Thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the February 16th, 2023 meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Cruz. I'm Vice Chair Julie Conway standing in for Chair Pete Kennedy for this meeting and welcome. And welcome to everybody. I'd like to start with a call to order and a roll call. Commissioner Dawson. Here. Gordon. Here. Sorry. Kennedy. Here. Maxwell. The C.D. Miller. Here. Paul Hamas. Here. And Vice Chair Conway. Here. Thank you. First of all, do we have any statements of disqualification for tonight's meeting? Seeing none. I'll move on to oral communications. This is the portion of the meeting that the public is invited to address the Commission on items that are not on tonight's agenda, but that are within the purview of the Commission. Is there anybody who would like to speak to the Commission? Please raise your hand. And the clerk will identify you. I'm going to give it just one sec for the delay. I don't see anyone raising their hand. Okay. Thank you. Seeing none, we will move on to the approval of the minutes of the February 2nd, 2023 meeting. Is there any discussion or a motion to approve Commissioner Dawson? Yeah, I just moved to approve the minutes. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. Could we have a roll call vote please? Commissioner Dawson. Hi. Gordon. Hi. Kennedy. Hi. Maxwell. Hi. The C.D. Miller. Hi. Paul Hamas. Hi. Conway. Hi. That motion is approved. So we'll move on. We have a public hearing this evening. The public hearing is for 915-917-919-923 Water Street and 109 Stanford Avenue. That's CP22-0092. An application for a special use permit, a design permit, non-residential demolition authorization permit, a residential demolition authorization permit, a lot line adjustment, and heritage tree removal permit to combine three lots. And hang on. I just had a little clip here. To demolish an existing commercial and residential buildings, construct a four-story approximately 74,290 square foot mixed use building with 1,079 square feet of commercial space and 105 single room occupancy units, SROs, on a site located within the community commercial zone district and on land situated within the east side business improvement area plan. And do we have a staff report? Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Mayer, Senior Planner with the City. As mentioned this evening's first agenda item is a proposed redevelopment of three adjacent parcels at the addresses 915-917-919 and 923 Water Street and 109 Stanford Avenue. And for simplicity, the address of 915 Water Street is used in reference to the project. And please note that we unfortunately experienced some technical difficulties right before tonight's hearing and Principal Planner Samantha Asher will be presenting the presentation as I deliver the audio. And can I just check that the slides are visible to the Commission? Okay. I'm sorry. I'm also having some technical difficulties here, but if you move one second, I think I've got it. Can you guys see that? Yes. Okay. Yeah, looks good to me. Great. Great. Okay. Let's see. We'll check. I actually don't see the slides, but Sam, we're on to the second slide to this point. So I'm on the project overview. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So the project applicant requests approval of several project entitlements, including a special use permit, design permit, non-residential demolition authorization permit, residential demolition authorization permit, lot-line adjustment, and heritage tree removal permit. The proposed project includes the combination of three lots, the demolition of the three existing commercial buildings, and one residential building, and the construction of a four-story, approximately 74,290 square foot mixed-use building with 1,079 square feet of commercial space and 105 single-room occupancy or SRO units on a site located within the CC or community commercial zone district and on land situated within the East Side Business Area Improvement Plan. Next slide, please. Are we on the project site? Yeah. There should be an image of the project site. So shown on this slide is a subject site bordered in red. The site is an approximately 25,384 square foot or 0.58-acre quadrilateral area containing three adjacent parcels situated in the southwest corner of Water Street and Stanford Avenue on the city's East Side. The site is bounded by single-family residences to the north and elementary school to the south across Water Street and commercial destinations to both the east and west. And surrounding land uses include retail along Water Street as well as residential neighborhoods, public facilities, El Portel Park, and multi-family development further beyond. Next slide, please. And this slide should illustrate the three adjacent parcels that are proposed to be a combined as part of the project. And next slide, please. Okay. The project site has a general plan land use designation of MX HD, which is mixed-use high-density and is located, as mentioned, in the CC Zone District. The site is found on land and the East Side Business Area Improvement Plan. And the city's general plan states that the typical commercial uses are similar to those in the CM or community commercial designation and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses are encouraged on the ground of war. The CC Zone designation, as stated in the municipal code, serves to provide locations throughout the community to encourage a harmonious mixture of a wide variety of commercial and residential activities. And the East Side Business Area Improvement Plan states that it provides an approach that integrates economic development with a vision for creating a distinctive commercial environment and provides specific guidelines to help improve commercial vitality by identifying potential improvement for urban planning, streetscape, traffic circulation, and building facades. And it's worth mentioning that the subject site has been the subject of code-compliance activity for approximately 15 years up until the last couple of years. The city's code-compliance division has worked with a property, a former property owner, at the time over a period of over a decade and a half, attempting to address numerous code violations related to the storage of abandoned vehicles, overbooked the weeds and accumulation of vehicle parts, wood, paper, plastic, and assorted debris, and so on, which constituted both a fire hazard and a public nuisance. And eventually in 2020, the site was placed in receivership and site cleanup took place in 2020 and 2021. In 2021, the current property owner purchased the three subject parcels, as well as the two adjacent residential zone parcels to the north, with the intention of redeveloping all of the lots. To date, the staff has received an application only for development of the three commercially zone parcels, which are the subject of this evening's hearing. Next slide, please. Okay, so this slide shows a photo of the project site taken standing across Water Street south of the project site. And visible here are the two existing commercial buildings, two of the three existing commercial buildings, and the existing single family dwelling located between. All buildings are currently vacant and in various states of disrepair. Next slide, please. This slide contains a photo of the site as it appears along its easterly side, and the foreground is Stamford Avenue. And two of the existing commercial buildings are shown here, along with the undeveloped land, which makes up part of the parcels and the right hand part of the slide. Next slide, please. This slide shows a former gloss shop at the southeast corner of the parcel, which is currently unoccupied. The condition of the building, including the damage to the existing roof is visible here, and a chain link fence secures the site as seen in the photos. Next slide, please. This slide shows a photo of a closer view of the whole of one and part of the other commercial building fronting on the Stamford Avenue. And again, the poor condition of the existing buildings is again evident in this slide. Next slide, please. The project proposal was initially submitted for city review on May 25th of 2022. Pre-application, Project Number CP 210191, was submitted for the project and was subsequently deemed complete pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. On September 7th, 2022, consistent with the city's policy for public outreach, a meeting of the community was held to gather input from members of the public. Approximately 37 members of the community attended and provided a range of feedback related to expected impacts and modifications of the product site and the neighborhood effects anticipated to result from the project. Participated voiced both support and concern. Some of the concerns that were expressed were the expectation for loss of available on-street parking, as well as reservations about the possible increase in vehicular traffic to the area. Some participants asked about the types of tenants expected to occupy the single room occupancy units. Staff and the applicant noted that the units would not be limited to the number by number to the residents or by age of occupant. And aside from the 14 units required to be provided at the very low income level, tenancy would not be restricted to occupants of any particular income level. Other questions related to required street and sidewalk improvements were raised in consistency of the proposal to the general plan and zoning designations, as well as state density bonus law. Staff explained the requirements and allowance of state density bonus law and how it provides a mechanism to the applicant to request variations from standard code requirements. And eventually on October 13th of 2022, a formal application was submitted and again is the subject of review of this planning commission public hearing. Next slide please. The project application has been submitted pursuant to Senate Bill SB 330, which seeks to streamline the review and entitlement of housing projects, including those which include affordable units. SB 330 modifies the Housing Accountability Act and the Permits Streaming Act and adopts the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. The bill defines housing development to include, among other types of projects, mixed use projects with the minimally two-thirds of their square footage dedicated to residential units, as is the case of the present application. As a mixed use project with greater than two-thirds the square footage dedicated to residential use, the application is eligible for the provisions of SB 330. SB 330, among other regulations, reduces the timeframe for approval or disapproval of a project to 60 days and less with the applicant and the regulatory agency mutually agree to an extension of this time period. And importantly, under SB 330, the project application is subject to only those ordinances and policies in place at the time that the project got pre-application is deemed complete. And because the pre-application was deemed complete in July of 2022 prior to adoption of the city's recently adopted objective standards, compliance with those objective standards, it's not required for this project. SB 330 requires the Planning Commission make a decision to approve or disapprove the project unless the project is found to hold a specific adverse impact of public health or safety and that no feasible possibility exists to mitigate or avoid such adverse impact except through the disapproval of the project or approval