 have started it. Okay we're ready to go. I want to call the regular meeting of the Santa Cruz City Planning Commission November 19th to order. Could we have a roll call please? Commissioner Conway? Yeah. Solomon? You're still muted. Here, thank you. Commissioner Greenberg? I can't hear you. I'm here. Thank you. Commissioner Dawson? Oh here we go. Here, sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Nielsen, Maxwell, Mr. Schiffrin. Here. Okay. Commissioner Maxwell and Nielsen are absent with notification. Are there any statements of disqualification? Very none. I'll move on. Are there any, is anybody around who wants to give us oral communication? If there are any members of the public who wish to address the Commission at this time, please press star nine to raise your hand. This is for matters that are not on the agenda, but reasonably before the Commission. I don't see anyone raising their hand, Chair. Thank you. We'll move on. If this is a problem for anyone, technological challenges, we can come back to that if somebody later decides to add an organization. We'll move to the full of the minutes. Is it correct that both minutes of the recommendation is to continue until the next meeting? I have requested the continuance of the minute, approval of the minutes of the 14th of October. I provided you yesterday with the minutes of the 11-5 hearing and it's your discretion to board how you want to handle that. Is there a motion to continue the approval is it the 15th or the 14th of October? It's the 15th. I'm sorry. There were two back-to-back meetings, so the subject line of the email I sent, you said the 14th, but the memo that's posted to the record does reflect the accurate date. Someone like to move that we continue the minutes of October 15th to our next meeting? I would move the continuance of this minutes to the next meeting. Is there a second? I'll second that. I guess we need a roll call for everything, so let's have a roll call, both please. Commissioner Conway. Hi. Spelman. Greenberg. Dawson. Chair Schifrin. Hi. Does anyone have any comments on the minutes of November 5th? Would somebody like to move approval of the November 5th 2020 minutes? A motion to approve the minutes for November 5th 2020. Commissioner Conway. Hi. Spelman. Hi. Greenberg. Dawson. Chair Schifrin. We'll now move to passes unanimously. We'll now move to business item number three, the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz. We'll be making the presentation. Welcome again, Tiffany. Hello, commissioners. Good evening. Very nice to be with you this evening. Can you all see my screen? Okay. Very good. I was last in front of you, your commission about three months ago on the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz Initiative, and we are nearing the completion of these projects, and I am back for an update with some of our recommendations here. Just again, want to remind you these two projects that Resilient Coast is comprised of is the West Cliff Drive Adaptation and Management Plan, which is focused on identifying not just the short-term projects that we will get streamlined permitting for, but also to indicate our current thinking on adaptation pathways. So what might those medium and longer-term strategies look like in the future, but not locking us into those? Really just focusing on the short-term projects, and I'm going to share with those recommendations with you today. And then the second product coming out of the Resilient Coast Initiative is this local coastal program amendment with sea-level rise policies, and that has been very focused on the beaches. However, we are incorporating policies to support the near-term adaptation strategies we're identifying in the West Cliff Drive plan, so that will be integrated. And I just want to thank Chair Shifrin, who also participates in the Technical Advisory Committee, along with a number of other folks. And we've really had a number of stakeholder groups involved. Just this past Tuesday, we had our virtual community workshop. We had 146 people coming in and out, you know, through that time, and I'll talk more about that later. Just to refresh your memory, the scope of this project, the Geographic Scope, is from Seabright Beach on over to Natural Bridges State Beach and all the bluff beaches and backing development. Today, we've delivered a number of documents and studies to support getting to the point of recommendations in addition to the community and stakeholder engagement. You know, behind this delivered-to-date box, you can see, and I think I may have showed you last time, what some of the existing conditions work and the future vulnerability assessments look like. We've also developed these adaptation strategy and pathway evaluations, so really looking at what's the suite of options that are available to us and doing some synthesizing of those and narrowing based on community input and technical feasibility. The socially vulnerable population's impact assessment is rather novel and that was completed. I think many of you were able to try our VR phase one and two, and that's available also online if you'd like to check that out. And then we've came to an adaptation strategy technical report where we've started to narrow down onto recommendations that was supplemented by our cost-benefit analysis for West Cliff Drive and I'm going to share with you the initial findings from that, as well as some initial set of LCP recommendations from our consultants. We also have some concepts on funding and one of our next step projects will be to explicitly develop a funding mechanism and funding plans because there are a lot of projects recommended in the near term. I just want to also clarify that on the beaches, so Seabright, Maine, Powell, Natural Bridges, there is no commensurate vehicle to the West Cliff Drive vehicle in terms of getting streamlined permitting for near term projects. So while we're indicating what our pathways might look like in developing policies to support that, we are not developing projects as part of the LCP amendment. I just want to make that clear. As you all know we've been doing extensive research, we've had over 1,500 touchpoints in the community through a variety of different ways. I think we've talked about that in the past, so I won't talk too much about that. And I think you've seen this slide before also how all the pieces connect together in terms of the engagement, starting with some initial set of eight focus groups that really focused on uses and values all the way through our open houses. Over 70 talks I gave over the past two years, all those things sifting down to the actual policy and plan recommendations. And where you see those red brackets is where we're at right now. So you can see we're very close to the end. And I do want to acknowledge the additional capacity that we've gained through our academic partnerships which have been so valuable to letting us capacity to really spend time in the beach flats. And I think I've mentioned that before. I just want to remind you about the adaptation pathways concept itself in that we're saying short term is 10 to 15 years. We're not defining what medium or long term looks like because we're really relying on these physical triggers to signal when we go to the next strategy. And these strategies can follow across these three categories of accommodate, protect, and retreat or realign or relocate. And a couple of those concepts are shown here. This is just reminding you that we do have erosion, rising tide, and ultra storm flooding at our beaches and the blue shading that you can see over our street states and so forth. That's what we are projecting out through the end of the century. The lighter the color is more towards the end of the century. These maps are derived from our 2018 adaptation plan update. So we've presented on this maybe two or three years ago. So we have three pathway recommendations that we could pursue at Sea Bright Beach right now. We don't have a clear consensus between these three pathways that I'm going to show you in the community. And amongst our technical advisory committee has a different recommendation than what a very limited set of our population preference was. And we haven't had state parks weigh in on this today. We were supposed to do today actually and it got rescheduled. So that's obviously going to play into this. Nonetheless, the near term projects are the same and that is expanding and enhancing the living shoreline concept. There is already restoration that's happened there which is a living shoreline through Groundsville Coastal Ecology and their partnership with Gelt School. We're recommending enhancing that in the near term. There also are potentially some stormwater upgrades. We are going to be recommending televising all of the stormwater outfalls across the coast and developing a replacement program for those that are deficient. The scope of this project really only looked at the outfall condition and that's not really indicative of performance. So the trails we are assessing right now. I'm going to be going out with parks and rec next week and we're going to be assessing which informal trails we want to have some intervention on and that's across the whole the whole coastline that that applies. So in this concept, so getting back to Seabright Beach after living shorelines and some of these other near term upgrades. The thought here was okay when we experience whatever the trigger is for this I think it is the minimum beach width we would raise the jetty and do some kind of beach nourishment and then eventually manage retreat and here at Seabright that would be public property first. Now pathway two and pathway one by the way there were about 25 people who responded to that survey so not a big sample and not representative of our community but they did prefer that first pathway with managed retreat. Pathway two which was the preference of our technical advisory committee has the same near term project and then it calls for new or upgraded armoring and then raising the jetty and beach nourishment. So little different sequencing and not having the managed retreat concept. And pathway three is incremental retreat and this was not preferred by either the TAC or the the few member observer community that responded on this. Again the near term stuff the same but then we start to retreat public property and then eventually private property. So again this is likely going to fall out from consideration. We don't we didn't have preference on that. Moving to main and cow beach we did have consensus around pathway two which is protect accommodate and then retreat. And so again there is a living shoreline concept here. In fact we just applied to the ocean protection council last Friday to do a feasibility study to couple a living shoreline where you can see one is here near to the river mouth with some improved access on the back side of the boardwalk and potentially some kind of something that might prevent the meandering of the river mouth. Then you can see getting into the medium term that this pathway also calls for extending the curb wall that runs across towel and main beach between the beach and the road and then continues between the boardwalk and the road. So it isn't just black and white line that you see in front of the boardwalk it's actually on beach street that's where that would be. And then we would do some accommodation to increase resiliency that could be like elevating things and then finally to a retreat concept. Again the living shoreline concept is fairly consistent with state parks. Their guidance for long-term management of course both on sea bright and on natural bridges state parks makes the final call. They own and operate but we've been working really closely with them. This is also an area where the managed retreat concept does really have legs and you can see we are showing some retreat at the parking lot and we have some improvements also scheduled for the entrance there. Okay continuing on so now into west cliff drive the findings from our cost benefit analysis we did four different scenarios business as usual we looked at a recreation focus set of strategies a protection focused set of strategies which is armoring and reprap and then a managed retreat strategy and what we found is that the recreation focused actions show the highest benefit really the highest not present value and probability of success so that's maintaining the rec trail surf beach and so forth. Business as usual which again is doing the best we can with the resources we have to keep up with stuff it will always cost us more in the long run and then managed retreat and a protection focused of action is better undertaken on the earlier side what the four sea level ride gets to nine inches which you know we don't know there's a lot of uncertainty but that's certainly more mid-century so the key decision here is really whether and how to invest in the short term or pay more in the long term. The strategies that we are or the projects rather that we are recommending to implement in the near term include some transportation enhancements which i'm going to show you i think i may have showed you in a snippet of that last time a coastal armoring maintenance program so specifying the maintenance and a lot of there are other revetment and armoring plans in the west quick drive plan in terms of replacement but maintenance we need to do a program strategy along with the stormwater replacement. You know there is this notion of putting sand down at pyramid beach and having the benefit of littoral drift and depositing on the down-coast beaches that we were we really need to do a feasibility study of that we've only you know done very conceptual work on that. I already mentioned some of the access improvements so vertical would be you know stairs and that kind of thing and lateral would be maybe some of those informal trails. It mentions stormwater televising and a replacement plan that we need to do. We have worked identifying areas for habitat and landscape improvements and we really think there's a ton of opportunity to expand education and inclusiveness and then i've already mentioned then really one of the nearest term things is to develop the financing mechanism and funding plan and we have a lot of good guidance from our consultants on that and by the way i failed to mention that Rob Clark our consultant for the LCP project is on the line if you have questions at the end. In terms of armoring itself we what we'll be recommending is retreating fugitive rocks as feasible that have become unstacked and restacking them and repairing and adding new rocks to some existing revatment when it loses its slope or it loses its elevation and then of course there are other things like cave fills to pre-emergency repairs and i i know this zone 2 map is not easy to see but it's really just shows you all the different riprap and revetment sites that we have if you look in the upper right hand corner that number 11 with the yellow circle those that's the fugitive rocks that we're talking about and there's a number of locations where those rocks exist this is the whole sand management concept that i mentioned if you look at the red dot in the lower left hand corner that's pyramid beach um i'm sorry geomorphologist who's leading