 Okay, let me call the March 5th 2020 meeting of the Planning Commission to order. We have a roll call, please. Commissioner Maxwell. Here. Spellman. Here. Dawson. Here. Nielsen. Here. Greenberg. Here. Conway. Here. Chair Schifrin. Here. Are there any statements of disqualification? Seeing none, this is the time for oral communications. Oral communications is when anyone can speak on an item that's not on our agenda tonight. But is legitimately before the commission for, and you can talk for three minutes. And if you give us your name, that would be appreciated. Come on up. Good evening. My name is Barbara Benish. I live down on the west side and I wanted to address the issue of the circles, which was discussed last week. There were many things that came up and it was not possible to really respond to some of the issues that were brought up. I've lived there for six years. I'm an artist and an educator and I've written a book called Forum Art in the Environment. You can Google it. And I wanted to talk about the intangibility of the Circle Church and how important that is for our neighborhood. There are things that are there that we can't just put on a building. It's been there for generations and I think there was not due process that happened when these people bought the property. And we would like a chance for you as the planners of this city to give us more time to be able to save the circles. How much time do I have? A little more? Yes, are you keeping time? Okay, thank you. She'll let you know when you're... So some of the things that happen are that I believe there's supposed to be a public hearing and that the new owners are supposed to deal with the public and the community who have been there for generations. They talked at us. There was not really discussion or listening to the issues of the neighborhood and all the community spaces that have been there forever. And I think what happened last week when some of the young people came up and talked about how they had grown up in the Circle Church and had yoga and classes and dance and basketball practice. And that that won't be able to be passed on to the next generation how unfortunate that is for all of us who live there and for our children. I raised my two teenagers there too. They rode by that church every morning going to Santa Cruz High. And I think it's a shame that that is not going to be able to be kept open to the community. If they say on their plans they're having a community space that's going to be in between, it's still privatized. That is not for the community anymore, even if it looks like it on paper. If the historical review said that there's going to be historical plaques remembering the church, then doesn't that mean that it had historical value and that we should be able to keep that? It's kind of an irony that we're remembering a thing we're going to let be torn down. There's so many examples of neighborhoods like the Circles in the U.S. that can be renovated. We have great plans what we want to do for this neighborhood that can put it on the map and preserve it. So we ask you to please keep that into consideration. Listen to our plans. We're trying to get together and give us some time to do that. Thank you. You can go ahead and start. I am Carolyn Ronzano and I've lived in the Circles area for almost 21 years. I raised my daughter there. And as Barbara had mentioned, we are learning so much fascinating history about our neighborhood as we're trying to save the Circle Church. And we had reached out to a historian, Charlie Duncan, with interactive resources. And his daughter lives here in Santa Cruz. He came down for Thanksgiving and drove around the area. And he's the one who first brought it to our attention that thinks it qualifies as a historic district. And Page and Turnbull agree. The Planning Department agrees. And the City Council, it's the first time I've ever seen them all agree on something as also proponents of some type of historic designation for this neighborhood. I also want to talk about a request to have an environmental impact report done. I was checking into that to see what the justification is to request one. And I read that if there is potential significant cultural disruption, that is a cause for an environmental impact report. And it will be a huge disruption. This church has been a part of everyone's lives. Our children, my daughter has grown, but now on my street there's two four-year-olds, a two-year-old, a young couple getting ready to start a family. And it will be there for them too. It's been there for over 130 years. And we've been accused of being emotional and sentimental, but those are all manifestations of love. And that church is beloved by the neighborhood. It's an iconic landmark for us and it's not just the circles. Everyone in Santa Cruz has a story about the circle church. Everyone's had some type of experience there. It means something to the community and it's so unique and it's so special. And this project is not site development or specific to that site. They could find another one-and-a-half, two-acre parcel and do their same project. It doesn't have to be there. And as a community, we recognize that we would have to purchase it back. And we're starting efforts to look at, to start fundraising, but we need time. I want to save it. It's important to us. And we just ask that you keep that in mind as you're evaluating this project. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Freya Sands and I also live in the circles. And I'm just here to present to you a document. I just have two copies to circulate around Garfield Park Circles Neighborhood Context. And we hope that it will give you some background to understand what drives our efforts for its continued service in our neighborhood. We seek to preserve the property for future service that its legacy deserves. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else for oral communications? I wonder if I could ask the planning director if you could describe what the process is for the circles church. It's been to start preservation commission has been back to the council. Will it be coming to the commission? What, what can we tell the neighbors about what that process is? Sure, the project will be coming back to coming to the planning commission in the coming months and then it will be back in front of the council. The council hasn't considered the project itself. The council has considered the historic designation of the site. They unanimously recommended that it not be listed as did the historic preservation commission unanimously recommended that it not be listed. And so given that had it been listed, then to proceed with the demolition of the structure, it would have triggered an EIR and that environmental impact report would have had a longer timeline. So the applicants now that the Sequa path is determined by it not being historic. They're moving forward. I would expect within a month or two that the project is before the planning commission. You'll be in a recommendation capacity. It'll go to the city council for approval. Will the project include the demolition or is the demolition on a separate path? The project includes the demolition. So I hope that's understood. The project with the environmental review recommendation is going to come back to the planning commission sometime in the future. That will be a public hearing. You all can attend, present your testimony. There'll be a staff report and recommendation that will come out in advance that you can review and respond to. The commission then will make a recommendation to the city council. The commission is not the final decision maker on this project. The commission will make a recommendation. It will then go to a public hearing at the city council. They'll make a final decision on it. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. No more oral communications. Do we have any announcements? Do we have any presentations? So well, I know not. It's a regular agenda item. So no. So we come to the minutes. Are there any concerns about the minutes or would somebody like to make a motion to approve the minutes? Make a motion to approve the minutes of February 20th, 2020. Is there a second? All second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. We now come to item number two under general business building electrification through prohibition of use of natural gas in new construction. Could we have a staff report, please? And welcome, Tiffany. Thank you so much. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Tiffany Weisbless, the sustainability and climate action manager. And this is my colleague Kurt Hurley, the green building specialist. And we're here today to share with you the building electrification policy and background that the city council has directed us to pursue. I should note that this is a courtesy referral. It is not required that building electrification come in front of the planning commission. However, we're happy to take individual comments that you might have and pass those along to the commission to council. Or if you choose to make a recommendation as a body, we can also do so. So you are not required to do so. However, the latter. Okay. So starting things off, we have three objectives for this evening. Number one, we would like to let you know how did this come about in the city? And why are we taking a look at building electrification? We'd like to share with you what city council directed us to do, what approach, and what the timeline is and where we're at in that process. And then we'd love to hear any feedback you might have and answer any questions you might have. And again, pass along that feedback to city council. To start things off, you know, there are several drivers as to why we are looking at building electrification. First of all, in 2018, the city did declare a climate change emergency, really attempting to accelerate our efforts in reducing emissions. Secondly, we did in 2019, the council adopted a resolution supporting the Green New Deal. And this also calls for accelerated action, specifically pointing to the fact that the intergovernmental panel on climate change says that we really only have 10 years before we reach a tipping point. And so while this is something that perhaps the energy code, the state energy code might take up in its next code cycle or the following code cycle, that's three to six years away. And that's a good chunk of that 10-year time period. Thus, accelerating our efforts makes a lot of sense. And then finally, when I was here in front of you, I don't know when that was a couple weeks back, I talked to you about the health and all policies initiative, which really, as you'll see in this presentation, building electrification really touches upon public health, equity, and sustainability, the three pillars of health and all policies. And so we really view this as an operationalization of those new policies that we have in place with health and all policies. So City Council in the fall of last year directed staff to bring back options for building electrification. Kurt and I have participated in the California Zero Energy Building Task Force since January of last year. So we were very clued into what the options are that other jurisdictions were considering. And Council had a second piece to that, that they really wanted us to align the timeline on the rollout of building electrification with Monterey Bay Community Power's rollout of some support incentives, which we'll talk a little bit about in a moment. Also, Monterey Bay Community Power's electrification strategic plan that was recently adopted explicitly calls for transportation and built environment or building electrification as the two key emissions reduction strategies for our region and provide for these incentives that I've already mentioned. And then last, you know, the state has a carbon neutrality goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045 and building electrification is one of the ways that we can contribute to the state achieving that target. Also, so why electrification? What is the deal with this that makes this such a potentially transformative emissions reduction mechanism? By switching our fuels from natural gas to electricity, we are essentially then using energy that is carbon free. And that is because Monterey Bay Community Power sources all of our electricity procurement in this region for 97% of accounts in this region from hydropower and renewable energy, thus making it carbon free. So the more we can get away from natural gas, we can drastically reduce emissions. And as you can see in the lower left hand pie chart, just looking at the built environment and vehicles, vehicles of course in our region represent the majority of emissions in our region. And we do have a number of strategies in place to address vehicle emissions. However, what we're really trying to get at with this policy is that 18% that you see in the blue wedge. And if you look over to the right pie chart, you can see how that's built out in terms of or how that's broken out rather in terms of built environment emissions. So here we're really talking about space conditioning, so heating and cooling, water heating, and in this chart restaurant cooking, both residential and commercial cooking, which as you'll see later on is something that it is such a minor amount. And we've seen from experience that exempting cooking in those kinds of establishments really makes a lot of sense for us. Another reason that we're taking a look at this is that natural gas methane really has a lot of points of leakage from the extraction point to the utilization and combustion of it within a home. You can see on the right hand side the map of the United States and a number of our natural gas deposits and repositories and their corresponding leakage rates. That's leakage, that's methane that's going uncombusted and going straight into the atmosphere and methane is very much more potent than carbon dioxide. So this is something to be concerned about if you look at the left hand chart, which is the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions inventory. If you look on the far right bar in that graph, that 24% additional increase is attributable to that leakage that's across the entire supply chain for natural gas. And we've also seen that that has resulted in catastrophic explosions in San Bruno and other places throughout the country. In fact, as recently as a couple weeks ago in Massachusetts, a series of these types of explosions. Moreover, we know that this is something that is not commonly known is that the combustion of natural gas within the home results in all of these toxic chemicals being emitted. And air pollution levels are not regulated in indoor environments. They are in outdoor environments, but 55 to 70% of homes with gas stoves would not meet outdoor air quality standards. And there are a number of studies including from the California Air Resources Board that supports this statement. And so there are true concerns around indoor air quality and public health and health in the home. With that, I'm going to turn this over to my colleague Kurt, who's going to talk about how building electrification will also reduce our economy-wide energy consumption. Thank you, Tiffany, and good evening, commissioners. I'd like in this slide to quickly review the overall effect of electrification of the built environment. On the left side of the equation, we look at a fuel-switching impact of increase of electric consumption in the built environment. And the second portion of that sum is the adoption of more efficient and emerging and proven electric appliance technologies. So we see on the left that we're actually increasing our electric consumption 30 to 35%. But the results on the right side is actually a reduction in overall energy intensity for the built environment. Now at first glance, this might seem to defy logic. However, the fuel-switching allows us to use energy in a way that's radically different than in the past. Gas fuel appliances created new sources of heat in the appliance designed to either heat water or heat air for an interior environment. Heat