 you all have correspondence but we're gonna continue that item so otherwise I'd ask if people need more time. Ready? Good evening and welcome to the June 6, 2019, generally scheduled planning commission meeting at the city of Santa Cruz. We'll call this meeting to order and ask for a roll call please. Mr. Shiffrin? Here. Conway? Here. Spellman? Here. Nielsen? Here. Greenberg? Here. Singleton? Here. Chair Pepe? Present. No one is absent. Are there any statements of disqualification for the agenda items? I'll be abstaining on the consent item. Abstaining but remain present. Okay. I know that we're gonna get a continuance but I'll be recusing myself from item number three. I'm flicking out on item number three as would I if we were gonna do that. Talk about that in a bit. Actually do we talk about that right away? The changes in the agenda? We can. You can. Let's do that now. Let's talk about what we'll do with agenda item number three, 110 Cooper Street. Yeah there's been a request by the applicant for a continuance. The request is for July 3rd which is on a Wednesday night. It was scheduled in lieu of the 4th of July which is our normal meeting date. I don't think anybody's gonna be here for that. So recognizing though that it is near a holiday I'd recommend you first make sure that there's gonna be enough for a quorum given some that are not participating before you take action to continue. The alternative date would be July 18th and both the applicant and the appellant are available for that meeting if you need to go there. So why don't we share with staff our availability for the 3rd so folks can know. I think it's kind of nutty to have a before. I prefer to cancel the meeting assuming and what we have before us is a request by I don't I don't see the request by the applicant for I mean the appellant for a continuance. Is there a request by the appellant as well? There was a request by the applicant and then the appellant sent us an email confirmation indicating they were okay with it. If the appellant is supportive and supportive to continuing this till July 18th. I will not be here on the 3rd so yeah. I agree that the 3rd is a rough time to have a public meeting. And I won't be here on the 18th either or the 3rd so. So there. Maybe July is not a good yeah nor will I either either date. So that's potential I won't be here in the 18th also. Okay so we're even without your without your maybe we're down to three and perhaps two with two conflicts and two absences we're down to three and less. So I think Eric's looking at the August calendar. The August 1st will be the next available meeting date and we'd need to confirm that the appellant I don't know if the appellant's here tonight but for confirm their availability we do that between now and then. Could I question if there's a quorum can a quorum act on this item? Yes. I'll be saying even if one of the members of the quorum abstains. That's a good question. So if we have a quorum well if we have a quorum we can hear it but then you wouldn't have a quorum though if you have an extension right. We have only three people who can act. Yeah then you don't have a quorum for that item. And that's an interesting question I would think if a quorum is set by the number of people at the meeting. I wasn't aware that by extension there were quorum. That's fine if there's not a if that's your interpretation then test test might have some book. Is this does this guide us is this instructive right now or is this is it's worth going into right now or should we well if we're talking about a meeting date. My guess is that then the applicant would like to get a decision out of us so if we're if we clearly can't meet on the 3rd so I think it's worth checking into whether we there could be a meeting on the 18th. But that when my math says we cannot do either 3rd or the 18th that's why we're talking about August 1. Right except that depends on whether there an abstention. No but we have two absences and two conflicts so that every you three are the only three that could be here on the 18th and Peter's a maybe. So it's 3 out of 7 on the commission a fair hearing. I guess that's a question. So abstention aside we don't have a quorum. So the way it reads is a quorum of the planning commission shall consist of four members whether or not there are vacancies on the planning commission it's pretty general. But I would interpret that to mean four eligible members is how I would prefer that it be done. Well we don't and we don't have four. So that's a right. So we will wait to hear from you on whether and with your discussions with the appellant and the applicant and whether August 1st will work. I think we should continue to a date certain definitely so we don't have to do the re noticing. Okay. Okay and I think the applicants are here we can see if they're available on 1st August. Yes. Okay. And are there any representatives for the appellant here for 110 Cooper. So we'll still continue that and we need a motion for that move to continue the item on 110 Cooper Street to August 1st. Second. Second. All in favor. I that motion passes unanimously. So 110 Cooper Street is continued to a date certain August 1st. Thank you for coming. Good luck with your negotiations. And the next item business it's not really on the agenda yet but oral communications. So we will invite the public to address us on all of the agendized items but this section is for addressing the commission on anything that is not on our agenda. So we welcome you. It has to do with planning commission matters. Sign in if you would and if you're willing to state your name and you can address the commission for three