
deck square footage, and that might solve it, like if we're talking about 6,000 square

1035
01:36:44,270 --> 01:36:51,930
foot lots, you get a certain square footage on the back, as opposed to a 5,000, 4,000 square

1036
01:36:51,930 --> 01:36:56,930
foot lot, it's got to be smaller because it's closer to your neighbor.

1037
01:36:56,930 --> 01:37:12,090
So, I would say maybe we can look at a sliding scale of deck sizes, but also I think we have to say that if a current neighbor has a problem with a deck, it's a non-starter.

1038
01:37:12,330 --> 01:37:19,070
I mean, if somebody comes up in this community and says, I just really don't feel comfortable with that deck right there.

1039
01:37:19,090 --> 01:37:23,870
I don't know how any of us could sit here and say, well, we're going to allow it anyway.

1040
01:37:23,870 --> 01:37:29,710
You know, I think if there's a challenge to a second story deck, we wouldn't be approving it anyway.

1041
01:37:30,270 --> 01:37:50,430
Well, we had a case up on Depot Hill on Escalon, I think, where they had a second story deck, and the tenants from next door did come in and complain and the compromise that got approved was a deck with screening on it, so that it was no longer a privacy issue for the Jason.

1042
01:37:51,310 --> 01:37:57,870
But they got, you know, a deck that they can go out and, but then you're in Athens, then you're basically like an overall...

1043
01:37:57,870 --> 01:38:01,550
Well really, in this one, I think it turns out just be a front facing deck, but it was open.

1044
01:38:01,770 --> 01:38:05,710
It was on the corner, so at one point it was open to the sides, so it was just...

1045
01:38:05,710 --> 01:38:12,550
My first house that got approved that we ended up building was a two story with a deck with a veranda.

1046
01:38:13,150 --> 01:38:16,350
But the shape was kind of a huge shape with a garage.

1047
01:38:16,350 --> 01:38:19,970
So really it faced towards a grudge with an open area in between.

1048
01:38:20,630 --> 01:38:23,050
And so I would hate to, you know, I never built a house.

1049
01:38:25,690 --> 01:38:29,670
It wouldn't, it'd be a privacy issue because really I'd be looking at a local yard.

1050
01:38:30,550 --> 01:38:32,830
And it would be a side facing decks.

1051
01:38:32,950 --> 01:38:34,710
I don't know how you get away from those technologies.

1052
01:38:35,190 --> 01:38:39,690
Well, we, I know a situation, you know, where Tory's house is.

1053
01:38:39,870 --> 01:38:41,450
There's a deck next door to her.

1054
01:38:41,450 --> 01:38:52,510
And we've complained about that, so they put up a wall on the side of the deck, but they go out on their deck, they have coffee in the morning, they talk, they do all of this.

1055
01:38:53,390 --> 01:38:58,530
It doesn't, it's the noise problem as well as sort of the privacy.

1056
01:38:59,590 --> 01:39:06,750
And so it seems to me that I hear that you don't want to just say, no, you can't have a deck,

1057
01:39:06,750 --> 01:39:15,310
But I think we could come up with something where there could be some, you know, minimum

1058
01:39:15,310 --> 01:39:24,150
lot size because if you're in a, you know, pretty congested area, the decks are most likely

1059
01:39:24,150 --> 01:39:31,930
going to be a problem on the side and the rear, which would, you know, if you went with your

1060
01:39:31,930 --> 01:39:35,390
$6,000 square foot lot or...

1061
01:39:35,390 --> 01:39:39,250
Well, it's interesting, because one of the notes I saw about...

1062
01:39:39,250 --> 01:39:39,910
I think it was Dex.

1063
01:39:40,070 --> 01:39:42,550
It said, if it was facing the railroad corridor,

1064
01:39:43,410 --> 01:39:45,930
it wasn't exemplified. We talked about open space.

1065
01:39:46,570 --> 01:39:48,570
So I just happened to live on the railroad.

1066
01:39:49,110 --> 01:39:51,470
I mean, what would I look at across the street?

1067
01:39:51,730 --> 01:39:53,370
I mean, on my back yard towards the railroad.

1068
01:39:53,630 --> 01:39:55,890
Nothing. There's nothing back there to really look at.

1069
01:39:55,890 --> 01:39:58,690
So I don't know why we would say no if it was at the...

1070
01:39:58,690 --> 01:39:59,870
There must be specific examples.

1071
01:39:59,870 --> 01:40:08,790
Yeah, I didn't know why you said no to the rail card or either because that same like sort of an obvious one to me, but I don't want to fight about everything

1072
01:40:08,790 --> 01:40:11,450
You mean having a second story deck?

1073
01:40:11,930 --> 01:40:13,230
Yeah, I don't open on the front door.

1074
01:40:13,650 --> 01:40:17,990
Yeah, just so I had some comments, but there was, I don't know if you want to reopen the public week.

1075
01:40:17,990 --> 01:40:21,310
Finally, I had some public participation in the hospital here.

1076
01:40:21,430 --> 01:40:23,950
Do we have somebody from the public who would like to see it?

1077
01:40:25,210 --> 01:40:27,270
Do we have somebody from the public who would like to see it?

1078
01:40:27,270 --> 01:40:28,670
Can you introduce yourself?

1079
01:40:28,670 --> 01:40:31,050
Yeah, Jerry Jensen, nine-level on Bay Avenue.

1080
01:40:31,690 --> 01:40:34,170
Where I brought my original plan in for my house,

1081
01:40:34,190 --> 01:40:38,490
I was working Katie, and we wanted to put a green roof on it.

1082
01:40:40,150 --> 01:40:43,570
And from a process standpoint, the turnaround time

1083
01:40:43,570 --> 01:40:46,870
of getting to a green roof, because there wasn't any

1084
01:40:46,870 --> 01:40:50,450
procedural process put in place.

1085
01:40:51,070 --> 01:40:53,470
We stepped back from it, but I also think our green roof

1086
01:40:53,470 --> 01:40:58,490
was going to count into our floor areas, plus square footage.

1087
01:40:58,490 --> 01:41:06,290
And I think as things are going green and we're looking at taking our house to different levels of being efficient and stuff like that.

1088
01:41:06,550 --> 01:41:13,150
I don't know if this is the time now to look at that or for future, you know, people building green and stuff like that.

1089
01:41:13,410 --> 01:41:17,970
It was, I think, Katie Sampoint, if I don't know if it was kind of viewed as a deck.

1090
01:41:18,170 --> 01:41:24,750
But I mean, we're looking at it as a green roof, you know, from helping off the energy, you know, awesome stuff like that.

1091
01:41:24,750 --> 01:41:29,790
I don't know, you know, this is not the process for this today, but if maybe a system

1092
01:41:29,790 --> 01:41:33,510
put up that that could be explored in the future and when is the city going to take

1093
01:41:33,510 --> 01:41:38,250
stance on green rough, are they decks, you know, and then their second floor decks go, oh,

1094
01:41:38,270 --> 01:41:43,370
we don't allow second floor decks, but if you don't allow a second for green rough, then the

1095
01:41:43,370 --> 01:41:47,890
city can take a stance and then a lot of people don't green. So just from the building standpoint,

1096
01:41:48,330 --> 01:41:54,530
homeowner. That's good and put, thank you for the input. Is the green roof considered

1097
01:41:54,530 --> 01:41:58,390
a duck and handled this where is it in that situation.

1098
01:41:59,390 --> 01:42:03,350
There is a man's surgery, so it was habitable space, so you could go up there.

1099
01:42:04,490 --> 01:42:08,090
The man's surgery came up to, I want to say, three and a half feet.

1100
01:42:08,730 --> 01:42:12,770
There was a staircase leading up to it, so under that because it was so accessible.

1101
01:42:13,410 --> 01:42:20,050
If it were a living roof, a green roof, say on a flat roof that didn't have access,

1102
01:42:20,050 --> 01:42:25,710
And didn't have the safety precautions around the edges of the building.

1103
01:42:25,890 --> 01:42:28,330
We wouldn't have counted it towards the floor area or a show.

1104
01:42:29,050 --> 01:42:31,990
There were green roofs on that project on Hore Road.

1105
01:42:32,170 --> 01:42:37,250
It was their car park roofs, but for a number of years they grew grass on those roofs.

1106
01:42:37,430 --> 01:42:43,190
They eventually got away from doing that because they felt they had so much of a maintenance

1107
01:42:43,190 --> 01:42:43,750
problem.

1108
01:42:43,970 --> 01:42:49,190
The homeowners association and that condo project came and asked for them to be removed.

1109
01:42:49,190 --> 01:43:01,850
But I don't think, you know, we would prohibit someone from doing something like that, but if it was going to be a debt where people were going to be going up and using it as a garden, then it does seem to me have become...

1110
01:43:01,850 --> 01:43:14,770
Well, it is a garden. You have to have stairs going up to an order to maintain it. So that's why they're saying it's a bit of a space because there's a fine line where I'm going up. For the first year I go up and I'm just watering and pruning and whatever.

1111
01:43:14,770 --> 01:43:19,490
and then the next year will I bring a chair up because we need to hang out up there and then next

1112
01:43:19,490 --> 01:43:23,510
year there's a table in a barbecue and five years later somebody's living up there.

1113
01:43:24,290 --> 01:43:30,610
That's where it usually goes and aren't down. Back to the deck issue because I'm hearing one

1114
01:43:30,610 --> 01:43:35,850
side of it and I haven't heard enough about the other side of that issue which is like I'm conflicted

1115
01:43:35,850 --> 01:43:40,470
by the deck issue because I can see it's like one neighbor versus the other neighbor because one

1116
01:43:40,470 --> 01:43:47,070
ever once really use the outdoors and be able to step outside and in the evening. The other

1117
01:43:47,070 --> 01:43:52,450
neighbor doesn't want their one neighbor to be within sight. I mean, I kind of like maybe

1118
01:43:52,450 --> 01:43:58,130
some past square footage restriction so it's not a party area. Yeah, and it's also not

1119
01:43:58,130 --> 01:44:03,290
writing your face. But you still can use your house for, I mean, have some indoor outdoor living

1120
01:44:03,290 --> 01:44:03,810
in your house.

1121
01:44:04,250 --> 01:44:12,510
But require some sort of special permit for it and put a restriction on size so that

1122
01:44:12,510 --> 01:44:18,750
it gets flagged, it's not just, maybe this is a side to the right side or rear.

1123
01:44:19,090 --> 01:44:29,970
Maybe they're not allowed in a certain, like, from 2000 to 4000 square foot lots, they're not

1124
01:44:29,970 --> 01:44:37,690
out at all, possibly on second floors, from 4, 4,000 to 5,000, there's a certain square

1125
01:44:37,690 --> 01:44:45,070
footage, 5 to 6,000, it's a larger square footage, and as the lots get larger, I like going

1126
01:44:45,070 --> 01:44:49,650
with the square footage of a lot, because we've been doing that with other things, and I think

1127
01:44:49,650 --> 01:44:51,550
it keeps it consistent, people understand.

1128
01:44:51,670 --> 01:44:55,070
The two restrictives, I mean, the lots in the dual box are 3200.

1129
01:44:55,550 --> 01:44:59,370
Yeah, alright, well then maybe that's a little too restrictive, the numbers might not be

1130
01:44:59,370 --> 01:44:59,810
but

1131
01:45:00,270 --> 01:45:03,350
Maybe that mechanism more for you?

1132
01:45:04,010 --> 01:45:18,230
One standard to consider would be separation from an adjacent residence, which I think is really kind of the main concern that you have that you don't want this outdoor deck to be too close due to privacy and noise impacts.

1133
01:45:18,530 --> 01:45:24,290
And so if you can focus on that variable and entire standard to that, that might work well.

1134
01:45:24,290 --> 01:45:31,570
Because I have a 3200 square foot lot in the toolbox that's on a corner and so it's

1135
01:45:31,570 --> 01:45:37,470
it's set really strange but when we bought it there were two side I guess you'd consider

1136
01:45:37,470 --> 01:45:42,910
them both side decks maybe one of them is a rear deck but there were two second floor decks

1137
01:45:42,910 --> 01:45:46,510
that weren't a problem for either adjacent property.

