Capitola City Planning 08/20/2026

Okay. Hello and welcome to the Capitol Planning Commission meeting. This meeting is open to the public with both in-person attendance at City of Capola Council Chambers at 420 Capola Avenue and remote viewing is also possible. The planning commission and staff are attending in person and members of the public wanting to offer public comment need to be present. The public can live stream the meeting on the city's website, on YouTube, or on Zoom following the link on the meeting agenda. As always, the meeting is cablecast live on Spectrum Communications Cable TV channel 8 and AT&T Universe channel 99 and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Mondays and Fridays at 1 p.m. on Spectrum channel 71 and Spectrum channel 25. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the city's website after the meeting. Our technician tonight is Brian. And as a reminder, please turn off your cell phones during the meeting. Okay, brings us to item one is roll call on the pledge of allegiance. Please stand. We do roll call first. Thank you. Sorry, it's been Did we skip July? I think we skipped July. >> Commissioner Estie >> here. >> Commissioner Howard >> here. >> Commissioner Welch >> here. by sher Q chair Christensen here. Okay. Pledge of allegiance. Uh item two is additions and deletions to the agenda. We have two Item A and B. >> Yes. Staff received uh one, excuse me, two emails for item 6B and one ERA and three emails for item 6C. Thank you. All right. Uh item three is oral communications. Um members of the public may speak for up to three minutes unless otherwise specified by the chair. Individuals may not speak for more than once during oral communications. All speakers must address the entire legislative body and will not be permitted to engage in dialogue. There's anybody that would like to speak for items not listed on the agenda. Nope. Okay. Moving on. Item five, the consent calendar. All matters listed under the consent calendar are considered by the planning commission to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time the planning commission votes on the action unless the planning commission requests specific items to be discussed for separate review. There's one item on the consent calendar, item A, um, planning commission meeting minutes approval for July 16, 2026. Anybody? >> I'll have to abstain since it wasn't here. Move to approve. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I Okay. Moving on. >> Item six is public hearings. Public hearings are intended to provide an opportunity for public discussion of each item listed as a public hearing. The following procedure is as follows. Staff presentation, planning commission questions, public comment, planning commission deliberation, and finally decision. Item A is 618 Riverview Drive and I have to recuse myself for this item and Commissioner SD will be standing in as chair and um I'll give it away to the staff. >> Before you step away, I would like to introduce our new planner, newish planner at this point, Mari Pepper. Mari joins us. Um she went to school in Humboldt and um grew up in Arcada and worked for the city of Arcada as a assistant planner and we've been so fortunate to have her move down to the city of Capola where she also has uh great friends and made the move after college. So we're so grateful to have her here. She's been very helpful in all of our summer monitoring of signs in the village and working with new applicants. And tonight's her first application of a single family home. So from there, I'll um let Commissioner Estie start us on her first presentation for the planning commission. So it's pleasure to have Mari with as part of our team. >> Thank you. >> Mari, welcome. >> Ready. I'll see you guys later. >> We'll call you. Okay. Uh you want to ceue up the presentation, the staff presentation on this particular item. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> All right. Good evening, commissioners. This design permit is for a renovation to and addition to a singlestory single family home within the R1 district at 618 Riverview Drive. The lot is 6,000 square ft or sorry, 3,000 square ft. Its width is 40 feet and its depth is 75 ft, which is a tad smaller than most lots in this neighborhood. Typically, they're about 80 ft in depth. The existing residence is 870 ft and the detached garage is 325 square ft. Both structures are considered legal non-conforming due to their locations within the setbacks. The detached garage is within the side and rear setback and the residence is within the front setback. However, there are provisions in the municipal code that allow for a uh 10 foot setback in the front due to the the amount of nonconforming structures in this Riverview terrace neighborhood. This site plan shows the existing home and garage uh in relation to the proposed layout. Purple you can see where the addition will attach the garage to the main residence. The applicants propose a 1,380 square foot residence. The detached garage will be attached and converted to habitable space. This will take away one parking spot, but two tandem spaces will remain. Part of the addition is also a garage style storage space, and the applicants proposed three new decks as well. These elevations show the front and the north sides of the structure. It's currently 15 ft and 4 in and the applicants propose 19 ft and 8 in. They'd also like to moniize modernize the structure from stucco siding with green roof shingles to stucco limestone veneer and wood siding with standing seam metal roofing. These elevations show the um east and south side. Applicants have also provided a landscape plan which includes permeable driveway and two dogwood trees in the front of the structure. Approximately 44% of the lot will be landscaped or permeable area. Staff recommends the planning commission approve the design permit based on the conditions and findings provided in the staff report. And I'm available for any questions or comments you guys may have. >> All right. Thank you. Any questions, commissioners? I don't have any questions either. So, let's open it up to public comment. Let's start with either the applicant or the architect. You make a make presentation. >> Push the button. >> Okay, we're good. So, my name is Nia Lewis. Myself and Dan Gomez are here from Fuse Architects. Um, we're here on behalf of the homeowners, um, Dale Hensby and Sid Solless Suarez, who unfortunately couldn't make it tonight. Um, yeah, we're here available for any questions that anybody has. Um, Dale and Cider have both lived in Capola Village for some years and this is their home that they want to modernize and make more comfortable for themselves. And yeah, we're here for questions. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Any questions, commissioners? No. No. The presentation is very good, very clear. Thank you. Any other public comments on this project? Okay. Hearing none, let's bring it back to the commissioners for deliberation and vote. Anybody want to make a motion on this? >> I think it's great design >> infused project once again. No great designer designer. >> Just checking. >> Motion. Anybody? >> I'll make a motion to approve great design. Thanks. >> I second. >> Okay. