 applicant for 4.15 I think it's going to thank you so much just for commissioners probably what I'll go ahead and do is when we wrap up the staff support and as well for everybody since they don't have a presentation I'm not sure but then it was all in this is commissioner Maxwell can you guys hear me for some reason my video is not working so I'm going to try and fix that but just in case I'm here I don't know why I know that I don't know why my video is not working I'm going to work on it okay I'm going to start or give me about hey it's seven o'clock and I'm going to go ahead and call the March 17th meeting of the city of Santa Cruz Planning Commission to order clerk can we have a roll call please Mr Conway here Kennedy different here thank you very much looks like we have a full house so no absent fees so do we have any statements of disqualification for this evening we have two items on the agenda a green building ordinance and then an item of public hearing for full 15 natural bridges any disqualification yeah I was just qualified but I just had some part a communication with the architect on the housing one I talked to Tom thatcher and said can we get any more housing on this site and he said no but I shouldn't have called him and and regretted it so it was a quick conversation the other day okay thank you for recording that staff do we need to do anything else other than note that I'll just remind all commissioners that for quasi-judicial matters such as permits exparte communications are prohibited you can speak to the public if it's a legislative action such as the code amendment but for permits the bylaws prohibit that okay great looks like Commissioner Conway may have a question or something to add no I just want to just say I also was referred by the planner to developer to ask a couple of questions about the management plan and about potential supportive services I had a brief conversation and asking those questions okay thank you looks like Commissioner Schifrin has his hand up for this statement of disqualification come ahead Mr. Schifrin yeah I'm on the board and I think it's already looking for bridges and so I mean it's all by itself avoiding any conflict or appearance of conflict given my service I'm on the authority board I'll just turn off my video for a play if you're away that I can come to participate in any way okay thank you for that I was having a little trouble with your audio it might be my seat but just wanted to let you know Commissioner Schifrin okay moving on we're moving on to oral communications this is the time when members of the public can address the planning commission for agenda or for items that are not on the agenda tonight but are under the purview of the planning commission so at this time if you would like to address the commissioners the commission for an item that is not on the agenda tonight please raise your hand and we will call on you and you will have three minutes you have a little bit of time here for the delay and if you are on the phone you can press star nine to raise your hand I am not seeing any raised hands can you confirm that for me please okay great moving right along next item on the agenda is the consent public hearing for a citywide project number 822001 green building ordinance amendment first order of business is to ask any commissioners if they would like to remove this item from the consent agenda seeing none we will now open it up to the public does any members of the public want to remove this item from the consent agenda if so please raise your hand or if you're on the phone press star nine I again am seeing no hands can you confirm that first please that is correct thank you so much so at this time I would be happy to entertain a motion regarding the green building ordinance amendment so uh I think I'm going to second it okay commissioner Kennedy moves to approve commissioner shifrin second uh certainly have a roll call vote please fish or conway hi greenberg hi Kennedy hi well passes unanimously moving on to a public hearing for 415 natural bridges drive project number ct-210059 uh can we please have a staff report yeah thank you hi good evening commissioners let me just share my screen and start the slideshow okay so um this is a project submitted by the housing authority they have applied for a plan development permit design permit local permit and lot line adjustment permit to construct a 20 unit single room occupancy aka spro project that will be 100 affordable to very low income tenants the project requires two hearings one with the planning commission and one with the city council the planning commission will provide a recommendation to the city council who will make the final decision on whether or not to approve the project there are a number of general plan policies that support the proposed project that are detailed in the staff report these policies relate to goals to provide a affordable housing to promote development of smaller housing units promote infill development and to facilitate the efforts of non-profit organizations so I'll start with a quick overview of the requested permit the first of the plan development permit the intent of this permit is to strike the balance between a proposed public benefit and requested variations from permitted uses or permitted for um for development standards and as a result to have a project that more fully implement the goals of the general plan than would otherwise be possible with a project that just meets all of the standards so in this case the public benefit is that a project will be 100 affordable to tenants at a very low income level or 50 percent AMI in exchange the applicant has asked for a variation to the permitted uses of the zone district to allow the FRO use on the site they're also asking for variations to development standards including for building height setbacks and for the number of required parking spaces the project also requires approval of the design permit which is required to be in conjunction with a plan development