I could go print one out, but I'd have to go do that upstairs. But it should be pretty much the same, right? It's about the charter cable TV. Can I just point to a slide? I'll just write, it's Eric. I got Eric. Okay. Thanks for coming to my rescue. It's planning commission, not council. That's all I would say. One one of these. Okay. We ready? There we go. Hello, and welcome to the Capitola's planning commission meeting of October 20th, 2022. In accordance with California Senate Bill 361, this meeting is open to the public in both in person and remote attendance as possible. We're attending in person and there are several ways for the public to join either in person or to watch and participate. How to join the meeting via Zoom should be on the screen right now, and it's also available on our website, cityofcapitola.org, and on the meeting's published agenda. The public can also live stream the meeting on the city's website. And as always, the meeting is cable cast live on charter communications cable TV channel 8, and it's being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8 a.m. and on Saturday, the following, the first rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on charter channel 71 and Comcast channel 25. And tonight, our technician is Eric Johansson. So thank you very much for that, Chloe. And with that, we'll begin the meeting with the roll call and pledge of allegiance. Can we start with a roll call, please? Commissioner Christensen. Here. Commissioner Newman. Here. Commissioner Ruth. Here. Commissioner Westman. Here. And Chair Wilk. Here. And you can stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Let's move on to oral communications. Are there any additions and deletions to agenda? I know there are. Yes. Thank you, Chair Wilk. For item 3B, for the conceptual review, we've received 10 additional public comments. There's a copy of each at your seats. And those will be added to the agenda packet following the meeting. And we also wanted to change the order of the meeting. And go with, oh, so this is, oh, you did, you did it. You already changed it. OK, did we also change the, we also change B and C and do C before B? Is that what you wanted to do? So the update is we updated the agenda this morning. And the zoning code update, which was the last item on the agenda, will now be heard first. The following two items will be heard at 7 PM. We're going to first hear the Monarch Cove in zoning code amendment at the request of Commissioner Newman, because he has to recuse himself. And then we'll, the last item on the agenda tonight will be the Bulb Avenue conceptual review. Capitola Road and Bulb Avenue. Very good. OK. Now is the time for item 2B, public comments. This is a time for any member of the public to chime in on items that are not on the agenda. You have three minutes. Are there any speakers or Zoom attendees who wish to speak on items not on the agenda? Now's the time. Do we have any? One wish to address the council, committee, anybody online? Tonight we have two attendees via Zoom and neither has their hand raised. Very good. Let's then move on to commission comments. Do any of the commissioners have any comments? I do. Go ahead. Oh, go ahead. No, I just have one brief one. I would like to thank the city for putting on the fireworks show again this year. I think it's a really nice community event that takes place. And I have a comment regarding the committee on the environment, which had a meeting yesterday. And we had a representative from AMBAG, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, give us a presentation on coordinating climate action plans. Now we have a capitol climate action plan in place, I guess, since like 2015. One of the things that they mentioned was basically trying to coordinate efforts between the cities on environmental activity, specifically on reducing carbon emissions or CO2E equivalent carbon emissions. And one of the things I thought might be interesting to this committee or commission would be EV charging. So the biggest hitters on emissions are residential, primarily gas, natural gas, and transportation. Transportation obviously is CO2 emissions from tailpipes. So the notion would be is if there's something we could do, like I noticed in our item today we're going to go over the code and it talks about parking lots. If there's something we might want to consider one day or the council might want to consider one day of changing the code or creating some incentives for EV charging stations, that would go a long way to us meeting our future goals on our climate action plan. So I thought that was kind of interesting and something that we ought to be aware of and maybe pursue in the future. Okay, staff comments, item C. No staff comments this evening. All right. Things 3a, zoning code amendments, staff presentation. This evening we have Ben Noble and Ben Noble planning to present the zoning code amendments for 2022. I just want to start by saying we had a comprehensive update to our zoning code last year and since utilizing the new code we found a few items that need to be updated to be in sync. And then we also of course have our latest and greatest from the state regarding ADUs. So we want to bring it up to compliance as well with that. And Ben Noble is here tonight to present. Thank you, Ben. Go ahead, Ben. Thank you, Katie. So I will share my screen and is that visible to you? Yes. Right. All right. So again, my name is Ben Noble. I am the consultant to the city assisting with these 2022 zoning code amendments. And I will give a brief presentation, start with some background, and then go over some of the highlights of the amendment. So as Katie mentioned, the city adopted a comprehensive zoning code update 2020 and it was certified by the Coastal Commission in 2021. And as we expect it, once the code was adopted, we discovered some things that need to be amended, some cleanup amendments to correct some drafting errors, to resolve some ambiguities, to improve some organization, and then also to address some new issues that have come up since the code was adopted two years ago. So the amendments that are before the Planning Commission tonight affect a number of chapters that are listed here on the screen. And included in the packet are only the chapters that would be affected by the proposed amendment. So if the chapter does not include any changes, we did not include that chapter within the packet tonight. Those chapters would remain in the municipal code unchanged. In the staff report, we identified 10 topics of interest. These are proposed amendments that we think are of particular interest to the Planning Commission or the general public. There was a brief discussion of these items in the staff report. And as part of this presentation, I'm going to briefly describe each of these. And our recommendation for Planning Commission discussion tonight is to go through these 10 topics of interest in the amendments that are included in each of them and determine if the proposed amendments are acceptable or if any additional adjustments are needed, if there are any questions about them, and go through them one by one. And then also, after we've done that, to see if there are other proposed amendments that Planning Commissioners wish to discuss tonight and make any further adjustments to what's proposed. That's our recommended process. So I'll briefly go through these as part of the presentation and starting with large retail uses. And on each of these slides in the upper right, there's a reference to the page of the packet where this proposed amendment can be found as well as the section number of reference. So with large retail uses currently within the CC and the CR district, retail is a P use, a permitted use, meaning that there's no requirement for a Planning Commission hearing with a CUP or a minor use permit approved by the director. And also in the existing code, grocery stores are not specifically included in the retail definition. So the proposed amendment tonight is to require a CUP in the CC and CR district for retail uses 20,000 square feet or more. And then also to amend the retail land use category definition in the glossary to specifically include grocery stores. And the reason we propose this is because with larger retail establishments such as a grocery store, there could be circulation impacts to surrounding uses or other aspects of the proposed use that in our opinion weren't discretionary review by the Planning Commission. And that's the rationale behind this proposal. The next proposed amendment of interest is cannabis retail signs. So in the existing code, there are standards that are unique signs advertising cannabis business. And those standards limit the number of signs to one sign per business and establish a maximum sign area that's no more than 15 square feet. And this is more restrictive than other retail or business establishments. So the proposed amendments include a few modifications to the existing cannabis retail signs standard. In terms of sign area and number of signs, the standard that would apply to cannabis retail signs would be the same as for other business establishments. And what that is in the CR and CC and I district is a maximum of one square feet per linear foot or 50 square foot max and that's total for all signs that might be advertising that process. And in terms of number of signs, the way the code currently works is that it's a little bit variable and it's based on the sign types that are provided for the business and generally one of each sign type is allowed per business. For example, one wall sign, one monument sign, one sign per awning and that's the way that the number of allowed signs is regulated for other types of businesses and what the proposed amendments would do is apply that same standard to cannabis business as it does the other types of businesses. So Ben, are you asking for questions on each item as you go? Do we want us to hold our questions till the end? I would recommend holding the questions till the end. Okay. Okay, so third item is pergolas. So within the code currently there's references to trellises, pergolas and arbors. The use of that terminology is not 100% consistent and therefore the applicable standard that apply to those types of features is in places unclear. So the proposed amendments include new and revised definitions for pergolas, arbors and trellises and then there are some revised standards that apply to pergolas. What the code proposed amendment says is that if a pergola is attached to a building wall it can project five feet into the front setback and four feet into the exterior side setback. We're also proposing to prohibit freestanding pergolas in the front and exterior side setback areas and yards and to exclude from the floor area calculation pergolas that are open on at least three sides. So in the glossary there's some new and revised definitions here. A picture is definitely worth a thousand words. This is what a pergola is. It could either be freestanding or it could be attached to a building. A trellis is sort of more of a two-dimensional, defense-like structure that could either be attached to a building or freestanding. Then arbor is a freestanding garden structure that you could either walk through or there could be a pension there. So these are photographs that are illustrating the new and revised definitions. And one thing that I wanted to point out is that the specific language in the packet relating to pergolas is shown on the screen now and we're actually recommending tonight a slight modification to the language that was in your packet. You can see here in the table 1748-3 that identifies allowed encroachment into required setbacks. The trellis structure has changed pergola and that was I think the relevant thing here. We want to make or we are proposing an adjustment to that proposed language that's shown on the screen here. And I expect that during the Planning Commission's deliberation you'll probably want to look at this a little bit closer. But just to give you a high level of what we're proposing here is to make it clear that if you have a freestanding pergola that it is not allowed in the front setback and it's not allowed in the front yard, meaning the area between the front of the home and the front property line. But it is allowed in the rear setback, in the rear yard, in the interior side and the interior yard, as long as it's 10 feet and it's 3 feet from the property line. And then so we have some additional proposed language tonight that wasn't in your packet that makes it clear that an accessory structure including a pergola, including a hot tub, things like that cannot be within that front or exterior side yard. Even if it's outside of the setback area as long as it's between the building and the property line it's not allowed. So that's the current interpretation and we're clarifying that. And then we're also proposing amendments to the accessory structure language to make it clear that structures such as a garage, a shed, a hot tub, and a pergola are considered to be an accessory structure and subject to the standards that apply to the structure. And so I realize this is new material and I expect that we'll want to take a little more time looking at this more. Oh, here's an image that's illustrating what I just said. So a pergola or other accessory structure would not be allowed in the front