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Commissioner Howard, >> Commissioner Estie, >> I. >> Commissioner Welch, I'm sorry I messed up that order. >> It's okay. That's okay. We'll pass. Thank you very much. Okay, let's bring back chairperson Christensen. Give us a second and we'll move on to item B. >> We have Ben online. >> We do. Um this evening I'm going to present the beginning of this and then Ben will take over when we talk about ADUs and tattoo parlors. >> Ben, can we do a sound check again? Can >> we can >> Okay, you might have to speak up a little more. It sounds a little >> Okay. How do I sound now? >> Um not very loud. Let's try again. Um, how about right now? >> We can hear you, but it's it's very quiet. >> Okay. Well, I'll I'll shout when I speak. >> Okay. And we'll close the door and be really quiet when you speak. Okay. So, we're Go ahead. Sorry. All right. Um, all right. Resuming. Item B is the citywide municipal code amendments. And do we have a staff report? >> Yes. Uh good evening, commissioners. Uh tonight I'm going to present to you the latest updates to our zoning code amendments. And hopefully after these updates, we'll take a break from zoning code amendments because we've had quite a few. Um so next slide, please. So little background on this. We updated our housing element in 2024. We've been implementing our housing element for the past uh two years, three years. Um we've done a variety of housing element updates. Then we conquered the multifamily and more recently the Capitol Mall. So a lot of effort has been time has been spent with this planning commission on these updates and implementations. Next slide, please. Uh we've got one remaining zoning code update and that is to look at our incentivized zone and community benefits and that is what we'll be focused in on tonight. Um other cleanup amendments are to our ADU ordinance which it seems like every year we have a clean up to the ADU ordinance based on state law and then tattoo establishments. Next slide please. We had a planning commission study session on June 4th and we got great feedback on the items we're talking about this evening. Um, and since that time we've also met with the with HCD and with Santa Cruz Yimi. Next slide, please. The incentivized zone within our general plan is focused on allowing increased height and floor area in exchange for substantial community benefits and it's in specific locations. Um and the zoning code this chapter lives in chapter 17.88 88 and um we've got additional details on allowable benefits, the application submitt and review and findings this evening. Next slide. So the eligible locations include all of 41st Avenue and within Capola um and then Capatola Road between Clare Street and 42nd Avenue and more recently the mall was removed from this chapter in order because there were such significant changes that took place for the housing element for the Capitol Mall and that's moved into its own chapter and then also the former Capola theater site um is also included this for a future hotel development. Next slide, please. So during the June 4th meeting um we got um direction from planning commission specifically to establish objective community benefit standards and specific to the hotel was to eliminate the cup process and include operational standards. Um retain the design permit. So, a design permit would go before a planning commission, allow an increased height up to 60 feet, and then also allow all hotels to qualify for incentives regardless of the room count. So, that's really looking at boutique hotels to largescale hotels. Next slide, please. We also were um directed not to include Bay Avenue in the incentivized zone and to prepare for the planning commission consideration, the new hotel objective standards or operation objective operational standards. Looking at uh making sure we're mitigating impacts to neighboring residents because of the additional height. Um considering additional hotel incentives and also incentives for new commercial. Next slide please. So on following the at at that meeting there were comments from EMB that uh what we had put together in terms of our community benefits was really competing with our state density bonus law section of our code. And originally the way it was structured the mall was in the community benefits section. So by moving that out, we no longer had any housing component in our community benefits section. So we following that meeting, we met with Yimi to hear their concerns and then if you go to the next slide, um we asked for a meeting with HCD. So that's why we didn't bring it back to planning commission. We really wanted to make sure that whatever we did moving forward would not be questioned and have to come back to you. So after meeting with the MB and understanding their concern about um the two sections of code competing, we thought it would a good approach to this would be to allow one additional concession or incentive to uh for state density bonus projects if they were to incorporate one of our community benefits. So um we talked this through with HCD. They thought it was a great way to go about it. They said keep it simple. I think Los Angeles has a similar program that's like a 500page document or something. So, we kept it simple and it's simply if a state density bonus comes forward and they were to add one of our community benefits such as a city park, then they could get one more concession or incentive. So, next slide, please. So, the proposed amendments, we now have separated them into two chapters. And this is because when we met with the coastal commission on our updates at the very beginning of this process, they requested that we not make any substantive changes to the village hotel. And so in order to do that, we just created it a separate chapter for it because there's so many moving parts to what we were creating. Next slide. So the allowed community benefits um the during this last review um we've kept the public open space so parks, transit center, public parking, land for public facilities that came up as like a donation of a space for a future police station or city hall. Um new commercial space which would have to be a net increase in commercial space or a hotel. We removed um child care from this. It's a the tenant it's a tenency improvement. It could change over time if it's unsuccessful. Um in the trail con connection, we really put that in thinking about Bay Avenue and Perry Park. And when we decided not to move forward with Bay Avenue, there's not many locations. We went up and down 41st of where we saw an area that you could really improve a connection between two points. We're working on our active transportation plan right now. If something were to come out come out of that, we could bring that back to you at a future date. Next slide. Um, so we broke these into general C types of categories and then for each of these categories there's the incentives that go along with them. So the general projects are the five listed at the top and the second category is hotel projects and then the third is for a density bonus project which includes a community benefit. Next slide. For the general projects, the incentive is a 2.0 F and 50 ft of height. And that's that mimics what we've always had in the code. Um for a hotel project, it goes a little bit further. So 2.0 0 F 60 ft in height reduced parking and the parking requirement is the same as what we proposed at the mall for hotels and then any meeting space would be excluded from the floor area ratio we've heard over and over again about the lack of meeting space in our region. So, this is really another incentive for meeting space. And then the density bonus project, the they would um get one additional density bonus concession or incentive. And to be clear, they wouldn't get the 2.0 F or the 50 F feet because within a density bonus, they are already stacking their different incentives. So, they can ask for that separately within depending on the project that they do. Next slide. Um, so one one item and I hate to do this to you because it was not in the staff report. Um, but this is one thing we need to think through again the net commercial space. I was crunching numbers on this and it works when you have a really small lot. The larger the lot gets, it gets kind of un impractical of what somebody would provide. Um, for a 5 acre lot, it goes up to 43,000 square feet. We were saying it's a the project would have to provide a net new commercial floor area equal to at least 0.2 F for the project site area based on the gross lot area. So doing the math on that we learned with the mall that like 30,000 square feet is kind of pushing it and the mall is over 22 acres for the Malonegy site. So in in look starting to look at these numbers it's like okay we we've got to rethink this. So, next slide. I'm proposing one change tonight, and that would be to change this that a net new commercial floor area be equal to at least 10% of the project's total gross floor area with a minimum of 5,000, sorry, square feet and a maximum requirement of 30,000 square feet. So you can see on the left hand side for a 30,000 square foot project they would have to bring in a 5,000 square foot because that's the minimum to utilize this benefit. But once you get up to um get beyond