 So let's see what's our you know, what are if everyone's going to be here tonight? Yeah, Sean Sean just called me and he for some reason didn't have the sign in but I just sent it to him And he's signing in right now, so he should be here shortly see his video Yeah, I didn't get the link either until just Two seconds up two minutes ago. I think we're waiting for commissioner Spellman wait another minute or two and then we'll start there is right okay We now have all our commissioners here, so let's start. There's one that's still connecting to audio Sean is still connecting to audio and it might be that he's used the link forwarded from Cindy is my guess Sean can you hear us? He can't so I will text Sarah and let her know that he needs a separate email Looks like Peter still connecting to audio too wait a couple minutes to get two of our commissioners to Work their way through the audio requirements. We sent him a Send him a message on the clipboard. Who's who's hosting this? I am Sarah has sent him another The invitation that's specific to him You can't share your participant ID numbers because as you can see he comes up as commissioner Dawson now So when he sees that he's got a text with the invite specific to him He can get out of this and sign back in and there's like a audio connected now Can you hear us Sean Peter? Can you hear us? Are you connected? You're muted, but it sounds like you can hear us. It's somehow Sean has commissioner Dawson's ID there, I don't know what's going on You might need to log out and then log back in with the new link is what I expect That's correct. You have Don's number at your desk and Sean a new link. He has logged off. I'm assuming he's logging back on right now Well, we'll get going just as soon as One comes back and you guys hear me now. Yes You're we're all set Let's have a roll call. Well, I'm gonna call the September 16th 2020 Santa Cruz City Planning Commission to order could we please have a roll call Mr. Dawson No one's absent Are there any statements of disqualification? None will turn to oral communications This is a time for anyone to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda for up to three minutes As long as that item is appropriately before the Commission even though it's not on our agenda tonight Do we have anybody with their hands up to speak at oral communication and the Commission can that take action on items that are Raised during oral communications. That's not a bad sign Well, as in the past given our technology, we may have to come back oral communications if people are having problems Calling in and want to speak to oral communications will Reconsider that let's move on to the approval of the minutes Does anyone any of the commissioners have any? Concerns or changes they would like to make to the minutes being none with somebody like to move approval of the minutes September 3rd 2020 I'll move approval Is there a second? Oh second Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Hi. I Have stayed since I wasn't at last meet that week's meeting can't call it I can't have a vote that way. I think all our votes have to be by roll call. So could we have a roll call, please of the Those voting in favor of the motion, please say aye when your name is called Mr. Conway saying I was not present at the meeting passes unanimously with one of stem Abstention let's now move to the public hearings. We have item number two Ordinance amendment CD wide amendment to the title 24 of the municipal code By amending part one of chapter 2416 inclusionary housing requirements And I don't think I'm required to read the whole Section so I'll just leave it at that and ask for a staff report Jessica you need to unmute yourself. You're still muted. So I'm on the phone too. So I'm gonna hang up from the phone Is that the right thing to do clerk? So you're not getting a double from me. I'll start over Good evening chair and commissioners. Happy to be with you tonight I'm gonna try and share screens here. Give me one second. Ready to see that Yes, pop it open to a larger screen if I can It's loading. Hang on everyone see the larger screen Yeah Excellent this slide here You'll see the staff recommendation for the inclusion inclusionary ordinance amendment amendments that are being discussed tonight That would allow rental residential development the ability to make five percent of their required 20 percent affordable units Available to Santa Cruz County Housing Authority tenant based subsidy holders And if no such subsidy holder can be found to occupy the unit that that five percent be restricted to a hundred 120 percent area meeting income and rent levels in perpetuity So per council direction the PC formed a Subcommittee Earlier this year to focus on the inclusionary ordinance including the potential for adding a tenant based subsidy option in the ordinance The subcommittee includes Commissioner Greenberg Spellman in Conway There have been six meetings to date reviewing various jurisdictions inclusionary ordinances and getting feedback from local agencies and stakeholder groups Even though everyone has been impacted by the wildfires We are still how we still have a couple meetings left between now and the end of October To wrap up the rest of our work that includes the school district and employee sponsored housing For this inclusionary ordinance amendment that we're proposing tonight We've spent an extensive amount of time working with the Housing Authority to ensure the process proposed in this amendment would be Successful at getting more subsidy holders housed In addition we reached out to the development community as well as local lenders and appraisers on how to solve for the loan Underwriting issues that tend to make develop developing new construction Less feasible Typically developers need to apply for loans just like someone going to purchase a home would do in general terms Lenders will size the loan based on the amount of rental income that they that can pay back the loan debt The lender will take into account higher income deed restrictions to allow for a larger loan So the hundred and twenty percent income deed restriction on five percent of the inclusionary units Helps to make new housing developments more feasible While the city's main goal is to encourage owners to rent to subsidy holders The school district has also communicated that they're having trouble attracting and maintaining teachers and a lot of them are Falling under this moderate income level at that a hundred and twenty percent AMI level So as we drafted these proposed amendments We were trying to solve for a few things But most importantly helping tenant-based subsidy holders get housed Following few slides provide a summary of the proposed amendments to the ordinance Jessica could I interrupt for a second? Your screen is showing both the main slide and then the next slide So it's kind of showing your notes. I don't I think it would be clearer if you could Just show the main slide Yeah, let me see here. How are you now? Well, you're back to Go one more over for where you're at the little screen there next to the book try that Yeah, that's the one I the slideshow is the one I'm on I mean, oh trying to load in the slideshow Sorry, I should have kept my mouth shut No I think you don't have two screens. It's tricky Yeah, I do have two screens. I think that's what the issue is Hey Sarah, have you dealt with this before? Yeah, Jessica. I think if you this is Sarah noisy This is not who you asked for but I think if you up at the top left of the screen There's a little icon there with a green arrow. Do you see that? It looks like it's next to that move your mouth To the right. It looks like a little screen with a green arrow And you click on that. I'm sorry inside of the The at the top left of your screen Yeah, that's the powerpoint slide the top left. Oh, yes, you see that little green arrow. Nope that one try that one Thank you Yeah, I'm gonna put you out of presenter mode and just into the slideshow Try that with them slideshow Yeah, I think it's like two two monitors Um, you might need to so then I would go into your share screen again. So click again on zoom and the share screen Bang at the bottom of your screen. Yeah, and then it gives you it pops up that window that shows all your different screens There should be one that's the view of the slideshow that's just the slideshow in presentation mode and not in presenter mode Let's see if I can try this one more time. Oh, no, let's I think I might have found it Hang on here guys. It is you did it very good. We are back on track Okay, so following our summary of the amendments that we are proposing tonight for the inclusionary ordinance the first one, I'm happy to say it was actually Added post so we originally had this meeting scheduled for August 20th But it was canceled due to the wild wilds the emergency wildfires and so share shifrin actually provided some feedback on the ordinance amendments and so we have gone ahead and included his One of his comments in this revision so here it here it is So adding a definition for sub tenant-based subsidy holder is now part of the proposed ordinance amendments It's basically just trying to give a very clear explanation of who is a tenant-based subsidy holder Second one I'm looking at two different screens. The second one is basically trying to communicate That there you cannot discriminate between a tenant-based subsidy holder any non tenant-based subsidy holder when you're going through the application process and so Everybody's got to be held to the same standard is really just reiterating this in our in our code. You all see number nine No, you're still on seven of the ordinance amendment and it basically walks Walks through what we're talking about in terms of a breakdown for this for this option Remember, we're talking about an option. This is not this doesn't change the entire ordinance This is merely if somebody Decides to try to use an option, but they can still use the 20 percent at 80 percent AMI Or they can look at this alternate means of compliance Which is still a 20 percent overall total for inclusionary However, it is 15 percent at 80 percent of the area needing income And five percent at a hundred and twenty percent of the area needing income And that's only if there is no subsidy holders that can be found during a 30 day marketing period and what happens is that the developer owner Needs to go and sign up on the housing authorities website Post this listing and go through the proper channels to make sure You know all subsidy holders are aware that this this property is up or this unit is up for rent And again, this is not a one-time thing. So anytime this unit becomes available again this whole this same process rolls again where the You've got to go back and post it on the housing authorities website and Try to offer it to a subsidy holder And I know some of the public comments that came in were concerned about, you know, is this the full that they were worried This wasn't the full 20 percent being Utilized and it is in addition One of the comments that came in was that They were very concerned about the fact that there is such a high need for section for section eight meaning subsidy tenant based subsidy holders And we completely agree and we are trying to figure out a way to incentivize owners to rent to subsidy holders So this is kind of the reason why we're we're trying to to offer this as an option This follows through more of the process and again I want to reiterate that the housing authority has walked through this process Extensively to make sure it works with how their inner inner process goes And so we wanted to make sure we have something that's workable and successful So you can walk through the process here But but essentially there they will the owner would have to enter into a payment payment contract for the subsidy rent as well as There is monitoring and compliance requirements So they the owner needs to provide proof that they did market it for 30 days They did go through the housing authority process and they need to keep that proof for five years Is looking at another couple ways Again, this this came from the housing authority and and it's it's really focused on trying to incentivize an owner to to rent to the moderate income units to The subsidy holder and so they they essentially are almost getting penalized for if they if they have If they rented their moderate income units to non subsidy holders They they are essentially getting penalized so they really the housing authority is pushing that they want this the moderate income units to be rented to the house the the subsidy holders and if the owner has rented all of their moderate income units to Subsidy holders and they still have more subsidy holders requesting units Then they can dip into a low income inclusionary unit if one is available So this is the recommendation again to follow up I I know it's a lot of words there, but um I do want to offer up Um, I know some of the subcommittee members may like to provide a few words So I wanted to offer that up Before we get to questions Um, and I think commissioner conway. She's chair chair of the subcommittee. I think she may have a few words Yeah, thank you. Am I audible? Yes Okay, thank you Jessica thanks for the report. I know it's been a stressful time to pull these things together Um, I just wanted to comment that december seems like such a long time ago Um, but in december the city council took action to raise the percentage Of affordable units the developer must contribute to the community up to 20 percent And they took this action in response to our community's housing shortage And our affordability crisis Um, and it's the crisis that we were dealing with at the start of 2020 And I want to highlight That this crisis has only gotten worse as our community copes with the effects of the multiple disasters that we're facing now Um, so the council raised the required affordable units to 20 percent quickly And as jessica said, um, they heard concern from both housing developers in town And also from the school district That's been working to provide housing for their employees Um, and they heard that the change would make it harder or possibly make it impossible To get financing for the housing that they're trying to create The school district had some additional Complexities about their targeting that we're trying to work on now So the council decided not to conduct economic analysis on the impact Of the increased percentage and instead They asked the planning commission to form a subcommittee To make a recommendation that would support the 20 percent requirement And also, um, to further discuss and make a recommendation on employer sponsored housing That would end up working for the school district So tonight's recommendation, um, speaks just to the former direction Oh, and I did want to thank the commission for extending The subcommittee's term To allow us to develop a recommendation for employer sponsored housing As you can imagine responding to, you know, shelter in place in 2020 It's been really difficult to convene but so This recommendation is meant to tread that middle ground of setting policy that enables housing projects To secure financing so that they will get built And also what including as many affordable units as it's feasible in a project And so it does this by incentivizing the acceptance by landlords of tenants who receive assistance for the payment of rent Tenant-based subsidy requirement will also have the benefit of targeting at least 5% of the Reach affordability restricted unit To a deeper target of very low and extremely low-income households Which is really difficult to do in a private rental project otherwise So we've heard from several members of the community supporting the use of tenant-based subsidy Um, and this is because for some time it's been Really hard to find landlords who are willing to accept subsidy And this would provide an incentive to do so um I also want to make the point though that the recommendation establishes an alternative In the event about your holder is not available Um, and I know um a lot of people think that never happens. Um, which is which is not true But in this case The unit could be rented at a restricted rent. It's affordable to moderate income households Um, and it would then revert to the requirement to rent to a subsidy holder on turnover So the reason for the fallback is that there are times When landlords are more open to tenants with subsidy because it's a reliable source of income um, and um Especially frankly in times when um when Incomes are more questionable, and I know I've watched this Up and down over the decades that I've been involved in alving. Um, I suspect we may be entering a period now But so by restricting the unit at no more than 120 percent in any situation It does provide some certainty to lenders and builders And it still retains that restriction in perpetuity So again, we're trying to tread the middle ground here on um feasibility and maximizing affordability And um, that's it. I look forward to um hearing from other community members and to discussion by the commission the commission tonight Thank you very much odd there. What I'd prefer to post to do is um to have the commissioners ask questions Um, and then open it up to the public if there's any but from anybody from the public who wants to speak And then bring it back to the commission for discussion and action So the commissioners have questions of staff or the subcommittee commissioner Dawson Yes, I just had a question. Um, I know that you spoke to the housing authority And Jessica mentioned that you spoke with stakeholders. So what group did the committee speak to? That actually worked with sub city holders, uh, like housing matters who administers Some of those vouchers or hudbash in the community who are actually working with voucher holders And kind of know the land the land with landlords and availability. Were you able to speak to any groups like that? And so, uh, which one? I personally and in so I've run the housing division. I'm working with Sibley simons group right now, which is part of housing services matters on their project on coral street their proposed project and they are looking to use vouchers at their project several other Developers are looking into whether they have the ability to utilize the section eight A lot of them what happens is there's something called project based section eight versus tenant based section eight And project based section eight actually stays with the development whereas tenant base Goes with the tenant so the tenant we use so does the voucher So the developers obviously would love to have the project based vouchers, but getting that education on The tenant based and being able to utilize those post construction Again, doesn't necessarily help in terms of trying to get underwriting Whereas the project based would But it does we are communicating and educating the developers out there to be able to Get more of these on the street because there's such a huge wait list for section eight other questions I have a follow-up question Jessica My understanding is that a fundamental problem with the project based vouchers Is that it's different new construction generally? I guess maybe from moderate for a major rehab, but they require davis bacon wages and those are normally much higher than water developer can get in the market and that's a One a reason why they don't want to do project based vouchers and it's also a reason why the proposed ordinance before us tonight Which You know makes certain at least five percent of the units being available For section eight does provide provide that kind of certainty without the need to get involved with the davis bacon Requirements is that correct? That's correct And actually so the project based vouchers Most often the affordable housing Non-profit developers really go after those project based vouchers because they're already doing they're already required to do state prevailing wage requirements To meet state funding requirements As well as some of the federal sources that they go after they would have to do meet that that federal davis bacon requirement That you're talking about however If it is a private developer that is really utilizing only private sources of capital meaning like a conventional mortgage Possibly some investor equity. Yes. It's very critical that they do not want to deal with the federal It just adds a huge cost to the project Thank you any other questions Can we go to uh, see if there uh, any members of the public who would like to speak to this item? I can hear uh test running across the room Is that can you hear me now if any member of the public wishes to address the uh Commission on this item, please press star nine There's one member of the public that has indicated they wish to address the commission Okay, let's hear from them Please state your name And you have three minutes They've muted themselves Hello speaker. You're on the line. Hello. Okay. Sorry. Yes. Um, my name is canis brown. I live in santa cruz For 45 years As I listened to this, you know, originally the 20 percent were excited about because they thought that meant inclusionary At the lower rate, um, which would be um, not at moderate 120 but at 80 percent and so my concern is that this Change would erode the opportunity to have um A lower income inclusionary and um The other thing which I brought up uh recently Is that by increasing the income of these, um Which will be a potentially extensive number of units at this higher rate. Um, you're also eroding The tables that are evaluated every year that impact the affordable housing rates um And that does have an impact on other affordable housing Projects and it's my understanding. There was a letter sent to the planning commission recently for some reason It didn't get in the packet. Um, and she sent it several times to the planning commission Her mother's in the river walk and she's explained in great detail Um, how this has impacted her mother's ability to potentially stay in an affordable unit Uh, she's on fixed income and she's seeing 10 percent increases in 2018 and 2019 with the changes of these, um These income limits for state programs So just be aware that anything that you do that increases the um income level of these units Especially when you have hundreds of units potentially impacted And the other thing is that when developers say that, you