at a lower density. Next slide, please. As mentioned, the project proposes development of a new four-story mixed use building with an approximate total of 74,290 square feet, including a ground floor of approximately 1,000 square, 79 square feet of commercial tennis space, along with a 665 square foot semi-enclosed outdoor patio dining area as an extension of the interior area. Features of the ground floor include a lobby entry providing access to residential amenities, including a mail package room, delivery room, a bicycle parking spaces, residence storage and trash and recyclables room, and elevators leading to the second through fourth floors above. Position below the three residential floors, again containing a total of 105 square, excuse me, 105 single room occupancy units or SROs. And again, the second through fourth floors include the residential units of 105 in total with 35 units on each floor. The SROs range in size from 305 to 380 square feet. Next slide, please. This slide displays the floor plan of the first level. Hopefully, that's visible. On the left is a view of the basic programming components, including the commercial tennis space and the adjoining covered area in the front or the south basing Water Street. The surface parking at ground level occupies the majority of the bottom level of the building. On the right of the slide, residential amenities are shown in green, such as the lobby, the package delivery room, the bike parking and services area, such as corridors and stairs. And commercial components appear in orange-red. The ground floor outdoor open space can also be seen at the northerly side of the property, along with the staircase leading to the upper level. Next slide, please. The second through fourth floors are visible on this slide. The second floor includes an uncovered landscape open usable outdoor space accessible for both active and passive recreation opportunities, which can double as a community gathering space. And a second-story rooftop terrace is also located along the easterly side of the building. And as of yet, unprogrammed amenity space appears near as well, and the second floor laundry room is additionally visible. On the right, the third and fourth floors are mirror images of one another or duplicates of one another with the layout of the second floor echoed through both the third and fourth floors, aside from the second-story courtyard not being visible or not being present on the third and fourth floors. But the interior courtyard does remain unenclosed and open to the third and fourth floors is visible on the right-hand side of the slide. Next slide, please. So on this slide, renderings of the proposed elevations are shown. The architecture of the building can be described as modern or urban minimalist, and a series of alternating angled building planes of fiber cement and stucco wrap onto all sides as seen on the elevations shown here. And a sweeping first floor covered entry portico creates a distinctive feature providing visual interest at the building's most prominent vantage point at the intersection of Water Street and Stanford Avenue, and a regular pattern of windows provides a sense of organization and intentionality. On Water Street, the covered entry and outdoor patio dining area visible, set back from the public right-of-way by a low wall with protection from the elements provided by the second floor overhead. And hanging vines included the second-story rooftop terraces are shown along with landscaping of the ground floor open space, which helped us off from the hard edges of the building's design. At the south or front elevation, metal awnings placed atop the first story introduce shadows in architectural detail and a balanced three-tone color scheme provides compatibility to the appearance of the existing site and surrounding land uses and a roof parapet measuring from two to four feet in height ensures screening of rooftop mechanical equipment. Next slide, please. As proposed, vehicular access to the site is provided from Stanford Avenue. A driveway provides access to the at-grade parking stalls located on ground floor, allowing for ingress and egress to SRO residents and visitors as well as employees and patrons of the commercial tenant space. An entry on Stanford Avenue to the residential lobby provides access from the ground floor by foot and residential units above for residents and their guests as well as to building management staff. Access to the commercial space is provided through two separate entries along Water Street and a separate entrance for residence guests and residential management staff is additionally provided on Water Street near the southwest portion of the property. As mentioned, surface parking is provided at ground level and would include a total of 49 parking stalls including three ADA accessible stalls, eight electric vehicle stalls, and 12 as mechanical stacker parking. And 137 total bicycle parking spaces are provided, comprised of 107 class 1 stalls and 30 class 2 stalls for long-term bike storage. And a loading space is also provided midway along the frontage of the building on Stanford Avenue, located adjacent to the refuse room, which allows for trash and recyclables pickup as well as commercial deliveries in space for resident move-in and move-out. Next slide, please. Three commercial buildings located at the subject site, as I mentioned earlier, have been designated for demolition. The single-story commercial structure was constructed in 1965 per county assessor records. And likewise, the structure situated in 923 Water Street, which is located in the southern portion of that parcel, is a one-story commercial building also marked for demolition. And a third commercial building lies north of the first. The non-residential demolition authorization permit allows for consideration of the request for demolition of non-residential structures age 50 years or older to ensure that those which have historic value, just like the non-residential demolition permission authorization permit, are not demolished. Excuse me, reference there to the residential demolition authorization permit. And historic evaluation, GPRI 523, dated October 7, 2022, was prepared by historian Seth Bernstein of past consultants, which determines that none of the three commercial structures appears eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, the National Register, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Buildings Survey. And also, the single-family residence additionally does not qualify for listing on any of the historic surveys. As a result, no protections are provided against demolition of any of the buildings of the California Environmental Quality Act. And demolition of the buildings may be approved through a non-residential demolition authorization permit for the commercial buildings and a residential demolition authorization permit for the residential structure. The state's density bonus law was adopted in 1979, as I'm sure you're all aware, encourages the provision of subsidized dwelling units by offering to developers a combination of benefits and incentives for development of a below market rate housing. For projects that include the required number of affordable housing units, local jurisdictions are required to allow more market rate units than otherwise accommodated by the applicable zoning designation. Approved incentives or concessions such as relaxed development standards, which result in actual and identifiable cost reductions for the project, authorize waivers or modifications, which would have the effect of otherwise physically precluding development at the level allowable under density bonus law and grant reduced parking requirements. With all that in mind, the project seeks to achieve 50 percent density bonus above that base density number of units included in a project fully conformed to all development standards by providing 15 percent of the base number of units restricted to occupancy by very low income households. The applicant has requested additionally three waivers including a reduced rear yard setback of one foot three inches or as a five foot setback as a general development standard, an increased height of 48 feet and four stories while 43 stories is allowed by the zoning ordinance and an increased floor area ratio or FAR of 2.95 while a maximum of 2.75 is allowed by the general plan land use designation of MXHD. The city is required to grant the requested waivers unless a specific adverse consequence to health or safety would result. Staff have found evidence of no such adverse consequence through staff evaluation. And I'd like to also confirm that the project includes 14 SRO residential units operated at the very low income level, which equates to 20 percent of the number of residential units in the base density plans consistent with the minimum provision of affordable housing required by municipal code and state density bonus law. And the project additionally complies with the objective standards of the side business area improvement plan, main street character zone, which are enforceable under the housing accountability act as objective standards. An arborist report has been submitted indicating that two heritage size trees will be removed due to conflicts with the location of the proposed building and the two trees remaining will be protected as required by conditions of approval. Next slide please. As mentioned, the project includes a total 49 parking stalls. The proposed parking configuration includes stall dimensions of eight and a half feet and width by 18 feet in depth slightly below the standard minimum dimensions of eight and a half in width by 19 foot in depth. The municipal code allows for considerations of such variations should the commission find that the proposed configuration will properly function in quotes, that's what the code states, and not create a safety concern for those traversing the project area. And staff has found this concern regarding the proposed size reduction due to spatial constraints and has found no evidence of any safety concern that would manifest from the proposed parking design. Further mechanical parking has been proposed as allowable by the municipal code for stalls on site and located within an enclosed area. A condition of approval requires submittal of literature, details of the proposed mechanical stacker units for staff review. For the applicant, the applicant has also requested a 32% reduction in standard stall numbers required for parking capacity as allowable by the code. And please note that a total of 49 stalls are proposed. Unfortunately, there was an error in the staff report that the table, the development standards table, had a list of 57, that's erroneous. The total number of parking stalls proposed is 49. The applicant has submitted the parking reduction worksheet required by code and has demonstrated that the supply as allowable would be, could be accommodated to fulfill the parking demand of the project. A trip generation memo prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants projects that the project would generate 26 net new morning peak hour trips and eight net new afternoon evening peak hour trips, which are below the threshold required for preparation of the transportation impact study. An environmental set assessment indicated existing soil contamination. The project will be required to comply with all requirements of the county environmental safety and health division department regarding voluntary cleanup and a condition