Capitola City Council
September 22, 2022

City of Capitola
City Council Meeting Agenda
Thursday, September 22, 2022 – 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Sam Storey
Vice Mayor: Margaux Keiser
Council Members: Jacques Bertrand, Yvette Brooks, Kristen Brown Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 7 PM
All correspondences received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding a Council Meeting will be distributed to Councilmembers to review prior to the meeting. Information submitted after 5 p.m. on that Wednesday may not have time to reach Councilmembers, nor be read by them prior to consideration of an item.

1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance
Council Members Jacques Bertrand, Yvette Brooks, Kristen Brown, Margaux Keiser, and Mayor Sam Storey.

2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda

1. Presentations
Presentations are limited to eight minutes.

A. Present a Mayor's Proclamation in Honor of Public Works Director Steve Jesberg's Retirement

2. Additional Materials
Additional information submitted to the City after distribution of the agenda packet.

3. Oral Communications by Members of the Public
Please review the Notice of Remote Access for instructions. Oral Communications allows time for members of the Public to address the City Council on any “Consent Item” on tonight’s agenda, or on any topic within the jurisdiction of the City that is not on the “General Government/Public Hearings” section of the Agenda. Members of the public may speak for up to three minutes, unless otherwise specified by the Mayor. Individuals may not speak more than once during Oral Communications. All speakers must address the entire legislative body and will not be permitted to engage in dialogue. A maximum of 30 minutes is set aside for Oral Communications.

4. Staff / City Council Comments
Comments are limited to three minutes.

5. Consent Items
All items listed as “Consent Items” 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 Council votes on the action unless members of the City Council request specific items to be discussed for separate review. Items pulled for separate discussion will be considered following General Government. Note that all Ordinances 1 City Council Meeting Agenda – September 22, 2022
City of Capitola Page 2
which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

A. Consider the minutes from the September 8, 2022, regular City Council meeting Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

B. Clares Street Traffic Calming Project Contract Change Order #1 Recommended Action: Approve Contract Change Order #1 for the Clares Street Traffic Calming Project in the amount of $118,925, increasing the limits of the road rehabilitation work to 40th Avenue and adding vehicle activated safety lights to the library driveway.

C. Consider Adopting Proposed Resolution Allowing for the Continuation of Teleconferencing Recommended Action: 1) Make the determination that all hazards related to the worldwide spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) as detailed in Resolution No. 4168 adopted by the City Council on March 12, 2020, still exist and there is a need to continue action; and 2) Adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the City Council (along with the Planning Commission and all advisory bodies) to continue to conduct teleconferencing meetings.

6. General Government / Public Hearings
All items listed in “General Government / Public Hearings” are intended to provide an opportunity for public discussion of each item listed. The following procedure pertains to each General Government item: 1) Staff explanation; 2) Council questions; 3) Public comment; 4) Council deliberation; 5) Decision.

A. Appeal of 1410 Prospect Avenue Design Permit, Historical Alteration Permit, Variance, and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing residence and construct a new home.

This project is in the Coastal Zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit which is appealable to the California Coastal Commission after all possible appeals are exhausted through the City.

Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption
Property Owner: Alex Johnson,
Appellant: SCC Regional Transportation Commission, Filed: 04.18.22 Recommended Action: 1) Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the variance; and 2) adopt a resolution with additional conditions of approval and findings that address the matter appealed.

B. Consider a Petition to Create a Dogs Off-Leash Area at Monterey Avenue Park Recommended Action: Take no action; thereby maintaining existing rules requiring dogs remain on leash at Monterey Avenue Park due to existing Park uses.

C. Lifeguard Tower Budget Amendment
Recommended Action: Approve a resolution to amend the budget increasing the budgeted amount of $45,000 to $62,000, increase of $17,000, for the purchase of a new Lifeguard Tower.

7. Adjournment
_____________________________________________________
Notice of In-Person & Remote Access
In accordance with Assembly Bill 361, City Council meetings are open to the public for inperson attendance at the Capitola City Council Chambers located at 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California, 95010. Council and Staff will be meeting in-person and remotely, and the public can choose to attend either in-person or via remote access.

Other ways to Watch:
2 City Council Meeting Agenda – September 22, 2022
City of Capitola Page 3
 Spectrum Cable Television channel 8
 City of Capitola, California YouTube Channel
For Remote Access, Join Zoom Application or Call in to Zoom:
 Meeting link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89658842157?pwd=VS9WamYwMkgxRDAvV1NrVkp6V0xDZz09  Or dial one of these phone numbers: 1 (669) 900 6833, 1 (408) 638 0968, 1 (346) 248 7799  Meeting ID: 896 5884 2157
 Meeting Passcode: 826489
To make a remote public comment:
 Via Zoom Application: Use participant option to “raise hand”. The moderator will unmute you  Via Zoom phone call: Dial *9 on your phone to “raise your hand”. The moderator will unmute you Note: Any person seeking to challenge a City Council decision made as a result of a proceeding in which, by law, a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and the discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the City Council, shall be required to commence that court action within ninety (90) days following the date on which the decision becomes final as provided in Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6. Please refer to code of Civil Procedure §1094.6 to determine how to calculate when a decision becomes “final.” Please be advised that in most instances the decision become “final” upon the City Council’s announcement of its decision at the completion of the public hearing. Failure to comply with this 90-day rule will preclude any person from challenging the City Council decision in court.

Notice regarding City Council: The City Council meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. (or in no event earlier than 6:00 p.m.), in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola.

Agenda and Agenda Packet Materials: The City Council Agenda and the complete Agenda Packet are available for review on the City’s website: www.cityofcapitola.org and at Capitola City Hall prior to the meeting. Agendas are also available at the Capitola Post Office located at 826 Bay Avenue Capitola. Need more information? Contact the City Clerk’s office at 831-475-7300.

Agenda Materials Distributed after Distribution of the Agenda Packet: Pursuant to Government Code §54957.5, materials related to an agenda item submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the Reception Office at City Hall, 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California, during normal business hours.

Americans with Disabilities Act: Disability-related aids or services are available to enable persons with a disability to participate in this meeting consistent with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Assisted listening devices are available for individuals with hearing impairments at the meeting in the City Council Chambers. Should you require special accommodations to participate in the meeting due to a disability, please contact the City Clerk’s office at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting at 831-475-7300. In an effort to accommodate individuals with environmental sensitivities, attendees are requested to refrain from wearing perfumes and other scented products.

Televised Meetings: City Council meetings are cablecast “Live” on Charter Communications Cable TV Channel 8 and are recorded to be rebroadcasted at 8:00 a.m. on the Wednesday following the meetings and at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday following the first rebroadcast on Community Television of Santa Cruz County (Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25). Meetings are streamed “Live” on the City’s website at www.cityofcapitola.org by clicking on the Home Page link “Meeting Agendas/Videos.” Archived meetings can be viewed from the website at any time. 3 Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: September 22, 2022
From: City Manager Department
Subject: Consider the minutes from the September 8, 2022, regular City Council meeting
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

Discussion: Attached for Council review and approval are the draft minutes from the regular City Council meeting on September 8, 2022.

Attachments:

1. September 8 draft
Report Prepared By: Chloé Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager Reviewed/Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
4 Item 5 A.

City of Capitola
City Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday, September 08, 2022 – 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Sam Storey
Vice Mayor: Margaux Keiser
Council Members: Jacques Bertrand, Yvette Brooks, Kristen Brown Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 7 PM

1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance
Council Members Jacques Bertrand, Yvette Brooks, Kristen Brown, Margaux Keiser, and Mayor Sam Storey.

2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda – none

3. Presentations
A. Introduction of Recreation Division Staff; Brennan Howard, Recreation Coordinator: Beach Lifeguard Services, Junior Guards & Sports
Recreation Division Manager Bryant-LeBlond introduced Brennan Howard, the City's new Recreation Coordinator: Beach Lifeguard Service.

B. Junior Guard Participant Recognition
Recreation Coordinator Howard explained the meaning behind the awards and then introduced recipients.

4. Additional Materials – none

5. Oral Communications by Members of the Public
Laurie Hill thanked Council for their support of the Capitola Begonia Festival and announced that the Capitola Historical Museum received more than $1,000 in donations during the event.

6. Staff / City Council Comments
City Manager Goldstein announced that there is a current Flex Alert making rolling blackouts a possibility. He said that if power is lost, the meeting would be rescheduled.

Council Member Brooks thanked the Public Works Department for their work to move a fire hydrant that blocked a resident’s sidewalk access.

City Attorney Zutler said that Council met in a closed session at 3:30pm this afternoon and that no reportable action was taken

7. Consent Items
Council Member Bertrand thanked the school district for the donation. Mayor Storey requested an edit to the draft minutes.

Motion: Approve Items 7.A, 7.B, 7.C, 7.D, 7.E as recommended 5 Item 5 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – September 08, 2022
City of Capitola Page 2
Result: Passed, 5:0 (Unanimous)
Mover: Council Member Brown
Seconder: Vice Mayor Keiser
Yea: Mayor Storey, Vice Mayor Keiser, Council Member Bertrand, Council Member Brooks, Council Member Brown, Mayor Storey
A. Consider the minutes from the August 25, 2022, regular City Council meeting Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

B. Approval of City Check Registers Dated July 15, July 22, July 29, August 5, and August 19.

Recommended Action: Approve check registers.

C. Afterschool Scholarship Donation
Recommended Action: Accept donation of $20,000 from the Soquel Union Elementary School District for Afterschool Rec Club participant scholarships.

D. Hybrid Meeting Administrative Policy
Recommended Action: Approve draft policy.

E. Consider Adopting Proposed Resolution Allowing for the Continuation of Teleconferencing Recommended Action: 1) Make the determination that all hazards related to the worldwide spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) as detailed in Resolution No. 4168 adopted by the City Council on March 12, 2020, still exist and there is a need to continue action; and 2) Adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the City Council (along with the Planning Commission and all advisory bodies) to continue to conduct teleconferencing meetings.

8. General Government / Public Hearings
A. Resolution Supporting Local Measure K on the November 8, 2022 Ballot Recommended Action: Adopt resolution supporting Local Measure K (Santa Cruz High School District Bond) on the November 8, 2022 Ballot.

Superintendent Munros introduced Sam Rollins, Chief of Communications and Community Engagement for the Santa Cruz City School District, who presented on Local Measure K.

Council Member Brown asked about the dedicated workforce housing and confirmed it would be for teachers and other district employees.

Council Member Bertrand asked about the bond’s financial plan over its 33-year lifespan.

There was no public comment.

Mayor Storey commented that school safety and sustainability is important.

Council Member Brown commented that to her, Measure K is reminiscent of the 2016 library measurer, which had a positive impact on the entire community.

Motion: Adopt resolution
Result: Passed, 5:0 (Unanimous)
Mover: Council Member Brown
Seconder: Council Member Brooks
Yea: Mayor Storey, Vice Mayor Keiser, Council Member Bertrand, Council Member Brooks, Council Member Brown, Mayor Storey
B. Village Palm Tree Lights Proposal
Recommended Action: Consider a request from the Capitola Village and Wharf Business Improvement Area to replace existing “bright-white” rope lights on the palm trees throughout the Village with “warm-white” rope lights.

Public Works Director Jesberg presented a staff report. 6 Item 5 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – September 08, 2022
City of Capitola Page 3
Council Member Brooks asked for clarification. Director Jesberg explained that the BIA wants to test out newly discovered coaxial lights prior to installing them.

Carin Hanna gave more details on coaxial lights and emphasized that the BIA hopes to have lights professionally installed by The Christmas Tree Light Pros before Thanksgiving.

There was no public comment.

Vice Mayor Keiser asked if approval for either coaxial or rope lights was necessary. Ms.

Hanna said the BIA wants to be able to move forward quickly, and while they hope the coaxial lights are as good as anticipated, they appreciate the flexibility of having the warm-white rope lights as a backup plan.

Motion: Approve the BIA’s plan to test Coaxial Lights and either install warm-white Coaxial or LED warm-white rope lights for the Village Holiday Lights display Result: Passed, 5:0 (Unanimous)
Mover: Council Member Brown
Seconder: Council Member Brooks
Yea: Mayor Storey, Vice Mayor Keiser, Council Member Bertrand, Council Member Brooks, Council Member Brown, Mayor Storey
C. Park Avenue Traffic Calming Report
Recommended Action: 1) Provide feedback on traffic calming options for Park Avenue and 2) Direct Public Works staff to conduct public outreach on the proposed alternatives.

Public Works Project Manager Mozumder presented a staff report with the results of the Park Avenue traffic calming analysis.

Council Member Brown confirmed that residents will receive mailed notice regarding upcoming outreach meetings.

Council Member Bertrand suggested staff communicate with the Bicycle Coalition.

Mayor Storey sought clarification on lane diets. He also asked if an additional stop sign had been considered. In response to a question about curb-outs, Project Manager Mozumder explained that bike lanes prohibit them.

Council Member Brooks asked about the crossing at Park and Kennedy and McGregor.

Project Manager Mozumder responded that the Kennedy Sidewalk Project is funded with an RTC grant and will address this issue.

Vice Mayor Keiser asked about fully green bike lanes.

In public comment:

Alexander Pedersen commented on road delineators such as bumps that create physical feedback for drivers but do not trap debris.

Janet Edwards (via Zoom) commented on the heavy traffic along Park Avenue and suggested outreach to the school so that parents can give input.

Council Member Bertrand said that this project will address a long-standing issue and that he appreciates the different options to address it.

Outcome: feedback given to staff
D. Consider an Ordinance Amending Capitola Municipal Code Section 2.04.275 as Recommended by the Finance Advisory Committee
Recommended Action: Consider the Finance Advisory Committee recommendation to adjust Council Member compensation and approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending Capitola Municipal Code Section 2.04.275 pertaining to City Council Member salary to provide an adjusted salary of $660 per month for members of the City Council, to be effective upon the 7 Item 5 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – September 08, 2022
City of Capitola Page 4
start of new terms of office following the November 2022 General Municipal Election.

Finance Director Malberg presented a staff report on the Finance Advisory Committee recommendation to increase Council Compensation beginning at the start of the next Council term.

In public comment:

Carin Hanna said that she disagreed with an automatic increase every two-years.

Mayor Storey clarified that an automatic increase every two-years is not being suggested.

City Attorney Zutler said that an automatic increase is not possible, and the increase amount is also governed by State code. She said that a periodic review of Council salary is common and best practice.

Motion: Approve 1) the FAC recommendation to increase Council Compensation to $660/month effective upon the start of new Council terms after the November 2022 election and 2) the FAC review of Council compensation every two years Result: Passed, 5:0 (Unanimous)
Mover: Council Member Brooks
Seconder: Council Member Bertrand
Yea: Mayor Storey, Vice Mayor Keiser, Council Member Bertrand, Council Member Brooks, Council Member Brown, Mayor Storey

9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:58pm to the next regular City Council meeting on September 22, 2022.
____________________________
ATTEST: Sam Storey, Mayor
____________________________
Chloé Woodmansee, City Clerk
8 Item 5 A.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: September 22, 2022
From: Department of Public Works
Subject: Clares Street Traffic Calming Project Contract Change Order #1 Recommended Action: Approve Contract Change Order #1 for the Clares Street Traffic Calming Project in the amount of $118,925, increasing the limits of the road rehabilitation work to 40th Avenue and adding vehicle activated safety lights to the library driveway.

Background: On April 28, 2022 the City Council authorized the Department of Public Works to advertise for construction bids on the Clares Street Traffic Calming Project with an approved budget of $1,153,000 and available funding of $1,247,696. On June 29, 2022 bids were opened; the low bid received was from McKim Corporation in the amount of $1,052,667. Based on the bid being lower than the approved budget a contract was awarded to McKim. Because the bid was $100,333 below the approved budget, the Public Works Department contacted the contractor to negotiate pricing to add to the scope of the project to include two additional components that were originally omitted to reduce project costs.

Discussion: The proposed additional work includes the extension of the road rehabilitation limits along Clares Street to 40th Avenue and the inclusion of library safety lights at the library driveway on Wharf Road. The extension of the road work will address an additional 1600 square yards of roadway on Clares Steet, including the intersection at 40th Avenue. The safety lighting at the library will provide flashing yellow warning lights aimed at cars on Wharf Road when a car is exiting the library driveway.

Fiscal Impact: The total available funding for the project is $1,247,696. The addition of CCO No.1 will bring the total contract project cost to $1,171,592. The revised total project cost leaves $76,104 in contingencies for the project.

Funding
Measure D $ 264,432
General Fund $ 150,000
SCCRTC - multiple sources $ 833,264
Total $ 1,247,696
Contract Project Costs
McKim Contract $ 1,052,667
Proposed CCO No. 1 $ 118,925
Total Cost $ 1,171,592
Remaining Contingency $ 76,104
Attachments:

1. Contract Change Order #1 for the Clares Street Traffic Calming Project Report Prepared By: Kailash Mozumder, Public Works Project Manager Reviewed By: Chloé Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager, Steve Jesberg, Public Works Director
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
9 Item 5 B.

CITY OF CAPITOLA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Project: Clares Street Traffic Calming Change Order No. 1 Contractor: McKim Corporation Date: September 22, 2022
Scope of Work or Change: Additional work increasing the limits of the road rehabilitation to 40th avenue and adding vehicle activated safety lights to the library driveway.

Add/Subtract Unit Change in
price Notes
Extended work area to 40th Ave. + 1 LS $77,601 Increased quantity at unit price
Library Safety Lights + 1 LS $41,324 See attached Option #2 CCO#2
Total $118,925
This Change Order will X increase the contract amount by $118,925 decrease
not change
and is based on X Agreed lump sum/unit price proposal.

Contract unit prices.

Cost plus 15 percent (Force Account)
NOTE: Approval of this Change Order by the Contractor constitutes agreement as to the final compensation for the scope of work listed in accordance with Section 4.03 of the Standard Specifications.

Approved for By: Date:

Contractor Title:

Approved for By: Date:

X City of Capitola Title: Public Works Director

****************************************************************************************************************** Summary of Amounts Payable Under Contract
Net effect of previous Change Orders
This Change Order
Net effect of all Change Orders
Original contract amount
New contract amount
$ 0
$ 118,925
$ 118,925
$ 1,052,667
$ 1,171,592
10 Item 5 B.
11 Item 5 B.

City of Capitola Project Title : Clares Street Traffic Calming Improvements Change Order #1
UNITS Bid QTY Unit Price Total Unit Price Total
1 Mobilization LS 1 22,000.00 $22,000 $1,400.00
2 Construction Area Signs LS 1 2,500.00 $2,500
3 Traffic Control System LS 1 131,000.00 $131,000 $6,210.00 4 Survey and Construction Staking LS 1 9,000.00 $9,000
5 Temporary Water Pollution Control and Erosion Control LS 1 4,000.00 $4,0006 Adjust Water Valve Box to Grade EA 26 600.00 $15,600 3 $1,800.00 7 Adjust Sanitary Sewer Manhole to Grade EA 15 900.00 $13,500 1 $900.00 8 Adjust Storm Drain Manhole to Grade EA 4 900.00 $3,600 9 Adjust Gas Valve Box to Grade EA 4 600.00 $2,400
10 Adjust Utility Frame and Cover to Grade EA 5 400.00 $2,00011 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD 1130 11.50 $13,000 12 Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR) SQYD 10784 21.15 $228,082 1600 $33,840.0013 Wedge and Conform Grinding LF 4568 4.73 $21,600 570 $2,696.10 14 Conform Grinding SQYD 86 79.07 $6,800
15 Aggregate Base (Class 2) CY 73 198.08 $14,460
16 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 1483 147.05 $218,070 178 $26,174.90 17 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) LF 185 103.89 $19,222 18 Minor Concrete (Valley and Cross Gutter) SQFT 492 39.84 $19,600 19 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) SQFT 1154 22.18 $25,60020 Minor Concrete (Driveway) SQFT 266 62.78 $16,70021 Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp Remove and Replace) EA 10 7,000.00 $70,000 22 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe LF 11,218 3.29 $36,852 1000 $3,290.00 23 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking SQFT 4169 6.00 $25,014 215 $1,290.00 24 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Green) SQFT 3079 11.00 $33,86925 Decorative Crosswalk LS 1 24,340.00 $24,340 26 Blue Fire Hydrant Pavement Marker EA 4 15.00 $60
27 Roadside Sign EA 37 150.00 $5,550
28 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Assembly LS 3 22,750.00 $68,250 CO1 Library Entrance Vehicle Activate Safety Lights LS 1 $41,324.00 Total Cost $1,052,667.00 $118,925.00
Summary
Original Bid $1,052,667.00
Changes $118,925
Final Cost $1,171,592.00
McKim Corporation McKim Corporation
Base Bid CO1
12 Item 5 B.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: September 22, 2022
From: City Manager Department
Subject: Consider Adopting Proposed Resolution Allowing for the Continuation of Teleconferencing
Recommended Action: 1) Make the determination that all hazards related to the worldwide spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) as detailed in Resolution No. 4168 adopted by the City Council on March 12, 2020, still exist and there is a need to continue action; and 2) Adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the City Council (along with the Planning Commission and all advisory bodies) to continue to conduct teleconferencing meetings.

Background: In December 2019, an outbreak of a respiratory illness linked to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was first identified. In March 2020, the State of California, the County of Santa Cruz, and the City of Capitola each declared a state of emergency due to the virus. Also in March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. State and local health officers issued health orders to stop the spread of COVID-19; in Santa Cruz County this included March, April, and May 2020 ShelterIn-Place orders that were more restrictive than statewide guidance. Since then, the County Health Officer has incorporated all Orders of the State Public Health Officer, which set baseline statewide restrictions on travel and business activities.

Currently (and since February 2022), there are no State required COVID-19 restrictions, other than minimal masking requirements in certain settings. COVID-19 public safety economic restrictions were mostly removed in June 2021 when the state met the criteria to fully reopen the economy and moved beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy.

Discussion: The Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 on September 16, 2021. The Bill allows cities to continue virtual meetings (much as Capitola City Council Meetings function now) as long as the state is under a proclaimed state of emergency; through 2024 when the bill will sunset. The Bill requires legislative bodies to comply with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure the public can safely participate and observe local government meetings. One of the requirements is for Council to adopt findings every thirty days.

Attached is a resolution that makes the following findings:
1) Find that current conditions authorize teleconference public meetings, based on the Governor’s state of emergency regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic
2) Authorize legislative bodies to conduct teleconference meetings, allowing Capitola City Council, Planning Commission, and other advisory bodies to continue to meet using Zoom.

Council will need to adopt resolutions making findings required by AB361 as long as Hybrid Meetings (with Council Members attending remotely) continue.

Fiscal Impact: Fiscal impacts are continually reviewed by Staff as business restrictions and consumer behaviors change in our community. City Council has maintained $385,000 in a resiliency fund to help ensure the City has available resources should the pandemic result in further unforeseen impacts, which remains in the approved FY 2022-23 Budget.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Teleconferencing resolution
Report Prepared By: Chloé Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager 13 Item 5 C.

Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
14 Item 5 C.

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA AND ON BEHALF

OF COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54952(b) AUTHORIZING TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB 361 (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e)) TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SAFELY

PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to ensuring public access to observe and participate in local government meetings; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City Council and other legislative bodies created pursuant to Government Code Section 54952(b) are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, so that any member of the public may participate in local government meetings; and WHEREAS, the recently adopted AB 361, codified at Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in local government meetings, without compliance with the requirements of 54953(b)(3), during a Governor-proclaimed state of emergency and if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency due to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to a novel coronavirus (now known as COVID-19) and that State of Emergency is still in effect in the State of California; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, the Capitola City Council proclaimed the existence of a local emergency due to the worldwide spread of the coronavirus with Resolution No. 4168, pursuant to Section 8.08.020 of the Capitola Municipal Code and Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and lives of City residents; and WHEREAS, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant (Delta Variant) is highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2021, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance calling for the use of face coverings and stating that the Delta Variant is two times as contagious as early COVID-19 variants, leading to increasing infections, the Delta Variant accounts for over 80% of cases sequenced, and cases and hospitalizations of COVID-19 are rising throughout the state; and
WHEREAS, the Delta Variant has caused, and will continue to cause, conditions of imminent peril to the health safety of persons within the City; and WHEREAS, on October 14, November 23, and December 9, 2021, January 13, February 10, and February 27, March 10, March 24, April 14, April 28, May 12 and May 26, June 9, June 23, and July 28, 2022, August 25, and September 8, 2022 the City Council adopted a resolution proclaiming the need to meet by teleconference pursuant to Government Code Section 54953; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of the commissions, committees and other bodies that were created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b) (collectively referred to as “Legislative Bodies”), finds that the current conditions meet the circumstances set forth in 15 Item 5 C.

Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to continue to use teleconferencing to hold open and public meetings if the Legislative Bodies comply with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure the public can safely participate in and observe local government meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Capitola that the City Council does hereby:

1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

2. Find that Current Conditions Authorize Teleconference Public Meetings of Legislative Bodies. The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and finds that based on the California Governor’s continued declaration of a State of Emergency and current conditions, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, such that the conditions continue to exist pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to use teleconferencing to hold public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure members of the public have continued access to safely observe and participate in local government meetings.

3. Authorize Legislative Bodies to Conduct Teleconference Meetings. The Legislative Bodies are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Capitola on the 25
th day of August 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Sam Storey, Mayor
ATTEST: __________________
Chloé Woodmansee, City Clerk
16 Item 5 C.
17 Item 5 C.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: September 22, 2022
From: Community Development Department
Subject: Appeal of 1410 Prospect Avenue Design Permit, Historical Alteration Permit, Variance, and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing residence and construct a new home.

This project is in the Coastal Zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit which is appealable to the California Coastal Commission after all possible appeals are exhausted through the City.

Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption
Property Owner: Alex Johnson,
Appellant: SCC Regional Transportation Commission, Filed: 04.18.22 Recommended Action: 1) Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the variance; and 2) adopt a resolution with additional conditions of approval and findings that address the matter appealed.

Background: On August 24, 2021, the City received an application proposing to demolish an existing 1,606 square-foot, two story, single family residence and construct a new 1,422 square-foot, two story, single family residence with a 796 square foot basement. The applicant sought a design permit, historical alterations permit, variance, and coastal development permit.

On January 26, 2022, the application was reviewed by the Development and Design Review Committee.

The committee provided guidance on several items which the applicant addressed in a revised plan.

On April 7, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the application for a Design Permit, Historic Alteration Permit, Variance, and Coastal Development Permit (CDP), to demolish an existing residence and construct a new home.

On April 18, 2022, the City received an appeal from Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation (RTC) (Attachment 1). RTC appealed the Planning Commission’s decision granting a variance.

On August 18, 2022, the City received an independent peer review letter for slope stability analysis from Pacific Crest Engineering.

On August 31, 2022, the applicant submitted a revised plan set which relocated the primary structure three feet away from the rear property line.

On September 8, 2022, the RTC submitted a follow-up letter in response to the peer review findings and proposed design revisions, indicating the revised proposal was generally satisfactory and that the RTC would agree to retract its appeal provided several considerations were addressed (Attachment 2).

Discussion: As proposed, the project revisions and proposed conditions of approval have addressed the RTC’s concerns with the project. Nevertheless, the City Council must take action on the appeal in order for the revised conditions to take effect.

