All right, I'm gonna go ahead and call the June 30th special meeting of the city of Santa Cruz planning Commission to order Can we please Have a roll call Commissioner Conway Here Greenberg Kennedy Maxwell Here City Miller here different Here Dawson Here All right. Are there any statements of disqualification? Okay, hearing none. We'll move on Before we move into the two items on the agenda tonight I just want to remind the public that this is a special meeting So we're we won't be having oral communications at this meeting and we'll just be hearing the two items before us We'll move forward on 109 South Rapeda item one If you're a member of the public and will like to comment on this item now's a good time to call in The order of events will be we'll go ahead and get a staff report. We'll get any clarifying questions from commissioners and then We'll Take any public comment and then come back to the commission for action. So Could we please have a staff report? Good evening chair Dawson the members of the planning Commission My name is Tim mayor senior planner with the city This evening's first agenda item is the consideration of a major modification and map amendment related to 109 South Rapeda Road The project applicant proposes a major modification and final map amendment to plan development permit project number 97 dash 279 which was approved by the city council on July 25th of 2000 The proposal would facilitate the request to amend the El Rancho carbonara subdivision map to adjust the boundaries between two adjacent parcels containing existing townhouses and would also allow for residential development a lot be a vacant lot separating the townhomes Because the original entitlement was approved by the city council the major modification and final map amendment Which are the subject of this evening's discussion? Likewise require recommendation by the planning Commission for approval by the city council Short on this slide is the project site bordered in red surrounded by adjacent development lot B is an approximately 15,200 a square foot vacant lot within the R1 7 or single family minimum 7,000 square foot lot size zone district and Low-density residential or L general plan land use designation The property is located within the El Rancho carbonara subdivision and serves as a boundary between city limits and unincorporated San Mateo excuse me Santa Cruz County land Highway 17 is located directly to the west with single family residential development situated in the northeast and south of the parcel The approval of project 90 number 97 dash 279 on July 25th of 2000 Allowed nine single family dwellings to townhomes and lot B or the subject parcel The project included a tentative map design permit and plan development permit Authorizing the development of a 3.4 acre former reservoir into a residential subdivision As previously mentioned the subject parcel lot B measures approximately 15,200 8 square feet in area and was created by project number 97 dash 279 and designated as common open space This slide shows a recorded subdivision map including the subject property again bordered in red Labels designating lot B, which is shown over here As common area and public utility easement are visible This portion of the slide that i'm circling Parcels 1 through 9 shown toward the bottom of the slide are single family home lots and lots 10 and 11 shown over here Are the parcels containing the townhomes In january of 2012 the city became aware that the ccnrs for the subdivision were altered without the benefit of permits to remove lot B as common area That action created inconsistency with condition number 19 of resolution 97 dash 279 Which states that the homeowners association shall not remove conditions and restrictions from the covenants conditions and restrictions or ccnrs Required by the city without first obtaining an amendment to the plan development and design permits Additionally the assessors parcel map including the lot was revised to remove the common area designation of lot B And the ownership of lot B was transferred from the HOA to its present owner In 2012 city staff made the applicant aware that the amendments were completed without city approval and were therefore Not recognized by the city Later in march 2013 the rancher carbonara owners association Recorded a settlement agreement and release of all claims in which the HOA fully relinquished ownership of lot B And any financial rights and responsibilities toward maintaining the lot As common open space for the subdivision The applicant has provided a letter from the law firm which drafted the ccnrs dated 2012 stating that lot B was inadvertently described as common area in the ccnrs Due to a clerical error and that subsequent actions were taken to remedy the original error The attorney's letter further states that the townhouse lots were not included in the ccnrs Although they were approved as part of the pd And that only lot a and lot c were designated as common area for the subdivision Lots a and c make up the two private streets south ripeta road and misty court Providing access from el rancho drive to the single family homes in the subdivision This slide shows the configuration of lot B and the adjacent townhouse parcels as approved in 2000 It's part of project 97-279 As part of the project two alternative site plans have been prepared for your consideration This slide exhibits the site plan proposes part of alternative one the alternative which is preferred by the applicant In this alternative the map amendment would adjust the property line between lot B and the two townhouse parcels to the east Transferring three off-street parking spaces approved as guest parking for the subdivision to the townhome lots with lot 10 Which is apn 008 391 15 acquiring two spaces and lot 11, which is apn 008 391-16 acquiring one space In alternative one the units would remain designated as detached townhouses as allowed through the original plan development permit And the boundaries between the townhouse lots would be revised to eliminate the portion of lot B Which separates the parcels with the rear line of each parcel modified to include an angled jog Both parcels would be increased in size compared to their sizes as approved through project 97-279 In this alternative alternative one the applicant has additionally illustrated the footprint of a detached adu or accessory doling unit In the rear portion of lot B over in this portion of the slide shown here Which is also shown in the last page of the project plans for alternative one attached to the staff report In alternative one the subdivision continues to exceed the requirements for guest parking provided in section 24 12 240 of the zoning ordinance As eight spaces are located along the private streets of misty court and south ricketta road within the subdivision This slide shows a tentative map for alternative one including the revised parcel lines mitigation measure 10 of the initial study mitigated negative declaration or ism and d of project 97-279 the original entitlement Which is condition of approval number 76 of that entitlement Requires ongoing maintenance of a 10-foot vegetative buffer which is shown in green Over on this slide here Which serves as a transition space between rural county land and the suburban neighborhood of the rancher carbonara subdivision In the second alternative site plan alternative 2 the shapes of both parcels would be modified as in the first alternative However, the rear lot line of each parcel would be extended to a line to the street frontage along al rancher drive As recommended by staff The size of each lot would be expanded to conform to the minimum lot size of 7 000 square feet As required for single family lots in the r17 zone district Further, this option would allow the existing detached standalone townhouse lots To continue to function in a manner consistent with single family lots as effectively entitled through project number 97-279 Because the modified boundary lines would extend to al rancher drive The parcels would enclose private yard areas Including gentler slopes allowing greater functionality as out to our amenity space When compared with lots of more limited size as presented in alternative 1 The existing residential units would continue to serve as income restricted affordable housing stock Income formers with the participation agreement, which remains in effect A tentative map has been submitted showing the revised boundary arrangement for alternative 2 Showing of this slide is a subject lot again includes including revised parcel lines As with alternative 1 ongoing maintenance of the 10-foot vegetative buffer should and green would be required Prior to 2015 the city's municipal code had permitted amendments to final maps only for correction of errors or omissions In 2015 section 234060 the subdivision ordinance was adopted Allowing amendments to any final map or parcel map for regions other than error or omission if the necessary findings can be made The new ordinance provides an opportunity to legalize the changes that were made to the ccnr's assessor's parcel map and into the ownership of lot b Because the city council granted entitlement of the plan development permit in 2000 Including adoption of the final al rancher carbonara subdivision map Again approval by the city council of the proposed map amendment will be required following the planning commission's recommendation The city of santa cruz municipal code section 24 16 0 2 0 1 a states that affordable inclusionary housing requirements are applicable To all residential developments that create two or more new and or additional drilling units or sro units at one location Because the proposed project would create only one ownership lot The proposal is exempt from provision of additional affordable housing or payment of an equivalent in lu fee Based on consultation with the city attorney The subdivision would continue to comply with the inclusionary housing requirement through ongoing maintenance of a participation agreement as i mentioned earlier Which allocates the two existing townhouses as affordable housing units Further expansion of the lot sizes of the inclusionary residential units Would bring the affordable lots into greater conformance with current affordable housing standards Which require affordable lots to be equivalent to market rate units in size A tree survey and protection plan for the property was prepared on november 11 2020 and revised again on august 31st of 2021 That survey identifies the health and structure of 18 trees on lot b And recommends 11 for removal including eight heritage trees due to poor condition or potential for adverse impacts The report also makes specific recommendations pertaining to the preservation of the seven trees Which will remain including three heritage trees The city's urban forester harvest has reviewed and concurred with the recommendations of the harvest report that was prepared for the project The heritage trees removed will be required to be replaced in a two to one ratio And 20 percent of the replacement trees must be coast live oaks in accordance with the conditions of approval of the original project Through the proximity of lot b to highway 17 in al rancho drive An acoustic study was prepared to evaluate the impacts of unwanted sound of the site And to evaluate compliance with the allowable thresholds for noise as specified in the city's general plan and as codified in the zoning ordinance Acoustic study states that at the time of data collection Existing levels of exterior noise comply with standards specified in the general plan And that levels of interior sound could be addressed through noise reducing equipment and techniques to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval The plan development permit number 97 dash 279 A condition of approval has been added requiring compliance with noise standards An initial study is was prepared for plan development permit number 97 dash 279 And a mitigated negative declaration or mnd was adopted on july 25th of 2000 Per requirements of the california environment and the quality after the sequel It's been determined that no additional sequel analysis is necessary for this project Because the modification to the original plan development permit And map amendments would qualify as a classified categorical exemption which enables minor alterations and land use limitations No substantial changes to the original circumstances Under which the project would be undertaken or new information of substantial importance that would result in new significant impacts Or a substantial increase in significance of previously identified impacts related to the project Based on the level of previous environmental review And due to the limited nature of proposed modifications the classified categorical exemption is deemed appropriate for this project No exceptions of the classified exemption pertain to the proposed project Most site plan alternative one and alternative two would allow for compliance with the general plan and municipal code For reasons outlined staff recommend site plan alternative two Staff have made the findings to support the proposed project Under both alternatives the allowable residential density of the general plan and the zoning designation Which allows that the 10 dwelling units per acre would be maintained The subdivision continues to exceed the requirements for guest parking for the zoning ordinance Again as eight spaces are located along the private streets and misty court and south raffetta road within the subdivision Proposed amendments to approve plans are consistent with the reasons for approval of plan development permit 97279 Inconsistent with original conditions of approval of the project Further the habitat restoration of vegetation management plan required as a mitigation measure for the original subdivision entitlement Would be retained and enforced The biotic report prepared for the project in may of 2021 States that no special status plant species were identified or are expected to occur at the project site And that the project's site does not support any sensitive part of plant communities A biotic review letter prepared by the same consultants did February 1st of 2022 Confirms that the work associated with the habitat restoration of vegetation management plan Was completed and continues to be maintained in accordance with the conditions of approval plan development permit 97279 Shown on this slide are images of the project site including existing non native eucalyptus trees and surrounding vegetation These a lot be appear here as well a variety of foliage types and the overall state of the lot can be seen Staff recommended the condition of approval be added to the project Aside from those already included in the staff report requiring that the existing participation agreement or affordable housing agreement Addressing the existing affordable units be updated to address the proposed changes to the lot Um that condition appears here on the slide at the top With the added conditions of approval staff have found the project to be consistent with all required site development standards And policies of the general plan Staff recommended the planning commission recommended the city council Approval of the site plan alternative to based on findings and conditions of approval attached to the staff report in the draft resolution Staff in the applicant are available to answer questions and provide additional information as needed This concludes staff's presentation. Thank you very much Okay, thank you so much for that staff report. Um before we launch into this item I just want to quickly take the chairs prerogative after a little bit of a reflection over our last meeting And I just want to take this opportunity to remind us all as commissioners my intent in running the meetings is to maintain decorum and order and the primary way I do that is By us raising hands waiting to be called on and then waiting for other commissioners to speak So I just want to remind us all to do that I will ensure you all that I will get to everyone And also if we get in the weeds on parliamentary procedure I'm going to look to staff for clarification on that and I will ask them If we get in the weeds and anything so just wanted to throw that out to all of us to make sure that we're Having an orderly meeting so the public can follow and get the information That they need so moving into clarifying questions on the 109 south brapetta So does anybody here have any clarifying questions? Looks like commissioner shifrin. Go ahead, please Just have one at this time During the staff presentation, there's a Slide that showed the municipal code section that had to do with the ordinance change that allowed for approval of Unpermitted changes. I didn't get that code section number. Could you?  