 Oh interesting. Okay I'm going to start the webinar. We're streaming right now just so you know. I'm going to start the webinar. She's saying she's getting a message that it's not, the meeting hasn't started which I'm not sure why that is, but we are streaming right now. But I just wanted to let you know that I'm going to start, it'll start televising when I, now we're live. Okay well maybe I'll call the meeting to order and um we won't do anything substantive until Julie uh joins us. But I'm going to call the uh 15th 2021 regular meeting of the planning to order. Could we have a roll call please? Commissioner Dawson? Here. Greenberg? Immuted Miriam. Maxwell? Here. Apparing with the space bar. Nielsen? Here. Schifrin? Here. And Commissioner Conway is present but not on audio for the record. Okay uh everyone's here are there any statements to disqualification? For anybody in the audience here to speak on oral communications? There is one phone call uh listener who has not uh indicated that they wish to address the commission at oral communication? Well this is the time for anyone to address the commission on an item that is not on our agenda properly before the commission. If you could just identify yourself you'll have three minutes. If you want to tell the person what to do if they want to talk. Uh if you would like to speak at oral communications please press star nine. Recognize. Can you hear us? Okay so I'm going to go through the minutes and um if you have problems I'll put them off till you can get on otherwise yes if you want to vote yes. So let's hear um we have first we're going to approve a number of minutes the approval of the minutes of December 3rd. Does anybody have anything you want to say about those minutes? Hearing nothing uh would somebody like to move approval of the minutes of December 3rd? I think it should be uh 2020 we haven't quite gotten to 2020. I'll move approval of those minutes. Is there a second? I'll second that. We've moved in second. Could we have a local vote please and Julie you can just shake your hand if we uh respond it uh change the difference. According to the minutes of December 17th uh 2020 are there any comments on the minute um would somebody like to move approval of the minutes of December 17th 2020? I'll move approval of those minutes. Is there a second? A second that. Is there any discussion? Do we have a roll call please? Mr. Dawson? Hi. On my she has a indicated I. That is unanimously we'll now move on to the approval of the minutes of January 7th 2021. Is there any discussion on the minutes? Would somebody like to move approval of the minutes? I'll move approval of those minutes. Is there a second? I'll second that. Is there any discussion? Do we have a roll call please? Do they want to give us a thumbs up? I'm sure she can hear us. Are we allowed could I text her or is that not allowed? I've uh texted her I'm gonna have Sarah Texter. Okay. Julie can you hear us? Did you vote I on the last minute? Okay so it's unanimous. I can Julie let me can you hear me? Can you suggest something? Since Julie was on the stuff committee uh that looked at the next item which is the public hearing item maybe we while staff is trying to get her connected to audio we could get a staff report and hopefully she'll be by the time it's we're ready for the commissioners report. Is that okay with you Julie that we have the staff report? We can't hear you. I hope it's not just that her phone is on mute or something She's done this before so Call in and you could add a little change. Trying to do what she needs to do. Why don't you plan instead of a panelist and then I'll elevate you to panelist. Yeah so just calling like a regular Joe. Maybe she doesn't actually need to like turn the audio up on her computer. I think we might have it. Okay. Testing. It works. Okay. I'm so sorry about this I've been working at it for a while. I've had her call in as a an elevator but she should be able to participate you'll just see her number there as well. Okay so if there's no objection why don't we get a staff report on item number four which is going to be a public hearing on an ordinance amendment to title 24. I'm going to share my screen. Can everybody see that? Yeah I can. Yes. Thank you. Good evening chair and commissioners we're presenting to you tonight the remaining inclusionary ordinance amendments that staff and the housing subcommittee worked on over the last several months. Here is the recommendation that is being considered to add an alternative for compliance that would allow employer sponsored housing as an inclusionary option for residential rental development. So why are we proposing an employee sponsored housing amendment tonight on at the last or that is December 12th 2019 city council meeting the council provided direction to explore ways to make the inclusionary ordinance more effective for workforce housing projects. At that same meeting the Santa Cruz City Schools District raised concerns on the increase of the city's inclusionary requirement to 20% and how that would impact the feasibility of their proposed employee housing project. The goal of this proposed ordinance amendment is to help provide more opportunities for affordable housing that retain the local workforce. We last presented this item to you on the December 17th planning commission. The housing subcommittee has been re-established and we've met three times to analyze and review draft revisions based on the feedback we received and following are the main elements of the revised school district amendment. So first this is for rental development only. So this housing that would be located on school district