The analysis in this staff report is focused on the appeal, including the variance to the rear setback and slope stability issues. The staff report for the April 7, 2022, Planning Commission meeting includes indepth analysis on the Design Permit, Historic Alteration Permit, Variance, and CDP, to demolish an existing residence and construct a new home and modify the detached garage (Attachment 7).

The subject property is located on the southeast side of Prospect Avenue on a gently sloping terrace above a coastal bluff which overlooks the Capitola Village. The property shares its rear boundary with the RTC right-of-way, which includes the railway corridor and a public walking path. The RTC property 18 Item 6 A.
is terraced, with the pathway level with the residences and the railway closer to the ocean and twenty feet lower.

The existing residence is non-conforming as it does not comply with setback and floor area ratio requirements. The approved design includes a variance for setbacks and floor area, however the extent of the nonconformities is reduced. Specifically, the variance allowed for the future structure to be constructed within five feet of the front property line and a zero-lot-line condition at the rear property line.

Also, the structure exceeds the floor area ratio by 39 square feet.

Development along the southeast side of Prospect Avenue is typified by a near-continuous span of fences and residential structures located along the front property line. Parcels towards the southern end of Prospect Avenue decrease in both lot size and depth. The irregular shape, minimum size, and shallow depths of the subject property support the required variance findings of unusual circumstances. The image below shows the unique property boundaries of 1410 Prospect Avenue and the adjacent pedestrian pathway.

Appeal: Rather than appeal the Planning Commission’s decision on all approvals, the RTC appealed the Commission’s decision to grant a variance for the rear setback that would allow the applicant to construct the home along the rear property line adjacent to the RTC property. The RTC also appealed conditions of approval #8, #11, and #12, requiring a geotechnical report; a drainage, grading, sediment and erosion control plan; and stormwater management plan prior to issuance of building permits. The appeal letter describes several concerns regarding reduced setbacks towards RTC property, including potential to interfere with the RTC’s uses, operations, inspections and maintenance, to constrain public access, to increase erosion, and to reduce stability of the bluff.

Since the appeal was received, the property owner has taken steps to address the concerns of the RTC.

The property owner and RTC are now in agreement on a modified design and added conditions of approval. The following outlines the steps that have been taken since the appeal was submitted.

On August 31, 2022, the applicant submitted modified plans which relocate the proposed residence three feet, three inches away from RTC property and towards Prospect Avenue. Moving the home forward reduced the front yard from five feet to one-foot, seven-inches. Historically, the home was located on the front property line, similar to those on adjacent properties. The updated plans do not alter the siting of the detached garage.

The property owner also addressed RTC’s concerns related to slope stability. In July of 2021, the property owner of 1410 Prospect Avenue had a geotechnical investigation report prepared by Dees and Associate (Attachment 6). Following the filing of appeal, the City contracted Pacific Crest Engineering to perform an independent peer review of the geotechnical investigation (Attachment 7). The peer review 19 Item 6 A.
provides an overview of different types of slope stability analysis and concludes that original geotechnical investigation is adequate, and no addition study should be required.

On September 8, 2022, the RTC submitted a follow-up letter in response to the peer review findings and proposed design revisions, indicating the revised proposal was generally satisfactory (Attachment 2).

The RTC outlined five considerations related to the RTC pathway and stairs, runoff from the site, rightof-entry onto RTC property, and review of future building permit submittals. Conditions of approval have been added to address the RTC concerns. Attachment 4 includes analysis of each RTC consideration and the resulting condition of approval, as necessary.

Options for Ruling on the Appeal: Pursuant to CMC Section 17.152.030(F), as the review authority for the appeal, the City Council has three options:

1. Affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action that is the subject of the appeal;

2. Adopt additional conditions of approval that address the matter appealed; or

3. Remand the appeal for further review, recommendation, or action of the previous review authority.

Since the property owner has addressed the concerns of the RTC, staff recommends the City Council adopt the additional conditions of approval as drafted and shown in underline that address the issues raised in the appeal.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Attachments:

1. Appeal Filing – 04.18.22

2. Appeal Follow-Up Letter – 09.08.22

3. Revised Plan Set – 08.29.22

4. Response to Appeal Follow-Up Letter

5. Development Standards table for revised plan set

6. Geotechnical Investigation Report

7. Peer Review of Geotechnical Investigation

8. Previous Staff Report with attachments – 04.07.22

9. Resolution
Report Prepared By: Sean Sesanto, Associate Planner
Reviewed By: Chloé Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager; Samantha Zutler, City Attorney Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
20 Item 6 A.

CITY OF CAPITOLA

APPEAL INFORMATION

CITY OF CAPITOLA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
420 CAPITOLA AVENUE, CAPITOLA, CA  95010
831‐475‐7300     WWW.CITYOFCAPITOLA.ORG
Appeals Overview
The City of Capitola appeals process enables applicants and other affected parties to challenge a City decision by having the matter considered by a higher level decision making authority.

Who May Appeal
Any Capitola resident may file a permit appeal.  Non‐residents may file an appeal if they can demonstrate that they have a significant interest in the matter.

Appeal Deadlines
An appeals must be filed by 5:00 PM within 10 calendar days of a permit decision unless a longer appeal period is specified.  Appeals filed after the deadline will not be accepted or considered.

Postmarks are not accepted.

Appeal Requirements
Individuals wishing to file an appeal must submit a completed appeal application and pay applicable fees.  Applicants who file an appeal and have a developer deposit account will also be charged for staff time to process the appeal.

Types of Appeals

1. Administrative (Staff Determinations):  Appeals of administrative staff determinations are cases which do not involve a discretionary permit, such as a conditional use permit, design permit, or a subdivision map.  Administrative appeals are considered by the City Council.

2. Permit Decisions:  Appeals of permit decisions involve decisions issued by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission. Director decisions are considered by the Planning Commission. The City Council considers appeals of Planning Commission decisions.

3. Code Enforcement Actions:  Individuals cited with a code enforcement action may appeal the City’s determination.  Depending on the nature of the code enforcement action, the appeal may be considered by the Planning Commission or an appeal officer.

4. Building Code Interpretations:  A property owner, applicant, or contractor may appeal an interpretation made by the Building Official to the Building Appeals Board.

5. Coastal Appeals:  A decision by the City Council to approve a Coastal Development Permit may be appealed to the Coastal Commission if the project is located in the Coastal Appeal Zone.

Appeal Fees
All appeal applications must be accompanied by a non‐refundable appeal fee as established by the City’s adopted Fee Schedule.

Appeal Hearing
All appeals are considered at a public hearing before the applicable decision making body.

Appellants should always attend the hearing to present their case to the decision makers. 21 Item 6 A.

CITY OF CAPITOLA

APPEAL APPLICATION FORM
Administrative ‐ Staff Determination See Fee Schedule
Planning Commission Decision See Fee Schedule
Code Enforcement Action See Fee Schedule
Building Code Interpretation See Fee Schedule
Coastal Appeal $0
Name:

Address: City Zip
Phone:

Email:

Project Address:

Property Owner:

Application Number:

Please note the reasons and grounds for your appeal.  Attach additional pages as necessary.

SIGNATURE DATE

APPELLANT INFORMATION
TYPE OF APPEAL (check one)   APPEAL FEE

APPEAL INFORMATION

REASONS FOR APPEAL
✔
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 1101 Pacific Ave, Suite 250 Santa Cruz 95060 831-460-3200 [email protected] 1410 Prospect Avenue Alex Johnson 21-0376 See attached additional pages. 4/18/2022 22 Item 6 A.

Community Development Department
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Ave
Capitola, CA 95010
April 18, 2022
Subject: Appeal of Permit Application Number 21-0376
The Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) respectfully appeals the April 7, 2022 decision of the Capitola Planning Commission to grant a variance for Permit Number 21-0376.

Background Discussion:

The Applicant’s proposal is to demolish an existing 1,606 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence at the property known as 1410 Prospect Avenue (APN: 034-046-19) and to construct a new 1,422 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence with a 796 square-foot basement. The proposal includes the relocation and remodel of an existing detached garage and a variance request allowing the project to not conform to the setbacks and maximum allowable floor area required by the City’s Development Standards. The project is within in the R-1-GH (SingleFamily Residential, Geologic Hazards) zoning district. The project is within the Coastal Zone and require a Coastal Development Permit.

According to the April 7, 2022 Agenda Report considered by the Capitola Planning Commission for Permit Number 21-0376, the City’s Development Standards, R-1 regulations require a Rear Yard (1st Story) setback of seven feet and seven inches (7’-7”) and a Rear Yard (1st Story) setback of seven feet and seven inches (7’-7”). The Agenda Report does not state the City’s Development Standards, R-1 regulations setback requirements for basements; however, from discussions with City staff, it is understood that the standard practice of the City is to apply the 1 st Story setback requirements to basements. It is also understood that the R-1 regulation for Rear Yard setbacks is based on 20% of parcel depth; due to the geometry of this parcel, the required Rear Yard setback may be variable due to the variable depth of the parcel.

The Applicant’s Design Permit included a variance request to construct the proposed new single-family residence with a zero foot (0’) 1
st Story and basement setbacks. A Variance
Application Form was submitted. On this Form, the Applicant lists the following as reasons supporting the Variance request:

A. In response to “There are unique circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, that do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property,” the Applicant stated:
23 Item 6 A.

The subject parcel is 2,415 square feet and triangular in shape. It has a buildable envelope of 390 square feet.

B. In response to “The strict application of the zoning code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property,” the Applicant stated:

The strict application of the zoning requirements would render the parcel virtually unbuildable
C. In response to “The variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property,” the Applicated stated:

The requested variances will allow reconstruction of an historic property while reducing the existing encroachments without the requested variances the reconstruct could not be done.

D. In response to “The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property,” the Applicant stated:

The requested variances will not be harmful to the public health, safety, or be injurious to the properties in the near vicinity.

E. In response to “The variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property,” the Applicant stated:

Variances to setbacks are numerous in this neighborhood and will not constitute granting of special privilege.

F. In response to “The variance will not have adverse impacts on coastal resources,” the Applicant stated:

No coastal resources will be disturbed.

The RTC owns the right-of-way (ROW) for the Santa Cruz Branch Railroad Line (SCBRL) with existing freight railroad tracks located within the ROW. The RTC purchased the SCBRL ROW in accordance with the following purpose:
• preserve it as a transportation corridor;
• continue existing freight and recreational rail service; • facilitate increased freight and recreational rail service; • explore passenger rail service options;
• construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail alongside the track where feasible; and • maximize its use as a transportation corridor.
24 Item 6 A.

In support of this purpose, the RTC entered into an administration, coordination, and license agreement (ACL) with St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, LLC (“Railway”) to conduct common carrier freight railroad operations (“Freight Service”) on and over the Freight Easement within the ROW. The property at 1410 Prospect Avenue abuts the northerly ROW line of the SCBRL.

Through the terms of the ACL, both the Freight Easement and the remaining ROW are maintained. Full access to the entire SCBRL ROW is required to undertake maintenance operations and Freight Service.

The RTC seeks to maximize use of the SCBRL ROW as a transportation corridor including transportation infrastructure for Freight Service, passenger rail transportation service (including transit stations), and both paved and unpaved trails. The design for a paved section of trail within this portion of the SCBRL ROW is currently being prepared. In support of this design effort, the RTC has conducted a survey of the existing encroachments within this portion of the SCBRL ROW and is currently developing a strategy to address the existing encroachments in accordance with the attached REVISED Policies for Leases, Licenses, Rights of Entry and Encroachments for the Santa Cruz Branch Line Right-of-Way, approved by the RTC August 6, 2020. Encroachments that impact the uses, operations, inspections and maintenance of the SCBRL ROW; those that impact implementation of public projects within or in the vicinity of the SCBRL ROW; and those that impact liabilities to the RTC are prioritized as encroachments to be addressed.

The City of Capitola entered into a license agreement in 2004 (see attached) to maintain and repair the walking path within the SCBRL ROW at the top of the bluff adjacent to the 1410 Prospect Avenue property for use of pedestrians seeking recreational access to ocean beach. The license is to “construct, maintain, use, repair, renew and reconstruct the three (3) existing stairways and connecting walking path….”
Several encroachments at the top of bluff exist on this section of the bluffs between 1400 Prospect Avenue and 1560 Prospect Avenue (the addressing of these encroachments is being studied, as discussed above). These encroachments mainly comprise fences, landscaping, and decking. In a few instances, structures encroach into the SCBRL ROW. However, only one zero foot (0’) lot line setback is known to the RTC staff: that being 1400 Prospect Avenue. Existing encroachments impact the RTC’s use, operation, inspection and maintenance of the SCBRL ROW. Moreover, instabilities along this section of bluff have occurred in the past and were exacerbated and potentially caused by these encroachments. In a recent incident about 100 feet north of the 1410 Prospect Avenue property, a section of bluff failed adjacent to the Citymaintained walking path, and restoration of this bluff required significant expense by the City and effort on behalf of both the RTC staff and City staff.

As discussed, the section of bluff in this area has had a history of previous slope failures. These failures are exacerbated and sometimes potentially caused by encroachments into the SCBRL ROW (which generally constrain the ability of the City and the RTC to inspect, maintain, and operate the SCBRL ROW). Construction of new structures adjacent to the bluffs may reduce overall bluff stability by construction vibrations and impacts, which can locally reduce soil 25 Item 6 A.
cohesion and will change both surface subsurface drainage characteristics of the area. This is partly why the property is located within the Geologic Hazards overlay. Construction affects will be more apparent immediately during and after construction, when soils are first disturbed, but will persist years into the future as well. Any slope failure toward the railroad tracks will be the responsibility of the City and/or the RTC to repair.

Due to the operation of Freight Service on the SCBRL via the ACL, any entry into the SCBRL ROW requires special railway protective liability insurance and right-of-entry agreements from both the RTC and the Railway. Coordinating, executing and implementing these rights-of-entry are bespoke to each purpose and require significant coordination with RTC staff. Any zero foot (0’) setback will necessitate the future need for multiple rights-of-entry with the RTC and the Railway, as any entry to the ROW for maintenance of the 1410 Prospect Avenue property at these locations will require a right-of-entry; in fact, the current design proposal includes a portion of the property isolated on each side by zero foot (0’) setback portions of the structure … this portion of the 1410 Prospect Avenue property will be inaccessible without a right-of-entry from the RTC and the Railway.

Discussion of Design Permit Coordination:

RTC staff first became aware of the proposed development at 1410 Prospect Avenue at the end of January 2022. RTC staff on different occasions in late January and on February 1, respectively, spoke with City staff and the property owner regarding existing encroachments at this property and the potential plan for these encroachments. At that time and in a follow-up conversations with City staff and the property owner on February 7, 2022, the discussions centered around the existing fencing and landscaping adjacent to the City’s path at the top of the bluff.

On February 8, 2022, RTC staff and City staff discussed the proposed project in more detail, at which time City staff recommended that RTC staff reach out to the Applicant to discuss the plans and any potential impacts to the SCBRL ROW. City staff provided RTC staff with a contact email for the designer, Derek VanAlstine, which RTC staff sent emails to on February 8, 2022 in an effort to further discussions about the project. RTC staff requested an opportunity to discuss the project and review the proposed plans prior to submission for a permit, in an effort to understand how the proposed development may “affect the railroad right-of-way.” No response was ever provided to the RTC in reply to these emails. The Applicant’s representative in the Public Hearing acknowledged that they had not spoken to the RTC regarding the proposed development.

The RTC was first made aware of the City Planning Commission Public Hearing for the proposed development on April 12, 2022, when RTC staff were advised by a third party that the Planning Commission had approved the Design Permit and Variance. RTC staff who receive public notices did not receive a notice of the Public Hearing in advance of the hearing. 26 Item 6 A.

Appeal:

The RTC respectfully appeals the decision to grant the Applicant a Variance to have nonconforming zero foot (0’) 1st Story and basement rear setbacks to the property line shared with the RTC. The RTC requests that the City of Capitola require the Applicant to comply with the rear property setbacks required by the City’s Development Standards. The RTC secondly supports City staff’s recommendation to condition that swinging doors, which when opened, not be constructed in such a way that they would extend over and into the SCBRL ROW; the development should in no way result in a situation that would necessitate entry into and/or encroachment into the SCBRL ROW without the RTC’s and Railways prior and express written consent via a right-of-entry agreement or lease agreement.

The RTC does not appeal the variances for front or side property setbacks or for the Floor Area Ratio. With these other variances in tact, a sufficiently sized structure is able to be built and enjoyed by the property owner.

Approval of the Variance for rear setbacks would result in a situation that constrains the RTC’s and the Railway’s uses, operations, inspections and maintenance of the SCBRL ROW and Freight Easement. The Variance for rear setbacks would constrain the RTC’s ability to preserve the SCBRL ROW as a transportation constrain, and it would also constrain its future uses for rail and active transportation uses. The RTC seeks to maximize usage of the SCBRL ROW corridor for a variety of active transportation and rail transportation, and it seeks to increase public access to coastal resources; the construction of new encroachments into or structures adjacent to the ROW limit the RTC’s ability to deliver these advantages to the public. This injures the RTC’s SCBRL ROW property and disturbs the public coastal access along the bluff top. Requiring the Applicant to comply with the rear property setbacks required by the City’s Development Standards would preserve the RTC’s ability to deliver its purpose for the SCBRL ROW and would preserve and enhance (by removal of existing encroachments) the existing public coastal access, which will be furthermore be enhanced by the trail project currently in design for the SCBRL ROW.

Approval of the Variance for rear setbacks would result in a situation in which the property owner would need to obtain a right-of-entry from the RTC and the Railway for access to the SCBRL ROW to undertake future maintenance of the structure, property and landscaping. In fact, a portion of the property (between the lightwell and the corner of the 1st story structure) would be inaccessible from the exterior without traversing over the SCBRL ROW, which would require rights-of-entry from the RTC and the Railway. Due to liability impacts, insurance requirements, maintenance concerns, railway safety concerns, and operational concerns, the RTC as a policy seeks to minimize and wherever practicable eliminate the need for other parties to need to obtain right-of-entries onto the SCBRL ROW.

Approval of the Variance for rear setbacks would result in a situation that could reduce stability of the bluff and exacerbate existing slope stability issues, which would result in a future increased maintenance liability for the City of Capitola (in relation to the City’s walkway) and 27 Item 6 A.
for the RTC and Railway. Approval of the Variance for rear setbacks would change surface and subsurface drainage characteristics in the area, which could exacerbate existing erosion problems in this area. Requiring the Applicant to comply with the rear property setbacks required by the City’s Development Standards would limit and minimize the potential bluff instabilities caused by the project by keeping the disturbances farther away from the bluff top.

The RTC also appeals condition #8, requesting that the condition be amended such that a geological report also be prepared and that the geotechnical report and geological report both numerically assess the outward slope stability impacts to the bluff (by “outward” meaning toward the railroad tracks) and that the project be revised to mitigate any impacts that in any way reduce the stability of the existing soils and/or bluff. The RTC requests that the City Planning Commission also amend conditions #8, #11 and #12 to require City staff to consult with RTC staff during City staff’s review of such reports and plans required by said conditions.

RTC staff’s review of existing rear yard setbacks along the top of this section of bluff contradicts City staff’s analysis and Applicant’s assertions that “Variances to setbacks are numerous in this neighborhood and will not constitute granting of special privilege.” RTC staff’s review indicate that the existing rear yard setback variances are potentially limited to 1400, 1410, 1420, 1430 and 1450 Prospect Avenue. Whilst the remaining properties are deeper, and thus further analysis is required, those properties have significantly larger rear yard structure setbacks that do not similarly constrain the RTC’s and the Railway’s uses, operations, inspections and maintenance of the SCBRL ROW and Freight Easement.

Sincerely,
Riley Gerbrandt, P.E.

Attachments: 1. City of Capitola License for Maintenance on Railroad Property

2. RTC’s REVISED Policies for Leases, Licenses, Rights of Entry and Encroachments for the Santa Cruz Branch Line Right-of Way (Approved August 6, 2020)
Regional Transportation Commission
28 Item 6 A.

Attachment 1: City License
for Maintenance on Railroad
Property
29 Item 6 A.
30 Item 6 A.
31 Item 6 A.
32 Item 6 A.
33 Item 6 A.
34 Item 6 A.
35 Item 6 A.
36 Item 6 A.
37 Item 6 A.
38 Item 6 A.
39 Item 6 A.
40 Item 6 A.
41 Item 6 A.
42 Item 6 A.
43 Item 6 A.
44 Item 6 A.
45 Item 6 A.
46 Item 6 A.
47 Item 6 A.

Contractor's Right of Entry - 07/30/01 Folder No. ___ _ For \pproved -AVP Law
this Agreement. Damages recoverable by Railroad shall not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage.

Exhibit C

C:IDOCUME-i�ar>d008\LOCALS~11Temp\H.NOTESDAT\Llcense Agreement City of Capitola.doc 48 Item 6 A.
49 Item 6 A.
50 Item 6 A.
51 Item 6 A.

REVISED Policies for Leases, Licenses, Rights of Entry and Encroachments for the Santa Cruz Branch Line Right-of-Way Approved August 6, 2020
Background
Purpose for Purchase of Branch Line
The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) purchased the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (Branch Line) right-of-way (ROW) to:
• preserve it as a transportation corridor;
• continue existing freight and recreational rail service; • facilitate increased freight and recreational rail service; • explore passenger rail service options;
• construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail alongside the track where feasible; and
• maximize its use as a transportation corridor.

Funding for Purchase of Branch Line
The purchase of the Branch Line right-of-way was facilitated by funding from Proposition 116 of 1990, which provided Santa Cruz County with $11 million to use for “rail projects within Santa Cruz County which facilitate recreational, commuter, intercity and intercounty travel.” The California Transportation Commission (CTC) developed policies and requirements for projects funded with Proposition 116 funds. The CTC imposed certain conditions on its approval of Proposition 116 funds for purchase of the Branch Line right-of-way. The Proposition 116 funds were provided through a master funding agreement and a program supplement agreement with the State of California and administered by Caltrans.

Rail Service Operations for Branch Line
When the RTC purchased the Branch Line ROW, Union Pacific retained an easement for freight operations. That easement was transferred to the shortline freight and recreational rail operator selected by the RTC for the Branch Line.

Over time, as the RTC selects new or replacement rail operators that easement is expected to be transferred to that operator. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) designates the RTC selected rail operator as the common carrier for freight service on the Branch Line, as long as the operator meets the requirements of the STB. The RTC enters into an administration, coordination and license (AC&L) agreement with the selected rail operator. That agreement outlines the responsibilities of the operator and provides the operator with a license to operate recreational passenger rail service on the Branch Line. There are a Attachment 2: RTC Policy
52 Item 6 A.
number of operating agreements for the rail line including crossing agreements and a trackage rights agreement with Santa Cruz Big Trees and Pacific Railway.

Rail operations on the Branch Line are governed and inspected by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to help ensure safety.

RTC Planning Documents Affecting Branch Line
The RTC adopts every 4 or 5 years a regional transportation plan with projects on the Branch Line. The RTC also completed a master plan and environmental document for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network (MBSST), which includes as its spine a trail on the Branch Line right-of-way alongside the operating track, which is referred to as the Coastal Rail Trail. In addition, the RTC has completed a passenger rail service feasibility study for the rail line, a Unified Corridor Investment Study that includes the Branch Line ROW, and is in the process of completing a Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis for the Branch Line ROW. The RTC may undertake other studies which may affect the Branch Line ROW.

Policies for Leases, Licenses, Encroachments and Rights of Entry on the Rail Line ROW
The RTC currently manages several long-term leases of the Branch Line for various uses including parking, storage, and related uses. A lease analysis completed in 2009 concluded that most of the existing leases that were assumed by the RTC at the time of the purchase are significantly below market rate and in need of an update. The RTC periodically receives requests for updates to existing leases and additional long-term leases on the Branch Line. The Branch Line also includes licenses for pipelines, crossings, etc. In addition, the RTC regularly receives requests for temporary use of the Branch Line, primarily for construction staging, utility crossings, and road construction projects that impact or cross the Branch Line. The RTC manages these requests by granting temporary rights of entry for use of its property consistent with authorization given to the Executive Director by the RTC Board under these policies. Finally, the RTC is working with entities who are implementing capital projects within the Branch Line property, including the various segments of the MBSST.

The following policies shall apply to all leases, licenses, encroachments and rights of entry managed and/or issued by the RTC:

1. Leases, licenses, rights of entry and encroachments on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line right-of-way shall be consistent with:
a. The RTC’s purpose for purchasing the right-of-way;
b. Funding requirements of Proposition 116, the California Transportation Commission, and agreements with the State;
53 Item 6 A.
c. Rail service operations and safety requirements of the STB, the FRA, the CPUC, agreements with the shortline rail operator, licenses and other agreements and arrangements affecting railroad operations; d. Standards of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA)
e. The RTC’s Regional Transportation Plan for Santa Cruz County; f. The RTC master plan for the MBSST;
g. Measure D and Measure D policies outlined in the Measure D Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) for improvements funded by Measure D; h. RTC policies for capital projects implemented by others within the Branch Line right-of-way and any associated agreements for implementation and maintenance of such projects;
i. Plans developed by the RTC for high capacity transit service or other uses on the Branch Line; and
j. All applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.

2. To ensure that there is no gift of public funds, new and updated leases shall be at market rate defined as:

The most probable rent that a property should bring in a competitive and open market reflecting all conditions and restrictions of the specified lease agreement including term, rental adjustment and revaluation, permitted uses, use restrictions, and expense obligations; the lessee and lessor each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming consummation of a lease contract as of a specified date and the passing of the leasehold from lessor to lessee under conditions whereby:
a. Lessee and lessor are typically motivated;
b. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests, which can be aided by the production of a market rental rate survey or formal appraisal utilized during negotiations;
c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; d. The rent payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars, and is expressed as an amount per time period consistent with the payment schedule of the lease contract; and
e. The rental amount represents the normal consideration for the property leased unaffected by special fees or concessions granted by anyone associated with the transaction.

3. The RTC shall use closed sessions consistent with the Brown Act to direct its lease negotiators regarding updated and new leases.

4. Leases (new and updated), licenses and rights of entry for a one-time or an annual amount exceeding the Executive Director’s procurement authority for a single transaction, as established in the RTC’s Administrative and Fiscal 54 Item 6 A.
policies, shall be presented to the RTC for consideration in public session and the Executive Director is authorized to approve others.

5. There shall be a public review period of lease terms and conditions of at least 21 days prior to approval of a lease or lease update to give all responsible persons the opportunity to make credible and responsible offers with better lease terms and conditions to the RTC.

6. Leases shall include terms for escalation of rental rates consistent with market conditions.

7. Every five years, the RTC shall review existing leases to ensure that the rent is at market rates and for any leases found to be below market rates, the RTC shall work to update them to market rates based on a market rental rate survey, formal appraisal or other appropriate information.

8. Leases shall include a termination clause to ensure that leases will not unduly impact the development of transportation projects on the Branch Line right-of-way. Licenses and rights of entry that could potentially impact planned transportation projects on the Branch Line right-of-way due to length of term, purpose, etc. shall also include a termination clause.

9. Licenses and rights of entry shall include fees to the RTC and the rail service operator as applicable to reimburse the RTC and rail service operator for their cost to provide such right of entry in addition to a determined or negotiated market rate for the right of use provided by the license or right of entry.