minutes. Thank you for coming. My name is David Alexander. I'm a resident on the upper west side of Santa Cruz. Just a quick observation this past couple of weeks I've been down to the planning commission the public works questions about noise and I looked on your adenton the past and where you've modified that item eight dealing with noise and in the city and I'm wondering going forward as big projects get approved and by this planning commission if we can't make stronger stipulations about work that is noisy and offensive according to our noise standards not begin before eight o'clock and we write it into permits that if you start work before eight o'clock your permit is pulled so that public doesn't have to go through the hoops of calling the police being there making a report signing a report it's just we should put the onus on the people who are doing the building to follow the city rules around noise and it shouldn't be upon the public to have to go and enforce it and I think it starts here that's all I'm asking it's going to be really important as we begin to fill in that mission street corridor lots more of those those buildings that come down that construction happens right on the face of the community and I just think it's something that this commission could act upon to be more proactive thanks guys thank you for your comments any other comments for the public or for the commission I will accept a motion to approve the May 16th minutes removed second all in favor hi hi hi minutes pass unanimously and the next item of business is 5 17 high street which is a consent agenda so if we will invite members of the public to have this pulled as a consent agenda we won't discuss this we'll just vote but if anyone and the public or on the commission likes would like to discuss it then we'll pull it and have a different type of conversation I have a procedural question what does it mean to be a consent public hearing what it means is that there's a public hearing we just discussed I just discussed this with staff so I'm fresh on it it's it's may sound contradictory but in my asking as chair in my asking the public if they'd like to pull it and discuss it that's opening the public hearing and into the declination by the anyone here if they decline that then the public hearing is closed and then it's back to it how is that different than just the regular consent agenda item because we always ask if anybody in the public wants to pull it I don't know and is it just a requirement that there be a public hearing on this kind of an item yeah it is yeah so it's really just streamlining the the the items we think that are straightforward in nature and we're foregoing on the staff presentation usually I see well I can certainly support that and so and none of you have with that clarification and no one has pulled it so I would entertain a consent agenda second all in favor hi hi hi well abstain so that passes six to one with commissioner Conway abstaining the next is we've continued item number three and so the application submittal requirements is general business and for and staff has a presentation for that just briefly on this is a follow-up to the last meeting where there was a discussion regarding the seabright avenue project and there was some desire by commissioners to have certain items like section drawings and then the site plan to have adjacent building footprints and the other thing that's been a topic of discussion in the past has been the visual simulation so after that meeting I took a look at the application submittal checklist I attached to the memo that was in the packet and the good news is is those items are already there so I briefed staff at our weekly meeting on on the discussion that is soon here at the last meeting and describe the importance of making sure that when these plans come through and not just for the big projects but for you know medium to smaller size projects like the one you heard that we have these items in in the drawings I did suggest some maybe some tweaking of the visual simulation language to confirm that we want to see vegetation and we want to see you know adjacent buildings so that was one change that I recommended you may have others but that's just sort of the follow-up from the last meeting thanks commissioner shifrin you requested that this be agendized you yes have an interest in starting that for providing this information it is helpful I think it would be since it's a little bit strange it's the planner decides what's going to be submitted and then that's what the commission gets to see eventually I wonder if it would be and I can understand why that's only the only practical way to do it but I wonder if it would be useful to the commission if when we had an application that came we got a copy of the land use application submittal checklist so we would know what was what had been submitted and it might sort of work in terms of making the staff aware that this is going to be looked at by the commission to make sure that the everything they needed was there so that was just one idea of trying to ensure that all of the information that commissioners are interested in would be I had a question about the submittal checklist in terms of there's there's a design review checklist and then there's a use permit checklist and the use permit checklist doesn't talk about looting the what's on adjacent parcels for the site plan or just show property boundaries existing buildings and structures and I just wonder if it would be useful to also show the even if there's not a design permit just a use permit to see what's going on around it yeah well this sort of works together right