 Good evening everyone and welcome to the November 14th 2019 7 p.m. Special meeting of the planning Commission for the city of Santa Cruz We'll call this meeting to order and that's could you do a roll call, please? Mr. Schifrin here Conway Spellman here Nielsen here Greenberg here Singleton here chair pepping present Commissioner Conway is absent with Notification are there any statements of qualification disqualification for this evening's agenda seeing none Move to oral communications. I think we're supposed to have that on here, right? Yeah, so this is a special meeting normally we invite So maybe we need to do that since it's posted Since it's on the agenda I would recommend doing so so usually with special meetings The agenda is a little different and we don't have oral communications, but our agenda as posted does have our communications We will give you everyone anyone present the opportunity to give your share your opinion with us on the one Agendized item, but oral communications is for anything not on the agenda So if you'd like to address the Commission on anything that's under our purview, but not agendized Please come up now oral communications complete and we have just one single item on our agenda. It's a accessory dwelling unit ordinance amendment and Invite a staff presentation now. Okay. Good evening. So I have a what I hope will be a brief staff presentation basically going through the legislative changes that were made to the The act in the government code for the state of California that sort of enabled accessory dwelling units in local zoning codes there were a number of bills this year that passed relative to this so I'm gonna do my best to summarize what was in the bill and then point you all to where How we've made changes in our local ordinance to be responsive to that legislation So, oh, sorry, and let me just introduce myself My name's Sarah Noythe. I'm in the advanced. I'm a senior planner with the advanced planning section here at the city So just a little bit of background and the city of Santa Cruz has been an advocate of ADUs for quite a while We've had an ordinance since 1983. We actually led the state the state had their first legislation in 85 86 We have amended this code a number of times in recent memory In 2003 we produced and published some prototype plans and guidance documentation That has since unfortunately fallen out of date, but that's just sort of a piece of history for Santa Cruz that we are very committed to Promoting ADUs as a housing source So ADUs are also an issue of statewide concern The governor and the various members of the legislature are extremely concerned about how the housing crisis This year alone. There were over a hundred bills related to housing and land use This is just a sample of them Illustrated very neatly here in an infographic accessory dwelling units are up there at the top right and This was created in April. So this doesn't even include AB 881 which is also very relevant to ADUs. So Housing is on the minds of the legislature. They have had their fingers in the ADU code for several of the more of the recent legislative sessions this year This year three of these bills passed and I'll go through those in a moment But just to add another little piece of perspective why ADUs are an important part of a housing policy This is a graphic from the That was created by MBEP the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership About what types of policy changes could genuinely Create an improvement in the affordability of housing in the Monterey Bay region and as you can see there I've highlighted ADUs are Third behind, you know subsidized affordable housing, which is obviously going to have the greatest impact on creating affordable housing And then rental housing that's built with an inclusionary component also would have a big effect And then ADUs are coming in number three based on this analysis. So ADUs really are an opportunity for the city to create Housing that rents at a lower price point than other types of housing. So We are currently responding to legislation that was signed by the governor on October 9th For those that are keeping track that was five weeks ago There were three bills that were the most relevant to the amendments we're going to discuss tonight and that was AB 68 AB 881 and SB 13 and Based on the way so the way when so each of these three bills amended the same section of the government code section 6585 2.2 and So what happens when multiple bills are amending the same section of the code Is that whichever bill? gets signed by the governor last is the one that has sort of the final text in it and Typically what happens is that by the time they reach the governor's desks the authors of the various bills have Negotiated and the language is typically very similar across the bills by the time it reaches that point And they have what are called chaptering amendments So that you know if two bills pass and one doesn't you know section one and section three of this bill go into effect In sections two and four don't go into effect And so that is the situation that we are working with here the final text that I am responding to Based on the chaptering is section 1.5 of AB 881 so if you go to read this legislation at home Make sure you're looking at section 1.5 section one has slightly different language in some circumstances. So that's just a point I'd like to make a Additionally beyond the section of the government code specifically related to eight to 80 use AB 68 does contain a section that about the standards for junior ADUs So section 2 of AB 68 will become effective and section 3 of SB 13 will become effective and that That portion of SB 13 is about how the delay in building codes will be implemented through the health and safety code So this pending legislation there are essentially five categories of items that I'm going to go through there are amendments that relate to development standards permitting land use policy Reduction in fees and delay of building code enforcement Items four and five on this list you don't require amendments to our zoning code I am providing them here as sort of informational items They are part of the legislation in the city will be obligated to comply with those conditions But we're not going to discuss them in great detail tonight because they don't require us to change our code our zoning ordinance So I'm going to start with number one development standard amendments So the pending legislation states that ADUs attached to a single family home may no longer be subjected to a size limitation other than being 50% of the primary dwelling so previously They were also subject to a limitation on size of no more than 1200 square feet In Santa Cruz It's hard to imagine that there are very very many ADUs that would be larger than 1200 square feet if they're 50% of the Home to which they're attached. So, you know, we don't have a ton of homes that are over 2400 square feet Other places they have different standards. So in some places this 50% Changing this standard around 50% will actually allow for larger ADUs than it was previously allowed and then also The way the law is written it states that local ordinances can maintain our existing site standards But the site standards can't limit ADUs to being less than 800 800 square feet in size Which includes the above provision about being no more than 50% the size of the home So what that means is you could have an 800 square foot 80 800 square foot home Build an 800 square foot attached ADU and that would have to be allowed the way that the state law is written So in our ordinance to respond to those provisions Attached ADU size will now be 50% of the habitable area of the main home or 800 square feet Whichever is greater The detached size of an ADU will be 10% of the lot size or 800 square feet Whichever is greater that 10% of the lot size has been our our existing standard for Determining the size of an ADU. So essentially what this means is that for lots that are 8,000 square feet or smaller They're gonna be able to build a larger ADU than they would have been able to build this year for lots that are Larger than 8,000 square feet There really is no change in the size of ADU that they're gonna be permitted to build We're also making a change to The size limitation for conversion ADUs and this matches how we have been practicing and what our existing policy interpretation is so a Conversion ADU is an ADU that is using existing space. It's a garage. It's part of a house It's part of an existing outbuilding and we have allowed last year when we did the amendment some of you will recall that we added the provision to do a little bit of an expansion to an Accessory structure to allow for a conversion ADU and In practice what we have been doing is that if someone has a conversion 80 a conversion a Space to convert that let's say was you know larger than what their lot would typically allowed. So they have a You know a 600 square foot garage on a 5,000 square foot parcel We've actually been allowing them to convert the whole 600 square feet of that We haven't been holding them to that size limit. So we do think it's appropriate to have an upper limit and The way I read the state law that upper limit is 1200 square feet So this would be for you know existing structures that are converting a space We would allow that to go up to 1200 square feet and then lastly We discussed some of you may remember we discussed last year changing our standard around Rear-yard lot coverage for ADU is the current standard is that an 80 really no structure But ADU specifically can't cover more than 30% of a rear yard or required rear yard area So that's the area contained in the setback that's required for the main house and Based on the change in the state law that says we can't have site standards that would prohibit the construction of an 800 square foot ADU for all intents and purposes that would essentially nullify this Provision for lot coverage on you know, 90% of lots So we're just recommending that we delete that Requirement for ADU's the way the language is written in the proposed ordinance ADU's would continue to count towards that 30% maximum for the purpose of constructing other structures. So You know if an ADU is built on a parcel and it covers 80% of that rear yard area. We wouldn't be allowing any more accessory structures to occupy that area But that this coverage standard wouldn't be used to limit the size of an ADU or the placement of that ADU on a parcel Additionally in the legislation there is a statement that ADU's can't be limited in height to less than 16 feet and As I read it as we read it here, there was a deletion of a the requirement to allow an ADU above a garage, so If you've read the correspondence you saw that we've gotten some correspondence from Assemblymember Ting's office stating that they don't agree with that reading of the ordinance We corresponded had corresponded with Assemblymember Bloom's office earlier in the month and gotten the opposite interpretation so This is a place where we you know I This is a place where we struggled a bit as staff because the way that the law was amended at the state level. It was a little bit unclear of what our What our obligation was and what our purview was in terms of creating other standards for ADU's that are more than 16 feet tall and So we had proposed one thing in the ordinance and I'm gonna talk about a revised proposal here in a moment because we've Done some more thinking about it and you know and are trying to be somewhat responsive to the Assemblymember's letter that we received So I'm gonna talk about that in a minute and then the last thing that this that the pending legislation did for development standards was it states that Parking that's removed to create an ADU can't be required to be replaced So an applicant could do that voluntarily, but we as the city can't require that if you replace So in our ordinance to respond to those items the height limit for detached single-story ADU's has been raised to 16 feet our current limit was 15 feet so That doesn't seem like a very burdensome change The setbacks will remain at three feet for a single story or are proposed as proposed in the ordinance I'm gonna come back to this height for detached two-story ADU's because that's the complicated part and the height limit for attached ADU's Currently the height limit for attached ADU's it says that they have to meet the same they're subject to the same standards as the Primary home to which they're attached So that standard would stay in place and we are recommending that we delete this the Standard that requires an additional setback for height. That's over 15 feet So in many of our zone districts as height increases the setback increases especially in our multifamily zone districts And this makes sense when you're contemplating, you know a three-story multifamily structure that it would you know sort of step back away from the property lines When we're talking about an RL, you know, so a low-density multifamily site That's actually developed with a single-family home. This setback standard becomes a little burdensome when it's applied to just an ADU So we're recommending that we delete that standard for all the zone districts in which it occurs And then lastly and then parking We're just essentially reiterating what the state law says that any parking that's removed to accommodate an ADU need not be replaced so Two-story ADU's detached Currently Our zoning ordinance based on the laws that were in effect That are still in effect today and in effect until January 1 Has standards for two-story ADU's when they face an alley they can be 22 feet tall and They can Have setbacks Anyway so We have one standard for ADU's when they face an alley and a different standard when they don't face an alley and then based on the Way the state law was written this year. We had yet a third standard for ADU's that were built above a garage So the state law as it is today states that when an ADU is built above a garage a Local jurisdiction can't require more setback from the side and rear property lines than five feet and five feet side and rear And that we have to allow an ADU to be built above a garage Previous to that Being in there when when a two-story ADU was proposed on an interior lot We were requiring a 10 foot setback from the rear property line and a five foot setback from the side property line The five foot setback on the side is the same as is typical for most single-family dwellings and most single-family zone districts The 10 foot from the rear was a reduction by half Over what the typical setback so the setback in an R15 is 20 feet And so we reduced it to 10 feet For for an ADU the height for an ADU was also Reduced relative to what was allowed for a single-family home So a single-family home could be up to 30 feet tall and a two-story ADU could only be 22 feet tall so What we had proposed in the ordinance Which I still think it's not a bad idea, but we're changing our recommendation What we had proposed in the ordinance was that two-story ADUs Unless they were facing an alley would have to meet the same setbacks and would get to meet the same height limitations essentially as the primary structure on the property either the single-family home or Now under the state law changes the multi-family structure In response to Sort of the the legislative intent that underpins assembly member Ting's letter Essentially that you know, we want to be accommodating and facilitating to all types of ADUs We are now recommending that we make a change to the way we handle two-story ADUs and Say that When they face an alley, they may be 22 foot 22 feet tall with five feet side and rear setbacks When they're on an interior lot They may be 16 feet tall with four foot side and rear setbacks, which is what is required by the state law And according to someone in our building department, you could conceivably fit a two-story structure in 16 feet No one has ever seen it So, you know, but this would we believe I mean, maybe someone would want to do that There could be a lot that's on a hillside where this, you know kind of setup makes sense and you know is the right way to go But then we are gonna we are recommending that we that we also have a standard for ADUs that are over 16 feet tall that they do require an additional setback and we're recommending the standards of five feet on the side and ten feet on The rear which is essentially what we have today for a two-story ADU So just one clarification. Sorry to interrupt. I thought I heard you say on the first point 22 and 5 The slide says 22 and 4. Is that did you misspeak or is that? So this is so facing an alley. We're saying 22 and 4 and Not facing an alley. We're saying 22 5 on the side and 10 on the rear Thanks Okay, the slide is accurate. Yeah, I don't have unfortunately. I did not have time to draft like replacement code language for you but If you include this in your recommendation, this is part now part of our staff recommendation So if you include that in your recommendation to the council, I'll have the language drafted by the time we go to council. So That's our long dramatic story about two-story ADUs and the height and setback limits that we are now proposing So and I'll just comment here. I mean one of the reasons that we want to be That we're inclined to be a little bit Require more setback with a two-story structure. So so where from where I sit in advanced planning I rarely get phone calls about Building projects construction projects building permits like they rarely end up on my desk The calls I have gotten this year have been about two-story ADUs above garages where they're five feet from a rear property line It's really close. It feels really intimate and We think this is sort of Protective of privacy and a little bit of the you know The nature and character of Santa Cruz to provide a little bit more breathing room on those structures While still being really accommodating to single-story ADUs, you know, we're moving that rear yard lot coverage standard Is no longer going to push someone to a second story where it probably has done that in the past So that's our thinking there Okay, so moving on to permitting amendments the pending legislation clarifies yet again only ministerial permit processes may be used This has been the standard for Two legislative cycles now