[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[2:58] Is there a reminder this meeting is being able cast live on charter communications cable TV channel 8 and is being recorded?
[3:06] Meetings can also be viewed streamlined from our website.
[3:10] Our technician tonight is Mary and Kooley. Oh, excuse me, our technician tonight is Alex Saeed.
[3:17] 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.
[3:25] Please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance.
[3:50] Roll call, please.
[3:52] Commissioner Welts.
[3:53] Commissioner Westman, Commissioner Ortee.
[3:57] Commissioner Newman.
[3:58] Chair.
[3:59] Chair, persons.
[3:59] Here.
[4:01] Are there any additions or deletions to tonight's agenda?
[4:04] No, Madam Chair.
[4:07] Are there any public comments since tonight is a special meeting?
[4:10] We're only going to be taking comments on the items that are on the agenda.
[4:14] But if a member of the public is here to speak and can't stay the full links that the meeting will
[4:21] We'll hear their comments now. Otherwise we'll hear them with the items.
[4:26] And Betty here who's got time constraints. Excellent. Commission comments.
[4:35] 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?
[4:45] I think this would be an appropriate time if you'd like to go through it now.
[4:49] I'd rather do it at the end if we could.
[4:51] Just because I would like for everybody to get a chance to review their comments.
[4:57] And if...
[4:58] Okay, we're about the ones we've already done.
[5:01] Right.
[5:02] I'd just kind of like to get through tonight's because if we start to run late,
[5:06] then I'd like to do those maybe we even do them at another meeting.
[5:10] Because I'd like for everybody to get a chance to really give their comments.
[5:13] 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
[5:19] Okay, well hopefully we'll get to him at the end.
[5:26] Yeah, approval of the minutes
[5:29] That's approval
[5:30] I'd like to ask for a correction on page five
[5:35] paragraph five
[5:37] Can we change jury to court
[5:41] It makes a little makes a little more sense
[5:50] I got that
[6:01] I have a motion to we have a second.
[6:04] I'll second it.
[6:06] All in favor?
[6:07] Aye.
[6:11] Okay.
[6:12] Moving to the public hearings.
[6:14] Tonight we will be hearing zoning code updates.
[6:18] I'm issue one protecting unique qualities of residential neighborhoods.
[6:22] Issue 16, a height in residential neighborhoods and issue eight non-conforming uses and non-conforming structures.
[6:30] Okay, thank you Madam Chair and commissioners.
[6:34] 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.
[6:43] Tonight we'll be discussing protecting the unique qualities of residential neighborhoods during the general plan outreach,
[6:49] the theme of protecting residential neighborhoods, character and unique qualities came up again and again.
[6:55] 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.
[7:11] Within the general plan, a new residential development should strengthen and enhance the unique qualities of neighborhoods.
[7:19] There was also a policy stating that mass scale and height of new developments must be
[7:25] compatible with existing residential neighborhoods.
[7:29] And also that architectural character of new development should complement the unique qualities
[7:34] of the neighborhood and overall the overall coastal village and character of Capitola.
[7:41] To protect the unique qualities and ensure compatibility with an updated zoning code,
[7:46] We must identify those qualities and then draft standards
[7:49] to support compatible development.
[7:52] So within your packet, I've broken up the different neighborhoods
[7:56] and some of the unique qualities within those neighborhoods
[7:59] that are really guided by development standards.
[8:02] So not all the unique qualities, such as a design feature
[8:07] on a home or within the yard would be listed there,
[8:09] but really those qualities that can be regulated
[8:12] within a zoning code.
[8:16] Capital is residential neighborhoods are full of charm and identity.
[8:21] Some of the inequalities of the neighborhoods include inviting front yards, including the landscaping,
[8:27] walkways leading to the homes, and front doors typically oriented towards the street.
[8:33] There's less emphasis on the car.
[8:35] Driveways are not allowed to exceed 40% of the lot with.
[8:38] garage is having increased setback standards. Also the neighborhoods are known for being compact with
[8:44] little space between homes, except in some areas such as Cliffwood Heights, which have a little more space.
[8:50] And there are typically larger backyards due to the 20% requirement for a rear yard setback.
[8:57] Compatibility is often measured by mass and scale and height, relative to buildings and it's surrounding.
[9:03] building mass is regulated through the floor area ratio in Capatola. Also, the overall scale
[9:09] is determined through maximum height limits. So now we'll take a look at how this
[9:14] translates into setting up a new code. Within our existing code we utilize the floor area ratio.
[9:25] The current code, so within the floor area ratio we quantify the total maximum building square footage
[9:32] for a new structure.
[9:35] And within the code, we also use Florea ratio to limit to include garages, which influence
[9:45] your massing.
[9:46] But there has also been requirements for any decks beyond 150 square feet count towards
[9:52] your Florea ratio.
[9:53] And we recently had a conversation about changing that, where within Capitola, one of the
[9:59] unique features is the front facade of the home being welcoming one modification that was
[10:06] directed by this board was that we changed the floria ratio to include exceptions for
[10:13] decks for the front facade also for homes that are adjacent to open space to allow homes
[10:21] along so Cal Creek or oceanfront properties to have decks that don't count towards the floria
[10:26] ratio. There was clarification that the real corridor is open space but not to allow it there
[10:32] because it could have impacts on adjacent neighbors. And then within restaurants and hotels
[10:37] within the general plan they have a maximum floor area of one typically within the commercial
[10:42] areas so there we wouldn't count decks towards the restaurant and hotel floor area ratio.
[10:51] And then there was also the discussion that when we came back for this discussion on neighborhood
[10:55] character that you wanted us to re-emphasize, bring back Dex and continue to talk about the subject.
[11:02] So I thought I'd include this slide tonight.
[11:06] The next subject for neighborhood character that is determined within his own encode is height.
[11:12] This was also talked about this sort of previous meeting and asked that it come back during
[11:17] our neighborhood character discussion.
[11:20] height right now is regulated at 25 feet within the single family zone.
[11:25] There is a height exception of up to 27 feet for half-story designs.
[11:30] And buildings that use historic design elements during the previous discussion,
[11:36] there was consensus to take out the exception for a half-story design
[11:39] and also that the historic design element,
[11:44] it just was not clear how the exception could be applied.
[11:47] For tonight I was going to introduce four new options within height.
[11:53] One is 27 feet for a roof pitch greater than 512.
[11:56] I believe that the historic design element exception was put in place for steeper roof pitches.
[12:03] So it's clear to apply by stating what that roof pitch would be and how to go higher with the allowance of the.
[12:10] Also during a previous meeting we talked about 20 allowing a height exception for larger lots.
[12:17] And I also added lots with a width of 60 feet because if it's the height, having an influence
[12:24] on neighborhoods that you want to avoid by having an adequate width for a lot, you can
[12:31] ensure that the impact won't be as large on the neighbor.
[12:34] And then also how a height exception for lots on steep slopes, so I'll go through those now.
[12:41] 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.
[13:01] Next height exception for a lot sizes within this image. This is a map that the different lot sizes are broken down.
[13:10] Here, the light green are parcels up to about 7,000 square feet.
[13:16] The darker green is from 7,000 to just under 8,000, and then the blues as they get darker
[13:24] and into the purple, the parcel sizes get larger.
[13:28] So within this map, you can start to see trends of the area, the small neighborhood near
[13:38] And then also Cliff Wood Heights, so the two areas of town that really have a pattern of larger lots.
[13:46] 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.
[13:55] So, once you get into any of the colored parcels on this map, or 6,000 feet, or greater,
[14:05] and once you get into the 7,000 to 7,99, that's the darker green, and once you get into blue
[14:15] and purple, you're really looking at the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood and some areas along
[14:19] and then some parcels in the smaller neighborhoods that have been joined, so when there's
[14:27] merge, I should say.
[14:30] Next is an exception for when there's a wider lot to allow homes to go higher.
[14:36] So in this image, you see your typical 40-foot wide lots,
[14:39] and in a situation where two lots have been merged and there's 80 feet,
[14:43] possibly allowing for an additional two feet on those wider lots,
[14:47] knowing that their shading won't be shading out the neighbor next to them.
[14:53] And also looking at an exception for steep slopes.
[14:56] These are some homes in the back as viewed from river.
[15:00] 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.
[15:10] So now under how we measure height, the home would have to step down with a lot.
[15:16] 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.
[15:44] But if you went up to an additional two feet, the garage could come out further and then you
[15:50] could fit a standard vehicle or truck possibly.
[15:55] So I did want to mention within this slide, it's a good argument for a variance here.
[15:59] So this may not be one that you want to add to your zoning code, and typically when you're
[16:04] looking at variances, you're looking at specific circumstances tied to the lot, and this
[16:08] be a great example for why you would support a variance.
[16:15] So in talking about hi, this is just to re-emphasize the four new options that we can
[16:20] be looking at tonight.
[16:24] Next to another neighborhood characters, you're going through the R1 zone, there are certain
[16:28] lots along Riverview and there are a few in Deepohill that are at 30 feet wide and they're
[16:35] narrow compared to the majority of lots or 40 feet plus and
[16:39] wet throughout the city. So this is a map showing all of the
[16:45] lots that are 30 feet wide so you can really see the presence of them
[16:50] along river view and then a few within Deepohill.
[16:55] Currently the code
[16:57] requires a side yard setback of 10% for the first story and then 15% of the
[17:03] with for the second story on a 40 foot wide lot, it's not problematic and it typically creates a
[17:09] great design. Within a 30 foot wide lot, your bottom story is at 24 feet for the first story,
[17:16] and then the second story is limited to about 21 feet in width. So here it's to possibly add an
[17:23] exception for lots, 30 feet wide or less to not have to have a second story additional setback.
[17:32] Another pattern you see throughout the single family district is secondary structures that are located in the rear yard.
[17:42] This is an upper river view. You can see the yellow dots or secondary structures.
[17:50] Then I went on GIS and did my best job I could of estimating through the aerial images of how many
[17:59] driveways exist that lead to a secondary structure. It may be a garage, it may be a unit
[18:06] I'm not sure, but there's quite a few that have pavement leading to a secondary structure
[18:10] in the back. Within capital, it's due to the parking issues and many of these neighborhoods.
[18:16] These are often a good thing to have additional, you know, longer driveways in which people
[18:21] can park in and if it is a driveway and the garage in the back to be able to utilize that
[18:26] space as well. So currently many of these would be non-conforming because the setback requirement
[18:33] for an accessory structure is eight feet from the rear property line and a lot of these
[18:38] looked really close. So to maintain this pattern that you see within our neighborhoods it could
[18:46] be you could either decrease the rear yard setback for accessory structures or you could add an
[18:51] section under your non-conforming area to state that a non-conforming garage, and specifying
[18:58] that it's a garage so that you're mitigating the helping to mitigate the parking, located
[19:04] with a setback may be upgraded but not expanded.
[19:10] So within the options for Neighborhood Character tonight, the first is to maintain the existing
[19:16] code and I've taken out the height exception as directed at a previous meeting.
[19:22] That same height requirements, front yard, garage, subbacks, rear and side yards and second story.
[19:30] The second option is to introduce tailored development standards for individual residential neighborhoods.
[19:37] So here's the map from the general plan.
[19:39] An example of how to do this would be each of these neighborhoods becomes an overlay zone.
[19:44] And within the overlay you would make development standards for each overlay.
[19:49] 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.
[20:02] And then next is allow case-by-case deviations to the R1 standards.
[20:08] 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.
[20:17] So looking at surroundings and making sure it's compatible and that also will not negatively impact adjacent properties.
[20:25] So those you would look at individual case by case deviations when they come before planning commission.
[20:32] And then the fourth option is something that has been created from the outcome of our other discussions is a hybrid option
[20:40] and it's some of the ideas that I introduced tonight.
[20:42] Introducing development standards based on specific characteristics of the lot or the design.
[20:49] So within this option we could create new height exceptions as presented.
[20:54] Within the side yard second story, you could have an exception for lots of 30 feet wide or less,
[21:01] and then also exceptions for accessory structures in the rear yard.
[21:06] So, from there, we could appreciate discussion from the commission, thank you.
[21:13] Thank you, Katie.
[21:15] Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item this evening?
[21:20] Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission questions for staff comments.
[21:26] First question is, I didn't understand the part about
[21:31] Explore any ratio exceptions for restaurants that have a 1.0 flow area ratio.
[21:38] 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.
[21:52] 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.
[22:03] That was actually one of the questions I had because when I went back and I read what we had done.
[22:13] You know, I look at a place like Zelda's.
[22:17] You know, their deck is bigger than their restaurant is.
[22:22] So, for me, I suddenly became very uncomfortable with having an exception from the floor area ratio,
[22:30] because that's what parking is going to be based on.
[22:34] So I'm not at all comfortable with leaving
[22:38] that exception in there.
[22:43] You know, I don't know how other people feel.
[22:45] But I didn't realize we were talking about,
[22:48] because if you were a smart developer on your hotel,
[22:51] I mean, you'd have a huge outdoor dining area
[22:54] that was a deck, and then you don't have
[22:57] to provide any parking port.
[22:59] So, similar to the basement conversation that we had previously, we could require, we could
[23:06] do the calculation for parking to include it for the parking requirement, but if you
[23:11] wanted it not to count towards the massing, because for basements, I believe the direction
[23:19] was to not include basements towards the floor area ratio, but it will be counted towards
[23:24] the parking requirement.
[23:26] 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.
[23:35] So if you've got a big deck or whatever, it's the number of seats.
[23:40] Aren't we changing it to square footage?
[23:41] We have to take a turn in the parking requirement.
[23:44] We're getting rid of the whole counting of seats.
[23:47] So one clarification, I mean the code currently faces parking standards on floor area and not floor area ratio.
[23:55] 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.
[24:07] 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
[24:20] Garner more seating in reality because there's still going to have to grapple with the parking problem.
[24:29] 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.
[24:42] So, I'm principle, I like the idea of encouraging outdoor activities when we're in other.
[24:49] Right, I hear what you're saying, my concern is that, for example, if someone comes in and they want to build a hotel.
[24:57] And as part of their hotel development, they're going to have, let's say, five by 10, 50 foot deck on each room.
[25:06] When you start adding all of that to the building, it's certainly going to increase the size of the mass of the building.
[25:19] And I understand that you want to encourage people to have outdoor decks.
[25:27] But I'm not certain that we want to just completely exempt them and not count them at all.
[25:37] Do we want to put some limit on the size of the deck that we don't count?
[25:42] I mean, I like your ideas, as long as they're going to be accounted in the parking calculation.
[25:50] So they could be a percentage of the interior of the building, you know, no greater than
[25:56] x percentage of the interior of the building so that there's some balance between interior
[26:01] and exterior and it's we've built in some safeguards of, in other words, a little bit
[26:06] on the exception.