1138
01:45:46,890 --> 01:45:53,150
We got rid of one of them completely and cut the other one in half because of use and we

1139
01:45:53,150 --> 01:45:54,470
one at six feet downstairs.

1140
01:45:56,590 --> 01:45:59,930
So I would hate to see it say absolutely can't have one

1141
01:45:59,930 --> 01:46:02,550
if you're under a certain square footage of the lot,

1142
01:46:05,410 --> 01:46:11,450
but specifying the maximum depth of a side or a

1143
01:46:11,450 --> 01:46:15,930
second story deck would limit its use.

1144
01:46:16,410 --> 01:46:19,010
So you wouldn't wind up with a lot of noise in people hanging out on it,

1145
01:46:19,110 --> 01:46:21,410
but people who want to go sit outside and read a book

1146
01:46:21,410 --> 01:46:28,710
or have their, you know, potted fruit trees on the back deck in a reverse floor plan house,

1147
01:46:28,930 --> 01:46:34,090
which there are a lot of, especially in the酒 box. All of your living spaces upstairs,

1148
01:46:34,090 --> 01:46:39,590
so having an upstairs small, you know, way to get outside is really nice.

1149
01:46:40,890 --> 01:46:51,390
So maybe decks just have to go through a special permitting process, and then it will be up to the

1150
01:46:51,390 --> 01:47:00,450
You can't really add a second floor deck without doing some kind of a reasonably substantial remodel to get the structure.

1151
01:47:00,830 --> 01:47:05,590
I mean, you can't just drop poles and build a deck on it, it doesn't work out.

1152
01:47:05,590 --> 01:47:06,170
Yes.

1153
01:47:08,370 --> 01:47:08,710
Okay.

1154
01:47:09,070 --> 01:47:10,110
Want me to re-sumrise?

1155
01:47:11,390 --> 01:47:17,890
So for a Second Story Decks, we'll add new criteria for requiring a special permit.

1156
01:47:19,010 --> 01:47:24,950
We could do an administrative permit with size restrictions and set back in separation

1157
01:47:24,950 --> 01:47:31,530
standards to go beyond that if we go to planning commission for review in a public hearing.

1158
01:47:35,050 --> 01:47:41,410
We're going to be seeing these, we're not going to be seeing these finals before they go

1159
01:47:41,410 --> 01:47:43,170
to the City Council, correct?

1160
01:47:43,910 --> 01:47:46,890
I mean, we're not going to, so in other words, you're going to flesh that out a little bit

1161
01:47:46,890 --> 01:47:48,550
more before it goes to the City Council.

1162
01:47:49,010 --> 01:47:53,210
This is the first time I can think of thinking this, but I would rather see that at least

1163
01:47:53,210 --> 01:47:58,010
know what you've recommended or what you're going to include in those findings or whatever

1164
01:47:58,010 --> 01:48:02,990
before it goes to the City Council, so that we feel like that's, that's the matrix, isn't it?

1165
01:48:02,990 --> 01:48:05,750
Well, we're talking about new specifics.

1166
01:48:06,090 --> 01:48:07,570
They're coming out with new ones.

1167
01:48:07,950 --> 01:48:13,450
So they could just email them to us and give us 10 days to comment or last or whatever.

1168
01:48:13,950 --> 01:48:17,850
So we'll be doing the same process that we just been going through with the city council kind of

1169
01:48:17,850 --> 01:48:22,710
talk in a little bit of a higher level, although some of these by their nature, we got to talk details.

1170
01:48:23,510 --> 01:48:27,170
Then we'll draft the code based on what we heard and we'll come back and that's where we'll

1171
01:48:27,170 --> 01:48:32,930
really look at a lot of the wording and we're going to really make an effort to try to highlight some of

1172
01:48:32,930 --> 01:48:33,910
Here's what we came up with.

1173
01:48:34,090 --> 01:48:34,570
What do you think?

1174
01:48:34,950 --> 01:48:35,910
Are we on the right path?

1175
01:48:36,130 --> 01:48:37,950
Do we need to adjust to what we're going to do?

1176
01:48:37,970 --> 01:48:39,410
I don't know what these before it goes to the city.

1177
01:48:39,410 --> 01:48:39,630
No.

1178
01:48:41,690 --> 01:48:45,770
So you're just be saying, you know, we're going to come up with an administrative permit for

1179
01:48:45,770 --> 01:48:50,030
side or rear decks and specify size and setbacks, standards.

1180
01:48:50,850 --> 01:48:53,570
And if it is outside of those, then it goes to planning commission.

1181
01:48:53,570 --> 01:48:56,230
That's as much as you're going to give to city council.

1182
01:48:56,350 --> 01:48:57,470
And they'll say yes or no.

1183
01:49:00,140 --> 01:49:00,480
Okay.

1184
01:49:01,340 --> 01:49:05,960
So now, on to the next, the last section of our update,

1185
01:49:06,600 --> 01:49:09,160
multi-family homes and the single-family zone.

1186
01:49:10,420 --> 01:49:13,780
This we've spent a lot of time on over the past month,

1187
01:49:15,120 --> 01:49:18,480
and getting public input and feedback.

1188
01:49:19,020 --> 01:49:22,040
So a dwelling unit is defined as one or more rooms,

1189
01:49:22,120 --> 01:49:23,820
and a dwelling design for occupancy,

1190
01:49:24,280 --> 01:49:26,580
by one family for living or sleeping purposes,

1191
01:49:26,680 --> 01:49:28,140
and having only one kitchen.

1192
01:49:29,920 --> 01:49:35,120
There are many different dwelling types of dwelling units throughout the City of Capitola,

1193
01:49:35,940 --> 01:49:38,440
single family homes, the secondary dwelling units.

1194
01:49:40,100 --> 01:49:47,240
There are also duplexes in which you have side-by-side or a configuration of two dwelling units within the same structure.

1195
01:49:48,780 --> 01:49:56,560
And so the purpose of tonight's conversation will be focusing on multi-family structures that have three or more dwelling units within one structure

1196
01:49:56,560 --> 01:50:02,240
and that are located within the R1 zone.

1197
01:50:02,400 --> 01:50:04,320
These are examples all over town,

1198
01:50:04,560 --> 01:50:06,100
not specifically in the R1 zone.

1199
01:50:06,300 --> 01:50:12,560
You've got the senior housing on Bay Avenue

1200
01:50:12,560 --> 01:50:15,600
and then another a home up in,

1201
01:50:15,600 --> 01:50:17,640
I think that's North of Capitola Road.

1202
01:50:19,860 --> 01:50:21,760
Within our current zoning code,

1203
01:50:22,140 --> 01:50:23,560
the subject of tonight's meeting

1204
01:50:23,560 --> 01:50:25,580
is that the multi-family structures

1205
01:50:25,580 --> 01:50:32,000
with three or more units in a single family zone are non-conforming and a non-conforming activity

1206
01:50:32,000 --> 01:50:38,080
is an activity that was legal at the time that it was built but since it was built the code

1207
01:50:38,080 --> 01:50:44,540
has changed and it is no longer permitted or has become a conditionally used within the zone.

1208
01:50:45,400 --> 01:50:53,340
A non-conforming multifamily home within Capitola, if it's located in the single family zoning

1209
01:50:53,340 --> 01:50:58,640
district must discontinue or apply for an extension 50 years from the date the property we came

1210
01:50:58,640 --> 01:51:06,620
non-conforming or by June 26, 2019, which ever date is later. So understanding this, we came to

1211
01:51:06,620 --> 01:51:11,900
the conclusion, we need to figure out when all of these became non-conforming. As 2019 is quickly

1212
01:51:11,900 --> 01:51:19,760
approaching. So here is a map of the city of Capitola and the yellow is the single family zone.

1213
01:51:20,420 --> 01:51:27,240
The dots on the map that you see here are multi-family homes that became non-conforming in 1951.

1214
01:51:27,580 --> 01:51:32,760
These are the properties that by 2019 must come in and apply for an extension.

1215
01:51:34,620 --> 01:51:43,400
In 1976, a lot of the area on the west side of Capitola was originally a multi-family zone became single family.

1216
01:51:43,400 --> 01:51:51,560
So, the properties you see in red in 1976 became non-conforming, so they must apply for an extension by 2026.

1217
01:51:53,440 --> 01:51:57,780
Depot Hill was multi-family up till 1979.

1218
01:51:58,740 --> 01:52:05,780
So, all multi-family's three or more units in Depot Hill are required to come in for an extension by 2029.

1219
01:52:06,520 --> 01:52:13,700
This is a good, it'll face out the review process, and then in 1984 there was a building

1220
01:52:13,700 --> 01:52:15,960
along Warford that became non-conforming.

1221
01:52:17,200 --> 01:52:25,460
So, from there, we know this 2019 date to be a little overwhelming as it's a few years

1222
01:52:25,460 --> 01:52:29,620
away, and we wanted to reach out to the public and make sure that property owners that do

1223
01:52:29,620 --> 01:52:35,160
on these multifamilys are aware of the current requirements of our code.

1224
01:52:35,160 --> 01:52:39,740
So we distributed an online survey.

1225
01:52:40,040 --> 01:52:44,360
We mailed it to all property owners within 300 feet

1226
01:52:44,360 --> 01:52:48,460
that are located in the R1 of any of these multifamily homes.

1227
01:52:48,460 --> 01:52:51,260
So the owners themselves were received and noticed

1228
01:52:51,260 --> 01:52:53,640
in anyone within 300 feet.

1229
01:52:53,760 --> 01:52:56,500
The online survey we had 77 participants.

1230
01:52:57,260 --> 01:53:00,600
We also held a public workshop on June 15th.

1231
01:53:00,600 --> 01:53:02,720
We had approximately 40 attendees.

1232
01:53:02,720 --> 01:53:08,140
And that was held right here in Council Chambers and also in our community room.

1233
01:53:09,000 --> 01:53:11,840
So tonight I'm going to go over what we heard from the public.

1234
01:53:13,140 --> 01:53:16,860
This is, first I'll talk about all respondents from the survey,

1235
01:53:18,300 --> 01:53:20,160
and this is all of their results together.

1236
01:53:20,160 --> 01:53:22,940
As you can see on this slide, this is, we asked,

1237
01:53:23,080 --> 01:53:26,220
what type of influence do multi-families have on your neighborhood?

1238
01:53:27,020 --> 01:53:28,820
And it was a mix of results.

1239
01:53:28,820 --> 01:53:34,260
There was some people very strong for their very positive.

1240
01:53:35,340 --> 01:53:48,240
Others found that we negative, and then 21 of the 70 respondents had mixed emotions about whether or not just saying it's positive or negative, but that it's a mix, the influence.

1241
01:53:49,320 --> 01:53:58,780
Then within the survey we asked people which neighborhood they were located in and so now I'm going to break down the results by neighborhood.

1242
01:53:59,360 --> 01:54:07,900
I'm going to go from the neighborhood that stated it was the least impactful on them to the neighborhood which said it multi-family is the most impactful.

1243
01:54:08,800 --> 01:54:13,380
So in the river view to Monterey, you can see there's not very many of these.

1244
01:54:13,380 --> 01:54:16,440
They're spread out, the concentration is not that high.

1245
01:54:16,960 --> 01:54:19,260
In this neighborhood, the overall question

1246
01:54:19,260 --> 01:54:20,840
of what type of impact do they have.

1247
01:54:21,900 --> 01:54:25,260
It was the majority said it was a positive influence

1248
01:54:25,260 --> 01:54:26,100
on their neighborhood.

1249
01:54:27,320 --> 01:54:32,000
When asked what types of factors or positive

1250
01:54:32,000 --> 01:54:35,540
and negative, the positive influences, number one

1251
01:54:35,540 --> 01:54:38,320
was affordability followed by diversity

1252
01:54:39,030 --> 01:54:41,500
and also adding to the year-round residents,

1253
01:54:41,500 --> 01:54:48,120
The negative influences in this was, we saw this trend throughout the neighborhoods parking.

