ing massing and area compatibility and solar impacts um and then the planning department's interpretation of lower density as it's referenced in state law um so i've received 35 letters of public comment prior to the planning commission hearing nine letters were in support of the project and 26 were in opposition of the project and i received 21 letters of public comment on this appeal to the city council um two letters are in support of the project and 19 are in support of the appeal so generally the letters in support of the project are supportive of info development and increased rental housing um and the letters in support of the appeal believe that the project design is incompatible with the surrounding area will create increased traffic and should provide affordable housing um and as well as be the decent size the site is located on an 8,729 square foot lot on the east side of Pennsylvania avenue which runs perpendicular between so-called avenues of advice and the property has a low to medium density residential general plan land use designation um this designation accommodates a variety of residential building types um that fit within a single family neighborhood so that includes low-rise apartments condos and townhomes um and the all-in designation allows for development with a density of 10.1 to 20 dwelling minutes per acre so because the subject property is 8,729 square feet or 0.2 acres the general plan density range allows for two to four dwelling minutes and the development makes this density requirement um there are also numerous general plan policies included in the planning commission staff report um that this project needs the higher end of the density range is supported by general plan goal le one which seeks residential land use intensities to ensure optimum utilization of infill parcels policy le 3.7 encourages higher intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the land use designation and then policy 3.7.1 encourages development that meets the high end of the general plan designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require low density um so this project site's not located within an overlay district or a specific area plan that encourages a specific design or architectural style and the parcel is also not located within the coastal zone um the property is zoned rl multiple residents and the purpose of the district is to promote the development of multifamily townhomes condors and apartments and to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the district to encourage a suitable environment for families and single persons um as mentioned in the zoning movement so this rl zone district allows multiple dwellings as a principally primary use with approval of the design permit and therefore public hearing and public noticing was not required prior to staff approval of the project um I will say staff did hear from many of the neighbors early on in the review process and we kept a list of those who wanted to be notified of the project status um we maintained communication on the status and provided information on when the project was included and how to appeal um I'll also add that a community meeting was not required prior to staff's approval of the project um because under the community outreach policy community meeting requirements are based on project size and this project results in a site with forward dwelling so it doesn't qualify as a small development project which adds five to ten housing units um the rl zone district density is based on a minimum lot area per dwelling unit square finish standard and the minimum lot area for one bedroom or studio unit to 1600 square feet um and the minimum lot area for two or more bedroom units is 2200 square feet um so smaller units than what are proposed can actually result in a higher density on the personal um the planning department received a number of public comment letters including one from the appellants attorney questioning whether the project meets the rl zone district density requirements um this table was included in the staff report and demonstrates that the project meets the objective site development standards for the rl zone district and falls within the general plan density range um i'll also note that assembly bill 3194 provisions say that when there is inconsistency between objective density standards allowed on the site under the zoning ordinance and those allowed under the general plan land use designation the city is required to utilize the general plan's objective density standards um so in other words if the zoning ordinance standards for a project site are inconsistent with the general plan standards a proposed housing development cannot be considered inconsistent with the zoning um and they can't be required to seek a rezoning as long as the project complies with the objective general plan standards um the only permissible basis for which the city can reject or reduce the size of a project that complies with objective development standards is when the city can make the finding that the project results in a significant adverse impact um to the public health and safety so as you'll see in the following slides the three new apartments are consistent with objective development standards and it cannot be found that the project design resulted in a significant adverse impact to the public health and safety i also want to quickly note that um while the staff report details this provision um design permit finding number one has been modified in the resolution to include a statement that explains that pursuant to this section the city is required to apply the objective standards and criteria of the zoning code to facilitate um and accommodate the development at the density allowed by the general plan and proposed by the housing project the subject property is currently developed with a single family residence a second building unit and a few accessory buildings and it's surrounded by developed single and multi-family residential properties on all sides i'll quickly note that the staff report and findings reference um the second building unit as an accessory building unit um and it was determined prior to the planning commission hearing that the structure was never formally approved as an accessory building unit so with that i'm just going to refer to that as the second dwelling unit to be demolished moving forward the project proposes to retain existing single family residents along Pennsylvania Avenue and to demolish the second dwelling unit and accessory building and to construct three attached three-story three-bedroom rental apartments that are each about 2365 square feet inside um these new three apartments meet all the objective site development standards for the RL zone district and the project complies with off-street parking requirements and guest parking is not required for development this size um i'll also note here that there are no inclusionary housing requirements for rental residential developments with two to four dwelling units um i want to briefly note that the planning department received a letter from the appellant attorney stating that the project failed to comply with the 15th but minimum front yard setback requirements for the RL zone district um the existing structure that will remain is currently located um eight feet eight inches from the front property line um so it's therefore considered to be legal non-conforming because it doesn't meet the current zoning ordinance setback requirements for RL zone properties but that said the proposed apartments don't increase the existing non-conforming structure because they're detached and they're located behind the existing structure about 66 feet from the front property line um so all the existing residents to remain is a non-conforming structure the use is conforming um and the new apartments are conforming use that may all be applicable development standards so because um the use and proposed apartments are conforming the expansion is permitted i'm just going to briefly run through the project floor plans before jumping into the appeal concerns um the first floor consists of a two car garage for each unit um the second floor plan will have a kitchen living room and balcony on the north elevation um but i'll note that the planning commission added a condition of approval that requires the relocation of these second story balconies to the staff elevation and then the third floor consists of three bedrooms and a few bathrooms um and a balcony on the staff elevation i'll now jump into the appeal concerns this appeal was filed against the planning commission's approval of the project um and it was based on four claims two of the claims were also called out in their first appeal letter um the first concern brought up by the appellants was with respect to the approved backup space in the driveway so at the time the application was submitted and reviewed um the 24 but backup based requirement was only codified in a diagram for a commercial parking lot um there was no standard for residential parking however the planning department has applied this commercial standard to residential lots um and developments in the past um historically we've worked with um the public works department and there's a lot of productions and backup spaces and engineers can demonstrate with a turning diagram that adequate on-site percolation is provided for a standard size vehicle um so long not in effect when this application was being complete the standard practice was recently codified in um the zoning ordinance and that kind of memorializes it as an acceptable option for the study to consider when reviewing projects in the future um so this backup diagram that you see is submitted by the applicant um it demonstrates an adequate turning radius based on the american association of state highway and transportation official standard um the planning department and public works department review this diagram um and determine that backing out a sport utility vehicle um which is larger than the standard size vehicle is possible um and the proposed dimension is 20 feet and six inches the appellants letter um commented that it was 17 feet and six inches um but i do want to point out that it's actually 20 feet six inches and the proposed driveway located off of pinfolding avenue will also be providing adequate fire access um and amuse that objective lift requirement um the second concern raised by the appellants pertains to the building massing an area compatibility um so the appellants assert that the project does not maintain the architectural character and scale of the neighborhood um and claim that it will be highly visible from the street um this concern was also called out in the first appeal against staff's approval of the project and was addressed up to planning commission hearing um but i'll say that these three new apartments will be located behind the existing single-family home um the existing landscaping and residents will provide a buffer between the public view and the new apartment and the overall view of the site will remain relatively consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood um the existing residents will not block the new development as you can see here um from the public view um as the new apartments are 30 feet tall um but the rl zone district allows for 30 foot buildings and the site is also consistent with many of the other two-story and three-story single multi-family buildings in the surrounding area um the site is configured so that the new apartments are 66 feet from the front property line and only the south elevation in the second and third store will be visible from the straight view um this type of design isn't unusual for an infill development project in the city um so as i mentioned the project sites located within a developed single multi-family neighborhood um the street includes a mix of one and two-story homes the area has a variety of architectural styles including traditional historic um simple mid-century residences and as i previously mentioned there's not an overlying area plan in this neighborhood that establishes design guidelines or limit new development to a specific architectural style um so these photos show reducing homes in the surrounding area on pimplevania avenue coyota street and limber street and as you can see many of them have a similar boxy design a lot relatively flat rooms um simple front articulation and many also provide multi-family housing um the house in the middle with the peak roof is located across the street from the project site and it appears to be close to 30 feet in height um so also that we received a number of letters from the public with concerns pertaining to the project design um this project came in at a time when staff was just learning about state law limitations and objectives received subjective development standards um the zoning ordinance currently has fairly subjective design guidelines so in the past we've had a little more flexibility in what we could ask for with respect to the design changes um but we're more limited now due to the housing crisis so as i previously mentioned the housing accountability act limits the ability of local jurisdictions to restrict the development of a new of new housing um sd330 which is the housing crisis act expands upon the housing accountability act by limiting local jurisdiction from requiring a development to reduce density to meet subjective design standards um so this law includes linglars and that's the term lower density includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing um the appeal letter claims that sd330 does not eliminate all local oversight of compatibility and design and