 Okay, I'm gonna call the April 1st 2021 regular meeting of the planning Commission to order. Could we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Conway Here Dawson Here here here Nielsen and your shifrin here Spellman is absent with notification. Are there any statements of disqualification? Is there any oral communication? This is the time for anyone to speak on a matter That is not on our agenda, but is properly before the commission. Are there any Are there any members of the public who are here would like to speak to our all communications? Three minutes any member of the public who wishes to address the commission, please Press star nine to be recognized. I do see a member of the public Hey, please identify yourself and Give us your input and it looks like you may need to Unmute yourself Hi, go ahead. Am I um being heard? Yeah Okay Because uh, you're totally breaking up on my phone. So I'll just say briefly. I don't need the three minutes I've really just um started finding out about this uh, this project that was passed through city council um without Without any public speaking and I understand um, just a beginning to learn about and I'm sure the public will soon learn about that Santa Cruz has already exceeded the required new market rate and below market rate housing starts So, um, uh, I personally and I'm sure that other people in the community when they learn about it will Uh, wonder why the city council has has just voted it forward I'm sorry to interrupt you but you seem to be speaking about the downtime expansion Yes So you should speak to that when that comes up Oh, okay. Very about to talk about it. Very sorry. Apologize. I might not be able to speak at that time But okay. Yeah, you are breaking up. But thank you. Apologize. Thank you Is there anyone else from the public who'd like to speak on an item that's not on our agenda Okay, then we will move on to approval of the minutes. Um, this is uh approval of the minutes of february 18th 2021 Is there any discussion on the meeting? I'm sorry on the minutes Seeing none. Would somebody is there anybody in the audience who wants to talk to the minutes? Hearing none, uh, is there a motion to approve the minutes of february 18 2021? I move to approve Uh, I'll second motion by commissioner Greenberg second by commissioner Dawson Uh, can we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Conway Aye Dawson Green That is unanimously. Let me just say it is a pleasure to be able to speak Through the zoom and not be trying to Coordinate with phones. So I want to thank staff for finally working that out Uh, let's move down to general business item number two is downtown expansion slash Reap grant could we have a staff report, please? Hi, good evening commissioners My name is Matt Sanwa. I'm a principal planner with the city of Santa Cruz Let me Share my screen here to get the presentation up. Can you see that? Okay I can yes, thank you. Okay wonderful So tonight we're here to talk about the downtown plan expansion As it relates to the preliminary boundary for the requests for proposals that Staff will be putting out in april here Just by way of some additional background this was presented to city council last week on march 23rd Where where it was? We received direction To additionally share this with planning commission To receive additional input from the commission That we can pass on to our future consultant after the RFP process is completed So for some additional backgrounds on our downtown plan, uh, it was originally the downtown recovery plan Which came came about in the early 90s After the lillian creative earthquake in 1989 And there are subsequent updates to the downtown plan in the early 2000s And then again in the mid 2000s including In in 2017 there was increased heights and residential uses in the core of downtown Which proved very successful and increasing The amount of housing that that's come to downtown at all affordability levels And then just last year the state announced a reef grant a regional early action planning grants for $300,000 For for projects that would increase housing capacity and planning planning staff really thought about What we could use this grant for and we we really decided that It would be best to build upon the successes that we saw in the previous downtown plan amendment and and look to expand the downtown plan boundary And that that's what we included in our grant proposal and we we were approved for that grant And then that grant end date is october of 2023 And so the next process in this in this uh In this project we haven't even started the project formally, but the next step would be to uh submit an rfp to to receive a to find a qualified consultant So, uh, we really uh I lost my Um, so in order to find a qualified consultant the biggest issue was the amount of time spent by that consultant in terms of the the scope of work and Depending on the project boundary there would really be a There really be a large change in the scope of work based on what that boundary might be So staff kind of took a first staff at and what this potential boundary could be just really to give the The future consultant a better idea of of what they're tackling to to see out the project And to have a better idea of what that scope might be And so in order to do that we created some draft goals for the project and again One once this project starts with the consultant There's going to be a significant visioning and goal setting process with the public Uh and to community out, you know, at large through that through this process So these were just initial goals traded by staff that we felt were most important For this project and of course the first being increasing housing units that are built in the city per the grant requirements Some other ones were connected downtown with the river and beach areas to better access Both of those places and to also bring visitors to downtown Santa Cruz as well from the river and beach areas And also to create opportunities for public amenities and infrastructure And very importantly also to create standards for permanent warriors arena the warriors arena was built Uh as a temporary arena And And so that that temporary nature of that arena Is is running out soon and they do need to build a new arena In order to stay in Santa Cruz and so there is a timing issue with that as well. So Thankfully as part of this plan We can also work with the warriors team to create standards That would allow them to stay in Santa Cruz And and build a new arena In that in the potential downtown expansion area And then a few others were to provide economic opportunities And then also generate new tax revenue And so through these draft goals, we were really thinking, you know, where where could the downtown expand to? We we we quickly ruled out expanding west Just because it's it's largely single family residential neighborhoods with very few Larger properties or commercial properties that are developable To to a more significant intensity And then we also ruled out going north Given that it was it was a large increase in scope going north And it also didn't meet the number of the goals that you see here Especially the connection from the downtown to the river and beach areas and then also the warriors arena So we really started focusing on expanding south As as the main as the main idea for this And so here's the map that we created of the two different options for expanding south And there's a lot going on here, but essentially we looked at three options One was properties on washington street That you see in green here Moving all the way to the river levy So that was one option that that was the largest of the option the largest scope the next option was Center street all the properties along center street and everything in this area to the river levy And then the third and most focused option was this in yellow here and And like I said, that's the smallest of the three It also has the the fewest impacts as you can see this this rm slash c o n and rl slash c o n zoning is a conservation zone Conservation zoning so you have a number of a grouping of historic properties in these areas In single family houses There's a lot greater complexity in trying to increase the downtown plan into these areas There's a lot more adjacencies to to work out And a lot more a lot more things to figure out with the public in terms of What the downtown plan can look like with those properties included in it so In And plus we still we still get a lot of A lot of large Developable properties with this more focused footprint in yellow And so this is really meeting this boundary is really meeting a number of the all of the plan goals And and additionally, you know really keeps the project focused and Has a better chance of keeping it within the budget and the timeline that we need as well So here's a better picture Of what that put this? Preliminary boundary it would be and this this again would just be a boundary that Is included in the rsp And of course there would be You know a lot of time throughout this process to actually figure out what the exact boundary will be and to work closely with the public And planning commission and council On what that final boundary Will be but this is this is what we were considering including in our request for proposals for a consultant Just so they have a better idea of what they're looking at tackling for for the downtown expansion And then finally we received a we received a lot of public correspondence For this project And the first part again, I just I just want to Say again that you know, this is really just a preliminary boundary for the rsp scope And there will be an extensive public process For the land use intensity of an urban design Of this expanded boundary area There was also comments on requirements for inclusionary and replacement units And that's certainly something we're going to include in our rsp That's a consultant, you know really consider inclusionary in place and replace units as they relate to the local and state laws And then in terms of redistributing density There is a lot of talk about Moving some density from the east side to Taking away density from the east side or from properties owned mxhd on the corridors Into this area And that there still might be an overall increase in in housing, but We would be reducing density In the in those certain areas And we certainly hear we certainly hear that perspective That you want to decrease the density on the corridors But there are a number of issues with that With that approach and including it in this project