permit and it's also required for any project that involves the construction of three or more residential units the design permit will review the quality of the project design the site layout and the compatibility with the surrounding area the site is also like to locate in the coastal zone and requires approval of a coastal permit the overall intent of the coastal permit is to protect coastal resources and because the project is proposing to obtain land from the adjacent property to the west a waterline adjustment permit is required so the project I can see in the middle of the screen bordered by the red line it's a vacant lot on the west side of Santa Cruz on natural bridges drive it's pretty much completely surrounded by commercial and industrial uses you can see the railroad tracks above the site to the south and then to the west we have more creek and Antonelli pond about 500 feet to the west and southwest the project site is zoned RL which is which accommodates single and low density multifamily dwelling but the surrounding area is zoned IG per two which is industrial zoning in addition the adjacent property to the west is on public facilities and currently has a total fitness gym the site RL zoning designation accommodates a range of single and low density multifamily residential uses but does not allow SRO developments as a list of use so it's part of the plan development permit the applicant is requesting a variation to be allowed uses in order to allow the SRO use so when the SRO ordinance was first developed and put into place SROs were intentionally left out of the RL zone district due to potential compatibility issues with these lower density residential units that you'd find in an RL zone neighborhood so typically staff would not support an SRO use in the RL zone but in this case it's the only RL zone lot completely surrounded by commercial uses so there's no that that potential impact is just not there in addition since the SRO projects are exempt from the density restrictions that would apply to a regular apartment project allowing an SRO use here would provide for more affordable housing units than would be allowed if the applicant just pursued a standard apartment building here they're applying for 20 units whereas if they just did a regular apartment building in the RL zone they would get maybe nine units of the most okay so the project is about 250 feet from the outer riparian edge of Moor Creek and about 500 feet from Antonella upon to the southwest and while this is not especially closed the proximity of the site to the watercourse is what is causing the site to be located within the appealable zone of the coastal zone and therefore it's the main resource of focus that we would evaluate with regard to the coastal permit because the project is pretty far away from the steam and pond the only potential impact is really limited to any water quality issues construction or any storm water one off that would happen and once the project is constructed the public works department has reviewed the project for consistency with the city's construction stormwater vnts and they'll impact design requirements for stormwater runoff and the project has been found to be consistent with these requirements and the project is conditioned to follow all requirements so that will ensure that the water quality of Moor Creek and Antonella pond will not be impacted by the project so here we're looking at the site plan there's a well-landscape front yard area that includes walking pathways, seating areas and also some street trees there's also bicycle parking at the front of the site and then the vehicle parking is located at the back away from public view the building the project meets minimum revenue requirements on the south side of the lot you can see the building kind of butts right up against that driveway and as a result it does not meet the step back on the north side of the property so as part of the plan development permit the applicant is requesting to reduce the northern side yard step back to seven feet two inches where a 12 foot step back would otherwise be required given the height of the building this might cause a little bit of additional shading on the existing office building to the north but there's no residential buildings that the reduced step back would affect negatively in terms of shading or privacy but overall it's not it's not really a big impact the project also proposes 12 parking spaces which is less than the 20 that would be required for a 20-unit FRO project it's one space per unit the public works department has reviewed the site layout and supports the proposed number of parking spaces they do not have any concerns about any impact to the on-street parking in the area you can also see the existing property boundary going north to south through the proposed parking area so the project proposes to transfer 4,054 square feet of land from the total fitness site the west to this site in order to provide parking for the FRO use this will remove some existing parking spaces that are on the total fitness site however that site will still have more than enough spaces once this land is transferred the project will also require four heritage size trees there are five heritage size trees on the site a heritage tree is considered 14 inches in trunk diameter at 54 inches above grade the applicant submitted an arborist report prepared by Moline Ham which evaluated the trees and provided recommendations the report found that the heritage feeder tree at the northern end of the property was in healthy condition recommended retention with measures to protect during construction the other trees are found to be in poor condition with issues such as decay structural problems or investigation and these trees are also within the development footprint and so these trees are recommended for removal so the arborist has reviewed the report and agrees with the recommendations the heritage tree ordinance requires replacement trees at a ratio of one 24 inch box