the west flip drive project has calculated that you know if the dredge material from the harbor potentially 10 of that could be used or maybe there's other material but finding suitable material is definitely part of this feasibility study as is impact to down coast beaches um we do have fencing um and railing that's going to be replaced in the near term some stair repairs some stair repairs just happened as part of west flip drive phase three improved uh i'm sorry phase two improvements phase three improvements are in design we're looking at where there are overlooks potential new overlooks or trail pull-off spots that we can develop by removing ice plants and where can we do some restoration work parks and records eager to pilot some you know small-scale restoration work um we are going to be improving transportation and cliff safety signage we're recommending that i should say and we are remex remex i'm sorry recommending the design installation of a single stall bathroom at Bethany curb um on the land on the habitats and landscape i think i've already mentioned that we are identifying areas where that's appropriate and our consultants have provided for us um for marine and trestle uh habitat where where there might be suitable opportunities and then on transportation this is a really important um piece here is that the only short term projects that we are recommending in this west-class drive plan relate to signage and striking improvements and so that includes sherros and so forth and you can see right here uh the intersection with santa cruz street that's kind of a a good example of the what we're um recommending across the corridor there we have heard um you know some some misinformation in the community that um that we are recommending going to one way or detouring west cliff drive and that is not the case we are we were required to look at one way and um under what conditions would we not have uh cars on west cliff drive and uh you know so that will be part of um but there's no there's no plan to do that we have concepts that we can consider so we will be including in the west cliff drive our current thinking but we know that you know we need to look at in the medium term what are the conditions actually like what's community sentiment around this because it's really mixed there um i think that that there is just a split opinion on this so this was something that's probably the loudest thing that we've heard in our engagement recently so it'll be really clear on that and then our timeline to completion we are going to have um our west cliff drive uh draft is going to be available on monday for our task to review um and our staff of course and and keep stakeholders um and the plan itself will be done at near the end of december um the draft lcp amendment will be available at the end of december and then we will finalize those in january and begin moving through the commission and uh the city council hearing process after that about march we'll be going to coastal commission and that was our community meeting we had on tuesday and um i'm sorry that i have that here because that is no longer opportunity but we've i presented this on uh i think monday to tpw commission so i wanted to make sure they knew and i think that's all i of the update and i'm really happy to take any questions that you might have or comments um this is a really great time for that thank you very much uh uh dr waiz west are there any questions that commissioners have um if you could close down the uh shared screen so we can see everybody it would be helpful thank you there you go uh commissioners spellman yeah hi tiffany thanks for for the presentation i was one of those in and out of your tuesday meeting i couldn't stay for all of it but uh there was good uh interaction and i think the public really had a good time listening to that i have one question that didn't really get a sense for this concept of managed retreat and what that really means i think you talked about doing public spaces first and then private could you elaborate just a little bit on on what that entails sure so we don't have it clear clearly defined because for us retreat is really more a medium to longer term um option however because we don't have we have only one home that's on the ocean side um of west clist drive and seabright public property is what will be retreated first because we don't have homes that are on the ocean side what exactly that looks like that's going to be an evolving this just the start of the managed retreat conversation and that's going to be an evolving conversation you know all of these next-step studies and so forth there will be a lot of engagement we are going to be continuing a lot of engagement on this because it's really clear that we don't have consensus in our community around some of these topics retreat being one of them um so that i mean i'm sorry i don't have more detail that that is what we're thinking right now okay i guess i was i was looking for so in the public realm what would be an example of of managed retreat sure okay yeah deft thank you for allowing me to clarify so um for example on west clist drive that's where that whole one-way concept comes in right like we could eventually although as you saw we really are recommending buffering our armoring in the near term and that's kind of you know might be the last time we get to do something like that but then after that when we when we do nail down you know that if and when we nail down that retreat is the concept as we allow the the coastline to move in on west clift drive the first thing it's going to hit is the rectail right so that's something that's within our purview and then next would be the first lane of um or the the oceanward lane of west clift drive so that's public infrastructure um so that's kind of what i'm talking about same thing and see right um we have public infrastructure before we get to private right thanks thanks for elaborating on that that makes it more clear what's going on definitely um thank you that was really my only question i mean i think this is obviously you know shedding light on such a tremendous resource that we have and setting up the framework for planning to you know ensure that this is available to everyone moving forward so yeah i i look forward to the final reports and you know rallying the community so to speak to really understand how profound this work is going to be thank you for your comment other commissioners commissioner dawson questions comments there's yeah thank you so much tiffany um i i just was wondering if you could um talk a little bit more about the role and the interaction we're happening with state parks um i think a former colleague of mine is leading up their work marina kozorla um so um yeah we were together at the ocean protection council and i'm just kind of wondering what that looks like and and how parks thinking about that you know and how that interacts in between the municipality and parks is is proceeding thank you yeah thank you for the question commissioner so state parks has been one of our key stakeholders um every major deliverables they've had an opportunity to review and press provide comments and we meet with them between every major deliverable to make sure that we are tracking um as i said today was our day like one of our final ones we were going to have it got postponed um for a couple weeks but in addition to that we're working with state parks on next step projects because obviously natural bridges and sea bright and lighthouse fields actually anything with lighthouse point and field i feel to mention that we have to be hand in hand on that right it's it's there's their place their space to manage and own but we have done all of the engagement around you know what these strategies should look like so they're they're really cooperating with us but the next step project we already have you know one of the things that's coming out of this is the triggers monitoring program right and what we're trying to do is piece together observational data uh uh sources that already exist in what's new and state parks is key on that we applied to a national science foundation grant with Ann Kepicinski from UCSE to get funding to develop that with script with state parks state parks is already talking to scripts about putting another buoy in so we're really deep into those conversations um and it's been a really great working relationship um with them so far both with their local santa cruise district and with their state sea level rise an adaptation group so we really benefited and we have the same relationship with coastal commission local staff and the sea level rise the state sea level rise people they also and this is unusual i think or or maybe the first time we've done this coastal has been doing the same thing reviewing everything meeting in between to make sure we're aligned so that there's no surprises at the end hopefully great thank you so much it's really good to hear all that interaction with the regulatory agencies as we're moving forward and the landowner state parks so good to hear thank you you're welcome other commissioners with questions comments i want to thank you for your presentation i'm looking forward to actually getting something that the commission can act on the lcp amendments and i guess the plan itself which is is really going to be a critical document because that's going to be the basis of grants and permits from the coastal commission uh there was a question i had about the difference between an lcp amendment and a public works plan just to talk about uh there being a public works plan yes for the for carrying out the the resilience plan so could you describe the difference between this how they yeah yeah thank you for that question so that is a big difference in these projects even though the scopes are relatively similar so the goal of the west cliff drive plan was to resolve emergency repair permits and to get streamlined permitting for near term projects and across the whole gamut of what i presented the vehicle to do that is a public works plan so there's a specific format and content that needs to be included in that including things like best management practices a number of the different maps that i was going to show you some design standards so it's really specific it doesn't get to it doesn't get to design but it gives a lot of specificity towards what we want to do in the near term then with the lcp amendment the lcp is not a project by project implementation vehicle it is a policy vehicle and so the lcp will include policies that enable us to do those short term projects however there will need to be it doesn't need to be a massive west cliff drive vehicle necessarily but there needs to be some other kind of planning vehicle to make sure that these near term projects on the beaches actually happen and again we did not go into the same depth of analysis on the beaches as we did with west cliff drive it just the scopes were a little different so there will need to be a future vehicle and i also want to call in katherine um donovan is on the line and she's i just want to make sure that if is there anything else that i should mention with respect to that because the planners of the pros on the on the lcp and i and i'm not a planner so i want to make sure i i spoke properly there yeah i think can you hear me yeah yeah um that's exactly right um the lcp will be the sort of the high level policy document on west cliff drive will have the public works plan which is sort of think think of it as a programmatic document that will cover hopefully it will cover all the projects within the next 10 to 15 years so that we won't have to go through this individual project by project review with um the coastal commission and then our plan is to incorporate the work that we've done on the beaches into the lcp probably as an appendix or an attachment to the document so that we keep that information adopted and and as part of our our work but it won't be you know the the lcp is not a project level so we just want to we're just going to sort of it's going to be a holding place for that information so i understand you with a public works plan the individual projects uh consistent with that plan do not need coastal permits with an lcp amendment um their need that's on a more of a policy level and the and the projects that carry out the lcp um uh amendment policies would need would need coastal permits am i understanding that correctly that's not my correct the public works plan the public works plan projects um will need permits they are they cannot once the public works plan has been approved the coastal commission cannot deny the permits that are that are in that plan but they can condition them and this is a process through the coastal commission and so we have asked lots of questions and it's clear to us that this is um something that is sort of amorphous it it it happens differently in different areas with different types of plans so it depends on the level of specificity that we have in our public works plan so for the projects that we really know what we're going to do the permit may even we may even be able to get it approved at a local level but um for some of these that we're just sort of describing more conceptually they probably will still need to go through the coastal commission but they are they cannot deny them and that's a big one as as you know well it is in many coastal permits that were approved in conditions such a way that they the project could never possibly happen so um but that's helpful but let me follow with another question about CEQA um it's the I assume the public works plan like the LCP amendment will have to go through the CEQA process uh will the individual projects uh carrying out those two documents have to go through the CEQA process as well or does I would assume with the LCP they would but does having a public works plan project from the from CEQA review um going through the coastal commission is the equivalent of the CEQA review so we the city does not need to prepare the CEQA documentation for this although we have to provide the the coastal commission staff is asking us to provide them with all the information they need to do the CEQA analysis so saying we don't have to do the CEQA is a little bit um we don't literally have to do it but we have to do all the analysis and provide them with that information so we might as well be doing um and uh again it will you know the ones that actually and the projects that actually end up having to get coastal commission approval um will probably need further analysis the ones that um are described thoroughly enough in the public works plan that they won't need to go to the commission itself those probably won't need any further analysis so sort of like a a program level EIR if you have um specific projects that are described in the program it's kind of like what's happening with the wolf master plan where the overall plan is programmatic but there are a couple of projects that are they were analyzed at a project level and they don't exactly yeah that's exactly the way now will the public works plan itself need uh CEQA document either an EIR or a negative declaration they don't need a CEQA document because the review by the coastal commission is the