of approval has been added to this effect. Next slide please. The proposed development project constitutes a project under the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. The project demonstrates consistency with all criteria required for a categorical exemption for a section 15332 the CEQA guidelines class 32 categorical exemption. That is the project would occur on a previously developed urban infill site as no values habitat for endangered rare or threatened species is based on technical studies prepared and this condition would induce no impact to traffic noise, air quality or water quality and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Next slide please. Staff have made findings to support the proposed project. Please note a few corrections to the prepared documents. Please note that the notice of exemption attached to the project application references the applicant as Diana Alfarro who was not affiliated with the proposed project. Please note the corrected party the applicant will be identified in the notice of exemption that staff will correct for filing with the county recorder's office. Additionally please note that the recommended conditions of approval of the project require two corrections. The reference for a single family home in condition of approval number 19 should properly state mixed use project or mixed use development and that's letter a condition of approval number 19 and condition of an approval number 34 and the recommended conditions of approval should be struck from the conditions to do its inapplicability. With that noted staff recommends the planning commission recommends that the planning commission acknowledge the environmental determination and staff additionally recommends that the commission move to approve the request for special use permit, design permit, non-residential demolition authorization permit, residential demolition authorization permit, plot line adjustment and heritage tree removal permit based upon the findings included and the conditions of approval attached to the staff report with the corrections that staff mentioned just a few moments ago. Next slide please. Staff and the applicant are available to answer questions and thank you very much for your time. This concludes staff's presentation. Thank you Mr. Meyer. Excellent report. At this time I'd like to come back to the commission and ask if there are any specific questions prior to receiving a report from the applicant. Okay commissioner Dawson. Yeah thank you staff for that report. I just wanted a little bit of clarification. The way that I understand code currently is if there is no limit to the number of SRO units in a project is that correct? That's correct. Yeah there's a theoretical limit it's theoretically unlimited correct. Okay so this project could have been built without the density bonus is that correct? So one item that's needed to be mentioned is that the base density plans that are produced for the project are required to be fully conforming to all development standards and so as stated in code and as the staff report cites code sections the density bonus units are based on the base density plans which again are required to be fully conforming to all development standards and so with that in mind the number of base density units prepared is 70 and so the density bonus number is derived from that base density number. Yeah absolutely I'm clear on how the density bonus works with on the base density. I'm just a little I'm trying to understand why the applicant was it because if there's no limit on SRO units and they could build 105 units why we wouldn't be requiring 20 percent affordability on the entire project like it didn't need to go through the density bonus project I'm trying to understand that. Right so the number of affordable units is based on the base density plans and that's a requirement you know both in the code and and that's the design of the project results from that. I can jump in there too so thanks Tim that's that's all correct but for SROs in the general plan designation for this parcel in particular there is an FAR so that's the flurry ratio that limits the number of units that can be in that building. We've had that in our code for several years I think since 2020 when we started having these mixed use projects in like the CC zone district where there is no density and people were asking for density bonuses and we were trying to figure out how to what to apply the density bonus to so I think around 2020 we added to our code that an applicant would be required to prepare base density plans and we would determine what that base density is by way of the objective standards that you would apply to the property and any FAR that would be applicable as well. So we've had that in our code for some time and then that also just got applied to the state law as well so legislation was just approved that basically mimicked our language that we had in the in the municipal code and basically says the same thing that if there is no density specified in the general plan that we will prepare base plans to determine what that density is and that that base density would act as the density upon which we would apply the density bonus and then also the inclusionary units for that that's for our code too so it's not that there is just an unlimited density for SROs it's that SROs one bedroom units other units are allowed to exceed the density in the general plan if that is applicable. So that's what we've applied in this scenario. Okay thanks that helped. Thank you. Commissioner Mercedes Miller? Yeah I want to echo Commissioner Dawson's compliments to the staff on the excellent staff report really great work very thorough. I had a question about the reduced rear setback because I understand that the code requires five feet but it's been reduced been a request for a waiver to reduce to one foot three inches. Are there any fire code issues with respect to that setback that need to be addressed or have been addressed? That's my question. Right thank you for that question Commissioner the the project plans have been reviewed by the fire department and the fire department hasn't expressed any any concern and it's noted that the existing structures to the rear are located a significant distance away from the property line and I think to answer briefly the fire department has had no concerns with the proposed design. Thank you. I had one other question about the automatic parking system or stacked parking system. I was curious about this particular product so I went to the website from the manufacturer's website and it appears that the stacker model specified for this project is one that typically specified for and it needs an attendant it's it followed under the you know attended parking and I'm wondering if staff has considered that or the owners consider that in choosing this product for this project. Right so one of the conditions of approval for the project was submittal of details or literature regarding the final stack parking design and if concerns arise related to the design as proposed staff or have the ability to request changes to that model and so I think for that question it probably deferred to the applicant if they have additional comments or insight lent to the model that's being selected for the stack parking. Thank you for that answer. Could you refer me to the conditional approval that you're you're discussing that? Sure. I may have missed that in my review. Right let's see I have it here. So okay it's a condition of approval number 30 which I think I'll look at it. Okay thank you very much here. Commissioner Kennedy. Commissioner Kennedy did you have a question? Hey can you hear me now? Yes. Great presentation Tim thank you. I have two questions one I'm working on understanding the parking calculations and it looks like of those total 49, 35 of those are like for the residential units is that right after the reductions? The parking calculation so I'm looking at just the page GP 0.02 like project info. Okay sure yeah right so the look here so the okay zooming in here so the the total number of acquired parking stalls per standard code provisions are the 53 parking spaces for let's see for the residential units and it was nine for the commercial kind of space and that's a total of 62 and through the request for the 32 percent which is applicable for the standard code requirements that comes down to 42 total and the applicants proposed 49 in total and so I I don't believe and again the applicant can lend more insight on this I don't believe that an actual kind of program for parking allocation or kind of parking I guess designation of individual spots has been proposed I haven't seen that I believe that the way the parking program has been put together so far it's it's all kind of shared parking that's within the code requirement for total number if that parking I guess configuration design has been updated since the plans were presented again maybe that's something that the applicant can speak more about. Okay sounds good where I'm headed with this is the current code requires like 12 percent of EVSE EV chargers installed for residential and that's why I was asking that question I'm thinking about maybe some already be chargers for this project. Sure thank you second question is just regarding like traffic impacts and neighborhood impacts is there currently residential permit parking on Stanford I meant to go over there and look but I didn't have time to do that. Right yeah there's currently no residential permit parking in the neighborhood at all and that question had been raised as part of this project one of the concerns of the residents was potential loss of on-street parking and the applicant had originally actually broach the idea of a permit parking program the the requirements for establishing a permit parking are though are kind of rigorous and they require that the neighborhood itself to initiate that permit parking program and a two-thirds vote of the neighborhood to approve and the there's funding that's required to be compiled and put together and presented so it's kind of a again a lengthy set of requirements as of the present time parking in the neighborhood. So to be clear I wouldn't expect that to happen on the paper that but that would be a good question. Right we're parking issues that arise in the future. Right right okay and then just finishing off on that a lot of these projects like a literature portal with residents right behind it I understand the residents are concerned about traffic and stuff so have there been any conversations with the applicant about fall downs where we're going to show some improvements or we're going to hope less in that effect. Right one of the required off-site improvements that I didn't mention in my presentation is that there's a required bulb out to be installed at the corner of Stanford and Water Avenue to kind of mitigate what otherwise might be kind of a fast traffic movement on southbound Stanford Avenue and there's also a requirement for a dedicated left turn lane on eastbound Water Street onto northbound Stanford Avenue which again is intended to help save travel through the area for both pedestrians, bicyclists as well as motorists. Oh great thank you I just missed it I'm glad that it's in there already here and I appreciate your answer to the questions thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. I have a question really following up on what I guess is a lot of our concerns which is how parking is going