know, sometimes things don't pencil out Many of the projects recently downtown Have been done under non-disclosure. So we really don't know we don't always even at a city council level have this ability to You know how it pencils out and so I think that's also worth discussing So when you do talk to stakeholders, including developers, you know, I think there's a need to be a little bit more transparent about Why a project does not actually pencil out and I would invite the planning commission to You know to put some language around this to make sure that um, there's full transparency there um The other thing is um, there was a mention that if they couldn't find a moderate Like if they had filled their five percent moderate rate And then somebody comes forward and they want to they have a tenant bait voucher They would dip into the lower income I think I heard that if that's the case then you're not only in facting Pacting the five percent beer impacting then starting to road into the 15 inclusionary I would definitely make sure that you put some boundaries around that for sure. So thank you very much For the thank you Is there anyone else in the public who would like to comment on this item? Excuse me. This is the clerk any other member of the public if you would like to address the commission Please press star nine now Chair I don't see any other member of the public that wishes to address the commission Okay, then I'm going to close the public hearing and bring this back before the commission Uh, do any commissioners have any comments on the item before we go to a vote commissioners Dawson Yes, um what I just would like to Ask staff. I was also Contacted by a couple members of the public that said their Letters didn't get into the packet and I'm not sure What the process is for that? But I just want to bring that up and ensure that letters being sent in are are indeed in the packet Um, just wanted to put that on the read our screen for staff Um, specifically to the ordinance before us. I want to thank the subcommittee This is uh, as all years complex a lot of work a lot of things to balance and I think overall There was a lot of positive in the ordinance I would like to bring up that several times Both committee members in the past and staff have said that It was a balancing act, but the key was to incentivize Providing an opportunity and incentivize property owners to rent to subsea holders voucher holder section second holders and so What we're doing now with it proposed language is the opposite of that You're providing the opportunity for a property owner to Choose any reason That they want really um to not Rent to a section eight voucher and I just want to share a quick slide with everybody that um will demonstrate this uh via um Via showing the income levels. Um, and what I really would like everyone to consider is that Instead of allowing This to be rented To a voucher holder at the housing authority Level and if that is not found then rented to a moderate level people that we pin the Rent available for that unit as at the housing authority standard and the reason we would need to do that is so that A property owner would actually be incentivized. So just quickly to go through this On your screen. I'm going to go to a simpler version in a second. This is all based on um housing authority numbers The number you see there the or the dark orange bar Is the housing authority payment standard on the x-axis the horizontal axis is the size of the unit You can see that with a rent burden of 35 percent If you go to the the blue on the left, that's that's very low. So that's 50 percent of AMI The gray is is low 80 percent moderate is the bright orange You can see that the housing authority payment standard currently comes in between Having a rent burden at 35 percent between very low and low. So if we can just go to the Next one here quickly um, and what you'll see is that We're not incentivizing Renting to a subsidy holder when there's a difference between the moderate income at a 35 percent Rent burden. There's such a huge difference Because the property owner instead of getting so if we look at a one bedroom Instead of getting a subsidy holder in there for 1844 They could get a moderate income person in there for 27 45 And so I think that there's a really easy fix for this That can can do all the things that we were tasked with doing and that the subcommittee has highlighted And that would be to pin the maximum rent available For these units for these five percent of units that they go this route That it it would be pinned to that housing authority payment standard um, and I actually um I'd love to hear what others have uh to say and then um, I perhaps propose some language based on others input So i'll stop there for now And let me stop sharing my screen There we go. Are the commissioners uh commissioner comley Yeah, um, and thank you for that idea and for the chart. Um, I have a Similar scratchings on my notes And it's nice to see it presented graphically Um, there's a lot of things about that idea that I really like. I think in practicality. It doesn't work because um, the payment standard is something that is Taken on as chair shifrin can attest. It is a major effort every year um to Conduct a study that backs up a payment standard that um, it that exceeds hud published fair market rent That and it's not something that is always done Um, and the thing that we know over time is that both the fair market rent and the payment standard And if you want I can explain the relationship between those in case people don't know what those two different terms mean um, but while while this is true now um in many years it is not going to be true and it won't be predictable um, and what we were trying to do Is um retain that You know, uh, that deed restriction in perpetuity that that is a designated affordable unit While still providing some uh Some sense that the that an underwriter could predict what the rent will be Um, so I love the idea. I don't think it works Um, uh to meet the standard that we're trying to do And I mean I thought about a lot about it too um Yes, as you said you look at the difference between the current pay well current fair market rent the current payment standard 120 percent affordability and then market which is going to you know bounce around based on circumstances um and It is The challenge is um is that what we're trying to do is to provide that um underwriting criteria That will allow a lender um to fund a project I wonder if I could be that's my thought. Um The difference between fair market rent and payment standards is is in fact very confusing Every year HUD sets a fair market rent Based supposedly on some god knows what process they go through They do allow the housing authority and our housing authority has been very uh assertive in carrying out these studies that have shown that Fair market rents that HUD has come up with supposedly based on rent levels in the community are really off And the HUD has accepted these studies and increased the fair market rent significantly now the the payment standards Are a way are related to the fair market rent Um based on how much money the housing authority gets overall What subsidies each of its voucher holders need and it may be somewhat less than uh Then the fair market rents it could go over the fair I don't know if it can go over the fair market rents May be able to but it's a way of that of the the authority determining this is what we We're going to set our rent Rent on On an unusual basis now somebody could come in and have a particular situation and they may Um, they may allow something more but to respond to commissioner comway directly Each year the fair market rent changes Each year the moderate income uh the median income Percentages changes so it's not surprising that the fair market the the payment standard is going to change because it's somewhat related to that I agree with the position that commissioner Dawson is saying in terms of the The incentive not wanting to provide an incentive To have higher rents But I want to raise another concern because I went to the municipal code Um, uh, the the inclusionary ordinance and what became clear is We have there's a distinction between who's the tenant Who can be a tenant in these units and what is going to be the rent level? And what the ordinance says is that if if a subsidy holder can't be found Then the tenant can have can be a moderate can have an a moderate income It can be a moderate income the household can be a moderate income The the and that's 120 percent that income is 120 percent of the AMI however, when you go to the ordinance that defines what the Rent levels are supposed to be there's a section in the inclusionary 24 16 0 1 5 definitions and it's a definition of affordable rent That definition has the affordable rent for low-income households Very low-income households and extremely low-income households. It doesn't Define what the affordable rent would be for moderate income households and the reason is That when the ordinance was first written there was the expectation that rental units would be for low and very low income people And ownership units would be for moderate income people So the moderate income ownership units has you know, what Moderate income people would pay for a unit. There is no affordable income Rent level for moderate income Households, so that's another reason why I think it makes sense To use the payment standards and I and I would want I want to suggest I think it would be very easy for the ordinance to allow that and I want to sort of just Sites of proposed ordinance where in section 9 a owners of rental housing Development or single room may elect to have the following provision And if they can't rent to the to the subsidy holder 5% of the total views in a project will be restricted to moderate income Add an affordable rent and then I would add a language based on the county of Santa Cruz housing authority payment standard Because that's what would the parent determine what the rent is Otherwise, there's nothing in the ordinance that defines what that rent should be and I think that's a That doesn't make sense Then in c2 a de-restricted rent no greater than the county of housing County of Santa Cruz housing authority payment standard affordable to income qualifying moderate income households If no other eligible Subsidic holder applied to rent. So I think you know, I think it makes sense both in terms of Not providing of an incentive to owners to reject subsidy holders It it still makes the units available for people with incomes up to the moderate income level. So it's still Could provide for moderate income households to rent these units It just says that those units should be rented at no more than the payment standard. So I I think that makes sense it's consistent with the With uh It's not inconsistent with anything that's currently in the ordinance and sort of clarifies What it means to rent a affordable unit to a moderate income household If I don't know staff has a response to that there's You know my sense is this is not This does not change philosophically at all what the intention was As it was outlined by staff and the subcommittee. This is what we want to achieve We want to have units that are available to subsidy holders if they can't be If the subsidy holders can't be found then they can be available to moderate income households But the maximum rent should not provide an incentive to Owners to not rent to subsidy holders So let me ask staff and then commissioner greenberg had a comment and then I don't know is your hand up commissioner Conway You know it wasn't but yeah Um, I have another comment. Yeah Yeah, so I'm sort of reiterating a little bit what's already been said and part of this is we were trying to solve for multiple issues and one of them is Trying to get more housing built in the city um and so trying to solve for that feasibility issue and A lender and an appraiser that is doing the underwriting for the lender will tell you that they're going to look for They're going to look for some kind of consistency And and I'm guessing a lot of these appraisers knowing the payment standard changes fluctuates quite a bit that there's a lack of consistency there. So again, I think that's going to take the The ability to size that loan larger so that you know a development can get built. Um That's one issue. I guess another one another angle I would probably look at is I think what we're trying What the housing authority has said and what most people even in the public comments have said is the waitlist for section eight is enormous It's years of waiting You know, how can we get the that wait list? How can we get people off that wait list and get people housed off of section eight? That's what that's really what we're trying to do here. And so I would almost try to look at if there's some other way and I know you did you did try to look at those Share with some of the comments that you sent to us But you know, there's sort of a law there's a potential for a lawsuit issue with some of the language that was proposed but if there is a way to You know, if everyone is agreeing that those section eight waitlist is so large How could we not be able to get these section eight folks housed? Um, I you know, how how would this all of a sudden switch to a hundred and twenty percent a mi Level unit. That's I guess what I would question Well, let me respond directly to that because I think there's a fundamental confusion Confusion between the wait list and the vouchers available The wait list is very long because the housing authority has a limited number of section eight vouchers that have been allocated to it As I understand it at the current time While the wait list might have thousands of people who would like to have a voucher There maybe are almost five thousand vouchers That the housing authority and as I understand it There are probably about 200 at any time where people are out there looking for housing So it's not like everybody in the on the wait list can go out there and find a unit They have to you know, the housing authority has to have the vouchers available So that they can give it to you know, they can Give them to people and you know, it's sometimes it's easier for Um, um voucher holders to find units at other times. It's really hard for them to find uh units and So but I think it's important to remember that because the wait list is huge Doesn't mean that there are lots and lots of people out there Looking for units. Let me also respond to what you said about the That the payment standard changes it doesn't change any more frequently than the fair market rents or the median income Those are changed every year and the housing authority adopts a payment standard every year and that's what they use over the year And so it's not any different than if somebody was if if there was If it was based on like low income 30 of the low income that changes every year because the median income is going to change any every year So 30 is going to change I think what it really what what the real benefit of having it is one it puts it in the ordinance But two it prevents a An owner Assuming that there'd be another rental level that the that the city would have to define from wanting to Not rent to subsidy holders because they could get a higher Rental level if they didn't rent to subsidy holders With this with using the payment standard that gives the lender a fixed amount It's going to be the payment standard Whether it's a subsidy holder or a non subsidy holder and they're going to know what that is it is said and so It's just as said as whatever Median income would give you so I don't think it really creates any additional problems But commissioner greenberg. Did you want to say something and then commissioner conway? Um, yeah, so thanks everyone for your really thoughtful feedback on this um And this has been uh, you know A process of trying to figure out the best way to frame this policy and this is Not something that Uh, I had considered this issue that chair shifrin is raising in response to commissioner, uh, dawson about the fact that Uh, you know, they're in the ordinance itself The you know the fact that moderate income is not defined in terms of actual rent Um, so we're looking at the tenant rather than you know a dollar amount for a rent And I think that's a significant, you know issue when we're calling something moderate income But it could really mean any level of rent. So someone could be 120 percent am i but they could be paying 90 of their income Conceivably on a rent that could be set um, and so what we want Is a moderate income person who's spent who's paying and perhaps this is what the Payment standards has to do with, you know, something like, you know, more close to 30 percent of their income on rent and So i'm concerned that we would indeed Without stipulating a rent level Be incentivizing people to And especially since let's say there are 200 voucher holders out there if they don't find a voucher holder who happens to be um Available in that 30 day window that they could then go to moderate income that would be essentially going You know beyond what many moderate income people could really afford Um, but would be kind of forced to pay And so it wouldn't be fundamentally affordable in that sense Um, and in that sense would be undermining You know the the inclusionary ordinance. So i'm concerned about that and i um I also hear the concern about underwriting Which is another motivation here um and predictability And um, I also agree. I mean, I just was reading um and correct me if i'm wrong that fair market rents Have gone up from one year to the next by 20 percent. Um, so, you know, we're seeing enormous fluctuation in am I in fair market rents and I would imagine that, you know lenders are dealing with markets like this throughout california and around the country and this would be um You know another Figure that they would know is being set annually And that they are going to have to accommodate to it just means that it's not going to allow for so much upward Variability it's going to be fixed at a lower level And it's going to be similar to what about your holder would be paying whether they find one or not so, um, I am very persuaded by what Commissioner doffson and chair chifrin are saying and I really appreciate the research and thoughts that you've put into this And I understand that we're trying to balance these things. Um on the subcommittee and I think this is actually a good way to do it So, thank you Commissioner Conway you're next Yeah, um I wanted to make a couple of points Um, and again, I um, well, there's and there's a couple of things and I don't think we should go down in the weeds about How fair market rent changes and how am I changes? There was a huge Jump between 2018 and 2019 And a lot of that had to do with that. It was flat or I think it was six years Um, which, you know caused that big jump Um, so it's a it's a little bit. I just want to disaggregate that that issue um A little bit But the the big question That that we're trying to solve for one of the issues that we're trying to solve for In the first place with treating this 5 of the additional deed restriction differently um is We are trying to ensure That projects get built And we're trying to do that in a way that kind of again walks that middle ground Is 20 percent Inclusionary requirement the right number Is that the number that is going to get the community what it needs in terms of additional restricted units? and still get projects built And one of the problems with this is you know, as you'll recall Um, I have is that this was not studied We basically just don't know Is 20 percent is that additional 5 percent? Going to be enough of a disincentive to builders that they won't build um, and We're trying to mitigate to soften the impact of that unstudied increase By saying, okay You can go up and by by my figures. I came up with an 80 percent rent Of um for a two bedroom. We always use a number of bedrooms plus one when calculating this I came up with um, 1980 For a restricted rent for an 80 household The payment standard for that same household would be 24 34 So it's a bump And it would provide some It it may mitigate The impact the unknown impact of that additional 5 percent Whereas a 120 rent for that household would be 29 70 So in other words, it goes up as a jump of you know, around 450 a little under $500 per month for each of those and um The answer to The impact on developers and onto building Because after all what we're really trying to do here is build housing Is that we don't know um and I like the idea Of I especially like the idea of making it really clear That um, it is um landlords cannot discriminate Against a household based on the source of Of their funds to pay rent And I think it's really good for the city to Be really clear about that illegal discrimination But to to highlight that and I personally don't think that You know, I don't think landlords will I think that this is you know highly visible um And I'm not sure that I that I do buy that You know that middle middle ground Does it does it soften the impact enough? It's hard to say because we never studied it in the first place um, so I guess I'd have to say I'm not sure um, I like the idea Of having it an apple for apples. You can take that tenant um paying cash out of pocket Or you can take that tenant Who can be an income up to 120 percent? um, but they will be you know, uh paying with their own funds Um as opposed to the rental subsidy I like the idea of it being even but i'm not sure it meets the goals Um of what we were looking for I'd like to hear more discussion Uh commission Dawson Yeah, thanks everybody for the really thoughtful comments. Um, I just had a couple things so one um I actually live in a household with somebody who works with voucher holders and it is well over 200 folks On the street looking for an unit um, and there is Data from other places that it that landlords do Discriminate against voucher holders and there's lots of anecdotal evidence from people who work with voucher holders here in town If that is also an issue. So I just want to be really clear that um, we have some pretty good evidence that that is an issue And so that is one of the things that we were tasked with addressing and I just want to go back to what what um The task was as as I understand it. I'm going back and reading and kind of