and they keep reiterating it. So there must be jurisdictions that aren't following along But so ministerial permit processes for issuing permits for ADUs and junior ADUs and I'm going to discuss junior ADUs under land use policy changes later and then Ministerial permits must be approved for any of the following. So regardless of whether they conform you conform with any of our more sort of discretionary site standards When there's a single-family home on a property, we have to approve an attached ADU a Conversion ADU which also now in the state law includes any space that is demolished and reconstructed in the same footprint And those of you who have been on the commission for more than a year will remember that that standard Originated here in Santa Cruz. We adopted that last year to allow for the reconstruction Of an existing structure and then also for that minor expansion of an existing structure We had set that limit at 120 feet locally the state law went to 150 feet So we'll change our standard too. But so those are just an example of how Santa Cruz is influencing state law and We also have to allow a junior ADU which I'll get to in a moment and then we also have to allow A new construction detached ADU of up to 800 square feet in size. So These changes resulted in a number of amendments to Sections of our code about permitting that we haven't previously had to amend relative to ADUs So we added an explicit statement regarding ministerial processes and 60-day review timeline That's also included in the state law and I am also adding we're going to we're recommending that we make a minor amendment to Section two sections here section 24 0 8 8 10 is the section about slope modification regulations and We're just gonna we're recommending to change the language. So currently a sentence reads In the case of construction of an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to section 24 16 100 This section shall only apply when alternative site configurations are available to an applicant that would permit the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit Scratch delete or scratch at least and add up to 800 square feet in size Without the need for a slope modification permit And then we're adding and then we're proposing to also add similar language. So changing adding that up to 800 square feet Also to section 24 16 130 0.3 a little I Applications that propose to locate an accessory dwelling unit Up to 800 square feet on a parcel or portion of a parcel triggering additional administrative and then Similarly down below. There's another reference to 800 square foot and we're just we're adding the phrase up to 800 square feet in front of that Additionally Under the same section 24 16 130 which is about permit procedures for ad use We have a we have a statement in there about applications that are on historic properties that they have to substantially comply with the Guidelines for the Secretary of Interior For development on historic properties and we're going to be adding a similar statement About substantial compliance with the citywide creeks and wetlands plan These two clauses are we're adding because of this change about ministerial approval for an 800 square foot detached ADU that we can't Apply any administrative or discretionary processes. So that's slope modification permits historic alteration permits and wetland Watercourse development permits. So we're just adding language in here that the projects have to be in substantial compliance with those Or they have to like modify their site plan to come into substantial compliance with those documents And we think this will give us the ability to enforce the important parts of those Regulations and standards and while still maintaining a ministerial process. Is everyone with me? Okay, so Then as I mentioned expansion of conversion ADU so previously the expansions were limited to 120 square feet now 150 square feet as per the state law And then for attached ADUs. I mentioned the additional setback required for height over 15 feet We're recommending that that be deleted for all of the Zone districts where it applies Okay More on permitting amendments. So in addition to those things that we just discussed that must be permitted with a single family dwelling We also are now obligated to Approve ministerial permits With a with existing multifamily structures. So this is a new change allowing ADUs on a parcel with a Multifamily structure and in fact within a multifamily structure and you might be asking yourself What is an ADU even when it's inside an existing multifamily structure? The answer is we don't know yet We'll see what happens, right? It's it's an extra bonus Unit that doesn't count towards density and there are some limits on how many can be added to a parcel Up to two detached new construction ADUs and at least at least one and up to 25 percent of the total existing units created by converting areas in the existing structure so This would allow a duplex to add one converted ADU and up to two detached ADUs on the thing Where there's currently a duplex it would allow a you know a 40 unit apartment complex to convert up to 10 units inside the structure and add an additional two Detached units on the on the parcel So In order to address those we've changed the zone districts where ADUs are now allowed We've actually just given up on trying to list them because they are just allow everywhere that we allow residential uses and We allow residential uses in most of our commercial zone districts as mixed-use projects And so now those projects are also eligible for ADUs So we're now just say that ADUs are allowed where other residential uses are allowed in conjunction with a residential use and then again, we reiterate the conversion ADUs and two detached ADUs on part on parcels with Existing multifamily structures Okay land-use policy amendments. So as I mentioned allowing ADUs on multifamily and mixed-use property This is going to be a change. I you know, we'll see how many of these we get that come in and I think there are going to be this is a place where we may As we as we move into next year and start seeing some applications Roll into our you know more proactive ADU process next year some more site standards around ADUs multifamily ADUs and and how those are We allow those to be created for now. We're just implementing the state law You know, we have a tight deadline to meet and we don't have time to do all of the good thinking that we typically like to do when We make policy changes like this. We simply don't have the luxury of that right now We also The state legislation creates junior ADUs and requires Jurisdictions to create junior ADUs so junior ADUs work our creature created under state law a few years back as an option Locally, we kept thinking we can do better than that and we're going to do something better than that And we never had time to do anything better than that. So now we'll do what the state is requiring us to do The good news is they have made some changes to The junior ADU legislation that were Sort of some of the reasons we were hesitating to just adopt the state law So it no longer has to be an existing bedroom can be an addition to a home it can be um It can exist essentially on a spectrum from a Fully independent attached studio apartment no more than 500 square feet in size at the more complicated end down to You know, it's original intent Which was a bedroom an existing bedroom in a home that has an exterior entrance and has a little kitchenette may or may not have its own bathroom, but um It could provide an additional rentable space and a little bit of independence in a situation where you actually have grandma living with you Or you have roommates so it could provide a little bit more privacy So standards for junior ADUs can be no more than 500 square feet has to be attached to a single family home Contains at least an efficiency kitchen which has counter space cabinets and appliances and it no longer limits those appliances Um to you know 110 electrical It may have its own sanitation facilities or share with the main home and The irony here is that for junior ADUs this is again one of these things that happens with the chaptering and having multiple amendments junior ADUs We have to require owner occupancy right now the way the state law is written. We don't have any leeway on that And you may notice that the final bullet point here on my slide is that we are prohibited From requiring owner occupancy for ADUs for the next five years. So, um, There may be situations where this is a little bit awkward for folks um So, you know, this is the the how things happen when state laws all amend the same sections of code and You know, well, I have had a few conversations with Assemblymember Ting's office who wrote AB 68 which contains these junior ADU Standards and they've mentioned that they're going to be trying for a cleanup ordinance this next legislative session So hopefully some of these standards will be coming more into alignment. I'm not sure exactly what that will look like, but It's on their radar. They're they're thinking about it and then finally so we're Um junior ADUs now we have to allow them junior ADUs can be on the same parcel with an ADU So now a single family home could have a detached ADU and and and attached junior ADU And then like I mentioned earlier, we can no longer require owner occupancy for ADUs That are permitted between the first of 2020 and the first of 2025 So locally, um, we've added junior ADUs to our code Up to 500 square feet attached or internal to this single family home Include a minimum kitchenette and then as I mentioned, there are spectrum of options that would qualify for that As that kind of a creature of junior a junior ADU One junior ADU and one ADU per parcel with a single family dwelling and then owner occupancy for permits issued between 1120 and 1120-25 No owner occupancy will be required That provision is not retroactive. So existing ADU owners are still bound by their current land use agreements Um, that is one of those topics that I think we're going to be taking up when we do some more proactive work on ADUs This next year. Um, it's something that the city council has kind of given us some direction to pursue and The way the legislation was looking early in the session It looked like they were going to take owner occupancy off the table as an option So we didn't sort of we didn't engage that process with the community at the time, but it seems Given this discrepancy that's now been created between New ADU owners and existing ADU and our owners that topic seems really ripe for community conversation So, um It'll be on our list in the springtime. Um, so other other things that are adjusted depending legislation. These don't require amendments to our code um, they're uh sp13 and As a result ab 881 Um reduced fees. So adus that are smaller than 750 square feet can't be charged any impact fees So those are fees for schools parks and our water department A portion of that, um development fee from the water department is an impact fee and we're working with them to kind of Pull their existing fee structure apart a little bit so that we can comply with this And then adus over 750 square feet have to be charged impact fees In proportion to the fees try charged on the primary dwelling determined based on a ratio of square footage So, um, again water and water and sewer are the ones where that's going to be the most complicated and we're working with those departments to figure out how to structure those fees and then now, um New construction attached adus are now eligible for the same Exclusion from utility connection fees that has previously only been available to conversion adus So last year when we went through this we talked about how you're converting an adu you don't have to pay for a water connection or a sewer connection That Allowance or exclusion from utility fees has now been extended also to new construction attached adus And then finally the bills also contain language that would allow an applicant to request the delay of enforcement of a building code provision For a period of up to five years and so between For the next 10 years they can request a delay of up to five years to bring their unit into compliance under certain circumstances So You're all so riveted Okay, so our next steps here are um, we have our city council hearing is scheduled for december 10th. Um, this Ordinance contains language that states that if if we don't have a compliant Ordinance in effect on january 1st our ordinance is null and void and we're trying to avoid that So hence the rush and the special meeting to make sure we could get Your recommendation to the city council at their final meeting of the year so they can Have the at least the opportunity to adopt an urgency ordinance that would put something into effect So we're going to that hearing on december 10th. Um, and then after We get through this process after the first of the year We will be doing community outreach to cover the changes that have taken taken place and bring everyone up to speed Who's been interested in following adus and interested in building one in the next few years? To talk about what their options are now um, and then We are also anticipating that there will be um Some circumstances that with the haste with which we were required to write this ordinance were not contemplated So, um, you know, maybe there are places where you have where we have multiple single family dwellings on one parcel You know, what are the standards that apply to that for adus? You know, we there are some specific circumstances that we're going to need to take some time and work through and discuss with the community Also, um as part of that process, um I I it will be time for us to have this conversation about requiring owner occupancy and perhaps Um considering creating some relief of that requirement for existing adu owners. Um Your commission amended that last year the city council Did not approve that at the time to relieve existing owners of owner occupancy But did give staff direction to go forward and discuss it with the community as I mentioned based on what was happening with the legislation We didn't engage with that process this year The change that has happened had has created this gross inequity between the two groups of adu owners So we are going to start that conversation with the community And of course, you know, the legislature is back in session on january 7th. So we'll see what else they have for us next year And then there are relevant portions of this ordinance that will have to be submitted to the coastal commission for their review before they go fully into effect in the coastal zone So All of that our recommendation is that Your commission recommend approval to the city council of the proposed amendments to the municipal code regulating accessory dwelling units And we are available for any questions Thank you Are there questions of staff before we invite the public for comments Your singleton so going back to the um The two-story adu of 16 feet that has never been approved in the city code So the only difference is essentially If you can somehow finesse a 16 foot two-story adu on the property You get a four-foot setback from the rear end property line versus if you were to go above that You would have a 10 foot setback as recommended. Yes Just clarify Mr. Sifrin Just a couple of uh quick ones with your staff recommendation. I assume the recommendation includes uh approval of the ordinance as With the proposed amendments that you've specified this evening. Yes The other thing I just wanted to mention and part of Doesn't have to do with the ordinance per se But in your introduction you used you showed a chart On showing various levels of affordability for different types of housing Um, I vaguely remember and you can remind me whether as part of the general plan report The last survey that the city did show that adus are no longer affordable units that they're They actually end up being the same price as market rate units So I just wonder whether that chart is really accurate based on the last information that The city obtained sure. Yeah. No, thanks for that bringing that up. So um, so a couple of points So number one, um, our last housing element report did sort of draw the inclusion conclusion that we Couldn't really say that adus were renting at less than market rate. Um That statement is based on what we were able to find for in terms of adus that were listed on the market In a given, you know, period of time as we were drafting that report um We recently this summer we conducted a survey of adu owners And asked them how much rent they are charging their existing tenants. So these are not units that are on the market Um, and we haven't done, you know, we haven't completed the full analysis of that My impression is that they are cheaper market rate units. Um, I In typically they tend to be smaller than, you know, other homes so that by virtue of being smaller They are creating a little bit more economy for folks that are living in those in those units um We will be analyzing that data to really Answer for certain if they are Cheaper or not than other market rate units. My impression as far as that they are a little bit cheaper um, and also I think that part of the analysis that was done by embep in creating this um is about creating Supply of housing units and so changing the number of units that are on the market and available For folks so they're not over housed So that they're finding housing that's the right size for their needs and that I think Is a component of creating affordability. So I think that's part of the analysis that this group Did when they created this graph, but we'd be getting the report once you're doing the analysis of the survey Yeah, sure. Yeah, I my plan was to include that when I come back, you know in the spring time when we're doing more sort of um Discretionary, maybe policy changes to the ad use. Yeah I had hoped to have it done by now, but they're just um We'll also have it available in advance of our housing element annual report, which is due to the state on april 1st Will that be coming to the commission? That typically does not come to the commission except upon referral after the fact We don't get a housing element Presentation this is just the annual update that shows the numbers of