 Well I'm going to call this meeting of October 6th 2022 to order and should we do a roll call first? Commissioner Conway, Dawson, Kennedy, Maxwell, here, the CD Miller, here, different, here, Vice Chair Greenberg, here. Thank you. So now is anyone want to move to approve the minutes or have any discussion about the minutes from our last meeting? I think we should start with oral communications. Oh, I'm sorry. I have the wrong order. Yes. And also there are any statements I'm not looking in the right order. My apologies. First, statements of disqualification. Are there any statements of disqualification for our meeting today? Okay. So now I'm going to go to oral communications. And I would like to ask if there are any members of the public wishing to speak on an item that is not before the commission this evening. And do you see a member of the public has indicated they wish to speak? Wonderful. Okay. So please have three minutes to speak on an item not before the commission this evening. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. My name is Brian Shields. I'm a field rep for Carpenter's Local 505 in Aptos. And I wanted to just take a moment tonight to touch on the need for labor standards. These standards are the escalator for the working class by Santa Cruz adopting apprenticeship healthcare prevailing wage. They would ensure the working class is placed here in our community. It is necessary to not only meet our need for housing, but also to secure the position of the working class here. Apprenticeship is a proven escalator to help people in continuing a career to stay with a particular career, not to jump from one industry to the next, thereby securing a workforce for us moving forward. Healthcare is necessary not just for the worker, but also for the family so that the entire family is able to seek and see doctors and physicians as needed, thereby taking the stress off the workforce and prevailing wage. Santa Cruz is an expensive town to live in and it's necessary to earn a good wage in order to live here and spend our tax dollars here and bring that money back into Santa Cruz so that we can continue to build. Anyways, I didn't want to take too much of your time tonight. Thank you very much for listening to me. And I look forward to hopefully engaging with the planning commission more. Bye-bye. Thank you very much, Mr. Shields, for that comment. Really appreciated. And are there any other members of the public who wish to speak to the commission this evening on a matter not actually on the agenda before the commission tonight? Well, seeing none, I think we're going to move on to what I mentioned before, which is the approval of the minutes from our last meeting. Is there any discussion, any question about any items within the minutes, or are we ready to approve the minutes? I'll move the minutes, but you might want to ask if any members of the public are here to talk about the minutes. Are there any members of the public who would like to talk about the minutes, not just people on the commission? No hands. No hands? Okay. Thanks, Sandy. I'll move approval of the minutes. Okay. Oh, sorry, Sean, we can't hear you. My space bar is not working. I'd like to second that. Okay. Great. So can we get a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Kennedy? I abstain. It wasn't there. Maxwell? Hi. Is he the Miller? I'll abstain. I was in present. Different. Hi. Okay. So I think the minutes pass. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So thank you. And so we're going to move on now to the discussion before us in our public hearing. And I would like to first open it to the public to speak. I think the staff report comes first. Oh, I'm sorry. Right. That would make sense. Okay. We're going to go to the staff report and then we're going to ask the public to speak. Thanks. Great. Thank you, Commissioner. Chair, tonight, Bloomberg, and good evening, planning commissioners. Let me go ahead and hold my presentation. And, okay. Wait, it's not. Sorry. Give me a second. Share screen would help. Can you see it? Yes. Okay. So tonight, we're looking at a non-residential demolition authorization permit, a sequential lot line adjustment, a special use permit, a coastal permit, design permit, and heritage tree removal permit to reconfigure the site into two lots, remove six heritage trees, demolish two vacant school buildings, and construct a senior housing facility comprised of assisted living and memory care units. This project also requires a historic alteration permit as it is listed on the city's historic building survey. The historic alteration permit was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission at their August 17 hearing. Applicants also held two community meetings for this project, one on March 3rd and one on May 28th of 2020. At these meetings, the applicant presented earlier concepts of the project. Feedback from the community included concerns about project size, traffic and parking, compatibility with residences on Eucalyptus Avenue, setbacks to residences, unit affordability, impacts to heritage trees and waterfalls, construction impacts on the neighborhood, risk from emergency vehicle visits, and the effect of the project on the surrounding property values. I want to note that tonight's project is substantially smaller than the initial concepts that were shown at the community meeting. So the project site is located on the lower west side of Santa Cruz at the corner of Pelton Avenue and West Cliff Drive. There are single family homes to the north and to the west. White House Field State Park is to the south and West Cliff Drive and the Pacific Ocean to the east. There are currently six buildings on the site. I have them all here on the screen. Buildings one, two and three are two barrage house and these buildings are listed in the city's historic building survey. Building number four is the Shrine of St. Joseph Guardian of the Redeemer, that's the church. Buildings five and six are educational buildings that were most recently used by the Gateway School until 2019 and they're now vacant. There are also several heritage trees on the property. So the proposal will reconfigure the site into two lots, one on the west part of the site and one on the east. I'm sorry, west and then east. The eastern lot will keep buildings one through four, which are the church building and the three historic buildings. On the western lot, the proposal is to demolish the two school buildings and to construct a senior assisted living and memory care facility. So here's a layout of the proposed development. The facility is a two-story building with 76 units including 59 assisted living units, 15 memory care units and two inclusionary aka affordable units that are required to be designated either as assisted living, independent living or staff housing. The project also includes several amenity spaces including a cafeteria, multi-purpose room, fitness room, salon lounge and then operational spaces such as offices and back-of-house functions. This proposal is consistent with several general plan housing element policies that support the development of units for elderly individuals and for those with special needs. The site is zoned R-15, which is a single-family residential zone district and so this type of development requires approval of a special use permit and a design permit for a community care facility. The site is also located in coastal exclusion zone B and the appealable area of the coastal zone, so the project requires a coastal permit that is appealable to the coastal commission. Because the project involves demolition of the two school buildings that are more than 50 years old, the project requires approval of a non-residential demolition authorization permit. The project also involves configuring five legal lots into two, so this requires approval of a sequential lot line adjustment permit and then finally a heritage tree removal permit is required to remove the six heritage or six of the heritage trees on the site. Okay, so I'm going to start talking a little bit about the project design. This is a view of the project from Pelton Avenue from the south, showing the parking lot and then the main entrance to the building. The building has a Mediterranean architectural style with flat roof lines, arched entryways, white stucco, bronze colored windows, copings and other details, wood awning and trellis features, and terracotta colored added fence. So one thing the Historic Preservation Commission did when they approved their permit in order to ensure that the quality of materials on this development is comparable to that of the historic resources on the site. The commission approved a few conditions and those include requiring windows to be baked enamel aluminum or stained wood for the windows to be recessed at least three inches and for the stucco to be hard traveled smooth finish and those conditions are also included in the conditions of approval for that design permit tonight. As you can see well you can kind of see they're proposing a very well landscape parking area and they have a nice covered trellis walkway that kind of breaks up the massing of the parking lot. On the right side of the screen you can see the proposed trash enclosure it's behind this big tree that they're showing on the right and then you can also see a service gate extending from the right side of the building over to the I guess over to the property line. I have included conditions of approval to ensure that these two features have matching materials and design features to make them consistent with the rest of the site. This is the south elevation drawing that corresponds to the rendering we just looked at and I just wanted to show this because I'm proposing a couple other conditions of approval. One of them as you can see a rooftop trellis here on the right side of the elevation this exceeds a height limitation for the zone district so there's a condition of approval for this to be removed from the building permit plans. The elevation is also showing a chimney which didn't seem to relate to any fireplaces in the building below it seems to be a faux like decorative architectural feature. The zoning ordinance allows chimneys to exceed the building height but it does not allow architectural features to exceed the building height so condition of approval requires the building permit plans to either remove the chimney or to show that it's actually a functional chimney. This is the view of the project from Eucalyptus Avenue. You can see the architectural style is consistent with flat roof lines the bronze color detailing and wooden awning and trellis features. The massing on this side is in the form of building segments broken up with courtyards and a lot of landscaping in the front. I think the intent here is the massing is similar to that of single family homes with the spacing in between the homes and that makes it consistent with the single family homes on the other side of Eucalyptus street. Here we have the north side of the building. These are going to be memory care units and this side of the building is adjacent to single family homes to the north of the project site. This generally will not be visible from the public right of way. Again the architectural style is consistent with the other elevations and as I mentioned earlier the rooftop trellis and the chimney shown here will be required to be removed the chimney maybe for leaving the zone district height. This is the view from the east. I have it broken up because it's a very long view but basically the top you start at the left on the top and then you skip down to the bottom. This is the view basically from West Cliff Drive except it's not very visible from West Cliff Drive because it's behind the existing church buildings and historic buildings and there's a lot of vegetation on the site so this is very well shielded you'll be able to see some of it but not a lot. This area in the front on the left side of the elevation is the service area. This is mostly blocked by the church building and there's also going to be a six foot wall so none of that is going to be visible from West Cliff Drive. Okay I'm going to jump in and talk a little bit about our inclusionary requirement here. So the city's inclusionary ordinance requires 20% of the dwelling units in a development to be offered at an affordable rent to low income households. So on the screen I'm showing the zoning ordinance's definition of a dwelling unit. As you can see one of the defining components of a dwelling unit is that it has a food preparation facility aka a kitchen. The zoning ordinance further defines kitchen as a room or portion of room designed for cooking and or preparation of food and containing two or more of appliances and or fixtures and then those appliances fixtures are detailed in the definition. So this development has 76 assisted living and memory care units. However most of these units only have either a kitchen net or they don't have any kind of kitchen facilities at all. Only 13 of the units are supposed to have full kitchens and so therefore those are considered the full dwelling units in the project and the 20% inclusionary ratio only applies to those 13 units. 20% of 13 is 2.6 which then rounds down to two units as required by the ordinance. So I've included a condition of approval requiring the units without full kitchens to be memorialized as such. If the applicant wants to increase the number of full units with kitchens in the future they would need to obtain a modification to the permit and then comply with the inclusionary requirements for all of the full dwelling units on the project. I'm going to start talking about some different resources here. So first I can interrupt you and ask a question about the dwelling unit definition. I suppose so. I guess as chair I should say that's okay. I think that is that okay with you Leonard Stanger that we have questions just to clarify. Is this a clarifying question? Yeah it's just specific to the that slide because the the language in the ordinance on a food preparation facility says any portion any room or portion of a room and it would seem to me that those units that were at kitchenettes one could argue were potentially portions of a room that have two or more of these facilities. So I'm just wondering how many kitchenettes there are. I understand that there are 13 with full kitchens but how many have kitchenettes and do the kitchenettes meet the language and the requirements in the ordinance for having two or more of the facilities? Sure off the top of my head I don't recall exactly how many kitchenettes there are but I do know that the kitchenettes do not rise to the definition of kitchen in that they do not have at least two of the appliances listed in the definition and the condition of approvals the conditions of approval limit them to not rise to that definition of the full kitchen. Sorry and how many appliances would they need? So they would need at least two so they need they need at least any sink larger than 14 inches by 14 inches and or having a drain outlet larger than one and a half inches in diameter a refrigerator larger than two and a half cubic feet a hot plate microwave burner stove or oven so any two of those would create a kitchen and what do they have the kitchenettes? I don't believe the plans specify what they have but the plans do show specifically which units have full kitchens and we have conditions of approval ensuring that the kitchenettes do not have this number of appliances. Okay maybe we should continue this. Yeah I'm sorry I usually don't want to interrupt but it was very specific to this slide. Okay I'll go ahead and keep going then. Okay so yes maybe we can continue this discussion a little later it's an important point but thank you very much we'll continue thank you. Thank you okay so I'm going to move on and talk about some different resources archaeological historical trees biotic and this a little bit. No okay so first I'm going to talk about archaeological so the site is mapped as sensitive for archaeological resources under the general plan. An archaeological review was completed for the project and determined that there is a very low probability of finding any archaeological resources on the site but we have included a standard condition of approval to stop work and contact the appropriate authorities if by chance or resources discovered during construction work or excavation. So in terms of historical resources the site has like I said three buildings listed in the historic building survey and I marked those within age for historic on the slide and then there's two buildings proposed to be demolished those are marked with a D over on the left side here the two buildings to be demolished are more than 50 years old and because of this they need approval of a non-residential demolition authorization permit and this permit requires evaluation of the buildings to determine whether they have any historical significance. So the historic evaluation was completed for this project and that concluded that neither of the two buildings to be demolished is eligible for historic listing at the national state or local level and demolition of these buildings does not constitute a historic impact under CEQA. I'll also note that the historic preservation commission found the development compatible with the historic nature of the three listed historic buildings on the site that's that's outside of our review tonight. There are 11 heritage trees within the development area and their locations are shown in circles on this screen the five green circles are trees that will remain with the project. The two yellow circles kind of in the center of the site are two queen ponds and they will be removed and then relocated elsewhere on the site. The four red trees are an acacia tree a plum tree and two mulberry trees they are all determined to be in declining health and three of the four trees are also within the construction footprint. These four trees are proposed for removal. The project arborist report included recommendations for removal as well as measures to protect the trees that are intended to remain. The city urban forester has reviewed this report and agrees with the report's recommendations and those are included as conditions of approval. In addition replacement trees are required for the trees to be removed at our standard ratio in the coastal zone which is either two 24 inch box trees or six 15 trees for each tree to be removed. Okay I'm going to talk about butterflies for a little bit here that's a hot topic on this project and for a good reason. Okay