setback area, but if the primary building at the home is setback from that front setback area, a pergola or other accessory structure also would not be permitted to be located between the front property line and the building even if it's outside of the required one. Okay, so moving on to accessory dwelling units. So there are a number of proposed amendments to the ADU chapter, and most of them are proposed to address recently adopted state law. The legislature continues to tinker with ADU law on a yearly basis, so cities need to update their codes to be consistent. So I won't spend a lot of time going over those, but it addresses issues such as permitting process, correction of violations, unpermitted ADUs, and these are all things that the city must do to comply with the law. One change to clarify existing requirements is to add language that explicitly says that establishing an ADU does not require the undergrounding of utility lines. And then there's one other change that is not required by new state law and is with an optional amendment that is being proposed to address some issues that have come up recently with ADU applications and to reflect what some of other jurisdictions in Santa Cruz County are doing. And that has to do with this class of ADUs that's subject to limited standards. So in state law, there's certain types of ADUs where only standards related to setbacks and height and size can be imposed by the city, and other standards related to things like design or landscaping cannot be imposed. One type of ADU subject to limited standards is an internal ADU, which means an existing floor area, an existing home where the floor area is divided to create two units when there was only one previously. And what state law says is that if you have an internal ADU, 150 square feet of new area can be added beyond the existing floor area if that new floor area is used only for ingress and egress. And what those amendments say is to liberalize that, make it a little bit more flexible and permissive, to say that if you have a ground floor internal ADU that you're establishing, you can add 150 square feet on the ground floor for any purpose, whether it's to put in a bathroom or to enhance internal circulation. That's allowed. It doesn't have to be just for ingress and egress. But if you're adding floor area on a second floor, then it's more restrictive and in line with state law allows that additional 150 square feet only if it's for ingress and egress. And the reason that this is being proposed is because staff has received some applications or some inquiries wanting to establish an internal ADU and needing a little bit more floor area in order to utilize the ADU subject for standard provision. This is also something that I believe the city of Santa Cruz, maybe the county allows as well as the way to encourage internal ADUs, which is the way to increase dwelling units without substantially or noticeably increasing the size and bulk and mass of existing buildings. So that's one proposed amendment that's not mandated by state law. Another has to do with one-story detached ADUs. So currently a one-story detached ADU that's 800 square feet or less and 16 feet or less is eligible for the limited standard only if it's new construction. The proposed amendments expand that and apply it to both new construction and existing structures. The motivation for that is to encourage and incentivize the repurposing of existing accessory structures to establish. So that's the ADUs. The next topic of interest is parking in the R1 front setback area. So the existing code contains standards related to the subject and it limits parking space in the front and the exterior side setback to 40% of the lot with up to a maximum of 20 feet. It allows 14 feet in the front setback area regardless of lot width, but it does allow for the planning commission to approve a larger parking area within the setback with the design permit. And because of the typical width and configuration of R1 lots in Capitola, staff has found that this existing standard has not been working well and proposes amendments that would allow for a 10 foot width for a single space within the front setback or 18 feet for two side-by-side spaces. But if there are two side-by-side spaces, it would require a ribbon or a Hollywood design for these two spaces where only the area that's used for the wheels is paved and the rest of it is landscaped. And then also the proposed amendments also limit the driveway apron at the curb before it's in feet. So here's a graphic that illustrates the proposed amendments. So here you have a single family hood and an R1 lot. Here's the street and within the required front setback, two parking spaces would be allowed with a maximum width of 18 feet, but a ribbon or Hollywood design parking spaces would be required to minimize the amount of paving. So the next topic of interest is the electric vehicle charging stations. So within the existing code there are standards where four EV charging stations that apply only for uses with 25 parking spaces or an addition or remodel that increases an existing parking lot of 50 or more spaces of 10 percent or more. So this is really only applying, as the code is written now, to larger parking lots serving larger uses. If the EV charging station requirement kicks in, there is a standard that's requiring one charging station in parking lots with 25 or 49 spaces. And then if you have more than 50 or more parking spaces, then you have one additional charging station for each 50-space increment. So this is a standard that has been in the code I think for a while and is no longer consistent with state law, which is constantly evolving and requiring more as the state decarbonizes and transitions more to electric vehicles. So the proposed amendment reflects that and removes the specific standard for a number of spaces and instead references the building code, anticipating that even the standard that exists today likely will change over time. Another change to the standard is adding a limit to the size of digital screens, limiting it to two square feet, and also requiring screening on lots with six or more spaces. So there are some alternatives to this that are mentioned in the staff report. The city could specify in the zoning code the number of required charging stations and periodically amend the zoning code to match state law. This would make sense if the city wanted to go above and beyond what state is requiring. Another option is to codify the required ministerial process to approve these charging stations. That's not something that we are proposing and these amendments are recommending because that's a detailed process that's probably more appropriate for the building code and I think it's sufficient to reference the state law, the government code section that outlines. So part of the reason staff is proposing the digital screen size limitation is that there is this emerging interest and maybe even a trend to incorporate advertisements in EV charging stations including large digital screens that display these advertisement staff recently received an inquiry for one of these and because of that has found it to be a good idea to specify in the code what the rules are for these. This is an image that I pulled from an advertising industry website identifying these as the future of outdoor advertising. Okay, the next topic of interest is generators. The existing code is silent on rules for generators and whether or not they can be located within required setbacks and yards. So the proposed amendments would prohibit generators in the front and side setbacks but would allow a generator within five feet of a rear setback if necessary to accommodate that generator. So let's say for example a home had its rear building wall right at the rear setback that homeowner wanted to install a generator. The proposed amendment would allow for that generator to be behind that rear building line but only if needed would accommodate the generator. There's also language of limiting casting hours to daytime as well as prohibiting freestanding generators that supply service to RVs. Okay, the next topic of interest is minor modifications. In the code a minor modification is a type of approval that allows for a small adjustment to a physical dimension such as a setback of up to 10%. This is an alternative to a variance where you don't have to make the difficult variance findings and this is something that requires planning, commission, review and approval. The proposed amendment would allow for community development director action on the proposed amendment if that project does not otherwise require planning, commission, review. And staff is proposing this amendment because there have been examples of recent applications where there was no other need for planning, commission, review but the applicant was requesting a small adjustment to a setback and it needed to go to the planning commission where it was not a big deal and it was something that could have been reasonable. Okay, so I think I saved the two topics of I think most interest to many planning commissioners for the end and that's second story decks and balconies and roof decks so I'll talk about those and then that will be the end of my presentation. So second story decks and balconies in the code currently I think as you all know it requires a design permit and within the newly adopted objective standard for a multi-family use that has upper story or multi-family decks and balconies it's prohibited if it's abutting the R1 district and so in light of prior planning commission discussion and direction on the subject staff has put forward proposed amendments that would apply in the R1 zone and the RM zone that's abutting the R1 dealing with second balcony orientation, property line setbacks and projection for building walls. So here's a diagram that illustrates the proposed standards and in this diagram the heavy line is the required second store building wall setback as it would apply on a 40 by 80 parcel and then this hatched area is where a deck or balcony would be permitted so anything outside of this hatched area, a second storey deck or balcony would not be permitted. So here's the street so this is the front. So the front second storey deck or balcony would be subject to the same setback as the building wall and that would be the case for the street side as well. For the rear there would be a greater setback for the deck or balcony than what is required for the second storey building wall and then for the interior side if there's no single family dwelling there let's say there's an open space for example or a different zoning district that it would be the same as the setback would be the same as for the second storey building wall but if there is a single family dwelling abutting the interior side property line the deck or balcony would not be permitted on that building wall if you think that adjacent property. And so those are the setbacks. There are some other rules as well that are proposed in addition to the setback and that primarily is that it cannot project more than six feet from the building wall to which it's attached. So that's the second storey decks and balconies. Related to that is roof decks. So within the existing code roof decks require design permit and within the newly adopted objective standards a roof deck is prohibited for a multi-family or overseas residential project on a parcel that abuts R1. So in the proposed amendments they include a new roof deck definition such a definition doesn't currently exist and it would prohibit roof decks in the R1 and any parcel abutting R1. It would require five-foot setbacks from the building wall closest to the property line. It would allow railing to project above the maximum building height and it would limit structures within a roof deck only to structures that are necessary in order to access the roof deck from the building below. So that's the roof deck and that concludes my overview of the topics of interest. The staff's recommendation as reflected in the staff report is to accept the presentation on these proposed amendments and to consider forwarding a positive recommendation on the work to the City Council. And what we're recommending in terms of the process of this agenda item is to receive any public comment on the amendments before the Commission's deliberation. And then after that what we would recommend is to go through each of the topics of interest and for each of them to determine if the Planning Commission can support the amendment as proposed and drafted by staff or if some modification needs to be made to it. And we can pull up the text of the proposed amendment to look at that if that would be useful to the Planning Commission. We can also revisit slides that I showed in the presentation. And then after we've gone through each topic of interest and the proposed amendments and disposed of each of them to review any other proposed amendments if desired, Planning Commissioners may have other amendments with which they wish to discuss or propose modifications. And then that would hopefully put us into a place where the Planning Commission tonight would be able to take action and forward a recommendation to the City Council. So with that I will stop sharing my screen and conclude my presentation and hand it back to the Chair. Is there further staff presentation? There is not, so. So what I heard Ben say and I think I agree is so what we'll do, well first of all I suspect that we are not going to get through this in the next 20 minutes. So the question is if we're going to have people talking to other topics can we halt this at 7 or 710 and then switch topics and then come back to it or and then if it runs too late we can do a continuance. I believe that's fine that we can put the item on hold. So let's see how many topics we can get through and then we'll put a halt to it and then maybe come back to it if we can. So what I'd like to do then is rather than the typical sequence which would be questions by the Planning Commission it sounds like it would be better to get questions and comments kind of at the same time unless there's just overall general questions we would like to ask Ben or staff because then we can get the public comment in and then we can hit each topic one by one. Get the public comment in and then we can talk about each topic. All right. Is everybody okay with that? Okay. Peter, a suggestion to staff. On these kinds of issues where we have lots of verbiage can we get a paper copy of the documents? It's really difficult to follow it online. Yes. So it helps so much. Yeah. It hurts a few trees but it helps us a lot. And with any agenda anytime you'd like a paper copy just let us know and we'll print one and we can deliver it. Okay. So then let's move on to public comments on this item on zoning code amendments. Are there any public comments? So there are two attendees on Zoom and we have Nara here to make public comment. Nara can, are you able, I can do it Katie. Oh, you can.  