1254
01:54:48,680 --> 01:54:56,560
This brought up this number one negative and then a mix of higher density overcrowded.

1255
01:54:56,580 --> 01:55:00,160
There weren't that many negatives brought up within the River View to Monterey.

1256
01:55:01,100 --> 01:55:08,980
When we asked how should we move forward with these properties for future, this is the one neighborhood where there was

1257
01:55:08,980 --> 01:55:15,240
a lot of support to remove their required extension and allow multi-family uses to continue indefinitely

1258
01:55:15,240 --> 01:55:21,700
as long as they do not increase in size or number of units. You'll also see that there was support

1259
01:55:23,640 --> 01:55:29,620
that I guess my numbering, it all says A on the left and sorry but the fifth option down

1260
01:55:29,620 --> 01:55:37,220
is to make sure these discontinued by 2019 and you'll see there was support from four people to

1261
01:55:37,220 --> 01:55:49,340
them go away all together. So, these results came from people that live or own in the

1262
01:55:49,340 --> 01:55:51,600
review of Monterey area.

1263
01:55:53,960 --> 01:56:00,840
Yes. You can see in the first column here is the survey results

1264
01:56:00,840 --> 01:56:06,600
and then the workshop results. We have the same questions, just in a different format

1265
01:56:06,600 --> 01:56:10,920
at the workshop in order, they could tell us

1266
01:56:10,920 --> 01:56:12,980
which one they were in most in favor of.

1267
01:56:13,420 --> 01:56:14,900
Or some people kind of twice.

1268
01:56:16,520 --> 01:56:18,740
We did not count anybody twice.

1269
01:56:19,240 --> 01:56:21,820
We had the survey there for them to take.

1270
01:56:22,360 --> 01:56:23,460
So there may be some overlap.

1271
01:56:27,490 --> 01:56:31,630
We seemed to get a lot of workshop, a lot of people

1272
01:56:31,630 --> 01:56:32,590
put down notes.

1273
01:56:32,830 --> 01:56:35,770
We had maps in which they could make comments about the maps.

1274
01:56:35,770 --> 01:56:43,370
And people didn't really rate the options as much, you know, and the survey was very clear.

1275
01:56:43,870 --> 01:56:51,450
I don't think all 40 people that were at the workshop told us exactly the direction they'd like us to go in the future.

1276
01:56:52,050 --> 01:56:55,430
But they did give us a lot of good notes about the existing conditions.

1277
01:56:56,890 --> 01:56:58,870
Okay, now we'll move on to the jewel box.

1278
01:56:59,570 --> 01:57:05,310
And as you can see, it's a little more dense in the Jill box, there's more of a concentration of purple dots.

1279
01:57:06,610 --> 01:57:13,590
There is definitely a mix of reviews of green being positive, red being negative and blue being of mix.

1280
01:57:15,030 --> 01:57:23,390
When we asked the positive influences, the diversity came to the top, additional year-round residents.

1281
01:57:23,910 --> 01:57:25,330
Also at the top was none.

1282
01:57:25,330 --> 01:57:35,670
So that speaks loudly as well negative influences parking, of course, rose to the top for building maintenance, and then also

1283
01:57:37,850 --> 01:57:39,050
None so

1284
01:57:39,050 --> 01:57:43,990
Question you're around residents versus second home. What does second home mean?

1285
01:57:45,790 --> 01:57:48,450
I would think of that as a vacation rental

1286
01:57:48,450 --> 01:57:54,050
Okay, so the some people think it's a positive that the person's not there all the time and some people think it's a negative

1287
01:57:54,050 --> 01:57:55,990
yet there is definitely a mixed review.

1288
01:57:58,390 --> 01:58:00,530
Well, they're both positive though.

1289
01:58:00,850 --> 01:58:05,130
I mean, on that pie chart, it's positive to have

1290
01:58:05,130 --> 01:58:06,290
second homes and it's positive.

1291
01:58:06,290 --> 01:58:09,130
I have your own residence, so it's kind of odd.

1292
01:58:11,990 --> 01:58:15,010
When we asked, how would you like the city to move forward?

1293
01:58:15,290 --> 01:58:20,430
But there was a total of 11 people said to remove the required

1294
01:58:20,430 --> 01:58:23,950
extension and allow multi-family's to continue indefinitely.

1295
01:58:24,630 --> 01:58:37,650
But if you look at the options A and E, there were five respondents who said to keep the current code, they'd like to see these reviewed and E being to remove them all together.

1296
01:58:38,470 --> 01:58:42,270
So there's definitely a mix review in the toolbox.

1297
01:58:44,210 --> 01:58:51,030
Depot Hill, you start to see more of a concentration and this is one of the last neighborhoods to convert to single family.

1298
01:58:51,030 --> 01:58:59,830
So here, in the Deepohill neighborhood and in the neighborhood north of Capitola Road, that's

1299
01:58:59,830 --> 01:59:04,930
where the majority of the people that came to our public outreach came from.

1300
01:59:05,890 --> 01:59:11,670
So here, the positive influences, diversity, affordability, and second home.

1301
01:59:12,490 --> 01:59:19,590
The negative influences were overcrowded, higher density, and then parking, so starting

1302
01:59:19,590 --> 01:59:27,790
see I need for space up there. When we asked how would you like the city of capital to regulate

1303
01:59:27,790 --> 01:59:36,290
these in the future, it was really an even distribution of these options, most of them are

1304
01:59:36,290 --> 01:59:43,970
either you know keep the current or current code or to require additional units to be taken away

1305
01:59:43,970 --> 01:59:50,530
and to come into compliance with the code or to make them go away altogether. So I would say the

1306
01:59:50,530 --> 01:59:56,910
feedback here was to make sure the city does something to decrease the impacts of the

1307
01:59:56,910 --> 01:59:59,970
multifamily and the single family. There were six companies.

1308
02:00:00,000 --> 02:00:30,620
That we're under the other. And that was within the workshop. And it was really where people were suggesting calculating this differently, like really looking at the value of the units to see, they were, they're all, they weren't clear towards a new suggestion on the code, but maybe calculating differently, how we define a unit and north of capital a road.

1309
02:00:30,620 --> 02:00:34,560
I would say at least a third, if not half of the people

1310
02:00:34,560 --> 02:00:38,800
that came to our meeting were here to talk about North

1311
02:00:38,800 --> 02:00:40,120
of Capitola Road.

1312
02:00:40,140 --> 02:00:42,760
You can see the density is really tight.

1313
02:00:43,740 --> 02:00:46,040
The units are close together.

1314
02:00:48,600 --> 02:00:51,400
And the negative here rose to the top on the pie chart.

1315
02:00:51,840 --> 02:00:56,180
So 25, the positive influences, again,

1316
02:00:56,180 --> 02:01:03,780
diversity, affordability, and then none. Negative influences parking, which if you drive

1317
02:01:03,780 --> 02:01:10,780
down one of the streets at 6pm at night, it's very obvious. Poor building maintenance is also

1318
02:01:10,780 --> 02:01:13,140
at the top of the list and then trash.

1319
02:01:15,810 --> 02:01:17,830
When asked how do you suggest the city of capital

1320
02:01:17,830 --> 02:01:25,450
a treat these into the future, there was definitely a majority that would like to see these discontinued

1321
02:01:25,450 --> 02:01:26,510
by 2019.

1322
02:01:27,150 --> 02:01:28,950
And although we listed that as an option,

1323
02:01:29,090 --> 02:01:31,030
we have the Sunset Clause currently

1324
02:01:33,050 --> 02:01:35,810
and an owner could come in and apply for an extension.

1325
02:01:38,740 --> 02:01:41,720
We also took our results and filtered them

1326
02:01:41,720 --> 02:01:47,000
between the owner or their owner or an owner,

1327
02:01:47,000 --> 02:01:49,320
or an owner occupant of the multi-family home,

1328
02:01:49,880 --> 02:01:53,280
versus owners or occupants of single-family homes

1329
02:01:53,280 --> 02:01:54,500
or due-plexes.

1330
02:01:54,500 --> 02:02:22,180
Some of these are pretty predictable results, but for the owner occupant of multi-family homes that neighborhood influences overwhelmingly positive, or no negative, they did see that there was a mix, and then from the single-family or duplex owners what we heard was, you know, your typical breakdown of a little bit of, there's some positive and a mix, but there's a negative component.

1331
02:02:23,240 --> 02:02:29,520
When we asked how would when we filtered it based on owner of multi-family versus single-family

1332
02:02:29,520 --> 02:02:37,440
or duplex, the owners of the multi-family would like to have remove the required extension

1333
02:02:37,440 --> 02:02:43,680
and allow multi-vellist to continue indefinitely, and that's 10 responses and there are approximately

1334
02:02:43,680 --> 02:02:49,120
50 of them out there, so that's about 20% of existing owners.

1335
02:02:49,120 --> 02:02:55,600
And then the survey run, we asked on our occupants that single family homes are dueplexes.

1336
02:02:55,780 --> 02:03:13,180
The results were, there's 38% to do away with them all together, and then also support for keeping the current code and decreasing the number of units based on the existing conditions of the site.

1337
02:03:14,420 --> 02:03:23,120
So, within our issues and options, we, the options were a little bit different from what we showed within our public outreach.

1338
02:03:23,680 --> 02:03:26,440
The first option is to keep the current code.

1339
02:03:27,140 --> 02:03:32,680
The second option is to remove the required extension into allow multi-family to continue indefinitely,

1340
02:03:33,180 --> 02:03:36,280
provided they don't do not increase in size or number of units.

1341
02:03:36,280 --> 02:03:41,340
The third was to modify the regulations to allow non-conforming

1342
02:03:41,340 --> 02:03:45,740
multi-family uses to remain in targeted areas of the city so we could

1343
02:03:45,740 --> 02:03:48,620
define those areas where we want them to stay.

1344
02:03:49,440 --> 02:03:55,340
Also, the fourth option is to rezone areas of high concentrations of

1345
02:03:55,340 --> 02:03:57,760
multi-family into multi-family zones.

1346
02:03:58,480 --> 02:04:03,120
And there's a couple examples on the maps where that would be

1347
02:04:03,120 --> 02:04:15,560
appropriate along noble cliffs. There's two condos, I'm sorry, there's two condos right along

1348
02:04:15,560 --> 02:04:24,460
the water that are there condominiumized. It's private ownership. I think 12 units and

1349
02:04:24,460 --> 02:04:31,120
15. Yeah, so it and there's parking. It's different. It's on the edge of a zone.

1350
02:04:31,500 --> 02:04:38,060
It's across the street from Portola. So it's different. The other area that I would say

1351
02:04:38,060 --> 02:04:47,240
that the reason would be appropriate for is a Monterey behind that shore-life church. They have

1352
02:04:47,240 --> 02:04:53,300
multiple family, they've got multi-family units behind the church in that area. The zoning

1353
02:04:53,300 --> 02:04:58,480
kind of is divided over the parcel and that's another error we should look at possibly

1354
02:04:58,480 --> 02:05:04,600
rezoning multi-family. Otherwise it may be looked at spot zoning unless you took in

1355
02:05:04,600 --> 02:05:10,240
a whole neighborhood. And the fifth option was to create an incentive program to allow

1356
02:05:10,240 --> 02:05:14,700
participating non-conforming property owners to retain their uses subject to providing

1357
02:05:14,700 --> 02:05:22,500
specific public benefits. As we all know there's housing shortage and affordability issues

1358
02:05:22,500 --> 02:05:31,660
within the city and by creating a incentive programs to allow these to continue and possibly

1359
02:05:31,660 --> 02:05:37,480
putting on like affordable housing deed restrictions within or requiring another approach

1360
02:05:37,480 --> 02:05:42,620
would be to for a public benefit would be to have them work on street improvements such

1361
02:05:42,620 --> 02:05:49,860
as additional parking or landscape improvements but working towards a kind of a win-win

1362
02:05:49,860 --> 02:05:55,180
approach within the E, and then F would be other for other ideas that you may have this evening.