pump technology, which is the new electric approach, is capable of moving existing heat energy from the exterior to the interior or the reverse at will. And so when we combine that radical paradigm shift and how we are satisfying the comfort of our buildings, the end result is an overall reduction in the energy intensity of our built environment. So I'd like to briefly go over the different windows, if you will, on the cost effectiveness of electrification. There's four of those. I'm going to briefly talk about initially the site impact. So the entire project cost, the cost of the structure plus the infrastructure cost to supply fuel to it. The published PG&E value for a single family to provide gas service with a meter exceeds $15,000. So in the case of newly built low-rise residential, we look at a net savings that can actually exceed the numbers that are quoted here. There are marginal increases in some of the electric appliance approaches. It's going to depend on each individual design. There are two major peer-reviewed cost effectiveness studies that validate these results. One by the Energy Commission's primary investigator for their TDV methodology E3 and also the Energy Commission's own study with frontier energy. And both of them come up with comparable numbers in excess to what we're looking at here. One of the things, I'm going to look at this secondly now. One of the things that is frustrating for building owners and renters and businesses that are entering into a lease is it's really a black box in terms of what will the projected cost be to operationally occupy the building, meaning the utilities. And that's part of the cost effectiveness studies that have been done for all electric approach. And it ties in well with the fourth window, so I'll just kind of cue you up on that. I'd like to also add that with our 2019 energy code for low-rise residential, we now have a general solar requirement. And the net present value of solar for every dollar, we're approximately going to get $2 back over the life of that array, even including every 11 years changing out the inverter, etc. So the addition of solar adds to the overall cost competitiveness of an all-electric approach. And finally, as I mentioned in the second window, we have the consideration of what has occurred in the past, in the past decade. In the increase in the rate of electricity versus natural gas and what is projected to occur over the next decade. So going back in the past decade, there was greater than a 20% excess in the increase for the price of natural gas compared to electricity. And that projection is approximately identical for the coming decade. So what that means is that $1,000 we're spending today for fuel, if it's natural gas, is going to become almost $1,500 in the case of electricity, $1,300. So the erosion of disposable income or operational costs for business are impacted by staying with the gas as a fuel choice. So I'll move on here, I know I spent a little more time than I promised. So we want to consider now what are some of the, and we covered this earlier, but what are the breakdowns in our distribution of equipment? So here we've added those appliances which are able to substitute or stand in for legacy appliances. And starting on the lower right are space conditioning. We have very efficient, duckless approaches that can both cool and heat buildings that are very cost-effective. They're also great for retrofitting the existing built environment. Going counterclockwise, sorry, clockwise to the left, we have an example of a heat pump water heater. Its form factor is very small, so there's a minimal impact to mechanical rooms because the condensing unit is integrated to the appliance. Moving up at 9 o'clock, we have our appliances for cooking. There's actually six approaches that don't involve induction, so there are many, many choices to achieve our preparation of food with an all-electric. Coming up to 10 o'clock, we have clothes drying. This is typically achieved with either condensing or condensing heat pump, which is more efficient, miscellaneous uses. We just reviewed all of the electric fireplace offerings, and we were sharing that during the study session up at 2 o'clock. So just wanted to give a brief overview of the electric appliance options that are available. Now I'd like to spend a moment reviewing the types of policy, and we have nearly 30 jurisdictions in California that have some type of electrification policy in place. So we're going to begin here in this list with our natural gas infrastructure moratorium. There are actually, I think we've missed a couple here, but there are seven communities that have done that. In the middle, we have an all-electric reach code. So an all-electric reach code achieves a similar result, but it's done through an amendment to the California Energy Code, whereas a natural gas infrastructure moratorium is typically in another part of a city's municipal ordinance. It's generally the health and safety. Moving down to the bottom, electric preferred, which is the third type of policy option, which has been popular, preserves the choice of fuel for new structures, but requires a higher energy performance or lower fuel consumption if the design continues to use natural gas. So our council has reviewed some of the considerations relevant to those options and has directed us to prepare a natural gas prohibition. So I'd like to walk you through in this flowchart from left to right how that would work for a new construction permit application. So beginning on the square on the left, we would move through the right arrow into the dialogue box that's vertically extended, and the determination would be made if the application constituted one of the exemptions. And those exemptions are restaurants, new facilities utilizing industrial process heat, additional dwelling units, less than or equal to 750 square feet, and a design that would be contrary to public interest to pursue the all-electric approach or infeasible. So now moving again to the right, if it is determined it is an exemption in the design or the application, there is an allowance to either do a co-compliant mixed fuel design and some of the others there is an allowance just for that special use, say the equipment for creating the process heat or in the case of a restaurant for the cooking. If the answer is no, that the application does not constitute any of the exemptions, the structure, the design would be co-compliant all-electric. So no additional efficiency margin, it would just be built to the 2019 energy standards as an all-electric design. And then there's some nuances here just with the existing code. Starting at the lower right at the bottom, for a non-residential new structure, PV is not required by the 2019 energy code, so it would be an all-electric co-compliant without PV. And then there's a bifurcation up on the top. If it's greater than three stories there's no PV required, and it would be an all-electric and then less than or equal to, there's a general requirement for solar in the energy code with some exemptions due to solar access and some others. So that's a quick overview of the prohibition. And I just want to kind of review the definition here. Our mixed fuel, and I think I did mention this, is again an approach which would continue to use a mixture of electricity for plug loads and natural gas for water heating and space conditioning and other heat-requiring applications in the structure. So the ordinance where we are actually working on it, we had some changes just in the last, very recently, and we're working on integrating all those comments together, and actually tomorrow I'm probably going to be having that. But we just wanted to let you know that it is a working draft currently as we speak today. Here I'd like to provide an overview of the emissions impact. So we looked back in the last three years of our city's development pipeline, and we looked at the different categories, single-family, multi-family dwellings. And we came up with the best projection of our development over the next 60 months or five years. So what we're looking at is, in January of 2025, as 600 dwelling units are built, this would be the avoided emissions with the prohibition. So we have slightly over 300 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year with all the structures being built to the 2019 Code as mixed fuel. And then with Option A, as Tiffany had mentioned earlier, with the carbon-free procurement of Monterey-Bakling Power, those emissions are eliminated. Now, just want to quickly note, in our nation, the average turn of building stock on an annual basis is approximately 1%. The climatic conditions of our city allows particularly wood frame construction to last longer. So the aggregate impacts on a greater portion of our built environment will take considerable time to be reduced with this prohibition. So we look forward to other measures which can stimulate the retrofit of existing buildings. The updates to our city's green building program really give designers a lot of information and guidance in terms of optimizing all electric designs. Okay, just want to, we're rounding the corner here to finish up. I wanted to share with you what we've been doing today. We've been conducting extensive outreach with the community. We've conducted two community workshops. We also had our extensive city council study session where we did have some good public participation. We did conduct two developers roundtables, one in the fall and one just recently. And Kurt and I have been meeting on Tuesday mornings from 8.30 to 9.30 with trade, the trades folks, vendors, designers and builders to talk about whatever aspect they'd like to talk about with respect to electrification and that will wind up next Tuesday. Of course, today we also consider this public event as well, although we don't have too many people in the crowd. In terms of the policy process, again, it is not required. We come to Planning Commission, but of course, because future development under a natural gas prohibition could indeed come in front of Planning Commission. We wanted to come in front of you and get your feedback. We are scheduled with City Council for a first ordinance hearing on March 24th with the second hearing following a couple weeks later. And we are intending we're planning a building electrification expo at Earth Day where vendors will be able to bring appliances and equipment. Green builders will be able to come and showcase their all electric buildings to get our residents familiar with these kinds of appliances and equipment and so forth. And I've also just firmed up in the summer at the farmer's market. It's very likely we are going to have a celebrity chef induction cooktop cookoff. So that's a creative thing that we're also trying to do. And our implementation date is scheduled for July 1st, barring any changes. We have many resources, including the slide decks for all of the outreach, some frequently asked questions, some fact sheets that are at CitySantaCruise.com. We do have a resource guide on equipment vendors that's in development that will be coming out very soon as well. And with that, we'd love to answer any questions that you might have or take any feedback that you might have. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We can start with questions from the commission and then see if there's any public input and then we can see if there's any commission actions that anybody would like to take. So you had your hand up. Yeah, I have a couple of questions. Hi, even though the list is growing, I think of cities that have adopted ordinances in a similar fashion, it seems like we're still an early adopter. If you look at the big picture, some I'm impressed that we're taking those steps and making those things happen feels like we're being proactive as opposed to reactive again. So I had two questions. One is what is the significance of going with the, I forget the language, but the ordinance change versus a full like code reach and getting Energy Commission approval for that. If you could elaborate on that if you know. Sure. And the second question would be, I'm curious on exemption for ADUs or small ADUs, I guess less than 750. I think I'll take the first question and Kurt can take the second question. So with the natural gas prohibition approach, we are looking at a modification of our municipal codes health and safety chapter. If we went for the reach code, there are three things that need to happen. There needs to be a cost effectiveness study done, which the state has actually done for various options already. So that would not be a cost barrier for us. Secondly, because this is titled, that would be in title 24, we would come to planning, we would need to come to planning commission. And number three, we would need to take that language to the California Energy Commission for approval. So those are the three things that would need to happen if we took the full reach code approach. As we demonstrated, however, this approach gets us the biggest emissions reduction. So I think council saw that and wanted to take the approach that had the bigger impact. Does that answer your question? So I mean, I think I was leaning more towards enforceability as one stronger than the other. I think that would be the... I'm going to let my colleague who deals more with that to answer that question as well as your exemption question. So I just, I had a couple other considerations on the prohibition. So because it is a municipal ordinance, the city can consider it as an infraction for violation, which that clause exists. Also just retracting on the considerations before council. We also did some analysis which would have the least potential impact on the various segments of operations within building planning division. So we looked at current planning, field inspection, and building plan check. And the prohibition had a slightly lower, in our initial analysis, impact on our operations. So now I'd like to move on to the question regarding the exemption. Why ADUs at 750 square feet? So I want to talk in three regions. First, technical. So in the case of the cost effectiveness studies, both for the base code and for the reach code, the California Energy Commission has two prototype structures. One, a single-story 2100 square feet. And the second, a two-story 2700 square feet, the average being about 2400. So essentially there's a 30-year analysis for low-rise residential. We look at the cost, the incremental cost of efficiency measures or measures that are solely required for electrification. And we compare the cost for installation and the cost for maintenance with the on-bill savings over that 30-year period. You make assumptions about inflation and the discount rate. And those features, everything that the commission has done in the last six code cycles has to show cost effectiveness based on this criteria. What starts to fall apart with ADU is some of those incremental costs are, they're quantized. So they're not going to reduce and scale with reduced square footage, which is, say, approximately a quarter of all of the prototype structures around which the cost-effectiveness studies are determined. Now, there's another piece in cost effectiveness before I go on to the second and third major category. And that is that for all newly constructed types of structures, an ADU is the one for which we're certain there's already a structure on the parcel and likely there's already a meter and gas service to it. So the number, the 15, say, $16,000 that's saved typically when you're doing new construction, it's the first improvement on the parcel is reduced. So it's just the trenching to extend that gas service from the primary structure to the ADU, which could be more in the order of $6,000 to $8,000 approximately. So in the general considerations for cost effectiveness and electrification, we're sort of missing two of those and there's not exactly a fit. And so now I'm going to move on from cost to policy. So we have updates to our own city's requirements and restrictions on additional dwelling units. The impact fees begin at 750 square feet