Hi there. Nara Dalbaca here representing the Apothecarium, one of your two permitted license dispensaries in the city of Capitola. We're just here tonight to voice our support for the amended, the proposed amendment. It's been really hard for Apothecarium to be visible along that stretch of 41 without monument sign that most of the other, most of the other businesses in the mall are able to utilize. And we believe that it will increase the number of folks who are aware that we're here and that will in turn lead to some increased revenue for the city as well as for the, for the legal cannabis businesses that you do have in the city which are struggling right now to compete with the unlicensed and illegal, illegal ones that are operating around the state. So we really appreciate staff and their thoughtfulness on this, their communication on this with us and look forward to being able to, to have the same abilities to, to generate, to have the same visibility that some of the other businesses do. So thank you. Thank you, Ms. Dalbaca. Any other comments? No, no further comments on Zoom. Okay, so now we can move it back to, if there's anybody in the audience who wants to discuss this, please come up to the podium and I see none. So we'll move on to deliberation and questions. Let's hit them one by one. What was the, could you bring up the, the agenda items again? What, what was our first topic? It was Pergolas, Pergolas. Could you, could you bring- Large commercial uses. Oh yeah. Let's bring up the, bring up the, Ben, could you bring up the presentation again so we could look at your, there we go. Was that it? There you go. So pages 109, 223. So are there any questions? So what was the impetus for this? The impetus for this was when a larger commercial use comes in. We thought it would be good for the planning commission to get review of it. So for really large, but Whole Foods came in along, you know, something similar to Whole Foods came in along 41st Avenue. Right now it's a permitted use and there are impacts when you're looking at circulation and just access. So we thought it should definitely be reviewed by the planning commission rather than staff. So the design would be looked at by the planning commission, but all the, when you're looking at a conditional use permit, it really looks at the different impacts tied to uses. So we thought for larger uses, they should come before planning commission. There wasn't anything that occurred between the time we adopted the zoning code and today that it just kind of came into your mind that- You know, in the past, I believe in our, under our old code, a conditional use would be tied to larger retail. And that was overlooked. So yeah, there was an exception for larger uses within the mall or within a master plan development or master use program. And that still exists within our CUP criteria. If you, if you built a large, multi-tenant commercial building, you could also apply for a master use permit in which you could get large, you know, you could get some flexibility in your uses. Speaking of Whole Foods, before Whole Foods was approved, there was an application for a PetSmart there, which was denied. So I don't have any problem with the language that they're proposing for this large retail use. I think large retail uses can have impacts on existing areas, change of use. So I, and it was in the prior code that we had. So I see no reason. It's everybody. So should we vote on these one by one and have a recommendation that yes, on large retail spaces, we would propose that that be adopted and move forward? Because again, if we don't get through this. Any item that seems like not everyone's in agreement, I think we can do that, but for this I'm seeing consensus. Consensus, yeah. So we can move on. All right, consensus it is. All right, let's move on to the next topic. Like the good old days. Cannabis retail. The same question about that till I heard the public comment about what the I'm put us for the change was, but now I know. So my question is why, why bring it out as a separate item in the code at all? If it's, if it's to be consistent with other stores, why flag it as a, as a unique item? I agree with you. I mean, I think it's illegal use. I don't think that we want to start having different sign regulations for different businesses, different businesses, whether we, you know, it's not up to us to say we like them or we don't like them. I think they should all be treated the same. It's just part of the genesis of cannabis industry coming into communities and they kind of tried to make it. Okay, but not quite. Okay. And I don't know if you can zoom in a little more. So there, there are several standards tied to cannabis retail that towards signs. So the one request was to remove the overall square footage and the limitation of one sign. The other limitations, if you'd like to recommend removing them is that the sign may include only the name of the business and one green cross. That's under a B. We've already said we should scratch because it's the maximum 15 square feet. C was signs may not have any reference through symbol or language to cannabis with the exception of one green cross. And then C is signs shall not be directly illuminated except during operating hours. And then the last standard was that signs shall otherwise be subject to the planning commission review through a signed permit application and accordance with the chapter. So if you'd like to remove the standards for what can be included in the sign, just the name of the business and the green cross. We can, and the illumination standard, we can definitely bring that recommendation to city council. I think they're a legal business. I think they should be treated like other businesses. I see no reason to discriminate. I would agree. I would agree as well. Okay. I'm seeing consensus to not only make the recommendations. This would entirely remove the sign section and the cannabis business would comply with the sign code like any other business. We see a lot of keep on trucking figures out there. We're next to the green. Butterflies. Yeah. Okay. Do you have our recommendation then? Yes. We have consensus on that as well. Yep. Let's move on to Pergola's then. Pergola's. Did this, was this clear? I have a question on Pergola's. Sure. It was mentioned that an attached Pergola can extend four feet into the side yard setback. Most setbacks in the jewel box, the side yards are four feet. So does that mean if I attach Pergola to a house, you can bring it all the way out to the property line? Ben, on the Pergola's, is there a minimum setback from the property line requirement in that table? If it's attached to the building, let me pull that up. I agree with you. I don't think we want things extending into the minimum side yard setback. And if it gets closer to three feet, then I think it becomes a fire issue. You can have like a shed structure on a property line. And so I would write it's just a non habitable structure. So why wouldn't the Pergola meet the same type of requirement? But doesn't it have to be fire rated on the side that's on the property line? No, because it's not a habitable structure. I mean, if I'm correct. The accessory building is allowed in the side yard setback. It has to be less than 100 square feet. Right. And it's not attached to the building. If the side of my house is 40 feet long, you could build a Pergola 40 feet long all the way to the property line. Like a shade structure. Right. So I'm just wondering. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I just wanted to clarify. So these are ones that are attached to the building is what we're talking about. Right. And so when I presented this, I think I maybe overly simplified what the proposed standard is and what showed on the screen is the entirety of what proposed. It does. It does. There is a minimum distance from property line. So the front is 10 feet for a Pergola attached to a building wall. So if your building wall is 10 feet or closer to your front property line, you could not take advantage of this and have a Pergola that's projected. That doesn't. Into your side is three feet. What about side yard? Three feet. Three feet. Okay. Because I can't see, read his screen up there. You know, you should have a print out. Interior. Interior side is three feet. So a side that's facing another neighbor is three. It has to be three feet away. Exterior side is a five foot requirement. Okay. But it also, they're not. Oh yeah. So no max for the rear except that there is a required five foot setback from the proper rear property line and no max for an interior side except that it has to keep a three foot setback from the property line. Okay. So you can't build it on the property line. Nope. It has to be three. That's fine. The answer is my question. So I have a question on that same page, page 129, that very chart, but it includes outdoor showers where you say outdoor shower is not allowed in the front and not allowed on the side. And I'm just wondering if that would be more clear if instead of not allowed, you'd have zero feet. So in other words, if you had an atrium or some big recess in your, in your side yard and deep into that recess was an outdoor shower, I would think that would be allowed even though it's on the side of the house. What you, I think what we care about is it doesn't project at all into the setback. And so a zero feet would be clear in my mind. Right. So the reason why we're adding this is we've done a lot of our inspections. We go out and we live in a beach town. Everyone wants an outdoor shower. We've seen them in the strangest places, like in the entryway, right? Not attached to a building or anything, but attached to a fence right near when you first drive in your driveway and just the impact to a neighbor having an outdoor shower that close to their house and not tied to your house. So we thought it would be appropriate to keep them out of the front yard so there's more privacy. But yes, by putting not allowed, then it could not be anywhere in that front setback area. It could not project into the front setback area, but if there was a recess in the building, so if the front facade of the building is at 15 feet and then it's recessed to 20, that recessed area is not a projection into the setback. Right, but according to this, it would not be allowed anyway, because it just says it's in the front, therefore it's not allowed. So that's why I say if it said zero feet, it means you couldn't project it all into the setback, front side or back. Correct. So if you'd like to switch that to zero feet, it could allow some flexibility to have showers on the front facade of a building, although it would have to be set further back than the 15 foot standard. To me that's reasonable, especially if it's on the side yard. I agree with you. As long as they're setback, so they're not in the setbacks, then I think they should be able to help them. So it couldn't be in the front on a fence, because then you'd be in the front yard setback. Correct. So perhaps staff could consider rewording that a bit. The bend is going to make modifications as we go along. Can you blow up a screen a little bit? I'll zoom in to the maximum. Is that a little better? That's better. So you don't even need the words not allowed, you just have zero feet. I would say whatever you think is possible. To me, zero feet. There you go. Delete that, not allowed part. There you go, zero feet. You're not allowed any projection into the setback on the outdoor showers. Thank you. Anything else on Pergola? Sorry, I got a little distracted. Now the rest of it, I'm fine with it. Is it clear? Everybody happy with this? I'm bewildered by it all. This one. I didn't have any big issues on that either. So are we okay? One