so under the general plan a portion of the northern end of the site as well as the really small sliver of the southern end of the property are mapped as potentially containing sensitive butterfly habitat. Under the local coastal program or LCP the entire site is mapped as potentially sensitive. The butterfly is identified as a special status wildlife species under the general plan a sensitive species under the LCP and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the butterfly as a candidate for the endangered species list but the species is not currently listed as threatened or endangered at the state or federal level. General plan policy NRC 2.4.1 and table one of the natural resources and conservation element of the general plan refer to general avoidance or management strategies to employ when monarch butterflies are present. These strategies include avoidance of butterflies, buffers, construction timing or protection from indirect impacts. Similarly the LCP policies EQ 4.5.3 and EQ 4.5.3.2 in the environmental quality element call for development in the vicinity of designated monarch sites to include environmental impact analysis and include management criteria to help preserve the nearby habitat. So these policies of the general plan and in the LCP provide our framework for assessing and managing the monarch butterfly resource when it comes to development. So this is a snapshot from the biotic report. The report prepared for the project found that the development area includes a mix of developed space, ornamental landscape area and rural grassland. The report also identified the monarch roost grove that is off the site but it's nearby at White House Field State Park. You can see it down here in orange. So I did some rough measurements and the monarch butterfly habitat is about 65 feet from the southwestern corner of the property. There's a 20 foot length buffer on this south end. So when you add the 20 feet, the habitat is about 85 feet from the closest corner of asphalt in the parking lot. It's also roughly 160 feet from the western edge of the proposed driveway along Pelton and it's about 245 feet south of the southern end of the proposed building. The biotic evaluation included several visits to the site including one in the fall of 2019 and several between October through December of 2021. These visits all coincided with the monarch roosting season. The evaluation did not find any monarch butterfly habitat within the development area but the report did identify two areas with very limited potential for roosting on lot one which is the proposed church lot or the lot with the church and the historic buildings. So these two areas are the row of mature cypress trees that run along the south side of the church and then a couple of mature cypress trees to the northeast of proposed lot two. However the evaluation did not see any monarchs roosting in those areas. I also want to note that the project does not propose to remove any of those trees. So the report made four recommendations that are consistent with the types of management strategies called for in the general plan and the LCP. These are included as conditions of approval and I have them here on the screen. So roost trees including buffer trees will be retained. Any occupied roosts will be buffered by 100 feet. Daily construction will begin after temperatures are both 55 degrees, butterflies are cold-blooded so they can't really move around until the temperature gets above that level. And then trucks and equipment to enter and exit the site along Pelton Avenue from the east toward West Cliff Drive. So basically no right turns onto Pelton from the parking lot. Basically you're coming in and out from West Cliff Drive and not going east or coming from Easton, not going west and coming from Weston Pelton. Okay so those are the four conditions that I had included originally. We received actually quite a lot of really good feedback from the public that they had submitted for the September 1st hearing and they had a lot of good suggestions for protecting the existing modern butterfly habitat. So the project biologists reviewed those suggestions and included quite a few recommendations that I would like to include as additional conditions of approval. So I have them listed here. So prohibiting, so this is once a project is constructed to prohibit right turns out of the Pelton Avenue driveway and so that will stop headlights from sweeping across the Monarch butterfly habitat at night. Requiring signage prohibiting high beams until drivers are completely on eastbound Pelton Avenue heading towards West Cliff Drive. All commercial deliveries shall use the West Cliff driveway for entering and exit the site at all times. Final landscape plans shall locate new trees to avoid excess shading of next year resources. All exterior project lighting shall be shielded to contain the light source in the downward direction and shielded from the Monarch habitat. Provide an on-site water source such as a fountain for the Monarchs near the nectar garden. Install and maintain predator-proof waste bins. Eliminate populations of yellow jackets, eastern gray squirrels and rats on the property using non-toxic methods. Restrict the use of seed feeders that attract eastern gray squirrels and corvids. Utilize leaf vacuums instead of blowers and prohibit the use of certain pesticides known to negatively impact Monarchs. I'm not going to try to pronounce that. Okay, so we did include quite a few and I just want to once again want to thank the public for really being very proactive and in providing their suggestions on that. Oh, this is giving me way too far ahead. Okay, so I want to take a little bit of time now to talk about neighborhood compatibility in terms of, I already talked about visual a little bit so I'm going to skip over that, but in terms of traffic and circulation, amenity in back of house uses and privacy because those are topics that are important when you're thinking of the site for design permit and then also for especially its permit and compatibility with the area. So we have received a number of comments and concerns about traffic. So our framework for evaluating traffic has two components. The first is based on the number of vehicle trips and that's for consistency with our city regulations which is managed by the Public Works Department. The second component is vehicle miles traveled or VMT or a view under CEQA. So in terms of vehicle trips, the traffic studies submitted for this project indicated that there are fewer trips than the previous school use. This study was reviewed and accepted by the Public Works Department and since there are fewer vehicle trips than the previous use, the Public Works Department has no further requirements. And then in terms of VMT for CEQA, the project is exempt from VMT analysis for the city screening tool which includes community care facilities as an exempted category. So there's no further review under CEQA for that. In terms of circulation, the site has been designed to keep cars away from Eucalyptus. You can see the entrance is on Pelton. There's also another entrance that could be used on West Cliff Drive for commercial vehicles. And that really keeps the traffic away from Eucalyptus Avenue and the other residential streets in the neighborhood. The left turn only condition of approval to protect the butterflies will also help to keep vehicles from traveling through the residential neighborhood. I'm including a condition of approval to remove a pedestrian pathway that's shown on the plans on kind of the southwestern part of the project that leads from Eucalyptus across to the main entrance. I have a condition of approval to remove that and that will help to discourage people from parking on Eucalyptus Avenue in order to utilize the facility. One other note on parking, the applicant has indicated to me that the operator of this facility intends to hold some special events that would result in increased staffing and visitors on the site. We have a condition of approval that limits the number of staff, I believe, to 21 at any time. So I'm proposing an additional condition of approval that will allow up to six events per year but requires the applicant to record like a land use agreement memorializing an offsite parking and transportation plan to show how they're going to deal with the additional cars coming to the site for those events. And then moving on to amenities and back of house uses. Those are shown in orange on the picture here. They're mostly placed away from the residential uses. The laundry uses down in the basement so that's away from everything. And the deliveries are going to be on the southwest side of the building, which is about as far from the residences as you can get. In terms of privacy, there is a row of large trees planned along the northern property line and that'll create a nice screen between the development and the single family homes to the north. There are also trees proposed along the north and the east sides of 112 Eucalyptus Avenue, which is a single family home just tucked into this southwestern corner of right adjacent to the development. This is probably the most impacted residential property. I've included an additional condition of approval. There's a second story unit right above this fitness use. So the second story has a unit and has a balcony coming off of it. And the balcony is fairly close to the residential property here at 112 Eucalyptus. I have a condition of approval for some privacy screening to the balcony. I have that conditioned in the conditions that were published last week. However, the property owner and the applicant have a detailed condition. And so I have submitted that. That's in the list of revised conditions. And so I'm proposing changing the condition to that more detailed that has been agreed upon. Okay. I'm almost at the end here. So in terms of CEQA, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA pursuant to public resources code section 21083.3 and state CEQA guidelines section 15183. This exemption is for projects consistent with the general plan and zoning ordinance. And where uniformly applied existing development policies or standards will substantially mitigate any environmental effect on the project. The project also qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332, which is a class 32 exemption for infill development projects. Staff recommends that the planning commission acknowledge the secret determination and approve the project with the proposed conditions as well as the new and revised conditions that I have discussed. I also have a couple other revised conditions on that memo that I sent out that should also be published on the website. Just a couple of minor things. One was just changing the word easement to land use agreement because they can't technically do an easement. The church is retaining ownership on both properties and you can't technically do it. So we're doing a land use agreement instead. And there was a condition of approval for an easement for the additional parking spaces to be constructed on the adjacent property. I'm proposing to remove that because those parking spaces are not required in order to meet the parking requirement. And I think I've discussed all the other proposed changes. So that should conclude my presentation and I'm available to answer any questions. Great. That was a wonderful presentation. Thank you very much. And so we are now going to go to questions. And let me just ask the staff. I think do we go to questions from or comments from the applicant first and then do we go to questions from the commission? Mr. Marlott. It's chair's purview. Typically the next step is commissioner questions of staff and then you go ahead and open the public hearing and the applicant typically has an opportunity to ask questions and then you can ask questions of the applicant. And then the general public has the opportunity to speak. And then typically we allow applicant an opportunity to rebut any comments that were made. Then you close the hearing and read our decision. Okay. Great. Thank you. So let me open this up for questions from the commission at this juncture. And I see Commissioner Schifrin. I think Commissioner Kennedy had his hand up first. Oh, I didn't see that on my screen. Sorry about that. Yep. There it is. Commissioner Kennedy first and then Commissioner Schifrin. Oh, thanks and no worries. I have a question about that PV trellis up on the roof. The I understand the recommendation is to eliminate that. Would that eliminate the roof deck as well or just that element that sticks up? It just removes the element that sticks up. They're allowed to have a roof deck that that doesn't affect the height limitation under the zone. Okay. And I'll leave that there for now. One question about monarch butterflies. Is my memory, right? I think those are really low monarch butterfly years anyway, right? We had a big dip and then the population came back somewhat miraculously last year. Was that factored in? Did that come up in those reports? I mean, the reports are very thorough, but I had that question. I believe it was, but I would rather leave it up to the biologists to explain that more thoroughly because I would probably do a terrible job. Understood. That's not your area of specialty. And so in the discussion about the monarchs, did anyone talk about having this project just be like the best monarch habitat ever? Or is it kind of all in the context of like mitigation of damage? Well, the project is including a lot of capturing plants in their landscaping. So they did go out of the way to try to provide that remedy for the butterflies. I think there is some consideration for what types of habitat to include. Certain types of habitat are not good to put next to a roosting site. And again, the biologists can probably explain this better than me, but I think they were pretty careful about including nectaring plants, which is good, but not like milkweed or something else that would actually be detrimental to the butterflies based on their proximity to the roosting site. Thanks for summing that up. And yeah, I agree. The experts have studied it. So two more quick questions. I like the left turn out of the driveway. Does that have hard infrastructure associated with it? Or is it kind of a signage thing at this point? Like I don't know would be appropriate, but some sort of, you know, bulb out or concrete thing? The condition of a pool doesn't have any like bulb out required. I think it's more, I think it's more of a signage thing at this point or more open-ended, but that's, I mean, definitely something that you can close. That just seemed like a good idea and it might be better in my opinion if it's more solid than a sign. And then last question, like I trust Commissioner Schifrin will go deeper into the affordable housing count. It looked to me like only the memory and caring units do not have kitchens, but that's just for me running through the plans right now. So that's not really a question, but we'll get into that more. I'm sure. Thanks. Okay. Thanks, Commissioner Kennedy and Commissioner Schifrin. Yes, just a couple of a few questions, not about inclusionary requirements at this point. I did want to follow up on what Commissioner Kennedy said about the exit on to Pelton, and I wondered if there are any roadway improvements proposed from Westcliffe to the driveway. I mean that Pelton is in terrible shape and the traffic is going to increase going down that road. There are going to be trucks going down that road for the project. So I just wondered whether the Public Works Department had indicated whether repaving Pelton from Westcliffe to the driveway was anticipated as a condition of approval just to meet city standards. No, the Public Works Department did not include any improvement requirements. I believe that is related to the fact that the traffic report came back showing fewer trips than the previous use, but they're not requiring any new paving along Pelton. Okay. And I wonder also, especially since this is going to be a senior facility, whether it would make sense to improve the sidewalks along Pelton as an amenity for the residents and for public safety, assuming that people may want to walk to Westcliffe and enjoy the bay. So I assume that those are not conditions of approval. I wonder if there would be considered legitimate conditions of approval to add. That might be something the Public Works Department is requiring. I can look that up for you real quick. I'm logging on to look it up. Typically the Public Works Department does require sidewalk improvements for projects large and small. It might take you a minute to find that answer for you. Well, my next question is really, I see from the smiling face that Jim Moose might be here as the city's environmental consultant. And my question, I have a couple of questions about the environmental, the CEQA requirements. And one of them has to do with since the LCP that is in effect in this area is from 1994, I'm wondering whether the LCP would require a trigger environmental review beyond an exemption that might either a minor negative declaration or an EIR. So I wonder what the thinking was in terms of the relationship between the LCP and the CEQA determination. And this is, I'm sorry, this is your, this is based on the age of the LCP? Well, just in terms of it's not the LCP is different from the from the general plan policies. And so I don't know whether and the fact that this is in sort of a special kind of it's in the coastal zone, it's in a shoreline protection area. I just wonder whether the kind of LCP requirements and particularly since there are what might be considered coastal resources in terms of sensitive habitats in the area, whether that would justify a higher level of secret review rather than just an exemption. And Commissioner Schifrin, so the public understands, could you say what LCP stands for? The local coastal program, I'm sorry. Thank you. I don't think it would. I think, you know, the LCP has like sensitive habitat mapping just like the just like our general plan does. So we look at both when we have a project that's in the coastal zone. Both the general plan, the LCP call for site specific biotic review for like, for example, Monarch butterfly habitat. And then if the biotic review finds that there might be a significant impact, then that would you know, potentially kick us out of an exemption from CEQA. But that was not found in this case. So what you're saying is that the fact the policies of the LCP would not require a higher level of environmental review than the current general