10. Any lease, license, or right of entry that also crosses or otherwise impacts the rail service operator’s easement or operations shall require review and acknowledgement by the rail operator.

11. If the license or right of entry will provide a service to the RTC benefiting its ownership, management, maintenance, improvement or operation of the Branch Line right-of-way, fees may be reduced or waived by the RTC.

12. Leases and rights of entry shall include appropriate indemnification to the RTC and the rail service operator as applicable.

13. Rights of entry shall include appropriate insurance requirements to protect the interests of the RTC and the rail service operator as applicable.

14. Leases, licenses, and rights of entry shall include prohibition against any alteration of RTC property except as approved by the corresponding lease, license, or right of entry.
55 Item 6 A.

15. Rights of entry and licenses shall include a requirement for notification of the rail service operator prior to entering the property as authorized.

16. Revenues from leases, licenses and rights of entry shall be used to cover costs of the RTC to negotiate, produce and implement such leases, licenses and rights of entry and for costs associated with the RTC’s responsibility to manage, maintain, operate and improve the Branch Line as established in the funding agreements with the State.

17. Any encroachments onto the Branch Line shall be resolved by removal of the encroachment or conversion of the encroachment to a long-term lease, license or right of entry.

18. As resources allow and needs arise, the RTC will work to identify and address encroachments on the Branch Line ROW. Encroachments may also be brought to the attention of the RTC or discovered inadvertently.

19. Identification and addressing of encroachments shall prioritize encroachments which:
a. Impact the uses, operations, inspections and maintenance of the Branch Line ROW;
b. Impact the implementation of projects by the RTC or RTC partner agencies on or in the vicinity of the Branch Line ROW; and/or c. Impact liabilities to the RTC.

20. Encroachments that are not the subject of an approved lease, license or right of entry in accordance with this Policy are not permitted, and are subject to removal in accordance with applicable law. Depending on the nature of the encroachment, and at the sole discretion of the RTC, options may include:

a. Immediate removal;
b. Removal within a specified period of time;
c. Possible modifications to the encroachment; and/or
d. Development of a lease, license, or right of entry at Fair Market Value.

21. For areas that should be fenced as determined by RTC:
a. RTC will gather relevant, available information to confirm the location of the applicable RTC property boundaries.
b. RTC will notify neighboring property owners in advance of the decision to install fences, barricades, and other barriers in the specified area. 56 Item 6 A.
c. RTC will cause the fences, barricades, and other barriers to be installed in the specific locations at the times specified in the notice to the property owners. \\RTCSERV2\Internal\RAIL\Real Property Appraisals Encroachments\Encroachment Policy\2020 Update Branch Line ROW Leases ROE and Encroachments Policy FinalApproved.docx
57 Item 6 A.

September 7, 2022
Community Development Department
Attn: Katie Herlihy, AICP, Director
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
Subject: Appeal of Permit Application Number 21-0376
On April 18, 2022, the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) filed an appeal to the April 7, 2022 decision by the Capitola Planning Commission to grant a variance for Permit Number 21-0376 regarding proposed development at 1410 Prospect Avenue, APN 034-046-19.

After the appeal, additional information was provided by the applicant’s representative, including a slope stability analysis report and revised architectural plans showing a 3’-6” setback from both the basement and ground floor to the southwestern property line. The City of Capitola provided for the RTC’s review a geotechnical peer review – slope stability letter prepared by Pacific Crest Engineering, Inc.

In late August 2022, City of Capitola staff met with RTC staff regarding the RTC’s April 7, 2022 appeal in light of the additional information and to discuss whether the concerns raised in the appeal could be addressed. During this meeting, the RTC indicated that the applicant’s revised proposal was generally satisfactory and that the RTC would agree to retract its appeal provided the following conditions are met by the applicant’s proposed development:

1. Maintenance of the bluff-top pathway and adjacent landscaped areas. In 2004, the City of Capitola entered into a license agreement to maintain and repair the walking path within the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SCBRL) right-of-way (ROW) at the top of the bluff for use of pedestrian access. The license is to “construct, maintain, use, repair, renew and reconstruct the three (3) existing stairways and connecting walking path….” The RTC would like Design Permit and Variance approval conditioned to require that the proposed development does not interfere with or inhibit the City’s continued maintenance of the walking path and landscaping at the top of the bluff. It is important that the walking path and landscaping at the top of the bluff is adequately maintained in order to promote stability of the bluff slope.

2. Maintenance of the bluff slope. With respect to the referenced 2004 license agreement, the position of the walking path at the top of the bluff requires that the City of Capitola maintain the bluff slope that supports the walking path. In support of this maintenance obligation:
a. No irrigation on, above or adjacent to the bluff slope and bluff top. Irrigation can lead to reduction of the soil strength and to an increase in the potential for a slope failure to occur, particularly when soils become saturated. Therefore, the RTC requests to 58 Item 6 A.
condition the proposed development that no irrigation be permitted on, above or adjacent to either the bluff slope or the bluff top.
b. Control of surface and subsurface drainage near the bluff top and bluff slope. Control of surface and subsurface drainage and runoff is important to the stability of the bluff slope. Uncontrolled drainage is one of the leading causes of slope failures. Therefore, the RTC requests to condition the proposed development that surface and subsurface runoff from the property:
i. Be controlled
ii. Be directed to the front (northeastern) boundary of the property iii. Not be permitted to pond adjacent to the bluff top or bluff slope iv. Not be permitted to flow over the bluff top or bluff slope

3. Development of the property is completed such that future maintenance of the property does not require a right-of-entry from the RTC. Due to various considerations relating to operation and safety of the SCBRL, the RTC as a policy seeks to minimize and whenever practicable eliminate the need for other parties to need to access the SCBRL ROW through a right-ofentry agreement with the RTC. Therefore, the RTC would like to condition the Design Permit and Variance approval to require that the proposed development is completed in such a way that access to the SCBRL ROW is not required in order to undertake future maintenance of the structure, appurtenances, property or landscaping on the 1410 Prospect Avenue property.

4. Review of technical reports and plans. The RTC would like the Design Permit and Variance be conditioned so that City of Capitola staff must consult with the RTC during review (and prior to issuance of a Building Permit) of technical reports and plans that are required by the conditions of approval, in particular the conditions relating to review of building plans, landscape plans, geotechnical and geological reports, drainage plans, grading plans, sediment and erosion control plan, and stormwater management plan.

5. No entry into or work in SCBRL ROW without first obtaining a right-of-entry agreement.

The RTC would like the proposed development conditioned such that no entry to the SCBRL ROW, including for the storage of any materials or equipment within the SCBRL ROW, is allowed unless entry is granted via a valid right-of-entry agreement by and between the entering party and the RTC.

Sincerely,
Riley Gerbrandt, P.E.

Associate Transportation Engineer
59 Item 6 A.

Staff Responses to RTC Appeal Comments
RTC Comment 1: The RTC would like Design Permit and Variance approval conditioned to require that the proposed development does not interfere with or inhibit the City’s continued maintenance of the walking path and landscaping at the top of the bluff. It is important that the walking path and landscaping at the top of the bluff is adequately maintained in order to promote stability of the bluff slope.

Staff Response: The City of Capitola and the Union Pacific Railroad Company entered into an agreement in 2004 granting the City use of, and maintenance responsibility for the pathway and three stairways. The updated design creates a three-feet, three-inches rear setback. The increased setback will allow the owner to maintain their home without entering RTC property. The development will not interfere with or inhibit the City’s continued maintenance of the walking path and staircases at the top of the bluff.

RTC Comment 2: With respect to the referenced 2004 license agreement, the position of the walking path at the top of the bluff requires that the City of Capitola maintain the bluff slope that supports the walking path. In support of this maintenance obligation:

1. [The] RTC requests to condition the proposed development that no irrigation be permitted on, above or adjacent to either the bluff slope or the bluff top.

2. [The] RTC requests to condition the proposed development that surface and subsurface runoff from the property:
a. Be controlled
b. Be directed to the front (northeastern) boundary of the property c. Not be permitted to pond adjacent to the bluff top or bluff slope d. Not be permitted to flow over the bluff top or bluff slope Staff Response: As a policy, the City seeks to minimize drainage onto adjacent properties. The proposed landscape plan allows for infiltration and directs structural runoff away from the bluff.

The following existing and recommended conditions apply to these construction and postconstruction considerations:

Condition 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, a drainage plan, grading, sediment and erosion control plan, shall be submitted to the City and approved by Public Works. The plans shall be in compliance with the requirements specified in Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Protection.

Condition 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a stormwater management plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works which implements all applicable Post Construction Requirements (PCRs) and Public Works Standard Details, including all standards relating to low impact development (LID; including a detail of the pervious pavers and drainage emitter as shown on plans 8/24/22). (Staff recommends adding the underlined portion to the existing Condition 11.) [Recommended] Condition 16. Structural and surface runoff shall flow towards the Prospect Avenue frontage and shall not flow onto RTC property to the rear.

RTC Comment 3: [The] RTC as a policy seeks to minimize and whenever practicable eliminate the need for other parties to need to access the SCBRL ROW through a right-of-entry agreement with the RTC. Therefore, the RTC would like to condition the Design Permit and Variance approval to require that the proposed development is completed in such a way that access to the SCBRL ROW is not required in order to undertake future maintenance of the structure, appurtenances, property or landscaping on the 1410 Prospect Avenue property. 60 Item 6 A.

Staff Response: The project approval does not grant any present or future right of access or improvement. As proposed, the development has been designed in a manner that future maintenance should not necessitate access to RTC property. Staff does not recommend adding a condition to address this request. The RTC, not the City, holds the authority to enforce access onto the railway.

RTC Comment 4: The RTC would like the Design Permit and Variance be conditioned so that City of Capitola staff must consult with the RTC during review (and prior to issuance of a Building Permit) of technical reports and plans that are required by the conditions of approval, in particular the conditions relating to review of building plans, landscape plans, geotechnical and geological reports, drainage plans, grading plans, sediment and erosion control plan, and stormwater management plan.

Staff Response: Staff recommends adding Condition #18: “Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City shall consult with the RTC with respect to the required plans and technical reports associated with this permit. This is for informational purposes only. The RTC has no formal review authority over the application.”
RTC Comment 5: The RTC would like the proposed development conditioned such that no entry to the SCBRL ROW, including for the storage of any materials or equipment within the SCBRL ROW, is allowed unless entry is granted via a valid right-of-entry agreement by and between the entering party and the RTC.

Staff Response: Staff recommends adding Condition #17: “Prior to entry or any equipment or material storage within the SCBRL (RTC) right-of-way, the applicant shall first obtain a right-ofentry agreement from the RTC.” 61 Item 6 A.
62 Item 6 A.
63 Item 6 A.
64 Item 6 A.
65 Item 6 A.
66 Item 6 A.
67 Item 6 A.
68 Item 6 A.
69 Item 6 A.
70 Item 6 A.
71 Item 6 A.
72 Item 6 A.

Development Standards
Building Height
R-1 Regulation Existing Proposed
25 ft. 21 ft. 7 in. 24 ft. 4 in.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Existing Proposed
Lot size 2,416 sq. ft. 2,416 sq. ft.

Maximum Floor Area Ratio 58% (Max 1,401 sq. ft.) 58% (Max 1,401 sq. ft.) First Story Floor Area 1,197 sq. ft. 978 sq. ft.

Second Story Floor Area 409 sq. ft. 444 sq. ft.

Basement N/A 796 sq. ft.

Exempt from floor area,
Included in parking calc.

Detached Garage 300 sq. ft.
-250 sq. ft. exempt
280 sq. ft.
-250 sq. ft. exempt
Total FAR 68.5% (1,656 sq. ft.) 59.6% (1,440 sq. ft.)
Variance Requested
Setbacks
R-1 regulation Existing Proposed
Front Yard 1
st Story 15 ft. 7 in. into ROW 1 ft. 7 in.

Variance Requested
Front Yard 2
nd Story 20 ft. 7 in. into ROW 1 ft. 7 in.

Variance Requested
Side Yard 1
st Story 10%
lot
width
Lot width 64 ft.
3 in.
6 ft. 5 in. min.

North: 5 ft. 9 in.

South: 19 ft. 1 in.

North: 10 ft.

South: 20 ft. 11 in.

Side Yard 2
nd Story 15% of
width
Lot width 64 ft.
3 in.
9 ft. 8 in. min.

North: 5 ft. 9 in.

South: 31 ft. 2 in.
10 ft.

South: 26 ft. 5 in.

Rear Yard 1
st and 2nd
Story
20% of
parcel
depth
Lot depth 38
ft. 2 in.
7 ft. 7 in. min.
1st: 2 ft. 10 in.
2nd: 19 ft. 1 in.
1st: 3 ft. 3 in.

Variance Requested
2nd: 14 ft. 1 in.
8 ft. 1 in. (Deck)
Detached Garage
R-1 Regulation Existing Proposed
Height 12 ft. when less than 8
feet from side property
line
11 ft. 9 in. 10 ft. 11 in.

Front 40 ft. 1 ft. into ROW 1 ft. 6 in.

Existing nonconforming
Side 3 ft. North: 52 ft. 1 in.

South: 0 ft.

North: 52 ft. 2 in.

South: 3 in.

Existing nonconforming
Rear 3 ft. 1 ft. 3 ft.
73 Item 6 A.

Parking
2,001 – 2,600 sq. ft.: 3 per
unit, 1 covered
Required Existing Proposed
3 spaces total
1 covered
2 uncovered
1 spaces total
1 covered
0 uncovered
3 spaces total
1 covered
2 uncovered
Underground Utilities: Required with 25% increase in area Yes 74 Item 6 A.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
For

PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
1410 Prospect Avenue
APN 034-046-19
Capitola, California
Prepared
For

ALEX AND AMY JOHNSON
Capitola, California
Prepared By
DEES & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Geotechnical Engineers
Project No. SCR-1655
JULY 2021
75 Item 6 A.
2 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
July 27, 2021 Project No. SCR-1655

ALEX AND AMY JOHNSON
1410 Prospect Avenue
Santa Cruz, California 95010
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation
Reference: Proposed Single-Family Residence
1410 Prospect Avenue
APN 034-046-19
Capitola, California
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson:

As requested, we have completed a geotechnical investigation for the new single-family residence proposed at the referenced site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed residence and provide geotechnical recommendations for the development.

This report presents the results, conclusions, and recommendations of our investigation. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call our office.

Very truly yours,
DEES & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Rebecca L. Dees
Geotechnical Engineer
G.E. 2623
C. Scott Clark
Staff Engineer
E.I.T. 162365
Copies: 1 to Addressee
C. Scott Clark (Jul 27, 2021 13:07 PDT)
C. Scott Clark
76 Item 6 A.
3 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4
Introduction 4
Purpose and Scope 4
Project Location and Description 4
Field Investigation 5
Laboratory Testing 5
Subsurface Soil Conditions 5
Groundwater 6
Seismicity 6
Liquefaction 7
Landsliding 7
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 8
RECOMMENDATIONS 9
Foundations 9
Spread Footings – Residence 9
Concrete Pier and Grade Beam Foundations 10
Spread Footings – Garage 10
Basement/Retaining Wall Lateral Earth Pressures 11
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 12
Utility Trenches 12
General Site Grading 12
General Site Drainage 13
Plan Review, Construction Observation, and Testing 14
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 16
APPENDIX A 17
Site Vicinity Map 18
Santa Cruz County Shaded Relief Map 19
Boring Site Plan 20
Unified Soil Classification System 21
Logs of Test Borings 22
Fault Map 25
77 Item 6 A.
4 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Introduction
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the new single-family residence proposed at 1410 Prospect Avenue in Capitola, California.

Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our investigation was to explore and evaluate surface and near surface soil conditions in the vicinity of the new residence and provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the development.

The specific scope of our services was as follows:

1. Site reconnaissance and review of available data in our files pertinent to the site and vicinity.

2. Exploration of subsurface conditions consisting of logging and sampling of two (2) exploratory borings drilled to depths of 1.5 and 28.5 feet.

3. Laboratory testing to evaluate the engineering properties of the subsoils.

4. Engineering analysis and evaluation of the resulting field and laboratory test data. Based on our findings, we have developed geotechnical design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, general site grading, concrete slabs-on-grade and general site drainage.

5. Preparation of this report presenting the results of our investigation.

Project Location and Description
The project site is located at 1410 Prospect Avenue in Capitola, California. The 0.05-acre parcel is located just south of the intersection with Jewell Street and approximately 0.1 miles southwest of Wharf Road and Cliff Drive near downtown Capitola. See Figure 1. The site is bordered to the north and south by similar residential properties and by Prospect Avenue to the northwest.

The 0.05-acre parcel is situated on a gently sloping terrace above a moderate to steep coastal bluff that has been terraced to accommodate a railroad track and roadway. The slope immediately below the parcel descends about 20 feet to the railroad tracks at a slope gradient of 45 and 50 degrees. The slope continues on the other side of the railroad tracks down to Cliff Drive then ultimately drops down to the beach about 200 feet away.

The site is developed with a single-family residence with an attached garage. The project consists of removing the existing improvements and constructing a new residence with a detached garage. The new residence will be two stories with a full basement. See Figure 2. 78 Item 6 A.
5 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
Field Investigation
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored on May 5, 2021, with two (2) exploratory borings drilled 1.5 and 28.5 feet below grade. Our borings were advanced with 6-inch diameter tractor mounted drilling equipment and 4-inch diameter hand drilling equipment. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings are indicated on our Boring Site Plan, Figure 2.

Representative soil samples were obtained from the exploratory borings at selected depths, or at major strata changes. These samples were recovered using the 3.0-inch O.D. Modified California Sampler (L), the Standard Terzaghi Sampler (T), or bulk samples collected from the auger cuttings (B). The penetration resistance blow counts for the (L) and (T) noted on the boring logs were obtained as the sampler was dynamically driven into the in-situ soil. The process with the tractor mounted drilling equipment was performed by dropping a 140-pound hammer a 30- inch free fall distance and driving the sampler 6 to 18 inches and recording the number of blows for each 6-inch penetration interval. The blows recorded on the boring logs present the accumulated number of blows that were required to drive the last 12 inches. The blow counts indicated on the logs have been converted to equivalent standard penetration test (SPT) values.

The soils observed in the test borings were logged in the field and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487 and ASTM D2488), Figure 3. The Test Boring Logs denote subsurface conditions at the locations and times observed, and it is not warranted they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.

Laboratory Testing
The laboratory testing program was directed toward a determination of the physical and engineering properties of the soils underlying the site. Moisture content and dry density tests were performed on representative undisturbed soil samples to determine the consistency of the soil and the moisture variation throughout the explored soil profile. A grain size analysis was performed to aid in classification of the soil. An Atterberg Limits test was performed to determine the shrink/swell characteristics of the soil and to aid in soil classification. An unconfined compression test and a direct shear test were performed to determine the strength characteristics of the soil.

The results of our field and laboratory testing appear on the "Test Boring Logs", opposite the sample tested, Figures 5 to 7.

Subsurface Soil Conditions
The site is mapped as being underlain by lowest emergent coastal terrace deposits, (Pleistocene), which are described as, “Semi-consolidated, generally well-sorted sand with a few thin, relatively continuous layers of gravel. Deposited in nearshore high-energy marine environment.

Weathered zone ranges from 5 to 20 ft. thick. As mapped, locally includes many small areas of fluvial and colluvial silt, sand and gravel, especially at or near old wave-cut cliffs” Our borings encountered approximately 25 feet of terrace deposits over Purisima Formation sandstone. The terrace deposits consisted of approximately 7 feet of hard, fine, sandy clay over 79 Item 6 A.
6 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
dense to very dense clayey gravel. Purisima sandstone was encountered at 25 feet. The upper 7 feet (±) of soil is clayey has a moderate to high expansion potential. The soil was moist in the upper 10 to 12 feet and very moist to 25 feet. The bedrock was moist.

Groundwater
Perched groundwater was encountered at 24.5 feet. The boring logs denote groundwater conditions at the locations and times observed, and it is not warranted they are representative of groundwater conditions at other locations and times. Groundwater levels at the site may vary due to seasonal variations and other factors not evident during our investigation.

Seismicity
The following is a general discussion of seismicity in the project vicinity. A detailed discussion of seismicity is beyond the scope of our services.

The closest faults to the site are the San Andreas Fault, Zayante-Vergeles Fault, San Gregorio Fault and Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault, Figure 8. The San Andreas Fault is the largest and most active of the faults in the site vicinity. However, each fault is considered capable of generating moderate to severe ground shaking. It is reasonable to assume that the proposed development will be subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake from one of the faults during the next fifty years.

Structures designed according to the 2019 California Building Code may use the following parameters in their analysis. The following ground motion parameters may be used in seismic design and were determined using the OHSPD Seismic Design Calculator and ASCE 7-16.

Seismic Design Parameters
ASCE 7-16
2019 CBC
Site Class C
Mapped Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods Ss = 1.791 g Mapped Spectral Acceleration for 1-second Period S1 = 0.686 g 5% Damped Spectral Response Acceleration for Short Period SDS = 2.149 g 5% Damped Spectral Response Acceleration for 1-Second Period SD1 = 0.640 Seismic Design Category D
PGAm 0.899 g
(Site Coordinates: 36.971157° N, 121.955055° W)
Fault San Andreas ZayanteVergeles
Monterey BayTularcitos San Gregorio
Distance (mi.) 9.3 5.8 9.1 13.1
Direction NE NE SW WSW
80 Item 6 A.
7 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands, silts and sensitive clays are subject to shaking during an earthquake and the water pressure within the pores build up leading to loss of strength.

Due to the density of the soil below the groundwater table, the potential for liquefaction to affect the project is low.

Landsliding
The project is situated at the top of a coastal bluff that has been graded into two terraces. The slope directly below the site appears to have been cut into the hillside to create a 20 feet wide bench for the railroad tracks. The slope is about 20 feet high and sloped between 45 and 50 degrees. The slope continues on the other side of the railroad tracks down to Cliff Drive.

Our borings indicate the slope is comprised of dense sandy and gravelly soils overlying very dense sandstone bedrock. There is no evidence of deep-seated landslides on the slope and none have been reported to us. The slope is well vegetated and there are no concentrated drainages discharging onto the slope. There is some minor erosion that has created a small step at the top of the slope, but no slumps or shallow landslides were observed during our investigation.

The proposed residence should be setback behind a 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) line drawn upwards from the base of the slope. There is a low potential for landslides to affect the proposed residence as long as it is setback as recommended above. 81 Item 6 A.
8 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our investigation, the new residence is feasible provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and properly followed during construction of the development.

Primary geotechnical concerns for the project include designing for expansive soil conditions in the upper 7 feet, embedding foundations into firm native soil, controlling site drainage and designing structures to resist strong seismic shaking.

The new residence is proposed to have a full basement. We expect the basement will be situated approximately 8 to 10 feet below grade and will penetrate the upper expansive clayey soils. The basement may be supported with spread footings embedded into the dense sand/gravel encountered below 7 feet. If the design changes and portions of the residence will not have a basement, the portion of the residence without a basement should be supported on piers that penetrate the upper clayey soils to keep the entire structure on similar materials.

If room allows, the upper 5 feet of expansive soil behind the proposed basement retaining walls should be removed to mitigate expansive soil pressures acting against the basement walls. The expansive soil that lies above a 1:1 line drawn upwards from a point located 5 feet below final grade should be removed. If the expansive soil cannot be removed, basement walls should be designed to withstand swell pressures from the expansive clay in addition to the standard lateral earth pressures.

The proposed detached garage will not have a basement so the foundation and floor slab will be situated in the expansive clays. Our calculations indicate, at the existing moisture levels, the weight of the footings in addition to a small building load will be enough load to resist soil expansion. In order to mitigate soil expansion below interior floor slabs, we recommend using at least 12 inches of baserock below the capillary break to add a surcharge load to the clay. The soil in the footing excavations and beneath floor slabs must be kept moist to prevent the soil from drying out and developing shrinkage cracks. If the soil dries out, the soil should be moisture conditioned until the cracks close prior to placing concrete.

Due to the clays at the ground surface and the presence of a steep slope behind the proposed residence, the site is not well suited for on-site retention of stormwater. On-site retention may be used, but a suitable overflow path will need to be provided to carry excess water to the street.

In addition, retention structures should be located at least 50 feet from the top edge of the rear slope.

The site is located in a highly seismic region near several major fault zones. The proposed improvements will most likely experience strong seismic shaking during the design lifetime.

Structures should be designed to resist seismic shaking in accordance with current building code requirements.
82 Item 6 A.
9 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations should be used as guidelines for preparing project plans and specifications:

Foundations
• The residence basement should be excavated into the dense sandy soils located about 7 feet below existing grades. If portions of the residence are not underlain by a basement, the portion of the structure not supported on the basement foundation should be supported on drilled piers embedded into the dense sandy soils below about 7 feet. • The proposed garage may be supported on shallow spread footings embedded into the upper sandy clays or on drilled piers embedded into the sandy soils below about 7 feet.

The soil in the footing excavations and beneath floor slabs must be kept moist to prevent the soil from drying out and developing shrinkage cracks. If the soil dries out, the soil should be moisture conditioned until the cracks close prior to placing concrete.

Spread Footings - Residence
• Footings should be embedded into the sandy soils which are located about 7 feet below existing grades and be embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for one story-structures and at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade for two-story structures.
• Spread footings should be a minimum of 12 inches wide for single-story structures, 15 inches wide for two-story structures and 18 inches wide for three-story structures. • Conventional spread footings may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for dead plus live. This value may be increased by one-third to include shortterm seismic and wind loads. • Footings located adjacent to other foundations should have their bearing surfaces founded below an imaginary 2:1 (H:V) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent footings or utility trenches.
• Total and differential settlements from foundation loads are anticipated to be on the order of 1 inch and 1/2 inch respectively.
• Lateral load resistance may be developed in friction between the foundation base and the supporting subgrade. A friction factor of 0.35 is applicable. An allowable lateral bearing pressure of 200 pcf, equivalent fluid weight may be used where the foundation is poured neat against firm native soil. The top 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive design.
83 Item 6 A.
10 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
Concrete Pier and Grade Beam Foundations
• Uncased concrete piers should be embedded at least 12 feet below the ground surface to resist the uplift pressures that may occur if the clayey soils swell. If the upper 5 feet of pier length is cased (with the casing left in place), the piers should be at least 7 feet deep, or at least 1 foot into the sandy soils below the clay, whichever is deeper. Piers used for temporary shoring support should be at least 5 feet deep. • Piers should be at least 12 inches in diameter and spaced at least 3 pier diameters apart. • Piers may be designed using an allowable end bearing of 9,000 psf. This value may be increased by one-third under wind or seismic loads.
• Total and differential settlements for foundations supported on deep foundations are anticipated to be less than 1 inch and 0.5 inch respectively. • A passive soil resistance of 300 pcf, equivalent fluid weight, times 2.25 pier diameters, may be used for drilled piers. The top foot of soil should be neglected in passive design.

Spread Footings - Garage
• Footings should be embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for one story-structures and at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade for two-story structures.
• Spread footings should be a minimum of 12 inches wide for single-story structures, 15 inches wide for two-story structures and 18 inches wide for three-story structures. • Conventional spread footings may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,600 psf for dead plus live. This value may be increased by one-third to include shortterm seismic and wind loads. • Footings located adjacent to other foundations should have their bearing surfaces founded below an imaginary 2:1 (H:V) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent footings or utility trenches.
• Total and differential settlements from foundation loads are anticipated to be on the order of 1 inch and 1/2 inch respectively.
• Lateral load resistance may be developed in friction between the foundation base and the supporting subgrade. An adhesion value of 200 psf is applicable. An allowable lateral bearing pressure of 300 pcf, equivalent fluid weight may be used where the foundation is 84 Item 6 A.
11 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
poured neat against firm native soil. The top 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive design.