consensus on that one as well? Sounds like a consensus on Pergola. I think we're still pretty good on time. Let's go on to the next accessory dwelling units. Page 139. I have a question on that one also. Go ahead, Mick. In the presentation it was stated you could add an additional 150 square feet for an attached ADU. And I'm wondering since ADUs don't require setbacks can that attached 150 square feet go into the setback area? No. So ADUs, so the link here is that it's an existing structure. So the existing structure can be in the setback areas, but any addition to the existing structure has to comply with the I want to say four foot setback for the ADU for rear and side yards. So that new 150 square feet would not be allowed to be in the setback area. I had a question or comment on this in general which is this area is one where the state is taking the lead and every session of the legislature they pass several new bills dealing with this and our code is as soon as we get it printed it's out of date. And so we could say this about everything in the code that it's subject to state law but this section is different in my mind because it really is a state controlled issue. Especially there's conflict capitalism doesn't want us to a certain extent increase densities whereas the state wants us to. So somehow it seems like it would be good to not have to do a code amendment every year and somehow incorporate in generally universally the state changes as they come through. The one one reason I would suggest that we do update the code is that we've built objective standards into our code of how you know when you have a secondary dwelling unit that it should be oriented towards your backyard rather than facing your you know the approach towards your neighbors. So we've built in some standards to really protect the objective standards for neighbors but there's so many cleanups to this that are minor tweaks due to the new state legislation. I would suggest maybe Ben could come up with some language that just sort of is a general statement to the effect that as the state laws are modified and minimum standards are imposed automatically incorporated in the in our ordinance unless we do otherwise. That's a great recommendation. Yeah I agree that's an excellent recommendation. Can we just it would be just a statement that says this ordinance is superseded by yeah well that's where Ben's expert is. In case of conflict between this ordinance and state law state law governs. Yeah that's a simple way of putting it. Okay. Any concerns with ADUs? Any more ADU questions? As it evolves somehow get some concept in there that the state law is a dynamic process. Anything else on ADUs? Alright next topic parking. So I had a question on that one and as you mentioned the ribbon parking the ribbon park if it was just one car the Hollywood parking isn't required you could have a solid driveway if it was just the 10 foot driveway right but only when you add the second one do they both have to be Hollywood. That's what it's proposed. Okay I just want to be clear on that. So I have a question about that. I don't have any problem with the 18 feet and the Hollywood style parking I do have a problem with it if we're going to go to a 14 foot curb cut because then that's going to require you to drive over whatever you've got in the middle of your ribbons if there's another vehicle park there to get out. So you know we got examples where they showed this lovely grass growing in the ribbons those kinds of things that won't work if people can't back straight out and they have to constantly be driving over what's in the middle so I could live with it all if you were allowed to have you know an 18 foot curb cut to match the driveway and I would suggest that it be up to 18 feet so that in some scenarios we like to protect the street parking that's what we're always coming up against the street parking versus the curb cut. Who would make that? But if you're going to make them do the ribbons then you can't reduce it to 14 feet. If it goes to 14 feet then they have to have the option of having a solid driveway. Yeah or just have the second driveway be the ribbon and allow for of the two. One could be solid. You still can't. Yeah you would. Oh well you're right. You still couldn't do it. So if you're going to do 14 feet you have to do the ribbon driveway. Recar artificial lawn and then it won't get hurt when it's driven over. Yeah but not everybody wants that. I mean I think the idea is for it to be a permeable surface not put down plastic and more plastic on top of it. Or you can use the blocks that the lawn grows up in the middle of. Well I guess the issue you're bringing up is what's more important besides the curb cut or the permeable surface slash landscaping associated with the ribbon. And so it's like you know what you're saying it's got to be one or the other. You've got to pick what you think is more important. The other solution I've seen in other places that once you cross the sidewalk in some areas they'll do maybe like a solid strip of pavers that's about five feet deep and now I'm realizing why maybe the reason behind that is so that as you turn in you're on a solid surface and then it goes to ribbon that's throughout Cape Cod you always see that design so that's something we could look into if we give people two choices and then they could decide if you want to have the two spaces then you need to do the Hollywood style driveway to get a curb cut that allows you to back directly out and if you want to do you know solid driveway then you only get the 14 foot wide but Katie's point is that we want to have an opportunity to review the size of the curb cut so if you're going to automatically allow an 18 foot curb cut then you know if there's a parking issue then we won't get a chance to review it but I guess you know we give away parking all the time on Hill Street we got rid of the parking on one side of the street to have a bicycle lane you know we get rid of parking in the village so that we can have the outdoor dining out there I mean suddenly we're going to pick on one particular person because their neighbors don't want the street parking to go away I mean how are we going to decide who gets to regulate the street parking maybe you could have it come to the planning commission and they could regulate that but I don't think it's something that I think in the neighborhoods especially in the north 40's in the jewel box area not so much in cliff foot heights but we're parking on street is a premium an 18 foot curb cut just eliminates that some of the parking so you know I think the size of the curb cut is more important than the ribbon parking so you're saying let's go get rid of the ribbon parking but stick with the 14 foot wide curb cut I'm saying leave it just like it is require ribbon parking if you're going to have two side by side spaces but a 14 foot curb cut that doesn't particularly work for me so okay but perhaps the compromise then is what Katie suggested which is ribbon parking doesn't have to extend the full length of the 20 feet parking space that last 5 feet so the second the second unit where you'd have to do the swerve out could be partially paved maybe since we're going to continue some of this we could continue the standard as it is which requires that the planning commission review it and approve it so to go beyond the 14 feet of width so if you'd like to review each of these individually knowing that there is this balance that has to be made between street parking and driveway parking we could scratch this suggestion and not move forward with it that works for me I think we should scratch this okay I agree okay that's consensus we'll move forward with that red line so so by scratching this entire parking in front step back amendment is not moving forward correct we'll go back to the language that we had where planning commission needs to make an exception so one of the concerns with the existing language is that the 14 feet the dimensions as it was previously written were not working well for typical and so we always had to review them and we'll continue to review them we'll continue to review them okay Peter it's 10 after 7 yeah I was going to say before we move to the next question maybe we should talk about switching topics for a bit since we have a large audience what did we get halfway through we got through the easy ones I don't know if we got halfway through we're going to need to come back another session I think sure so would you like to continue this to the next planning commission I think it's November 1st December 1st November 1st November 3rd November 3rd or would you like to finish this at the end of the evening I'm okay with coming back to it although I'm not going to you want to leave this is going to be a long public hearing I think we should continue to November 3rd that gives us time to really study it maybe we could get a paper copy so we could see it okay I'll make that motion that we continue it to November 3rd all right we have a motion in a second to continue this item until the next meeting November 3rd all those in favor I none opposed it's unanimous one hour at a time so let's move on then to yeah so you wanted to do Monarch Cove in next this should be short those of you who are waiting for bulb avenue so we'll move on to item B project number 2267 Monarch Cove in code amendments we have a staff presentation yeah thank you chair well can good evening commissioners pull up a brief got them on silent spam risk my favorite person apologies for that so the this item is policy amendments for property specifically and what we'll be looking at tonight is zoning text amendment zoning map amendment and then corresponding general plan land use map amendment this only affects three properties in the city that are currently zoned as visitor serving and there's the basic request is to bring that into alignment with some adjacent properties to the Monarch Cove in and have that be an R1 zone with a visitor serving overlay the village has a visitor serving overlay as well to some extent this is a rerun of the comprehensive zoning code update that both the planning commission and city council adopted in the 2020 and 2021 time period and then when this was forwarded to the coastal commission the topic of the Monarch Cove was discussed pretty extensively the owner made some statements about both their personal and financial circumstances and their ability to continue running the Monarch Cove in needing some flexibility to manage their estate going forward they did have some positive comments from individual coastal commissioners but the coastal staff was not recommending support and ultimately they pulled this item out and asked for it to come back under separate consideration and so that's the effort here this evening is to run it back through the local process in order to get it back before the coastal commission and the coastal staff also asked for additional financial documents to support the owner's statements about feasibility of running the inn so that's also included here in the staff report and so again the specific request is just to change to allow a residential use and the owner also talked about their attempts to reposition the property and the scale of the property currently and some of their attempts to bring forward a proposal to increase the property's number of rooms and they actually had two of those 2001 and 2013 and both of those were met with substantial neighborhood opposition so they feel like they're in a bit of a position where they need to have a change in policy in order to move forward with this property so this is just an example of the map just be a simple change from purple to yellow with an overlay and then as far as the text it would just pull from there's actually a monarch cove chapter that would get rolled into the visitor serving overlay and so going forward in order to transition to residential they would need a use permit and with regard to the financial documents the coastal commission staff recommended that the city commission those directly so that they'd be independent analysis and included a feasibility study that got into profitability and ongoing costs and then a broker's opinion of value which is essentially an appraisal and so they looked at under the various land uses what would the property be worth in the fair market so the next step would be for the commission to forward a recommendation for the city council and then ultimately the city and the owner would be going applicants for review by the coastal commission so this evening what we're asking for is consideration of these proposed amendments offer comments and forward a recommendation to council are there any questions of staff by the commissioners okay let's open this up to public comments then are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this particular item please come forward to the podium or if not we can reach out to the zoom folks if there's anybody there seeing no hands on zoom okay seeing no one stepping forward let's move on then to planning commission deliberation anybody wish to comment on this what were we expecting the applicant on this we were and they knew 7pm so not seeing the applicant here with them today comments or a motion this seems like deja vu really we went through all this and it's kind of become us against the property owner and the city against the coastal commission on this issue so now what we're saying is we're going to approve a change that would be requested by the property owner and then do battle with the coastal commission over that so the coastal commission was not opposed to the project to the change when it went before them for certification however they wanted more information so they didn't want to pass it at the same time as our big zoning code update so that's why we've gone ahead and done the extra studies we've been communicating with coastal commission staff so it was really they made the point that we're not saying to go away we will consider this but we need additional information so it did take we wanted to bring this along with our code clean up and our zoning code just to get it all into one package but it is a separate application from the applicant and they of course paid all the cost associated with the additional studies as well. It's almost an illegal taking of property by the coastal commission denied someone the right to live in their own house how they choose to live. I would move approval of the recommendation for so many years now and it's always seems so marginal as a commercial enterprise for me. I'll second mixed motion. So there's a motion to approve by Commissioner Ruth and a second by Commissioner Westman any further discussion? I will say we do need to do a roll call let's do that then please. Commissioner Christensen. Commissioner Newman. Commissioner Ruth. Commissioner Westman. And Chair Wilk. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. So let's move on then to let's inform Mr. Blodgett what he just got. We just approved it. So we just passed your item. So well it's gone to the next step forward. Congratulations. We were speedy. It wasn't very controversial as far as we were concerned. Thank you. You too. You're done. We want to go. Well you're welcome to stay for the next item which is 3720 Capitol Road that let's move on to our staff presentation. Before we do that I'm going to have to recuse myself and just for the benefit of the public we do this because I have an economic interest within 500 feet of the property site. So under the law I'm not allowed to participate in this and we'll see you at the next meeting. Very good. Good evening commission. This evening we have a conceptual review for 3720 Capitol Road and 1610 Bulb Avenue. The conceptual review is for future annexation of the 1610 property 1610 Bulb and a conceptual review of our first community benefit application for the city of Capitola. The proposed community benefit is a senior living facility. I have a few slides just to orient you of photos of the current view. So this is from the corner of Capitola Road and Bulb looking towards 41st Avenue. There is a structure behind those trees that is this is the old dog kennel location and here's looking across the street from Bulb next this is again the exterior of the property and then this is 1610 Bulb Avenue property here. So on this slide I'm going to go into first the details of the annexation request. So 3720 Capitola Road is located within the city limits. 1610 Bulb Avenue is located in the county and as a residential property. In order to get the property into the city it must be located within the city sphere of influence. Our sphere of influence is quite large in Capitola as you can see it's the red dotted area that includes all of 41st Avenue all the way to the ocean as well as the majority of Pleasure Point. This is something I will be bringing back to you probably in the next few years as Lafko has reached out to us about our area. So I'm going to go through these areas we do need to revisit the large sphere. Next is our zoning code map and I've highlighted in the blue square the area in which this property is located and this is zooming in to the zoning code or the zoning map. The Capitola boundary is shown with the dashed black line. The property is shown outlined in red and notice here is this jagged city line city boundary we have in this area. If I go back to the zoning map it's really pronounced in this one area how in and out it goes. So if it were desired by the Planning Commission to see the annexation move forward and we're looking at annexation as well as the community benefit but I just want to point out that it would be in alignment with Pono Grill next door, Pono Hawaiian and then the Chinese restaurant next to that extends even further back so it would clean up that jagged edge along that road. Are there two properties in the same ownership? My understanding is that there are two owners but there one is owner of both and there might be a substantial ownership of one. So this is our first community benefits application to come through the city since this new section of code was adopted. The purpose of the community benefit is to establish incentives for applicants to locate and design development projects in a manner that provides a community benefit, a substantial benefit to the community. They're intended to facilitate redevelopment the area in which these incentives are allowed to be re-developed. The area that we're hoping to see redevelop in the future we also have this chapter is also applicable to the theater site and the village because that is another site that we'd like to see redeveloped. So that's what these were put in the code. The incentive is only granted when it's not when they're fulfilling going beyond a requirement of the code or going beyond what's required by the state it must significantly advance the general plan or substantially exceed the city's minimum requirements. So if someone were to bring in a community benefit the allowed incentives are that you can get increased floor area up to 2.5 and increased height from 35 feet up to 50. Our code outlines specific community benefits that qualify and the list is here I'm going to go through a few of them but open space, public infrastructure pedestrian bicycle facilities low-cost visitors serving, transportation options historic preservation, public parking green building, public art child care facilities. So those are allowed community benefits. The applicant is applying under number 11 for other community benefits and these are other community benefits that are proposed by the applicant that are significant or substantial beyond the normal requirements. Who determines if it qualifies under that number 11 category? So it's the Planning Commission and the City Council. The requirement the first step in any conceptual review application for any community benefit application is to first come before Planning Commission and City Council and the Planning Commission City Council that have to it's a non-binding input so it's not a decision, you're not voting tonight but as to whether or not the request for incentives is worthy of consideration if you find it to be worthy of consideration you can ask for modifications and give guidance so this is the first step this is not the actual application for the development so is there questions with that? Does that make sense? Second step is that they would resubmit an application that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation of the City Council and the last step is it would need City Council approval. So it's a two-step process. There are five findings tied to community benefits. First is that it must provide a substantial benefit to the community and advance the goals of the general plan. There must be adequate public services and infrastructure to accommodate. That they've provided letters from the county and the water departments and let us know that they are there's adequate services. The public benefit must exceed the minimum requirements for the zoning code and any other provisions of local state or federal law. There is no requirement for assisted living within our code so that's for that alone they can't exceed our requirement. It minimizes adverse impacts to the neighboring properties to the greatest extent possible and also it enhances coastal resources. So those five findings that must be met when such project be submitted to the Planning Commission City Council for decision. Tonight we have Greg Irwin here to present let me see here yeah why don't we do you have a thumb? Did you email me the okay I've got to go into my email really quick so I'm going to stop sharing. So this is Rafi Ortiz he's going to begin the presentation I believe. Let me share screen. I don't think it's in our typical format of a PowerPoint so is this okay Rafi if we go here? Sure you have both a PDF and a PowerPoint but if you could just page through. So really this is just a short introduction to the proposed project really our intent here is to provide a little bit of context and background and to introduce Greg Irwin who leads the architectural firm. Is this better? And then it's to introduce Greg Irwin of the architecture firm Irwin Associates to explain a little bit more our thinking on the design. Let me just introduce who's working on this if you wouldn't mind going to the next slide. So my background is I was raised in Santa Cruz and teamed with a developer who's built over 250 housing units throughout the county. What we've done is we've searched for the best operators and so we found Irwin Architects which is probably the best architectural firm for senior assisted living housing in the state. From an operator standpoint we've connected with Paradigm Senior Living which operates senior living facilities throughout the country and actually has experience doing it in Santa Cruz County if you could page through. So there's an economic reason for doing this and I'm going to get into that but really for me it's very personal. Floor Jean Ball was my grandmother she lived actually across the street from here next to the fire station she would take me to St. John's Episcopal Church and she sold her art at the craft gallery in the village and her plan was to live at home and die in her sleep with all her family around it turns out most of us want that kind of outcome and it didn't work out for her and the reason was what she didn't plan on, what most of us don't plan on is that she became a bit debilitated no matter the caregiving at home needed assisted by the time we realized that she needed that we reached out to those facilities and learned that there was a waiting list because it turns out most people don't plan for this kind of event there was a waiting list there was no availability and what happens in that situation is you then get kicked down to a skilled nursing facility and if you've ever visited this skilled nursing facility on Worf Road I'd encourage you to visit it I've been to everyone in this county my grandmother has been to most of them and her life ended in one of those and so I'm thinking a lot about my parents for whom this project is probably too late I'm thinking about myself thinking about a lot of people who would like to live at home who will need a different kind of housing and a kind of housing that so we'll go through that in a little bit of detail if you could page through so let's talk a little bit about the market demand we defined market demand as a primary and secondary area the primary area is that in which 80% of the units would be occupied by people within a 7 mile radius and so you see that sketched out there and the remaining 20% would come from the adjacent neighboring areas if you could page through this chart's a little hard to see from this distance but the main point is that the fastest growing segment of the population in Capitola is the age group 75 and over with an income of 50,000 or more per year it is the fastest growing segment in the city and those people need housing the nearest facility comparable to what we're contemplating is ages they're currently at 100% so really there are economic benefits to this but I want to highlight that I think by far the most important is that the intention is to provide housing to people with this kind of need assisted living is something that is becoming a big topic around the country seniors generally aren't here in these kinds of venues to be able to advocate for themselves they may be home bound or they're close to ending up in a facility like this so really the benefit that we're really talking about is housing for a segment of the population that's fast growing and that needs assistance if they are to stay in their local community if not then they're looking at alternatives outside the immediate community or maybe even further away the rest you can read for yourself an 80 unit facility which is what we're contemplating would employ approximately 70 caregivers that has a payroll flow of course and a developed property like this of course has tax revenue but again this is really about providing housing this is a chart that you can read but one of the things that we looked at in talking to people was the level of traffic that a facility like this generates and so we looked at projects of comparable size and I'll just state the obvious but residents in these facilities do not own cars they don't travel their families visit them so really the traffic is family and it's employees of these kinds of facilities and so if you look at traffic flows and here's where I might need Greg's help in explaining this if you look at traffic flows we compare this to office buildings which are generally considered low impact facilities and by time range throughout