equivalent of a CEQA review so it doesn't literally have a CEQA document but they do the same type of review well as I understand it certain state agencies can have what are called certified regulatory programs and that's sort of the equivalent of the normal CEQA process although it allows for some exceptions but in terms of identification of potential impacts mitigation consideration of alternatives allowing for public input the certified regulatory programs need to provide all of that so my experience with the coastal commission is they don't really have the staff capacity to do that kind of analysis and they don't have the money to hire it so if the city wants approval as you're sort of as you're kind of indicating the city really has to provide the CEQA document even though it's not the normal EIR and they may dig that's exactly right and and we won't be providing them in the form of a you know we won't be going through the CEQA checklist and doing the initial study and and you know going through that process but we will be the the conversations that we've had so far it sounds as if we will be providing them with the analysis and then they will be incorporating it into their written document that they will be taking to their to the to the coastal commission itself so we'll be working with the staff on that the tip is not in the head yeah they even indicate actually worth reading their certified regulatory program to see exactly what they need because in the past I know with some project with the county they pretty much said the county had to do the CEQA document even though they just then would use it part of their process so it's you know they really want to minimize the amount of substantive work that they have to do yeah they've really indicated though that the level of analyses that we have done are likely going to suffice for the technical analyses that would typically be needed for a CEQA document so you know we don't have assurance of that but that's what the conversation has been so far and you know they've been guiding these documents in terms of what we need you know and to what level of detail do we need okay well I know personally I'm looking forward to the process moving forward um the needs of state um and it's uh it's been a long road and I want to thank you for all your work on this unfortunately it still has a long road to go I'm afraid at a time are there any other comments or questions by commissioners so let me thank you for your presentation I think we're um done with this item okay thank you we're being a thank you so much thank you very much and we will move on to item number four which is one nineteen calls street number cp 20 s zero zero four seven and I won't read the whole paragraph unless I have to I will ask for a staff report good evening I just want to confirm that can you guys all hear me yes yes this is Ryan Bay and senior planner I'm going to go ahead and share my screen so just let me know if you can see this be able to yes see that okay great here tonight to consider a project at 119 coral street point seven seven square foot or acre I should say site is located near the northwest corner of highway one and river street that intersection there and it's part of the homeless services center or campus that is surrounded mainly by commercial and industrial uses there the project that's being proposed is a five-story mixed use project to provide services and supportive housing for the chronically homeless on the first floor will consist of a new recuperative care center a behavioral health clinic and uses related to the upper floor residences and the upper four stories will consist of 120 supportive single room occupancy units and one managers unit so the parcel is um access from the coral street this is the main entrance to the campus the project site which is there's actually two parcels this is the parcel that we're mainly looking at here this is another parcel that's separate but the current parcel and the site consists of a recuperative care center and six transitional housing units located within a single story buildings I think they're they're portables as well as some accrued parking so there's one heritage tree located on the project site that's going to be saved and there are 20 trees along highway one and along the railroad perimeter that were also evaluated as far as this project since they're near the proposed building but none of those trees are proposed for removal so the subject site is has a community commercial general plan designation this designation applies to areas that accommodate businesses that serve the general needs of the community including mixed use projects such as this and also that have commercial uses on the ground floor such as this project the general plan also calls for a flora ratio from point four from point two five to one point seven five and this project proposed FAR is right in there at one point six eight there are numerous general plan policies that are included in the staff report I'm not going to go through all of these but there are quite a few especially out of our housing element that this project meets providing shelters and services for those in need we're doing concessions and financial incentives and assistance and density bonuses to facilitate affordable housing there's collaboration with nonprofits to develop affordable housing so there's numerous housing element policies that this project is meeting the zoning for the project is cc or community commercial and the purpose that's indicated in the zoning code for community commercial to provide locations throughout the community for a variety of commercial and services uses for residents of the city and the region which from both the policies in the general plan which we just determined it does and to encourage a harmonious mixture of a wide variety of commercial and residential activities including limited industrial uses that they are compatible and nuisance free so what permits are being considered tonight by the planning commission we have four of them one is the residential demolition authorization permit a design permit a special use permit and the density bonus so the residential demolition authorization permit since there is currently how so six transitional housing units I mentioned as well as a croupetive pair center those are proposed to be removed or demolished and pursuant to our residential demolition conversion authorization permit ordinance there's certain findings that need to be made to permit the demolition of those structures such as it's not listed as a historic structure which these aren't in this particular case and that the project is approved to they're the project that's approved to replace these structures and obviously there's 121 units being proposed to replace those units so it's meeting all those requirements also a design permit is required so the proposed mixed-use project consists of a five-storey building with a footprint that covers approximately a third of the side area as you can see it's a rectangular shaped building it's about 50 by 208 feet in length generally paralleling this is highway one there's an existing trash enclosure and proposed pad mounted pgne transformer here to the east that's being proposed and then there's a bike storage building located at the rear of the building adjacent to highway one and then you can see these are these are parking spaces and the main entrances to the building are along this this frontage so the first floor plan will have two main entrances this entrance is along the they're both along the north elevation this is for the residences there's a community room reception laundry mail all those type of things some offices on that first floor and then there's also an entrance to the recuperative care clinic as well as the behavioral health clinic that's located more toward the east side of the first floor the second through fourth floor are all are all units and then on the fifth floor we have units in addition to indoor lounge as well as an outdoor common space for all the residents here's kind of what a typical unit looks like there's they range from 256 to 267 square feet in size all have bathrooms and kitchenettes so gives you an idea of what the unit looks like the maximum height of buildings in the cc zoning district is three stories and 40 feet however as i mentioned there's a density bonus being requested as part of this and density bonus law specifically ab 1763 provides provides tools to incentivize affordable housing by allowing concessions from development standards including a density bonus of 80 percent for 100 percent affordable housing developments and additional height in the way of three additional stories and 33 feet above the maximum height for this particular zone district so in addition to the concession i just mentioned there's also they're requesting concessions to bike parking and storage so with the exception of those three concessions all the other cc zone district requirements are being are being met here's just a look at the west west and this is the east elevation you can kind of see the outdoor area here's kind of the and this is the north elevation showing the main entrances it's a contemporary design kind of incorporates a variety of exterior finished materials including board form concrete for that first floor panelized metal plating perforated metal screen unshaved steel trellises and metal windows a view from the south elevation on the south side kind of facing highway one this is kind of an outdoor area there's a bicycle parking here's a view from highway one there's a section drawing just to give you an idea first floor and then the four four floors of units above in regards to parking excuse me with the proposed project consisting of supportive housing rental units ab 1763 prohibits the city from requiring parking for the residential portions of the development so however parking can be required for the non-residential so we have the clinics on the first floor and based on the 4372 square feet of clinics on the first floor our ordinance require 22 parking spaces and they're providing 30 so they're more than meeting the parking requirement also special use permit is required so pursuant to our cc zoning mixed residential and commercial office developments with 10 or more multiple dwelling or condominiums above commercial uses or units on the same lot as well as single room occupancy 16 units or more all require a special use use permit be approved in order to be developed within the cc zoning so as i mentioned the first floor has kind of three distinct uses there's a residential area that includes the congregating space laundry mail there's the staff 24-7 and their staff offices and meeting rooms as well also there's a recuperative care center that currently operates on the site this is currently and is expected to continue to be a 12 bed facility providing care for those who have been homeless and enter from Dominican hospital or other medical facilities and then a behavioral health clinic which is anticipated to be operated by the county providing services to those experiencing homelessness and then of course as i mentioned the the 120 supportive sr units and the managers unit for the stories above as i mentioned the density bonus the california state density bonus law specifically ab 1763 provides tools to incentivize affordable housing by allowing concessions from development standards including a density bonus of 80 percent for 100 percent affordable housing development so for this subject project 100 percent affordable supportive housing development the applicants are proposing an 80 percent density bonus above the base case including concessions to district height standards like parking and storage here kind of gives you a little bit of a view so under the cc zone district which is up above here the maximum building height is three stories and 40 feet so these standards would limit the residential portion of the project at just two levels or about 27 000 square feet so working from this base case square footage ab 1763 allows for an 80 increase to that base so an additional 21 808 square feet or a total of 49 000 so in order to accommodate this additional square footage ab 1763 calls for cities to allow certain concessions as i mentioned and that's what allows for that additional height and massing so the concession brings the overall height of the building to 58 feet six inches and as i mentioned there's also concessions being requested for bike parking and storage normally bike parking with 121 class one would be required they're providing 64 normally 30 class two would be required for providing 20 and then there's no storage being provided consistent with our city's community outreach policy for planning projects applicants held two online webinars for the community to learn about the project ask questions and give input they had one it was on april second they had one in the morning and then also in the evening city staff as well as the project development team made presentations there were approximately 35 attendees all overall all attendees supported the project in addition we we had project webpage that was created and posted on our city website we actually had links to the recorded webinars which allow for other members to to review them and then also to submit comments the californian environmental quality act provides categorical exemptions which are applicable to the category categories of projects and activities that the lead agency has determined generally do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment in this particular case the proposal qualifies for class 32 exemption for infill development and the project meets all of the criteria for the infill including being consistent with general plan designation and policies consistent with the zoning designation and regulations it's less than five acres in size does not it does not have any endangered or threatened species and habitat and it will not result in any significant effects related to traffic noise or air quality or air quality water quality or should say i was going to mention that we kind of late in the game we did a revision to a couple of the conditions of approval 25 and 26 in relationship to some of the housing requirements so i just wanted to mention that and i hope that you all received that email and this is also condition 26 they really didn't change much of the condition it was more of a clarification i know there was a couple of commissioners that had some questions and we wanted to make sure that they were as clear as possible so we made some revisions to those and then sent those out to you so the development will implement the city's policy to work with cooperating agencies provide shelters and services for those in need by providing a low-income supportive housing for individual adults who have experienced chronic homelessness and are typically high utilizers of the health care system and with a request for a density bonus the project will maximize the density while providing 121 low-income units which will be a significant addition to our city's affordable housing stock so as conditioned the project meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and provides development that is compatible with the surrounding area