plan or the project requirements. I don't believe so. You know, if if Eric or Eric looks like Matt, something to say or Jim moves wants to jump in. Yeah, I'll also add that because the coastal zone typically includes more sensitive habitats, the policies that we have in both the local coastal plan as well as the implementing ordinances, which are also in the zoning code, have development standards that seek to protect these habitats or sensitive areas. And it's these very standards that we're relying on and that that CEQA section 21083 allows us to rely on as uniformly applied development standards in order to justify this exemption that we're proposing. And I'll turn it over to Jim to see if he's got anything to add. Yeah, happy to address this since my name was brought up by Commissioner Schifrin. Very happy to answer this. So there were two independent exemptions that were relied on here and both of them really are focused on the general plan and not the LCP. These are exemptions that apply throughout the state and most of the state doesn't have coastal plans. And so the first one, 2803.3, applies where you have a project consistent with a general plan for which any IR had been prepared. So we have a fairly recent general plan compared to the old LCP and the projects consistent with the general plan. And under that exemption, the question becomes whether there are impacts that are peculiar to the parcel or to the project. And so in other words, impacts that haven't been dealt with previously in the general plan EIR or impacts that can't be mitigated by what are called uniformly applied development policies or standards. So there's language in this statute that says if you have uniformly applied development policies or standards that will substantially mitigate an impact, that impact is not peculiar to the project or to the parcel. So essentially there are two ways to conclude that something is not peculiar to the parcel or project. One, it's been dealt with in sufficient detail in the prior EIR. Or secondly, you have policies or standards. And so here was concluded that between the general plan EIR and the analysis found there and the various ordinances and other regulatory requirements of the city, essentially all the impacts have been addressed and were not peculiar to the parcel or could be substantially mitigated. So that's the first exemption. And in that exemption, the LCP just didn't really enter into it except to the extent that it might supply some of these policies or standards. And at the age of the LCP didn't enter into the discussion. It's simply not something that that statute identifies as an issue. The other exemption is the infill exemption. And these are for projects that are consistent with general plan and zoning and are five acres or smaller and meet certain criteria. And they're fairly limited criteria. You're able to serve something with utilities and public services substantially surrounded by urban uses. No habitat value for rare and dangerous threatened species. No significant traffic water quality and noise impacts, I think. So all those issues have been addressed. And again, for that second exemption, the LCP doesn't really enter into it. That exemption was appealed 20 years ago. It's essentially a way to encourage infill development by not requiring SIGBA analysis. And we felt that this project came within the parameters of that exemption. In addition to the first one, it was quite a bit more complicated. Okay, thank you. My final question has to do with it was, from my experience, it's fairly unusual to get an initial study done for an exemption. So I was wondering who prepared what essentially was an initial study, I think was really helpful to have the detailed environmental analysis that was provided. But normally that isn't the case with exemption. Maybe it's going to become normal as these kinds of exemptions are used. But was it, did a consultant prepare that initial study or was it prepared by staff? I assume the consultant paid, I mean, the applicant paid for it. But who prepared the initial study? I don't remember. There was any indication on the document itself as to who developed it. Yeah, our SIGBA consultant, Duduck, prepared it. It's technically, I don't believe it's an initial study, but it's very, very similar. I mean, it kind of looks at the same thing. It's an expanded exemption checklist that just does a very detailed review to show how the project fits in with that particular exemption. I think it's advisable to do such a detailed analysis when you're relying on this particular exemption under 2108.3.3 of SIGBA because it requires you to consider every impact. And it's possible that sometimes you'll find that some impacts are peculiar in a parcel. They're not mitigated. And you can have essentially a negative declaration focused on a handful of issues and have a bunch of other ones excluded. So here they went through every item on the normal checklist to make sure nothing was missed. And so I think it's the reliance on that exemption that has brought about such a detailed analysis. And I guess that's where from the public correspondence where there are people who disagree with there are significant impacts, I'd say on the monarchs. But I understand the process that was used in the rationale behind it. So this is helpful to me. Thank you very much. I just want to give a quick answer to Commissioner Schifrin's question on the sidewalk. I did pull up our public works review comments and they have three requirements for the sidewalk. They're requiring an ADA corner ramp at the corner of Pelton and Eucalyptus. They're requiring a new 10 foot wide sidewalk on Pelton from Westcliff to Eucalyptus Avenue, including street trees. And then they're also requiring a pair of sidewalk, curb and gutter along the property frontage and replacing in-kind per city standards. So those are not listed specifically as conditions of approval, but we do have a condition that all public works requirements must be met. So typically when we have department review comments, those aren't necessarily included in the list of conditions, but they do all get applied at the building permit stage. So it might well be that since public work requirements have to be met, that's the public works department decides, I mean, in a sense legally, what was there before doesn't matter because there's nothing there now. So this project is going to be an increase over what the current use of the street. And given the condition of the street, I think it's worth really looking at whether it is justified to, and given that there are going to be construction vehicles going up and down Pelton, I think it might be worth taking another look at whether that would be a reasonable condition to have that section repaid So thank you. Thanks for checking that out. Yes, thank you. Very helpful. All of those questions and answers. And now Commissioner Maxwell. Yeah, thank you. I definitely love the questions I have were asked, but I definitely want to acknowledge Commissioner Kennedy's request more than signage, if we're really going to be honest about directing traffic off of Pelton and really making it, I live over there. It's pretty easy to go up either direction from Eucalyptus. That said, I definitely want to acknowledge that, yes, we are on the lowest monarch population right now as we speak. And I visit that grove almost weekly, if not more than that. And it's a sensitive area and we need to be aware of that. I think that you know, we can talk about EIRs and SQL and all that, but really if you stand there and you realize that there's going to be a major construction project there, we need to mitigate damages or offset anything that would be a negative impact to that, especially right there. It's literally across the street from that area, from that Eucalyptus grove that's there. But my real question was about the staff report when it comes to kitchenettes, did it say more than one and a half inch drain on a sink for kitchenettes? Or was it one and a half inch strange for kitchenettes? That's the minimum drain size for a kitchen sink. So the sink has a 14 by 14 dimension and then a minimum drain size of one and a half inches. If the sink drain or the dimensions are smaller than that, we don't consider it to be a kitchen sink. Right, yeah. I know as a builder, bathroom sinks are also one and a half inch minimum as well. That's what I was asking. But that's all I have. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Maxwell and Commissioner MCD Miller. I just wanted to, for the edification of the other planning commissioners, if you look at the project plans that are included in the agenda packet, sheet C1.1 references proposed concrete paving and sheet C6.0 calls out city standard curb, veteran sidewalk from West Bluff to Euclipus along Pelton. So I think it's well, well covered. As a, I'm not sure what Commissioner Kennedy might want to do about requiring some sort of hard left turn only constraint. But I would caution us from making some sort of condition without consulting with public works. It's very difficult to create a hard stop in a street to prevent or to force a left turn only without impacting traffic on Pelton. So I just caution us from making a condition like that without checking with the public works. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Commissioner MCD Miller. I guess I did have some questions if there are no other questions regarding the kitchenette issue and where in the plans it indicates kitchenettes is my first question. And secondly, just really curious about what a kitchenette is, what is contained in the kitchenette. So the plans identify which units have full kitchens. And that's on, yeah, I saw that piece, the 13. Yeah. Yeah, so that that's where it shows it has a little dot sheet. Yes. The plans don't define specifically what is in the kitchens versus what is in the kitchenettes. That's why we've included the conditions of approval to specifically limit the kitchenettes so that they cannot rise to the level of being a kitchen. I see. So okay, so then I guess the question is what it's hard to imagine what a kitchenette could be that didn't have at least two of those items and how it would even be a kitchenette. Like how can you have a kitchenette that doesn't include two of those items? For example, you could have a small fridge that is like, I think it's no larger than two and a half cubic feet, like a small end of the sink fridge, and then you can have a microwave. So you can have that, you have like a little bar sink, but it doesn't rise to the size of a kitchen sink. So that's kind of what would constitute a kitchenette. I see. Okay. And but it's nowhere in the plans what they had intended originally in terms of the kitchenettes. So I was just looking at the unit floor plans and kind of eyeballing them. Yeah, it would be what I did, and they draw like a little fridge and a little stove top or something, but I didn't found it like listed out anywhere. Yeah, I didn't see that either, which is curious. So that was Commissioner Kennedy's question. Commissioner Schifrin. Yeah, to follow up, I want to ask why is the intention of the condition of approval to prevent kitchenettes? Why not encourage them? And that, from my point of view, that would mean there'd be more affordable units. So to say you can't have them. And with the only real purpose in doing that and keeping that is to keep the number of affordable units limited. It doesn't necessarily make sense to do that. Kitchenettes can be very even my mom lived in La Posada. She had a little kitchenette with a stove top and a refrigerator. I'm sure it would qualify as a kitchenette. It had at least two or three of those requirements. And, you know, she ate in the dining room most of the time, but she could cook in her unit. And since most of these are assisted living units and congregate care units, there are only 35 memory care units where I would imagine it wouldn't make sense to have a kitchenette. If those are the units, those had little kitchenettes allowing the residents to do minor meals to themselves. I would think there's no reason to, I don't understand, or I guess my question is, what is the reason for discouraging that rather than allowing it, but just require that if they do it, they need to provide more affordable units. Right. That's actually exactly what we're doing. So we're not restriction, we're not restricting kitchenettes. We're we're saying that what we've approved here is a plan that has 13 full dwellings and therefore needs two affordable inclusionary units. What we don't want to see is down the road these kitchenettes turn into kitchens, but we're not recouping the number of affordable units that would go along with those additional what would not be considered full dwelling units. So that's kind of what we are imposing, what looks like a limitation, but then if they want to expand and have more full dwelling units in the future, they can do that. They need a modification to the permit and then we would apply the inclusionary requirements to bring up the number of inclusionary units. But on the other hand, it seems like there are kitchenettes being proposed now in the plants and to the extent that they meet the requirements of a kitchenette in the code, they should be approved. I would think we would want to approve them now rather than just limit it to the full kitchens and then have to have required them to come back if they want to have these other things, which we're never going to know about anyway because you know, nobody's going to go in. So I think this is the time to try to determine how many kitchenettes that meet the requirements of the ordinance that would come in under a full dwelling unit are being proposed and then developing the, you know, allowing them and determining what would be the inclusionary requirements based on that. So I just want to clarify that kitchenettes, that's kind of a term we're using, I don't believe it's actually defined in the zoning ordinance, but we're just kind of using that right now as something that is less that falls beneath the definition or the threshold of a kitchen. So we have units on the plans that are designated as having full kitchens and then we have units that show some kitchen features on their floor plans, but they're not designated as the units with full kitchens. That's why I interrupted you when you were giving your presentation because the actual definition of a food prep of a kitchen includes a room or a portion of a room that allows for cooking and eating facilities. So, you know, that's why a kitchenette would be allowed. Yeah, that you wouldn't need. Well, it's that, but it also needs to contain at least two of those fixtures or appliances within that definition. And so. Right, absolutely. That is something that doesn't contain those appliances and does not meet the threshold of a kitchen. Do we know that? Yeah, it's hard for us as a commission to evaluate that. We can't see the floor plan. We don't, we don't know. Right. And that's really significant. That's why I've included conditions of approval stating that on their building permit plans, they need to show exactly what is in these units and they need to show that the units that they're calling with full kitchens actually need to have full kitchens. And those that they're showing is only having kitchenettes need to have a combination of appliances and fixtures that do not rise to the level of a full kitchen. So that's, that's all defined in the kish, the conditions of approval. So we know exactly that what we're approving is what is going to be built. Does that make sense? Yeah. No, but we've gone around and around. So let's move I think commissioner Kennedy had a question. I'm sorry, I want to go around one more time. So the memory care, like there's no question, right? Look at plan sheet. A 110 B, right? Memory care type B. You know, this is planning stage. This might be designed further. But my grandmother died a year ago, had a great life in a memory care facility. $12,000 a month. Why the hell do we not have affordable housing in those? Are you kidding me? I can't afford that. That's crazy. So I don't mean to be joking about that. But why, why don't we get an affordable unit out of those memory carry units here? We're giving away this piece of coastal property. It's prime zone. We need housing. Can we just set the amount of affordable units now? Well, the number of affordable units is in our inclusionary ordinance. It's based on the number of dwelling units. And so we have to apply our definition of a memory care unit does not rise to the definition of a dwelling unit. So that's why we have, you know, this 76 units, but more only a certain portion of them are considered a dwelling unit under our inclusionary ordinance. Okay. I mean, I get it. It doesn't seem fair. Yeah. I guess it's really hard to know. I mean, I think Commissioner Schifrin's point about how once it's built and we can't go in there, I mean, it's, I had a relative also who's living in a senior care facility who, you know, we brought additional appliances for when, when she was living in this facility and it's conceivable that people are going to want more independence. And they're going to, you know, even if you have a one additional small appliance, you would suddenly have a kitchen or kitchen according to this definition. So it's a kind of minimal definition that is enormously consequential for our community, unfortunately, because it's eliminating, I guess, 11 additional affordable units, potentially, or more, I don't know, depending on my calculations. So so, meanwhile, it could so easily be skirted by someone simply bringing in another appliance. And so it's just kind of, unless I guess that could be deemed illegal to do because of these consequences. But so that's where we're starting struggling with this definitional question. I don't know if Mr. Marlite, you have a thought on that. I'll just, I'll just add that I think staff felt the exact same way as Commissioner Kennedy did. And, you know, this issue first came up early on when we were looking at the project. It was really in the context of a density bonus, which is a little different, but it does involve affordability. And so, you know, we're sitting down and evaluating that with our outside legal counsel that specializes in density bonus. You know, it really came to light that we have some real serious limitations here, given the way the code reads and the way that our definitions are structured and that we really only can apply it to those, I call them self-contained units that have the full kitchens. So that's a little anecdotal, but we did explore it with the outside counsel. We also reconfirmed it with the city attorney's office to make sure they were on the same page. They felt exactly the same way. So I think our hands are really tied. And we're doing our best in terms of conditions and, you know, recording legal documents and that type of thing. Thanks, Eric. That's helpful. Thank you, Commissioner Schifrin. I have another interpretation of this, but I think this is not the appropriate time to talk about it. I think we should hear from the applicant and hear from the public and then have a more full discussion about this issue, because I think there are other options that we haven't talked about yet. Okay. That sounds good. So thanks. Yeah, this has been a thorough question period for the commission, and we are now going to turn it over to the applicant. No, to the public. Sorry. First open the public hearing. First the public. Thank you. Open the public hearing. And then we will hear from the applicant. So please, the public should feel free to indicate that you're interested in speaking by raising your hand. Everyone has three minutes. But I'm sorry, just a point of procedure. Yeah. Legally, I think the first step is to say I'm opening up the public hearing. Okay. And then once you open the public hearing, the next thing is to hear from the applicant. After the applicant speaks and the commission has, if it has any questions, commissioners have any questions, then open it up to the rest of the public. I think that's the procedure. Okay. Good. So, yes. So instead, we will open the public hearing and first hear from the applicant. Thank you. Great. I see a hand raised. And you should feel free to speak. That would be Roger Bernstein, correct? I have another person- Roger Bernstein. Correct. Okay. It's on here at six, two, eight, five, five, nine, three. Is that an applicant? Are you an applicant or are you a member of the public? I know that Mr. Bernstein is with the applicant. I see Roger Bernstein in a separate box here. Okay. Can you hear us now? Yes. Okay. Maria, this is Roger and Shannon. Shannon's got to go first. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Fire, for a really detailed project overview. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I'm wondering if we should address this kitchen subject right away or we can, we have a overview of the whole project that we could do first and wrap up with the kitchen discussion perhaps. So my name is Shannon Rusk and I'm a Senior Vice President of Senior Living with Opinion. Roger Bernstein, who's head of our construction, is here as well. We are the applicants for the watermark of Santa Cruz Senior Living Project. So, you know, we thank you for allowing us to come before you all. We feel like we've got a really well thought out project. And before we get into the details, I think, Claire, if you can put up the team that we have assembled, I think it's page number two of our presentation, three maybe. So as you can see, we've got a very robust, oh wait, she's screened, and we've got a presentation here. Go to page three, Claire. Thanks. We've assembled, you know, we've taken this very seriously. We have a really robust and qualified team. And, you know, we feel, although there's a lot of issues, we've really thoughtfully assembled and contemplated all the meaningful and sensitive items for this really special location here in Santa Cruz. As many of you know, we've been working on this project for nearly three years. And during this time, as Claire said, we've had two neighborhood meetings, we've weathered COVID, we all have weathered COVID, I guess. And we've incorporated a lot of the input that we've received from community members. We've been very open to discussions. City staff has given us a lot of feedback and input. And our consultants that we've brought on board along the way have given us some really great inputs and ideas. And, you know, we're here today to present this really well thought out project that will enhance the lower west side in Lighthouse Field, neighborhood in Santa Cruz. As we've, I'm going to stay kind of high level and we'll bring it way down. As we've worked through the details, and time has evolved, you know, one really apparent fact that we've learned is that there's definitely a need for this type of supportive housing for seniors in Santa Cruz. We already have a long list of seniors that have reached out time and time again, wondering when this project is going to be open for a move in, and if you put on a wait list. So we're pretty, we're very excited about this. And many are selecting and want this location so that their loved ones can visit them. That might not otherwise be able to visit if we moved it, it was a further out, non-convenient location. There's a shortage in the Santa Cruz area for this type of housing with services. And the need is growing as we speak today. If you look at statistics and demographics, which we follow daily because this is the, you know, the business we're in, the number of seniors that's going to need this type of housing is going to double over the next decade. And that's fact and documented. And there's simply just not enough supply being built to accommodate this need. The current environment of high construction costs is making it more difficult land, like this land is very prohibitive to build senior housing. So to add to this, the number of adult children are what, you know, really more, the caregivers per senior is decreasing over time. Just people are being more moved away from their families. And these types of inclusive, supportive, socialized events and communities are really important. And I don't want to be an alarmist, but there really is a crisis looming and we need to be prepared to address this. We partnered with the best of operators to ensure that we are well positioned here in Santa Cruz to provide employees and caregivers, because they have a large pool to pull from. You know, that's really why we're in this business. It's taking care of the residents. This community, I know there was some misinformation on this, is going to be a rental community. It does not require a large down payment. The membership fee is what we call our community. It's not a big fee. It's in line with other communities in Santa Cruz. And it will be approximately between 12 and 14,000, depending on the apartment that each of the seniors select. Additionally, just for clarification, we're a residential community for the elderly, which is abbreviated. If you've heard these terms, RCFE. We're not a, and I don't want to throw a lot of acronyms out, but a SNP or what's called a skilled nursing facility. So to put it in layman's term, we're licensed by the Department of Social Services under an RCFE community. And we're skilled nursing facilities are licensed by the Department of Health. Entirely different requirements under RCFE license. We have significantly reduced required staffing levels compared to a skilled nursing facility. And not because we don't want to care for our residents appropriately, it's just we have different care levels that are required. So we're always with watermark. We meet the care levels that are required by the RCFE licensing. In most cases, we exceed those. So our monthly rent is we do these studies. It's in line with other communities of our caliber and Santa Cruz market. So we feel very proud to be bringing the watermark of Santa Cruz to your community to allow for seniors that have lived here their entire life to remain in Santa Cruz and to continue to enjoy the community that they love. And really most importantly to stay close to their loved ones and in a location that they're familiar with. It's been a long road. Yeah, we've tried to do everything possible to appease everyone. And we really have and I'm hoping staff can support that comment that I'm saying, you know, we hope that you can trust by our actions, our open communication and the revisions that we've made that we are committed. You know, we're here to ask for your support, bring this to the seniors of your community and to accept what we're presenting. It's a very much needed amenity. You know, I'm not from Santa Cruz. I'm from Minnesota, unfortunately. But if I've learned one thing over the last few years, I've learned that Santa Cruz is really unique community. That is really tight knit. And I understand why seniors are going to stay here in their entire life. We're going to get into some of the particulars. We're not going to try not to overlap with all the things that Clarence said. I have a point of procedure. Normally, the applicant has 10 minutes. How long are you? I see you have 32 slides up there. We've got another five minutes. We'll stay within the 10 minutes. Okay, great. Thank you. Let's talk about the kitchens. Yeah, well, let me just introduce myself. My name is Roger Bernstein. I'm also with Opin. I'm like Shannon, I do live in Santa Cruz. I actually live on Pelton Avenue, just down the road from this project. And I'm also very honored to be able to be here tonight and present this project. I know that Clarence did a fantastic job presenting our project. And I was going to get into a lot of detail. But I think it's probably more important. Quite honestly, a lot of the neighbors know the details because I've met with a lot of the neighbors. Aside from the two neighborhood meetings we've had, I've had very many meetings with some of the specific local neighbors, including Ralph Myberg, who's been a huge support and help with us, helping guide us and helping keep the neighborhood informed of all the design changes and operational changes that we have made to really work with the neighborhood. Let me just hit the kitchen. Well, I think there's a misnomer here. We have 11 kitchens that we have proposed in this building. I know this talk of 13, two of them are actually in the inclusion unit. So if you count them all, they're 13, but 11 of them, we would consider kitchens in our AL units. We're not going to have any more kitchens. We don't want to have kitchens because quite frankly, it's a safety issue with our members. When I call the members, they assisted living folks. They obviously, in the memory care, there's no kitchen or kitchenette or even what we would consider a white bar. But in the AL units, we do not have, aside from the 11 units, and those are mostly the two bedroom units that have kitchens. The rest of them will have an under-counter refrigerator and perhaps we haven't made a full determination yet, perhaps a 12-inch sink. And that's still up for grabs. We haven't made a final decision because we want our residents to be able to go to the dining room and eat in a communal setting with the other residents. They like it. That's part of the services we provide. We provide three meals a day, seven days a week, plus additional snacks and functions and things like that. We want our residents to be able to communicate with the other residents in the dining rooms. So we, as a full service community, we take care of the residents' needs and that would include eliminating any need for any kitchens in these units. So just the 11 units will have kitchens. We're not going to have any more kitchens in these other units other than an under-counter refrigerator and perhaps a sink. And that's an intentional design directive. And it's a design and operational directive that our operator, Watermark, goes by. And we can elaborate on that, but I want to try and keep it simple. That's sort of a high-level overview of the kitchen issue. I know we're short on time. And again, as I mentioned, Clara did a really great job of going through all the issues. So I think in the interest of time, what I'd like to propose is that we have our team here to answer questions if necessary. And we sincerely hope that, as Shana mentioned, that you see that we have made very significant changes to our project to try to fit into this neighborhood. We're not trying to push this project forward. We're not trying to force something in the square peg through a round hall. I think Clara pointed out very nicely that along Eucalyptus, we created these building pods so that we are staying, trying to stay within the scale of the neighborhood. We've increased all of our setbacks around the building to provide some beautiful landscaping and hardscape so that when residents look at our community, they admire it, they appreciate it, and they feel that we are enhancing the neighborhood. So I think with that, I think that probably concludes our presentation. I welcome questions. Thank you very much. So it's true that in the interest of time, I think I am going to request that we have members of the public speak for two minutes, if at all possible, and there was one person who contacted us who wanted to speak for a bit longer. Is that member of the public here? I believe so, yes. That was Mr. Ralph Myberg contacted us in advance. Ralph Myberg, yes. So for Mr. Myberg, we can give Mr. Myberg four minutes, and we will ask that everyone who contacted us ahead of time speak for two minutes, and if necessary, two and a half minutes, but we're going to try to keep it down because we have a lot of people here who want to speak. We want to make sure that everyone has a chance. Okay, so maybe we'll start with Mr. Myberg. He had his hand up, but okay. Thank you, Mr. Myberg. You can start. I see your microphone is off. Mr. Myberg, I think you're muted. Okay, can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thanks for the commission for hearing this matter, and so I was going to talk more lengthy about the process, but I'll just abbreviate that and say that we've worked successfully from the neighborhood point of view with Roger Bernstein from Uppaden. He has been conflict adverse. He has listened carefully to neighborhood concerns regarding setbacks and various impacts. The project has been reduced significantly. Of course, there are many neighbors that would like a park setting in this place rather than a development, but in view of the fact that there was going to be a development, we decided not to go the Numbi-Yumbi way, avoid that paradigm, and see if we could, in a very conducive way, reach results that were acceptable. Roger Bernstein from Uppaden has been more than accessible, and as I mentioned before, very willing to listen to neighborhood issues and try and accommodate them. I think in terms of project height, density, and various other things involving with aesthetics, it has been successfully resolved. I would like to just break from what I initially prepared to mention something that Commissioner Schifrin had brought up, and that was the improvement of Pelton. Andy, I think that would not be a good idea because we are trying to discourage traffic on Pelton because of the monarch butterfly habitat. I think a significant improvement of the roadway will indicate to people that there's a road that is worthwhile traveling on, especially if there's traffic on West Cliff. So I think we have a third world road, I grant, but it does operate to slow traffic down. And as you know, there's a lot of recreational use on that coastal reference, surfers and stuff. So you really can't have cars meeting very much. I think a better requirement and the one we've been pushing for is to have more traffic travel through the obelisk parking area, including trucks, especially during construction, that solves a lot of the environmental impacts, especially the butterflies, but also we're talking about endangering people that are using that area pretty much as a parking area for recreational use. So from the beginning, and this was a major point, we have tried to persuade the obelisk to allow use of their parking area and entry exit onto West Cliff, mirroring what was allowed under the gateway special use permit that further removes traffic from Pelton and away from the endangered. And I am going to say endangered at this point right now, butterflies internationally are considered endangered. And there is a move led by Panetta that the U.S. will soon accord that designation. It's serious. I like what Commissioner Maxwell said about actually being on site. It goes through all the laws and regulations when you see exactly what's happening there. It's a very precious resource. Butterflies are extremely meaningful for many reasons. And we should do our utmost to protect their habitat. So one other thing, I'm jumping a little because of time constraints. But I think the lighting that exists, I know that Uppaden are willing to go a long way to accommodate the environmental impacts of lighting on that area. But I think we should be more specific that lighting should follow the guidelines of adult guys and also that it should be ambient yellow lighting. So it has less glare to it. There's a possibility that lighting closer to the habitat should just be turned off at a certain hour. So we're dealing with ways of mitigating impacts that will have a deleterious effect on the habitat. This is a unique site and deserves as strong a protection as we can offer. So in terms of. And I think you're going to have to wrap up. I'm sorry, Mr. Myberg, in terms of your so let me let me just then say that in terms of the the actual parking area, the surface, we think it should be permeable where functional and that it should be varied materials and colors. The design permit section 28 asked for colors which blend to surroundings. I think we should take that more serious. And outside of that, I would really appreciate that some direction be given that the outlets participate more in the impacts by allowing the parking by allowing more parking access, especially at night, when it's an underutilized facility. And once again, we're all looking at a improved project. These will be the environmental, the very special environmental area defined under EQ 9. One last thing is that in a previous coastal commission hearing the coastal commission closed off Alton as did the city council. So having a structure in the road like a little outjudging planting area just to signify to people coming out of the driveway that are right there and the same with there's a call that would probably be very helpful commissioner Kennedy. Thank you. Sorry for wasting time, but I spent two years on this as well. The impacts on the neighborhood for two years will be significant. Okay. Thank you so much. We really appreciate your comments. So I think yes. And thank you for the staff for letting me know the clerk for letting me know when time is up. And so good to have the public comment period begin. And we now are going to ask for folks to try to keep it to two minutes if you can given the number of people who would like to speak. So I see that it is a number six to five six to eight five nine three. I'm not sure the name who would like to speak. Hopefully you can see your number and you can begin. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. Good evening. Thank you so much for having this. I am in the neighborhood and I am a former gateway parent. And I can tell you that driving from Eucalyptus and turning left on the alleyway and then turning onto Lighthouse Field, there was a sign that said left turn only and no one paid attention to it. So I would strongly recommend that we have something more significant other than signage saying turning left on Pelton because for the five years I was a gateway parent, no one paid attention to the turn left only on Lighthouse and turn everybody turned right. So that is never going to work. So as a neighbor, I really don't want all that traffic going into my neighborhood turning right on Pelton. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay. And next we have Ann Siegel. Hi. My name is Ann Siegel and I do live on Pelton Avenue. Are you able to hear me? I hope see us. Thank you. My first objection I sent in a memo to you is that this should not be a Zoom call. It should be an in-person meeting that the crisis regarding the pandemic is no longer there and I consider this inherent error not to have actual people in your presence listening to our impassioned police regarding this pretty dramatic change but in moving on direct you to the page 28 of the layout and that dumps the entire parking lot into Pelton Avenue. If you look at that illustration on page 68 you will also see there is an opportunity to utilize the parking lots that are through the obelisks of St. Joseph. The obelisks are the landlords. They are the landlords of this property and Watermark are the tenants and as the landlords of this property both parties are benefiting from an economically advantage advantageous lucrative financial lease. The developer Watermark is a national highly financed well-funded equity-based profit-making institution. Their compassionate plea that they're doing what they can for the people of Santa Cruz may be a result but that's not their motivation. Their motivation is profit-making. Their motivation is development and they are very very strong and very powerful. The church is benefiting from this very lucrative long-term lease that has very little or no impact on their church facilities, church grounds and their relatively unused parking lot that is adjacent on the southeast corner and rather than trying to jerryman and dump the parking into the lighthouse field onto the monarchs, onto the horned owls, onto the coyotes, onto the pedestrians that use this gorgeous and beautiful feature of Santa Cruz City have them go through the direct as a conditional approval, have them go through the church parking lot and have that be reutilized as it was under gateway, as it was intended by gateway, as it was intended by the council, they paved the parking lot, allowed it for gateway, egress and exit, and onto clip and then onto bay. Keep it off of Pelton. Let Pelton remain pedestrian walkway that it is. It's a beautiful pedestrian community. I sit out here the other day on the traffic count. Yeah they counted cars but they never counted the number of walkers, surfers, people pushing baby carriages, children on bicycles, and other utilization of Pelton Avenue. Okay leave it. Let the monarchs live. Let's not murder on monarchs. Let this company and let these landlords work together to develop the correct egress and exits back onto back where it should be, back where there is commercial development. Taking you by your nods that I am probably over my time. Yeah. Okay so I'll stop. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay so and yeah so if folks can try to I know where it's it's a strict a shorter time than usual but it would be great if people could try to stick to that but thank you very much for your comments. Can I ask that the clerk be more assertive when the two minutes are off please? Well it's the chair's discretion. I mean I have the ability to just stop. I'm gonna start two minutes but I don't. I'll try to I'll try to I'll try to be on top of it. Okay so uh we now have uh Kathy please. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks for taking my call. Well I thank you for being so thorough on this project and really looking at all aspects and being so positive and open to everything. Um my grandkids are fifth generation born in the neighborhood the west side neighborhood over there and we have seen so many changes in Santa Cruz over the five generations and we are so excited about this project and yeah there's more cars, yeah there's more people but um that's just what happens when you live in a tourist town there are more people there are more cars and we're excited my my mom I couldn't um I didn't have time to go her hook her up on the computer so she could be a part of this because she's not computers sorry but she her generation her friends are excited about this project also because we do need more um when you do more senior housing and they're excited to be able to live in an area in a neighborhood like um the project that you guys are considering and that the obelisks and um the other company I can't think of the name is I'm what they're projecting to build so I'm really excited I know there's a large group of people that are excited about this project too and I want to thank you very much for your time and and putting in all the energy you're putting into look at every aspect thank you. Great thank you very much Kathy and uh next we have Noel. Hello um I have two questions um I live on Manor right behind um this project and I'm concerned about two things one being uh the sewer what which sewer line are they intending to hook up to and will they be making any uh improvements and then my second question is regarding dust containment during the construction um is there anything uh planned to try to I don't know moisten down the earth something to kind of keep the dust contained during construction and that is off. Okay thank you Noel and for those questions and I think we will um try to recall those maybe the clerk can help us to remember those questions and we can ask the applicants after the public comment period to respond to those thank you um and after Noel we have uh Bill Henry thank you yeah hello thanks for hearing me um my name is Bill Henry I'm director of groundswell ecology and we've been working with the monarchs for um since 2015 um working specifically with the lighthouse field um population in California state parks and we also wrote the management plan and a recent update to that management plan I'd say overall I think this type of project is in alignment with um what that place can handle and I'm also should say that I'm a a gateway parent my wife teaches there my students went there when the school was there and access off of west cliff drive was fitting for the traffic and for the character the area and also for the monarchs um traffic on pelton avenue is disruptive to the monarchs and results in mortalities which under the esa if they're um listed will be considered take so that's kind of not a really good idea to set up especially during wet weather when monarchs are blown off and land on roads and then they get run over and killed um so that could be complicating in the future um so locating primary access on west cliff drive is probably a good idea at this time another issue is the shallow water aquifer needs replenishment and so the more penetration permeable surfaces that we can give in the project is going to really benefit that grow which is drought stressed and will continue to be drought stressed under a drying um conditions which are forecast of the climate change um obviously the nectar resources are important for late winter and fall that's something that seems like the applicants are working on and plan to do a lot for um monarchs are susceptible to predation during the overwintering season so having wise trash use is going to be very important um and managing the property that restricts the proliferation of predators on monarchs like yellow jackets um tree canopy will be important so thinking about how we can plant trees and I know they've given some consideration to this just quickly two other things or three other things are noise is going to be very important so reducing loud um activities uh dust can negatively impact so being mindful of that monarchs are sensitive to pesticides so really be um aware and have an ipm program that doesn't use pesticides and then the last is nighttime light pollution can impact monarchs and it would be wise to have a lighting plan that doesn't shed light towards the growth so thank you for your time i appreciate it thank you mr henry okay um and next we have um father matthew and i'm not seeing the final name of spencer father matthew spencer please thank you uh thank you so much for this opportunity i i represent the obelisk of st joseph and and the landlord and i did submit written comments so i will not repeat myself just wanted to um address some of the concerns that i heard um i'm very proud of what opadin has put together i'm very proud also of of the community involvement um so many neighbors who have um just very intelligently and peacefully engaged it's been it's been really neat to see um i'm very pleased that the traffic traffic impact of this will will be much lower than pretty much any other development that that we considered and looked at and unfortunately there's there's nothing that will completely eliminate traffic but this was the best project that uh that we that we that we found um i know that um people look at our parking lot and see a lot of room but if you come by when we have services um at 11 every day you'll see the parking lot is full and um this is uh a blessing for us um it helps our coffee shop residents and and that's that's great too but um just so you know i think the the parking lot there is is well utilized and and is part of the consideration that we have but finally i just want to say you know um we have a lot of our members of our shrine community who are interested in this but every week at our coffee shop i have people coming up to me locals who ask when the project is opening who tell me they want to get on the waiting list who are who are so interested they're not catholic they're not affiliated with our shrine they just need are going to need housing in the coming 10 15 years so i'm very pleased that we're we're going to be able to provide housing to to locals to our to our neighbors and that's a real blessing so and that's all i wanted to say thank you so much for this opportunity and thank you to the commissioners for your your service great thank you very much father Spencer and next we have Russ Weiss please thank you hi um can you hear me um great um thanks so yeah i'm a former gateway parent and a neighbor um i submitted a letter on august 31st um hopefully that um you were able to read and i'm not going to replay that letter it talked about my concerns on traffic the size and scale of the development and on monarch habitat um but i do have a couple of questions um which i'd like to ask so i heard um heard it described as infill development but i don't understand that to me it's a commercial facility um you know it's it's a profit uh it's for profit and so i it seemed like the infill development um designation went along with not um doing more environmental analysis or um an eir requirement so again i to me it's a new commercial facility um and it my second question is um i i think it's a valuable um you know it's valuable but i i think it needs to be scaled back and i'd like to ask if the commission could require that it be scaled back i'd like to see it at 30 to 40 units i think it would be much more appropriate to the site there and the traffic um i'd also i mean i understand a number of uh monarch um habitat um things have been looked at but i'd like to really see an enhanced habitat enhancement program thank you oh sorry yes mr weiss if you could wrap up okay that was it um so after us weiss we have jesse bristo thank you good evening can you hear me thanks um my name is jesse bristo with swanson builders uh thank you for taking my comment i just wanted to speak in uh support of this project you know i think we we often talk about at council meetings and playing commission meetings um the need for more diverse housing and i know that this isn't technically housing you know there's there it's a specialty service it's it's needed for this certain age group because that's what happens with life and um but regardless it's a growing need and i think um you know we don't have a facility like this in the city of santa cruz and so um um oh you know and i think it's a great and effective re-use of the site and over the past you know two three years i think the project has really evolved to try to mitigate um a lot of the concerns and impacts that the neighborhood has shared with with the developer and um i think it's just a great opportunity um for for a place for seniors to to grow older and um and i know there's a comment or there's a lot of concerns regarding traffic but i believe nationwide uh the average age of these facilities is i'd want to say 81 or 83 years old so not a lot of them do drive and i do know there's other factors such as employees and services and things like that but i i think it's a great reuse of the site and if you've ever visited uh assisted living in senior care facility they're very very tranquil and um it's really a great place for older population to be so um i would encourage that or ask that uh planning commission uh supports the project so thank you thank you very much and after um jesse risto we have janine saco thank you i skipped her on accident here we go okay here we go we're ready for you janine saco thank you oh janine saco and i'm already there as a senior citizen looking very very hard to find a resident facility as time goes on we're an 82 year old couple that moved here built our house close to the shrine to be part of their campus in that community and to benefit from the fresh air and just the dynamics of living in that that area and to be able to stay in Santa Cruz as we age further and many of my peers are online and waiting in line to have this project go forward so thank you for considering it and have a great evening thank you very much um and next we have uh and my screen is a little too small but i think it's bill and and i'm not seeing the full name there and it's bill and charlene there we go bill and charlene barnes okay so thank you for your time um first i want to remind everyone we really are talking about an iconic piece of property here you'll all recall the lighthouse field was saved from development you'll also recall that wild and ranch was saved from development i think this is an appropriate development but it is also a for-profit development so i do want to follow up on the concept that affordability is really important here to our community and i have checked what this company does charge and there are other properties people who are leasing renting or buying into this unit will be looking out at an undescribable view it's one of the iconic places in the world so what they can charge what they will charge we need to take that into consideration in terms of what we ask them to do for the community in return so points left hand turn sign inadequate we need something more i have grandkids gateway for years folks come out of avenue a they see the sign no left turn they make a left turn our lighting it should be dark sky lighting not just shaded lighting we need to have standards there are standards for some of the developments going up in town so this is another important element um and more affordability of that and i guess those are my two major points i won't take up any more time except to say the concept of the initial study being done by a con or planning and being done by a consultant and what i heard was they check the boxes when i go through checking the boxes i don't come up with the same conclusion as to the impacts but we don't have a counterbalance to having the staff hire a consultant to check the boxes to determine what is an initial study report that's adequate to achieve either a negative declaration or going to a full EIR and it's consistent with the general plan only if you look at what the general plan says as far as cumulative impacts sorry i think your time is up yeah thanks much okay thank you very much uh and next we have Dennis Reagan thank you thank you i wanted to make another point about the egress and entrance on pelton it makes no sense to have that as the entry point when there is already the entrance on two sides of west cliff i'm very concerned about the dust and the other mitigation that can be done if the project continues and i believe i also want to reiterate what russell weiss was saying with regard to its size i think it can be scaled back and if it needs to be scaled back to eliminate that egress and entrance on pelton that i believe that's what needs to happen and i think my time is up i appreciate the ability to share in one last comment these covid restrictions are not necessary and we should be doing this in a normal planning commission facility with the public not on zoom on premise thank you thank you very much um and next we have franny bradley thank you my name is fran bradley and i live over on bay street in the neighborhood i walk on west cliff all the time i think this is a wonderful project i'm a senior myself and i know that it's very difficult to have affordable housing here um and assisted living my mother lived in an assisted living for a while and it was the best thing that ever happened to her and i'm just really uh i really think it's an exciting project to do thank you for all your help great thank you very much uh and next week we have some numbers coming up the next number i see is one eight three one two seven eight zero four nine two they have not indicated that they wish to speak with by raising their hands so there's a ton of people that are listening that aren't necessarily wanting to speak but this would be a good time for last call yes thank you are there others who would like to speak on this issue um and i see some hands going up so we have first sarah sunrise thank you and uh sarah i think that your microphone is off you're muted so i'm not sure that um this person can hear me so for right now