doing my homework on this is that um, you know that we weren't tasked to um Determine whether the 20 percent is good for standing crews or not what we were tasked with Specifically is to find a way to incentivize landlords to to house voucher holders So we know that there are 200 plus folks on the street with the voucher looking for a unit and so Trying to figure out a way to balance all the very difficult things that you have all brought up I think it's the key goal. So I think that's really important and um, commissioner conway just brought up that We don't know the impact. So saying we're mitigating for an impact kind of uh, is putting the cart before the horse Because we don't know if there's an impact And so I think we should be careful about the language we use about whether this meets What what we're what we were tasked with achieving um, I actually have and and I would just like to push a little bit on this idea of That um commissioner shippern brought up about that You know when the exclusionary wasn't visions originally the fact that there isn't even a definition for moderate income Should give us some kind of clear indication what the intent was an intent. I think really matters and so I actually would propose that um, we That that we set at the housing authority standard And then that be available to a low income resident so because a low income resident could pay for that if you go back to the chart and um, I would um I know we're going to have some more discussion But again, I have some specific language around that But I really think if we're trying to meet the intent of the inclusionary ordinance And the task that we were given that we can do better here and that we can Set the the floor at the housing authority Standard just like commissioner conway said apples to apples So we truly are incentivizing Housing these subsidy holders Which is guaranteed right that for a landlord they know they're getting that money. So it really puts those subsidy holders in a good position to get housed Um, and then if they can't then we make that available to a low income Um resident which could pay that rent out of their own pocket with a reasonable rent burden So that's what I would like to see and I'll stop there Here can I make a quick clarifying point and then I'd like to hear what others say too Um about it is true that 40 years ago um, it was envisioned that The restricted targeted housing would go to moderate income households as ownership units in 40 years ago We did not envision the housing market we deal with today We certainly didn't deal um anticipate the really dire shortage of rental housing And the number of households that much higher income That for whom ownership is completely out of breach And it is a very small matter to define what affordability means at moderate income We could easily just use the redevelopment Definitions to that and it's it would that would be an easier definition to insert Then what we're saying about the payment standard. Although again, I'm not saying against it. I'm against it I'm just not convinced. I want to hear more discussion If I ask you a question, um in terms of where you came up with your rent your proposed rent levels You said that a moderate income rent would be $2,900 What was that based on? What percent of moderate income? Me moderate income was Was that a functional? So, um, I just use a very standard Uh, uh, so we we took as you always do Um, there was programs do they assume? The household size is the number of bedrooms plus one And I just calculated at the current three bedroom 120 percent am I assuming a 30 percent How many cost okay, so you assume 30 percent wearing the ordinance does it say that that would be the standard? It could be so I mean There's nothing in that that's why I think we have a practical problem as well as a philosophical problem um, and I agree with you philosophically Um, that it's reasonable to make these units available When they can't go to subsea holders to moderate income households um, I do think though that That the statement the payment standard the rent maximum should be the same whether it's a subsea holder or not So that there aren't incentives to Not take section 8 holders And I think this is It's particularly true because we don't have anything in the ordinance now That really sets a moderate income rental level. And so it's you know, that becomes a you know, that that becomes a separate A whole separate issue. Um, it would be easy to add. However, right Well, if we could agree on it, I mean, it would be easy to add the payment standard, but um, You know that I think that to my mind that deals with the problem of Disincentivizing the the notion of Not not renting to disincentivizing not renting to the section 8 voucher holders But let's hear from other commissioners if they want to You know, wait into this Wait into the weeds here. Does anybody else have something that they'd like to add commission spellmen Yeah, I don't I don't have a lot to add. I think uh, this discussion is really Honing in on the sticky points of what we've proposed here um I hear a lot of words about incentivizing, you know developers and I'm I think that's a little bit disingenuous on What the what the task at hand is about I think on the face of it, you can't deny that the approach was You know to create an incentive, right in the grand scheme of it um, I think what we were trying to do was How do you do that but then still protect the affordability level? and We We settled on the 120 percent I think there is Room for discussion around that. I don't know enough quite frankly to say the housing authority, you know threshold is a better number I think there's a There's a perceived Component to that idea that sends a message to the community that That unit and that rent will always be at a certain level and I think there's You know current traction and resonance around that point which you know, I think has You know, it's a very good good thought around it. So I'm I'm Open to that that concept of Trying to figure out what the right number is and Find ways to protect the fact that you know, the Small amount of affordable units we have really Stay that way from the public's perception Thank you. Anyone any other commissioners want to um make a statement about this Um commission Maxwell That's a mute. Yeah Yeah, I got it I'm I'm just gonna pretty much piggyback With commissioners Bellman said I think It is, you know, it's just about the sticky points. Um, I definitely think Our job here is To find that middle ground to where we can build where we incentivize the developers But at the same time we need to you know, create affordable housing that is Predictable in some way. I mean even though we're dealing with the changing everything's gonna You know, things will change as the future goes forward Um, but I think The main point again, I think I agree with commissioner Dawson and chair shifrin Uh, definitely incentivizing Disincentivizing the landlords to choose non subsidy holders over The medium income, you know the 120 percent Is kind of a big deal And I would love to yeah, I'm I'm I'm leaning more towards that. I'm hoping to what other commissioners say as well That's that's what I have to say I'll commission Neil soon so For from my perspective I question um Making a change To what the subcommittee has spent a lot of time discussing and going through Talking with stakeholders developers and um, HUD and and I know that staff has spent a lot of time on that. So um I guess I have a concern with which is making a change and um and just going with that. Um, so I'm wondering is there um with With this change coming forward is there um a possibility of continuing the discussion through the subcommittee To figure out if that is really the right way to go um, because I think we're all um I mean based on kind of this discussion. I think there's uh There's not full consensus. Um people I mean everybody's thinking that maybe you know, there there could be This may work or it may not work But I think I would prefer that that be researched and really discussed um In maybe within that subcommittee um environment so that That can really be evaluated. Um, and then we can as a commission look at it again Um, you know through that, you know with a with maybe some new writing on that Okay, uh, uh, Jessica did you want you had your hand up first and then commissioner greenberg Thank you chair. I just wanted to uh, thank everyone for the really great comments This is an excellent discussion we're having and I do appreciate the fact that We're thinking long and hard about this and I do think it should go back to the subcommittee to to take a deeper dive Um and come back with with you know, be back at another meeting Um, and I do want to possibly look at again chair. I know you brought this up in your comments A few weeks ago is is there a way to strengthen? uh, the ability that a Owner landlord cannot not rent to a section eight if it's available, you know, I it's just a quite we just it's a dance between Discrimination and law through all that stuff. So I it's we definitely need to bring counsel in for that but You know, I agree with everybody here. We really want the section eight to be you know to be rented. So, um If we could continue the item that would be um, that would be great Permission to greenberg. Um, I'm open to to what folks Think about that. Um, I really also appreciate this conversation and I um, I think that I Hadn't understood quite honestly that this 120 moderate income was not pegged To a rent and I should have known that and so I really appreciate um this being Brought to us And I think it really does meet this double kind of this balancing act of both predictability on one hand and You know, uh, the inclusionary ordinance on the other and providing for affordability at multiple levels So, um, I don't know if that's the payment standard. Um commissioner conway brought up a redevelopment authority Figure which I'm not familiar with but like how that might be calculated. Um, but I do think that having that Kind of add in so far as work kind of adding this to the original inclusionary ordinance like having that stipulated As the as the original ordinance did for for lowering some folks would be really Um An important responsibility for us and what I think the public would expect from from this change So, thank you. Well, let me just say that on the one hand Um, I think the committee and the staff have done an incredible job here They've dealt with all the issues that I could come up with around trying to Um, assure that the housing units would go to subsidy holders It's a very, uh, well, I think well crafted ordinance. Could it be stronger? Sure I suggested some stronger language and was said, well, what did we want to get involved in lawsuits? And it was like this was considered and maybe that wasn't such a great idea So already pretty strong language and there has to be Accountability to the housing authority into the city Uh, so I think that the ordinance is very strong What we're, you know, the only thing that's really lacking Is what will be the rent level for a moderate income? Um, for a moderate income household and I think The the the argument will come down to Do we use a payment standard that's consistent for The same as for the subsidy holders to provide An incentive to choose a subsidy holder or do we come up with some other percentage? That would be added into the ordinance and it could go back to the subcommittee and Then come back to us and we can have the same argument all over again But on the other hand the council approved the 20 percent Many months ago and one of the the objections to them approving it is that it really was going to provide A burden put a burden on developers and that's why it was important to get this Moving on this section 8 option as a way of providing greater Certainty to developers as they try to finance their projects And so I'm a little reluctant to send it. I think the choices are clear The you know, it's I'm not sure it's really worth Sending it back taking more time more meetings to To discuss this So, I mean I'll I think it's time for somebody to make a motion and we'll see where The commission is and if there's The votes to move forward I think that would be my preference if a majority of the commission wants to send it back to the subcommittee That's fine, but I I think we've had a really useful and in-depth discussion tonight So I I'm not sure I see what more could come out come out of it commission Dawson Yeah, um, I again, thank you everybody for the conversation, but I would like to move amended versions of the Of the ordinance for consideration by the commissioners And uh, let me bring up that language Uh right now um so I'll just go to the meat of it. Um, so the the I also personally have, um Uh, just maybe an aesthetic problem with calling these moderate income units because if we're trying to send them to to um subsidy holders, it kind of presupposes by calling them moderate income units. So I would actually like to um Call these pavement standards units. Um, and then, um, there's chair shifrin's Uh language in there about unreasonably denying the occupancy um and then, uh This is getting down into So the part that's kind of the the meat of this is subsidy holders. Um, so It would be Let's see The developer affordable housing agreement as the following Uh Required that 15 percent of the total units be developed affordable And that's five percent of the total units in the project will be restricted to be rented to subsidy holders or rented And I'm fine to put moderate income non subsidy holders But if we do that, we're going to have to also move forward some language to define that um And Pretty much that it just cascades through the ordinance um That the holders at the current housing authority payment standard and that's really the key change Just as chair shifrin said it's it's not a lot of change Um, it's just about using that payment standard And again, I would just say that I believe that if there is any Regardless of what we define if there is the opportunity To rent this unit to a higher rent level regardless of what we define it that is above the payment standard Um property owners will find a reason to do that and that's why I would like to move this forward for consideration Well, let me clarify what your motion is because you you seem to indicate a number of changes One was to add language about unreasonably denying occupancy another was to insert To change, uh, will you it's part of your motion to change moderate income? The non subsidy holders um That wasn't clear. So is that What you're I'm not clear what your motion is and you also said you had mixed feelings about calling it moderate income or not so I can walk through so one I'd just like to set the definition of what a subsidy holder is um, what a payment standard unit is And what a low income non subsidy holder is. Um, I think I would be willing based on the um comments from the commissioners to just Make that a non subsidy holder um that Could be low or moderate income so tenant that can provide proof of income that meets the definition of uh Low or moderate Okay, so those definitions would then cascade through the ordinance. So my changes are in red So the first one is unreasonably denying The next one is under the first section um rental to tenant based subsidy holders with the possibility to rent to non subsidy holder tenants at the housing authority payment standard um, then again To the section about the five percent rented to subsidy holders are rented That should be low or moderate Income non subsidy holders at the current housing authority payment standard The units that are used to comply with the community ordinance requirement shall Uh remain affordable into perpetuity Again, this is just saying that that that cap for the unit is the payment standard should be housing authority Um payment standard Okay, is that your motion? It is Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion Okay, um there's a motion and a second um Oh chair shifrin. I'm sorry. There's one more substantive part of this motion that May need to redo that first and second um There's also a section about um a status report on the information implementation of this option Um so that we can actually evaluate how this is working and if it needs to be changed in the future And the language is up on the screen Is that acceptable to the second? Yes Okay, there's a motion a second on the floor. Um, I'm not going to support the motion And it's not that I sort of I disagree with the substance of it so much as I think the the ordinance that came to us is very And if we are going to make any changes to it There's only one change that I think is legitimate at this time And that is to set the rent levels for a moderate income and it's very simple to do that um By just adding some language to 9a and 9 C2 that says that ties the affordable rent to the payment to the housing authority payment standards And I think from my mind just making those minor changes would would be sufficient. So I think all the other um The other changes just make the ordinance more complicated and um I don't I don't feel I'm willing to support that at this time other comments from other commissioners commissioner conway Yeah, I want to thank commissioner Dawson for her effort to try to craft some language Um, and I would um love to put this issue aside. Actually, I think we've worked pretty hard on it um, but I um And I also would like to say I really support the language about unreasonably denying occupancy to a subsidy holder I think that's a really positive add that we should keep um at any rate but I um as much as I'd like to be done with this portion of the Subcommittees effort tonight I feel like this is ordinance language And doing it piecemeal and without study ends up with muddled ordinances It's hard enough to craft them as it is If there's an interest in in doing this I guess I feel like I think it should go back to the subcommittee One more time to craft with staff and come back with a new recommendation um that that um meets um some additional goals And I also again would just like to ask the question about I've been hearing that what does moderate income mean And it is it has a very precise definition um, I agree that The ordinance isn't pointing to it adequately to define affordability and maybe define it enough, but it's not like we would make up out of thin air what it is And either we mean um that the alternative to a tenant based subsidy holder Is moderate income which means one thing Or it's a payment standard They aren't the same thing So I just feel like it's a little too muddled to move on it On this proposal and I also won't support it Despite liking some aspects of it Other commissioners Okay, let's uh have a roll call vote, please on the motion and the second the motion is the um proposed changes by commissioner Dawson Mr. Conway No Dawson I Greenberg No Nielsen No Different No The motion fails on a five to two vote um there Before somebody else makes a motion I would like to say that there is a real difference between And what is a moderate income which I think there is no question about that. That's 120 of the median And what uh, what should be an appropriate moderate income rent in an affordable unit and um That's You know what I think we could decide tonight or um what I'm hearing from a couple of commissioners is that they want more time to uh Chew on it And so um Waiting for another motion. Is there another motion that somebody would like to make Commissioner Nielsen I would like to make a motion that um this issue go back to the subcommittee Is there a second to the motion? Yes, I second that I'm reluctant to send it back. Let me ask the chair of the subcommittee whether um It would make sense to put a return date. I mean we waited six months for this Ordinance to first come I really hope that doesn't happen again. So um, I would urge them maker of the motion and second Give us a A specific return date so I know it's going to come back Commissioner Conway Well, I would like to say that the Uh term it took to get back here really was You must acknowledge pretty far beyond our control Um, we met a bunch of times thinking we were going to get come back as soon as possible Um in late march or early april So pinning that delay on the subcommittee feels just a little unfair I do think that what I would propose is I would love to bring it back And clear the deck. We've got plenty of work to do On um coming up with the definition and use for employer sponsored housing I would propose that the subcommittee take care of this as soon as possible I don't want an immediate date because I think that that jams up when staff reports are due And can really Prevents the best quality staff work on the follow-up I do know that we'll be bringing this back as soon as possible. Nobody wants it to linger Um, and I believe our charge is to be done by the end of october at any rate Uh, the planning director is now looking at us and I thought I sort of seemed upward some Uh facsimile of that. Did you have anything that you wanted to say? Yes, thank you chair shifrin. Um, I was just going to suggest that um, if you do set a date, um For returning that would mean that we don't need to go through the cost associated with noticing again If it isn't ready on that date, we could continue it again. Um, but um, looking at your upcoming calendar um, you have a meeting on for example, um October 15th, which is about a month from now. And so, um, that could allow for some time for meeting and then Wouldn't mean that we have to re-notice and if it isn't ready, we could continue it at that time But it would uh, save us a little bit of cost in terms of the noticing It's acceptable to certainly in favor of that second of the motion to have a return date of october 15th I'm fine with adding that to the motion Yeah, and I second that as well. Thank you. Um, any other comments? uh, christina greenberg Um, yeah, I was just going to say that I'm hopeful that this can be a pretty, um, focused discussion that we can have on the subcommittee really just around this issue of Not only speculating the type of household, but the rent level within this amendment to the ordinance, so I'm hopeful that that can be something we can do alongside of our other our other task and You know, I don't know if there's We can we can speak as a subcommittee about when we can