and in terms of its use scale and design so staff is recommending that the planning commission acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the residential authorization permit design permit special use permit and density bonus request based on the findings and conditions that were provided in the staff report and i'm available for any questions thank you very much would you get the whole screen back yep do do commissioners have what the process we're going to follow is we'll have questions from commissioners we'll ask for public comments starting with the applicant the applicant's representative if he or she is here and then after the public testimony it'll come back to the commission for question and action so are there questions from commissioners commissioners Dawson yeah i just had a quick clarifying question that about the design related to the trees it was stated in the staff report that all the tree there were no trees were going to be removed and then i was just looking at the arborist report and there were several trees marked for potential removal so i just was wondering if staff could clarify that and one additional thing with that is the arborist recommended that a simple realignment of a drainage associated with the project could maintain a couple trees and i was just wondering i didn't see that in the conditions so i just wanted a little bit of clarity around that thank you sure yeah um the that we received the one they originally uh submitted the application we had the arborist report and our city arborist reviewed it and she agreed with the arborist and determined that you know that they the recommendation that the drainage system be realigned or revised in order to save that tree in that corner and so the applicant actually did that redesign so the their um civil engineers redesigned that stormwater and so that's already included on the plan so um i did since it was already revised and part of the approved plans i didn't feel a need to to add a condition of approval that's great thank you commissioners bellman you had a question yeah i want to just follow up on commissioner dawson's question so the issue on on removing trees or not right it's sort of is in conflict the arborist report does say trees are being removed and staff report in your presentation say there are no trees being removed that's correct there yeah there are there are no heritage trees being removed as far as the project uh like i mentioned they they revised the stormwater uh or the drainage to make sure that it didn't impact that the trees on site okay so you're clarifying heritage trees though so some trees are going some some smaller insignificant trees potentially are being removed i don't think there are any small trees being removed either actually there's a there's i think there's a row of smaller trees that are not qualified as heritage trees along the north property line across the parking area um but they're not really near the proposed structure so i don't think they're being proposed for removal okay yeah then i had two other quick questions one um i'm back onto my presentation shtick again this is you know it's not an insignificant project and there is not a contextual site section through this project so that we can understand what the conditions are it would have been um really important to see that connection between highway one the site the property is behind the right-of-way for the train and the adjacent industrial uses those are you know conflicting uses potentially and it was even brought up by one of the members of the public in in public comment i would have been really good to see those conditions clearly represented uh even in a conceptual way i don't know if these guys flew under the radar and got in before we finalized our um recent um what do we call it our our checklist so to speak but um it would have been nice to see that um what else did i have and then i had a one question on density so it seems like this project is a sro very small unit project and it's only achieving the upper end of the general plan density range by virtue of you know an 80 percent density bonus i'm just curious and just maybe that's just an observation it seems you know we've been looking in the past few years at being critical of projects coming in you know at lower densities and the argument has sort of been we don't want larger units on properties that can handle you know more units essentially we want you to develop to a density that that meets the higher end of the the general plan goals that come up at all in in your analysis and is that just an anomaly for this site essentially that's something trying to understand your question exactly you're saying is this not maximizing or wide well it is that once you add the 80 density bonus right if that's not in there they're not close to the higher end of the density range right at 120 units they're at you know pretty close to them to the highest number in the general plan but without that they wouldn't you know wouldn't be close to it right um which is what we want if we want them to maximize which i think they're doing so that it may be i'm not being clear i mean my point is the project only achieves it via the density bonus which we want um maybe it's a reflection on it's a policy that doesn't reflect on all parcels the same potentially anyway we can pass on that don't worry about it well let me i'll save you saying that the question are you saying that the base density which the density bonus is based is not at the high end of the density range and if it was at the high end of the density range and there was a density bonus of 80 there'd be even more than 120 units is that am i understand is that really your question not exactly i mean so at at 70 units right if they if they didn't choose to be a hundred percent affordable project it's just more of an exercise on the type of density we're looking for this this project obviously meets it and it has the size units that we're looking for yeah maybe i'm not being clear what would be the density under the maximum density under community commercial out of density bonus i don't have that number go ahead did you say you have that number i don't know i don't often off the top of head i could i could i could find out for you okay thank you any other questions from commissioners uh commissioner conway yeah thank you um and ryan thank you for this report i really appreciate it and this is really more of a comment and i want to speak to the page smith community house which is the existing use of the site um it is one of the oldest properties that was dedicated to serve people who are homeless starting in the 90s and you're right it did start out as modular units but it has long been and still is transitional housing for 40 formerly homeless individual um it's true that the configuration includes some shared facilities um so we may call it six units but i think repeatedly saying that we're we're removing six units um and we're getting 120 i think that that isn't really proportional to how that site has been serving the community for all these years those are 40 beds um they've received repeatedly state and federal funding over a period of decades um so i think it would be more accurate to describe them as 40 transitional housing beds um the other thing is those the old portables were replaced in around 2008 with new manufactured structures factory built structures that were the site was reorganized a bit in order to accommodate the recoupative care center but the structures aren't that old they were at least touted as being you know well built and built last i'm wondering if there's if you've considered any possibility of reusing those units i'm not usually the one who's a big fan of reusing manufactured units but in this case they're designed for this purpose um they're they're not very old of course like any any project providing housing for anybody we require land somewhere and and land that's where it can be used that way but i would be really strongly in favor of an effort to reuse those structures yeah i i think um we're going to hear from the applicant Sibley Simon so um yeah it'd be interested to hear exactly you know what is currently there um the 40 beds and then he may have some insight as to what the proposal is to do with those structures or the portables or the the building thank you i have questions are you dying from the power thank you mr greenberg that don't you somehow you're still muted sorry about that um just that i'm strongly in support of this proposed project it's very exciting this is happening uh it's incredibly needed for the community um i am interested in the suggestion and the proposal that commissioner conway is making about reusing the existing units as well and i'd love to hear a response to that that proposal but um thank you for bringing this to the commission i have a couple of questions i really appreciate staff's response to questions i sent in earlier um one of the concerns i had and relates to a commissioner conway ray had to do with the uh the city's ordinance on replacement housing and the reason why i'm raising this is that the density bonus law only requires that the affordable units be affordable for 55 years the inclusionary ordinance requires that the units be affordable in perpetuity as i understand that the replacement ordinance also requires that they be replacement units be affordable in perpetuity so the revised uh conditions as i understand them or i might not be understanding them correctly only uh deal with the density making clear clarifying that the density bonus units are affordable for 55 uh 100 of the project is affordable for 55 years 15 would be affordable i don't know whether it's 20 would be affordable for for perpetuity but i wanted to ask staff about the status of the how the replacement housing requirements would play in i had assumed that there were only six units but if there are 40 beds i'm not sure whether the replacement housing requirements would be for 40 um beds offer just the six units but i think to the extent that the replacement housing ordinance does require that the units be affordable in perpetuity that that be reflected in the conditions so can you get a clarification as i'm muted herself so please go ahead good evening um chairs and and council commissioners uh so what i would like to talk about here is there's a definition of what's called a dwelling unit and the replacement housing under the density law it has to be considered a dwelling unit and so what we really need from the applicant is to confirm that these are not dwelling units and my understanding of the code and i'm sure ryan can step in and help out too but my understanding of the city's code for the definition of a dwelling unit is that it has some kind of a kitchen or kitchenette with at least two appliances and is of kind of a certain size um so i my understanding is these don't have kitchen but i again i have not been inside and i don't know if anyone if ryan can help speak to that but i think we definitely needed a clarification from the applicant on whether these are actually considered dwelling units but i haven't been assigned either so i think it would be a clarification would be great if they were dwelling units and they would have the improprietuity requirements they would have to follow the replacement requirements based on state density bonus law not even just not even just the city inclusionary they would have to follow state density bonus law for replacement as well right um could i then um i i guess it wasn't clear to me whether the 120 units in this project and maybe this is a question for the applicant would also be transitional housing units are they going to be considered permanent housing units back report is saying permanent supportive housing but i again the the applicant should clarify those are my questions for now um if there are no more questions from commissioners we'll open the public hearing and we'll first hear from the applicant or the representative of the applicant that going to be mr saman i'm here i think i've been unmuted okay you are we i could hear you go ahead great okay um so i made some notes on some of those questions that came up and i'll try to step through them um so the current use uh as commissioner conway said is uh page smith transitional house as well as the recuperative care center the recuperative care center is currently 12 beds you can you hear me yes yeah okay great uh so the recuperative care center is 12 beds and the and in the proposed building it's going to be 12 beds at least um but the current plan is 12 beds there so then the the other uh buildings they're on site are what are um six different units they are units in the sense they do have kitchen bathroom you know they would they from a building point of view they would qualify each one as one housing unit um but they have a variable number of bedrooms in them and they're operated not as permanent housing currently they're operated as operated as transitional housing and there are 40 bedrooms and 40 beds there so it is 40 individuals in a transitional housing program that um uh funding for the operation of that uh is going away so you know it's a uh it has been as was described you know funded for decades both the creation of it and um the operations in part uh through federal funding state funding etc and uh federally uh the HUD funding for it has dwindled and now is is scheduled to go away because uh the federal government has been reapportioning its limited pool of funding for homelessness toward permanent supportive housing and homelessness prevention in broad strokes and less on transitional housing and less on funding emergency shelters which is fallen to um state and local government and so um is it's one of the reasons we cited this project after years of puzzling about how to build this project cited it there is in part because that's the program where there's just not a continuing model for operational funding for the transitional housing now yes those are useful buildings we hope we are uh engaged in multiple discussions on where can those go we want them to be used but first and foremost there's some city and county staff um that are uh interested in trying to figure out where those can be used for emergency shelter or transitional housing needs within uh Santa Cruz County so we don't have an answer yet but you know the even the old ones that were in a much more dilapidated state modular ones there did get repurposed to another non-profit when these units were put in um and so we fully intend over the next year to figure that out and get them uh used somewhere so and and for a charitable purpose um but first dibs you know it's going to go to where we work with city and county staff on it uh so on other questions um and so uh you know i'll have to lean on staff then given the fact that these are not used as as permanent housing so there's not a tenant relationship with anyone that's there their program participants like in the shelters and but in transitional housing there so there's not a landlord-tenant relationship and and to say like we're not going to remove anyone from this housing uh move any participants in order to do this project everyone who's participating in that program is time limited and that and