to be managed acknowledging that this is early in the project but I am curious about which of the tenants will have access to parking how that will be managed and I also that you know includes for me how the property is going to be managed in general. I know that there is a requirement for a property management plan which is really important but managing this property at this density in this location I think is going to be really important so I'll be curious to hear what the applicant has to say about that. Okay any other questions from the commission? Seeing none we'll get a presentation from the applicant. Hello my name is Omar Hassan I'm a designer here at workbench are you all able to hear me could I get a thumbs up or I see nodding great awesome well thank you very much for having us tonight and thank you Tim Mayor you promised a thorough presentation and you delivered so we're going to fly through these slides pretty quickly and thanks in advance Sam for advancing the slides for me and we're really excited to be here and talk about the Stanford Studios project it's something we've been working on for you know almost a year now if we jump to the next slide I want to start with the project statement and this is really the inception of the project overall which was to provide Santa Cruz with thoughtfully designed housing that is respectful of local needs and you know the developer Andy he's lived in town for almost 15 years the workbench team is a local team you know we really want to be a part of the solution to the housing challenges we're facing here in Santa Cruz and we're excited about how this project can contribute if you jump to the next slide and maybe skip to one more we got a lot of title slides in here it's very design oriented you know this is pulled from the Santa Cruz housing blueprint and it's part of the inception of the program which is Santa Cruz needs smaller units like SROs for retirees and students so families can occupy single family homes where these groups presently reside and you know that's something that we keep in mind as we're working on this project if you jump to the next slide I'm not going to read all of these points this will be provided to everyone to dive into more but you know the key takeaways providing you know smaller housing units reduces the cost of the housing and provides more attainable affordable housing it meets a need that is not currently being met in Santa Cruz with a unique housing type and it helps local people find places to live you know young people growing up in Santa Cruz who want to move out of home and find a place to land in Santa Cruz are having a hard time doing that now and we think this project is part of the solution um next slide please Tim's done a great job of setting up you know where this project is located in Santa Cruz just piggybacking off of that you know we're kind of on the edge of this midtown neighborhood on the border of this commercial area along Water Street which is that major thoroughfare and on this single family neighborhood just to the top of the page here really in a walkable bikeable you know public transportation oriented site that is kind of rare in Santa Cruz if you hop to the next slide again just hammering home the idea that you know workbench is a Santa Cruz local firm and we all live in this community and we're excited to see something happening on this site if you hop to the next slide I'm not going to read all of these stats because again Tim did a great job talking about you know all of these points just you know key takeaways three three levels of housing over a ground floor commercial podium with parking there's a 20 very low income units being provided and there will be you know per SRO code there is required 24 hour on-site management and there is a manager's unit provided in the floor plants and that's a part of the building design hop to the next slide just talking a little bit more about the commercial space and really envisioning this as as a potential neighborhood hub and an amenity to the community overall and then again some of the stats on the parking that you know may be outdated I would defer to what Tim has pulled out as the latest greatest if you hop to the next slide just taking a look at who we think will live in Stanford Studios the ULI prepared a document about micro units and SRO housing and you know the primary profile for people living here are young professionals young singles people under age of 30 but there is a secondary market for couples or roommates or even older people who are looking to downsize and you know the major incentive of going small is to find something more affordable and it provides people the opportunity to live alone where they otherwise might have to have multiple roommates and these types of projects do well in really highly walkable energetic neighborhoods with access to services and commercial spaces and essentially you know exactly where this project is cited next slide please this is a look at a typical unit and we're you know really early in the design phases here but taking a stab at something that is designed to work really well and efficiently in a small amount of space and so each unit has an efficiency kitchen and a private bathroom as well as a living slash sleeping space on the left there you see an idea about creating a bed note to get some privacy for people that might be sharing this space but you know really trying to optimize this small footprint and and provide as much storage and clever design as we can to make it very livable next slide please so Tim again did a really great job talking about you know this site has been a kind of a a blighted site with you know junk cars and other you know dilapidated buildings on site and we're really excited to be seeing something new coming to this area of town you can see dash to the north of the site is not the subject of tonight's meeting but it is a future project on a parcel that is owned by the same developer and if you jump to the next slide there's a vision of what this future project could be and the intent is that this is kind of a buffer site so the idea is that the Stanford studios you know maximizes density and capitalizes on that urban frontage and that future project is really envisioned as a buffer kind of mediating between the single family residences and the density of the studio's building one more slide you have a good diagram here showing the stepping down of the scale of the building and how you know an attempt to again maximize density on water street and kind of drop down that density as you go down Stanford Ave and then one more slide you'll see the shadow studies from our project and how even in the winter the majority of the shadows from this four-story building are falling on that future buffer site and so this was a really well received in our community meetings and it's a really clever strategy that the developers put together to try and minimize the impact and be really sensitive of how this new project will affect the neighborhood one more slide please so you know just some thoughts about how this project is really envisioned to be a good neighbor and I won't talk about these because we have a lot of good graphics that support some of these so if we just keep hopping forward to the next slide traffic and parking is something we've already heard a lot about if you go one more slide you know we are trying to make really great connections here for people that want to live in a car-free community and we're really disinvent incentivizing cars by charging for parking separate from the residences we are actually thinking about providing priority to residents that apply without owning a vehicle which you can do and we're trying to target people that want to live in Santa Cruz and drive less and bike more or walk more this is a super walkable part of town and that's really the target audience for this project if you go to the next slide in our community meeting this is what we got a lot of the feedback about and Tim Mer talked a lot about this you know there was one of the concerns we heard several times was about the lack of a left turn lane off of water street and our project team you know we push for this and we lobby for this and we would love to see that incorporated into the project another point we think that's worth talking about is since submitting this project initially AB 2097 has gone into effect which would significantly reduce the parking required for this project as it qualifies for AB 2097 which essentially mean only providing EV and ADA parking the project team has elected to maintain the originally proposed amount of parking and we are meeting city code requirements with the amount of parking we are proposing currently next slide please so these are some of the strategies Tim already did talk about for reducing parking and this is all provided in our parking reduction worksheet one more slide please it's a super walkable area I can't hammer this home enough like there are very few areas in Santa Cruz that have as many major groceries and amenities nearby one more slide will show the bike transit times from this location and you know within 30 minutes you're getting to some of the major destinations in Santa Cruz Santa Cruz has the third highest percentage of workers commuting via bicycle and we hope that Stanford studios can take advantage of this network of bike paths and then one more slide the site is also located really close to major transit stop and has access to some of the best of Santa Cruz's public transportation and and really can take advantage of that just based on its location one more slide forward please I won't get into too much detail here because Tim Merritt did talk a lot about this just showing the how the parking garage is accessed as well as some of the bike parking provided and bike amenities for the residents one more slide please I think this was our key point as we were thinking about this project is you know more parking equals more traffic equals more impact and our goal really is to appeal to people that want to live in a car free community this is a walkers paradise a bikers paradise and so less parking equals less traffic equals less impact one more slide please so getting into some of the design strategies and you can skip ahead to the next one you know looking at midtown it's a super vibrant part of town lots of beautiful colors really strong architectural style murals tile accents on the walls lots of great planting it really embodies that kind of Santa Cruz vibe if you go one more slide you'll see an image of our massing and you know we really put a lot of effort into carving away at that what could be a bulky massive building and that area represented in blue shows how we're stepping back the project as much as we can and carving out to create light and bring greenery and pockets of outdoor space along the pedestrian experience those orange kind of zigzags are highlighting the articulation we're proposing to create kind of a distinct building identity and something that's different than the typical flat formulaic building that we see a lot of nowadays one more slide please looking at how the ground floor is being articulated you know we put a lot of effort into creating some visual interest creating that really great pedestrian experience that upholds the goals of the general plan and kind of brings that vibrancy and urban quality to Water Street that we think it's dying for and you know adding multiple points of greenery at multiple