compatibility and appearance with the surrounding area um however that seems incorrect in that unless there were any design modifications required to meet objective development standards um or absent an applicant's willingness to concede on the subjective design component um in response to the public concern the city does not have any legal authority to impose design requirements um if they would result in the reduction in bedrooms or square footage um or if it would add costs that make the project infeasible so the third concern raised by the appellants is with respect to solar access um this issue was also raised in first appeal against staff's approval of the project um the appellants indicate that the project does not comply with design permit finding number five because the project doesn't maintain a compatible relationship to and preserve solar access of adjacent properties um staff address these concerns at the planning commission hearing by explaining that those zoning ordinance and the general plans don't include any objective design guidelines specifically related to solar access um the proposed apartment to meet the 30 foot height limitation for flat roof structures um in the oral district and they meet and exceed the required setbacks um both of which are objective development standards that are intended to provide adequate privacy and solar access between properties um in these urban environments so staff did request the trading study as an additional resource to assist engaging the maximum amount of shadow that would be cast from the project um the applicant prepared the study based on the height of the development and the study evaluates the solar impact during the morning and afternoon of the winter solstice which is when the signers out lowest daily maximum elevation um and when the shadows would be the longest so you can see on the bottom study um which shows the existing impact so there's currently a considerable amount of shading due to the existence of heritage trees on the site um so lots of other shading impacts are expected to occur within an urban infill project the proposal limits you to the greatest extent possible by locating the development um kind of in the center of the property and by providing shorter replacement trees for the heritage trees that are proposed to remove them and then finally the fourth concern raised by the appellants is with respect to staff's interpretation of the term low identity um as it's used in state law so I previously mentioned both SB 330 and 83194 um both strengthened the housing accountability and they limit the ability of a local jurisdiction to restrict the development of new housing so that's either by denying a project or by requiring a development to reduce density or intensity in order to meet subjective design standards um so the housing accountability act is the state law designed to promote infill development and it applies to these housing applications that may be great um may be three criteria um so if an application needs to be criteria the city must approve the project if the city denies an application that meets the objective standards were required to make that finding that the project creates a significant adverse impact to the public health and safety um so the law eliminates the city's ability to propose modifications to a project that would reduce the number of units that can be developed um 2017 amendment to this act specifically define lower density to mean any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing um based on that definition of lower density state law does not allow for conditions that result in the reduction of bedrooms or units or the overall square footage um as compared to what's allowed by the general plan of the zoning um because that would impact the ability of the project to provide housing um so as you've seen the three new apartments um are consistent with the objective zoning standards and development standards of reduction in the size or the height of the building would lower the density of the project by reducing the number of bedrooms um within each unit so it can't be found with the project results in a specific adverse impact um to the public health and safety um i want to add that the appellants ask for the planning commission and applicants for reduction to the proposed height and to the number of stories in an effort to reduce overall massing um of the project and in order to achieve additional compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood um a minority of the planning commissioners concurred with that request um and disagreed with the city's interpretation of lower density that resulted in a failed motion to continue the hearing for redesign um and after additional discussion um on these requirements in the limitations of state law the planning commission approved the project with those two added conditions of approval um in an effort to create additional privacy for the adjacent neighbor to the north and to reduce the overall massing um while still maintaining that density at the upper right upper end of the um allowable density range so that's a lot of information to summarize there is um no question that the housing accountability act applies to this project um the city has very little ability to require reduction in density or intensity and we don't have the ability to deny the project um so before I conclude my presentation I also want to note that staff has modified condition of approval number 27 um to include this language um our local ordinance does not require replacement housing for demolition of three or more units um replacement housing provisions of SB 330 apply to any unit to be demolished though so um the second going to be demolished has been vacant for over a year um we haven't received confirmation from the applicant that the unit was vacant for more than five years or that the previous tenant was not a low or very low income household um so we've added this condition to include the replacement housing requirement of SB 330 um but I want to note that if it's determined that this replacement housing unit is not required um the applicant has voluntarily agreed to enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city and they are going to provide a deep restricted unit at 80 percent AMI so to conclude my presentation um this project needs all the objective zoning standards it's consistent with um general planning policies and it maximizes infill density on a parcel that's known for multi-family residential uses um the parcel also unconstrained by environmental resources and so with that said staff recommends that the city council acknowledge the environmental determination that the project um is categorically exempt from environmental review under SUCLA section 1532 which allows for infill development and that the city council deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's approval of the residential demolition authorization permit and design permit based on um the findings and the regulation and conditions of approval so I'm available if you have any questions to stop at this time thank you Brianna appreciate the thorough um presentation by the staff um you look here I'm going to now invite up Travis Kinsey who will have 15 minutes to speak and present evidence in support of the appeal Travis I see you on the screen welcome go ahead and start hey thank you um my name is Travis Kinsey and I'm part of a group of Seabright neighbors who are appealing this development at Forteam Pennsylvania thank you city council members for providing an avenue for this appeal process I'm confident in saying that I speak for a large portion of this Seabright neighborhood where residents find themselves especially susceptible to the type of development that is being considered at Forteam Pennsylvania um as a starting point I would like to mention that as Brianna did that a letter from the Whitwood Park and law firm has been sent to the city attorney and members of the city council and I hope everyone has had a chance to review that letter um I believe it's buried in the agenda packet on page 289 our position is that this project does not meet the objective zoning standards and therefore this project cannot be approved um as everyone on the zoom is aware this topic is fraught with contention and there are wide-ranging views on what should be built where it should be built and who it should be built for um fortunately we already have some guidelines in place that offer a path forward the published documents detailing those guidelines are in the form of our city's general plan and public zoning ordinance uh as Brianna pointed out the focal point of this appeal and quite frankly all of her defense points um and the primary factor here is the state law which is the housing accountability act the act strips away our planning department's ability to shape a housing project if the project meets the objective standards in our city um during that December 3rd planning commission meeting when the approval for this project was considered it was thoroughly discussed and ultimately approved um myself and many other members of the neighborhood outlined all the reasons why we believe that this project was not neighborly and not representative of the city's solar affordability and sustainability goals leading up to that planning commission appeal members of the planning department suggested a redesign to the applicant and ultimately the planning commissioners decided to approve the project by a narrow four to three vote concluding that the housing accountability act limits the city's ability to consider and require changes to the 418 development proposal once again we were awarded by the state law um after further review of this project though after that commission planning meeting uh and the involvement of the Whitworth Park and law firm we now know that the planning commissioners rely on information from the planning commission staff report which improperly concluded that the 418 project satisfies objective general plan and zoning standards which we now know it does not so I will detail those um there are three plain language requirements detailed in the general plan uh and zoning standards that this project does not satisfy the first is that the lot size is insufficient to accommodate four dwelling units with two or more bedrooms as detailed in the minimum lot area requirements for the rl district the staff report appears to improperly conflate the maximum density here under the general plan lm designation with the minimum lot area required for the rl district or two bedroom or greater units so the key point here is the number of bedrooms um while this parcel may have a maximum density of four dwelling units under the general plan there is insufficient lot area for four dwelling units with two and three bedrooms based on the minimum lot size requirements of 2200 square feet per dwelling unit within rl zoning district it's super super convoluted um this still like it doesn't meet the objective standards it's just a two-slide which the second is that the proposal does not satisfy the front yard setbacks and brown i kind of touched on this the front yard setback is not the 15 feet required by our ordinance it's only eight foot eight inches this is further proof that this lot does not have the space required for these four units so i will show some images here if i can share my screen and screen shooting so can you guys see that yeah so front yard proposed eight foot eight inches this is my screen not being shared anymore no we can't no we see just the chart eight four eight inches per this drawing well let's just keep going the third is that the city code does not allow new constructions to avail itself of an existing non-conforming front yard setback the city code is clear in saying that any legal non-conforming building or structure shall be not made more non-conforming and that city code section 24 dot 18 dot 030 so if this were allowed to be built according to the current plan it certainly would become more non-conforming so briana just said that because the three new units are not attached to the single-family home they cannot be considered non-conforming that doesn't make any sense and please cite the city code that mentions that but further to that point the front house is not being remodeled i'm sorry is being remodeled it's definitely on remodeled therefore it's very much part of the project and the project does not meet the 15 foot standard so i don't understand that as previously mentioned you know a full aberration of these non-conforming points can be found in the letter from Whitworth Park and law firm um reiterate this point for clarity's sake much of the staff report in your packet is based on the assumption that this project meets the objective standard threshold some of it does but to these specific points it does not and because it does not the project at 14 pennsylvania um cannot be approved uh the commission cannot point to the 2019 housing accountability act as a means for streamlining the approval or any approval of the project under its current design for that matter um and it's just especially unfortunate that we have had to allocate time and financial resources taking this appeal to the city council when the planning commission staff had the opportunity to determine any objective standards that this project does not satisfy beforehand and thereby saving all of us from this phase but in their defense this topic is convoluted uh and i think we can all agree that more needs to be done to update our area plan and objective standards we are already seeing a framework of laws at the state level that limit local jurisdictions