1363
02:05:55,780 --> 02:05:57,560
So thank you, and I look forward to your comments.

1364
02:05:58,320 --> 02:05:58,960
Thank you.

1365
02:05:59,160 --> 02:05:59,840
Questions of staff?

1366
02:06:00,620 --> 02:06:01,540
I have a question.

1367
02:06:02,660 --> 02:06:13,980
If we were to change our current ordinance and say not allow them and just stop that use, wouldn't

1368
02:06:13,980 --> 02:06:18,120
the state of California come in and talk to us about that?

1369
02:06:18,200 --> 02:06:18,920
I mean isn't there?

1370
02:06:18,920 --> 02:06:28,600
Do you think can you feature that they might change or the county might change our allocation in the next go around of, you know, housing?

1371
02:06:30,380 --> 02:06:43,100
I just can't imagine, I don't imagine it's doing it number one, but I can't imagine if we did that the state or the county would look favorably on us in the next go around with housing allotments.

1372
02:06:43,720 --> 02:06:46,260
I don't think you'd have a big issue in the housing element.

1373
02:06:46,460 --> 02:06:51,660
It's a small fraction of our rental inventory of which we have quite a bit in Capitola.

1374
02:06:53,300 --> 02:06:57,960
And the whole idea of a housing element is that you show that you can accommodate your housing

1375
02:06:57,960 --> 02:06:59,940
need not actually have the units on the ground.

1376
02:07:00,520 --> 02:07:03,040
So I don't think there would be a big problem with it.

1377
02:07:03,840 --> 02:07:04,840
How do they choose?

1378
02:07:05,100 --> 02:07:08,420
How do we come about our allotment now within our,

1379
02:07:08,460 --> 02:07:09,980
don't we work within the county?

1380
02:07:09,980 --> 02:07:15,420
right the county is given an allotment and we work with other county municipalities and the

1381
02:07:15,420 --> 02:07:15,620
county.

1382
02:07:16,180 --> 02:07:20,340
So the State Department of Housing Community Development sets the allocation by region.

1383
02:07:20,820 --> 02:07:25,980
They give that number to Ambad, who then distributes that between Monterey and Santa Cruz

1384
02:07:25,980 --> 02:07:26,500
counties.

1385
02:07:27,360 --> 02:07:31,280
And then we kind of, you know, harsh trade a little bit and see where those units are actually

1386
02:07:31,280 --> 02:07:31,680
going to go.

1387
02:07:31,700 --> 02:07:37,380
So my question is we get rid of our civil war affordable and, you know, this kind of housing.

1388
02:07:38,420 --> 02:07:42,600
I don't, but I don't, we'll talk later, I just wanted to find out what, what, what, what

1389
02:07:42,600 --> 02:07:43,080
that.

1390
02:07:43,360 --> 02:07:47,100
I think given the circumstance with the amount of rental housing we have here that, you

1391
02:07:47,100 --> 02:07:50,800
know, this, this wouldn't be a big issue because it's a really small piece of the pie.

1392
02:07:51,940 --> 02:07:52,460
Thank you.

1393
02:07:52,620 --> 02:07:54,160
Can you just clear one thing up for me?

1394
02:07:54,200 --> 02:07:56,880
Because I asked this at the night under the, when I'm talking about the housing element

1395
02:07:56,880 --> 02:08:02,060
in the condo apartment conversion, because it seems to be in direct conflict here, so

1396
02:08:02,060 --> 02:08:02,940
what am I missing?

1397
02:08:02,940 --> 02:08:11,300
Seems like our condo apartment conversion is kind of strict in trying to discourage the conversion.

1398
02:08:11,820 --> 02:08:17,740
But on the other hand, we had this ordinance that says that, you know, by starting 2019, we want to start doing that,

1399
02:08:20,220 --> 02:08:20,320
so.

1400
02:08:21,580 --> 02:08:21,980
Thank you.

1401
02:08:22,300 --> 02:08:23,280
Am I messed up here, am I?

1402
02:08:23,880 --> 02:08:34,520
You know, I think the best explanation I've heard was from Commissioner Newman, if that meeting as to the origin of the condo conversion policy that it was put in place specifically to restrict certain

1403
02:08:34,520 --> 02:08:39,340
developments from converting the condominiums, I don't think there's anything there necessarily

1404
02:08:39,340 --> 02:08:47,400
given our circumstances that really preserves the rental stock as it is today.

1405
02:08:47,520 --> 02:08:51,680
I mean there would be some conversion, would it be a big portion of it?

1406
02:08:51,780 --> 02:08:52,520
I don't think so.

1407
02:08:52,940 --> 02:08:57,220
I think the city could have the discretion to relax that if they wanted to without running

1408
02:08:57,220 --> 02:08:59,660
a fall of housing element policies or goals.

1409
02:08:59,660 --> 02:09:08,800
Right, so most of the units that we're talking about are rental units, these three and

1410
02:09:08,800 --> 02:09:19,660
four plexus, and I agree with your analysis, I think there are some parts of town where,

1411
02:09:19,660 --> 02:09:26,340
you know, there's one or two here there, and they're not particularly a big problem.

1412
02:09:27,160 --> 02:09:37,440
When you look at the area, you know, sort of call it the, you know, 46, 47, 48, up and there and you drive in that neighborhood,

1413
02:09:40,620 --> 02:09:54,040
clearly there's their problems in that neighborhood when it comes to parking, when it comes to dumpsters out in front, when it comes to, you know, there have been no improvement on those units.

1414
02:09:54,040 --> 02:10:05,620
So, I would love to see the city come up with some sort of incentive program where these land

1415
02:10:05,620 --> 02:10:16,080
lords improve what they have deal with, you know, the garbage cans all lined up, provide

1416
02:10:16,080 --> 02:10:23,400
little landscaping, you know, I don't know if the city pays to have an architect to work

1417
02:10:23,400 --> 02:10:29,060
with them to see if, you know, there are a few treatments or something that can be done

1418
02:10:29,800 --> 02:10:39,800
to improve it, but it does seem to me that, you know, something needs to be done.

1419
02:10:39,800 --> 02:10:49,440
And I understand that housing is critical from talking to some money who actually lives on this street.

1420
02:10:49,760 --> 02:11:02,080
Their impression is these are not low income units by any means that some of them are charging quite high rents.

1421
02:11:02,080 --> 02:11:09,460
And because we have, you know, sort of housing shortage, they can get away with that.

1422
02:11:09,680 --> 02:11:18,560
So I would like to see some sort of incentive program develop that could improve that situation.

1423
02:11:19,160 --> 02:11:25,180
Before we open that up to commission discussion, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item?

1424
02:11:26,500 --> 02:11:27,480
Please come forward.

1425
02:11:31,240 --> 02:11:43,360
And I see if we're going to, if you guys are going to take, I guess, Katie's recommendation to let us be in a multi-felomys own, change it from single to multi-family.

1426
02:11:44,560 --> 02:11:47,240
Yeah, I absolutely, I think that's a no-brainer.

1427
02:11:47,720 --> 02:11:56,940
Yeah, I don't, I don't think, I think that's a no-brainer. You're not really part of a single-family residential neighborhood in Gapetola. You're sort of sitting up there all by yourself.

1428
02:11:56,940 --> 02:11:59,660
So I don't, I mean...

1429
02:12:00,380 --> 02:12:02,320
Well, they sent me here, so that's why I wanted to fight that.

1430
02:12:02,320 --> 02:12:02,900
You can go home.

1431
02:12:05,980 --> 02:12:06,920
Well, I don't know.

1432
02:12:07,240 --> 02:12:08,760
I mean, I have a comment on that.

1433
02:12:08,880 --> 02:12:12,460
We just finished the general plan and the zoning was all a big part of that.

1434
02:12:12,880 --> 02:12:17,140
And the two areas that you're talking about converting at least one of them is an automatic

1435
02:12:17,140 --> 02:12:18,960
review, but they left it R1.

1436
02:12:19,580 --> 02:12:23,080
And the other one isn't even an automatic review.

1437
02:12:23,080 --> 02:12:32,080
So is it appropriate for us to change the zoning in the zoning ordinance now after the general plan just came out with a new zoning map?

1438
02:12:32,740 --> 02:12:35,780
I think that's the old zoning ordinance map, right?

1439
02:12:36,080 --> 02:12:38,080
I just printed it off our website today.

1440
02:12:38,680 --> 02:12:41,180
Right, but that's not the current.

1441
02:12:41,360 --> 02:12:44,580
That's not the general plan map that's being proposed.

1442
02:12:44,980 --> 02:12:51,120
The general plan map that's being proposed is different than that one that you have there.

1443
02:12:51,120 --> 02:12:52,060
there you go.

1444
02:12:55,500 --> 02:12:58,680
Good catch. I printed it off today assuming that that's what it was, but you're

1445
02:12:58,680 --> 02:13:01,900
right at the moment. Yeah, that's the old zoning map.

1446
02:13:02,140 --> 02:13:04,300
All right, so can I jump in here now, are you?

1447
02:13:04,420 --> 02:13:05,920
Is there anybody else at the foot?

1448
02:13:05,960 --> 02:13:06,300
Oh, I'll do.

1449
02:13:06,400 --> 02:13:09,220
No, is there anyone else from the public who'd like to speak on this item?

1450
02:13:10,280 --> 02:13:12,180
Seeing none, Ed, you've got the floor.

1451
02:13:12,440 --> 02:13:18,800
Thank you. So first reaction to this is I'm trying to think ahead when the first extension

1452
02:13:18,800 --> 02:13:23,860
application comes up. And you've got-

1453
02:13:23,860 --> 02:13:32,540
There's properties, but yeah, so here's here's what I see when I envision the property owner is going to be

1454
02:13:34,140 --> 02:13:41,980
Pement and wanting to retain their property and they're going to lawyer up and they're going to

1455
02:13:41,980 --> 02:13:45,240
The tenants are not going to want to lose their housing

1456
02:13:45,880 --> 02:13:52,400
Yeah, you may get a neighbor to who's going to show up but basically I mean it's just not going to happen that you're going to

1457
02:13:52,400 --> 02:14:05,040
It's going to be some kind of demolition of an existing housing complex, it's just not realistic, I mean, I don't think they need to be demolished.

1458
02:14:06,020 --> 02:14:12,760
I'm not advocating getting rid of them because I agree with you, I don't first of all.

1459
02:14:12,880 --> 02:14:18,380
I think that would be a hard thing to stand up to legally, I don't know exactly how it would all work.

1460
02:14:18,380 --> 02:14:27,460
I just want a few improvements, so we could, I mean, the incentive idea, I mean, it has

1461
02:14:27,460 --> 02:14:34,460
some merit, I mean, I'd like to see how it is really going to work, so I mean, I don't

1462
02:14:34,460 --> 02:14:42,300
know if that, but we don't have to have the same conforming rules for the uses that we have

1463
02:14:42,780 --> 02:14:46,660
for the design elements that we just did, I mean it could be just the opposite, which is sort

1464
02:14:46,660 --> 02:14:53,280
My thinking is, you know, when the thing falls down, then you've got to comply with the rules.

1465
02:14:55,120 --> 02:14:59,860
But this is in a single family neighborhood, so if they could tear these down and rebuild.

1466
02:15:00,000 --> 02:15:22,420
No, no, but I'm saying we don't have to have the same rule. We don't have to allow them to rebuild for use. That we do for design standards. And I think maybe we want to go the opposite way on use and say, you know, you cannot structurally improve this property. It's got a useful life. And a lot of these are like the cross-mission. I mean, they're looking like they're getting near there. Useful life.

1467
02:15:23,740 --> 02:15:27,300
That's going to help us for while they just look worse and worse and worse for the next.

1468
02:15:27,500 --> 02:15:32,860
Right, I think that's part of the problem in this neighborhood that landlords are just letting them go.

1469
02:15:34,480 --> 02:15:41,260
And, you know, there are a few that have been approved, but the majority of them are just, you know, deteriorating.

