with really powerful and meaningful means of trying to you know to regulate the housing market in such a way that it doesn't cause larger waves of displacement and thus the net effect is not a win for affordable housing that you're ultimately displacing as many or potentially more people than you're putting in through inclusionary provisions in the new development and I just wanted to call our attention to the map that we've been talking about with the objective standards discussion produced by Gretchen Reagan Hart and Diane El Faro you know looking at the legacy in our community of exclusionary zoning and the concern that we have about where the housing is the multifamily housing is that houses the majority of low-income people in the city of Santa Cruz the majority of Latinos in the city of Santa Cruz which is right across the river from the site that's going to be the location of this massive investment of capital and new housing with huge impact potentially of indirect displacement in that neighborhood and so the net effect could be both one of loss of affordable housing as well as demographic impacts in terms of race and class and really vulnerable communities this is a big issue in the Watsonville discussion as well a lot of concern about the impact for the Latino community in Watsonville and I think we face the same issue very much so here with 20% of our population Latino concentrated in the downtown area right within and adjacent to this development and I just want to point out that we see already if you just go to redfin and you look at the sale of multifamily housing over the last four years huge numbers of sales of multifamily houses and you know for people who are concerned about you know what it might mean to preserve existing affordable housing it's painful to see the scale at which a lot of the existing housing is being sold and kind of retrofitted for higher income folks and as a result causing you know these forms of displacement and we're seeing and in conversations with with people with whom I work and who I know and friends of mine who live in some of these units people hearing that there's there's word on the street that this new development is going on and as a result landlords are raising prices and our and or you know investors are coming in recognizing the very meaningful opportunity that they have to upgrade existing affordable housing in the region and so over a number of years we're seeing you know net loss of you know tens even hundreds of units potentially and so and I just want to point out this is a national phenomenon is now the time to invest in multifamily real estate with a tight housing market forcing many to remain renters longer with small communities like ours and suburbs and smaller metros locations for telecommuters units like what we see on the left which previously sold in the 1990s for $400,000 are being upgraded and sold for what here might even be considered given that it's 12 beds and eight beds you know a deal but is ultimately going to displace the residents who are currently there because it's such a major investment opportunity and so just to keep in mind that you know and this is my final slide that there is national conversation there's a regional conversation about how to distinguish between you know really important and needed revitalization and meeting arena numbers with concerns about gentrification and displacement and really powerful tools that are being developed this is just one example in New York City by the Department of City planning not only looking at environmental impacts but displacement impacts of new development recognizing areas that are vulnerable recognizing areas that have concentrations of people of color and low income residents and really kind of valuing the presence of that diversity in race and class terms not only within a particular development area but within you know the larger region where this development is occurring and perhaps including and I don't think this was included in the community comments folks from those communities organizations from those communities you know local residents as we as we've seen in San Jose as we've seen in Watsonville and elsewhere in the conversation about how to make this a really beneficial development for everyone so I just wanted to throw that out there and to say that and I'm gonna just stop sharing my screen that I at the same time am a huge fan of dense affordable development and I'm very excited about the potential for affordability and the replacement of units within the development but to keep in mind these larger conversations and perhaps to include you know a new level of discussion maybe an advisory committee and an analysis of the impact as well as an analysis of potential mitigations that would be meaningful for our city so that's I wanted to throw that in you know as a bullet point of something that would be really wonderful to discuss thank you thank you commissioner Greenberg we'll go ahead and go over to commissioner Schifrin and then if other folks want to have some comments you can go ahead and raise your hand and we'll put you on deck go ahead commissioner Schifrin thank you I want to appreciate the staff report I thought there was a lot of useful information a lot of good a lot of good slides I actually printed the screen many times and I'll I'm sure go back with pleasure to go over some of these drawings that and you know scenarios that have been presented I do have some concerns but I I do want to provide my my own you know some input on these various questions that staff has asked and for me I'll start with an easy one which is the arena location I think it really makes sense to locate the arena between french street and pacific I think that will allow for housing you know higher density housing mostly adjacent to the river where we'll have less of a visual impact on on the adjacent on the on the existing neighborhood but I think that to me makes sense and you know what what I'm hoping we can do tonight and I'm I'm intending to make a motion that recommends to the commission the council a preferred alternative for consideration in the EIR and I think that's important for us to try to do that because once that a preferred alternative is determined and an EIR is prepared on it becomes very difficult to change the components of that alternative because potentially by changing the components on the the EIR has to be done again because it could be needs significant impacts so you know my sense is it makes sense to think about what seems reasonable and go forward with that the the let me go to my the next one where I feel pretty strongly about and that has to do with the proposed circulation and realignments I think it's a real mistake to propose realigning the Laurel Street extension in a way that would remove the existing low-income housing one from my work at the county I know that the there have been attempts over the last number of years to find other locations for that housing it's very difficult to find another location and it will be very difficult to fund the construction of replacement that replacement housing it's difficult enough for the city to get and the city's been very successful with getting funding to subsidize affordable housing for new units but this would not be new units this would be moving existing units to put in a road and I think it'll be very hard to justify and I don't see it happening and I think the uncertainty about whether it will happen or not will make it more difficult to develop the housing sites that are adjacent to it so I'm supportive of relocating Laurel Street extension to provide a more coherent site for high-density housing but I think it should be adjacent to the existing low-income housing rather than adjacent to the hillside that will I think allow the projects to go forward more quickly and it will avoid the reduction in the number of affordable housing units that would result from the plan so that would be that would be a recommendation of mine that we have staff or ask staff or recommend to the council that they approve a preferred alternative with that different realignment in terms of the number of housing units this is a hard one when I talk to the people who I talk to who care about these things and I talk about oh they're just going about 1300 new units yet they start to lunge at my throat so you know density is a very controversial issue I think we need to find a balance and I would support 1600 units 1600 units would provide about 43% of the rena target numbers and I think that's a reasonable amount of housing for a 29-acre site to be providing and so I would recommend and it's you know it's between it's significantly more than the 1300 in scenario one and only 100 less than the 1700 in scenario three so I think from my perspective it's a much more defensible number the biggest concern I have I think is with the towers to me and maybe Santa Cruz has changed too much from the city I did it for a long time and it's what I'm in love with but 20-story towers are appropriate for San Francisco I don't think they're appropriate for Santa Cruz and that's why I asked a question about whether it's you know what how wide the buildings have to go to be able to density have to go to be able to provide that 1600 units I think that's reasonable and I'm supportive of that but it's it's surprising to me talk about having block housing discussed in a negative way since that's all the housing that we have in downtown is what is we don't have towers we have housing you know housing and other structures that cover the site and I think it's possible to design them well and that's what I would support so I don't think it's I think it's it's not going to be very popular to go to 20 stories I'm reminded of the Coast Hotel Project which everybody loved until people saw the EIR and what it would look like and it was ultimately shelved because of the public opposition I think we need to look into the future and try to find some balance about what's going to be acceptable the community fascinated with the proposal or the the presentation that Commissioner Greenberg made about the off-site displacement I think that that is a real issue and the data that she provides is pretty for me anyway persuasive and I think it would make sense to recommend that perhaps the city our city sort of follow a little bit in the footsteps of Watsonville and start to make a serious effort to really look at the potential consequences of the new the plan on displacement in surrounding areas and try to figure out ways to to respond to it finally as might have been indicated from my all my questions about the affordable targets in the Reno numbers I think we if we're going to have this amount of housing in