owned land school districts are allowed to prioritize and restrict occupancy to school districts teachers and staff. School districts may also allow local public employees that live and or work in the city or county of Santa Cruz first and then other members of the public to occupy the housing but school district employees would have priority. The majority of the housing must be for qualifying low and moderate income households and at least 75 percent of the housing must be rented to eligible employees. Now we've had some questions from the public that I'd like to address. One is whether school district section the school district section would apply to UCSB. To clarify we had proposed to include a definition in our ordinance for teacher and school district employees that is based on the state law state law definition. This definition states that it is limited to employees of a unified school district including pre-kindergarten through age 12 or sorry through grade 12. Since UCSB is not part of a unified school district this particular school district sponsored housing amendment would not apply. Another question that was raised is on how this would impact current zoning environmental review and public process. While state assembly bill 3308 supports housing for school district staff and teachers on school district owned land it does also state that the housing must not violate any other applicable laws. These would still be in full force and effect. There was also another question on what happens if an employee is no longer eligible. In our in this proposed ordinance we require that the school district would provide a management plan to address any of these issues prior to building building inspect final building inspection or certificate of occupancy. So I do also have some late breaking news. While the school district has been provided the opportunity to review all of the revised draft versions since we began this process the school district just communicated this afternoon that they still prefer the version that was proposed to the planning commission on December 17th because it simply follows state law which already supersedes our city ordinance. They were very apologetic for the late breaking update but they've been completely overwhelmed with trying to create a plan for reopening our schools in the midst of this global pandemic. Council has asked us to be responsive to the school district needs and we want to be respectful of that so we're hoping this will be helpful to inform our discussions tonight. I do have the December 17th person available if the commission would like to review this later on. In the meantime I'll move on to the general employer sponsored housing section. So this section is the same as the school district sponsored housing requirements except that for housing on employer owned land employers are allowed to prioritize and restrict occupancy to their own low and moderate income employees. The employers may also allow members of the public that live and or work in the city or county of Santa Cruz to occupy the housing but the employer's own employees would have priority. Then the housing must have a greater number of affordable units than the inclusionary requirement but could have a broader range of affordability if the employer provides rents affordable to its employees and this must be demonstrated. The majority must be for low and moderate income households. Again the mid or this is new the majority of the rental units must receive public funding from local state or federal funds affordable housing funds or affordable housing tax credits. So again this is the recommendation that we have before you to consider tonight that would be to recommend the council add an alternative for compliance that would allow employer sponsored housing as an inclusionary option for residential rental development projects. And I'm available to take any questions. I know since the subcommittee helped us you know we appreciate all their help here if they would like to respond with any comments first I'd like to open it up to them. I have a question. Could you summarize what's the difference between the ordinance on the school district the ordinance that would fly to the school district that's before the commission tonight and what was in the December 17th ordinance. I lost my screen. Hang on one second. I can actually pull it up for you. Here's the version that was presented to the Planning Commission on December 17th. It very much follows the state law and essentially references the codes for the state law. So this is the whole ordinance. Or the school district sponsored housing section. Yes. You don't have that law. I think it might be helpful to go through the law because much of what was in the proposed ordinance. Correct. I think that I think what the school district is really trying to kind of hone in on is that the state law is going to supersede any of our city code anyway and what would be potentially an issue is if we somehow in the way that we communicate in our ordinance sort of conflict and conflicting with the state law that it's much simpler to just reference the school district needs to follow the state law in terms of providing this code which does encompass the AB 3308 which I know was something the Planning Commission wanted to make sure that the school district could be following that code. Any other commissioners or members of the committee want to weigh in. Does the staff recommend that we do this that we read towards the school district is asking. I mean like I said this just came about after 5 30 tonight so we're kind of looking at it revisiting it again with you side by