units that are produced. So we did present that this Earlier this year it was after it's presented to council Time permitting we can bring it to the commission in advance But oftentimes with the the number crunching that's involved with it We end up bringing it straight to the council and then sending it to the planning commission on referral FYI yes Anything else? Well, it's possible. I'd hope I understand the number crunching delays, but If possible, it'd be good to see it before it goes to the council Completely understand Mr. Spellman, thank you. Yeah, I just have some questions Basically related to the staff report and the proposed amendments Um, the first one was about the two-story ad use. I think your presentation kind of clarified The direction for that One question when creating junior ad use You're you're saying that it also will allow several properties that are currently subject to code enforcement action to apply for permits to legalize We have a sense for how many units Are in that pipeline We don't and that's something we're actually in the process of doing right now. We have a A few hundred that are in this legalization program and One of our staff members is going through and looking at You know what the deficiency is relative to the zoning code and and we're trying to get our arms around, you know what You know, how many units can benefit from This code my sense is it's on the order of dozens dozens, okay and then a clarification on When a submitted or you've heard language being permitted. So a permitted ad you will not have the owner occupancy requirement Is that an occupancy permit? It's a it's a permit issuance So that means you Hold your permit. So anyone so hold your building permit Hold your building permit, right? So we have some folks that have approved permits right now and they're waiting until after the first to pull them Which is you know, they're prerogative to do that Right, okay, that clarifies that thanks Then in the category of other changes the reduction fees relating to 75 or 750 square foot in smaller ad use There are will be no impact fees, right? Can you tell us approximately how much those fees are? Let's say for 750 square foot ad you what would they roughly be? So, okay, so that's Parks is a square foot fee, right? Or is it a flat fee? Square foot so so yeah, okay. I'm gonna do some we're gonna do some math all together here So schools are in the neighborhood of three to 350 a square foot um parks are in the neighborhood of four or five dollars a square foot um And then water is a little bit more complicated like I said They typically they have had up until now a development fee for a water connection for an adu and it's already Their fee study has already contemplated that different types of housing have different water usage amounts and therefore different fees so rough estimate my I'm gonna guess that that is a savings of between 2,500 and seven thousand dollars depending on exactly how big the adu is and um, you know what I mean, I guess everything in the city is in one school district. So that that's all the same fee So yeah, that's my that's my guess and the the water fee if it was applicable I believe the water fee in and of itself Yeah, seven or eight thousand dollars a portion of that would still apply because it's not a portion of it is not an impact fee so, um It's a little bit. It's a little bit complicated to answer that question But a substantial savings when you consider that as a proportion of the overall cost of construction Right, right, okay Then the third point in that same list new construction attached adus Now have the exclusion from utility connection fees Right I'm just curious about so basically the only one that Is impacted by those fees are detached adus Yes I'm wondering why we wouldn't potentially want to include those in that same Category, I mean, especially if you can show that you're connecting to existing utilities Um That's certainly a policy, you know, that could be pursued. I would want to um I would want the water department to weigh in on that because I mean there's already sort of some angst from that department about how they're going to be covering their costs, you know this Exempting units from fees is great for development. And yes, we need housing We want to do that and we also want to make sure that we are You know providing a good level of service for all of our folks. So I yeah, I mean Potentially, yes, you'd you'd want to hear from the water department about what those fees do and how their fee structure might be adjusted Yeah, just from experience, I know many adus that go in they use existing infrastructure There's no upgrade to Infrastructures other than paying that fee Or no work essentially in many circumstances Um, mr. Spellman, um, commissioner shifrin wanted to chime in is that sure? Yeah from my time on the water commission, I think the you know as a water service provider Under maybe it's prop 218, but The water department has to charge Users for the amount they use they can't subsidize users So I think that's a complication if you're adding more users users because there have been attempts to exempt adus in the past from these fees and it ran into this problem of The requirement the legal requirement that the fees be related to use Um In prop 218, so I think that may be a complication that needs to be worked out with Of course on the other hand if the state law says you have to do it then you have to do it But to the extent that the state law doesn't say that it may be difficult to justify it under Sarah you've gone deep on this to the legislature. Did you hear any discussion of how to reconcile those things or? Well, I mean I think that um I think I think these things come from, you know different moments in time different legislators, you know different sets of priorities Um You know we At a certain point, you know Exempting promoting a type of housing exempting it from all fees is going to sort of Nullify the validity of any existing fee study that that counted on getting fees for all types of housing development So at a certain point not just Santa Cruz, but all jurisdictions are going to be in a place of You know potentially having to completely redo a fee study And then the you know the question becomes are we transferring the obligation for those? That money to other users, right? Are we going to have to increase our fees for multifamily housing because we're not charging them on ad use and we are expecting Now an increased number of them. So I mean this is This is a valid policy question. It's a complicated issue You know, I I think that's um You know something you could provide some comments on I don't know that it's I mean it's not part of our Coordinates, that's really, you know fees are sort of handled separately and by a different department. We do have any thoughts on that No, I I think um if it is of interest to the commission that a recommendation that It's be evaluated and considered and I know that the water department is And even before the new slate of bills Took effect the water department is looking at their system development charges and is planning to have those updated by The middle of next year and so this would fall in line with that I don't know specifically what they're doing with ad use But I know that they're they're looking at revamping their entire fee structure as it relates to system development charges and You could make the recommendation that it be looked into as part of that process. Okay Yeah, I mean my perspective on this was merely from one of It sounds like we're penalizing detached ad use everybody else is getting a pass on it except for the detached ad you that's I mean, there's obviously Reasons why those fees are in place, but that just seems to be the way this is Written or could be read Yeah, it's certainly encouraging a specific style of development Okay, so then the the second point this delay of building code enforcement. I'm not sure I Understand clearly what that Somebody to do Is there an example of where or how this would apply? um, well, yeah, I mean I can I can um I can tell you what it says here so, um In the government code they are adding a section to say um In enforcing building standards Etc. Etc of the health and safety code for an ad you Described below a local agency upon request of an owner For a delay in enforcement shell delay enforcement of a building standard subject to compliance with This new code section added to the health and safety code So the circumstances in which um an owner could request the delay of enforcement are that the ad you was built Before january 1 2020 so any existing ad you Or the ad you was built after january 1 2020 in a jurisdiction that at the time Had a non-compliant ad you ordinance so essentially, um the effect of this is that um Exit ad use that exists. This is I think the intention here is to assist ad use in legalizing So existing ad use that exist that are you know built without benefit of permits um I think would be most typically the ones that would request this delay of enforcement and then um to the health and safety code sp13 added um some responsibilities of the building department so with every um Every time there's an enforcement action taken against a unit like this that qualifies Part of the notice that we provide them has to inform them that they are entitled to a delay of up to five years of any provision um and then they have um Let's see here. What does this say? And then they have up to five years to bring their unit into conformance with the standard that was trying to be enforced So it essentially allows some space for ad use that are legalizing to kind of spread their costs out That's how i'm reading this and understanding it So we're working with our you know building department about how they're gonna, you know adjust their process and their practice about Handling these cases. This is really relevant for ad use that are in our legalization program um I mean, I think in some ways this could really be a benefit it could allow them to You know spread their costs out over a period of five years and that might be a lot more manageable for some folks so So if I understand you're referring to let's say there's a A unit that's not considered a legal ad you today You would recognize it it has to be recognized somehow as an ad you and then they could request essentially the five-year break on Building code enforcement. Yes That's how i'm reading this Yeah, so correct if correcting the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety Okay, that's the key. So if there's something like They aren't meeting the insulation requirements Even of the time in which it was constructed Then you know that is going to create some additional energy Usage over the next five years, but it's not a life safety issue That would allow for the person to legalize something that maybe is a life safety issue But Wait to spend the money towards the things that are less critical Okay, thank you a few more in here on the the So development standards, sorry Why do we have a greater square footage on conversion accessory dwelling units Um essentially so um this This has been a policy interpretation that we as staff have been implementing So when a structure already exists to be converted We're not mitigating any sort of you know community or neighborhood effect of like bulk or Um, you know lot coverage water infiltration by limiting the size of that space to Um, you know the size that we would allow for new construction. You know, we have limits on new construction to kind of You know have some Say over our urban design and the way that our you know the fabric of our community kind of develops In the case of an existing structure, um, we just didn't see the logic in implement in Implementing a limit on size that said It does seem that having no limit on the size of a conversion is also not really reasonable I mean, there are some you know, there are horse barns out there that You know are 30,000 square feet potentially Maybe there's two in the city limits, but um So we've just we're suggesting that we have Codify now this practice of allowing conversion ADUs to go up to 1200 square feet Okay, thank you and on the Large home design permit standards that have been revised I understand that correctly The only adu That would be included in the square footage calculation Is for an attached adu When there is additional work other additions being proposed to that residence Read that correctly Can you point me to a section? Sorry That's a piece of it. I see okay. That's a piece of it on page eight, but it comes up again There's more on page 11 at the top A conversion adu is not included a detached adu is not included and attached adus That are essentially Submitted as a project in and of themselves without substantial work to the home are also not included Which only leaves attached adus with Other work happening to the house essentially it just that doesn't seem Yes. No, that's a good catch. I think um what this should say So the portion of the state law that we are being responsive to with these standards is that we We can delay action on an adu Permit that's submitted in conjunction with a permit action on this on the home or on the other main structure on the site And we also are not allowed to have any we're not allowed to apply any standards But ministerial standards to the adu portion of the project we can delay action on the adu permit until we've Completed our action on the main structure, but we have to only use ministerial processes on the adu So I actually think this needs to be amended Thank you. Um, I think this needs to say Um I'm not sure what this needs to say, but this needs to be amended no adus right out because the only one that is counting is the The attach yeah, I think I think I think it's worth making clear here that um a large home design permit could be triggered In a context of an adu project, um, but not by the adu. So um Let's make that part of our recommendation that we correct this current code says about That's included in what's not This is this is the current code number six is the that's the current current code. Yeah, so we'll need to update that and I think I think sarah's correct that the first portion of this it will need to update to say that That we're not counting the square footage Um towards the trigger of whether a large home design permit is required So right now the way it's it's word that would count for attached if there's an addition to the house And so we can so so sarah, correct me if I'm wrong, but uh, I think we need to have that say that um Whether there is an addition to the house or not The only portion that counts towards a large home design permit is the addition to the house itself and not any addition to the adu Yeah, that's what it needs to say. Not the new adu square footage. Not the new adu square footage. So we need to um, We need to amend that section. Yes. Thank you And on uh, substandard lots on page 10 Yep So I can see this playing out So what happens if the rules that are in place for substandard lots prohibit the 800 square foot adu So let's see the following design standards shall apply but shall not serve to limit accessory dwelling unit to a size of less than 800 square feet So That's We would not apply those standards. So you can we have to allow In theory those coverages could be exceeded Up to the eight hour square foot up to 800 square feet. I mean and this is worth, you know So this is worth having in here also because you know some substandard lots They may be eligible based on size for a 1000 square foot adu um You know the state law doesn't obligate us to approve every application that comes to us um Every application of 800 square feet and smaller. Yes, we are obligated to approve. So that's why We're referencing that size. Okay and then um section b the same substandard lots As the adu area Count in those calculations Yes And Shall not serve to limit the unit to less than 800 square feet age 12 Number six this talks about parking permits now for adu's And we're gonna limit the number of permits To only the number that the house would have been allowed to have essentially I'm just curious on the Process there Well, so that's you know, that's part of our existing code. So it's not underlined So that's existing code language. Um, and I think that comes from policy in the Parking program already to not provide additional permits to to properties with adu's Okay, so I guess it highlights a potential conflict moving forward if we're gonna allow To adu's on a parcel sure addition to a home Right and potentially eliminate parking so and parking and so yeah, and so adus are already Locally not no adu is required to provide any parking And the addition this year locally is that We also now cannot require any parking to be replaced that's removed in order to accommodate an adu so you know The both the legislature and and and frankly, you know the city also I think has Made a conscious choice to prioritize housing for people over storage for cars and There are moments and neighborhoods where that is going to be less comfortable than other moments and other neighborhoods And that's you know, that's just true Okay on that point I would say that um Under the next section two covered parking same page, right now we're restricting Plumbing fixtures and and the potential to convert spaces for parking By specifically saying you can't have those things Essentially in fear that people would do it and not permit it Yes, I'm sorry you're looking at so the current code, right? My point would be don't we want to allow these spaces to easily be converted in the future as opposed to not be easily converted If we don't allow for the potential for future plumbing or Things like that So yes, we do want to allow spaces to be converted our Code is focused on ensuring that that happens with permits um, so I think that's where that language is really coming from it's just Making sure that what where that Where conversions happen it's done with a building permit I'm not I'm not saying it's not but I think we're going out of our way to say you can't do a lot of things Which which would make it more difficult to convert later, especially if you're on a slab foundation Yeah, that's true. I mean you can do it with I mean you you just you need a z a permit and a land use agreement That says it's