this area we need to increase the affordable housing requirements and and you know have them reflect maybe not on a project by project basis although I think the inclusionary project requirements should tow up certainly in terms of the development in the whole expansion area we should be getting the same proportion of lower low and very low income units as it's being as our targets would would you know direct us to provide any of those are my comments and my intention if if it's acceptable to other commissioners is to make a motion along those lines as a recommendation to the city council for the preferred alternative as this process moves forward okay thank you commissioner shifrin over to commissioner kendy and then commissioner greenberg you're on that all right there's a whole lot here i'll try to kind of condense it but uh be prepared it's going to take a few minutes um so I guess first I just wanted to you know really declare that I find this indirect displacement thing is really important and like I really think that's something we should look at and I appreciate that presentation um I just wonder if that kind of direction needs to come from council like I'd love to see it happen but I think that's where that direction would come from so I um look forward to to hearing more about that and seeing if we can integrate that into our policies here um so I brought a prop my background here is Frank Lloyd Wright's mile high tower and this is a skyscraper that Frank Lloyd Wright I don't know if you can see it you can google it on your own um he designed this in 1956 because Frank Lloyd Wright really got it he knew that in a city your land was going to be a park housing you know or a building or parking and um so I just brought that I was thinking about that we're not proposing a mile high but it's that same trade-off you know I should point out he was hoping for new technology and thought that flying cars would be attaching to this building if it was ever built it was never built but it's still a great plan so um I love those towers as expected and I certainly support the housing numbers in the third scenario the most that we can get down there I'd be up predictably enough to go for a little bit more but that's my take on the numbers and the towers I also want to talk a little bit more about the last step of the downtown plan you know that extension and how well that worked you know approving those close to 200 fully market rate units unlock the door to all these grants for Pacific Station North Pacific Station South on top of it that development package has funded continuing the Maple Street Alley all the way through the mall like this is like a long-term dream so I see this next plan as just doing that again and bigger and better but I want to say that that worked right we approved a project with no affordable housing and the city our awesome staff partly that into all these grants all these money that came into our community to build all that out so you know it's looking at the whole picture I'm glad we're doing that but that's a huge success we just need to keep doing that in my book that was not a failure though some people would disagree with me okay and then my next comment I just love the menu of public benefits I think that's the way to get things done I hear all the time from developers just tell us what we can do and we'll find out how much it costs I have really personally been thinking about teacher housing quite a lot and I just want to put that out there I know there's tons of needy groups but my son just finished pre-kindergarten had a great young teacher for the year kind of dropped into zoom world and worked here for one year and has left so this has been happening since I was a small child in this community and I just wonder if teacher housing is the one that we could put in the zoning or prioritize in that list so that we actually get some because that's that just echoes through the generations here and we can't keep our teachers in this town so I'll throw that out there of course there's all sorts of other needy groups but that one for me is particular salient right now and coming with that is like two to three bedroom units we got to keep on that studios are great but boy do we have a lot of those going into the ground okay let me go back to the list I really like the realignment plan we looked at that with the warrior's stadium and I get it I mean we're not gonna take that building out to put a street there but if you look at the plan it just recovers a ton of wasted land that whole thing is just inefficient in my mind so I really like that I'm excited about that beach connectivity to cliff street that's a really great thing I'll be a little political and saying that I think that's a connection to a future rail station you know down the road so let's keep that in mind on the 30-50 year plan or whenever that's gonna happen but that's just great and re-utilizing that staircase that's there I really like that yeah so building heights I think those towers are fine I think the alternative is the neighborhoods of the corridors and I think that's much worse and I think politically we found out that that's not gonna work so that's the alternative here is this project in the right spot or or housing in the neighborhoods which is a hot button topic in this town or really really bad buildings on the corridors because we have a severe weakness in our planning on those corridors so we would not only be getting buildings we'd be getting really bad building in my opinion so let's do it here this is where we want it what else can I say okay so two more quick ones and these are again are pretty fine grain for zoning discussion but I want to put them out there based on experience we need the bike community in the design of these public spaces like at this level I think the Warriors Stadium you know we wanted to make it kind of a model of bike storage and they had like a bike valet for a while and we put in some bike racks but you know we need people on bikes down here and nobody's locking their bike outside downtown so I don't know how we put that in zoning but just prioritize that above everything else there's plenty of resources in town that could just tell us how to do that perfectly and that comes with design down the road one other minor note when I was on the commission we had a lot of meetings about the beach flats community garden project and they kind of lost some of their land it's a long story but I wonder if there's opportunities to give some of this new land to that group to put a little garden into this neighborhood they're right there already this is a community that even though they're close physically like doesn't really connect to downtown so I just want to throw that out there maybe a little garden plot would be a good use of some of that civic space and give those folks some more land to farm let's see arena location that's easy I think that middle block is a middle block excuse me between the two streets is better just because it's more of a rectangle and I love the civic spaces that's really a grand dream and we see with the resistance to like the you know the library project and all that stuff everyone's saying hey save our farmers to park their parking lot we need a civic space I agree like since the earthquake we haven't had a big civic plaza and it'd be cool to get one finally down here so those are my comments oh my am I not going to touch trees right now Andy I may give you a call later on offline to discuss the long history of palm trees on this street and these plans but this doesn't matter the trees don't matter this is about big buildings and housing and trees come and go when I was young I thought they were there forever now I'm 46 they come and go so we'll leave that there whether they're palm trees or not let's get some housing built thanks everybody over to commissioner greenberg and then over to commissioner con okay thank you everyone for your very thoughtful comments and um yeah I uh I in my you know I still feel like a newbie on this commission although I'm trying to get up to speed always but I'm I'm constantly trying to figure out this balance between how to understand what we can do procedurally and also what how best to move strategically um in in order to get what we hope accomplished so I'm just saying that to to preface this question so I as I'm I've said a number of times and I even said this evening I'm a big fan of density and I and downtown density and infill and um so this plan in general and I also want to see it accomplished and uh with as little kind of push bag as possible so I'm inclined to support the notion of this middle path which is only 100 units less which is a middle path but still 1600 units and still really significant I'm also and have I've also said previously into this idea of distributing the density and I understand the corridors is a question I don't think we should necessarily see it as an either or um and give up on the corridors um certainly on the west side and certainly on the lower at you know beyond the corridors on the lower west side and other areas where there's there's such capacity um for um for for density um and so um I'm in in that camp and I think also um you know the question perceived that um Commissioner Kennedy raises about who should determine and you know the questions around indirect displacement secondary displacement and how to think about anti-displacement policies that are meaningful for our community is a is an important one and you know I'm open to and interested in hearing how people think you know that would make sense and who would strike for instance an anti-displacement advisory commission and along those lines I really support and appreciate the the point about the beach flats community garden in general I think communities and beach flats and lower ocean should be included in this discussion more than they they are currently I mean that includes the community around the garden and Web Avista and others as well as you know community groups cab and others who've been really involved in in supporting tenants in those communities I think that Commissioner Schifrin's idea of increasing the inclusionary is a good idea and I should say that at the Watsonville presentation that was presented as a best practice in other downtown plans throughout the Bay Area Berkeley within its downtown plan had 50% inclusionary I think San Leandro had 20% it's sorry 25% whereas 20% was like like our community the the standard so they upped it to 25% within the the area plan so I I think that's a really good idea and I support the idea of teacher housing I think that's a great idea if there's a way of thinking about that and that was something that our affordable