so if it's if it's checked off under the design review section you know then it's applicable on the use permit section does every project that have a use permit also have a design permit many do you know the alcohol use permits don't but you know a good portion of them do if all those are my comments commissioners Bellman yeah um yeah thanks for bringing this forward I think the conversation is long overdue and I think it allows us a little bit of time to review what we have and potentially question if that's what we want moving forward I think one of the interesting things about our checklist is that it tries to address every project right we don't have four checklists we have one checklist I think there's both some positives and potentially pitfalls built into that scenario and I think the Seabright project kind of brings some of that to the forefront where if it's only at the discretion of the planner that's assigned to the project to determine which items are included you know I know staff is busy things happen if it's not clear and we're asking at the 11th hour for applicants to bring additional information I think that's problematic too so I think we should come up with a clear way of communicating what we want and potentially it's a matter of analyzing which projects require you know the additional work essentially and probably we're going to come up with some gray area where some may not need it in some light and I think there's the ability to allow for some leeway in in those items but I do think you know I've done some research on local communities around us we're pretty skinny on what our requirements are and how specific we are on the information we're asking for so I think I'm all for being simple in communication of what we want but I think we do need to hone in on certain areas and be a lot more specific on what we're asking for for example the site plan what it what does the site plan need to show right including adjacent parcels structures on those parcels with maybe even just a note it's a one-story building it's a two-story building it's residential commercial basic stuff like that sections regardless of the complexity of the project anything that comes to the level of design review should have sections through the building right should show property lines at some point it needs to show a site section you know in addition to a single family home it's playing by the rules maybe doesn't need site sections and calling everything out but something beyond that probably does so I think there's I don't know what the right answer is I think this is complex enough that it probably requires further discussion right I don't know if it rises to the level of a subcommittee to come up with a set of guidelines that might start to form any significant revisions to what we already have I'm open to hearing what what other commissioners might have in in mind for that but I think it's problematic that we address everything in one document whether it's a you know seven-story commercial mixed juice building or a new single family home I think that's a little bit problematic in our current setup Chair Nielsen I would agree with that I think being able to segment projects by size scale type could be a good a good start to to to help kind of pull it apart and and make that make the make it clear on what's required and I mean I you know in some places you know that I've worked and and I've seen is that you get a checklist that's like you get the entire checklist and the planner doesn't go through and check off what you have to put what you have to include they just hand you the checklist and that's that's everything you need to include or I mean or you are it's at the applicant's discretion to ask whether or not those things can be removed so maybe it's a maybe it's the maybe you flip it on its head and it's like everything is required or but at the counter we can say okay well this may not be required or this may not be required rather than going through and saying what is required because then that way kind of catches everything and then you're and then if you are going to remove something it's very clear that that is absolutely not required for that application based on you know what it is I think it's important still to keep the discretion of that to the planner in some way just because all projects are different and so I I think that is I think that's still a good idea but I think the idea of splitting splitting projects into scale and type would help help to identify those what those checklists are so I'm I agree with that I have at the moment other comments I didn't invite the public if this is general business so I didn't invite the public to share comments with the Commission on this no all right do I need to open and close public hearing on that test okay just a couple comments you know one of the things that we talked about in our staff meeting really is the importance of front loading the completeness determination in the first 30 days and under under state law were required to let an applicant know if their application is complete or not within 30 days and so it's important to go through these drawings with a fine tooth comb and and determine you know hey our you know visual simulations needed you know or not where's it going that type of thing so I think there's now a heightened awareness among staff that that exercise needs to happen early on then the other thing that Commissioner Nielsen kind of hit on you know not no projects are are the same and and you know there is an element of customer service and we don't want applicants spending money on things that aren't necessarily required and so we