the day and the evening what we see is that the traffic generated generally corresponds to about half the traffic load that you would see in an office park what I'd like to do is let Greg Irwin walk you through some of the design considerations that he came up with and I'll let him take it from here good evening close enough thank you so let me start by saying senior housing unfortunately is one of the only development products that doesn't have a right of use in any city in the United States it always needs a CUP which is a sad thing what we're coming here tonight with is actually kind of it's a multi-piece thing that we have to bring together at once so we're looking for the annexation first of all of the second piece to the front piece which then matches the properties as described previously going down the street so we have an unknown here right we're starting with an idea of will it be annexed will it not so we designed with the safest if not what could we put on the lot so we looked at splitting it into two pieces the rear property for parking the front for the assisted living it is parking is not even a one-story building it's less up to what would be allowed three-story building so we're looking at this from how we can be as neighborly as possible because of that that's why we're coming here with the added ask for the fourth floor because we're not building any stories on the back half of the property so we've got to bring these kind of in tandem a design with the annexation at this time but we also designed that if the annexation doesn't happen that we can then separate out the two pieces and hopefully move forward in that direction so in a way our hands are somewhat tight and what we could bring to you and how we bring it because it has to come together so that's where we're coming from with this project we're here to answer whatever questions you or anyone else here has tonight and know that this is kind of the first step of bringing this to you that we have to start with these two pieces or three of the project the additional ask for the floor and the annexation so it's actually three different pieces here we're bringing to you at once because there's no way really to separate them so thank you Greg would you like to go over the slides and so I think the back parking lot there matches the depth of the parking for the restaurant next door so that's where that comes from you can see that we have a parking lot there in the back that we circle and enter the building from there the Capitola street we've created an outdoor patio to bring the residents to the street and have an outdoor and become part of the community you know we looked at all the goals of where Capitola Boulevard from the planning standpoint is looking to move and we're trying to address as many of those items as we can so you can see this is a front entry a little courtyard, a private courtyard for the residents also first floor is assisted living with a dining room and activity spaces for seniors second floor is a memory care floor for those that need help if anyone needs more descriptions between assisted living and memory care we can go into that we'll skip that part for now for time the third floor again then would be assisted living I believe the fourth floor matches the fourth floor matches so yes and then we've got a four story residentialish piece architecture always gets interesting when you try to describe an architecture style and it's always unique in senior housing because it's not you want it to be as residential and homey as possible but you can't compare a house to a senior housing property so there's always a little uniqueness to that and then we just have some renderings there of what it would look like from the site thank you any further presentations I have a few more a couple more slides while you're calling those up can I ask you a question does this affect our rena numbers this would not affect our rena numbers because there are no kitchens proposed in this assisted living facility if there were beds and kitchens then they would count towards rena numbers I have a question for the applicant have you done any preliminary traffic analysis number of car trips per day at all nothing okay one other part of this is the applicant when you come in for a community benefit application you're required to give a description of your proposal and you're also allowed to bring forth site plan and design although not required the applicant brought forth the site plan and design and was given the option to start preliminary design feedback it was not required but knowing that if this were to move forward as a community benefit project it would give them adequate time to start working on the design so they opted to move forward with that we hired RRM Design to do the review of their project and they gave us a great memo that has a lot of design feedback attached to it I have that available if we want to go there if you want to reference it tonight I have some slides of the RRM had taken the elevations and pointed out a few changes that they would recommend it's really up to the planning commission on how if you want to I think it's most important that we get through the community benefit aspect of this discussion tonight but if you'd also when you're making comments and giving feedback like to comment on the design there is definitely items that need to be addressed one other thing of note is the current design doesn't quite fit with our allowance it's at 53 feet the maximum is 50 so that would have to be decreased in order to comply with the allowed benefit and there's a few other things that could be applied in terms of there's one missing parking space it doesn't have adequate bicycle parking but those are all things that I did not want to add additional cost to this project until that we for revisions and modifications to their design until we've gotten through the public benefit piece so they're aware that there are items that will need to be addressed in an official application but at this time they have preliminary questions about that 53 feet so this is going to eventually go to the city council right and so if they chose to leave it at 53 and not cut it down to 50 we couldn't approve it but the city council could override us right you know I would need a legal determination on that because the code is specific in this zone to be at 50 feet and I would need to check our variance allowance as I if whether or not we prohibit I'm just thinking about the apartment buildings and Marlon guys they're going that would be under a development agreement very different because there's a whole different set of rules thank you so with that our recommendation tonight is to provide the applicant with feedback on annexation request and as to whether the request for incentives is worthy of consideration for the community benefit proposed and then if there is general support for the community benefit any design feedback would be welcomed and I also just want to point out in the staff recommendation it's feedback on the annexation and whether or not the request for the incentive is worthy of consideration it would be good to get feedback on both if you if it's one or the other or both so I'd appreciate feedback and with that we'll I can answer any questions are there any other questions of staff from the commissioners okay then let's open this up to public comment this is a chance for the members of the public to speak on this particular item you have three minutes per her voice and if you want to come up to the podium to speak on this that would be great and we would sign up sheet on the podium we would like to generally we'd like to have you sign in so that we can get your name in the minutes spelled properly so are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item can you hear me yes I couldn't hear them a little bit in the back there so I got to sign in here my name is Susan Steeley and I'm a resident on bulb avenue 1475 all these people here are from bulb avenue so they are coming to support me and I'm not really good at this and I don't have all the studies but I have tried to address what these gentlemen have said to us so I'm going to read real quickly and not get off course here can you all hear me okay does the proposed plan substantial benefit to the community I question some of their figures their facts are 15% of the capitol population is 65 years of age and older that's me and I'm Santa Cruz and that's 1500 and 39 people and they say they need this facility because they don't have enough and what they didn't consider was the fact that a lot of these people have owned their homes and they're going to do everything they can to stay in their home if they have to remedy to have to add make additions to add a ramp or whatever and there are federal grants and I know that the city of capitol supports everybody improving their home so they can stay in their home and so home ownership 47.7% of people own their homes according to the 2020 census senior living and poverty according to the 2020 census seniors will do what they can to stay in their home and this was an important fact that was just available to me the number of seniors who live with their family the oldest fashion extended family in 2020 census shows that 47% of that 1500 and 39 people which is 725 live with their families considered their argument was just made that there's not enough facilities well different studies say there's between 18 and 29 within a 9 mile radius of the capitol area and I had a chart but with the little dots where they are and that includes a couple of Santa and Scots Valley and there's also the Westwood memory care center which was not mentioned in downtown Santa Cruz I'm not sure of the capacity I don't have that research knowledge but I know they exist and also at 3245 right across the street from this proposed facility is an assisted living facility which one of our friends lives in so the question does this development meet the highest and best use for the community and is it a substantial benefit I kind of agree with the rest of our people we say no but I'll go on you need to finish up we have three minutes your three minutes is about up so if you could Peter I have a question are you representing all these people and you're the only one speaking but are you the only one speaking in this group I don't know okay I'll go fast okay I'm gonna go fast okay the location is flawed because of the whole ingress and egress is on bulb avenue unacceptable because of the street the street has no sidewalks for people to get off the street in case of emergency vehicles and the street is narrow there's parking so the density factor is gonna be major so all in all I'm gonna go back to my last point that the location is more flawed than the facility so there is taking up too much traffic density and bringing in too many trucks and things into our area thank you I'm Marilyn McCallum White I built my house on 148 Ford bulb avenue when I was 27 years old I've been there ever since the entire time that I have lived there they have never repaid bulb avenue until just like yeah so I have a letter that I'm gonna address for the traffic issue is what is another big concern um I'm the homeowner and resident at 148 Ford bulb avenue and I have concerns with the proposed development in the 45 not quite 45 years but close I have lived here I have watched as our street has become too small for the traffic that passes through most of the time there isn't room for two cars to pass so we must wait like a one-way street seeing as the proposed development calls for ingress and egress on bulb avenue this is going to significantly impact the residents due to the median it isn't possible to turn left on capitol road which would direct traffic right down bulb avenue and I wanna make a note here of saying that we're gonna have um employees that are that would be working there we're gonna have people coming and visiting the residents it's gonna hugely impact the traffic flow down an already too small street not to mention the fact that you know there's no school buses anymore the little kids are walking to school there are many many kids that walk to school parents are all working and that's an added danger to the children I feel like with more traffic this could be remedied by this could be remedied by blocking off bulb avenue just past the parking lot so there wouldn't be cars coming up and down our street and we've done that before there's other streets that are blocked off I think that would be a reasonable accommodation bulb avenue should not be affected by this project changing the property to the city of capitol does not change the fact that this is a residential area that barely accommodates the residents that it currently houses and I would have one more question too I don't I would guess I would like a clarification of how this project is going to help the coastal resources enhance but I don't I don't see that I don't understand that so I would like some clarification on that thank you thank you Marilyn so before we have the next person come up and you can go ahead and come on up but while you're doing that I just want to acknowledge that we did receive many letters and we all had an opportunity to review those so we appreciate your input and we have had a chance to review them all so then I don't need to say anything but I you guys probably