ways we can discuss this To expedite the process, you know, perhaps there's there's other ways we can also meet to Facilitate that decision making around that Okay, thank you Is there any other discussion on the motion to continue this item until our second meeting in october? Now let's have a roll call vote mr. Conway Hi Dawson Hi Greenberg Hi Nielsen Hi salmon Hi maximum chair shifrin Hi Motion passes unanimously. Uh, we'll now move on to Our second item on the agenda, which is What is it? The parking regulations so could we have a staff report, please? Yes. Hi. Good evening sarah noisy with the advanced planning section um Thank you all for being here tonight. I know it's getting late and I just want to take a moment to acknowledge That we are all here and I really appreciate the effort that you folks are volunteering for your community tonight in some You know, what are really trying time? So I understand all of us are overextended and I really appreciate your time and care on these ordinances um because these next two are While important rather dry So, um Let's talk about parking. I wanted to just start by reading you just a couple sentences from this wonderful book called That you can't see the cover of because of my virtual background called parking reform made easy from the introduction I think this just kind of sets up our conversation really well Parking requirements stand in the way of making cities livable equitable and sustainable This is because parking is a prodigious and inefficient consumer of land If parking was a person we might say that he she is very poor at multitasking Parking serves one type of transportation the private vehicle and uses more land or building area per trip served than any other travel mode Weekly farmers markets are not outstanding parking is rarely used for any other purpose So, um, I will go ahead and share my screen here um So share So we're going to be talking about um the proposed parking regulations that were included Um changes the parking regulations that were included with your packet For the most part she was the most part um these The changes that we're making tonight come from existing city policy documents. They come from policies that are in the general plan Um work that was done on the housing blueprint by the housing blueprint club committee last year Um and also from the climate action plan the policies in those documents Also go further than what we are proposing tonight. So we're taking kind of an incremental step towards implementing some of these policies Um, and we acknowledge that there is a lot more work to be done on parking Uh in the city of Santa Cruz. We're also incorporating some feedback that we hear Applicants and other users of our code. So we've done a couple of things to just kind of improve the usability and Readability of our code with um with these ordinance amendments The goals that we had were um, you know guided by the policy in these in these sort of policy documents We want to provide options for meeting the parking requirements And then overall we do have a goal to reduce those requirements as they burden the production of new housing and um opening of new businesses So i'm going to go through these these uh the proposals kind of by topic And it's my recommendation that we kind of discuss them by topic if there's another way that you'd like to go through the ordinance Of course, i'm i'm open to however is um, sort of easiest to to discuss it So we made some changes to um the electrical electric vehicle parking standards and accessible parking standards Because those are required by the california building code Um, we had a prior reference in the code. So we just updated it and continue to reference that in our zoning ordinance We also um Did a couple of different actions that sort of consolidated and clarified some existing standards that were previously Spread throughout the code. We brought them all together. So for example, there were standards that we used for driveways And they were in like three or four different sections. So we brought them all together for there was one section So you can find all the standards for driveways In one convenient location when you're building your next driveway We added some cross references specifically to um sections of the code that deal with um Clear vision areas clear corner triangles vegetation in those areas where um cars are entering and exiting properties Um, and we also added a couple of references to the downtown parking Uh resolution because that does sort of regulate the parking standards that are in in our downtown parking district Uh, we're also we also updated some of our commercial uses to reflect modern uses We kind of consolidated all of those um uses that are about community care facilities. So assisted living facilities children's homes um Several others they used to be spread all throughout that chart and they're all now in one section They all had the same parking standard anyway. So that doesn't really change any of the requirements It just makes sure that when you look for assisted living facility You can find it and you don't have to instead go to institution for the ages, which is just kind of an outmoded term Um Oh, and then I already mentioned that we were adding references to the downtown parking resolution Um, next we're creating proposing to create some consistency in the regulations about tandem parking. So with a change in state law A year or two ago the state now requires us to allow Um tandem parking for any parcel that includes an ad use So we have to allow up to three cars to be parked in tandem I so I have this illustration here this illustrates two cars being parked in tandem And so what we currently allow on parcels with ad uses up to three cars to be parked in tandem so we um That's already codified codified for ad use um And we wanted to extend that allowance to all residential uses. It seems to be working well for adu properties um, we're proposing to extend that to all residential um unit types with the caveat that um With the exception of a single family home in an adu The parking for any individual unit can't be stacked with the parking of any other unit So in a multi-family scenario, you wouldn't have Um, you know one unit who would get parked in by someone living in a different household um, we're also Strengthening and expanding our transportation demand management allowances So there were already several pieces of this already in the code. We kind of rearranged it and brought it all together into one piece um inception 24 12 to 90 that allows Variations from design standards and variations reductions in the total number of required parking spaces so, um, we are working on creating a worksheet for applicants that would sort of Identify, you know of these strategies for reducing um onsite parking demand Various different ones can reduce the parking demand by sort of different amounts and um A lot of that work has already been done the public works department Recently took to the city council some work on sb 743 for about um vehicle mile traveled reductions and um So they've done a lot of research about what these what each of these strategies Generates in terms of reduction in parking demand. So the worksheet would be based on actual data and um past experience and we do have We do have Claire Gallagher here on the line with us tonight. If there are any questions specifically about that about how tdm would be implemented Um, but so strategies for reducing parking requirements include um onsite cooperative parking So that's like a shopping center where there are multiple uses sharing the same parking lot Offsite shared parking. So that's where one use might use the parking lot of you know Another use that's further down the street because they don't have enough space on their own Own site and that policy already exists. We are proposing to increase the maximum distance to 500 feet with this update um There's also a provision for non auto use programs. So that's things like um telecommuting um transit vouchers things like that additional bike parking that language is already also in the code you for every um For every parking space removed an additional six bike parking spaces need to be added um Above and beyond what's already required for bike parking And then we are proposing to add an option for unbundled parking So this would primarily be available to residential uses although I think there's probably a way it could work In certain commercial context but in general this creates the choice for um someone who's purchasing housing either Excuse me purchasing it to own or purchasing it monthly by through a lease To pay for parking or not pay for parking. So as it is currently Um, we don't have a choice. We buy the parking that's available with the unit when we buy it or rent it We pay rent even if we aren't parking a car. So what unbundling does is it allows It allows folks to make that choice. So We do want to be mindful if we just unbundle parking and there's ample street parking You know, few people are going to choose the convenience of parking on site versus parking on the directly adjacent street So we have provisions in this section that really um would only allow this in places where there are controls on the street parking to ensure that that the people don't just sort of flood out of the Project and park on the street. So the street parking within 500 feet of any entrance would have to be controlled in some manner by Meters or by colored curbs or by a part permit parking um residential permit parking program And then lastly, you know new ideas are going to continue to come up So we want to write that into the code to allow applicants to propose other things that we could evaluate to determine You know, if they sort of meet our standards for Allowing a reduction in parking So the the current code already allows, you know, all of the current TDMs would allow you to get kind of Up to about a 30 percent reduction in required parking And so we're recommending that we increase that just a little bit to 35 percent total possible reduction um We are also proposing to remove the requirements for covered parking. So currently single family homes requires One of the of the required parking spaces to be covered either in a garage or a carport um, this was something that was specifically identified in the housing blueprint work as um Sort of that easy next step to remove that would allow Any existing garage to be converted to a bedroom potentially? To a junior ad you all those junior ad use we would also we would already avoid this. Um That's happened. So so parcels that have an ad you or a junior ad you are already released of this requirement to have a covered parking space on site um, and so We just thought let's just extend that also to bedrooms, you know Why force someone to put the kitchen in if really what all they want is a bedroom? Let's allow that to happen um and so Making this change to remove The requirement for covered parking Means that we no longer need a whole section of code about um conditional driveway permits So you you will see that in your strikeout that there's a whole long section of code That's just deleted because it's simply not necessary a previously a conditional driveway permit Was only triggered when um an applicant was putting in a driveway that didn't lead to a That didn't lead to a destination. So it didn't terminate in a carport or a garage so um If we don't have that requirement that a driveway leads for a carport or garage We no longer need that permit. So um, so that whole section is to propose to be deleted Um, we are also proposing to reduce the overall parking requirements Um for residential uses and we're also proposing to consolidate. So this is what you see here is the existing chart Where we're separating out single family and town homes from Houseboats however, many of those we have in the city um multi-family housing and then community housing project is the term we use in our municipal code for condominium projects for sale multi-family housing um, so they all of these different uses kind of had their own unique set of criteria and set of standards and we're proposing to move To one standard for all residential uses um efficiencies of studios And one bedrooms will require one parking space Anything two bedrooms or larger would require two parking spaces and then Any multi-family project of five or more units would additionally be required to provide um An additional 10 of parking spaces for guest use so um Requiring that we round up any fractional spaces would ensure that we would always have at least one Guest parking space on a um on a multi-family project of five or more units As I just mentioned on the last slide. We are adding this guest parking standard Um, oh, I said all this stuff already. So we'll just skip that slide Um, okay, and then so finally there are a couple other little tiny things that we're cleaning up. Um There are a bunch of illustrations at the end of the parking standard and that sort of um Illustrate the requirements for different sort of parking lot configurations and the back out distances and the angles of the parking spaces And how all of those relate to each other. Previously those were only contained in illustrations. We've written some text to add those to the code of the um Add those to the text of the code. Sorry just for for better clarity We've reorganized a number of different things So, um, there are a couple of places where things were moved from one location to another and the ordinance of the standard didn't change Um, and then I do want to mention there is one thing that we noticed After we published the ordinance. So, um, I would like to read in this one change to section 24 12 to 90.2 f which is on page 19 of the strikeout ordinance, um, right at the top about parking lists. So this is in the section about variations to design requirements for parking facilities Um, and so, um an applicant could apply for an administrative use permit to sort of vary from the standard requirements that we have for parking lots and parking facilities And we are adding proposing to add some text that would allow parking lists, which our code has not previously contemplated Um, and I would like to read in that we would be adding the text that's shown here in yellow So the section f of um chapter 24 12 to 90.2 would now read Parking lists or staff parking within parking structures shall demonstrate how individual users can effectively access vehicles parking lists and staff parking are not permitted except within enclosed parking structures so, um We wanted to add this because it kind of became clear to us. Um, just over the last two weeks after we published or settled to publish that we, um We haven't really thought about design standards or development standards that we would want to have on parking lists to have them on surface parking lots So at this point in time, we're proposing to allow them Um, but for now only within a parking garage. So inside some kind of structured parking that could be um, you know a private garage on a on a private property of you know, single family home or otherwise Or you know a commercial parking lot, but some sort of enclosed structure So, um, we did do some community outreach on this. We held a virtual community meeting on Excuse me on july 23rd. It was attended by about 25 residents on zoom um, and we kind of ran through these topic areas and talked about what we were contemplating and The comments from in that meeting generated a number of ideas for future parking reforms and several of these really would dovetail with The policy document some of the policies that we already have in place in our policy documents. So, um, We do think there's some good work that could be done on these so, um creating geographically based standards. So Rather than having you know, creating a process to allow a reduction Um in the total number of required spaces based on TDM You know, we can kind of look at where TDM strategies already exist some areas that are well served by transit perhaps Um, you know, maybe their parking standard starts a little bit lower some places that are less well served by transit That would require, um, you know a fair amount of analysis and mapping And really some really careful thought, but we think that's a really Interesting idea that we should be pursuing. Um in the future in the next round of parking reforms that we tackle Um increased control of on-street parking. So again, that's one of these things that we talked about when we reduced off-street parking You know demand on on-street parking can can go up and that's something that we want to be very mindful of and thinking about places where Different types of controls might be appropriate. Um for on-street parking And and how, you know, what the best tools are in the different neighborhoods for achieving those That you know fair distribution and access to street parking Something we'll continue to be thinking about And then we did get a comment also about evaluating, um road cross sections So the the way that we allocate space to sidewalks and bike lanes and travel lanes for cars And how all of those spaces interact and how much space might be between them and the public works department does already have a policy of prioritizing the highest degree of separation between modes of transit And um that is something that we are always looking to implement. So as funding becomes available We're looking for ways where we can, um, you know, improve pedestrian facilities Um and improve bike facilities that create the greatest amount of separation from automobile traffic And that's something we are going to continue to work on and it's going to it's highly funding dependent So our next step after today, um, we will be bringing this item With whatever recommendation the commission makes tonight to the city council, um, hopefully in october, but I hear that I tend to start getting the pretty packed, but might be november um, there will be a submission to coastal commission because Because the commission has been recently extremely interested in how we are regulating parking in the coastal zone We've decided to include language with this ordinance when it um, when it would be adopted by the city council That would actually buy for casey ordinance, which would allow it to go into effect outside the coastal zone 30 days after the city council takes action Um, it would not be in effect inside the coastal zone until it's acted on by the coastal commission um, we have been talking with them about it and um We're we're working to make sure that we include the right kind of analysis in our staff report when we go to the city council to, um Talk about how this proposal will um, still ensure that we have strong visitor access facilities in our coastal areas and visitors still have places to park when they come and visit our beaches and coastlines so, um We still want to just make sure we maintain the option for it to go for the ordinance to go into effect outside the coastal zone Because we've been experiencing some delays recently with the coastal commission So um, I'll just reiterate our staff recommendation is that the planning commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment To the municipal code as proposed here and read into the record Regulating parking to the city council and including the proposed change deception 24 12 to 90 that was read into the record um, so we're available to answer any questions and again And I thought it might be easiest to kind of go through this by topic area Like I discussed it in the slides if um, the commissioners would prefer to Go through it in some other manner. You know, whatever is however, you think it would be easiest to discuss Thank you Thank you very much for the staff report are there questions from commissioners before we Open it up to the public. Uh, yes commissioner Nielsen. Um, hi, um Thank you for the staff report um The I have a couple questions one relates back to tandem parking As it Would be in them in the multifamily example you were discussing and and and you were stating that the There would be no tandem parking allowed across units um, so I'm I'm pretty sure I understand what that means. Um, but the question I have is what about ad use? um That are on those It within the multifamily are ad use allowed to park tandem because they're allowed in the single family to park tandem That's a good question. Um, so the way that um The way that the code is written for um Ad use I don't think it distinguishes between multifamily and single family uses and it just says Cards can be parked up to triple tandem um I'll admit that that does get a little complicated when ad use on multifamily property aren't necessarily connected to one specific unit um Actually, let me I may have an answer to that Well, I don't know. Maybe I don't um Ad use aren't required to have parking, right? So Right Then maybe that's not an issue Yeah, I mean so ad use right now outside the coastal zone Right ad use are not required to have provide any parking um They can have parking. I yeah, I'll be honest. That's not a that's not a scenario We have specifically addressed in these are these amendments tonight. The way that it's written in the ad u ordinance um doesn't distinguish between single family and multifamily And so I think the way if we were interpreting our code as it's currently Drafted and written in the other section. Um ad use probably could end up tandem with another unit. So That may be something we should take into account Okay, thank you. Um, and then the other question I have uh is with the parking lifts Um, where you're saying you're stating that they're um, they would only be allowed Within an enclosed parking structure Does it have to be I mean it doesn't appear that it's that it's Clarified whether it has to be like inside the structure It's going to be on the roof of the structure because I know that there's Parking structures that are enclosed, but you can go all the way to the roof and it's and it's open Um on the roof. So with that in is there an intent there from Staff in terms of what that's supposed to what the what the intent of that is Great question. Um Coming in with you a great one tonight Thank you To contemplate that. Um, Matt, did you have something to say? Sure, I can help with that a commissioner nelson, uh, matt benoit principal planner um Yeah, as far as the the parking structures go, uh, and