for schools. So there's a good consistency between the choice of that number and the other impacts that occur as the scope of the ADU permit applications, and lastly, I'd like to move on to the technical considerations surrounding that. There's two technical considerations. The first of those is I have frequent dialogues with energy analysts who prepare the compliance documents for the permit applications that I review as well as my colleagues. And they're just, you know, putting projects through the compliance software for the 2019 energy code. And there was a 700 square foot ADU and it was challenging for it to comply without either a more restrictive requirement that requires more inspections for insulation. It's called QII, or putting a special type of heat recovering ventilation system, which add cost. So I was acknowledging the fact that the ADUs, as in the past code cycle, you know, they're rather challenged to comply. And so adding any upfront costs, particularly that those applicants, there's some often cost sensitivity was a consideration. And then the second technical consideration on the ADUs is escaping my mind at this moment, but it will come back to me and maybe. I'll jump in for something and maybe this will help trigger your mind or maybe it was what you were speaking about. But I just wanted to point out that the gas prohibition or the gas allowance for ADUs at or below 750 square feet would allow for water heating and space heating. It would not, the gas prohibition would still extend to the cooking. And you saw the slide that Tiffany spoke to about the indoor air quality implications of the gas ranges. And with that smaller unit, we were particularly concerned about indoor air quality associated with cooking. And therefore we continued to extend the natural gas prohibition to the cooking appliances, but did allow it for the larger energy uses, the water heating and air conditioning, because it was more challenging to meet the 2019 building codes and energy code in particular with the all electric appliances. Yeah, I mean, as a follow-up to that, I could see an incentive. I mean, I would like to keep incentives for ADUs, especially smaller ADUs, because I think those are the market we're looking to build up in this community. It seemed to make sense to me, though, the real cost really is to the community, right? If we're allowing these people to get away with dirtier energy, essentially, maybe you could still require it, but if there is gas on property, then they would have that exemption, right? But they don't necessarily, they would have to ask for it, right? The idea would be to encourage the all electric. And if you had gas already on site and it made sense, then you could ask for that exemption as opposed to just giving it altogether. Just an idea. Thank you, Peter. Thank you. Let me follow up with that because I had a similar concern. I guess it wasn't clear in your response to the question whether there was really a distinction between an ADU that was built adjacent to an existing unit and an ADU that was being built at the same time as a new unit, because I think we've been seeing applications, especially now when it's so easy to get an ADU, or new single-family dwellings to come in with an ADU as part of it. I just wonder if that same analysis, I guess got a little lost whether since with a new development of a new single-family dwelling unit, there would be the requirement for all electric facilities, then it didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me that the ADU wouldn't have to meet that same requirement. Thank you for the question, Chairperson Schifrin. I want to answer this in two parts. When an ADU is contiguous or attached to an existing structure, either a conversion, say, of an attached garage and or an addition, that is considered an addition in the energy code. The scope of the prohibition is for newly constructed buildings. And in the case of the ADU, the requirement for all electric for an ADU that exceeds 750 square feet has to meet the definition of a standalone structure through the definitions of an ADU that is in our zoning ordinance. So it's not affecting the junior additional dwelling unit, but if it's over 500 square feet, it would be something else an attached additional dwelling unit. But the scope of the prohibition is only for an entirely new, separate foundation detached structure that exceeds the 750 square feet. Is that clarified? To be honest, it's as clear as mud, because I thought if somebody's building a 2,000 square foot house and at the same time, they want to have a 700 square foot ADU that's detached in their backyard but have a separate entrance, but it's being built at the same time. As I read the ordinance, what it's saying is, well, the 2,000 square foot house would have to be all electric, but the ADU, which is being built at the same time and on the same piece of property, could have gas, space heating and water heating. First, I want to be sure that that's what you were saying, and then it didn't quite make sense to me, and unfortunately, your explanation didn't help. So maybe you could try again. I'm sorry. You could help me, Peter? Yeah, I think the answer to your question is yes. That could happen as the ordinance reads today. Is the ordinance reads today? I don't think it would be financially feasible or cost effective to do that, but you could do it, I think the way it would go. I guess my question is, why would we allow that to happen? Is that good public policy? Wouldn't it be better to say for an ADU, a detached ADU of whatever size, if it's being built at the same time, if it's a new ADU with a new single-family dwelling unit, the code would apply to it as well. I understand that you're just taking comments today. That was just one of the questions I had, because it seemed somewhat contradictory. Okay, other commission or questions? I have a couple questions. Go ahead. I have some more too, but you go first. In the staff report, it mentioned that what city council had approved to move forward was option B. I'm curious what option A was. Was that the reach code piece? So I'll take that, Commissioner Nielsen. The option A was the prohibition, which we presented to you. Option B was a electric preferred reach code, which would have required a higher energy performance, lower annual energy use. Option B had the mixed fuel approach, i.e., still using natural gas, then submitted for the design. Okay, and that's what that's, there was that slide that you guys presented just tonight that had those two options that were highlighted. Maybe I think, and it must have misunderstood that. No, there was only one option presented. However, at council, we did present both options. There it is. The actual code that's in place right now, and the emissions associated with the 600 dwelling units. Option A, which is the natural gas prohibition, would have no emissions associated with that, with those 600 units because the natural gas would be prohibited. One other piece to option B that Kurt didn't mention is in addition to the mixed fuel with a higher efficiency, we also brought forward required solar PV or payment of a carbon and lua fee for the different types of buildings that currently solar PV is not required for. So that's anything other than less than and equal to three stories residential, which is required by the current code. I do just say what PD is, please. PV, solar photovoltaics. Okay, thank you. So in terms of the reach code, also I had another question about that too. I think on the flow chart slide, it mentioned reach code in there. So is that, so it being exempt, exemption to the reach code, is that what, is that what, the way I understood it was that we weren't doing reach code. I'm sorry, that should actually be as an exemption to the prohibition. That's a carryover mistake. Got it, thank you. Yeah, thank you for allowing us to clarify that. Okay, so then the other, the other question I have is just in, from a bigger picture is the, what's the, aside from building electrification, is there a strategy to reduce greenhouse gases to get to levels that the state has put in place? I mean, beyond this, I mean that you guys are looking at for the city itself. Are you talking specifically for the built environment or are you talking broadly about transportation? I think I'm talking broadly, and I think part of it is that, well, I guess we can, starting with the built environment, the, just curious what the, what I expect is that when, when building electrification happens, and I know it's a long process, but as that happens, I already, you're presenting the gas prices are increasing and I would assume that with the infrastructure being there for gas, as there are less customers that happen, the gas prices will continue to go up because they have to pay for that infrastructure. So I'm wondering if, has there been a measured approach that has been considered to take that into account because there's going to be residents that are affected by that, by going to full electrification? Sure. So to answer that question, I think I'll point to a couple of things. First of all, through Monterey Bay Community Power, we have the ability to advocate for rates that can help those with lower means. So that's something that we have primed our representatives to Monterey Bay Community Power to be looking at. Secondly, this doesn't really answer your question, but PG&E acknowledges that their legacy natural gas infrastructure is problematic and in fact are writing us a letter of support for our natural gas prohibition and had indeed got up in Berkeley City Council to also say that they supported this. That doesn't really get to your question exactly, but it kind of shows what the trend is. I don't know if, Kurt, do you have anything else to add to that in terms of the natural gas rates? Sure, so Commissioner Nielsen, coming back to the beginning of your question, if we look at the broad policy landscape, United Nations is beginning this year regulating the fuel efficiency of new aircraft design. Our state regulates the fuel efficiency of vehicles and sets a roadmap for the adoption of electric vehicles, but it's, at cities and counties, it's this level of government that we can set a path for leadership and acknowledging some of the challenges we have societally and ask more of buildings and in this case, switching to a fuel that has a lower environmental impact and is more promising in terms of the operational costs of the structure going forward as it is foreseeable to us based on past data and the best indicators of how that will move in the coming decade. So if we bring all that back, it's the most reasonable to create an all-electric structure from the beginning of the design process. It's far more difficult to take an existing built environment and a retrofit, but there are both incentives and emerging appliances and facilitating accessories that will help us do that. So it's a combination of working with the new built environment, which the prohibition addresses, and then looking at partnership with our utility incentives, the green building program to work with our existing built environment as those structures are modified or added to. So does that... Yeah, you guys are answering the question, I think, from the kind of the built environment piece. And I guess part of the additional question I have to that is, are there discussions within the city around prohibitions on other gas vehicles, for example? I mean, is that something that's also in the works of being discussed? We can go to our slide on transportation, but there are a number of things that are happening with respect to transportation. We are trying to get in place a fleet electrification plan. We have the VW settlement agreement that we were successful in becoming one of the cities that is getting investment in the form of DC fast chargers that are going to come online this year. We have the downtown Go Santa Cruz transportation demand management program that was recently launched with free bus passes. We have the jump bikes. So there are a number of things happening on the transportation front. I think it's important to say here, though, we as a city have a lot more leverage in terms of the built environment because transportation comes down to behavior change and choices, which is really difficult to get at. I mean, Public Works is doing a good job at that. But this really gets us that 18% with one policy mechanism. And I also want to mention one other thing on the incentives. So Monterey Bay Community Power is going to be rolling out, getting to the affordability aspect. They're going to be rolling out incentives for multifamily affordable housing for all electric, as well as for retrofits. And so that's going to, I think, really help our region with the transition as well. And they have a lot going on with respect to transportation as well in terms of incentives for electric vehicles, for EV charging stations, and so forth. So we're really working closely with them in concert for them to implement their electrification strategic plan that was just recently adopted, for which they have a lot of program dollars. And again, it's really important that our city representatives are active in influencing how those dollars come out so that they really reflect the needs of the community, particularly around the transportation piece. I would just add also that later this year, when we're talking about broad initiatives, we'll be kicking off an update to our climate adaptation and action plan. And that'll be looking at our long-term strategies to meet our carbon reduction goals and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. And so that's something that Tiffany will be leading in the near future. Yeah, that's a major project that's kicking off July 1st and we'll be doing a state-of-the-art climate action plan where we will be revisiting all of our goals, tiering them to the state goals, tiering them to the Monterey Bay Community Power's electrification strategic plan. And really also providing for us both short-term mechanisms that we can do while we're developing the plan, as well as our longer-term mechanisms. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for the question. Of course. First, thanks you guys so much. This is really amazing that you're doing all of this and I think it's going to have a really good impact. And I'm wondering about, and you've answered some of my questions about the retrofit piece. So I know this is focused on new construction, but for the retrofit, in addition to the multifamily larger-scale affordable housing, for other households who might want to replace their appliances, are there programs that you're thinking about and how that might be rolled out? Yeah, that is the Monterey Bay Community Power retrofit is for just single things. Yeah, exactly. And for recycling the old appliances and so forth? I'm not sure it has a provision for that, but I can look into that. Okay. And then I guess perhaps subsidies for acquiring the new appliances for families of limited needs. Well, that is something that we are going to need to advocate for. That is not necessarily how we haven't seen the exact structure of the retrofit rebate program yet. So there could be some consideration of that. But again, that's something that we really need to be actively involved in from our policy and operations board representatives. Thank you. Thank you for the questions. Yes, Cindy. I just wanted some clarification on, so the Monterey Community Power retrofit program. So is that accessing like state greenhouse gas reduction fund? Like who? No. Is that funding coming from them or how does that work? It comes from them. So how that works is that Monterey Community Power's rates are set at PG&E's rates with a 5% discount. So because it's not an investor-owned utility, the actual cost of the generation, there's a differential, that profit differential, those are the program funds. I mean, taking out operational costs for the organization, those are the program funds. So they are in the order. They started this year at something around 2.5 to 3 million. We're expecting them to exceed $40 million in the near term. So we're talking a lot of money here. And our boards are the ones that direct where that money goes. And so again, that's why it's really important for us to be involved in that. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Yeah, it's something to that because I heard today from the county's representative on the board that it's no longer going to be called Monterey Bay Community Power. Correct. It's been expanded into Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. And so it's going to be Central Coast Community Power with, I think, a 23-member board. So the benefit of having a larger area involved, the disadvantage of our city's voice or our county's voice becomes a little bit smaller in terms of the decisions that get made. Other questions? I had some questions on the ordinance itself, if I could. Just since we're not acting on the ordinance, but it's going to be going to the council, I thought I'd ask these questions. Under 6.100.040B, which says to the... Excuse me, Chair. Do you mind if we open the ordinance up so that we can follow along with you? Are you okay with that? More than happy. Okay, thank you. Yeah, let us open it real quick so we can follow along, please. Thank you. I apologize. This is probably not clean, but I think that's okay for our talking purposes. Okay. So this is sections 6.100.040B, which says it's for under the prohibition section, prohibited natural gas infrastructure, newly constructed buildings. It talks about to the extent that natural gas infrastructure is permitted, it shall be permitted to extend to any system device or appliance within a building for which an equivalent all-electric system or design is not available. I just wondered who makes that determination of whether there's an equivalent system or not? So thank you, Commissioner Schifrin. So in the appeal section, we map out if there is an exemption termined, what would be the process for that determination? Now if it's land use and the examples of land use would be a restaurant with a kitchen or the additional dwelling unit in excess of 750 square feet, that would be a determination based on the use of the land, the improvement on the parcel and its use. So that would be our zoning administrator. And now I'm coming to your question, which has more to do with the appliances. So for those exemptions which have a technical basis, say for instance, the industrial process heat, so the industrial process heat, which would typically be temperatures in excess of 350 Fahrenheit, there would be, you know, the applicant would provide the manufacturers cut sheets for that equipment that would be used for the occupancy for that structure. And that would be the basis, say the electric approach is either not available or we would just be, you know, they couldn't perform their operations. I guess what comes down to is who decides. Is it the building official who decides whether there's a, and I think it would be helpful to let people know who makes that decision. I understand the process, but somebody's going to have to be there to say, no, there isn't anything that, you know, what we got from the applicant is the best that there is. So I just think someone in the process needs to, it's helpful if the ordinance is specific about who makes the determination. So it is the building official and it's one of the areas you'll see on the screen here, the area under the appeals. We've actually made some updates from the version that you have. So what's on the screen here doesn't match your version. This is indeed a working draft. We were making changes as recent as today. So that is a good point and one that we want to address. And so here you can actually see some of the changes that we've been making. It's one of the things that we're trying to clean up to also make sure it's clean. Under the same section or old D where it says requirements of the section shall be deemed objective planning standards under government code, such and such an objective development standards. And I just wonder is that, those code sections, I didn't look them up. Is that SB 330? Is that where, when they talk about objective standards, is that what we're, where that came from? I haven't looked them up yet either. I assumed that was the case when I read it the first time. I think this is the first example that we've seen where we're putting in our code reference to having objective standards since that's going to be an important process that we're going to be following. During this timeframe for the next nearly five years, we are not able to actually introduce any subjective standards. So only objective standards can be placed. And I want to clarify for residential development. And so this would apply to both commercial and residential. So from the residential portion, they have to be objective standards. Right. Okay. So then the next one I had is the public interest exemption, which is 6.100.050. And the language seemed very broad to me. And I just wondered what the, when might the, under what conditions would the public interest exemption be used? This would be used in instances, say for example, at our water treatment plant, where maybe they need a generator that is a operating and that is operational during power outages that is going to be an alternative fuel source because that critical infrastructure can't go down. It's less likely in a residential project. More likely. Yeah. I would see it more as a public project exemption is how we envisioned it. And then under 6.100.055 revocable infrastructure exemptions. When it talks about the kitchen design of restaurants, as I read the language, I seem to say if a restaurant was built and that had a guest kitchen and the restaurant was sold and somebody else bought that restaurant, they couldn't change the location of the, they couldn't rearrange the appliances and still be consistent with the code. Let me see where I got that from. So it wasn't, it didn't make a lot of sense to me. So we removed that specificity. Okay. If you look up at A, it's now been shortened. I think Lee, you had related concerns on that. Okay. And then the final one I had, maybe you've taken care of this too, has to do with the provisions where it says the chapter shall become effective on July 1, 2020. And I wondered how that would apply to projects that were in the works. They submitted their building permits before July 1, but they hadn't been approved until after July 1. How are you taking so that people don't end up at the end of the process with a whole new set of requirements? So thank you for your question, Chairperson Schifrin. So in the case of a design permit being required, only it would be July 1, the effective date. So any planning engagement that predates the July 1, 2020 effective date, the provisions of the prohibition would not apply to. Okay. So that's for planning when there's a design permit now. In the case of our city. Let me clarify that. What are you saying that if I have an application in, but I haven't gotten my design permit yet, I'm subject to it. No, no. If I've submitted my application before July 1, and I had 2020 and I needed a design permit, then I'm under the old rules. Correct. Okay. Now, as a further clarification, we mentioned earlier in my response to Commissioner Nielsen's questions that it's the easiest for a design team to design all electric at the very outset. So in the case of our city, there are some residential parcels that are neither too narrow nor too small, and the structure proposed on it is not too large in its condition floor area. And they are entitled to a ministerial permit application process, applying directly for a building permit. So they would not have had the benefit of understanding the all-electric requirement during the planning, very early stage of the project. So we, in the current language of the ordinance, there's an additional 120 days if they're eligible and they're applying directly for a building permit. So that wouldn't be until November 1. Okay. So I just wanted, when I read the ordinance, it didn't seem like that. Those concerns were taken into consideration. It sounds like they are. Okay. Everybody's had a chance to ask questions. Is there anybody in the public who would like to testify on this item? See you. Not as a member of the public, but I do have a question. If you want to close the public hearing. I'll close the public testimony portion, bring it back to the commission and staff and ask the planning director what he has to say. Thank you. I wanted to make sure we were addressing your question on the restaurant because we did make some changes to the restaurant criteria, but in, and I'm looking at the version we provided to the commission and then the, the version that we have here in 6100.055 a, if you scroll down to that is the same here. We made, we made some changes in the definition that says, all right, a commercial kitchen is also exempt. You know, so if, if someone wanted to cook in a commercial kitchen, it's not necessarily considered a restaurant. So we, we made some changes there, but chair Schifrin, you said that you had some concerns surrounding the restaurant. I want to make sure that those, that we get a good understanding of those. I'm going to scroll back up to the definition. When I read it, it just sounded like where it talks about revocable building and instruction infrastructure exemptions, a language seems to require the same kitchen design in restaurants that replace the originally designed. So like once you have a design of your restaurant, that's a design you're stuck with, and it can't really be changed. And it seemed to me knowing how restaurants are, I can think of examples and they can want to just really set up their whole setup. And I just didn't think it made any sense to prevent them from doing that. So did I miss on the side? I believe I can answer your question chair Schifrin. So in the case that an exemption is extended when the structure is initially occupied as in a restaurant, that is the sole application is a new structure. And the subsequent period of time, the initial restaurant, the terms of their lease come to an end and the new tenant is also a restaurant and they deem it prudent for their business to relocate the kitchen and alter the seating area. Well, it's not a newly constructed structure. The ordinance would not apply. So their design professionals at will would be able to reconfigure the interior. Okay. Thank you. Just going down that path since we're talking about it, what happens if the use ceases to exist for a certain amount of time and then three years later, a restaurant wants to go into that same location and the gas was never removed from the building? I mean, can that happen? Yes. Okay. So it's because the building was constructed with it and was allowed to have gas based on the use. Another use goes in for over six months because I know six months is a threshold within a cease of a use happening, right? Yes, but that specific timeframe wouldn't be applicable here. So to give you another example, a developer could build a mixed use building, put retail in on the ground floor and not have any gas service going to it. A restaurant could move in at a later date and because they're one of the exempted uses, they could then extend to that gas line, even if one had never been extended. Okay. Now, if that restaurant moves out and another type of use moves in that doesn't have an exemption, then they would no longer be able to, they would have to cap that gas line and not utilize it for space heating or anything else, even though the gas line is there. But at a later date, if a restaurant wanted to go back into that, it could reconnect. Okay. So that brings up actually another question. As a developer of a mixed use project, I mean, can a developer provide gas to a building with the assumption or with the thought that a restaurant would go in there at some point, but that may not happen right away. Is that going to be allowed? That would be so long as they wouldn't be able to connect until they've got those tenant improvements. And they say, all right, this is connecting to range for a restaurant. Okay. So providing the gas line into the building is not the problem, but it connecting to it. The exemption is the obsession is triggered on the basis of the design of the kitchen. So at the point at which the tenant improvement of the non-improved shell, say in the instance of the first, that would be what would trigger the exemption and the gas line could be, service line could be installed into the building, to the appliances. After the building permit was issued. Understood. Yeah, I get it. I understand. Thank you. And to your point, I think we'll make sure that it's clear because a mixed use building may not have an end user when it's getting constructed. And they may want to proactively install that gas line, which we wouldn't see as problematic as long as it's not connected. Unless there's a restaurant. We'll make sure that that's clear in the ordinance because I think that was certainly the intent. And we want to make sure that it plays out that way. That makes sense. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the commission? We're really not being asked to take any official action on the proposal. I guess the recommendation was to. By comments. I think he. Clear by consensus that the commission is supportive of the overall approach. And you did provide questions and comments. And hopefully they're useful to you. So thank you very much for coming. That's very informative. I've always felt bad that in my house, I didn't have a gas range, but now I feel better about it. Electric would heat up faster. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And thank you for all the comments. We have recorded them and we'll follow up on them. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're now going to move to item number, general business number three, the discussion of section eight options for meeting the affordability requirements. I put this on the agenda. Because the staff report is pretty self-explanatory. Or the, not the staff report, the agenda report. But I put it on because I'm concerned that when we meet on the 19th to consider a specific ordinance. Amendment to incorporate section eight, the potential of section eight in the. Amendment in the 20% inclusionary ordinance that we have. We're able to do it at that night. We don't have to send it back. So I thought that there were a number of issues that it would be useful to talk about. I don't know. I guess the kind of a development director couldn't make it tonight or isn't going to make it representative. I don't know whether the subcommittee wants to say anything about the status of your work on the ordinance. But I, in my report, I listed a number of questions and I thought it might be useful to just sort of talk about, just talk about them and provide some input so that when you decide on your final recommendation, you'll have some sense of where the commission is. So let me first ask staff. If you have anything, anything you'd like to say about this item, then I'll ask you as the chair of the subcommittee. If you have anything to say about the public, if they have anything to say about it, and then we can just talk about the questions. Thanks chair chifrin. I spoke with the economic development director today. There was a meeting last night of the subcommittee and the subcommittees prepared to speak to their current status and where they're at with this particular item. Great. Yeah. Go ahead Julie. Sure. So the subcommittee has like as, as you know, Lee said we met last night. We met a number of times. There's been quite a lot of discussion and involvement of other parties, including a pretty deep discussion with city of Watsonville city staff. You know, I'm not sure if you can see where you on that call. I was on that call. I mean, so anyway, there've been a number of discussions. I would appreciate your set of questions. They are very much conforming with the kinds of questions that have been come out coming up. Around the section eight issue. And, you know, it, we, we aren't ready to present, make a formal presentation. We're certainly not done with our work. So I think it's a good idea to, you know, I think it's a good initiative to reach out and work with interested parties in the community. There's meeting set up and we're considering continuing to proceed with that. A couple of your points though, that you listed in your questions, I thought might be worth bringing out. And I guess actually I should just focusing on section eight right now, that our subcommittee is taking on. Pardon my voice. I have a vocal cord injury. So it kind of bleeps out periodically. And I may need to punt to other committee members. But the, I think this is a good list of questions. And but we've been proceeding with the idea that we want to look at the having the ordinance amendment work. Make sure that the 20% is neither a hindrance to the creation of housing. And also that it really allows for the kind of access to housing that we need. We know that lower income folks in the community really need. So for instance, we've had quite a lot of discussion around the idea that because of the rent standard, the payment standard paid by our local housing authority is really, it is quite high. We've gone to great lengths to make it. So I appreciated the charts that you provided. And so, you know, everyone can see that that illustration. That's been part of a multi-year effort to improve access to housing by subsidy holders. Not necessarily just section eight, but other other subsidies like, you know, home and up TVRA and Vash and so forth. And there have been a number of other incentives that have been developed through the landlord incentive program, which was really active for a number of years and still has existing programs that really branched off and existed. It still exists. But one of the issues that we found is that in working so hard to provide incentives and reasons for landlords to accept subsidy, one of the concerns is that a landlord would only want to rent to subsidy holders, especially in properties that are quite marginal, where what the market would actually harken for the unit might be quite a bit below the payment standard. We've had a number of issues there where we've worked on over the years. But we've also had, and this came up through the city of Watsonville too, where they're finding that their landlords are only wanting to rent some of their landlords to voucher holders. And I smiled a little bit because five years ago I would have thought that was a great success. But at this point, what that means is that if you don't have a voucher, which is highly unlikely if you are, well, the waiting list in our county has only been opened once in, you'd know exactly something like 10 years. So it's really difficult to be on that list. It takes a long time. And many, many people who need access to rents that are lower aren't going to have the voucher. So even if it does result in a 40 or 50% AMI household overpaying by our definition of overpayment, there's still better off paying for $1,400 for a one-bedroom apartment say than, or actually I think it's less than that. Actually that is the targeted rent for a 60% AMI household. That, even if they're overpaying, they still have access to housing that is more likely to be of decent quality. So I'm in a rather gassy way explaining that we have not landed on the policies that we think really work. And we're continuing to discuss them. Okay, thank you. Let me ask the planning director. Is it still, somebody showed me a legal ad that seemed to say that there was going to be a hearing on an ordinance. It seemed like I thought it was March 19th. Is that legal notice gone out that we're going to have a hearing on an ordinance at date? Is that still happening? We did notice that. It's my understanding right now that the subcommittee is still working on things and that date, that it will be continued at that date. That's our expectation. Well, I would personally really given initial controversy around the 20% and the staff position that having a section aid provision would really be helpful to developers trying to get financing. I, my sense was that there was a desire to have this proceed expeditiously. That's one of the reasons I want to go through some of this. So that some of these questions, so we could give some input because there's no right answer. Right. I mean, it's just, if you do this, there's some benefits. There are some disadvantages. If you do that, there are some benefits or some disadvantages. So, I mean, it's just do the best we can. If it helps, great. If there are some problems that come up, but trying to find the, I hear what you're saying about, on the one hand, there are lots of people who are low income who don't have vouchers. On the other hand, there are 500 people now with vouchers who can't find a place to live who are also low income. So the reality is the resources are totally inadequate no matter how you slice them and the 20% inclusion area isn't going to solve that. It's just one is what's a reasonable way to go forward that one helps lower income families and two, which was seemed to be a major concern of the staff, what is it that helps developers get financing? Because that was one of the major reasons for talking about the Watsonville approach because my understanding was that market rate developers, when they go to a lender and say, I have to do 20% and I'll make them all Section 8. The lender is going to say, well, how do we know you're going to have enough vouchers and not willing to base their performance on the payment standards, they're going to base it on what somebody is going to do. So if there was a way that even temporarily low income unit could be rented at a payment standard rate or a market rate, then that would assist in providing developers the financial ability to build their project. And I don't know whether that was something that Bonnie was going to look into as she was going to talk to a lending institution. We have meetings set up coming up in the next week or two. And we also have been pursuing some of the other questions around, well, I guess that's against staying on the Section 8 topic. So, yeah, we are definitely, and I'm really glad to have your input on questions of concern. We've also had been touching on some of the operational questions about how does a program that is really tying together jurisdictional inclusionary ordinance, how does it interface with operationally with the housing authority, because it's really different when it's got a jurisdictional mandate in there and it's not strictly speaking the relationship between the developer and the housing authority, which it usually is through the HAP payment, the housing assistance payment contract. And so that's also a worthy question. And I know it's one that we've struggled with, with site-based Section 8 programs like the New Able Soul program, for instance. We've really wrestled with the timing between the housing authority, the property management, the owner, and in that case, there's also a service provider that has a role. And you brought up some of those questions as well. What is the role, at least, of outreach to service providers? So, and I think that those are really good questions. Yes, Cindy, go ahead. Yeah, well, thank you so much for the work. And I just wanted to add on to a little bit what Andy said. You know, there's not a lot of, as you guys probably know, there's not a lot of long-term studies about how these things actually perform, but there are some studies. And one of the things that... Excuse me, but that, do you mean inclusionary ordinances? Yes, I'm sorry. How inclusionary ordinances perform based on the criteria of basically providing low-income units and keeping them in that affordability category. So one of the things that is consistent among those studies is this idea of predictability for developers so that as they're planning their project and as Andy points out financing their project, they have some predictability. And I think what he spoke about would be kind of a new approach to thinking about using the housing payment standard and then crafting language that would allow for the temporary renting of that published housing standard or of that payment standard. And it would allow it essentially to convert to workforce housing if somebody doesn't have the subsidy, a teacher or somebody with a service industry job would be able to rent that unit at that rate. It provides the predictability for the developer because they know when they go for the financing, they can say, hey, this is a one-bedroom. The payment standard for Santa Cruz County now is 1844 if for some weird set of circumstances where they couldn't find a Section 8 person because there's plenty of them based on talking to service providers in our community. If they couldn't find a qualified Section 8 applicant then they would know that they were still getting that rate. And again, that would keep that in our housing stock, it would keep that diversity in our housing stock and keep that consistent through time, consistent for the developer and consistent for the community as we're planning to look at our housing stock holistically. So I think it would be kind of an innovative approach. But the more I read, the more I talk to folks, I think there's some strong, I think there's some strong things in papers of an approach like that. So I hope that you all keep that on the table. I think you mentioned notification to service providers. Again, I think that that's a real key element because with that 30-day notice, it's such a short period of time. And if the people who are working with clients who have a voucher in hand for VASH or any of the other programs that have that Section 8 voucher in hand, if they're not getting noticed and it has to go through the Housing Authority, then it might have to go through the VA, and then it might have to get to the actual social worker on the ground, that 30 days is long gone. And so I think there's a couple programs in the community, Housing Matters, the HUD VASH program that could really get the word out and really help connect voucher holders with those units. So I think that would be something also that would be worth considering. Julie, did you want to respond? We're taking your comments. Happy to have them. I mean, did you want to make a point? Is it the case that the 30-day noticing period has been extended? Well, of course, right now, we're just looking at recommendations and discussing them. One of the points that we were trying to make is, and we've wrestled also Cindy with the point of what happens if to that, you know, the 5% that is eligible to, you know, meet their affordable housing participation requirement through renting to a section 8 voucher holder. What happens in the event that they don't do it? Does it revert to market? What happens then? How long does that last? Or should it instead revert to something, some rent limit that we might call median income, which is pretty much what you were describing. Another issue in our to-do list is grappling with the definition of workforce housing. For our purposes tonight, we could sure say that housing affordable to a median income household could qualify as workforce. We're not proposing that definition because we're not ready to. So we've wrestled with that. But another thing that we've, you know, there's the concern of, okay, they've got 30 days. You know, if they are, by chance, one of the property management firms with a commission 8 policy, you know, tick tock, wait for the time to go by. And we essentially don't want to reward them for running our clock. So we've talked about a couple different strategies. One of them is that they are required to allow 60 days to find a voucher holder. But they can rent it. They can find one and a point one at any time and much more quickly than if they wanted to. If they were one of the tick tock housing providers waiting for the clock to run out. That that it would be either very strong financial advantage to rent sooner and not leave a unit vacant. So we're deliberating on some of those types of things. And I think that's consistent with your point. I was thinking that we're going to have a discussion and I said that we're just going to get a report. Why don't we see if anybody in the audience would like to testify. This would be your chance and then we'll bring it back to the commission to talk about. Good evening. Tim will be speaking for affordable housing now. This is a very complicated subject. And I'm not sure I can make too much more sense out of it to help you this evening. I would like to make a number of points. The first one is that unfortunately the council doesn't approve the cart before the house. They raised it to 20%. And it's not a horse. It's a whole team of horses that you have to look at because they said, OK, so we've raised it to 20%. Now go out and figure out how to make it work. And this was just one of the ideas to make it work, which was to use the Watsonville 5% process to do that. Our position is, and we submitted our letter to you, that that alone is not going to make a developer build at 20%. It's not a significant enough incentive for a developer. So a whole package is necessary, and that kind of gets to your next item on your agenda, which is all the other things that should be looked at all at the same time. So it's very complicated. If you change one item, then you're kind of messing with all the other items. The only other thing I would like to bring up, and I may be absolutely wrong on this, but I think what's left out of the discussion this evening is the difference between a Section 8 voucher person and a person coming in at the 80% low income. Those are not necessarily the same people. And because you raised it, because the city raised it to 20% in the process of doing that, they completely eliminated all of the programs that incentivize developers to build at lower income rates. So now the only thing a developer would likely build, because it's at 80%, I mean at 20%, is at 80%. So it doesn't go to the lower income levels. On the other hand, if 5% of those are Section 8 vouchers, those individuals, correct me if I'm wrong, may have much lower incomes than the other people. And I haven't heard that in the discussion, and that should be the most important thing. Obviously incentivizing the developer is important, but there are a whole package of things that you can use to incentivize a developer. If you're going to use the Section 8 to focus should be on, does this actually help us get some lower income people into those houses? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, let's bring it back, and I wonder if we could just maybe go through the questions and provide input with each of them. So the first question is, should the Section 8 option be voluntary or mandatory? What I'm hearing is that there seems to be a direction to move towards mandatory. I would like, I think from my perspective, that has to do with incentives and whether in fact there's a financial incentive to have the ability to have Section 8 vouchers. If there's a financial incentive, I'm not sure we even need to make it mandatory that developers are going to do it because it's going to make their projects feasible, which otherwise... I just would ask that that be considered. Peter, why don't you go first then, Cindy? Yes, so some of the nuances we're getting into is so the current ordinance, as it reads, you could do your full project at Section 8 housing voucher level, right? So we're really only talking about the 5% ad, right? And whether we would make that some sort of mandatory, use Section 8 or not, right? The differences that we would allow, the major changes that we would allow the developer to not have to go rent to a low-income person, they could use, they could rent to anybody at the fair market, at the housing payment level, or at market rate, those are the two alternatives, on a temporary basis. And that theoretically would be now a developer, as you say, everybody could be Section 8, but if you go to the lending entity, the entity is going to say, well, how do we know that? So it doesn't really help. So the proposed change would allow, as it does in Watsonville, to an extent to rent temporarily at a market rate or a payment standard rate, and that would help with the financial feasibility. At least that's the theory. That's what would be different than what it is. Yes, no, I agree. I think we're headed in that direction already. I think it's down to semantics, right? One challenge is how do you write an ordinance? It's easy to read and easy to manage, right? And it quickly gets into a lot of definitions and a lot of referencing to other areas. So there's a bit of a juggling act, and I too, and sensitive to getting something out there, but it seems to be, it's a little bit more difficult than just getting something and hoping it's going to, address something and be fruitful at the end of the day. I think it's got momentum, but it's not the 19th, unfortunately. You're not ready to give up yet, okay? So I did, I had a comment and a question. The comment is that when, you know, one of the issues is, you know, when it comes to, you know, the responsibility and monitoring, and as you just brought up, as it gets more and more complex, the performance of the analysis that have been done, there's a negative correlation to that. So the more complicated, the more complicated set-asides and those kind of things, the actual production of affordable units was not as anticipated in most cases as I've looked at. So I think that's important to keep aside. I believe the council direction was to look at the Watsonville 5% set-aside as a model. So the question is, did it actually provide more affordable units because I had heard various reports on how many units have been actually produced. And then the other question is, is there a way to write this ordinance that just gives a strong and primary preference to Section 8 and doesn't put a proportionality to that? Is that a possibility? Question? We'll take that under consideration. Thank you. Did I ask if you've talked to individual developers? We have meetings scheduled. Yeah. I met, when I met with Bonnie, local developer was there. And that's where I sort of got, both sides from him and from Bonnie, that this would really make a big difference. That's kind of why I've been pushing on it because it seems like having that ability to get financing is a real major, would be a real major help to a developer. So that's why, from my perspective, giving that option, having that option there, let them, if they want Section 8, they can do Section 8. If they don't, they don't. But if they do Section 8, then they have the ability, if they can't get a Section 8 voucher holder to temporarily have it be market rate or at the payment standards. And then we come down to, okay, what's the enforcement mechanism? We talked about 60 days. One of the things that was talked about at the Housing Authority Board was, okay, could the Housing Authority play a role, not in enforcing the law, or the ordinance, but in monitoring it and providing information to the City Economic Development Department as to if there was somebody who was just having a clock tick, sending a report to say, okay, you get another 30 days or you get another 60 days if you haven't even interviewed any Section 8. And if an owner does want to interview Section 8, does interview but rejects everybody who they see, and the Housing Authority then is an agency that has the ability to evaluate whether those rejections were reasonable, you know, 12 people in a one-bedroom apartment or just they just didn't like the way they, the question or dress or whatever. So I think there is a, there could be a process that whereby developers would have to notify the Housing Authority, these other providers when or even earlier 30 days before their unit is gonna be available to sort of kick off a period. They, you know, the various providers could notify the voucher holders to go meet with the owner. The owner then would be able to make a decision if the time period is up and they didn't have anybody and they wanted to go to either market or payment standards. They could, you know, contact the Housing Authority and explain why they couldn't, why there was no voucher holder that they would accept. The voucher, the Housing Authority would then contact the city and say, okay, this is, you gotta let this go or this is somebody who just doesn't want to technically pin it and therefore just let's extend the period. So I mean, from my perspective, there is a approach that's workable that's not that complicated and would allow for low-income people, both voucher holders, leave it up to the developer. The developer doesn't want to rent to a Section 8 voucher holder. Then the city, that when you come in, I don't want any. I prefer to just rent to very low-income people and take the loss. Or they'll come in and say, I'd like to have 5% or I'd like to have 10% of my Section 8 units and then they're on the hook to rent to Section 8 voucher holders under the city's program. So from my perspective, I'm not all that complicated and I think that there are real, at least I've heard from one developer that this would really be of assistance if you hear from the bank that that would make a difference. I would really urge you to get an ordinance together. I understand that the attorneys have looked at ordinances. Thank you. It sounds like we're on the same page. We are certainly concerned about the right. We have some draft ordinance language. It is not ready. We have some additional vetting to do. But it sounds like we're concerned with operationally with the various interested parties. We've had multiple discussions with Jenny Panetta from the Housing Authority, certainly prospective developers, lenders, and always, of course, service providers. And that is a network that is really important to have closely involved as well. So, yeah, thank you. Are there other? Good list of questions. Thank you, Julie. And it's been great working together on this discussion. I'm wondering if you have thoughts on this difference between going to market rate versus the payment standard and any kind of thoughts on we're trying to figure out what the exit would be for developers who don't somehow find about your holder. And we were talking about potentially going to more of a moderate income or a workforce housing kind of level and trying to find comparisons. There's now, I think, going to be in discussion with developers and lenders about how predictable or not those other standards would be versus market rate. In some cases, those levels at this point in time are actually higher than market rate, interestingly. The construction? Yeah, right. But that's just this moment in time. So moving forward, and depending on, like, what area median income, like how that's measured. But I just don't know if any of you have any experience with the thoughts on how, you know, that gets measured. Well, I certainly have thoughts. My initial thought was that the best the developers would want market rate. That's normally, especially for new construction, but that would especially for new construction probably put it out of the range of income about you. So sort of getting... Moderate income, that would be high. 80%. But from sort of gotten convinced that maybe since the thrust is I've sectioned voucher holders and if you have sectioned voucher holders, you're going to get owner, you're going to get the housing authority payment standards and the bank is going to say, okay, with housing authority payment standards we'll put that into the pro forma and we'll know whether you have a sectioned voucher holder or not that you're going to get rent at the payment standard. That's like fair market rent. Is that the same thing? The differential HUD puts out fair market rents. The housing authority comes up with the payment standards that isn't supposed to exceed the fair market rent but sometimes it can if it's within what's called a... it's like the most confused system but the housing authority as you saw from the chart has different payment standards based on whatever however they can figure it out in terms of what the payment is from my mind in terms of financing, what helps with the financing I've kind of gotten convinced that the benefit of using the payment standards either with the section 8 voucher or without a section 8 voucher is one if it's okay with the section 8 voucher in terms of financing without the section 8 voucher and two for a lower income person they need to be able even if it's not restricted to low income they're more likely to be able to afford the fair market rent even without it but it's still on a temporary basis so I think that what you've just said is exactly what I said or at least what I was trying to say in my opening comments one of the things that we're trying to do is to give banks a steady number and we know that a tenant based voucher cannot be used for underwriting purposes because it's not predictable it's not site based if instead we're offering a predictable limit as I was trying to say we're not saying it's market but what we're saying is this is a defined number and you can underwrite to that number so I think we're saying the same thing which is great yeah reverting to you know we're I think we're still gathering input on it these are all of the questions that are in play and we appreciate that you are seeing that too and did you have a point also Cindy did want to say something I just wanted to kind of clarify on the record and if anyone is watching that the term fair market rate is very confusing to people because when they hear fair market rate they think what you have to pay if you go to Craig's List and what a two bedroom cost and so housing and urban development does a rental study and then they develop what they think fair market rate is and then the housing authority will take that and develop the payment standard for section 8 vouchers which is not entirely clear so again the idea of using the standard is it's exactly what you said right it's predictable it's fairly consistent and that predictability is one of those things that tends to come up and a lot of these readings and talking to people is something that's very important and you do make a good point because the published FMR fair market rent that HUD publishes is always and it's always off by a number of years and in a market like ours that can be really devastating and for that reason at different times but certainly recently we've made a concerted effort the jurisdictions have worked with the housing authority to undertake really specific and rigorous studies of the actual rents which is the reason why if you look if you just Google FMR for Santa Cruz County you'll come up with one number but if you go to our housing authorities website you'll find what the actual reimbursement would be for a landlord in certain areas at this time and so it's worth noting that difference could I try to clarify that a little bit because it is really confusing HUD traditionally annually puts out what a fair market rent would be for one, two, three, four, five bedroom it's been very low for quite a while way below what the actual market rent is if you go out and try to rent an apartment housing authority has sponsored with the help of the local jurisdictions surveys to try to convince HUD that their fair market rents were unreliable and unrealistic over the last couple of years they've been successful the fair market rents have gone up very, very significantly and they're much closer to what the actual market rents are however since the housing authority gets a budget of only so much money every year and it has so many vouchers that it has to subsidize and every family needs different level of subsidy they have to sort of figure out well what's the maximum that we can normally pay in order to stay within our budget for the vouchers that we have that's where the payment standards come from payment standards are going to be less than the fair market rents but not that much rent and the fair market rents that HUD comes out really drives the payment standard the payment standards go through another couple of steps because they have to represent what's realistic in terms of the budget probably that's probably and then what's really weird is that on a case by case basis not only can the housing authority agree to pay a landlord more than what's in the payment standard they can agree on the certain circumstances to pay more than what's in the fair market rent as long as it's below something called a reasonable rent which is something that HUD releases a formula for what's the reasonable rent so it's sort of like it drives the housing authority staff crazy to try to figure it all out but it's all ultimately driven by HUD saying this these are the fair market rents and this is how much money you're going to get housing authority and so you how much you're going to be able to and it's in there and so just like market rents aren't predictable from year to year as they respond to market conditions the fair market rents and the housing payment standards are going to change every year as well yeah they are I mean they're very lucky over the last couple of years gone up significantly and we've been in this period over the last couple of years where our market is really haywire and out of control but I know I've seen over the years I've been in this field there have been periods where in a fluctuating market and we do have a fluctuating market it doesn't feel like it right now because it's been pinched for so long but we've had periods where even the FMR was higher than what landlords could garner and which made section 8 very attractive we've been ahead in a long period now where the market rents are so out of control that they're really hard to cope with so yeah I think we're all agreeing that we are trying to deal with the vagaries of a market with the tools that we have it seems like we're on the same page about what tools we have and we look forward to continuing this discussion thank you for your input and you know I hope the overall goals are one to help make the projects feasible but also to serve the lower income community that's the underlying rationale for the 20% is that more lower income people will be able to so what I would like to request it's sounding like it's unrealistic to think that there's going to be a proposed ordinance on the 19th I would like an agenda item that would be a report from the committee on this of your work and your I think it's been advertised already haven't it Lee that's been advertised for the 19th I think which is why I really hope you could come up with a even if it's a draft ordinance that we could take public input on and I don't think that we will be doing that but we'll do everything that we can and we appreciate your input any further comments alright well let's move on to the next item which is a discuss the work program for the ad hoc housing subcommittee and the desirability of establishing an ad hoc subcommittee on objective standards and this again is an item that I'm bringing before the commission and I was concerned at sort of broadness of the ad hoc housing committees work program and it's lack of specificity understanding was the first issue was going to be the you know working on the 20% you're doing and coming some kind of language around section 8 amendment but there are other potential ordinance amendments for the inclusionary there are workforce housing issues housing type options there was some discussion of density bonus and I just thought the commission should have more of a discussion about what in fact the expectation is for the work of the subcommittee and the timeline whether it would make sense to ask that we get a more detailed work program that the commission could prioritize yeah so the council directed the commission to set up an ad hoc subcommittee and we have been working on which happened we've been working on actually all of these items the workforce housing definition we've begun wrestling with we've acknowledged and discussed the fact that our inclusionary ordinance has been like a 40 year old Christmas tree getting ornaments added and never seeming