you know we we do try to take a common sense approach I mean granted you know I I agree section drawings should have been included with that Seabright Avenue project you know no question but you know we wouldn't you know the other extreme we wouldn't ask for you know visual simulations for attendant improvement you know so it's just it's it's trying to impart a bit of common sense when we're when we're reviewing these applications for completeness you know what do we really need are the questions that need to be asked um I guess I would add that I don't know the larger projects that you were looting to we we often do pre pre app reviews on those and then we really dive into the details of those projects and then we're very very thorough about what is required you know the visual simulations we'll go into the different the different views that we want and list those all out so often they come you know we'll go into that process during that during the pre application process as well I have a question Eric or either of you some of the the desires you're hearing from commissioners for potential tweaks are they contrary to that clock and the front loading driver that you're talking about um no not not necessarily um wouldn't be it's just um you know the importance of asking for it up front and not I mean from time to time you know those visual visual simulations can take time and a lot of times um projects will come in in the first 30 days and there'll be a number of changes that need to happen and it's not always good to have those visual simulations done up front because then they have to be redone um so uh you know we do need some level of flexibility commissioners um Spellman you've maybe the been the well both of you guys have talked about the desire to to see um certain renderings and when the project's before us we have it or we don't and then my understanding from the last time we talked about this well we didn't really get into it but I think it's what prompted Andy to have this agendized was I thought I heard staff say that um some of the things you want to see are actually required but then staff weren't consistently applying the requirement is that is that true or do you want to see different requirements on here I think that's a bigger discussion I think there are I think our list probably includes uh everything that we would want I think the question is when does it obvious that things need to be included in you know in a submittal for review whether it's just staff or something that's coming to commission you know for review that's really my most of the time we have angst is when I see a project being proposed and it doesn't have enough information right to really give us consideration of adjacent properties what the real impacts of a proposed design are that's really the the crux of it um visual simulations is a tricky one most of the time they're done well sometimes they're not done very well last hearing you know the guy started his meeting by saying there's a four foot change in elevation and oh by the way this drawing doesn't capture it so it's like okay you spent the time to do the drawing but it's it's not accurate so how are we supposed to analyze that it's those kind of things I think that are problematic I think a project that rises to the city planning commission review should have a visual simulation right there's many different visual simulations from a you know sketch perspective view to a full-blown you know photorealistic type of a rendering so I think there's plenty of discretion and leeway for an applicant to come up with something that you know visually communicates their design in the setting that it is versus you know and many times what we see is a fully rendered building that's has no context right that the design is fully vetted and setting drawn and you know everything is rendered perfectly but there's nothing around it you don't know this could be anywhere so I think the technology is is there and many people are using it they're just not taking it to that next level unfortunately I mean it's you know it's more time and more work and more money to make that happen but it's you know it should be at some point a requirement for the project so so how might we have a conversation to avoid that future angst you know what that looks like yeah I think we have to determine when is it required and not just an option and I don't think that the rendering is the be all and the end all I mean it's something that most people can relate to and understand assuming it's drawn correctly people can say hey that that fits in that in that view right that I can see how the design relates and you know it's not grossly out of proportion and things things work well but I think it's just as important to have you know the site plan that's accurately rendered and we see the structures and we see the outlines of buildings next door and we know what that context is so calling those things out specifically and saying you know or a single family home new house maybe you have to delineate 15 feet onto the adjacent properties around you and if anything shows up you need to show it right it doesn't have to be a huge burden to make that happen or something that has to be fully surveyed but at least give a sense for what those impacts might be and obviously on different projects it's going to be much more involved in detailed solar studies shadow impact studies heights of the buildings etc I think that's you know that's really my I went through this checklist kind of in detail I started to write notes on what would be ideal to see for that specific point and you know again sometimes it's overkill and other