a 300,000 square foot project, then they'd be maxed out at 30. They wouldn't have to go beyond the 30,000 square ft maximum. I'll pause here for a minute and ask if you if this is making sense or you need me to explain. >> We in that in the incentive area 41st in particular, do we have any parcels that could accommodate anything at 200,000 or 300,000 square feet? >> Um, do you know how large Kings Plaza is? I I want to say it's eight acres. So, no, that doesn't quite reach it. >> Ranch is pretty big. >> Yeah. What's that? >> Yeah, that one's pretty big. >> I think that's the largest. >> Only one. >> Okay. Yeah, I think most of them are the smaller end. But any other questions on that? Okay, next slide, please. But for King's Plaza example with the old calculation, they'd be up in the beyond 43,000. So that that's where it was a red flag for me that it probably won't work. And especially it's a net increase. So it would be 43,000 in addition to what they already have on site. So um okay. So residential adjacencies. This is tied to this is actually for all projects. um because of the extra height that we we would have the residential transition standards which are applicable in most areas of of commercial areas in Capola. On the east side of 41st Avenue, we've always had a 100 foot setback from residential property line for structures um that go beyond a certain height. Next slide. or that that's been in place for the for the sorry for the community benefits for the 50 feet hotel design standards. We've added new objective standards for street presence, parking location, window and doors, rooftop mechanical and materials. These came directly out of our mall updates. So you've reviewed those in the past. Next slide. Hotel operational standards. These are new. So, it's talking about site operations, neighborhood compatibility, maintenance, and safety, and then also complying with our municipal tax. Next slide. Um, this is an item that we are looking for direction on tonight. So, after we do the public hearing, we can come back to this. But for the application submitt and review, currently there's a four-step process of planning commission and city council conceptual review. And then they the city council has to find it to be a community benefit and then it would come back as an application by planning commission recommendation and then city council action. Um and we're suggesting a three-step process at this point which is just planning commission conceptual review, planning commission and city council uh recommendation and then action and just conformance with the objective standards. So next slide. So tonight we are looking for um direction on this. As we were working through the objective standards or the community benefits, I think there's four of them that are tied to a dedication of land in some form to the city. And I think that should really those dedications we really need city council's buy in on whether or not they want to accept those dedications of land. Um, so our suggestion would be that for those projects that are dedicating some type of land or easements that those go to city council for conceptual review definitely. And then um then the applications because we've created objective standards would just go to planning commission and then city council for approval. Um, if you'd like, you could keep the four step of planning commission and city council for those dedications of land, but we thought it would be it would work also just to send it straight to city council to see if they're willing to accept the dedication. So, um, but we'll come back to this at the end of the night for direction. Next slide, please. Um, so we've got a couple hotel examples that were recently built or under construction. Next slide. Just want to give you some ideas of what 60 feet will look like. So the Maria Soul Hotel in Santa Cruz is at 55 ft, four stories. Next slide. Leo House in Newport Beach is at 59 feet. So that's really close to the height limit that we're talking about, 60. Next slide. And then the Hampton Inn in Redwood City is at 60 feet. Um, next slide. And so from here, I'm going to let Ben take over to talk about ADUs and then tattoos. >> All right. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, um, part of the, uh, proposed amendments tonight include changes to the city's accessory dwelling unit ordinance. And, um, as we discussed at the June meeting, uh, the state recently adopted some changes to state ADU law. Um, that's summarized on the screen here. uh revising the process and time frame for cities to review and act on applications, modifying owner occupancy requirements for junior ADUs, and clarifying um which ADU provisions also apply to junior ADUs. Next slide, please. The planning commission reviewed a draft ADU ordinance amendment on June 4th. Um the one comment from the planning commission uh had to do with a reference to the California Health and Safety Code. Um we corrected that reference error. Um all the other um amendments that were um reviewed by the planning commission on June 4th uh remain the same. No other changes to what was previously reviewed. Next slide, please. Okay, the um next topic is body art studios. Um we were referring to these as tattoo establishments at the last meeting. The term of art now is body art studio. Um so, as we discussed at the last meeting, there's a chapter in the municipal code that prohibits tattoo establishments. The zoning code is silent on um this use. Uh there are legal concerns with a body art studio prohibition um as tattoo businesses are considered by courts to be protected first amendment expression. Next slide, please. At the um June 4th planning commission meeting, we asked for some direction on how to regulate body art studios in the zoning code. And the direction we received was to allow uh body art studios in the commercial zones and the mixeduse village zones to require a conditional use permit. uh to limit the number of body art studios to two in total in the CC and CR zones combined and then one in the mixeduse village zone. And then also to establish standards for body art studios that address minimum separation, visibility of procedures from the street, alcohol consumption on site, age limitations, and other issues as appropriate. Next slide please. So um the amendments that are uh provided tonight uh take the planning commission direction uh and incorporate them into draft amendments. So it includes repealing in its entirety all of existing chapter 9.08 and then um a number of different amendments to the zoning code. So um it lists body art studios um as a allowed use in chapter 1720 and 1724 in the land use regulation tables um identifying uh the uses allowed with a conditional use permit. Um and then also the amendments add a new section um on um B body art studios with some use specific regulations that are contained in that new section. And then we also add a definition of body art studios to the glossery that mirrors the definition in state law. Next slide please. Uh so in terms of 17968O with the use specific regulations as I mentioned previously um it identifies the uses allowed in the CCCR and mix MUV with a conditional use permit. It limits the number of these uses allowed in the city um to two in the CC and CR zoning districts combined and then one in the mixeduse village. Uh there's also a section on how the hand the city will handle applications. Uh there's an there would be an initial 30-day application period where um if the city uh receives uh more applications than the max maximum number allowed um the city will hold a lottery and randomly select applications to move forward um with the conditional use permit process. And then after the 30-day period, if the city hasn't reached the limit on the number of body art studios allowed, the applications will be accepted on a first come, first serve basis. Next slide, please. So there's also uh standards for body art studios uh incorporating the direction from the planning commission at the last meeting. So there standards related to hours of operation, minimum separation between uh body art studio uses and uses involving youth. Uh uh limitations on the visibility of procedures from the sidewalk. Um requiring procedures to occur uh indoors. Prohibiting