housing subcommittee was was kind of focused on for a while was was questions of the missing middle was questions of workforce housing specifically for teachers and there's so many schools near near this development I think it makes enormous sense shuttles the the the resident who spoke about the traffic issues I really love that idea and sort of amping up shuttle capacity and there's so many young people going to these schools and wanting to go to the beach people you know residents and others obviously there's a lot of biking but I think that there's nobody seems to ever use these shuttles I think she's really right I've not known anyone to use the shuttles so how we can change that and that's kind of a minor point but it sounded like quite important for the residents in the area I think that's it for me now so I you know I I support a lot of what's been said so far and if if it means that we can make them a motion that's that's helpful for the for the for the council I I would support that thank you thank you over to Commissioner Conway thank you and first of all I want to thank the staff and the consultants for bringing this forward it's really exciting to see it and I was trying to remember the first time I was involved in a conversation about this area and I'm pretty sure it was 20 years ago and maybe a little bit more than that so it's and and frankly at the first conversation that I had all those years ago I don't think that we could have imagined the vibrancy of of what is actually coming forward and it's it's really a great bunch of work I there's quite a lot of it I don't understand but I'm going to have a lot of I'm really anticipating walking the path as it proceeds so thank you to everyone who's worked on this it is really exciting and I also want to say how excited I am to hear that Commissioner and Schifrin Schifrin and I agree on a bunch of points here first of all I was totally ready to go there on trees so you know maybe not this time but picturing a nice shady promenade there I love the promenade along with many elements of it and I'm kind of thinking yeah I guess the Walnut Street vibe maybe that's not it I don't know with the beach I don't know but go for it on trees I think it's a it's a really great addition and the the other thing is I love your point about really studying feasibility and you know and I know we have disagreed on that point a lot over the years so bringing that up about I'm glad that there's going to be a view of developing a plan that is actually buildable and that doesn't just look pretty on a wall somewhere I think that's that's really important and financial buildability is is one part of that I certainly agree with that if we're going to look at talking about changing the affordability numbers which isn't you know it's it's not part of this discussion today but it certainly will be having a really solid financial and of course we've talked about how how useful they are useful and I think that we it has been to our it hasn't strengthened our case to fail to study it so if we proceed on some of those things I'll be I'll be really glad to see it and the other thing though that I really disagree with Commissioner Schiffrin on is having first of all 10 story buildings all over the place down there I understood the question that you were going for but all I could think of as that question was being batted around is that we will not get the units without the towers and you know does that need to get looked at a little bit more probably but raising all of them and filling up all of the space in attempt to get units at a lower level does not make this better in my opinion in fact far from it and I don't know Commissioner Kennedy that the mile high tower is going to fit here ever but the point is really important that what those towers give us is this amazing open space and what that gives our community it really does give us are there and the there that we've been talking about so getting the units opening up the space I loved one of the comments by and I can't remember who made the comment but sort of showed us variation of heights gives us sort of that that hillside effect something's high something's a little bit high but not as high to sort of the shaping what we see um I found that to be very compelling and I look forward to seeing that take shape but I really strongly did not expect to like the towers it kind of took my breath away the first time I looked at it because I too have been in Santa Cruz for a long time and it's like that is that it and then I thought about you know that gathering space and that place for the community to be the community is really exciting I really liked the you know the changes and circulation and that kind of thing and my first question was what's happening to the board and care facility and I've spent some time over my career also certainly concerned about that facility I don't think it it's not affordable housing that isn't what it is it's a licensed facility and I don't know if in this location if this is true but they're often treated as a commercial use which is neither here nor there to the really important and compelling need to be for the city to work with the county and make sure that what happens to that that facility goes someplace where it is really feasible I know it's struggled in that location partly because of the you know the hillside behind it but I again I really agree with Commissioner Schifrin it needs to be carefully considered I do think that it I mean I don't know it's been years since I looked at it but a question of whether there might not be a better location for that facility has come up on more than one occasion but one way or another those that that function is badly needed in this community and can't just be erased so and I and I know that city staff will work work hard on that I don't agree that we should be trying to come to consensus on a specific number of units tonight I understand and your point Commissioner Schifrin but I don't really support going that way tonight and although that 1600 maybe a little bit more I do is and the number that I kind of had in my mind I also think it's a no-brainer to move the facility and move it over to the a block over I think it just makes sense I don't know why we wouldn't want that and I'm also very interested in the visual from the hill I'm not going to make my case about Sycamores because I think I'm already convinced we shouldn't do that and I think that's that's enough for tonight thank you everybody for your careful consideration thank you Commissioner Conway over to Commissioner Miss C.D. Miller thank you my fellow commissioners what a delight to hear from everybody can I appreciate everyone's point of view and I learned a lot so thanks for caring your heart I am much appreciative of Commissioner Greenberg's commentary about displacement and gentrification all those issues those are really important issues the the greatest success stories around that topic that I've read about are where the community gets engaged around it it's not left to the planning commissioners it's not left to the not left to anybody it's left to the community to kind of explore the best way forward and I don't think that's the topic here tonight but I do appreciate and value that approach I'm also keenly aware that many of the lowest income residents of our community are right now relocating because they can't afford to live here and I'm also keenly aware that the biggest driver of housing costs is the lack of housing when a supply of anything is limited the price goes up and I think building more housing is an important part of addressing the displacement problem I also want to remind maybe myself and maybe other people on this on this on this commission that part of the reason for this plan is to keep the warriors in Santa Cruz and I don't know how many of you are warrior fans but it's a terrific addition to our community and I think it's really brings broad cross-section of our communities together in a way that a few other things can do that and the warriors want to stay here and we have an opportunity as a city to take advantage of their desire to stay and their desire to invest and when you talk about the boarding care facility being relocated I think it would be a very reasonable thing for the city to say to the warriors and you know and the development team I'm not sure I don't really even know who that is but whoever it is that the development process unfolds in a certain order and that you know before you do anything you have to find a new location for the boarding care facility and it doesn't become the city's responsibility and I appreciate Commissioner Schifrin's comments along those lines what it's so difficult to get anything done but when you're the city it's really hard to get anything done but if you're a private developer and you're motivated by he's staying in town building an arena etc etc it wouldn't surprise me at all that that problem gets solved very quickly but I think we need to like let them solve it and not meddle too much but just make it clear we want what you know I don't remember the number of beds you know 40 beds 60 beds whatever it is you need to you need to find a place for that and that just becomes you know one of the things that that you have to take care of as the developer of this project I also want to you know I think the number of units you know I think I like 1600 and it seems like the number of the night I'm good with 1600 I don't 1700 is you know not that much more and if that seems like a number that most people are comfortable with I'm comfortable with that as far as the the tower thing goes I think one of the opportunities that we have is to have towers and I think the towers offer a visually interesting feature of our downtown I don't like the pancake block building look I've been to Paris I don't like Paris I don't like the every building in Paris is seven stories or six stories or whatever I can't remember exactly how many stories and the only things that stand up are the Eiffel Tower and the whatever you know the John the Arc de Tromp and you know the other architectural features of the city the rest of the city is so uniform and height that's boring so I really like the idea of a of a few towers but I would also like to make sure that the cliff street lookout view to our downtown is not blocked by the towers but I think I think that the juxtaposition of those elements needs to be studying it needs to be considered and I think that that that's something that the project team should do and maybe do that sooner rather than later so that it can be considered I wanted to also just kind of run down staff asked specifically to comment on things like I created minor comments or you