side. It was the original version that we proposed in December and it was approved by our and recommended by our legal counsel. You know essentially to avoid any conflicts with state law. So haven't gotten there yet but I mean I we were we did agree with it at one point so it would it would probably be worthwhile to revisit it here tonight if if commission is open to doing that. Other commissioners have any comments on the school district amendment or the general employer amendment. Can you see me. This is this is Julie. I'm not sure if you can see me. I can't see you but maybe you could. Is it good would you like to open up the screen. Then we can see everybody. Yeah I would see if I could see. There okay. That's so funny. I can see myself but so thank you and I apologize for the awkwardness. I would just like to say that I mean this it is awkward. It's very late. First and foremost I have to say I know the school district is scrambling and definitely get a bit of latitude on on that. I think that considering what they're saying that we should go with the language that was proposed earlier which conforms with state law and I think there's a couple of reasons for that. One of them is that it's always simpler to have our ordinance near state law just to avoid confusion and we're creating something new right here and I think that it's more straightforward to do so. Also out of respect for both our charge from the council and for the school district I would be supportive of going back to the language from December. Thank you. You're muted. That's the simplest most straightforward thing. It's the best thing for us to do really speaking and you know if we had sort of you know unfortunately we didn't think of doing that initially I suppose but that's fine. It makes sense and I agree we should do it now. That's fine. I'm trying to try to see what authority it gives the purpose of this part is to facilitate the acquisition construction rehabilitation preservation of affordable rental housing for district employees. So it's for affordable rental housing we stick to teachers school district employees but they may allow other public employees or members of the public after they retain the right to prioritize. There's a definition of affordable rental housing which is lower or moderate as defined in law that I think that's it. I think one of the reasons we changed the ordinance is that there were questions that we had. What happens if a teacher is no longer working for the district and moves out? How you know I think the only real difference is that there was a requirement for management at least 75 percent of the units be for either one of those requirements are in the state law. I don't feel that strongly about it. Excuse me since the majority is going units have to be affordable or moderate or moderate in teaching. That seems fine to me. So I'm okay with I'm okay with that. I would you know it's sort of like I wish it was more of a dialogue but I understand the problems that they're operating. I think it's important to move this forward so that the school district that ordinance I'm always a little bit concerned where an ordinance first to state law because you know then you know the state law section. So I mean I'm happy to approve what they're asking for but I wonder whether it would make sense when this goes to the council to have the state held out in the ordinance so that anybody who reads it will know what they are. I think that's not the best way for commissioners have comments again either about the school district. There was a member of the audience. I'm going to open the public hearing again if anyone wishes to address the commission on this topic please press star nine to be recognized. Okay no one I'll close the public hearing in the matter back to the commission or discussion and action. One of the issues was around whether you know why don't we deal with the two ordinance amendments separately. So the first one would be the school district one. I see it that we have said three or four options. One is to just say no. The other is to approve what the subcommittee came up with. Third is to just simply approve the language that just refers to state law. The other final one would be to approve the language that first the state law but also list the state law the relevant state law provisions. Anybody want to say anything about any of those or make a motion to. Yeah I think for breaking it out that way I would move that we would pursue your option number three chair Schifrin which is to forward to the council the language of state law that was recommended by our attorney and I believe it was included in the version from December. Is that right Jessica? Yeah so to revert to the language that was proposed in December to and forward that to the council. Second to that motion. Would you clarify your motion? We had an ordinance presented to us tonight that we readily represented what was before us on the 17th. That's a good point. The one that we had before brought up before us this this evening which was like you know yeah and thank I apologize you can't conflate when you're actually both looking at them. What my intention was was to move the language as proposed tonight which was accepted by the school district and recommended by our council. I think it was Christian. I think Senator Nielsen got it first. Okay I wasn't sure. Yeah that's fine yeah that's fine. Any further discussion on the motions? Let's have a roll call please. Senator Conway? Aye. Dawson? Nielsen? Spellman? Aye. Chair Schifrin? The pass is unanimously okay so we'll now move to the general employer sponsored housing ordinance. Is there any