that we that we really don't want So that the main thing being the grant funding specifically is for increasing housing capacity And there's a significant issue in adding this Adding this path to the project that's actually decreasing density It's something that that won't work for the grant itself And then it's also on top of that it's just too large of a too large of a task to include in the project There's many unknowns And there's no way for a consultant to actually scope out that work We don't know There would be a whole whole separate process for which properties all are involved How many units need to be moved from those certain properties? So it's a large task that a consultant couldn't scope out easily at this time and really points to needing a separate process And then we also we also don't know what the downtown capacity will be itself in that in that area and that needs to be studied a lot further In in knowing how many units are in that area and how many units could be increased before we even know If if at all units elsewhere could be decreased as part of this So there's a lot more study that needs to be done Plus objective standards will be finishing soon And and there was there was a desire to not take upon Any general plan amendment until that process was over as well as it relates to the corridors And then the city will also be receiving its regional housing needs allocation by 2022 early 2022 and You know, it's really what we're seeing is a number of cities that have received theirs already this past year Is that regional housing needs allocation? Is increasing significantly and a lot of cities have seen a much higher numbers for their Wiena requirements And so we really need to keep all housing options open until we see those numbers and and understand what they mean for the city going forward and where housing should be and needs to be and then And then most importantly too is you know, we we talked quite a bit about this with council last week and And council heard these arguments about redistributing as well And and council chose not to pursue that route Uh, so so for all those reasons You know staff really feel it's it's important to to make that a separate process To identify any any reduction amount or any redistribution And that it that it can't be part of this project itself So thanks for bearing with me on on that And so with that the staff recommendation Is to review and comment on the proposed preliminary boundary for the expansion of the downtown plan To be included in the request for proposals As discussed in the attached city council report of march 23rd 2021 And that concludes staff reports. Thank you very much Thank you I think what we'll do is start out to see if there are any questions from staff Then open it up to the public and then bring it back To the commission for discussion and action I feel if we can raise our hands first and then commissioner dawson Commissioner got comrade or here Okay, thank you and matt thanks for the staff report. That was really helpful um, I do understand that There's a lot we don't know about the potential housing capacity with the downtown plan expansion um, but uh theoretically If there is additional capacity established through that Would it Work to swap out some time if there was a separate process for the general plan amendment Yes, it's certainly something that could be considered It would it does have to be a concurrent process Staff is just recommending that it not be specifically a part of this this process or this project itself And so as we're starting to get this information You know, it's something it's something we can certainly look back into as as we check in with Planning commission and in council throughout this project And because it has to be a concurrent process Any redistribution any redistribution as part of this Couldn't couldn't happen until this project was complete as well And that's not going to happen until 2023 So there there is certainly in you know sequel will be about a year of that So there's certainly going to be time to evaluate options at a later date and consider You know if if that is a route that Planning commission and city council wants to wants to pursue Uh, that's something we'll know a lot more about in the future as this as this project progresses You know potentially when there's you know Staff capacity and availability to do this in direction from council You know, that's that's an option that could still be taken up and and made concurrent with this with this downtown expansion process as well Thank you Yeah, um, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Um, I just I had two questions actually so The first is that if you look at the zoning map Um this this area Uh of expansion some of it anyway is the central business district like the sub district is lower pacific I was just wondering if you could talk about With this change could you just summarize how some of the major zoning components would change or requirements? and then the second question I had is um Is it possible because these are going to be highly desirable parcels because of their location? Um, is it is there possible ability? either through the rfp Or through a separate process to have a higher inclusionary rate in these really in this specific district Uh as we do the expansion so um, yeah, that would be great if I could get some of that Yeah, thanks for your question commissioner goffman um So as far as the zoning map differences go Uh, this area is is currently in the deep south of laurel plant Which it has it has a an sar flurry ratio of up to 3.75 Uh Which which is pretty high but the the current uh height limits are three stories Uh, so there's so there's not alignment right there In terms of in terms of what can be built to the the current code um So what what that could look like on the ground is either just increasing those height limits To be more in line with that far Another option is including, you know, increasing the far the downtown in some areas has up to 5.0 far And so again, there would have to be a community process to figure out You know, if and where these changes are made to increase Increase opportunities there and you know, some of the some of these areas are also Are currently more commercial as well and and less developed So we also don't know like how much how much they'll increase to if they become mixed use to residential zoning um so So I I would say I said at the very least we'll we'll see some height increases of the of a story or two to Just for more development But again, you know, a lot of that has to be decided through through a process at a later date But those are the current requirements right now in that area Then as far as the inclusionary process goes um That's also something we've heard a lot about and you know, we're going to make sure the consultant You know knows and follows the current inclusionary process Again, we again staff would like, you know, any any any uh To any anything to increase the inclusionary requirement in this specific area would also need to be a separate process So as we've seen, you know, there have been a number of inclusionary improvements You know that have come through planning commission uh, that have come from planning commission too, especially in all of your work and You know that that takes a lot of a lot of staff time and there's already been a number of improvements in that area over the past couple years And so given given that amount of time that it takes just from a staff perspective We know that's something that couldn't be in this specific project scope But is is something something we can consider, you know, as we learn more about this area and and You know consider other options more creative solutions for this Quick questions from commission commission and dawson. Did you have a follow-up? I just had a follow-up. Um, so so Hope you're muted. You're muted Sorry, um So I know this is a hypothetical because there is going to be a public process, but if the public process Chose to increase height to five stories Again, all of that is subject to the state density bonus. So If the developer Chose that they can potentially end up with a seven story or something like that that all of those Um provisions would be the same right in this area. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah Thank you other commissioners that I'm sorry Do other commissioners have questions? I have a few I just wanted to clarify a couple of things Steph is recommending going forward with that option one the the final map you showed us. Is that correct? Um, great. I think that's a You're muted Matt. That's a good decision. Yeah, the yeah the map in yellow The second thing I want to clarify and this is from the staff report is like what's What is our charge tonight? I just want to read what Part of what the city council motion was On a unanimous vote was to direct the planning commission Agenda as a presentation at the first meeting in april and provide input on the report and associated zoning recommendations Understanding the staff will move forward with the request for proposal. So I think we can talk about and provide Comments and input On other aspects of the rp besides the boundary. I just wanted to clarify that Yes, you can you can certainly provide any any comments you like the staff is currently moving forward very quickly with the rsp because there is There are time constraints With that So that's something that's already in draft form and being reviewed by by staff In our department and outside of our department now It sounds like this is an ideal time for us to have input on it Correct. Yeah, you can you can certainly provide input. I think the the overall goal of this Is to receive your your comments And to be able to provide them You know quickly to our future consultant that will be selecting as soon as possible. So we're really looking for Planning commission way in on on this direction and and anything else You want to any other information you want to direct to our consultant? That that'll be the most important piece we're looking for as far as information tonight Well, we'll certainly we'll certainly consider, you know, any anything else from from commission As far as rsp goes But like I said that that's currently already in, you know, final draft form and being reviewed right now and There's a really tight timeline on that. So staff will have to consider any comments on rsp And see whether anything can be incorporated or or if that will Slow down that process at all. They might not be able to and do we just have to provide those