[26:11] And you could separate it out between areas that are common space that are shared, such
[26:16] is your dining area that counts towards your parking, but if it's a hotel and you have
[26:22] a small deck per suite, then maybe you don't count that towards the overall parking space
[26:30] because that's part of the suite, in which you would be fine with me if there was a limit
[26:36] that you don't count decks that are say more than a hundred square feet. That's pretty
[26:42] 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
[27:03] I think the people in Capitola that, I agree with scale, we want to encourage the outside space,
[27:12] but I don't want us to do something that we later come back and regret and say, oh my gosh,
[27:18] how did they get to do that?
[27:20] So if there's some limits on the size and that it does count for a parking, then it starts
[27:26] to make more sense to me.
[27:28] But in the neighborhoods, are we including the residential and the commercial or are we really
[27:34] specifically talking about neighborhoods and residential structures that have decks attached to it?
[27:43] The whole restaurants and hotels were exempt.
[27:47] Yeah, I think we're just talking about restaurants and hotels.
[27:50] That was my question.
[27:53] I'll pull up the definition that we currently have.
[27:56] the other way the other place in our ordinances where we apply these kinds of things is front
[28:02] front porches covered front porches of a certain I think it's 250 square feet up to 250 square
[28:10] feet are not covered in right in four areas. That's fine. So I think we're moving in that same direction
[28:16] where we have a certain either a percentage or a square footage.
[28:20] So,
[28:24] my next question, ready for it?
[28:26] I have a specific answer.
[28:29] My next question is clarification of this.
[28:33] This seems like an awful lot of commentary on the difference between 25 feet and 27 feet,
[28:40] which is simply a small difference.
[28:42] You see, maybe.
[28:44] And I'm kind of curious as to when the plants you see and what's going on.
[28:49] I mean, how is this two feet?
[28:51] Other than slope, lots with China stand problem there.
[28:55] I mean, are we talking about the difference
[28:56] between two stories and three stories?
[28:59] And that's really important in the flood plane now
[29:00] because the first story you can't build on.
[29:02] So you have to be able to go three stories
[29:04] to build anywhere in Riverview now.
[29:09] So the reason for the hate exception
[29:11] from my perspective is going through this process
[29:15] and talking with stakeholders was to allow more flexibility
[29:19] and design.
[29:20] So, some of the architecture and design groups that really was asking for more flex to the new zoning code to allow more flexibilities.
[29:33] 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.
[29:46] The 27 has been put in there because that's what we've had.
[29:51] That's only really going to apply to old stock buildings because nowadays, I mean, people are, as I say, are.
[29:57] They're going to want to use a different suituring 25 and 27 to get.
[30:00] 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.
[30:13] 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.
[30:19] That's a lie.
[30:22] Yeah, a story sounds across the street from Gail is three stories and it's 25.
[30:27] What's the downside to 27? I mean, is that like a terrible thing for the nation?
[30:32] It could allow the scale to be a bit different, you know, the scale is very low in many of
[30:38] the neighborhoods in capitalists, so your floor to top of wall would get higher, you could
[30:44] essentially under a 25 or 27 foot height, you can have your 10 foot ceiling. It's really
[30:53] a matter of the design and looking at the scale as they come through. I don't think there's
[30:58] huge difference between a 25 and a 27 foot height. But as you allow to 27 feet, you could
[31:06] see your wall height get taller, which could throw off scale in neighborhoods.
[31:10] You already have 27 feet in the village. We're just talking about the.
[31:15] Do other communities? I mean, this is a big deal. 25 feet around the state.
[31:21] Ben? No. We, we, we.
[31:27] You know, for me, I know we had this discussion about the village and it kind of plays
[31:31] the fact before we built our house we actually had plans drawn and actually went to the city
[31:36] with them.
[31:38] And the height of our house, a two story house was 26 feet, six inches because it had the glass,
[31:45] you know, some of, that's a long, long, the ridge, and that had another six inches.
[31:49] which was, and the house, this is, you know, our latte PY, but it was going to be a problem
[31:56] getting through this, we did actually get the plan through, but we ended up lowering the roof design.
[32:01] So in that house, we had a nine-foot roof height on the first floor and then vaulted two things on the second
[32:07] and you easily can get to there with the second.
[32:10] Which, to me, I'm not, I think, as Ed's character in design and neighborhood, but I'm not me,
[32:15] what I'm not really open to is all these flat roofs I just to me I just think they take away from
[32:20] character and design and I was talking with the staff before the meeting about I was looking
[32:26] from brand down over the village the other day and a good example of it to me was the apartments that
[32:34] 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
[32:41] the apartments and then right next to the six sisters so you know the
[32:45] apartments are done and if you look at the design I mean the six sisters
[32:49] obviously have character and design that capital I hope would like but and it's a
[32:54] two story with a dormers so you could you could actually yeah it's
[32:59] have to get in and get that view huh well here you go so here you go so now you
[33:02] have basically the same roof height a three story versus a two story and then
[33:07] actually it could probably get some dormers in that to me the character of the
[33:10] sisters over the three story flat roofs is quite significant. So that's why I was in
[33:18] favor of a plate height, the top plate height, then allowed the roofing to be a little
[33:21] more flexible. Because it adds a lot more character than just, that's what we're going to
[33:25] end up with. Those apartments, I think, if we just go with a flat 27 foot and that's what you're
[33:30] getting. I think you're going to put a lot of these down in the, and we already have a couple
[33:33] of them in the village. I hate to see that up in our neighborhoods as well. Right, but for me,
[33:40] You know we've got the three story building there and if you put you know a fairly steep pitch roof on it suddenly
[33:46] I mean you have quite a tall building
[33:48] 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
[33:53] 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
[34:02] Does that make sense?
[34:03] So what you're saying is that you only want to have two story structures
[34:08] 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
[34:16] But it gives it more character than just a flat roof of a full third story
[34:21] And I bring up a point about flat risk because I agree with you
[34:24] I think the kinds of flat roofs we used to see back in the 60s and 70s were for economic reasons
[34:29] They were the cheapest way to build a house together a lot of volume
[34:34] traditionally we'll see them in older buildings not very attractive. But what I
[34:40] see now I'm not even sure it's the character of Capitola but I see more
[34:44] modern articulated homes with flat roofs now that are really a lot more
[34:49] attractive and very stylized and and I do we we've we've approved several of
[34:54] them and we've got them in Capitola. Yeah there's one on El Camino media that
[34:57] you've got but it's really got like a one or two maybe one one half one 12
[35:01] 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,
[35:06] I want to get, I know what you're saying about.
[35:09] Yeah, I'm not opposed to saying that people couldn't have a flat roof.
[35:13] I think if we allow a top plate height, it limits the look of the apartments on the right is what it does.
[35:20] And you can still have that I think the house on that community media that I'm thinking of,
[35:25] would still be able to meet the current criteria if we talk about the height and still have that design.
[35:30] I love the contemporary, it's one of my favorite houses, but I think this is what we're
[35:35] getting.
[35:35] Just three story boxes, well I'm afraid we're getting in a little bit.
[35:38] Thank you.
[35:38] Our city.
[35:39] We have one.
[35:43] What's right across from the market?
[35:46] The little market down here in the village on that, that's not San Jose's.
[35:49] That's stuck.
[35:49] When is that?
[35:50] See, I actually like that little three story house in there.
[35:53] I think that's great in, I think, it fits in, it fits in, it fits in that little
[35:59] part.
[35:59] the plate height approaches, it won't work in the floodplain.
[36:07] And the new little house that's being built
[36:11] right at the end of Riverview Avenue, right before I like that house.
[36:16] And they've gotten basically three stories in there
[36:20] in the 27 foot, and it looks great.
[36:24] So I don't think I want to go with the plate height, either.
[36:27] That was one of the questions I was going to ask because we had that link, the discussion about how you measure the height.
[36:33] 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?
[36:43] But I think we should let Council know that we have a recommendation, whatever that recommendation is, for how you measure it.
[36:53] 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.
[37:19] But what is the rest of the commission think about the option that says that if the larger lot sizes?
[37:27] Yeah, I'm comfortable with the larger lots size. Maybe if we have lots larger and we came up with some number.
[37:36] A lot of 60 feet wide and larger is going to be the definition for 27 feet.
[37:44] I think it was at the last meeting, it was a lot size and I believe it was 7,000.
[37:52] 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?
[37:59] And my question is, are we still going to allow the applicant to position the house with a four foot setback?
[38:07] 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,
[38:16] there'll be plenty of open space on one side, but one neighbor will be. So, in other words,
[38:22] 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?
[38:30] There would be. You could have, you could have a 10% of the total width of the width of the right.
[38:35] 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
[38:42] Or is it I think three is the minimum and seven's the maximum. Yeah
[38:48] I think this
[38:50] gets everybody
[38:52] Everybody to a comfortable spot. I think I think this is one of the ways we go about it now
[38:57] I noticed you dropped the historic you said we dropped the historic part of that now
[39:02] Why did we, I, another thing I don't recall why we did, why would we have done that?
[39:08] 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.
[39:16] And this could be one of them.
[39:18] So, I think the historic elements were mainly roof pitch.
[39:23] It was because you have these historic homes, they have a steeper roof pitch.
[39:27] And that's, we were allowing the 27 feet,
[39:30] because it was, I steeper roof pitch, not.
[39:33] So she just changed it from historic to specify
[39:38] that it's roof pitch and not some other historic.
[39:41] And so you're saying historic would be included within that.
[39:44] Because it doesn't exist in roof pitch.
[39:45] If there were an existing historic home,
[39:49] it could remain historic and keep its roof pitch.
[39:52] We wouldn't require it to come lower.
[39:54] And that's something we'll talk about with non-conforming structures.
[39:58] But within this it was, I read it as the 27 foot building height for historic design elements
[40:04] as for an addition.
[40:06] So if there were an addition to say a historic home, they could go up.
[40:10] I think, 124 central is a good example of that.
[40:13] There was an addition off the back.
[40:15] They, as long as they comply with their side yard setbacks, or all their setbacks,
[40:20] they were allowed to go up to 27 feet and that was so that they could have a similar roof
[40:25] pitch to the building in the front.
[40:29] One of the problems with that particular part of the ordinance
[40:32] is that the term is that phrase, historic design elements.
[40:37] That whole thing left a big loophole that could be interpreted
[40:40] anyway.
[40:41] And of course, applicants, you know, I would too want to interpret it
[40:44] the most effective way for themselves.
[40:47] It was not the intent, the original intent.
[40:50] So I'm hoping that goes away.
[40:53] So you could clarify that within the options to allow up to 27 feet for a roof that mimics
[41:05] the, you know, for an addition to a historic structure so that the roof pitch of the new
[41:11] condition, compliments the historic, the existing historic, was being used when there wasn't
[41:19] an existing 20,000 foot. So, I think I would have.
[41:23] So I think if we go to option four, sort of the hybrid option, and go through that, it makes
[41:33] it a lot clearer for me. So what we're saying is that, you know, the existing code, the
[41:41] going to be 25 feet. And that we took out the, I'm looking at number four, the hybrid one.
[41:53] Yes. Don't make it go back to the, all of the options.
[41:57] Didn't you have one that's all right? Pretty much, yeah, sort of number four in summary.
[42:03] The hybrid option? Sorry. I mean, the hybrid option that's working for me.
[42:10] Sorry.
[42:12] Is that one done?
[42:15] Okay.
[42:16] So this is the hybrid option.
[42:19] So it seems to me that we're saying that it's 25 feet with the following exceptions,
[42:28] those options that we talked about.
[42:31] And those all work for me, you know,
[42:35] lots that are 60 feet or wider, lots that are greater than 7,000 square feet, you know, roof
[42:44] pitches, graders, and 5, 12, and, you know, I personally wouldn't include the 27 feet for
[42:55] lots with steep slopes because like you said, they absolutely can come in and get a variance
[43:02] And looking at those lots that you showed us, I mean, even the 27 feet, it's not going to work for them.
[43:09] They're going to have to go more than that because those lots are so steep.
[43:16] So, I would leave that one out, but the other two work for me.
[43:22] So the 27 with the roof pitch greater than 512, even in a 40 foot lot, I thought we were thinking
[43:34] that.
[43:35] That was for the historic buildings.
[43:40] And that was an alternative to having an exception for a start building.
[43:42] I like the idea of having the exception read more that the historic building can be improved
[43:48] 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
[43:59] And is this I don't really care if you leave the 27 feet in on lots with steep slopes. I just
[44:05] Feel it sort of meaningless. Yeah, I just know and I really like the non-conforming garages
[44:11] Yeah, I'm hoping to be able to get rid of the word non-conforming in our ordinances. There's no way you can
[44:16] I'd actually like to see that the not only for existing non-conforming garages, but I'd
[44:22] like to see us allow exceptions for garages, because having a garage, if it's got, you know,
[44:31] it's a single story garage with a well-flopped roof, and it's on the back end of an existing
[44:36] garage, it seems to me that it's a good thing for everybody, it gives you, you know, partying
[44:42] is talking about roofs on garages. This is talking about the existing non-conforming garages
[44:49] that people have right now. This is not building a new one.
[44:54] Exactly my point. I'm saying that I'd like to see it so you could build a new one.
[45:00] 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.
[45:10] It's a single story, garage edition.
[45:14] I think in a lot of cases it would give people that currently have their houses set way far forward.
[45:21] 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.
[45:29] Um, using space that otherwise is behind a garage and they're not necessarily going to use it.
[45:35] Are you with me?
[45:36] I think it's a good thing to allow people to do that.
[45:41] 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.
[45:51] 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.
[45:59] It
[46:03] would have given him options in design that would have potentially enables him to...
[46:09] Why isn't this hard to learn on conforming this session?
[46:12] It can be.
[46:13] You can do it all once.
[46:15] Well, Linda, excuse me.
[46:18] Chair Cho and Smith is suggesting that the rare yard here, the eight feet, be decreased to...
[46:25] You mentioned four feet, and I think she's also suggesting that there be a height limit introduced
[46:31] for secondary structures within the rare yard for garages, so it would be appropriate to have
[46:37] this discussion now if it's going to change the development standards for accessory structures.
[46:43] Yeah, and it could even be simpler than that where you're recommending adding an
[46:48] exception for existing non-conforming garages, I would just add an exception for garages located within
[46:56] that backs period and therefore new development come in and be closer to the rare property
[47:05] line as long as it's within a certain height limit as well and yeah you need to set
[47:10] the height limit so it's not a they're not putting a room back there and calling it a garage
[47:15] that it's actually a rise but I think it's a it's a design option for helping with
[47:31] our
[47:31] people with cars and garages. Yeah,
[47:36] I think people put cars and garages really. It's just
[47:39] more storage. I think it would be. I don't know. I put cars and garages or housing.
[47:48] I've seen it
[47:49] used very creatively back when you could have a 10 by 12 accessory structure. That was less than
[47:57] feet, you know, why? I've seen it accommodate a ten down. I can live with our
[48:07] shorter people. I mean, basically what you're saying is that, you know, if you
[48:11] have a lot, you're going to have a long driveway going back to a garage. And we
[48:19] have a number of those right now in sort of the Riverview Terrace neighborhood. And
[48:25] I could live with a new structure being built with that kind of garage.