the program and the federal funding that has come in has those time limits so we're going to exit folks as they exit to housing to other uh shelters etc as they would normally and just not fill new participants into that and then move on toward executing excuse me this project so there's not going to be somebody there are literally not going to be individuals who are displaced um but however the requirements are supposed to be applied to this obviously um you know it seems like there'll be six units but it's 40 individual beds and it's not been permanent housing somebody is going to have to tell me how that applies um real quickly i wanted to emphasize a couple of things um one you know this is for folks not only who are chronically homeless but a portion of the chronic homeless population that really needs significant services on a daily basis so we've been very successful i've been from day one involved at the 180 initiative um to help address chronic homelessness in santa cruz county we've now helped a thousand individuals you know into permanent housing who've been chronically homeless across the county um and we know we see what succeeds in what fails and and um really we need housing that has a bunch of services in the building and that's not most folks who are homeless it's not even most folks who are chronically homeless but it's the right answer for some folks either for a period of time or permanently all this that we're permitting yes these are permanent supportive housing this is a landlord-tenant relationship and uh folks can be tenants there for you know as long as it's right for them and they want to be so um so that's who this is for we've learned from these buildings literally all over the country i've toured many of them asked a lot of questions gotten operational plans from buildings across the country and up and down the west coast on this and so that's informed our design and our plan and ultimately it's going to be owned and operated completely by housing matters and they currently have a team of over 15 case managers providing services directly to this population and they're going to continue to expand that team to provide the services in the building and pair with county staff at hphp and other service providers um so we're all you know that's part of the whole planning uh for this as well is how all those services work one more thing is i want to say uh aside from this formal planning process we're working to go well beyond code to make this one of the most sustainable and healthiest buildings in santa cruz we're looking at being one of the first passive house apartment buildings in california um which means extremely low energy use and also control of the air we recognize that first from fire events and air quality from those to the location this building next to a highway and um industrial uses we're serving a vulnerable population here we want this to be a very healthy building so we're looking at implementing the reset air standard which is very high standard for controlling the air quality and uh and not having materials that are off-gassing you know etc so i just wanted to note that we're we have a whole another lane on this project working on sustainability with some experts um from around the country as well as our great architects at david big architect and the modular factory we're considering using uh factory os and we're looking for this to be a really be a model of how um doesn't have to be too costly especially in the long run to create a very sustainable building um i very quickly uh commissioner spellman had the question about far and i did understand that question and i wanted to say the answer to it because i've puzzled over this parcel so long i have the answer which is that it really comes from the fact this parcel is landlocked and back from the street and so you got to have a fire turn around and it's not a rectangle it's a funky shape you know with an angle and stuff like that so you just can't quite get to the maximum far if this was a nice rectangle that was on a major thoroughfare like right directly on you know river street south of highway one or something a base density could be a toward the top end of the far and then you could use bonus above that but other site constraints i think got in the way of that in this case um and then my last note is that uh what i was going to say that based on the public comment that came in we did do do the noise study uh in the construction time period and on a particularly noisy day our noise uh what acoustic analyst that's what you say was was very excited about all the noise um and uh and the train and everything we tried to catch all of that and you know it's part of what we're doing with the design of this in order to make energy efficient building you know we're looking at triple pane windows and doing a lot of things around you know noise for the residents and uh both between apartments so that people can coexist in small units like this as well as recognizing it's in a somewhat noisy place within the city then the last thing i was going to say is on the affordability restrictions there's some confusion that was caused i think by me in part uh which is that um we this is going to be this use it's going to be permiss supportive housing permanently owned by housing matters you know nonprofit with this focus which really means all or essentially all of the residents are going to be extremely low income um but we're trying to privately finance this we've raised six million dollars um for this project to date and most of the cost it's about 25 million dollar project can be debt finance against uh vouchers rental subsidy vouchers for these uh clients and so we're well on our way to putting together the financing without um but using public dollars we are pursuing though fee waivers from the city of Santa Cruz and the various districts it's complicated we're getting great help uh from staff on that and so water district school district you know etc and seeing if we can get enough fee waivers um even though there's some costs that come along with that and uh and so the fee waivers require all the units to be very low income restricted um and so that's why we had to apply one time for the planning app and the fee waivers so we said well if we can get these fee waivers we can restrict all these units at very low income but because of financing and trying to underwrite the loan and stuff it would be helpful to us if we don't go the fee waiver route to say um yes some of these have to be very low income because of the inclusionary ordinance fine if there's replacement housing requirements on that fine those are in perpetuity fine but the majority of the units would be just restricted at low income which is what's required by abey 1763 slash bonus density law even though again it's going to be the same use uh if we can have most of the units restricted at low income if we're not doing the fee waivers it'll help our debt uh potentially help our debt underwriting so that was complicated but i'm hoping the condition of approval for our planning application reflects that accurately those different um income restriction requirements and then when we go to city council around the fee waivers that could potentially add an additional uh income restriction that concludes your uh presentation yeah that was my list of comments i hope that was all right but how do you take any other questions of course um okay is there anybody else on the line that would like to testify on this on this item yes uh chair this is the clerk there are several people who have indicated that they want to speak and i'm going to go down the line for the rest of you that are on the line that have not raised your hands get from the clerk on this please sorry cherry forgot to unmute myself uh there are several people on the line for those of you who are on the line that have not yet raised your hands please do so by pressing star nine to get in the queue uh because there's somewhat of a lag in the um in the way that we broadcast this so we want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to be heard so i'll start with the first speaker last four numbers four oh nine one sorry that was sibley that was me when i was downing in to listen so you can skip that one okay um speaker four nine seven six are the last four numbers and unmute yourself and you have up to three minutes to testify hi can hear me all right this is hi this is still kramer executive director from housing matters go ahead great well thank you well sibley covered a lot of what i was going to say um but i did want to speak to uh just as we use the term chronic homelessness and the folks that uh this project is designed for um that really you know our individuals in our community who have been unsheltered or homeless for a long period of time or that have had multiple episodes of being unsheltered or homeless and i think a really important component to this to understand really the definition of chronic homelessness is that also experiencing a disabling condition right some type of physical mental or other impairment and these folks who have been unsheltered or homeless for a long time and meet this definition are in our community and really don't have other workable housing solutions um they're not successful living independently in the community yet they don't qualify for skilled nursing and they really slip through the cracks of our system of care in the community and so this type of housing long-term permanent uh housing with leases in their name with onsite case management onsite support to help them succeed and thrive in their housing placement is you know a proven best practice model that's used in communities throughout the country and we have an opportunity here on our campus uh to uh to provide this housing solution for those folks that really don't have any other workable solution the other thing i i'd mention is that you know the county is just rolling out their housing for health plan right now they're three-year strategic plan focused on on solutions to homelessness and permanent supportive housing is identified in that plan plan actually with an identified target or benchmark number of a hundred permanent supportive housing units so we understand that we can help the county and our community reach that goal and exceed that goal with this one project alone and i'll just wrap it up there and uh and also make myself available for any comments any questions thank you very much other people on the line hey um goody and commissioners can you hear me yes yes just give me please we have up to three minutes all right my name is sam deutch i'm actually a resident in san francisco but i was alerted to this project um just because i care i'm a renter and i care a lot about housing especially housing for the most vulnerable in our community and also because housing is not an issue that's confined just to one city um san francisco's housing crisis impacts Santa Cruz and vice versa and i'm just calling in strong support of this project anytime that we can get homes built for um the people who need the most who are on the streets who are suffering from um impairments and other issues um i really think it's a no-brainer but i also think that um given the context here um this will be really great for the community and i'll provide um an actual supportive solution to what's obviously um a major issue throughout um california so i i strongly support the project and hope that it's approved thank you thank you are there other speakers yes chair yeah good evening can you hear me yes identify yourself and you have up to uh three minutes please all right uh thank you chair and commissioners my name is pat mopelly i'm the land use manager for granite rock uh company we are the concrete and building materials supply company immediately adjacent or separated by about 40 feet of rails per between this location the 119 and in our operation first i'd like to just applaud santa cruz for taking steps to house those that are most vulnerable you know we operate in several different facilities between monterey bay and the san francisco bay and we see this all around um in every city that we operate so and and and we also see a lot of these types of of uses starting to pop up immediately adjacent to industrial uses and and it starts to beg the question are we putting these most vulnerable people in the right places you know for for granite rock you know we're a long time company established in 1900 everything we do takes a long term vision you know we California contractor license number 22 it's the second oldest in the state so everything we do that we invest in is for the long term um so when we talk about long term uses and and and adjacent uses we get concerned about what i think is transitional or long term versus what we think is long term which obviously is decades long um i i do i do as a land as a person who deals with land use um for granite rock i do question um whether or not really were intended to put to these types of land uses adjacent to each other um you know we're basically a heavy industry and um this is permanent housing and you know i'm not saying don't build your project i i think it's a worthy project to consider i do ask that we look at our operations and wanting to be in Santa Cruz and serve the region with the construction materials that it's much needed um that we don't get ourselves into a situation where we get pressure because of the change in the use adjacent to us and and that makes it hard industries to do do business anywhere and and so you know it should you guys move forward with this project just please keep granite rock in mind keep our use in mind um we're we're positioned where we are strategically because the city wanted us there and we want to be there and we we just don't want to be under additional pressures in the future so um with that in mind the last thing i'll close with is i still question the open space on the fifth floor kind of overlooking granite rock operation it seems like there's a probably a better facing location to put people's outdoor space um maybe to enjoy the view towards the bay um towards the the the setting sun rather than towards a concrete plan thank you thank you very much for your testimony is there anybody else um that wants to testify on this uh matter i see uh an adam bookfinder unmute yourself uh hello and you have up to three minutes thank you thank you very much hi i'm adam bookfinder i'm a planning commissioner for the city of campbell though here i'm speaking only for myself this is a crucially necessary project replacing a small number of temporary homes with a much larger number of permanent homes desperately needed given the horrors of chronic homelessness i'd like to thank the developer for proposing this project which will help so many residents of santa cruz especially for locating in such a walkable area and providing amenities like a roof deck i have no objection to reorienting that deck as long as it doesn't delay these homes we need so much more of this i cannot endorse this strongly enough thank you for your time i yield the balance thank you very much is there i it looks like we have somebody else kyle kelly uh you're unmuted identify yourself you have up to three minutes welcome hey thank