comments to the to the consultant when they're chosen Okay, I appreciate that and I don't think there's at least on my part any desire to slow the process down I did have a question about This is proposed as a general plan amendment Has consideration been given to since doing it as a specific plan Given that desire to provide Work with the warriors on the possibility of doing a A project there given the desire to have connectivity between the downtown and warfare the beach area Sometimes a specific plan when there are very specific goals can be a streamlined way of dealing with A potential project area has that but was that considered at all? That hasn't been We've looked at more as a you know an area plan Like the other work and really just expanding on What the downtown plan is already and and just bringing that Further You know expanding upon that itself So it wouldn't be a separate plan area. It would eventually be an actual amendment to the the current downtown plan And it would have to be an amendment to the the existing a Beach south of laurel plan as well because we would Likely be taking some properties out of that plan and moving them into the downtown plan Well given that this specific The specificity of the goals it just seemed to me it might make sense Since there is this out the laurel plan starting at laurel and there is a downtown plan on the other side And this is has particular kinds of objectives Moving forward with a specific plan might expedite that might not be feasible But it seems like a fleet at least worth taking a look at To see whether that could expedite the process But I hear what you're saying and just would suggest that Is yeah, I think Think my next question has to do with the density bonus follow up on a density bonus question. Does the rfp recognize or direct The proposal of any proponents to include consideration of Density bonus law and sp3 30 in the work that they're doing in the downtown expansion plan Yeah, that that will be a consideration Just just as with our objective standards as well our consultants Certainly have to take that into consideration as they're as they're doing a zoning land use work Okay. Thank you then my final Question has to do with increase inclusionary The inclusion inclusionary affordability requirements. I understand what your What your response was I was just thinking of when the city adopted the general plan Many years ago, I don't remember exactly when when they were looking at the area on the far west side that I think the community gardens is Located at and it's a pretty large area not quite as large as this the general winds of council adopted General plan policies for that area They included a higher level of inclusionary housing As one of the requirements in the general plan and I don't think there's a legal impediment to doing that Now obviously the council may want might want to do it and I'd be surprised if the staff wanted to do it But there's nothing that I'm aware that would legally prevent the city from including a general plan policy In you know, it's essentially what's a special area plan That would for that area Given the need or given the location or whatever some logical reasoning To have a different level of inclusionary if it was so desired I just wanted to check to see whether you felt there was any legal impediment to doing it It might not be a it might not be considered a good idea But I think that's one of the fascinating things about general plan law Is that it can become it can be very specific in the policy specific areas in the general plan unlike zoning Yes, you're you're correct or there could be a specific area in the city that has higher inclusionary requirements than others And and just again like like I said You know studying this would really Well, you know would be out of this scope, but certainly be considered As this project progresses Okay, thank you. Those are my questions commissioner Greenberg. You have your hand up Yeah, thank you so much. Um, this is a very exciting proposal and for the other questions from my fellow commissioners um, and along the lines of what commissioner Schifrin is asking I'm wondering if the consultant is going to be looking at Or doing any kind of analysis of You know when you mentioned people's concern about inclusionary and replacement housing The potential impact on existing affordable housing In the area that's designated here And what that impact will be And then the potential impact moving forward Depending upon the mix Of affordable versus market rate housing that's built there How that might impact affordability more generally in surrounding areas So kind of questions on potential gentrification effects and just potential displacement effects if in fact, you know, there's a Depending on the the ratio of affordable to market rate housing that goes in That's what I was wondering if the consultant might be looking at these kinds of questions Yeah, yeah, it's a it's a very good question. It's something that's definitely on our minds as well Uh, I know that especially for sarah noixie who's our senior planner Uh, she's been very on on top of that and looking at this area and starting to study it more And that's going to be information passed on to our consultants as well And there will be that significant, you know, uh First step where they're doing research on the area and And learning more about it and and doing that kind of quantitative work Uh to to understand it better And I I think that that info that That background information that they're going to be creating You know will will impact how they move forward and and what and what they consider doing and and how This actually leads me to another question having to do with What is included in the rfp and what's intended in the scope In terms of the planning commission role and the public input role Let me just say I I hope it's something going to be something like what our role is with the objective standards process and I also feel that The community process the outreach process. I mean as far as I'm concerned, I don't see a problem with that Process using the planning planning commission meetings, maybe publicizing maybe having uh, Special, you know agenda items where I just set up for the public to provide input on The different aspects of the plan. So I guess my question is is the RFp is the rfp and the scope going to end up having a very clear delineation of The The You know the public role in the planning commission role Yeah, we we certainly foresee the planning commission Planner role and especially in terms of those Those are bigger checking points of the plan Just like with subjective standards And that would be communicated in the in the plan And you know the rfp is really we're also, you know saying an rfp to consider You know the role of You know governing and decision-making bodies in the process uh to both to also leave that open for You know additional comments and ideas and creative thinking that the consultant might have on on on the public outreach process itself and You know once we receive once we receive their draft, you know, they're going to respond to the In the rfp in terms of, you know, what we're asking for but they're going to be providing their own How reach strategy and timeline and checking points In in their proposal to us That we we might refine with them further But that will also go to city council for approval and And Just as with objective standards, you know, there's there's that uh that time for further refinement as well If those things are missing or or desired So it's certainly going to be communicated with consultants and uh, we do we do look forward to at least having those checking points with would you have any Would you have any objection of bringing the scope of services to the commission before it goes to the council? So we could have input typically the rfp would go to council and and given given The time that this is needed to happen It would have to go to council first unfortunately Because where staff is pushing really really hard to get this to council before their summer break and And based on the timeline of the rfp And you know, we we need to get the consultant at least three weeks to Uh respond to it. We need a few weeks of review and interviewing And then we need time to actually set the meeting up before council and notice it So based on all those timelines, you know, we're really pushing right up to june already And there's not going to be time to take it to planning commission before that fortunately well I have a concern with that it's sort of related to the next item Where the annual general plan went directly to council and the reason we were given last year for not coming to the commission first Was that there was no time and that's what i'm hearing this time But we our meeting which was cancelled for lack of business was five days before the council meeting Um, it just seems to me that given the way our schedules work if it's possible To come to the commission even if We don't provide a written report or there isn't a written report to council It won't when the my my memory is if if there's a reason that the An item has to come to the commission before it goes to the council Somehow the schedule can be worked that it goes to the commission Even if it had even if it's not a fast track and has to go to the council right away So, I mean, I understand that there's a Time time crunch on this and i'm not Wanting to extend that but given the way our meetings are scheduled And the amount of time it takes to get on a city council agenda I don't see why could this is a this is going to be a very important role for the commission to play And I think it would be useful for at least to be able to give the council our input especially since they asked us for input and We're you know, I appreciate we have some input in the rfp now although It's sounding like we won't have much since it's the last draft But it seems like it would make sense to have input on the scope if possible and you know, that's The fact that there's a time crunch Doesn't necessarily mean that it can't come before the commission at least I don't It hasn't been the case in the past when there was some other reason for it to go to the commission Yeah, certainly we can We can give it some consideration and and perhaps it can be an informational item, but I will have to I will have to see what that timeline looks like because like I said it's very tight And it will will take additional resources to prepare an additional An additional meeting and presentation And and the commission will be