[48:33] If we have something about the driveway linked so that you have, you know, parking in that longer driveway.
[48:44] Because I agree with Gayle, I mean I bet I could go through Riverview Terrace and there wouldn't be enough garages.
[48:52] the rear garages that are people or parking cars in,
[48:56] that I could count them on one hand.
[48:58] I mean, that's just, it doesn't happen.
[49:06] But we are assuming that they're meeting most
[49:10] of their parking requirement in the driveway
[49:12] and the existing garage, and then we grant them
[49:15] a second tandem part of their garage in back.
[49:21] The only way we would be able to work that,
[49:23] so we wouldn't use that as part
[49:26] requirements that are you saying? We would not, we would not allow them to count that as
[49:30] their parking requirement. They could use that face. Well, there are a couple things that
[49:37] I think fit into it. For a lot of neighborhoods, doesn't, isn't there, you can't put a driveway
[49:43] up next to your property line. Isn't there some setback that you have to have to land
[49:48] vaping two feet. And the current driveways and river
[49:55] of U.T. Harris don't have that setback. 90% of my
[49:59] recollection is on the property line. So by the time you
[50:05] have to set it back for a 40 foot wide, a lot suddenly that
[50:12] house is getting very, very narrow,
[50:19] but it, it does give,
[50:26] I just think that we have to be
[50:27] able to address the parking and garage is count in the park, right?
[50:35] Yes. So if somebody is not going to park their car in the garage, then being able to set
[50:42] the garage farther back is helpful with parking in that it makes a long driveway.
[50:47] If they are going to use their garage as parking cars, and those people who use their
[50:56] garages have expensive cars which make sense for them to use them, then perhaps they'll
[51:02] decide to do a tandem to car garage, which, again, increases the parking.
[51:09] Well, it seems I kept, we're going to let people keep their non-contraming garages, which
[51:14] built on the side property line and the rear property line and rebuild those then and we're saying
[51:21] that's okay and it probably does make some sense to let people do new development where you
[51:29] have a garage in the back as long as you know we have something about heights and it four feet away
[51:36] and it will end up being two feet from the side property line because the new ones would have to meet
[51:43] that requirement in the code,
[51:47] it would probably work.
[51:49] I think that would be interesting to ask the council
[51:51] doing this and see how people tend to come to council meetings
[51:55] as well when these things are reviewed.
[51:57] And so it'll get a little bit more airing at that point.
[52:02] So I could go along with the, I would use the same height
[52:07] restrictions as you do for accessory structures.
[52:10] So I think that can't be more than 15,
[52:13] But a garage is going to be at eight to eight.
[52:18] I think a garage needs to be a little taller than eight feet doesn't it?
[52:23] I mean if you're going to put a pitched roof on the garage,
[52:26] then it seems to me that you want it to be a little taller than eight feet
[52:33] or you're just going to have flat roof garages,
[52:36] which don't put you like flat roof garages.
[52:39] I don't know that against drivers, you can see issues.
[52:42] I don't know.
[52:42] The one that I saw that was so uniquely done,
[52:45] the pitch was, so the fence, the back fence was here
[52:47] and the pitch went this way.
[52:50] So it really, even though it was closer to the fence,
[52:52] it did not intrude in any way on that house
[52:55] that was behind it.
[52:57] So when I say eight feet,
[52:59] I'm talking about sloping it that way.
[53:04] Front end of a car and, you know, a work area.
[53:07] I'm all about garage.
[53:08] If you can build a garage, I'm on board with that.
[53:17] I think he knows.
[53:18] How about 12 feet?
[53:20] I have clarification for you.
[53:22] And the existing code, and I think it actually has a wall plate, top of wall plate, and a total height.
[53:30] So the width of a detached garage or cardboard in the rear yard is limited to 21 feet.
[53:35] The height is limited to 15, nine feet to the top of the wall plate.
[53:40] However, the Planning Commission may approve an exception to allow additional height if necessary to match the architectural style of the existing grammar structure.
[53:49] That works for me.
[53:57] Okay, so I'm going to re-sumerize what I just heard on this slide.
[54:02] We'll maintain the front yard setback of 40 feet.
[54:06] We'll maintain the height limit as it is in the code today.
[54:10] Side yard standards will remain the same.
[54:12] So we'll keep the two foot landscaping buffer along the driveway leading to a rear garage.
[54:20] The setback from the primary structure or a main at three feet, and the rear yard requirement
[54:28] will be decreased to four feet and the height 15 and the height 15 and the height 15 and the height.
[54:37] Exactly.
[54:38] So here, so this person comes in and they want to redo their garage.
[54:43] It's an old garage, it's listing.
[54:45] It's right on both of the property line.
[54:47] They don't have any room to bring it in to feed.
[54:51] Are we going to allow them to rebuild it, but not expand it?
[54:55] Right.
[54:55] And that's the exception for existing non-conforming.
[54:59] The other one is for who garage is being built, right?
[55:03] And we can discuss that more when we get to non-conforming.
[55:06] And if this existing one wanted, they wanted to add any space.
[55:09] They would have to really go with the two foot
[55:11] and that they would have to conform to the existing code.
[55:16] Yes, right.
[55:23] OK.
[55:24] OK.
[55:25] So now we could under the height exception,
[55:31] removing the 512 pitch, but better defining the historic,
[55:37] that 27 foot on lots greater than 7,000 square feet.
[55:41] There were quite a few lots at the 6,000 square foot threshold
[55:46] that are in clip-foot heights and in other neighborhoods is to 7,000.
[55:51] Do you want to look at that map again before we set a threshold?
[55:54] What's the average square footage of all of the white lots that you... do we have an average square
[56:02] footage of those lots that don't fall into the 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 category?
[56:08] I don't know it off of.
[56:09] Okay.
[56:11] Okay.
[56:12] Typically, like it live with six downs and square feet, that's a pretty big lot.
[56:18] I could, I could love with six downs.
[56:20] Okay.
[56:22] Okay.
[56:22] Okay.
[56:25] And then 27 feet on lots with widths that are greater than 60 feet wide and then removing
[56:32] the steep slope because that will be a variance.
[56:36] Just a question, Camino Medio is the other steep slope, but it's kind of the steep slope of me in the other direction.
[56:45] Do those houses all adhere to the 27 or 25?
[56:53] I am.
[56:54] There are 27.
[56:55] I think it's 27.
[56:56] And they're considered central village, so they're still getting into that in this all right.
[56:59] 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.
[57:10] 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.
[57:19] Do you feel strongly that we need to remove that one?
[57:24] I just feel that, you know, it doesn't, I don't feel, you don't have to take it out.
[57:31] 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.
[57:39] They're going to need a variance anyway because 27 feet wouldn't do it.
[57:44] I think it's better to stay away from my variances as a matter of policy if we can, because there's...
[57:50] And then leave it in, it's fine with me.
[57:56] Okay, it's in the exception for the 30 feet wide lots.
[58:02] Yeah, that works well, I think that's a good one.
[58:08] One thing we can do to address that, too, is we're going to have to define what a steep slope is then.
[58:12] We can make that rotate with steep 25% or something, so that it's really the extraordinary steep lots.
[58:19] And not something with a gentle slope that gets an exception.
[58:29] Okay, thank you.
[58:29] The next discussion is on calculations for the non-conforming structural alterations in your packet last week.
[58:40] Commissioner Newman pointed out that we had two examples within that packet of non-conforming structural alterations and how we calculate that.
[58:51] 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.
[59:02] So we, the building official and a plan comes in.
[59:04] 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.
[59:14] And if it's over the 80%, they're required to bring it into compliance and oftentimes we've
[59:21] seen a trend of, with the historic building we don't necessarily want the non-conforming
[59:26] structure to go away, so therefore they're asking for a variance to the non-conforming valuation.
[59:34] And I just want to specify that in this conversation we're talking about the structure,
[59:38] not the use when we're looking at this. So if it doesn't comply with height, setbacks, parking,
[59:45] that's...
[59:45] If they are, also...
[59:47] Inflory, I wish you a good quick question. The current fair market value is that a calculation
[59:57] of square foot at the current...
[1:00:00] Market value, where does that deliver coming?
[1:00:05] So it's an estimate, so if you have a home that was custom built and would sell for a $500 square foot,
[1:00:16] versus a home that was built as affordably as possible, say 140 square foot. They're both calculated
[1:00:25] of the exact same. It's $200 per square foot for how we evaluate it.
[1:00:33] So, and that number come out of the building code?
[1:00:36] It comes out of the building code.
[1:00:38] Okay, so that's a tax.
[1:00:39] Not the tax.
[1:00:40] No, it's a tax.
[1:00:42] It's a number that goes in the building code and they do it by area and the number varies
[1:00:47] depending on whether you live in this area.
[1:00:50] Time out. Time out. That's for new construction.
[1:00:53] 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.
[1:01:06] What the current building official is doing is what I would call replacement cost of the existing structure.
[1:01:11] So you have a 800 square foot house that's just about to fall down in its non-conforming.
[1:01:17] And it's virtually worthless as a structure, but it gets $200 a square foot valuation.
[1:01:25] Even though it's depreciated to almost zero.
[1:01:29] And that's the current method that's been used in the last least this series of my time on the planning commission,
[1:01:37] but wasn't before.
[1:01:37] 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.
[1:01:53] 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.
[1:02:04] They get to keep their existing setbacks and then once they get into the construction of the house,
[1:02:11] not by their fault, something else comes up and so then the whole thing gets torn down,
[1:02:17] and the whole valuation thing is going out the window.
[1:02:21] If we come up with a system that we simply talk about square footage,
[1:02:30] 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.
[1:02:45] And, you know, I point out this example all the time.
[1:02:48] There are two new houses that got built about two years ago on Riverview Drive.
[1:02:54] And, they both got completely torn down, except one of them came in as a remodel.
[1:03:02] So, they still have a short driveway and this huge big new two-story house.
[1:03:08] and the one that came in as a new house has the 20-foot drive way that can be parked in.
[1:03:16] So I just want to get rid of valuation and go to some sort of square foot each formula.
[1:03:22] I think it's fair. I think it's clear to the applicants. I think everybody understands it better.
[1:03:28] 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.
[1:03:42] Yeah, you could keep all you had to do is keep one wall.
[1:03:47] 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.
[1:03:55] 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,
[1:04:03] what are the goals here? I mean, we've got a town that developed over a period of time with different rules.
[1:04:12] So now we come along and we've got a bright new city council that connects some new rules.
[1:04:16] 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?
[1:04:25] I mean, one rule is simply that you can rebuild, but just not add regardless.
[1:04:33] I'm not on use because that's a different discussion.
[1:04:36] But on setbacks and FAR and those kinds of things.
[1:04:40] If you have an existing house, your method rules when it was built that you can continue to have it.
[1:04:45] Yeah.
[1:04:46] I looked at the square footage version also and I think they both have some pros and cons,
[1:04:53] but you know, you look and cap a total of some of the homes, my home, for example,
[1:04:58] and I know a lot of the other homes have no foundation.
[1:05:02] So you really, and that's you're going to jack up a bunch of termite and festive wood to
[1:05:07] put a foundation under it, you really are left with tearing the whole thing down and that's
[1:05:12] what it comes down to, and so I think it's more fair, it puts people more in the same
[1:05:17] park by doing it by either saying rebuild as is or using a square footage as a model instead
[1:05:25] of the 80% value that to me, I got caught in that whole thing, so I understand it very clearly.
[1:05:32] This is all really good discussion, but point of order, I think we slipped through issue one
[1:05:38] and into 16 without opening it to the public.
[1:05:41] So at this point, I'd like to open to the public and ask if there's anyone here that would
[1:05:46] like to discuss the issue of height and or this issue of non-conforming structures.
[1:05:52] I'd like to put off the non-conforming uses for a minute until we get through this one.
[1:05:59] But if there's anyone here who would like to speak on either of those items, please come forward.
[1:06:04] Seeing none, we'll continue with a moment.
[1:06:06] lines out there, I know, I know you have some wisdom for us.
[1:06:11] No? Okay.
[1:06:13] I converted.
[1:06:15] I completely agree with what you guys had said about existing homes.
[1:06:19] I think when people move into capital and they buy a home that's a certain size,
[1:06:27] their expectation and what they're really paying for is that house.
[1:06:32] And if, by some disaster, flood, fire, or other disaster, they lose that home, then they're
[1:06:39] allowed to build it back in its same size.
[1:06:43] And it seems to me that we, I mean, that's a minimum good thing.
[1:06:49] But we lose out when people come in and they could really give us a better design.
[1:06:56] They could give us a better house if they were allowed to tear it down and build something
[1:07:01] new. But they're not willing to give up the 30% in some cases, you know, score footage that
[1:07:07] they'd have to give up to meet all of the current setbacks. And I haven't really heard
[1:07:12] that we hate what we have. I've only heard that we don't want to keep building great
[1:07:19] big houses and we've had some that got built that were, you know, bigger than we want.
[1:07:24] We want to keep the cottage the smaller scale. So letting people rebuild what they already
[1:07:29] have seems to me to be a good thing and it makes everything a lot easier and so it would
[1:07:36] be for more than just disasters it would also be for a try or neglect or just a desire
[1:07:41] to build a new house.
[1:07:44] But if they want to go up in any type of square footage at all, they're going to have to meet
[1:07:50] the other standards that we're saying.
[1:07:53] So they want to keep the exact square footage that they've got now, they can keep their set,
[1:07:58] they're non-conform, whatever non-conforming, any additions have to conform to the current
[1:08:06] roles.
[1:08:07] So, option three is to remove evaluation cap for structural alterations to non-conforming
[1:08:13] structures.
[1:08:14] And in this, you would state that the existing non-conformities can exist and can be repaired.
[1:08:21] They cannot be the non-conformity, cannot be increased, but you could have an addition.
[1:08:25] And once you get into an addition, if it's greater than 10%, the parking has to come into compliance.
[1:08:32] The new addition has to meet your height requirements, your setback requirements, your floor area ratio.
[1:08:39] 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,
[1:08:48] because as people come in, you realize that sometimes someone setbacks doesn't, they don't
[1:08:55] meet setbacks, they don't meet height, but in the new addition area, they're in compliance
[1:09:00] and you don't run into that issue all the time of saying, oh, you know, under an old, you
[1:09:05] your house is built under an old code and it doesn't quite fit anymore, but it's not, it'd be
[1:09:10] one thing if we're hearing that there is a pattern in town that you absolutely want to get rid of,
[1:09:15] that there are homes that are having an impact, but if you don't can identify what it is that
[1:09:20] you want removed, option 3 sounds like a good option.
[1:09:23] I think the things that we identified several years ago that got built too large several
[1:09:29] years before that, we're going to have a lifespan far beyond any of us being here and somebody
[1:09:34] else can, you know, life will have changed at that point and let them figure those out.
[1:09:40] 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.