levels of the building one more slide please I think we can skip past these slides because Tim did a really great job walking us through the floor plan so you could go ahead one more just you know really highlighting the the commercial space on water and and the terrace available to residents on level two and kind of a double loaded corridor orientation of the building one more slide please and now getting into the exterior design as I am almost out of breath one more slide please so looking for a local material precedence as you all know Santa Cruz has a super eclectic style you can find a precedent for any style you want to pursue there's a lot of great examples of mid-century modern buildings a lot of mission style really great stucco buildings there's also this great sort of ag heritage with ucsc and great uses of wood all around town so if you go to the next slide you'll see our proposed material palette is really inspired by this we're proposing a lot of white fiber cement white stucco looking to introduce warmth with some wood siding in the soffits and in the walls in select areas looking for opportunities to introduce colorful pattern wall tile at you know the entries of buildings and and moments of kind of human scale interaction and pattern metal screens so really trying to pull from all of those precedents that we saw just ahead one more side please so this is the last look at the site you've seen this a few times now and one more step forward is the renderings it's not nearly the same effect tim mayer really spoiled the surprise it's so fun to go from the former site to the new one you see this cool building anyways so this is uh you know and sam you can kind of just step through these as we go forward the the proposed design you can see sort of that articulation and building identity we're trying to create here those moments of warmth in the wood siding and soffits this is the commercial frontage here that we're really imagining will contribute to that kind of activation on water street and bring some warmth and light to the area and encourage pedestrian use on water street you can take yeah thank you this is a look at the residential lobby and then a closer look at the commercial space and the associated outdoor dining spaces and now one more slide forward so I know I talked really fast I really appreciate everyone's time and patience and attention you know our final three points is you know the goal of this project is to provide attainable housing for the community to minimize the negative impact on the neighborhood and to be attentive to local concerns and you know we're really excited to see this project come as far as it has and we're hoping that it'll make a big impact on the housing needs in Santa Cruz and really appreciative of everyone's time tonight so thank you very much thank you for that uh presentation that was great this is a public hearing and at this point I would like to open the public hearing by starting out asking how many people believe they would like to speak to address this item could you please raise your hand I know it's hard to tell right away trying to make an estimate we have quite a few participants tonight um I'm going to uh limit public comment to two minutes um and uh with that with uh tests we'll open the public hearing and um chair just so that everyone knows our timer has kind of a bad reaction was zoomed so when the two minutes is up you'll hear me say time we're going to do it the old-fashioned way okay here's our first speaker okay go ahead and please identify yourself yes thank you my name is Ryan Mechel I'm calling in as a neighbor and community resident I just want to say I have seen a lot of housing projects come through Santa Cruz in my time here and I know you have as well I just want to say I truly love this one I think it might be my favorite and I would love to see these all over Santa Cruz the emphasis on like a car light design emphasis of activating that water street to pedestrians low impact on the surrounding community the bike stores I could go on and on truly about this project and how much I love it it's something that appeals to me I'm a young professional living in Santa Cruz I don't own a car I get around by bike like this is the project for me and there's a lot of other people like me looking for something like this in Santa Cruz I would want to be able to move out of the house that I'm in right now sharing with two other people unrelated to me to make room for a family that could live here instead and having opportunities like these come up throughout Santa Cruz provides that option for students for young professionals like the developer and staff were saying for the people who don't need a whole house or don't want a whole house or don't want you know the higher housing costs this is a perfect perfect project for people like me and it's a great fit for Santa Cruz so I'm totally on support of the staff's recommendation and I do hope you approve this thank you so much thank you for your comment go ahead mr or easy hi thank you I am a member of the community here in my neighborhood and I wanted to first commend Andy Goldberg the developer he has met with us a couple of times all along the his planning and he's met with neighbors he's been very receptive no we don't want this gigantic building there but we understand housing's needed it's somewhere he has put some good design elements into this for us a couple comments I feel it was I can't understand how the traffic impact could be denied that was really dismissive by planning I don't know there's going to be a huge traffic impact no matter what even 49 spaces or whatever all coming into stanford avenue it's going to be really bad for our neighborhood and for people trying to use the arterial of water street also the one and a half foot setback that's being asked for that's fine with the promise of what the future development's going to be on the other parcels which is promised to be two story duplexes with ad use so great so we won't need a huge setback on the north side but we don't know if that the future promised development is going to happen on the other lots between stanford and branza 40 please I will rally to the city to get one of our bike share stations right there and very prominent I wanted to also mention I'm hoping that the parking spaces included in the plans do not include the parking spaces directly on water street because we as the active cyclists on this side of the town and people who use it are hoping to get those parking spaces eliminated on waters safety thank you for listening to me and let's go forward thank you let's see next we have phone number ending in 0193 please go ahead identify yourself please and you are muted here you go good evening my name is Henry Hooker and I'm calling on behalf of Santa Cruz Yambi in support of this project we've set a letter of support so I'll simply emphasize here that this is an example of the type of project that our city desperately needs to respond to the housing and climate crisis near jobs and schools and public transit and it facilitates a car-free lifestyle respectful of its neighbors and provides a hundred and five much needed homes we urge the planning commission to move the permits forward on this project thank you thank you for your comment we have a wochi you next my can you hear me thank you okay thank you um I have I'm trying to figure out you on the commercial picture you show a bistro but there is no parking so where are the people if you're going to have commercial space down there where are people going to park because even if there's parking on water street that's only like five max four maximal spaces so where are these people who are going to go to the bistro or going to go to a paint store or whatever is going to go in there where are they going to park it's my question thank you thank you and next we have um Susan more you are yes um hi um I live in the neighborhood and I just had one question about the traffic flow um how will people I I'm glad that there'll be a left hand turn into stanford but how would one make a left hand turn out of stanford onto water street is there going to be some kind of uh you know traffic uh changes to allow a left hand turn out of stanford avenue so um that's my question thank you thank you uh uh raffa sonnenfeld you're not you're next yes uh thank you um I'm just calling in on behalf of imb law um to remind the commission that under the housing accountability act um because the um city staff has determined this project uh is consistent with the objective planning standards that um the city is required to approve it and uh can that reduce its density or or make any um changes that would make it infeasible to develop I think this is a great project for city of santa cruz and it sounds like um there are lots of folks who are supportive of it so um looking forward to your approval this evening thank you thank you for your comments uh alley spearman I think it's safferman sorry about that please go ahead hi my name is alley safferman I'm calling in on behalf of the housing action coalition I just want to echo um some previous comments I heard tonight uh ryan's uh definitely in support of the staff recommendation only caveat wish the density was a lot higher you know we're housing around 100 people it'd be great if it was more like a thousand uh but amazing design really excited to see it developed and approved thank you thank you uh next we have michael finari please go ahead thank you welcome um hi yeah I'm just um um I'm curious there's there's a plan to have lower density on the north part of this development but there is no commitment there's nothing in my mind to um be confident that in a year or two years three years from now there won't be plans for another three four five six story building behind this proposed development I guess that's my my major concern are there any comments about that thank you for your comment I am not seeing um any more members of the public but I want to um allow for a moment to raise your hand and uh speak with us okay seeing none oh did I hear somebody test yeah there is a member of the public to just raise their hand okay thank you I don't see them please go ahead hi my name is sue terrence I'm in the neighborhood as well um I think a lot of things have been incorporated to consider neighborhood needs I am concerned that um you know there's a lot of talk about how the rena numbers have um are much greater for the next cycle but the next cycle starts in 2024 and uh in this project 14 units are scheduled to be very low income that means there's 91 units that will not count toward the new rena numbers um the 14 units will count toward this cycles very low income but since very low income is the only category that we haven't already met it means that there are many developments that are the numbers aren't counting at all so it's kind of a developer's loophole that all of these things that are are being built are satisfying um none of the rena numbers do you uh maybe I haven't expressed that very well but um it it just seems to me like we are adding huge numbers without um regard to what it's going to mean when we get our next rena cycle um because there are so many in this cycle that are not really being counted at all thank you thank you for your comment are there any other members of the public that would like to address the commission this evening leaving just a little bit for the delay but seeing none uh with that we'll close the public hearing and uh