I can find that quickly here It's in the subdivision ordinance title 23 Um It's uh 23 dot 44 dot 0 6 0 that's the city's subdivision ordinance Um, I'm sorry. Just a second. Let me get that sure. I can repeat that uh, 23 Dot 44 Dot 0 6 0 Okay, thank you very much That's the only question at this time Any other commissioners with any clarifying questions? Okay, so members for the public We're going to go out to public comment in a second. Now is the time to raise your hand If you're on the zoom, you can use the raise hand feature If you're on the phone, you could press star nine to raise your hand And we'll go ahead and go out to public comment for the public hearing When you're called upon you will have three minutes And you will hear the clerk say time When you hear the clerk, please wrap up and finish your comments Everyone will have three minutes to speak clerk can we procedure Doesn't uh, when there's an application doesn't the applicant get a chance to make a presentation first before the public? Sure we might check with staff to As long as we have it the applicant is the person in the uh, public queue that has their Okay, um, the applicant you will have a longer than three minutes to go ahead and make your presentation. Um, Let's go ahead and go to the applicant, please Good evening. Can you hear me? Good. Yes, thank you. Go ahead. Great. This is john swift on the applicant representing steve benedom. He's the property owner So thank you very much for the staff report timothy. It was very thorough A lot of background information on this. I was involved in the original subdivision Uh, and I think it's worthwhile to to take a moment to think back how this thing evolved We originally proposed seven townhouses and 14 units down on the old reservoir that was recently, uh, redeveloped and this through the process of Going through city city planning review and that kind of thing this thing got reduced down to two townhouse lots And nine Lots these nine lots are consistent with the 7 000 square foot zoning the r1 7 zoning The townhouses are up, of course on this lot and that open space was relevant to those townhouses The lot b was never part of the hoa that was never is in the d re final, uh Uh final report does not include The these this slot b in the final report Um, so this the ccnr as we can get into details, but the ccnr has two pages the first page shows, uh Both parcels a b and c and parcel b is included The next page if you go back through this in detail, uh, it did not include parcel b The change that was made was to correct that inconsistency That was that what the ccnr's were approved by the staff, but it was an inconsistent document So we we corrected that and um, that was the issue that occurred there So the point now is we're faced with a change in times when density Is considered, uh, not necessarily a bad thing as back in 2000 housing was not necessarily a public good It was actually a kind of a Negative if you were will or a scourge and in essence, it was, uh, very strongly Discouraged and we ended up with uh quite a few different lot quite a few less lots So we have reviewed the staff report. We think it's generally, uh, a good staff report There are a couple of conditions. We have concerns about we do prefer alternative one Uh, alternative one we think provides the opportunity for accessory dwelling unit behind the two existing townhouses The two existing townhouse lots were approved in the configuration that you've seen They are detached lots or detached townhouses on separate lots We are making them alternative one makes them a little bit bigger a little bit more consistent with the zoning ordinance Doesn't make them all the way consistent with r1 7 standards, but that was never required in the first place So taking this unused parcel parcel b uh, it's been agreed by the HOa of the nine homes, which again never really had an interest in this parcel It was they'd never owned or had an interest, but they did recognize that in this settlement agreement And uh, we're taking that parcel that is has been unused and turning it into a worthwhile Uh, a housing opportunity for both the main dwelling and an adu So it is the out of the owner's preference to have alternative one And we hope that you will give that some consideration Uh, the condition that we're concerned about is condition 17 which calls for the inclusion Of parcel b which would now be this house and adu Into the HOa Uh itself for the nine homes again, this would be a a change from what was originally Proposed because the again the HOa never included parcel b or these two townhomes So to add this to the HOa would be I believe it would require that HOa to Approve that addition Which they have indicated in the past they were not interested in that property and they approved the development of this single house On this parcel which they do not use have no interest in using And we also have letters from the tenants of the two townhouse units. They also Support this project and have not they admit that they have not used this parcel really have no use for it So it is a the general plan It's also important to note the general plan includes policies that talk about infill development and encouraging the housing development on these remnant or infill parcels And that is what this is it's a remaining parcel from a subdivision that really Was developed at a time when density was discouraged Times have changed There is a need for housing and this is an attempt to provide additional housing And it's we're walking a thin line also in the sense of What is consistent with the neighborhood what the homeless association down below has supported versus More housing so to speak an even denser project so Uh the condition number 17 again, we don't understand the logic as to why This house or lot would be included in the HOA below for the nine homes so We would like some discussion on that point in consideration Of striking that condition number 17 So with that i'll conclude my presentation be available for any questions or comments and Further discussion Thank you. Um, we'll go ahead and is there any clarifying questions from commissioners To the applicant before we go to public comment. Go ahead and commissioner conway Yeah, thank you And thanks for letting us know The perspective um On the point of the the is is this New lot would it be the only lot in the development that isn't part of the HOA? So all the rest of the housing is Organized Through the HOA And I should I answer that Yes, go ahead. Mr. Swift. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, so no the townhouse lots have never been part of the HOA So there would be all that those properties north of repetitive road, which would be the three Have not and would not be part of the HOA And again, that was part of that original confusion In that document which in on one page included them on the other page did not The DRE final report did not include either of these explicitly Uh, um, eliminates those three from the DRE final report And we can share it. I think uh, timothy has that document. You might be able to put it up or we can share it with you I can read the paragraph that specifically eliminates that but if you'd like Does does that answer your question commissioner conway? Okay, I think we're all good. Mr. Swift Um, any other clarifying questions for the applicant before we go out to see if there's any public comment Yes, commissioner. Kennedy, please Uh, so I just want to be clear. So the the whole new Alternate design has developed since june 2nd at At the you know, in conjunction with staff or that was there before So alternative one was there before alternative two has become staff's recommendation Uh through discussions with them back and forth and I'll let timothy elaborate on that I just I saw the report. I just wanted to kind of understand that process and the back and forth there a little bit more Sure, uh, commissioner. Kennedy, uh, you're right. So what happened is following the initial, um, consent agenda item on june 2nd staff, uh through further kind of review of the project realize that Due to kind of the functionality of the townhouse lots is detached without shared kind of open amenity space between them They really effectively function a single family lot. So the recommendation was made to just, um, Present fully conforming lots the in alternative to the lots aren't fully conforming but they do have the lot size required in the r17 zone district and part of that was because the Part of the the open space area of the private open space area behind those townhouse lots was kind of have slightly, you know steep and slope and continuing the lots to the Um, the street frontage would give private open space. So it was more usable Okay, and it sounds like there's some Unclarity way back to that original subdivision Even before june. So I sympathize. Thank you Okay, any other commissioners have questions for staff or the applicant? Okay Now we'll go ahead and go out for public comment Any members of the public who would like to speak on this item now is the time to raise your hand if you're on zoom If you use the raise hand Feature down at the bottom if you are on a phone. Please press star nine now You have a few seconds for the delay to see if anyone would like to speak Okay, clerk. I am not seeing any hands. Could you please confirm? I do not see any hands either Okay We'll go ahead and um Close the public comment then and we will bring it back to uh, the commission for Discussion and action. I see commissioner shifrin. Please go ahead I have a number of questions. I wanted to hear from the public as well the applicant before asking them I'm finding it somewhat confusing understanding the difference between What was in the hoa and what was in the subdivision that was originally approved by the council My understanding is that the subdivision included the two townhouse lots and the Common open space lot Whatever its number is now whatever the letter is now that was approved in the original conditions of approval as common open space for the um Overall subdivision. Is that not correct? I guess I'm asking staff Yes staff, could you shed some light on that for us, please? Sure. Um, it's a little uh A little difficult to decipher but the original Description of lot b As including the ccnr is that john, uh, mr. Swift spoke to earlier does include a lot b as as Um open space common open space and it's labeled that way in the recorded maps Um, that's the information that we have accessible to us uh, whether As you know, mr. Swift described um that part of it we Um, you know, the kind of the original tent. Unfortunately, we just don't have very good written records indicating Uh, that that aspect is is what was in front of the staff at the time not to say that it's not It's just difficult to decipher because of the nature of the subdivision Um, it's uh, but but again to kind of reiterate what I mentioned earlier Is the information we had both in the ccnr's and in the subdivision map do show that lot b is common area And the subdivision map shows it to affordable units It doesn't indicate them as affordable. Um, but it does show those townhouse lots correct Okay, so What i'm understanding then and correct me if i'm wrong is that the hoa was set up Which was supposed to reflect the what was it in the subdivision? But it excluded the affordable units in the common open space. Um, and Well, that was the What were the testimony if i'm understanding it that that was the original intention of the uh, home on this association It doesn't sound like it was the original intention of the council when it approved the Subdivision because it included the townhouse units and it included the common open space and the ccnr's Do talk about common open space It's not really clear where you know the streets are common open space But it's not really clear what all they include But even if it's true that they don't include the the Common open space parcel and the two townhouse units That does seem like an inconsistency with the approval that the city council gave to the project and you know the Origin and the subdivision map So you have a subdivision map which creates a subdivision And part of it is in the home on this association and part of it isn't in the home on its association That is that normal Um in response to that commissioner shifrin. It's not totally out of The realm of possibility there I've experienced this in in other projects where PD was Entitled and kind of Explicitly or implicitly exempted certain parcels it so it does happen from time to time. It's not standard though and In response to the item regarding the townhouse lots The ccnr's actually do mention that lots 10 and 11 Which were the designations given to those townhomes um townhouse lots We're not included as part of the ccnr's The the notion with lot b is is a bit more murky because the ccnr's do Mention a lot b is open space But the further there's a description of open space that Does not include lot b. So it's that that aspect of it is a bit challenging. But again Going back to the kind of the early days of the project Lot b as staff understood it was intended to be open space that was part of the plan development Okay, um, I guess there's another legal question Can the Given that this You know the changes to the ccnr's and Selling off of the common open space was not anticipated in the original city council Approval could the commission recommend just denial of this application Are we under any legal obligation now that we're in a time that density suddenly? Is desirable. I don't really agree that it was ever as negatively considered as we heard but Is there any legal requirement? that the that the city uh that the Commission recommend and the city council approve this This application particularly since one of the required findings in section 24 44060 A is that there are changes in circumstances that make any or all of the conditions of the map no longer appropriate when necessary And i'm not sure what those Would be so i'm not sure, uh, you know, whether it would be required that the commission make these findings and recommend approval of this application So to cut to the chase can we legally deny? the application um that be one way and another I'm sorry commission does Oh so, um, the this evening that the commission is asked to uh To recommend to the city council Approval or that can be not recommended if if the commission so chooses so Um I believe that the commission can recommend against approval to the city council Thank you Mr. Schifrin did you have additional questions? I wonder is there any information on the height of the trees that are proposed to be cut down There are a couple of there's a few Trees on the site that are really large And I think serve as you know important noise buffers the site is extremely