receiving this just like the public would on thursday Anyways prior to that tuesday meeting when it when it's uh when it comes out for the council meeting So there would there would still be time for that input prior to council That we can we can take in Well, even as an information item, I think it would be useful to be able to look at it and you know have the commission discuss it to before the council Has to take final action on it. You know, I don't want to you know overly belabor it Especially during this point. Are there any other commission questions? Um, are there members of the public who would like to speak on this item? this Wait, you can have up to three minutes. Please identify yourself and um This is on the downtown expansion you can grant and give us your input All right, can you hear me? Yes This is Ralph. It's on until the calling on behalf of Santa Cruz EMB Uh, I'm calling today. Uh, we encourage enhancing walkable bikeable vibrant neighborhood to these throughout the city, um, but it's especially important to do so when we can locate growth Near major transit options like the metro station, which will further enhance the options for people to use alternative Transportation minimizing traffic impacts at our highways with vehicles fewer vehicles miles miles traveled and promoting more sustainable lifestyles We encourage the city to look beyond just the pacific avenue front street corridor For the downtown area expansion and to seriously consider evaluating an expanded area that would include cedar center and washington street south of laurel No matter the extent of the size of the downtown plan expansion The process of evaluating options and moving forward with the plan will take time and expense Limiting the scope of an evaluation to only the area east of pacific to save a few weeks of work would be an unnecessary rushing of a process That should be robust and first presumed the conclusions of an analysis and public process that has yet to be yet We must make sure all of the city's options are evaluated and considered before making a decision on the scope of expansion The pacific and front street corridors south of laurel already has significant zone capacity for housing But the likelihood that there would be significantly more housing created If there if it's incorporated into the downtown plan is not clear While we support the expansion of the downtown area downtown to this area There is limited benefits to increasing housing supply by only including the This area of pacific and front street in the downtown plan One of the largest High-density residential parcels is actually where the warriors arena is currently located And there is going to be a if there's going to be a permanent non-residential facility there We need to explore spending the housing density in other ways such as looking at increased density out to washington street Therefore, we're requesting that the planning commission recommend a project scope that includes an evaluation of the area west of pacific to washington street Thank you Thank you Next speaker Please identify yourself and you have a few minutes Hello, my name is judy gruntstra. I don't usually address the planning commission or Zoom into your meetings, but I think we are all stakeholders in this issue Even if we don't live in the direct of the vicinity Well, it's a good idea to connect downtown to the beach I think this Process is being rushed and the pressure is being put on because of the warriors arena issue And we shouldn't be held captive to that You know staff's trying to shave three months off this process and I worry about a rushed public process The future of our city is at stake And it would be helpful if the map was zoomed out actually to show the relationship of these new boundaries To the south of laurel and the beach area plans I would hope that there's a more cohesive approach to city planning than just you know here there You know, I know it's not exactly spot zoning, but It's a it's a very important issue and we need to do it right and we don't Appreciate it being rushed Thank you Thank you Next speaker, please Is it my time to speak? Yes Go ahead. Who is it? My name is ed porter and I appreciate you guys having this What turns out to be kind of a special meeting since it wasn't going to be held until this item got to you So I'm appreciative of the comments I've heard so far Uh, I feel like the elephant in the room doesn't get spoken of very much But it certainly has been addressed in recent approvals of of a building right on the river Where the building height the maximum building height is 70 feet and as a result the Thing is supposed to be 80 or 85 between 80 and I think 86 when you count the air conditioning materials so Just because the state can impose requirements On the cities even charter cities apparently It doesn't alleviate the need to what they call harmonizing The the conflicting And that needs to be done You know, if the state is incapable of doing it Then the city of Santa Cruz should amend their codes accordingly and and One of the results should be the the building height should be the building height You know the maximum height Is what we all understand. It shouldn't be three different numbers. We we saw that approximately Lower height Would would be permitted right now and as a result one developer submitted two plans one for a three-story building one for Much taller building and and I don't think we should keep avoiding The the building height that we desire for our city and let that sort of fall out of a dice table or something The other thing inclusionary rivet and glad so many people commented about it We saw that this building on the river got up on 11 percent of the total number of units as affordable We had a 15 percent requirement up until it was changed to 20 percent We shouldn't have three different numbers floating around and sort of a dice game to figure out What it's going to be it should be a limit that stands And I hope that those Subjects will be taken up during public input by this consultant and I appreciate chairman Schifrin's desire to bring this matter back and I think Traditionally things like this of such great magnitude have always come back to the planning commission And I want to see it also at the conclusion of the consultant's work come back So the the recommendations that come from this consultant Are studied and and commented on by our planning commission and those comments sent to council So I want to make sure that that kind of complete process does take place And I thank you for being there on this great spring evening Thank you very much Thanks speaker. Hi. Hi. My name is Doug Angfer. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi. Yes Great. Well, thank you for taking up the topic of the downtown plan expansion project And in particular for creating a venue for public discussion of the effort Certainly hopeful that this robust and engaging public process will continue We request that the commission indeed include consideration of density transfers From east side corridors to the scope of work contemplated either in this proposal or during this project This is the unique opportunity to address enduring land use issues on the east side Particularly where high intensity zoning exists on narrow parcels that are immediately adjacent to lower intensity residential neighborhoods Improved land use and zoning guidelines should support more complimentary moderate intensity transitions from lower density residential to higher density mixed use development Any proposal to change land use and zoning guidelines south of laurel should be done sensitively Creating a reasonable inviting walkable vibrant transition from downtown to the beach area While staff's not yet ready to even guess how much additional housing the work would enable It's likely that any land use changes there are going to result in substantial new housing opportunities Which in turn creates a context to address some of these east side intensity issues I'm certainly mindful that any general plan amendment process will take years staff's been clear about that But including these density transfers as part of or concurrent with this project Taken in tandem with the ongoing work toward objective development standards will send a strong clear message to potential developers Smart responsible developers will propose projects that are consistent with the direction being communicated by the town This in turn will go a long way to balance the need for more housing along transit corridors with the concerns of existing neighborhood residents Finally and with due respect, I have to take issue with some of the report that staff read out at this meeting Um for those of us who attended the city council meeting We'll recall that staff was not only supportive of but full of praise for the concept of the density transfers I guess i'm disappointed that sarah wasn't here to talk tonight And Council did not refuse to include density transfers as part of the discussion rather As chair shifrin pointed out they referred this matter the planning commission to discuss precisely these kinds of issues What should be done in the project and around the project? Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your service Thank you very much Next speaker, please. Thank you very much for your All right, so you're still there. I think we might have lost that speaker For those of you that try to call back Um, make sure you come from somebody else. Please identify yourself. You're on the line speaker. Hello Hello Who is this? Hello, I've been asked to unmute myself. Is that my turn? It's carol. Yes Go ahead Okay, um, I'd like to oppose the Uh Change in the height that is a change in the coastal plan Excuse me a second. Could you please identify yourself? I did. My name is carol long. I live south of laurel in the nearing the gun area Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. Um, I believe the uh extension of the downtown area into this uh south of laurel area would require the uh amending of the coastal plan and I am questioning The putting of so much energy into a plan That is not yet, uh, even legal according to our coastal plan You can correct me on that if If you afterward, but I don't believe it's allowed In this area to have 85 feet in height in buildings I also would oppose um large amounts of Market rate housing which i'm pretty sure this is designed to allow And I myself support Only low income housing in the expansion of housing in santa cruz And I know that santa cruz Has a very very low fulfillment of low very low income housing I think it has only has built only about 11 percent about of what it's supposed to build And so I would uh support a plan only that would include uh expansion uh of low income and very low income housing And I'll refer you to rick london nodey's correspondence. Uh Very informative on that. Thank you Thank you Next speaker, please Hi, can you hear me? Yes, please identify yourself and you have three minutes Thank you. Hi, my name is amy and I want to just start by thanking you all for hosting this meeting tonight It's the first uh planning commission meeting i've ever called into And I think one of the most important things that I think about as a resident of santa cruz and this effort is ways that we can increase housing And in turn also increasing housing affordability and I think that by focusing density in our downtown area We really have a unique opportunity to do that um And and as somebody who lives in santa cruz I really do think that the warriors have contributed positively to our community But bigger than them we have an opportunity to include a robust number of voices and looking for creative ways to increase density smartly in our downtown area And I just think that we cannot miss this opportunity to increase housing In our community because it really will serve Everyone in our population, whether you're a low income middle income or recently, uh, or a long-term resident of santa cruz So I look forward to continuing to follow and participate in this process And and I think that if we keep those At principles in mind we'll end up with a really positive economic opportunity for the city. Thank you so much for your time Thank you very much Next speaker, please Oh, hi, this is So live in santa cruz and I've been 30 years I'm sorry. You're you were breaking up. What was your name? Oh boy I'm saying my name is sondra And I've been a resident for 30 years. Do you hear me? Hey Yeah, but you come and go Um, sorry, I I just be very brief. Um I do not see this a huge amount of housing market rate and below market rate or median market rate to be a great opportunity I think we have to recognize once and for all. We're in the middle of an environmental crisis And um building more housing right now at this point bringing more people in more traffic More water needs more sewer needs just doesn't make sense We've already exceeded the required new market rate and below market rate housing starts And I think we should just let the dust settle and most certainly let the community sort this out Not the uh, you know, a lot of people in the community don't really know this is going on everybody is so busy trying to earn a living to live here and Once people do find out is when the cranes will already be in the air And it will be too late and we did not want this rushed through We want an opportunity to inform the community and get the community input I don't know any reason why this should be rushed through. I heard the rationale and it It it sounds very flimsy to me very very sad to hear that that's Happening on this level that there should be a staff person talking about rushing something like this through because 99% of people in community don't even know this is going on so And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much Thank you Next speaker. Hey you guys, this is brook. Um, thanks for your time And I really appreciate you listening to all of us because we do really care so much about our wonderful city I guess my bone is I'm kind of It's important to me that you guys perhaps consider adding the density transfers to any of these project plans So, um, you know, we all live in different parts of the city, but it seems like the east side is kind of Wrangling with a lot of kind of really oddball zoning issues So a lot of the zoning is like right up against, you know, single family neighborhoods and We're having a hard time trying to like kind of Find our way through a lot of the development proposals that are being tasked So I would just like to respectfully kind of bring a a couple of points up Which was, you know, the old corridors plan, um, you know, it's going to Perhaps deal with some of these de intensification issues Which never came to fruition but um It's it's more about like kind of stress on overly tasked city Systems like water and sewer and police and public services So, um, the growth I think I I agree with the woman that spoke before that just needs to be a lot more In front of the people that live here so that they have an uh, an opportunity to comment and I think, um, I agree with her. I don't want the cranes to be flying before people actually have an ability to To contribute some input And, you know, some of the zoning ordinance, um Basically says, you know mixed use districts established development standards to ensure that Citing massing height and scale and infill and intensified development are sensitive to existing neighborhoods and business districts Please remember that And also protect and enhance the distinctive physical and design characteristics of neighborhoods and districts throughout the city So if there's an opportunity for the downtown plan To meet the objectives of what we all think is important, which is more housing specifically more affordable Demonstrably demonstrably provable affordable housing. That's great And that might be an opportunity to like, you know, do some of these You know transfers of density and alleviate some of the problems you have on different parts of the city that are like being um, kind of uh bombarded with Potential development that really is not fitting. So thanks for your time Thank you very much There's another speaker A number of people that are Attending but I do not see any more hands raised if any member of the public wishes to address the commission Please press star nine now C1 Anyone else that's waiting in the queue to speak please press star nine So you'll be placed in the queue and we can, um Hear your testimony efficiently If please introduce yourself and you have three minutes Thank you. My name is chain And I would like to address the agenda background That states that the report describes the preliminary boundary be used for the purpose of scoping and a request for proposals Just to actually indicate that the community The strategy will be created around addressing the proposed preliminary boundaries Which means that the downfall plan expansion Is accepted And expected Closy It's a done deal Therefore the public did not have a chance to weigh in If indeed such an expansion should take place at this point in time The community will have the perfect coming to me to judge if the current downfall plan With its new boundaries height and density adjustments Is the achieving The chances and changes that the senate whose residents wish for If the community likes what it sees with these new developments downtown Then expansion will be no problem It will be easily available to the planning department I am a little concerned quickly The planning staff is trying to push this through It's almost It's too quick And it's not democratic in regards to public input So therefore I find This very concerning that the planning commission is planning to push something through so quickly And it'll prepare Thank you very much And I know your hands are tight. You can't do anything anymore. Anyway Thanks Thank you Next speaker, please Introduce yourself. You have about three minutes Hello Yes, hello Yes, before my name is jillian greenside before you start the clock I really have to tell you that You have nothing on your screen that indicates how people can reach you and call in Nothing I had to go and fire up my computer Go through all that to find how to reach you It's and then I you know, so that's a serious problem right there with public access That's enough of that But that has to be addressed before this meeting goes any further you need something on the screen With the number to call in and how to get yourself on the list enough of that With all due respect, I find this whole Enterprise a travesty a travesty of democracy I was here after the earthquake When we had the downtown what resulted in the downtown recovery plan that was months of debate discussion input And what resulted from it was something that the community could buy into This is being rushed through it wouldn't have even come to you had not members of the public convinced the council that it should This is very concerning and the central issue Isn't even up for debate. The central issue is not where the boundary of an expanded downtown should go The central issue is do we want to expand downtown That has not gone through any public process whatsoever And it has to and that should be informed by data How many housing units are coming online? What level are they? What's the impact of raising the area medium income? What's the impact of the density bonus? I thought staff was pretty Understating and saying well the it's three story limit now south of laurel. It could go to five It could go to 85 feet if it's matching downtown zoning laws So this is dramatically changing a big area of town with huge impacts And I think the public is doesn't know a thing about it I just like to address one other issue I could say more on the other one, but I really am so Disappointed in this process. It's all staff driven Staff couldn't even imagine why they needed to be public import because after all they've chosen the best boundary The second issue is I've heard this Mantra about connecting downtown with the beach area for 20 years Whenever there's a new development that's trotted out as that's the desirable thing that will happen 555 pacific was going to connect downtown with the beach area. This is nonsense It's salesmanship The downtown people who go downtown are a very different demographic than people who go to the beach Just open your eyes and see the culture The class the interest You're not going to like bring them all from the beach to shop in the expensive stores downtown Please drop that it is insulting to those of us who keep our eyes open and are concerned about our Outbound I see enough But if this goes through it for the community, thank you Thank you Next speaker, please I don't see any raised hands Okay, there's your last chance if there's anybody else who wants to speak. I'm about to close the public Input portion of this so Raise your hands now if you want to speak Okay, um Let's bring it back to the commission for discussion Anybody want, um, I'm sorry to see any commissioner Dawson Yeah, um I must say I mean you definitely heard it from the public. We've seen it in the