the um sale or consumption of alcohol on site. establishing limits the to um the age of customers allowed in the use and then also prohibiting temporary and mobile body art studio facilities in the city. Next slide please. Okay. So, that's the body art studio um amendments. And then um as zoning code amendments, this package um uh is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act um and staff's recommendation is to find these amendments exempt um from SQUA um because many of them implement a certified housing element. uh they also implement um state ADU law and then also particularly for the body art studio amendments um it can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments won't have um a adverse impact on the environment as defined in SQA. Next slide please. Okay. And then this is a summary of staff's recommendation um for the planning commission to recommend that the city uh council adopt an ordinance amending the municipal code um uh to address the incentives for community benefits, the accessory dwelling units, and um the um uh tattoo establishments. So, with that, unless Katie has anything else to add, it concludes staff's presentation. >> Okay, I'm going to text. Is that too loud? Yeah, it's echoing. There an echo. Yep. How's that still an echo? better. Okay. How's that? So, I just wanted to add we did receive there's an echo. We did receive public comment on the tattoo ordinance and they brought up a really important uh point within our standards for applying. Um we say that within the application they should show evidence of a legal control of the proposed premise. And in thinking that through, it doesn't really make sense because if we have 10 people applying, we wouldn't want 10 people to have leases, not knowing whether or not they could have their establishment. So that's something that if you were to move if we were to move forward with this, I think we should also amend. And um within our cannabis ordinance, we put together a policy which is much more easier than putting it in the ordinance. So I think we should just say a complet application and then within our policy document that will go to city council, we'll outline exactly what needs to be in a complete application because this this could be troublesome if there's a lot of people interested in having a tattoo parlor in. Don't we have something that um that if you win that ticket, do you have to then find a suitable location within two years or something like that or six months? >> Six months. Okay. Yep. So, I think we could model it after that, but that that is I think that's a something we should modify. Um, so with that, we could if you have any questions, I'm available for questions and and the public hearing. >> Uh, on the hotel, we have this so-called 30-year rule. Um, it seems to me a little excessively if somebody's going to put all the money into a building a hotel, we're asking them to guarantee it stays there as a a temporary housing thing for 30 years. I'm not sure exactly how we get that guarantee. They sign something like with somebody, I guess. I'm not sure how that works, but do we really need that? I mean, if they're going to all that effort, isn't that good just good enough? >> It it should be good enough. Um there is a trend though for hotels that are not successful. There's a project home key which turns hotels into residences. So um that that could that's the only thing I could see and that's an avenue for more housing. So I'm not saying for or against but it's just uh 22. >> Yeah. So that is a catch 22. But um I don't I I think the idea there is because this is um a use within a building, it requires longevity of that use. Hotels are a land use that often doesn't change into something else. There are the examples of the project home key that I think we're seeing more and more of that in areas um not along the coast. Coastal hotels are typically successful. So, um I think if you wanted to remove that you could. It just it provides some more guarantee where they're getting a community benefit for the type of tenency. So, >> okay. The other one I'm a little confused on the daylight plane with regard to hotels on 41st Street. So maybe we I don't know if you can pull that slide up, but if you look at 172430 that talks about daylight planes, there's a picture. I think you had it. Yeah, that one. Slide 20. So if you do the math on slide 20 with uh a 50 foot building, I'm not sure we're going to make it. If the hotel's 50 feet and it's 20 feet from the property line, so the daylight plane will be well above that 25 foot level, right? So it's going to extend over into the residential property. >> So at the 20 foot setback is when you have to um at the 25 foot height limit, you've got to go at a 45 degree angle. So it would kind of do this like the wedding cake feature where it steps back along the 45 uh 45 degree angle until it gets to 60 feet >> on the backside. They have to do this in order to >> Yes. >> Yep. >> I think I generally like that if we were to look at the reference images, do you know you know where it's the tiered? >> Yeah, one is quite tiered. >> Yeah, >> probably because of that. I I mean like that's what that's just my my impression, you know, because the last slide of just the big box, you're like, well, that just, you know, >> Hampton in one >> not here. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Okay. No, I guess I guess I get the logic. Thanks. >> Anybody else have any questions or sessions? >> Okay, great. Moving on to um public hearing. Uh we're gonna open up the uh public hearing for anybody else who'd like to speak to this item. You have three minutes and if you could write your name. Um >> Mike's I don't think Mike's >> I don't think >> How about that? Huh? >> That's perfect. >> They say they can't do anything. Cammy Corin, a resident and business owner in Capola. And I, you know, I keep harping on this because I think it's super important and I've been out talking to a lot of residents. But I just want to remind everybody that as they continue this process particularly on the 41st Avenue and the hotel situations um that we look at the in in the commercial areas in the mall um that I'd ask that you guys would remain and ladies would remain mindful in preserving uh the capital of character which I think is so important. Um there is something I continue to hear from the residents and this is what it is and people understand that there's change in development um that will occur but they want to make sure that the new development still feels like Capola and it fits within the character of the surrounding area. And I keep going back to this the same example all the time but Labia Hotel I you know what a great job that they did on that. The character is still the beach vibe. It's still down there with the beach street uh so to speak. Yeah. It's super expensive and nobody can afford to go there, but that's okay. It's not built for us, right? So, it's going to allow uh so much business to come in and that's what I would like to see in these hotels that would give us this toot that we so need in Capola for the budget. So, let's make this where it's going to be this great place that people if they had a choice to go to Santa Cruz or Capola, I want to go to Capola, right? So, let's make it let's make it look really pretty and let's keep within that character. We don't have a lot of control over the housing mandates and things like that but I really feel that there is some control that we can have and that would be of the character. I am a little concerned with uh being vice president with think local first of supporting uh small businesses. I am concerned that the amount of square footage that's being allowed in that area is going to shove out a lot of the businesses. And so I think it's the responsibility of the city, the planning commission, and also council to look at this and see what can we do to help these businesses either survive in this area or where can we put them else-wise. I think that's just a moral obligation that we have. So, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Have a good night. >> Thank you very much. >> Anybody else like to speak to this item? >> Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll move it back to commission