discussion from commissioners on this ordinance? Yes commissioners Conway. Thank you. This isn't a proposal to change I just do want to recognize that with this ordinance we are suggesting that a non-school district is eligible if there's public funding and with public funding in a project it actually does make it a very different kind of a project so I just want to recognize that we are through the relief that we're providing to employer developers of housing by adding that requirement it actually let me just say muddy is the water I just want to recognize that I you know I'm not proposing that we change the language which we talked about at quite a bit of length but what we're really asking employers to do here is to seek public funding and build which would mean that they'd be building a hundred percent affordable projects which aren't subject to our ordinance in the same way I just wanted to recognize that in the record. Thank you and let me say that from my point of view I was not supportive of finally agreeing kind of coming from the opposite direction which is I was worried that if without something like this what we get is all moderate income housing and there wouldn't be any low income housing really important that we do try to encourage housing for low income employees as well. This was the compromise we came up with I backed off from having applied a public and non-profit you know there are more you need to be more programs that are available for moderate income as well so we'll see how it plays out. I'm concerned with some of the big employers and I think they can't afford to do it. They don't want to use this so anyway that's the background. Commissioner Greenway has a certain number of yeah I just wanted to agree and to say that I think that this is a good middle road and a good way to ensure that the you know the largest number of employers can participate which would include any you know most likely larger employers in Santa Cruz from public you know state sector as well as in local public employees as well as you know let's say a large hotel or a large supermarket or something like this who might want to figure out a work you know as well as obviously non-profits like hospitals but also private employers that might be interested in creating housing for their low income and moderate income employees and I would just say that Commissioner Shifrin's point about the potential for additional funding sources to be available for you know the missing middle moderate income local employees may become available we're talking about having a presentation by Cal PHA for instance which is apparently interested in helping to provide a track record of providing that kind of quality across the state so we would be prepared for that as well so I really appreciated the process we went through in crafting this ordinance thank you any other commissioners anything about this so would somebody like to make a motion to approve the F and subcommittee recommendation for the employer responsive housing I'll make a motion to approve both of those and I'll second that second by Commissioner Maxwell that motion by any further discussion because we have a roll call please no passes on a six to one vote thank you very much we move on to information items yeah information items thank you Jessica for your all your work on this yeah thank you thank you yes Jessica and Jess did an amazing job in organizing us for many weeks thank you so much thank you we're excited to have more affordable housing on top okay let's move on and are there the staff of any information item I don't here's Matt hi Chair Shifrin hi this is Matt Sanwa principal planner there's just a quick report out 418 Pennsylvania went to council and council denied the appeal on that project and approved the development on a five to vote and then my my other items are future agenda items you want me to discuss them now or wait for the next item later you can why don't you talk about it now so for some future items we have the objective standards community meeting on March 11th and we we sent out a a poll to the commissioners here on whether they would like to attend and if we do have a quorum of planning commissioners then it will be formally noticed as a planning commission meeting and so far we we've heard back we've had three responses and have three yeses to attend so it's likely that we will have a quorum for that so we do keep that in mind we'll be we'll be noticing that as a planning commission meeting most likely and that's again on March 11th we don't have any staff time yet for that but stay tuned it'll information will come out soon on that we currently have no items for the March 4th meeting which I think since this item wasn't continued tonight we'll we'll likely not have anything going for that date and then 318 were tentatively scheduled for the 555 specific developer agreement amendment that's tentative at this point and then April 1st our meeting will feature an informational update on the report of the general plan and housing element and then finally May 6th we have on our calendar right now the CIT and general plan consistency findings which need to be approved by planning commission prior to the city council passing a budget in June per first day law so you'll you'll see that coming your way soon as well and then of course we don't have yet beyond the beyond the community meeting for objective standards in March we don't yet have a check-in plan for planning commission let's stay tuned for that as well because once once our consultant does additional work on that item we'll be reporting back to to planning commission kind of about quarterly