correspondence I'm I feel very frustrated with this process. Um, and it's not even Related to the central question of whether we should or shouldn't expand um, it's it's really related to the process And first of all, I I really think this If the driving factor is the warrior stadium, and I think there's pretty good agreement Across town that the warriors are a very positive thing for our town and that we would like them to stay And so if the driving factor is the warriors arena, let's figure out how to have an expedited process to plan around expanding that arena Um, and and making a permanent home for them and then have a deliberate transparent um public process to decide about expanding downtown Expanding the boundary and again, um, I really at this point I would want to learn more about expanding downtown and what the options are But it's very hard when the staff comes forward with a line drawn And says well, this is this is not really the line, but it's a line on a map. So Um, it kind of is the line So I'm just really frustrated with the process and and I also want to say if we do end up expanding downtown That we as a city And I think this would be universally agreed upon That these parcels that we're going to expand the downtown area into are some of the most desirable parcels in the entire city Because of the location to downtown and proximity to the beach We need to recognize that as a fact And what we need to do is we we need to increase the inclusionary so that we're actually Building extremely low very low and low income housing For boardwalk the majority of boardwalk and downtown workers Who need that type of housing so that they can live where they work? And if and you know, I think we would get lots of support around a process that included all of that instead of rushing this through Thanks Let me respond to the The the concern about that this is being rushed Um, I think there are really two issues one issue that commissioner Dawson brought up was um, should we be you know, should Should we be expanding the downtown at all? I think that that's not before us now Um, the council has heard a couple of times from uh on their agenda The recommendation that the downtown should be expanded And that they went along with it. They didn't ask us for our opinion, but they don't have to um at their last meeting they Uh, the staff had gone out and got this $300,000 grant and they recommended that we initiate a product that the city initiate a process to hire consultants to uh consider The a downtown expansion in this option one area Which from my perspective is a whole lot better than the initial proposal which Included a great amount of residential development, which I think is much more problematic I want to assure people who are concerned about this rushing through is that You know coming out of a planning background you start somewhere you start by Identifying the area that you want to work in the council has identified that area According to the schedule This process is not going to be completed until October of 2023 So there are two over two years that this is going to be going forward Um, I want to encourage the people who are concerned about this to stay involved That's what it's going to take. They're going to be a number of meetings where public input is going to be very important I want to hear what people think about the process as it develops But I don't think it's really fair to say that it's being rushed through Um, it it sort of started for people who didn't know about it Like it's always the case it seems to come out of the blue But the council has considered it a couple of times and that's They've agreed with staff whether uh, I like it or not or we like it or not And so now the question is how are we going to have a good process that responds to the needs of the community that responds to the needs of the city and Where what I understand is that the staff is is going to hire somebody Some consultant firm that's going to Provide a lot of the data that people have asked for What are the displacement possibilities? They have to look at what's there But before you can actually start a process You've got to know the area that you're that you're going to be working in So I I don't think it's correct to say that this process is going to be Is rushing through and I just think that it's going to be at least a two-year process with numerous opportunities for people to Comment people may not be happy with it in the end or they may think it's a great thing But it's you know, that's the substance. I think the process is not It's not an unreasonable one. Um, I also want to say that I agree with the comments about this process also considering the The possibility or or actually really more the procedure of what I would call Redistributing densities in the city This this is As under the current state law this the city can't down zone. It can't reduce density in the general plan even if Everybody thinks it's been a it's a big mistake. It's not really legal to do that now But it is possible to transfer densities and I think we don't know how that would work But I I think it is reasonable to include consideration of what that process would look like In this general plan amendment because we are going to be considering increased density Um, I I think there from my perspective. There is a problem with the current Amount of mixed-use high density mixed-use development that's allowed And it's at least worth looking at In an area where we're going to be talking about increasing densities. We don't know how much How meaningful it's going to be um that the The it could be a way to provide some Redistribution into other areas of the city where such a density is either Reasonable or equitable So I want to before I open it up to other commission or comments. I want to ask staff a question Uh, that was raised by one of the public comments regarding the need for LCP amendment My understanding is that the area is in the coastal zone and that any general plan amendment Would require an lcp amendment. Is that correct? Yeah, this this area that we're looking at is all within the local coastal program and would require a lcp amendment So and is it also I get very confused with the status of the city's lcp amendments Uh, my understanding is that the downtown plan um Has been approved as part of the city's lcp But the other general plan amendments that were adopted in 2018 have not been approved as part of the city's lcp They have not gone to the commission Uh coastal commission and been approved. Is that correct? What is the status of the city's lcp overall? So staff is currently working on Uh updating the lcp to come into conformance with the current general plan That's going to be taken to decision-making bodies this year Was it likely going to council in the fall? So this has been going on and certainly since I've been on the commission You know and we're getting more and more years away where the policies in the in the coastal zone Are essentially different than the policies in the rest of the city and it's kind of a It can get very as somebody said it can get very confusing to know which policies apply where So I hope um that I mean, I think it's useful for In discussing this general plan amendment to make it clear because this is the first I hadn't thought about that But to make it clear that um, it would not go into effect until the local coastal program Which changed and the coastal commission approved it Is that I It disappeared matt, but I assume that that's what you were saying Sorry, can you hear me? Yeah All right, my looks like mine are not cut out for a second. Yes. That's that's correct That this would be this would be part of the process um where after after the plan has been Uh approved by council in 2023 at some point It would then go to the coastal commission For formal adoption or would be sent back to council if there were further changes from coastal commission And it was not going to affect until the coastal commission approved it correct So I just I'm emphasizing that too Because I I think people's concern about the process is a legitimate one And I certainly shared it in certain instances But I don't think it's a fair one here. We're really at the beginning Of a process that's going to allow for a good deal of public input and I'm just concerned that um I um I appreciate staff narrowing down the area to the area that they chose because I think it's Less it may still have it's still going to have its problems, but it's much less problematic than the than the Than the original proposal Let me also say that I think the concerns that people raise about the impact of density bonuses On height And other city requirements are totally legitimate concerns and as staff has said The scope of work of the consultant is going to Include consideration of what effect the density bonus law would have on any of the proposals to change your density in the In the city, I think given how What we've been seeing recently The general plan densities are Cannot be taken seriously Because any project can get a density bonus that could go now up to 50 percent additional density as well as height increases So I think if we're looking at changing Densities, we've got to take into consideration. We've got to assume that developers who are coming in under the new densities are going to Use a density bonus law to maximize the amount of development that they can get in most cases Other commissioners have comments commissioner neilson Um, yeah, I just um, there was a lot that you said that I that I agree with chair. So thank you for um, for stating that um I have a actually I have a question for staff. Um regarding the boundary. I mean, I do I think on face when I look at it the the boundary Of the yellow map that we saw. I mean make sense. Um But I'm wondering if like through the through the process of having the consultant look at this is I mean if you're Going to define that area as part of the rfp Does the consultant have the ability to go outside of that if they as going through the process they discover Something that makes sense for them to to look at some other areas Certainly. Yes. Uh, thanks for that question Yeah, it's it's What we're essentially giving the consultant right now. I know it looks like sperm lines on a map, but It's really just an order of magnitude That we're trying to provide them with and this was This was our first step in in creating that that boundary for them to to be thinking about Uh, so there's certainly going to be You know, like chair shifrin said a two-year plus public process Where we're