ability to chart their own course for development and to this point i'm very happy to see that the planning commission recognizes this need and has arranged for the following community meetings to discuss the topic of objective standards um especially in our sea bright neighborhood this is our opportunity to forge our own path and positively influence our environment and our built environment um so members of this city council thank you for listening to our appeal especially given the unfortunate but necessary circumstances that require us to hear by zoom uh this project does not satisfy objective standards and cannot be approved in the current format you know we do look forward as a neighborhood to working with the planning commission and active members of my community of our community to find solutions that do work um so members of this council can both make that happen thank you thank you applicant dan stark uh who will have a 15 minutes to speak and present evidence the screen here we have some slides to go through uh yeah we're gonna turn off the video always show the screen internet's a little choppy sometimes you want to make sure we don't lose everybody so we'll be on audio if you're in this okay thank you thank you very much okay so start off um hello city council members my name is tim gordon i'm one of the founders of workbench company located here in downtown santa cruise first off i want to say huge thanks to you the city council and planning department for taking the time to meet with us today we really appreciate all you do for our community and we definitely understand the topics that you deal with on a daily basis are extremely challenging so we can't thank you not we'll jump right in happy to answer any questions uh by any council members at any time located at 418 temple vineyard new housing complex consisting of much needed three bedroom rental units with two car garages and on-site parking well known topic in our area as well as california in general the need for housing and especially rental housing like many places in california santa cruise has historically not built enough housing to accommodate our existing and growing population for the general plan and zoning code most of the teabright areas designated for multi family residential housing and has been for many years the primary intention of this project is to provide housing for families in santa cruise and all parties involved the owner the design team future construction team are all really strongly connected to santa cruise and desperately want to be part of our housing solution there are many reasons why this project should be as proved as is but i'm just going to cover a few here first of all and the major point to remember this project meets all of the objective standard set for us in the general plan and zoning ordinances as has been shown by the planning department and the planning commission approval our team and as a brief note our team is not the planning department and many times on this project we've gone through roughly 30 different site plans and options with every imaginable imaginable option in an effort to create the best project as you know to get to this point did all the standard-based parking requirements density open space and all the other to be reviewed the restricted affordable unit three re-bedroom rental units on the market in the seabright area on top of that there's only 23 in the greater santa cruise area in whole hopefully that statistic alone is enough to help approve this project i've been in seabright for five years my kids go to galt i'm very connected and familiar with the area i've had two separate galt teachers reach out to me in the last month who are looking for homes for their families and want to stay in seabright near where they work unfortunately our units aren't built yet and there's not many options for them to stay in the seabright area there's a realistic effect of not building housing our teachers can't even live in the neighborhood we ask them to teach our children's hands let's give them through it here pretty briefly uh sp3 30 applies to um projects that meet the objective standards and general plan and zoning code which we've done as shown by the planning department and approved by both the planning department and planning commission i'm going to interrupt you for one second i don't know if you're wanting your slides to advance but they're not moving um we're still seeing the first slide oh oh i apologize and appreciate that we don't worry for any presentation um three okay our objectives cannot be considered do any of the following bedroom house square footage intensity of use height style financial feasibility project for the owner etc project will have a negative effect on health and safety of the public advocacy plug here we at workbench have a very deep personal connection to this town we want to see it proper you know we're helping creating housing p3 30 i'd encourage the council to think about why do we need it our project meets all the applicable codes provide 25 percent meter restricted affordable units and create creating three more rentals that we desperately need so we feel the need to be backed by a safe housing ordinance to produce this house um i understand and i know that you all know that i'm challenging topic i would encourage the city council to think about that question going forward and and i um keep it in mind i'll be as a lead designer here at workbench and it's been believed on this project thank you again and go ahead man thank you for your time and consideration today and thank you briana for your sage support and guidance throughout the entire process we really appreciate you my name is dan stark i'm the architectural project manager manager on the project and i am a representative of the applicant next i'd like to go briefly over the planning commission findings i have to move quickly here so please take my screen was on december 3rd last year the project was approved with the following concessions which we are still willing to meet currently located on the north side of the unit facing the affluent's property may be screened or relocated to the south side of the unit facing our driveway and our neighbors to the north it can be reduced by dropping the plate heights which are currently nine and a half or 10 feet to nine feet once at outreach and working with the affluent and the neighbors no neighborhood outreach was required by the municipal code for this by right project we do see and understand the value of earlier communication with the neighborhood but after offering concessions at the planning commission hearing and attempted attempted outreach to the affluent following the hearing i understand that we would not have had a different outcome after the planning commission meeting we requested conditions to satisfy the affluent and their two requests were to relocate the balconies as already offered during the planning commission meeting and to make the building two stories would render the project in feasible with affluent with this information they asked me to meet privately off the record which i told them that i was not comfortable doing and at that point the communication with the affluent ended i never heard that the next portion of the presentation will be a direct review of the appeal of the driveway specifically the driveway with the affluent suggesting the appeal that our driveway should be 24 by for the municipal code facility such as ours with eight parking spaces may have a 12 foot wide driveway as proposed element mentioned in the appeal is a reference to the backup distance as put forth in the municipal code the 24 foot backup is indeed required by the current municipal code as brian mentioned this section of the municipal code was added after completion of our project to planning no clear backup distance was provided in previous code versions importantly the current municipal code offers an alternative path to compliance via approval from the planning and public works department this allows for reduction of the 24 foot standard backup distance which is very important when we're looking at a site like this not a small site but it's only 50 feet wide you can imagine what a 24 foot driveway would to do to this height due to this site it would cut it in half immediately i for one am glad that our municipal code does not give that much weight to the automobile 24 foot backup has been reviewed and approved by the public works department and the planning department so we remain compliant with the current code as applied to our project and to the the code that was applied to our project from the previous previously applicable applicable code in reviewing the backup with planning and public works we reviewed we used astro standard turn radius for a passenger car design vehicle which is a large generous car as seen on the right of this slide the image on the left of this slide shows two large suv's easily making the backup including a hummer h1 which is the largest passenger vehicle available to the american public today which proves that this backup works well it was not difficult at all i hope this study can put this concerns around scale items neighborhood context in massing the images on this slide show screening of the new units behind the existing single family residents we think it's an attractive project but we think the screening also minimalizes individual impact on the street and presents a choice for decisions about architectural style to future future development in the future but we think that the project stands in the neighborhood now now i'd like to mention that neighborhood is very clearly and objectively defined in the municipal code as an area within one half mile of the site also worth mentioning is that the building as proposed is 30 feet tall allowable per the current municipal code the building could be taller by right with a slope group because of the municipal code's definition of building height as being to the middle of a gable end roof a grade level ground floor and approximately 10 foot plate heights which were were offered to be reduced to nine foot during the planning commission hearing neighboring buildings are not much shorter for example the neighboring one-story residents with a 12 to 12 gable end roof and a four-foot tall crawl space is going to be approximately 25 feet tall at the ridge the project in the neighborhood please recall that the neighborhood is defined objectively of any site within one half mile of our project at 117 galt street this is a great story multi-family residential development groups are slow hip routes but they have such a low slope that they appear to be a flat roof multiple buildings occupy the front of the lot as well as the back this project is 0.4 miles from the site which means all objective standards for being in the same neighborhood this project is one zero four one high industry this is a three-story multi-family residential development with flat routes and this address is six parcels removed from our project 2008 soak out out is another two-plus story multi-family residential development with flat routes this project has balconies on the property line it's five parcels removed from our project no one just shows that 1005 kaiu history is a two-story multi-family residential development with flat routes no separation of balconies and adjacent buildings and this project directly abuts our project at 40th temple being the project's solar impact on the appelline's property picture on the left of this slide shows the existing 60-foot tall liquid amber trees done for the project we're done as a worst-case scenario in December 21st at 9am this shows the highest possible impact on solar access to the adjacent property the existing trees mentioned are to be removed thereby mitigating solar impact from the trees and slides show that some solar pull of the solar impact on the property will be less than the current shade from the trees to be demolished not impeded for most of the year and only before 12 o'clock on any day generally in the winter three existing trees to be demolished will be replaced by 13 new trees located on the site in order to maximize privacy and minimize solar impact no solar impact is made on the property outside of the winter morning can i request one no you all because it's an appeal you're held to that 15 15 minute standard thank you thank you okay next we will move on to questions from the council and i believe bonnie please clarify these can questions be asked of either the appellant or the applicant or are these just for staff all of the above all of the above okay great carefully prepared to address the issues raised by the letter from the attorney with respect to the import of sp3 30 and specifically the provision that says that um require the project to comply with objective standards and criteria of zoning which are consistent with the general plan however the standards shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the housing development project and so this project is consistent with the density allowed by the general plan and so made the point and that's based on our analysis with the staff that under sp3 30 this density provision is is um it's required to be adhered to and if the zoning criteria are inconsistent with that then you have to apply the general plan consistency during determination there is possibility of litigation arising out of whatever decision the council makes with respect to this project just so that you understand it's not it's not just a one-way thing thank you 20 um next new projects generally typically for low to moderate income housing would still be applicable not all the provisions of