Basement/Retaining Wall Lateral Earth Pressures
• Basement/retaining walls should be designed to resist both lateral earth pressures and any additional surcharge loads.
• If room allows, the upper 5 feet of expansive soil behind the proposed basement retaining walls should be removed to mitigate expansive soil pressures acting against the basement walls. The expansive soil that lies above a 1:1 line drawn upwards from a point located 5 feet below final grade should be removed. If the expansive soil cannot be removed, basement walls should be designed to withstand swell pressures from the expansive clay in addition to the standard lateral earth pressures.
• The following lateral earth pressures should be used for basement/retaining walls.

Unrestrained walls may use the active pressure values while restrained retaining walls should be designed using at-rest pressures.

Slope Active Pressure (pcf) At-Rest Pressure (pcf)
Level 40 60
• If the clayey soils are not removed from the upper 5 feet, retaining walls should be designed to withstand swell pressures in the upper 5 feet. A swell pressure of 150 psf/ft should be used in addition to the above lateral earth pressure in the upper 5 feet of wall height.
• For retaining walls requiring seismic design, a dynamic surcharge load of 27 psf/ft, should be used in addition to the above active lateral earth pressures. The resultant force should be applied at a point located 0.6H above the base of the wall, where H is the height of the wall.
• The above lateral pressures assume that the walls are fully drained to prevent hydrostatic pressure behind the walls. Drainage materials behind the wall should consist of Class 2 permeable material (Caltrans Specification 68-1.025) or an approved equivalent. Filter fabric should not be used with Class 2 permeable material. The drainage material should be at least 12 inches thick. The drains should extend from the base of the walls to within 12 inches of the top of the backfill. A pipe should be used to collect drainage from behind the wall. The pipe should be placed below the base of interior slab subgrade elevations (below the capillary break). Collected water should be directed to a suitable discharge location.
85 Item 6 A.
12 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
• Where basement slabs penetrate the expansive clay, (roughly the upper 7 feet), slabs may be supported on firm native soil.
• The garage slab floor should be underlain by at least 12 inches of baserock to surcharge to the underlying clays. The baserock should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
• Driveway pavements should be underlain by at least 12 inches of baserock to surcharge to the underlying clays. The baserock should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
• The soil beneath floor slabs and pavements must be kept moist to prevent the soil from drying out and developing shrinkage cracks. If the soil dries out, the soil should be moisture conditioned until the cracks close prior to placing baserock. • All concrete slabs-on-grade can be expected to suffer some cracking and movement.

However, thickened exterior edges, a well-prepared subgrade including pre-moistening prior to pouring concrete, adequately spaced expansion joints and good workmanship should reduce cracking and movement.
• Dees & Associates, Inc. are not experts in the field of moisture proofing and vapor barriers. In areas where floor wetness would be undesirable, an expert, experienced with moisture transmission and vapor barriers should be consulted. At a minimum, a blanket of 4 inches of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath the floor slab to act as a capillary break. To minimize vapor transmission, an impermeable membrane (10-mil. minimum) should be placed over the gravel.

Utility Trenches
• Utility trenches placed parallel to structures should not extend within an imaginary 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward from the bottom edge of the adjacent footing.
• Trenches may be backfilled with compacted engineered fill placed in accordance with the grading section of this report. The backfill material should not be jetted in place. • The portion of utility trenches that extend beneath foundations should be sealed with 2- sack sand slurry (or equivalent) to prevent subsurface seepage from flowing under buildings.

General Site Grading
• Areas to receive engineered fill, foundations, slabs or pavements should be cleared of obstructions, organic material and debris. The exact depth of stripping should be 86 Item 6 A.
13 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
determined in the field during grading. Organically contaminated soils may be stockpiled and used in landscape areas.
• Voids created during site clearing should be backfilled with engineered fill. • The subgrade beneath areas to receive fill should be scarified and compacted to provide a firm base for fill placement.
• The upper 7 feet of clayey on-site soils are not suitable for use as engineered fill. The granular soils below 7 feet are suitable for use as engineered fill. Soils used for engineered fill should be granular, have a Plasticity Index less than 15, be free of organic material, and contain no rocks or clods greater than 6 inches in diameter, with no more than 15 percent larger than 4 inches. We estimate the existing loose soils will have about 15 to 20 percent shrinkage when compacted.
• Engineered fill should be moisture conditioned to about 2 percent over optimum moisture content, placed in thin lifts less than 8-inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Where referenced in this report, Percent Relative Compaction and Optimum Moisture Content shall be based on ASTM Test Designation D1557. • Temporary cutslopes in the upper 7 feet of clay should be sloped no steeper than 0.75:1 (horizontal to vertical) and temporary cutslopes in the sandy soils below 7 feet should be sloped no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). If groundwater exists in the cuts at the time of construction the above temporary cutslope angles should be re-evaluated to reflect the current groundwater conditions at the time of construction.

General Site Drainage
• Controlling surface and subsurface runoff is important to the performance of the project. • Surface drainage should include provisions for positive gradients so that surface runoff is not permitted to pond adjacent to foundations or other improvements. Where bare soil or pervious surfaces are located next to the foundation, the ground surface within 10 feet of the structure should be sloped at least 5 percent away from the foundation. Where impervious surfaces are used within 10 feet of the foundation, the impervious surface within 10 feet of the structure should be sloped at least 2 percent away from the foundation. Swales should be used to collect and remove surface runoff where the ground cannot be sloped the full 10-foot width away from the structure. Swales should be sloped at least 2 percent towards the discharge point.
• Full roof gutters should be placed around the eves of the structures. Discharge from the roof gutters should be conveyed away from the downspouts in a controlled manner. 87 Item 6 A.
14 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
• Due to the clays at the ground surface and the presence of a steep slope behind the proposed residence, the site is not well suited for on-site retention of stormwater. • On-site retention may be used, but a suitable overflow path will need to be provided to carry excess water to the street.
• Runoff from improvements should not be allowed to flow over the steep slope at the back of the site. Retention structures should be located at least 50 feet from the top edge of the rear slope.
• The locations of drainage outlets and retention facilities should be reviewed and approved in the field prior to installation.

Plan Review, Construction Observation, and Testing
• Dees & Associates, Inc. should be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final project plans prior to construction to evaluate if our geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented. If our firm is not accorded the opportunity of making the recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. We recommend that our office review the project plans prior to submittal to public agencies, to expedite project review. • Dees & Associates, Inc. also requests the opportunity to observe and test grading operations and foundation excavations at the site. Observation of grading and foundation excavations allows anticipated soil conditions to be correlated to those actually encountered in the field during construction.
• The geotechnical engineer should be notified at least four days prior to any grading or foundation excavating so the work in the field can be coordinated with the grading contractor and arrangements for testing and observation can be made. The recommendations of this report are based on the assumption that the geotechnical engineer will perform the required testing and observation during grading and construction. It is the owner's responsibility to make the necessary arrangements for these required services.
• Engineered fill should be observed and tested by our firm. At a minimum, in-place density tests should be performed as follows: one test for every two feet of fill, one test for every 1,000 sq. ft. of material for relatively thin fill sections and one test whenever there is a definite suspicion of a change in the quality of moisture control or effectiveness in compaction.
• Prior to placing concrete, spread foundation excavations should be thoroughly cleaned and observed by the soils engineer.
88 Item 6 A.
15 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021
• Our firm should be called to observe and test the baserock below interior and exterior concrete slabs-on-grade and pavements prior to placing vapor barriers or steel reinforcement.
• Our firm should be called to observe the gravel bed, perforated pipe and slope of pipe for retaining wall backdrains prior to backfilling. The perforated pipe should be placed below the base of interior slab elevations where retaining walls are behind living space. • Drainage and erosion control preparations (swales, ground slopes, retention and detention structures and discharge areas) should be observed by the soils engineer.

Discharge areas and retention areas should be reviewed and approved in the field prior to installation.
• After the earthwork operations have been completed and the geotechnical engineer has finished their observation of the work, no further earthwork operations shall be performed except with the approval of and under the observation of the geotechnical engineer.
89 Item 6 A.
16 Dees & Associates, Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/2021

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

1. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the borings. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the time, our firm should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given.

2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of professional practice. No other warranty expressed or implied is made.

3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of three years without being reviewed by a soil engineer. 90 Item 6 A.
17 Dees and Associates Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/21

APPENDIX A
Site Vicinity Map
Santa Cruz County Lidar Map
Boring Site Plan
Unified Soil Classification System
Test Boring Log
Fault Map
91 Item 6 A.
18 Dees and Associates Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/21

SITE VICINITY MAP
Figure 1
Project Location
1410 Prospect Avenue
92 Item 6 A.
19 Dees and Associates Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/21

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY LIDAR MAP
Figure 2
Top of
steep slope
1410 Prospect Avenue
Beach
93 Item 6 A.
20 Dees and Associates Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/21
B2
B1

BORING SITE PLAN
Figure 3
1410 Prospect Avenue
Top of
steep slope
94 Item 6 A.
21 Dees and Associates Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/21

THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP

SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS*
MORE THAN HALF OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE (THE NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE IS ABOUT THE SMALLEST PARTICLE VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE)

GRAVELS

MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE

FRACTION IS LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE

CLEAN GRAVELS
(< 5% FINES)
GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Wide range in grain sizes and substantial amounts of all intermediate particle sizes
GP Poorly graded gravels, gravelsand mixtures, little or no fines Predominantly one size or a range of sizes with some
intermediate sizes missing
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW

GRAVELS WITH
FINES
(>12% FINES)
GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt
mixtures
Non plastic fines or fines with low
plasticity
Atterberg limits below “A” line or
PI < 4
Above “A” line with
4 < PI < 7
are borderline cases
requiring use of dual
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay symbols
mixtures
Plastic fines
Atterberg limits above “A” line
with PI > 7
SANDS

MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS

SMALLER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE

CLEAN SANDS
(<5% FINES)
SW Well-graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Wide range in grain sizes and substantial amounts of all intermediate sizes missing
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Predominantly one size or a range of sizes with some
intermediate sizes missing
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW

SANDS WITH FINES
(>12% FINES)
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Non plastic fines or fines with low
plasticity
Atterberg limits below “A” line or
PI < 4
Limits plotting in
hatched zone with
4 < PI < 7
are borderline cases
requiring use of dual
symbols SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
Plastic fines
Atterberg limits above “A” line
with PI > 7

FINE-GRAINED SOILS
MORE THAN HALF OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE (THE NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE IS ABOUT THE SMALLEST PARTICLE VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE)

SILTS AND CLAYS
(LIQUID LIMIT < 50)
ML
Inorganic silts and very fine
sands, rock flour, silty or clayey
fine sands, or clayey silts with
slight plasticity
CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, gravelly
clays, sandy clays, silty clays,
lean clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity

SILTS AND CLAYS
(LIQUID LIMIT > 50)
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sandy or silty
soils, elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of medium to
high plasticity, organic silts
OH Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic silts
Figure 4
*Gravels and sands with 5% to 12 % fines are
borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols.

RELATIVE DENSITY OF SANDS

AND GRAVELS
DESCRIPTION BLOW / FT**

VERY LOOSE
LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE

VERY DENSE
0 – 4
4 – 10
10 – 30
30 – 50
OVER 50

CONSISTENCY OF SILTS AND CLAYS
DESCRIPTION BLOWS / FT**

VERY SOFT
SOFT
FIRM
STIFF

VERY STIFF
HARD
0 – 2
2 – 4
4 – 8
8 – 16
16 – 32
OVER 32
**Number of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30
inches to drive a 2 inch O.D. 12 vertical inches.
95 Item 6 A.
22 Dees and Associates Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/21
TEST BORING LOG SCR-1655
1410 Prospect Avenue
LOGGED BY: SC DATE DRILLED: 5/5/2021 BORING TYPE: 6” SOLID STEM BORING NO: 1 DEPTH (feet) SAMPLE NO.

SOIL DESCRIPTION
USCS SOIL TYPEFIELD BLOW COUNTSPT BLOW COUNT*DRY DENSITY (PCF)MOISTURE (%) INSITUMOISTURE (%) SATURATEDCOHESION (PSF)PHI ANGLE% PASSING200 SIEVEPLASTICITY INDEX -
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -
1-1-1
L
1-2
T
1-3-1
L
1-4
T
1-5
T
1-6
T
1-7
T
Strong brown fine Sandy CLAY, damp, hard
Strong brown fine Sandy CLAY, moist, hard
Strong brown fine Sandy CLAY, moist, very stiff
Brown Gravelly SAND with Clay, very moist, dense (almost a Sandy Gravel)
Contact approximated (gradual transition)
Dark yellowish-brown Clayey coarse SAND with Gravel, very moist, dense
Dark yellowish-brown Clayey coarse SAND with more Gravel, very moist, dense
Dark yellowish-brown Clayey coarse SAND with Gravel, very moist to wet, dense
CL
SC
SC
10 17
35 7
18 25
7 10
25 10
25 34
6 10
19 7
12 35
10 23
50/6”
26 43
18 59
29 47
73 112.0

97.5 14.1

20.2 22.8

12.6 14.1

13.2 28.8
Qu =
1958
psf
580.6 30.0

16.9 30.1
DEES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 MISSION ST. STE. 8A | SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
www.deesgeo.com | (831) 427-1770
Figure 5
* Blow count converted:

L = Field Blow Count / 2
M = Field Blow Count / 1.5
96 Item 6 A.
23 Dees and Associates Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/21
TEST BORING LOG SCR-1655
1410 Prospect Avenue
LOGGED BY: SC DATE DRILLED: 5/5/2021 BORING TYPE: 6” SOLID STEM BORING NO: 1 DEPTH (feet) SAMPLE NO.

SOIL DESCRIPTION
USCS SOIL TYPEFIELD BLOW COUNTSPT BLOW COUNT*DRY DENSITY (PCF)MOISTURE (%) INSITUMOISTURE (%) SATURATEDCOHESION (PSF)PHI ANGLE% PASSING200 SIEVEPLASTICITY INDEX -
26 -
27 -
28 -
29 -
30 -
31 -
32 -
33 -
34 -
35 -
36 -
37 -
38 -
39 -
40 -
41 -
42 -
43 -
44 -
45 -
46 -
47 -
48 -
49 -
50 -
1-8
T Bluish-gray Purisima SANDSTONE, moist, very dense
Boring terminated at 28.5 Feet
Groundwater Encountered at 24.5 Feet
SM 10
50/1” 50/1”
DEES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 MISSION ST. STE. 8A | SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
www.deesgeo.com | (831) 427-1770
Figure 6
* Blow count converted:

L = Field Blow Count / 2
M = Field Blow Count / 1.5
97 Item 6 A.
24 Dees and Associates Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/21
TEST BORING LOG SCR-1655
1410 Prospect Avenue
LOGGED BY: SC DATE DRILLED: 5/5/2021 BORING TYPE: 3.25” Hand Auger BORING NO: 2 DEPTH (feet) SAMPLE NO.

SOIL DESCRIPTION
USCS SOIL TYPEFIELD BLOW COUNTSPT BLOW COUNT*DRY DENSITY (PCF)MOISTURE (%) INSITUMOISTURE (%) SATURATEDCOHESION (PSF)PHI ANGLE% PASSING200 SIEVEPLASTICITY INDEX -
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -
2-1
B
Strong brown fine Sandy CLAY, damp, stiff
Boring Terminated at 1.5 feet
No Groundwater Encountered
CL
DEES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 MISSION ST. STE. 8A | SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
www.deesgeo.com | (831) 427-1770
Figure 7
* Blow count converted:

L = Field Blow Count / 2
M = Field Blow Count / 1.5
98 Item 6 A.
25 Dees and Associates Inc.

SCR-1655 | 7/27/21
San Gregorio
San Andreas
Zayante-Vergeles
Monterey Bay-Tularcitos

FAULT MAP
Figure 8
99 Item 6 A.

GEOTECHNICAL      |    ENVIRONMENTAL      |     CHEMICAL     |     MATERIAL TESTING     |     SPECIAL INSPECTIONS 444 AIRPORT BLVD., SUITE 106 | WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 | PHONE 831‐722‐9446 | WWW.4PACIFIC‐CREST.COM August 18, 202                     Project No. 2266‐SZ69‐B36 Sean Sesanto, Associate Planner
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
Subject:   Geotechnical Peer Review – Slope Stability
1410 Prospect Avenue
Capitola, California
References: 1) Dees and Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Single‐Family Residence, 1410 Prospect Avenue APN 034‐046‐19, dated July 28, 2021 2)  Revised Plan Set, Johnson Residence, 1410 Prospect Ave., prepared by Derek Van Alstine and dated February 8, 2022.

Dear Mr. Sesanto,

INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
As requested, we have performed a peer review of the geotechnical aspects of References 1 and selected sheets from Reference 2.   Based on our conversations with yourself it is our understanding that the City of Capitola is requesting a geotechnical peer review that focuses on how adequately the consultant (Dees and Associates) has addressed the impact of the proposed project on the stability of an adjacent slope.

The subject property is located adjacent to the railroad right‐of‐way, and slope stability concerns due to the proposed construction are being raised by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission.

A new 2‐story house with a full basement and a detached garage is proposed for the subject property.

The proposed structures will be located in approximately the same location as an existing residence and garage but will be located approximately 1‐foot closer to the street (and further from the slope to the east) than the existing improvements.   The one exception is that the basement “light wells” on the proposed structure will extend about 4‐feet closer to the east, towards the slope in question.   The existing residence and garage were constructed at pad grade and do not include a basement.

CONSULTANT INFORMATION
The geotechnical investigation report prepared by Dees and Associates (Reference 1) describes the site and adjacent slope as “a gently sloping terrace above a moderate to steep coastal bluff that has been terraced to accommodate a railroad track and roadway.   The slope immediately below the parcel descends about 20 feet to the railroad tracks at a slope gradient of 45 to 50 degrees.  The slope continues on the other side of the railroad tracks down to Cliff Drive…”.

Two borings were drilled at the site, extending to 28.5 and 1.5 feet below ground surface. 100
Item 6 A.
1410 Prospect Avenue Peer Review Project No. 2266‐SZ69‐B36 August 18, 2022

2 Landsliding hazards were addressed qualitatively by recommending that “the proposed residence should be setback behind a 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) line drawn upwards from the base of the slope”, and the report concludes that “there is a low potential for landslides to affect the proposed residence as long as it is setback as recommended”.

In the “Site Drainage” section of the report Dees and Associates specify that “Runoff from improvements should not be allowed to flow over the steep slope…..retention structures should be located at least 50 feet from the top edge of the rear slope”.

BACKGROUND DATA AND SITE RECONNAISSANCE
Based on our review of regional geologic maps the site is underlain by Coastal Terrace deposits and Purisima bedrock.  Local experience with similar site conditions has shown that the contact between these two materials is relatively flat.

A Geotechnical Engineer from Pacific Crest Engineering visited the site on July 11, 2022.  The subject slope between the site and the railway was measured at about a 42‐degree inclination and 20 feet in height.  Except for surficial gopher holes and minor shallow slumping, we did not see any evidence of significant slope failure or movement in the immediate area.  Our understanding is that the rail line in this area was constructed over 100 years ago and it appears that the associated grading has remained essentially the same in this immediate area since that time.

PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
Based on our peer review and experience with residential coastal projects in Santa Cruz County, we offer the following comments:

QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
A qualitative slope stability analysis or “screening analysis” as it is referred to in CGS Special Publication 117A, is one that evaluates the severity of the hazard and the risk it poses to adjacent improvements.

Qualitative slope stability analyses typically are based on evaluating evidence for the presence of landslides, the susceptibility of the geologic formation to landsliding, and other factors indicative of slope stability (e.g. shallow groundwater etc.).  If the hazard is determined to be low based on a qualitative analysis then a quantitative analysis is typically not required.  A quantitative analysis is one that includes a more detailed field and subsurface investigation, site specific laboratory shear strength testing, and computer modeling to determine the factor of safety against failure for a slope.

In our opinion the qualitative assessment of slope stability submitted in the geotechnical investigation report by Dees and Associates (Reference 1) meets the local, generally accepted standard of care in the area.  The recommended setback based on a 1.5:1 inclination measured from the base of the slope provides a roughly 20‐foot horizontal setback from the top of slope, which is in accordance with CBC slope setback parameters, as well as generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and local practice.  The proposed house and garage are located behind this setback line.  Additionally, the basement foundation will transmit building loads to the underlying soil at an elevation about 10‐feet below ground surface.  This configuration has less probability of impacting hypothetical slope failure surfaces than the current structure that transmits building loads closer to the ground surface.
101
Item 6 A.
1410 Prospect Avenue Peer Review Project No. 2266‐SZ69‐B36 August 18, 2022

3 SUMMARY
In summary, the qualitative assessment of slope stability provided by the consultant adequately addresses landsliding hazards at the site.  Further quantitative stability analysis should not be required for the proposed development.

CLOSING
Our review of the above reports has been limited to the geotechnical consultant’s determination of the slope stability at the site and the influence the proposed development has on the existing slope.  We have not reviewed their findings, conclusions, or recommendations pertaining to the other aspects of the project and have no opinion regarding them.

Our services have consisted of peer review services only.  We have based our opinions on the documents provided to us, information collected from discussions with the City of Capitola, and our own literature research and experience. We have not generated subsurface information of our own nor have we provided design or construction recommendations. In no way is Pacific Crest Engineering Inc. acting as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project, nor are we responsible for the adequacy or completeness of any portion of the geotechnical design or construction.

We appreciate the opportunity provide the City of Capitola with these services.  Please feel free to contact us at your convenience, we can be reached at 831‐722‐9446.

Sincerely,
PACIFIC CREST ENGINEERING INC.

Soma Goresky, GE
Associate Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2252
102
Item 6 A.

Capitola Planning Commission
Agenda Report
Meeting: April 7, 2022
From: Community Development Department
Topic: 1410 Prospect Avenue
Permit Number: 21-0376
APN: 034-046-19
Design Permit, Historical Alteration Permit and Variance to demolish an existing residence and construct a new home that retains nonconformities for size and setbacks. The project is located within the R-1-GH (Single-Family Residential) zoning district and (Geologic Hazards) overlay zone.

This project is in the Coastal Zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit which is appealable to the California Coastal Commission after all possible appeals are exhausted through the City.

Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption
Property Owner: Alex Johnson
Representative: Derek Van Alstine, Filed: 08.24.21
Applicant Proposal:

The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 1,606 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence and construct a new 1,422 square-foot, two-story, single family residence with a 796 square-foot basement. The proposal includes the relocation and remodel of an existing detached garage, and a variance request to construct a residence that retains current nonconformities for the required setbacks and maximum allowable floor area. Overall, the project decreases the degree of existing non-conformities, improves onsite parking, and retains the development pattern along the street. The project is located at 1410 Prospect Avenue within in the R-1-GH (SingleFamily Residential, Geologic Hazards) zoning district.

Background:

On January 26, 2022, Development and Design Review Staff reviewed the application and provided the applicant with the following direction:

Public Works Representative, Danielle Uharriet: stated that the drainage must be prepared by an engineer and that a minor revocable encroachment permit will be required for improvements in the public right of way. She also stated that improvements along Prospect Avenue must maintain the existing street flowline.

Building Official, Robin Woodman: inquired about the scale of work to the existing garage and asked about basement bedroom egress.

Assistant Planner, Sean Sesanto: noted the proposed locations of the new second-story deck, the basement, and the garage remodel should not exacerbate or create nonconformities and made suggestions to better comply with setbacks and height. 106
Item 4 C.
103
Item 6 A.

Following the Development and Design Review meeting, the applicant submitted the required applications for a variance and encroachment permit. The plans were revised to address development standard comments.

Development Standards:

The following table outlines the zoning code requirements for development in the R-1 Zoning District. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a new residence with similar setbacks to the existing residence which has nonconforming setbacks and, in conjunction with the existing garage, exceeds the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR).

Development Standards
Building Height
R-1 Regulation Existing Proposed
25 ft. 21 ft. 7 in. 24 ft. 4 in.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Existing Proposed
Lot size 2,416 sq. ft. 2,416 sq. ft.

Maximum Floor Area Ratio 58% (Max 1,401 sq. ft.) 58% (Max 1,401 sq. ft.) First Story Floor Area 1,197 sq. ft. 978 sq. ft.

Second Story Floor Area 409 sq. ft. 444 sq. ft.

Basement N/A 796 sq. ft.

Exempt for floor area,
Included in parking calc.

Detached Garage 300 sq. ft.
-250 sq. ft. exempt
280 sq. ft.
-250 sq. ft. exempt
Total FAR 68.5% (1,656 sq. ft.) 60.1% (1,452 sq. ft.)
Variance Required
Setbacks
R-1 regulation Existing Proposed
Front Yard 1
st Story 15 ft. 7 in. into ROW 5 ft.

Variance
Front Yard 2
nd Story 20 ft. 7 in. into ROW 5 ft.

Variance
Side Yard 1
st Story 10% lot
width
Lot width
64 ft. 3
in.
6 ft. 5 in.
min.

North: 5 ft. 9 in.

South: 19 ft. 1 in.

North: 10 ft.

South: 20 ft. 11 in.

Side Yard 2
nd Story 15% of
width
Lot width
64 ft. 3
in.
9 ft. 8 in.
min.

North: 5 ft. 9 in.

South: 31 ft. 2 in.

North: 5 ft. 9 in.

Variance
South: 26 ft. 5 in.

Rear Yard 1
st Story 20% of
parcel
depth
Lot depth
38 ft. 2
in.
2 ft. 10 in. 0 ft.

Variance
107
Item 4 C.
104
Item 6 A.
7 ft. 7 in.
min.

Rear Yard 2
nd Story 20% of
parcel
depth
Lot depth
38 ft. 2
in.
7 ft. 7 in.
min.
19 ft. 1 in. 10 ft. 10 in.
7 ft. 7 in. Deck
Detached Garage
R-1 Regulation Existing Proposed
Height 12 ft. when less than
8 feet from side
property line
11 ft. 9 in. 10 ft. 11 in.

Front 40 ft. 1 ft. into ROW 1 ft. 6 in.

Existing
nonconforming
Side 3 ft. North: 52 ft. 1 in.

South: 0 ft.

North: 52 ft. 2 in.

South: 3 in.

Existing
nonconforming
Rear 3 ft. 1 ft. 3 ft.

Encroachments (list all)
Parking
2,001 – 2,600 sq. ft.: 3 per
unit, 1 covered
Required Existing Proposed
3 spaces total
1 covered
2 uncovered
1 spaces total
1 covered
0 uncovered
3 spaces total
1 covered
2 uncovered
Underground Utilities: Required with 25% increase in area Yes Discussion:

The existing residence at 1410 Prospect Avenue is a historic, two-story single-family home with a detached garage. The property is located within the Jewel Box neighborhood along the western bluffs overlooking the Capitola Village. The lot is located within the Geologic Hazards overlay.

The homes along Prospect Avenue are predominantly two-story, single-family residences. The project requires a Design Permit, Historic Alteration Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Variance.