[1:09:53] And so, and so the only thing we just had three feet between their house and our house, which became,
[1:10:02] it mean it was dark, it was always damp, it was always.
[1:10:05] So, they tore those houses down, and I wouldn't like to see them rebuild the identical
[1:10:16] house that they had back on the property line again, because in all honesty, I think
[1:10:22] them moving their house, three feet meeting the CPAC requirement, ended up with a better
[1:10:29] situation for them in and for us.
[1:10:35] So I'm hearing what Ed says, if a house gets destroyed
[1:10:41] in a flood or something, we want to be quite generous
[1:10:44] and let them tear it down.
[1:10:47] But if you're just going to tear down an old house
[1:10:49] and build a brand new house, the same size,
[1:10:53] but leave it right there on the property line.
[1:10:56] When the building code have protected you in that situation, I think that you can't build on the property line anymore.
[1:11:05] Well, you can build on the property line if you do a firewall and have protected openings with wireglass and those kinds of things.
[1:11:14] You can still build on a property line, I believe.
[1:11:18] So,
[1:11:21] you know, I hear that somebody's going to completely tear down their house and build a new house.
[1:11:29] Why wouldn't we want it to fit into the neighborhood a little better?
[1:11:35] When they still have to come in here for a design review,
[1:11:38] and couldn't we at that time, and the neighbor could come in and say,
[1:11:41] you know, I don't want it to be on the property line and so forth.
[1:11:45] I mean, it doesn't automatically entitle them.
[1:11:47] I think it wants your building plan
[1:11:49] show that you're removing walls
[1:11:51] and you're getting rid of a home,
[1:11:53] it has to come into compliance.
[1:11:55] So you would only allow the existing non-conforming
[1:11:59] to stay, but at that point that it's taken down, unless,
[1:12:02] you know, there is a section of code
[1:12:04] that is very specific about a blood and meat,
[1:12:07] actually let them tear it down and build
[1:12:09] and rebuild it as long as it stayed the same size
[1:12:12] without meeting any of the setback requirements.
[1:12:14] And, you know, I think we want to improve areas in situations as new homes get built.
[1:12:25] I agree somebody gets to keep their non-conforming house forever and they can repair it.
[1:12:32] But they come to a point if they're going to completely tear it down that it seems like they
[1:12:39] have to conform to what we make, everyone else who is building a new house conform to.
[1:12:47] I think that can be handled by the Planning Commission in reviewing that application.
[1:12:52] By saying that they have the right, they can do it.
[1:12:57] It's not automatically disqualified because it was not conforming.
[1:13:01] Doesn't mean that their design is approved by the Planning Commission.
[1:13:06] One compromise situation could be where you do observe a bit from three-foot setback.
[1:13:11] That's a standard fire code requirement.
[1:13:13] You could get an exception to that if you have a fire-rated wall at the exterior.
[1:13:18] That's probably something we wouldn't want to encourage as a matter of practice.
[1:13:22] So that might be sort of a good middle ground to go with.
[1:13:26] Then we're going to take it all the way down.
[1:13:28] I think there should be some consideration for the part bringing parking into compliance.
[1:13:32] I mean, if they're going to take it all the way down to give a new design they should build.
[1:13:36] Back to calculating what's a complete, pretty model and what's, you know, one wall standing.
[1:13:42] Well, problem again.
[1:13:44] Well, I mean, I don't have a problem with it if we go to, you know, sort of a square footage system.
[1:13:50] 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.
[1:13:58] How does that 80% get calculated?
[1:14:00] it. Square footage. If they're going to remodel more than 80% of their house. Square footage
[1:14:08] is square footage of the house then it's time to bring it into conformance. But how do you
[1:14:15] calculate? Let's say you have a house and it's got a bunch of walls and you're going to take
[1:14:19] out a bunch of walls and open up the floor plan. How do you calculate how much of that square
[1:14:23] footage you just touched? When we remodel our house, we took it basically down to the frame
[1:14:30] took out walls, put in support walls, opened up the floor plan, and had to come in for
[1:14:37] variances for the footprint, and we didn't change the exterior structure. The framing
[1:14:46] state exactly as it was, but the interior completely changed. And we had to get a bunch of
[1:14:51] variances just to keep the house that was there. The size, because if you were to build that
[1:14:56] much of the house that the day that you did it, your house.
[1:15:00] This was existing too big. It was existing non-conforming.
[1:15:05] And now it's even more non-conforming than it was today.
[1:15:09] So I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is that this is something that every community struggles with.
[1:15:16] 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.
[1:15:28] And the vast majority of communities have moved from evaluation approach to
[1:15:34] calculating the demolition of an existing structure to one that's based on
[1:15:38] floor area. And the best examples from my opinion are ones that take into consideration
[1:15:45] through the percentage of removal of both your horizontal and your vertical surfaces
[1:15:50] looking at your exterior walls and looking at your roof and your floor as well.
[1:15:55] And it's still a big problem that you're going to have an applicant who's going to say that
[1:16:02] they're going to demolish 45% of their horizontal and their vertical surfaces.
[1:16:07] They get out there.
[1:16:08] They find all the dry rot and they end up demolishing 55 and then it puts everybody in a really
[1:16:13] difficult situation.
[1:16:15] So it's hard, but I think it's preferable to the valuation approach, which I think has worse
[1:16:23] problems. And so I think that the other sort of, another option, which is, I think, a more
[1:16:34] radical approach that was perhaps suggested by Commissioner Newman, which is to say that
[1:16:39] if you have an existing structure that's non-conforming and you demolish it, you're entitled
[1:16:50] to recreate it or replace it, following the same standards that existed for the existing
[1:16:58] structure.
[1:17:00] And, you know, I think that if you were to go that route, one thing that you can consider
[1:17:07] is some additional findings or maybe an additional permit, some communities have what's
[1:17:13] called a non-conformity permit so that if somebody wanted to do that, there would be certain
[1:17:18] findings that would need to be made to make sure that the existing situation wasn't
[1:17:23] creating a hardship that needed to be resolved at that time.
[1:17:32] So that's three with a little twist.
[1:17:37] I can imagine that the findings would relate to, you know, have an adequate separation between
[1:17:42] So they can get air and light into their home, they don't, you know, they have some parking.
[1:17:47] You know, maybe it's not meeting the current standard, but that it's not completely devoid of off street parking.
[1:17:52] Maybe it does comply.
[1:17:55] There's flexibility on how we want to go there.
[1:17:58] 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.
[1:18:09] 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
[1:18:18] One house because it meets our requirements, which we said was a 20-foot driveway
[1:18:25] Can part two cars on off the street in their driveway and I don't know what they do with their garage
[1:18:32] the other house, which kept its old setback requirements
[1:18:37] And still has a short driveway, so you can't park cars in front of the garage without them
[1:18:44] covering the sidewalk, which is what these people do most of the time.
[1:18:50] And if we think it's important to have, for example, a 20-foot driveway to improve the parking
[1:18:57] situation in Riverview, Terrace, we're now going to say, no, you never have to improve your
[1:19:06] working situation. You can just tear it down and build a new house and it can be, you know,
[1:19:13] have all the same old, non-conforming setbacks that we're trying to get rid of.
[1:19:22] It seems like in those cases, though, they add its furniture. They change the dimensions of the house.
[1:19:27] Is that all right?
[1:19:28] So I actually looked that one up because I was very curious as how that got built in the way in which it
[1:19:35] And they actually did not increase their square footage.
[1:19:39] So it was one of those scenarios where it was rebuilt,
[1:19:44] but there was an attempt present increase
[1:19:46] that required to trigger the parking.
[1:19:50] So they ended up tearing down the whole house
[1:19:53] because I see some advantages in a community like capital
[1:19:57] where it's older to try to encourage,
[1:19:59] to keep the same cottage,
[1:20:01] because that's what they encourage.
[1:20:02] encourages, clean that up, keep in the same cottage style, feel without putting, trying
[1:20:08] to, even if they approach that would be, maybe to get the set back with a build a much larger
[1:20:15] house and change the character of the community. So I think by this, to me, it seems like
[1:20:21] it lends itself to people, maybe rebuilding their current structure and upgrading it, but keeping
[1:20:27] that same feel of the character of the neighborhood.
[1:20:30] 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.
[1:20:59] realize that there's a parking issue, but it has a lot to do with tourism in our community
[1:21:04] and not residences, so I'm not sure that we want to reverse that trend in the things we're
[1:21:11] doing here.
[1:21:12] No, I'm not asking to reverse that trend, I'm simply saying that, you know, I think, for
[1:21:20] example in River of Uteris, it would be nice if we had some more houses that provided
[1:21:25] parking because we have a real parking problem on the street right now, and sometimes it gets
[1:21:32] ugly up there. So if we're going to have someone who's completely going to tear down their
[1:21:38] home, it seems like that's the time to address what is a parking issue in that neighborhood.
[1:21:48] And what I'm hearing you say is that now they don't need to address the parking issue,
[1:21:53] they just get to, you know, go back to the way it was and I think we want to see things
[1:22:02] improved. Why do we make people who build the new house provide parking? I mean if we
[1:22:07] feel that way we should just not do any parking but not as much as we used to require.
[1:22:12] Right. Then we let allow somebody to tear down their existing cottage, build the same
[1:22:18] and still make them have to provide parking.
[1:22:23] I mean, we can get both.
[1:22:24] Why do we have to have one or the other?
[1:22:26] Because oftentimes, unless they redesign it,
[1:22:32] you're not going to be room for parking.
[1:22:36] That's considering that it's set forward in the lot.
[1:22:40] But if it's set over to one side,
[1:22:43] and it's the side yard that's the problem,
[1:22:45] 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
[1:22:52] 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
[1:23:02] We're not going to get there 100% but it's the direction we want to go in
[1:23:05] Yeah, I disagree, but I'm probably in a minority here
[1:23:10] I certainly am bored with encouraging the parking as a situation but it has been and it will probably always will be a situation.
[1:23:19] I think it's going to be a minority of people that are going to go and rebuild the same types.
[1:23:26] I mean, you seem like you have an accept with that.
[1:23:28] So in the example that we're using next door on Riverview,
[1:23:35] that one would go through today with me to all of our current requirements today that we're
[1:23:39] talking about because they had less and less and less.
[1:23:41] No, they had less and less and less.
[1:23:42] No, they had less and less and less and less.
[1:23:43] Okay, so they were remodeling and then they got into it and it wound up being a tear
[1:23:50] down and rebuild it.
[1:23:51] That's what I'm hearing.
[1:23:53] They didn't increase the one for the down.
[1:23:55] They didn't increase their square footage so they weren't required to meet the part meet the parking.
[1:24:01] But that's what we're talking about doing now, right, so we're not we're talking about the same thing.
[1:24:06] 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.
[1:24:15] So you could set up the the non-conforming to
[1:24:21] to allow for a non-conforming structure that does not meet setback or height requirements
[1:24:27] It's making to you as an existing valid non-conforming structure, but you could specify that
[1:24:34] a non-conforming structure that does not comply with parking,
[1:24:39] along in you could specify
[1:24:40] certain parts of town, if you'd like, you know, that in parking time.
[1:24:45] But you could get more specific about the parking and create.
[1:24:49] So it would seem to me that, too, you know, accommodate what Gale wants, what you're talking
[1:24:56] about, you know, if you start talking about the small cutting just in that kind of thing,
[1:25:02] you're talking about fairly small structures.
[1:25:06] So, you know, if you're saying that structures like 1,000 square feet, a lot of the smaller
[1:25:20] You're saying, why can't you just say if it's historic that you can tear it down and rebuild it?
[1:25:29] Why are you going to let people tear down anything and rebuild it?
[1:25:35] And then what is historic in Capitalist?
[1:25:39] At this point, I mean we have to wrap it up with that issue.
[1:25:44] But that was to my point of, you get somebody who buys
[1:25:49] a property in capital, and maybe they live in it for years and maybe not, but they want
[1:25:54] to improve on the design of that structure.
[1:25:59] And they're limited because if they improve on that design to a certain square footage or
[1:26:07] value or how everyone will measure it, if they do that, then they have to bring it all into
[1:26:12] conformance.
[1:26:13] And in some cases, that means it's going to be 30 percent smaller than it was.
[1:26:18] And they don't do it because they don't want to give up the 30% score footage.
[1:26:26] So we lose because they just keep maintaining hopefully this old ugly structure because they can't really change it without giving up.
[1:26:37] 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.
[1:26:48] Well clearly you guys want to go with it so we should stop I think we've covered this one
[1:26:52] so the city council finish it so we're going with so many different variables
[1:26:58] so many different ways people want to go about it that if it's not going to work for certain
[1:27:03] people no matter what way we do it
[1:27:11] okay what should we review what we just do yeah well
[1:27:19] than but it.
[1:27:23] I'll let them recap. Oh bitch.
[1:27:32] So I think the major change what you have today
[1:27:36] is that if you have a legal non-conforming structure and applicant wishes to demolish that structure
[1:27:48] replace it with a new structure, that they can do so, and those non-conformities will continue
[1:27:58] to apply to the new structure, but that there needs to be some protection and some process
[1:28:04] by which the city can ensure that non-conforming situation previously was not sort of an undue burden
[1:28:12] on neighboring properties, and that might be through additional findings or through a non-conformity
[1:28:19] permit or some similar type process.
[1:28:23] And parking or the shorter driveway could be one of those, right?
[1:28:27] And so I think that if you take that approach, which Susan or Commissioner of Westman doesn't
[1:28:34] agree with, that sort of the whole problem of defining exactly when you demolish too much
[1:28:43] becomes sort of a non-issue as far as anybody can do anything with a non-conforming structure
[1:28:49] now and they don't have to bring it into any kind of conformance if they're not making it bigger.
[1:28:54] It's subject to finding something different.
[1:28:56] It is an oppressive in some way.
[1:28:58] And it makes the game out of it.
[1:29:01] But with some sort of finding to the effect that the structure is not an area.
[1:29:07] the truck and eyes have been parking impacted help kind of reach consensus on this so the
[1:29:12] areas like Riverview maybe there is a jewel box that get a lot of parking just that whole areas.
[1:29:19] That's the areas that need to come out. I'll just look at for middle ground parking and step back.
[1:29:27] Well I don't think there's anything wrong with having a honest disagreement on an issue and letting
[1:29:34] And in review of the findings, if we're looking for no negative impacts to adjacent properties
[1:29:40] or the public, if parking is an issue that can come up at that time and we discuss.
[1:29:46] Okay.
[1:29:48] Thank you.
[1:29:48] Can I ask one question for you, move on?
[1:29:51] We were talking about roof height while going.
[1:29:53] One thing I probably should know this, but do we have a code on roof top decks?
[1:30:12] 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.
[1:30:22] So I heard that we had a 1980, I want to say 1988, moratorium on rooftop decks.
[1:30:30] You couldn't build a new one and if you had a flat spot on your roof that did not already
[1:30:37] have stairs going to it, you could not put stairs going to it.