and uh Uh lifts they they would be a lot on the roof um The main the main goal with allowing them only in structured parking scenarios was to remove them from visual impacts Especially from like a pedestrian right of way So if they were on a roof of an actual parking structure that that wouldn't be As much of an issue so long as it still met the high requirements and things like that Okay, I think that I mean to me that makes sense. I mean, it's uh A lot of the parking structures we have in the city don't have very high ceiling height And so it seems like it may be challenging to to get lifts within the structure anyway, so Having them on the roof. Um, I mean that seems fine. So thank you. Those are my questions Other commissioners have questions before we open it up to the public. Yes commissioner dawson Yeah, I just wanted to ask that so so is there a requirement for A generator for these lifts because what happens if the power goes out? How do you get your car? That's a great question I actually don't know enough about how the lifts work to know if they You know include their own battery if it's mechanical. I honestly That's I haven't I don't know the answer to that. Does anybody know how these lifts work? I've never interacted with one personally um No, I don't know Public lifts do tend to have a backup generator with them But private lifts are tend to be connected with a with a parking lot and then that's really up to the the property owner To decide whether that would go in or not Okay, so just to clarify so currently in our ordinance um, the proposed language, um, doesn't include that that requirement that would be optional Okay, correct. Yeah, it's not in there as a requirement It's not a requirement. We don't comment on it So optional makes it sound like they could just choose not to include power which is not really the case Um, but it's not a specific requirement that they have a backup generator. We didn't you know, that's not in the code as it's proposed today Okay, thank you Other commissioners I have one question at this time. It's on page four under the TDM where it's increasing the Parking reductions from 30 to 35 percent the staffry board includes that the Uh, proposal would not impact street parking Uh, yet the ordinance on page 19 Doesn't say that. Um, was that just an oversight? The point of the administrative use permit Is for the VA to have a chance to evaluate the proposal and determine if they qualify for this reduction um And so the strategies that are contained there would you know, that The way that that we're envisioning this process working the um The developer would make a proposal They the zoning administrator or you know designated staff member would be reviewing that proposal and the criteria they would be comparing that to is um You know whether there would be an off-site impact and if it doesn't say that or um Maybe that is worth stating explicitly. Um The language in the ordinance says in number g whatever it's under an analysis by transportation engineer other qualified specialists May be required by the decision-making body as a means to um Substantiate the requested parking um A parking reduction, but it doesn't say that that should be based on Not having an on off-site And the proposal will not have an impact on street parking I think that that that I think To be consistent with what's in the staff report and what I think is important That in my view to be considered to be added to the Ordinance Claire you have your hand. Yeah, thank you Claire globally transportation planner for the city in public works I wanted to add into that but that is the intent here and one of the reasons that we will be um working up the worksheet for transportation demand management is to make sure that the proposed solutions that are um Put forth by developer match actual realistic options So if a project located outside of transit priority area with high quality transit says that they're going to use transit to reduce their parking environment That's not something that we would say yes to to reduce their parking because it wouldn't be a realistic solution um You know likewise, uh Unbundling of parking in an area that doesn't have existing parking management Would lead to spillover parking into the neighborhood and would have an adverse effect potentially on what's already there so Making sure that we match the proposed solution to to something that's actually feasible The intent is to not create a new neighborhood issue Because i'll tell you um on the public works side. We we failed those calls Does that um Does that mean that you would be supportive of adding some language into the ordinance that makes that clear I would say to them I'd look to sarah that that's the intent of it how to make that language sarah. I'd look to you for that Yeah, I was actually just trying to scribble down a sentence here that we could insert into the um Into number three that clarified um Something along these lines. So I would add it in the after the sentence that says This may be done using one or more of the following strategies or an approved equivalent subject to any standards contained here in And based on an analysis, I would add this language and based on an analysis of any potential off-site impact Or you know Something like that. So that is the intent is that this would be based. This would be balancing. I want to be cautious here though I let's let's not pretend that there will be zero off-site impact. Okay Um, we are always going to be looking to balance those things right parking takes up as I mentioned Just an enormous amount of city land urban land and it doesn't do anything but Be occupied with cars or be, you know, relatively vacant or occasionally hold a very delightful farmers market or antique fair Those are really rare events. So, um There will be a balancing that occurs between the effects that are Off-site and the reduction that is on-site and the benefits that the project brings That's the point of having a discretionary process that's evaluated by the zoning administrator. So um, it is the intent that those would be analyzed and considered and I am I'm not going to recommend that we put in language that says there will be zero off-site impact because I just don't think that's really I don't think it's possible to analyze that or predict that so And it's not possible to measure on the back end what says And to demonstrate the proposal will not impact speed parking on page four But you know Yeah, what you're saying that's um, and uh, you know, I think it's consistent with the rest of the discussion Let me just say that Most houses just sit there all day with nobody in them That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have houses. Most people have cars In fact, almost everybody has a car and that means that the piece of Of Piece of equipment that takes up space It's unrealistic to think that that's that there isn't going to be the need to put that equipment someplace So just say that that there's you know, it doesn't do anything It does, you know, people are very enamored with their automobiles And the overwhelming majority have them and want them And Public streets with them is not necessarily What most people want. So anyway, this is I was trying not to get into discussions, but does anybody if nobody else has questions I'm going to open it up to the public a member of the public has asked for four minutes To make a presentation I said, okay Um, so I hope that person is on the line and I'm going to open the public hearing and call on him to make his presentation And um chair, this is the clerk I'm going to I do see a member of the public raise their hand And I just want to let him know that um, I'm going to walk across the room and go set up his power point So I'll start the timer once the power point's up All right, thank you Speaker You're on the line. Give me one moment Hi, um, this is rick longinati Uh, the co-chair of the campaign for sustainable transportation Can you hear me? Yes? Great um So just let me know when the slides are up and I'll signal you went to advance Um, but I did want to say while we're waiting for that just uh, um, I really appreciate it when I read the staff report About the parking reform agenda. I thought, you know, I wished everybody had a chance to read this. I mean It's really an excellent report and it makes a great case for parking reform I think this is one of the uh areas where Uh, the planning commission can make a really big impact on housing affordability and also reduce vehicle trips at the same time And one of the sleepers tonight, I think in terms of impact is removing the covered parking requirement Aside from Your your presentation is now on the screen as soon as you start addressing the slides your timer starts I can run it would that be easier That would be easier because the screen that we're televising from doesn't have a camera apparently Oh, okay. Well, let me um, let me do this. Sure. Happy to help Okay, rick Okay, great. Thank you Okay, uh, thanks. Um, you can go to the next slide Um, and I actually already said that I appreciate the staff for their report and advance it to The next slide slide number three with the graphs um What well these students of adam millard ball uh found they went out uh on three successive nights Into these large uh apartment building complexes And they counted parking spots and they found that there were lots of empty parking spaces around on the average around 35 empty parking spaces What that suggests is that our existing code It results in overbuilt parking Um by about 35 but it's actually worse than that because if you consider You know all the ucfc students who live off campus, which is about half of the 19 000 students And how many of them own cars? Um, and how many of them bring their cars to santa cruz when they go to school? That must be thousands of cars and if they had to pay for parking such as with an unbundled Parking policy. Um, we'd see a lot less cars on on our roots Next slide please So what's wrong with more parking than we need next slide Well, it does result in higher construction could offer particularly when structured parking, you know, this is the 555 pacific building which has two levels of underground parking You know, we're getting into 70 and 80 thousand dollars per parking space there Um, and i've already discussed about how it results in more driving next slide please So the staff's proposal is you know as modest changes Um The it for example, it doesn't change the requirement that a two-bedroom apartment have two parking spaces next slide um The problem with that is is an affordability issue because 55 percent of the rental households in santa cruz own one car or less So if you're thinking about Rental households who live in a two-bedroom apartment that has that required two better two parking spaces You know, one of those parking spaces is going unused for a significant number of people and yet they're paying for it Next slide please um So the request that I would have is to ask staff To bring back more extensive changes to the parking code and starting with downtown and downtown has similar parking requirements to the rest of the city actually right now um Next slide please The reason to focus on downtown is because we already have the parking permit program And by the way since you've already discussed that I would say that um a well managed parking permit Program does is very effective. It is very effective in a preventing spillover parking. Next slide please So communities that have removed minimum parking requirements. Um, we're um, you know, we're following the lead of Lots of different cities. Next slide um The unbundling which you've all already talked about it's been sort of on the table for years and years Um, the master transportation study called on us to do that way back in 2003 Next slide please So we know that it results in lower housing costs through empirical studies and we know that it results in lower vehicle ownership So it's really a win-win On the question that I asked myself and ever asked you is that if you can think of any other way that reducing parking requirements for developers Would actually where the savings would go to the resident, you know, it's going to lower costs for developers But would they pocket that cost or would they pass it on to the save to the tenants? And I think unbundling parking does that and I can't think of other ways to do that Maybe other ways to do it, but I haven't thought of any Next slide please Here's an example of an unbundled parking building in berkeley Uh, there's just 20 cars using their 42 parking spaces that they built for 91 apartments. Next slide Um, we already have example of requiring transportation demand management measures Uh, the pacific shores apartments, which was approved some years back on shaper road where the developer Pays for a bus pass and So I would suggest that, you know that the Unbundling and the requirement for tdm in new development be extended, you know First of all in the downtown and then along transit corridors, but but let's try it downtown I think you know, let's try it and see how it works and uh Starting there and you know could make a huge difference in housing affordability next slide Um, the other thing I would recommend as far as reducing Uh transportation demand would be to ask private developers to exercise local workforce preference So when their applications they give priority to local Workers local residents Santa Barbara they even give priority to residents who don't own a car And we have that precedent in our public housing tannery arts building Santa Cruz next slide please So just a summary, please ask the staff to return with a more ambitious parking reform proposal for downtown They're their agenda report really calls for something more ambitious than what you've got before you so Thanks very much for listening Thank you very much Is there anyone else from the public who wants to speak on this item? Any other members of the public that wish to address the commission? Okay going once going twice um I'll then close the public hearing And bring this back to the commission Um, we'll take comments from commissioners on the proposed changes commissioners spellman Yeah, thank you You know, I want to thank staff, you know for this report. I think although We started out talking about how Um, non-exciting parking can be as far as the topic This really is a big deal And I think the last presenter sort of highlighted this Um, there's no doubt that we can be substantially more proactive in how we consider parking And its impact on housing Um, you know, it trickles down to everything You know in the big picture Less parking more housing in general, right? It's the theme And I think there's no doubt that Mr. Longinati, I believe was you know looking for a comparison to um The unbundled parking comparison and other incentives For reducing parking. I think um For sure you could quantify how many additional housing units are we getting just by reducing the parking requirements So yes, there may be more Money in the pockets of of a developer per se because they can build more units But the community at large also benefits, you know from from having more units available Um, so, you know, it's a huge deal Um, and I think for as boring the topic as it may be, we had some very poignant comments from Um The community at large on this they were besides from Mr. Longinati. There was another gentleman who um Had very in-depth discussion of pretty much about all of the major salient points that were made and I think His point was more about um treading lightly so to speak and making sure the issues were thought through as far as potential impacts to neighborhoods and the overall quality of life, let's call it for both pedestrian bicyclists the larger transportation System in play and I think we should be very smart and attuned to those concerns Um, but I think at this moment I would err on Um, you know more substantial change um It's been for sure years. It's not decades for many of these issues to You know rise to the top to actually get into an ordinance and I think if we were to err wrongly slightly in some areas To correct that but this is a substantial step To you know address some really fundamental issues for the city So I I am very much in favor of the proposed changes and I'm also searching for ways to challenge us to go further if there's an appropriate Way to add that into our recommendation to the council Other commissioners commissioner greenberg Somehow you're still muted I was just going to echo commissioners salmon and both thanks the staff for this great support and work has come into this an ambitious vision and Also, I really appreciate the comments from the public and from ricklon genotti and his You know research as well and drawing on research of Um, my colleague here at epsd out of millard volunteer students looking at the The overbuilding really the you know the oversupply of parking in the downtown um and To echo commissioners salmon and saying that I think if we can go further, that's a great idea and it's really Um while there are downsides there are multiple kind of winners in this the winners in terms of You know, I don't think developers would be averse to this and think obviously I think that um would provide more housing Uh, I think it also would really benefit obviously our metro bus system and if there were ways to also in addition to be unbundling to um allow for bus passes and other things and to really incentivize the use of transit more in fantasies, which I feel is really underutilized The degree that it needs to be and has all kinds of ripple effects as well in the ability of the of the system itself to To expand and invest and so forth in in and reach as many parts of the community as it needs to and to be as efficient as it needs to be so I think if there were ways that we could Consider transportation demand management approaches within this Within this recommendation That would be great. Um along with ways of supporting Use of The buses and I know that the that the council has supported this in the past for instance having That um vouchers for the bus system provided for those who are working downtown Finally I also like the idea of having people who are building downtown Prioritize those who are working downtown to enable people to actually walk to work So, thank you. That's my comment. Are the commissioners Well, I have comments that are completely opposite from Two previous commissioners Every project that comes before us we hear from the neighbors about how the streets are overwhelmed with parking With cars being parked I just think there's a lot of delusions about what Eliminating parking does I think the notion that somehow in a community like Santa Cruz that has built that's built the way it is with a Generally low density lower density areas to think that the bus system is going to be able to mimic what happens in places like san francisco In new york is just not realistic People use cars because they need to use cars Um The transit district and the transportation commission has been trying to encourage people to carpool to use buses Um providing more uh housing along transit corridors To the extent that people still have Their jobs separate from their housing. It's just not going to matter and my sense is with developers Um market rate developers charge what the market's going to bear And if they can charge more they'll charge more whether they have to do parking or not So there are some of the Uh proposed changes that i'm fine with Um, I don't have any problem with those proposed in section one through five um, I support, uh Not having covered parking my senses that covered parking when their garages isn't really providing parking anyway And so, uh, why have the illusion that it is? I mean, it's that it's primarily used for storage or Housing purposes anyway, so at least it should be expected to be that way From the beginning I I um Given that we have a university town and i'm not sure The number of students that have cars by their houses But I know in neighborhoods the having complaints from neighbors about the number of students in a In a house and the number of cars that are then on the street To think that a five bedroom house can should only have two parking spaces seems Seems silly to me I don't support unbundled parking I think it I think it has their social justice social equity issues The people assuming that most people if not the vast majority of people will have cars The people with more money will pay for the parking and the people with less money will be You know driving around the neighborhood trying to find a place to park Um, so I I'm not supportive of that Um, let me see if there is anything else with guest parking. I was uh, I didn't think that going from a 25 percent Um requirement to a 10 percent requirement was only slightly lower And I think I know in and in projects that I'm familiar with out in the mid county area The lack of of off-street parking just Causes all sorts of problems on the Residential and collector streets So I would I would support 15 percent, but I'm not willing to support 10 percent Um, let's see You know, let me just my final comment is um, I mostly ride my bike around town. I don't Uh, I take my car very far and I live in a development that has uh sufficient Covered and uncovered parking So it's not a problem for me But it it burns me every time I ride my bike to the farmers market to see washington street downtown has become Essentially a private parking lot and members of the public who pay for the maintenance of that street cannot park there And I think it's really unfortunate But it's a sign of the future given these parking Ordnance changes that our public streets are going to become part private parking lots now Most residential streets have two hour limits. Um, but I think after we See the results of these kinds of changes There's going to be more and more pressure to not allow anybody to park on the street Except the residents who have permits and I think this is an unfortunate use of a public resource And um, we'll end up with no ends of problems My sister lived in jersey city for a while where the houses were all built without any off-street parking And the fights that she saw among her neighbors Over parking spaces where a person would have a you know, would be out there fighting anybody who tried to park In the space in front of their