not a unit until you get a permit to make it a unit So, I mean we don't prohibit it outright, but you're right. I mean we do make it more complicated for folks That's that's all I had. Thanks Make sure greenberg and then commissioner nielson Yeah, thank you. Um I was wondering about a couple of things one is um, the discussion in the documents On adu ordinance amendments, um That gave a little background on the deed restrictions associated with affordability Where it's on page seven When the city council reviewed the last round of adu amendments and this is associated with the owner occupation Okay Waving about When the city council reviewed the last round of adu amendments in january and february of this year staff was directed To conduct a community outreach process to discuss the option for moving owner occupancy requirements for me to use In exchange for a deed restriction that would limit the rent collected on one of the two units on a property There by creating a housing unit for a moderate or low income qualified renter to pay an affordable rent But because this new legislation no longer requires the owner occupancy That's not um and at issue and I was wondering first what the The process was behind the staff being You know directed to um Move in that pursue that. Yeah, sure. Yeah, so last year um Last year around the same time I was here before the planning commission and we were going through A set of amendments to the adu code that were a combination of updates that were required by the state law at the time in addition to A number of proposals that had come Um out of the housing blueprint process which had been conducted earlier in 2017 and um And out of community outreach specifically around adu's and so there was a whole suite of amendments that we brought forward to the commission and then to the council and one of those was um Lifting the owner occupancy requirement um This is something that existing owners of adu's are Some I mean not all but you know They are the strongest voices in the room to remove the owner occupancy requirement are folks that own adu's already and are limited by that standard um We we do have a program for um adu's That are legalizing and so for adu's that are currently exist without permits and would be able to get permits For everything except for the fact that it's not an owner-occupied Property we have had in place for a few years a program that would allow that unit to get legalized to get a building permit And would allow the owner to continue to live elsewhere and rent both units On the condition that one of those units was rented to an income qualified household at an affordable rent It allowed them to accept section eight vouchers, which are essentially a market rate rent So this was a really good deal and we were only providing this deal to people who were had built without permits or violated an existing land use agreement so um rightly People who are playing by the rules Said we want that same deal that you're giving people who Didn't play by the rules so that was sort of the beginning of it and then At the beginning of the year this year it looked like we were going to lose that standard entirely and we thought Why engage in what is bound to be a pretty contentious process one way or the other Come up with a set of standards and then just have them You know sort of yanked out of our hands by the state saying you can't apply any owner occupancy Requirement it just seemed like a lot of wasted effort. So we didn't engage with that this year They had you know Whether or not it's still it would make sense to Apply affordability to those existing homeowners Now if we you know went forward to like recommend that we remove owner occupancy in exchange for affordability on existing ad us You know, I think it's a little bit of a different conversation now Given the direction that the state has gone with these adu regulations and removing owner occupancy for new units, you know, it's sort of um Folks that are coming in to legalize now They just kind of get everything they don't have to live on the property They can you know completely legalize it and they'll never have to have a land use agreement that requires owner occupancy um it's I think some existing property owners are probably rightly upset about that So, you know, that's kind of some of the background. This is you know at the time a year ago It seemed like this might be a way to create some affordability You know and open up the like create some potential for more ad us to be created by allowing a little bit of investor development On condition of affordability So it was something we were going to engage with in the community and um, you know, we'll take it up again this year So um And i'm just thinking about the earlier question about how affordable Existing ad us are and we'll see their results of the survey and so forth, but I don't know if this is an ongoing conversation given this shift Both about like what it might do to existing affordability now that this change is in place, um for both existing ad us and and the non-compliant previously non-compliant ones But also potential other incentives and I know that in the other um in the document ordinance you have You know fee waivers for instance and other types of incentives and I don't know if this is an ongoing conversation about you know Ways to encourage affordability incentivize affordability. Yeah, and there you know there is um I think there's a lot of content there potentially. Um, I I do think you know, it's It is challenging also, you know, um the issue with ad us One of the issues relative to affordability is that um, there's really no economy of scale, you know, you're building one unit You know, so your construction costs are just what they are, you know 300 plus dollars a square foot. You know, I don't know exactly what they are today. I know they keep going up Um, and you know, there's no real way to economize in in terms of you know, building more than one unit at a time and potentially there is that a little bit now with these junior ad us and With a lower level of amenities, those might be providing some lower cost housing You know, I I think there's a lot of meat there. Yes, there's also um a state bill one of the bills that passed this year Requires jurisdictions to come up with ideas for creating affordability in their housing elements so, um Luckily for Santa Cruz Um, our region is after the san francisco bay region. So we'll get to um Sheet off their homework. Yes, learn from them. That's what we should say Um About, you know, what those what those tools might be, you know, short of a loan program which, you know, a loan program really could Facilitate that and so where would that funding come from and what are the options hcd is also supposed to be compiling a list for us of funding sources potentially for adu development so I'm optimistic that there might be some options out there. Um I don't have them right now. It's a challenge You know, we want these to be affordable and I think some of them genuinely are Um, yeah, but not all of them and not always and there are a lot of factors, right for sure. Yeah um, and uh Along those lines. Yeah, I was I had a question about loan programs and it would be interesting to research about but also, um When you previously had the model adu designs I would imagine that some of the costs, um, and I know it's important for architects to have Jobs But at the same time it can be good to have existing templates Um for folks and I don't know if you're thinking of updating or employing some, you know, architects to update Uh those designs So that was something, you know, sort of a guidance documentation of all kinds like, you know Stock plans and like how to do a garage conversion guidance and you know What how to finance a construction project that was um, that is stuff that we would like to Get into and engage with. Um, you know, it's a matter of like, I hate to say this all the time, but like staff capacity um, yeah, and Also, I will say, you know the stock plans 29 the stock plans are in a really different place in 2019 2020 than they were in 2003 2004 So I you know and prefab construction is also in a really different place And things were at that time You know, we had some challenges with maintaining our own stock plans that um, you know, I think there probably are ways to address those We did, you know, they just they didn't develop as many units as we've had hoped They were great for publicity. They got a lot of people thinking about what an ad you might be like on their property And then there were a lot of people who said I want this but I want the mirror version because my site is oriented You know this way instead of that way or I want this but let's add another bathroom and then you just you kind of you just lose all that Yeah, you know economy that you had there. So that said Santa Rosa who is Rebuilding like crazy Has pursued that model of having some pre-approved plans And so I'll be interested to see what their experience has been with that because our experience, you know 15 years ago was that You know great marketing tool, but like Not that many units actually got created. So I just you know, who knows exactly why that was Okay First I'd like to thank you for going through all this and In such a short amount of time that you you haven't been given a lot of time to get through it all and I appreciate you really digging into it and doing it. So thank you for that I have a question about multifamily. Um, so For the conversion 25 percent I think I understand that but what I don't quite know is how the decimal is going to be handled Oh, good question. Do you have a recommendation? Well, you gave an example of a duplex So we have to allow at least one. Okay. So it's at least one conversion for the property. Yes You know one conversion and then two detached Um So I don't know. I mean, I I think What I mean, what what other standards do we have the word where we deal with death decimals is it Are we at half? Do we go up or I mean, it is there another example in our ordinance? Let's see. Hang on Let me look what it says. Let's read the text exactly out of the state law Let's figure out what our obligation and leeway might be Up to 25 percent of the existing so up to 25 percent suggests that we could round down Oh Yeah, that's Yes, that's what it would shall allow up to 25 percent. Okay, so that there's the answer I guess so I If your commission feels that we should move, you know These are minimum standards and we can be more generous as You know, we prefer locally. So, you know, if You think we should round up at point five. Well, I mean, I think I mean if I think so, but I mean I I'm open to hearing Other people's or other commissioners points of view on that But it sounds like what I didn't understand is that in the in the law it says At least one but up to 25. Yes. It says yes Shall allow at least one 80 within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 of the existing multifamily dwelling units Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, so then the other Questions I had and and may and it might go back to what you how you started out Your presentation in talking about all the bills That have been passed But in terms of the ones that the one that you're really dealing with is 881 yes, that's one that has the final text. So Okay, and maybe that makes sense Because I was reviewing some stuff from ab 68 That seemed to be in conflict with what was proposed in In this in these amendments. So Is that is that probably why that that is the case? Yeah, I mean, there's this whole process when multiple bills amend the same section of text and So I don't um, it's not my intention to be dramatic But it took three days of phone calls to Sacramento to figure out which section was the final text that we needed to be working from And or maybe I do want to be a little bit dramatic. It was it was dramatic at the time Um Yeah, so so with with each of those bills you have to you have to read all the way to the end and usually like sections, you know five and six aren't say like You know section one and two of this bill will become effective if ab 68 and ab 13 pass and 881 doesn't and it's like all of this Stuff about which passes first and which one goes this and so then you look and see which one was chaptered last Based on the number they get assigned a number as they're chaptered um It's like they produce this delightful little scavenger hunt for us In this process, so I guess I guess the I guess one question I have about that is um, the correspondence we did receive Was relating to ab 68 Right, right. So is that is is that why you guys feel like I mean you you made the modification but um But but in the your original Intention was to not follow that and was that because it's not in 881 well, so The letter that they sent honestly, I read it through it again, and I I don't know How they intend us to read that two-story ad use continue to be required They've deleted the only reference to two-story ad use in the law um so Additionally, um, you know, we this is this is a letter from one legislator There are three bills that passed and I have not you know, we don't know what we would hear from all of the Legislators and then the entire legislature passed these bills Um, I have not been able to find doesn't mean it's not there But I have not been able to find anything in writing about the legislative intent that's explicit about two-story ad use So I know this is an interpretation That we're saying, you know forced four-foot setbacks on a 22 foot tall structure is um Inadequate undesirable squishy And Based on my reading, I feel like it's a reasonable interpretation of it That said I'm not interested in like, you know going through a bunch of like sermon drawing to create a local standard That then next year the state comes back and says oh and also remember ad use above garages. You always have to allow those four-foot setbacks so, you know We struggled with this, you know, this is a piece where they they aren't explicit They don't give us a lot of guidance and I have an email from from assembly member blooms office saying Yes, that means you can just you can exclude two-story ad use if that's your choice so We're not getting consistent messaging from the state And I think this is one of the challenges that they are under too, you know, they we don't have a lot of time to digest this you know, they Similarly work all year I think kind of at this pace where they're like making amendments and Changing language and going to subcommittee meetings and changing this and then combining with the other bill and deciding when are they going to Consolidate into one bill and when are they going to maintain them as separate and hope that they get chaptered in a certain way? you know, I don't It's complicated. I don't have a simple answer Yeah, okay. Well again, I Appreciate you going through it all And trying to make sense of it all I do have Some questions in the i'm refer i'm in the um In your amendment strikeout underline document This is on page eight and um There's a at the at the bottom of the page. There's sections 14 15 and then and then to the next page there's 16 lined out Yeah, but those sections like some of those sections are still Like for example 16 is green building standards. That's lined out, but above it as Number 12. It's still there. Yes. Those were inadvertently duplicated last year So, um, I'm that's just a straight up correction. Got it. Um, okay, but but And since we're here, I do have a question just going back to and I guess you could tell me that I shouldn't be referring at all The to ab 68 and that's fine. I can I can a lot of the language is the same. So let's So one of the things that I seen here it says, um There's some wording here that says no other local ordinance policy or regulation shall be Uh, the basis for the not denial of a building permit or a use permit under the subdivision Um, so I'm wondering Our green building standards. That's an ordinance and is that Um, we because we are requiring a certain um level of We have a difference between conversion and um and new Um, so is that is that a are we are we in an area where we shouldn't be with this? So, um So first of all that language is in ab 881 and in fact in the section that is the final text it reads No other local ordinance policy or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or use permit application under the subdivision And The green building program is um Part of our completeness review so in the same way that Buildings have to apply comply with the building code When and we will not accept an application or deem it complete until they comply with the building code That is the same for the green building standards so, um Yes, I think we're okay keeping that and also you may remember that last year your commission recommended that we delete That language that holds 80 ueds to a different standard than single family dwellings The council rejected that at the time and encouraged us to or encouraged directed us. They don't encourage they directed us to um Look at ways that we could connect relieving folks of that requirement with affordability When we go back to the council this year We intend to take them an analysis about that that removing this standard is unlikely to generate any affordability And therefore we should just go ahead and delete it. We're going to be recommending that again to the council with new analysis and also Should they not should they choose not to go there and they want to keep that standard? I think we're okay I think that's I think that would be allowed under this state law I I think I understand what you're saying. It's not It's not that the permits are denied based on Not meeting those requirements. They're just I mean The standards are extra, you know some it's just an incomplete application It's an incomplete application, you know and some applications It's not hard for them to meet and other applications. It starts to get challenging Um, but those are delays that are on the applicants time They are pre before the application is complete, right? um So then another question that I have and I Yeah, I guess it does. I mean again this comes from 68, but um It says this bill would delete the provision authorizing the imposition of standards on lock coverage And would prohibit in an ordinance