to get any taken off I just made that up that's pretty good I think at this point the needles are gone and it's nothing but quite a few rusty ordinance some of them work and some of them really don't are going to be at least I don't think this isn't something the subcommittee or that we've landed on as staff we've looked at some of the pieces that make this ordinance really clunky and difficult both for the community to understand what is it what are we accomplishing within it certainly difficult for developers to understand and it's even hard for staff to interpret so I think that there's some real problems and beginning to look at that is I think an important we were asked to discuss it I do think that that's probably a bigger job I mean I know it's a bigger job there will be a recommendation coming out but it's not ready to do that right now so some of the other things that were brought up and I appreciate that you included the staff report that led to this we haven't gotten to talking about housing type options that's one that is one that I happen to have opinions about we have not had a chance to start talking about that I do think that it's been identified both by the council and staff reports as something that you know could and should get brought up and and I think this commission at a meeting I was an at was also talking about are there things that we can do to super energize the creation of ADUs that's kind of part of that same small units alternative housing types other discussions and then also you know very seriously whether there's things we want to do around the nation of the density bonus and our local density bonus ordinance and whether we'd be interested in doing what some other jurisdictions have done including the county which is now we've been superseded by the state so it's any idea any jurisdiction has it's kind of leapfrogged by the state and it's desperation to create opportunities and pathways for housing but that is essentially the list of things that we're talking about what I'm expecting is that on some of these points we'll be coming back with some really clear recommendations like for instance a definition of workforce housing is something that I'm hoping that we can have within this city a working understanding of what we mean when we say that others such as what's the best pathway to undertake some streamlining of our ordinance I think what that'll be not we're not going to be coming back with rewritten ordinance I'm sure of that but I do think that it's an opportunity to discuss it take a look at options and come back again in response to the council direction with some recommendations recommendations that then would be implemented through a work plan by staff because we don't write ordinances is anybody else on the committee want to add anything to that yeah I would echo that and I I mean there's other things I'd love to have on the subcommittee's agenda or that we discuss as a commission for instance I'm interested in the whole question of community land trusts and the ability to take land off the speculative market and the city's role in that I don't know that that's part of our agenda but you know so what happens when there approaches to the creation of affordable housing that aren't on the agenda of the subcommittee do we then expand that agenda or do we bring it to the commission or you know how does that how would that work if these four items don't you know that there are possibilities beyond those that we want to address so that's kind of a question that I have yeah I would also just say that the final work plan is still a work in progress right we kind of had two directions going into this we had the creation of the subcommittee was on a slightly broader sort of issues and then we had subsequent to that the very specific section 8 issue to deal with which we've spent most of the time focusing on so we haven't really defined a work plan or whittled down to you know discernible pieces what the rest of the issues will actually have a chance to address in the near term so I think that will be forthcoming that's on our agenda for the next meeting to finalize what that work plan actually is so we'll have a little bit better understanding and I think can communicate more clearly what those issues are going to focusing on essentially question just to be very specific just I'm going to list off some things about I'm just curious if you guys are discussing these if not maybe it would be worth discussing sounding like you're already discussing density bonus but enhanced density bonus as an option fee reductions if that's something you guys are taking on fast track permitting reduced parking requirements unbundled parking reduced development standards and ministerial approvals I think all in terms of ways to incentivize development in terms of housing types I think this falls under that but small lot subdivisions would be an option I saw that in the I remember in the original report subcommittee report pretty sure there was things in terms of dorm style housing lodging detached bedrooms that's interesting I'm not even sure exactly what that is but it'd be interesting for you guys to discuss that and figure out how that works but co-housing certainly is something that I think it's relevant to our community and then discussions around junior ADUs whether or not junior ADUs can happen with multi-family because currently they cannot they do require owner occupancy so I'm not exactly sure how that works but I guess that's an option to remove that requirement and then also the ability to of adding more than one junior ADU to a property so those are all things that are on my mind that would be great for you guys to grapple with and discuss and come back to corridor plan I'm assuming not anywhere close to your to what you're dealing with but I would love to see that come back and I'd love to see some discussions on that so I'll just leave it at that my understanding is that that is coming back at the council direction there is a discussion we'll talk about it during the announcement section but it's not our charge that's my point but it is a good point like how do we deal with questions of density and zoning in relation to multifamily housing within you know in this kind of like project by project basis without thinking about the corridor yeah well yeah that's a good point because you have to look at it holistically and understand what the larger impacts are and working within the constraints we currently have and how we can break free from some of those and the corridor plan could easily be a place for that to happen so I think this is a question to you so I heard a lot of things but I'm still unclear on the process of how we help create a prioritized work plan because that's a real long list I think that this was our opportunity to take input on that and we appreciate it well let me just say that I disagree with a number of the recommendations that have come out of it I think the state law has provided so many opportunities for density bonuses so many requirements for approving identity housing I don't think the or and so many requirements in terms of ADUs I am personally not in favor of doing anything more either with density bonuses or in terms of providing you know more ways to house those housing on neighborhoods beyond what's already in state law we don't even know what the effects of the recent changes in state law are going to be on us and I think that gee it's all wonderful we should do even more when we don't even with realities of what the state has imposed I think is definitely premature let me also say that my feeling is that when we have to focus and I think the example of the section 8 inclusionary is a good example one fairly small amendment to an ordinance and it's become very complicated lots of discussions meeting with all sorts of people even though it supposedly was going to be expedited through the process now we can't even get it on the probably can't even get it on the 19th agenda I think you know 25 different things that the subcommittee is going to work on means that nothing me it means nothing's ever going to get done so I kind of agree with Cindy that we've got to prioritize and we need to focus and some of these issues might best be done by a subcommittee I like to think that it's I like that the subcommittee is focusing on the section 8 issue that may well be focusing on workforce housing but my sense is as you start to try to do six or seven different things nothing gets it done everything gets delayed because you're talking about this you're talking about that so my desire my expectation is that to the extent we're going to have this subcommittee that makes sense to be real clear about what its priorities are what are the particular things that it's going to be working on so I am appreciating that you're intending to come back with something specific and then the commission can say okay yeah majority of us think that's what you should be working on great majority thinks that that should be a high priority great if other things are not such a high priority then let's put them aside and just at least start to get things done in a systematic way by focusing on one thing after another I really appreciate that Christian brought up the really comprehensive list that came out of the housing blueprint a long community process staff put a lot of time in on it the community has put a lot of time in on it there's a lot of ideas there and the council directed this commission to set up this commission this subcommittee really because as I would put it there was a very rushed change to an inclusionary ordinance that had not been vetted or thought through and in setting up this this direction to set up the subcommittee really was to take the time to do the vetting that is important and I think that everyone has acknowledged the importance of having a policy that is going to allow developers and lenders and the community to have an understanding of what's going to get built out of it I think that there's really strong interest in in fact I've not heard anything from anybody myself that doesn't have an interest to make a 20% inclusionary requirement work in this community we have a huge need however policy was adopted really without study or analysis we still aren't doing economic analysis but what we are trying to do is take a look at it from a lot of perspectives I can appreciate the sense of urgency but I do think that it is important that at this time we take the time to be as thoughtful as we can and ensure its success and that's what we're trying to do I do understand the frustration that it's not faster and what I was trying to say earlier is we know we can't do everything that is in the housing blueprint and those discussions continue and we also obviously can't take on a lot of what our paid staff's work plan is our role here is to really be advisory to the council and we've taken on that charge we're doing our best and we will proceed pace I respond so thank you for that and I will agree with chair Schifrin too in terms of focusing I think really the focus here is about how do we get more housing that's the focus that's what everybody wants that's what we're trying to get to but there are a lot of different avenues and a lot of different things that have to be addressed or have to be evaluated and looked at there's so many different options for how to make that happen but I do agree there is a focus of how do we get more housing so I think that's what has to happen in that subcommittee and I think that what I could say maybe you guys want to jump into we are really clear that what we were charged with when this was set up is to take a look at workforce housing look at this change that was quickly made to the inclusionary ordinance try to make sure go through the process of discussing and understanding the implications of it on some really key projects that we all want we all want the school to be able to provide teacher housing it's a complex issue that I know I've worked on from a number of different perspectives so we know that housing is going to be discussed in a lot of different places so what we're charged with is really fairly narrow and we'll talk about it more soon and I think it's a really just I'm agreeing with everyone pretty much and that we do need to focus and figure out priorities and maybe there's some and think about the different avenues towards producing more housing more affordable housing and maybe there's ways of saying okay we focus on certain aspects of incentivizing the private market to do this and I think Christian you've brought up a number of approaches among those lines and this is also what we're trying to do here there may also be non-market approaches such as community land trusts and so forth that cities around the Bay Area are increasingly pursuing and I think would be great for our city also to engage with and giving see that there are multi-family developments for instance that are coming on the market that tenants have the opportunity to purchase those units or community organizations have the opportunity to purchase those units to preserve existing affordable housing so that might be another set I think workforce housing and having employers involved in the avenue into the production of housing is perhaps a related but third approach I think about not just putting all of our eggs in these different baskets but coming up with some rationale for how we're coming up with an agenda I think that those are really good points and I think part of the frustration too of the committee has been we want to talk about those issues and the impacts of finding ways to create the right type of housing in this community and we're really trying to get just right this really specific thing that is our focus and I think we're close we're really close and I think we're going to have a better submission or recommendation to the council because of it and it's I think this input is for me more a confirmation of where we've been headed and we're really talking about the same issues I think we're really headed in the right direction my sense is committee is focusing on amendment that's great I understand the issues of moving it forward quickly and I understand that it is a priority and it's going to be you know you're going to be moving forward as quickly as you can in terms of the other work programs of the other items to be covering that the committee could be working on both with the inclusion of the inclusion of the ordinance and other issues I hope that the next kind of order of business is to come forward with the work program that sort of says these are the things we want to work on this is what we think should be the priorities and see whether you have that discussion at the commission and see what see what support the commission has for those directions and I hope that that I'm looking forward to that coming soon but it's not like these aren't important issues it's just that I just I myself was very frustrated with the blueprint process because it was a long process lots of people were involved that went on for a long time and all that we ended up with was a huge list of things that could be done and getting from that huge list to doing something for going to 20% it was doing something that will help with affordable housing and I don't have a problem with now let's make it work that's how things were done that's how the first inclusionary ordinance was passed when it was 15% it was like everybody said it wouldn't work we did it, we didn't do studies and developers and the community figured out a way to make it work that's what we need to do here in fact the section 8 the section 8 amendment is the first attempt to make that happen and I think other revisions to the ordinance that simplify it, maybe streamline it I've also looked at the ordinance and it's it is old and it does have a lot of clunkers in it that don't really need to be there anymore so I think there are going to be ways to simplify it and make it more straightforward but still keep the essential thrust which is providing additional the other issue that I brought up maybe I want to