know I wanted to mention the slurp I am familiar with the San Lorenzo urban river plan that was part of the downtown plan that we considered when we did the the upgrade or the update to the downtown plan that's just north and is now resulting in development and we did consider the the desire I agree high-level stuff but they have some really important elements that they include in there in terms of how the river and the built environment interact and how they and their relationship and I think that I think that needs to be referenced and it needs to be included in the consideration and while we're on the river I really love this the river development but you know the river edge development I know that was an important consideration in the downtown plan update that took place a few years back and the plans that I have seen are developing the river edge so that we have a more useful more beautiful relationship between our downtown built environment and the river habitat and I think that the marriage and the the stitching together of those two elements will do wonderful things for the quality of life the quality of the experience and in our downtown and enjoying our our downtown area so I'm all for that enhancement of the river edge I'm all for the civic plaza feature that Mr. Kennedy mentioned and others also I really like the idea of having a space there right on the bend of the river I mean I've always thought that that's just a wonderful place in fact if you look back in history that is the place where the where the people of Santa Cruz would watch people when that was allowed you know when you could you know float along on the river and use the river and recreate on the river we've outlawed that for some reason so I'm really I'm a big fan of that and I think the more we can get people to the river edge the more we can get people in contact with the water you know along the lines of the the group the watershed council the coastal watershed council you know that they're all about bringing people down to the water edge I think that's a good thing and then as far as the circulation goes you know taking advantage of the the river levy connecting people to the to the beach with the river levy connecting people with cliff street you know utilizing the stairs utilizing cliff street connecting people another way a shorter way and you know redoing our circulation I mentioned earlier about this idea of spruce sheet spruce street meeting the river levy I love that I mean no longer do you have this hill that you have to climb it just becomes part of the fabric a real location I agree you know between Pacific and front I mentioned the building heights and tower I like the towers you know should they be 160 feet or 200 feet I'm not sure it really makes any difference once you have a tower element of that size a few more floors you know really doesn't make any difference I do think the placement of the tower is important and I think I don't I just haven't studied it enough in terms of you know where they are but I trust the consultants with their urban design skills can figure out you know where the ideal locations are for those things I like the the lighting ideas to invite in the in the plaza and the activation features and along the streetscapes one of the things that people often share with me is in our downtown now when when I walk around downtown I'm not I'm a big guy I'm six five a couple hundred pounds I'm not scared I walk down any dark alley just doesn't bother me but I'm I'm a physically large person when I walk with someone who's smaller it's like they're like can we go another way and you know it's all about lighting it's all about security it's all about feeling safe so I think that whole idea of making our downtown feels safe with the kinds of lighting you know decorative artistic you know those features that were brought up by the by the team count me and I think that's how we're gonna really transform our downtown into a much safer place you know that that feels safe to people to the users the reticles I think we've you know we all I think understand those development scenarios and we want I want the development downtown I think that's the logical place for it near the bus station near a future rail station thank you Pete for the shout out on the rail thing that is our future we got a you know a couple of collars I was happy to hear people say things like you know we should get rid of parking minimums I don't want to see three stories of parking with a building above it and yeah I think we need to kind of move in a direction where we're not building our city around cars and so I'm all for the for the transit piece let's see did I answer everything that yeah I think I covered pretty much everything that the the staff has asked me to comment on I've seen a couple of extra comments of my own and I think that's it thank you thank you very much I'll go ahead and go to commissioner Greenberg and then I'll put myself on deck and then we'll go to commissioner Schifrin and then commissioner Kenzie so commissioner Greenberg okay thanks I'm going to try to speak quickly just to respond to some points that were made by commissioner Mercedes Miller I agree that concerns about displacement should come from the community and that's one of my concerns is that I don't think we've really sufficiently heard from communities that are going to be impacted or kind of conceived of them as being impacted by this plan I don't think the the term displacement has been used at all with the exception of direct displacement of individual units within the within the project area and I think that you know and looking at the the outreach it's great that there were efforts made with the outreach I saw like in terms of the demographics you know we're 20% Latino I think there was 6% Latino responses amongst the community members and so I really think it behooves us to make more of an effort and I know that it's not easy and I know this was an issue with the objective standards and we hired those wonderful consultants to help us with that to really think about how we include more voices in the impacts of this huge major investment the first in 20 years as we've been saying in a market that is already one of the hottest real estate markets in the world you know and so we talk about arts driven gentrification we talk about brain gentrification we talk about stadium led gentrification I mean we're combining all of it in this development and the potential impact on displacement is massive and we really need to take it seriously and we really need to include more voices in that conversation and I would say again on the kind of pure supply side point yes we need more supply but again to encourage folks to read the new study by the Urban Displacement Project and by Karen Chappell that we need to balance production with preservation and protection production alone supply alone is not going to do it for us on the tower's question I think I'm I'm going to I'm going to kind of err on the side of numbers here I guess I'm less concerned about the design dimension as long as we can get the the numbers we really need the density and so I guess I would wonder for Commissioner Schifrin if there's a kind of contingency if we can kind of lead with the importance of getting the density there in this strategic location and if it means adjusting some of the height limits that you know you're concerned about and I think you're saying a lot of the community is concerned about that there's there's some flexibility there and so you know in so far as a certain height limit you know your question about whether it can fit if it doesn't fit that there's some flexibility and I completely agree with folks on the transportation side and agree about the lack of parking minimums and that the role of this is a TOD and the potential for a TOD to really open up all kinds of financing capacity from the state you know affordable housing sustainable communities grants and other things along those lines and so I think transit beyond shuttles you know just transit more broadly would be great to lead with on this plan too and all of its benefits in terms of you know the commutes shed and greenhouse gas emissions and all of this could be a big selling point for this plan so I I agree with all those points thanks okay I'll go ahead and say a couple things and then we'll go to Commissioner Schifrin and and then Commissioner Kennedy so I just want to bring up a couple things that I feel often when we have these meetings that sort of the pace at which we're making decisions don't really reflect the potential impacts for the the decisions that we we do have an opportunity to weigh in on and as several people have mentioned those opportunities of having impactful decisions that the planning commission are less and less because of state laws and whether that's good or bad that's just a fact and so I think the outreach component really got gloss over here and we made the pretty graphs but I think it's generous to say and I went back and looked at the numbers that we had 200 unique people make comments at these three outreach events that happened over like the actual time people had to comment with about maybe a month and a half and 200 is about 0.003 percent of the population of Santa Cruz we don't know how many of the 200 to 300 residents who would directly impacted actually were caught yes they received a letter but if we want to do this right as a community and actually reflect what the community wants we need to slow the pace of these things and that's just a fact and there are numerous examples of planning processes and school board processes and diversity plan processes that you know it takes a long time to do this it is really hard to do outreach people have very busy lives but I just want to make sure that that it's on the public record that what we're moving forward is not a reflection of the majority of the Santa Cruz community or is it a reflection of responding to these regular these mandates that we're receiving from the state that's again neither here nor there but presenting I feel like we often present some of these outreach like it's definitive and it really is reflective of what is happening across the community and I don't think that you can say that 200 unique responses we can be confident statistically confident that there reflects the whole of our community now on to the actual substance so and I think Commissioner Muceve Miller talked about the displacement and that the community should be part of that discussion it's going to take extra time and effort to make that community part of the discussion about displacement so just saying displacement is important I don't think it is very impactful or useful so if we