you this is kyle kelly living tear cruise uh you're gonna hear a baby while i'm talking because i'm trying to take care of one um right so i just wanted to call in strong support of the project uh thank you so much uh the other the only thing that i want to look at this is how can we help streamline uh more projects like this i mean like this is the kind of thing that it seems like it it should be by right and that shouldn't have to go through nearly as much process to help get extremely needed housing um that's the that's the only thing that i have thank you so much thank you is there anyone else that would like to testify on this matter i see another person uh to identify yourself and you have up to three minutes welcome oh uh my name is jeff and siroki i live in scott's valley and i support the project i feel that there is extreme shortage of housing uh for all types people in the county and uh while i uh do uh think that there could be a better site for people to sleep uh that's not next to a industrial area that you know this proposal is uh here before us tonight and we got to take every opportunity that we can to address the chronic need for housing and i would wish that uh this project would be approved and uh frankly that we wouldn't need to have a meeting about this project that would just be automatically approved so i urge other leaders to consider uh uh future projects like these to be uh provable by right and without uh need of having planning commission meetings or city council meetings thank you very much is there anybody else do you know the person please identify yourself and you have up to three minutes welcome hi there can you hear me yes go ahead hi my name is robert singleton uh former planning commissioner for the city uh i just want to encourage you all tonight to support this project and please move it forward uh it's a huge need in our community and one that we hardly ever get the opportunity to address to address in such a meaningful and and in big way with being able to supply this many units and it's kind of an opportunity um to do it with such a valuable uh partner that uh housing matters who have so much expertise already and being able to fulfill this mission i think uh there isn't a better place and a better partner that you could work with to get this mission done and get these housing units built so please move forward to this project um the last comment i'll make uh i think is watching earlier hearing uh commissioner spellman's comments uh regarding the density and the need for the density bonus to even get to that max density uh correct me if i'm wrong peter but i think you might have been alluding to kind of the reflective nature of do we need a density bonus to even make it feasible to get a project at that level uh if this is the density that we're trying to encourage perhaps we need to look at our own code to see if we can fix things to make a project that is already this dense make it work so um again please move forward to project thanks for your time tonight um and thank you uh simply for all you do and for all the work you're doing to bring more housing to Santa Cruz and do it in a way that has the unique financing model so that we can save our valuable public money for other affordable houses thank you very much is there anyone else i see another person who seems to be coming online identify yourself and you'll have up to three minutes hi my name's tim gordon and i just want to call in and support of this project um there's you know location is what we have here and so if it's next to granite rock you know i would say that hopefully we can look past that it would seem unfortunate to me that we put the idea of you know building supply and material company which we all appreciate especially at these times but in front of the idea of homeless supportive housing um it's such a critical need as we all know in the city uh that i think that it shouldn't be a question where it goes i think we just need it anywhere um on top of that something that the applicant mentioned that is probably a little underestimated undervalued is the idea of a passive house building so passive house is super energy efficient very clean um the air exchange rate is very low and what it creates is the ability of just very clean healthy environment for the people living there so you couldn't ask for a better building to be built in the country especially when it's next to a you know a granite creek or a granite rock excuse me or something similar um next to the freeway you know this is the type of building that we should be pushing forward and and we'll we'll see a lot more of in the future um i think this project is perfect it's great um and it should just be approved as is let them build this project so we can move forward with helping the situation um and takes us forward as opposed to playing the waiting game so i appreciate you all thank you for your time and thanks for all you do for us and uh please approve this project thanks thank you very much is there anyone else like we have another speaker go ahead hello my name is Elizabeth Conlon um i'm a resident of um city of Santa Cruz and i just want to devolve my uh strong support for this project i really appreciate how thoughtful the applicant has been about the location and some of the constraints that might be faced being next to uh an industrial area i'd also like to um agree with earlier commenters that a project like this should be approved by right and i hope you will look into making it easier for projects like this to be expedited in the future thank you very much thank you very much is there anyone else uh there are several people on the line there are no other speakers that have indicated they wish to address the board if there are any speakers that clerk if there's anybody else waiting there are no other members of the public that have raised their hand if there are members of the public that wish to address the commission please press star nine now there are several other people listening to the hearing i don't see any uh members of the public no one else um uh wants to testify i'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission i i actually would like to ask a question of the developer mr simon i'd like to get asked him to respond to the um issue raised by the granite rock representative regarding the location of the open area and um how difficult it would be to move or what do you think about moving it or uh i just want to get your response to that concern yeah sure um first of all i want to say you know we absolutely think this can be compatible don't think this will provide any pressure on granite rock but we absolutely and and when i say we especially myself and bill kramer executive director of hounding matters would love to meet with granite rock and get into detail on any concerns and make sure we're compatible um so we're always open to ideas and absolutely want want that um i know this isn't what you're asking but i think a key point as as far as the overall location of this project is concerned this is out of the entire san cruz county this is the place with the nexus of services already in existence needed for this hounding so the county's health care clinic being the you know number one thing and the and um housing matters case management team based here the security that's already there for the campus everything from a meeting to you know dentistry that happens there already and on and on in the care center itself which will be a i'll take all the key no information but the question was really about this just the deck yeah it is facing west right now so it is is the sunset direction um and the problem is we are to make this building affordable to build and with a really high quality job we're using plain to use modular construction and so the the only way to situate the building is east west as it is and then the modules that get built in a factory run north south on this and so you stack them along the building and so you know it would have to look in more depth whether it could go on the other end but the problem is for emergency exit on a stairway you know there's a reason we put the emergency exit stairway on the other end which put the deck on this end so there's a lot of detailed site constraints it's not obvious to me that could be moved in any direct in any way but you know i'd have to dive into it okay well i just wanted to get your response thanks what i'm hearing you saying is that practically it would be very difficult if not impossible to really move it given the nature of the construction um i wanted before i opened up the other commissions i wanted to follow up on the affordable housing end of it and um as the staff it sounds like from the testimony that there are six dwelling units on the site they may be 40 beds but really the replacement housing ordinance applies to dwelling units i just wanted to clarify that the concern isn't with the affordability of the project i understand and i i and staff can correct me on this as well i don't see you know there's no requirement beyond whatever was whatever the density bonus requirements would be for very low income as far as i'm concerned if they're if they're 100 low income and as many very low income as possible that's fine my concern is in the length of time they're going to be affordable i'm not going to be here in 40 and 55 years but i know the city has had problems with projects that were built 30 and even longer ago when their requirement runs out um even with non-profit groups it can be problematic to retain affordability so from my perspective um the extent it's possible that they'd all be 100 it would be 100 affordable in perpetuity i think that's really would be the most desirable and i think as a minimum we should get that for the replacement units but i'm i'd also be supportive of a recommendation to the council if i'm understanding correctly that the council way fees with with the requirements that all the units be affordable i think it's worth it to reduce the short term revenue to have that long-term assurance of affordability so let me just check with staff whether my understanding about the replacement housing requirements is correct or not there to mr. bain wants to answer i would defer that sorry thank you yeah so we understand your concern chair and that is what we've been talking to the applicant about is if the applicant is requesting a fee waiver then the city would you know would like to have those units in a affordable in perpetuity so that you know a hundred percent of the units that are being subsidized with with city city money basically um so i think i was looking for civilly on the phone or on the line but um we have been going back and forth and we talked again today um so so this is an approach that we're looking at but we aren't there you know this has to go to council so i don't know if this is a forum for us to uh i mean certainly staff could recommend that to council what about the replacement housing requirement so again if if those six units are considered dwelling units then then yes there is a replacement requirement so and whether that's in perpetuity or not it's for sure what 55 years based on the state density law and i was looking at our affordable housing provision i've got it up right now the 24 16 222 the replacement housing requirements doesn't specify a time frame um but but it is at least 55 years based on the date um density bonus so the commission could recommend to add a condition that would cover the since we've gotten testimony that they do have kitchens in them kitchen s in them that would they would be a six unit replacement housing requirement and with the recommendation that it be in perpetuity and also the commission could recommend to the council that they waved with the understanding that all the affordable units would stay affordable the commission does have the ability to make those recommendations so the um replacement housing ordinance um does provide that um those replacement units are affordable in perpetuity um you'll you'll recall from our discussion on the seabright project there is a provision in the code that allows um the inclusionary units to also serve as the replacement housing units um i know there was a position that your commission took that because of the use of the term may that there was some discretion there and you had accordingly recommended that they not be double dipped so that's that's one thing you might want to deliberate on but to answer your question um the replacement housing uh units according to our ordinance do you need to remain affordable in perpetuity okay thank you i'm sorry i jumped in first other commissioners would like to comment on this uh on on this project commission Dawson to your handout and then commission spellman yeah i'll i'll be brief i certainly could go on about this project um how exciting it is um i think that some of the components that are most exciting to me um include just the the quality of the housing that's going to be provided and the quality of the services um so um i also want to just thank uh staff for the report i really appreciated the table that laid out the open space requirements and the and how those were going to be met or exceeded i i always like to see those open space requirements exceeded and and where we can still get housing units so that's great um and you know i think the important thing that i just want to bring up and emphasize is that this is a proof of concept that there are creative ways to both finance and build 100 affordable and get it to pencil out and get it to work in Santa Cruz right now and i just want to thank the developers for this um and just encourage people out in the ether to continue to do this work and continue to be um come up with projects like this and bring them forward because we can build 100 percent affordable housing in this town and i hope we see more projects like this and i am enthusiastically supportive about this project um last thing i'll say is i would like to see some conditions around affordability being in perpetuity you know i would like to think of this Santa Cruz long after i'm gone uh as um a place that supports economic diversity and a project like this having affordable units in perpetuity could do that so if other commissioners are supportive of that um it would be great if someone uh could move that for him thank you mrs. starman yeah i would echo a lot of those comments as well um yeah the enthusiasm around this project is obvious everyone calling in is in support of this project um the synergy of the ownership and already the symbiosis of the community that this uh development surrounds is just really strong um you know the developers going above and beyond with the quality of project that they're bringing to the table uh for a 100 percent affordable project you know these are the kind of projects our city needs you know it would take five projects of similar scale to get the same number of units uh affordable in our community so these projects when they come are the ones that you know really up the ante as far as our affordable component goes um and i also think that you know the design we're also reviewing a design permit tonight this this project you know although it's somewhat simple right it's a bar building