Design Permit
The existing residence and detached garage are non-conforming with existing encroachments over the front property line into the public right of way. The existing detached garage is also located directly along the south-side property line with no setback. The proposal establishes new building footprints entirely within the subject property. The home is moved toward the center-rear of the lot and the existing detached garage will be relocated a few inches away from the south side setback and 18 inches behind the front property line.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new home that maintains similar scale, massing, materials, and placement as the existing residence. The home will utilize composition roofing, 108
Item 4 C.
105
Item 6 A.
square-cut shingle siding, and an asymmetrical gable roof with one centered wall-dormer facing Prospect Avenue. The garage will be remodeled in a style similar to the home with shingle siding, a new forward-facing gable roof and shed roof accent over the garage doors.

In addition to the front doors, the proposed garage design includes swinging doorways on the east (rear) elevation which when opened would extend over the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission property. For property and slope stability considerations, staff has included condition #24 requiring any rear access doorway(s) not extend beyond the property line and not be wide enough to allow vehicular access.

Historic Alteration Permit
The proposed project would demolish the existing residence at 1410 Prospect Avenue and requires approval of a Historic Alteration Permit by the Planning Commission. Also, historic resources are identified as environmental resources within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any modification to a historic resource must comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards to qualify for a CEQA exemption.

Architectural Historian Leslie Dill prepared an initial evaluation of the property for its potential historical significance prior to design submittal (Attachment 4). She noted that numerous modifications have been made to the roof and windows, that exterior siding was largely replaced, and that the original porch was enclosed and obscured much of the original design. She concluded that that although much of the historic materials have been lost, the property would still be eligible for historic designation on the basis of ‘broad historical patterns in the early development of the city’. During a preliminary design meeting, based on this initial evaluation, staff recommended that the design maintain the scale of the historic pattern along the street.

Historic Architect, Seth Bergstein, subsequently evaluated the proposed design for compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. Specifically, Mr. Bergstein cited Standards 4-6 as most applicable with the following findings:

4. The reconstructed building will be recreated using existing documentary evidence taken from the site prior to demolition. The new building will match the existing house in scale, massing, design, and the use of historic wood materials.

5. While the reconstruction will match the appearance of the original building, the new building will utilize modern window technology and detailing to clearly identify it as a contemporary re-creation, in keeping with this Standard.

6. While the subject house’s appearance has been altered substantially over time, it’s overall scale, massing, materials, and placement within the historic Prospect Avenue streetscape are the priorities in this reconstruction. These aspects of the original building will be maintained in the new construction to enable it to contribute to the established historic setting of altering rooflines and building facades along Prospect Avenue.

Of note, the construction will maintain the unique streetscape of continuous rooflines paired with in-kind replacement of materials and preservation of massing from existing documentary evidence. Mr. Bergstein concluded that the construction would preserve the site’s contribution to the historic neighborhood setting to meet the Standards. Therefore, the project would be a less than significant impact on the historic resource and conform with CEQA requirements.

Nonconforming Structure - Garage
The existing detached garage encroaches within the required front, rear, and side setbacks and is therefore a legal non-conforming structure. Pursuant to code section 17.92.070, structural 109
Item 4 C.
106
Item 6 A.
alterations to an existing non-complying structure may not exceed 80 percent of the present fair market value of the structure. Based on a full remodel and relocation under the construction cost breakdown with no additions, the alterations will not exceed 50 percent of the present fair market value of the structure, so the alterations are permissible. The project will also correct the garage encroachment into the public right of way and comply with the rear setback.

Floor Area
The maximum allowed floor area ratio for the site is 58% (1,401 square feet). Currently, the site exceeds the maximum floor area ratio by over 250 square feet (68.5%). The proposed application reduces the floor area but exceeds the maximum FAR by 50 square feet (60.1%), and therefore requires a variance. The application includes a new 796 square-foot basement which is exempt from the floor area calculation.

Parking
Although basements are excluded from floor area calculations, they are included in parking requirements pursuant to §17.48.030(6)(g). The combined conditioned space equals 2,218 square feet which requires three parking spaces, one of which must be covered. The applicant is proposing to retain the detached garage and provide two new uncovered spaces in a tandem configuration.

Variance
The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to the required setbacks and floor area ratio.

Pursuant to §17.128.060, the Planning Commission, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a variance permit when it finds:

A. There are unique circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, that do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

Staff Analysis: The unique circumstance applicable to the subject property is that the property is a historic site, with an irregularly shaped lot that is both small and shallow by Capitola standards. The variance allows the construction of a residence that is comparably-sized with improved siting on the lot and will continue to contribute to the historic context of the Prospect Avenue streetscape.

B. The strict application of the zoning code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

Staff Analysis: The substandard lot size is unique with depths ranging from 29 to 46 feet.

Incorporating the required 15 feet front yard setback and 8 feet rear yard setback, results in an extremely limited building pad of 778 square feet. The existing primary structure has a footprint 1200 square feet, and the proposed footprint is 978 square feet. The overwhelming majority of properties along the bluff side of Prospect Avenue do not comply with all minimum setbacks for primary structures, accessory structures, or both. In particular, many structures are located along the front lot lines. Lots decrease in size towards the southern end of the block and are typified by increased FAR and reduced setbacks. The subject property is the second most southern lot and is also one of the smallest on Prospect Avenue. A breakdown of the estimated floor area ratios of adjacent properties in included as Attachment 6.

C. The variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property. 110
Item 4 C.
107
Item 6 A.

Staff Analysis: The variance is necessary to preserve the use already enjoyed by the subject property and is already enjoyed in the vicinity with respect to lot siting and massing.

D. The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

Staff Analysis: The variance will not impose any detrimental impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property. In particular, proposed project has been designed to remove existing structural encroachments into the public right of way and improve parking.

E. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

Staff Analysis: The majority of properties on the bluff-side of Prospect Avenue do not comply with required setbacks. On the southern half of the block many properties additionally do not comply with current floor area ratio standards.

F. The variance will not have adverse impacts on coastal resources.

Staff Analysis: The variance will not adversely impact coastal resources. Although there are no coastal resources on the subject property, a public pathway exists between the rear of the lot and the railway. Conditions have been added to limit construction impacts to the site and surrounding area.

In conclusion, the variance request for setbacks and floor area ratio is consistent with the historic development pattern of the block. The substandard lot size is unique with depths ranging from 29 to 46 feet. Overall, the application decreases the existing nonconformities on the site, including a 200 square foot reduction in above-ground massing.

Geological Hazards Overlay
The property is located in the Geological Hazards Overlay. The property is located more than 200 feet from the coastal bluff; therefore, no increased setback regulations apply. Condition #8 requires a geotechnical report prior to issuance of building permit to ensure no impacts from the proposed development.

Archeological Sensitive Areas
The property is also within the archaeological sensitive area. Conditions of Approval #25–31 require an archaeological survey and monitoring plan with procedures to follow if cultural resources are discovered. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be retained to oversee the excavation activities.

CEQA:

Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced.

This project involves the replacement of an existing single-family residence and remodel of an existing garage subject to the R-1 (single-family residence) Zoning District. No adverse environmental impacts were discovered during review of the proposed project. 111
Item 4 C.
108
Item 6 A.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the application and consider approving the Design Permit, Historical Alteration Permit, and Variance as conditioned or continuing the application to the next hearing with direction on necessary modifications to the plans.

Attachments:

1. Plan Set

2. Material Information

3. Variance Application

4. Preliminary Historic Evaluation Letter

5. Secretary of the Interior Standards Review Letter

6. Floor Area Neighborhood Survey
Conditions of Approval:

1. The project approval consists of Design Permit, Historical Alteration Permit, and Variance to allow the demolition of an existing historic structure and construction of a 1,422 squarefoot single-family residence with a 796 square-feet basement. The project includes a remodel of an existing 280 square-foot detached garage, and variance for the primary structure setbacks and maximum floor area ratio. The maximum Floor Area Ratio for the 2,416 square foot property is 58% (1,401 square feet). The total FAR of the project is

60.1% with a total of 1,452 square feet, exceeding the maximum FAR by 51 feet. The application does comply with front, side, and rear yard setbacks. A variance for setbacks and floor area ratio was approved for the project. The proposed project is approved as indicated on the final plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 2022, except as modified through conditions imposed by the Planning Commission during the hearing.

2. Prior to construction, a building permit shall be secured for any new construction or modifications to structures authorized by this permit. Final building plans shall be consistent with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. All construction and site improvements shall be completed according to the approved plans

3. At time of submittal for building permit review, the Conditions of Approval must be printed in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans.

4. At time of submittal for building permit review, Public Works Standard Detail SMP STRM shall be printed in full and incorporated as a sheet into the construction plans. All construction shall be done in accordance with the Public Works Standard Detail BMP STRM.

5. Prior to making any changes to approved plans, modifications must be specifically requested and submitted in writing to the Community Development Department. Any significant changes to the size or exterior appearance of the structure shall require Planning Commission approval.

6. Prior to issuance of building permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department. The landscape plan can be produced by the property owner, landscape professional, or landscape architect. Landscape plans shall reflect the Planning Commission approval and shall identify type, size, and location of species and details of any proposed (but not required) irrigation systems. 112
Item 4 C.
109
Item 6 A.

7. Prior to issuance of building permit, all Planning fees associated with permit #21-0376 shall be paid in full.

8. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall provide a geotechnical report and demonstrate compliance with its recommendations to the satisfaction of the Building Department.

9. Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall pay Affordable housing in-lieu fees as required to assure compliance with the City of Capitola Affordable (Inclusionary) Housing Ordinance.

10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide documentation of plan approval by the following entities: Santa Cruz County Sanitation Department, Soquel Creek Water District, and Central Fire Protection District.

11. Prior to issuance of building permits, a drainage plan, grading, sediment and erosion control plan, shall be submitted to the City and approved by Public Works. The plans shall be in compliance with the requirements specified in Capitola Municipal Code Chapter

13.16 Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Protection.

12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a stormwater management plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works which implements all applicable Post Construction Requirements (PCRs) and Public Works Standard Details, including all standards relating to low impact development (LID).

13. Prior to any land disturbance, a pre-site inspection must be conducted by the grading official to verify compliance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan.

14. Prior to any work in the City road right of way, an encroachment permit shall be acquired by the contractor performing the work. No material or equipment storage may be placed in the road right-of-way.

15. During construction, any construction activity shall be subject to a construction noise curfew, except when otherwise specified in the building permit issued by the City.

Construction noise shall be prohibited between the hours of nine p.m. and seven-thirty a.m. on weekdays. Construction noise shall be prohibited on weekends with the exception of Saturday work between nine a.m. and four p.m. or emergency work approved by the building official. §9.12.010B

16. Prior to a project final, all cracked or broken driveway approaches, curb, gutter, or sidewalk shall be replaced per the Public Works Standard Details and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. All replaced driveway approaches, curb, gutter or sidewalk shall meet current Accessibility Standards.

17. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the tree removal permit authorized by this permit for two trees to be removed from the property. Three replacement trees shall be planted or so as to meet fifteen percent canopy coverage and/or a replacement ratio of 2:1. Required replacement trees shall be of the same size, species and planted on the site as shown on the approved plans.
113
Item 4 C.
110
Item 6 A.

18. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, compliance with all conditions of approval shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Upon evidence of non-compliance with conditions of approval or applicable municipal code provisions, the applicant shall remedy the non-compliance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or shall file an application for a permit amendment for Planning Commission consideration. Failure to remedy a non-compliance in a timely manner may result in permit revocation.

19. This permit shall expire 24 months from the date of issuance. The applicant shall have an approved building permit and construction underway before this date to prevent permit expiration. Applications for extension may be submitted by the applicant prior to expiration pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.156.080.

20. The planning and infrastructure review and approval are transferable with the title to the underlying property so that an approved project may be conveyed or assigned by the applicant to others without losing the approval. The permit cannot be transferred off the site on which the approval was granted.

21. Upon receipt of certificate of occupancy, garbage and recycling containers shall be placed out of public view on non-collection days.

22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans must show that the existing overhead utility lines will be underground to the nearest utility pole.

23. Prior to demolition of the existing structure, a pest control company shall resolve any pest issue and document that all pest issues have been mitigated. Documentation shall be submitted to the city at time of demolition permit application.

24. The garage doorway on the east (rear) elevation shall be of a sliding barn-door style or similar in such a way that no portion of the opening extends beyond the subject property and that vehicles may not pass through to the backyard.

25. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an archaeological survey report and monitoring plan shall be prepared for the development.
a. The archaeological survey report shall include, at a minimum, a field survey by an archaeologist, survey of available state resource information at the Northwest Regional Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory, description of the site's sensitivity, and any identified archaeological resources. The city will initiate the preparation of the survey report at the applicant's expense utilizing a qualified archaeologist selected by the community development department. b. The cultural resource monitoring plan shall, at a minimum:
i. Identify all areas of proposed grading or earth disturbing activities which have the potential to impact historic or prehistoric resources; ii. Identify the qualified archaeological monitor assigned to the project; iii. Describe the proposed monitoring program, including the areas to be monitored, the duration of monitoring, and monitoring protocols; iv. Outline procedures to be followed if cultural resources are discovered, including requirements to stop work, consultation with the City and any Native 114
Item 4 C.
111
Item 6 A.

American participation (as appropriate), resource evaluation, mitigation plan requirements, and protocols if human remains are encountered; and v. Include post-monitoring reporting requirements and curation procedures.

26. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit evidence that a qualified archaeological monitor has been retained to oversee all earthwork activities.

27. The archaeological monitor shall attend a construction meeting to coordinate required grading monitoring activities with the construction manager and contractors.

28. If resources are encountered, the archaeological monitor shall have the authority to stop work until a significance determination is made.

29. If significant resources are discovered, work may remain halted at the archaeologist's discretion until such time that a mitigation plan has been prepared and implemented with the concurrence of the Community Development Department.

30. Following completion of archaeological monitoring, the archaeologist shall submit a summary and findings of the monitoring work.
a. If no resources are recovered, a brief letter report shall be completed that includes a site record update on a California Department of Park and Recreation form 523. b. If significant resources are recovered, the report shall include a preliminary evaluation of the resources, a preliminary map of discovered resources, a completed California Department of Park and Recreation form 523, and recommendations for additional research if warranted.

31. If human remains are found at any time, the immediate area of the discovery shall be closed to pedestrian traffic along the Prospect Avenue street frontage and the Santa Cruz County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified as required by law.

32. The archaeological monitor may discontinue monitoring with approval by the Community Development Director if he/she finds that site conditions, such as the presence of imported fill or other factors, indicates that significant prehistoric deposits are not possible.

33. The archaeologist shall prepare a grading monitoring letter report summarizing all monitoring work and any recovered resources. The letter report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days following completion of grading activities.

Design Permit Findings
115
Item 4 C.
112
Item 6 A.

A. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, local coastal program, and any applicable specific plan, area plan, or other design policies and regulations adopted by the city council.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed demolition and similar construction of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage. With the granting of a variance to the required setbacks and maximum floor area ratio, the project secures the purpose of the General Plan, and Local Coastal Program, and design policies and regulations adopted by the City Council.

B. The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning code and municipal code.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the application for the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage. With a granting of a variance to the required setbacks and maximum floor area ratio, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning code and municipal code.

C. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. This project involves replacement of a single-family residence and remodel of an existing garage subject to the R-1 (single-family residence) Zoning District.

No adverse environmental impacts were discovered during review of the proposed project.

D. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have all reviewed the reviewed the application. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.

The project will improve parking in the vicinity by meeting on-site requirements.

E. The proposed project complies with all applicable design review criteria in Section

17.120.070 (Design review criteria).

The Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the application. With the granting of a variance to the required setbacks and maximum floor area ratio, the proposed complies with all applicable design review criteria in Section

17.120.070.

F. The proposed project maintains the character, scale, and development pattern of the neighborhood.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have all reviewed the application. The design of the reconstructed residence and remodeled garage will fit in nicely with the existing neighborhood. The project will maintain the character, scale, and development pattern of the neighborhood and of the existing dwelling.

Historic Alteration Findings
116
Item 4 C.
113
Item 6 A.

A. The historic character of a property is retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property is avoided.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed similar construction of the historic structure and determined that the building will be recreated using existing documentary evidence taken from the site prior to demolition.

The new building will be similar to the existing house in scale, massing, design, and the use of historic wood materials.

B. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of fine craftsmanship that characterize a property are preserved.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed project and determined that the new structure will preserve the historic streetscape and alternating rooflines of Prospect Avenue, including the overall scale, massing, materials, placement.

C. Any new additions complement the historic character of the existing structure.

New building components and materials for the addition are similar in scale and size to those of the existing structure.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed determined that alterations from the original design, such as the rear deck, are in similar scale and size and compliment the historic character of the site and structure. The remodeled garage complements the primary structure and pattern of alternating rooflines of Prospect Avenue.

D. Deteriorated historic features are repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature matches the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed project and determined that the existing structure has been subject to numerous structural and material alterations and replacements with limited original materials. The proposed similar construction will recreate distinctive features and incorporate in-kind replication of historic wood materials.

E. Archeological resources are protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures are undertaken.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have conditioned the project to include mitigation measures should archeological resources be identified.

Variance Findings
A. There are unique circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, that do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The unique circumstance applicable to the subject property is that the property is a historic site, with an irregularly shaped lot that is both small and shallow by Capitola standards.

The variance allows the construction of a residence that is comparably-sized with improved siting on the lot and will continue to contribute to the historic context of the Prospect Avenue streetscape.
117
Item 4 C.
114
Item 6 A.

B. The strict application of the zoning code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The substandard lot size is unique with depths ranging from 29 to 46 feet. Incorporating the required 15 feet front yard setback and 8 feet rear yard setback, results in an extremely limited building pad of 778 square feet. The existing primary structure has a footprint 1200 square feet, and the proposed footprint is 978 square feet. The overwhelming majority of properties along the bluff side of Prospect Avenue do not comply with all minimum setbacks for primary structures, accessory structures, or both. In particular, many structures are located along the front lot lines. Lots decrease in size towards the southern end of the block and are typified by increased FAR and reduced setbacks. The subject property is the second most southern lot and is also one of the smallest on Prospect Avenue.

C. The variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The variance is necessary to preserve the use already enjoyed by the subject property and is already enjoyed in the vicinity with respect to lot siting and massing.

D. The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The variance will not impose any detrimental impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property. In particular, proposed project has been designed to remove existing structural encroachments into the public right of way and improve parking.

E. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The majority of properties on the bluff-side of Prospect Avenue do not comply with required setbacks. On the southern half of the block many properties additionally do not comply with current floor area ratio standards.

F. The variance will not have adverse impacts on coastal resources.

The variance will not adversely impact coastal resources. Although there are no coastal resources on the subject property, a public pathway exists between the rear of the lot and the railway. Conditions have been added to limit construction impacts to the site and surrounding area.

Coastal Findings
A. The project is consistent with the LCP land use plan, and the LCP implementation program.

The proposed development conforms to the City’s certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP) land use plan and the LCP implementation program.

B. The project maintains or enhances public views.

The proposed project is located on private property at 1410 Prospect Avenue. The project will not negatively impact public landmarks and/or public views. 118
Item 4 C.
115
Item 6 A.

C. The project maintains or enhances vegetation, natural habitats and natural resources.

The proposed project is located at 1410 Prospect Avenue. The near natural landforms and a coastal trail. Conditions have been added to limit impacts during construction, protect vegetation, and maintain natural vegetation cover.

D. The project maintains or enhances low-cost public recreational access, including to the beach and ocean.

The project involves the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage, which will not negatively impact low-cost public recreational access.

E. The project maintains or enhances opportunities for visitors.

The project involves the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage, which will not negatively impact visitor serving opportunities.

F. The project maintains or enhances coastal resources.

The project involves the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage, which will not negatively impact coastal resources. Although there are no coastal resources on the subject property, a public pathway exists between the rear of the lot and the railway. Conditions have been added to limit construction impacts to the site and surrounding area.

G. The project, including its design, location, size, and operating characteristics, is consistent with all applicable design plans and/or area plans incorporated into the LCP.

With the granting of a variance, the proposed residential project complies with all applicable design criteria, design guidelines, area plans, and development standards. The operating characteristics are consistent with the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone.

H. The project is consistent with the LCP goal of encouraging appropriate coastal development and land uses, including coastal priority development and land uses (i.e., visitor serving development and public access and recreation).

The project involves the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage on a residential lot of record. The project is consistent with the LCP goals for appropriate coastal development and land uses. The use is an allowed use consistent with the R-1 zoning district.
119
Item 4 C.
116
Item 6 A.

JOHNSON RESIDENCE

CONTACTS
ALEX JOHNSON 1410 PROSPECT AVE. CAPITOLA, CA 95010
(650) 949-2143 OWNER:

A3 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS
A4 FLOOR PLANS

DRAWING INDEX

EXISTING SITE PLAN
TITLE SHEET BUILDING DESIGNT1
A1
T1

TITLE SHEET
N.T.S.

VICINITY MAP
SITE

PARCEL MAP

PROJECT DATA

FRONT YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSED

REAR YARD

SIDE YARD
HEIGHT
GARAGE 1st STORY 2nd STORY 18'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 1'-6" 5'-1" 5'-1" 1st STORY 2nd STORY 20'-0" 20'-0" 0'-0" 1st STORY 2nd STORY 7'-0"(L) & 7'-0" (R) 25'-0" 23'-0" 9'-6" (L) & 9'-6" (R) 10'-0" (L) & 4 1 2" (R) 10'-0" (L) & 26'-6" (R) FLOOR AREA
RATIO
LOT SIZE MAX (58%) PROPOSED (58.9%) 2,415 sq.ft. 1,400.7 sq.ft. 1,423 sq.ft. HABITABLE SPACE TOTAL UPPER LEVEL 427 sq.ft.

FIRST FLOOR COVERED
DECK OR PORCH <150 sq.ft. CREDIT>
SECOND
FLOOR DECK GARAGE 268 sq.ft. -250= 18 sq.ft 427 sq.ft.

BUILDING INFORMATION DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,654 sq.ft. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY, 1,465 sq.ft. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND 978 sq.ft. BASEMENT. RELOCATE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1410 PROSPECT AVE. CAPITOLA, CA 95010 PROJECT ADDRESS: 034-146-19 PARCEL NUMBER: R1ZONING DESIGNATION:
(P) TOTAL 1,423 sq.ft. PARKING REQUIRED PROPOSED
3 SPACES, ONE OF WHICH MUST BE COVERED1 COVERED SPACE 2 UNCOVERED TOTAL 3 SPACES 3 SPACES
PROJECT DESIGNER: DEREK VAN ALSTINE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN, INC. DEREK VAN ALSTINE 1535 SEABRIGHT AVE SUITE 200 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062
PH: (831) 426-8400
FAX: (831) 426-8446
[email protected]

REDWOOD ENGINEERING
LEONARD WILLIS, P.E. 1535 SEABRIGHT AVE SUITE 200
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062
PH: (831) 426-8444
FAX: (831) 426-8446
[email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: R-3 OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: TYPE V-B UNSPRINKLERED CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CODE NOTE: THESE PLANS CONFORM TO THE 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL, BUILDING, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND ENERGY CODE. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SHALL CONFORM TO 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. AS
AMENDED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 1535 SEABRIGHT AVENUE SUITE 200, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA (831)426-8400 PHONE (831)426-8446 FAX R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N INC. D E R E K V A N A L S T I N E DVRD

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DEREK VAN ALSTINE
2018 COPYRIGHT DESIGNER

ISSUE DESCRIPTION
INC. 2/28/2022 12:37 PM
APN: 034-046-19
PLANNING SUBMITTAL: REVISIONS:

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING SUBMITTAL:

SCHEMATIC DESIGN JOHNSON RESIDENCE 1410 PROSPECT AVE. CAPITOLA, CA 95010 - AUG. 24, 2021
FEB. 8, 2022

PLANNING
REVISIONS SURVEYOR: ALPHA LAND SURVEYS, INC. JEAN PAUL HAPPEE, PLS 8807 4444 SCOTTS VALLEY DRIVE, #7
SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066
PH: (831) 438-4453 MAIN LEVEL BASEMENT 978 sq.ft. <978 sq.ft.> <12 sq.ft.>
258 sq.ft. 996 sq.ft. <978 sq.ft.>
A2 SITE PLAN
A5 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A6 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A7 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SURVEY
L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN

EXISTING
- 8 3
4" - 4 1
4" 3'- 4 1
2" 18'- 9 3
4"
- 4 1
4" 12'- 13
4" 5'-9" (L) & 4 1
2" (R) 5'-9" (L) & 31'-1" (R) EXISTING (67%) 1,624 sq.ft. ** AREA NOT COUNTED PER CHAPTER 17.48.040
**
**
21'-7"
*** STAIR AREA COUNTED ONCE AT GROUND LEVEL
***
D1 SITE DRAINAGE PLAN
120
Item 4 C.
117
Item 6 A.

A L P H A L A N D S U R V E Y S, I N C.
121
Item 4 C.
118
Item 6 A.
122
Item 4 C.
119
Item 6 A.

EXISTING 2 STORY,

SINGLE FAMILY

DWELLING
6'-3" 10% LOT WIDTH SIDE SETBACK
6'-3" 10% LOT WIDTH SIDE SETBACK 7'-714" 20% LOT DEPTH REAR SETBACK 3'-314" 212" 834" EXISTING GARAGE
(E) WOOD GATES
(E) CONC. PAVERS 20'-0" FRONT SETBACK
(E) GAS METER
(E) ELECT METER 38'-3" LOT DEPTH
(E) WALKING TRAIL
(E) FENCE
36" DIA. MONTEREY CYPRESS TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO
BE REMOVED 1 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING SITE PLAN
A1

EXISTING
SITE PLAN 1535 SEABRIGHT AVENUE SUITE 200, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA (831)426-8400 PHONE (831)426-8446 FAX R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N INC. D E R E K V A N A L S T I N E DVRD

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DEREK VAN ALSTINE
2018 COPYRIGHT DESIGNER

ISSUE DESCRIPTION
INC. 4/1/2022 11:48 AM
APN: 034-046-19
PLANNING SUBMITTAL: REVISIONS:

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING SUBMITTAL:

SCHEMATIC DESIGN JOHNSON RESIDENCE 1410 PROSPECT AVE. CAPITOLA, CA 95010 - AUG. 24, 2021 FEB. 8, 2022

PLANNING

REVISIONS
123
Item 4 C.
120
Item 6 A.