think displacement is important we have to make recommendations and that's our our charge is to be an advisory body to the council who are the decision makers so if we think it's important then we need to make discreet recommendations about how how we think it's important and how it could be reflected in a policy or a direction that the council has given so I find myself very frustrated around the outreach so for the actual substance of this plan I also feel like this is being presented as like got a cram all of our arena numbers into this location and frankly I live in a you know I on the block I live on there's two single family houses there's two story everything all around I live over in the Seabright area kind of around Galt street you know there's opportunities all over the city for that type of development the city is choosing not to place that development in places like the west side and some of the places that are low that are zoned for lower density so that's a that's a policy choice that we're making so again let's just be honest about the choices that we're making I think there is an incredible opportunity in this area to put a lot of units and I am absolutely would be willing to support that middle road I don't think that we really need to have you know a specific design element part of that but I think the 1600 unit seems reasonable I'm really I am really concerned about the displacement however as far as to this some of the other elements I think the board and care facility I agree with many of the commissioners who said we need to like codify that in writing that things cannot go forward until there is a relocation of those 48 and I'm not sure of the cost structure I think it's privately owned so as part of that relocation we need to make sure that if somebody isn't is it isn't on Medicaid or someone else's covered the government is covering the costs in some way for that boarding care that it's not going to be an increased cost to the residents so that a resident might not actually be able to move into the new facility and get the same board and care so again I'm not sure if that's an issue but if it is I would just be very supportive of something like that going in with that and just agree with other commissioners I really think that this idea of continuing to have to study up in the inclusionary doesn't make any sense and isn't reflective of the data available we know that other cities have done this Mr. Greenberg actually gave specific examples about redevelopment of downtown areas and upping the inclusionary we have one of the most sought after development areas in the world and so people will make it work to develop here because there is such opportunity here so I would be very supportive of upping the inclusionary rate so that we are putting more development for the lower income level and I think I think about the realignment again I mean I think I could be supportive of that if we had some really specific recommendations so that we we ensure that board and care facility isn't going to be lost and then the arena I think it does absolutely make sense for a lot of reasons I think being warriors are important to a lot of folks in town and having them not have to move out of town while the construction of the new facility and just that location in general I think better suits their needs so I'm totally supportive of that and I also am really supportive of us living up to the charge we have as an advisory body to try to come up with something that we could all live with and move it forward as a preferred alternative again it's just advice for the council to consider but I think aggregating all the thoughtful comments that we've had today and trying to come up with something that we can agree on and I heard of a lot of agreement along some of the major points I would be very supportive of that as well I'll stop there go ahead over to Mr. Schifrin I'll start with a question to Steph because one of the issues is kind of a timing issue will the plan or the draft plan or whatever you call it now come back to us before it goes to the council with a recommended preferred alternative yes so at this point what we're hoping to do is to take all of the feedback from your commission from the downtown commission and from the public including any motion that comes out of tonight's meeting to the city council with either a preferred alternative or preferred options so like I had mentioned that we might have more than one option that we want to study and then the next time we would be back to the planning commission would be when we have draft language for the plan that really gets into all of the details about all of the specific like what is exactly the location of the tower you know what are the specific urban design features all of that stuff so that would be the next time we would be coming back to your commission would that be after the EIR or before the EIR? that would be after the EIR yeah so the EIR would be complete we would have a final set of plan amendments and a draft of the EIR together so at that point the commission would be deciding whether to recommend the alternative that are into the EIR and was recommended by staff is that correct? right or one of the options that was in the EIR yeah you know I think as Chair Dawson has said it is a legitimate role for the commission to have to make its own independent recommendation I appreciate that when staff goes to the council they will make a recommendation as to what would be the preferred alternative based on all the input they've received and their best professional judgment and I think that's totally legitimate but as a planning commission I think it's not only legitimate but important for us to exercise an independent our own independent judgment in terms of making a recommendation on a preferred alternative because that's what's going to be go to go through the EIR process any change to that will be very could be very difficult to do I wanted to and you know there and I think I don't remember and and Sarah will correct me about why it's important to move forward quickly but because I think as Chair Dawson said this is the this is a big deal why not have more community outreach why not have more discussion at the commission I think we have a grant the city's received a grant there are pressures on the city to move this process forward and I think one of the biggest pressures is up is the warriors they want to know whether they're going to have a location and this process is going to tell them why they are so let me respond to that because I was a little concerned about one of the comments that Commissioner MSD Miller made about the warriors I started out really agreeing that the warriors were really important we really wanted to be we have to be here but trying to tie them to finding a location for for the new location for the boarding care facility is I think a losing strategy the warriors have been trying to do that for several years the county's been working with them and it is one it is a private company and it is very difficult to find another location the county has looked at a series of locations the owner is not particularly interested in moving it's like the county wants them to move but the city wants them to move it's going to be up to the city or the county or the warriors to find them a place and it's and a pay for it then I'm then I'm going to be willing to spend any money for it so if that becomes the precondition for the warriors to be able to stay here I think we're going to lose them this that's my own personal opinion on that so that's why I think we really need to disconnect the decision on the the boarding care facility from on the word where the word is go when they go to a new facility and to the relocation of the realignment of the lower street lower street extension because I just you know I'm not a basketball fan honestly but I think the warriors have been a real plus for the community and I really appreciate them being here and I want them to stay but I don't you know it's it's not going to happen if it's if we're we're if it's get caught up with them at the boarding care facility and I think it's going to make it more difficult to develop the housing if the owners of the property don't know you know whether the streets going to be here is the street going to be there are we going to be able to move that look at that facility or not it's on a separate parcel and yeah so it doesn't have to be incorporated into everything else but I think it really at least would make sense for the consultants to design a remote I don't know a real realignment street that would be close to the housing and create the existing housing and create you know separate separate spaces for new housing development that would encourage them to be able to move forward because they know where they were going to be able to go so that's that in terms of teacher housing I just I want to follow up on something that Christian Greenberg said I was on the subcommittee that worked on that we ultimately recommended to the council amendment to the inclusionary ordinance to encourage housing for teachers and difficult financially we did what the school district asked us to do in terms of removing what they considered an impediment to their moving forward but inclusionary requirements are not the only problem that developers have in building projects so certainly the school district has other projects and you know the city's had a committee in the past to work with the school district and this may be as a strong concern for new commissioner Kennedy it could benefit from you really immersing yourself in the issue and trying to figure out a way to make it happen my own feeling is it's a financial problem it's not regulatory problem that from a regulatory point of view they could they could get through the process right away it's the problem is they don't have the financial resources to build the housing and it's it's not the only way you can get subsidies for is for 100% or low-income or low-income housing and that's not where many of the teachers are so it's it's a very difficult time I do disagree with you commissioner Kennedy when your statement about well let's build our high density here so we don't have to have the bad building along the quarters unfortunately under the general plan and the mixed use high-density housing along the quarters it's not uptested it's up to developers coming forward with projects it's very it's going to be very difficult for them to commit to the city to turn them down under the new state law and the state law does that really make it so I hope you're wrong we saw with the project at the Lawrence of Forty in the water some people felt it was too much some people