noisy. It's so close to highway 17 having gone out there um I think the noise study understates it a little bit um, but I just wonder if there is any information on the height of these trees That are going to be uh removed Sure commissioners Schifrin we there is it an arborist report. I believe that should be attached to the staff report Um, I didn't see height as that may not have included there. They're mature trees though to your point. They're sizable Having visited a lot. I I understand that they are quite large I don't know whether the height was was referenced. I can quickly try to find that information I don't think it is in the arborist report because I looked for it, but I could be wrong Okay, those are my questions Okay, thank you um Any other commissioners? Have any questions or would like to make a motion commissioner conway I guess my comments on this would be that uh To me it does not make sense to not have The townhouse lots included um in the hoa. I understand why that would be added um Just for the reason of um, the hoa You know deliberates and makes decisions on matters of common interest Um, I understand there might be an argument against it, but to me I I support a condition That would include them um in the hoa Um, and particularly since they're both They're the affordable units Um, it's uncomfortable that that they wouldn't have a role In common matters. That's you know my somewhat shallow take on it um The other thing, um, I guess I would say is I would support the staff recommendations Where the lots go all the way back. I can see that as far as usability Um, and of that open space. I think it's a better use of the lot That's where I'd come in Thank you. Commissioner Conway Um, any commissioners want to make a motion or any other comments? I think that's okay Uh, we had a quick toddler visit there. Excuse me. Um So I just feel That this went from a consent item, you know to this Whole other thing in this month, and I really feel like our job here is to encourage housing And to free up the developer to do whatever they'd like to get as many units as possible. So I really Have strong reservations about Not going with the staff recommendation, but I'm in favor of alternative one here Let's put it back and and let this guy go on his way Like if I could I would vote to put it back on the consent agenda right now Okay, well, uh, does anyone want to make a motion for an action of some sort? Uh, commissioner chaperon Well, as you heard I have a lot of Reservations about this application overall I think it's really um The integrity of the process is it You know is in question here The idea that city council approving common open space, but then it isn't common open space sold off And you know, I certainly like to suggest That in the future with subdivisions That if there is a requirement for common open space, there also be a requirement or a condition that there'd be a Uh conservation easement put on the common open space so that some future Um, if that's what the city council wants, that's what should be allowed And not that it can just be ignored and then 20 years later comes back and say oh now you really like housing So let me do whatever I want um, having said that um, I agree with commissioner conway that um Alternative two is a much more desirable approach than alternatives one um, given the um You know the realities and with the you know proposed condition number 17 so in order to move this along With some reluctance in reservation, I would move uh, the staff recommendation on this item With alternative two a second Okay, we have a motion on the floor to approve the staff recommendation Uh with a second by commissioner conway um We'll go ahead And bring this to a vote Uh, can we have a roll call vote, please Mr. Conway I Kennedy No Maxwell I Mercedes Miller I Schifrin I Here Dawson I Motion passes and we will move along to item number two Um objective development standards for multifamily and mixed-use housing ordinance amendments We'll have the same order of events. We'll have a staff report Uh, clarifying questions uh public comment and then for act to the commission for action We have a staff report, please All right. Good evening commissioners sarah doisy with the advanced planning division Um, thank you all for being here tonight Let's get started on round two of our um Objective standards projects. Okay. Can everyone see that? Okay, so tonight we're going to go through a little bit of background on the project And then i'm going to get right into it talking about the amendments that we're making to our existing zones multifamily residential zones and commercial zones Um, and then i'm going to talk about the new mixed-use Um zone districts that are proposed to be created Those will be implementing the land use pattern in the 2030 general plan and rezoning a number of parcels the then we'll talk about the amendments to our development review process and ways that Applicants project applicants might choose to vary from these objectives design standards that we've just created Then we'll talk. Um, lastly or our last two topics are about inclusionary ad use and replacement housing those are kind of Discussed together and then we have a section on two new definitions that were well one definition We're amending and one new definition. We're adding proposing to add to the muni code and then we'll get to our recommendation So a little bit of background. This is part two of two for the planning commission and uh as the final Components of this project to develop objective development standards and reconcile the mismatch between the cities adopted 2030 general plan and our existing zoning ordinance This project was initiated to first and foremost reconcile that existing mismatch between our Our general plan and our zoning ordinance Our general plan was adopted in 2012 and we have not yet had zoning code that fully implements the envisioned Land use intensities of that plan I'll talk more about that when I get to those mixed-use zone districts later We're also doing this project to further comply with state law Which now sort of restricts the discretion that local jurisdictions have when reviewing housing development We did get some some direction from the city council that in resolving this mismatch mismatch and creating these Objective development standards that we were going to do this through the zoning ordinance We were not going to be proposing any adjustments to the land use pattern of our general plan as part of this project So our first hearing on the second of this month Um focused on the site and building design standards as they were proposed your commission reviewed those Several weeks ago and then this hearing addresses sort of these other related issues and completes this task of Bringing all of these pieces together So first let's get into our amendments to our existing zones So first I just want to acknowledge there are so there are a couple of cleanup items that you may have noticed Sort of sprinkled throughout the text in all of these zone districts There's a change in state law how daycare homes are regulated small and large daycare homes And then also we recently completed and and completed review with the coastal commission of our wireless telecommunications Facilities ordinance. We just did a big update of that. And so There is there are changes in the zone districts that now recognize that certain Wireless facilities are can be reviewed without a public hearing and others do require a public hearing So you'll see that throughout all of the zone districts as well So in our rl and our rm zone districts, which are our two primary mixed use Sorry multi-family not mixed use. These are exclusively residential multi-family zones rl is our low density multi-family it has a density of between 20 and 28 ish Dwelling units per acre and our rm zone which has a density of between 30 and 39 dwelling units per acre We made no changes to the use standards or recommending Pardon me. No changes to the use standards or levels of review for the uses in those zone districts We did we are recommending a minor change In the way that we calculate and apply required side yard setbacks So the change that we're recommending goes from Um Relying exclusively on the height of the building to also taking into account the number of stories that are included It allows the building to taper. It creates this A requirement for articulation when a building exceeds two stories of height And this also allows more of the building area to be on the lower two levels rather than Making the whole building be sort of narrower and taller Um There also is uh the rh zone is included in our zoning package There aren't very many sites in the city that carry the rh zoning. This is a picture of one of them on Galt street or next i'm sorry. It's on handover off of galt And we're not recommending any changes to the use standards or the site standards in this zone district But it has a lot of very specific design standards that are in conflict with the objective design standards That we just reviewed at the last hearing. So we're recommending that we strike those and instead make reference to both Any area plans that might govern on these sites and then also to the objective design standards And then there are several changes also in the beach area zones. I just want to acknowledge I did not discuss these in the staff report. That was an oversight on my part So i'm going to just spend a little bit of extra moment on this this evening so The beach south alloral area plan when that was um written back in the 90s in order to implement that it required the creation of several like Very specific and very like hyper localized zone districts um, so some of these zone districts um actually literally only apply to like one or two parcels so um They're they're they're highly specific and so they're shown here on this map So we have the rta which is shown here in this um like dark orange color. We have the rtb, which is in this sort of um hatched oops All right Yes, I have a sensitive mouse. Sorry. This sort of hatched color is the rtb And it's also over here and then we have the rtd. That's the other residential These are all the residential beach area zones and then the rte Um, so In these zone districts, we did actually change some of the residential uses So in these zone districts, they are identified for residential use. That's part of the purpose Stated in the zone district and yet in in many cases those residential uses required use permits And um, given the changes in state law, we don't really see the benefit of continuing to require Use permits for residential uses. It gets a little bit tricky and especially if there's no residential use that is principally permitted in those zones, so um we um reduced the level of review for residential uses in these residential zones and made residential uses principally permitted And we deleted any distinction that was based on project size So a lot of these zone districts had carried a distinction between, you know, three to nine units was one level of review And 10 or more units was a was a higher level of review And we don't think that's really as functional as it was when this text was originally written So we're recommending that we reduce those to being principally permitted and rely on our design permit process to review the design of those Of those project proposals We're not making changes to the site standards or densities in these zone districts And the commercial any commercial uses that were previously allowed continue to be allowed We didn't make any changes to those or to the levels of review of those in these four zone districts So now in our commercial zone districts, we did make some changes So in our ct, which is our commercial thorough thoroughfare. That's kind of a long river street and there's Um, I think some of it goes on the other side of highway one along river street Um the cn a neighborhood commercial that's in some tiny pockets like sort of mixed into neighborhoods There's some in seabright. There's some on the west side and the circles neighborhood Um, there's some other sort of smaller sites. They're sort of like one-off kind of scattered around Um, the cb, which is beach commercial. That's largely it's mostly actually the boardwalk and the wharf is on cb It's shown here on this map in this darker pink color. So it does wrap around the corner. This is the um parking lot for the the One parking lot for the boardwalk and then It catches a couple of parcels along the street right here and then along the frontage there And then the pa which is our professional administrative zone districts That's primarily located along mission street. Um, like at the northern part of mission street But there are sort of pockets of it as well along soak hell And elsewhere in the city. So in these areas mixed use has been allowed and at this point and so in this update, um, we're Sort of clarifying and consolidating those uses. We're stating that active uses are required at the ground floor. So We talked about with the design standards on the second how we wanted to have active frontages in a lot of these commercial areas and so In in adopting these in amending these zoning ordinances. What we're doing is creating uses for active frontage And we're making mixed use of principally permitted use and putting some limits around standalone residential You will see a couple of zones where It currently allows standalone residential. And so we we still do allow like limited circumstances where standalone residential Could happen if there's not enough site area to do mixed use or to do multifamily development You can do sort of standalone single family dwellings in some of these zone districts But in general, um, the density that's required or that's allowed. Sorry on these, um In these zones is the is rms density or rl density. So there is a density that's established in these four zone districts. And so With those densities with the site standards that already apply on these, um For these zones with the height limits with the floor area ratio from the general plan You can meet those densities within The site standards that are allowed. So we're not recommending making any changes to those site standards because that density is still limited On the other hand in the community commercial the cc zone and the rtc, which is the other um, so beach commercial zone, uh In the um Along the beach area active uses are encouraged rather than required So in these two zone districts the current code and the code as it Stood on january 1st 2018, which is the state law sort of threshold that we're Called back to, um Allows standalone residential development and it allows specifically sro's so single room occupancy Which is the most the densest type of housing that the city allows And it currently those are currently allowed as standalone uses in those zone districts So we feel that in order to comp comply with state law. We need to maintain that allowance So that's what these are recommending it will they do Um allow for this type of development to happen sro's to happen as standalone projects because that is the current condition so, um, you'll recall you may recall that um when we approved the flexible density units when we made that Change at the end of last year um, we also added for that um a mixed use requirement in a few of the zone districts So in the downtown we added that and um and in the beach commercial We added a requirement for mixed use for to use those flexible density units At the time we did not add that mixed use requirement to the cc zone And so that's reflected again here where in the cc zone We would allow a standalone development of those flexible density units, which again are a little bit bigger than sro's it's um for the for our newer Planning commissioners or any members