sp3 30 would be applicable members at this time a question that is has just come up for me because the appellant mentioned the objective standards development process and i know that we are in a situation where we are we have very few objective standards that and we certainly don't have any that have been developed in light of the new state housing laws that have been adopted recently and so i'm just wondering uh where you know i it's been a while and we have were you know given uh if i'm just wondering where things are at with the development of those objective standards it they wouldn't apply in this case but you know it should be nice to have those so we have something to look to when projects like this come our way thank you council member brownlee about their director of planning and community development and the grant has us um completing those by the end of the year um and having them to you before the end of the year um the first we we have been to the planning commission and the planning commission has reviewed the outreach plan we've also been to the planning commission to discuss general plan amendments stemming from the first set that were done and we expect to present that information the planning commission voted unanimously to not pursue general plan amendments at this time as a recommendation of the council and we'll be presenting that information to the council at their first meeting in march um so you'll get a uh overview of where we're at in the process there and next month we will have our first um outreach meeting as it relates to the um objective standards and so the the plan has been approved for outreach and we'll be rolling that out within the next three to four weeks thank you thank you council member brown uh council member walkins and then council member call it and harry johnson also i appreciate the question and the response i think it would be very helpful to have these in place right and so knowing that we're on a path um to get there is is good to good to hear um i guess if i could just get one maybe a clarifying connect uh um response from our city attorney um tony in regards to saying you're we're liable to get um sued one way or another or the appellate's argument their position is that the city is um misinterpreting the zoning criteria in two ways one uh by allowing a structure that encroaches into the 15 foot uh front yard setback there is a legal building there now and under the zoning code uh you can maintain a non-conforming structure as long as you don't make it non-conform more non-conforming and the staff interpretation of more non-conforming would be if additional features of the structure were constructed within the front yard setback that would make it more non-conforming but building on portions of the property that are not within the setback doesn't make an existing non-conforming building more non-conforming um so so we just disagree with that argument um the second argument is that uh because the zoning code specifies 2,200 square feet per uh dwelling unit that's in it that's in excess of uh two bedrooms that uh you would need a minimum of 8,800 square feet to build uh this project with three three bedroom apartments uh whereas the parcel size is like 8,750 square feet I mean it's very close to that um there are two problems with that first under AB 330 if the city receives an application um and you can use this you can use this as an example of how this applies if the city receives an application for a project and determines that it's inconsistent with the zoning for the for the site um it's required to notify the applicant within 30 days of the applications being deemed complete and in this case the application was being complete at some time in September I assume because it went before the zoning administrator for hearing in October um the the second part of the statute says that if the local agency fails to provide the required documentation the housing development project shall be deemed consistent compliant and in conformity with the applicable plan program policy ordinance standard requirement or other similar provision um and so uh really you have a very short window of time to determine compliance staff did that and determined that the project does comply because of a different provision of SB 330 that says that you need to accommodate housing on the property uh that's within the density limits of the general plan and this project does that into the and the staff's interpretation of SB 330 is to the extent that um the zoning doesn't conform to that density requirement then you have to interpret the zoning code in a way that allows the project to be developed um and the and the specific wording of the statute is at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project and so those are the arguments as to why the staff position is correct so there could be a claim made by the applicant should the city deny the project in the same fashion that there could be a claim made by the appellant should you approve the project as proposed next I have council member bruner you had your hand up ugly hands are down all of a sudden Helen Terry Johnson was next I'm sorry I had my hand up but my question was um addressed thank you oh it was okay okay any other questions from council for either our staff or the appellant or the applicant look like anyone has any other questions we will go ahead now and open this for public comment and on 418 Pennsylvania Avenue if you are interested in commenting on this item please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand when it is your time to speak you will hear an announcement that you have been unmuted the timer will then be set to two minutes and I know there's a number of folks and we've had multiple hearings on this project so I will be stopping you at the two minute mark just to continue to be able to have a timely discussion on it first up is Mr Kelly please deny the appeal and allow these three new homes to be created so we can welcome new neighbors the only drawback I see here is that this should be much taller and have many more homes given given the immense need that we have in this city I think I want to make a statement about some of the uh city council uh kind of deliberation on this if people want to see objective standards be completed more quickly um then planning staff should be free from having to deliberate on on such a small project like this where we're literally spending more than an hour to talk about three new homes three new homes that families can move into that children and grandchildren of the appellants themselves could even move into um I think people are missing the force for the trees in knowing that like we we need room for for people um so people can live here so please deny the appeal allow these three new homes to be created thank you thank you the next call in 2694 go ahead please yeah hi this is uh Patrick Drake I live immediately next door at 414 Pennsylvania Avenue and I just like to say that this is squeezing you know three new units into a very tight space there's already three apartment buildings here uh that are abutting this um um proposed development and I think it's going to be too dense and I think also we're here all day working from home and there's going to be a heavy construction on this site for potentially years jack hammering concrete back hose and I just think it's a three-story building on a block that only has one story and two stories and it doesn't really fit the neighborhood and at the very least could be permit be postponed or the building permit or the approval be postponed until the pandemic has passed and we're not all uh stuck in our literally stuck in our homes all day every day thank you thank you the next speaker is mr yes we can thank you um first of all thank you for um allowing us to talk about this it's uh very important not just for this single project but for the um ongoing integrity of our neighborhood um I live on winter street two blocks away from the development um I'm a 26-year resident of the Seabright neighborhood um I love the diversity I came in here as a renter and I'm now fortunate enough to be a homeowner I love being able to live next to people renters and I'm happy about that part of our neighborhood however the development at 418 is some total of it is that it overwhelms the area it puts a lot of stress on a small part of the neighborhood that is already compromised um I think Travis raised the issues very um intelligently um I'd like to mention a hearing a zoning administrator hearing that we went to for a development that they wanted put directly across from our house at 415 uh Windsor one of the things we're able to point out to the zoning administrator is that um parking at a place like this and and the the fact that the parking is so difficult and 418 exacerbates this is that people are going to park on the street and that's going to create tremendous problems in the area where there's already a lot of difficulty parking um one of the things that the zoner zoning administrator did for us is that he required in the homeowners agreement that the homeowners association agreement that the part of their garages in these houses remain vacant and that they will be able to be inspected for that because um despite the fact that you can pull your uh Hummer in there you're not going to pull your Hummer in there because it's so difficult to do so they will just park it out on the street so um making provisions for the impact of the thank you Mr. Bowers next up yes we can thank you thanks for taking our great residents as well and I'm going to start off by saying first of all we have a two-story apartment building in our backyard and um it's very oppressive we we use the backyard as a garden only because of that um I can't imagine having a three-story building in my backyard or in my side yard um and and that being said the they keep referencing the 30 foot height the difference between a 30 foot ridge line on the victorian is not the same in any stretch in my mind as as the 30 foot height on a three-story apartment you can't equate an attic space to to a living space I mean let's get real about it. Mr. Bowers mentioned some some really good points and I want to elaborate briefly um you know this this neighborhood has character and you know we have a single family home we like it we have apartment there's duplexes next door across the street so it's eclectic as it does already but if we look long term I mean down Seabright they built you know those those you know a shoved bunch of homes and those blocks that were vacant for years and it's just I mean it's already but you know pre-covid traffic in Santa Cruz is insane and people are forgetting that already if we start slamming all these homes in here um we're going to park every day we jockey for parking in the street and in our driveway because of it and lastly I'll say that we have family up in Seattle and this is happening in really beautiful neighborhoods with old homes old victorians just really wonderful neighborhoods and they're tearing down these homes and building exactly what these gentlemen are proposing and I've got to tell you it's um it's repellent it changes everything. Last name Kelsey. Very curious why if objective standards are being developed why they cannot be applied in this situation it seems absurd to say well those standards aren't enforced now therefore you know we can build whatever but when it comes later then we'll have standards it it just feels to me like that is an absurdity of that goes around in circles the that you're wanting community input outreach which was not done in this case I just can't see how that you can justify it using the legalistic um 333 standards further I think that the letter from the lawyers that lay out what the objections are need to have been read by each council member and considered before a vote is taken thank you thank you next up is uh last name Collins please hello can everyone hear me yes we can hi my name is uh Frank Collins I moved to Santa Cruz approximately last year it's been very difficult for me to find a place that's affordable and you know big enough for my family and I to live in because of frankly the cost of rentals in Santa Cruz is way too high for us um this project not only provides housing for me but it's also an affordable unit which is to be completely honest that's really needed um it's unfortunate that young families young professionals like myself and in particular those like myself in the service industry are priced out of the beautiful sea bright neighborhood and out of Santa Cruz in total um I ask everyone in the on the council board to approve this project because it is the right thing to do for Santa Cruz residents and for people wanting to move in I currently live in a very tiny studio in the sea bright neighborhood with my wife and daughter um I don't know I just I want to live in a bigger house to provide for my family and so far I'm not able to find anything in my price range on the listing apps um thank you everyone for your time and thank you for hearing me out thank you next up is Mr. Simon Lee Simon uh from New Way Homes um I haven't previously commented or written uh in on this particular project uh but I was inspired to do so by a presentation the reimagined Santa Cruz uh group had uh last week from strong towns which was really compelling argument that um we have a lot of this housing crisis because we haven't allowed small developments um to happen and more gentle increases of density which happened for you know 100 years gradually here and happens much less so now and so we have you know very large projects and single family homes and we've stopped