oh okay i see the hello sarah sunrise hello maybe there's a technical everything's fine speaker you're on the line okay we can go to the next one and come back okay hopefully we'll come back to sarah sunrise next we have lisa click good evening everybody thanks so much for the conversation and all of the input i just want to identify that i've been a resident on lighthouse avenue for over 36 years and one of the things that i've noticed over time and i feel very privileged to have landed here when i did um because as we all know the community has changed profoundly and the traffic patterns over the last decade or so have really increased parking on lighthouse parking on pelton parking on west cliff the lots on west cliff being closed at various times and so on have really created an increase in parking of people from out of the area which i welcome people we are a tourist community i think it's great but we have trouble parking in our own neighborhood and having our own guests park in the area so i'm very concerned about the increase um and the impact on the activity in the area in general secondly i'm really curious about the down payment of 12 to 14 thousand dollars and the actual monthly cost of who are we serving and who are the residents in our community the seniors that are going to be able to afford living there at this very exclusive um facility and what about the elders that can't afford both that initial down payment as well as what the undisclosed monthly expenses are going to be which i really appreciate more information on that um and i've also had resident relatives living at other assisted living facilities in the area over the years as well as recently looked at one and it seems like there's really adequate assisted living in our area and i wouldn't mind some more details backing up this need of uh i think the statistic that it was going to double over the next decade for residents and even if it is who are those people that are going to be able to access the 76 minus three affordable or 2.6 affordable living units time okay thank you and uh after Lisa quick we have sarah sunrise and hopefully um sarah you're able to join us and i see that your mic is off uh and you want to try to unmute yourself there see maybe that's not going to work okay um why don't you try that one more time and then but we're going to right now we're going to go to brian schachter hello can you hear me yes great yeah this is brian schachter i'm the chief investment officer for watermark retirement community is the operator for the proposed project i just wanted to address a couple of questions that came up on the prior person in regards to you know who are the residents who can afford this etc it basically the the way in which most people afford to live in a retirement community is through a combination of their uh retirement savings and or the sale proceeds of their home and or the support of adult children so usually comes through a few different avenues in terms of the monthly fees that we're intending to charge those haven't been finalized but and it's really based off of market competitors so while there isn't a competitor in the immediate area there are uh existing retirement communities you know in a five to ten mile radius and really our estimates thus far are based on comparing to existing competitors and and ensuring that you know our rates are not out of bounds with what is already being charged in the broader market so hopefully hopefully that generally addresses the question for the most part people living in a retirement community are going to be either moving from within a five to ten mile radius themselves or going to be moving into a community that's within a similar radius close to their adult child so you know it's really about staying close to home staying close to their services and and doctors offices etc and or being close to their family members okay um thank you uh Brian Schecter and uh i don't see any other hands up right now are there any other members of public who wish to speak yes i see a couple now janny med medvent would you like to speak and um can this is the clerk can i just request that the members of the public all raise their hands uh because we've got 49 people on the line not all of them have their hands raised and we'd like to have everybody have an opportunity to speak that kind of draws it out when people are coy about it okay yeah i see some people have already spoken who are on that list but maybe there if there are any people who have not yet spoken and wish to speak um you can put your hand up now and we'll know how many more we have this is Sean medved under jane medved can you hear me yes we can hear you thanks um i wanted to just um help with the with the solutions to reiterate reiterating what some other people have said about this um you know turn sign on coming out uh onto pelton that i think everybody's starting to agree is not going to work there's a simple solution it's that the oblates take more of the impact and have the traffic come in and out of their existing parking lots and their two existing entrances um to keep it away from the habitat and the neighborhood the second thing is all that parking that's uh we live right next door i mean the parking lot is sorry father matthew it's empty all the time there's there's a few times when it's full it's very rare there's plenty of parking there and as they look to expand that parking lot all the way over adjacent to the neighbors and adjacent to the habitat as per the plans they're creating a giant asphalt field that's going to create a lot of heat um a lot of runoff that goes you know in towards the lighthouse field and the wetland or the the wetlands and habitat that's so close so there's a simple solution is that the oblates need to take some of the impact have the traffic come in and out of there share some of their parking and the last thing is that the parking lot that the opidine does need to build should be porous and it should be earthen so that the water and can go through the ground and filter before it goes into the ocean which is so very close thank you thank you very much and uh next we have uh barry michelle you can speak hi thank you and thank you for your service oh my god you're patients so um i live on pelton at 140 i'm the only house kind of i'm right next to shon who just spoke so i don't want to take a long time i'm across the street from denis i agree we shouldn't have the parking i mean the parking lot driveway come in off of pelton and i i would love to not have all the lights and all the noise coming in on pelton and i don't know how i would get home if i couldn't turn right so or maybe that's just out of the parking i agree with denis and shon and that we shouldn't put the driveway on pelton and if it could be smaller great thank you i'm done thank you very much um and uh next we have a number which is 183 142 72 174 hopefully you know who you are and you can speak thank you yes yes yes we can hear you thank you okay just saying this is very confused because you don't give anything on the television about how to call in and there's no zoom link on your agenda anyway i don't want to take up my very limited time jillian green site and i want to thank staff for the presentation it was very helpful and also to the developer who has responded to many of the concerns of the um of everybody however um i would question i think you should question and maybe continue this item until you have answers about this being an infill project and therefore exempt from sequa this is not an infill project by any stretch of the imagination and as an example of why sequa needs to be looked at at least with a negative declaration is the discussion around the monarch butterflies um staff with all due respect called it twice a roosting site it's not a roosting site it's an over-wintering site there was mention of the fountain for the monarchs monarchs cannot drink out of a fountain um and uh the comment that this was a terrible year actually this past year was better than the year before none of which are very good so i would say you really need to study the environmental impacts on this very unique site much more carefully i'm totally in support of everybody who wants the traffic the driveway not on pelton those lights will impact mostly the traffic now is at night with gateway it was in the daytime that needs to be studied probably my time is running out and there's one thing i really want you to study the local coastal program the one that is in effect now is the old one it has not been updated and in the lcp it states that it wants to shorten mappy q nine but that has not yet been in q nine stretches not only which is what the change wants to be very or below a west side you need to study that but you are following the proper documents i'm very sorry there's so little time i hope you will continue this thank you thank you very much um so um a lot of important points raised and uh are there any other members of the public who wish to speak and could raise your hands okay um well seeing none um i'm going to see if uh the planning staff uh and developer would like to briefly respond to any questions that were raised um and i don't know if the clerk was able to note some of those questions i think we can try to recall um a couple of them we're just going to ask if the clerk wrote down i think staff was tracking that i was running the meeting okay oh so perhaps um if um staff meaning uh mr marlott was was writing down any of the questions i was writing down a few of the questions and i can bear a stanger was writing down the practice thank you claire so um great if you want one of them had to do with a couple of people asked about infill maybe we can start with that question about why this development would constitute infill and then so well generally an infill exemption is um suitable for a project that is um substantially surrounded by existing urban uses so in this case we have we have development on three sides of the project um there are some other criteria that that need to be met to qualify for that exemption uh but the general idea doesn't really matter if it's a commercial project or a residential project it's um the main thing is that it's substantially surrounded so it's like you're just everything's developed you're just filling in the hole in the middle i see okay um and i'm sorry if you want a more detail i'm sure i see but yeah okay if people have um you know more questions uh yes and i think there were maybe there's more to be said about that question i think there are also questions about the process of the development itself but um maybe uh mr marlott do you have anything to say about the infill i'll just add to that that the um the staff report does go into detail on how this project meets the infill uh criteria that's outlined in sequa and that's on um it's the bulleted list on the bottom of page eight and the top of page nine um you know it's basically uh it needs to be consistent with the general plan um less than five acres in size um no value for endangered rare threatened species um and no significant impacts to uh vehicle miles traveled um and then access to utilities and public services and i think claus presentation went into some of those um details there okay thank you um and um planner saying or if you want to say any of the other questions that you got down sure um so we had a question um from no well about where the sewer line will be located um i looked on the plans and the sewer lateral is showing to connect to the sewer line that is on pelton avenue um and then in terms of dust during construction there's a few comments or questions about that our building ordinance um specifically section 18.45.115 requires dust control during grading and excavation um so that is something that is regulated um that was my other highlight um jillian greensight had a comment about the lcp and map eq 9 i think she might have been referring to them the monarch butterfly mapping and she is correct that the monarch butterfly mapping in eq 9 um covers a much greater area than it does under the current general plan mapping um i looked at both of those maps when evaluating the project the eq 9 map does actually cover the entire project site um but both lcp and the general plan call for site specific review to determine the exact location of the monarch butterfly habitat and to make recommendations um the last thing i want to discuss really quickly um because we had several comments about access off of um west cliff versus pelton um let's see i wanted to share my screen real quick just like and illustrate this there are some issues with um that that we did explore um but one is that um our fire code requires um a maximum fire access distance of 150 feet um from from the west cliff drive entrance the distance um to where basically that fire access line is is about 440 feet so that's much greater than 150 feet um there are a lot more design requirements that come in like fire truck turnarounds etc so if you had an entrance to only on west cliff you'd have to really substantially redesign the project um even then the fire indicated that they are not supportive of having to come through west cliff every time um they have a call on this property um the public works department also needs both a pelton avenue entrance and a west cliff drive entrance to do their trash pickup um the trash enclosure is down at the southeastern corner of the parking lot so they're either going to be um entering from pelton going past the trash enclosure and exiting on west cliff or vice versa um and then a couple of other things um our subdivision ordinance has a couple sections that actually require new lots to have direct access to a street um so we can't create a new lot this new lot to where the development will be and say there's no street access they have to have access either from pelton or from eucalyptus um this project was designed to close off any access from eucalyptus in order to be compatible with the neighborhood um oh and that's um oh this is just to address a comment from ralph myberg who um he said that there was a previous driveway off of pelton avenue and that's somewhat correct um but it was not in it was not imposed because of any biotic or traffic um reasons it was something where the oblates um church had decided to expand their parking lot and then um they basically um redesigned their expansion to make it smaller and remove the driveway and that was just memorialized as a condition of approval so it was nothing to do with um like butterfly impacts or anything like that um so there's nothing that would prohibit a development today from accessing the property off of pelton avenue um and that's those are the items that i had highlighted as questions um if you see any more you can let me know and i can try and address them um back on the butterfly issue i'll just add that i believe um the applicants biologist is here tonight so if any of the commissioners have any detailed questions regarding the butterfly analysis i'd encourage you to ask him thanks great that's really helpful um okay so um i think that does it for the um public hearing portion then of the of the meeting and i would like to bring it back now to the commission for discussion and action so commissioners what are our thoughts um i see uh commissioner mesidi miller and followed by commissioner kennedy first yeah thank you uh jared greenberg i'm uh quite pleased with this project overall i think the staff and the applicant have done a really great job working with the neighbors and doing their best to mitigate whatever impacts might a project of this site might have i appreciate that the project's been scaled back i hate to see less units in a project than more units in a project but i appreciate the desire to incorporate the uh project into an into an existing neighborhood um i'm supportive of the project i'm prepared to make a motion to approve this project i would like to um offer one uh condition uh to help manage the right turns out of the facility on to pelton you know i would i would say um something like to the extent permitted by the department of public works and the fire department a more substantial traffic control device shall be installed to prevent vehicles from making a right turn when exiting the facility on to pelton avenue um i think that with the other findings and conditions of approval already offered by staff including the revised conditions and the new condition that was included in the memo that was issued earlier today um i'm prepared to make make a motion to approve the project i also wanted to point out that every project has concerns about traffic and everybody in santa cruz is concerned about traffic but i think it's important to take a look at the traffic report uh done by the uh keith higgins the traffic engineer and you know keith was um points out that the previous project had 769 trip ends or you know traffic movements every day and this project anticipated to have about 258 and so the the previous use of this site you know three times more intense than the current use so really we're looking at a substantial reduction in traffic um when this project is completed okay all i have to say thank you and um thank you for all of your thoughts there and i'm thinking that perhaps we um it would be perhaps good to have more discussion before making a motion so i appreciate that you're prepared to make a motion maybe we can have more discussion as well um commissioner kennedy so uh i feel really good about this project when i hear the neighbors and the developer all work together to solve so many things i just think that's wonderful that makes my job easy and um i appreciate that so i had one and one more item i wanted to bring up and that is that trellis up on the roof deck i'm not sure if everyone looked at this the reason i'm bringing this up is i think we really need to start utilizing the roof space on our buildings a lot more than we do right now for all sorts of purposes stormwater obviously generating electricity all sorts of stuff this project was three stories it's now two stories and i just wanted to talk with other commissioners about whether that trellis specifically above the roof deck needs to go so if you take a look through the plans i could lead people through but i'll let you flick through on your own um it seems to me like it's really far from the neighbors it seems like a great spot to sit a senior and look out over everything so uh claura do you want to tell me a little bit more about that and how that decision was come to because it does seem like a really