already got there were ten letters my husband and I have been there on bulb avenues since 1996 and he was there a little bit a few years before me and we've been working for years and years just upgrading our house upgrading our house and always working on it we finally got it pretty well nice and made and so my idea of living there and retiring because we're both just retired I don't want to live I don't want to live across street from a business it's a residential my other concern is there are way too many cars on that street and no two cars can drive down that street it's insane and half the street most the streets do not have sidewalk and gutters so every winter we got floods going down that street so if you're going to have wheelchair people coming down where are they going to go and then we have dog walkers and a lot of people so those are my big concern I love the idea of a new assisted living we need that but I just don't want it on my residential street thank you for listening thank you good evening my name is Vic Clouser I live at 1360 bulb avenue I've been there since 1986 so I beat you by ten years as my neighbor was saying a lot of us have made improvements on our properties over the years slowly fixing them up as we could afford it beautifying our curb appeal as best we can we're proud of it and it's happening more and more on bulb so we have a lot of investment of heart and money and hard work in our homes I know that people can take the approach of not in my backyard but I will tell you from personal experience my mom and dad are 96 and 95 years old they're still living they were in ages for almost a year I couldn't afford to keep in there and I'll tell you that prices for a facility like this are not cheap there are not many people in Santa Cruz county that can afford that they're paying upwards of $12,000 a month there they're doing so well we had to move them out think of something different I'm applying for VA benefits for my dad who's a World War II vet and hopefully that'll go through that's a side note but my question to you is that at what point would you consider annexing this property because of the tax base revenue that you would receive from it over the needs of our neighbors of my neighbors here the last gal who spoke is absolutely right when she says if you look at the double line going down our street it's crookeder than a dog's leg you can't even it's not straight because it's just all over the place and it's not wide enough and you can barely park we're already experiencing high volume of traffic coming from the mall people want to avoid Forty First Avenue so Bulb Avenue is a shortcut to get down to Bromer and then over to 38th and wherever you want to go so I just wanted to put that question to you directly to please hear our hearts on this it's not that we're against well I'll speak for myself it's not that I'm against this kind of housing but I know people need it we're fortunate enough to move my parents into an apartment where as a family we can hire in-home care it's a lot cheaper and we're saving them thousands of dollars a month so I beg to differ with you a little bit on the needs of this and I will tell you also as this gentleman said his grandmother would have liked to have passed in her own home my parents too they were so glad to get out of there to see people that were not doing well and deteriorating in front of them is that my time? thank you for letting me speak thank you Mr. Clouser we need volume control on that hi my name is Rebecca Russell and I've lived at 1484 Bulb Avenue for my entire life and I have watched it go from a tiny little residential street where I rode my bike in many cars and now it's just constant there is constant traffic coming up and down the street they're going so fast down our street because they're trying to take a break from Capitola to Bromer so they're trying to get where they're going as fast as they can so that's been a big issue with the idea of how much traffic is going to come and go that being said I do want to make kind of a point with what Vic was saying I really don't have a problem with the senior living facility being put I mean it is a huge need in our area for affordable housing for seniors and I don't know where the I would like to see the sources of the numbers of seniors going up at 50,000 plus a year because the seniors that I know that are on fixed incomes through social security are pulling maybe 30 per year but I would like to see how much per month they are charging the residents to stay there to prove to us that this is something that our community can actually benefit from because where I'm standing it sounds like they're trying to get the highest earners in this luxury senior housing development which is what they called it into a small neighborhood so that's what I'm saying thank you Mr. Russell anyone else an email but as I sat here I felt like I really needed our voice to be heard in the sense that obviously we're a very tight neighborhood I mean we have grown established relationships we're a really solid community and the more and more I looked at the plans I just was becoming more and more concerned about how this facility is not really impacting Capitola we are the ones as residents being affected there's not an entrance to this facility in Capitola it would be the 16-10 property which is residential that would be the entrance to this facility to me that's wrong to even think that it's right to consider a residential place and turn it into commercial so I really would like them to think if you're wanting to have some habit on the Capitola area that's great that's great entrance that's highly impacted we have so many families my boys are out playing basketball all the time but they're right the line doesn't even go straight down our street it's crooked up by where the top of the facility is obviously they had no idea they walked around and they put mailers in our mailboxes they didn't even use the postal system to send out flyers about this new development that they have so I just think it's a lack of respect for our community and I feel like I've heard because it's really going to impact us on Bowl Avenue, the residents so thank you thank you my name is Scott Lawrence and I live at 1574 Bowl Avenue which is directly next door to 16-10 so this will have the largest impact on my property I bought my house 26 years ago Pono was a house now it's a business I have to deal with people playing ball in their parking lot and coming to my yard to get their frisbees and their baseballs when they come over the fence I have to deal with people sitting in their cars listening to loud music and now you want to they want to annex this last residential buffer that I have and turn it into a parking lot right next door in my house it's not right I'm not against the the use of the property I'm against the size of the property and I'm against the impact of the traffic that's going to be on our street every time something a new project is built it impacts my property this thing is huge and it's the last residential buffer I have to commercial property thank you thank you Mr. Lawrence and please remember to sign in when you come up to speak for the record hi can you hear me okay my name is Donna Jensen Lewis I live at 1472 Bulb Avenue and my concern is primarily with emergency vehicle traffic up and down our very narrow street where we have lots of kids and animals out I can only imagine with senior living facility that there is going to be lots of emergency vehicle traffic coming and going we I just can't even imagine what that would be like on our tiny little street where we are saying our cars can't even pass each other much less emergency vehicles it also I think really detracts from what's already been mentioned about our residential community that we have established when I look at the criteria for the community benefit I am having a really hard time seeing how this meets any one of these five criteria when it was being read in my mind I just don't see the connection there where it's meeting these criteria so those are my primary concerns thank you miss Lewis hi my name is Christina I am a resident of Santa Cruz County I'm not a resident of Capitola but I've lived in the county since 1973 and when I sit here this evening and I hear of a project I guess you'd say a permit that could be issued because it's for the community betterment I think to myself is this like things that has been occurring in Santa Cruz County instead of people applying for a commercial permit the application is for commercial for this type of facility if these people apply under the category of community betterment does that give them a tax break and it seems as though they should be applying for a straight commercial application that's all I want to say because I feel that there has I looked into the ownership of these properties and where the people are there's a Delaware corporation a lot of other things going on and I really feel that they should further investigate what the tax incentives for this group is that wants to build project thank you is there anyone else we should come up and speak on this issue Doug Balby at 1447 Bulb Avenue and aside from pointing out the substandard width of Bulb Avenue and the fact that you really can't drive that street and over the double yellow line already it's not just the width it's also the intersection at Capitola Road where the site distance is substandard and so especially because of the AT&T building there you really can't see very far down and that makes it pretty dangerous pulling out onto Capitola Road and I want to point out that as an increasing traffic that is not a good thing because of that issue thanks thank you do we have jurisdiction over Bulb Avenue it is in the county for the audience to benefit any comments that you have about the quality of the road you need to go to the county that's it go ahead my name is Michael Price I wrote a letter so I won't repeat it here I live at 1479 Bulb so I'm more here to speak on behalf of my two year old daughter Gwen, believe it or not, she's asleep and she couldn't make it tonight so we've been on Bulb for two and a half years so probably one of the newer residents and we feel like we struck the lottery here by finding such a quiet and safe and welcoming neighborhood the traffic is one of my main concerns traffic, noise property value over time with a big commercial complex there but most importantly safety my daughter loves to go and play in the street with our neighbors our very crooked street as windy as it is it's still a somewhat quiet place most of the time with the amount of workers in the new place ambulances deliveries that would be an exponential increase of traffic flow I'm just going to repeat what everyone else has said and what you've already heard thank you my name is Jason Wagner Marsh and I live at 1366 Bulb Avenue and I've lived there since 2019 just like you were saying I also have young children 17 month old son and a three and a half year old daughter and every day we take them on walks up and down the street and my main concern is there's going to be more traffic there's no sidewalk going down the street so for me it's a big concern having more cars coming up and down the street not a place for the kids to get off the street and be safe so that's my main concern thank you Mr. Wagner Marsh anyone else do you have two hands raised in Zoom so Chloe are you able to unmute sure Rich I'm going to allow you to speak go ahead you just have to hello my name is Rich Oas and I live just behind this facility on Terra Court this is the first I've seen of this proposal and I'm a little concerned about the front design if it's a memory care facility and there are people that are allowed to go out or visit with their relatives in front it seemed like there's an opportunity for one of these people to walk away and roam the neighborhood which I'm within that block area of the neighborhood but more importantly at the back of the facility is where the emergency vehicles will come in with their sirens blasting because unfortunately these type of facilities have a lot of visits from emergency vehicles and so we're going to be hearing lots of sirens coming in off the bold into the back of this facility where they should be coming in from the front where you have a parking center across the street and the noise wouldn't be such an issue thank you very much and we have Jennifer I'm going to allow you to speak Hi, thank you very much my name is Jennifer Gallacher I am at 1505 Bulve Avenue where I have been with my family for the past decade my first concern is over the annexation in general and just the inequity that my neighbor Angie spoke about I am a resident of Live Oak I cannot vote on this capital city council where if this moves forward the planning department and others will be having that power to move or deny everything to do with this project so a project that would affect me and my neighbor so greatly we have no power or no voice over as Live Oak residents so I'm very much opposed to the presentation in general and then beyond that when I look at the presentation slides that were presented today around the community benefits the first one was that local residents would stay in the community which I also really have a hard time believing based on the price point of this development the second is the payroll and