for all fortunately and to have a healthy community and a variety of housing types and just have it be a little bit less expensive to build a housing that these kinds of projects need to happen and I certainly understand when folks are um don't like uh what the zoning rules are uh for example but I think if we keep re-adjudicating those on every three-unit pro uh project you know this is why housing just can't get built so we need to set the rules live by them if we don't like them change the rules um so I hope that somehow we can find ways to continue to reduce this um inability to create housing and not only prove this project but make other projects um learn from it make other projects the next project if it needs to be a little different you know change the rules so it's a little different um but then uh have more of this up happening so I hope we get more projects like this and Santa Cruz and we find a way to make them more efficient thanks thank you the next speaker is 7527 see bright residents and I moved here with my family and I just wanted to say we need as much of this as we can possibly get I also want to say that um well oftentimes at these meetings the representation is that of neighbors not wanting projects there are many more of us that want things built want people to move in we want affordable housing and the fact that this project provides even one affordable unit is a miracle it's 25 percent affordability that's not um what anyone else gets to the development um I think the things that are brought up in opposition are brought up universally by people that don't want things built in their neighborhood character parking shadows density procedure design nostalgia and character these have been things that have kept um housing and uh specifically affordable housing and marginalized individuals out of neighborhoods for decades it's it needs to stop and um I hope this project goes forward and I hope many more like it do as well thank you thank you very much next up is uh phone number ending in 4207 you're unmuted you should be able to talk now be able to talk ending in 4207 you're unmuted yeah you're unmuted you should be able to talk now why don't we have them try to come back can you hear me okay yeah we can hear you now thank you we'll start the clock sorry about that um my name is Matthew I'm um Santa Cruz resident for the last 29 years born here in at uh Dominican hospital and uh young professional um I've continuously seen both friends and family um move out of this area um due to the the housing shortage and their inability to find homes for both um for both young professionals uh who are um single and or seeking roommates um to better afford housing and then also um yes families who are just simply unable to afford single family homes um I think that uh to be able to increase density increase affordable housing I think it's going to be extremely important and um projects like this need to continue so I just wanted to um advocate my support for um approval of this project thank you thank you next speaker is uh ending in uh phone number uh 9078 Bonnie did you unmute them they have to unmute themselves star nine to unmute yourself 9078 if you press star there you go you're unmuted thank you thank you I watched the December 3rd planning commission meeting for this project and the witness commissioner Christian Nielsen's many futile attempts to get needed answers from the project architect the line of his questioning was important and as an architect himself he knew an answer was necessary so that commissioners could understand the reasoning used in the decision to not remove the front house Nielsen said that the front house created other related issues with the project this couldn't even occur because the project representative stone-holerated representatives would be advised that evading ants if you watch the tape you'll understand what I'm talking about no one's exactly sure what can be changed or not the project really convincing presentation from the appellant and while a b 3194 really ties a local community's hands every way to help protect our neighborhoods uh from developments that uh speakers have said overwhelm the air as opposed to be trying to introduce growth in a careful manner this is not careful workbench has committed in my mind the ultimate sin of presenting a visually distorted image at the beginning of their presentation and staff use the same image I've been asking for years for architects developers to present something in scale um you can look at it again but the single story little house in the front is made dominant you can barely see this three story development in the back there's a lot of other misleading information the idea that a local teacher could afford one of these three bedroom units is well it's ridiculous we have in our city provided more than most communities we've exceeded our provision of market rate housing this does not add anything except the possibility of displacing our low income workers an affordable unit by definition is a percentage of the area medium income every time each of these developments gets approved with 85 90 percent non-affordable market rate you raise the area medium income making it less affordable you've got to look at those issues before you approve a development like this thank you very much unmute yourself go ahead good afternoon good afternoon mayor Myers and council members my name is Henry Hooker i'm a resident of the neighborhood i've been a resident for 25 years it's a neighborhood of single and family single family and multi-family residences many of them eight ten units we all agree that there's insufficient housing in Santa Cruz to house our workforce and we all especially agree that there's a shortage of affordable housing which this project does provide in in the form of in in the form of one deed restricted unit it does fit with the neighborhood it provides needed residences it's past the exhaustive reviews of the planning department and the planning commission and other city agencies this type of infill housing is exactly what the residential neighborhoods of Santa Cruz need not just my neighborhood but all the neighborhoods to house our population to house to deal with the fact that we have so many people working in our city who cannot live here i appreciate the efforts of the planning department to protect the city from being taken to court for violation of state law and i urge the city council to bless this project and allow it to move forward with construction thank you thank you next speaker is six nine five eight last four digits of your phone number please press star six to unmute yourself yourself we can't hear you yet six nine five eight and we'll move to the next phone number we can't hear you oh i think you may be four six nine five eight if you could press star six we could hear you then but we can't hear you now okay you're ready thank you yes we can hear you okay hi my name is sienna um i'm calling just in support of this project and housing for our community as many of the other folks that are residents that have called in support um and also just to say that i'm also amazed i guess is the word at the number of people knowing all the statistics and the issues of housing in our community are still opposed to a project of this size and scale and it just sort of always goes back to the the i've heard you know the leaves are not against housing just we don't want the housing here and the idea that something that looks different than what's in the neighborhood doesn't belong and um those sorts of comments just bring us back to the um i guess major societal issues of not liking things that are not like us and not seeing the benefits of diversity and difference and it's it's frustrating and appalling to hear and i hope the council can see beyond um these comments and approve the project and see the benefits of providing these housing units within the seabright neighborhood thank you the next caller has phone number ending in three two nine five to the direct north of the project and i just want to say the last caller works for the architect so i'm not sure how many of the callers work for the architect but anyway i um i'm the original appellant on this appeal and i want to stress that i'm not anti development and i'm not anti growth um i i've lived next door to this neglected property for 30 years and i welcome any improvements and more housing i'm really sorry it has come all the way to the city council um this project is simply incongruent for the lot size it's maximizing the space for profit and with no consideration for the neighborhood the existing neighbors the parking there's so many issues with this project it's massive on this small smaller house lot and i just need to add that my home is a three bedroom one bath and a thousand square feet these are three bedroom two baths in 2,200 square feet each and i'm not sure who can afford these but not teachers and certainly not my kids or my grand kids that live on teacher type salaries um i don't want the project squashed um and i just want to see a redesign as a good deal the neighborhood does the planning department sent these plans back at least twice to my knowledge suggesting all kinds of ideas that would make this project more palatable to the neighbors more inclusive of this neighborhood more neighborly and they were all ignored one of the planners on the the initial planner on the project told me that this was the worst project she had ever worked on i myself have written the developer and the architect requesting more consideration and a redesign i was initially met with the resounding no and then sent unfavorable emails that were not at all neighborly this project has been pushed by the developer and architect to the limits of the parcel size with disregards the immediate neighbors no care for neighborhood compatibility and they have not demonstrated any willingness to revise their plans to better this development despite planning department recommendations respectful requests from neighbors a considerable voice from the neighborhood and the initial planning commission appeal i implore the council to let this project be a positive example of what development could look like while maintaining the character of this town and respecting our neighborhoods thank you in phone number 2952 please press star six and you will be unmuted you should press star six to unmute yourself the phone number ending in 2952 area code 415 hi can you guys hear me yes we can okay hi my name is amily cannon i am an owner of workbench i'm also a sea bright renter and i've been thinking a lot recently and as i imagine many of us have about how we can create a more equitable society and work locally to dismantle the systems that allow inequality to thrive here i've been struck by dr martin luther king's focus and efforts to elevate people of all races out of poverty and to elevate all people to a decent standard of living as an architect i've been thinking about what i can do and what my role is and what the role of architecture is in making positive change in my community collectively how do we structurally change the way we operate if we are going to create a more equitable santa cruise for all to enjoy i hear these concerns and eat those echoed in my community and then i watch time and time again as neighbors say no to housing and actively engage in continuing practices that promote social inequality and continue to widen the divide between the haves and the have not practices that push out the people who sustain our community the teachers the artists the young families the recent graduates the local business owners the list goes on and on and on please support this project and help santa cruise take one more step towards being a more inclusive community thank you thank you the next call 0753 this elliott former co-chair for the community advisory committee on homelessness and member of the county workforce development board and i've been working in santa cruise for 10 years and i've actually only been able to live in santa cruise for three of those years because of how expensive it is to live in this town i feel so lucky to be able to live here right now and it's like a combination of lots of building relationship and also luck that i feel like has bound to me my current home i was really excited for this project to come to council as i've been excited about all of the housing projects that have been coming forward i just want to thank you for moving all of these projects through and creating more housing for our community and i wanted to echo a few of the comments of previous callers so that we build a variety of housing types to meet the needs of our workforce that we have a focus on equity and inclusion in our decision making about housing development and that we have an efficient approval process for these types of projects those of it they don't get bogged down and become too expensive for developers to build and so i just urge you to approve this project and thank you for your time thank you very much our next caller is ending in phone number eight six seven seven whether hands up this will be our last caller for tonight go ahead please i just wanted to call in and um project we recently moved to california and we had to come up with very unconventional ways in order to afford to live here and the idea that more affordable housing um kind of gets put on the backburn because of design choices um you know like for for families that are just trying to make it work and want to live in this community um you know those things don't really make sense to to us that are struggling to find a place here so i just want to you know echo what