as we planned thank you Jeff good are you available to speak at all to them 555 specific developer agreement yeah I don't know if that item would actually come to or come to planning commission I think it would go to council is this for the council and planning commission agenda or just planning commission just planning commission it was currently on our on our calendar but that's tentative so maybe it's just going to council so yeah I think it would just be going to council and the developer has come to talk to us about some issues that they're having with with tenancy and the project is struggling is what they're telling us so I don't have any more information to give we're trying to work through looking at their you know performer and regal and what's happening but I don't have any more information to provide at this point other than that they have communicated that they're having some issues and want to reopen the the original DA the development agreement so that's the development as uh we're front street and specific boomerang usually a development agreement is a wide good zoning order I would think it would go to the planning commission at least I know what you're talking about so we may not get to see that yes and it may or may not go forward it's still very tentative at the moment so um yeah I will let you know as soon as we know more okay thank you no more information items we'll move on to subcommittee advisory body reports and I wanted to talk a little bit about the housing uh subcommittee because we had a uh very discussion about what future work would uh subcommittee might the subcommittee have and I just wanted to um there was some need for great clarity about what the commission the committee's charge was or the commission's charge and I thought it was excuse me interesting the staff report were referred to the council action that directed staff to review and bring back amendments in terms of inconsistencies created by ordinance amendments a planning commission but also to refer to the revised inclusionary housing ordinance through the planning commission and direct the commission and staff to work with community stakeholders their options for making the ordinance more effective including one provisions to streamline its operation so I think we did part of that with uh section eight but I think from my perspective there more that could be done the second was to give a priority regarding flexibility in work for housing which I think we tried to do so the subcommittee is going to have a general subsequent meeting to sort of our possibility with the recognition that staff is maxed out um the housing staff is really immersed in trying to afford a number of affordable housing projects and they really don't have time to provide staff to the subcommittee so I think the intention is just for the subcommittee members to meet us um you know issues and possible things that I reflect the discussion other issues that um I brought up there had to do with the housing ordinance and I appreciate getting back to me on that again I know that there's an is currently what I consider an inconsistent overall code because the section on replacement housing just talks about you know the affordable units that have to have a replacement housing requirement but the state law and the density bonus law requires that if an affordable unit is uh kind of a density bonus project at least to replace on a one-to-one basis and in the research I did it's the the density bonus ordinance does um recognize that but this is another one of my concerns about referring people to state law it just quotes the code section so I think it's uh confusing and I think it would be good to have a reference to the density bonus in the replacement housing ordinance but I understand that you know it's it's really a cleanup it's not uh it's not substantive so I think our recommendation was that the next time the staff puts together a number of cleanup items for the that be included so I just wanted to check with you Matt we talked about recognizing that that was an issue but it really wasn't high on the priority list is that a good approach to just sort of keep it in the back of your mind in terms of cleanup is going to be done yeah thank you chair I do agree with you that is the preferred staff position on that we we do anticipate doing a cleanup at some time this year probably a little bit later after a number of priorities we're working on spring and early summer clear up so that is something that could be easily included and incorporated into our into our cleanup and I think that would be the best approach to do it at that time rather than separate and so state state law supersedes and and we're certainly aware of it so it's something that is in problematic moment or requires prioritization it is in the ordinance so it's not like the ordinance doesn't recognize it it's just that the only way to know that is to go back to the state law okay um does anybody else have any comments on subcommittee reports I know Commissioner Dawson did you have anything to report on that the west coast tax now getting information information but there's no new updates um things are just still proceeding and um I haven't you don't have any new information to share not even from anybody else we'll move on to items referred to the are there any additional I would say we were adjourned we'll figure it out in people next time so yeah we may not be meeting come March 4th unless something comes up so it may be about a month before we meet again but until then maybe within that time period it will be possible thank you all thank you all very much and we are adjourned