from imposing requirements on minimum lot size so uh in On page 10. It's in the same document Going to section 5 about substandard lots there is There's um, just there's text in here about lock coverage, right? So how does that um, how is that in compliance with this state law? so The way they write these bills at the state, um I was talking to one of the legislative aides about, you know, what it says in the law And what she thought it should say And she's like we just tell legislative counsel what we want it to say and then they write it So, um, I think sometimes there's there are things that get lost in translation because what they The change that they made To eliminate using lock coverage as a standard They changed they changed this sentence. It says, um, this is subsection b a subsection section 65 85 2.2. So government code, um ad use little a1 big b um, what ordinances shall do In post standards on an accessory dwelling on accessory dwelling units that include but are not limited to parking height setback Deleted lock coverage landscape architectural review maximum size of a unit and standards that prevent adverse impacts to real property listed in the california register of historic resources So it says including but not limited to so deleting something from that list is really ineffective um, also Later in the in the law under a section little c1 big c about Setting minimum and maximum sizes So this is what um We shall not do Is um established by ordinance any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit Based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling dwelling unit or limits on lock coverage Floor area ratio open space minimum lot size for either attached or detached dwelling units that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit so, um Did they delete lock coverage as a standard because I see it in multiple places. So, um We are complying with this section that says we can't use those standards to Prohibit someone from building an 800 square foot unit um And we keep we have those standards in our code and um, and I believe under this as long as we allow an 800 square foot unit to Exceed them. We have met our obligation. Okay. I hear what you're saying. Yes That's fine. Is that for me? Thank you very much vice chair spelman. You guys have one more question on the 60 day rule for approval Could you clarify for us some of that language just for everyone's benefit? Is that 60 calendar days? And what does it mean for a project to be deemed complete to start that clock And one for and then what would happen in the case that the 60 days expires So so I can answer that so in in terms of um our review timelines once we have a complete eric will can answer what a complete application is um When we once we have um a complete application We are essentially ready to issue the permit. So the way that we structure our process is that we accept applications that we know We can approve so, um We are not concerned about meeting that 60 day timeline our timelines are typically less than that um and We hold all of these standards if they're not complying with the standard. It's not a complete application It's not one that we can you know, it's not going to make it far through the process And we reject those over the counter before we take them in So um in terms of what a complete application is I'll let eric well when when a building permit application comes in It gets routed to various departments and every department is reviewing it for consistency with their applicable codes that they administer and um, and then they comment back on those and It's at the point when all of the departments have accepted Their review as being complete or approved is when that clock starts ticking So not much of incentive to what currently happens essentially Understand that right The change from 120 to 60 I mean, yeah, we are we're already, you know faster than that if you you know, if you consider what a complete application is I should have asked this earlier, but for the benefit of everybody Since we're gonna go to public comment And you just help people understand what you mean when you say ministerial permit Of course. Thank you for that question. So, um ministerial permit is a permit that's reviewed Based on objective standards and criteria And reviewed at a staff level does not require any application of discretion by staff or public hearing body and does not require a public hearing or notice Thanks, and then my question was do you don't have any The compliance with the creeks and wetlands plan doesn't you don't have any Concerned that that's you can still call that honoring ministerial permit grant granting that So, you know, the I think the language that we choose there we we want to choose that language carefully So similar to the language we chose for the secretary of the interior standards. It's substantial compliance That keeps us out of um requiring sequa on an on an adu so We think we can do that we think we you know, we review things for substantial compliance with you know With the general plan and and other parts of the zoning code. So I think Um, honestly, I think this is the best we can get Because we can't require a water course development permit for an 800 square foot adu I hope we can not I mean, I hope I hope we can get this right the the intent is to uh still be able to achieve those important protections repairing protections or historic preservation protections And still operate under the legislative mandate to issue a ministerial permit and so we will be reviewing for the standards that are spelled out in the streams and wetlands documents as well as the secretary of the interior standards and That review will occur as part of the ministerial process Okay, you don't feel like we're out on a limb there. That's safe, right? I well we have coordinated with our attorneys and um We think that um the State code gives us the flexibility to apply standards It explicitly calls out the historic preservation criteria Which is why that was in the initial draft and With the other criteria as sarah was mentioning it identifies that we have the ability to provide wide range of standards and in in the case of streams and wetlands The setbacks from that document would be a part of those standards that we would be reviewing the application for conformance with Thanks any other questions before we go to public comment So this is a public hearing we'll invite members of the public to Come and address the commission open the public comment now and if You don't we can't require you to offer your name, but we invite you to do that and ask you to and could sign in And then come to the lectern everyone can be given two minutes The lights will go to yellow to let you know you're about out of time and then red And you'll hear a beep when it's when time is up Please help me as the facilitator of the meeting to finish your sentence and wrap up your comments um when that happens and That's all thank you. Yes. Hi. I have a question about setbacks um, I know now that um an existing building like a garage Can be on the property line and If you add to that building Can you go along that same Property line to add or do you have to come in four feet when you add to that building? One thing I one thing I should have clarified also is that it's that's a little ungratifying because it's not a dialogue We just invite you to offer your comments and then all right, and then we'll try to address them when we close public comment all right, uh, just another suggestion about um affordable housing if you really wanted affordable housing um You would allow people to live in detached bedrooms You know you could have a a small little building Meeting building codes but not having any utilities per se That where they use the house that and it would be way more inexpensive To uh to do that and and allow more bedrooms and more people to live because the the code enforcement loves to Tell you that it's a detached bedroom. You're not allowed to sleep in it And I don't see what is inherently degrading or scary about sleeping in a detached bedroom That's my comment. Thank you for your comments Welcome Thank you. My name is Eric Schneider. Um, thank you all for your work. I really appreciate it I'm really happy to see the state's guidelines to create more housing in Santa Cruz. Uh, I'm a landlord I've been a tenant and I um, I want to I guess I want to say a couple of things. I want to say something about the uh, rental inspection A department I had I recently had a non permitted dwelling shut down by the rental inspection Unit and I believe that Santa Cruz is losing a huge amount of housing both known and unknown by By the rental inspection program under the auspices or under the uh, the pretext of health and safety And I think that given the Desire to create more housing It is uh, it's sad Because a lot of people are are affected both landlords and I have landlord friends who Uh, are elderly who are sick who depend on that and We including I'm no longer scared because I was caught But we are scared and it's it's really Unfortunate this five-year delay will give some Some kind of sense but to kind of actively go after and there's a very aggressive That the planning department has with the rental inspection to actively go after People for non permitted dwellings in this climate. I think is a really stupid policy um I also want to just address briefly the um, I think that to do anything to limit the housing encouraging low-income housing in ways but to to put land restrictions do whatever you can to Make intelligent safe housing and that's what the state's requiring you to do. Thank you Thank you for your comments Welcome. Hi, good evening. My name is John wizard. I work here locally and and one of the things I do is monitor local ordinances um, so Very quickly because there's only two minutes. Um, so ad use are are naturally affordable naturally occurring affordable housing because they're physically smaller but Uh in an economic model the market still bears the highest rents. So Your points well taken for for your comments, um just as a for instance if I own a home and My parents live somewhere else and one of them has a stroke and I leave to go take care of them I can't now rent out my ad you because I don't live in my home But it's not because I'm choosing to it just happened So there's I generally am not a big fan of owner occupancy requirements because it harms people who have the best of intentions to your question, um So the inclusionary housing ordinances and uh state density bonus law all say round up when you have a decimal So those are state law. Those are local ordinances. They all say round up whether it's point zero one Point one point nine round up. So there is a legal basis for you to to ask such a question um So I was really excited to hear that that assembly member ting's office sent that um, I looked at the law and I thought wow, that's Um, or the proposed ordinance and I thought well, that's really interesting and then I thought well Assembly member ting authored ab 68. So I that's interesting that he tracked that and and followed up with you guys so I I appreciate that kind of give and take and I generally not excited that like Assembly member bloom is talking about somebody else's laws though He knows the intent of what assembly member ting did but that's a whole different thing. Um So I just I I'm appreciative of the the compromise because I know that Santa Cruz has been a leader in ADUs and when I saw that 20 foot setback I thought that seems a little bit on a risk because we're talking about land. It's not binary It's there there aren't even things and there are things that are naturally occurring So I'm just really grateful that you guys are willing to to have that conversation Excuse me. So thank you very much Thank you for your comments Are there any there any other speakers after? Welcome Yeah, um about that welcome. I have no idea why I'm given the time spent with Questioning and all and the number of people in the room why you would limit comment to two minutes Absolutely. No idea why you would do that My name is mark primack. I uh was actually one of the architects Contributing a design to that original manual Uh, there were six paid. I was on the city council. Um, I couldn't I get paid to do that work, but none of the architects Would lower themselves to design a garage conversion. So I volunteered such a design my single mom built that Garage conversion. She acted as a general contractor soup to nuts everything city fees 38,000 dollars That was in 2005 10 years later, I watched another woman stand up before the city council Explained that she and her husband had just gotten their permit pull their permit for an adu in their backyard They hadn't put a shovel in the ground and they'd already spent 50 000 dollars I think when we talk about affordability the buck stops here. It's city departments It's a city policy that ruins the affordability of adu Um, I think I can shed some light on the five year clauses in the state bills I've been tracking these bills and it's generally three steps forward one step back The bills this in this round basically spoke of Doing away entirely with the owner occupancy requirement retrospect retroactively that it would know all of that and um, and so the compromise was five years for the new stuff and within five years Probably even within the next year that the owner Occupant requirement will go away and that and I say good riddance and it'll save the city a lot of hassle And it'll bring a lot of people forward to create adus the same as true of the Well, I could tell you I could explain the five year Delay on enforcing codes, but I'm out of time. Thank you for your comments This will be the final speaker unless anyone else Welcome uh, my year is just perked up a little bit when um, you know, we were talking about the uh, 60 day requirement for approving um a an application and Prior to that approval there is a process for um, uh, Verifying the completeness of that application. I was just wondering if there are any sort of standards or or policies around how long that review process takes and if not I'm curious how long typically that review process does take and Whether or not it would be warranted to develop some standards to so that people have an understanding of how you know, so There could be some expediency in in working to get an application completed Thank you. Thank you Any other comments for the commission so we'll close the Public comment I can respond to the previous question Please do sure the the policy is um from submittal to the first round of comments is a three week turnaround um, and then when the The application is resubmitted or the design is resubmitted. It's it's down to two weeks Um, and it can oftentimes be less than that if it's just very minor type of corrections that need to be made That's the policy That policy comes from state law right completeness reviews a 30-day letter. No, that's our internal policy for building permits. I see And if it pleases the commission, there were two other questions that I think I tracked at least we could respond to please do There was a question about Or a comment about not being able to leave and help out a sick parent um, and we do have um provision whereby the I believe it's a council approval correct Requires council approval. Yeah, it requires council approval, but it is set up for scenarios just like that and I believe it's up to two years Yeah, it's one year and then administratively the planning director can extend for another year So so there are options for for special situations like that So I just wanted to to put that out there and then there was another question about existing building Like a garage on a on a property line and adding on to that Sarah I'm gonna put you on the spot. Sure. Yeah. Um, so um, so currently the code allows garages to be built at a zero setback You could build a new garage at a zero setback and there are many existing garages that are built Sometimes surprised they're over the property line Which is you know, always fun when we find that but so they can be built at a zero setback New construction that is not going to be a garage does have to meet the setbacks that are required today in the zoning code. So, um, for Um, accessory structures, those are by feet For a single story ad use they're three feet for three feet for a single story ad you and for accessory structures Do you know there is no setbacks for except just for non habitable accessory over non habitable Okay, right. So like a garage you could continue that at the zero setback I'm sorry I'll try to cut off the public comment at the end of that. Sorry We're available for questions I mean I can I can be available after tonight's meeting and then um, I'm my phone number's on the website I'm happy to answer any questions about ad use And where you did you want to address any other questions from public comment? a detached bedroom Maybe clarifying for So at this point We do not allow detached bedrooms There are instances where They can be used for pool houses and things of that sort, but they're not for Sleeping purposes That is something that We've heard not only from the member of the community that stood up here tonight, but from other members of the community as well um, there are building code and planning code Challenges I would say Not necessarily insurmountable, but certainly things that we would need to look at in terms of how we are um In terms of modifying our local regulations and how we're applying statewide regulations of the building code in order to achieve modifications to the current regulations we we do have guest houses allowed, but it's only in A residential suburban zone district and there's very few properties in the city to have that So I'll just add though, um, you know one of the things that is in on the um, the longer term work plan for the Advanced planning section is taking a look at our housing types And that comes out of the housing blueprint is to take a look at, you know Are we providing the right kinds of housing in Santa Cruz? You know, we want to take a look specifically We know we want to look at our sRO and so u ordinances, but also more broadly than that We want to you know junior ad use we're initially going to be part of that project like Should be allowed junior ad use and should be