awesome feature to me sure so um so you're right that the project did start out as a three-story building um the west cliff drive overlay zone district allows a maximum of two stories um so the three-story building would have required some kind of an exception to that in the form of like a density bonus or plan development permit or something like that um the applicant ultimately decided to not go that route and just do a project with a conforming building height um the trellis exceeds the building height limitation for the r15 zone district and the west cliff overlay zone district so the zoning ordinance does not allow that feature to exceed the height even though it's supporting energy generating equipment in the state of california and it's not like say you know a big chimney or something isn't that different um it can be um the zoning ordinance allows an exception for um for things that support or enclose like rooftop mechanical equipment um we've typically interpreted that as that being the primary function of like that enclosure haven't really typically interpreted as something that that you know primarily functions as a trellis or functions both as a trellis and as house the pv's structures i had checked also with our green building specialist and he believed that that structure was not needed um to house the photovoltaic equipment and he believed it could be placed directly onto the rooftop so that's how we kind of thought through that piece of the puzzle and included the condition to have it removed okay so it wasn't based on neighbor concerns or anything like that to your knowledge i think i did hear some concerns about um about things on the rooftop and um but but the main but the main reason was uh consistency with the code okay that's a helpful explanation so let me just be very clear if if we all agreed and we wanted to allow that it's not a story of a building it's not like an architectural feature it's something you absolutely need to comply with the current building code in california um can we just allow that if we wanted to hmm that's a good question as a former zoning administrator um you know i think you would just need to make if the majority of the commission wanted to support that feature you would need to make the finding that um there's a height limit modification section in the zoning core code uh i'll read it to you it says cupola's scenery lofts or other roof structures for the housing of elevators stairways tanks ventilating fans air conditioning or similar equipment you solely to operate and maintain a building so you would need to make a finding i think that this is appropriate um and and you did hear from clara that we did um you know explore that with our green building staff and he felt like it wasn't necessary but that's the direction you wanted to go we probably include a finding um to that effect okay i agree with green building because there's probably enough space elsewhere to get the minimum amount of panels what i want to do is enable the maximum amount of panels and a trellis is a great way to do that seems to me like you can do it for an air conditioning unit you can sure as hell do it for solar panels so i do want to be careful to not upset the ship um could i ask the applicant is there any other problems with that solar trellis you know that i'm not thinking about or are you sitting there saying oh no don't put it back in so we could um ask the applicant if they are still with us um if they could respond to the question about the solar trellis let's see i'm looking at the list they're still with us you know what we do that yes i there oh yeah okay great yeah i am sorry i had my hand raised but it's oh i didn't see it sorry about that we we yeah i know i i appreciate that uh commissioner canady we would love to have the trills back if that's something that the uh commission would agree to let me quickly ask on that so is that not just for the infrastructure of the solar but also you're saying uh it's for both residents could could be on the roof yeah it's for shade and also to support the solar panels for both okay it would have a dual it would have a dual purpose okay dual purpose that's okay thank you okay um so on this topic do we want to have i know that commissioner shifrin you had your hand up but maybe other commissioners would like to speak to this point any thoughts on this particular question just so that we don't lose it oh we won't lose it okay all right so let's hold on let's put that um on a shelf let's remember this suggestion um by commissioner canady and then if there's no other comments on it we'll go to commissioner shifrin now thank you um let me first say that i feel positive about this project i think at the impacts of this project will certainly be um much less than when the school was there in terms of both the habitat areas and the you know and and the the you know the traffic etc so overall i feel supportive of the project i feel it's it provides for a need that is important and great um and so you know my only real concern with this project is or with the staff recommendation on this project that concerns the uh inclusion the affordable units um i think having a three percent affordability requirement is just unsupportable and i understand the staff's logic but i think it misinterprets the ordinance and i've asked staff to have ready to add to put up on the screen the language of section 24 16 030.8 which is the section that deals with alternatives to the normal um inclusionary requirements so the staff is right that normally the inclusionary requirements are based on the number of dwelling units in a project but this isn't one of your normal projects and the one of the alternatives really concerns um congregate living units and assisted living units and i think as you know i think it's very clear in the ordinance that for these kinds of projects another inclusionary requirement exists and i want to sort of go through this language uh this is in the section on alternatives to the normal inclusionary requirement and it says congregate living units or assisted units an applicant may propose to satisfy the inclusionary requirements of this chapter by providing congregate living units or assisted living units so that's an option that um may propose it i would read that to say they should propose it if they are providing these units but they may propose it but then there's a second second second sentence and that says if the approval body which is us determines that a proposed residential development project which is the application includes congregate living units or assisted living units the following alternative requirements shall apply and the one that's relevant is number eight 15 percent of the congregate care congregate living or assisted living unit shall be made available for rent to low-income households at an affordable rent and i think it's pretty clear that what the ordinance is saying is that these kinds of senior developments that provide special services that have these congregate care living or uh units assisted living units that are defined in the affordable um housing ordinance should have us you know should have inclusionary requirements and the developer can propose to impose these requirements or the approval body if it determines that a proposed residential development includes such units it shall apply a 15 percent uh include a 15 percent requirement that those units shall be made available for rent to lower low-income households at an affordable rent and i think there's a lot of evidence in the record that this is a community care facility and it should be subject to this requirement um clearly the staff report talks about it that way identifies the project is having a community care having community care and assisted living units numerous times i don't think there's any argument that this is a congregate care facility in addition the parking requirements are based on the fact that the project is a community congregate facility except for two apartment units so in determining the number of units it doesn't look at it as 13 apartment units uh with two inclusionary units it looks at it as only two apartment units and all the other beds are subject to this uh lower parking requirement um the project project units meet the definition of congregate care units in section 24 16 015.9 and the code provides two ways for identifying a project that's having congregate care units as i said the developer can propose it um or the approval body can make that determination they'll be licensed by the state to provide assisted living unit services and again since congregate care facilities are different from senior housing developments with apartments the code treats these requirements differently from dwelling units so i think it's pretty clear that even though this uh sentence is in the overall in the inclusionary housing ordinance it functions to just deal particularly with this um with this kind of senior housing development with congregate care and assisted living units so i'm willing to support a motion to approve this project um i'm happy i'm uh and i'm be happy to include in that motion the recommendations by both commissioner messege miller and commissioner kennedy but i would also add that um the planning commission that there would be the following modification which is as provided under section 24 16 030.8 the planning commission as an approval body for the project and based on substantial evidence determines that the project includes congregate living units and assisted living units and is therefore subject to the requirement that 15 percent of the congregate care living or assisted living units shall be made available for rent to low-income households at an affordable rent let me finally say that this provision would not uh apply to the memory care units because they are not congregate care units and they're in my in my understanding or assisted living they are you know um a different kind of unit that's being offered in a congregate care facility but i don't think would be um included under this provision in the code so anyway that's that's my um that's my recommendation to the commission that we approve the project but we approve the project such that we determined that this that the congregate care and assisted living units meet the affordability requirements as indicated in that code section thank you uh commissioner shifrin um yes um planner stanger thank you very much i just wanted to provide a little bit of staff clarification on this point so there are two um different ways of complying with the inclusionary ordinance the first way is by following the standard requirements and the second way is by choosing to um apply for an alternative method um so the basic these are the standard the basic requirements basic on-site inclusionary housing requirements 24 16 0 20 but this project um point five applies rental residential developments with five or more dwellings um would shall provide 20 percent of the dwelling units as inclusionary units so that's how we came up with that 13 of the units are dwelling units and 20 percent of that um is the two units um and then 24 16 0 30 that states this is the start of the alternative method section so if the applicant does not want to follow the standard inclusionary requirement um they may apply to um use one of these alternative methods and then this section 24 16 0 30 lists out all of those methods that the applicant may apply for and number eight is the congregate living units or assisted living units so the applicant has to apply to um to use this alternative method as opposed to using standard method and the applicant did not apply to use this alternative method so um we've um looked at this with our city attorney and they agree that this is the appropriate way to um um to to read this part of the code uh commissioners shifrin I understand that that's the staff point of view I think it's very disappointing that the staff and the city attorney consistently decide to interpret the ordinance to minimize the number of inclusionary units when that is not necessary I think as I said that this section provides an alternative that normally for other kinds of projects it's clear that the alternatives are at the discretion of the applicant in this particular case it very clearly states that the approval body as the ability as the authority to determine that a proposed residential development includes these kinds of units and if that determination is made and I think it's appropriate to make it in this case then the alternative requirements um apply I you know I I understand that Steph does not agree with that but I think it is a very reasonable and legal um the uh interpretation of the ordinance and to not interpret it this way is essentially setting up a situation where what no developer is going to decide that they want to have a that they want to use this section if it's going to mean that they're going to have a 15 percent requirement um that sentence is put in there I believe with the intention of requiring congregate care and assisted living developments living unit developments to meet inclusionary requirements not to um not to avoid them and what we see is a recommendation where we have a 3 percent affordability requirement at a time when we have a crisis in affordable housing when lower income seniors have very very few choices especially if they need assisted living and if we interpret the code the way the staff report is is recommending we're essentially um making it impossible for these lower income seniors to ever live in these kinds of facilities because there's no incentive for the developer of them to ever define themselves as uh as a congregate care assisted living facility but the code doesn't require that the code gives the approval body that ability to um determine that the development includes these units and therefore the subject to those units should be subject to a 15 low income requirement so I'm willing to um okay I see that Marlett wants to respond yeah um so and I just wanted to quickly um respond as well um that it is concerning that there are these two avenues that can be taken one of which if you have you know a slightly smaller refrigerator and you know microwave versus an additional hot plate and a slightly smaller sink means it doesn't qualify as a you know as a as a kitchen or a kitchenette or what have you which are not even accounted for in the plans uh and if you go the other route um you know there's a way of of interpreting this code to uh to similarly avoid uh this the same kind of even less of an inclusionary requirement but certainly an inclusionary requirement that uh that that could be interpreted in this alternative methods of compliance um so it seems like there's this kind of circuitous route that's been taken to avoid a basic level of um of inclusionary that's so needed a second thing I would point out is uh the lack of inclusion in in this discussion and of response to the question which which might have been raised earlier about uh you know how much it's going to cost to live in this in this development um and the need for 12,000 14,000 uh monthly uh down and then the monthly the monthly cost not being accounted for and and no kind of attention to what the needs are for seniors in our community and whether there's been an analysis um my understanding is that there's high levels of poverty amongst the senior population and a need for senior assistive living and inclusionary particularly for the senior population and a lack and whether there's been an analysis done of the availability of of senior facilities and the availability of affordable senior facilities in our community whether that analysis has been done in the context of of approving this development and thinking about our role as planners and planning commission in really trying to incentivize a for-profit senior living development um that would include basic level of inclusionary and really um think about the spirit of the law here uh in terms of of doing that so um I'm gonna I'm gonna turn it over to Mr. Marlowe. Thank you chair I was just gonna add a little bit to what what Clara mentioned um if you look at the um the sort of the preamble to this ordinance it's 24 16 20 it's applicability of the ordinance it talks about um what projects are subject to the inclusionary um it talks about dwelling units we already have spent quite a bit of time talking about what is a dwelling unit and what isn't it also includes SROs and SOUs it does not say anything about congregate care facility and and I point that out because SROs do allow projects that have common kitchen areas um so it clearly applies to a similar type of project it doesn't apply here you know so then the next question becomes well why um can congregate care be applied for as an inclusionary alternative a very good question um I think there's a couple of explanations um the first being um hybrid projects I mean in theory if there were a project that had a greater ratio of self-contained units um and the kitchenettes the applicant may want to propose some of those congregate units to be inclusionary and then that would require planning commission approval um the other thing to note is that the if you go the route of congregate um as an alternative it's only a 15 percent inclusionary as opposed to the 20 percent um that applies to standard projects and so I believe um it requires planning commission review and approval to make sure that it is in fact a congregate care facility and that conditions can be imposed um to ensure it is what it is so um that's the other explanation but but bottom line again as I said earlier we we share that desire to maximize um affordability here um we just did not see a legal way and we did drill down as much as we could with our legal staff thanks thank you mr maryl and uh commissionership um one small thing um there are no longer s o u units um and so I think the code needs to be changed to put in flexible density units because I think those were those are now what would substitute it for them um the sROs are still in the code I know I'm not saying sROs I'm saying s o u's yeah gotcha good good using no longer in the code correct thank you okay so a couple of things one the inclusionary ordinance is about providing affordable housing and normally affordable housing is provided through the creation of dwelling units that have you know the they you know what we think of is dwelling units um congregate care units and assisted living units have their own um have their own definition in the code they are um they as the applicant indicated they are licensed