tree or 315 gallons for each heritage tree removed because the site is located in the coast over LCP policy CD 6.1.2 requires this ratio to be doubled so we have a condition of approval requiring the replacement trees at this ratio or payment of an equivalent new fee so here's a snapshot of the first war plan just to show you some amenities that the FRO project is providing FRO projects are required to provide a few amenities that normal apartment buildings are not required to have so we have a measures unit we have a common area room there are storage units for each dwelling unit and these storage units have dimensions that's also for the bicycle there's a laundry room and then each dwelling within the project has a closet a full bathroom and a kitchen the FRO development is also required to have a management plan and a condition of approval will require the finalized management plan to be submitted prior to building permit issuance if the rendering of what the picture will look like from natural I'm sorry while the project will look like from natural bridges drive the architectural design includes a mix of exterior materials including stucco on the first few floors and vertical siding on the top floor and metal balcony railings and roof parapets the proposed building height is 30 feet to the top of the highest point of the roof the height standard for the rl zone district is 30 feet so at 36 feet the proposal is asking for six additional feet which is 20 greater and that's the maximum increase that can be requested with the plan development permit this increase will allow for a higher ceiling within the unit to help make the unit more livable and it also allows for the proposed articulation in the roof line which makes for a really nice looking building design so this is the south elevation which would be visible from natural bridges drive from the south and also from the railroad right of way from this view you can see the building still has a well articulated design and it continues the same color and material streams from the front of the building this is the north side of the building a little bit less articulated but most of this building will be blocked from public view by the office building that's on the property adjacent to the north so you're really only going to see kind of the tip of the building that's on the left side of the screen here and then here we have the back side of the building that faces the parking spaces again you can see the design is consistent all around the whole building while the details and articulation are more focused on the sides that are visible to the public view and this elevation also shows the side yard setback line which is the diagonal dash line and increases at a rate of one foot of setback for three feet of height the proposal includes a reduced side yard setback on the north side of the building which is the left side of this drawing so as you can see the standard setback line just clips through the top half of the third floor and part of the roof line so it's a relatively small part of the building that actually encroaches into that standard setback okay so here's just a few pictures of the surrounding area on the top left we have looking at the project site and then south across the railroad track and then the top right you see that two-story office building to the north and then on the bottom we have a side-by-side of the proposed building with the office building and the proposed building is a little bit bigger but it still fits in generally with the scale of the existing building on the adjacent site and then here we have looking across the street to the north we have a very big two-story industrial building and I'm looking to the south you see railroad tracks and then a smaller industrial building so overall the proposed building is pretty compatible with the surrounding built environment in terms of its scale its height and its proposed design if anything it's going to look a lot nicer so overall the feedback from the community has been positive for this project the applicant held a community meeting for this project on June 28th of last year which was required as this is considered a medium development project under the city's community outreach policy eight people from the public attended the meeting and express support for the project the applicant has reached out to me with a concern about um condition of approval number 17 this condition requires electrical transformers to be placed underground the applicant has indicated that it may be off for the housing authority to do this and they requested to allow the transformer to be placed above the ground therefore I propose the condition to be revised to state all utilities shall be placed underground in accordance with the provisions of section 24 12 700 through 24 12 740 of the zoning ordinance transformer boxes shall be placed underground to the extent feasible any transformer boxes placed above ground shall be shown on final building permit plans with the location and visual screening approved by the planning department so in summary the project needs the findings for the lot line adjustment plan development permit design permit and coastal permit and it does not need any further seek review um pursuant to public resources code sequest section 2108 3.3 as it is fully consistent with uniformly applied measures under the general plan and municipal code staff recommends that the planning commission recommend the approval of the project by the city council with the revised condition number 17 this includes my presentation and I'm available to answer any questions thank you so much for that report um can we go ahead and stop sharing the screen and come back to the school commission uh commissioners this is a time when we could go ahead and ask any clarifying questions from staff um I do see the applicant on the line and this would be also a time when we could go ahead and ask any questions directly up to applicants so any clarifying questions about this project