deliberation. Anybody like to start? >> Well, we should I guess we should address the permitting process first. That's probably the easiest thing, right? >> Yes. >> You're I would like to say I your proposal of skipping uh planning commission for all that, you know, the public space and all that stuff go directly to council because we don't really control it. You know, it's going to they're going to decide one way or the other. So why why should we waste our time and the developers time? That's my proposal. >> I looked at it. Um the void for me was there's no mandate that they would go work with the I mean department go talk to you guys first. I guess that's just sort of the natural progression anyway doesn't need to be part of meet with planning department >> as part of that process. the development and design review would still be required. So they would go through the staff process. Um their application would come in for conceptual review. We would work with them more about the dedication and what they're offering. Um >> there's no reason to memorialize it in >> there's no reason to say work with staff first because that's part of the intake process. So, yep. >> Yeah, I agree. I like the three-step process. I think it's much clearer and uh it's better for the applicant. So, all good. >> I have one just just to play just slightly the other side of the of coming to planning commission. I just in my experience I'm I feel that council we we're this is kind of our zone is the you know we work closely with staff with the zoning all all of the incentives and we're so familiar with it or at least this body would be so familiar with it that moving straight to council I would even though staff um works with the with the applicants to that point I just feel like having it vetted through the planning commission at that stage at that smaller stage is is important. But I it's just something because I mean I've I've watched people come through here and we we talk about it and these are the incentives that you know is creating like a larger development and that's our comfort zone, you know, and it's not necessarily city council's comfort zone and we're still representing that arm. Does that make sense? That's just that's what struck me when I was reading through it and I just wanted to know if anybody else had any thoughts. I don't know. >> The only thought I had was that be curious what the council's opinion is because they may want to use this. >> Yes, exactly. >> Crazy project. >> Well, I mean true. >> That's the only thought. >> I mean you're people are coming in with large projects. they're asking for these incentives and then to eliminate a part of that process kind of eliminates you know 10 eyes on that project. So I kind of feel like the more eyes the more commu the community is represented and then you know it's it's properly tracked going into development. But that's just that was just how I felt at the time when I read it. I I was kind of voicing the public comments is you really want to make the this process as easy as possible to incentivize people to take advantage of it. >> Yeah. >> And and things like I said, we don't >> there's only a small list of benefits that skip us. So public space if they're going to bring public space as a benefit like Yeah, that's great. I don't think we >> that's that's >> we wouldn't deny that. >> Yeah, that's a very good counter to my I'm just I I just wanted to bring it up as a discussion point. Do you have >> Well, I think it's nice to be in the loop, but I don't think why we could have some input. I don't know that we get much say at the end on the process. So, >> I think you know as you come through the development process faster you can get in front of the decision m the process in this Okay, I think I see a majority. >> And you're not looking for a decision. You're looking for >> Okay. Um so then the next item would be the net commercial increase of switching that from the.20 F net increase to a 10% with a max at 30% or maximum requirement that 30,000 um square feet. Of course they could go beyond that if they so chose. Trying to think of what the >> Yeah, I I agree with that. I think that's a pretty good way to go. Read. And then lastly, the item about uh tattoo parlors and saying that they have to have a complete application and we'll work out exactly what that complete application is within our um administrative policy that will go to city council. They have to adopt that. >> So >> we do we do a lottery on the on the um marijuana. >> We did and the lottery is in an administrative policy. >> So there's Okay. We already have rules for how to conduct a lot. >> We we do for the cannabis and so we we'll just make another administrative policy that'll be similar. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> Agree. I think it makes it less contentious and uh fair to all. So >> I think the input >> Okay. Anything else? >> Well, okay. >> Go ahead. No, >> I didn't know if we have to discuss the SQA exemption stuff or is that >> We don't have to, but if you'd like to, we can. >> Oh, no. I'm I'm totally fine with it. It's good. and the extra concession for the state density bonus. That's we're all I think we're all okay with that, right? >> Seems pretty straightforward. >> Mhm. >> Um okay, so back to my favorite hotel E, whatever this is, clause F1. Hotel shall be maintained and operated for transient occupancy minimum of 30 years. I that just feels like we're throwing up another not maybe not an impediment but another step the developer would have to go through. I I would actually just like to get rid of that whole paragraph but I'm willing to listen. >> I think I' only because I' I've been on the other end of that home key project organization that I think marginal They did confirm. I guess I'd like to have more control than just having them come in and say, "We bought, you know, hotel number one. So I would maybe giving maybe doing it through the mechanism where you otherwise I agree. >> Just just a reminder really quick to speak into the mics. Some of you aren't getting picked up. >> Um I agree. I think that's from the city's prerogative. I think that it it adds a layer of um stability and predictability to their revenue stream. >> What's the process though? Do they have to post a bond? I didn't get that in the process. >> They're asking for a lot if we have to do something like that. >> But if they were to if they were to sell, you know, then >> the use of the property if you're going from transient to something else, would not that need to be reapproved to hotel? That's a great question and I don't have the answer off the top of my head on that one but I I think it depends on the zone and the >> well the okay we changed it to be not a they don't have to they won't get a conditional use permit they'll get a permit to operate a hotel but if you're going to change operating a hotel to a >> be multifamily >> yeah multif family >> it just it depends on the zoning and I believe a multifamily in the community commercial and regional commercial requires a cup. It's my >> So, it would it would take I was thinking um we could put tie standards to it of when it's allowed to convert and that they have to show like um to prove the struggle that they're having with the property and it would have to I think it says in the ordinance I was just trying to go back to it that it has to go to Ben. Are you could you speak to this? >> Yeah. The city the c city council shall not approve a conversion unless the applicant demonstrates based on substantial evidence that continued operation is economically unfeasible. Yeah, I get that. >> But that's that's so broad. They could they could have done terrible financing, >> right? >> And it's in they can't run it because they did it. It's pretty broad. I wouldn't buy that. >> Yeah. whereas they could sell it to somebody else and keep it as a hotel. So >> yeah, I think that it would be in the city's interest to keep it limited use. >> I'm not hard over on I just >> I'm not hard over on the 30 years. I think that's kind of a random number. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Maybe process that forces to >> come back. >> Yeah. Um or a deed restriction on the property. We can we can modify that. will make it stronger. A language >> restriction would certainly slow them down. And if you're a developer, you're going to sign a anyway hotel. >> That's that's probably a good way to do. >> Good. There another items you'd like to discuss. >> Good. I think I'm good. So I think the >> I'm just curious. Cammy brought up this notion of almost architectural standard. Santa Cruz Santa Barb Santa Barbara is my favorite city. You see that just the well they do with Spanish Mediterranean looks. Well, I think it would be probably a year-long process of of doing the community outreach. Since I've been here, it's like I think the design um aesthetic of Capola is that there is a mix of architecture and there isn't just one style. That's what I always hear on the feedback and it's kind of part of the Santa Cruz overall. what makes Santa Cruz Santa Cruz. So, if we were to go down that path, I think there'd be a lot of community involvement in public outreach. Um, we did try to make like we've got the standards in there of like what types of siding are not allowed. We've got the height requirement to step back from residential. We require the hotel to face the street. Um, we don't allow any parking in front of it. Um, there there can be a an area to drop off. Um, so we're really trying to like utilize the designs actually that you see along 41st Avenue where the hotels have a presence on the street and then parking behind. So we're we've got that worked into it. Um, >> yeah, I think from be when we were I think I was discussing in the historical context of or just the historical fabric of the town. I think that's where I was it pinged an interest of keeping it, you know, pretty, you know, consistent of where we're not just, you know, okay, well, this little dumpy surf shack is not really historical, so we can just tear it down, but it's like slowly eroding the historical context of the whole city. And in and to to the you know to your effect of saying you know we want to have a certain style. It's like why not just retain the style we have instead of you know bulldozing every single if we can just kind of keep m keep maintain what we have like maintain the style that's of each little spot >> like your new house that's really pretty >> mine would not have been >> I mean but the one across anyway but it typically you'll see design standards tied to areas where there is a lot of his history and historic um so that is something that if um in talking to council members if that's something that they'd like to prioritize for Capola that's something we could definitely do within our department and I think it would help to have stronger design standards in the village and along like within our historic districts like lawn and um for those infill projects that are they do have an impact on the historic district. So, and for a future hotel down at the Capitol Theater site, it would be great to have design standards in place to really make sure that we get the mass and scale right and it's appropriate for the village. So, >> like the example of the hotel is the Hampton. >> Yeah, >> you wouldn't want to see that there, right? So, that that that would be helpful to have standards for that and and important. I think it was good like uh prior when Swinson was bringing the hotel at the theater, they they gave the community a couple options to look at and that was that was helpful to get the buy in and or lack of but hope we could have the same thing without having to twist arms. They're they're tracking uh Lavajia to see how the occupancy is doing there and the return on investment and uh once they have better numbers, they'll have a better understanding if they'd like to do a project there. We've been reaching out regularly, tell them, you know, we've been working on different things and getting their feedback. So they did say um in doing updating the community benefits that right now it has a 3.0 F and one thing that they have learned from Lavajia is um when people come to the beach they want larger rooms because oftentimes they have kids with them. So they in looking at Capola for the F they were thinking if they could get their F to like 3.5 it would help them to have larger um hotel rooms for families. So that was some of the feedback when talking to coastal commission and they asked us not to make any changes to that section um that in in talking with Swinson it it was okay to just keep it as it is today and rather than rock the boat because a lot more controls can come into place once we get it in front of Coastal Commission if we've made changes. Welcome. >> Thank you. >> So, should we pull up the motion or or I guess you could say I move staff recommendation with the four changes discussed? >> Yeah. Anybody want to move? >> Does anybody want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. We approve the staff recommendation with the four motions >> with the four changes discussed. Okay. >> I'll second. >> Okay. First and a second. All in favor? I >> I Okay, >> thank you. >> Okay, so um we have that was item A, B, and now we have C, update on the coastal commission certification of cliff drive resiliency local coastal program amendments. Have a staff report. Thank you, Sean. Okay. Um so this project the cliff drive resiliency project there's been an overlap between public works really working on the infrastructure side of this and the plans and uh community and economic development taking forward the LCP updates for the cliff drive resiliency project. So this is really focused on the LCP update. Um I I know quite a bit to be dangerous like but it's almost dangerous is not being the project manager of the exact design and but I'm going to bring forward the information I have on the LCP and also other information relevant to the cliff drive resiliency project where we are in the process and um steps that we're taking currently and how the public can get involved towards the end of my presentation. But um so specific to the local coastal program amendments, I'm just going to take a minute to say your local coastal program is made up of your land use plan as well as your implementation plan, which is your zoning plan, your zoning code. And your land use plan is a long range coastal document that talks about what you can do within your coastal zone. It's kind of like the general plan of your coastal zone. Um we submitted our amendments to the coastal commission and got rather than a certification we have two modification two recommended modifications by the coastal commission. Um so go to the next slide. So the background on this planning commission you reviewed this uh LCP amendments in September and October of 2025. City Council approved the LUP amendments um January of 2026. At both uh steps, planning commission made minor changes to the amendments and city council did as well. The California Coastal Commission reviewed these amendments on July 10th. um prior to going to hearing on July 9th, they got public comment um from Surf Rider Foundation and there were many amend many revisions that they were asking. We had reached out to Surf Rider multiple times to participate in our stakeholder meetings. They were not present. They um so the the letter that they submitted, I think it came in on a Monday or a Tuesday and the hearing was on a Friday. So quick turnaround time. We worked with Coastal Commission staff. Uh two edits made it into the document and then they also put references to the coast to the Surf Rider Foundation comments within their staff report. So um but they didn't make it into the final um LCP updates. One was a definition for development which would have had there we would if we were here tonight with what they were proposing. I'd be suggesting that we not move forward with the recommendation because it would have a lot of impact on house houses along the bluffs um throughout Capola and what they can do in the future. So that change did not occur. Um so the next step here tonight this is a an update to planning commission. No action is necessary, but you can open the public hearing to get public comment on it if you'd like. The next step is that this will go to city council. And originally, we were thinking this would go to city council next week on the 27th. Um because of the interest in this item and the 27th agenda is