house That's the direction we're moving in and I think um, it's a step backwards Not as being argued a step forward. So those are my comments I just wanted to let you know that uh, member of the public raised their hand late Um, so I'll let you deal with that later. I just wanted to make you aware that Why don't we hear from commissioner conway then? Uh, the staff person Sarah and then we can hear from the member of the public Go ahead commission conway. Okay. Thank you um, and I want to also thank staff for the report and and especially the really inspired introduction um, and I agree with Uh, much of what's been said including, um chair schiffen Um, and I actually very strongly support the staff recommendation um because Uh, we are in a time of change We are moving from uh community and society That dedicates so much land to the automobile And really prioritizes the use of our land for the convenience of the automobile That is changing And I think we see it changing. We're going to continue to see it changing more I think our current circumstances with uh working from home are are going to really Change a lot of how we do things At the same time, I really agree with chair schiffen And I know some of those mid county neighborhoods And I learned my lesson about parking back when I was a affordable housing builder We're just it's So depressing to have to reduce the number of affordable units you can build Um in order to provide parking that you know, it's going to stand empty just absolutely disheartening That said, um, there was a philosophy somewhere in the murky days of the 70s. That probably only commissioner Schiffen and I remember but where there was a really a Planning belief that if you don't build parking people stop driving and um, it was Maybe it we could call it visionary, but what it ended up causing was a backlash Um, and I think we do see neighbors. It's one of the primary um arguments against density housing projects that we hear is um people who live in neighbors That either are impacted where parking isn't managed well Um, and it it makes it makes life very uncomfortable. And I think we've all seen changes over time um, so for this reason I really really support the pivot That the city is making Um to be very considerate and thoughtful about how it requires parking And at the same time to not make that step too much too fast Because I think it's realistic. We're while we're in a time of change Um, we haven't changed yet. So I really strongly support staff recommendation and if when we come to it, I'll be willing to make a uh a motion to that effect Um, I wanted to hear of mrs. Mollies You're you're up Yes, hi. I just had one clarifying comment um chair shifrin You commented that the guest parking was changing to um from 25 percent to 10 percent. Um, the way the standard is written now um it says That one additional parking space for each four dwelling units will be provided So it's not for four parking spaces. It's for four dwelling units So if each dwelling unit has required two parking spaces One for four units is one eighth which works out to about 12 and a half percent So that's where we're getting our numbers of like declining it to 10 percent is the modest decrease. So that's our logic. That's all Okay, thanks for that clarification Let's hear from the member of the public and then we'll go back to commissioner dorsen You have three minutes Yes, um, hello, please identify yourself Can you hear me? Yes, my name is kandace franigan and um, yeah I did click in three times right after rick. Just so you know, it wasn't acknowledged. Um, they didn't see it. I guess, um so parking is basically The gateway to high density and so it has to be done very carefully and I would recommend highly that any changes be proposed downtown Which is where you have already The potential to experiment with um, some of these parking innovations Because you do have parking amenities around high density already in place When looking at the quarter plan, um, it was reviewed over 18 month period And they did models when the parking found that there was so much deficit because most of the parking lots in the area Because there really wasn't the infrastructure to allow for the high density So if you impose these parking restrictions without the amenities of infrastructure that you have downtown You're really imposing tremendously on the surrounding neighborhoods And it was so dramatic that they said that When they did the modeling on soquel that it was short 600 spaces for public parking because of the commercial requirements And that was only at half the requirement, which was normally Um One parking space or you know, they did it like half of what it should have been basically for commercial And then for private they they were short like another 1500 So just for the public space alone, they were short, you know, eight whole food parking lots And so, you know in order you really need to do some modeling because you have a lot of um You're not just looking at parking. You're looking at the density associated with the parking And without doing this modeling, you don't realize that you might be imposing in a way that's so dramatic that you will just Completely gut a particular neighborhood At 603, uh, they did unbundled the parking and they're charging. I think about a hundred dollars. Um, so people can afford to pay it Because they're raising the rent every six months And um, it's so dramatic that they can't but yet they still have a car and so, um They are parking on the street. They're fighting for the parking on the street They even had an appeal that came to the transportation commission just because of the change of one parking space To a loading zone because there's such tight parking there and so um, and we when those when they tried to add 20 new units We tried to convince the developer to impose to actually pay for Bus passes for 25 of the people in those units And that was like 13,000 per year and they said that was too expensive Um, but we are trying to you know trying to Put some of those things in place so that you know discourages people from using the car, but it's really not happening Students they are now packing in at two to three per room They're still parking their cars. They're taking the buses up to campus, but Um, there has to be some incentive for them not to bring their cars to town Otherwise the neighborhoods are seeing um tremendous impact from student housing So I run out of time, but yeah be very cautious when you implement some of these regulations. Thank you very much Thank you very much Okay, commissioner Dawson you're next Yeah, I'll just uh be brief and and say that um I feel very torn about parking because all of this really comes down to math, right? So we're trying to balance all of these different things. Um, I will say that in the upright neighborhood Um, I know streets like galt, which is very close to where I live Um, there there is with the current parking. Um, people are circling constantly and so I know that we need to move in this direction But I also just want to um hope that we as a commission can be very cautious And not be going out until we try these things out I think the suggestion to focus our efforts around downtown to try these things out for a little bit If we're going to make additional changes makes a lot of sense And I will also just say that hopefully as we continue to move from a non-carbon economy People are still going to need ways to get around and whether it's um A an electric car or a hybrid car. It still uh takes up space and so we need to just be realistic and pragmatic about um the fact that The that we are going to still need some amount of space for this and I also just want to point out that um a lot of us um have the privilege of being having jobs and um Locations that allow us to work from home, but folks that work in the service industry and other low-pay jobs, they have to get to where they're going And some of them are living in spaces that are very far away from where that is and There are transportation challenges within our system just for the density here in santa cruz county So I think we just need to be very judicious as we go forward, but I also realize we need to move in this direction. Thanks Yes commission neilson I just wanted to um go back to something that commissioner spellman said um kind of at the beginning And it's I feel like it's a uh pretty good statement. I mean, it's you know, we're talking about parking, you know, or you know Housing cars versus housing people Um, I think it's in my mind. It's pretty clear that you know the with the changes that are being proposed in the staff report um lead the way to um to be able to create more housing um and um and also cut down on on restrictions You know, even within um single family housing where you know, we're you know, with the with getting rid of the covered parking I think is a I think is a big move and I think it's uh, it's uh I think it's something that um That's been in the works for a really long time. I mean, I remember hearing from staff About this possibility. It was probably six years ago. And so it just shows how Slow these things move, you know through the system. So And it just seems and it does and it feels like uh, it's like such a simple Thing in terms of, you know getting rid of you know covered parking But it just it takes a long it takes a lot of time To go through that system and and obviously, you know as as commissioner Conway was saying it's like It's like that particular thing is like so poignant right now because with um with where we're at with Working from home. It just creates a lot of opportunities for people To be able to use that space in a better way Um, but just going back to the but just going back to housing. I think um I The staff report I think is good. I fully support it I am Excuse me. I'm interested in ways that it could be Stronger. I don't exactly know where that is um at the moment, but Um, you know, I'm I'd be happy if staff continued to explore that and figure out ways and particularly in the downtown area I mean, let's I think the staff works great. Let's go with that and you know, let's explore other ways we can continue to to um You know to reduce our our You know requirement for parking within the downtown area And see how that works And you know and how you know and how that's going to affect our ability to Create more housing because I you know, I think that's uh um That's something that that we're all in favor of doing and so we're just trying to get our way to get there And I think this is a good a good move and it's in the right direction. So thank you Any other commissioners have comments they'd like to make? Okay, would somebody like to make a motion Commissioner Conway Yeah, thank you. Um, I'd like to move the staff recommendation Is there a second I'll second Uh discussion I would ask uh the maker of the motion the second if they'd be willing to add on the following language to um Section that in uh variations to the parking section g That says an analysis by a transportation engineer or other qualified specialists may be required By the decision-making body as a means to substantiate the requested parking reduction Uh, would you be willing to add a language and to demonstrate that the proposal will not impact street parking? I don't suppose you have a visual of that. Do you? Uh, I it sounds it's on page 19 of the Uh the ordinance Okay, sorry And actually in page four of the staff report is where the staff report Said that that would be one of the requirements, but it doesn't show up in the ordinance itself So I need to add it to the ordinance. I just took the language writing staff report Oh staff report. Um Yeah, I um, I I would be all right with that This is second is second Well, can you explain what section this is in because I'm I'm on page four and I'm not I don't see a g At least I think I'm on paper for the report page 19 of the ordinance Oh, okay The ordinance doesn't have the language the staff report has the language Here I'm sharing my screen. Okay. Thank you And This I actually I only I'm sorry. This is the this is the clean version of the ordinance of the page number This is not page number 19, but um, this is the section that chair shifrin is referring to So we're he mentioned g is that different? Um, a b c d he Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna say my numbering is wrong in the Strike out version in attachment to It is g Yeah, okay. Yes when the strike out version look in attachment to on page 20. It's g right I'm sorry. It's 20. It goes from e to g. So it should be f but it should be f I caught that on the clean version Apologies So we're looking at the second all right and chair shifrin wanted to add language to the end of this which I Can type in if he would be so kind of to restate it Sure. May I um Add a comment here from my transportation perspective This is claire. I felt like language out and then you could add a comment Okay, okay It would be and this is taken from the staff report and to demonstrate that the proposal will not impact street parking Oh actually I'd like to hear from from claire, but um seen that I have a comment on it as well Yeah, thank you. So Yeah, it's claire global transportation planner. So my first comment here would just be that Models are often wrong, but sometimes useful, which is um great advice given to me by george sundaro the former executive director of rtc and that is to say that With the language here to demonstrate this proposal will not impact street parking There may be any number of things that happen with a proposed project that at the at the time of implementation and at the time of occupation There may be a variety of impacts or non impacts on the surrounding neighborhood the intent that we would go for is to Have a have a minimal to no impact on street parking, but that will likely ebb and flow over The time that the development is there over the way that a neighborhood would change Um, but looking at the tools that we have here really the intent is to match data-driven tdm tools based on the kepcoa guidelines with TDM strategies that are appropriate to a given location And so understanding your intent here to to not impact street parking Think the closest that we can get is that that's our intent, but there is Not a realistic way that I could implement the language that you proposed And and I agree with that and I apologize Chair shifrin I think that this has to have some qualifier in there. I'm supportive of Ensuring that there's an analysis of the impact on street parking and that that's taken into account But I don't think it's going if this language like this Is going to make it impossible to be useful. So some mitigating language like maybe Um, uh and to demonstrate that the pros proposal has Um, analyze the impact analyze and minimize The impact on street parking What if it just said would not impact street parking if feasible? I don't think that's quite worked because I I I agree with the goal um, but I feel like, um It's important and I think claire put it, um, really well in technical language But I I feel like we we want it to be Um analyzed we want it to be taken into account um, but uh A hard stop like that is going to make it hard to move forward. Yeah, claire. Do you have an idea on language? Yeah, well my other note with her would be also I like the point about to maybe analyze and And present to the decision-making body and sarah. They don't remember what level of review this is here But I think that there are some cases that you will Accept you may accept that there will be On street parking issues and that may be that you're getting a certain type of housing or certain type of project That is worse to trade off Having some potential spillover and it may be 100 affordable housing or some other supportive type housing that you want to get and so I think Acknowledging that you can analyze it and and have that information Be made available with the intent that it's minimized But leaving it open for your decision-making So I like that language. I'm just adding this. This is this would be my suggestion here in purple I don't know if uh, uh, where you where you want to go. I can take notes on whatever you want to do Uh, this this language we flag is something that I can support Is that it Seconded it Um, I did Sorry question. Oh, I oh, sorry, and I am I needed Um, I think I guess um So that I guess my question is is that you what you're trying to accomplish is is that you you want to You you want an analysis Is I guess is the analysis not required or just I mean because I say may be required So it doesn't mean that it would actually be required in all cases. Is that Is it is true? And Okay, go ahead Claire Yeah, I can assist you on that. So what we're we're going to make a matrix for this It's going to be a TDM matrix and it is going to have Reduction factors associated with it. So previously in our code We had you could get a 10 percent reduction in parking if you Substitute car parking with bike parking and a 10 percent reduction if you did TDM measures Unqualified what they were and a 10 percent reduction if you did Share the cooperative parking there. So we're going to have it be More mimics to the recent SD 743 policy language that council adopted which uses capillar guidelines Which are research-based to the amount of reduction that you can actually get as a result of TDM measures Which is a really technical way to say that many of these things can be measured And if something else is proposed that can't be measured that would be a time when we may pull in this analysis here If it's something that we don't already have an established standard on how much we would reduce So if someone comes in and they're proposing something really innovative or different that we haven't contemplated before I would love to pull in an outside expert that has experience in that to say Here's the amount of reduction that we can give but it would be more specific It would be more the exception than the rule is how I see this working out Okay, so I guess what I'm the way I understand that then is that this is kind of a Like you said it's more the exception than the rule and And just by the virtue of their analysis being done that's going to be reviewed by the decision making party full body and They can make decisions about Whether it meets the needs or the goals or or if it has impact So I don't feel like we need this additional language So you're not willing to accept that amendment? No, I don't I don't think it's necessary Okay, um Any other comments the motion is added to just support the staff recommendation. Are there any other commissioner comments? Yes commissioner greenberg You're muted commissioner greenberg. You're muted. I feel like there's a couple of different meetings that I have system that we're today Um, I appreciate what the transportation planners have been doing and I feel like We are entering into a new era where there are going we can't always anticipate you know the potential of forms of ride sharing and of You know van pooling and other alternative transportation approaches um, the younger generation is Very pro transit in a way that the older generation was not So, um, I think we should be open to that and encouraging that in every way we can and so Having some kind of um, I agree with the spirit of where we're going here That having a sixth hard stop on impact on street parking is not taking into consideration these potential future approaches and that we shouldn't be afraid of that and that things can change and that it can be in a good direction here and Even while we need to be aware of different parts of town And I do hear this the concern about you know the distinction between places that have infrastructure on the downtown versus areas that that don't as much and so And I think that's something that the transportation planners are really taking into consideration here And through the staff report By support any other comment from commissioners Well, I'm not going to support the motion. Um, I don't uh Consider myself as someone who can predict the future one way or the other Unlike loads of other people when I was in graduate school I was told we'd have driverless cars within 10 years And so, you know Who knows what's going to happen next and when young people get older young people may not Older people may have values for people Have an attraction you know have uh, uh a need and uh Been a commitment to their uh, their mode of transportation the way they get around I my Fine objection to this That nor the quality of life in neighborhoods And I'm very unfortunate direction for the city to be going in and it's both for additional Um friction opposition And you know when the when Pro housing people like to complain about the nimbies Well people in neighborhoods Oftentimes what they're really worried about is The quality of life based on how it is how able they are to get around their neighborhoods. So I think this is Uh Most of this I could go along with But the overall philosophy I don't agree with and so I'm going to vote no So let's have a roll call vote Mr conway Yes Dawson Yeah Greenberg Yeah Nielsen I know That is the motion passes six to one Um And we would now we will now move on to the next item Um Can I ask the clerk whether there are people waiting to speak to this item? The same speaker that spoke to the last item had uh raised their hand again Um, I don't know if you're moving on to the new item. You've just disposed of that one But somebody else just raised their hand You talk about the parking ordinance item Uh, well, you just you just wrapped that up. So um as you did that someone just raised their hand So I don't know how you want to proceed with that Well, we're done with the parking ordinance item. I'm afraid. Um, the since the commission has already acted on it They may be waiting for the next one chair. I'm not sure We can find out when you get there Okay, well, we're kind of here and um Um, we could have a whole staff report, but I have a uh a fundamental brown act concerned with the uh public of this item um, it does not mention the The essential gutting of the slope regulations Is not this is not a cleanup ordinance. This is an ordinance that's fundamentally changing out the city slope regulations It's changing, um the landscape and open space requirements for the The the adu ordinance There are a number of changes in this Proposal that I don't think