from any commissioners for either the applicant or staff okay uh seeing none um we can go ahead and open the public hearing and this is a time for the members of the public to go ahead and address the commission regarding this item for 15 natural bridges uh any members of the public who wish to speak please raise your hand now if you're on the phone you can press star nine and you will have three minutes like uh we got one hand up um sir could you go ahead and unmute and please identify yourself if you choose and you will have three minutes um if you're speaking your there you go okay sorry this is Tom Thatcher um I'm here with Nassie Thompson uh we're the designers louder louder okay uh Tom Thatcher and Nassie Thompson here um we are the designers of the project Bill Kemp's office is going to be taking over the construction documents so if there are real technical questions they may be better answered by him but we can certainly available to answer questions about the design um I'd like to um just give a shout out to Clara she was really a trooper and up with us for a couple of years of getting through this it was a complicated project trying to find the right uh way to uh you know process it and um she just answered innumerable questions and and uh it was a great help so um thank you Clara so you know from the beginning of this project it was important for the housing authority and us that the um the quality building quality intent of building plans and and design and materials um as as Clara mentioned we're asking for the uh increased height because we want to do nine fifths buildings in in the unit and therefore get um windows and doors up to eight feet get as much glass as we can instead of the the normal at least for a low-income apartment building might be eight feet um and uh we uh have a really generous front yard landscaping plan it's really a beautiful landscaping plan it's got nice outdoor seating areas and and um I think the Megan Bishop's landscape architect did a really nice job with the landscaping on this project um we uh have increased the I think as far mentioned we have increased the um amenities on the interior of the building the common area space we have more considerably more space than the common areas that are required by the zoning ordinance um and uh we have provided these generous storage areas um also more than what is required by the by the uh zoning ordinance and so all in all we think this is going to be a really really nice place to live just you know right now the block from National Bridges Park um Total Fitness is right around the corner um bus stop across the street farmers market down the street uh easy walking distance bike trail right off the door um so we think this is really going to be a quality place to live so um that's what I'm going to say right now I am available for questions and if you have any issues um but I know Jenny Panetta the executive director could be online and um and would like to make some comments as well okay thank you Tom um I do see Miss Panetta on the line um we'll go ahead and have uh three minutes and uh go ahead please thank you so good evening Chair Dawson and members of the commission my name is Jenny Panetta I'm the executive director of the housing authority and I'm really excited I'm really excited to be here tonight in support of our proposed affordable housing development on Natural Bridges Drive we all know that the need for affordable housing is just so much greater than what we have available to us in our community the housing authority estimates that over 30,000 households in Santa Cruz County are income eligible for affordable housing but less than 25 percent of eligible households have access to it so clearly there is an urgent need for affordable housing of every type and every size but at the housing authority we've noted a particularly acute need for smaller units there are over 12,000 households on our housing choice voucher waiting list most of the applicants on our on our waiting list about 7,500 of them are one or two person households with the greatest portion of those applicants over 4,200 applicants being single person households so the need for these smaller units is very real I also wanted to add that this development represents a huge milestone for us here at the housing authority and while I am very proud of the work that we do in providing rental assistance to thousands of low-income families countywide we have not actually participated in affordable housing development in decades so we are really very excited about making this modest contribution to the supply of affordable housing and we hope that there will be more such projects in our future so I also want to take a moment to thank Clara for all of her assistance throughout this process as well as thanking Tom and Matthew who have really been just such a delight to work with and have held our hands as this is brand new territory for us at the housing authority so thank you commissioners so much for your consideration of our project and I'm happy to take any questions thank you so much any other members of the public wish to address the commission on this item I am not seeing any hands clerk just a double check on that okay we'll go ahead and then close the public hearing and bring it back to the commissioners we do have the applicant available for questions and also happy to entertain a motion if so moved commissioner Greenberg and then commissioner Kennedy okay well I was just going to move that we accept the staff recommendation and approve this beautiful project I like that kind of like comment for discussion but they're not in very in favor of moving this ahead quickly but I do want a chance to speak if possible yeah absolutely yeah and we can discuss yeah cool yeah let's just get the housekeeping first so moved by commissioner Greenberg seconded by Kennedy I think he beat all the rest of us to the second so good job on the button there so now we're back in front of the commission again for any comment before we