figuring out What exactly these lines on the map are going to look like and and what the zoning and urban design of each of those areas will be So it's it's certainly still yeah, very very fluid Okay, that makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, I think like I was saying as we look at it As it is right now and what it what the potential impacts are going to be um And looking at this, you know, this expansion um It makes sense to me that we wouldn't that we would keep it within that zone But it's you know, I'm not the professional in that realm. So it it would be great to you know to be able to allow um You know consultant to be able to to to look at all options there um With I guess a follow-up question to that. I know that I know that That staff had ruled out going west and had ruled out going north. Is that is that also on the table? Or are you going to keep what would it be? Really defined to south of laurel Yeah, those I would say those are off the table at this moment I think especially given the amount of funding we have I think anything beyond the south area Given the additional complexities Really wouldn't be possible as part of this scope Certainly to the west with the residential and then to the north is just uh, it's just getting too large in terms of that that scope But it's you know, like like I said, we're going to be getting rata numbers in next year that are probably going to be much higher than this current cycle um And There might have to be future areas that we do consider Other expansion or different, you know, different zoning in the future to accommodate that but that's something you know, we can consider Well down the road from now Okay, thank you I think I'd like to just also comment about the link of downtown to the beach I I know there's been that there've been comments saying that that that's not appropriate or that there's been You know talk about trying to do that for a long time Um, these things take a long time. Um, you know the 555 getting built was you know one one piece of that and um You know and then and potentially this expansion of the zoning to the downtown or you know through this South the laurel area Could allow for you know more development to happen to to allow for that linkage and I You know, I think it is appropriate for that link to happen between downtown and the beach I you know, I The demographics of you know people that they utilize downtown. I don't think are completely different than Those at the beach or those at the wharf. So I think it is appropriate to link those and and have all that be connected So those are my comments other commissioners I had a couple of things to add Um Using zoom is for these meetings has its benefits, but it also has its disadvantages and um, I'm my understanding and A clerk can can respond to this is that the the telephone Line to call for the meeting is on our agenda. Is that not correct? That is correct. It's on the online agenda And um, there's a news item on our Website that's posted until the meeting starts that directs you to the area where the online agenda With the call and information As well as the print it sounds like at least one speaker Could get to the meeting, but couldn't figure out how to call Or at least could see the meeting but couldn't figure out how to call. I wonder if it would be Um Useful to just put the call and number in the chat In case anybody is watching the meeting and wants to call up The chat actually was not supposed to be enabled tonight This was reset from a community meeting where they do that We don't do that in these types of meetings because of the potential of a brown act problem Do you know what I mean? So I've disabled the chat. That was an accident and I apologize for that Um The best way Would be just to go online, which were many many people are viewing it online as well Because you see the meeting as it's streaming from the place where the agenda is posted So in the future we could probably put the tagline on there. It's not a problem It's just that it blocks the view of the screen when we're televising it But I'm sure that's not a not a problem Um Thanks Thanks for inviting me to make one more comment. I'll keep it brief. I appreciate your interest in Having the panel, please review the chat Um, and also I thought that was instructive to find a way to Uh, in find a way for people to easily be able to comment. Whether it's a phone number or a link or something Um, so appreciate that. Thank you Okay, uh commissioner dawson And then commissioner Conway Yeah, I just wanted to um Make one more comment around the process and Um, I realized initially when I made it that I I don't think I was clear in that There's There's a couple components of the process that are particularly frustrating And I think one of them is the role in the planning commission. Um, when we got the materials for this meeting Um And you look at what we're being asked to do Um, we're we're we're being asked to to comment on the line that isn't the line. Um, and then Um, we've been basically been told that we can provide no input to the rfp and so Um Those are the the components that I think are are really frustrating and you know, I think that Finding a way to integrate the planning commission as a whole so the planning commission can bring their expertise to these kind of processes Um, I think it is is really important in ensuring Um, a really transparent process a really informed process and also building public confidence in the process Um, and so it would be just something I would hope the staff would take under advisement for for future processes I do agree with chair shifman that the the the process that actually Complete the expansion will be a protracted process and there will be opportunities But I think leading up to that process has also been um, Has some opportunities for improvement. Thanks Okay, uh, thank you Before calling on commission of comment I wanted to Clarify with staff because my understanding of what was happening here was somewhat different um, I think we are providing input into the rfp and staff did say at least what I heard matt say is that you would try to get the scope of Services to us At least as an information item before it goes to the council And my sense is that the input that we've talked about That by and large staff has agreed to is getting details on the public role and the planning commission role Throughout the process that that's going to be a part of the rfp And the scope that they're going to concept of scope of work It's going to consider displacement of existing residents and the potential for gentrification In adjacent areas That there we can through the process consider changing affordability requirements if we want to that the The scope will include the consultant looking at density bonus law and sp3 30 implications for proposals for the area And as commission and neil finca pointed out that there is a recognition that the The boundary is a preliminary one could be expanded. It could be shrunk. The process will Determine that the one area where I think I would hope we could also get included In the in the scope because I think it's important is at least consideration of redistributing density from the east side to Look at what would it look like to do that because nobody's done it that I know certainly nobody's done it here We did agree to put it all put it off on a general basis But I think this gives us an opportunity to really look at it Um, sort of as a model to see well, if we were going to do it, how would we do it? How would we study it? How would we figure out if it's worth doing or not and just ignoring it to for some later date? Is I think a mistake given the amount of public concern around it. So let me just see map Ask you Matt whether the issues that I whether I outlined the issues accurately or not in terms of You know the commission's input on the rfp and the scope of work Yeah, thank you for uh for rehashing all those chair shifrin I do just want to say as far as the Whether the rfp can can go back to planning commission or not as an informational item We we did receive direction from council to proceed with the rfp Could I interrupt your map because I'm not speaking about the rfp. I'm talking about the scope of work I understand the scope of services. I understand that the rfp needs to get out I I get it. I think there's no way for that to come back to us Well, I think what I was requesting as that before the scope of services goes to the count But because that's the key document that it's going to outline what the consultants are going to be expected to do Um, it would be really helpful if that could come to the commission at least as an informational item Yeah, that yeah, thanks. I I'd like to clarify that so the rfp is going to include that scope of services that the the consultant will be undertaking and and uh council would be uh approving or you know Looking at that scope of services to approve it at that meeting As uh as part of their approval of the consultant and of their contract Uh for this project So so their their scope would would be going with the with rfp approval uh, hopefully in june And and so those two would be going together and and like I said council council has uh Has directed us to move forward with the rfp And uh in order to do so, you know, it's expeditiously expeditiously. It's possible I I I don't think we can we can accommodate a planning commission Meeting as well even an informational one In that time frame at this point But let me clarify because I'm now I'm totally confused Normally, uh, when there's a contract to be led the first step is issuing the rfp The rfp just sort of outlines the kinds of work that needs to be done then Hopefully more than one firm will submit a proposal that responds to the rfp as I understood that you were even expecting the Um consultants to come in with variants of how they wanted to do the you know Would they have proposals for a public process for involving the planning commission for Incorporating some of these issues the staff and whoever would then evaluate the proposals and Choose one and work with that consultant to Do the to prepare a scope of work? A scope of services and that Scope of services would then go which is eventually the contract would then go to the council for approval Am I in this exact process? So you're hoping to get the initial rfp out in april and I guess what I'm saying is that's fine As far as I'm concerned that makes sense and it doesn't need to come to the commission There will then be april and may and june before The staff comes back