[1:30:42] I have one of those houses and that's what I was told.
[1:30:44] I know we have proved a Mansard-style roof to shield solar roofing, but the solar roofing
[1:30:54] never got there and now it's a nice rooftop deck with no chairs and table and everything
[1:31:00] else.
[1:31:01] I just don't know.
[1:31:02] It seems to me like solar barbecue.
[1:31:05] And I could see if we have these 27 foot flat top hooks going around, we're gonna have
[1:31:10] a lot of it.
[1:31:11] I don't blame them.
[1:31:11] It's a great view from up here.
[1:31:12] But, okay, sorry to deter that topic, but it seems like something.
[1:31:17] We're glad to me that we left the character, the neighborhood character, without talking about depth.
[1:31:21] 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.
[1:31:29] While we're on the subject, would you like to, do you think they should not be allowed by code?
[1:31:35] That it will really be finished with the non-conforming.
[1:31:39] We're finished with non-conforming.
[1:31:40] 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.
[1:31:51] 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.
[1:32:03] And so, but we've gotten away from that and we don't really have anything in our code about it.
[1:32:09] So we need to have some discussions about, you know,
[1:32:11] I don't think we're talking about front yard decks or anything,
[1:32:15] but I think anything in the front yard we all agree is a good neighborhood thing
[1:32:18] and I'm open to talking about, you know,
[1:32:23] I think we should talk about what happened back yard and five yards in different areas,
[1:32:28] especially with second floor, second floory deck and story.
[1:32:32] 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
[1:32:39] 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
[1:32:47] So I feel like in in a lot of our neighborhoods
[1:32:51] Second stories are
[1:32:53] Second story decks
[1:32:54] Regardless of their size can be very intrusive and be very be one more thing that adds to that feeling of
[1:33:01] 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.
[1:33:10] I don't know, what is the refugee commission?
[1:33:12] But rooftop decks and bread in there with it.
[1:33:20] Just call them above ground decks, above ground decks.
[1:33:25] So currently, on the second story, if it were on the back of the home or the side of the home,
[1:33:29] it would count towards your floor area ratio.
[1:33:31] 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.
[1:33:50] 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.
[1:34:00] 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
[1:34:07] Mean it not even the yard right adjacent to them. They'll look into you know yards going down
[1:34:14] So I could be comfortable with not allowing second floor decks
[1:34:20] On the side or rear on lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet
[1:34:27] A common approach to deal with this is to require some sort of permit for a second store,
[1:34:35] it's floor, DAC, it could be a administrative design review or a minor use permit, which would
[1:34:42] sort of notice immediate neighbors, it doesn't have to be a sort of lengthy expensive process
[1:34:47] before the planning commission, but it's a way to maybe allow this in cases where it's not creating a privacy
[1:34:53] impact on neighbors, but make sure that if it would create that impact that it would be screened out.
[1:35:01] You know, it reminded me we had an application that came to the Planning Commission last week.
[1:35:09] And I had three different people come to my house who lived in the neighborhood to express their
[1:35:17] of objections to the application before us.
[1:35:22] And on all three of them, I said, well, you know,
[1:35:25] you should send an email or you should come to the meeting.
[1:35:27] And the argument, oh no, I can't do that
[1:35:29] because I don't want to upset my neighbors.
[1:35:33] And so I think we have to be careful
[1:35:36] about not making rules that rely on what
[1:35:41] the existing neighbors say, because they often don't want
[1:35:46] create a controversy, and this is not going to come out right, but personally I don't really
[1:35:53] care what the existing neighbors say because ultimately they're going to be new neighbors
[1:35:59] and our goal is to try and build neighborhoods that are going to function well over a long
[1:36:06] period of time.
[1:36:09] 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.
[1:36:21] 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.
[1:36:27] I mean, you could have a nice big window and you get the same view as you get from the deck.
[1:36:31] So just that though, it's noise, and I think that we could actually work with square footage,
[1:36:39] deck square footage, and that might solve it, like if we're talking about 6,000 square
[1:36:44] foot lots, you get a certain square footage on the back, as opposed to a 5,000, 4,000 square
[1:36:51] foot lot, it's got to be smaller because it's closer to your neighbor.
[1:36:56] 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.
[1:37:12] I mean, if somebody comes up in this community and says, I just really don't feel comfortable with that deck right there.
[1:37:19] I don't know how any of us could sit here and say, well, we're going to allow it anyway.
[1:37:23] You know, I think if there's a challenge to a second story deck, we wouldn't be approving it anyway.
[1:37:30] 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.
[1:37:51] 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...
[1:37:57] Well really, in this one, I think it turns out just be a front facing deck, but it was open.
[1:38:01] It was on the corner, so at one point it was open to the sides, so it was just...
[1:38:05] My first house that got approved that we ended up building was a two story with a deck with a veranda.
[1:38:13] But the shape was kind of a huge shape with a garage.
[1:38:16] So really it faced towards a grudge with an open area in between.
[1:38:20] And so I would hate to, you know, I never built a house.
[1:38:25] It wouldn't, it'd be a privacy issue because really I'd be looking at a local yard.
[1:38:30] And it would be a side facing decks.
[1:38:32] I don't know how you get away from those technologies.
[1:38:35] Well, we, I know a situation, you know, where Tory's house is.
[1:38:39] There's a deck next door to her.
[1:38:41] 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.
[1:38:53] It doesn't, it's the noise problem as well as sort of the privacy.
[1:38:59] And so it seems to me that I hear that you don't want to just say, no, you can't have a deck,
[1:39:06] But I think we could come up with something where there could be some, you know, minimum
[1:39:15] lot size because if you're in a, you know, pretty congested area, the decks are most likely
[1:39:24] going to be a problem on the side and the rear, which would, you know, if you went with your
[1:39:31] $6,000 square foot lot or...
[1:39:35] Well, it's interesting, because one of the notes I saw about...
[1:39:39] I think it was Dex.
[1:39:40] It said, if it was facing the railroad corridor,
[1:39:43] it wasn't exemplified. We talked about open space.
[1:39:46] So I just happened to live on the railroad.
[1:39:49] I mean, what would I look at across the street?
[1:39:51] I mean, on my back yard towards the railroad.
[1:39:53] Nothing. There's nothing back there to really look at.
[1:39:55] So I don't know why we would say no if it was at the...
[1:39:58] There must be specific examples.
[1:39:59] 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
[1:40:08] You mean having a second story deck?
[1:40:11] Yeah, I don't open on the front door.
[1:40:13] Yeah, just so I had some comments, but there was, I don't know if you want to reopen the public week.
[1:40:17] Finally, I had some public participation in the hospital here.
[1:40:21] Do we have somebody from the public who would like to see it?
[1:40:25] Do we have somebody from the public who would like to see it?
[1:40:27] Can you introduce yourself?
[1:40:28] Yeah, Jerry Jensen, nine-level on Bay Avenue.
[1:40:31] Where I brought my original plan in for my house,
[1:40:34] I was working Katie, and we wanted to put a green roof on it.
[1:40:40] And from a process standpoint, the turnaround time
[1:40:43] of getting to a green roof, because there wasn't any
[1:40:46] procedural process put in place.
[1:40:51] We stepped back from it, but I also think our green roof
[1:40:53] was going to count into our floor areas, plus square footage.
[1:40:58] 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.
[1:41:06] 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.
[1:41:13] It was, I think, Katie Sampoint, if I don't know if it was kind of viewed as a deck.
[1:41:18] 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.
[1:41:24] I don't know, you know, this is not the process for this today, but if maybe a system
[1:41:29] put up that that could be explored in the future and when is the city going to take
[1:41:33] stance on green rough, are they decks, you know, and then their second floor decks go, oh,
[1:41:38] we don't allow second floor decks, but if you don't allow a second for green rough, then the
[1:41:43] city can take a stance and then a lot of people don't green. So just from the building standpoint,
[1:41:48] homeowner. That's good and put, thank you for the input. Is the green roof considered
[1:41:54] a duck and handled this where is it in that situation.
[1:41:59] There is a man's surgery, so it was habitable space, so you could go up there.
[1:42:04] The man's surgery came up to, I want to say, three and a half feet.
[1:42:08] There was a staircase leading up to it, so under that because it was so accessible.
[1:42:13] If it were a living roof, a green roof, say on a flat roof that didn't have access,
[1:42:20] And didn't have the safety precautions around the edges of the building.
[1:42:25] We wouldn't have counted it towards the floor area or a show.
[1:42:29] There were green roofs on that project on Hore Road.
[1:42:32] It was their car park roofs, but for a number of years they grew grass on those roofs.
[1:42:37] They eventually got away from doing that because they felt they had so much of a maintenance
[1:42:43] problem.
[1:42:43] The homeowners association and that condo project came and asked for them to be removed.
[1:42:49] 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...
[1:43:01] 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.
[1:43:14] and then the next year will I bring a chair up because we need to hang out up there and then next
[1:43:19] year there's a table in a barbecue and five years later somebody's living up there.
[1:43:24] That's where it usually goes and aren't down. Back to the deck issue because I'm hearing one
[1:43:30] side of it and I haven't heard enough about the other side of that issue which is like I'm conflicted
[1:43:35] by the deck issue because I can see it's like one neighbor versus the other neighbor because one
[1:43:40] ever once really use the outdoors and be able to step outside and in the evening. The other
[1:43:47] neighbor doesn't want their one neighbor to be within sight. I mean, I kind of like maybe
[1:43:52] some past square footage restriction so it's not a party area. Yeah, and it's also not
[1:43:58] writing your face. But you still can use your house for, I mean, have some indoor outdoor living
[1:44:03] in your house.
[1:44:04] But require some sort of special permit for it and put a restriction on size so that
[1:44:12] it gets flagged, it's not just, maybe this is a side to the right side or rear.
[1:44:19] Maybe they're not allowed in a certain, like, from 2000 to 4000 square foot lots, they're not
[1:44:29] out at all, possibly on second floors, from 4, 4,000 to 5,000, there's a certain square
[1:44:37] footage, 5 to 6,000, it's a larger square footage, and as the lots get larger, I like going
[1:44:45] with the square footage of a lot, because we've been doing that with other things, and I think
[1:44:49] it keeps it consistent, people understand.
[1:44:51] The two restrictives, I mean, the lots in the dual box are 3200.
[1:44:55] Yeah, alright, well then maybe that's a little too restrictive, the numbers might not be
[1:44:59] but
[1:45:00] Maybe that mechanism more for you?
[1:45:04] 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.
[1:45:18] And so if you can focus on that variable and entire standard to that, that might work well.
[1:45:24] Because I have a 3200 square foot lot in the toolbox that's on a corner and so it's
[1:45:31] it's set really strange but when we bought it there were two side I guess you'd consider
[1:45:37] them both side decks maybe one of them is a rear deck but there were two second floor decks
[1:45:42] that weren't a problem for either adjacent property.
[1:45:46] We got rid of one of them completely and cut the other one in half because of use and we
[1:45:53] one at six feet downstairs.
[1:45:56] So I would hate to see it say absolutely can't have one
[1:45:59] if you're under a certain square footage of the lot,
[1:46:05] but specifying the maximum depth of a side or a
[1:46:11] second story deck would limit its use.
[1:46:16] So you wouldn't wind up with a lot of noise in people hanging out on it,
[1:46:19] but people who want to go sit outside and read a book
[1:46:21] or have their, you know, potted fruit trees on the back deck in a reverse floor plan house,
[1:46:28] which there are a lot of, especially in the酒 box. All of your living spaces upstairs,
[1:46:34] so having an upstairs small, you know, way to get outside is really nice.
[1:46:40] So maybe decks just have to go through a special permitting process, and then it will be up to the
[1:46:51] You can't really add a second floor deck without doing some kind of a reasonably substantial remodel to get the structure.
[1:47:00] I mean, you can't just drop poles and build a deck on it, it doesn't work out.
[1:47:05] Yes.
[1:47:08] Okay.
[1:47:09] Want me to re-sumrise?
[1:47:11] So for a Second Story Decks, we'll add new criteria for requiring a special permit.
[1:47:19] We could do an administrative permit with size restrictions and set back in separation
[1:47:24] standards to go beyond that if we go to planning commission for review in a public hearing.
[1:47:35] We're going to be seeing these, we're not going to be seeing these finals before they go
[1:47:41] to the City Council, correct?
[1:47:43] I mean, we're not going to, so in other words, you're going to flesh that out a little bit
[1:47:46] more before it goes to the City Council.
[1:47:49] This is the first time I can think of thinking this, but I would rather see that at least
[1:47:53] know what you've recommended or what you're going to include in those findings or whatever
[1:47:58] before it goes to the City Council, so that we feel like that's, that's the matrix, isn't it?
[1:48:02] Well, we're talking about new specifics.
[1:48:06] They're coming out with new ones.
[1:48:07] So they could just email them to us and give us 10 days to comment or last or whatever.
[1:48:13] So we'll be doing the same process that we just been going through with the city council kind of
[1:48:17] talk in a little bit of a higher level, although some of these by their nature, we got to talk details.
[1:48:23] Then we'll draft the code based on what we heard and we'll come back and that's where we'll
[1:48:27] really look at a lot of the wording and we're going to really make an effort to try to highlight some of
[1:48:32] Here's what we came up with.
[1:48:34] What do you think?
[1:48:34] Are we on the right path?
[1:48:36] Do we need to adjust to what we're going to do?
[1:48:37] I don't know what these before it goes to the city.
[1:48:39] No.
[1:48:41] So you're just be saying, you know, we're going to come up with an administrative permit for
[1:48:45] side or rear decks and specify size and setbacks, standards.
[1:48:50] And if it is outside of those, then it goes to planning commission.
[1:48:53] That's as much as you're going to give to city council.
[1:48:56] And they'll say yes or no.
[1:49:00] Okay.
[1:49:01] So now, on to the next, the last section of our update,
[1:49:06] multi-family homes and the single-family zone.
[1:49:10] This we've spent a lot of time on over the past month,
[1:49:15] and getting public input and feedback.
[1:49:19] So a dwelling unit is defined as one or more rooms,
[1:49:22] and a dwelling design for occupancy,
[1:49:24] by one family for living or sleeping purposes,
[1:49:26] and having only one kitchen.
[1:49:29] There are many different dwelling types of dwelling units throughout the City of Capitola,
[1:49:35] single family homes, the secondary dwelling units.
[1:49:40] There are also duplexes in which you have side-by-side or a configuration of two dwelling units within the same structure.
[1:49:48] 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
[1:49:56] and that are located within the R1 zone.
[1:50:02] These are examples all over town,
[1:50:04] not specifically in the R1 zone.
[1:50:06] You've got the senior housing on Bay Avenue
[1:50:12] and then another a home up in,
[1:50:15] I think that's North of Capitola Road.
[1:50:19] Within our current zoning code,
[1:50:22] the subject of tonight's meeting
[1:50:23] is that the multi-family structures
[1:50:25] with three or more units in a single family zone are non-conforming and a non-conforming activity
[1:50:32] is an activity that was legal at the time that it was built but since it was built the code
[1:50:38] has changed and it is no longer permitted or has become a conditionally used within the zone.