1470
02:15:41,260 --> 02:15:49,120
And, you know, maybe an incentive program would be to come up with a plan that when someone

1471
02:15:49,120 --> 02:15:56,120
comes in to ask for an extension, we say, well, if you want to extend the life of this

1472
02:15:56,120 --> 02:16:01,020
kind of unit, then you have to meet these requirements.

1473
02:16:01,040 --> 02:16:03,960
You have to have an enclosure for your garbage units.

1474
02:16:03,960 --> 02:16:17,510
you have to do some, because they looked up and if they were in a multifamily zone, the

1475
02:16:17,510 --> 02:16:26,130
parking works, they all got acceptable parking, which surprised me, except they park in the

1476
02:16:26,130 --> 02:16:26,650
right of way.

1477
02:16:28,890 --> 02:16:29,790
I mean, they're not else.

1478
02:16:30,010 --> 02:16:33,510
You know, I just wonder if there's ever going to be, and especially if we redo this

1479
02:16:33,510 --> 02:16:40,270
continued to allow that, is there ever going to be an ADA challenge with people who can't access

1480
02:16:40,270 --> 02:16:45,550
they have to go out into the street with their wheelchair or whatever in order to, I'm worried

1481
02:16:45,550 --> 02:16:51,490
about that. I mean, you can't put good on sidewalk in this neighborhood or you take away half of

1482
02:16:51,490 --> 02:16:56,950
the parking because they're parking in the right away. But the houses also have, you know, except

1483
02:16:56,950 --> 02:17:01,610
for the houses that have been redone, they have the same problems. I was seeing a lot of short

1484
02:17:01,610 --> 02:17:05,290
of ways where the cars are parked out?

1485
02:17:05,830 --> 02:17:07,150
I have a quick question for staff.

1486
02:17:07,330 --> 02:17:09,930
When the application comes in for review,

1487
02:17:10,250 --> 02:17:11,790
does it never get noticed?

1488
02:17:15,500 --> 02:17:16,900
So when the application comes in,

1489
02:17:17,000 --> 02:17:20,140
I'll put on the agenda for sure,

1490
02:17:20,380 --> 02:17:23,040
but it's an extension of a non-conforming.

1491
02:17:23,260 --> 02:17:25,640
And I don't believe we have noticing requirements

1492
02:17:25,640 --> 02:17:28,600
for an extension of a non-conforming.

1493
02:17:28,600 --> 02:17:33,640
Excuse me, I kind of have the same concerns

1494
02:17:33,640 --> 02:17:39,280
that that has and you know I know that they're they're going to be here to stay for a while

1495
02:17:39,280 --> 02:17:45,620
and I don't think we can just take that away but I think maybe if if the landlord's obviously

1496
02:17:45,620 --> 02:17:49,840
they're going to and the tenants want to keep their property that if we have people in the

1497
02:17:49,840 --> 02:17:53,800
community they have their concerns at least maybe there's some negotiations that could happen

1498
02:17:53,800 --> 02:17:58,400
there at that time that if they were there to voice their concerns that the property owner could

1499
02:17:58,400 --> 02:18:24,160
maybe make some commitment to takers and I agree, I came the night of the public form and I heard the concerns more specifically about this neighborhood about trash that only gets picked up once a week and it's overflowing and they use other people's dumpsters and those type of things seem like there's remedies for that if they come in for that application review but it would be nice if we notice the neighborhood.

1500
02:18:24,720 --> 02:18:33,660
Do we know you showed early on you showed a map of the sunset who comes up in 2019 and in

1501
02:18:33,660 --> 02:18:33,880
2016?

1502
02:18:34,280 --> 02:18:35,440
Can you put that back up?

1503
02:18:39,200 --> 02:18:43,320
Don't we already have an ordinance that says you can't keep your garbage can out all the

1504
02:18:43,320 --> 02:18:44,100
time?

1505
02:18:44,340 --> 02:18:46,640
I mean, we have that in place now, don't we?

1506
02:18:47,580 --> 02:18:51,460
You don't apply to, I think they don't apply to multi-family residents.

1507
02:18:52,540 --> 02:18:55,960
I mean, I don't know, but these are here all the time.

1508
02:18:57,240 --> 02:19:01,300
I thought that only applied to new construction, you had to build a.

1509
02:19:04,820 --> 02:19:15,020
I think the idea of using the extension vehicle to upgrade to some extent and mitigate problems is the best we're going to do.

1510
02:19:15,080 --> 02:19:15,280
Right.

1511
02:19:15,580 --> 02:19:17,420
Realistically, with this.

1512
02:19:18,640 --> 02:19:22,440
And that means you've got till 2026 for the majority of the problem.

1513
02:19:24,790 --> 02:19:29,250
Right, but some people, if they're going to want to refinance their building or do something in between.

1514
02:19:29,250 --> 02:19:35,290
I mean, that's the reason most people have come in to ask our extension is because they wanted

1515
02:19:35,290 --> 02:19:40,130
to refinance their building and with this ordinance in place, the bank wouldn't let them.

1516
02:19:40,570 --> 02:19:48,070
And I'm just trying to encourage the, you know, I don't know who does it, the planning staff, the city architect,

1517
02:19:48,670 --> 02:19:55,390
somebody come up with some ideas for how these could be improved.

1518
02:19:55,390 --> 02:20:03,510
So at least, you know, the council's not just sitting there with no information at all about what could be done.

1519
02:20:04,550 --> 02:20:12,550
I mean, even if you put in, you know, curb gutter and sidewalk in these areas, it would do a lot to clean things up.

1520
02:20:12,830 --> 02:20:15,070
It would eliminate after partying.

1521
02:20:15,070 --> 02:20:17,450
I don't think that's really fun.

1522
02:20:17,450 --> 02:20:26,590
you know, it's more garbage and there's no landscaping anywhere. I mean these are pretty

1523
02:20:26,590 --> 02:20:29,050
bleak looking up there.

1524
02:20:32,670 --> 02:20:38,530
Are there any kind of fees that they pay that could be used as an incentive

1525
02:20:38,530 --> 02:20:41,610
for them to do more?

1526
02:20:45,620 --> 02:20:51,000
So you could create a taxing district, but that's really a neighborhood

1527
02:20:51,000 --> 02:20:58,560
initiative that we wouldn't start, but they had a taxing district because they have more

1528
02:20:58,560 --> 02:21:05,900
units. Those units, those structures, would pay more into the taxing district to make improvements

1529
02:21:05,900 --> 02:21:12,720
to the street, but otherwise I don't think we have a tool in which to, can you go back to the slide

1530
02:21:12,720 --> 02:21:17,820
that shows the front with the car ports? I'm just wondering whether there's also ways to look

1531
02:21:17,820 --> 02:21:25,920
parking on the sites, more efficient ways to look at parking on sites today than just the

1532
02:21:25,920 --> 02:21:34,780
tandem or the, you know, is there a chance that the parking can go parallel to the building,

1533
02:21:35,120 --> 02:21:39,620
parallel to the street and some situations and get more parking or is it, you know, I think that

1534
02:21:39,620 --> 02:21:46,180
should just be looked at at least because probably back then it wasn't a big deal and they just did the old

1535
02:21:46,180 --> 02:21:51,120
way, maybe there's at least on one or two properties if you're looking at, you know, redoing

1536
02:21:51,120 --> 02:21:58,080
parking. That's worth it. I mean, would it be worth it for us to say get rid of the car

1537
02:21:58,080 --> 02:22:06,300
ports if, if it created more parking, are we willing to trade those car ports for another one

1538
02:22:06,300 --> 02:22:11,600
or two parking spaces? I would be willing to. I think there's a lot of this for storage

1539
02:22:11,600 --> 02:22:18,820
There's a lot of storage containers, and we have to, at this point, we're not going to be able to deal with every specific element.

1540
02:22:19,440 --> 02:22:22,460
We have to, this has been strafting challenge here.

1541
02:22:22,760 --> 02:22:27,620
It's to come up with some language that when people come in for an extension,

1542
02:22:28,540 --> 02:22:37,760
allows the planning commission or the staff for the city council to come up with a set of requirements that are conditioned,

1543
02:22:38,400 --> 02:22:41,140
No, I'll trade off for the extension, basically.

1544
02:22:42,940 --> 02:22:45,940
And the extension now is for 50 years.

1545
02:22:47,060 --> 02:22:51,120
Should we reduce that from 50 years to 10 years?

1546
02:22:53,730 --> 02:22:57,130
Well, I think the extension, that's all set up.

1547
02:22:57,130 --> 02:23:01,950
I can't remember what section of the code that gives them a 50-year extension.

1548
02:23:03,410 --> 02:23:10,530
It states that extensions granted under this section shall be at least 50 years from the

1549
02:23:10,530 --> 02:23:15,790
the application is granted, so there is, I'd like to read to you what the City Council

1550
02:23:15,790 --> 02:23:18,770
findings are now that need to be made under today's code.

1551
02:23:19,390 --> 02:23:25,050
The City Council shall only grant an extension if able to make findings that in this particular

1552
02:23:25,050 --> 02:23:29,910
situation the appearance, condition and management of the property is such that the property

1553
02:23:29,910 --> 02:23:35,830
is not greatly detrimental to the single-family residential character of the neighborhood, in which it is located.

1554
02:23:36,450 --> 02:23:43,430
The extension is necessary in order to prevent a major economic loss to the property owner and to lessen deterioration,

1555
02:23:43,890 --> 02:23:49,230
and that all reasonable conditions have been imposed for the purpose of repairing, dilapidated,

1556
02:23:49,530 --> 02:23:53,290
dilapidation, and bringing or keeping the property up to the neighborhood standards.

1557
02:23:53,290 --> 02:24:04,910
So when the city council reviews that they will be looking at the management, the upkeep of these properties and what we've been

1558
02:24:05,590 --> 02:24:12,070
listing in our requirements to go forward for an extension is also to give us a ten-year history of the, you know,

1559
02:24:12,070 --> 02:24:18,340
what investment have you put into this property so they can look at that, but I think it could be.

1560
02:24:18,340 --> 02:24:24,440
Those are good. I think it could go a little further than that and require actually

1561
02:24:24,440 --> 02:24:30,340
require some upgrading. I think Commissioner Tupper races a good point that people

1562
02:24:30,340 --> 02:24:34,840
come in for an extension because they want to refinance. In the lender they don't

1563
02:24:34,840 --> 02:24:38,480
need 50 years but they probably need more than 10. Yeah.

1564
02:24:41,130 --> 02:24:46,770
Maybe something in between so that 25 years is maybe a commercial loan max.

1565
02:24:46,770 --> 02:24:47,930
max.

1566
02:24:48,030 --> 02:24:48,030
Oh,

1567
02:24:52,490 --> 02:24:55,770
is that considered commercial lending, multi-family?

1568
02:24:55,770 --> 02:24:56,050
Yeah.

1569
02:24:58,620 --> 02:25:02,100
That's a single family or after five.

1570
02:25:03,720 --> 02:25:11,300
It's the other observation with the survey was that this area got the most negative input

1571
02:25:11,300 --> 02:25:12,820
and it's clustered.

1572
02:25:13,420 --> 02:25:18,860
If you look at all the other neighborhoods, they're spread out, they're not clustered in one

1573
02:25:18,860 --> 02:25:19,300
place.

1574
02:25:19,300 --> 02:25:29,300
And so it's really, it feels to me, like, besides the visual, it's the parking, I mean it's parking that really makes it painful in our one zone.

1575
02:25:29,880 --> 02:25:35,020
So I have an odd one on the particular street that we showed.

1576
02:25:35,520 --> 02:25:44,900
I like the idea of trying to do some sort of neighborhood assessment district,

1577
02:25:44,900 --> 02:25:54,120
And to improve that area, perhaps do some curve outs in the street, so you could leave the tandem parking there,

1578
02:25:54,520 --> 02:25:57,140
but half sidewalks get some landscaping.

1579
02:25:57,600 --> 02:26:05,780
And to do anything like that, what you have to get is that the property owners all agree to it,

1580
02:26:05,940 --> 02:26:08,990
because they end up being the ones who pay for it.