stacked units small repetitive sro units but if you if you take a step back and look at the the intricacies of the site plan for example and the ground floor plan i love the idea that the uses are are mixed this isn't a housing project here that isn't mingling and collaborating with the clinic next door the building is able to be traversed around its entirety and i think the renderings that were presented sort of enhance that idea right the the open spaces that are around it are going to be used by people living there people coming there to use the clinic facilities people that work there and in a very small area creates a very dynamic i think interchange between the people that will be using this facility so i think in some very small ways there's some very sophisticated moves here that really are going to make this you know a special place um virtue of the highway condition and having the big sound wall next to it almost creates the sort of private enclave behind behind the walls so to speak i think there's you know a lot of small moves here that are that are very smart and and are done well i do actually like the location of of the deck uh and overlooking granite granite rock i mean it's really not granite rock they're looking over it's really the long views up the pogo nip and and and to the west it does beg the question in general on this sort of rub between industrial land and residential uses the city has held on pretty tight to their industrial space in the past and you know we can't deny that there's just such a high need for the residents here i think what what the projects that i've been familiar with where they've been residential uses in the industrial zone or jason to it i guess this is still technically community commercial um there's some sort of a acknowledgement to the people living in these facilities that yes you are living in proximity to you know industrial uses that have quite frankly different restrictions on them then would for example residential neighborhoods right industrial zones can have stuff that might not be as good for people or the environment at different levels than other areas within the city so i think it's important to to make that acknowledgement and make sure that everybody's going into this you know with eyes wide open i'm pretty sure there are some requirements um to be made to that effect to people living in this zone maybe staff can address that at some point the fact that the developer is going for a passive approved project is again a very significant piece to this puzzle i just goes to show you that you know our most vulnerable and our supposedly cheapest housing can still be at an extremely high quality and i want to commend them for for taking that route one for hiring a quality team to bring this project forward and to go the extra mile to pay that attention to this development and i think you know the building is what it is and i think the use of you know let's call it unique materials and the way fenestration is oriented i think this is going to be a very attractive addition to you know entering into our town and there's also something profound about you know we're now having the ability to house people that you know currently are inhabiting around that site that don't have homes um this this image i i keep seeing of you know a place a place to live versus you know along the road so to speak um so i'm really excited about this project and it's um it's it's great to see it happening and i do want to you know challenge the commission moving forward right this several speakers that brought this point up about you know how do we approve projects by right that are similar to this type of a project and i don't have an answer for that tonight but you know these are significant ideas and challenges that we face and if there are ways that we can you know fast track projects like this i think obviously we should spend the time to see how we can make that happen i like that thanks other commissioners uh commissioner conway your comments yeah greenberg okay thank you chair shifrin um so first of all i would like to say to sibling a really hearty congratulations i know you've been working on this for a long time i think this um project is amazing and i know what a heavy lifted is so thank you very much and congratulations on getting it this far um i was uh planning on sort of separating questions for the developer and then comments uh for uh a recommendation so it may motion there together and i may need to return but i also want to act really um thank the people who took the time to testify in support of this project um it is a really important project and but um some of the concerns i think are worth addressing and one of them is about the expedited processing and a buy right approval um this the process for this project is about as expedited as i would want it to be frankly um i'm i'm glad that there's a lot of thresholds the state has taken a lot of choices away from jurisdiction and that's that is um for good reason good and solid reason on the other hand this public discussion this is the way that the community gets to both embrace this project and also try to make it better um try to ask its questions um condition it in a way that looks long term and ensures that it is going to meet a community need in the long run so this is expedited processing i'm in favor of it i think there are some things that we can do tonight um and we can ask some questions and ask some things for this project and i plan on doing my best uh to to do that um the other thing that i want to raise i want to thank mr mapelli from granite rock for um first of all be willing to support this project but also um raising the issue of residential uses adjacent to industrial uses um a city can't be helpful if it or you are healthy if it doesn't have a range of economic opportunities and meet a whole range of needs industrial uses are terribly important for that um there's a long history nationwide of um uh and a long-standing industrial use has the residential use put next to it pretty soon i don't i do not at all believe this is going to happen here but just to be aware of how reasonable his concerns are the next thing you know all of a sudden wait a minute there's a they make concrete over there we don't want that and um there ends up being a lot of industrial land um that's bad for the city it's bad for the community and i don't hear mr mapelli saying that he thinks that's going to happen and i certainly don't hear um the developer thinking that that is the way that this is going to go um but it isn't unreasonable um to uh raise that concern and i think it is incumbent on us um meaning the planning commission and then it's making recommendations to the council to also think long term um this is a big building it's a significant change of course it's meaning a dire need that um we are all very grateful it is but we do need to think about um what it means to have an approval of a significant building like this in the long term i had a set of questions that mostly were answered through the discussion um and one of them was um the developer's relationship with the land owner it seems like um new way homes is not going to be the owner of this property um in order to develop it at night imagine it's going to be held as an LLC or um i would like to ask that question of Sibley um how is the land held um and who will be holding it i did not also until um uh Phil spoke i didn't realize that housing matters it's going to be a long term owner of the property which it is now um so um i guess that makes some sense i am wondering about uh is there a third party property management company managing 120 unit building um for any population is a complicated thing to take on um and maybe or as housing matters planning on you know growing its capacity of the property manner manager in that way um i am interested in a uh seeing a management plan and also a services plan i can tell that it's actually pretty evolved um i could tell that from the conversation um i feel like it is a reasonable thing for the city to um ask to um sign off to know that that exists and to sign off on it obviously not in order to take it with it um at great depth but to um be able to review and ensure that there really is um a substantial services plan that there's funding for those services which are notoriously hard to predict into the future but you can demonstrate where they are um the fact that funding is fickle um is um one of the reasons why the existing transitional housing project is closing that's no longer the model choice so um you know being able to plan for the project provision of those services and know that they're stable is something that is absolutely key to the permanent supportive housing model and um i'd like to ask that both services plan be submitted to the city and also property management plan um as part of that property management plan i am interested in what is the plan for parking i'm also um i am in support of our inability to demand more parking um for the residents is nonetheless we know that parking is extremely complicated on that corner and i would be interested in knowing um that there that there is a plan for parking how is it going to be used what are the um what is the property manager the property owner planning on doing um with residents with cars um i don't think he can just ban um can't discriminate against car owners um and uh so just what is what is the plan around that um so those are those pieces another long term issue that i am wondering about is the um financing i'm also enthusiastic about um a different model of financing this project and i really um i've spent some time in the past talking with cibri about this um but i this is a big building 120 units you're delivering affordability to an extremely low income population some of whom are even below extremely low i mean which would be defined as affordable at 30 percent of area median income people without fsi may well be well below that um so i understand that the plan for achieving affordability is through tenant-based vouchers um i hope you're planning on getting some or i don't know if you are not planning on getting any um project-based subsidy to the to the site at all or i guess that's a question um i do think in the long term um you're relying on a source that is um uh pickle and it changes over time and um i wonder about if whether you've been able to raise the bank financing um because of that so that's one of the concerns that i have long long term i also when i look at this project i think about well if the idea of 100 percent um privately financed project doesn't pan out then i i look at it as a more traditional affordable housing project that would be going for um the sources that were you know more used to seeing whether it be low income housing tax credits or any of the different um any of the state financing options um so when i first looked at it i thought well um how is that going to work well if we don't end up if you're if you're not able to raise the money privately um i just had to ask myself how well will this building compete um for public dollars so it's a question that i have um whether or not you've been looking at sort of a parallel universe on that it was a question and then the the way that those long-term questions are usually answered in an affordable housing project is a market study i know it sounds a little bit funny in a project like this to wonder if we have the market for it i think we all know we have no but well we need um for this type of housing but a market study might have you look at it over the long term um what does it look like um what does the financing look like in 20 years how is it carrying debt how is it servicing it and and uh maintaining itself to ensure that the building is viable for um the 55 years that i guess it won't have public financing but at least in terms of loans typically how that's looked at um so and then i had one more comment and i'm trying to wrap it all up at once there's a couple segments um so this project is embedded on a campus that provides a wide range of services that's been mentioned a few times um i know there's also been talk um over the years of um uh potentially expanding at some point in the future and i do hope that all of the all of the participants down on the campus are involved in master planning both in any changes that are going on down there but also um if there's going to be any expansion um so i i guess that's it for now and i think we'll probably come back and talk more about recommendations on affordability you want me to just try to succinctly answer a few of those things um no um if you for the sufficient now that's waiting till we hear from all the commissioners before we have dialogue. Commissioner Greenberg. So yes um thank you to my fellow commissioners for all of the comments and to commissioner Conway for the questions and i managed to hear um responses to that but i would um i would echo the support of this innovative approach um at a time when at the federal level it's very hard to get financing for affordable housing um and the recognition of the urgent need for it in our city in our county in that location um and echoing commissioner Spellman on on the significance of that location and you know what it means for folks who are currently living on house um in you know on that corner and uh the fact that it's really a beautiful building that it's a passive house that it's exemplary in terms of its sustainability credentials and that's true i think for the building itself as well as what it means for you know providing a model of density uh for the city and hoping that that is extended into the downtown area and beyond that you know we can have infill dense affordable housing and that can have sustainable benefits for our city and region as a whole um and you know looking at the degree to which it'll cut down on trips and so forth and produce greenhouse gas emission reductions and so forth is on a on a larger geographic scale is something that um i also really applaud uh the fact that it's working in such close partnership with housing matters that it's following a housing first approach and recognizing the long-term social benefits that that's going to have for this community as well as for our larger city and county um and the potential for this to mean a real pathway into another uh into another life situation for residents and ability to contribute and and be part of our community um for for folks living in in this housing is modeled around the country in the world and i'm really happy that we are going to be part of that movement uh and uh i would say that um you know it's really um heartening to also have all of the folks who called in and and the support for this project um which is which is so widespread uh and uh you know just to say that it's um potentially a um a new a new moment really for the city of you know and and for our for our region that we're making this move and really appreciate uh and i think that this is something that people around the city around around the Bay Area the fact that we had someone calling in from San Francisco um you know recognizing that this is a broad regional issue that that oftentimes you know people don't have a chance to weigh in on the significance