times it's not and I think that's where the one document does it all could potentially fall short mr. Sifrin were you um yes but uh thanks um I'm curious so what is the the desired action that we would like to see out of this commission because it sounds like that you've done a lot of research and looked into this and frankly I think you have a lot of topical expertise that commissioners like myself don't have in terms of going through the application submittal process so um or you hoping to have like a more I doubt you want to go into this conversation on specific checklist items tonight um so would the say ideal action be set a date to come back with like I say a subset of commissioners maybe a subcommittee to kind of look at the different thresholds of the checklist that you would like to see evaluated and kind of have like a proposal for the rest of the commission that sounds like a reasonable answer yeah you want to um lead that subcommittee sure and who would like to join that I would think people with topical expertise in the area of submittal I support uh doing that it sounds like there are two issues here one issue is can there be more detail in the checklist uh doesn't make sense to have one checklist or a couple of checklists given the nature of different projects I think that's something the subcommittee is working on the other issue is this tension between wanting to streamline the process and wanting to have enough information so that the commission can really make a decision and I appreciate the staff's desire to not have applicants spend a lot of money doing things necessary on the other hand an applicant is going to spend a whole lot more money if it comes if a project comes before the commission they don't have enough information you have to go back and send us give us more information and I think that's part of the process as well as the commission I think it's important to try to come up with a submission set of submission requirements that really will capture what the commission wants but ultimately since the commission has to make a decision it's going to come down to the commission saying yeah this is this is enough this is what we wanted or this wasn't done the way we think it should have been done go back and do it right because that's going to provide I think the incentive to staff and the incentive to the applicants to be thinking seriously about really providing the commission with the information but I support the idea of having a subcommittee look at the what's what's um what's required and come up with suggestions for potential change was it and you're expressing an interest to participate on it I don't I think the architects have the you know the knowledge of you know kind of design requirements certainly that I don't have and so I'm happy to leave it up to them anybody else I just wanted to echo um commissioner nelson's suggestion that maybe if I understood correctly that we take as required everything on here when people come to the counter and then conceivably people could applicants could make an appeal or something if there was some reason some some some reason why they might think one of these items is not relevant to them but it would be explicitly made um that seems reasonable to me so that it's kind of clear what they're do you know whether they're fulfilling the the checklist or not and why mr. Conway in my experience um I I think it's important that a planner has discretion these projects do very widely um and they're on there because they might be required I don't I'm not in favor of saying assume it's required unless it's not because a lot of these things are costly and time-consuming and the other thing that we're balancing is on due cost and on due time which I know you two are very well familiar with which is why I'm glad you guys are willing to do it because you know what it means to try to get a project and all the materials in so um I think that planner discussion discretion is important but clarity about what it is too I'm sure you'll work it out the mission is different it's a it's an interesting just a psychologically psychologically is the approach where the applicant comes in and says oh I don't think I need to do this I'm not sure I need to do that why are you forcing me to do this rather than coming in and say well this is ridiculous all this stuff why don't I not have to do this why don't I not have to do that it's a different it puts the staff in a different position from being the bad guys to being the nice guys in a way in terms of taking stuff out instead of putting stuff in but I'm happy to leave that to the to the subcommittee I think you have experience with how other jurisdictions do it and this pros and cons I think it's not like there's a right answer I think we're you know we just it's just a question of can we do better than we're doing now and that's the task of the subcommittee is going to be. Commissioner Greenberg you had something else? Yeah I have no issue with the planner's discretion I think that's a good idea I'm just thinking if we want to have some kind of history of how decisions were made like why people did or didn't fulfill certain aspects of a checklist and maybe there's a you know a good number of things that totally don't make sense for a for an application but at least I mean maybe there could be like a second column you know that says you know not not applicable and then there could be a reason for why and they could just fill that out or something so that you know that there's some kind of mindfulness and how they're you know they're filling it out maybe we can get it to us as well and know how these decisions