PROPOSED 2 STORY, SINGLE

FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING

LIGHTWELLS
(Non-Permeable) 5'-3"

RELOCATED
GARAGE
(NonPermeable)
(N) PERVIOUS PAVERS 20'-0" FRONT SETBACK
(E) WALKING TRAIL

LIGHTWELL
LIGHTWELL 10'-0" 10'-0"

PARKING
SPACE 3

PARKING
SPACE 2
(N) PERVIOUS PAVERS P R O S P E C T A V E. PROPERTY LINE 63.17' PROPERTY LINE 65.3' PROPERTY LINE 46.63' PROPERTY LINE 29.79' (E) FENCE Registered Professional Engineer Civil - California No. 56638 Alexander Michael Johnson

DESCRIPTION
APN: 034-046-19
PLANNING SUBMITTAL: REVISIONS:

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING SUBMITTAL:

SCHEMATIC DESIGN JOHNSON RESIDENCE 1410 PROSPECT AVE. CAPITOLA, CA 95010 AUG. 24, 2021
FEB. 8, 2022

PLANNING
REVISIONS D1
Site Drainage Plan 1 Scale: 1
4'' - 1'-0''
STORMWATER PRO-ECT INFORMATION 1. Project Type: Residential - Detached Single Family Home 2. Tier: Basic (<2,500 SF of New/Replaced Impervious Area) 3. Description: Reconstruction of an existing residence and detached garage. 4. Total Project Site Area: 2,415 SF 5. Amount of existing (pre-project) impervious surface area (e.g. existing buildings, paving, hardscape): 1,720 SF 6. Amount of replaced impervious surface area (e.g. parking lot replaced by a building): 0 SF 7. Amount of new impervious surface area created (e.g. new building addition and/or patio): Reduced by 424 SF via Smaller Building Footprint and Permeable Pavers Use 8. Total Proposed (post-project) impervious surface area: 1,346 SF GENERAL NOTES 1. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the project plans. 2. The Contractor shall verify all existing conditions, elevations, dimensions, and construction in the field prior to construction. If any discrepancies are noted, the contractor shall notify the engineer immediately for direction. 3. A minimum of 48 hours prior to construction, the Contractor shall notify Underground Service Alert (USA) at 811 for existing utility locations. 4. The Contractor shall not commence work until after a pre-construction meeting has been held with the Owner and City of Capitola, and after a notice to proceed has been issued. 5. Traffic control during construction shall be the Contractor's responsibility and shall be in accordance with the approved plan submitted to the City of Capitola. 6. The Contractor shall keep existing streets free from dirt and debris during all phases of construction. 7. The Contractor shall maintain access to properties along Prospect Avenue throughout the duration of construction. 8. The Contractor shall repair any damage or interruption of public utilities, water lines, or irrigation systems immediately at no expense to the City of Capitola. 9. The Contractor is responsible for matching existing streets, surrounding landscape, and other improvements with a smooth transition in paving and grading, etc., and is to avoid any abrupt or apparent changes in grades or cross slopes, low points or hazardous conditions. 10. The Contractor shall comply with the rules and regulations of the City of Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, State of California, and Cal/OSHA. 11. All existing irrigation, landscape materials, pavement delineation, curb and gutter, and other improvements, that are not to be removed but are damaged during construction, shall be replaced or restored to existing condition at no additional expense and the satisfaction of the Owner.
1 2
3 Roof Downspout connected to 3” Diameter PVC
D2729 Drain Pipe with NDS Pop-Up Drainage
Emitter at Outfall.

Direction of Surface Runoff
Pervious Paver Detail
3 3
1 1

PERMEABLE PAVEMENT WITH FULL

INFILTRATION TO SOIL SUBGRADE
ICPI-68 DRAWING NO. SCALE

GEOTEXTILE ON TOP AND SIDES OF OPTIONAL GEOTEXTILE ON SUBGRADE SUBBASE UNDER/BEYOND CURB

SOIL SUBGRADE PER DESIGN ENGINEER
BEDDING COURSE 1 1/2 TO 2 IN. (40 TO 50 mm) THICK CONCRETE PAVERS MIN. 3 1/8 IN. (80 mm) THICK 4 IN. (100 MM) THICK NO. 57 STONE TYP. NO. 8, 89, OR 9 AGGREGATE IN OPENINGS

FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE (CURB SHOWN)
(TYP. NO. 8 AGGREGATE) CURB/EDGE RESTRAINT WITH CUT-OUTS OPEN-GRADED BASE NO SCALE 2 3/8 IN. (60 MM) THICK PAVERS MAY BE USED IN PEDESTRIAN AND RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS. NOTES: NO. 2 STONE SUBBASE THICKNESS VARIES WITH DESIGN. CONSULT ICPI PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT MANUAL. 2. 1.

FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC (ASPECT RATIO < 3) MIN. 6 IN. (150 MM) THICK NO. 2 STONE SUBBASE NO. 2 STONE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH NO.3 OR NO.4 STONE. 124
Item 4 C.
121
Item 6 A.

PROPOSED 2 STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 6'-3" 10% LOT WIDTH SIDE SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 6'-3" 10% LOT WIDTH SIDE SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 7'-714" 20% LOT DEPTH REAR SETBACK 5'-3" RELOCATED GARAGE (N) WOOD GATES (N) PERVIOUS PAVERS 20'-0" FRONT SETBACK
38'-3" LOT DEPTH
ELECT METER (E) WALKING TRAIL UPPER LEVEL DECK LIGHTWELL LIGHTWELL 10'-0" 10'-0" GAS METER PARKING SPACE 3 10'-0" X 20'-0" PARKING SPACE 2 10'-0" X 20'-0" PARKING SPACE 1 10'-0" X 20'-0" (N) PERVIOUS PAVERS PROPERTY LINE 63.17' 9'-6" 15% LOT WIDTH SIDE SETBACK SECOND FLOOR 9'-6" 15% LOT WIDTH SIDE SETBACK SECOND FLOOR PROPERTY LINE 65.3' PROPERTY LINE 46.63'
PROPERTY LINE 29.79' (E) FENCE 1 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN / SITE PLAN A2 SITE PLAN 1535 SEABRIGHT AVENUE SUITE 200, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA (831)426-8400 PHONE (831)426-8446 FAX R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N INC.

D E R E K V A N A L S T I N E DVRD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DEREK VAN ALSTINE 2018 COPYRIGHT DESIGNER ISSUE DESCRIPTIONINC. 2/9/2022 1:56 PM APN: 034-046-19 PLANNING SUBMITTAL: REVISIONS: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SUBMITTAL: SCHEMATIC DESIGN JOHNSON RESIDENCE 1410 PROSPECT AVE.

CAPITOLA, CA 95010 - AUG. 24, 2021 FEB. 8, 2022 PLANNING REVISIONS 125 Item 4 C.
122
Item 6 A.

DW GARAGE 101 GREEN HOUSE 102 1 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A3 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS WALL LEGEND EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN EXISTING WALLS TO BE REMOVED NEW 2x6 STUD WALL NEW 2x4 STUD WALL 1535 SEABRIGHT AVENUE SUITE 200, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA (831)426-8400 PHONE (831)426-8446 FAX R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N INC.

D E R E K V A N A L S T I N E DVRD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DEREK VAN ALSTINE 2018 COPYRIGHT DESIGNER ISSUE DESCRIPTIONINC. 2/9/2022 1:55 PM APN: 034-046-19 PLANNING SUBMITTAL: REVISIONS: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SUBMITTAL: SCHEMATIC DESIGN JOHNSON RESIDENCE 1410 PROSPECT AVE.

CAPITOLA, CA 95010
- AUG. 24, 2021 FEB. 8, 2022 PLANNING REVISIONS 126
Item 4 C.
123
Item 6 A.

LAUNDRY
103

FAMILY ROOM
106
27’-0”x12’-9”

KITCHEN
105
16’-8”x9’-0” BEDROOM
101
10'-0”x10’-0” BATH
102 DW
UP 16R@7 916" 17T@ 10 12" DN

LIGHTWELL BELOW
LIGHTWELL BELOW 16R@7 916" 17T@ 10 12" PANTRYMECH
104 DW
32'-112" 30'-514" 5'-014" 35'-512"
10'-0" 10'-0"
BATH
202
10’-6”x6’-0” MASTER

BEDROOM
201
10'-0"x22'-3" DN
DECK 22'-6"x10'-9" 16R@7 916" 17T@ 10 12"
26'-712" 27'-614" 2'-11" 30'-514"

BEDROOM
001
UP

BEDROOM
003
LIVING
004
25'-11"x12-7"

LIGHTWELL
BATH
004 BATH
005 16R@7 916" 17T@ 10 12" 30'-514" 5'-2" 35'-714"
32'-112"
DECK
(N) SHINGLE ROOFING, MATCH (E)
(N) GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT, MATCH (E) SLOPE 10 :12 5:12 SLOPE 5 :12 SLOPE 3.5:12 SLOPE SLOPE 3.5:12 SLOPE 3.5:12 SLOPE 3.5:12
SLOPE 0.5:12
ROOF MUST NOT PROJECT OVER PROPERTY LINE 3 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A4

WALL LEGEND FLOOR PLANS

EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN

EXISTING WALLS TO BE REMOVED
NEW 2x6 STUD WALL NEW 2x4 STUD WALL 1535 SEABRIGHT AVENUE SUITE 200, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA (831)426-8400 PHONE (831)426-8446 FAX R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N INC. D E R E K V A N A L S T I N E DVRD

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DEREK VAN ALSTINE
2018 COPYRIGHT DESIGNER

ISSUE DESCRIPTION
INC. 2/28/2022 12:34 PM
APN: 034-046-19
PLANNING SUBMITTAL: REVISIONS:

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING SUBMITTAL:

SCHEMATIC DESIGN JOHNSON RESIDENCE 1410 PROSPECT AVE. CAPITOLA, CA 95010 - AUG. 24, 2021 FEB. 8, 2022

PLANNING
REVISIONS 1 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 4 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" ROOF PLAN 127
Item 4 C.
124
Item 6 A.
3 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
4 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
2 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
1535 SEABRIGHT AVENUE SUITE 200, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA (831)426-8400 PHONE (831)426-8446 FAX R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N INC.

D E R E K V A N A L S T I N E DVRD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DEREK VAN ALSTINE 2018 COPYRIGHT DESIGNER ISSUE DESCRIPTIONINC. 2/9/2022 1:57 PM APN: 034-046-19 PLANNING SUBMITTAL: REVISIONS: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SUBMITTAL: SCHEMATIC DESIGN JOHNSON RESIDENCE 1410 PROSPECT AVE.

CAPITOLA, CA 95010
- AUG. 24, 2021 FEB. 8, 2022 PLANNING REVISIONS 128
Item 4 C.
125
Item 6 A.

OUTLINE OF (E) RESIDENCE
(N) BASEMENT BELOW
(N) WINDOW & TRIM, MATCH (E)
(N) GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT, MATCH (E)
T.O.PLATE 9'-0" T.O.SLAB
T.O.SUBFLR. 9'-0" T.O.PLATE
T.O.SUBFLR.

T.O.PLATE. 6'-8" 24'-4"
(N) LIGHTWELL BELOW
(N) SHINGLE ROOFING, MATCH (E)
(N) WINDOW & TRIM, MATCH (E)
(N) GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT, MATCH (E) 42" H. GLASS RAIL w/ CEDAR CAP 2x2 STAINLESS STEEL POST 9'-0" MAX. PLATE HEIGHT BIPASS DOORS A6

EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS 1 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 1535 SEABRIGHT AVENUE SUITE 200, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA (831)426-8400 PHONE (831)426-8446 FAX R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N INC. D E R E K V A N A L S T I N E DVRD

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DEREK VAN ALSTINE
2018 COPYRIGHT DESIGNER

ISSUE DESCRIPTION
INC. 4/1/2022 11:53 AM
APN: 034-046-19
PLANNING SUBMITTAL: REVISIONS:

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING SUBMITTAL:

SCHEMATIC DESIGN JOHNSON RESIDENCE 1410 PROSPECT AVE. CAPITOLA, CA 95010 - AUG. 24, 2021 FEB. 8, 2022

PLANNING
REVISIONS 2 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" EAST ELEVATION
129
Item 4 C.
126
Item 6 A.

T.O.PLATE 9'-0" T.O.SLAB
T.O.SUBFLR. 9'-0" T.O.PLATE
T.O.SUBFLR.

T.O.PLATE. 3'-134" 24'-334"

OUTLINE OF (E) RESIDENCE SHINGLE SIDING, MATCH (E) GARAGE DOOR, MATCH (E) (N) BASEMENT BELOW
(N) SHINGLE ROOFING, MATCH (E)
(N) WINDOW & TRIM, MATCH (E)
(N) GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT, MATCH (E) 24'-4"
TOP OF NEIGHBOR GARAGE 9'-0" 7'-0"MAX. PLATE HEIGHT

OUTLINE OF (E) RESIDENCE
(N) BASEMENT BELOW
(N) WINDOW & TRIM, MATCH (E)
(N) GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT, MATCH (E)
T.O.PLATE 9'-0"
T.O.SLAB
T.O.SUBFLR. 9'-0"
T.O.PLATE
T.O.SUBFLR.

T.O.PLATE. 8'-8" 24'-4"
(N) LIGHTWELL BELOW A7

EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS 1 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" WEST ELEVATION 1535 SEABRIGHT AVENUE SUITE 200, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA (831)426-8400 PHONE (831)426-8446 FAX R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N INC. D E R E K V A N A L S T I N E DVRD

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DEREK VAN ALSTINE
2018 COPYRIGHT DESIGNER

ISSUE DESCRIPTION
INC. 2/28/2022 12:34 PM
APN: 034-046-19
PLANNING SUBMITTAL: REVISIONS:

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING SUBMITTAL:

SCHEMATIC DESIGN JOHNSON RESIDENCE 1410 PROSPECT AVE. CAPITOLA, CA 95010 - AUG. 24, 2021 FEB. 8, 2022

PLANNING
REVISIONS 2 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION
130
Item 4 C.
127
Item 6 A.

D E R E K V A N A L S T I N E R E S I D E N T I A L D E S I G N INC. 1535 SEABRIGHT AVENUE #200, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA (831)426-8400 PHONE (831)426-8446 FAX
1410 PROSPECT AVENUE, CAPITOLA, CA 95010
JOHNSON RESIDENCE APN: 034-146-19 DVRD 2021 COPYRIGHT DEREK VAN ALSTINE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DESIGNER ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING DARK CHARCOAL BY GAF WINDOWS & DOORS MARVIN, OR EQUAL KELLY MOORE SWISS COFFEE 23 WOOD SHINGLES KELLY MOORE PLYMOUTH GRAY 178 TRIM & WOODWORK KELLY MOORE SWISS COFFEE 23 131 Item 4 C.
128
Item 6 A.
132
Item 4 C.
129
Item 6 A.
133
Item 4 C.
130
Item 6 A.

PO BOX 1332
SAN JOSE CA 95109
408.297.2684 OFFICE
408.228.0762 FAX
www.archivesandarchitecture.com
February 18, 2020
Attn: Matt Orbach, Associate Planner
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
(Via email)
RE: Preliminary Historical Evaluation – 1410 Prospect Avenue, Capitola, CA APN# 034-04-619
Dear Matt:

This letter constitutes a preliminary historic resource evaluation (Phase One Report) for the property located in the City of Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, at 1410 Prospect Avenue. The property contains two buildings: the main house and a detached garage and greenhouse.

Executive Summary
The property at 1410 Prospect Avenue, identified in 1986 on the City of Capitola Historic Structures List, meets the criteria for designation as a Historic Feature utilizing the City of Capitola Historic Feature Ordinance, Qualities 9 and 10: “The proposed historic feature by its location and setting materially contributes to the historic character of the city, and the proposed historic feature is a long established feature of the city.” The property also appears to qualify for listing on the California Register of Historical Resource for its embodiment of the significant patterns of development history of the City of Capitola. It is not eligible, however, based on its associations with personages, nor for its architectural design, due to alterations on the exterior.

Capitola Architectural Survey 1986 (Viewed from the pathway, facing northwest) 134
Item 4 C.
131
Item 6 A.
2 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Intent of this Memorandum
An historical resource evaluation is often required in the State of California to accompany a project submittal when a city such as Capitola determines that extant structures on the property are at least 50 years old. This property is listed on the City of Capitola 2005 Historic Structures List, referencing the City of Capitola Architectural Survey of 1986; however, a property does not have to be listed on a historic resource inventory or historic property register to warrant this type of evaluation as a part of the development review process. Depending on the findings of the review, further formal documentation could subsequently be required by the City of Capitola Community Development Department, including preparation of Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)523 series recording forms, a more detailed assessment under the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, or other types of documentation.

The 1986 listing indicated that the property was considered a 7N, indicating that the property required additional evaluation. This letter is intended to provide that preliminary evaluation. To make significance determinations, the City of Capitola requires that the investigation be done by a qualified historical consultant who then conducts the initial investigation and prepares the preliminary evaluation.

Policy and Regulatory Background
The City’s historic preservation policies recognize older buildings for their historical and architectural significance as well as their contributions to the identity, diversity, and economic welfare of communities. The historic buildings of Capitola highlight the City's unique heritage and enable residents to better understand its identity through these links with the past. When a project has the potential to affect a historic resource which is either listed, or eligible for listing, on the California Register of Historical Resources, or is eligible for designation as a Historic Feature under City of Capitola’s criteria, the City considers the impact of the project on this significance. Each of these listing or designation processes is based on specific historic evaluation criteria.

A preliminary historic evaluation, as presented in this letter, can be used to determine the potential for historical significance of a building, structure, site, and/or improvement.

Property Status
The parcel at 1410 Prospect Avenue is listed on the 2005 City of Capitola Historic Structures List with the status of 7N. This designation, according the State of California Historical Resource Status Codes, indicates that the property “needs to be reevaluated.” The property was first identified as part of the Capitola Architectural Survey published in 1986 (indicated by the designation “D” on the Historic Structures List), and as shown in the Capitola Architectural Survey.

The property at 1410 Prospect Avenue has not been previously evaluated locally at an intensive level. The property is not listed or designated as a part of any state or national survey of historic resources. The preparers of this report reviewed the subject property under local, state and national criteria, to analyze eligibility for listing or designation as a historic property.

Qualifications
Archives & Architecture, LLC, is a cultural resource management firm located in San Jose, California.

Leslie Dill, partner in the firm and the author of this letter, meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualifications within the fields of historic architecture and architectural history to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities in compliance with state and federal environmental laws, and is listed with the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS). The standards for listing are outlined in 36 CFR Part 61. 135
Item 4 C.
132
Item 6 A.
3 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Methodology
The methodology used for this historic evaluation included an on-site visual inspection of the extant buildings and structure, a preliminary investigation into the history of the property and its associations, and an evaluation of the property within the context of the development of the local area and early development in what is now the City of Capitola.

Property Description
The subject property consists of a trapezoidal property of just under a fifth of an acre on the east side of Prospect Avenue. The property includes portions of parcels established by the subdivision:

Parcels D, 13, and 14. The two-story portion of the house is at the parcel’s northwest corner and the one-story detached garage is at the southern property line. The former Southern Pacific right-ofway creates the diagonal eastern property line.

GIS Map of 1410 Prospect Avenue, Capitola. County of Santa Cruz Office of the Assessor.

Historical Context
This residential property was originally part of a much larger area of unincorporated Santa Cruz County, which had been part of Rancho Rodeo in the Mexican era. It was separated from Camp Capitola by the river, set on the cliffs near the Wharf at the base of the main road to Soquel, and part of an area identified over time with a freight train spur and lumber yard known as “Opal.” Lumber from the Santa Cruz Mountains was shipped from this location, the Loma Prieta Lumber Company site, until the early twentieth century, including expansions of the tracks as late as 1912. The station was closed in 1931.

The area northeast of the spur was previously a farm area owned by a sea captain John Curtis in the late 1850s, then owned for a while by his widow, Phoebe Curtis. In turn, her second husband, Dennis Feeley, became the owner after she passed away and after he won a legal dispute with the Curtis children. He subdivided the area in 1886 and called it Camp Fairview.

Frederick A. Hihn, the significant American developer of Capitola from the mid-1800s until just after the turn of the century, acquired this land from Feeley in 1900; Hihn had also acquired the area of the cliffs to the west of Camp Fairview while developing his business concerns in Camp Capitola and throughout the region. Photographs from the late 1800s show a scattering of buildings along the clifftop. The 1905 and 1917 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of the area illustrate residences built on most of the parcels east of Prospect Avenue, and they illustrate the diagonal Southern Pacific right-of-way later officially adopted in 1928.
136
Item 4 C.
133
Item 6 A.
4 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Detail of 1886 Camp Fairview Subdivision Map. Courtesy County of Santa Cruz Assessor’s Office.

There is a small dwelling “1-story with att[ic]” near the tip of this frontage as seen on the Sanborn map on the following page. The small house is alone on the tip of the block prior to 1917. Its footprint is the same size and rectangular shape of the central core of the subject residence, but it is not sited at the location of the current residence. If this house were relocated between 1917 and 1927, it was moved just over 40 feet due north.

When Hihn passed away in 1913, he deeded the area near Opal Station to a grandson. From the City of Capitola Historic Context Statement:

Hihn’s grandson, Eulice Hihn, a surveyor, was bequeathed about two hundred acres surrounding the nearby train stop at Opal. Eulice was killed in a hunting accident and his widow, Kathryn Bothwell Hihn, inherited the land. She later married J.T.

McGeoghegan. During the real estate boom after World War I, she created “Opal Subdivision 1 of the Fairview Tract,” with lots for 250 homes. 137
Item 4 C.
134
Item 6 A.
5 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
From 1923 when the Opal Subdivision was established, it slowly filled with houses, and Camp Fairview continued to be developed. Prospect Avenue was identified as a private street. By 1927, the block between Prospect Avenue and the cliff was built-out, including the subject house in its current configuration, along with houses to the north and south. Except for Al Lent’s larger house at the north end of the street, most of Prospect Avenue was home to the working class. Census records from 1930 indicate an insurance agent, schoolteacher, housekeeper, mail messenger, fisherman, mechanic, and laborer lived on this street. The censuses didn’t include house numbering, and no early family could be connected with the property without additional research.

Detail from 1917 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, illustrating house footprint that may represent a portion of the subject house, less than fifty feet from its current location.

Courtesy of the Digital Map Collection, UCSC Library.

Starting sometime early in the century, Claudine Taylor (Sherman) Mack, her husband, John Fremont Mack, and their four children and grandchildren acquired and started using the home for vacationing. John F. Mack was born in Oakland in 1918; his father, Warren, was a shipyard foreman and later an oil salesman. In 1940 the family lived with his maternal grandparents in Fremont, CA, where John was working as a bank teller. Later that same year, his draft card reveals that he was married to Claudine and working for the American Trust Company in Redwood City. Claudine Mack was born in 1920 and a graduate of Stanford University, class of 1942. According to her obituary, 138
Item 4 C.
135
Item 6 A.
6 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
she was a “substitute teacher, realtor, bridge-player, golfer, and gardener...” who “…loved world travel and sitting on the deck of her beloved beach house in Capitola.” She also owned business property and a house in Los Altos. Recent advertisements for the property indicate that the “Mack Beach House enclave” had been enjoyed since 1938 for “81 years.” The neighborhood was included in the incorporation of the City of Capitola in 1949.

Detail of 1929 Standard Map Services Atlas, Page 29. Courtesy of UCSC Digital Collections.

Detail of 1920s Map of Capitola, Illustrating Camp Fairview and Opal Subdivisions.

Courtesy County of Santa Cruz Assessor’s Office.
139
Item 4 C.
136
Item 6 A.
7 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Detail of 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Showing development along Prospect Avenue and the 1- story footprint of the subject house. Courtesy of the Digital Map Collection, UCSC Library.

Site Development History
The design of the buildings at 1410 Prospect Ave. appears to have evolved in at least four main stages: the first floor of the rectangular central core features plaster walls, high ceilings, and small rooms that indicate that it was of earlier construction while the one-story “L”-shaped wing that wraps the house to the east and south appears to represent an enclosed former porch and includes materials and details from the early twentieth century. These two phases of construction were both completed before 1927, as was a former detached garage to the south. The second story of the central core wing was an attic remodeled for living space by sometime in the 1930s. This early-tomid-century scope of alterations appears to have been undertaken by the Mack family. The earlier detached garage was replaced in 1991 by the Macks.

The Historic Resources Inventory originally estimated the house as pre-1905. This seems to be based on the early house footprint illustrated on the 1905 Sanborn Insurance Map, as well as the form and materials of the rectangular central wing of the house. The house was built in at 140
Item 4 C.
137
Item 6 A.
8 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
View of Prospect Avenue facing southwest, including one-story subject house with enclosed porch.

Capitola Village and Venetian Apartments in the foreground. After 1926.

From City of Capitola 2014 General Plan.
least three phases and was in its current form by the mid-1920s, placing it within the Phase I Period of Significance for Residential Development of Camp Fairview (1887-1913) as identified in the 2004 Draft Historic Context Statement of the City of Capitola (Context Statement). Per the Context Statement:

Within the context of architectural development in Capitola, two resource types can be identified: (1) houses, including single-unit residences, vacation homes, and cabins and multiunit residences, and (2) commercial and institutional structures. and
Capitola has always been a residential community, whether its inhabitants were summer visitors or lived in Capitola full time. A substantial number of the city’s residential properties were developed prior to World War II and constitute the bulk of the historically significant resources in the city. The earliest were simple vernacular style, like the small houses on Stockton, San Jose, and California Avenues in the earliest subdivision; Lawn Way in the central village; farmhouses on Hill and Pine Streets; cottages in the Riverview Avenue tract and on Central Avenue on Depot Hill, and Camp Fairview houses in the Jewel Box.

The Context Statement defines Significance as follows: “Properties associated with the context of architectural development include single-family homes, apartments, vacation cottages and cabins…” As summarized at the end of the Context Statement, Types of Existing Resources from 1906-1920 include… Camp Fairview houses… with the Associated themes: Economic Development:

Industry; Agriculture; Land Development, Business, and Tourism; Real Estate Management. 141
Item 4 C.
138
Item 6 A.
9 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Front (Prospect Avenue) Façade. Viewed facing southeast. January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill) Architectural Description
Altered over time, the house design continues to embody its age, but much of its design qualities have been concealed or replaced. The exterior materials, form, detailing, and setting are vernacular and have changed over time; the house does not represent a specific architectural style or era. The house is set close to the roadside with no sidewalk. The northern planting area, in front of the main portion of the house, is filled with foundation plantings and edged with timbers. There are two very large, mature trees, one deciduous and one evergreen. The southern half of the frontage is set with pavers, serving as driveway and entrance walkway. Behind the front gate, the south side yard continues the pavers, indicated for potential use as off-street parking as well as entrance. The ocean-side yard is separated from a public footpath by a low wooden railing. The south half is planted as lawn and with shrubberies and the north half is filled with a low wooden deck. The north side of the house is fenced off for utility uses.

The central core of the house contains two levels. It is currently designed with an asymmetrical side-gabled roof. A steep slope and centered dormer form a one-and-one-half-story façade facing Prospect Avenue (west) while a more moderate sloping roof protects the full two stories facing Monterey Bay (east). This rectangular core massing is wrapped on the east and south by a onestory “L”-shaped wing, covered by a moderately sloped shed roof with a hipped southwest corner.

The living space within this area was originally held back from two corners to create covered porch entrances. The front door used to be on the south side of the house near the street; exterior shingles are still visible within the interior of this space. A small rear porch was located at the northeast corner.

A gabled false front fills the frontage to the south of the house. Behind it is a replacement detached garage along the south property line. The second set of garage-sized doors serves as a gate to the property as well as an entrance to an uncovered parking space. There is a small greenhouse at the rear (east) end of the garage.
142
Item 4 C.
139
Item 6 A.
10 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
North Half of Front of House. Viewed facing east. January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill) South Half of Front of House. Viewed facing east. January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill) 143
Item 4 C.
140
Item 6 A.
11 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
South Elevation. Showing upstairs
windows and enclosed former front porch.