by the state and my sense is how do you deal with them if you want them to have affordable housing requirements well you know the council could have uh the the code could have had a special section on congregate care facilities um but that wasn't the approach that was taken the approach that was taken was to allow the uh applicant to um determine that their congregate care facilities or to allow the approval body to determine that their congregate care facilities both of these apply I'm always you know it's our this is the code one of our jobs is to the you know is to interpret the code and is and in my sense is as long as the interpretation is legal and is reasonable and is based on substantial evidence I think um I would hope that the role of the city attorney is to support that interpretation so um I appreciate the city attorney's advice I don't think it is really um um accurate when it comes to interpreting this code section and based on that I would like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendation with the following modifications the um edit direction as proposed by commissioner cd miller um making the findings as proposed for the solar panel trellis if I understood what that was all about uh from commissioner kennedy and um as provided on the section 24 16 030 0.8 of the zoning ordinance the planning commission as an approval body for the project and based on substantial evidence determines that the project includes congregate care living units and assisted living units and is therefore subject to the requirement that 15% of the congregate living or assisted living unit shall be made available for rent to low-income households at an affordable rent that's my motion I would I would second that motion with the addition if it's okay a friendly amendment to include my city millers uh an inclusion as to what he said in his aboriginal motion I did I did add that okay I didn't give me I didn't give all the language because I didn't remember it but I would second that motion okay so now I think we have a discussion of the motion on the floor um commissioner kennedy so I appreciate the intent of of mark mcd miller's language on the right turn my concern is that it's designed to fail because both fire and everyone will say oh no you got to go right to get to a fire right so what I was thinking about and I'm not a traffic engineer was like a bull bout in the parking spot just to the right of that driveway and this is the only chance for pelton to ever get any bull bouts improvements etc right this project or maybe the church later so that's what I was thinking I don't know how others feel about it I feel that the neighbors like should be involved in that decision and maybe ralph myberg would be a good person that you know staff and public works could could talk to to make sure it's going to work I did not mean to suggest like that we shut off pelton in one direction because that will we've seen that turn out all the rest of the west club neighbors again and again so I just want to clarify that um and then Eric do you have everything you need for that solar trellis thing the intent is to use that air conditioning language to allow that solar trellis up on top and can you take it from there yes and I'd likely at the commission's blessing augment the findings to to indicate that that you made that interpretation as a commission cool that's the intent of the motion okay so I got one more very soft friendly amendment for the makers of the motion to consider I think this is happening already but you know we might as well put it in there um I think and what I wrote was that this project shall make every effort feasible to create landscapes which will support a thriving monarch population and you know I think this is happening already and it's pretty soft and hard to enforce but I would love to stick that in there you know like we had monarchs on our wedding invitation I love monarchs so well let me just ask staff whether that is provides anything in addition to what is already in the conditions of the various conditions of approval because there are a lot of conditions of approval that related to the monarch and I thought some of them involved the landscaping so I'm not sure whether I would ask staff whether I don't have an objection to that additional condition but I just wonder whether it really is necessary whether it really provides anything meaningful else right I would just add there was a concern a number of people mentioned about lighting but let's get an answer to this so that's just an example yeah and and then the question about whether that's already included that these things are already included it is already proposing landscaping that includes uh several plant species that can be used for foraging and in addition we have included conditions of approval for example like for the water fountain for the butterfly garden to provide a water source um it maybe it doesn't hurt to include a catch all condition in case the applicant thinks of more things they want to add in but um but there are already um based on what the project is proposing in conditions there are um quite a few things already in place I'm happy to add you know the more general language um although you know it's kind of meaningless because the applicant will decide if anything's feasible or not and so you know but if you would like it in I would be willing to add it to the motion I don't know let's if it's in there already we can drop it it's not gonna be enforceable anyway I just I'm sorry I'm just making a political grandstand because it's all this like oh we're gonna like mitigate the damage and yada yada we need to change our conversation to restoring and like helping and supplementing so um I'm done grandstanding and I will retract that friendly amendment okay I hear the concern and that uh from some things I think that Jillian greensights mentioned by the way um about the fountain is not actually effective for the I don't know for the butterflies and I guess I'm wondering to what degree um you know butterfly ecologists are involved in this uh you know uh this is the decision-making around this and to what degree the you know the developer you know how who's being consulted and who has a say uh in these mitigations relating to the monarchs um to to require the applicant to consult with the butterfly habitat expert in preparing the landscaping plans and can we say that yeah incorporate recommendations from that person in the in those plans and have them approved by the city staff there any reason why that would not be an acceptable addition that's a good idea and they have a really good team and I think that will happen anyway like moving into construction dock but that's better way to say what I'm trying to say yeah so if the staff doesn't object is that acceptable to the second the uh seconder yeah that's acceptable okay we have some great some pre-eminent monarch butterfly ecologists in our community good um did I think uh claire stanger yes planter stanger sorry real quick um I've been um taking notes on the the proposed conditions do you mind if I just share my screen just um yes thank you that's really helpful yeah and then I can make sure I'm getting it right for you guys first one is a more substantial traffic is there any way that I think we changed the last one um I think this was the original one and I think it was changed more to um the applicant shall consult with uh um butterfly ecologists um in preparing the landscaping lands to um make every effort to have the landscape support a thriving butterfly monarch butterfly population um and the plans to be approved by the staff and I would change the third one slightly um that to the that the planning commission determines um based on substantial evidence that the project includes congregate care in the following are you sort of had that okay I have one suggestion on the first item uh my original language included it was a more substantial traffic control device shall be installed to prevent vehicles from making a right turn when exiting the facility onto health and an avenue um thank you am I yeah uh and by in this is very helpful to share this if I think we're we all um agree that this is the language that people have provided and now I see commissioner max well has his hand up yeah I think I'm really happy that we're all working on this together and um I think this is great that we've heard from the community and um we're you know moving forward I think the only thing that I don't want to um forget and make sure that it's included if everybody feels concerned it might be included included in the fourth bullet point and that's regarding the lighting issue um around the nighttime lighting that's been brought up by multiple community members and I don't know if that seems like something we want to include in there but I would like to just bring that point forward yeah that might not be understood as landscaping so is there um commissioner max well do you have any other language you would suggest um I mean I think I would want to just maybe open that up to the commission in general if anybody has I mean if we all feel like we agree with that then maybe we can but you know that's just why I'm okay thank you um I think it was commissioner Kennedy and then the cd miller if I got that right uh Sean I totally agree I think it's really well covered by code and pretty well shown in the plans I took it's hard to get 570 pages of plans but there's one that shows the lighting plan and given what I know I took a look and it looked pretty good also the energy code has some pretty good um requirements for this already so if you want to add I'm happy to accept it but I think it's in there pretty strongly already okay okay um and I guess it could just say preparing the landscaping and lighting plans that could be the language potentially if we agree um commissioner cd miller and then commissioner I mean and then planner marlotte you know I I just want to um I was going to say pretty much exactly what commissioner Kennedy said I've read through these conditions there is a condition in the conditions on this project that requires all lighting to be down only shielded etc etc I think it's a non-issue um I don't know any objections do you want if you want to add another one I just think it's you know it's just being too duplicative and unnecessary I mean I um just to respond I guess there is a question um I'm not sure the degree to which all the members of the public read through those but if they did maybe they felt like they hadn't consulted with somebody who really knew what was going on with butterflies um to the degree necessary you know that some of the suggestions made weren't you know relevant for you know that it wasn't foraging it was overwintering I mean I'm not an ecologist so I'm not sure but perhaps they wanted like a more of an independent consultant um uh an ecologist uh and and the staff to to look at those questions about landscaping as well as lighting um but perhaps we don't think that's necessary I'm not sure well the language already includes um landscape and lighting plans so no I don't know what what more we could do and that that we added lighting um okay for that reason and it should be added also uh to make every effort to make the landscape and lighting support a thriving butterfly and then also in the third one there should be a that um in front of the project includes yeah Commissioner Maxwell are you okay with this change to the to the motion I am I so and I accept it as a friendly amendment to add the lighting into that fourth bullet okay um so uh I think we may be oh I see a comment and response by Planner Stanker thank you I was just wondering if you wanted to include in the motion the additional conditions um and modified conditions that were proposed by staff oh yeah I'm sorry um that should be part of the motion that but but it's part of the staff recommendation at this point so but the motion is to approve the staff recommendation and that includes the staff recommended modifications thank you yeah great okay um if there are no other oh I see okay uh Commissioner Kennedy so is this project needs three votes to pass or four three it needs a majority of the commission that's what I think is present it's not an ordinance change I think unless Eric tells me I'm wrong but I think that you're correct it's majority of the commissioners present commissioners present it's getting later I should have known that one okay good question um all right vote I think we're ready for a vote can we get a roll call please Commissioner Kennedy uh regrettably no only because of the affordable housing thing Maxwell hi CD Miller you're muted Mark I have to vote no as well I just cannot go along with the affordable housing piece when staff is advising us that they drill down with legal counsel on this matter and could not find support for this so I'm going to vote no Schifrin hi Vice Chair Greenberg uh I there you have it cool okay great uh and uh so uh I think that the the motion passes and we uh can I think we now move on uh rather than continue to discuss um and uh are there any am I supposed to ask if there if there's anything else on this matter or do we just we just go on we just move on okay so next um and I would just say that um I really appreciate all the work that the applicant and the planning staff put into this and how important this development is and I really appreciate that we're going to um revisit the question um of all of the uh all of the elements of this motion including the affordability given how crucial it is for our community and in particular our seniors um so um and that I I and I agree with uh Commissioner Schifrin's interpretation of first that I think it it could be interpreted as as legal so I uh would like to move on then and going to my agenda here and go to information items are there any information items the staff would like to bring to us uh thank you I just wanted to mention that we do have business for your next meeting um which is on October 20th um there's two items one involving a right-of-way abandonment on the west side and the other involves uh amendments to the cannabis ordinance so uh we will have business that's all I have okay thank you uh and then next um are there any other projects that are lining up to come before us in the next couple of months uh yeah I know the library uh project is getting close to um requiring a hearing we have a couple of other mixed use projects that are also um complete and or in the environmental review stage so yeah we do have a couple also with the library project come before us assuming measure oh fails without any i are being done first why would what would we be hearing on that project the entitlements um and we would be doing environmental review on it um like we would any other project oh so you think that could be done that quickly okay great uh okay um and so if there are no other questions about information items okay seeing none we are going to move on to subcommittee advisory body oral reports there are none we have no subcommittees we have none there are none so are there any items that people would like referred to future agendas I don't know if this is an agenda item but um I've been watching that huge building that I happily voted for being built downtown and I wondered if uh it'd be fun to go on a tour of that sometime as a commission we did some tours before like on the downtown plan it was great for morale and camaraderie and like I don't think we've all seen each other physically in person yet right so I don't know just had that idea that that might be kind of fun and see how those projects are coming together if anyone else was interested what you do is just publicly notice it as a meeting and then that's that and you know I hard hats aside but I just had that thought that I'd throw it out there great idea yeah I would like I support that I think it'd be good to look at the affordable housing projects as well yeah uh the pacific station south I think might be far enough along that at least we should visit the site some of us were at the groundbreaking and maybe the the project adjacent to the church that's that's something that's being built pretty quickly as well this is really great I didn't even know that was something we could do so we can notice that and then we get to go on this tour and the public can join us or how does that work which is us that's what we did before like not to get around but to honor the brown act and you know have it be a meeting yes it was very effective you want to be under control and not just be like some big free-for-all but yeah for me it's so helpful like to look at these things and especially talk with you all about it yeah know how do apartments work I grew up in a single family house I don't know I live in an apartment for like a year in college you know so just seeing these units I think would really help us start to feel these things more not to mention the use of that thing you know you can see like right in the ucs yeah so I know from time to time developers will do ribbon cutting ceremonies and I think we did this very thing with the 1010 Pacific project where commissioners and council members were invited and you know there were tours and whatnot so we could certainly look into that on those big projects cool okay yeah getting to know the downtown plan more is going to be really helpful for us and we're getting lots of questions from the public about it so I think that's a great idea so let's think about and putting that on a making a future meeting out of that and I don't know how that would be coordinated or it's not even really a meeting the brown that doesn't preclude you from socializing as long as you're not talking about anything that's going to come before you and those are things that already have right right right okay so we can just organize it amongst ourselves I'm sure the city would want to do something just to be open but yeah I'm sure staff will deal with that staff will help us okay and we're having a good with that we did it before if that's helpful I think we call it a study session but there's a way to do it okay we get a report on that at our next meeting but we can actually talk about it yeah that's a good idea and then we can let the public know what's planned and stuff like that good cool idea all right any other items referred to future agendas okay well seeing none I think I'm going to call our meeting to adjournment thank you all very much thank you thank you all bye and great job tonight commissioner greenberg on running totally thank you we made it through