go to vote so there is a motion on the floor to accept the staff recommendation with the amendment for condition of approval 17 as recommended by staff that's what's on the floor right now for consideration do any commissioners have any comment before we go to above okay commissioner Kennedy I was waiting for your hand there go ahead I can't wait to vote yes on this project it's great my only regret is that it's not a 20 story building and given that it's right here by our future mass transportation train corridor I think it's super awesome that this project is going in right there I'm not the landscape architect I wonder if a big heavy wall or a screen is better on that side of the property but they could leave it and before we all vote yes I just wanted to point out my background this is the L Palomar hotel which was tiny unit on an innovative transportation corridor which was the streetcar system back then so I always think about this and say hey people we've done this before let's just do it again and I just hope the next one of these is bigger and it's not even possible to be closer to the train corridor so that's all I have to say thank you so much any other comments before we bring it to vote go ahead Mr. Conway thank you very I just want to congratulate the housing authority or you're really careful attention on this project I think beautiful project and it's a relief to have a project that in which you're taking the approach the house people off the waiting list that is not targeted and the fact that the housing authority is busy to finance it the way that they are removes any of concerns I have or potentially had about the cost per square foot exceeding what would be competitive for different public financing techniques so I really admire the way that you are going about building the project and also managing and targeting the project and I want to thank you for for doing this great last call for comments and then I will just I would just like to throw in that I would just like to thank the staff for an incredibly thorough report I really appreciate the contact in the staff report that that seems very comprehensive and I really appreciate that I also want to just thank the housing authority and the focus on providing not just this space but an incredibly high quality space the attention to detail for the green space higher ceilings more light is really admirable and I'm very excited to support this project so with that sir can we go ahead and have a vote on 450 national bridges please Mr Conway hi Greenberg hi Kennedy DD Miller hi passage unanimously which is great and congratulations to all involved this is a really exciting project so thank you so much for all the hard work and we will move it along here to informational items any informational items yes couple so the first reading of the flexible density ordinance was before the council on at its march eighth meeting and that was approved so the second reading is scheduled for the march 22nd meeting next week the permit entitlements associated with the oversized vehicle ordinance that you had approved at your last meeting were called up by councilmember Golder so we are we're expecting that a hearing is going to happen in April for that so one of the April hearings and then looking at the schedule for next month there is nothing scheduled for the April 7th meeting so you can consider that your spring break and but on the 21st we're going to be bringing the objective standards ordinances to you so that's going to be a pretty meaty packet for you to digest and and so that'll be a big item and that's all I have thank you so much any subcommittee advisory body or report okay um any items referred to future agenda for many commissioners uh yes commissioner Kennedy please this is not in a uh it's just an idea for a possible future agenda item this is not a political commission but I've just been thinking about like rail and development and zoning in our trail and I wonder if chair wants to direct staff to like you know bring forward a brief report on the importance of long-term transit solutions you know something we could say hey this planning commission is 100 behind this at our next meeting I know we'd be waiting into politics but we're there already this tiny tiny town and I sure feel like it'd be good for us to come out in support of the planning we've already done to support that corridor and the planning we're going to do and I just wanted to express that because I'm really feeling that this week so maybe it's too much but I thought I'd throw it out there sure thank you commissioner shifrin and then I'll go ahead and go to staff and ask kind of what our options may be commissioner shifrin commissioner shifrin I think we're having trouble with your audio you can't hear me at all yeah I can hear you now can others okay go ahead okay I'm sorry I'm just wondering if this is really a suggestion that maybe we should think about this right now since if it should pass and be implemented it would eliminate the possibility of rail use on the corridor so I think um the councilman the councilman is reading on the general assurance this is where the rail I think it's a legitimate thing to ask I don't know whether the commission has taken positions on ballot measures before but I think it's something more general along the lines of what commissioner Kennedy was suggesting or you know position on the ballot measure something that could come before the commission it's a little bit tricky I think for me because I serve on the commission that's important so I might decide to have to vote on it although my actions on the terms on the regional transportation commission pretty consistently in favor of preserving the uh no to rail but you know I think that it is a relevant question to ask staff and some sort of point about the direction that Kennedy is suggesting that we move it okay thank you for the input um go ahead commissioner Kennedy and then let's go ahead and go directly for staff after that to see what our options