other people have said really just want this project to go through so that families like mine moving here from all across the country you know still have a place to to move and to be able to afford and raise our children and the you know paradise that we can call home now um so i'd like to invite the appellant up to you have five minutes to rebut anything stated from the applicant and or the public would like to speak hi travis hey thank you um park uh alan spedale would like to give the rebuttal is that permissible here these are the one of the appellants that's fine thank you okay we'll turn it over to alan thanks alan are you are you there i'll move yourself here i am am i on you are alan can you get the picture up travis go ahead get the other one too the uh front the south view of this thing yeah we don't have that photo but we've got the uh um hope got this i guess so there have been so many uh unfortunate statements here that i'm not quite sure where to begin i think the first one has to be we absolutely reject the idea that we are nimbis in the opposed to housing um we're in favor of a reasonable compatible project on this lot it's big enough for four more units what people may not understand is that this would be the first three-story residential building in the neighborhood as a matter of fact it'd be the first three-story residential building in any Santa Cruz neighborhood and this is where all the objections come from it's because this 100-year-old neighborhood um this building is simply not compatible with it now you've heard a lot of references to the state law and the reason for that is because if you get the state law out of the way this project never would have been approved the planning department tried to modify it and change it the planning commission tried to change it but in every case the state law forwarded and our position is simple and the attorney was speaking to this our position is that the state law was misapplied because it doesn't apply to this project not every housing uh project gets the protections of the state law and the first requirement is the state the project has to meet the objective standards and you've heard that word over and over again now the front yard setback is eight feet eight inches and the front house is part of the project because it's going to be remodeled to allow the driveway on the south side of the project so the project doesn't meet the the objective standard of the setback it's that simple and that's going to be uh an issue in the courts but you know we don't want to go into courts we have no desire to go into courts the planning department admits that they rounded up the square footage to achieve the uh required square footage for four three bedroom units it's in the uh report when you're rounding up a number that means you haven't met that standard either and these are the issues and I grant you the state law is so poorly written that there's going to be conflicts over it but my point now is if you got the state law out of the way this project would have been modified through the planning process the state law disabled the planning department from being able to do their jobs they were denied the chance to work with the community and the developer to create reasonable housing on this product on this piece of property the city council has the chance to shut down this permit and send it back and in its place we can allow another project to develop better housing probably more affordable housing on this project to uh fill this large but narrow lot um this is the opportunity for them to back up the planning department and back up the planning commission both in whom wanted to modify this design they were basically on the same side of the argument as the neighbors were um take this opportunity support your planning department and your commission and support the neighborhood and if you have an issue if you're confused about the legal situation at the very least continue this project or continue this hearing until some future dates so that you can get further advice from the attorneys and uh let's try to find a better solution to this particular project the final thing I should say is we're not nimby's here okay and it irritates me and hurts me when the young people here who are never going to be able to afford these apartments anyway are diluted by an aggressive developer in the thinking that this is going to help them more than they should be able to thank you just by now I really do appreciate it you guys work awfully hard thanks for giving us the opportunity to see you thank you very much I'm first to bring this back to the council for deliberation and action and I have council member boulder and then council member coming I believe in that order but you can correct me I was looking at a lot of phone numbers trying to track those so I don't know who beat who beat who Justin were you first or okay council member coming thank you this is the public for um reaching out and providing the comments on this project um we're in a pretty I know we're probably going to be in a little difficult situation given that there's um you know potential for litigation on each side and and there are strong opinions on each side of this issue I did want to ask a question I was going to ask before public comment I wanted to wait till after um in that sense of time and so I have a question for the planning department it's come up a number of times and we've heard um I think it came to the planning commission that there was a recommendation for a redesign and I just want to know if you can comment on because I wonder if that might be a direction we can go in that would avoid us getting into any legal disputes you know we can figure out a way for both sides to kind of find consensus that maybe we can move this project forward without needing to go to court for either group so I'm wondering if there's anybody from the planning department who can talk about those recommendations around the redesign well the specific recommendations I will leave up to the the team here who was working on those I will say that you know there were conversations about doing things like um using a slope roof for this development and you know the the slope roof um is um something that would be in character with the house that's on the front you know the architects made the presentation and said here are um homes in the surrounding area um and multifamily development in close proximity that has a flat roof um and so you know we for example explored well could you make a slope roof to um more consistent with the house that's on the front of that property um what that does is that reduces the square footage it also reduces the number of bedrooms if I recall correctly the applicants actually prepared that plan and or a floor plan some some version of that plan and presented it to our team and it did actually have a reduction in bedroom capacity and square footage and as we articulated in the agenda report the housing accountability act which does apply to both affordable development projects and market rate development projects but as our city attorney said there are some different protections they're actually not that large in terms of the difference but there are some differences in any case the housing accountability act precludes the city from reducing housing capacity density or intensity is called out in the haa and so you know a uh architectural redesign and architectural redesign occurs if that architectural redesign would result in a reduction in square footage for a number of bedrooms um you know there are some gray areas there um in terms of architectural style you know so if you wanted to say like all right you know this shouldn't be stucco this should be wood siding um on this portion you know those kinds of things probably aren't going to make the the project financially infeasible or they're probably not going to reduce square footage or um uh number of bedrooms but when you start talking about redesigning from an architectural perspective the the design could result in uh a uh reduction in square footage which is why i brought up that slope group issue and in that scenario we would not be in a position where um or we would be in a position where we would be um running i'll leave it there and and if anyone on the team wants to to chime in about some of the other specifics because i think that there were um a number of sort of roof uh design was kind of an easy one to point out thank you lee chime in on that anybody for coming did you have additional questions i did have one more question um related to the replacement housing ordinance i know that in the city i think ours is three to one um and then under sb 330 the film of a density bonus like it's one to one and i was wondering what opportunities are there for us to bring these are our replacing housing orders into compliance so that it's one to one and and um and it's consistent with the density bonus orders because i think that that came up i think we were talking about the housing project the other housing projects you right earlier this year or late last year so i wanted to speak for that sir so um state lawsuit proceeds so right now the uh the condition that you had before you previously um before the one that um briana updated today um reference the um sb 330 provisions and they're actually multiple provisions so the density bonus uh is referenced as part of sb 330 so you know it it doesn't have to be a density bonus project to utilize to um trigger the replacement housing requirements it can just be a project that's utilizing sb 330 um that would also trigger the replacement housing requirements um and so um projects now are required to conform with the the state law certainly uh you know we could look at updating our codes to match what the state law requires there is not an urgency to that we have not um gone uh we have not put forth efforts to do that because those rules are in place right now if i recall correctly those rules are set to expire in four years now in um 2025 and so at some point during the next four years if the state does not extend those then if the city is interested in um matching what the state had then that would um be a critical time to do that but at this point in time um with the um with the state law superceding what we have in our codes um those rules apply there's an 80 you want this property it's going to be demolished as well is that correct would that be considered an affordable unit um well first question sort of and uh the second question i'll address in a second um discovered that it wasn't actually permitted as an ad you and i don't know the the legal status of it um offhand the team may but regardless where it's being treated as a second unit on the site that second unit um is being um required as replacement housing if under the state law it was occupied by a person with um incomes within the last five years so the last the last individual the last tenant would be tracked down and um if they again uh area median income then um those uh that unit uh one of the units would have to match that if the if the uh previous tenants income cannot be verified be required to provide one unit at the very low income 50 percent AMI level people who are in the front unit within like other current people that are now or have been the last of these people also are if you had two people and two separate units on a property that were low or very low income then if you have to make that replacement housing then my understanding will be if it's one to one then you'd have to replace two units as affordable um yes so so it's only the rear unit that is in question in terms of the occupancy there even I'm not sure about this but maybe Breonna can let me know um that the front tenant submitted a letter there's reading those quickly what's that yep there is a person living in the front unit and she does submit a letter in support of approval um of the project and she's currently renting it I didn't check with the applicant but I don't know if they verified um I know the income of that tenant but from from the housing accountability act perspective it's the rear the income of the rear unit tenant that would be applicable since that's the unit that's actually being demolished thank you I have more like comments and questions I just wanted to say I appreciate everybody that called in and it's really been you know a lot to think about and I understand the position that we're in where we could be kind of like damned if we do damned if we don't we could be sued either way and it's really complicated navigating this new landscape with this state law and I would also like the callers and the public to know that we do read all the letters we did get the letter from the lawyer we did read it many of us you know drove by and and peaked in the yard and stalked around the block and looked at the property and we do that regularly with the projects that come before us and so to that end like I agree with what Jillian said in that like I do think the drawings are kind of misleading where it looks like the one story and the three story are kind of the same height and they're not and I've spent many years living in Seabright I lived across the street from one of the callers um for many years and um I agree that um with a three bedroom unit I don't know part two parking spaces is going to be quite enough um and um you know on my block of Alta we've got four three four four three story houses that have gone up in the last 20 years and so I do know that three story houses um they're here they're coming and I also think like as far as like objective design standards there's plenty of houses as I walk around the