in any way shape or form could be justified as cleanup and I I We can have the public we can have the staff report We can have the public hearing, but I think that the way this ordinance is noticed to the public Is fundamentally a violation of the brown act. There's no way that a member of the public reading this notice Could know that uh that the slope regulations are going to be so fundamentally would be so fundamentally I also think there's significant secret issues the staff report talks about the fact that the general plan and its eir covered everything I don't think the general plan covered removing the restriction on development on slopes over 50 So I I I think that there are some serious problems here But my basic problem is the the brown act one that we're We would be going forward with a with an ordinance that makes major changes to the zoning To vary zoning ordinance provisions without being clear about what those changes are so I I I I could open the public hearing um And hear from the public and we could get a staff report, but I think there really are Brown act issues here that would and this is particularly the case because The the slope regulations the way the slope regulations as I understand that are proposed to change It would essentially overturn and make moot lost city Lost on regarding a development on ocean street extension without any notice to the people in that area who What that what that lawsuit so I think it there are really legal legal problems I don't know whether staff wants to respond to those Um But I really am basically I really think this item should be continued for re noticing in a way that Clarifies what's being proposed Um, I sure I can speak to that chair um And I would agree that as far as the the slope the slope discussion goes That could that word could have specifically been mentioned in the notice However, we did include the specific section in that notice So we do feel that it's it's covered from from a legal standpoint Um, and in terms of the slope discussion as well The changes were bringing forward A number of them are goals in the in the general plan So we do feel like There there is there is some reasoning for these to be included Uh as part of the cleanup items um we have Sam hasher here as well our senior planner who could also Provide some more input on on why those are specifically cleanup items as well If you need further comment on that um But if if you would like to move forward with the rest of the the presentation Uh, the rest of the the work outside of the slope Uh, we could also move forward with that too Well, it's not a it's not a pertinent item. So, uh, if that needs to be continued that's certainly Up to you From my perspective, I think it's very ironic where I'm told I can't Submit in writing items for public To the public conversation correspondence agenda before a meeting In writing without violating the brown act But somehow it's adequate public notice to quote a code section Assuming that members of the public would understand what that code section is I don't think that's the intent of the brown act Uh, in terms of providing adequate public notice so If the commission is supportive and the staff is supportive I'd be willing to move forward with the rest of it if if uh The proposed changes to the slope regulations were continued And we'd come back at a At a subsequent Meeting commissioner Conway Chair I appreciate your thoughtfulness on it I'd like to receive a staff recommendation on the whole thing and have this conversation Um, after we've heard the staff recommendation About uh, whether we were withhold the slope modification But I'd like to hear the staff presentation Any other commissioners It's getting a little late, but I'm willing to do that commissioner Conway. I mean dorsen Yeah, I I would just like to um echo what chair Schifrin said, you know, I I have experience with Regulatory packages and in Sacramento and when the language cleanup is used That's usually specifically to add precision to an existing ordinance So say you have a gps boundary to something you add some Additional digits to the precision of that this is There's certainly with the slope, but I feel like there there's some fundamental changes In the way that we do things that isn't just removing um No longer valid parts of the ordinances and so, um, I also feel like there This was not noticed properly for for the public to actually Understand that there were are some substantive changes in here. So, um, I would propose that we just continue Certainly the slope, but honestly, I think the whole thing um, this is Katherine Donovan the senior planner with the advanced planning division and Matt did address the notice that I also want to mention that We sent the notice to our city attorney for review and He told us that We had specifically entered the Chapters that we were revising that that was adequate notice unbelievable Any other commissioners? I want to weigh in I don't know if anybody wants a motion to continue this or we've got our recommendation from commission at Conway to Get a staff report commission in Nielsen. Did you want to add something? Yeah, I just would I think it's appropriate for us to have a staff report on us I don't think we should be doing anything before we have a staff report If there's no objections, then let's have a staff report Okay, let me share my screen with you. I apologize my Computer is a little slow here or possibly a lot slow. Here we go. Okay. Can you hear me? My phone is making strange noises. Yeah, so we can hear you Cleanup ordinance amendment So why a cleanup ordinance? We do these ordinances periodically And unlike Commissioner Dawson who was describing the definition That the state used for cleanup We include a variety of things in our cleanup ordinances Um, and actually a prime example happened earlier today when Chair Schifrin Noted that there was not a definition for the affordable rent for moderate income household That's the kind of thing that makes it into this ordinance and I actually made a note of that And it will come to our next cleanup ordinance Um, so in this ordinance in particular um, we have a number of items Some of which will improve and streamline our development processes We also have Ordinances that clarify confusing or abbreviated language We're removing redundant sections of ordinances providing internal consistency in one area of the Um ordinance with another and also, um, bringing it into consistency with state law We're updating updated descriptions concepts and regulations Um, and also addressing new uses technology and ways of life And improving the ordinance to better meet the needs of the city's residents so Here are some examples of improving the process um, we currently Require a design permit for any structure or addition and we're proposing to um, remove that to make an exception For structures that are additions that are less than 120 square feet And we chose that number because that's the number If you have it, um, if you're building a structure that's less than 120 square feet And does not have electricity or plumbing Um, it does not require a building permit. It seems like a good threshold for Not requiring a design permit Um, we're also proposing to reduce the number of findings for design permits We currently have 16 findings to make for design permits And for each project that comes through the planners have to describe Why This how this project meets those standards. It's typically communities have four or five Design findings that that need to be made you can imagine this is Three to four times the number that is normal there we're also Removing the slope modification permit I'm using a combative combination of geotechnical reports and design permits Instead, okay, I'm sorry. This is going so slow. I'm going to Stafford you need me to share? from my computer Yeah, I think so. I just it's frozen for me. Let me see if I can stop sharing I can't even stop sharing I'm sorry. My computer is frozen at this point Okay, Matt, if you could Pull that up for me that would be great. Just been over it. This is the next one Okay, um, we also have clarification examples. Um, they include For our outdoor storage display and sale of merchandise We simply moved other similar activities which was sort of in the middle of the list of things that you could do to the end of the list We also clarified what is included in the lot coverage Calculations for large homes and single-family areas And we moved all the sign definitions From the definition section of the code and from the downtown sign section of the code Into the general definition in the sign ordinance Next slide Consistency examples include um, there is a list of public hearing requirements What what type of uh projects need a public hearing and there's also a table that shows um, the decision-making body with final authority for those projects And we are updating those both to reflect the changes in That other changes that were made in the ordinance but also because There were some Areas where those two things were inconsistent with other sections of the code already We're also updating the density bonus section To conform to the requirements of state law And that includes We currently require a pro forma um for Some inclusionary uh requirements and they State law state density bonus law says um, that you cannot require a um a report that would not otherwise Be provided by the developer and um So what we did was we said, uh A pro forma or other reasonable documentation, which is the term of art that's used in the density bonus statement density bonus law another section of the density bonus Law that we updated was um There are times when there is not a specific um An explicit that I should say density in either the um general plan or the zoning ordinance for a particular district and so we have um been using what we call an implied density Which is based on the development standards for the property um And the way the way we've been using it is when uh developer comes in with a project We calculate um The density of that specific project um, and then based the density on the actual Based the density bonus on the actual density um also uh require that the average Size of the unit be for the density bonus unit be The same as the average size for the non-density bonus Next slide These are some examples of improvements that we're making with this ordinance um, we currently Restrict the amount of opens rooftop open space that can be counted toward the usable open space calculation um to 25 percent and Since if you actually have a usable rooftop garden um That that is really High-quality open space and so we're removing that 25 percent restriction um We're also setting a limit on the amount of impervious surface allowed in the front setback um, we we have a limit on the amount of uh the Percent that the driveway can cover but this would um Compliment that by allowing just um 10 percent more for any other kind of Needle walkway or whatever And and leave 50 percent to be non-paved And another improvement is that we are expanding the closing time for cannabis retailers from 9 p.m. To 10 p.m. And this was a along with a number of other items that went before council um for direction last September and at the time we had said we would bring it back um in the late spring given our The schedule of what we had on our plate and then uh carnivine at coronavirus interfered and Delayed and we're just bringing it back now Next slide Other things we're doing in this ordinance are are updating things um our home occupation regulations are Quite outdated they they predate people Working from home and basically we're talking about people doing things like you know crafts from their home so we've Updated that quite a bit particularly around The difference between working from home when you're actually an employee of a business and also Where we would allow One employee at the home who does not live there, which is is new and we would also we are also Increasing the number of trips that would be allowed Because this when the the trips were originally set that was Pre online ordering So that has changed the world quite a bit another example of updates Are that we've added some new definitions including a definition of e-bike Of inoperable vehicle and of motor vehicle the the second The last two are are not new concepts, but they were never defined in our code before Next slide. I'm sorry. You're probably seeing these slides a lot more quickly than I am um, so I'm sorry if there's a long delay before I Address what's on the screen Um, do you want me to cover the slide? Do you have a captain? I got I think that's finally coming up So Since the packet was delivered to you we have a couple of updates that we wanted to make in the staff report We talked about the community meeting and said that there were no comments on this item and that was actually incorrect There were a number of comments. They included Reducing suggestion to reduce the minimum lot size for our one five districts we have A large number of substandard lots and the suggestion was if we lowered the lot size That that would reduce the number of substandard lots in the city um That we also had a suggestion to change the large house definition To be based on the floor area ratio rather than the square footage And those two items we we both we we thought both of them had A lot of merit, but We needed more time to consider the the implications and to to talk about how we would go about doing that before we brought them before Forward so they didn't make it into this This version or this this ordinance um, a third comment was also that That relocation assistant discourages improvement um and our city council has has Indicated that they strongly support relocation assistant Um, so we did not make any changes based on on that format And then the final comment was a suggestion to allow one employee for home occupation And we all thought that was a good idea and it was pretty easy to do so we included that in this The in this ordinance Another comment we received an email today after about 5 30 this evening and that was Too late for our admin staff to include it in the packet But I can give you a high level summary of of the content um This was from ellen aldrich um And she was concerned about the notice not saying modifications to slope regulations and You know as it was discussed The the note the Notice was general and included some things that did not include everything um And we could have included that and Perhaps should have and probably will for our city council Notice she also desired more rationale for the proposed changes Which we can discuss In more detail and she um requested information on various On various changes, which um, I don't have the specific information about that And she requested that we um continue that item Saying that it isn't urgent although I would not say that it's urgent. We do have a couple of code cases That this item relates to and I know of at least Two people who two of our current planners have told me that they have development projects That could be affected by this But it's not You know, it's nothing that a week A one meeting delay or possibly two meeting delay would Have a significant impact on And I believe that was it on that note on that And then finally As I mentioned in the staff report at the As we were getting ready to put the packet out We realized that Someone noticed that there had that there had been changes in state regulations related to large family daycare centers and It would it's a it's a relatively simple change The changes that it previously we Had to follow the same for the large family daycare centers We could require an administrative use permit and the changes now that they need to be Allowed by right in any district that allows housing And as you may know, we have I think nine districts that are residential districts and then Four or five other commercial districts that also allow residential. So it was just too many changes to Include in this ordinance at that late date Next slide and then After we had put out the packet the planning the director deputy director and the principal planners and I had a zoom conference about the slope or slope regulations and Came up with additional amendments or revisions to the amendments we'd already made And the revisions would comply with sp 330 which is the housing accountability act They would clarify When a design permit is required And we transferred the findings from the slope permit Flip modification permit into the design permit because we had originally Um included a finding that we had written specifically for the slope regulations, but sp 330 does not allow any new Um subjective standards To be or subjective findings to be included after january 1st of 2020 However, you can continue to use existing subjective standards. So we deleted The standard we had written for the ordinance and brought the old findings back we also Updated the stormwater conditions lightly based on recommendations from our stormwater manager We also further clarified projects that are exempt from a design permit And we removed the unbuildable lot condition because there's a Condition in the subdivision chapter that covers that that issue Next slide. Um, so I wrote I know this is a very long recommendation but I wrote it out because it would include the Including the revisions related to large family daycare centers and the new revisions to the slope regulations provided on september 17th 2020. Um, so If uh, you Decide to delay the slope regulations, then we would leave that section out We hope that we can go forward with the large family daycare center Uh changes because there's pretty um It's just bringing it into compliance with state law. We wouldn't be making any other changes And I do just want to reiterate here um, if if funding commission chooses to move forward with The recommendation or any portions of it Uh, we'll consider those comments and and improve upon Um, our public noticing for those for when those uh recommended items go to council I'd be happy to take any questions. We we talked about Um, if there are a lot of questions about many different sections of the ordinance How how best we might address this? Um But I don't know I don't know how you would like to do this. We can bring up each ordinance and go through things one by one We can bring up the Summary sheet and look at individual sections um, whatever Whatever you'd like to whichever way you'd like to do it Does that include the staff report? That includes the staff report. Okay. Thank you very much. Um I guess uh, my approach would be to Go around and have commissioners. I have lots of questions Myself think there's a lot that's good here um Clarify I think or if I'm right is uh planning commission subject to the brown act I'm sorry. Can you say that again? Is the planning subject for the brown act? Yes So Is it sufficient just to clear up the noticing requirements at the council when they were not appropriate at the planning commission? Just wanted to well according to According to our city attorney The noticing was was fine um, if you would prefer to delay the public hearing and Require re noticing we can do that um Given the length of the notice and the amount of time it takes to get in the paper That would probably mean it would go In the second meeting of october Well, I think you know that the commission does have the responsibility to follow the brown act and I respectfully disagree with the city attorney that Mentioning a code section Provides the public with proper notice of what the commission is going to be talking about but that's um up to the rest of the commission Or a majority of the commission anyway, and if we want to um Take question go through a normal procedure Take questions hear from the public and then discuss what we're going to do That's fine by me. Does anybody want to do anything different? So why don't we start with commissioner questions for staff? The commissioners have questions who would like to start Yes commissioner conway This is actually very minor in light of the whole thing. I just wanted clarification about the updates to the large family uh daycare um, I was just a little confused Catherine um, you're saying that they They came late, but you're proposing to include Those check those changes for consistency And the way that you're proposing noticing them covered we're covered there going to the city council Or could you clarify how how you're being handled how you handle, you know, you're right that we We should bring those back later because they would not be covered in The the notice Okay So that's a piece that so if if we are pulling apart We can we we could send a significant amount of this to council Potentially, but um, we have we may have some pieces that need revisiting is that an Awkward or excessively expensive way to handle this um your opinion Yeah, it's a little awkward, but it I would I would love to divide this up and be able to Take these steps forward and if there are um, particularly this the slopes and the family daycare Um, could come back that would be fine. I mean we we got slope changes to you very late um And we're much happier with the end result, but we realized that you didn't have much time to look at it Well, I'm just cognizant of the um expense to the city And I just I just wanted to know The impact of of how we decide things so I'd look for advice on that But I would be if that isn't awkward I would be comfortable with that And thanks for clarifying that about childcare. I couldn't quite wrap my head around it And I'd like to hear from other commissioners Well, since nobody's popping up I'll go through mine since I have a number of them In terms of internal consistency Am I interested directly that the proposal is to reduce the public hearing requirements and changing the review by body For major modifications to a project Um, and for a major modification, there would only be requirement for a zoning Uh, as administrative decision by the zoning administrator. Am I understanding that correctly? Um Let me I should also admit that I did not make all of these changes myself This was definitely a group effort and I am I'm just the shepherd on some of these so I need to look up some of the Specific well again, one of the problems is the staff report doesn't have page numbers So it's you know, I could refer you to exactly where it is But take me an hour to find