allowed junior ad use maybe in multifamily Property should we be allowed more than one in a single family home? You know these and some of that might get rolled in with the you know work that we begin in the spring time around ad use and junior ad use Um, because I think there is definitely some hay to be made there with those ideas But this concept of a detached bedroom would certainly be part of that bigger conversation around are we creating the right kind of Housing for the needs of our community detached bedrooms might be an option lodging houses might be an option Allowing a mix of unit types when you have an sRO or so you so it's not just like a monoculture of those types of units There's that's a conversation. It's on our long range work program It hasn't been prioritized for the six months that we're in right now But I have a feeling it will appear in some form on our two your work plan, which is going to go to council at some point It'll be a three-year work plan that goes to council and It'll be within the next six months Okay, thank you commissioner shifrin Okay, I'll lead off. I thought you were leaning into your mic No, I wasn't but I'm happy to start um Given the public comments given most of the comments of the other commissioners I have an alternative perspective. I think on accessory dwelling units My approach or my feeling about them is more ambivalent I think they are a potential source of housing. I think the state law now has Changed the nature of what an accessory dwelling unit is it's no longer an accessory dwelling unit The condominium I live in is less than the maximum Uh size of an accessory dwelling unit My concern is one of trying to strike a balance between providing more housing and essentially destroying the single family neighborhoods that exist in Santa Cruz Through allowing two three four Units on every single family home property Not only is this going to Create lots more people in neighborhoods, which is going to change them But my particular concern is losing the owner occupancy requirement is going to mean that Families will no longer be able to afford housing because they'll be bought up by investors who will then be converting them to As many units as they can squeeze on the property I'm concerned about the elimination of parking and what that's going to do in terms of The livability of neighborhoods My sister used to live in jersey city In a neighborhood that had no off-street parking because all the houses were built before there were cars And there were knockdown drag-out fights over parking cars were destroyed because somebody parked in somebody else's space in front of their house We're moving towards creating Publix making public streets into private parking lots So that washings in street now Is not available for public parking downtown at all and I think as we lose parking spaces We're going to see more and more of that. So I think What's missing from state law that I see is not only the Attempt by the state to have a broad brush and control development in every community no matter what its characteristics Taking away from local government the ability to determine the quality of life in its community Without much of a sense of balance So my sense is that's the law I can I will support the staff recommendations I do have two suggestions to make Given my concern about parking as I think about how parking is being reduced and eliminated It seems to be based on the notion that people if they can't have a place to park their car they're not going to have a car and that's a Questionable assumption, but I think As we want to encourage people to use other modes of transportation we want to encourage bike bike bicycling and Bus passes, I'd like the commission to Recommend that we add some provisions that tenants and accessory dwelling units be provided bus passes and that accessory dwelling units provide in closed space for bicycles because the To leave your bicycle outside is dangerous as I think those of us who do it know And I think it's possible to include within Space within an accessory dwelling unit that would allow people to Park their bikes and would encourage bike parking I also in another area feel that It's important that the design guidelines That the city has adopted in various Neighborhoods in the community be adhered to as part of the accessory dwelling unit permits as and I think it's Legal to do that as long as it does it wouldn't prevent a unit ad you of at least 800 square feet and I think I think one of the things I like about The state law is it does have different provisions for ad us that are up to 200 800 square feet and Opposed to those that are greater and I think as a couple of speakers have said Having smaller ad use is going to have at least cheaper market rents because Market rents are cheaper for smaller units. So I think encouraging Smaller units is consistent with state law So as I said, I've I've shared my Transportation concerns with staff and my design suggestions with staff and I was told that there wasn't this disagreement That they were consistent with the law Steph wouldn't recommend them but on the other hand, I think they're they're they're not contrary to what the law Requires so when it's time to make a motion, I'm going to request it Those changes be added to the ordinance as well Could could you repeat the last two changes just Well under parking which is number not Number two under development standards I would add language all ad u tenants over the age of 18 shall be provided free bus passes as appropriate And then a number two that would say ad u shall contain adequate enclosed space to store at least one bicycle per bedroom And then under 14 or create a 14 which would say design ad u shall conform to the design guidelines that may apply to the parcel proposed for development As long as such conformance does not make an ad u up to 800 square feet infeasible And just for clarification Who provides the bus pass landlord Okay, so then we'll be required to buy a bus pass And what what did you say about bike parking? Can you repeat that that? That ad u shall contain adequate enclosed space to store At least one bicycle per bedroom. Now, of course, if somebody doesn't have a bike they have more storage which In smaller units is desirable as well, but I think allowing um, I have the the kind of minion project that live in Does not provide any internal space And actually doesn't provide any external space for bike parking and in in my particular unit We ended up building a shed to hold the bikes because We didn't want to leave them outside in the rain and a little tiny patio that we had So I think, you know, if one of the goals here is to encourage people not to be having cars not to be using cars Then we should do more than say you can't we're not going to require you to provide We're not going to require parking. We need to start taking actions To really provide the facilities and the infrastructure that's going to make the provision of Providing incentive for bicycle parking. We do that for multifamily For multifamily projects. I think there is a way to do it for single-family buildings as well Mr. Singleton All right I've got a clarifying question really quick before I get into a bunch of stuff So for staff just in response to one of the public commenters For garage on a property line If you wanted to build an ad on top of the garage, would you be required to terrace it back from the property line? Or would that be allowed to a but? Yeah, so that that gets into our two-story standards that we're proposing so Today The way the state law is written we we allow an ad you to be built above a garage at a five foot setback from the side and rear So yes, it does have to be stepped back what we're Proposing here would allow an ad you to be built above a garage at five foot side setback and 10 foot rear setback And so on the the issue of the five versus side versus 10 And the the state reasoning in the staff report now you said out loud was that You said that a four foot setback, which is For a 16 foot tall two-story ad you was insufficient for a 22 foot tall ad you And that you increased the the setback Versus what some member Tang and his staff had sent To us to be 10 feet As a respect for privacy So i'm just curious what is the benefit of privacy versus the rear lot line versus the side lot line So i live in a really dense neighborhood Um, and i've got people on all sides of me many two stories look right into my backyard I have someone Was in my backyard on the back line looking in the same Why is the 10 feet versus five feet for the rear line different than the sideline privacy wise? Sure. Yeah So, um, I think just typically Side setbacks are smaller than rear setbacks So the setbacks for a a typical single family home in a single family home district are Five feet on the side and 20 feet on the rear Um, and it it has to do with you know when when two houses are facing the street You know no one's windows are looking out then onto your backyard, right? Like if all the houses are kind of built in the same Envelopes in proxen in you know relatively on their sites Um, so I think folks just tend to be more sensitive about that rear property line and yes, there are configurations of parcels in which it's less relevant You know we're back you know rear property lines But up against someone else's side property line and it's a you know a little bit squishy and not everything is just one You know idealized planning interior parcel of 50 feet by 100 feet um and Typically in planning we see more sensitivity around the rear setback than around the side setback So that's I mean this is just sort of building on our current practice and our you know historic What's in our zoning code for other types of structures? Okay, so it it's largely just because people feel better about it Yes, I mean and I think also legitimately it does based on how parcels are oriented It does provide more space and and setback um For rear properties for for backyards Is there any way we could address that worry about privacy through design guidelines and placement of windows versus say like setbacks? I mean possibly yeah, I mean it's also you know, it's a matter of this is a subjective thing right like i'm not um This isn't the only way to to do this like different communities have different design standards and they set things up in different ways and um You know it's about local context And this is what we feel like really reflects our local context because it's also you know, it's about shade. It's about bulk It's about the you know sense that you're That your space in in the in a rear yard is Is private whether or not there's a you know a blank wall or a wall with windows The proximity I think does make a difference in how people feel about their property. So Like I said, it's subjective, you know, if your commission wants to make a different recommendation. Um, that is absolutely your privilege Okay All right, um, those are my technical questions. I guess I'll just get kind of right into how I feel which is You correctly diagnosed commission shift from very different from you and a lot of areas which is fine I'm more for one. I'm very thankful at the state is stepping in for a lot of these guidelines to make it A lot easier to build a to use. Um, I see them as A much more approachable um and easier frankly politically easier form of housing to get passed especially if we're gonna switch to Essentially providing a basic riot and almost to be every Residential area to build a build an 800 square foot adu. However, you can get it done I mean, I think that's great. And the fact that's a ministerial Approval process through 60 days. I mean, I think that's those are all steps in the right direction um You know the setbacks thing If it makes people feel better, I mean, I I I'm much more inclined to support the stack of recommendation with the four-foot setback for Two-store adus, but for the sake of just moving forward and moving us in the right direction I'm I'm I'm fine with the 10 the 10 foot rear setback as a compromise um In terms of just the impacts that adus have on neighborhoods. I mean, I've lived in A lot of adus. I've lived in adu that a public speaker had here Uh, I I've even lived in a council member's adu before. Um, I think they are They're definitely more affordable units than if you're gonna get a two bedroom apartment or something like that You know, but there frankly, there isn't a lot of affordable housing left in Santa Cruz and maybe really struggling to find a bedroom Even just in a house for under a thousand dollars these days So in terms of affordability and if we have the permitting fees, which are going to be tens of thousands of dollars Even with the waivers and because of the water hookups and you know, we have Some anecdotes about really expensive fees and things and you know in talking with people who have built adus recently Including that same council member turns out it was a lot more expensive than he really thought it was going to be Over a hundred thousand dollars in construction fees and everything and that roi Is is is a long long shot. Um, it just takes a while um So, I mean In terms of like how we are imagining our community of the future It means Santa Cruz is going to continue to grow. Um, our population growth rate has been remarkably consistent Between one and two percent a year and it's largely grown with the same population trends of the state So we have to reimagine our neighborhoods and our communities and the densities and we live with if we're going to accommodate a diverse community Um, so i'm less concerned about adus being in neighborhoods in terms of the overall density because I think every neighborhood is going to be More denser in the future. That's just the nature of Of coastal california. We've decided to make concentrated steps of of Of concerted steps of protecting our green belts in our environment open spaces The other end of that compromise is to densify the areas where I think it's appropriate And I think adus are a great way to do that and they're practical and they're they're not to economies of scale But at the same time they allow individual homeowners to make very concrete Rational financial decisions in order to hopefully build and given our awesome codes now and hopefully some new state laws A better incentive to get those things done um I'm really not worried about the owner occupancy requirement in terms of facilitating a bunch of Out of area investment. Um, I think if anything you'd find that more families who aren't able to own homes Would be able to rent out homes where the owner could potentially not have to live in the adu in the back now I think that would actually free up a lot In terms of parking Again, uh, I think our staff said it most eloquently, you know We're really in the business here of trying to house people not cars And I think things that we anything we can do to help promote that Is is a step in the right direction I think it's it's interesting that we have all this talk about parking and the worry about parking and its impacts in the neighborhoods And yet we have the same argument being Uh, hashed out right now in our downtown about whether or not to build a parking garage mixed-use library project because people are worried that we're going to provide parking. Um, I mean, it's We at the same time we want to promote bike parking and want to encourage people out of the cars And I want to have housing for out of cars, but it's interesting that I hear that A lot of folks saying that, you know, we're going to need to have parking at some point So it's just interesting balance um And just overall I I'm really happy that we're moving forward with these kinds of things I think this is going to be the future of of Housing development in Santa Cruz because you know, we only get a couple big projects a year Maybe in our good year, maybe when financing is good Maybe when we're not in a recession And so if we really want to actually increase the housing stock and and do it in a way that makes sense and allows people to You know better utilize their own property in ways that can help the whole community and the collective goals that we've outlined I think that's great. Um, so this is just my comments. Um, and I would love to to move the staff recommendation Emotion that is a motion second About the motion Well, I'd like to uh I thought all the commissioners are going to speak first, but if we if we're going to act on I'd like the opportunity to to propose some amendments um But bring our friendly amendment I I don't I would be surprised if it was to be accepted as a friendly amendment, but I don't be the process I'm perfectly willing to suggest it that way But I don't know whether how you want to run this discussion Whether you want to let other commissioners weigh in on the issue first before we start acting on them on the motion because There's a there's a motion and a second So all the discussion will be should be directed toward around Discussion should be around the motion. Well, let me ask you how you're intending to proceed If you're wanting to move to a vote on the motion, then I'd like the opportunity to make some amendments if you're intending to proceed by allowing other commissioners to speak to the motion First then I'll withhold my amendments till the other commissions have a chance to speak The latter okay, then I'll I'll wait to hear what I Wants to go anyone commissioner greenberg Well, I mean In terms of the density question I would Agree in many ways with commissioners singleton. Um, I think that You know a lot of the the problem is the fact that we have so much single-family home zoning In the first place within an urban area And so to the degree that we condensify at the same time, I understand that there are trans you know with the parking changes transportation issues and I guess a question I have is the degree to which there's coordination going on between this housing change and transportation planning And for instance bus lines and frequency of buses and any effort on the part of the metro or others if for instance There's a significant percentage increase In population in neighborhoods as a result of You know single ad use being constructed people are talking about there's gonna be this like housing boom going on in cities around california Is there a discussion at the state