thank you everyone for your comments uh at this point we'll return to the commission and um ask if uh in any commissioners would like to start misha gordon um mine's both i think it was a great presentation i um live in the neighborhood and you know it is a blighted area so i really appreciate um the developer um making this move um my question is pretty specific um we've worked on a lot of projects primarily older buildings that don't have chases sized appropriately and don't have or don't have them at all and this causes issues and limitations for the ground floor tenants um in in reviewing the drawings um I didn't see a chase designed in to accommodate for um the restaurant and cafe space and I'm just wondering if this was something that um that was considered by the design team um in regards to making that space more functional now and and giving commercial space option um for the future and if it wasn't considered I guess my question would be would you be amenable to adding this to as a conditioned uh approval during the construction drawings um development um question gordon can you hear me this is jimily speaking yes hi okay hey um I think we have we might not have that all detailed but we have thought through if there's a like if there's a restaurant tenant there that we're going to need to accommodate for exhaust and um chases and vents and things like that so it's not detailed but we are thinking about it okay would you be amenable to adding into the conditions of approval and I can check with the developer um and let you know in just a moment yeah okay thank you that's all that that was mainly my it comes up so much in our in our world so I just want to bring it up it's a good point I'm going to move on and then um if we get an answer to that from the developer um please let me know and uh we'll come back in the meantime I'd like to identify commissioner kennedy hi so um I also just really like this project it seems to fit into Santa Cruz and I just feel like the site is really needing um some rehabilitation so I wanted to point out the road street trees on the on the frontage there that's going to make a huge impact on this neighborhood this neighborhood really needs some tender loving care and during the streetscape um responding to the public there was one question about the rena numbers and I just wanted to point out there's a great dashboard online if you just type in like California housing dashboard it's kind of like a scorecard for the cities where we are with our past and future rena goals so I found it really helpful because this confused that kind of me so I'm good check it out it's really helpful to understand what we've built so I'm really in favor of moving project forward the one thing I would like to add is some additional electric vehicle charging spaces and this is a cost but it's a small cost and it's an investment in apartment dwellers being able to charge their EV overnight where they live um and I just think it's really important as we build parking garages acknowledging the efforts that have been made to minimize parking it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to prepare for like one in five so I'd like to propose what's emotions made just boosting that up a little bit that'd be two additional EV installed spots from nine so I'm bringing it up now instead of just as a friendly amendment to ask the developer how they would feel about that and inferring that it's uh you know small cost but not a project killer great thank you uh Commissioner Dawson yeah thank you um I do also want to um just commend the developer um I too am in the neighborhoods here on the east side very close to this project um and uh I've heard a lot of neighbors say that the developer and the design team has really gone out of the way to try to make the accommodations I think that that is great um I think the design is really good as well I do want to just enter into the record and just be very clear to the public and remind all of the commissioners that with NC bonus projects we are not getting 20 percent affordable on the total units in this project here we're getting 13.3 percent affordable units that is the letter of the law absolutely but I just want to again point out that the the development that we are doing this city is vastly under serving the deed um and I think that our council members and the commissioners where we can should think about ways where we can increase that one of the ways we could increase that and the city attorney has already weighed in on this is that we could choose to try to move forward a policy that for density bonus project the required um inclusionary on the base density would be higher so that in the end on the total units we would be getting our 20 percent inclusionary which was the intent so I just want to again make that very clear to the public that we are not getting 20 percent and yes it is the letter of the law we are getting 13.3 percent so that is always tough for me knowing the the vast need for low income housing in the city and then secondly I do want to say that I have given myself a crash course in trip generation and and cumulative impacts of projects over the last week or so and I think the city is really I think this project presents us with an opportunity to perhaps continue this project so that we can get a real handle on the traffic impact and a real transparent calculation of traffic impact for these types of projects we have two of the largest developments outside of the downtown area going in right next to each other and nowhere in any of the analyses are we looking at the cumulative traffic impacts of those two projects so I think in the long run you know this is going to move forward but I think the city really puts ourselves at risk with this cataporal full exemption by not having a better more transparent um and and kind of cutting edge best practices around cumulative impacts there's documented peer-reviewed papers that say there there is some real issues with the kind of traditional way that traffic impact has been done including the way that we do it in this city and cities are moving away from that because it's vastly underestimating the number of trips so I think we have an opportunity here to take a step back get our ducks in the row for these types of projects we're going to have more and more projects like this but again I want to emphasize that these are the two like this over 250 units um going in right next to each other and we don't really have any cumulative impact analysis of that so um I'll leave my comments there thank you thank you uh Commissioner Paul Hamas thank you and thank you to Tim and Samantha for uh the presentation and also to uh Mr. Hassan and you know the rest of the applicant team for uh providing us with a pretty thorough look at what this project is going to look like um I would echo the rest of the commission's comments I really like this project I think that uh it's a good area to do this and I think that um you know the design concept that everything looks really good and I really support this project I'm curious um I'm not sure who on the development team um I should ask this I'm just curious uh we got some figures on what the very low income units are going to rent for I'm curious if there's any figures for the other 91 if there's any ballpark for that is is uh Commissioner Paul Hamas this is Jamili Cannon on the design team um let me check with the developer and I'll answer that and then when you're done with questions I have answers to the other amendments as well or uh suggestions but you can go ahead and ensure okay great yeah um yeah no no problem and then um my next question I would echo uh Commissioner Dawson's comments on just affordability percentages um and I guess my question is is there any way to increase the number of affordable units I mean obviously I don't want to make this project infeasible but I wouldn't feel good going to bed tonight if we didn't at least ask and I know that's you know a bigger question uh that you may not have an immediate response for but um you know I thought I'd throw it out there thank you thank you for your comments Commissioner Maxwell yes thank you um first of all thanks for the presentation thanks Samantha for this slide uh assistance with the emergency um and for everybody's uh work tonight I definitely want to again project is beautiful man I don't I've sat through so many uh presentations at this point and it was beautiful um definitely parking things to be quite an issue especially if we are going to add the commercial uh spaces I my kids went to school across the streets uh for elementary and I know that intersection really well and especially when we're considering a 3-1 water going in I mean wow I don't know why we don't get a traffic study um well maybe I don't know about continuing this item to get one seems like the momentum is pushing forward that being said um we should be careful because this is going to be impacted impacting a major intersection in our city um and hopefully everybody ride the bike but we can't promise that um definitely regarding the affordability um as we just saw our our new mayor and city council required 20 percent on the south of Laurel project plan we don't know how it's going to work out but they passed it in council we are getting 13.3 percent which seems like comitial pool name is that I I don't know if I could go walk away from this meeting proving this project's based off of 13.3 percent affordability when we are in emergency housing crisis we all agree on that state the state agrees on that that's why we're in the position we are in right now um I'm wondering if the applicant would be willing to at least meet at that 15 percent which would be just two additional units that way I could approve this project go to sleep well tonight and look forward to seeing this project really manifest because I think it's going to be beautiful so um that that would be my request and I look forward to hearing from anybody else thanks okay um yeah I'd like to follow up on on some of those as well and first of all I really want to congratulate um the team it really is a beautiful project um and I'm really it's really happy to see it um I also um understand for the neighbors and um that this really is a significant change and you know change it's a big change even if it is exactly the type of change that we chose when we approved the general plan we decided we don't want the growth that we have to accommodate in our neighborhoods we want it on our corridors and um I know a lot of us were hoping we would have beautiful buildings and I think this one really manages to pull that off and um we are going to provide housing that has been so sorely lacking for the singles for seniors for some students and the whole idea there it's been mentioned a couple of times but um we've been under building for this population and as a result we've got overcrowded single family homes um housing people in roommate situations who would prefer not to um so this is a really exciting project and um I know some comments said they they wished there was family housing included and I I really disagree with that I think this is um the right unit mix um uh for this spot and I also think it's going to be a real leader in terms of helping us move away from such a car dependent culture um so I'm really happy um to see that um I also feel like uh one of the things I was excited about I spent years trying to place people who um to find places for people who had section