the public a flexible density unit is a type of unit that replaced A type of unit that the city had had in the past called a small ownership unit. So they're a little bit bigger than SRO's but they're still tend to be they're under um 620 square feet. I think for 600 square feet Uh, so they're really, you know studios or one bedrooms small units So in both of these zone districts the cc and the rtc larger units are allowed in either of these two conditions So as mixed use in the cc our existing condition is there's no density established When it's a mixed use development project. There's no residential density established And in the rtc there is a residential density established. It's based on the rta zone, which is essentially 30 dwelling units per acre So that density limit stays in place in the rtc Um, and that mixed use standard reflects our current condition And then the piece that we're adding is that for standalone residential In these areas we will allow standalone residential development When the ground floor is developed as live work units So that requires higher floor plates those round floor plates have to be 15 feet tall And um, we set some standards for that in the package of standards that your commission reviewed on the second So all of those standards would reply would apply To the ground floor um residential uses in these zone districts And then there would also be a density limit established and this reflects the current condition that in when you're doing residential only in the cc It's an rm density and when you're doing um residential only in the rtc It's the rta density and in both cases that's essentially 30 units per acre So um in terms of site standards the floor area ratio the setbacks are unchanged in these um in all of these zone districts The heights are unchanged everywhere except in the cc So in the community commercial cc zone district We are recommending that we allow an additional five feet of height for a mixed use project The current height limit in the cc is 40 feet three stories and 40 feet And um, we think that five additional five feet of height just adds a little bit of flexibility to accommodate more Of the retail ground floor and active uses that we want to see Um the standards for residential open space have been updated in all of these zone districts So regardless of the density that they're allowed to use for mixed use either the you know Rl low density multifamily or the rm for the rta, which is essentially the same as rm We're recommending the same open space requirement, which is 80 square feet of common open space At 40 a minimum these are minimums minimum of 40 square feet of private open space Um for the commercial uses themselves within these zone districts They're each categorized within each zone and we so we added what we added were um Categories so we added Callouts for Residential uses commercial uses and then we created uses for active frontage and just sort of reorganized the existing uses that were allowed And and placed them into those categories. So it'll it'll be clear to readers What their palette of choices is when they're looking at a use to occupy a space that has to be a use for active frontage What uses qualify as residential uses and how are those listed in each zone district? We left the levels of review unchanged for commercial uses And we also added clarifications throughout that design permits are required for new structures in these zone districts So now I'll talk about our new mixed use zones that we're proposing that will be implementing the general plan and the ocean street area plan so We got a fair amount of correspondence from folks who are concerned about how tall buildings meet up with r1 zones Um and are asking that your commission Decline to rezone certain areas for a higher density Um zone district and instead go for a lower density slightly lower density zone district I'm going to explain why staff is not recommending that so um The general plan adopted in in 2030 lays out four goals for our land use pattern sustainable land uses A compact community with boundaries defined by the city's green belt and monoray bay A complementary balance of diverse land uses and land use patterns that facilitate alternative transportation and or minimize Demand these are the four goals that are set out in the land use chapter of our general plan And the way that these goals work together then they then they filter down into policies and those policies filter into programs And then all together those policies and programs led to Identifying the parcels shown on this map to be Redesignated in the last general plan update the parcels that are shown colored here are the parcels that we are rezoning tonight or proposing to rezone tonight Um They are parcels that were identified for increased residential intensity mixed with commercial uses These are parcels that are located along transportation corridors. They are close to they're in our existing commercial core and nodes and um, these are places where um We decided to focus our new development rather than spreading it throughout existing neighborhoods or or looking into Greenfields or taking up our industrial land that could be otherwise used for employment um These are the sites that were identified for really capturing the bulk of the change um during the up until 2030 and so these are the sites that we're talking about rezoning tonight To set the state law context that we're working in at this point, which Let's be clear. This is a different state law context than we were working under when we adopted the general plan And this is where we are today. So the housing crisis act and the housing accountability act To summarize essentially say we must allow for the development of housing all jurisdictions, not just Santa Cruz um The standards must allow for the planned residential capacity of a property to actually be built and that takes us back to january 1st 2018 whatever was allowed on that date Is what we must allow at this point moving forward unless we want to Um start moving moving things around So the capacity of the zoning or the general plan, whichever is greater. So that's what we are obligated to Accept applications relative to and process in terms of development. That's what we are doing now We saw that with the 831 water development um That was an sp35 application Which came in and which we reviewed against our objective standards and that property I think they didn't even hit the the allowed floor area ratio from the general plan. So That's what we're that that's kind of the scale of development that we're considering when we're considering the Floor area ratios that are called for in the general plan and the amount of housing That's really planned for those sites and the state law says we have to accommodate We can't use subjective standards to limit the amount of housing Um, we can't reduce the intensity of land use and reductions could be any of the following reductions in height density floor area ratio Excuse me lot coverage or increases in setbacks open space and minimum parcel size. So when we were creating the site standards proposed for these mixed-use zone districts We relied on the test bits that we did with our consultants on the um objective design standards where we like analyzed, you know, what does it mean to have 2.75 floor area ratio with our parking standards And what kind of an open space requirement can we have on these parcels and still have everything kind of fit together? And then what does that mean? How do we take that test and have it apply to lots of different kinds of parcel geometry, right? So um, so that's like the thinking that goes into setting these standards And I will admit this is an art rather than an exact science. So there's definitely room for discussion on these Um, so all of these mixed-use zone districts require uses for active frontage They support mixed-use and they allow 100 percent commercial development. So because these sites are really in our existing commercial core We wanted to be sure that someone could still come in and do a 100 percent commercial development If that was um, what the market demanded or if there were um ways The reasons that a property owner would want to do that because this is also these lands are also um relied upon for employment generation And neighborhood services So all the commercial uses in the mixed-use zones are based on existing uses in the community commercial the cc zone Um, most of these parcels are currently zoned cc over 90 percent are currently in that zone district The ocean street zones do the mix proposed mixed-use zones encourage more commercial use and visitor serving uses and that's based on the The goals and policies that are in the ocean street area plan Which really focus talks about using Ocean street as a place as a commercial corridor that is serving visitors and locals that allows for mixed use Which is a bit different than um the The areas that are Identified in the general plan for mixed-use medium density and mixed-use high density, which were really talked about as housing in a mixed-use context So the site standards that we're recommending for each of these zone districts were Based on the adopted general plan and the ocean street area plan the heights were determined based on Looking at the floor area ratio as I mentioned in the general plan and then in the ocean street area plan There are actually stories minimum and maximum established for each of these locations So, um, that's what you're going to see on these next slides as we go through each of the zone districts I have one correction that I'd like to point out Um on the summary sheet There's a summary sheet in your packet that lists all six of the zone districts and it has this footnote on it Which I actually have made one of tiny amendment to Um, we intended to include this footnote In each of the six zone districts and I missed doing that So it is my intention to do that and this is part of our staff recommendation Is that this be included with each zone district as we move forward to city council So I just want to point that out for everyone The intention was that it be in the code and it's not reflected there, but we will make that correction before we go to council so this talks about um matching setbacks to any residential neighbor if the if the residential neighbor has a larger setback then the mixed use project would have to match that setback and then it also talks about um It just makes sure there's a cross reference to the neighborhood transition plane, which is that 45 foot plane Which starts at three stories and ensures that any um higher stories are pulled back from From any residential neighbors or R1 neighbors Okay, so our first zone district the mixed use medium density is um located on mission street in a few clusters This area carries a general plan land use designation of mixed use medium density Which establishes a floor area ratio of 1.75 And a density for um those larger two plus bedrooms of between 10 and 30 dwelling units per acre So the height that we're recommending For commercial use is three stories and 40 feet. That's actually the same height and stories limit Is currently in place in the cc zone district for these parcels Three stories and 40 feet And then for mixed use We're recommending that we allow one more story and an additional five feet of height. So four stories and 45 feet of height These are the parcels that are um proposed to be rezoned to the mixed use high density um these parcels are on Soquel and then in two clusters along water street at water and Branson 40 and at water and moracy They carry a general plan land use designation of mixed use high density with a maximum floor area ratio of 2.7 five oops Sorry the density for those That's established for these uses in those these areas in the general plan Is um between 10 and 55 dwelling units per acre for those two or two bedrooms or more units So in this in these areas we're recommending for commercial uses that the maximum height be four stories and 50 feet And for mixed use that it be five stories and 55 feet And now the ocean street zone so the ocean street zones i'll just point out the um the uses vary just a little bit from the uses that are proposed in in the mixed use medium density and mixed use high density Primarily in in moving lodging uses into principally permitted because the the goals in the ocean street area plan Really is want ocean street to become more of a visitor serving area And that's also um the goal of the one of the land use designations in the general plan that applies here in ocean street So that's all of the ocean street area zones have the same uses at the same levels all the way through Um and what varies between them is the site standards So um and the site standards are based on this bend diagram of What's required in the general plan what's allowed in the general plan and what's allowed in the ocean street area plan so Um mixed use medium density ocean street medium density florae ratio of 1.75 density of 10 to 30 dwelling units per acre Um recommending height for commercial three stories and 45 feet height for mixed use three stories and 40 feet Um and then also a minimum height of one story and 16 feet and this we're talking about these sites that are shown here in this lightest orange color So here at barson and ocean here in the middle part of ocean across from the county building and the paradox and then um here on the on the backside of you know these parcels from an ocean and these Front onto may and a hubbard and then up here at the top of ocean street as well at washburn mixed use ocean street high density This is this darker orange color um Up here and then down here at um ocean and broadway These also carry that mixed use general plan of mixed use medium density. So they also have a far of 1.75 But the ocean street area plan actually calls for more height in this zone So four stories and 55 feet is what we're recommending for commercial um For mixed use we're recommending four stories and 50 feet and the minimum height here It would be two stories and 24 feet So mixed use visitor serving high density this lighter blue color So it's here along stokell and ocean and then also over here on riverside this one little spot um These couple little parcels here on lennard and then otherwise this intersection in the three corners of this intersection at water and ocean So this carries a general plan land use designation of mixed use visitor commercial which has a maximum far of 2.75 And a density for those larger units between zero and 55 dwelling units per acre So here the ocean street area plan caps height at four stories So we're recommending a height for commercial development of four stories and 55 feet for mixed use of four stories and 50 feet and then a minimum For all uses of two stories and 20 24 feet And then our last ocean street zone. This is the Mixed use visitor serving additional height. This is the darkest blue color here. So it's um along Broadway and ocean here on dakota and then um, oh jeez And then also the the county the site with the county building right here So, um, this also carries a designation of mixed use visitor commercial with that same at they are 2.75 intensity of 0 to 55 to you per acre Um, this the ocean street area plan sets a six-story height Standard for this area. So we're recommending six stories and 75 feet for commercial And um, six stories and 70 feet for mixed use and a minimum height of three stories and 40 feet for all uses So, um, I also included this slide that just sort of puts all the zone districts together So you kind of compare them across the board um, the The density for each of these that's established is reflected on in the It has been reflected in the zoning ordinance in the Um, the version of this summary that's in your