Viewed facing northeast. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
South Façade of Wrap-around Wing, incl.

Front Door and Chimney. Viewed facing
east. January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill)
The central core of the house is slightly raised, with relatively high plate lines (high ceilings), but the proportions do not suggest balloon framing from earlier in the nineteenth century. The floor height of the wrap-around wing is set lower, and the garage and greenhouse are at grade. All the foundations are concealed by siding that extends to grade.

The roof is covered in composition shingles, and the eaves all include a recent “fascia-style” gutter.

The eaves are shallow, with exposed rafter tails. The roof of the one-story wrap-around wing has skip sheathing exposed on the north end. This indicates some age, as board sheathing started to be laid solidly later in the twentieth century, and plywood was used after that. The upper roof has flatboard sheathing.

The house is clad primarily in square-cut shingles that, because of their placement at the windows and corners, could possibly be found to have been applied over the top of an older siding. The shingles can be seen to have been altered over time when windows were replaced, and very few seams or trim indicates previous openings. The base of the front porch enclosure is vertical boards, with a wider set of board used below the watertable. The “L”-shaped wing consists of a wall of windows divided by vertical wood mullions. The garage is clad in plywood, as is the greenhouse where it is not translucent fiberglass. Much of the exterior of the house has been altered with the addition of exposed conduit and plumbing stacks, indicating the remodeling that has occurred over the years.

The windows in the core wing consist of replacement units from a variety of eras. The front (west) façade includes one wide slider and one wide single-hung replacement unit on the first floor and an earlier six-lite wood window set into the dormer. At the enclosed front porch is a ribbon of wood 6- lite fixed windows. These windows and the dormer window have similar thin muntins, suggesting that these windows are older, and that the porch-enclosure windows could have been salvaged from other window openings during previous remodeling efforts. 144
Item 4 C.
141
Item 6 A.
12 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
North Elevation. Viewed facing southeast.

January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill)
North Elevation Showing Back Porch.

Viewed facing west. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
On the north end of the house is one single-hung 1/1 replacement window at the first floor close to the west corner and one 1-lite upstairs replacement window close to the east corner. There appears to be two filled-in window openings at the first floor on this façade. These are located where the interior stairs have been added.

The south end of the house features a brick and stone chimney that is a significant focal feature of the historic design. Its top has fallen or been removed. The outer corners are brick, surrounding an irregularly shaped central stone panel, seemingly randomly placed stones within the brick face, and stone at the inner corners. Its design and wear indicate its age as 1920s or earlier, commensurate with the 1927 footprint on the Sanborn map. The lower level includes a door into the enclosed porch and an array of what are likely mid-century wood windows. The windows are fixed 3-lite units with a single board panel beneath. Three windows and a door are placed together to the west of the chimney; a single window is located at the corner of the house, to the east of the chimney.

Upstairs there is a single 6-lite wood window at the front corner of the house and a single-lite hopper window at the rear corner.

The east-facing (ocean-view) façade is an array of windows, upstairs and down. The upper façade includes seven square windows, evenly spaced across the wall. These are wood 1-lite windows. The downstairs includes an entrance onto the deck flanked by a series of five windows on each side. To the far north corner, lattice and plants conceal the recessed back porch. 145
Item 4 C.
142
Item 6 A.
13 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Ocean-facing Façade. Viewed facing northwest. January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill) Detail of Chimney at South Façade. Viewed
facing northeast. January 2020. (Photo by
Leslie Dill)
East Façade of Wrap-around Wing. Viewed
facing northwest. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
146
Item 4 C.
143
Item 6 A.
14 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
The detached garage was built in 1991, replacing an earlier, smaller garage. It is a vernacular onecar garage with a gable roof, exposed rafter tails, and smooth plywood exterior. The roof slope extends into a false front that frames a gate into the property. The rear garden shed is constructed of exposed wood framing inset with translucent fiberglass panels and plywood bulkhead panels in the proportion of the first-floor main-house replacement windows.

Detached Garage and Rear of False Front. Viewed
facing west. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
North Entrance to Greenhouse. Viewed
facing east. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
Interiors
Interiors are not reviewed for significance in this report, but they are described here as a primary resource that illustrates the historic evolution of the house. The first floor of the main core wing includes high ceilings, plaster walls, and small rooms indicating a house built near the end of the nineteenth century or early in the twentieth century. The board-and-batten redwood paneling that characterizes the wrap-around wing is distinctly early twentieth century, likely from the 1910s. The light fixture is early, as is the brick-and-stone fireplace that matches the exterior chimney in materials and artisanship. There are plywood flooring inserts at the outer walls, possibly suggesting that the original design of these spaces might have included a wide, Craftsman-era porch guardrail or indicate that an earlier porch floor was extended or repaired. The interior of the former front porch, currently used as a laundry room, continues to have a flat-board ceiling and shingles on the former exterior wall. The upstairs is paneled in v-groove knotty pine, a material used extensively for remodeling efforts in the 1940s through 1960s. The kitchenette sink is porcelain-covered steel with integral drainboards, hinting at a post-World-War-II installation, but an element that was available earlier, as well.
147
Item 4 C.
144
Item 6 A.
15 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Interior of Central Wing of House. Viewed
facing north. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
Interior of Enclosed Former Front Porch.

Viewed facing northwest. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
Interior of Dining Room. Showing steps up
into central wing. Viewed facing west.

January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill)
Interior Detail of Dining Room Light
Fixture. Viewed facing west. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
148
Item 4 C.
145
Item 6 A.
16 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Interior of Living Room and Fireplace. Note sloping floor that may indicate that this was originally a porch. Viewed facing south. January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill) Interior Detail of Living Room Fireplace.

Viewed facing south. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
Detail of Living Room Floor Repair. Viewed
facing north. January 2020.
(Photo by Leslie Dill)
149
Item 4 C.
146
Item 6 A.
17 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Interior Upstairs. Showing knotty-pine paneling
and sloped ceiling. Viewed facing southeast.

January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill)
Interior Upstairs with Cabinet and Window
Alterations. Viewed facing southwest.

January 2020. (Photo by Leslie Dill)
Integrity
According to the California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6 Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.

Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.

The historic integrity of the current residential property at 1410 Prospect Avenue is substantially intact, although some aspects have been compromised over time. The location has remained constant since at least 1927 and a portion of the building may be older and originally from within 50 feet of the current location, in the same orientation, and from the same block. The development of Prospect Avenue occurred relatively early within the history of Capitola, and the residential neighborhood, although altered over time with remodeling and some infill, is substantially consistent with the historic setting of the house. The house evokes some feeling of an earlytwentieth-century vernacular residence; however, its interiors are more intact than its exterior. The window replacements and front porch enclosure have obscured much of the original design. These 150
Item 4 C.
147
Item 6 A.
18 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
changes have also reduced the integrity of the historic materials in a modest way. The chimney is a feature that exhibits considerable artisanship; its design and materials embody a time and place in history. The house has significant historic associations with the early development of the Camp Fairview subdivision and the collection of houses along Prospect Avenue in Capitola.

Built in very recent years of form, detailing, and materials that are not conceived to be of high quality, the garage is not reviewed for historic integrity or found to have associations or feelings that add to the potential significance of the property.

California Register of Historic Resources Evaluation
The California Office of Historic Preservation describes the California Register as a “…program [that] encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act.” There are four criteria for designation, evaluated for 1410 Prospect Avenue as follows:

Historic Events and Patterns
The house on the subject property is over 93 years old in its current configuration, and a portion of it has possibly been on the bluff in Capitola for over 115 years. As a part of the development the 1886 Camp Fairview subdivision, it can be found to be representative of broad historical patterns in the early development of the city. It is associated with the themes and boundaries of importance to the community as presented within the 2004 draft Historic Context Statement. The property would therefore appear to be eligible for the California Register based on significant events or patterns of history under California Register Criterion (1).

Personages
The property has been associated with one known family since the mid-twentieth century.

Although the Mack family’s connection with the house and community spans many decades, and their associations with the property as long-time vacationers represents a significant pattern of history in Capitola, the Mack family have not been found to be important in the larger history of the city or region in a way that would associate their residence at 1410 Prospect Avenue with larger historic significance in the City of Capitola. The property is not eligible for the California Register under Criterion (2)
Architecture
Although recognizable as an older vernacular house from the early twentieth century, the house is not a distinguished example among buildings from this period. The materials are relatively common and used in a vernacular manner, so most do not embody exceptional significance for their quality or workmanship. Although the chimney remains a strong example of early twentieth century construction and materials, the alteration of historic exterior windows, siding, form, and other details has resulted in a loss design integrity. The designer of the house was not discovered during the research for this preliminary study, so there are no identifiable associations with a particular designer or architect. The property would therefore not qualify for the California Register under Criterion (3).

Potential to Provide Information
The property has no known associations or identified materials that indicate that it might lead to the discovery of significant information. The property would therefore not qualify for the California Register under Criterion (4).
151
Item 4 C.
148
Item 6 A.
19 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Capitola Historic Features Ordinance Evaluation
The Capitola Historic Features Ordinance (Municipal Code 17.87.030) allows for the designation of local historic resources, known as historic features. The designation requires that a property must “evidence one or more” of 11 qualities, including being representative of an era or style, a rare type of building, is older than most similar buildings, is associated with a rare use, the architect builder is significant, is long-established as a landmark, or that the materials are significantly unusual or remarkable, etc.

Because the house and its immediate setting are “…directly related to Capitola’s architectural chronology…” per the draft Historic Context Statement for the City of Capitola as presented above, it can be found to be a significant physical element of city’s past patterns of history. It can, therefore, be found that the house meets the criteria of the City of Capitola Historic Features Ordinance, using qualities 9 and 10:

9. The proposed historic feature by its location and setting materially contributes to the historic character of the city,

10. The proposed historic feature is a long established feature of the city.

Conclusion
The house within the property appears to be eligible as a historic resource, meeting a criterion of the California Register of Historical Resources and two of the City of Capitola Criteria for the Designation of Historic Features.

The designation of the property would prompt “design review by the architectural and site review committee, community development department, and/or planning commission [to] include… protection of historic features.” It is recommended that efforts could be made to improve the historic integrity of the exterior of the house, based on the existing historic materials, the house’s identified historic footprint, and in accordance with the significance of the property.

Sincerely:

Leslie A.G. Dill, Architectural Historian and Historic Architect Archives & Architecture, LLC
152
Item 4 C.
149
Item 6 A.
20 A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
References:

Capitola, City of.

Application #AS/V/91-54. June 20, 1991.

Capitola General Plan. 2014.

Dill, Leslie A.G. for Archives & Architecture LLC. Preliminary Historic Resource Evaluation Letter for 1810 Wharf Road, Capitola. October 6, 2016 and February 10, 2017 addendum.

Los Altos, City of. Building Project Permit Activity Report. March 31, 2016.

Maggi, Franklin and Charlene Duval for ValleyViews. DPR523 Forms for 1570 Prospect Avenue Capitola. April 8, 2002.

Mielke, W.F. Standard Map Service. Atlas of Santa Cruz County. 1929.

Polk, R.L. & Co. Santa Cruz County Directory. 1929.

Swift, Carolyn.

Historic Context Statement for the City of Capitola. Draft 2004.

Images of America: Capitola. 2013.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. 1905, 1917, 1927, and 1933.

Santa Cruz County Assessor
Santa Cruz County Recorder
Stanford Magazine. Obituaries. Claudine Taylor Sherman Mack ’41. March/April 2012.

United States Census Data. 1920, 1930 and 1940.

Wright, Thomas W., M.V. Bennet, and L.B. Healy. Map of Santa Cruz County. 1880-81. www.ancestry.com Accessed January and February 2020
https://www.estately.com/listings/info/1410-prospect-ave. Accessed January 2020. http://www.cityofcapitola.org/capitola-museum/page/capitolas-neighborhoods Accessed February 2020.
www.legacy.com/obituaries. San Francisco Chronicle. Claudine Mack. Oct 30, 2011. http://www.santacruztrains.com/2014_11_01_archive.html Accessed February 2020. 153
Item 4 C.
150
Item 6 A.

P.O. Box 721
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
www.pastconsultants.com
Seth A. Bergstein
415.515.6224
[email protected]
________________________________________________________________________________ November 11, 2021
Sean Sesanto, Assistant Planner
City of Capitola Planning Department
420 Capitola Ave.

Capitola, CA 95010
Re: 1410 Prospect Ave., Capitola, CA – SOI Standards Design Review Letter APN. 034-046-19
Dear Mr. Sesanto:

This letter evaluates the proposed alterations to the property located at 1410 Prospect Avenue, in Capitola, California. The subject property contains a highly altered two-story house (circa-1905) constructed in the Vernacular style that is listed as a local historic resource.

Project Methodology
A preliminary meeting for project review with the City of Capitola’s Planning Department was held on July 12, 2021 to discuss the proposed design and historic nature of the site. On August 3, 2021 PAST Consultants, LLC (PAST) visited the subject property to view the existing conditions of the building and neighborhood setting. Design drawings by Derek Van Alstine Residential Design, Inc., dated 8/24/2021 were the design drawings reviewed for this evaluation. The proposed project is the demolition and reconstruction of the highly altered, circa-1905 residence as a historic feature according to the City of Capitola’s historic preservation ordinance.

Prior to this meeting, the subject property was reviewed by Leslie Dill, Archives & Architecture and a preliminary historic evaluation issued dated February 18, 2020. The document states:

The property at 1410 Prospect Avenue, identified in 1986 on the City of Capitola Historic Structures List, meets the criteria for designation as a Historic Feature utilizing the City of Capitola Historic Feature Ordinance, Qualities 9 and 10: “The proposed historic feature by its location and setting materially contributes to the historic character of the city, and the proposed historic feature is a long established feature of the city.” The property also appears to qualify for listing on the California Register of Historical Resource for its embodiment of the significant 154
Item 4 C.
151
Item 6 A.

Sean Sesanto, Assistant Planner Page 2
1410 Prospect Ave., Capitola, CA: SOI Standards Review November 11, 2021 patterns of development history of the City of Capitola. It is not eligible, however, based on its associations with personages, nor for its architectural design, due to alterations on the exterior.1 On August 10, 2021 the building owner, architect and a representative from PAST attended an additional design review meeting. With recommendations by the City of Capitola Planning Department officials and the design team, the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards compliance review letter will suffice as the final historic review document for the subject project.

The following provides a summary of the subject property’s historic significance, a description of the historic resource and an evaluation of the proposed reconstruction of the subject house for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Conclusions of the 2020 Historical Evaluation
The Preliminary Historical Evaluation prepared by Archives and Architecture notes:

The parcel at 1410 Prospect Avenue is listed on the 2005 City of Capitola Historic Structures List with the status of 7N. This designation, according the State of California Historical Resource Status Codes, indicates that the property “needs to be reevaluated.” The property was first identified as part of the Capitola Architectural Survey published in 1986 (indicated by the designation “D” on the Historic Structures List), and as shown in the Capitola Architectural Survey.

The evaluation concludes:

The Capitola Historic Features Ordinance (Municipal Code 17.87.030) allows for the designation of local historic resources, known as historic features. The designation requires that a property must “evidence one or more” of 11 qualities, including being representative of an era or style, a rare type of building, is older than most similar buildings, is associated with a rare use, the architect builder is significant, is long-established as a landmark, or that the materials are significantly unusual or remarkable, etc.

Because the house and its immediate setting are “…directly related to Capitola’s architectural chronology…” per the draft Historic Context Statement for the City of Capitola as presented above, it can be found to be a significant physical element of city’s past patterns of history. It can, therefore, be found that the house meets the criteria of the City of Capitola Historic Features Ordinance, using qualities 9 and 10: 9) The proposed historic feature by its location and setting materially contributes to the historic character of the city; and 10) The proposed historic feature is a long established feature of the city.
1 Dill, Leslie, Archives & Architecture, Preliminary Historical Evaluation – 1410 Prospect Avenue, Capitola, CA, 2/18/20. For a detailed historic context of the subject property, consult this document. 155
Item 4 C.
152
Item 6 A.

Sean Sesanto, Assistant Planner Page 3
1410 Prospect Ave., Capitola, CA: SOI Standards Review November 11, 2021 Existing Site Conditions
The site contains a highly modified two-story house (circa-1905) constructed in the Vernacular Style. The building has an altered, asymmetrical primary gable roofline with a west-elevation (Prospect Ave.) dormer addition, a detached, gable-roofed garage, an east elevation containing banked windows, and a mixed fenestration pattern consisting of single-pane fixed and wood-sash windows of varying eras. Wall cladding is primarily square-cut, wood-shingles, with plywood boards finishing the circa-1991 garage (Figures 1 - 4).

Figures 1 and 2. Left image shows the Prospect Avenue (west) elevation, as viewed from the street. Right image details the west elevation, showing the false-front, gable-roofed garage.

Figures 3 and 4. Left image shows the asymmetrical roofline of the Monterey Bay (east) elevation. The clipped brick chimney is on the south elevation (arrow). Right image details the banked windows of the east elevation. 156
Item 4 C.
153
Item 6 A.

Sean Sesanto, Assistant Planner Page 4
1410 Prospect Ave., Capitola, CA: SOI Standards Review November 11, 2021 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) provides the framework for evaluating the impacts of additions and alterations to historic buildings.

The Standards describe four treatment approaches: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. The Standards require that the treatment approach be determined first, as a different set of standards apply to each approach. For the proposed project, the treatment approach is reconstruction. The Standards describe reconstruction as:

Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.
2 The six Standards for reconstruction are:

1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property.

2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts that are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features and spatial relationships.

4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will recreate the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color and texture.

5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation.

6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.

Goals of Proposed Project
The goal of the reconstruction project is to satisfy the two neighborhood quality characteristics to maintain the historic integrity of the neighborhood setting:

9. The proposed historic feature by its location and setting materially contributes to the historic character of the city; and

10. The proposed historic feature is a long established feature of the city. 2 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Kay D. Weeks and Anne E.

Grimmer, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995, 62. 157
Item 4 C.
154
Item 6 A.

Sean Sesanto, Assistant Planner Page 5
1410 Prospect Ave., Capitola, CA: SOI Standards Review November 11, 2021 The established visual setting includes the varying pattern of building volumes, largely expressed in wood, that exist along Prospect Avenue. In addition, the variation of historic rooflines of the hillside location, as viewed from Monterey Bay, also represents a long established feature of the city (Figures 5 and 6).

Figures 5 and 6. Left image shows the rhythm of gable roofs and false front roofs along Prospect Avenue, looking north, with the subject property indicated by an arrow. Right image views the variety of historic rooflines along the ridge looking northwest from Cliff Drive.

Design drawings by Derek Van Alstine Residential Design, Inc., dated 8/24/2021 were the design drawings reviewed for this evaluation. To satisfy site deficiencies, the proposed project is the demolition and reconstruction of the house within current setback requirements for the property.

Evaluation of Proposed Alterations
For the proposed reconstruction of the subject building, Standards 4 – 6 are most applicable, with an evaluation given below each standard.

4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will recreate the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color and texture.

The reconstructed building will be recreated using existing documentary evidence taken from the site prior to demolition. The new building will match the existing house in scale, massing, design and the use of historic wood materials.

5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation.

While the reconstruction will match the appearance of the original building, the new building will utilize modern window technology and detailing to clearly identify it as a contemporary re-creation, in keeping with this Standard.

6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. 158
Item 4 C.
155
Item 6 A.

Sean Sesanto, Assistant Planner Page 6
1410 Prospect Ave., Capitola, CA: SOI Standards Review November 11, 2021 While the subject house’s appearance has been altered substantially over time, it’s overall scale, massing, materials and placement within the historic Prospect Avenue streetscape are the priorities in this reconstruction. These aspects of the original building will be maintained in the new construction to enable it to contribute to the established historic setting of altering rooflines and building facades along Prospect Avenue.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposed reconstruction of the house located at 1410 Prospect Avenue, Capitola, meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. Because the proposed alterations to the historic neighborhood setting meet the Standards, the alterations are considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource and do not constitute a substantial adverse change to the historic resource, thus conforming to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Please contact me with any questions regarding this design review letter.

Sincerely,
Seth A. Bergstein
Principal
159
Item 4 C.
156
Item 6 A.

Neighborhood Floor Area Survey
Address Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Estimated Floor
Area (sq. ft.)
Estimated FAR
1480 Prospect 2701 1771 65.6%
1470 Prospect 2526 1250 49.5%
1460 Prospect 3180 2004 63.0%
1450 Prospect 3049 1547 50.7%
1440 Prospect 3006 2053 68.3%
1430 Prospect 2396 1731 72.2%
1420 Prospect 2265 1692 74.7%
1410 Prospect 2416 1452 60.1%
1400 Prospect 1960 1121 57.2%
*From parcel data, aerial imagery, assessor records, and Capitola zoning standards.
160
Item 4 C.
157
Item 6 A.

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE THE 1410 PROSPECT

AVENUE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FINDINGS ADDRESSING THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL.

WHEREAS, on August 24, 2021, the City received an application proposing to demolish an existing 1,606 square-foot, two story, single family residence and construct a new 1,422 square-foot, two story, single family residence with a 796 square foot basement. The applicant sought a design permit, historical alterations permit, variance, and coastal development permit; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2022, the application was reviewed by the Development and Design Review Committee. The committee provided guidance on several items which the applicant addressed in a revised plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the application for a Design Permit, Historic Alteration Permit, Variance, and Coastal Development Permit (CDP), to demolish an existing residence and construct a new home; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2022, the City received an appeal from Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation (RTC) (Attachment 1) and the RTC appealed the Planning Commission’s decision granting a variance; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2022, the City received an independent peer review letter for slope stability analysis from Pacific Crest Engineering; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2022, the applicant submitted a revised plan set which relocated the primary structure three feet away from the rear property line; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2022, the RTC submitted a follow-up letter in response to the peer review findings and proposed design revisions, indicating the revised proposal was generally satisfactory and that the RTC would agree to retract its appeal provided several considerations were addressed; and
WHEREAS, the updated plans and peer review align with the purpose of the zoning code to implement the general plan and the local coastal program land use plan and to protect the public heath, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the updated plans with increase setbacks will maintain and enhance coastal access and visitor serving facilities and services while supporting a balance transportation system; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 22, 2022, providing the opportunity for members of the public to provide comment on the appeal; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Capitola that City Council upholds the Planning Commission decision to approve the 1410 Prospect Avenue application for a variance with additional conditions of approval and finding as underlined addressing the matter of the appeal, as follows:

Conditions of Approval:

1. The project approval consists of Design Permit, Historical Alteration Permit, and Variance to allow the demolition of an existing historic structure and construction of a 1,422 square-foot single-family residence with a 796 square-feet basement. The project includes a remodel of an existing 280 square-foot detached garage, and variance for the primary structure setbacks and maximum floor area ratio. The maximum Floor Area Ratio for the 2,416 square foot property is 58% (1,401 square feet). The total FAR of the project is 59.6% with a total of 1,440 square feet, exceeding the maximum FAR by 39 feet. The application does comply with front, side, and rear yard setbacks. A variance for setbacks and floor area ratio was approved for 158
Item 6 A.

RESOLUTION NO. 8657
the project. The proposed project is approved as modified on the final plans reviewed and approved by the City Council on September 22, 2022, except as modified through conditions imposed by the City Council during the hearing. The modified plans and conditions replace the April 7, 2022, Planning Commission approval.

2. Prior to construction, a building permit shall be secured for any new construction or modifications to structures authorized by this permit. Final building plans shall be consistent with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. All construction and site improvements shall be completed according to the approved plans

3. At time of submittal for building permit review, the Conditions of Approval must be printed in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans.

4. At time of submittal for building permit review, Public Works Standard Detail SMP STRM shall be printed in full and incorporated as a sheet into the construction plans. All construction shall be done in accordance with the Public Works Standard Detail BMP STRM.

5. Prior to making any changes to approved plans, modifications must be specifically requested and submitted in writing to the Community Development Department. Any significant changes to the size or exterior appearance of the structure shall require Planning Commission approval.

6. Prior to issuance of building permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department. The landscape plan can be produced by the property owner, landscape professional, or landscape architect. Landscape plans shall reflect the Planning Commission approval and shall identify type, size, and location of species and details of any proposed (but not required) irrigation systems.

7. Prior to issuance of building permit, all Planning fees associated with permit #21-0376 shall be paid in full.

8. Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall pay Affordable housing in-lieu fees as required to assure compliance with the City of Capitola Affordable (Inclusionary) Housing Ordinance.

9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide documentation of plan approval by the following entities: Santa Cruz County Sanitation Department, Soquel Creek Water District, and Central Fire Protection District.

10. Prior to issuance of building permits, a drainage plan, grading, sediment and erosion control plan, shall be submitted to the City and approved by Public Works. The plans shall be in compliance with the requirements specified in Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Protection.

11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a stormwater management plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works which implements all applicable Post Construction Requirements (PCRs) and Public Works Standard Details, including all standards relating to low impact development (LID; including a detail of the pervious pavers and drainage emitter as shown on plans 8/24/22).

12. Prior to any land disturbance, a pre-site inspection must be conducted by the grading official to verify compliance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan. 159
Item 6 A.

RESOLUTION NO. 8658

13. Prior to any work in the City road right of way, an encroachment permit shall be acquired by the contractor performing the work. No material or equipment storage may be placed in the road right-of-way.

14. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Building Official may require additional information from the applicant related to the geotechnical report.

15. Landscaping that encroaches into the city right-of-way requires a minor revocable encroachment permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a completed Revocable Encroachment Permit application.

16. Structural and surface runoff shall flow towards the Prospect Avenue frontage and shall not flow onto RTC property to the rear.

17. Prior to entry or any equipment or material storage within the SCBRL (RTC) right-of-way, the applicant shall first obtain a right-of-entry agreement from the RTC.

18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City shall consult with the RTC with respect to the required plans and technical reports associated with this permit. This is for informational purposes only. The RTC has no formal review authority over the application.

19. During construction, any construction activity shall be subject to a construction noise curfew, except when otherwise specified in the building permit issued by the City. Construction noise shall be prohibited between the hours of nine p.m. and seven-thirty a.m. on weekdays.

Construction noise shall be prohibited on weekends with the exception of Saturday work between nine a.m. and four p.m. or emergency work approved by the building official. §9.12.010B

20. Prior to a project final, all cracked or broken driveway approaches, curb, gutter, or sidewalk shall be replaced per the Public Works Standard Details and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. All replaced driveway approaches, curb, gutter or sidewalk shall meet current Accessibility Standards.

21. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the tree removal permit authorized by this permit for two trees to be removed from the property. Replacement trees shall be planted to not create slope stability issues related to irrigation to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Required replacement trees shall be of the same size, species and planted on the site as shown on the approved plans.

22. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, compliance with all conditions of approval shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Upon evidence of non-compliance with conditions of approval or applicable municipal code provisions, the applicant shall remedy the non-compliance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or shall file an application for a permit amendment for Planning Commission consideration. Failure to remedy a non-compliance in a timely manner may result in permit revocation.

23. This permit shall expire 24 months from the date of issuance. The applicant shall have an approved building permit and construction underway before this date to prevent permit 160
Item 6 A.

RESOLUTION NO. 8659
expiration. Applications for extension may be submitted by the applicant prior to expiration pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.156.080.