thought it was fine but the fact was the city was very very constrained ability to influence it at all and that it's likely to happen at a number of other sites along the quarters and hopefully they won't be bad buildings hopefully the developers will try to work with the community and the neighborhoods to have decent buildings that was what was done in Watsonville on an SB 35 project and that hopefully will be done here but there's under the new law as the general plan rules if the general plan says you can have multi high density housing not only can have multi multifamily high density housing we can get a density bonus on public I don't I didn't understand the notion there but somehow by lowering the height we're going to lose the we're going to lose the open space I don't that certainly wasn't my proposal I don't think it necessary you know I this won't be the first time I disagree with commissioner receiving though but I love Paris I love working around Paris as one of the finest times I've had is just drawing the ambiance of the Paris neighborhood let me just finish by you know before in terms of my responses to comments that I think it's very legitimate for the commission to recommend to the council that they initiate a process for considering the displacement and the offsite displacement impacts of the of the plan and they can decide to do it they can decide not to do it but I don't think there's anything amiss in the commission recommending that that they take this issue seriously and initiate a process to do something about it there it's a legitimate function especially since the city doesn't have a housing commission doesn't have a permanent housing subcommittee working on these housing issues it's kind of swollen to us by default and it's created all sorts of problems for us along the way but I think given that that's the reality it's legitimate for us to raise the issue so I am I would like to make a motion I'm going to make a motion I can either make a comprehensive motion and see whether the how I try some of the things there certainly won't be consensus other things I think there is consensus I could do it as a comprehensive motion I could make a series of motions I don't it's you know it's a there are the staff has asked for our input I think the best way of giving our input besides just as individual commissioners is as a commission through a recommendation by a motion so I'm going to move that the planning commission recommend to the city council the following as the preferable term for the downtown expansion general plan amendment or consideration in the secret document number one the site of the arena will be in the area of between pacific avenue and front street number two in order to strike a balance between providing significant new housing and not changing the character of the downtown area or extreme way additional high density housing shall be provided adjacent to the San Lorenzo river total number of new units in the expansion area shall not exceed 1600 and to the extent feasible housing for educators should be included I guess I just changed out a little bit to say the majority of additional identity housing would be adjacent to the San Lorenzo river because from the scenarios it looks like there's some proposed high density housing on other sites and I think that's what we should number three the building heights for new development in the expansion area shall not exceed the height of the tallest building in the downtown area after a density bonus benefit as long as 1600 new units can be provided so I think that from what we're hearing although we have no specific information probably going to require greater height which would be acceptable because the basic thing is to get the units the Laurel Street extension if relocated shall be closer shall not if it shall be closer to the hillside without requiring the demolition of the existing special needs housing unless a relocated facility has been provided let me read that again since I've collected them the Laurel Street extension if relocated shall be closer to the hillside without requiring a demolition of the existing special needs housing unless a relocated facility has been provided next one is at least one third of the total new higher density housing units in the expansion area shall be affordable to lower into housing households and the inclusionary requirement for individual projects shall be 25 percent with a 30 percent requirement for projects with density and bonuses new developments that displaces existing low-income residents shall provide replacement affordable units on a one-to-one basis and shall not be counted towards meeting a project's inclusionary requirement which I think is the current coordinate requirements in order to minimize the potential impact of the proposed plan on additional displacement of affordable housing within the planned area and in the surrounding areas particularly beach flats and lower ocean an advisory committee of residents and affordable housing experts shall be formed study and recommend effective mitigation measures in coordination with the planning commission the EIR on the on the plan shall contain an analysis of the potential impacts on the environment of displacement that may result from the plan and shall include appropriate mitigation measures the plan should include the proposals the commission has received for the civic plaza lighting and connectivity between the beach area and the downtown and finally public transit should be a central component of the plan that would be my motion if it gets affected I'm happy to second that motion Schifrin would you be able to forward that language to the clerk so she just would have all of that at her disposal when we have it read back let me yes it's the answer I will I think I'll send it to Sarah that okay Sarah I think he means me oh sorry I'm still here I have to go to nowhere that's your thing you can send it to me but you should send it to Tess also because she writes up some minutes yeah you can you can all forward it to me commissioner Schifrin and I can make sure Sarah Noisy and yes somehow I've lost Tess's email if you send it to me I can get it to Tess that's fine okay and I think commissioner Kennedy had his hand up I don't know if that was just still there yeah yeah was that from before yeah okay we're in there okay so we got that out we got a motion in a second over to commissioner Kennedy I was feeling like compromise might be possible on the 1600 but there's way too many other things on there for me personally I don't know so I had two more quick points just in general I forgot to make earlier so I'm going to wedge those in and then maybe you respond to commissioner Schifrin's comments briefly you know the Warriors Stadium is kind of proof of concept that we don't need more parking down there at that hearing there was like tremendous concern about no parking and it's worked out great and the last thing I wanted to mention is that public bathrooms are super important for the community in those public spaces and it's like it's the worst thing that all that stuff that happens with public bathrooms but as a dad I appreciate them a lot more than I did five years ago you know so those are two quick comments so commissioner Schifrin I really truly appreciate your history with teacher housing and stuff so thanks for reminding me of that I'm new to some of these items I just I really I'm not going to support this motion I really bristle honestly and I'm taking deep breaths at the idea that we should slow this process down this process in my mind began in 1990 after the earthquake on north pacific and it's just continuing we need housing and I mean obviously climate change I think this is part of that solution we need that now so with honor for the process and dragging things out and getting everyone's input and all that that's great the chair can agenda his items put an item on the agenda put it on the agenda and we'll talk about that at the appropriate time but shoe horning all the stuff into this plan just again strikes me inappropriate so that's where I'm at with it I'm not going to vote for any motion and I feel like I've given staff my opinion so I'll stop there Mr. Conway thank you yeah I actually was feeling there's a lot of points here that I do agree with I would also vote against this motion and for one thing I think it is really not allowing the process to work itself through I really appreciate the comments and they have been made to council and they will be considered as such I was actually going to be fine with 1600 that was actually the number I was most comfortable with anyway but I don't agree with a it actually kind of reminds me of the parties that you went to in high school everyone brought a bottle and poured it into a garbage can and I don't think it's helpful I appreciate all the points I really appreciate the discussion but the the two things that disturbed me the most is to have a building height limited to the Palomar that's just antiquated it's a different time and it really does not I mean it leaves me incredulous that that's proposed frankly and then once again I do not know what the right number of affordable units and what the right depth of affordable units are I do know a fair amount about the math that makes a project feasible and it disturbs me that we can rush through any analysis of that but we want to slow down when you know to talk about things that don't specifically pertain to this planning process so I will be voting against the motion as it's presented yeah thank you for to comment so I'll just without repeating Mr. Kennedy and Commissioner Conway's comments I'll agree with their comments I would add that I feel pretty strongly that this is not the time to you know toss a new inclusionary requirement for a new affordable housing requirement onto broad area of our community without and that's a study and all the other things that have to be done in order to make sure that we're you know not going to kill housing um there are some things I agree with I agree that the site arena for the location of the arena I agree that the number of 1600 units I think the displacement on a one to one is already a standard so I don't think there's anything about that that I would change but I'd like to take this opportunity to make a substitute motion and my substitute motion will be pretty simple and that is that the planning commission I mean my motion would be that the staff take into account the comments that the planning commissioners have made tonight take those into account as you move forward in further developing this project area plan and that you include our comments and the comments of the public and the other commissions that you'll be working