packet. It says there's no zoning density established We actually decided to put it in the zoning ordinance. So there is the density established and it's based on Exactly what it comes out of the general plan In terms of the lot area required per unit So, um in order for rezoning to be processed your commission needs to make the following two findings One that the public necessity the general community welfare and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered And second that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles policies and land use designations Set forth in the general plan the local coastal program and any area adopted area or specific plan that may apply So we believe these findings, um can be made in that, um this By rezoning these properties. We're creating transparency as I've explained the A capacity that's allowed in the general plan Can be built today of we are required to review development applications that come in using that full far amount and Even if our zoning can't accommodate that in the existing, you know, three story 40 foot height limit We still have to accept those applications and process them and review them with objective standards that can accommodate that full amount of development capacity. So, um We do believe it's a good public service to make that very transparent and very clear to people what can be built on properties all throughout the city, um, we also think it is good zoning practice to concentrate development in places where there are options for jobs where there are options for transportation We're not every car every trip has to be made with a car um, we also Are we also have kept these rezonings Exclusively to those parcels that are identified in the general plan with these land use designations So we are implementing the general plan and going no further And then the height limits that we're, um proposing are exactly those that are reflected in the ocean street area plan So now i'll talk about the amendments to our development review policy. So this is we're making these changes to recognize that um under these state laws as i've mentioned our local discretion and housing development has really been altered and our um It makes sense to adjust our process to recognize that. Um The situation where we find ourselves currently is that we have um several types of projects that require public hearings at which we can't apply different standards or use our discretion in the in the way that we are accustomed to and so um We're just looking for ways to help all of us Help the public understand and make sense of this new reality and understand where they can actually have influence and where We cannot accept any influence under the state law um, and then also, uh, just to Recognize all the work that has gone into creating these objective development standards And we um, we're looking for a process that can really let those work and let them function as the way in the way they're intended to So the proposed, um Review development review, um process makes no change to our community outreach policy Which requires notification and community meetings for projects based on their size It makes no changing to the public hearing requirements for commercial development For density bonus applications for variance applications development agreements plan developments all of those required public hearings Um at various levels and we'll continue to do so Um, we are recommending making some changes to reflect the limitations under state law for housing development That we can't deny our condition of project to reduce its housing reduce intensity We have to rely on objective standards for that review And we can't have any net loss of development capacity So what we're recommending is that for fully compliant proposals. So proposals that come in they meet all of their zoning standards They're compliant with the general plan. They meet every one of those Objective standards for uh design that we reviewed on june 2nd that apply to their project A design permit would be required, but it would be reviewed administratively By the zoning administrator and would not trigger the need for a public hearing regardless of project size So we would have done that community outreach event for a compliant project if it triggered that, you know, if it was five or more units Um And we by by requiring this design permit we create the right of appeal. So, um, you know any Any interested concerned parties they they will still have the right to appeal that permit And they and then also by by being a discretionary action Um, these projects are projects under sequel. So they would be subject to an initial study So that's what we're proposing for projects that fully comply that they go through a relatively streamlined Discretionary process to, you know, move through and get their permits and not be subject to the need for a public hearing unless there's an appeal that comes in Also because we have just adopted these objective design standards, we haven't used them yet Um, we're not sure How they're going to hit the ground what kind of issues might come up with development proposals We felt the need to create some kind of process to allow Project applicant at their discretion to apply for a discretionary review If they want to very propose an alternative design for Any of the any of those standards. So we're limiting the scope of this alternative process to only Departing from the standards that are in that section of 24 12 185, which is the objective Design standards for multifamily and mixed use housing that you reviewed on the second So for those projects a design permit would be required But it would trigger a public hearing as soon as you're varying from one of those you're going to trigger the need for a public hearing um and uh we're recommending that We accept review alternative designs for up to five of those standards at the za level And as soon as it's six or more of those standards that we kick those Those public hearings up to the planning commission and let your commission really think about all the ways that A project might be wanting to vary or propose an alternative way of method of compliance with the design standard So at those public hearings there would be findings that would have to be made So again, we'd be making that very first design permit finding Which is essentially that the project is consistent with the general plan with the municipal code with all these Standards that we have around land use development um, but then also um The public hearing body would need to make the finding that the alternative design achieves the goal Established for the standard from which they are seeking to vary so, um, for example roof forms are the design standards that we've Reviewed that your commission discussed on the second require a variation in roof form for every 30 one variation for every 30 feet of building frontage so We could have a situation where based on the length of the building the building is supposed to have four Varying roof forms and for one reason or another The developer really wants to provide three alternative roof forms instead of four or two something like that um The planning commission or the zea would would need to look at that alternative design and see if it still meets this goal That's established for the variation in roof form Which is to ensure that the tops of buildings are designed with architectural interest and to reduce bulk of buildings as they meet the sky so um That hearing body would use their discretion and determine if they could make that finding based on the alternative design as presented um And then we're also proposing that you know following that hearing after a permit is design permit is issued If a developer comes in with any modification To that would it that would add more standards So vary from a standard that wasn't previously considered at a public hearing that it would trigger the need for a new hearing We really just want to encourage All of the alternatives to get out on the table all at once so that we can really Look at the design holistically and determine if you can actually make the findings for each of the standards for which They're seeking to use an alternative design So I do also want to talk about the density bonus. So as I mentioned density bonuses Um, you know, we'll still trigger a public hearing. They are still going to be allowed, right? So a density bonus can allow um a developer a development proponent to request waivers to standards that physically prevent development of the number of units that they're entitled to under that Density bonus under the amount of Bonus that they're seeking. Um, so typically the standards that that folks seek to waive with that are parking height far and setbacks typically things about design materials articulation um, don't come up as much in terms of waivers There are um concessions that can be used those are limited for each project. So No more than four concessions are allowed and they have to be related to the financial feasibility of the project So that could include things like materials things like windows You know things like that but there's a limited number that they are qualified for and 100 affordable project only gets four of those concessions. So that was one of the reasons that we felt like it was important to really um Fully articulate our design vision as we have more of those standards more of those standards will apply even to density bonus projects Okay, so inclusionary ad use and replacement housing standards um, so The proposal is that um ad use not be able to be used as inclusionary units for a primary residential unit use So currently in the code there's a provision that allows um the city council to Identify ad use to be used to meet the inclusionary requirement of a development proposal I think Primarily, this has been used in the past when with subdivisions when subdivisions triggered the need for um, including Inclusionary units that sometimes the city council would want to identify a single family home and the ad you attach to it to meet that um Inclusionary requirement. This has been an implementation problem as those single family homes change hands over time and then New owners aren't really aware of all the requirements that go along with that and then they want to lift the inclusionary they want to lift the deed restriction on the ad you and um, it's It hasn't functioned very well for us um at the city and um, also we don't really think it makes sense you know the the point of the inclusionary requirement is to Create units that are equivalent to um the market rate unit. So We're removing that we're recommending that we delete that allowance to the city council and say that ad use can't be used to meet the inclusionary requirement for the primary um residential use either as single family homes or as multifamily homes and um because ad use are now allowed on multifamily properties We are in a situation where we haven't been before and and um, we could have Five or more ad use on a single property And so, um, what we're recommending is that we create an inclusionary requirement for those units So when they're as soon as you get to that fifth ad you one of those ad use now has to be an inclusionary unit And they become subject to the same Standards for compliance. So ideally inclusionary ad use Are ad use the inclusionary requirement for ad use is met by creating inclusionary ad use deed restricted affordable housing ad use um the Inclusionary requirement for the larger multifamily project is met through those units. Um, and they're and they're separately They're required separately on the same parcel So that's what we're proposing um for replacement housing um, this is another area where state law has recently Come in and made a lot of new requirements for us And um, we know that our our whole ordinance needs like a full-scale update, but um at this point what we want to do is Simply add some text to alert readers of the code that there are these requirements that come out of state law There are places where our code is more strict and we would want to continue to apply those There are places where state law is more strict and we're obligated to apply that We have a whole interpretation document that's available on our website. It's multiple pages So I won't try to explain Where all those places are So what we're recommending is simply that we add text to the code that calls out that You know this code section applies and there may also be standards that come out of the The state law that would also apply to demolition of residential units And the requirements for replacement housing Okay, and then lastly we've got two two new definitions or sorry one amended definition and one new definition that we're proposing to Add to the code so we're proposing to amend the definition of usable open space So that it identifies that the area that's underneath a tree canopy an existing tree canopy Counts double towards required open space. We're hoping that this can provide some flexibility and encourage developers to maintain those trees in place on site That's the goal And then we are also adding a definition for volumetric modular housing, which is sort of a newer building technology that involves Essentially like lego bricks of housing that are factory built modules come to site. They get joined together The factories are state regulated and state inspected and then one and then on site the construction and installation is done relative to the building codes building standards codes Um, and so we're proposing a definition where 50 or more of a structure consists of these modules. It's classified as that type of development um And that all that entitles those developments to a little bit more height No, no additional stories, but a little bit more height um in in the mixed use zones and in the cc zone So now we'll just wrap up with our next step So after tonight's hearing assuming we can you know get get through tonight and get some kind of recommendation going out to our City council will be bringing together all of the pieces of the objective standards and stuff We talked about on the second the stuff we're talking about tonight will be adding into the proposed ordinance amendments everything that public works took to the transportation public works commission Everything that parks took to their parks and rec commission will be adding in a small amendment to our water efficient landscaping ordinance to recognize the provision for living walls that has been added in these objective design standards And then also your commission is going to be hearing a cleanup zoning item Later in july and we will be grabbing that ordinance as well and bringing it all together so that we're sure Putting it all together into one big ordinance to go to council so that we're Not getting crossed up with each other and accidentally deleting things. So we're going to just take everything together in one big package We're targeting the city council hearing on august 23rd for that for a first reading Which will give us a second reading later in september and then get us to implementation by october and Outside the coastal zone. We also need to submit to the coastal commission the portions of this package that are coastal implementing ordinances, which is several of them Several components of this package will need to be reviewed by the coastal commission So we'll be submitting that to to the coastal commission. Um, also in october after sometime after the second reading in september So Follow that our staff recommendation is that your commission passed a motion to recommend that the city council approved the proposed amendments to the city A san juzmina school code as presented Tonight and make the required findings for the recommended rezonings and find that the Proposed