level? or more locally Around how that's being coordinated with public transit because ideally We would have multifamily housing much more prevalent along corridors that would allow for transit We're kind of retroactively, you know in filling And densifying single-family home districts and how does that coordinate with transit? So i'll take a stab at that and then i'm gonna invite lee to add any thoughts that he has So thank well i'm talking so in general one of the Unfortunately one of the disadvantages of ad uses that they are very dispersed so in terms of Planning for a really efficient transportation network. They're not the ideal form of housing that said Locally metro transit is constantly in the business of evaluating ridership information And evaluating whether new routes or different routes or more frequent service on a given route is um is required so um Specifically relative to ad use. I am not aware of any effort to combine transportation with The land use choices with the exception of There is a carve out in the state law that where ad use are within half a mile of Transit and now they finally after three years have put it in a definition of what a transit what transit means It's any bus stop No parking will be required and that's part of the state law So our local law last this last year already eliminated all parking for all ad use So, you know, I didn't discuss that portion of the state law, but it is in the state law in terms of You know making it easier for parcels that are in proximity to transit to Build ad use so hopefully those will be the sites where they develop sooner And um, I think that Oh, so there are other efforts about other types of housing that are really focused on locating Intense housing development near where we have existing transit So building on our existing high quality transit opportunities and you know, there are definitions of that there was a One of the laws that changed this year was about making a big pretty significant change to the state density bonus so when Projects that are 100 affordable are built within a half mile of high quality transit They get an enormous bump in density. So, you know, that's a different type of housing, right? And that you know, that makes sense in kind of a different way um This is one of the challenges with ad uses that they are dispersed that allows them to fit into our very suburban context here So it's this balance of um, you know How do we accommodate our growth in this dispersed pattern, which You know, let's be honest like we seem to prefer that it's what we managed to get done Well, you know, I mean generally as a community it's what we have built up over the past decades, you know, and it's generations Yeah, and so, um You know, this is sort of you know, one of the One of the places where we are So I think you know zip cars and jump bikes are a piece of addressing that transportation need with ad use because they are just By nature more dispersed You know, and I think metro transit does Their best to stay on top of things and we evaluate do anything to add Yeah, okay, so that's just a conversation. I think we'll have to have is to think more holistically about how Given our existing housing stock, um I mean, I know that in Oregon for instance, they're no longer allowing single family home zoning So, um, and I think that new generations recognize and you know Prefer access to transit, um to a great degree Um, and so earlier generations. I think it was very car-centric kind of a design of of this area So we're kind of making do given the existing Kind of grid and and stock but that being said, this is a creative approach and in so far as we can as you know In thinking holistically about planning Talk together. Um, I think uh, that would be really ideal And I really like the idea of supporting biking, you know to the degree possible and infrastructure for biking, whether that's within housing units or perhaps in some in some cities they have Bike sheds that are dispersed by block, you know, and there's spaces that can be provided for bikes Um that are protected particularly obviously in downtown areas, but um, but elsewhere as well. So in or in housing complexes that are Yeah, so I think that's a great idea Um, the question of owner occupancy. I think is an interesting one and I I agree that You know from what I've read, you know after the foreclosure crisis in 2008. There was this huge influx of of families renting homes Um, as opposed to apartments and we see that a lot in this community Um, and so the need for housing that can be rented out, which may have an ad in the backyard You know, it makes sense. I don't know if you're aware of any research on the relationship of Uh, owner occupancy and affordability If they're you know and the trends that we're seeing, you know the degree to which and and also the rationale on the part of the state for eliminating owner occupancy Um as a requirement like what is the thinking there and was that in concert with any discussion around affordability and the potential for speculative investment, for instance um Yeah, so I mean I imagine that they're so this is this year is not the first year that this idea has been floated about owner occupancy it was um I believe it was part of the agenda or part of some of the bills that didn't pass last year and um This the concern about you know Investors prospecting essentially and like, you know buying up sort of that bottom tier of for sale housing That's typically like the first step in for first time home buyers Um, I think that's a that is a very real concern that's shared in a number of different communities um, and I think that the legislature is really focused and a lot have a they have a lot of policy right now that is really focused on volume um And less so concerned about specific affordability levels in a lot of ways So, um, I know there are um Quite a number of communities we looked into it last year in california who don't require owner occupancy and have not required owner occupancy for you know One year eight years, you know, 25 years never And they have a variety of different experiences with that set of circumstances the thing to remember about ad use is that um Communities don't use them in the same ways. I last year when I was working on the ad you recommendations I was speaking with um A planner who was in sunny bale And they were like, you know, we don't really build that many ad use here And I was like, how can you not build that any many ad use like Like the most common inquiry we get at the counter. It's like the most like we build so many here I mean relatively relative to our other application types. We take in so many applications for ad use, you know, we probably produce between, you know Around 40 to 50 a year and we expect that to go up and um she said I mean in sunny bale we build apartments So I mean it's part of this like what's your whole housing policy and your whole zoning code and your whole general plan and what are You know, it this is a piece right ad use are a piece and right now they are a politically easy piece to get through and so there is a lot of Action on them and everyone's trying to make it like incrementally easier and incrementally cheaper and Great and also, you know, I think that the increment of benefit is going to reduce reduce And owner occupancy is a big shift. I mean that's one place where you can make one change and make a deep Profound shift in what's available to be built You know investors are more likely to have the capital to do a project like this They're much they're more likely to be interested in doing a project like this um And so we are about to enter a period where we will see what the effect is it's Hard to say, you know prices are starting to soften So maybe this is going to hit just the right time and I don't know, you know, it's hard to say But um, I don't know that it was specifically ever linked with affordability to get back to your specific question Um, I think it's really focused on numbers production. Yeah supply. Yeah Well, um, I Support this. I mean it's it is a piece of a much larger I mean I like that graphic of all the solutions that need to be out there for affordability In the housing crisis and this is a necessary piece particularly in communities like ours We've been a leader in this area It's great that we could continue to be I like the idea of others creative strategies and that there's going to be a conversation on how to bring costs down Up front for the construction of ad use potential funding And loan programs That might You know kind of make it easier to to rent at lower rates potential deed restriction conversations as well that could be exchanged For that. Um, but understanding that it's obviously one part of a much larger puzzle. So thank you Nice chair spellman. I think you were next. Thank you Yeah, I mean, I think there's some good thoughts Happening and some good dialogue. I would I would argue that You know, we're still being reactive in our discussion about Our housing availability and adding housing to our community um Even to the point where I think we should have had the discussions about owner occupancy already with the community I think we put those in the back burner because we all thought it was coming and it was going to be approved So now we're sitting here with A little kernel of a five year for new ones But it's not addressing the issue right how many units could we get tomorrow if that Without having to build anything right on the market um, so I'm interested in finding a way that we can be more proactive. I don't know if this commission can can act as a Can we take a leadership position and propose to investigate these issues somewhat more thoroughly and be bringing concepts forward as opposed to just reacting I think our uh Our workload has been pretty light and It's until we have discussions like this that people understand the complexity of these issues and the give and take to You know community building and adding housing But we're what we're four years into a housing crisis and a housing emergency And we're just making baby steps And we're just reacting to what the state is telling us to do We've lost the the gumption to Be the leader in adu development and a model for other communities to to look to We have that history. We should be in in that seat once again and start Coming up with you know the realities of what our community needs Now we can't exist as a single family community obviously So we're gonna have to come to terms with you know having a more dense Feel to our neighborhoods um, I think there's Ways we can address some of those immediate issues. I'm glad that the height limit for two-story adus was not Followed through as as staff had proposed. I think those were were too restrictive, but You know if if somebody's building to a four foot setback you can't have any openings in it anyway, right? You can't have windows or or doors in it. So you're gonna have to either move further away to do that five feet is the is the minimum for a or a window in a In a wall on an exterior property line So those are in play We don't see many two-story adus that are actually housing, right? It's typically over a garage and I would argue that that's probably more the incentive of what state bill is is looking for They scratched garage Out of it because there apparently was an incentive to put one over a garage up until now Um, which didn't make much sense. So we got a lot of garages now with adus sitting on top of them Um Probably not the best use of that that space Yeah, so I'm concerned about the timelines in general, right? We're not getting to these conversations to make decisions that are actually affecting our decisions as a community and how they relate to these issues Maybe the state will do it for us, but I think It would be important for us to to understand where we stand as a community So I would argue. I mean I the adu Community meeting that happened was a year. Is that two years ago already now? It was a year ago in september. So a year one year ago. Okay. So probably one of the, you know, most well attended Uh, presentations that the city put on it's obviously a hot button for the community Um, there's a lot of questions out there Even the changes that we're making today somebody who Deals in this realm pretty regularly took quite a bit of reading to really understand what's what's going on here Um, so I think those are important issues to find ways to communicate clearly to the community um, so yeah, I'm in I'm in support of the The measures that are in play, but I think we're We're not addressing sufficiently Our non-conforming existing housing stock And I think there's the potential To allow a lot of that housing to be brought into the fold easier and quicker I don't know if we can propose I'm sort of a subcommittee special committee. Do we need to get permission from the council to do that? I don't know how the Procedure would play, but if there are others Willing enable I think there's a way to at least start the dialogue and find ways to to bring this about quicker It would be the charge of the subcommittee Well, I I see this discussion is very fruitful and uh interesting to To have and we're just not having those so my hope would be that it would be a continuation of these conversations that could potentially lead to Proposals for different changes to our zoning code to be more proactive rather than reactive in general We can create our own subcommittees as as we deem appropriate and The subcommittees can inform us and council can Make use of our advice or not, right? That's correct. You have the ability to form an ad hoc subcommittee. I would also indicate that, you know, we've got a backlog of many many amendments and recommendations from the housing blueprint subcommittee for example that That are On our work plan, but we're working on You know, we're working on things we are in a reactive mode in part because as Sarah mentioned earlier, you know, there are staffing limitations Right now we've got two staff members working on all of the advance planning For the city and many other things are mandated things like this and other things are priorities that The council sets and so we have the ability to provide Limited support to that because we we do still need to carry out the mandates that the council has provided and to the extent that any efforts from the planning commission on a subcommittee align with the Efforts that the council has assigned to us and prioritized for us. Those could be the most beneficial I just want to be clear. I understand you're offering not the suggestion that stuff we might bring Up is already on this list, but rather just the concern about staff workload, right? Well, both, you know, there there may be things that where There are things that council has said Yes, do this, but it's in not the six month work program. It's in the 12 month work program and so There may be opportunities for the planning commission to to get a head start on some of that work to brainstorm and come up with ideas that Get us moving towards the the council Objectives the priorities that the council has set for us We and just you know being blunt. We we have limited capacity at this point to Support subcommittees, but we're happy to work with one and particularly provide the information related to the things that We have already in the hopper Sarah mentioned whether those are SRO and so you the small ownership units and single room occupancy Standards that need to be updated Whether it's looking at detached bedrooms and potential obstacles associated with those and how those might be overcome And so forth. We've got we've got a lot of things that are in the hopper even even small things like slope modifications that That take up our time And We haven't had an opportunity to update the ordinance But there's you know dividends to pay once those ordinances are updated so that We can put in objective standards to the codes and don't have to necessarily Have a permit For those which freeze up the planners time so lots of things as options so procedurally we can Create a subcommittee whenever we want right And it's not agendized but like We can just do that right Do we have to agendize that and then discuss it and I Believe that you need to agendize it. Um, but let me look at the by-laws and you and can we on a future agenda can you make a note to just agendize a conversation around proactive subcommittees and then we can go nowhere with it or somewhere so we're We're Just one second. We're a little bit off topic, but we're informing the topic. So we're trying to inform the topic um, the only comment I want to make was um any given subcommittee could I just It's being thoughtful about these comment about staff capacity Subcommittee could not require any staff actually or could add to their burden And what comes to mind is that you've got this housing blueprint And you've got staff You go do a bunch of stuff and then we reactively receive Any number of things that council gets that staff get around to because they're working hard and maybe the subcommittee could be In a useful thoughtful way Finding a way to contribute to that shape it and then drive rather than Drive and and um Prioritize because you're not going to get to all of it very quickly. So anyway, that's my thought on it Mr. Greenberg. I was gonna say I mean one thing we could do in the short term would be to have a kind of uh study group of the blueprint itself And sort of catch up with what you're all working on You know proactively Is that sort of along the lines of what you're Something like that could go any another directions, but I like that I can't say that I have recall their command of the stuff or no The priority like again, how long is it going to take you to get through all those things? Right great ideas and we'll get them when and just reactively So thoughtful dialogue with staff about how we can contribute to that and not And cumber them even more right and being supportive that effort So back to the question Commissioner shifrin are you talking about subcommittees or yes, um A couple of thoughts one. I think we are ranging off the topic that's On the agenda although I would agree. I wish we did have a conversation about the commission's work program and what's coming up My concern about trying to set up a subcommittee on this issue Is that we'll get into