with as as you refine the plan for presentation to the city council that's that's my substitute motion I would second that okay we have uh that's substitute motion on the floor I believe the parliamentary procedure now is that we would go ahead and take a vote on that motion first is staff can you help me out is that where we go you first need to take a vote on whether to accept the substitute motion okay I thought I would then you would debate sorry then you would debate that motion and then you would vote on the actual motion so the first vote I know it's it's pretty weird the first vote would be whether to accept the substitute motion I thought there was a step in there okay great so we will go ahead and take a vote can I ask a quick question can there be two motions or you can only have one motion there can only be a substitute you can't have two say yeah well if somebody do another substitute motion after we act on this motion is that correct there could be friendly amendments so you know there once you vote on whether or not to accept the substitute motion then it opens up discussion again so that could have but I believe that you can only have two motions to formal motions on the floor at once but I will have to reference my parliamentary procedures to confirm that because I personally support both motions so but I don't know if that's possible like I like I like motion too you know but we can't we can't do that yeah let's go ahead and take this in order so what we're doing now is there is a motion on the floor to formally direct staff I'm paraphrasing and Commissioner Maceti-Miller please jump in if I am paraphrasing incorrectly to formally direct staff to include everything they've heard tonight in their deliberations and present presentation to City Council about the expansion is that more or less correct Commissioner Maceti-Miller that's correct more or less yeah I think you nailed it but that is not the motion on the floor motion on the floor sorry the substitute motion the substitute motion which we're going to act on right now and what you are voting on as a commissioner right now is whether to accept that motion formally on the floor and if we accept the motion then we can have a discussion and then we will vote yes or no on that motion then we will go back to the original motion which has a second and take a vote on that okay so let me clarify if the substitute motion passes it's a substitute for the original motion so the original motion is no longer right okay the original motion has been replaced as I understand it so okay that's a very important point so if we accept this substitute motion the original motion is no longer on the floor no if we accept the substitute motion then we debate the substitute motion and if the substitute motion passes then the original motion disappears but all we're voting on now is whether we wanted to make the substitute motion we're not voting to approve or disapprove the substitute motion yep I'm sorry I misspoke but yes one more time for clarity for all of us and the public what we're voting on right now is to accept the substitute motion onto the floor then there can be discussion and then there will be a vote if that motion is approved the original motion will have been replaced and that will be the action okay but you could always just make that motion again so Miriam can vote for both okay that was not done with all that kerfuffle you just like to say the same thing again right yeah I thought that Lee Butler was checking on that but maybe well that's my understanding it could be wrong yeah I agree with that it's certainly possible to have a one-on-one motion on an item that's before the commission so you're right I agree with commission Kennedy that the commission could approve the original motion and then also approve the motion that the commission must see Mila Mila made or the other way around I moved to extend the meeting so let's say till 11.15 we got on the floor we got to clear the deck things are getting out of hand one of these off so we can make another motion so um or is is this substitute motion not officially on the floor because we haven't accepted it is that right I think we can do the three votes in four minutes let's do it let's do it I would let's do it I think you got some options I think you got some options while it is not I believe that Parliamentary Procedure has that two motions so a motion and a substitute motion are on the floor but not another substitute motion after that I would I would argue that the time extension is a separate item for simplicity's sake I would argue that time extension is a separate item and would suggest that you all just go ahead and make the motion separately to um and to I think we stay in section till 11.15 I second okay let's do a vote on the extension ready uh test roll call please hi hi okay we're extended to 11.15 back to the substitute motion well I would call for a question on whether to consider the substitute motion okay great uh so let's vote on uh the substitute motion the question has been called so that means we go straight to a vote um uh yes or no vote on accepting commissioner mid cd miller's motion is anybody having this this is cancel out the other motion I'm sorry if we just allowed us to vote on the substitute that's the next vote yeah this is the vote of whether to accept it we haven't done that yet we're just accepting it to the floor for debate and discussion right correct yeah okay okay so uh this is whether we're accepting the floor for debate uh go ahead and have a roll call test mr conway hi kind of hard to hear you test yeah there's a lot of reverb there mr conway discussion of the motion on the floor to formally direct uh planning staff to consider everything they've heard today in their report to council um that what this motion does is direct staff to do their job and to pass all of our communication and discussion on the council for their discussion and I strongly support it great any other comments before we vote yes um let me ask staff a question will the staff do this irrespective of whether there is dysfunction passes or not things to me that's what the staff always does they take everybody's that's what they said they were going to do I think this motion is superfluous uh I'm not going to support it because I think um it you know it just is time staff to do what their job is as as commissioner conway says we don't need to tell them their job they know their job um and they're gonna do their job the question is should the commission make its own separate recommendation that's the original motion and this is such to approve this as a substantive motion is saying that we'd rather have the staff speak for us rather than speak for ourselves and I'm sure that if the original motion passes the staff will um when it goes to the council will tell the council what a majority of the commission recommended and it will also tell the council what all the commissioners opinions were about particular issues so it's not like we need this substitute motion in order to get the staff to fully disclose to the council what what's going on here tonight and therefore I'm going to vote against the substitute motion over to commissioner Kennedy then commissioner greenberg on deck and then we're going to go ahead and go to a vote I submit the substitute motion would also be sending a message to council on what we're unified on go ahead commissioner greenberg um I hear what is being said I think that we need as much democratic voice as possible we are a commission that's been appointed independent of the staff and it's good for us to you know sometimes voice ideas and we're representing constituencies and concerns and ideas you know in our positions here and it's good for us to to say things about you know in an advisory capacity through the council um and I agree it's a good point I mean it's kind of superfluous the staff is going to do what the staff always does and does a very wonderful job of doing what the staff does which is to um represent the discussion we've had and to you know and they're going to continue to do that so um uh I mean I understand the cons the issue if people wanted to split the motion I guess like if there were certain parts of the motion they agreed with and didn't agree with and we want to talk on that on that level I happen to agree with everything that was said and I felt like it really captured um a lot of points of consensus I mean I do agree with Commissioner Conway about the height concern and I'm and I made the point and I think the way from what I understood that it was worded is that if it's not feasible to have that height constraint uh in order to accomplish the 1600 units that that uh it would be it's kind of in that sense I think the height restraint is a bit irrelevant but I you know I think I'm willing to to deal with that because I think it's it's kind of mitigated by the fact that it it may not accomplish the 1600 units um but otherwise I think that um I do support um you know what's what else is in the the motion so and I think it's good to have a voice from the commission so that's my feeling okay we're going to go to a vote for the substitute motion which paraphrase is directing staff to formally present um our everything they've heard tonight to the commission I will say before we go to the vote just quickly that the staff has said several times all the staff we've heard from that that is exactly their intention so it's been stated publicly in the public forum that that's what's the that's what they were going to do um so let's go ahead and go to a vote for this quick question again sorry so if we vote yes on this that means we can't vote on the other one just to clarify I'm so tired that I can't remember what was said about that that's correct unless somebody remakes the motion is that correct Mr Butler that's correct there would need to be a new motion but you there's nothing that says you can't make another motion on this particular item so if this is a yes then you'd have to make a new motion if you vote yes then I'm going to have to repeat the whole motion all over 1105 it'll be worth it because we'll be unified on one thing okay so please roll call vote on commissure Mercedes Miller's substitute motion this is to accept the motion and if we accept the motion the other motion on the floor will be removed and we will have a clean slate to go from so uh test roll call please commissure Conway hi Greenberg hi Kennedy hi Maxwell hello the cd Miller hi shifrin oh awesome no okay so a motion passes four to three uh are there any other commissioners that would like to make a motion yes I'd like to make a motion to move that the planning commission recommended the city council um the