ordinance and zoning map amendments are consistent with the eir previously adopted for the 2030 general plan And with that I will take any questions from the commission Okay, thank you so much for that report. Um, we'll go ahead and go to clarifying questions from commissioners now Mr. Schifrin go ahead Thank you. Um, first I want to thank uh, thank you sarah and staff for all the work that went into this um, it's quite impressive it's a lot of thought and complexity that you had to deal with And you know, I appreciate the work that occurred um I have some questions about Some of the implications of the recommendations As you know, there's a proposal for 390 unit development at 908 ocean street And what i'm wondering is is that within the mixed use medium or the mixed use high proposed district? So that neither it's on ocean street, right? So that's in one of those mixed use so mixed use ocean medium or ocean high It's in it covers both, right? So it actually straddles the line and so in when they as they've been reviewing that project because it's like already quite In the pipeline they're like getting an eir done. They're going out for hiring a consultant to do the eir now So different portions of that site are subject to different um far standards So the review of that project has been a little bit complicated because of that Okay under the proposed Assuming that that project doesn't request the density dump bonus doesn't request A plan development doesn't request a variance under the proposed Site review And they don't propose any variance from the objective standards Would this project be approvalable by right? So it's not by right. So so there's two things here. So first of all that project's already in the pipeline So like our objective is talking about a project that's sure. Yeah, so let's so let's pretend that project Goes away and exactly the same project comes back next year. Okay, so It's not by right. It does require this discretionary design permit um Which is a discretionary action it's administrative and like it so it's a little bit of this gray area, right? Like we we don't really have any a lot of discretion that we can exercise under the state law and yet we're setting up this Administrative procedure. It's not a ministerial action, right? It's not just There would not there would not need to be a public hearing, right? So there there would be public notification through our community outreach policy There would be a community meeting through our community outreach policy And then staff would review that Application and if it conforms to all of the standards, we would grant the design permit Which creates a right of appeal triggers sequa All that stuff sequa review, you know initial study Okay, um I wanted to I appreciate The extensive response you gave to the public correspondence regarding the Request that the commission reduced the density in these mixed shoot high density mixed juice areas um I want to try to cut to the chase because I kind of got lost Through all the explanation. I'm afraid that some of the members of the public might have as well But my understanding is the commission and the city council cannot Change cannot approve zoning that is inconsistent with the general plan But the or if it does it doesn't matter because the general plan is going to um prevail so the What is being proposed is conforming the zoning ordinance to the general plan Because we have to in a sense We need to get right down to it because we are legally required to implement the Regulations at the general plan density So it makes no sense to have a zoning ordinance Uh density that's different from that because it just sends up An incorrect message to the public. I just think it's very important to just make it very clear that We can't do What we're being requested to do? um, and I think that I just want to confirm That my understanding is is correct no matter how sympathetic we may be The wanting to do what's being requested It's not something that is within our jurisdiction or authority Under current state law. Is that true? Yes, that's correct. That's a very succinct summary. Thank you Okay, thank you. I um Had a concern about the usable open space definition Not because I potentially disagreed with it But I know there was some we've had a good deal of discussion about usable open space How much of it could be communal? How much of it were community? How much of it would be private? And um, I'm just I just wonder what the potential impact of this definition is if there's a big tree at one corner of the property that shades a whole You know a quarter of the property Would that essentially make? You know private open space impossible so there'd be this Open space that would be left That would be there whether it's usable open space or not because Um, the development would be Prohibited from cutting down the tree because it was not necessary for the development So I'm I guess I need more understanding about how this really would be an incentive For developers since um, you know, if a tree's in the middle of the site It's going to need to get cut down for the for the development to occur if it's at the edge of the site It's not going to be possible to for it to be cut down one way or the other because we want to protect our heritage trees so I'm not you know all we Simply reducing private open space or community open space by doing this um when we're really not providing much of an incentive to Protect heritage trees because there's great the incentive to protect them Yeah, that's my concern Yeah, no, I do. Um, I think that that it's a good question. Um, I So I guess so so let let me think about this Would it cut down on the amount of total open space provided on the site? Yes, it would it would cut down on that on that total amount of open space required With the intent then being that that flexibility that's Provided to the development will allow them to accommodate a tree rather than cutting it down um in the mixed use zones and the commercial zones the total amount of required um open space I think can be met pretty easily and this um, I don't see I guess I see your concern that um, you know the That this may not be too much of an incentive because of um, you know the way that development happens I don't share that concern on the mixed use in the mixed use zones and the commercial zones because um of the amount of open space that's required because it's only 80 square feet of Of communal per unit and 40 square feet of private And the way that we've tuned the incentives in um part one that came on on june 2nd Is that there's no limit on the total amount of open space that can be dedicated to the to private open space So private open space now has the preference over communal open space That is a change from the current condition which preferences communal open space over private open space That's based on feedback. We got from existing renters blah blah blah all that stuff so, um I do see the place where I could see this sort of not really working for a site is a place that's Really really covered with trees Right now and where and where it's zoned for the rl or the rm where we are not making any change To that total amount of required open space Um and the open space requirement in those zone districts is quite high So in those places, I could see that you know, it may not work as well as we would hope it would um Just based on the total amount of open space that would still be required And you'd still be kind of like pushing on this building. So counting, you know, just this this, you know 200 circular square feet as 400 might not be enough to really Make the building footprint more flexible that those same, you know 200 to 400 on a site where the Total amount of open space required is less. I think it can Create that flexibility and create more opportunities to preserve these trees I mean, we could have trees that are in a courtyard, right? So we can be pushing the buildings Outward we don't have any front setbacks or any side setbacks on these mixed use sites or commercial sites Right, so you could have a situation where you have a courtyard with a tree that can stay in place in front of the building. So, um I see your concern, um, but I think In most cases this will at least provide some flexibility. Um You know, I whether it whether it's going to get all the way there, I think we'll have to wait and see I think that's true of a lot of these design standards, you know, we have this intention. We've set these goals. We've done Our best work that we can and we're going to have to kind of see how they hit the ground with development review over the next year Or two years or so I guess I hear what you're saying, but I think, you know, as they could work positively it could work negatively in terms of You know limiting Private open space, but um, you know, I think it is unclear it could work either way So, okay. I don't those are my questions for now. I have substantive concerns um, but I'll wait until after the All public gets to speak before Reviewing those Thank you again. Thank you. Thank you. Any commissioners with any clarifying questions for staff before we go to public comment Okay, seeing none members of the public Now is the time if you would like to speak on the aggressive standards to raise your hands Using the raise hand function if you're on zoom and if you're on the phone Please go ahead and press star nine and we'll call on you and you will have three minutes once you are called upon You will hear the clerk say time And once you hear that, please wrap up your comments. Okay going to public comment clerk Will you please uh call on the first speaker? Please? Please identify yourself if you're like if you would like and you will have three minutes Speaker you're on the line Hello Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead Okay, um, my name is kandace brown. I live on the east side uh east moracy um And resident for 47 years. Um I'm also on the transportation and public works commission and i've been following as many know very closely the corridors from the very first meetings Community meetings and going into the corridor advisory committee meetings that went on for 18 months um So basically, um, I have a couple key comments one in the general plan There's only two things my understanding that are specified And frankly, I don't think many people understood what that really meant one was 2.75 far Which is the floor area ratio and the other is 55 units per acre Um in previous state was 30 units per acre Um, I should also note that they were supposed to put in a high density bonus of 40 But I think it was forgotten in the regional general plan um, and was Perhaps added later as part of the um density bonus laws, but anyway So with that being said with 2.75 far I don't understand why Uh, mvh Is four stories with 50 feet Um height whereas, uh, mu H is Five stories of 55 units I know they were considering higher height in stories, um Along so kellen water, but that was before They were considering the implications of height in its new bonus and state mandates and so If anything it should go down because the base unit then You know would would provide Some constrained if you will because they can still go beyond that with the density bonus and with the waivers and concessions so My initial comment is why not go with mu bh for the um the height and the Four stories Because you're already shown that 2.75 could be done within that footprint I should also mention that it was very clear during the Advisor committee meetings, which were not unfortunately considered in this exercise for some reason um, but there is documentation that was part of the consultants and It was very clear that A transit oriented environment on so kell and water was really not feasible If you wanted to set up Best rapid transit You would have to take out all the parking along so kell alone would be 300 parking spaces that would be the Parking area of four whole food parking lots Which doesn't exist and also you would have to set back the buildings Which were estimated by the ebers family to be at least 40 50 buildings on so kell alone to Intertain the idea of a truly transit oriented environment So it's always been sad to me to consider that we talk about that in that context when it's really not the case Thank you Thank you for your comments clerk, please Call the next speaker To have the planning commission to make a requirement of 25 affordable units before the density bonus That's what we need is affordable units, especially on water street and so kell um If the planning commission requests the staff and city council to work on securing state and federal and private funds to build 100 affordable Then we aren't going to be hit with this density bonus has caused in the high to get so high way over five stories What we need to do We've got so much research by notable scholars telling us about building additional Market rates When we need the affordable is going to hurt our community because That will make the people that are the Low income Stick down to the very low income and that is the rena Numbers that we've never met and we can't do that We need people to be able to live in these units that are the section 8 and the people that are low income We can't make it to it's very important We have to consider the consequences of what we're doing and how we need You guys the planning commission the city council listens to you when you guys vote on something They don't even talk about the particulars that went on They just go by what you vote and when you Make a comment and really let them know what it's important for them to do they can direct staff And we really need that we need the wisdom in our community Thank you for all your work and the mods for their ideas. I was really good that There it came up with thank you Thank you for your comments We'll go ahead and go to the next caller caller. Please identify yourself if you'd like and you have three minutes Hi, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead, please. Yeah, my name is Jim Burns and I live on the east side Um, I realize that compromise is a mostly negative word in government these days But it seems pretty obvious that this process could ideally Result in standards that allow us to accommodate reasonable growth Something many of us including me continue to strongly support But it could also ideally be done in a manner that is respectful of the interest And rights of all citizens It's in that spirit of compromise that I ask you as our planning commissioners To take your citizens concerns to heart and direct staff to reduce the impacts of tall developments That would be placed immediately adjacent to existing resonances More precisely, I believe it is inappropriate to locate MUH zoning At least as your planner defines it immediately adjacent to existing r1 zoning And it certainly appears that the proposed zoning maps Particularly along water street and soquel avenue show MUH zoning concentrated immediately adjacent to Those existing residential properties Interestingly unlike the proposed zoning on mission street In fact, if you're so inclined to have MUH zoning and to satisfy the transportation goal That um miss noose mentioned I think it was one of the four that she referenced early in her presentation Why on earth not have the higher density density zoning located Closer to ucsc and the and and bus routes Where the and and that's where the demand for those units is most acute Placing it once again on the east side seems truly at odds with good planning But really I think it makes more sense to direct staff to rezone Proposed MUH parcels to MU MUM. Sorry Wherever these parcels adjoin existing r1 zoning Or if this is more doable to simply reduce the maximum height Permitted for the MUH parcels to something that is more respectful