[1:50:45] A non-conforming multifamily home within Capitola, if it's located in the single family zoning
[1:50:53] district must discontinue or apply for an extension 50 years from the date the property we came
[1:50:58] non-conforming or by June 26, 2019, which ever date is later. So understanding this, we came to
[1:51:06] the conclusion, we need to figure out when all of these became non-conforming. As 2019 is quickly
[1:51:11] approaching. So here is a map of the city of Capitola and the yellow is the single family zone.
[1:51:20] The dots on the map that you see here are multi-family homes that became non-conforming in 1951.
[1:51:27] These are the properties that by 2019 must come in and apply for an extension.
[1:51:34] In 1976, a lot of the area on the west side of Capitola was originally a multi-family zone became single family.
[1:51:43] So, the properties you see in red in 1976 became non-conforming, so they must apply for an extension by 2026.
[1:51:53] Depot Hill was multi-family up till 1979.
[1:51:58] So, all multi-family's three or more units in Depot Hill are required to come in for an extension by 2029.
[1:52:06] This is a good, it'll face out the review process, and then in 1984 there was a building
[1:52:13] along Warford that became non-conforming.
[1:52:17] So, from there, we know this 2019 date to be a little overwhelming as it's a few years
[1:52:25] away, and we wanted to reach out to the public and make sure that property owners that do
[1:52:29] on these multifamilys are aware of the current requirements of our code.
[1:52:35] So we distributed an online survey.
[1:52:40] We mailed it to all property owners within 300 feet
[1:52:44] that are located in the R1 of any of these multifamily homes.
[1:52:48] So the owners themselves were received and noticed
[1:52:51] in anyone within 300 feet.
[1:52:53] The online survey we had 77 participants.
[1:52:57] We also held a public workshop on June 15th.
[1:53:00] We had approximately 40 attendees.
[1:53:02] And that was held right here in Council Chambers and also in our community room.
[1:53:09] So tonight I'm going to go over what we heard from the public.
[1:53:13] This is, first I'll talk about all respondents from the survey,
[1:53:18] and this is all of their results together.
[1:53:20] As you can see on this slide, this is, we asked,
[1:53:23] what type of influence do multi-families have on your neighborhood?
[1:53:27] And it was a mix of results.
[1:53:28] There was some people very strong for their very positive.
[1:53:35] 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.
[1:53:49] 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.
[1:53:59] 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.
[1:54:08] So in the river view to Monterey, you can see there's not very many of these.
[1:54:13] They're spread out, the concentration is not that high.
[1:54:16] In this neighborhood, the overall question
[1:54:19] of what type of impact do they have.
[1:54:21] It was the majority said it was a positive influence
[1:54:25] on their neighborhood.
[1:54:27] When asked what types of factors or positive
[1:54:32] and negative, the positive influences, number one
[1:54:35] was affordability followed by diversity
[1:54:39] and also adding to the year-round residents,
[1:54:41] The negative influences in this was, we saw this trend throughout the neighborhoods parking.
[1:54:48] This brought up this number one negative and then a mix of higher density overcrowded.
[1:54:56] There weren't that many negatives brought up within the River View to Monterey.
[1:55:01] When we asked how should we move forward with these properties for future, this is the one neighborhood where there was
[1:55:08] a lot of support to remove their required extension and allow multi-family uses to continue indefinitely
[1:55:15] as long as they do not increase in size or number of units. You'll also see that there was support
[1:55:23] that I guess my numbering, it all says A on the left and sorry but the fifth option down
[1:55:29] is to make sure these discontinued by 2019 and you'll see there was support from four people to
[1:55:37] them go away all together. So, these results came from people that live or own in the
[1:55:49] review of Monterey area.
[1:55:53] Yes. You can see in the first column here is the survey results
[1:56:00] and then the workshop results. We have the same questions, just in a different format
[1:56:06] at the workshop in order, they could tell us
[1:56:10] which one they were in most in favor of.
[1:56:13] Or some people kind of twice.
[1:56:16] We did not count anybody twice.
[1:56:19] We had the survey there for them to take.
[1:56:22] So there may be some overlap.
[1:56:27] We seemed to get a lot of workshop, a lot of people
[1:56:31] put down notes.
[1:56:32] We had maps in which they could make comments about the maps.
[1:56:35] And people didn't really rate the options as much, you know, and the survey was very clear.
[1:56:43] 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.
[1:56:52] But they did give us a lot of good notes about the existing conditions.
[1:56:56] Okay, now we'll move on to the jewel box.
[1:56:59] And as you can see, it's a little more dense in the Jill box, there's more of a concentration of purple dots.
[1:57:06] There is definitely a mix of reviews of green being positive, red being negative and blue being of mix.
[1:57:15] When we asked the positive influences, the diversity came to the top, additional year-round residents.
[1:57:23] Also at the top was none.
[1:57:25] So that speaks loudly as well negative influences parking, of course, rose to the top for building maintenance, and then also
[1:57:37] None so
[1:57:39] Question you're around residents versus second home. What does second home mean?
[1:57:45] I would think of that as a vacation rental
[1:57:48] 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
[1:57:54] yet there is definitely a mixed review.
[1:57:58] Well, they're both positive though.
[1:58:00] I mean, on that pie chart, it's positive to have
[1:58:05] second homes and it's positive.
[1:58:06] I have your own residence, so it's kind of odd.
[1:58:11] When we asked, how would you like the city to move forward?
[1:58:15] But there was a total of 11 people said to remove the required
[1:58:20] extension and allow multi-family's to continue indefinitely.
[1:58:24] 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.
[1:58:38] So there's definitely a mix review in the toolbox.
[1:58:44] Depot Hill, you start to see more of a concentration and this is one of the last neighborhoods to convert to single family.
[1:58:51] So here, in the Deepohill neighborhood and in the neighborhood north of Capitola Road, that's
[1:58:59] where the majority of the people that came to our public outreach came from.
[1:59:05] So here, the positive influences, diversity, affordability, and second home.
[1:59:12] The negative influences were overcrowded, higher density, and then parking, so starting
[1:59:19] see I need for space up there. When we asked how would you like the city of capital to regulate
[1:59:27] these in the future, it was really an even distribution of these options, most of them are
[1:59:36] either you know keep the current or current code or to require additional units to be taken away
[1:59:43] and to come into compliance with the code or to make them go away altogether. So I would say the
[1:59:50] feedback here was to make sure the city does something to decrease the impacts of the
[1:59:56] multifamily and the single family. There were six companies.
[2:00:00] 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.
[2:00:30] I would say at least a third, if not half of the people
[2:00:34] that came to our meeting were here to talk about North
[2:00:38] of Capitola Road.
[2:00:40] You can see the density is really tight.
[2:00:43] The units are close together.
[2:00:48] And the negative here rose to the top on the pie chart.
[2:00:51] So 25, the positive influences, again,
[2:00:56] diversity, affordability, and then none. Negative influences parking, which if you drive
[2:01:03] down one of the streets at 6pm at night, it's very obvious. Poor building maintenance is also
[2:01:10] at the top of the list and then trash.
[2:01:15] When asked how do you suggest the city of capital
[2:01:17] a treat these into the future, there was definitely a majority that would like to see these discontinued
[2:01:25] by 2019.
[2:01:27] And although we listed that as an option,
[2:01:29] we have the Sunset Clause currently
[2:01:33] and an owner could come in and apply for an extension.
[2:01:38] We also took our results and filtered them
[2:01:41] between the owner or their owner or an owner,
[2:01:47] or an owner occupant of the multi-family home,
[2:01:49] versus owners or occupants of single-family homes
[2:01:53] or due-plexes.
[2:01:54] 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.
[2:02:23] When we asked how would when we filtered it based on owner of multi-family versus single-family
[2:02:29] or duplex, the owners of the multi-family would like to have remove the required extension
[2:02:37] and allow multi-vellist to continue indefinitely, and that's 10 responses and there are approximately
[2:02:43] 50 of them out there, so that's about 20% of existing owners.
[2:02:49] And then the survey run, we asked on our occupants that single family homes are dueplexes.
[2:02:55] 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.
[2:03:14] So, within our issues and options, we, the options were a little bit different from what we showed within our public outreach.
[2:03:23] The first option is to keep the current code.
[2:03:27] The second option is to remove the required extension into allow multi-family to continue indefinitely,
[2:03:33] provided they don't do not increase in size or number of units.
[2:03:36] The third was to modify the regulations to allow non-conforming
[2:03:41] multi-family uses to remain in targeted areas of the city so we could
[2:03:45] define those areas where we want them to stay.
[2:03:49] Also, the fourth option is to rezone areas of high concentrations of
[2:03:55] multi-family into multi-family zones.
[2:03:58] And there's a couple examples on the maps where that would be
[2:04:03] appropriate along noble cliffs. There's two condos, I'm sorry, there's two condos right along
[2:04:15] the water that are there condominiumized. It's private ownership. I think 12 units and
[2:04:24] 15. Yeah, so it and there's parking. It's different. It's on the edge of a zone.
[2:04:31] It's across the street from Portola. So it's different. The other area that I would say
[2:04:38] that the reason would be appropriate for is a Monterey behind that shore-life church. They have
[2:04:47] multiple family, they've got multi-family units behind the church in that area. The zoning
[2:04:53] kind of is divided over the parcel and that's another error we should look at possibly
[2:04:58] rezoning multi-family. Otherwise it may be looked at spot zoning unless you took in
[2:05:04] a whole neighborhood. And the fifth option was to create an incentive program to allow
[2:05:10] participating non-conforming property owners to retain their uses subject to providing
[2:05:14] specific public benefits. As we all know there's housing shortage and affordability issues
[2:05:22] within the city and by creating a incentive programs to allow these to continue and possibly
[2:05:31] putting on like affordable housing deed restrictions within or requiring another approach
[2:05:37] would be to for a public benefit would be to have them work on street improvements such
[2:05:42] as additional parking or landscape improvements but working towards a kind of a win-win
[2:05:49] approach within the E, and then F would be other for other ideas that you may have this evening.
[2:05:55] So thank you, and I look forward to your comments.
[2:05:58] Thank you.
[2:05:59] Questions of staff?
[2:06:00] I have a question.
[2:06:02] If we were to change our current ordinance and say not allow them and just stop that use, wouldn't
[2:06:13] the state of California come in and talk to us about that?
[2:06:18] I mean isn't there?
[2:06:18] 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?
[2:06:30] 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.
[2:06:43] I don't think you'd have a big issue in the housing element.
[2:06:46] It's a small fraction of our rental inventory of which we have quite a bit in Capitola.
[2:06:53] And the whole idea of a housing element is that you show that you can accommodate your housing
[2:06:57] need not actually have the units on the ground.
[2:07:00] So I don't think there would be a big problem with it.
[2:07:03] How do they choose?
[2:07:05] How do we come about our allotment now within our,
[2:07:08] don't we work within the county?
[2:07:09] right the county is given an allotment and we work with other county municipalities and the
[2:07:15] county.
[2:07:16] So the State Department of Housing Community Development sets the allocation by region.
[2:07:20] They give that number to Ambad, who then distributes that between Monterey and Santa Cruz
[2:07:25] counties.
[2:07:27] And then we kind of, you know, harsh trade a little bit and see where those units are actually
[2:07:31] going to go.
[2:07:31] So my question is we get rid of our civil war affordable and, you know, this kind of housing.
[2:07:38] I don't, but I don't, we'll talk later, I just wanted to find out what, what, what, what
[2:07:42] that.
[2:07:43] I think given the circumstance with the amount of rental housing we have here that, you
[2:07:47] know, this, this wouldn't be a big issue because it's a really small piece of the pie.
[2:07:51] Thank you.
[2:07:52] Can you just clear one thing up for me?
[2:07:54] Because I asked this at the night under the, when I'm talking about the housing element
[2:07:56] in the condo apartment conversion, because it seems to be in direct conflict here, so
[2:08:02] what am I missing?
[2:08:02] Seems like our condo apartment conversion is kind of strict in trying to discourage the conversion.
[2:08:11] But on the other hand, we had this ordinance that says that, you know, by starting 2019, we want to start doing that,
[2:08:20] so.
[2:08:21] Thank you.
[2:08:22] Am I messed up here, am I?
[2:08:23] 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
[2:08:34] developments from converting the condominiums, I don't think there's anything there necessarily
[2:08:39] given our circumstances that really preserves the rental stock as it is today.
[2:08:47] I mean there would be some conversion, would it be a big portion of it?
[2:08:51] I don't think so.
[2:08:52] I think the city could have the discretion to relax that if they wanted to without running
[2:08:57] a fall of housing element policies or goals.
[2:08:59] Right, so most of the units that we're talking about are rental units, these three and
[2:09:08] four plexus, and I agree with your analysis, I think there are some parts of town where,
[2:09:19] you know, there's one or two here there, and they're not particularly a big problem.
[2:09:27] 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,
[2:09:40] 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.
[2:09:54] So, I would love to see the city come up with some sort of incentive program where these land
[2:10:05] lords improve what they have deal with, you know, the garbage cans all lined up, provide
[2:10:16] little landscaping, you know, I don't know if the city pays to have an architect to work
[2:10:23] with them to see if, you know, there are a few treatments or something that can be done
[2:10:29] to improve it, but it does seem to me that, you know, something needs to be done.
[2:10:39] And I understand that housing is critical from talking to some money who actually lives on this street.
[2:10:49] Their impression is these are not low income units by any means that some of them are charging quite high rents.
[2:11:02] And because we have, you know, sort of housing shortage, they can get away with that.
[2:11:09] So I would like to see some sort of incentive program develop that could improve that situation.
[2:11:19] Before we open that up to commission discussion, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item?
[2:11:26] Please come forward.
[2:11:31] 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.
[2:11:44] Yeah, I absolutely, I think that's a no-brainer.
[2:11:47] 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.
[2:11:56] So I don't, I mean...
[2:12:00] Well, they sent me here, so that's why I wanted to fight that.
[2:12:02] You can go home.
[2:12:05] Well, I don't know.
[2:12:07] I mean, I have a comment on that.
[2:12:08] We just finished the general plan and the zoning was all a big part of that.
[2:12:12] And the two areas that you're talking about converting at least one of them is an automatic
[2:12:17] review, but they left it R1.
[2:12:19] And the other one isn't even an automatic review.
[2:12:23] 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?
[2:12:32] I think that's the old zoning ordinance map, right?
[2:12:36] I just printed it off our website today.
[2:12:38] Right, but that's not the current.
[2:12:41] That's not the general plan map that's being proposed.
[2:12:44] The general plan map that's being proposed is different than that one that you have there.
[2:12:51] there you go.
[2:12:55] Good catch. I printed it off today assuming that that's what it was, but you're
[2:12:58] right at the moment. Yeah, that's the old zoning map.
[2:13:02] All right, so can I jump in here now, are you?