remain. Eric or Sam can you share whether this is is this the path we're describing to have a subcommittee kick this around is that going to be useful for you? Yeah I mean we're happy to sit down with the architects and kind of work through some of these issues and I think Commissioner Greenberg's suggestion of having two columns might might work as well I mean I you know I really do think it's important to be mindful you know the the most important interactions that we have with applicants are the first ones you know so it is important to be real deliberate upfront. One other thing though that Tess just reminded me of is there's a difference between a task force which is single purpose and a subcommittee which has all kinds of noticing requirements and whatnot so you should task force is probably more applicable in this context. I'm just looking at the bylaws in it an ad hoc committee would be given an explicit purpose and not and it would sunset after that purpose is met and would not last longer than six months. Does that sound like it's gonna? That task force sounds so important though. I'm okay with ad hoc. Yeah Commissioner Singleton. I would like to entertain a motion. All right motion the city of Santa Cruz Planning Commission appoint a task force slash ad hoc committee of Commissioner Nielsen and vice chair Spellman to look into the application submittal checklist as before us today and come back with a series of recommendations for how it could be improved. I'll second that. I'll ask the maker of the motion and the second is to put in some time frame in that what what you know your time is is limited how two months three months is that a reasonable time period to think to get this done I find that it's better always to sort of set a date when something's going to come back that everybody and sit there it needs to move forward so three months make sense would that be reasonable yeah great well I'd like to amend the motion to come back to the commission at a time around three months second that any discussion well in favor aye aye any opposed so that motion passes unanimously and we have a task force ad hoc committee I don't have this memorized but I'll share since I have the notes in front of me you're not you're not subject to the brown act and city staff are not required to participate um it sounds like they're willing to so yeah it'd probably be a good idea to collaborate definitely yeah thank you both for doing that and thank you commissioner shifrin for bringing it forth we kind of we're on a project and then we kind of grumble and that's not the discussion so this was the container to have the discussion so thanks for having us do that and that is the end of the agenda other than information items no item scheduled for the next meeting which is June 20th and then we don't have the July third meeting so you get an early summer vacation um we do have a community care facility scheduled for uh July 18th so we do have one item so far on that meeting for sure nothing until July 18th then so the 20th is canceled right yeah yeah 20th is canceled third is canceled yes I that went by me too fast the June 20th meeting is canceled yeah no business for June 20 no business right no business for June 20 no business for July 3rd and you have likely something for July 18 yes okay we did discuss I will I will be gone on that meeting okay so I'm available and so we have three and if either of you are a yes then we have a quorum so we'll I'm a likely participant I don't know what my summer schedule is going to be at this point I know there's no reason I can't be there on July 18th but it could change do you um have any urgency on that you know what the issue that no I mean one thing we should probably do is check the conflict of interest maps to make sure that those commissioners are here can participate it's on mission street I don't uh let me see I might have the address here I think it's near the safeway okay on plex no okay far enough away I don't have it here yeah the address isn't here unfortunately um but we'll we'll do the polling make sure we're good it's tight we'll we'll do the checking we have the maps right here we don't need to do we don't need to do anything else right now um I should also mention um the rail trail appeal is scheduled for city council on Tuesday anything else any report from our one of two standing subcommittees there was a virtual meeting of the I'm not even sure how to call it it's the it's having to do with the lcp amendment set for related to sea level rise looking at the beaches which is the same committee that's working on the west cliff drive i think i'll advise you committee work on the west cliff drive ocean problems or problems with um armoring and things like that but they're they're they're two separate uh they're two separate projects but they're being overseen by one committee the tack for had a meeting out on west cliff drive which I reported on the I think at the last planning commission meeting we were around this meeting that we had earlier in the week on Monday was supposedly virtual at least it was virtual to me I just listened to it on itself and it was just introducing everybody to online and what's going to be done in terms of sea level rise issues and the need to have the lcp amendment so it's still not clear where where this all is going and what it's all going to mean but I says it started it'll probably be slow well they're they probably will be slow but they're hoping that it will be basis to have these grants from the coastal commission at they need a hey thank you thanks for serving on that and I believe we are now adjourning thank you all thank you