of affected neighbors Four stories is plenty high for a building located immediately adjacent to an r1 home Thank you commissioners for your time tonight and very much for your service Thank you for your comments We'll go ahead and go to the next speaker Identify yourself if you'd like and you will have three minutes Very much for the time. This is ryan mechel. I'm a member of santa cruz imbi I just wanted to call in in support of this and recommend that you accept the staff rec staff's recommendation Uh, I like all the work that went into this And I think that the plan lays out a very good plan for Some the growth that santa cruz needs to house all of its residents. Thank you Thank you for your comments We'll go ahead and give just one more second This is the last call for any members of the public who would like to speak on the objective standards If you are on the zoom, you can raise your hand by using the raise hand feature If you're on the phone, you can go ahead and play star nine and I'll just wait for a second for the lag Um Okay, I'm not seeing any additional speakers clerk. Could you please confirm that is correct? There are no additional speakers Okay, thank you so much with that I'll go ahead and uh close public comments and bring it back to the commission for discussion and action uh commissioner Miss cd miller and then um, I see staff has their hand up as well So we'll go ahead and go to commissioner missy d miller and then we'll go to mr. Dunlop Yeah, thank you, uh, chair dawson I I just wanted to thank staff Uh, unbelievably excellent work on the objective standards Um operating within some very difficult constraints handed down to us by the state And a general plan that was passed some 10 years ago It is really great to see the zoning code being finally brought into compliance with the general plan Um, and having said all of that, I'm prepared to move the staff's recommendation Thank you. I'll second You're muted cindy. Sorry We have a motion to move the staff's recommendation By commissioner missy d miller a second by commissioner conway for that motion is on the floor We'll um have additional discussion. Um, mr. Van law Did you want to add in something before we go to additional discussion of the motion? Yes, thank you very much chair, uh, I just wanted to note to the commissioners given the even numbers of commissioners today uh Per the commission bylaws Just in case there is a tie vote on a motion That motion would be continued to a future meeting And and so if there's multiple motions Any any tie vote on a motion would go would be continued But the whole item doesn't have to be either if there are multiple motions So I just want to make that aware to to all the commissioners Uh, and if if there is a tie vote and there is a continuance We can talk later about the possible dates for that continuance, but I just wanted to make the the commission aware of that now Thanks Thank you, mr. Van law. Um, so uh, commissioner kennedy and then commissioner shifrin Uh, I too am extremely excited to have the zoning code coming in compliance with the general plan Kind of sad that the architects are still here to see it, but what a great accomplishment and I appreciate the staff's work Um, I appreciate how fast we are going on this. That's wonderful One of my favorite things is that three tiered approach. I feel like that really hit the You know some projects can go straight through but these ones need a little bit more review and these need even more So I appreciate the clarity provided there Um, it's a small thing but the cell cell tower thing love seeing that go through We've had a lot of hearings on cell towers in the past. So that's great um These are just kind of my comments. I think that modular housing thing is really important I see that on my projects I as I understand there's a cost to union framing by doing this But we have to build housing fast and that's a big big deal So I have one of these projects and you know, the floors just are taller So that's absolutely true and just critical for these projects to go up fast Um, I just want to verify that and appreciate that that's right out front um I really liked the active uses that that part sarah where it was changing to encouraged I think that's delightful. I do think about residential on the ground floor More in some commercial zones, you know with respect for jobs and our 50s dream of toy shops with glass windows and things like that But I think I think it's good to play around with those things a little bit um I do have one Kind of specific question about mission street and sarah. I wonder if you could show that that map of those Parcels that are going to be rezoned. Let me pull that up. I should know by heart Can you put that on the screen by any chance? Yeah, that's enough. Yep. Uh, so I have a quick question. This is a my house question I think right there right there on miramar drive between king and mission And despite what some people think I love the idea of housing on the west side. Thank you very much So hardly ever sarah. Do we have that? Parallel street, you know one block in from a corridor But I just wonder if they ever think about grabbing those three next lots there Um to make a bigger more developable parcel again There's like hardly anywhere this happens on any of the corridors But I just thought I would ask that question. Now's my chance so, um The direction we have from the city council at this point in time is to reconcile the existing mismatch between the general plan and the zoning ordinance without amending the general plan Um, so that is not recommended at this time Got it and that would require a general plan It right. So thank you. That's super clear I should have cut that before Um, good. Yeah, I really like this. I would be happy to vote for it right now I love the idea also that we're going to play with some things and how you describe that about, you know Going out seeing how it goes and coming back because that's the reality we live in around here Um, thanks again. This is an exciting moment for me. I'm ready to vote. Yes Okay, thank you. Um Um, go ahead commissioner shifrin Yes, thank you very much. Um, I had I had very little Concern about the substance Um, I have two substantive suggestions but my, um I have a I have a couple of process concerns Um, I think it's really important Whether the the city has a great deal of discretion or not that the public get to be able to state their views and Participate in the process and I'm concerned about The hearing body and procedures where if a project No matter how large it is Has no variations from the objective standards It's essentially approved at the staff level and I just don't think that that's Uh good public process and so my sense is What I would like to see and I'm I'm I'm going to run through the Changes, I'm going to recommend in motions, but I'll do them individually, but I want to cover You know, let you know what I'm concerned about Um for that in section 24 12 185 I would say there would should be no design public hearings for projects proposing no variations From objective standards only for projects of 25 units or less. So larger projects They should have za hearings and a za hearing for a project from 25 to 50 units and no more than five variations And then if a project's over 50 units And for all five variations It should be a public hearing at the planning commission I just think that's a larger project The public should be able to weigh in on the design permits even though the discretion is limited although as Staff is indicated It's limited, but to the extent that particularly if the developer or the applicant wants to vary something Um, does it meet the goal? Doesn't it meet the goal? I think those are um Are issues that shouldn't just be made alone by the za Or by the planning commission without A public input. So I think for larger projects there needs to be The ability for the public to have To be able to participate in the hearings Any larger project and then in terms of zoning districts It seems to me kind of contradictory and maybe i'm not understanding it correctly That's for a pd or for a variance is a requirement or for a density bonus project There's a requirement for a public hearing But for a mixed use project Um, of no matter what size or a housing project of no matter what size in a whole host of um Of districts The proposal is that it be um The the project could be approved by right and with just a design permit being um considered um I think the public has the right to Have more than just a design permit hearing that it has the right to Participate and express its views on Other issues as well related to the project. So from my perspective, I would support uh, by right for mixed use and housing projects For development developments from three to 25 units But requires special use permit for developments over 50 units I could see raising that threshold But to just have any size project like a 390 unit project potentially that would only need a design permit I think is not reasonable um So those are my process concerns that My intention is to make a motion to amend the The motion on the floor to make these changes. I suggest it. I'm also concerned as our members as we're members of the public about the heights um And my concern Um, I think there's nothing we can really do about or I don't know whether How many commissioners would want to do anything about changing the heights under what's allowed under the general plan But the reality is those heights are not the real heights because density bonuses could allow those heights to increase So what I would recommend and I sort of got this from the staff recommendation when we were considering The downtown expansion that there'd be a site development standards that That would be added to the zones for the The districts where the heights exceed 40 feet that um The height be inclusive of any density bonus And that the that that would be the height and that would be inclusive of the density bonus And that's would be a site development standard in those various districts And finally um to follow up on what one of the speakers said And an issue that has been brought forward by members of the commission in the past under the inclusionary requirements In section 24 16 o 2 o I would like to add the following at the end of the paragraph Which would be projects with a 30 density bonus Shall have a 25 inclusionary requirement projects with a 50 density bonus shall have a 30 inclusionary requirement I think we need to increase the inclusionary requirement as projects come forward that get more units than would be Normally allowed under the general plan in the zone and the proposed zoning ordinance And I think it will also help us meet our Our arena targets for low and very low units. So having said all that I'm going to make a motion I'm not going to do it all in one motion. I'm going to make a motion to amend the motion on the floor That under 24 section 24 12 185 There should be no design that the language we change that there be no design permit public hearings for projects proposing No variation from the objective standards only for projects of 25 units or less And a cea hearing for projects from 26 to 50 units and no more than five variations And a planning commission hearing If over 50 units or more than five variations. So that would be my motion to amend Okay, do we have do you have a second for that motion? I'll second that Okay, so we have a motion on the floor to amend the main motion Let's go to the maker of the motion first the main motion on the floor Do you set that as a a friendly amendment to your main motion? Commissioner macedi miller, or do we need to vote on this separately? But we need to vote on that separately. I don't accept that as friendly moments Okay, thank you. Just wanted to get that process out of the way Let's go to staff and then we'll go to mr. Conway And any more discussion before we vote on this amendment.  Thank you. Um, so I have I don't have a direct concern with the motion that was just made. I do have a concern about The idea to Add a clause about the heights including the density bonus The heights that are recommended do not currently include a density bonus They include the bare minimum that is required to comply with the general plan So a lot more height would have to be added before we could Set that kind of standard and claim that we were allowing full development Under the general plan and under any Density bonus application that might come in the heights would have to be a lot taller And I don't know what they would have to be right now Okay, well, that's not the motion. I was taught so Yeah, let's let's let's hold that discussion when we get to that motion. So the motion on the floor Um is is regarding review Um, and let's go to commissioner conway. Um, and then we'll also have the clerk read back the motion Before we vote and certainly if we need to to inform our further discussion. Go ahead commissioner conway Okay, taking these one by one. Um, first of all, I also want to chime in and thank staff for um, a really, uh Amazing job. It was a really big job There was a very comprehensive Um approach at being balanced and I really appreciate that I also do appreciate commissioner shifrin's earlier clarification on what we're really limited to tonight um I share commissioner shifrin's concern about public participation um, and I disagree with this motion though Pretty strongly because I think it's deceptive to the public which is not what I think the intent was at all Um, as I understand the process as proposed Um, there already will be an opportunity For the community to Chew over the project way in on concerns And pass them along so they're but To suggest that adding a public hearing Um requirement when it's kind of a fiction Um, you know, it doesn't add anything in terms of actual discretion And I think it ends up being misleading and therefore divisive um in the community And I what I feel like I think as the staff was trying to say That it really makes um the most sense um, at least, you know starting out to, um, include the, um, community as it's proposed And not create a false expectation of discretion where none exists That's my feeling on it Okay, thanks. Thank you commissioner conway. Uh, we'll go ahead and go back to commissioner shifrin And then any additional comments and then we'll go ahead and vote on this amendment to the main motion Go ahead commissioner shifrin I want to respond to that the staff is exercising discretion when they decide whether an objective standard has been met or not um, for those of us who's who read the The of illuminous staff report on the a 31 water street project and the review of The variety of standards Um, there is some question about whether a standard is met or not There can be a question about whether all the objective standards in the project are being met the What the proposal does is essentially make those decisions simply staff decisions and I think that that's One, I don't think it's deceptive for allowing the public to come in and say well, wait a minute. You're saying that um All the objective standards are being met. But what about this standard here in terms of setback from the street staff is not infallible um There and there can be differences of opinions about whether a particular standard Has been met whether it's objective or not or whether all the objective standards have been met or not and by excluding the public from being able even to Um, do anything more than appeal if they can even find out when it's happened and what's happened I think that really undermines this idea that we really care about public participation because um What we from my perspective to really care about public participation is to try to maximize the opportunities for the public to weigh in and we spun people