give a chance for members of the public to speak if you want to speak on this item just very quickly we recognize as we said before how complicated this is and how many different items there are that could be looked at and should be looked at and there are some in our letter that weren't brought up that we hoped that you would look at but I think the reality is that raising it to 20% at this point there are not going to be developers lining up to build so I don't think there has to be a rush to get this done I think it should be done right and the whole picture should be looked at because our current codes and ordinances for having just read them try to read them they're very complicated there's years of layers of things that in many cases were sort of meant to slow things down rather than to speed them up so this would take some time it takes a lot of staff time to do this so I don't see the rush for that I think it's better that it be done right than it be done quickly because as I said I don't think developers can build until they know what might be out there the second thing I wanted to bring up was just to add to the list you might remember that the workforce housing came up correct me if I'm wrong it came up because the school district people were concerned that raising it to 20% would kill their project so the workforce housing so the workforce housing part is important because Prop 13 looks like that's going to pass and Prop 13 has both money for school districts to build more housing also the UCSC and as I put in a letter it also creates the incentive for developers to do it and not have to pay school dedication fees because the state has moved already there's one other issue to catch up with the state for workforce housing so it's all the above and good luck thank you well if I could just quickly respond I think that's and thank you for that comment I think that's one of the reasons why workforce housing is our next agenda item is because we're very cognizant of the fact that we don't want to impede in any way the school district from moving forward on their plans which are not imminent but are coming soon we're trying to get that done in a timely manner second issue was having that I brought up on this item was whether it made sense to set up a subcommittee on objective standards and this we think that our ordinances are complicated and difficult to read lots of luck with state law and trying to figure out just what the state law is requiring is really difficult but there definitely seems to be a movement towards ministerial decisions requirements that local governments approve projects that meet the general plan and the zoning and objective standards and so the whole notion of what's an objective standard and what's a subjective standard has become sort of a term of art of importance and as the commissioners may probably know the city has gotten a grant from the state or approval for a grant and is waiting for the money to come unless it's coming the last week or so and is intending to hire a consultant to work with staff and come up with a set of objective standards that could then be placed in the ordinance that would be relevant to evaluating development projects so since a major role of the commission is to evaluate development projects it seemed important to me to discuss what the role of the commission was going to be in terms of the development of these objective standards and we have two architects on the commission with a lot of experience with development and we're in the role of trying to evaluate development and what we have before us is the ordinance that says what are the performance standards what are the requirements so I met with the planning director to talk about potential commission roles if I could correct me if I got conversation wrong but my understanding was the director was thinking about having commission members on it with other staff from other departments I was kind of favoring the notion of having a subcommittee of the commission that was just tasked an ad hoc subcommittee that was tasked to work with the staff and the consultant on this so I wanted to have us talk about it back from commissioners have the planning director give his point of view to us just me and see if what is the desire for the commission to do anything church so couple of things one, we haven't released an RFP yet so a request for proposals will be going out we are guaranteed the money we're actually considering releasing the RFP in advance of actually getting the money because we won't be paying that for some time we can get someone on contract we've been waiting for that money but we've been waiting for 3 months now so we keep hearing it will be happening really soon and what I expect when we get those responses back and this is where I just want to clarify what I think the planning commission's role will be in this what I expect when we get those responses back I think that many if not all of them have some type of technical advisory committee and being that this is a issue that comes before the planning commission part of that technical advisory committee will be made up of planning commissioners and we'd be relying on the expertise that you all bring to help guide and shape that technical advisory committee it could be that there is a larger community advisory committee and rather than having a separate technical advisory committee the planning commission members participate as part of that community advisory committee it could be both of those things there could be a technical advisory committee and a community advisory committee I think the important thing that we want to do when we release this RFP is actually not specify the planning commission's role and the reason why I think that's important is because when we get RFP responses back we want to have the creative ideas of those respondents of those consultants not be bound by something saying you will do it this way oftentimes what can happen with the RFP responses is we have a consultant team that we think is great and they're the best ones and we say you know what though like there was this really great idea for community outreach or for planning commission involvement and what do you think about including that and if we specify in the RFP that this is what commission's role is going to be in there then there's a potential to stymie that creativity in those responses and so I'm very reluctant to specify exactly what the planning commission's role is going to be as part of that RFP in favor of hearing what creative ideas could come back most that said most RFPs that go out come back with a technical advisory committee and or a community advisory committee so I would expect that and maybe we get something else maybe that's all we've got but as we move forward with the release of the RFP the responses will certainly be keeping the planning commission abreast of the direction that we're heading and we do anticipate that the planning commission has a role to play in that beyond just you know bringing it to the planning commission when it's when it's ready for formal recommendation I would expect there are going to be some a variety of check-in points throughout the process where there is involvement of the planning commission as a whole as well as with some other subcommittee however those may play out once we hear from the consultants yeah I'm just wondering to go back to the community involvement piece and how much we specify the RFP given that this is going to be a big change for the community I think that it is in all of our best interest to we can leave it perhaps open about the mechanism in which they're involved but I think it would be very important to specify in that RFP that there be a robust community involvement component to these standards and that we actually call that out because I think from start to finish the more transparent we can make this for the community and I think the more likely we are to get support as we move forward with this mandate without a doubt we already have that draft and that is a significant component including a list of I'm not going to try to count the number but if you look at the recent second meeting in actually excuse me second meeting in January for the council we actually had a list of potentially affected interests it was just a brainstorming initial brainstorming but it's just that I think provides emphasis for the RFP respondents to understand how many different groups and how many different stakeholders we're actually expecting that they attempt to engage we can't guarantee that if they say we want to get a lot of renters and we want to get young people and we want to get students and we want to get homeowners we can't guarantee that all those folks will participate but there needs to be a very active effort to engage as broad a spectrum of the community as is willing to talk with us thank you yet on the other hand we'd like to have objective standards within our lifetime so having a process that goes on for three and a half served the city did you want to say something Julie? yeah I just I spent a lot of time talking about objective standards I'm on the committee for the county is developing it it's a really complex process and I'm really looking forward to the responses to the RFP that are being put out and I do think that it's important for the community to have an opportunity to weigh in and even just to understand the extent to which the city has latitude and does not have latitude in terms of what we're creating with objective standards and what it means going forward for the projects that are developed so I think it's really important I don't believe that there should be a subcommittee of the planning commission for objective standards set up at this point I personally think a TAC with prescribed community involvement is a better approach I feel that pretty strongly and it's too soon at any rate so I think you know thank you for bringing it up and it's there's a lot going on I mean I'm curious about how the planning department is managing its work plan I think you've been breaking it up in like six month chunks instead of annual chunks so I'm interested in how it works in with all that there's a lot going on there is a lot going on and to chair Schifrin's point that's a point well taken as well we want to move these forward as quickly as possible because as developments move forward we want to be able to ensure that we have the best for the community in terms of the quality of design the quality of architecture and we have limited ability to do that under the current state regulations that prescribe how we cannot reduce the density of projects below what is allowed by the general plan and our ability to use subjective standards is limited by that we can't deny projects based on subjective standards nor can we reduce the development capacity based on subjective standards and nor can we use objective standards to reduce the development capacity below what's allowed by the general plan I'd like to just let the commission know we don't have a date yet but just advance notice and we'll certainly be reaching out to you all that we will be doing with the commission with the council in the coming months probably in the late May or perhaps the June timeframe that speaks to a lot of the the state laws that have been passed recently with the dual focus one on just the housing laws in general so AB 1760 SB 1763 from January 1st last year of 2019 SB 330 which took effect January 1st of this year and various others including the second part of that is the focus on rent control and tenant protections so that it's also informative for not only the council and the planning commission but also the community to really understand, hear the new rules that we're playing by so let me say that behind objective standards are values and people have different values and I think members of the commission just like members of the council have different values and my suggestion is I'm not always in agreement with the staff's values as the staff knows and I don't think that given that the objective standards are going to play a critical role in what the city had the ability of the city to really regulate development it just seems very important for different points of view to be part of that process so I'm not convinced that it doesn't I don't see this as simply a technical exercise I think it is also a political exercise and a value based exercise and while I think it's important to have community input ultimately it's going to come down to four votes on the city council and it's going to come down to a vote at the planning commission and I just think it's important given that reality that the planning commission play a very active role in that process and not have it be staff dominated whether it's tax staff or consultant dominated where they come with their own set of values and to view so I'd like to ask you to report back at subsequent meetings on the status of the RFP I feel I can accept waiting to see what they come up with but ultimately the consultant will work for the city and the council will approve their project and if the commission majority wants to recommend that a subcommittee be set up of the commission to work with the consultant that's a recommendation that this commission can make and the council can either do it or not do it but I think there are different points of view as to how this process should proceed and unfortunately we're still waiting to get the ability for it to proceed but I'm not prepared to just say okay let the technical people run the whole process and have a bunch of community meetings so that they can say that there's community input okay so no action is required on this any more discussion on this item than anybody would like to have so we have no public hearings we have no information items any I have some information I just wanted to give the commission a heads up on a couple of things one at the next meeting the March 19th the council's January 28th discussion referred potential options for moving forward with zoning and general plan reconciliation that is related to the corridors and so there will be a discussion about that at the next meeting on March 19th and then at March 24th at the council meeting there will be an update on last year's progress towards meeting the regional housing needs allocation and then that will subsequently be forward to the planning commission as an informational item in April there's no way for the commission to see it in advance there's not a lot of people working on those numbers right now and so we'll be getting that ready just in time for the March 24th council meeting we're happy to refer that and that's what we'll be indicating as part of our agenda report as well that informational get forwarded over to you in advance or following the council meeting any other information items from anybody any subcommittee we've sort of had subcommittee advisory body oral reports something going on with the west cliff adaptation buddy I think there's going to be some public meetings consultants should be releasing their evaluation of the initial cut of alternatives sometimes it's mugged meeting today and there'll be a Spanish outreach meeting on Saturday and yes the next deliverable from the consultants is due in the next couple of weeks here anybody want to refer an item to a few people sorry no I was just talking about calendar I know for example spring break is coming up early April do we have a what is our first meeting that month give me just a moment I can look and see just looking at that thanks for bringing that up let you know if we have anything scheduled yeah uh no the second no April 2nd April 2nd first and third Thursday so as it currently stands I will be out of town on the second and I'll be out of town on the 16th did we decide we are I may be out of town on the second as well okay maybe two of us would be gone on the second yeah thanks for those early heads up if we confirm that okay if we've got items plans we'll send out information to confirm we have a quorum thank you any other business seeing none we're adjourned thank you all very much