the same problem that existed last year Where you start talking about things it's so actively an issue and at the state right now that We could just be spinning our wheels If in fact as some of the testimony is the state's going to do away with owner occupancy totally Then why do we need to spend a lot of time on it because it's not something we're going to be able to do So that's one concern. There's so much going on in terms of what the state's doing what the council's doing. I'm not sure that that's Should be a priority for us The other thing is we're going to be facing From my my sense is very significant issues with other state laws. I mean sp3 30 Is going into effect soon and that's going to affect housing development Overall, and I think I would assume staff is going to be coming forward with that fairly Soon to sort of talk about how we're going to deal with sp3 30 And then we have the rezoning of the corridors that the council has sort of given direction that that be You know that be some resolution on that My sense is that's going to need to come to us soon as well So I think while we've been in this kind of hiatus for a while. There are things that are Significant they're going to be We're going to need to spend time on I Totally agree that it would be desirable for the for the commission to be more proactive than reactive all the time But I think we have to choose our battles in terms of hard time and staff's time In turn as far as what we're likely to be able to accomplish I think that needs to be the last comment on potential subcommittees or work plan And so back to the conversation about the motion for us Question of the motion I'll keep it I'll keep it quick because I mean every a lot of this has already been said, but I am I'm all for easier cheaper solutions to In terms of getting the adu Getting more adu is built. That's and I think that's pretty much what we're Seeing across the board. That's what's being brought down from the state easier cheaper get it done get them built And I'm for that I think in terms of the Just just make a comment about the proactive piece. I think it is important. I think we are we were On the leading edge of the adu and you know, and that's And that's what we're talking about now, but What's the next thing? I mean there there's something else there too And that's and maybe that's what you're Potentially talking about not just talking about like how do we continue to refine the adu Ordinance, but you know, how do we look at our at our ordinance as a whole and figure out other ways to Create this housing And I think that's a great idea and I and Just based on the history of Santa Cruz and being kind of you know forward thinking around that. I think this is the The right place for that to happen. So I appreciate that comment Um Just one kind of a side Parking um For me like one thing that I'm I struggle with is covered parking in the requirement for covered parking just within the ordinance altogether Um, I understand that you know, if you do an adu you can remove it But I don't even understand why we need it to begin with Um With the setback for a garage being what it is you have if you have if your requirement is two cars You have two cars Parked in the garage and then you can also park two cars in front of the garage. So now you have four cars parked Um, if you only need two let's get rid of the garage entirely Um, just park uh uncovered and then that gives us much more Um outdoor living space we live in a in a climate that Is just fantastic for your year-round outdoor living I know that has nothing to do with what we're talking about tonight But it was just something that as we talk about parking in Garages and and all that it's just something that I think it's I think it should be a discussion that we have in the future um I um I would um with the motion that's on the floor. I would like to um add I guess a friendly amendment um To the um to the decimal um question that I had that it would be a round up um And um, that's that would be my request. This is your motion Who seconded this? I did we did We're seconded All right, so that's friendly amendment is received favorably is that all you had Okay Vice chair Spellman. I just have another thought so I think Sarah said at the beginning of this that that these are minimum standards too, right? It's not this is a cap on on what we could propose to counsel I don't know what that is Healing is here, but we could Propose the owner occupancy be eliminated. Uh, and we could also address existing non-conforming structures in a more direct way If we want to be proactive about adding more housing do you want to offer an amendment? Yeah, I would like to add a friendly amendment Both of those categories You're saying again. Yeah, one would be to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement for all ad us not just The next five year ad us And I'm not sure I know the right language for Promoting the conversion of existing non-conforming structures You have an example of something that you're that hasn't been able I mean sounds like you're thinking of a couple specific projects That might help us what I'm talking about is so these these issues are addressing just ad us Maybe it's not an ad you or maybe it could fit under one of those categories But I think it really begs to Not having to bring structures up to current code in order to be I see considered recognized structures And I know that that's something our building department has talked about I think there are Vehicles out there that would allow them to interpret things potentially more liberally And not require full adherence to code But it's obviously something that we're not seeing happen So ab 1226 does allow for that and that is something that we do review in our building division on a case-by-case basis Is looking at the Codes that were in place at the time the construction was Was made when we're going to do the legalization And so we also have on our work program More looking at more ways to To really parse out all of the hundreds of units that we have and find ways to Legalize those if they're barriers, particularly if they're barriers that are in our zoning regulations We have the ability to Modify those and so that's something else that is on our work program and certainly if the commission wanted to convey a sentiment of support for that Then that can be conveyed to the council Yeah That seems like that seems like something that could be added to the work program It seems more like a work program item than an ordinance amendment because this zoning ordinance doesn't really Address the application of the building code. That's you know, those are that's a separate those are policies and Other things and I and I don't disagree that that's an important thing to get at And I don't know that the ordinance is the place to do that The ordinance is not the place to do that ab 1226 is state law and we Don't have to put anything in our ordinance to adhere to it. It is something that we Are adhering to just as any other state law Offer your first amendment then Offer the first one. Maybe I'll come back at a future meeting with more specific Discussion around that or received favorably that amendment Can I ask a question? Is this uh the owner occupied? Um, you are putting forward is that for um From January on or are you talking retroactive? to Ones that have been one the the ones that are currently owner occupied that are within The framework everybody assumed that's where we were going to be today a year ago or from january on So I think we're again We're waiting and doing the minimum that the state is telling us and we're not addressing it as a community and making our own decisions All right, I think we're this this is a way of potentially forcing that discussion quicker All right and going back and just taking it back to the ones that had to follow that rule and In wiping that clean. Yes. Yeah, okay Mr. Singleton also, I just on that on the under occupancy rule if New aid use moving forward are not going to have to adhere to the rule I think it's a little unfair that the folks who before legislation still have to adhere to the thing So I think it's a matter of just treating all of them the same in the city Mr. Schiffin, yeah As I remember the this commission has already Recommended to the council that they remove the owner occupancy requirement and the council refused to do it. So I think certainly At the commission's discretion, but it's kind of like thumbing their nose at the council. I think staff Has laid out a process for looking at owner occupancy over the coming year in a way that Looks at a number of options and will deal with this issue in a more comprehensive way. So I think it's I wanted to support the motion. I won't support the motion if it includes this provision So I would like to Propose some amendments. I propose an amendment I would move that the motion be amended such that if the Council approves the removal of owner occupancy for all those That are not subject to The recent state law one of the units be Permanently affordable be required to be permanently affordable That is not friendly That's not I think it's friendly Not favorable received Well, I made a motion that I don't know I thought you were making an amendment. I'm making an amendment. I don't know if it's been seconded So, okay, I see so there's I'm sorry those procedures. So you've made the amendment No, he did not make the amendment. He made the original motion. I'm making a motion to amend that So who decides if it's a friendly amendment or not? He does he's it's not so it's So now you're making a separate motion to see if I get a second to this. Okay. I will second that Okay, so I think if um, we're going to Increase speculation increase housing prices In the city of santa cruz. The least we can do is to provide affordability required affordability to as well If I could just clarify The intent of the motion is if they remove the affordability requirement on existing Because moving forward for the next five years, there is no owner occupancy. Yeah for existing. Okay. Thank you Yeah, and I would just say that given the documents that you provided that would be kind of returning to the effort that was proposed You know during the blueprint discussion Which seemed like, you know, a community led conversation as well So, um, and you know over overwhelmingly influenced by the concern over affordability So while it wouldn't apply to all units, it would still be somewhat in in effect. So I would support that So I've tried to be good about this, but I'm confused procedurally now because we have nested motions and one of you helped me with how to properly navigate this I believe the way that it should work is that there is The main motion is on the floor. There is a separate motion to amend There can be discussion on the Motion to amend and then vote on the motion to amend and then it goes back to the main motion. Okay, all right Any discussion around the motion to amend? Vice chair Spellman and then yeah, I think the state's approach is not going to require affordability requirements and I think we've had the discussion that For ad use we're not we're burdening them already And the affordability piece is yet again another burden being placed on those So I don't think that that's a an incentive to get the ad use built. I think it's unfortunately the the opposite Mr. Singleton Yeah, I just I don't think you're going to see a lot of speculation as a result of the under occupancy requirement going and if anything Putting the affordability attachment that we've had on previously for certain concessions I'm afraid you hasn't resulted in a lot of Affordable ad use being dropped in the market if anything I think it's deterred people from Going through with the incentive that we wanted There's the action we wanted to take which is create more affordable housing If we wanted to create more affordable housing, I would offer them something rather than imposing something So I think it's just the wrong approach fundamentally So I will not be supporting the other discussion Is is what's being offered though the Elimination of the owner occupancy requirement So that's the change and it's already existing ad use. It's not about Seeing new ones or incentivizing the production It's for people who already Have ad use who who wish to pursue Wish to you know, not have it be bound by owner occupancy And I think by imposing an owner occupancy or by we are going to retroactively allow the owner occupancy requirement And to not apply to those units in the hopes that they Create more rental units and I think if you were to say the condition of that owner occupancy requirement being Removed uh, you have to have it get affordable. We wouldn't get the units We otherwise would get by removing the requirement anyways Any other discussion of the motion to amend We only have what 700 some odd ad use Less than that we uh, I mean well legal ones we have just under 500 and I think illegal ones Oh, actually maybe more than that because illegal ones. We have so I'm really talking about future Ad use. I mean there are Yes, the future ones under state law At least for the next five years are not subject to it. So it would only be that existing ad use would Lose the owner you we'd be gaining no new ad use potentially What we'd be getting is just a bunch of speculation in real estate No, what we'd be getting is additional units on the market So I think I think we have some disagreement about that and that's fine. Um, so I think we're ready to Vote for this all in favor and this is to be clear of commissioner shifrin's Motion to amend All in favor I I Opposed no no So the motion to amend fails and now we're back to commissioners single no I'd like to make another motion to amend the motion on the floor in terms of parking and that under the development standards for And number two on the parking there'd be an added Provision that ad use shall contain adequate enclosed space to store at least one bicycle per bedroom It's not friendly. I mean I I sit on the board of bikes Santa Cruz County. I really want to encourage biking I don't think adding another requirement on new housing Is is you might encourage some people to park their bike who otherwise wouldn't take the space otherwise It's not clear There's a direct correlation that more people bike because they all of a sudden have more Space mandated in the ad you that was created. I think it's It's just another another thing they were adding on and I'd rather avoid the death by a thousand cuts I think it'd be a wonderful selling point to have on-site bike parking But I just shouldn't think it'd be your requirement I think most cyclists who looking at new transportation looking new housing would agree that that Shouldn't be required of every individual landlord trying to build an ad you I always think mr. Schifrin would you like to make? You would you like so it's not friendly you receive? Yeah, I'm making it as a motion to amend to see if I get a second Is there a second? I would need to know more about the logistics of that There's no second Any other discussion of the original motion? Are there are there Other examples of this? I mean are there not that I know of Let me just say one thing about parking. I I sort of turn around what commissioners singleton said in terms of the contradiction between people who Worry about like me worry about parking in neighborhoods And then people who don't want parking downtown. I happen to be a person who wants parking downtown my concern is that we're And I support Increasing the you know the feasibility of doing accessory dwelling units I think they are an important addition to the community and they should be supported But I think it's important to recognize that there are some costs involved Traffic in Santa Cruz is terrible. I know people who have left Santa Cruz not because they can't afford it Although there are certainly people who have left for that reason, but because they don't like the traffic We're going to lose what was Initially historically attractive and people leaving the big cities because they wanted more Town quality and we're in the process of destroying that small town quality. There are reasons for doing that There's justification for providing accessory dwelling units But it's important to recognize that there are costs to doing that The lack of Parking is going to be one of them. There's going to be a lot more cars on the streets in the neighborhood and the You know the whole nature of the community is going to change Our university community, maybe that should be expected that we're going to have a lot more young people around a lot Fewer families But I think it's important to take that into consideration that the community is changing and as we Try to adjust to these changes, which is going to mean a lot more housing Not any wider streets Not any Greater number of parking spaces. They're going to be cost to the community There are already costs to the community in terms of the density that we have So I think the proposal I made was trying to not just give a lip service to Yes, I support bicycles. Yes, I support multimodal transportation But what are we really doing to get it? To make it happen to encourage people to Create to actually use different different Means of transportation not providing parking spaces I've seen no evidence that that really works in terms of reducing the number of cars people have so Um, is there anything that exists? So we've we've all spoken At length and I don't know that I'm doing a great job of driving the agenda So I'm gonna call for a roll call vote commissioners your friend I'm gonna vote I guess I'm gonna vote no But I'd like the record to show that I would have voted. Yes If it wasn't for the owner occupancy require the only owner occupancy provision Sorry, um, you have a question Lee. I was asking is this the amendment that uh, There's no second. Thank you. Thank you So what did you did I kind of interrupted you because Lee had a question. Did you get your? Qualifications stated I got my qualifications stated. I don't know if it was yeah, okay Uh spellman. Hi Wilson hi Greenberg hi singleton. Hi chair pepping. Hi So the motion passes, uh, five to one And that was our only agenda item. So our meeting is adjourned Thank you to members of the public who endured the long meeting and came to speak