property tax which does not seem to meet the standards of number 11 third was the sales tax and tourism revenue noted for visiting family members which seems like very much a direct contradiction to being told that we would not have traffic or parking impact or a lot of people coming and going it's one of their community benefits it's supposed to be tourism revenue so I just want to really strongly voice my opposition to this project moving forward thank you thank you Miss Gallagher one more so Teresa I'm going to allow you to speak is that me? yep go right ahead I'm 1550 Boab Avenue actually I've been here since 1977 Teresa can we get your full name Teresa Stoleroff thank you I've lived here since there were cows where it's kept for them all and I would like to voice please don't make this annexation happen because it's the last remarkation of a residential line on our street versus the commercial if you don't annex then what is put in the place where the capital the kennels is actually has to conform more to the size that would be marketing for our neighborhood clearly all the parking and driving issues have been stated and that's a big concern noise is a big concern how much is that going to block our light and our trees and change the whole environment of our streets so I'm so happy our neighborhood has come out together to really voice our concerns and we really really hope you consider not annexing to the town and keeping that residential thank you Miss Falwell is that it I don't see any more hands thank you any more members of the public last chance before we bring it back to the commission okay we've had our public comment now it's time for planning commission deliberation anybody want to start go make go when the whole idea of community benefit came up several years ago at the time the zoning ordinance was being adopted and I believe it was put into the general plan I objected to it at that time I still object to it because I think it's an end run around our zoning regulations and it's so subjective that it just depends on who's in power to determine whether there's a community benefit or not so I'm a hard sell on the community benefit and if you could if you could put the criteria up for recognizing I don't want to see that too there we go I was struck by by number 2 and number 4 I'll be honest I've lived in Capitola for 60 years I've never driven down bulb and I never have because it's such a sub-standard street it just doesn't look like you should drive down it so I have a really difficult time with that criteria that there's infrastructure to accommodate and I also have a difficult time with number 4 minimizing adverse impacts to the neighboring properties so it's going to take a lot of convincing to me to make those two findings to give a community benefit here someone mentioned blocking off bulb to stop the traffic from coming down it on that one side from Capitola but that's such an inconvenience for the neighbors if you guys want to access anything near 41st you have to go all the way out and around to get there so I don't think that's a real solution someone else mentioned the number of emergency benefits or not emergency benefits I'm sorry emergency vehicles that may occur so many of you have the pulse point app on your phones or iPads but if you look at the pulse point app on a regular basis and I live somewhat near Pacific Coast Manor on Warf Road the number of calls they have at that facility and that's an assisted living facility it's all a rehab facility it's incredible the number of places they have there for the ingress and egress if this were to be approved what else do I have here I think in our general plan one of the statements in there one of the guiding principles is to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods and even though this neighborhood isn't in the city it's in our sphere of influence and those two things this project and that statement seems to be incongruent to me so I'm having a difficult time I mean it's going to take some real convincing to me to support the annexation and because the city has to be the lead agency on that I believe the applicant can be the lead they can but they need the city's a letter of recommendation our stamp of approval so yeah I'd have to have some serious convincing to move forward with this in its current configuration thank you quick question Katie the annexation if it was annexed it would be annexed commercial and currently it's residential is that how that works that's correct so you could not have a large parking lot on a residential site so therefore the only way to make it work under the current configuration would be to annex and I had a quick question for staff in applicants he was saying that the fourth floor was to compensate for dedicating the rear lot for parking if the annexation wasn't an option he was saying that there would be two what would be the other option I don't understand how it would the trade off if it was not annexed it would have to it could only be developed under the county code as it stands today so I think he made a reference to I think the point that the architect was making was that if it were annexed and became commercial they could do a three-story building on that lot and so they're asking for the fourth story on the front lot and in order to not put any structures on the rear lot my turn well as usual I agree and disagree with some of Commissioner Root's comments I think the community benefit has to be a real benefit to the community and while because in my other life one of the things I do is I'm a hospice volunteer so I go to all of these facilities weekly and I know there is a huge huge need in Santa Cruz County for more assisted living locations more memory facilities but I also know that that need is not just for more facilities but facilities that are affordable for the seniors in our community who need them so if I was going to consider something like a community benefit someone would be saying to me that they were going to make a certain portion of this affordable they might even be saying that a certain portion of this was going to have kitchens in the room which would help us with our arena numbers they would come up with a design that was you know compatible for the area that it was going to go in we now I think a couple of years ago looked at a project to redo the Capitola Mall and one of the items that they proposed was having residential that I believe was four maybe even five story that abutted Capitola Road and when that project came in the community clearly indicated that having something that size abut Capitola Road was not appropriate that we would need to have designs where the building was stepped back that there was some public access in the front of it so while I'm not completely opposed to the idea of changing some of our regulations for community benefit for me this project hasn't gotten to the point where I could say yes I think there is a community benefit I mean there would have to be some you know changes in how it's set up managed operated as well as the design of the project I have great empathy for the people who live on bulb because I do agree with Commissioner Ruth until this project came up I don't think I've ever driven down bulb because it's just not one that you look at as a shortcut street it would be imperative for this project to you know figure out how to deal with you know the traffic and the emergency vehicles coming in and out to date we really don't have any information on how all of that's going to work so to sum it up as far as community benefit there needs to be some changes I don't think the size of the facility in the way it's being approached right now with just parking in the back and a big four story building coming up to the sidewalk on both Capitola Road and bulb avenue works for me I have a little different opinion on the annexation the city to annex that property would be a good thing for the city of Capitola and I'll tell you I'm here representing Capitola so you know I want to be sensitive to what you need but also what the city of Capitola needs because I think this site is ultimately going to be developed and some of you were here when we talked about state laws and housing and density earlier it is going to be possible under the new state laws for someone to come in and put a three or four story apartment building on that site and so I think having a little larger site that people can work with ultimately would benefit Capitola and also ultimately benefit the people who live on bulb so we could have a design that would work for all of us so those are my comments for this time thank you Courtney? I very much agree with Commissioner Westman I think annexation would benefit Capitola and I do agree that there could be a very large building put on that on that lot I think my overall impression with the entire building design is really most what impacts me is that I don't think that the community is going to benefit from a four story building and there isn't enough information provided for traffic and ingress and egress to really understand how it's going to affect the neighbors I would I just think more articulation where the mall was concerned it's very similar how it affects the overall streetscape I think just more a second pass at it with more information okay Katie can we look at that other slide that showed the reasons that we would give a waiver that was no but it had to do with the public he had a list that had all the things like public parks they allowed benefits allowed benefits that's the one that's how I looked at this what they're asking for is a waiver or a variance to the code I've got no objection to creating an assisted living facility or any business as long as it meets code and so I say well alright what are the reasons for allowing a variance well okay so the general plan and the code is pretty clear on the kinds of things that we should consider and boy I'm looking at this list this doesn't seem to fit at all something that invigorates 41st street gives us better transportation more green building public parking to me it's I was struggling to see where this would fit and other community benefits to Commissioner Ruth's point it's like well that's kind of a catch all and so I wanted to say well in the light of items 1 through 10 does this kind of fit in that spirit I just didn't see it so my attitude was that I don't feel that I have justification for allowing a variance irregardless of how I love the design or you know even if it you know everybody in the audience love this it's like I don't think it meets the criteria for a variance just as a bureaucrat with regards to the annexation I was impressed with Mr. Lawrence and felt that that the people of the county are it's like taxation without representation we're going to come in here and change the code and make something commercial where it was been residential and all of a sudden we're like the bully coming in and saying no no we're going to annex this and you know the heck with you guys we're going to have this four-story building bearing down on you and sorry you're not part of capital so tough luck so I don't like that aspect of it either so I'd be against the annexation so I don't know to what else do we need to do here those are kind of my comments do we need to vote on something no there's no vote this is just non-binding information that you can we take a vote? no well it I think from a planning commission go on record with a vote that it doesn't meet the criteria for community benefit I'll pull up this slide but pursuant to the code and we really need to follow the code the conceptual review provides the applicant with non-binding input from the city council and planning commission as to whether the request for incentive is worthy for consideration I'm hearing a bit of a split a 2-2 split on the whether or not this is worthy for consideration it sounds like it hasn't really met anyone's bar at this point that additional work would need to be done and additional information but I've now created a list of all of your comments all of your comments will go forward to the city council as a recommendation and the city council will be meeting next week on Thursday at 7 o'clock and hearing this item I will include in the packet all additional letters that were I've got 10 new letters that came in today and the additional information from the applicant so all of that will be in the packet published tomorrow along with the summary of the planning commission's direction on this or feedback so yeah in my comment again to the audience at large is that my experience with the city council is that they're very good about reading all the inputs and all the letters so so all your inputs will be appreciated it doesn't hurt to be there though definitely be there yeah hopefully they listen to the commission alright is there anything else on this item? okay so we'll move on then to where are we commission director's report I look forward to the November 3rd meeting I have no new information for you this evening alright and with that are there final communications of any kind any last minute announcements or discussions okay this meeting is adjourned we're going to end the zoom goodbye goodbye and farewell farewell to you as well and here's your I think we mostly agree I think we did you know the cost of these places has gotten to be ridiculous