of this and the impact of that this is going to have on a much larger scale and so to thank um Sibley Simon and Housing First for really um for really uh advancing this again over multiple years uh and you know creating potentially a model for our entire region is something that um you know i really wanted to to appreciate um and to know that there isn't the kind of opposition that has existed in the past quite honestly for these kinds of projects is uh is something that's very it's very hardening for me um and you know i'm interested to hear their responses to Commissioner Conway in terms of the issues around financing and i recognize that this is an innovative approach uh and uh but hopeful that nonetheless it can be pursued and that we can achieve this um as as quickly as possible i'm interested in these questions around by right i i would echo um Commissioner Spelman in saying i would love for the commission to discuss this in the future what it would mean for instance in a location where um you know it uh that is more in a residential area for instance like what it means to have a kind of by right approach how that might expedite things um at the same time that i hear what Commissioner Conway is saying about the importance of having community weigh in and efforts to you know opportunities to improve the the project proposal and to consider all kinds of different perspectives than that so i'm interested in having that discussion i think that's a really important one and i appreciate that being brought up also by the public anyway i'm very excited i really thank you all for the work you've done in bringing this to us i congratulate you um and this is really a high point personally for me um on this commission getting to weigh in on this project so thank you before um we uh we sort of ask for a response to some of the questions that Commissioner Conway raised i want to ask the staff whether it is legitimately for us to discuss things like the services plan or the financing plan this is a land use uh issue and it has to do it's not a supportive housing issue it these are single family you know this is an sRO project and i'm not sure you know our concern is really a land use concern i can see why it would live we legitimate to ask for a parking plan especially given the parking issues in the area but i'm not sure what basis we have for involving ourselves in how the project is going to be financed or how it's going to be managed it's a it's a sRO project um and i don't think we would do this for a normal market rate or even an affordable project or at least i'm not sure that we should given our role in terms of managing making this making recommendations about land use that's as i as i understand it what's before us is a land use question is this an appropriate use at this density with this design at this location and um that's that's all you know i think the questions that Commissioner Conway asked are very very legitimate they're reasonable questions and i have similar questions but i'm not sure it's my business as a planning commissioner to try to get the answer to that or somehow have the answer to that affect the decision on whether to recommend approval for the project or not i think what's before us is really what's in the staff report and i would like i do think the issue of parking is legitimate even though we can't require parking spaces i think having an understanding of what the parking how the parking is going to work on that site is uh you know is a reasonable thing to request i i would not recommend continuing it at this time but i think a recommendation to have a parking plan developed at the time it comes before the city council would be a reasonable uh recommendation to have uh to make but in terms of how the services are going to work and how the financing is going to work i'd be interested in knowing that but i just i would really ask staff whether that is appropriately something okay chair shifrin this is samantha from the current planning department um yeah this this um project does include a special youth permit and when we review youth permits we do we do we do commonly review the operation of the proposed youth and so it is um you are able to ask for those kinds of plans with this project we believe so we could ask for a services plan is that what you're saying and what about the financing of of the project is that legitimate the concern that we can raise well i think you know as a rule with some um on conditions of approval for youth permits i mean really what we're looking at is um conditions that address um the public health safety and welfare and as miss hasher points out um we have we can and do ask for management plans um all the time that address various things in addition to parking um i think with respect to the question of financing i know there was some discussion from some commissioners regarding you know maybe a separate motion on the the fee waiver and and you know maybe that might be the place for that should you go that route also one thing i just want to make clear is that this project is being approved here at the planning commission it doesn't move on to the city council the fee waiver is kind of a separate process that will go to the city council but um barring an appeal or anything this project that we're talking about tonight will be approved here at the planning commission oh i didn't i missed that so we're not making a recommendation to the council we're approving we're approving the project correct okay oh great that would expedite things um so i'll go back to you commissioner conway and see how you want to do you want to ask the applicant or details about the um services plan and the and the parking plan we can certainly add a condition that those be provided the extent that's legitimate at the time of the building permits i mean i i thought how would you want to have you want to deal with it yeah i actually was planning on um asking to add a condition um that the operator that that the owner submit services plan which is completely appropriate this is a permanent supportive housing project it does not function without services and it will not be successful there's tons of studies about that that um without without those services um so what i would like to do is just ask that there be a you know services plan um looked at by the city as well as a property management plan um prior to the issues of a building permit and i have a suggestion that maybe you should make a motion to approve the project um as recommended and now we can commissioners you can add um conditions and other commissioners can add conditions either as friendly amendments or we can go on and then that would move this along yeah i would that's what i basically what i was planning to do but i also wanted to clarify that um i don't think that um the financing per se is a land use matter but my question was about and i may have uh uh bummed it up a little bit but my question was really um we're making a land use approval that is uh uh based on a highly unusual and untested uh financing model which i dearly hope is successful um but because we are responsible for looking long term i just wanted to know if there were if um the developer is currently has other ways that have you looked at other things is that absolutely the only way you're going to do it and i guess um i'm not going to ask the question what if you can't i believe you can i really hope that you can um and uh you know because we do need this but it was really sort of in terms of looking at it long term and also looking ahead long term it's a model that assumes funding that may or may not be there um and i think it's reasonable for us to ask as we're making this approval we're approving very small units for people who have been experiencing chronic homelessness um and it's going to be functional it's going to be able to pay its operating costs and pay its mortgage on an income assumption and um i think it's fair to ask have you considered i haven't seen anything about financing i want to approve i want i'm in support of the land use approval i am concerned about financing and just hope that it's being looked at from a lot of different perspectives i'd be surprised if it wasn't commission endorsing yeah i just uh a couple things on the financing um uh i'll make a comment and then have a question perhaps to my fellow commissioners who have more experience or perhaps the staff um so uh as many folks including the developers said this has been in process for a long time um and the development of this project and and the learning from uh locally nationally globally about how to actually get these things done has been part of that process and so i really um i really do want i i i feel very leery about build by right um i think it can be done it can be done correctly but one of the things that you know we continue to tack things onto this we need this plan and that plan you know we're kind of making the case that we're not streamlining this and i just don't understand the required like why we as the planning commission um are involved in this discussion on rent on the financing because i i guess this is the question part if the developer comes to us gets so far along in a project that the project comes to us and we approve it and then the financing was through it just falls through right so i just don't understand what the repercussions of us not adding more for this developer to do um are for the city so if somebody could speak to that that would be helpful for me because i want to make this as easy as possible and i just think that there is absolutely no data out there anywhere that supports that these units will always have a body in them always there will always be somebody ready to go into one of these units for i think as long as there are humans around so i just don't understand the this kind of cat well look could i make a suggestion ask if any of any commissioners willing to make a motion to approve the staff recommendation uh with uh following conditions that at the time of uh the project receives permits that the uh the applicant submit a parking plan and a services operational plan and through that the replacement housing the replacement housing uh affordable requirements be in addition to the inclusionary requirements and they be in perpetuity and finally that as a separate action the commission recommends to the city council that they waive the fees on the condition that all the universe uh units stay affordable in perpetuity anybody willing to make that motion i love that motion just as you stated it is there a second i would second that okay thank you um it's subject to change i'm just trying to move things along here based on the conversation that we've had so the commission we now have a motion on the floor the commissioners want to speak to the motion or make amendments to it Commissioner Conway yeah um i realized i did second it and i i am in support of it i wanted to clarify that's the second thing that i was asking for um there's a services plan to be submitted and there's a property management plan to be submitted which would include a parking plan that's a little nuance in how it was stated acceptable to the maker of the motion i will accept that so this is our extra clarification so we're asking them for a services plan and we're asking for a separate property management plan that includes the parking could you just clarify that one more time Commissioner Conway yeah i will so um both of uh if this project ever were to get any public funding both of those things would absolutely be a requirement um a services plan which i know they already have they've alluded to it and i'm sure it's excellent um is a very standard thing to pull together and it's actually a really helpful exercise and it is absolutely inherent in the whole concept of permanent supportive housing um the other thing is that a property management plan is part is a very important part of permanent supportive housing any affordable housing project and once again it's an exercise of pulling together really the thinking about the long-term operation of that property to make sure that it's successful um this isn't additional poops to jump through this certainly isn't um additional process in terms of a land use approval um so it and the property management plan sometimes the parking plan stands separately but it's very reasonable to have it just be part of the same yeah i'll absolutely accept that okay um let me ask uh mr simon if uh he has any objection to these um the amendments that have been made to the staff recommendations and please just speak to the question i have no objections at all thank you thank you very much the staff have any objections to or any concerns about the amendments to the uh the recommendation now okay are there any uh additional comments from commissioners and i'll call for a real call vote on uh the motion to approve um the staff recommendation with the additional conditions that are uh that are not going to repeat since we just heard them and everybody knows what they are so a roll call please all in favor commissioner conway hi bellman hi greenberg hi awesome sir shiffer hi the motion passes unanimously uh thank you very much uh staff for your work on this and mr simon that's the block and moving project uh forward all right we'll now move to information items um tell us what you know mr marlott uh yes couple items of note um there were two uh items that were before you recently the front river front project and the warf master plan they were both on the november 10th city council meeting and both got continued the front river front project will be heard on december 8th and then the warf uh management plan on this coming tuesday the 24th uh also on that uh november 24th city council agenda are the inclusionary housing amendments that are related to section eight um and then as far as upcoming agendas for the planning commission um that present we have both december meetings we have items for um on the third we've got the inclusionary housing amendments involving the workforce housing um there's also an appeal of a staff approval of a three unit apartment building on pennsylvania avenue um and then there's also an objective development standards discussion involving the outreach strategy uh and then a presentation of the consultant work on some conceptual project test fits on a couple sites um and then uh we also had tentatively scheduled the discussion with the city attorney regarding the commissioner comments in advance of meetings but um given the length of this agenda we might um schedule that for the 17th of december and on the december 17th agenda we have a um an item that involves some reconfiguration of lot lines as well as some land use and zoning designation uh reconfiguration for city and metro property downtown that's in in preparation of an anticipated affordable housing project on that site so um we've got a pretty full december that's all i have to report thank you very much any subcommittee or advisory body all reports we had the one from the west cliff tack um any other okay uh any items referred to future agendas being none uh we're adjourned and i wish everybody happy uh covid Thanksgiving hey healthy thank you everybody yeah thank you for tonight thanks everybody goodbye