eight um housing and there's so few single family or uh single room occupancy units available that I do expect that there's going to be this could be a resource um and uh for additional people that will not be de-restricted affordable but it will be a resource um uh more informally and I'm glad to see that as well uh so uh with that I think Ms. Cannon was going to respond to uh some of the questions that commissioners have come up with yes happy to respond commissioner conles um so on the commercial the commercial chase that commissioner gordon asked about we're happy to add that as a condition of approval um I think we've we have plans for where to put it we just don't have it in yet um like not formally in the drawings but we have thought through it and happy to add that um the ev charging stations if you wanted to have a condition of approval be that we had two more so we had 11 instead of nine we're happy to accommodate that um andy the developer has also said he's gonna continue to look at pursuing even more of those if we can um so we will do everything we can in our power to get more there um but happy to be at 11 and then on the rental prices um market rate for for this um not affordable units right now is around $2,000 a month and that's what we would like to see as well um I think that Commissioner Conway you also brought up earlier just about the property management in particular and uh we will have an on-site manager and a professional management company along with the rest of the requirements in the property management plan okay thank you for that and Commissioner Maxwell you have your hand up yeah I think um I guess I should have asked with if we could add within the conditions of the approval that the applicant include an additional two affordable units um very low or low but an affordable unit included in the conditions of approval so we take it to a total of 16 units if they're willing I can answer oh can you all hear me Mr. Gordon it's really low please go ahead um we are not getting an audio is this um one second I think that Tim is going to try to answer this question on the affordability component and here's the audio he's in here me now there it is thank you so much hi I'm Tim I'm one of the owners at workbench and I've been working on this project along with the project team and and Andy for a while um since we started so I just want to talk about the affordability component um you know we at workbench have a lot of projects thousands of units and we on as many projects as we can have an ethos to create the highest affordability possible we have projects that are 100 affordable we have projects that are workforce housing homeless service housing all kinds of things that really serve the community and that's always our number one goal um the reality is with the way interest rates are going cost of construction as we all know through the roof there's a tipping point in every project where you know if we start to add an affordability component that is too great the project can't ever get built because it doesn't have the correct amount of rent versus cost it's a reality that we all live with um and so we look at it a project by project basis for this one unfortunately the levels that it's set at right now are about the the maximum that this project can sustain from affordability component to still keep the non affordable rents as low as possible so you can imagine you know also if we added more affordable components and we're having to raise the rents on the non affordable ones to astronomical levels which is also kind of against our ethos um and so there's a lot that goes into that tons of pro forma analysis tons of financial work and i hope that you can understand that you know it's always our goal unfortunately on this one um it's not a possibility thank you that was um that the that was a good explanation i think most of the people here tonight are um very keen on getting this project built and um not burdening it beyond um uh which to it to an extent that would prevent that so thank you for that answer and also thank you commissioners for your passion for providing affordable housing um at this point in time we have head proposed um a couple of additional items and um which include um the additional uh condition to the i think it's called a haste on the the venting um can we have some draft language proposed for that um maybe mr mayor can come up with that um so we could approve that tonight is that a difficult condition is their standard language um that's that's one of my questions and then it sounds like the um the developer is willing to include some language for that effect i think i'll just add um i think it sounds like it's a pretty specific request and uh i'd actually maybe perhaps ask that commissioner gordon has a draft language that she'd like to um suggest we'd be happy to take that and and you know make sure that the spirit of the condition is is included in the condition itself okay it's a big one for my very first commission meeting um uh i mean hey chamber it's p i remember the one from the uh front street project right this isn't the first time it's come in front of jump in if you have some words um the the commercial space shall be designed with a chase so as to accommodate future restaurant or cafe use something like that that sounds like like the intent um sam did you have a comment on that do you have some words available i'd like to make sure we have the uh condition the language of the condition as close as possible so we can act tonight yeah that thank you commissioner conway that that is a pretty standard condition that we typically apply to these types of projects with commercial spaces so thank you for bringing that up commissioner gordon um we do have some standard language i'm looking it up now and then um if you give me one second then i can read that into the record okay great thank you thank you um and i am um um assuming that we don't have any do we have any commissioners objecting to adding that language um i have not seen a sign of that so we'll just proceed with having that ready for a motion um also um commissioner kennedy you're on the hook for changing the number of chart of chargers is there do you want to propose language for that and it sounds like you're a little bit wiggly but um um first of all test did you get those words no not at all but what i did get from the design team was that they agreed to install 11 instead of 9 which i think that staff can probably just put those numbers into the existing language so long as it's clear with everybody that they said 11 instead of 9 let staff make those changes hey that sounds okay that's fine with me test thank you um and then uh let's see um did uh commissioner maxwell did you want to make a motion about requiring additional units additional affordable units yes so what i'd like to do at this point is to make a motion to approve the staff recommendations with the additional um added language by the two um the chase language as well as the eb language as well as to include that the um applicant that provide two additional affordable units i'll go ahead and second that motion okay um we have a motion on the floor um i think that we have agreement on the um the other modifications to the staff recommendation i'm going to suggest that we have a vote on the um adding two additional affordable units um and handle that matter separately and i have a um so i'm going to treat that as a separate motion and we i think we have a motion on the floor and a second i think just point of order i think somebody would have to let's just just and then we would have to vote on that and then you could vote it that way yeah i think that i think that you're right about that um can i is there someone willing to make a motion um to that effect commissioner polhamas yeah i would just make a motion to separate the affordability motion from the eb and chase motion um is there is there a second for that motion well i like where we're we're going but i think we should have a roll call vote um commissioner max's motion that was there i don't know how i believe that it's true potentially have another motion against the baggage yeah i'm getting that right we've had motions over right other motions on the floor yeah your motion john i am you got it you got to get the split motion vote for the split motion and then you can vote separately on the two things so you were headed that direction and then you got a little side step yeah okay so we have a motion on the floor to split the the motion to the staff recommendation with the two changes and separately vote on the requiring two additional affordable units and we have a motion we have a second on treating it separately also thank you um kid we have a roll call vote test on separating these actions commissioner um Dawson no Gordon yes kennedy yes cd miller yes axwell no oh hey miss hi you missed me one way okay thank you um with that um treating these separately um i think i do need a motion to or do i need a motion it's already been it's already been um included do i have a do i have a motion to require the project to include two additional deed restricted affordable units just for clarity could i get that motion that that motion's already on the floor and it was seconded i wasn't i wasn't sure if it was on the floor with with all of that okay so it's on the floor and um does anybody want to speak further to that motion you know oh yeah go ahead i mean i'll keep saying this is just the basic 15 percent this is like the minimum minimum that we should require for any development um you know it's 20 in visionary and because of the base density issue we've run into this over and over again i don't and i i want to acknowledge the you know the unaffordability the possibility that it won't pencil out but we could make some changes somewhere too worth we're asking two out of 105 extra units it's not asking a lot so i just want to say that like this isn't a 12 unit project and we're asking for two extra this is a 105 unit project and we're asking for two extra we definitely need more than that but that's all we're asking thank you commissioner dawson yeah i i just want to again you know we have to be uh looking at what other municipal the municipalities are doing that are in the highly desirable areas with you know extreme housing costs and one of the ways that they do that all of the kitchen thing approach is by inclusionary and again 20 inclusionary is on our book and the laws have changed since that happened and in order to keep up with the laws um you know we need to be um holding all the first accountable as we can and i just want to also be clear not pencil out um means less profit for the developer so we need to just be clear about the language that we're talking about i think this developer has gone above and beyond to try to address the neighborhood concerns but we are in a housing affordability crisis and we we don't have a lot of space left in sandcrew so every time we put up one of these huge developments and 80 you know 85 87 percent of that development is not affordable um we we can't get that back and i just feel like we're in an emergency and then we have to act accordingly thank you commissioner canady so i just want to respond briefly i do appreciate everyone here's content of doing more affordable housing i do not agree that further burdening market rate projects is the way to do that and i'm thinking of a three one water right there that was two buildings with a big affordable