could be along these lines go ahead commissioner Kennedy I'm totally sorry and I feel like this should be like a consent item quick thing if anything I am not suggesting we derail the planning commission to spend hours and hours on this but um that that was my intent for sure let's let's go ahead and see if Mr. Marlett may be able to provide us with a range of options um based on what you said and then maybe we can kind of talk about what we may want to pursue go ahead Mr. Marlett uh Mr. Marlett you are on mute I've got two mute buttons I'm working with here so thanks um thanks for that clarification commissioner Kennedy um I was going to say that this is uh an item that would likely be handled by our advanced planning staff and um right now they're like over their heads in work in addition to the objective standards uh work that I just mentioned they're also working on the downtown plan expansion that's expected to be before you in May um and then housing element work of course um which is also starting to um intensify um in the late spring early summer months um in terms of uh commissioner Schiffer in suggestion of um whether it's within your purview to weigh in on a ballot measure I don't know the answer to that um right now I could you know check in with the city attorney um and also review the bylaws a little closer to see you know if that's something that we could agendize for you so I have a sort of a clarifying question so instead of going the route of directly addressing the ballot measure is there an option for us to discuss um why it uh why it is more in alignment with the general plan and our approach to transportation to maintain both options moving forward maintain the options for rail and trail moving forward so as as a little bit of an end around instead of saying yes or no for the ballot measure can we talk about why maintaining both options makes the most sense is is that a discussion we can have and and what would that look like yeah I would want to you know before giving you an affirmative answer I would want to look into to that with the city attorney because I I'm just to be honest I'm not sure um if that even falls within your purview um you know as a commission but I'm happy to look into it okay well I think we all um I'm seeing some head not care I I think it would be great if you could just report back to us kind of potentially what the options are um I think the route of not directly um weighing in on ballot measure but discussing um more our approach to transportation is kind of what I heard from Commissioner Kennedy and I'm very much in support of that as well so um that would be very helpful if um we could report back um at a later date sure okay great thanks Eric I know how busy you are I appreciate it thank you anything else uh is commissioner shifrin is your hand up yeah the commission is going to actually buy and you know I'm sympathetic to spending time providing informational items to us that are firmly of interest of not really things that we can act on so I'm trying to think of that's why I suggested and you get the vote on the ballot measure because at least that's thinking and action because as shifrin holds on I'll perfectly find out doing that uh I think there are lots of funds that are more on where that's going to happen I think maybe we just think a little bit more before we have steps to so work on this about what would be the result of the rail being on our agenda is it something that would you know we could change the zoning ordinance to be supportive one of the reasons why rail is so controversial um in the county is because the voices of ours is allowing development within 15 feet of the rail line so obviously if when a train goes by um people are looking in your window uh looking in your backyard it'd be just concerned so I don't know if they're any relevant or looking at uh starting with general plan policy but be supportive of this green rail option so I think that's really what um this is about and I don't remember where the general plan already has policies that support rail um the county decision of that would be changed totally really we just support due to um change the general plan to provide that system okay thank you commissure shifrin I had a little trouble with the audio there but um I I do actually totally take your point and support that idea that you know we are an action body so trying to figure out what an action would be um I think would be great to include in that sort of analysis of you know um what what might come before us as opposed to just having a discussion where you don't have to take an action so um if that seems feasible to you Mr. Marlett um that would be great I just one thing to add following up on commissioner shifrin's statement he was saying what what I was actually thinking um and while he was talking I had quickly pulled up the general plan and and um just in my first couple of clicks found a number of policies that support rail and it's it's it's there's very strong policies in that regard so you know the city council essentially with a recommendation from the planning commission has already gone on record you know supporting that okay yeah I don't think right on a limb with this one guys but I don't want to waste staff time any further okay well well why don't we go ahead and pull that request back at this point and all of us and all of us can do some homework and think about maybe some part of the zoning organs there's something that may be um relevant and then if we get to that level um maybe we can bring it back to making a staff request does that sound okay okay great um okay last call um any items to refer to future agendas okay um with that I would like to thank my fellow commissioners and staff um and the applicants and everyone who attended and I will go ahead and call the March 17th meeting of the City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission into adjournment thanks everybody have a good night thank you everybody thank you have a good night good night