[2:13:04] Is there anybody else at the foot?
[2:13:05] Oh, I'll do.
[2:13:06] No, is there anyone else from the public who'd like to speak on this item?
[2:13:10] Seeing none, Ed, you've got the floor.
[2:13:12] Thank you. So first reaction to this is I'm trying to think ahead when the first extension
[2:13:18] application comes up. And you've got-
[2:13:23] There's properties, but yeah, so here's here's what I see when I envision the property owner is going to be
[2:13:34] Pement and wanting to retain their property and they're going to lawyer up and they're going to
[2:13:41] The tenants are not going to want to lose their housing
[2:13:45] 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
[2:13:52] 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.
[2:14:06] I'm not advocating getting rid of them because I agree with you, I don't first of all.
[2:14:12] I think that would be a hard thing to stand up to legally, I don't know exactly how it would all work.
[2:14:18] I just want a few improvements, so we could, I mean, the incentive idea, I mean, it has
[2:14:27] some merit, I mean, I'd like to see how it is really going to work, so I mean, I don't
[2:14:34] know if that, but we don't have to have the same conforming rules for the uses that we have
[2:14:42] for the design elements that we just did, I mean it could be just the opposite, which is sort
[2:14:46] My thinking is, you know, when the thing falls down, then you've got to comply with the rules.
[2:14:55] But this is in a single family neighborhood, so if they could tear these down and rebuild.
[2:15:00] 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.
[2:15:23] That's going to help us for while they just look worse and worse and worse for the next.
[2:15:27] Right, I think that's part of the problem in this neighborhood that landlords are just letting them go.
[2:15:34] And, you know, there are a few that have been approved, but the majority of them are just, you know, deteriorating.
[2:15:41] And, you know, maybe an incentive program would be to come up with a plan that when someone
[2:15:49] comes in to ask for an extension, we say, well, if you want to extend the life of this
[2:15:56] kind of unit, then you have to meet these requirements.
[2:16:01] You have to have an enclosure for your garbage units.
[2:16:03] you have to do some, because they looked up and if they were in a multifamily zone, the
[2:16:17] parking works, they all got acceptable parking, which surprised me, except they park in the
[2:16:26] right of way.
[2:16:28] I mean, they're not else.
[2:16:30] You know, I just wonder if there's ever going to be, and especially if we redo this
[2:16:33] continued to allow that, is there ever going to be an ADA challenge with people who can't access
[2:16:40] they have to go out into the street with their wheelchair or whatever in order to, I'm worried
[2:16:45] about that. I mean, you can't put good on sidewalk in this neighborhood or you take away half of
[2:16:51] the parking because they're parking in the right away. But the houses also have, you know, except
[2:16:56] for the houses that have been redone, they have the same problems. I was seeing a lot of short
[2:17:01] of ways where the cars are parked out?
[2:17:05] I have a quick question for staff.
[2:17:07] When the application comes in for review,
[2:17:10] does it never get noticed?
[2:17:15] So when the application comes in,
[2:17:17] I'll put on the agenda for sure,
[2:17:20] but it's an extension of a non-conforming.
[2:17:23] And I don't believe we have noticing requirements
[2:17:25] for an extension of a non-conforming.
[2:17:28] Excuse me, I kind of have the same concerns
[2:17:33] that that has and you know I know that they're they're going to be here to stay for a while
[2:17:39] and I don't think we can just take that away but I think maybe if if the landlord's obviously
[2:17:45] they're going to and the tenants want to keep their property that if we have people in the
[2:17:49] community they have their concerns at least maybe there's some negotiations that could happen
[2:17:53] there at that time that if they were there to voice their concerns that the property owner could
[2:17:58] 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.
[2:18:24] Do we know you showed early on you showed a map of the sunset who comes up in 2019 and in
[2:18:33] 2016?
[2:18:34] Can you put that back up?
[2:18:39] Don't we already have an ordinance that says you can't keep your garbage can out all the
[2:18:43] time?
[2:18:44] I mean, we have that in place now, don't we?
[2:18:47] You don't apply to, I think they don't apply to multi-family residents.
[2:18:52] I mean, I don't know, but these are here all the time.
[2:18:57] I thought that only applied to new construction, you had to build a.
[2:19:04] 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.
[2:19:15] Right.
[2:19:15] Realistically, with this.
[2:19:18] And that means you've got till 2026 for the majority of the problem.
[2:19:24] Right, but some people, if they're going to want to refinance their building or do something in between.
[2:19:29] I mean, that's the reason most people have come in to ask our extension is because they wanted
[2:19:35] to refinance their building and with this ordinance in place, the bank wouldn't let them.
[2:19:40] And I'm just trying to encourage the, you know, I don't know who does it, the planning staff, the city architect,
[2:19:48] somebody come up with some ideas for how these could be improved.
[2:19:55] So at least, you know, the council's not just sitting there with no information at all about what could be done.
[2:20:04] 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.
[2:20:12] It would eliminate after partying.
[2:20:15] I don't think that's really fun.
[2:20:17] you know, it's more garbage and there's no landscaping anywhere. I mean these are pretty
[2:20:26] bleak looking up there.
[2:20:32] Are there any kind of fees that they pay that could be used as an incentive
[2:20:38] for them to do more?
[2:20:45] So you could create a taxing district, but that's really a neighborhood
[2:20:51] initiative that we wouldn't start, but they had a taxing district because they have more
[2:20:58] units. Those units, those structures, would pay more into the taxing district to make improvements
[2:21:05] to the street, but otherwise I don't think we have a tool in which to, can you go back to the slide
[2:21:12] that shows the front with the car ports? I'm just wondering whether there's also ways to look
[2:21:17] parking on the sites, more efficient ways to look at parking on sites today than just the
[2:21:25] tandem or the, you know, is there a chance that the parking can go parallel to the building,
[2:21:35] parallel to the street and some situations and get more parking or is it, you know, I think that
[2:21:39] should just be looked at at least because probably back then it wasn't a big deal and they just did the old
[2:21:46] way, maybe there's at least on one or two properties if you're looking at, you know, redoing
[2:21:51] parking. That's worth it. I mean, would it be worth it for us to say get rid of the car
[2:21:58] ports if, if it created more parking, are we willing to trade those car ports for another one
[2:22:06] or two parking spaces? I would be willing to. I think there's a lot of this for storage
[2:22:11] 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.
[2:22:19] We have to, this has been strafting challenge here.
[2:22:22] It's to come up with some language that when people come in for an extension,
[2:22:28] allows the planning commission or the staff for the city council to come up with a set of requirements that are conditioned,
[2:22:38] No, I'll trade off for the extension, basically.
[2:22:42] And the extension now is for 50 years.
[2:22:47] Should we reduce that from 50 years to 10 years?
[2:22:53] Well, I think the extension, that's all set up.
[2:22:57] I can't remember what section of the code that gives them a 50-year extension.
[2:23:03] It states that extensions granted under this section shall be at least 50 years from the
[2:23:10] the application is granted, so there is, I'd like to read to you what the City Council
[2:23:15] findings are now that need to be made under today's code.
[2:23:19] The City Council shall only grant an extension if able to make findings that in this particular
[2:23:25] situation the appearance, condition and management of the property is such that the property
[2:23:29] is not greatly detrimental to the single-family residential character of the neighborhood, in which it is located.
[2:23:36] The extension is necessary in order to prevent a major economic loss to the property owner and to lessen deterioration,
[2:23:43] and that all reasonable conditions have been imposed for the purpose of repairing, dilapidated,
[2:23:49] dilapidation, and bringing or keeping the property up to the neighborhood standards.
[2:23:53] So when the city council reviews that they will be looking at the management, the upkeep of these properties and what we've been
[2:24:05] listing in our requirements to go forward for an extension is also to give us a ten-year history of the, you know,
[2:24:12] what investment have you put into this property so they can look at that, but I think it could be.
[2:24:18] Those are good. I think it could go a little further than that and require actually
[2:24:24] require some upgrading. I think Commissioner Tupper races a good point that people
[2:24:30] come in for an extension because they want to refinance. In the lender they don't
[2:24:34] need 50 years but they probably need more than 10. Yeah.
[2:24:41] Maybe something in between so that 25 years is maybe a commercial loan max.
[2:24:46] max.
[2:24:48] Oh,
[2:24:52] is that considered commercial lending, multi-family?
[2:24:55] Yeah.
[2:24:58] That's a single family or after five.
[2:25:03] It's the other observation with the survey was that this area got the most negative input
[2:25:11] and it's clustered.
[2:25:13] If you look at all the other neighborhoods, they're spread out, they're not clustered in one
[2:25:18] place.
[2:25:19] 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.
[2:25:29] So I have an odd one on the particular street that we showed.
[2:25:35] I like the idea of trying to do some sort of neighborhood assessment district,
[2:25:44] And to improve that area, perhaps do some curve outs in the street, so you could leave the tandem parking there,
[2:25:54] but half sidewalks get some landscaping.
[2:25:57] And to do anything like that, what you have to get is that the property owners all agree to it,
[2:26:05] because they end up being the ones who pay for it.
[2:26:08] And as Katie said, the multifamily would pay more than the single family houses because they have more there.
[2:26:18] 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.
[2:26:35] But that would be reasonable.
[2:26:37] I'm wondering why people would agree to having an assessment when we do it as a matter
[2:26:46] of course in other neighborhoods.
[2:26:48] We're doing it on Clairs, we do traffic calming, and that kind of thing, you know, we just
[2:26:55] within our street repairs and our capital improvement projects.
[2:27:01] why, how would I have a neighbor in that neighborhood feel,
[2:27:05] why would, why would I ask why, why do I have to pay for it
[2:27:07] when other neighbors don't have to pay for it?
[2:27:10] Well, when I lived on BAM and knew I had to pay for the sidewalk
[2:27:13] that went in front of my house.
[2:27:14] Well, we do all have to pay for sidewalks.
[2:27:16] But it was an assessment district,
[2:27:19] and that's how they put those sidewalks in one and all once.
[2:27:23] They wanted them in all at once.
[2:27:25] And so, you know, you got assessed and had to pay for it on your taxes.
[2:27:29] the city didn't pay for. Capital has been pretty inconsistent on who they've made pay for sidewalks
[2:27:35] and who they haven't made pay for sidewalks. But, you know, in this particular street, you would
[2:27:42] have to do a pretty elaborate plan and even if the assessment district paid for part of it so they
[2:27:48] could have additional landscaping and some of those things. I just don't think it hurts to say to the
[2:27:56] you have to agree to participate if we get there.
[2:28:01] And it sounds like this is a good time because a lot of people have been thinking about it.
[2:28:06] They've been notified about it, they've talked about it.
[2:28:09] They might see that improvement now as a great benefit since they have their focus has been there.
[2:28:18] But it would be a medium, which I think is, like you say,
[2:28:24] capital needs to look at improving some of these neighborhoods just like we improve other neighborhoods.
[2:28:30] It's unfortunate we haven't done anything.
[2:28:35] Well it kind of feels like way back when when they put in the sunset closet they kicked the
[2:28:40] can down the road and we would be getting close to the end on nine units but it's not the right
[2:28:48] nine units perhaps.
[2:28:54] When we had our options that we discussed that we brought up to the survey
[2:28:59] into the public workshop. One included that if there is an adequate space on site for parking
[2:29:07] or for that one option be that they have to actually decrease the allowed density of the site,
[2:29:13] is that something you would like to see incorporated in this when we were talking about,
[2:29:19] will we could toughen it up a little bit more or you see it for people.
[2:29:23] 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?
[2:29:32] 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
[2:29:44] because you're going to have to come up with some place to put dumpsters and other kind.
[2:29:49] I mean, someone, and I've thought about this a lot, it's going to have to be very creative
[2:29:54] on coming up with a design that improves these.
[2:29:59] But there.
[2:30:00] 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.
[2:30:22] So,
[2:30:29] let me go to the last slide.
[2:30:39] So, what I'm hearing this evening is to keep the current code,
[2:30:44] but also to consider an incentives program,
[2:30:48] in which we'll one is to change the extension maximum to 25 years,
[2:30:56] require upgrades so that aren't specified, it will be specific to each property, require
[2:31:06] them to agree to participate in an assessment district when they ask for their extension,
[2:31:13] and then to be looking for creative design solutions to the existing issues.
[2:31:20] So, and the city playing a role in that, is that, and is that city wide or is that direction
[2:31:32] first specific neighborhoods?
[2:31:36] Well, I think it's general enough that it could be city wide, because they're going to
[2:31:41] the council's going to deal with units that come in, for example, if one of the units in river
[2:31:48] If you terrorist comes in, it sounds like people didn't have a problem with those and
[2:31:53] they're functioning and there's obviously, you know, somehow parking problems and something
[2:31:57] don't.
[2:31:58] So it's like the council's going to have to deal with it when people come in and ask for
[2:32:04] the extension.
[2:32:07] And I would like to, you know, keep it in there.
[2:32:09] So people do have to come in and ask for the extension because that gives you a mechanism to
[2:32:16] do something.
[2:32:17] And is the option there for noticing the neighborhoods, is that I know that you experience that?
[2:32:25] And we can, you can require permits that are similar to say a CUP or a variance to require extension.
[2:32:34] So we could begin applying that now and for any extension make sure that neighborhoods are notified
[2:32:42] because we will have ongoing to city council next month.
[2:32:44] 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
[2:32:58] 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
[2:33:10] the first few here.
[2:33:12] The one that's coming is in Riverview, Terrace.
[2:33:17] Well, at least in your report you'll come on.
[2:33:20] It's under review in the new zoning ordinance.
[2:33:23] It just sold, or it's in the process.
[2:33:25] I think the sale is contingent upon the extension, but right.
[2:33:31] Is it on the corner?
[2:33:34] It's on the corner, I believe.
[2:33:36] Beverly, you know?
[2:33:39] It's a little red.
[2:33:45] 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.
[2:33:54] And the comment that they made about creating a monster house in the back with no yard zero lot line.
[2:34:00] That comment apparently came from the public.
[2:34:05] 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.
[2:34:16] It was really well done.
[2:34:18] 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.
[2:34:27] It's a nice house.
[2:34:30] 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.
[2:34:42] They came in and those were some affordable units that they built in the back of the church and
[2:34:49] I think we should support that one too.
[2:34:52] Just to properly gauge expectations, all the resounds and basically everything we do is going to have to be certified by the Coastal Commission.
[2:34:59] You know, those sites along the coast, they might have a special interest in and not want to see them continue.
[2:35:06] So, despite what the city might want to see.
[2:35:09] So, while you want to be done, I have some comments about people's stuff.
[2:35:12] It'll go really fast, I think.
[2:35:15] I got to talk.
[2:35:18] So, on issue number three, where we talked about increased parking flexibility.
[2:35:27] We said allow greater commercial parking effects flexibility through shared parking
[2:35:33] studies for multi-tinent commercial properties, no residential.
[2:35:37] And I wanted to say, I don't have a problem with office uses and stuff and residential.