1581
02:26:08,990 --> 02:26:18,050
And as Katie said, the multifamily would pay more than the single family houses because they have more there.

1582
02:26:18,850 --> 02:26:35,350
So I would like to see when they come in and ask for an extension that they agree that they would participate in any kind of assessment district if it is formed to help improve those neighborhoods.

1583
02:26:35,350 --> 02:26:37,870
But that would be reasonable.

1584
02:26:37,950 --> 02:26:46,530
I'm wondering why people would agree to having an assessment when we do it as a matter

1585
02:26:46,530 --> 02:26:48,210
of course in other neighborhoods.

1586
02:26:48,470 --> 02:26:54,050
We're doing it on Clairs, we do traffic calming, and that kind of thing, you know, we just

1587
02:26:55,910 --> 02:27:01,190
within our street repairs and our capital improvement projects.

1588
02:27:01,190 --> 02:27:04,850
why, how would I have a neighbor in that neighborhood feel,

1589
02:27:05,210 --> 02:27:07,890
why would, why would I ask why, why do I have to pay for it

1590
02:27:07,890 --> 02:27:09,970
when other neighbors don't have to pay for it?

1591
02:27:10,190 --> 02:27:13,250
Well, when I lived on BAM and knew I had to pay for the sidewalk

1592
02:27:13,250 --> 02:27:14,550
that went in front of my house.

1593
02:27:14,590 --> 02:27:16,970
Well, we do all have to pay for sidewalks.

1594
02:27:16,970 --> 02:27:18,670
But it was an assessment district,

1595
02:27:19,110 --> 02:27:23,010
and that's how they put those sidewalks in one and all once.

1596
02:27:23,190 --> 02:27:24,890
They wanted them in all at once.

1597
02:27:25,270 --> 02:27:29,370
And so, you know, you got assessed and had to pay for it on your taxes.

1598
02:27:29,370 --> 02:27:35,930
the city didn't pay for. Capital has been pretty inconsistent on who they've made pay for sidewalks

1599
02:27:35,930 --> 02:27:42,550
and who they haven't made pay for sidewalks. But, you know, in this particular street, you would

1600
02:27:42,550 --> 02:27:48,750
have to do a pretty elaborate plan and even if the assessment district paid for part of it so they

1601
02:27:48,750 --> 02:27:56,150
could have additional landscaping and some of those things. I just don't think it hurts to say to the

1602
02:27:56,150 --> 02:28:00,150
you have to agree to participate if we get there.

1603
02:28:01,190 --> 02:28:06,410
And it sounds like this is a good time because a lot of people have been thinking about it.

1604
02:28:06,590 --> 02:28:08,590
They've been notified about it, they've talked about it.

1605
02:28:09,110 --> 02:28:15,270
They might see that improvement now as a great benefit since they have their focus has been there.

1606
02:28:18,840 --> 02:28:24,460
But it would be a medium, which I think is, like you say,

1607
02:28:24,460 --> 02:28:30,140
capital needs to look at improving some of these neighborhoods just like we improve other neighborhoods.

1608
02:28:30,140 --> 02:28:32,780
It's unfortunate we haven't done anything.

1609
02:28:35,690 --> 02:28:40,230
Well it kind of feels like way back when when they put in the sunset closet they kicked the

1610
02:28:40,230 --> 02:28:48,250
can down the road and we would be getting close to the end on nine units but it's not the right

1611
02:28:48,250 --> 02:28:49,410
nine units perhaps.

1612
02:28:54,130 --> 02:28:59,790
When we had our options that we discussed that we brought up to the survey

1613
02:28:59,790 --> 02:29:05,950
into the public workshop. One included that if there is an adequate space on site for parking

1614
02:29:07,470 --> 02:29:13,750
or for that one option be that they have to actually decrease the allowed density of the site,

1615
02:29:13,790 --> 02:29:19,330
is that something you would like to see incorporated in this when we were talking about,

1616
02:29:19,350 --> 02:29:23,550
will we could toughen it up a little bit more or you see it for people.

1617
02:29:23,550 --> 02:29:31,010
And I don't see how it's realistic, I mean, how do you take a triplex and make it into somebody's value of their property now?

1618
02:29:32,270 --> 02:29:44,010
I mean I look at this one right here and you know I think whoever said get rid of the car park do some you know just have it to be a parking area

1619
02:29:44,010 --> 02:29:49,170
because you're going to have to come up with some place to put dumpsters and other kind.

1620
02:29:49,170 --> 02:29:54,510
I mean, someone, and I've thought about this a lot, it's going to have to be very creative

1621
02:29:54,510 --> 02:29:58,630
on coming up with a design that improves these.

1622
02:29:59,850 --> 02:29:59,970
But there.

1623
02:30:00,000 --> 02:30:22,980
Out there, those ideas are out there. Other communities are grappling with this. People, you know, there's great designers in California right now. I think, you know, is it an angle, you know, not perpendicular, but is it an angled parking that creates more, but it's got to be a way to create more, but this just wouldn't have hazard and it's not the best way.

1624
02:30:22,980 --> 02:30:23,780
So,

1625
02:30:29,440 --> 02:30:32,780
let me go to the last slide.

1626
02:30:39,100 --> 02:30:44,360
So, what I'm hearing this evening is to keep the current code,

1627
02:30:44,620 --> 02:30:48,020
but also to consider an incentives program,

1628
02:30:48,480 --> 02:30:56,860
in which we'll one is to change the extension maximum to 25 years,

1629
02:30:56,860 --> 02:31:06,140
require upgrades so that aren't specified, it will be specific to each property, require

1630
02:31:06,140 --> 02:31:12,420
them to agree to participate in an assessment district when they ask for their extension,

1631
02:31:13,540 --> 02:31:20,660
and then to be looking for creative design solutions to the existing issues.

1632
02:31:20,660 --> 02:31:32,320
So, and the city playing a role in that, is that, and is that city wide or is that direction

1633
02:31:32,320 --> 02:31:34,020
first specific neighborhoods?

1634
02:31:36,310 --> 02:31:41,810
Well, I think it's general enough that it could be city wide, because they're going to

1635
02:31:41,810 --> 02:31:48,250
the council's going to deal with units that come in, for example, if one of the units in river

1636
02:31:48,250 --> 02:31:53,090
If you terrorist comes in, it sounds like people didn't have a problem with those and

1637
02:31:53,090 --> 02:31:57,790
they're functioning and there's obviously, you know, somehow parking problems and something

1638
02:31:57,790 --> 02:31:58,170
don't.

1639
02:31:58,790 --> 02:32:04,130
So it's like the council's going to have to deal with it when people come in and ask for

1640
02:32:04,130 --> 02:32:04,930
the extension.

1641
02:32:07,090 --> 02:32:09,510
And I would like to, you know, keep it in there.

1642
02:32:09,690 --> 02:32:16,050
So people do have to come in and ask for the extension because that gives you a mechanism to

1643
02:32:16,050 --> 02:32:16,630
do something.

1644
02:32:17,330 --> 02:32:24,330
And is the option there for noticing the neighborhoods, is that I know that you experience that?

1645
02:32:25,010 --> 02:32:34,290
And we can, you can require permits that are similar to say a CUP or a variance to require extension.

1646
02:32:34,510 --> 02:32:41,650
So we could begin applying that now and for any extension make sure that neighborhoods are notified

1647
02:32:42,450 --> 02:32:44,990
because we will have ongoing to city council next month.

1648
02:32:44,990 --> 02:32:58,010
So the first few that come in under this new rules that were favoring here and I guess there's some on the way now even before this goes through are going to be important because they're going to kind of set the

1649
02:32:58,730 --> 02:33:08,990
set the tone or future people and whoever's there's one coming to the council they hope they will understand that they need to be careful about

1650
02:33:10,050 --> 02:33:11,590
the first few here.

1651
02:33:12,990 --> 02:33:15,710
The one that's coming is in Riverview, Terrace.

1652
02:33:17,550 --> 02:33:19,530
Well, at least in your report you'll come on.

1653
02:33:20,110 --> 02:33:23,290
It's under review in the new zoning ordinance.

1654
02:33:23,610 --> 02:33:25,470
It just sold, or it's in the process.

1655
02:33:25,610 --> 02:33:30,590
I think the sale is contingent upon the extension, but right.

1656
02:33:31,350 --> 02:33:34,310
Is it on the corner?

1657
02:33:34,310 --> 02:33:35,750
It's on the corner, I believe.

1658
02:33:36,850 --> 02:33:37,850
Beverly, you know?

1659
02:33:39,710 --> 02:33:41,010
It's a little red.

1660
02:33:45,030 --> 02:33:53,830
So there was a comment in the report that came out that I sent me over because I knew the person who owned that property before.

1661
02:33:54,590 --> 02:34:00,350
And the comment that they made about creating a monster house in the back with no yard zero lot line.

1662
02:34:00,490 --> 02:34:05,770
That comment apparently came from the public.

1663
02:34:05,770 --> 02:34:16,750
But the address is 526, okay, is the only one that could possibly be overlooking that property and I would not consider that a monster house by any stretch.

1664
02:34:16,750 --> 02:34:18,250
It was really well done.

1665
02:34:18,710 --> 02:34:26,770
In fact, I think they reduced it from the, I used to live across the street when they built that house and they reduced, I think the original design from there.

1666
02:34:27,530 --> 02:34:28,830
It's a nice house.

1667
02:34:30,880 --> 02:34:42,760
And the other point of clarification that I forgot was the support for the zone change for the condos and the same thing for the church.

1668
02:34:42,800 --> 02:34:48,880
They came in and those were some affordable units that they built in the back of the church and

1669
02:34:49,840 --> 02:34:51,740
I think we should support that one too.

1670
02:34:52,140 --> 02:34:58,360
Just to properly gauge expectations, all the resounds and basically everything we do is going to have to be certified by the Coastal Commission.

1671
02:34:59,440 --> 02:35:04,800
You know, those sites along the coast, they might have a special interest in and not want to see them continue.

1672
02:35:06,440 --> 02:35:08,320
So, despite what the city might want to see.

1673
02:35:09,020 --> 02:35:12,200
So, while you want to be done, I have some comments about people's stuff.

1674
02:35:12,640 --> 02:35:14,760
It'll go really fast, I think.

1675
02:35:15,840 --> 02:35:17,700
I got to talk.

1676
02:35:18,040 --> 02:35:24,960
So, on issue number three, where we talked about increased parking flexibility.

1677
02:35:27,580 --> 02:35:33,340
We said allow greater commercial parking effects flexibility through shared parking

1678
02:35:33,340 --> 02:35:36,760
studies for multi-tinent commercial properties, no residential.

1679
02:35:37,600 --> 02:35:43,140
And I wanted to say, I don't have a problem with office uses and stuff and residential.

1680
02:35:43,520 --> 02:35:50,040
My issue comes when you have residential in retail that, you know, in sub-staying, open

1681
02:35:50,040 --> 02:35:56,100
until nine o'clock, and so I think we could expand

1682
02:35:56,100 --> 02:35:59,680
that a little bit to make it clear

1683
02:35:59,680 --> 02:36:06,100
that we're not concerned about the office uses.

1684
02:36:08,840 --> 02:36:13,800
And on the one, the issue number 5D,

1685
02:36:16,980 --> 02:36:18,400
and sort of the middle of the page,

1686
02:36:18,400 --> 02:36:26,860
we had to note the aside and I just wanted to make it clear that for me I was asking for

1687
02:36:26,860 --> 02:36:33,940
employee parking in the lower Pacific Coast parking lot, you know, some sort of program

1688
02:36:33,940 --> 02:36:40,460
for employees to be able to park in there, particularly during the winter months, so we didn't

1689
02:36:40,460 --> 02:36:46,660
have them parking in the neighborhoods, or it could even be in the upper parking lot as far

1690
02:36:46,660 --> 02:36:53,760
I'm concerned in the winter time, but it was to try and come up with a way to help encourage

1691
02:36:53,760 --> 02:36:58,540
employees to park there instead of the sort of neighborhood streets.