24. The planning and infrastructure review and approval are transferable with the title to the underlying property so that an approved project may be conveyed or assigned by the applicant to others without losing the approval. The permit cannot be transferred off the site on which the approval was granted.

25. Upon receipt of certificate of occupancy, garbage and recycling containers shall be placed out of public view on non-collection days.

26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans must show that the existing overhead utility lines will be underground to the nearest utility pole.

27. Prior to demolition of the existing structure, a pest control company shall resolve any pest issue and document that all pest issues have been mitigated. Documentation shall be submitted to the city at time of demolition permit application.

28. The garage doorway on the east (rear) elevation shall be of a sliding barn-door style or similar in such a way that no portion of the opening extends beyond the subject property and that vehicles may not pass through to the backyard.

29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an archaeological survey report and monitoring plan shall be prepared for the development.
a. The archaeological survey report shall include, at a minimum, a field survey by an archaeologist, survey of available state resource information at the Northwest Regional Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory, description of the site's sensitivity, and any identified archaeological resources. The city will initiate the preparation of the survey report at the applicant's expense utilizing a qualified archaeologist selected by the community development department. b. The cultural resource monitoring plan shall, at a minimum:
i. Identify all areas of proposed grading or earth disturbing activities which have the potential to impact historic or prehistoric resources;
ii. Identify the qualified archaeological monitor assigned to the project; iii. Describe the proposed monitoring program, including the areas to be monitored, the duration of monitoring, and monitoring protocols;
iv. Outline procedures to be followed if cultural resources are discovered, including requirements to stop work, consultation with the City and any Native American participation (as appropriate), resource evaluation, mitigation plan requirements, and protocols if human remains are encountered; and
v. Include post-monitoring reporting requirements and curation procedures.

30. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit evidence that a qualified archaeological monitor has been retained to oversee all earthwork activities.

31. The archaeological monitor shall attend a construction meeting to coordinate required grading monitoring activities with the construction manager and contractors.

32. If resources are encountered, the archaeological monitor shall have the authority to stop work until a significance determination is made.
161
Item 6 A.

RESOLUTION NO. 8660

33. If significant resources are discovered, work may remain halted at the archaeologist's discretion until such time that a mitigation plan has been prepared and implemented with the concurrence of the Community Development Department.

34. Following completion of archaeological monitoring, the archaeologist shall submit a summary and findings of the monitoring work.
a. If no resources are recovered, a brief letter report shall be completed that includes a site record update on a California Department of Park and Recreation form 523. b. If significant resources are recovered, the report shall include a preliminary evaluation of the resources, a preliminary map of discovered resources, a completed California Department of Park and Recreation form 523, and recommendations for additional research if warranted.

35. If human remains are found at any time, the immediate area of the discovery shall be closed to pedestrian traffic along the Prospect Avenue street frontage and the Santa Cruz County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified as required by law.

36. The archaeological monitor may discontinue monitoring with approval by the Community Development Director if he/she finds that site conditions, such as the presence of imported fill or other factors, indicates that significant prehistoric deposits are not possible.

37. The archaeologist shall prepare a grading monitoring letter report summarizing all monitoring work and any recovered resources. The letter report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days following completion of grading activities.

Design Permit Findings
A. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, local coastal program, and any applicable specific plan, area plan, or other design policies and regulations adopted by the city council.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed demolition and similar construction of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage.

With the granting of a variance to the required setbacks and maximum floor area ratio, the project secures the purpose of the General Plan, and Local Coastal Program, and design policies and regulations adopted by the City Council.

B. The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning code and municipal code.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the application for the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage.

With a granting of a variance to the required setbacks and maximum floor area ratio, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning code and municipal code.

C. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. This project involves replacement of a single-family residence and remodel of an existing garage subject to the R-1 (single-family residence) Zoning District. No adverse environmental impacts were discovered during review of the proposed project. 162
Item 6 A.

RESOLUTION NO. 8661
D. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have all reviewed the reviewed the application. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project will improve parking in the vicinity by meeting on-site requirements.

E. The proposed project complies with all applicable design review criteria in Section

17.120.070 (Design review criteria).

The Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the application. With the granting of a variance to the required setbacks and maximum floor area ratio, the proposed complies with all applicable design review criteria in Section 17.120.070.

F. The proposed project maintains the character, scale, and development pattern of the neighborhood.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have all reviewed the application. The design of the reconstructed residence and remodeled garage will fit in nicely with the existing neighborhood. The project will maintain the character, scale, and development pattern of the neighborhood and of the existing dwelling.

Historic Alteration Findings
A. The historic character of a property is retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property is avoided.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed similar construction of the historic structure and determined that the building will be recreated using existing documentary evidence taken from the site prior to demolition. The new building will be similar to the existing house in scale, massing, design, and the use of historic wood materials.

B. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of fine craftsmanship that characterize a property are preserved.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed project and determined that the new structure will preserve the historic streetscape and alternating rooflines of Prospect Avenue, including the overall scale, massing, materials, placement.

C. Any new additions complement the historic character of the existing structure. New building components and materials for the addition are similar in scale and size to those of the existing structure.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed determined that alterations from the original design, such as the rear deck, are in similar scale and size and compliment the historic character of the site and structure. The remodeled garage complements the primary structure and pattern of alternating rooflines of Prospect Avenue.

D. Deteriorated historic features are repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature matches the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed project and determined that the existing structure has been subject to numerous structural and material alterations and replacements with limited original materials. The proposed 163
Item 6 A.

RESOLUTION NO. 8662
similar construction will recreate distinctive features and incorporate in-kind replication of historic wood materials.

E. Archeological resources are protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures are undertaken.

Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have conditioned the project to include mitigation measures should archeological resources be identified.

Variance Findings
A. There are unique circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, that do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The unique circumstance applicable to the subject property is that the property is a historic site, with an irregularly shaped lot that is both small and shallow by Capitola standards. The variance allows the construction of a residence that is comparably-sized with improved siting on the lot and will continue to contribute to the historic context of the Prospect Avenue streetscape.

B. The strict application of the zoning code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The substandard lot size is unique with depths ranging from 29 to 46 feet. Incorporating the required 15 feet front yard setback and 8 feet rear yard setback, results in a limited building pad of 778 square feet. The existing primary structure has a footprint 1200 square feet, and the proposed footprint is 978 square feet. The overwhelming majority of properties along the bluff side of Prospect Avenue do not comply with all minimum setbacks for primary structures, accessory structures, or both. In particular, many structures are located along the front lot lines. Lots decrease in size towards the southern end of the block and are typified by increased FAR and reduced setbacks. The subject property is the second most southern lot and is also one of the smallest on Prospect Avenue.

C. The variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The variance is necessary to preserve the use already enjoyed by the subject property and is already enjoyed in the vicinity with respect to lot siting and massing.

D. The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The variance will not impose any detrimental impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property. In particular, proposed project has been designed to remove existing structural encroachments into the public right of way and improve parking.

E. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity or in the same zone as the subject property.

The majority of properties on the bluff-side of Prospect Avenue do not comply with required setbacks. On the southern half of the block many properties additionally do not comply with current floor area ratio standards.

F. The variance will not have adverse impacts on coastal resources. 164
Item 6 A.

RESOLUTION NO. 8663
The variance will not adversely impact coastal resources. Although there are no coastal resources on the subject property, a public pathway exists between the rear of the lot and the railway. Conditions have been added to limit construction impacts to the site and surrounding area.

Coastal Findings
A. The project is consistent with the LCP land use plan, and the LCP implementation program.

The proposed development conforms to the City’s certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP) land use plan and the LCP implementation program.

B. The project maintains or enhances public views.

The proposed project is located on private property at 1410 Prospect Avenue. The project will not negatively impact public landmarks and/or public views.

C. The project maintains or enhances vegetation, natural habitats and natural resources.

The proposed project is located at 1410 Prospect Avenue. The near natural landforms and a coastal trail. Conditions have been added to limit impacts during construction, protect vegetation, and maintain natural vegetation cover.

D. The project maintains or enhances low-cost public recreational access, including to the beach and ocean.

The project involves the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage, which will not negatively impact low-cost public recreational access.

E. The project maintains or enhances opportunities for visitors.

The project involves the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage, which will not negatively impact visitor serving opportunities.

F. The project maintains or enhances coastal resources.

The project involves the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage, which will not negatively impact coastal resources. Although there are no coastal resources on the subject property, a public pathway exists between the rear of the lot and the railway. Conditions have been added to limit construction impacts to the site and surrounding area.

G. The project, including its design, location, size, and operating characteristics, is consistent with all applicable design plans and/or area plans incorporated into the LCP.

With the granting of a variance, the proposed residential project complies with all applicable design criteria, design guidelines, area plans, and development standards. The operating characteristics are consistent with the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone.

H. The project is consistent with the LCP goal of encouraging appropriate coastal development and land uses, including coastal priority development and land uses (i.e., visitor serving development and public access and recreation).

The project involves the demolition and replacement of an existing residence and remodel of an existing garage on a residential lot of record. The project is consistent with the LCP goals for appropriate coastal development and land uses. The use is an allowed use consistent with the R-1 zoning district.
165
Item 6 A.

RESOLUTION NO. 8664
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola on the 22nd day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSED:

Sam Storey, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Chloé Woodmansee, City Clerk
166
Item 6 A.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: September 22, 2022
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Consider a Petition to Create a Dogs Off-Leash Area at Monterey Avenue Park
Recommended Action: Take no action; thereby maintaining existing rules requiring dogs remain on leash at Monterey Avenue Park due to existing Park uses.

Background: City Council has been presented a petition proposing a 90-day trial period for a dog offleash area in Monterey Avenue Park. The specific language in the petition is as follows:
1) The "off-leash period" would only be between 5:30pm and 6:30pm each evening (summer hours) 2) All dog owners must pay attention to their dog to ensure it does not approach or bother any other person/s that may be in the park at this time.
3) All dog owners commit to cleaning up after their dogs. 4) Dogs will not be allowed to interfere with any other activities going on in the park (e.g. baseball, etc.).

The full petition is included as Attachment 1. A picture of Monterey Park, identifying the proposed offleash location, is included as Attachment 2.

Currently, under the Capitola Municipal Code Section 6.14.200 (below), dogs are only allowed in Monterey Park if they are on a leash:

6.14.200 Dogs in public places – Permitted and prohibited locations.

A. Except as provided in Section 6.14.210, it is unlawful for any person owning, having an interest in, harboring or having charge of the care, custody, control or possession of any dog to cause or permit such dog to be in any of the following locations, whether with or without a leash:

1. On any public beach within the city of Capitola;

2. Capitola Wharf;

3. Any other public location in the city that is posted with signage prohibiting dogs.

B. Dogs shall be permitted on leash in the following parks unless the city council, by resolution, declares the prohibitions of subsection A of this section applicable to such areas: Monterey Avenue Park, Noble Gulch Park, Perry Park, Soquel Creek Park, Jade Street Park (except for lawn and tennis court areas), and Esplanade Park (except for lawn areas). (Ord. 912 § 2, 2006) The petitioners have provided a copy of a Dog Off-Leash Administrative Policy enacted by the City of Cupertino where dogs are allowed off-leash at one of the City’s parks for two hours each day, from one hour before sunset to one hour after sunset. A copy of Cupertino’s policy is included as Attachment 3.

Discussion: The City of Capitola has an established off-leash dog park at McGregor Park, approximately

0.8 mile away from Monterey Avenue Park. The dog park at McGregor Park was included in the park design following multiple public hearings over several years regarding potential locations for a permanent dog facility.

Currently Monterey Park is used by New Brighton Middle School on school days from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. for physical education classes and after school team activities. The field is also rented by youth softball and soccer sports leagues. These rentals typically run from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. during the week and 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturdays. The fields are not rented on Sundays. Based on these existing park uses, and 167
Item 6 B.
the difficulty in creating a new area isolated from these uses, staff recommends the existing rules requiring dogs on-leash remain in place.

In the future, if City Council wants to increase the number of off-leash dog areas in the City, staff suggests establishing this as a goal during future goal setting / budget processes.

Alternatives
Should City Council want to establish a trial program to allow dogs off-leash at Monterey Avenue Park, Council could direct staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at a future meeting that:
 Suspended CMC 6.14.200 for the trial period
 Designated an area for the dogs off-leash use
 Established other rules
Permanent development of a dog off-leash area would require amending the municipal code and adopting a new City administrative policy, likely similar to the example from the City of Cupertino.

Fiscal Impact: Dependent upon Council direction.

Attachments:

1. Petition dated July 11, 2022

2. Map of Monterey Avenue Park

3. City of Cupertino Dog Off Leash Area Administrative Policy Report Prepared By: Steven Jesberg, Public Works Director Reviewed By: Chloé Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager; Samantha Zutler, City Attorney Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
168
Item 6 B.

July 11, 2022
Proposal: Temporary modification of "leash law" at Monterey Park, Capitola The Situation:

Currently, Monterey Park (adjacent to New Brighton Middle School) requires all dogs to be on a leash, per Capitola Municipal Code 6:12.0908.

Background:

We, the undersigned, are members of the Capitola and Soquel communities. We are professional business owners, retired executives, doctors, health care providers, and homeowners- all living withing walking distance of the Monterey Park.

To alleviate some of the isolation during the COVID lockdown, we began bringing our dogs together to play late afternoons (after 5:00 pm) in the back corner area of the Monterey Park.

This quickly became a very enjoyable break - for both dog owners and dogs- from the forced isolation the pandemic imposed. We purposefully would go to the back corner of the park to provide a respectful distance between our group and anyone playing baseball on the diamond.

We only allowed friendly dogs to participate in this small play group, and typically only stay for an hour or less.

This has brought many hours of enjoyment for both us and our dogs - and has helped generate a wonderful community of newfound friends and built neighborhood rapport. A few members of our group bring their dogs to gather even though their dogs just sit on their laps while we enjoy the time to socialize and watch playful, joyful dogs romp with each other. It brings happiness to all of us- dogs and people alike!
There are several days when we go to the park and no one else is in the park, yet we still go to the far corner to play with our dogs. Every one of us is very observant of our own dogs and other dogs who are defecating or need to be recalled so as not to greet someone walking by on the path. Every one of us picks up any poop we find in the field -even that which is left by people who are less responsible.

We respectfully request that the Capitola City Council consider the following proposal.

Proposal:

We believe that a park is for a community to enjoy. We are part of this community and believe we have the right to request off-leash access to one-quarter of the park for just one hour each day for people and their dogs to play.
169
Item 6 B.

To this end, we propose a 90-day "trial" period of suspension of the "dogs must be on leash" code 6:12.0908, subject to the following conditions:
1) The "off-leash period" would only be between 5:30pm and 6:30pm each evening (summer hours)
2) All dog owners must pay attention to their dog to ensure it does not approach, or bother any other person/s that may be in the park at this time. 3) All dog owners commit to cleaning up after their dogs. 4) Dogs will not be allowed to interfere with any other activities going on in the park (e.g. baseball, etc.)
Failure to do any of the above Will result in the immediate cancellation of the "off-leash trial period."
If requested, we could set up a temporary expandable fence for the back quarter of the park to separate our dog group from the larger area of the field during our one-hour off-leash period.

We would assume full responsibility for the setting up and removal of this fence and will insure it does not damage any of the turf. We are a self-monitoring group that only allows friendly dogs to participate. We would like to request the code be amended to reflect the allowable offleash hour.

Thank you for your consideration. We would welcome the opportunity to present our proposal in person to the Council at your next meeting.
])C(,"''d
&:21
MontjoM' ~rY
/1;1__, ~ ~-- David Montgomery
~
Oliver (the treat-obsessed pug)
Finny (the elder of the group, a Cavalier King Charles
Mike
~i~ Kelly
Yeti (the welcoming committee of one, a goldendoodle)
&vpt1~1$1{)nuuic/ Beth Delgrande
Satchmo a cuddly oofball, a goldendoodle)
Heajin Kama ni
Bailey (a fun-loving toy thief, a white lab)
Dan & Lisa Steingrube
Tedd a teddy bear looka/ike; an adorable toy poodle)
e ine Olsen
Bader (who has the ball? a golden retriever)
C,-'lad 5/va'---------------
Chad Silva
Marleau (the smartest of the group; a border collie)
170
Item 6 B.

Monterey Avenue Park
Approximate location of proposed
Dog Off Leash Area
171
Item 6 B.

Revised October 12, 2021
Dog Off Leash Area (DOLA) Administrative Policy
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to outline DOLA rules and regulate the use of the ongoing DOLA program at Jollyman Park.

Hours
• Seven days a week
• One hour before sunset to one hour after sunset
Incidents and Injuries
• If there is an emergency, please immediately call 9-1-1 • Violation of posted rules and regulations can be reported to o City’s 311 app
o Code Enforcement (408) 777-3128 or
o Non-emergency Sheriff (408) 299-2311
• Report dog bites/incidents immediately to
o San Jose Animal Care and Services (408) 794-7297
DOLA Rules
Dog owners are required to follow the City’s rules for off-leash use during designated hours, including:
• Dogs must have current licenses and vaccinations [C.M.C. 8.03.050] o Licenses must be on the dog’s collar
o Collar must be on the dog
• All dogs must be on leash at all times except when in the designated DOLA during permitted times [C.M.C. 13.04.130]
• Respect other park users
o Stop bothersome behavior immediately
o Owners are responsible for proper disposal of trash [C.M.C. 13.04.140] • Owners must be in control of their dogs at all times
o Dogs with known history of dangerous behavior are not allowed o Leaving dogs unsupervised is prohibited
• Cleaning up after your dog is mandatory
• Consumption of food and the use of glass containers not allowed during DOLA hours • Dogs in heat are not allowed
• No puppies less than four months of age allowed
• Owners must provide their own drinking bowls
• Owners must stop their dogs from digging and fill any holes caused by their dogs Owners are legally responsible and liable for the action of their dogs and injuries, or damage caused by their dogs. The City of Cupertino assumes no liability for the users of the DOLA. 172
Item 6 B.

Revised October 12, 2021
Field Closures
• Fields may be closed to avoid turf damage due to inclement weather or field saturation. Fields may be closed for field maintenance. Call the field hotline at 408-777-3566 or check @cupertinofields on Twitter to determine whether the fields are open or closed.

Violations - Cupertino Municipal Code [C.M.C. 1.12.010] A. It is unlawful for any person to perform any act that is prohibited, made, or declared to be unlawful or an offense by the code, or to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this code. A violation of any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of the code shall constitute a misdemeanor, except where the violation is specifically declared to be an infraction.

B. Notwithstanding the above, any violation constituting a misdemeanor may, in the discretion of the City Attorney, be charged and prosecuted as an infraction.

C. When a violation of a provision of this code which otherwise constitutes an infraction continues to occur and the violator has been charged with a violation of the same provision as an infraction on at least four separate occasions and within one year has forfeited bail on each such occasion, in that event, the City Attorney, in his or her discretion, may charge a violation of any such provision as a misdemeanor.

D. Unless otherwise specified by this code, an infraction is punishable by:
a. A fine not to exceed $100 for the first violation of a code provision. b. A fine not to exceed $200 for a second violation of the same code provision within one year; and
c. A fine not to exceed $500 for each subsequent violation of the same code provision within one year.

E. Unless otherwise specified by this code, a misdemeanor is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

F. Notwithstanding the foregoing and unless otherwise specified by this code, a code violation of § 8.01.030, Animals Running at Large, § 8.01.030, Public Nuisance, § 8.03.010, Restraint of Dogs, § 13.04.130D, Behavior of Persons in Parks, and § 13.04.130P, Feeding Waterfowl Prohibited, shall be subject to a maximum fine as follows:
a. Fifty dollars for the first violation of a code provision. b. One hundred dollars for the second violation of the same code provision within one year; and c. Two hundred dollars for each subsequent violation of the same code provision within one year.
(Ord. 20-2203, § 5, 2020; Ord. 12-2101, § 1 (part), 2013; Ord. 09-2043, 2009; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1697, (part), 1995; Ord. 1497, § 1, 1989; Ord. 1179, § 1, passed 1982; Ord. 854, (part), 1978; Ord. 829, (part), 1977; Ord. 692, § 1, 1975; Ord. 500, § 1, 1971) Violations that necessitate calls to the Santa Clara County Sheriff or San Jose Animal Care and Services will be held to their laws and appropriate rules or policies.

Noticing of Changes to Policy
Changes made to the DOLA Administrative Policy will be noticed via the city website at least two weeks prior to implementation.
173
Item 6 B.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: September 22, 2022
From: City Manager Department
Subject: Lifeguard Tower Budget Amendment
Recommended Action: Approve a resolution to amend the budget increasing the budgeted amount of $45,000 to $62,000, increase of $17,000, for the purchase of a new Lifeguard Tower.

Background: Since 2012 the City has partnered with the City of Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz) to provide Lifeguard Services at Capitola Beach from Memorial Day Weekend to Labor Day Weekend. As staffing and other logistical challenges have increased over the years, it has become more and more difficult for Santa Cruz to provide these services. In February 2022, Santa Cruz requested an amendment increasing the overall cost for services. The Contract with Santa Cruz ended in September 2022. To ensure the City had a dependable plan for lifeguard tower services moving forward, Council adopted a FY 2022-2023 Budget that includes the development of a Lifeguard Program, including a new Recreation staff position to help form and oversee operation of this program.

In May 2008, California State Parks donated two fiberglass lifeguard towers to the City to replace two wooden lifeguard towers that State Parks had donated in 2002. When the City received this donation, the fiberglass lifeguard towers were estimated to be about 20 years old making them an estimated 35 years old today.

In November 2019, the City purchased 2 lifeguard tower ramps from Industrial Design Research, INC the primary vendor for lifeguard towers internationally, which is used by the majority of Marine Safety Agencies in California. The two new ramps were purchased to replace wooden ramps constructed by Capitola Public Works that were creating work-related hazards for the City’s contract services.

Additionally, the purchase of the ramps was part of a longer-term plan to spread the cost of tower upgrades over a few years.

In December 2020, the City purchased a used Lifeguard Tower from the Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz maintains lifeguard towers for about 15 years and then plans for their replacement by 20 years. The Lifeguard tower purchased from Santa Cruz is estimated to be about 20 years old today.

With the purchase of a younger tower from Santa Cruz, one of the towers donated in 2008 was officially retired and replaced. This last summer, the tower located closest to Esplanade Park was the newer tower, and the tower located closest to the Wharf was the roughly 35-year-old tower. That tower located near the Wharf is in extremely poor condition.

Discussion: Over the years Staff has researched opportunities to acquire used towers, however the effort has been largely fruitless. Generally, if a Marine Safety Agency is retiring a tower, they are not willing to donate or send it to auction because the tower is at the end of its life and could present a liability issue.

When Capitola received the tower in 2020 from Santa Cruz, they were comfortable with the arrangement because it would be their Lifeguards using tower, due to our shared service agreement with Santa Cruz.

The FY 22/23 budget included $45,000 for the purchase of a new Surveyor SR Lifeguard Tower (the same model as Tower 1) to replace the City’s 35-year-old tower that is in poor condition. The window cover raising process is not possible for anyone short of stature without climbing onto the railing. There are areas of exposed fiberglass throughout the structure. The door hinges have degraded preventing both doors from full operation and locks have failed allowing for vandalism when not in use. In prior years, Public Works has worked to remedy safety issues; however the degradation has past the point of repair. 174
Item 6 C.

In August 2022 Staff reached out to Industrial Design Research, INC, the sole source provider for Lifeguard Towers, to purchase a new Surveyor Lifeguard Tower. Due to a scarcity of the materials used to construct the towers and inflation the cost is higher; the purchase will require an additional $17,000.

Fiscal Impact: Sufficient funds are available in the Equipment Internal Service Fund (ISF) which currently has an approximate fund balance of $400,000. The Equipment ISF has an approved budget of $45,000 for the purchase of the Lifeguard Tower. If approved, staff will increase the budget by $17,000 for a total of $62,000. The quote provided by Industrial Design Research, Inc. does not include shipping of the tower which is estimated to be $4,000. This cost is subject to fluctuating freight rates therefore staff can only provide an estimate at this time. The recommended $17,000 increase includes the estimated shipping cost.

Attachments:

1. Lifeguard Tower Quote
Report Prepared By: Nikki Bryant LeBlond, Recreation Division Manager Reviewed By: Chloé Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Clerk; Jim Malberg, Director of Finance; Samantha Zutler, City Attorney
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
175
Item 6 C.

Date : August 17, 2022 QUOTATION

QTY TAXED UNIT PRICE LINE TOTAL
1 x $ 45,650.00 $ 45,650.00
1 x $ 5,970.00 $ 5,970.00
1 x $ 1,875.00 $ 1,875.00
1 x $ (3,150.00) $ (3,150.00)
1 x $ 2,352.00 $ 2,352.00
1 $ 725.00 $ 725.00
SUBTOTAL $ 53,422.00
TAXABLE $ 52,697.00
TAX RATE 7.750%
TAX $ 4,084.02
TOTAL $ 57,506.02
Surveyor Lifeguard Towers
Terms: Net 30 (After delivery and inspection)
Rear Lift Structure Configuration S

COMMENTS OR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
Buyer Pays Shipping Cost Direct
304 Stainless Steel Support Structure S
Blue Gel-Coat
Palletize/Load (Each) S
Credit for Stairs

JOB REQUESTED BY
Surveyor SR Lifeguard Tower Nikki Bryant
Buyer shall indemnify and hold IDR harmless for any and all damages, claims, causes of action and injuries by any person Quote good for 30 days

CONDITIONS OF SALE (APPROVAL SIGNATURE REQUIRED)
City of Capitola

DESCRIPTION
who is not an authorized agent of Buyer as a result of any contact with a tower, excluding any patent defects in a tower.

Surveyor Senior Tower (10' x 12' Deck, 6' high) S
Signed ________________________________________Title__________________________________Date______________

I N D U S T R I A L D E S I G N R E S E A R C H , I N C 3203 Bern Ct., Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Phone: (714) 420-0695 / email: [email protected]
Buyer is solely responsible for the deployment of and securing the towers against environmental and weather conditions.

Quotation, terms and conditions of sale approved by:

Buyer shall properly operate and maintain each tower per IDR’s guidelines, as updated from time to time.

Buyer shall be solely responsible for denying access to each tower to the public. Only persons authorized by Buyer shall be allowed access to each tower. The towers are not designed for public use.

IDR Quote Capitola Quote
176
Item 6 C.

RESOLUTION NO. _____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA
AMENDING THE 2022-23 FISCAL YEAR CITY BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM BUDGET
WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt the 2022-23 Fiscal Year Budget for all City funds and Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted budget study sessions, heard and considered public comments, had modified and proposed a budget accordingly, and on June 23, 2022 adopted such budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the budget the Recreation Division has received quotes for the purchase of a Lifeguard Tower that exceed the approved budget of $45,000; and WHEREAS, the purchase of the Lifeguard Tower necessitates an amendment of $17,000 to the FY 2022-23 budget in order to complete the purchase and shipment of the tower; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Capitola that the 2022-2023 Fiscal Year Budget is hereby amended, including Exhibit A (Budget Amendment) to this Resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is directed to enter the budget into the City's accounting records in accordance with appropriate accounting practices, and the City Manager, with the Finance Director's assistance, shall assure compliance therewith.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola on the 22
nd day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________
Sam Storey, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________ ___
Chloe Woodmansee, City Clerk
177
Item 6 C.
178
Item 6 C.