neighborhood no offense everybody that are freaking hideous my own house is hideous I hate the way it looks and so like um we're all going to have differences opinion about the way architectural design looks I think um as presented though it's just a complicated issue in that um you know I feel like it's kind of squeezing quite a bit of housing into it a lot that's relatively large for the city of Santa Cruz but that's a lot of housing and I was just doing calculations where if these are 2,300 square foot units and if they had the you know new cost of construction between three and four hundred dollars a square foot so the developers potentially putting in two to three million dollars that's going to cost them 9,500 to 14,000 dollars a month just in the mortgage not including the taxes insurance and you know overhead for managing the property you know I don't anticipate that the three other units are going to be particularly low income or affordable and I appreciate the developer's intent to keep the rent unit affordable and keep the family that's there now um and you know I'm sympathetic to the neighbors that are going to have a large building next door we had a like I said the three story one next door to us was moving in our backyard so I understand but I think as um as far as this what's before us today I feel compelled that we have to approve the project and and um and that's because of the state law and and my interpretation of what has been provided to us today and so I just wanted to say all that in advance thank you council member calentary johnson were you first or was sandy first sandy was first that's what I thought okay sandy I'm excuse me council member brown thanks so I just have a couple of comments and uh you know this is a this is a really difficult place we find ourselves in we find ourselves in this place all too often these days um and you know I just want to respond to a couple of comments that were made um I'd love to respond to all of the public comment and I appreciate everybody's um being here and weighing in and the thoughtful letters um so you know I I agree you know um mr kelly said that um if we want objective standards we uh you know we ought to not be spending so much time um in in this space uh you know debating over uh the particulars of relatively small projects and I agree um but I will say this is um you know this is a process that is available to uh community members is not and the city council did not raise this uh and so we it comes before us and we are required to address it uh I also wanted to respond to mr simon's point about um you know really um being inspired by you know I was too with that on that panel and uh you know the so the idea about infill that and and the need for that is really important and people do want a set of rules and and consistency and I completely agree with that I hope that through our objective standards development will get you know closer to that at some point if not all the way there but uh unfortunately we're not dealing with or working with rules of our own making we are dealing with a state law um that has as has been suggested by uh the appellants and our own city attorney um is uh not a model of clarity and um you know and so where the law is vague or silent um where you know we're left to kind of figure out how to work within that those bounds of you know with that lack of clarity um to you know determine the legal parameters and and not so much our personal preference for style or any of those issues as much as I would like to uh be able to weigh in um and I know many would but really about the legal parameters and I'm gonna say that you know I believe that here uh unfortunately uh this one instrument of state law um has left enough of a gray area that we are unlikely to find uh a non-legit just uh way forward if uh there if the the developer and the neighbors cannot come to some um you know some reconciliation around the um the design and so my preference here I'm not going to make the motion I wouldn't see what others have to say but my preference would be to accept the minority planning commissioners position to send this back for redesign and just try to get folks to um come to some some agreement about how to move forward it could be a lot quicker resolution to do it that way um but I'll uh wait to hear what others have to say before we move forward thank you councilmember brown councilmember callantary johnson great yes I also appreciate all um of the community members who written letters and who were on the council meeting and called called in today um and yes to councilmember golders but we do read everything that comes through and really appreciate the time that you take to submit those letters this is a really complex and complicated issue um and I think you know there was a point made earlier that that we find ourselves here um being dictated by state law because we have really sort of failed locally to um meet the growing needs of our community and of our state um so now we find ourselves here and having to be kind of um appeased what not appeased but really have to abide by what um has been set by the state so absolutely moving forward as we have been with the planning department and really clarifying what our objective standards are um and in the meantime um having to rely on state law I think that um I agree that we will have to move forward with staff recommendations at this point I'm not sure that going back to the design phase will um get us anywhere um as Lee Butler mentioned um if it's certain design standards that would go against SB 330 then we would find ourselves in um litigation with potentially um with the state and with the developer so um I hear the concerns of the community and the neighbors I also hear what some of the callers said around our growing community our changing community and our needs for inclusion and diversity um and the needs for infill um housing so that I hear both sides and it seems at this point um I also won't make a motion just to just to hear what others have to say but I think at this point we have to move forward with staff recommendation and council member Watkins or Brunner I'm not sure who it was first I'm sorry I've been focused on the attendees and some other things so still learning to track everything that's happening before me do you two know which which one the tie there council member Watkins I'm happy to just I just have one brief question if that's okay with my colleague I don't know I don't either know I can't win up either so I'm sure and I'm unsure of the order that's what I thought thank you Bonnie for the colleagues really captured the complexity of the situation of the issue definitely the concerns of the neighbors and the impacts as well as the state law and how it supersedes our local authority essentially to be able to weigh in absent having some objective design standards in place I just want to make sure I'm really clear about the redesign and that what I heard from Lee is that anything that would be on the table for redesign would have to be really superficial essentially and that's sorry for lacking a better planning term and that nothing could really limit the density or the proposal of the housing you know the size of it right and so that that said I feel hesitant to go in that direction given that just to make sure that I really or somebody from planning to make sure I really understand what is kind of on the table here in terms of option sure you you are correct and our our agenda report laid out our analysis of SB 330 and SB 330 has a clause in it that says that I find it for you so it is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of and the approval and the provision of housing and so you know when there are you know these gray areas I think the the laws provided guidance to the courts to say here's how we want this interpreted you know we want it interpreted in a manner to promote housing and there are things in there that we that we set forth in our agenda report to that speak to both the density and the intensity of uses and and how we have a limited ability to affect either of those and so you know given that that's that's outlining the the sort of reasoning behind the position that we have on SB 330 and the limiting factors that are associated with it thank you thank you Leigh Bruner and then council member Cummings and then I'm going to put myself in the queue thank you this has been quite an interesting reading and research and listening and presentations thank you so much there's a lot of information to digest and consider and you know one thing that is clear to me is that we don't have any provisions in our code that dictate that you know a specific architectural style in our neighborhoods and that seems to be a really important point in this opposition to this project is keeping in character character with the the neighborhood and existing homes around but you know on a legal sense we don't have that capacity it's more on a good neighborly sense and I'm you know this is definitely an example of why it would be important this using this example to get design standards in place and objective standards in place as a community for the future going forward I don't know that that's something that would happen to affect it with this development and they're just really I'm trying to understand how we can get to a more efficient approval process options on this particular development um going forward what what we can do to compliment both both wants and ask if at all because they're all very valid we need the housing we need neighbors to appreciate their neighbors and the housing you know we can't design is subjective at this point with this particular project I just don't see what our options are other than the staff recommendation in regards to the housing the state housing affordability act and the lack of code in our own design standards councilmember Cummings I just wanted to before we because it seems like we're getting close to the end of this item and I just wanted to get some clarification one last time from the city attorney because it sounded like earlier in the meeting when we were talking about SB 330 what I heard is that council may require projects to be consistent with general plan and zoning standards and so I just want to see if I heard that correctly I was finding that it's complicated yes the council may require projects to comply with objective general plan standards and zoning code standards that are not inconsistent with the general plan as to density you know what we can do around this and you know personally I feel like we should be trying to you know we have standards on our books that we should be trying to our best you know to the extent that we can to meet those standards because once we start saying that we have these standards on the books but then you know state law comes into play they give us an option whether we should we should uphold these standards or we should you know wave them it becomes this issue where then you know our standards really don't mean anything if we continue to this not require the project to meet those standards and so you know I know it's complicated and that's part of the difficulty of moving these projects forward at this current point in time I'd be you know more supportive of you know trying to see if there's some way to reconcile the concerns of the residents with the developers and whether that could lead to some kind of redesign I think that that would be you know my personal preference I feel like that's where I'm at on this because you know we have general plan and zoning standards on our books if we have this option of requiring projects to meet those standards then I think that we should and if we want to change those standards I think that's another question and something that we should consider in the future everybody and my colleagues for all their comments it's it's a difficult topic we're probably gonna you know regardless of what decision we make tonight there's a bunch of different ways that this can go we can get sued either way so you know I just hope that we can come to a decision and you know continue to move on and see how we can work to improve our ability to get housing projects approved in the future Lee did you have something to add I saw you pop on I didn't know if you wanted to respond to council member coming to question or not thank you Mayor Myers I think the only thing that I would add is that really to me the only thing in question here is the lock size which you're alluding to council member Cummings and the you know for the benefit of folks that may be viewing from home and may not have read the agenda report the provision that we're calling out here speaks to the standards the objective standards essentially needing to facilitate the density allowed on the site by the general plan and so that's really the question and that's the that's really the in my opinion that's the only issue at hand and the way that we have looked at this we believe that the objective standard which is not 2200 square feet is not met at 2200 square feet of a lot area per unit on this site you know they've got I'll say uh you know uh well slightly less than that you know it's a not a 8800 square foot lot is 8,729 square feet or something so they do not have that so the only objective standard is in question is is that one and then this is the provision at hand that speaks to the proposed housing development is not being inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards it shall not require a rezoning if the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan it goes on to say local agency has complied and require the proposed