housing you know i just think these market rate projects need to be helped out with a minimum cost you know we should stick with what's on the books i know some people disagree with state law if i don't i think it's fine but that just not personal again and i don't think it's too far but downtown is the perfect example we're in a big market right now partners and then the next day we're 100 affordable i think personally that's more effective and you can see the evidence right in front of you rather than just like taking it out and it's more than a project so that's my response i am in favor of affordable housing not at the cost of reasonable reasons okay thank you i appreciate all the comments on this and i would just like to say that i think that these developers have shown a great deal of integrity i know i've poured over those spreadsheets with analysis of what a project can do and i i really would would caution us to not burden a project and keep it from being built we've approved a number of really nice projects that never have been built so anyway um with that i think oh one more comment uh samantha thank you commissioner conway i just want to read into the record this condition for um creating food service areas for the record if you'd like thank you okay let me know hold that we bifurcated this vote great okay next to you just a second um so tess could you call the role uh please on the motion to require two additional affordable units it's commissioner dawson yes orden no kennedy no axwell yeah cd miller no wolhamus no conway no okay thank you um and uh now for the rest of the motion on the floor um uh sam could you read the language yes so the condition would read all commercial spaces shall be constructed to support a future food surface use plans must include ducting and venting plans for all commercial spaces all ducting and venting should be designed to be hidden or incorporated into the building design plans shall also show the locations of grease traps grease lines and grease storage facilities um and that's sort of our standard condition for these types of projects okay and it looks like commissioner gordon is satisfied and yes it does sound like um that is the standard language that i've seen and i'm going to assume that the development team if they don't object as all also is fine with the language we're fine with the language that's great thank you so with that we have a motion and a second on the floor to um approve the staff recommendation as amended test you have any would you like any clarification about exactly what it is we are voting on and then that's perfectly clear you're voting on the main uh the staff recommendation with the addition of those two conditions conditions of approval great thank you do any commissioners have any comments uh commissioner dosan i see your hand up that's old yeah i just wanted to circle back um on the cumulative traffic impacts and the fact that i do think um although i'd like to see more affordability obviously that we're not going in that direction but i do have real pause supporting this project with the traffic impacts and the way that we are in the city currently um you know we're not the the traffic memo to me is not transparent enough and clear enough about why certain multipliers were used versus others and i see nowhere in the document where we're looking at the cumulative traffic impacts of these two large projects outside the downtown area on this quarter as everyone's pointed out this is a way a lot of people get from one side of the city to the other and if if we're moving forward with projects and we don't have a true holistic picture of the traffic impact so we can mitigate them in the best way possible i think you know it's it's going to be something that we pay for for a long long time and so um i have real issue with the traffic study and i just wanted to put that into the record um and i'm going to um not be supporting moving this forward i would prefer to continue it so that we could get our ducks in a row and make sure that we're totally in line with the sequel categorical extension oh my god okay um uh okay are there any other commissioners that want to comment on the motion on the floor which is to approve the stacker staff recommendation as amended uh commissioner max well yes um again obviously portability is number one on my plate obviously after tonight and before then even uh i definitely want to concur with commissioner docked and that i think as someone who has driven there there's so much going on there's so much going to go on there and that's as far as traffic goes let alone parking i mean i i would like to have seen a little bit more work done and to really have seen how we're really going to mitigate the the traffic so i also will not be supporting this motion based off of that hey thank you any other commissioners have a comment before we vote on the motion on the floor with that test could you call the roll call vote to miss your Dawson no orton yes kennedy yes max well no cd miller yes all of us yes conway yes with that the motion passes um again thank you everybody neighbors developers um interested members of the community we really appreciate your attention um to this matter and um with that we'll we'll move on um are there any information items tonight yes thanks commissioner conway you know i don't know how to get that little yellow hand up so i always just have to put my hand up sorry about that it's almost absolute info so never mind yeah that's true um i do have a couple announcements just want to let you know it's coming up um we have um well first i want to give you an update on 126 eucalyptus um that project was heard by the california coastal commission it was appealed to the coastal commission by a neighbor and the coastal commission found that there was no substantial issue so it never it went on to a full hearing before the coastal commission um basically they ruled against the appeal and upheld the approval um but the neighbor has um also filed a sequel lawsuit but the city um for the project as well so we'll be working on them um and then february 23rd this next week we have the downtown library affordable housing project um that started out as a uh project that only required approval by the planning commission but it has been called up by the city council so the planning commission will be hearing that item and making a recommendation to the city council on that project um and then on march 2nd that's our first in-person meeting we've got 530 front street that's an eight-story mixed use building that has 276 apartments above ground floor commercial that's at the corner of front street and soquel um so it's one of those riverfront projects where they're going to be filling the levy and providing some um outdoor space on the riverwalk um we also have the rail trail segments eight and nine that will be on march 2nd and um we had planned to bring the parking ordinance which was essentially an ordinance that would codify ab 2097 um but we realized we're not entirely ready for that to be heard yet and so we will be requesting a formal continuance at the march 2nd meeting and i think that's it a lot coming up yes we certainly do thank you for that um and i don't believe we have any subcommittee or advisory bodies uh convene oh i just had a quick question for sam sorry sorry commissioner conway well right ahead sam when could the um when do we think the materials are going to be posted um for the special meeting i've just had a lot of members of the public ask when they think the agenda items and all that is going to be up so i just um was wondering if you had a timeline for that um test would be a good resource for that we would submit them on friday test do you have them posted on friday yes my goal is always to post materials um by four o'clock the friday before the thursday the following thursday meeting so barring any kind of major issue on my part you should see it prior to four o'clock tomorrow okay thanks so much for i it was just good to get that out to the public thanks i appreciate that and commissioner maxwell yeah thank you um i just i was gonna wait till items referred to future agendas because i didn't know where to put this uh request but it's staff um regarding agenda items and really regarding um correspondence public correspondence i know that you guys do your best to get it to us as soon as possible um like for people that were i mean we work on i work north of the week and so coming to get ready for a commission meeting and seeing 34 pages of public correspondence posted an hour or two before or maybe three hours before a meeting is really daunting if i'm trying to do my job correctly and i know you guys do your best but i know that all those that correspondence that we got today was all from september and august of last year so i would just make it if you could like give us as much correspondence as it comes in i know i'm asking you to do more than you already do but it makes my time a little easier to try and like we'll step through everything and still be prepared for the meeting so i would love that i wanted to since you brought that up um this is the clerk uh generally when uh we release it on friday um members of the public uh receive the packet right before you do then you get it the channels are open for them to email us sometimes we get letters not so much anymore i try not to send you guys a ton of stuff if if it's a big item and we get a lot of correspondence i usually try to collect everything from whatever we got over the weekend and give it to you like on a monday and then if there's a whole bunch more i usually try and give it to you by noon on wednesday just because i don't want to send you a whole bunch of emails and have you miss something would you prefer that i that other correspondence was something different but in terms of i anticipate this next meeting we'll probably get a lot of correspondence that's what i'm anticipating so is it sufficient if i provide everything i have the public pretty much has until noon on the day before the meeting to guarantee that their um correspondence will be considered by the the planning commission and after that time i send it off to you guys did you want me to back that up this time i think what happened this time is what there's usually a link to any correspondence that has come up and i think that just wasn't included this time so we got it and kind of very typically it is included though and that's exactly right yeah we but things were done a little differently with this one and i think it was just a an error but um we we would usually provide all of the correspondence that we have received to date at the time you know as an as an attachment to your staff reports you'd be able to sit through that and then just prior to the meeting like tessa saying we will provide you with anything else that we've received between the staff report being posted and the and the hearing date so i i apologize for that and i do um i hear you commissioner max well i'm sorry about um providing all that correspondence last minute hey it's speed i just want to point out the holiday on monday so it's going to be extra tight next week in particular hey thanks for reminding us of that you'll have plenty to read on tuesday okay and i think with that we don't have uh that was a useful item to bring up thank you commissioner max well um and uh but with that uh we will adjourn tonight's meeting thank you all very much we'll see you julie you did a great job thank you