1692
02:37:00,720 --> 02:37:06,080
So in the city, sponsored parking lot of the time, that we would, you know, somehow give

1693
02:37:06,080 --> 02:37:10,100
employees some sort of permit that they could park in there during the week and the winter

1694
02:37:10,100 --> 02:37:10,460
time.

1695
02:37:10,460 --> 02:37:19,460
It's empty and I would rather see the parking there instead of in front of my house.

1696
02:37:20,080 --> 02:37:26,000
Excuse me, Mr. Westman, how would you like that to be changed?

1697
02:37:27,500 --> 02:37:30,480
Because do you want to specify to the lower path?

1698
02:37:30,960 --> 02:37:39,780
Well, in one city, maybe you could say city parking facilities, so it could be lower and upper because.

1699
02:37:39,780 --> 02:37:45,620
So there are spaces in the upper parking lot in the winter time during the week, in winter months.

1700
02:37:46,360 --> 02:37:50,420
And if the lower parking lot goes away, then we won't have to change it.

1701
02:37:53,340 --> 02:38:02,580
So, I'm looking for where it is on medical offices, because I thought when we talked, we said that

1702
02:38:02,580 --> 02:38:15,520
We didn't object to medical offices being in retail areas except for the zoning district

1703
02:38:15,520 --> 02:38:21,340
that includes the capital, the mall, starting at capital Avenue going forward.

1704
02:38:23,380 --> 02:38:25,980
I think that's what you're talking about.

1705
02:38:26,280 --> 02:38:27,520
Three, where's four?

1706
02:38:32,620 --> 02:38:38,180
Yeah, on issue four, you know, I know that there's some

1707
02:38:38,180 --> 02:38:41,780
Council members who want to be real restrictive to new medical offices

1708
02:38:41,780 --> 02:38:45,300
going in and I thought we sort of backed away from that and said

1709
02:38:45,300 --> 02:38:49,040
the only place we would see it a problem would be in that

1710
02:38:49,040 --> 02:38:51,320
one zoning district.

1711
02:38:54,300 --> 02:38:56,500
There's a north of capital, a road.

1712
02:38:56,500 --> 02:39:03,810
I think we used capital erode as a delineation in South was okay and North was not.

1713
02:39:05,380 --> 02:39:05,860
Is that right?

1714
02:39:06,500 --> 02:39:10,480
And I didn't think that there was sort of only partial support for that.

1715
02:39:10,480 --> 02:39:12,840
I thought we all pretty much agreed.

1716
02:39:14,120 --> 02:39:21,540
The partial support was on the findings for professional and medical office use

1717
02:39:21,540 --> 02:39:28,120
But to add findings, because it's a difficult task to gauge.

1718
02:39:29,940 --> 02:39:35,020
But I think under option three, it wasn't just partial support.

1719
02:39:35,680 --> 02:39:38,420
Option three, there was an unanimous support.

1720
02:39:39,060 --> 02:39:43,360
OK, I just wanted to make certain that we were straight on that.

1721
02:39:44,100 --> 02:39:49,540
And when we talked about the architectural and site review committee,

1722
02:39:49,540 --> 02:39:54,300
Um, and who's going to be on the makeup, we just lifted an architect.

1723
02:39:54,480 --> 02:39:58,900
And I thought we had said, uh, it's issue number 11.

1724
02:39:59,920 --> 02:40:07,300
I thought we'd said that we wanted the city architect or someone from there firm to do it,

1725
02:40:07,440 --> 02:40:13,780
because we didn't want a local architect who's actually doing work here in town to be the architect on the

1726
02:40:14,860 --> 02:40:23,680
Okay, under the first bullet it's as all positions on committee to either to be either staff or contract on an as needed basis.

1727
02:40:24,300 --> 02:40:25,660
So that would be a contract.

1728
02:40:27,160 --> 02:40:39,780
I think what we talked about was that that would be a staff person or contract we talked about from the historical architect may need to come in from time to time.

1729
02:40:41,320 --> 02:40:44,040
but that was one but also the city architect was

1730
02:40:44,040 --> 02:40:46,420
I think that was supposed to be a staff or

1731
02:40:46,420 --> 02:40:48,480
contractor there wasn't going to be a large

1732
02:40:48,480 --> 02:40:51,800
right but because it's not a city position

1733
02:40:51,800 --> 02:40:53,780
there'd be I can do

1734
02:40:54,760 --> 02:40:57,280
a contracted city architect

1735
02:40:57,280 --> 02:40:59,960
something like that but the first full

1736
02:40:59,960 --> 02:41:01,600
it does

1737
02:41:01,600 --> 02:41:05,760
it does and if you're going to change it in architect

1738
02:41:05,760 --> 02:41:07,140
you should change it with architectural

1739
02:41:07,140 --> 02:41:15,080
historian as well, so maybe it's better, you know, all positions in committee, staff or

1740
02:41:15,080 --> 02:41:21,220
contract on, all right, so contract on as needed, maybe doesn't say it specifically enough,

1741
02:41:21,380 --> 02:41:28,300
maybe we need to be more specific that they are, you know, they are the continuously contracted

1742
02:41:29,000 --> 02:41:37,120
person who is, you know, it's not just, because we're contracting now with the, with the

1743
02:41:37,120 --> 02:41:38,520
what we're trying to change.

1744
02:41:38,880 --> 02:41:41,900
So if you could find language that talks about it being

1745
02:41:41,900 --> 02:41:46,000
the contractors that work with the city on these issues,

1746
02:41:47,420 --> 02:41:51,620
just remove the un-as needed basis and just say,

1747
02:41:51,660 --> 02:41:52,460
how do you do staff for it?

1748
02:41:52,460 --> 02:41:53,920
How do you have to question consultants?

1749
02:41:55,160 --> 02:41:58,840
Yeah, I mean, you can just so that people understand

1750
02:41:58,840 --> 02:42:02,100
it's those who we work with all the time.

1751
02:42:07,480 --> 02:42:07,640
Yes.

1752
02:42:07,720 --> 02:42:10,660
I was just trying to get away like on the architect

1753
02:42:10,660 --> 02:42:16,220
of not having, you know, the way we have it set up right now, we are architect, often as

1754
02:42:16,220 --> 02:42:21,160
someone who's doing a lot of business in town, and that creates a conflict, so we wanted

1755
02:42:21,160 --> 02:42:26,220
someone who would be a little more neutral.

1756
02:42:27,740 --> 02:42:31,460
Good to add the details, so there's no question later.

1757
02:42:32,620 --> 02:42:35,980
Does anybody else have metrics items that they want to bring up tonight?

1758
02:42:36,240 --> 02:42:39,860
I've got a couple that I wanted to bring up.

1759
02:42:40,460 --> 02:42:46,840
On issue 18, this is the City Council appeal of the Planning Commission.

1760
02:42:47,400 --> 02:43:03,140
The process is really well nailed down here, but my notes said that there would be an option for either a full new review or just a specific condition of the Planning Commission's decision that could get called up.

1761
02:43:03,300 --> 02:43:07,400
Did we change that so it's a full review period if they decide to call it up?

1762
02:43:07,400 --> 02:43:14,920
to hear the whole thing. If you'd like we can add that language that the call-up can be specific

1763
02:43:15,400 --> 02:43:19,060
to one item within the application. I'd like to come to hear the whole. Is there going to

1764
02:43:19,060 --> 02:43:21,000
call it up to you to hear the whole thing?

1765
02:43:23,220 --> 02:43:26,520
Okay. Okay. This is my, we're just my notes and I wanted

1766
02:43:26,520 --> 02:43:32,200
to make sure that. The other thing, let's see, the height, how measure that's going to be included

1767
02:43:32,200 --> 02:43:33,980
now in that high discussion?

1768
02:43:34,720 --> 02:43:35,160
I go back.

1769
02:43:35,500 --> 02:43:36,200
I think was it?

1770
02:43:36,200 --> 02:43:37,940
Was it a cost issue tied to that?

1771
02:43:37,960 --> 02:43:41,120
I remember the discussion comes out and I'm going back to where you talked about the

1772
02:43:41,120 --> 02:43:41,720
call-up.

1773
02:43:42,700 --> 02:43:47,560
It seems to be a discussion about if they do a full review, then it costs more staff time

1774
02:43:47,560 --> 02:43:48,380
other than.

1775
02:43:48,660 --> 02:43:50,300
But the applicant pays that.

1776
02:43:50,480 --> 02:43:55,420
Well, I know that's the concern is because somebody calls a friend and now they get

1777
02:43:55,420 --> 02:44:00,700
called up because African money, or, you know, you have to have two members agreeing now.

1778
02:44:00,820 --> 02:44:01,460
No, I get that.

1779
02:44:01,460 --> 02:44:03,380
I think that I thought that was our discussion

1780
02:44:03,380 --> 02:44:08,460
or was why it could be specific to the reason they...

1781
02:44:09,260 --> 02:44:10,760
I don't think it could be a big difference.

1782
02:44:11,060 --> 02:44:12,740
I mean, it might be a modest increase.

1783
02:44:13,120 --> 02:44:16,120
I think that was our discussion about staff time or costs.

1784
02:44:16,160 --> 02:44:20,260
Well, it seems like you won't have to do any more staff work on it

1785
02:44:20,260 --> 02:44:21,840
because why law, right?

1786
02:44:21,920 --> 02:44:24,740
The same application has to go to the council

1787
02:44:24,740 --> 02:44:26,700
so that they're comparing apples to apples.

1788
02:44:27,160 --> 02:44:28,300
So that's not a cost.

1789
02:44:28,300 --> 02:44:33,300
And they still have to have their architect here to represent them or represent it

1790
02:44:33,300 --> 02:44:35,760
whether it's the specific or the whole thing.

1791
02:44:36,080 --> 02:44:38,980
So I can't really see how I know what you're saying, though, as far as...

1792
02:44:38,980 --> 02:44:40,520
I was just trying to recall our discussions.

1793
02:44:40,820 --> 02:44:43,580
See, my discussion had to do with staff more than I had to do with...

1794
02:44:43,580 --> 02:44:50,380
But I don't see how the C Council can take in appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission on a permit.

1795
02:44:52,060 --> 02:44:52,160
And...

1796
02:44:52,160 --> 02:44:52,700
I need to take a moment.

1797
02:44:53,100 --> 02:44:53,840
Not to...

1798
02:44:53,840 --> 02:44:55,320
Here's how we consider the permit.

1799
02:44:56,000 --> 02:44:58,700
I'm going to tap.

1800
02:45:02,740 --> 02:45:19,800
In the 41st Avenue discussions that we had, we wanted to see specific elements put in for, like, lumens on a commercial sign and specify that, and it's not reflected in here, but does that go into the detail that you guys have, so it's going to show up someplace?

1801
02:45:26,400 --> 02:45:39,720
Item 3, accommodating high quality development on 41st Avenue. Option 5 says only requiring a design permit for commercial uses which involve significant exterior modifications.

1802
02:45:40,320 --> 02:45:49,120
And my note said, and large projects, but the one above it says that we would allow

1803
02:45:50,820 --> 02:45:56,720
if they're over xx square feet, they would require a conditional use permit, and a conditional

1804
02:45:56,720 --> 02:45:58,600
use permit would bring them to us, correct?

1805
02:45:59,180 --> 02:46:04,560
So it's really exterior modifications and big projects will come to us,

1806
02:46:07,390 --> 02:46:07,870
and I think it's

1807
02:46:08,930 --> 02:46:14,890
significant exterior modification. So if they're going to just move a door or a window or

1808
02:46:14,890 --> 02:46:20,270
something, we, and somebody will have to figure out what significant is.

1809
02:46:20,790 --> 02:46:23,650
So remember, we're going to get another crack at all this when it comes out.

1810
02:46:24,950 --> 02:46:29,070
I don't think we do it. This is going to go, I mean, they're going to get this, and then

1811
02:46:29,070 --> 02:46:32,430
it's going to go to council in this form before we see it.