um May not like what they hear but you know, they are able to understand the um the requirements and Some of them many of them are able to provide meaningful input that could be helpful to staff um One final thing I've gone to a few community meetings I've heard from a number of community representatives that community meetings are meaningless Because the developer hears from what people what people have to say and then there's there's what you or she just wants to do So, you know, the the community meetings have no legal status They can be helpful if there's a sensitive developer or they can be ignored It's when the decisions are being made on the project that I think public input is critical So I would you know, I would argue that it's not meaningless. It's not misleading To allow for the public to have meaningful input in the hearing procedure Thank you. Commissioner shifrin. Uh, commissioner kennedy. I'm just gonna jump in make a couple brief comments and then we'll go directly to you. Um so I think that You know the amendment on the floor actually You know does balance um, this need for public participation um, I think the community meetings really serve the the main purpose of community meetings that I've heard from folks is is In a lot of ways that lets people know What's going on because a lot of people aren't tracking things on the planning commission website Word does get out that there's this community meeting and then they go and learn about the project and then They they want to be able to Talk about it and a lot of times it's it's the public's kind of first introduction to the project is these community meetings And so I think it's it's a really balanced approach With the delineation of less than 25 25 to 50 and 50 more Giving a place for the community to go to then bring forward their comments in a public space So I think you know the the whole package Together with this amendment the the requirements of the community meaning um Do a real service to the community and and allow us to be inclusive And so I I'm definitely in support of this amendment We'll go ahead and go to commissioner kindies and back to commissioner conway I I have seen projects where voluntary input like at an early community outreach meeting has really changed things like bit from the inside So I just rebut that I think that it does help I think it's good like Cindy's saying to get the word out and get the nimbies organized and get the thing rolling You know, so that's not really under discussion. That's the the public outreach policy, which would remain And then Andy, I just disagree about small projects being subjected to that extra Process I hear where you're coming from and I like transparency too But I've seen very long public processes with a lot of public input really get nowhere And actually be worse from all that And at least for me the quarter plan was one of those so with respect to your opinion I just wanted to express that as well Thank you. Commissioner commit committee commissioner conway And I just wanted to emphasize my support of public participation also And I think that our community participation policy is important um, and that That hearing or that that meeting will occur It will let people know what's going on the size of the project is not relevant um, the it's always important to have that community meeting and and again, I think we're just we're just Falsely letting people know that there's going to be a change So it's already there. Um, what you're saying in terms of public participation in my opinion Okay, thank you. Um, I think uh last call for any additional comments and we'll go ahead and bring this amendment forward For a vote. Um, are all commissioners clear about what we're voting on here or do we need the court to read it? We clear Okay, clerk. Can I we have a roll call vote for the amendment from commissioner shifrin, please Commissioner conway no Kennedy No Maxwell I Uh, missy d miller shifrin I Here does it I So that is a three to three vote, um, which is a tie which, um Means that that fails Fail So I'd like to make a motion to amend the motion on the floor that for all districts proposed for Uh, amendments where there would be approval by right for housing and mixed use projects um, that right Would be allowed for developments with from three to 25 units And a special use permit shall be required for all developments over 25 units That's my motion Okay, do we have a second uh second from commissioner max well Uh, any discussion on this or well, let me go back to the main motion maker of the main motion Do you accept that as a friendly amendment? I do not Okay, so we're gonna go ahead and have uh any discussion we'd like to have and have a vote Uh, commissioner shifrin and then commissioner conway Well, I don't want to repeat what we said previously. I do think that Since there are public hearings required for plan developments for variances for of any size for plan developments of any size And for you know, density bonus projects I think, you know, it makes sense that the public has a right to have a Have a hearing that there'd be a public hearing for for larger projects At our housing and mixed use Okay, um over to commissioner conway Thank you. Um, I uh, I may have misunderstood the point of this motion. So but um One of the things that I I like about um Putting these standards in place um as objective standards is, um I believe there's a lot of incentive for developers to stick with the standards um, so in other words, um to to not vary um, and uh, and So for that reason, I think making this as streamlined as possible Is part of getting what I think we're asking for you're proposing In this motion Which is, you know, we're saying this is okay We want this to be okay But if we're going to go to something that's really different from that You know, like a density bonus it should have a public hearing which it does So, um, I don't feel like adding that extra complexity here Um, that I think that's working against our Um desire to have understandable standards Um, so I don't think this is actually even meeting what I think the point is at least as as I understand it could be wrong Okay, any other comments before we bring this amendment to a vote? Okay, uh Let's go ahead and have a roll call vote on the amendment from commissioner shifrin Commissioner Conway no Kennedy no Maxwell Hi The cd miller No shifrin I chair dawson Hi, uh another tie so that motion failed And I have another motion having to do with the height regulations and I guess I would like to follow up on what Steph was saying about Needing to increase the height um I don't understand why that is the case um, we're talking about when we were considering the height in the um Fountain expansion area that as I understood it's there for saying that the height limits would be inclusive of The density bonuses and they would um, you know, there would probably be a requirement for development agreement built in well, I don't see why that can't apply in these other districts as well so Uh, I guess before I make my motion, I'd like to hear uh, Steph's response Sure, so happy to discuss that so, um What we're proposing in the with the downtown plan expansion and for members of the public that may not be familiar with that project, um The city's proposing or studying at this point getting ready to do an eir to expand the boundaries of our downtown plan and Create a lot more housing intensity south of laurel street So the current proposal the Motion that passed from city council was for maximum heights up to 175 feet so The way that we would achieve that as staff to have 175 feet be the maximum that we could get to with the density bonus Would be to set the base density in the plan somewhere lower than that We have to still run those calculations. We have to like figure that all out We would probably base it on a 50 density bonus not an 80 density bonus. We would have to try and do some Um tweaking on that so that the policies that we write in the downtown plan say without a density bonus and without a development agreement you get this Smaller amount of development so that then with a development agreement or with a density bonus You're not exceeding that 175 So what i'm saying about these zone districts is that um A 50 density bonus on a you know a 2.75 far is You know an far of over four Right if I can do that math correctly in my head, um, you know, it's over three and a half. So We don't have heights that accommodate a three and a half if they are currently in the code Um, we could figure that out, but they would be taller than 55 feet, right? So, um, that's that's what I was saying is that that that additional capacity isn't built in Currently to the recommendation that's in front of the commission today Matt did you have something to add? Yeah, thanks just to clarify that further that that downtown expansion area was increasing The capacity so much that that density bonus could still be built in And it would still not be decreasing the amount of developable capacity and units On those sites given the current general plan designations What we're seeing in these other areas is that there's already a state required You know amount of capacity per our current general plan And that's that's required height essentially based on that far And then the state density bonus is also a state requirement on top of that On top of that requirement So it can't be built in in this case because they're they're two separate state requirements So what you're saying is that a 30 percent density bonus on height would allow 55 feet to increase by 30 percent Well 15 feet So not it's not always a one-to-one. So when they do a density bonus application is about bonus units So whatever height is necessary to accommodate that number of bonus units Is the amount of height that the developer requests through a waiver And it's not always a 30 bonus is a 30 increase in height the one we had one on front street They did a 35 density bonus. They did a 16 increase in height We had um, you know a 50 density bonus over on center street and they had um Like 110 increase in height. So it's not just a it's not a one-to-one Calculation it depends on the geometry of the site It depends on the existing site standards depends on the densities. So Not to say that that math can't be done. It can be done We're going to do it for downtown, right because we're up zoning in that location But in these areas where we are not currently up zoning, we would have to It would be a whole different process because there's no additional capacity that we're that we're proposing to add at this point in time Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. Um, so i'm going to let that lie for now Um, and I'll go to my last motion that for section 24 16 0 to 0 The following be added at the end of the paragraph Projects with a 30 density bonus shall have a 25 inclusionary requirement Projects with a 50 density bonus shall have a 30 inclusionary requirement um That would be my motion to amend the motion on the floor Okay, thank you every second Second from max well Any comments from commissioners before we take this amendment to a vote? Oh, I guess I technically need back to go back to the uh maker of the main motion again, uh Commissioner, my cd miller do you accept that as a friendly amendment? Um, I'm not hearing you, but I'm seeing I'm seeing the shake of the hall. Okay. Thank you All right, um, so I would just like to make a quick comment before we go back to commissioner shifrin Um, you know, we we we keep bringing this up because All this does I just want to be really clear is make it congruent With the city's existing 20 inclusionary It's you know, we've been handed the state law that changes the math And we're making an adjustment So we get what the city has said and the council has said should be the standard in the city, which is what 20 percent based on You know all the units in the development. So, um, you know, we talk about being for inclusionary and for affordable housing And you know, we have the opportunity to actually Put our money where our mouth is and I I'm just really hopeful that that we can do that to misfire Conway Um, I agree that we need as much affordable housing as we can Um, I do not believe this is consistent with state law or that it's going to help It it's not the right way to do it because it's not going to succeed Um, I do think that we should work as hard as we can Using the tools that are before us. This just isn't one of the tools that is before us So I will be voting no on this also Okay, um back to commissioner shifrin and then uh, if there isn't any more comments, we'll go to a vote Let me just say when we had the discussion at the commission about the 20 inclusionary requirement Um, we were told it was opposed on the basis Wasn't realistic. It wasn't the right way to do it and it's proved to be quite effective I think and accepted as we saw at a recent meeting on 555 pacific The developer the property owner didn't come in and say I can't meet the 20 percent Let me just have the 15 which was what was Required when my project was first approved He's by able by using uh section 8 vouchers that go to the very low income people Um, the 20 percent requirement is working This requirement can work as well and it's just you know to the extent that we're You know wanting to meet our arena targets for Low and very low income housing. It's not going to be enough just to produce 100 percent affordable units That's not going to be sufficient um I think these this is not an unreasonable Change, um, I think we've heard from staff before that it's not Illegal it doesn't violate state law And so I think it's good public policy And you know, I think it is um something that is worth moving forward with Okay, um, um go ahead and bring this to a vote. Um one last call for commissioners Okay, um clerk could we please have a roll call vote on the amendment on the floor from commissioner shifrin Mr. Conway No Kennedy No Maxwell I CD Miller No different Hi Mayor Dawson Hi So once again, we have a three three so that Uh amendment fails. So we are back to the main motion on the floor, which is from commissioner miscellaneous Miller Um with a second uh to approve the staff recommendation Um, we'll do any additional comments from commissioners now before we bring that main motion to a vote Go ahead to mr. Schifrin Just very briefly. I'm not uh while I appreciate the work that staff has done and can support Most of what is recommended. I think there are significant Problems that I have with some of the recommendations and I'm not going to be able to support the motion Thank you. Commissioner Schifrin. Uh, commissioner Kennedy I'm ready to move this ahead. I just wanted to make one more quick comment I'd forgotten about those concessions. So if the upgrade from PVC vinyl windows to anything else is too expensive They could still use a couple of those to knock them out. That's a business we did last time I'm ready to vote Okay, uh, so we have the main motion on the floor, which is to accept the staff recommendation Could we have a roll call vote? Mr. Conway Hi Kennedy Hi Maxwell No Mercedes Miller Hi Schifrin No Chair Dawson No So that is a three three. So, um staffs and chime in here, but um with that tie for the main motion That will be continued to a future meeting. Is that correct? Can staff just confirm That this item will now be continued Uh, go go ahead. Uh, commissioner Kennedy This is pretty urgent. Could we do a special meeting as soon as possible to move this ahead? Uh, let's let's hear from staff and uh, we'll talk about next step I'll let Matt take it. Go ahead Matt. Well, thanks Sarah uh The next possible date we could do this would be a special meeting on the 14th of july Sarah and I are both out on the 7th But the 14th Was is one possibility to do a specia