following as the prefer alternative for the downtown expansion general plan amendment for consideration in the secret document this uh number one the site of the arena will be in the area between pacific avenue and punch street number two in order to strike a balance between providing significant new housing and not changing the character of the downtown area in a clean way the majority of the additional high density housing shall be provided adjacent to the San Lorenzo river the total number of new units in the expansion area shall not exceed uh 1600 units and to the extent feasible housing for education uh educators should be included the building heights for the new development in the expansion area shall not exceed the height of the tallest building in the downtown area after density bonus as long as 1600 new units can be provided the laurel street extension if relocated shall be posted to the hillside without requiring the demolition of existing specialty existing special needs housing unless a relocated facility has been provided at least one third of the total new higher density housing units in the expansion area shall be affordable to lower income households and the inclusionary requirement for individual projects shall be 25 percent with a 30 percent requirement for projects with density bonuses new developments that this uh displace existing low-income residents shall provide replacement affordable units on a one-to-one basis which will not be counted towards meeting a project's inclusionary requirement uh the next one is in order to minimize the potential impact of the proposed plan on additional displacement of affordable housing within the planned area and in surrounding areas particularly beach flats and lower ocean an advisory committee of residents and affordable housing as experts shall be formed to study and recommend effective mitigation measures in coordination with the planning commission the eir on the plan shall contain an analysis of the potential impacts on the environment of displacement that may result from the plan and shall include appropriate mitigation measures the plan should include the proposals presented to the commission for the specific plaza lighting and connectivity between the beach area and downtown and public transit final a shall be a central component of the plan and this uh by motion okay thank you i'd second that motion we have a motion on the floor um do we want to make this just as a reminder this is the same motion that was on the floor about a half an hour or 45 minutes ago so we've had discussion are there any additional points people would like to discuss so mr mesidi miller i'd like to uh offer a friendly amendment uh i'd like to uh suggest that the motion be amended to remove the height restriction to not exceed the heights of any of the tallest building in downtown which is the st georgia whatever it is 100 feet and that the number of units being met by the use of base height buildings as proposed by staff with towers as needed and towers place in such a way to be aesthetically attractive from and the view from cliff street be considered um okay okay moving back to the floor any other additional discussion before we go to the vote and i will say that oh go ahead to mr greenberg i didn't put my hand up so make yeah it is now would you would you like to say yes um that was rude uh i uh so we're all very tired i realized um so and the whole business with the friendly amendments are there ways of discussing how it might be altered in some way if you have a proposed language you would you should make it otherwise i call for the question um that brings us to a vote and he gave you the opportunity to have specific language something like what commit commissioner mesidi miller just proposed specific language that i would suggest yeah as the amendment um that the language around the heights of the downtown would not be included okay i think that was pretty much the same motion as the well i think commissioner mesidi miller had you know other points i guess about this you know aesthetics and views i'm not willing to um accept that as a friendly amendment i don't think that's a friendly amendment i really oppose the towers and i don't think um i i i think i um i understand that the height will be higher than what the well probably although we don't have the information we don't have any evidence that it can't be met i'm not offended by buildings that don't have towers and i've agreed to 16 hybrid units um i've agreed to all sorts of things that um um you know matter less to me to me so i think okay so that puts us to a vote uh the question is but called that closest debate and so we're going to can i just ask a friendly amendment can we um split that one off from the rest of it or no is that well the question has been called so um mr butler could you weigh in here and help me out at 11 12 there needs to be there needs to be a motion to um accept the uh call the question okay and then and the commission could vote to extend the time again i don't see any reason why they couldn't do that if they so choose to do so okay so does that call of the question needs a second and a vote is that correct that's correct it does okay i will second the call the question um and this is uh basically taking us to a vote uh so that's what we're going to be voting on yes or no yes we go straight to a vote no we it's open for discussion test can you go ahead and uh roll call vote please mr conway um this is to accept the call the question i greenberg uh i yes sorry mariam max will okay no different hi awesome hi motion passes to call the question so we're going to a vote on commissioner shifrin's motion does anybody with anybody like the clerk to read the entire motion before we vote or does every is everybody good good okay okay we're voting on commissioner shifrin's motion uh test please uh go ahead and roll call vote please mr conway no greenberg hi Kennedy no max well hi cd miller no different hi awesome hi motion passes four to three i think we're going to need um another extension uh to get through the rest of the agenda here we continue the item number four to our next meeting i second that motion that's it uh so we have a motion in a second to continue item four to our next meeting uh test we have a roll call vote commissioner conway sorry kathryn hi cd miller no different awesome hi um i still i think technically need another unless we can get through it in like 30 seconds maybe we can uh to extend the meeting for five more minutes second second can we just have a vote by affirmation sounds good hi hi okay thank you commissioner kinsley uh so subcommittee advisory body oral reports anything else that we need to hear from staff yeah just really quickly from staff go ahead thanks chair uh just a few quick updates city council approved the first reading of the slope ordinance amendments that were recommended by the planning commission last month uh they that went to council last week and then on may 19th planning commission we have two items in addition to the continued item tonight that's the we have a zoning ordinance amendment package uh largely containing cleanup items that will be going uh as well as our capital improvement plan in general plan conformance review that's required uh for first aid requirements prior to the budget being adopted and then uh objective development standards uh that's that's a large large project we've been working on for a while that is going to planning commission in june uh given the size of that project we've elected to split it up into two pieces and so we'll be going to both june meetings the june 2nd and june 16th meeting on the objective development standards item that's it from staff oh uh mr marlott did you have any something else for us i was just going to add that the planning or the uh city council approved the 415 natural bridges uh affordable housing project at its april 26th meeting well great uh i just had one quick question is so is the capital review is that an action item or just a uh the capital improvement project is that an action item or just a informational item for the may 19th meeting it is an action item uh planning commission would would have a motion to accept it okay great um i see uh commissioner ms cd miller and then commissioner shifrin now i uh how would i get a copy of the motion that was approved tonight i have it can you forward that to me please yes thank you mr shifrin i have two questions one about the capital improvement plan do we just accept it or do we have to find that it's consistent with the general plan that's correct you're um making a finding that the projects proposed are consistent with the general plan and making that recommendation to the council and that's right okay thanks yep we focus on the new items um so tip items that are carryovers from prior years are not presented it'll just be the new ones and really the only question before us is is the project consistent with the general plan you've got it the other question i have is about uh the status of the proposed hotel downtown um could we get an update on what's going on with that project eric you want to give the latest on that yeah at this point it's it remains incomplete so we're waiting for a complete determination before we move on to the environmental review phase okay so there's not a complete application at this time right okay okay great any other commissioners have any questions for staff um i just want to thank all of my fellow commissioners i want to thank staff for a really really robust report that uh provided a ton of information to us in the public and for everybody hanging in there in there for the the long one here we had tonight um this is important stuff and everybody's input is is really really valuable thank you again to my colleagues and staff and to the public and with that i will call the may fifth uh city of jennifer's planning submission into adjournment thanks everybody thank you all right thanks good night


I've been getting good reports. Domingo had a rough outing, I know, last night. But I think in his case, to me, it's about him getting out. I'm not even so concerned with results, almost with any of them. I think in Gary's case and Mickey's case, to be able to go and get more at bats, I think it's valuable. For Davey to go get a handful of innings, we don't want him throwing too many innings. But to build off of what he was able to do, I think is valuable. Obviously, in Domingo's case, having not pitched this year to be able to go there and pitch and rack up some innings and just knock off some rust, if nothing else, and give him some momentum coming into spring training, I look at it as all valuable in this really challenging, wonky, truncated season.