1812
02:46:32,430 --> 02:46:35,230
off the ordinance and then it's coming back to us.

1813
02:46:35,450 --> 02:46:36,390
We'll see you again.

1814
02:46:36,770 --> 02:46:37,110
I will.

1815
02:46:39,610 --> 02:46:41,350
So yeah, so some of these things.

1816
02:46:42,650 --> 02:46:45,350
The only other one I had an issue with them, I just can't not be.

1817
02:46:47,090 --> 02:46:48,370
I'm just going to go.

1818
02:46:49,890 --> 02:46:50,810
Historic Preservation.

1819
02:46:51,870 --> 02:46:55,190
I know this is what it said after the minutes, but it just.

1820
02:46:55,510 --> 02:46:57,090
Which number is that?

1821
02:46:57,850 --> 02:46:58,890
Issue number six.

1822
02:46:58,890 --> 02:47:08,830
It says, do not include any of the options and as the new historic preservation ordinances drafted have architectural historian Leslie Dale and local historian Frank Perry reviewed the draft ordinance.

1823
02:47:09,970 --> 02:47:14,350
That doesn't really tell them anything about what direction we want to go with.

1824
02:47:14,670 --> 02:47:14,890
Right.

1825
02:47:15,670 --> 02:47:15,890
Right.

1826
02:47:16,690 --> 02:47:18,930
Are we okay leaving it with that?

1827
02:47:18,930 --> 02:47:31,080
Well, there was definitely the direction that night was to move forward with the five items that were specified as like not options but the

1828
02:47:32,430 --> 02:47:38,970
What we were going to you know the first five items that are going to do so is that do you think it's lacking that information?

1829
02:47:39,230 --> 02:47:39,950
I think maybe.

1830
02:47:40,550 --> 02:47:46,130
Yeah, this says I mean it left me with the impression when I read it again this time that

1831
02:47:46,130 --> 02:47:54,510
Leslie Dill and Frank Perry are going to give direction on how you draft the new ordinance and I don't think that's what

1832
02:47:54,510 --> 02:47:58,690
Really came out of our discussion, so I didn't want to leave council with that impression

1833
02:48:01,350 --> 02:48:07,130
I'll add I'll list the five items to be completed within

1834
02:48:08,310 --> 02:48:17,550
Think you that's all. Okay, and you'll send us a copy of the matrix that you present to council

1835
02:48:18,710 --> 02:48:20,750
And when will that be presented?

1836
02:48:22,130 --> 02:48:28,470
You know, I could probably put it in your next packet for the meeting that's two weeks away.

1837
02:48:28,870 --> 02:48:30,570
Okay, so I like to do these the next day.

1838
02:48:31,890 --> 02:48:34,490
Let's approach, you know, when it's going to the city council.

1839
02:48:35,190 --> 02:48:35,950
What's that?

1840
02:48:36,030 --> 02:48:39,090
When it's going to, when the city council's going to hear this.

1841
02:48:40,830 --> 02:48:42,350
We are working on that date.

1842
02:48:43,110 --> 02:48:47,210
originally could just let us know once you have a date that would be great.

1843
02:48:47,810 --> 02:48:52,010
I think the first meeting in August, it counts me and I'll stop my head.

1844
02:48:52,090 --> 02:48:56,130
I want to say it's maybe the 10th or 13th somewhere around there.

1845
02:48:56,290 --> 02:48:58,770
We're going to give a summary of what we've heard from the Planning Commission.

1846
02:48:59,330 --> 02:49:02,730
Maybe try to identify a couple issues that we can knock off the list.

1847
02:49:03,110 --> 02:49:07,630
Based on the feedback that we've heard from them previously in that set of schedule at that meeting.

1848
02:49:10,700 --> 02:49:17,460
You know, my dream is, and I can't figure out how to do it, I would love to have someone

1849
02:49:17,460 --> 02:49:20,920
from the Coastal Commission come and talk to us.

1850
02:49:21,480 --> 02:49:30,200
But I know that, you know, and sort of explain to us their philosophy and, you know, what

1851
02:49:30,200 --> 02:49:36,980
they look at when they're evaluating, you know, what's the village and what's going

1852
02:49:36,980 --> 02:49:44,240
go on because it's like this elephant that's always in the room and, you know, having been

1853
02:49:44,240 --> 02:49:50,420
a staff person, they know it's very hard to get a clear answer from them, you know, they

1854
02:49:50,420 --> 02:49:54,760
always say, well, we'll review your document when it comes in.

1855
02:49:54,760 --> 02:49:58,280
It contains a lot of the general plan positions.

1856
02:49:58,780 --> 02:50:00,200
Is it the same thing?

1857
02:50:00,340 --> 02:50:00,660
It's the same thing.

1858
02:50:00,660 --> 02:50:01,180
Let's go out.

1859
02:50:01,340 --> 02:50:01,780
He did.

1860
02:50:01,780 --> 02:50:09,040
But they were coastal commission people that was less stern ed and yeah, but they're not he's retired.

1861
02:50:09,400 --> 02:50:11,360
He doesn't work for the coastal commission anymore.

1862
02:50:11,360 --> 02:50:12,140
It doesn't.

1863
02:50:13,660 --> 02:50:16,300
But put it out in invite, I'd like to hear that too.

1864
02:50:18,040 --> 02:50:23,260
Yeah, and you know, it's not to have an adversarial conversation with them.

1865
02:50:23,260 --> 02:50:29,320
I would just be curious where the coastal commission is right now as far as, you know,

1866
02:50:29,320 --> 02:50:34,660
me an industry tree, what are, how do they feel about, you know, what is the coast for

1867
02:50:34,660 --> 02:50:37,700
commissions philosophy on some of those issues?

1868
02:50:37,780 --> 02:50:43,300
I think we should articulate what it is we would like, what it is we would like them to talk

1869
02:50:43,300 --> 02:50:47,220
about and we'll kind of questions we would be asking him because if I was a member of the Coastal

1870
02:50:47,220 --> 02:50:52,240
Commission staff and that was invited to a city meeting and I didn't know what they were

1871
02:50:52,240 --> 02:50:53,640
going to, I probably wouldn't go.

1872
02:50:56,220 --> 02:51:02,460
I'm so desperate, I would be willing to let them come and make a presentation, and we would

1873
02:51:02,460 --> 02:51:10,620
say that we wouldn't ask any questions other than minor clarifications of what they talked

1874
02:51:10,620 --> 02:51:11,100
about.

1875
02:51:12,500 --> 02:51:15,980
I would love to know where they're at right now.

1876
02:51:16,480 --> 02:51:20,080
One thing you may want to look at if you haven't already is the Coastal Commission has

1877
02:51:20,080 --> 02:51:25,640
least draft sea level rise guidance. They stress it's not regulatory. I think every city

1878
02:51:25,640 --> 02:51:31,560
and county that's affected by it fears that it is, but it's pretty drastic changes that

1879
02:51:31,560 --> 02:51:37,940
they have in there. Isn't there a fairly recent one that's been a dot new local coastal

1880
02:51:37,940 --> 02:51:44,800
plan and one of the... Yeah, there's been a few so on a beach, Grover Beach, and I believe it's

1881
02:51:44,800 --> 02:51:50,800
see their San Mateo County or Marin County recently went through the process and they're a little bit different

1882
02:51:50,800 --> 02:51:57,880
I reviewed them, but they do talk about sea level rise and they've extended the life of building whether

1883
02:51:57,880 --> 02:52:02,800
be residential or commercial right now it's 50 years in our LCP most older LCPs.

1884
02:52:03,600 --> 02:52:08,600
They want to see minimum life of 75 years for residential using no sea protective devices.

1885
02:52:08,600 --> 02:52:14,420
see walls, revampments or anything like that, and at least a hundred years of life for any commercial building.

1886
02:52:15,720 --> 02:52:21,560
Looking at the projections, that means you don't develop in the village or, you know, the ocean side of Deepo Hill.

1887
02:52:23,850 --> 02:52:27,090
Yeah, I mean, it's going to be pretty dramatic.

1888
02:52:27,350 --> 02:52:35,490
Can I think we just don't quite understand how much of an impact, you know, we sort of think we get to decide

1889
02:52:35,490 --> 02:52:40,250
how capital of village is going to be developed and what's going to go on down there.

1890
02:52:41,250 --> 02:52:50,730
And the reality is we're not the last group to decide, it's they get to decide for us.

1891
02:52:51,130 --> 02:52:59,170
Oh, it's going to be, and it's going to be interesting to hear their current philosophy and status.

1892
02:52:59,750 --> 02:53:02,970
So I'd appreciate it if you would invite them to help you to.

1893
02:53:03,370 --> 02:53:04,770
Commissioner, there's will be willing to open.

1894
02:53:05,430 --> 02:53:11,710
Do they get to to stop what's going on or do they are they sort of held to the same standard?

1895
02:53:11,950 --> 02:53:16,370
We are where there's got to be a development requested before you can really.

1896
02:53:17,590 --> 02:53:24,590
Well, I think their standard in bridge can help me with this is that there needs to be a development request.

1897
02:53:24,590 --> 02:53:33,910
I mean they're not going to come in and say to the restaurants down on the Esplanade that they can't continue to operate.

1898
02:53:35,850 --> 02:53:44,910
But I have some concerns about if we have a next major storm that does significant damage to those buildings.

1899
02:53:44,910 --> 02:53:52,390
I'm not certain that from what little I've read that they're going to say no you do get

1900
02:53:52,390 --> 02:54:01,830
to rebuild those buildings and continue to operate, you know, they have some strong feelings,

1901
02:54:01,990 --> 02:54:07,670
you know, we hear from people while we want to, you know, close the Esplanade and eliminate

1902
02:54:07,670 --> 02:54:12,470
the parking down there. And at one point, the Coast for Commission stands was absolutely

1903
02:54:12,470 --> 02:54:18,990
not, those parking faces are, you know, vital coastal access spaces. So, you know, that's

1904
02:54:18,990 --> 02:54:25,110
not something that the city can do. So, it would be interesting to hear where they are,

1905
02:54:25,210 --> 02:54:32,030
so we don't spend our wheels and waste a lot of time and, you know, hopefully come up with a

1906
02:54:32,030 --> 02:54:37,110
plan and a zoning ordinance that they're going to approve, because my nightmare is we're going

1907
02:54:37,110 --> 02:54:46,870
send it to them, it's going to take a long, long time and they're going to send it back to us and say go back to the drawing board and start all over.

1908
02:54:48,790 --> 02:54:54,690
And you don't want a zoning ordinance that's in half the city and another zoning ordinance and the other half of the city.

1909
02:54:55,450 --> 02:55:00,630
I'd like to continue this discussion to the next planning commission. Oh, you're not going to be there.

1910
02:55:00,630 --> 02:55:03,110
I'm not going to be there, but that's okay. You can keep cutting.

1911
02:55:03,310 --> 02:55:04,930
No, I'm just cutting. I'm just cutting.

1912
02:55:05,190 --> 02:55:05,890
I'm just cutting. I'm just cutting.

1913
02:55:05,890 --> 02:55:06,630
I'm just cutting. I'm just cutting.

1914
02:55:06,770 --> 02:55:07,850
Yeah, next opportunity.

1915
02:55:09,650 --> 02:55:13,350
Okay, any deaf report directors reporting?

1916
02:55:13,390 --> 02:55:15,310
lengthy presentation for you this evening.

1917
02:55:15,770 --> 02:55:16,790
It's the back in joy now.

1918
02:55:17,150 --> 02:55:17,730
We're all done.

1919
02:55:20,350 --> 02:55:21,910
Anybody want to say anything with that?

1920
02:55:21,990 --> 02:55:23,750
The risk of having that take you out.

1921
02:55:25,370 --> 02:55:26,790
Nothing will ensure the meeting.

1922
02:55:27,610 --> 02:55:30,270
Well, if he's going to continue to call me commissioner.

1923
02:55:32,750 --> 02:55:38,130
That's right. I did it like three years ago, remember? And I haven't gotten over it.