[2:35:43] My issue comes when you have residential in retail that, you know, in sub-staying, open
[2:35:50] until nine o'clock, and so I think we could expand
[2:35:56] that a little bit to make it clear
[2:35:59] that we're not concerned about the office uses.
[2:36:08] And on the one, the issue number 5D,
[2:36:16] and sort of the middle of the page,
[2:36:18] we had to note the aside and I just wanted to make it clear that for me I was asking for
[2:36:26] employee parking in the lower Pacific Coast parking lot, you know, some sort of program
[2:36:33] for employees to be able to park in there, particularly during the winter months, so we didn't
[2:36:40] have them parking in the neighborhoods, or it could even be in the upper parking lot as far
[2:36:46] I'm concerned in the winter time, but it was to try and come up with a way to help encourage
[2:36:53] employees to park there instead of the sort of neighborhood streets.
[2:37:00] So in the city, sponsored parking lot of the time, that we would, you know, somehow give
[2:37:06] employees some sort of permit that they could park in there during the week and the winter
[2:37:10] time.
[2:37:10] It's empty and I would rather see the parking there instead of in front of my house.
[2:37:20] Excuse me, Mr. Westman, how would you like that to be changed?
[2:37:27] Because do you want to specify to the lower path?
[2:37:30] Well, in one city, maybe you could say city parking facilities, so it could be lower and upper because.
[2:37:39] So there are spaces in the upper parking lot in the winter time during the week, in winter months.
[2:37:46] And if the lower parking lot goes away, then we won't have to change it.
[2:37:53] So, I'm looking for where it is on medical offices, because I thought when we talked, we said that
[2:38:02] We didn't object to medical offices being in retail areas except for the zoning district
[2:38:15] that includes the capital, the mall, starting at capital Avenue going forward.
[2:38:23] I think that's what you're talking about.
[2:38:26] Three, where's four?
[2:38:32] Yeah, on issue four, you know, I know that there's some
[2:38:38] Council members who want to be real restrictive to new medical offices
[2:38:41] going in and I thought we sort of backed away from that and said
[2:38:45] the only place we would see it a problem would be in that
[2:38:49] one zoning district.
[2:38:54] There's a north of capital, a road.
[2:38:56] I think we used capital erode as a delineation in South was okay and North was not.
[2:39:05] Is that right?
[2:39:06] And I didn't think that there was sort of only partial support for that.
[2:39:10] I thought we all pretty much agreed.
[2:39:14] The partial support was on the findings for professional and medical office use
[2:39:21] But to add findings, because it's a difficult task to gauge.
[2:39:29] But I think under option three, it wasn't just partial support.
[2:39:35] Option three, there was an unanimous support.
[2:39:39] OK, I just wanted to make certain that we were straight on that.
[2:39:44] And when we talked about the architectural and site review committee,
[2:39:49] Um, and who's going to be on the makeup, we just lifted an architect.
[2:39:54] And I thought we had said, uh, it's issue number 11.
[2:39:59] I thought we'd said that we wanted the city architect or someone from there firm to do it,
[2:40:07] because we didn't want a local architect who's actually doing work here in town to be the architect on the
[2:40:14] 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.
[2:40:24] So that would be a contract.
[2:40:27] 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.
[2:40:41] but that was one but also the city architect was
[2:40:44] I think that was supposed to be a staff or
[2:40:46] contractor there wasn't going to be a large
[2:40:48] right but because it's not a city position
[2:40:51] there'd be I can do
[2:40:54] a contracted city architect
[2:40:57] something like that but the first full
[2:40:59] it does
[2:41:01] it does and if you're going to change it in architect
[2:41:05] you should change it with architectural
[2:41:07] historian as well, so maybe it's better, you know, all positions in committee, staff or
[2:41:15] contract on, all right, so contract on as needed, maybe doesn't say it specifically enough,
[2:41:21] maybe we need to be more specific that they are, you know, they are the continuously contracted
[2:41:29] person who is, you know, it's not just, because we're contracting now with the, with the
[2:41:37] what we're trying to change.
[2:41:38] So if you could find language that talks about it being
[2:41:41] the contractors that work with the city on these issues,
[2:41:47] just remove the un-as needed basis and just say,
[2:41:51] how do you do staff for it?
[2:41:52] How do you have to question consultants?
[2:41:55] Yeah, I mean, you can just so that people understand
[2:41:58] it's those who we work with all the time.
[2:42:07] Yes.
[2:42:07] I was just trying to get away like on the architect
[2:42:10] of not having, you know, the way we have it set up right now, we are architect, often as
[2:42:16] someone who's doing a lot of business in town, and that creates a conflict, so we wanted
[2:42:21] someone who would be a little more neutral.
[2:42:27] Good to add the details, so there's no question later.
[2:42:32] Does anybody else have metrics items that they want to bring up tonight?
[2:42:36] I've got a couple that I wanted to bring up.
[2:42:40] On issue 18, this is the City Council appeal of the Planning Commission.
[2:42:47] 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.
[2:43:03] Did we change that so it's a full review period if they decide to call it up?
[2:43:07] to hear the whole thing. If you'd like we can add that language that the call-up can be specific
[2:43:15] to one item within the application. I'd like to come to hear the whole. Is there going to
[2:43:19] call it up to you to hear the whole thing?
[2:43:23] Okay. Okay. This is my, we're just my notes and I wanted
[2:43:26] to make sure that. The other thing, let's see, the height, how measure that's going to be included
[2:43:32] now in that high discussion?
[2:43:34] I go back.
[2:43:35] I think was it?
[2:43:36] Was it a cost issue tied to that?
[2:43:37] I remember the discussion comes out and I'm going back to where you talked about the
[2:43:41] call-up.
[2:43:42] It seems to be a discussion about if they do a full review, then it costs more staff time
[2:43:47] other than.
[2:43:48] But the applicant pays that.
[2:43:50] Well, I know that's the concern is because somebody calls a friend and now they get
[2:43:55] called up because African money, or, you know, you have to have two members agreeing now.
[2:44:00] No, I get that.
[2:44:01] I think that I thought that was our discussion
[2:44:03] or was why it could be specific to the reason they...
[2:44:09] I don't think it could be a big difference.
[2:44:11] I mean, it might be a modest increase.
[2:44:13] I think that was our discussion about staff time or costs.
[2:44:16] Well, it seems like you won't have to do any more staff work on it
[2:44:20] because why law, right?
[2:44:21] The same application has to go to the council
[2:44:24] so that they're comparing apples to apples.
[2:44:27] So that's not a cost.
[2:44:28] And they still have to have their architect here to represent them or represent it
[2:44:33] whether it's the specific or the whole thing.
[2:44:36] So I can't really see how I know what you're saying, though, as far as...
[2:44:38] I was just trying to recall our discussions.
[2:44:40] See, my discussion had to do with staff more than I had to do with...
[2:44:43] But I don't see how the C Council can take in appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission on a permit.
[2:44:52] And...
[2:44:52] I need to take a moment.
[2:44:53] Not to...
[2:44:53] Here's how we consider the permit.
[2:44:56] I'm going to tap.
[2:45:02] 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?
[2:45:26] 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.
[2:45:40] And my note said, and large projects, but the one above it says that we would allow
[2:45:50] if they're over xx square feet, they would require a conditional use permit, and a conditional
[2:45:56] use permit would bring them to us, correct?
[2:45:59] So it's really exterior modifications and big projects will come to us,
[2:46:07] and I think it's
[2:46:08] significant exterior modification. So if they're going to just move a door or a window or
[2:46:14] something, we, and somebody will have to figure out what significant is.
[2:46:20] So remember, we're going to get another crack at all this when it comes out.
[2:46:24] I don't think we do it. This is going to go, I mean, they're going to get this, and then
[2:46:29] it's going to go to council in this form before we see it.
[2:46:32] off the ordinance and then it's coming back to us.
[2:46:35] We'll see you again.
[2:46:36] I will.
[2:46:39] So yeah, so some of these things.
[2:46:42] The only other one I had an issue with them, I just can't not be.
[2:46:47] I'm just going to go.
[2:46:49] Historic Preservation.
[2:46:51] I know this is what it said after the minutes, but it just.
[2:46:55] Which number is that?
[2:46:57] Issue number six.
[2:46:58] 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.
[2:47:09] That doesn't really tell them anything about what direction we want to go with.
[2:47:14] Right.
[2:47:15] Right.
[2:47:16] Are we okay leaving it with that?
[2:47:18] 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
[2:47:32] 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?
[2:47:39] I think maybe.
[2:47:40] Yeah, this says I mean it left me with the impression when I read it again this time that
[2:47:46] 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
[2:47:54] Really came out of our discussion, so I didn't want to leave council with that impression
[2:48:01] I'll add I'll list the five items to be completed within
[2:48:08] Think you that's all. Okay, and you'll send us a copy of the matrix that you present to council
[2:48:18] And when will that be presented?
[2:48:22] You know, I could probably put it in your next packet for the meeting that's two weeks away.
[2:48:28] Okay, so I like to do these the next day.
[2:48:31] Let's approach, you know, when it's going to the city council.
[2:48:35] What's that?
[2:48:36] When it's going to, when the city council's going to hear this.
[2:48:40] We are working on that date.
[2:48:43] originally could just let us know once you have a date that would be great.
[2:48:47] I think the first meeting in August, it counts me and I'll stop my head.
[2:48:52] I want to say it's maybe the 10th or 13th somewhere around there.
[2:48:56] We're going to give a summary of what we've heard from the Planning Commission.
[2:48:59] Maybe try to identify a couple issues that we can knock off the list.
[2:49:03] Based on the feedback that we've heard from them previously in that set of schedule at that meeting.
[2:49:10] You know, my dream is, and I can't figure out how to do it, I would love to have someone
[2:49:17] from the Coastal Commission come and talk to us.
[2:49:21] But I know that, you know, and sort of explain to us their philosophy and, you know, what
[2:49:30] they look at when they're evaluating, you know, what's the village and what's going
[2:49:36] go on because it's like this elephant that's always in the room and, you know, having been
[2:49:44] a staff person, they know it's very hard to get a clear answer from them, you know, they
[2:49:50] always say, well, we'll review your document when it comes in.
[2:49:54] It contains a lot of the general plan positions.
[2:49:58] Is it the same thing?
[2:50:00] It's the same thing.
[2:50:00] Let's go out.
[2:50:01] He did.
[2:50:01] But they were coastal commission people that was less stern ed and yeah, but they're not he's retired.
[2:50:09] He doesn't work for the coastal commission anymore.
[2:50:11] It doesn't.
[2:50:13] But put it out in invite, I'd like to hear that too.
[2:50:18] Yeah, and you know, it's not to have an adversarial conversation with them.
[2:50:23] I would just be curious where the coastal commission is right now as far as, you know,
[2:50:29] me an industry tree, what are, how do they feel about, you know, what is the coast for
[2:50:34] commissions philosophy on some of those issues?
[2:50:37] I think we should articulate what it is we would like, what it is we would like them to talk
[2:50:43] about and we'll kind of questions we would be asking him because if I was a member of the Coastal
[2:50:47] Commission staff and that was invited to a city meeting and I didn't know what they were
[2:50:52] going to, I probably wouldn't go.
[2:50:56] I'm so desperate, I would be willing to let them come and make a presentation, and we would
[2:51:02] say that we wouldn't ask any questions other than minor clarifications of what they talked
[2:51:10] about.
[2:51:12] I would love to know where they're at right now.
[2:51:16] One thing you may want to look at if you haven't already is the Coastal Commission has
[2:51:20] least draft sea level rise guidance. They stress it's not regulatory. I think every city
[2:51:25] and county that's affected by it fears that it is, but it's pretty drastic changes that
[2:51:31] they have in there. Isn't there a fairly recent one that's been a dot new local coastal
[2:51:37] plan and one of the... Yeah, there's been a few so on a beach, Grover Beach, and I believe it's
[2:51:44] see their San Mateo County or Marin County recently went through the process and they're a little bit different
[2:51:50] I reviewed them, but they do talk about sea level rise and they've extended the life of building whether
[2:51:57] be residential or commercial right now it's 50 years in our LCP most older LCPs.
[2:52:03] They want to see minimum life of 75 years for residential using no sea protective devices.
[2:52:08] see walls, revampments or anything like that, and at least a hundred years of life for any commercial building.
[2:52:15] Looking at the projections, that means you don't develop in the village or, you know, the ocean side of Deepo Hill.
[2:52:23] Yeah, I mean, it's going to be pretty dramatic.
[2:52:27] Can I think we just don't quite understand how much of an impact, you know, we sort of think we get to decide
[2:52:35] how capital of village is going to be developed and what's going to go on down there.
[2:52:41] And the reality is we're not the last group to decide, it's they get to decide for us.
[2:52:51] Oh, it's going to be, and it's going to be interesting to hear their current philosophy and status.
[2:52:59] So I'd appreciate it if you would invite them to help you to.
[2:53:03] Commissioner, there's will be willing to open.
[2:53:05] Do they get to to stop what's going on or do they are they sort of held to the same standard?
[2:53:11] We are where there's got to be a development requested before you can really.
[2:53:17] Well, I think their standard in bridge can help me with this is that there needs to be a development request.
[2:53:24] 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.
[2:53:35] But I have some concerns about if we have a next major storm that does significant damage to those buildings.
[2:53:44] I'm not certain that from what little I've read that they're going to say no you do get
[2:53:52] to rebuild those buildings and continue to operate, you know, they have some strong feelings,
[2:54:01] you know, we hear from people while we want to, you know, close the Esplanade and eliminate
[2:54:07] the parking down there. And at one point, the Coast for Commission stands was absolutely
[2:54:12] not, those parking faces are, you know, vital coastal access spaces. So, you know, that's
[2:54:18] not something that the city can do. So, it would be interesting to hear where they are,
[2:54:25] so we don't spend our wheels and waste a lot of time and, you know, hopefully come up with a
[2:54:32] plan and a zoning ordinance that they're going to approve, because my nightmare is we're going
[2:54:37] 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.
[2:54:48] 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.
[2:54:55] I'd like to continue this discussion to the next planning commission. Oh, you're not going to be there.
[2:55:00] I'm not going to be there, but that's okay. You can keep cutting.
[2:55:03] No, I'm just cutting. I'm just cutting.
[2:55:05] I'm just cutting. I'm just cutting.
[2:55:05] I'm just cutting. I'm just cutting.
[2:55:06] Yeah, next opportunity.
[2:55:09] Okay, any deaf report directors reporting?
[2:55:13] lengthy presentation for you this evening.
[2:55:15] It's the back in joy now.
[2:55:17] We're all done.
[2:55:20] Anybody want to say anything with that?
[2:55:21] The risk of having that take you out.
[2:55:25] Nothing will ensure the meeting.
[2:55:27] Well, if he's going to continue to call me commissioner.
[2:55:32] That's right. I did it like three years ago, remember? And I haven't gotten over it.