packed. We've got quite a few items on there. We've just and and we've had a lot of interest in the um cliff drive resiliency squa document. So, those two items are moving out to October 8th so we have adequate time with city council to go through and we're also doing a public outreach um update on September 2nd so that we can provide more information to the public on the these two projects. So, next slide please. So the two modifications, the first is to the land use plan policy 7-2 and originally it said notwithstanding other LCP provisions, resiliency and adaptation projects may be approved along cliff drive and then it continues by removing the notwithstanding other LCP provisions. it was really putting this standard above um all the other standards in the LCP by removing the term notwithstanding other LCP provisions. Um it's no longer the policy 7-12 has more prominence than the other LCP provisions. Um so that policy still is applicable to the cliff drive resiliency and adaptation projects and um projects are required to comply with the LCP. If when this project moves forward it will need a coastal development permit and that's one of the first find I think the first finding is consistency with your LCP. So next slide please. The second modification that is suggested is within our land use table that's in our CF, our community facilities and open space zoning districts. The land use listed is public paths and coastal accessways. And we had footnote two. And so footnote two has been the the blue is existing language and then the red line is shown. So coastal armoring to support public paths and coastal access ways along cliff drive is allowable if it meets applicable LCP provisions including Capola LCP policies um 2-4 7-9 and 7-12. So they added the 7-9. So what this change does is it clarifies which policies are really important to the coastal commission um and it identifies those as 49 and 12. If we go to the next slide, I just want to hit on the fact that a future um coastal armoring project is going to have to show consistency with our LCP. Sorry, I have my water. Um, the Coastal Commission, we did a lot of cleanup when we did our last big cleanup of our zoning code. They love to put references to portions of the LCP within our zoning code. It's not necessary. Um, at the end of the day, when a CDP is issued, they have to find consistency with the LCP as a whole. And that includes all the policies in there and directives. So, um, these modifications do not prohibit or preclude future armoring along Cliff Drive. So, next slide. Sorry, this one's hard to read. This is outlining what the process is. So, um, first it any updates to our LCP first goes to planning commission and city council. Then we submit it to coastal commission for a hearing. If they approve it, it immediately takes effect. Um, they never deny a project. We can't appeal a Coastal Commission decision. They they will suggest a modification. So they've moved forward saying we should suggest this modification. If the city council accepts the coastal change, then at their next meeting it'll take effect because um they'll sign off on it. If we reject the change, we can then say we give up. We don't this isn't import as important to us as what they were asking for. The red one is saying we could reject the change and just live with our existing code. The third option is to draft our own edits and then we'd have to go through the steps again. So we go back to planning commission, back to city council and we submit it to Coastal and they're supposed to bring it to hearing I think within 60 days. So, um, when I take this to the city council, I'm planning to recommend ex that they accept these these changes because they're I think they're minor in nature that the LCP you have to make that finding of consistency with the LCP. So, that concludes this part of my presentation, but we'll go to the next slide. I want to give you some updates on the cliff drive resiliency project. Um currently the initial study and mitigated NEG deck which is a SQUA document um is available on the public works cliff drive resiliency page um and it's the public comment period is open. We're extending that. It was supposed to it's supposed to close I don't want to misstate but I think on the 27th and it's being extended to September 9th. Um, also many questions have come up around the ISMND. So, we are going to host anformational update and public input meeting and that will be on September 2nd, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. That's um a Wednesday evening in our community room. And we're going to notice that the planning commission and city council may be in attendance. So, we'll you can um that will give you the opportunity to be there if you'd like and because we just have to be careful about Brown Act and not noticing. Um and what else? So then the city council because of the questions that have come up and requests for extensions, we've extended it through September 9th, the the consultant needs at least three weeks to work on responses to comments. So therefore, we're bumping it out to the October 8th meeting. So this is really to make more time um be able to spend more time with the community and explaining um that document and understanding comments. Um so that's the update on that. Next slide, please. So other LCP items. So this is back to our local coastal program. We've been focused on the cliff driver resiliency planning. Um last back in 2023, there's Senate Bill uh 272 which requires all jurisdictions that are located in the coastal zone to adopt a sea level rise adaptation plan by 2034. Last year we applied for this funding. Um we got we were not successful. Back in 2017, we did a sea level rise vulnerability assessment and the feedback we got was we should take from that 2017 we should rely more on that and update it rather than starting a new I think they thought it was too dup the process was too duplicative and um I think there's limited funds so making sure we're working within the funding. So, um, next week we'll be taking to city council a request to get authorization to apply for that again. And the application is due in September. So, we'll just be revising the original application to make sure we're not duplicating previous work. Um, this includes a holistic look at the coastline and it also includes LCP updates. So they'll part of this project in the next couple years you would see LCP updates after the vulnerability study is updated. Um next I don't think there is another slide. There we go. So that those are my updates on the cliff drive resiliency project and LCP updates. And if you'd like to open the public hearing you can. If you have questions I'm happy to answer them. But no action on this item tonight. >> You have any questions? >> No questions. It wasn't as part of the housing element. Didn't they mandate we had to update the LCP? Or am I wrong on that? >> Um the LCP um implementation plan has to be certified. So that's your zoning code. The LCP is broken into two documents. And so the LUP we did not update. Um but the LCP we did update. The LCP IP the implementation plan. So, the zoning code, >> it has to be certified. Yep. The zoning. >> Mhm. >> So, that's all we have. >> Yep. >> Any other questions? >> Nothing. >> Good. >> Okay. With that, we're going to open the public hearing. If anybody'd like to speak to this item, you have three minutes. And please state your name and speak into the microphone. >> Okay. Am I on? There we go. Great. Katie, thank you um for turning that around so quickly at the July 10th hearing. I know that was a lot of work on the LCP. Thank you. Um All right. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Lesley Nielsen and I am the owner of one of the four properties immediately adjacent to the Cliff Drive resiliency project. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this LCP amendments tonight, particularly because these policies are informing how Capola um you know is going to guide um activity through uh plans for the future of Cliff Drive, Hooper Beach, and the shoreline surrounding our newly rebuilt warf. I'm requesting that we think about this area holistically as one connected coastal system rather than as a series of individual prop projects and property boundaries. Um the city is making significant investments in this area. A new warf protection of Cliff Drive, public beach access and future pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Those investments should work together to protect the beach, preserve public access, improve resiliency, and avoid simply moving coastal problems from one location to another. This is particularly important at the southern end of the Cliff Drive project where the city um meets uh the three properties uh that I or four properties I was referring to. The coastal commission has recognized this relationship in its 2024 permit waiver for repairs to the existing revetment. Commission staff recognized that the revetment protects both the private residences and the city's public access stairway. Coastal staff stated that anticipated future work on the revetment would affect our portion of the revetment and would require a coordinated effort. So, I wanted to make sure that our willingness to participate in this effort is part of the city's record as it considers these long range policies. The adjacent property owners have offered to work with the city on a coordinated shoreline solution that creates an opportunity for you to look beyond property lines and consider whether public and private investment can work together to protect Cliff Drive, Hoopers Beach, public access and adjacent properties and ultimately the city's substantial investment in this area. Tonight's not the time to make decisions of how that looks, but I do want to encourage you to look at the shoreline comprehensively. All of those pieces that I've talked about are part of one waterfront coastal system. As you review these amendments, I ask that you support policies that allow Capola to approach them in a collaborative, comprehensive, and long-term view way. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> You have any other anybody else that would like to speak to this topic or this item? Okay. closing the public hearing and we'll bring it back to >> I I have a question. First, uh I want to thank Katie for being on vacation and having a heads up on being involved with the uh the Coastal Commission meeting. I actually had read their um uh original notes saying that it was they didn't see any issues and everything was fine. So when it was on the consent or the agenda just to be approved, I didn't think much about it, but um unfortunately the surf riders had snuck in right the last minute and made some changes. So I appreciate you taking time for your vacation to look out in our best interest. I think um uh these inconsistencies that we saw in some of these other documents, I'm I'm glad to see that we're addressing that. And uh I'm I'm all for going ahead and moving this forward and I have no issues going to the city council. My one reservation was that I believe we've been inconsistent by reviewing only Cliff Drive and not looking at our coastal bluff, which is a little over a mile long. Um, we know that the RTC is going to go forward with some um, requests to do some work, armoring groins, whatever you want to call it, on New Brighton. It's inside the city of Capola. So, I'm hoping, and I understand maybe the city council will make a recommendation after this is approved that we um, do another application to review our whole coastline. So, um I I think I I agree with Miss Nilson about um the property there. We we know that the warf was caused by damage by rebound off the um off the shoreline. Was it from uh our portion of it, the private homeowners? I'm not sure. I'd love to see some consistency through there. But on the Grand Avenue, which is also a protected trail, it's part of the California Coastal Trail and the uh Monterey Bay Scenic Trail. um it allows for some protections and then there's a little void there because the coastal commission does not necessarily see homes as being a place to protect but on the other side of those homes is uh again the California coastal trail from the RTC standpoint and they they want to protect that. So, I would like to see a consistent plan after this that that looks at our whole entire coastline and not just peacemailing it. And um so I appreciate Katie. Hopefully we can move that portion forward and um make that happen. I want to um also address Miss Nielsson's comments as it relates to as it relates to the the collaboration between the city and the homeowners because this issue did come up when we first started discussing the cliff project. I thought at that time having the homeowners have to go to the coastal commission or or whatever entity to get approvals for their um you know abutments to the the ocean was sort of a a dumb idea. Having the collaboration of city and private owners fix that part of the bluffs seemed logical. And I know that I don't know what the procedural elements are to get that done or if there are any, but it seems like something we should consider as a community as they go down that road. >> Anything else? Right. Is that >> that useful information? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Concluding that we don't have to make a motion. No motion. >> No motion. Okay. Everything is addressed and I think that brings us to um item seven which is the director's appointment. >> Okay. Um I don't have any on or offramp closures or openings to tell you about this evening. So that's good. I guess two out of four right now, right? So, um, the one update I do have for you is 41st Avenue is going to be painted next week and then the Ballards are the last item to go in closer to the highway to avoid people crossing across um getting off the exit and getting back on. So, should be interesting. Does the public works um group have any sway over granite or whoever's working on these on ramps and off ramps because it seems like it seems like they just need somebody to to say you got to work every day. You can't not be there, you know, because you drive by and they're, you know, they must be working at night. They must be when I'm sleeping, but it certainly doesn't seem like it. And it seems like if it were private enterprise, somebody would be riding their butts to get this thing done. >> So, it is uh the RT the Santa Cruz County RTC project and so they oversee it. Um our public works is always getting updates and being and act acting as a partner to inform the public of whenever opening or closing but we don't have much power in their making their workforce work. So but I I've I've observed similar >> patterns is at his best. >> I have seen some night work. >> What's that? What did you say? >> Night work. >> I want to say one thing. I don't know who's unleashing all the goats along um I think it's fantastic. There's the the goat patrol on the um >> they did a great job >> along the rail. I think it's amazing at it up so to speak. >> I walked I was driving by and I'm like am I hallucinating? What's up? There's a giant horde of goats. Chair Christensen, tonight we are going to when we adjourn, we're going to adjourn to the October 2nd meeting because you've accomplished so much tonight. We're going to give you the September meeting off. >> Oh, wow. That's exciting. >> Okay, >> before we finish on the RTC, they're tearing down the fence they just put up. >> Do you hear? Do you see that? >> Oh, why? >> Yeah, it's defective. >> Defective. Oh. Oh, I do have an update on that. I can. Um, so they put up the fence along Park Park Avenue along the trail. It looks pretty. It the um the rebar that's in the fence. It It wasn't placed correctly. It's like lower than it should be. So, if people step on the fence, it will break. They are replacing those pieces. So, I think they're being remanufactured and then >> delivered and reinstalled. So unfortunately I the last update I got I think it was 40 >> of the pieces are broken. So and it it doesn't take much is what I understand. So they are working on that. >> It looks really nice and the goats are a wonderful addition. >> Yeah the goats are great. >> Okay. Um okay that brings us to item eight is adjournment. We'll adjourn to the next uh October meeting 22nd. Is that right? You said >> October 2nd. >> October second. Let me let me double check. Oh, no. October 1st. >> October 1st at 6 p.m. 2026. Thank you so much, everybody. Okay. >> Thank you.