housing development to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan however the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project so that last sentence is really what you know we are looking at here in making this recommendation and making this interpretation of SB 330 and actually I believe this part was out of AB 3194 is that the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate the development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and the proposed project meets the general plan density and so I just you know uh council member Cummings was asking and you know debating you know well does it does it meet that and you know are we throwing our standards out the window and on that on that particular issue I think that there uh there's it's it's challenging for us to apply the standards that we have and in that that issue could come up in multiple ways you know it could come up with height if we had a zoning district that had the height that wouldn't allow this you know there would be an argument that against that which is one of the reasons why early on we recommended that we get that SB2 grant for objective standards and move forward with that so that we can address these issues more comprehensively and we don't get into these gray areas of like does our does our zoning standards allow for that density do they allow for that density or not so I I just wanted to comment on that because I could see you struggling with it and I wanted to make sure you understood our perspective and and position on it thank you um in the interest of time um have been brought up by my colleagues um and I think that was the difficulty of um seeing change that I think many in the community doesn't feel fit in with their neighborhood um I am one of those folks too that wish that uh you know there could be some remedy of having people sit sit together and try to figure this out um I appreciate the the next door neighbor's comments she made earlier um neighborhoods in Santa Cruz with the state taking away much of our uh really decision making authority um we all don't know what to expect any longer um in these places that you know we have um if fortunate enough you know to have to you know be able to own or rent long term what kinds of things are going to be um what we'll be looking at you know as development proceeds in the in the city um I do believe that the um state law unfortunately is sort of holding our you know we've got our hands held by by this um or we're being held uh uh to a standard that doesn't necessarily um make for neighborly relations and for a process that's predictable on the other side for the person who's um taking the risk in purchasing property and trying to figure out their way through the development process either uh I think it's important to um understand that there's you know always kind of two sides to the story and um and when you when we're trying to remedy something that really is really coming down to neighborhood quality and neighborhood character um and how people feel about their neighbors uh it's it's very very difficult so I really appreciate um all the comments we've received all the folks who showed up tonight um and I know that folks have been really working through our system our our planning commission and all the various pieces that we put in place to try to make things work for our community and um I'm incredibly frustrated because I think this is a conversation we're going to keep having unfortunately until we can remedy our objective standards and do some other work to catch up with what the state law is basically forcing us to do um so I just want to thank everyone for all your comments all the work the applicant and the appellant thank you for very very uh clear and concise presentations this evening um as you can see uh I think this council wants to serve you all in the best way that we can and I'm not sure that the state's letting us do that just do this for you tonight so I will look to my colleagues I see um council member voluntary Johnson has her hand raised and um maybe look for uh potentially a motion from from one of my colleagues this evening council member voluntary Johnson thank you mayor Myers um and thank you to all of my colleagues and staff and everyone who's called in um I absolutely agree with your comments just now mayor Myers this is a difficult situation and um we are going through growing pains as we move into this next phase of our local planning and zoning and objective standards um and with that I am ready to make a motion to um um accept staff's recommendation that we acknowledge I'm reading it from the agenda report that we acknowledge environmental determination deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's approval of the residential demolition authorization permit and design for it based on the findings and the attached resolutions and the conditions of approval they accept that a and I would look for a second to that motion remember Watkins please I'll give him the constraints I I feel comfortable seconding the motion at this point thank you any further comments or deliberation by the council seeing none um I'll call for a roll call those please Bonnie Mayor it looks like a firebird or had our hand I'm sorry I looked and then I looked away and go ahead vice mayor Bruna I just wanted to ask a quick question uh there was something brought up by one of the callers regarding a requirement for to be used for parking at what point is that a decision for council to make and require if you want to if you want to try then or looks like our whole team wants to have my colleagues have something to add um the the project does provide um it's required to provide eight spaces that does provide those eight spaces and I don't think there's much ability of the council to require that the garages be used as garages oh unfortunately um I think some of us using this storage or whatever so it's um it's my colleagues have something to add to be certain you can do on Windsor street um is a townhouse project and and both myself as zoning administrator as well as the planning commission have from time to time um impose a condition of approval that requires the ccnr's to um because the conditions covenants and restrictions to include language as the garages be open and available to parking um it's much easier to impose that condition on those types of projects because then it puts the homeowners association in enforcement uh capacity rather than staff um so it's something we've done on on ownership projects but but not necessarily on on rental projects such as this condition of approval yes that mission started imposing a while back but again it's it's really on on ownership uh projects it's it's real difficult for staff um given the number of cases open code enforcement cases that we have to uh enforce those provisions to make time to enforce those provisions the only thing I would add um counselor excuse me vice mayor bruner is that um I that condition those conditions have come from planning commission and staff in the past you know the council could add a condition to that effect um you know it it can create that um that enforcement challenge in the future um though the one other thing that I would say related to that is that um the state law does allow for um a certain number of garages on multi-family properties to be converted to ad use that that doesn't preclude you from um making such a condition um it's it's just the enforcement um over the long term um is something that you know isn't necessarily the the top priority and um it can be challenging from uh uh staff perspective does that help council member bruner I'm excuse me vice mayor bruner yes it does thank you okay uh council member coming did you have another question or comment did I have one more follow-up question that it just kind of struck me as we were having this conversation um so earlier when we were talking about um you know so these are going to go as rental units in my understanding so and I don't know if this is a question for the developer or maybe actually for our planning department but are there any conditions that um states that these have to remain as rental units in perpetuity I know that the 80% a amount of affordable unit will remain affordable but I'm just trying to understand at some point for example can can any of these units be sold as sold for housing so you know it's now you know owned by the occupant we have a condominium conversion requirement um and there are uh state laws related to that as well when you you go and you're converting a rental complex to condominiums and um I've processed a couple of them in my career but they are they are a very extensive amount of requirements just from the state in terms of the mapping I'd also note that we have a pretty strict requirement here in the city that speaks to a uh vacancy rate that um I don't think the city has seen in quite some time so it speaks to a rental vacancy rate um that needs to be taken into consideration I will say that we did approve one of these in my tenure here that went from I I can't remember if it went to a tenant in common or if it went to a straight condominium but all of the tenants at that facility this was um over not on Grant Street but a street or two over from Grant Street all of the tenants were actually the ones that were purchasing the uh the unit ability for us to do an exception there but I'll say that we've got some pretty strict rules around condominium conversions and um turning them over into uh ownership units um would present some significant challenges thank you council member Cummings if there's no other um further questions by the council members then I will request the ask the court to please do a roll call vote no that motion passes with and to against by do I need to I don't do I need to read off the council members votes um I want to yeah I will read off yeah five votes in favor that's council by council members Brunner Collin Tari Johnson Mayor Myers council member Golder and council member Watkins vice mayor Brunner I did uh note you two against that's council member Cummings and council member Brown the motion does pass thank you everyone for joining us tonight um and uh we appreciate all your input this evening we'll now move on to our final item this evening this is oral communications for members of the public who are streaming this meeting if you want to comment during oral communications now is the time to call in instructions are on your screen oral communications is an opportunity for members of the community to speak to us on items that are not listed on today's agenda if you're interested in adjusting the council press star nine on your phone to to raise your hand you will have two minutes to speak when it is your time to speak you will hear an announcement that you have been unmuted we request that you clearly and slowly state your name before making your comment so that we can accurately capture in the meeting minutes however this is not required please remember this is a time for council to hear from the public we are not able to engage in dialogue with each member of the public but we when we are able we will address the questions raised after oral communications has been completed so again this is for items not on the agenda this evening and i see one hand raised one zero awarded to people who can't prove damages is actually a feature that law also declares causing embarrassment or humiliation is an illegal act it does not defend the truth is a defense it's a very strict couldn't offer an opinion about how those three claimed racist local 911 calls would fair with such an extraordinarily vague ordinance and their opinion on what the evidence would need to be to connect personally a specific intent law but is actually a law disallowing speech that incites commission of illegal acts since speech and police accomplice doer is really required i know police perfection isn't possible but what we do ask of police's excellence be sworn to protect with knowledge of and to uphold the law the supreme court has held the constitutional guarantees of free speech do not permit a state to forbid or prescribe speech advocacy of the use of force or to violate laws except where such advocacy eminently and will likely will incite or produce such unlawful actions can truthful speech make eminent and likely an incitement of the police to commit illegal acts no would not police also be guilty accomplices unless the 911 caller lied yes says the police alone are the only ones capable of committing most specific illegal harms listed in classic specific intent law a burglar breaks into a gallery with intent to steal a million dollar painting but finds none and leaves empty-handed but is still guilty of a specific intent to commit burglary for clarity can serve replacing that specific intent instead a person contacts the police and says i want the police to break into that art gallery and steal that million dollar painting because the owner is a fat white male racist sexist homophobic greedy capitalist pig the police really go to the art gallery location no harm is done but the owner is still entitled to a thousand dollars in fabricated damages but not if the caller had left out fat white male i only said the owner was a racist sexist homophobic greedy capitalist pig because those characteristics are not a violation basis the act proving intent is now just vaguely described politically thank you participants in tonight's meeting from the public wishing to speak during oral communication i am not seeing any hands so we are adjourned for this evening thank you everyone and have a good evening thank you thank everybody thank you