out or I actually I found it, but I don't it's I don't give me the code section in page Um of the staff report where it's under internal consistency consistency with state regulations I can answer that for you chair shifrin if if you want to sure um, and and sam Hasher at our principal planner and current planning can chime in if if I'm getting any of this wrong because I know she was Working on a number of these things, but uh that Change would occur if the original hearing or if the original decision-making body was the zoning administrator It would not occur if the original decision-making body was The planning commission then it would go back to the planning commission. Did I gather that correctly sam? That was my recollection Yes, that's correct. So, um, this really was you know by them The original code section required that I believe it requires that all of them went to a public hearing We really wanted to make sure that it went back to a public hearing if it was heard by it was heard If it was heard in the original permit was heard in a public hearing But we didn't want to require every modification to go back to a public public hearing if it wasn't warranted So or a major modification of a project that was approved by the zoning administrator it would But what the code said I think is that it would be approved by the zea administratively and It was unclear to me one Does that mean it wouldn't be at one of the zea's public hearings and two Would that administrative approval be appealable? um What's your the answer to your second question is that yes the approval would be appealable The administrative review would be appealable. Um, that was your first question Whether it would be a public hearing at the zea or whether somehow it would be some other administrative Action on his part or her part Um, so we have we have two things here We have minor modifications and we have major modifications and it sounds like you're referring to the major modifications Answer your question chair Yes, yes, if if this was approved by the zea and was coming back due to a modification of The streamlining in this would would then Make that an administrative approval by the zoning administrator That would not it would it would not be a public hearing correct How could there be public notice so someone could appeal it? Does that mean it's not appealable? That would mean that a major modification could be approved administratively with no Opportunity for the public to appeal it. I'm just trying to understand what the Consequences of the proposed changes would be Our administrative approvals are appealable, but you're correct that there is no public notice for that How would anybody know that the approval has been have been given or the administrative action had been taken Is there some Requirement of it or something that would allow the public to know about it And do we post those actions online? We have a list of the permits that we Have in process Are my our major modifications one of those that we post online Would be posted online and then somebody would have 10 days to Appeal it or how would that process work? I'm asking Sam that question. I'm not sure if it is We don't we don't now post those online, but right now major modifications all over require public hearings Even if the original approval was made administratively So if the original approval was administratively the original permit was an administratively approved and you wanted to do a major modification to that It would now require a public hearing We're proposing that it requires a public hearing if the original permit required a public hearing But if the original permit didn't require a public hearing then the major modification would also not require a public hearing Okay, so we have permits that are approved administratively with no public notice That's correct. Yes Okay, thank you for the clarification um, my next question has to do with calculate calculating densities when none are in the code and as I staff report is particularly true in the downtown that Process that the staff has been following has been It's now going to be codified In terms of it's been explained several times by the playing director. I will not try to repeat it. I think I understand it, but Am I understanding that correctly? Okay, there are a couple of changes in the ordinance the adu ordinance Based on an htd interpretation and there's a letter from the htd saying they agree with our Interpret they are changes They're conformed to their Their perspective what legal authority does the htd have to require the city to follow their interpretations are they are they identified in state law as having the ability to Require jurisdictions to conform to their their interpretations Well, they're generally the agency that Um implements land use And planning regulations and um this This arose when um There was a we were bringing this ordinance Saranoisey had updated our ordinance with the latest state regulation And we were bringing it to the coastal commission and there was a conflict between what what the Changes to the state regulations for adu For adu said and what the coastal commission wanted us to do and so htd became the Spokesperson for the Changes to the adu regulation and um Sam became Sarah became the ping-pong ball between the coastal commission and And htd I understand the problem. There are a number of these laws that the coastal commission the coastal act Doesn't require that they be followed But what i'm really asking i'm not so concerned about The the change to allow larger adu's based on the htd interpretation But i am concerned about the change that would eliminate all open space and landscaping requirements um, and in the ordinance there are two um two sentences one sentence says You know Some kind of reasonable open space and landscaping should be provided the second sentence says And the private the neighbor neighbor privacy should be considered I could see why the second second section Sentence isn't really consistent with the state law, but i don't see why All open space and landscaping requirements have to be taken out. Um, and so I'm just wondering whether if the city decided that well, we want to keep in the first sentence Is that would that be considered a violation of state law? Or you know could could htd say no, you're not allowed to do that It's unclear what their I know what their role is in the housing element And but i'm not i'm not aware of what their role is as the implementer of the adu adu law whether they're they can provide guidelines and Um suggestions or whether their word is essentially like the sequel guidelines their word is law So do you have the answer to that what their role is? So there is a statement in the statute that uh some of the recent adu statutes that speaks to hcd actually reviewing local jurisdictions ordinances for consistency with state law You know sarah noisy is Our specialist on that and she'll be on in just a second. She can speak to the uh landscaping question specifically unless um Matt sounds like you know, he may have something to add to that as well Yeah, not not on the landscaping specifically. I think sarah would have to address that But but I do know there there is quite a bit of communication between her and Hcd to conform to the requirements My question is really a legal question, but I am just you know, I'll wait for Sarah to get on the line too. Yeah, we can jump back to that topic in just a minute if you don't mind chair shifrin not at all. Um, I Think the relocation assistance changes are really excellent and one of the staff for including those Um my my biggest Well, I'll leave the I'll leave my slope regulation concerns for a moment on page nine of the coastal zone ordinance This is a numbers Under design permit standards While non residential projects must be compatible with and not adversely affect the degrade the surrounding neighborhood This isn't true for residential projects which which need to only need to comply with objective standards um Couldn't some of those non residential Standards be converted. Is that going to be some of the could that be looked at and as part of the contract for objective standards to Deal with those kinds of issues. It just seems kind of arbitrary that a non residential Um, uh, project can't degrade or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood But uh, a residential project can I think somehow that It makes sense to try to Integrate those in some meaningful way And we originally had it that it was just projects development projects, but um Um That you're exactly right. It was the um subjective standards issue and so we divided it out and We will be doing our best with our with our objective standard process to Include that kind of concept But um, you know, it will it's not an easy thing to put in objective language And looks like sarah's here. Maybe she can address your adu question Sorry, i'm just tuning in. What is the question we're trying to answer It's it's just really what regulatory role does hcd have in the implementation of the adu Law because um, um, I don't have a problem with the larger adu Fine But I did I was concerned with the open space and landscaping requirements, which i'm now trying to find um Because it seems to me that Could totally eliminate any concern about open space and landscaping Really Was not appropriate and so I there were two sentences in the Uh I could find um, and um, I was thinking that The eliminating the second span since which had to do with uh, neighborhood You know neighborhood Impact on neighbors. I could see that adu law wasn't really concerned about that But having some, um Recognition of the desirability of open space Part of an adu project Was seems reasonable to me So could you you remember what the code section is i'm trying to find it here You know what i'm talking about? I do. Yeah, I know what you're talking about. Um, so Oh, yeah, thanks captain. That's helpful. So, um, this is our first question Oh, sorry. Go ahead captain. What were you saying? I'm just saying it's on page 10 of the non cc Of non coastal commission ordinance Okay, and I've got the screen shared here Yeah, thank you for doing that Okay, great. So, um to answer your first question about the specifically what's the role of hcd They are the ones that determine whether an ordinance Uh complies with state law and the the statute the government code section that we are Implementing here contains language that states Any ordinance that does not comply with the statute is invalid and unenforceable Or words to that effect So Sarah, I lost your audio did others lose sarah's audio. I lost I did too Yeah, sarah, we can't hear you. We can't hear you now We lost your audio But what sarah was saying, I think a reminder That the state code Does indicate that If the ordinance is uh found to be inconsistent If our local ordinance is found to be inconsistent with state law Then the entire ordinance is nullified and we revert back to state law Requirements itself. And so we do have a lot of things in here that are in addition to or expand upon state law. And so Um, I I think that's really the the key Point to your question chair shifrin and uh, thanks sarah for for reminding us that we might have your audio back Let's see. Yeah, it's can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you Okay, so that was weird. I don't know what's going on. So, um answering your second question one of the key pieces that's also in the state law Is that this is a ministerial review? So ad use cannot be subject to any sort of discretionary review Anywhere outside of the coastal zone anywhere in the state of california Um, and it's debatable whether they can be subject to that within the coastal zone But let's not go down that rabbit hole. Um, so the concern of The of hcd was that some of the standards the way they were written in here They were subjective. They were subjective to the point where We might be, you know conditioning or denying a permit that really we are obligated to approve an issue so, um In the case of some of those privacy ones I did go ahead and try to just write some objective standards of like what does privacy mean? It means we're obscuring views. It means we're including, you know, transom windows instead of You know, just normal windows I wasn't able to come up with anything that really got at this piece about open space and landscaping also because This is this piece is also a bit more complicated now that ad use are allowed on multi-family property. So, um The way that open space and landscaping might be described and We might write some code language for a single family situation Might doesn't necessarily translate well to multi-family context and given the limitations on what we are able to regulate in terms of the size Um, I couldn't really find a way to make this standard Work in an objective way that would fit all the different contexts that it has to fit So if i'm understanding what you're saying with number six, um The the concern is that even just to say the site site plan shall provide open space And landscaping that are useful for both the accessory unit and the principal single family Welling just by itself would make it Discretionary because somebody could determine what's useful and what's not useful Right. They were concerned about that word useful and and who who decides what's useful It just seems very unfortunate that we're not able to have any That these units are not going to be required to have any open space or landscape Landscaping requirements. I don't know whether it's possible to stick in Something that would you know would be a performance standard. So it wouldn't be subject to um To a discretion action That's still recognized as desirable to have open space and landscaping in these developments But I think I understand what the answer to my question is So let me go to um The slope regulations I'm sorry. Yeah, this is the clerk We'll need a motion to extend the meeting to end at a time certain past 11 o'clock Our bylaws require our meeting adjourned at 11 unless you Entertain and pass a motion to adjourn at a time certain I'll move I'll move that we go until 11 15 the second a second Any discussion? I'm not going to do a roll call all in unless somebody votes no all in favor I I I received today um changes to what we had received previously on the the slope regulations and Um, I really have not had that much of a chance to read them over But it seemed to me that the the rationale for the changes if I understood the staff report is that Under spv 30 it really isn't appropriate to change standards that were in effect Before the law passed and now that uh after the law is that am I understanding that? directly that The objective standards that were there before the law um really Are the ones that we so that's that's why all the relationship to the Some of the the new language was put in um, right I'm just trying to understand what's going on. Um I don't I have fundamental sort of policy problems with the proposed changes in terms of weakening The city's long-standing environmental commitments. Um, I think that The Some of the changes are you know represent sort of bad public policy But because I really think that the sequa Review was inadequate Given how significant some of these are and my concern with the noticing um, if somebody would uh, if a commissioner would be willing to make a motion to Continue this the proposed changes for the slope regulations and the family daycare homes to a Later meeting That may save time and maybe we would actually be able to get out of here by 1115 So Commissioner Dawson Yeah, I would go ahead and move that we continue the family daycare and the slope regulations to a future meeting Is there a second? See commissioner max will raise the stand. Are you seconding it? Head yes Is a discussion on the motion to continue these Sorry, I will second To a subsequent meeting. So maybe we should have a roll call vote All in favor of the Let's have a roll call. I for support it. No for deny it Give me sir conway I Dawson I Greenberg Hi Nielsen Hi Salman different Hi, and um, I really I just realized that after complaining about the process Ad nauseam I screwed it up by not allowing the Not asking for public testimony after the report and our questions So, uh, I apologize to whoever's there from the public. We have Agreed to continue the slope regulations and the family daycare Item, but if there's anything on this item if the person is still there that they want to speak to they Three minutes, and I apologize for To do that Please identify yourself and you have three minutes go ahead We can't hear you Collar you're on the line Collar you're on the line. I'll be so happy when we're back at the chambers Because it's so trying Was that the only person who uh had their hand up to you now they're gone And now they must have woken up and then bailed To the ordinance There's nobody in the public who wants to speak So let's have discussion of the other Changes to the to the to the ordinance Yes, commissioner Dawson. Yeah, I um, I would just like to ask staff to consider in the future Um Just being a little bit more selective about what they bundled Having having a group to consider that has Things related to signs or removing parts of the code that are no longer valid Along with things that are going to fundamentally change kind of how Santa Cruz will Um, I I think it's really challenging as a commissioner And I can't imagine what it would be for the public to try to follow So I really have a hard time Uh with this package generally and I I'm not going to support it because I just feel like it's it's Even though there are parts within it that I agree with I think just the approach is the wrong way to go. Thank you Other commissioners commenting on the ordinance the The ordinance line goes before us commissioners spellman Yeah, I would just say yeah, I think it is a challenging approach albeit as someone who Works with this code, you know on a daily basis. It is refreshing to Have what are considered minor revisions that Make the code much more legible and Transparent to the public and users is a very useful process It is a little awkward. There is a lot of stuff here if you want to dig in and really understand it but I think It really is aside from a slope issue, which we're not going to discuss You know sort of baby steps to make this a more user-friendly document and So I I am in support of The staff recommendation for the rest of the items that we are that are before us tonight And I'm willing to to make a motion to Approve those and send them on to the council Is there a second to the motion? All right, we'll second Go ahead christian Okay Discussion on the motion any Other commissioners want to weigh in I'm kind of mixed between Commissioner Dawson and Commissioner Spellman Overall, I don't have big problems with it. I think there there are lots of improvements. I do some things differently The the I have problems with having districts that don't have density calculations in them I wish we didn't have to live with implied densities and we could let the public know what the Total densities might be but I know that's a losing battle at this point I would suggest in terms of the public noticing That rather than sticking all of this all of the changes in one paragraph It might be more helpful to the public to sort of break them out To say they're going to be changes to the tentative subdivision map to use permits design permits and So it's not so Overwhelming to to sort of read through a bunch of numbers and It just makes it more difficult. I think for the public to Have any sense of what's being proposed And then maybe having the staff report that would really deal with them on a Chapter by chapter basis, I think would be helpful in you know and having the members of the public be able to understand What's being done in terms of the the The changes I've raised some of my concerns my work my biggest concerns are with the slope regulations, which I'm you know, I appreciate Being continued so I'm willing to support the motion I think overall it's It's it's helpful It's not Exactly what I would like by any means, but many of the things are really what's being required by state law and You know, I can understand that the city's discretion is ever more reduced. Are there other Commissioners who would like to comment on the ordinary the motion on the floor Do we have a roll call vote a roll call vote, please Commissioner Conway I Dawson No Greenberg I'll take that as an eye even though I couldn't hear it. Hi. Sorry um neilson felman I different I The motion passes six to one We're now at information are there any information items? This is usually when the plane director tells us what's coming up next Yes, thank you Chair shifrin and commissioners We are expecting that the economic development department will have a presentation for you and for your consideration regarding the work And the associated er at your meeting on october 1st and then Later in october. We are currently anticipating on the 15th. We had one item that was continued today the section 8 items So that could be back on the 15th if the subcommittee is ready to present and then we're also expecting the housing matters Project, it's 120 single room occupancy Small units at the coral street site on the housing matters campus So that'll be in front of you likely on the 15th as well and There there may be some other things that become ready. We'll take another look at the the slope items as well and re-notice those as well as the the Large family daycare So that may be back for back in front of you on the 15th or it could get pushed out further as well But those are the things that are up in the immediate future Okay, are there any subcommittee or advisory body reports? I guess I should report that the technical advisory committee on the Coastal resilience project is going to be meeting sometime soon And it sounds like they're getting close to finishing up with their recommendations I'm lost to specifics. So if any of our if any of anybody from staff can let us Has any further information? Hopefully after that meeting I'll be able to give a more substantive report Items referred to future agendas referred from the from the planning director. Does anybody else have any items they'd like to Have on a future agenda Okay, seeing no, thank you all for your perseverance And a long meeting and we're adjourned So stay healthy Goodbye