to the council with a proposed scope of services and I guess what I'm saying is I'm just Urging that if it's at all possible The commission even as an informational item gets to see that scope of services before it goes to the council This is going to have to you know, given the council agenda process It's not unusual for it to be a week and a half Where it could also be put on a planning commission agenda as an informational item and you know The staff could give an oral report on the commissioners the commission's comments. That's been done before So I I don't think that's what's being what I'm requesting is unreasonable And impossible to Do given the way the process is set up But what am I missing? Can you hear me still? I'm sorry. I'm having zoom difficulties I wasn't able to hear you for a while. I just heard that You you can hear me. Yes, go ahead Oh now you're muted You're muted now max I apologize for the zoom problems. I don't know what's going on tonight um So yeah, it's as far as that goes when when council directed us to move forward with rfp It was as That it was understanding as that would that would be part of the process and Moving forward with this process and then taking it to council for that approval uh, and that's typical A typical project to go straight to council And so given that direction Staff recommends that we stick to going to council Rather than the additional informational item to the planning commission Yeah, um, I wonder who would be worth asking the council if they'd like us to look at the scope of work Um before they make a final decision on her, but I'm just keeping commission a kind way waiting Uh, so go ahead Thank you chair. I appreciate that um, I also appreciate your Um, pointing out that on the process at this point in time Um, to me, this is not a rushed part of the process Um, and I'll tell you why I mean, I think first of all, I appreciate that We've been asked to weigh in on in general on the Scale of the area that's going to be considered by this work funded by the REAP grant and um, I feel like Um, I appreciate being asked that I realize that it may change in terms of some parcels Uh, once the consultants get to work on it and particularly Doing the analysis of the many important issues that are part of this work Um, but I feel like they got it, right? I feel like um, I would not have been Crazy about saying that we're gonna not crazy about I would have been against Going into historic neighborhoods And proposing a lot of added density in those neighborhoods As one of our long-standing principles is to always consider protection of our neighborhoods So for a number of the reasons that have been Cited by others tonight I feel like the general scale is right And I also feel like doing it this way Is really in the best interest of what a lot of the people in the community Who came forward of what they're concerned about? And first of all, thank you to all of you who are willing to, you know, dig into these arcane Um, planning principles and what comes first and the relationship between Gossip commissioners and the general plan and the zoning code and what's a specific plan? I really I appreciate that you're willing to um, ride along with us As we explore that Um And I would rather spend the time talking about the issues those really specific issues and I think we got the scope right And I appreciate that. Um, I also am sorry that people feel like there's a Some secret agenda about the warriors. I mean, obviously they're important. They're part of this but this is this is Fulfilling the requirements for a week grant and I'm I Really appreciate the work. I think it's appropriate. It's the appropriate scale and I think we'll have a really good community discussion about it I am actually not in favor of having An extra loopback with the planning commission when we don't have a real role of weighing in I know that we are going to see the scope We're going to be working as we always do with the direction of the council and the additional cost and complexity of coming through us when it's not necessary. I don't think really helps the public process And thank you all. I look forward to in particular Understanding how transfer of density Can work. I do also understand it may not work with this specific project, but I'm really glad Um that the consultants and the staff are going to be taking up that question because I think it's a really important one for our community Thank you. Are there any other commission commission or comments or questions? A commission in greenberg Yeah, I just wanted to echo some points that have been made and um You know, I appreciate the opportunities to weigh in at this stage and um I think that I am interested in seeing how the process plays out in terms of the question of the boundaries In response to one of the early comments Seeing that while we don't want to go into Uh neighborhoods that are, you know, historically zoned single family And that are part of, you know, adjacent to some of these zones that are under consideration that there could be closer to the warriors arena other parcel That are, you know, that were outside of the yellow zone That are large enough that they're developable for multi-family housing for instance. And so I'm appreciative that the um consultants Will have the freedom to explore that possibility echoing commissioner neilson's point there and um I also, uh, you know, that being said Really, you know, would underscore the significance of correlating questions of density With questions of You know the question of the inclusionary ordinance or other things associated with Affordability and I noted that in the draft goals There really there wasn't a draft goal beyond increasing housing units that talked about affordability here And I think that that's that's enormously significant. Um, if if our goals are really Both, you know, to have You know, obviously an economic benefit a social benefit And third of an environmental benefit It's very important that there be affordability As part of the plan and to echo commissioner, uh, dawson The point that that was made and and something that I was speaking to Thinking about the relationship of downtown To adjacent areas And the need for people who work downtown to be able to live near their jobs and the majority of people working downtown Needing affordable housing um, is a really important one and um You know, I don't typically reference Research of that I've done, but you know in the no place like home project when we did surveys of renters throughout the county What we found was that in the downtown area and in the Lower ocean beach slots area is where you find and I don't think this will be news to everyone you know, most of the The low income population and disproportionately latinx population And also disproportionately the the highest levels of rent burden Amongst the renters we surveyed in the county are in this area Um people are not only rent burden. They're extremely rent burdened Many paying above 70 of their income on rent Those who can afford to live there. They're also living under very overcrowded conditions In those neighborhoods and so there's enormous need. Um And and one also has to consider adjacent developments when you're Investing, you know in a large scale way in housing in in the neighborhood You know, there's a rent gap that could be created where you have very low income renters, let's say And then quite high income renters And that is what typically when people study gentrification has the most immediate effect on gentrification So we need to look at those rent gaps. Um, we need to look at the local need and I'm really happy to hear that planner sarah noisy will be doing this in conjunction with the uh consultants Uh, and I would say looking at questions that many cities currently are doing not only the environmental impact but the socio-economic impact of development thinking about both direct and indirect displacement primary and secondary displacement sometimes referred to as as in um those who might be In the area that's being considered to be developed who are living in currently affordable housing Whose units would have to be replaced but also secondary impacts, which are these gentrifying impacts Um indirect displacement should also be considered um And you know all of that being said I think it's wonderful To do the maximum that we can to create housing in what is a transit oriented area And that would be in conjunction with the wonderful plans being made to expand the metro center Um, and that this is being thought in conjunction with transit. I think it's also um really, uh really ideal and and uh, really a model and um So I'm very excited about all of that and hope that in the draft goals affordability could also be included from the center Uh, and I think I will I will leave it there for now Um, and thank you again for the ability to weigh in on this process Hey, thank you. Uh, are there any other commissioner comments or would any commissioner like to make a motion? Seeing no more comments seeing no motion. Uh, no action is required on this item So we will move on to The information item the annual housing element and general plan progress report Do we have a staff report please? Good evening. I'm Catherine Donovan senior planner with the advanced planning division and um every year I prepare this enormous housing report and um Present the information to council as required by law and then we bring it to um with a big Psy of release that it's over we bring it to the planning commission for your information and um As this is an informational item I do have the presentation that I gave before the city council and I can give that to you Or if you prefer if you feel like you already have Seen it with the city council and you've read the staff report if you want to just ask me questions I can do it that way too. So I'll just offer you the options Well, I um I personally don't see then I have the need to see the presentation. I do have some questions So what is the pleasure of the commission? Are the commissioners who would like to see the full presentation? You all had an opportunity to read the staff report So I'm not seeing anybody jumping up and down to get the staff report. I hope you're not insulted. Um, I'm not at all so Let's see if commissioners have any commissioners have questions Regarding the general plan and housing reports and let me just say It is a yeoman's task Is the yeoman says to read the housing report and try to figure it out So I can't imagine what it's like to try to prepare it. So It's a state once again Not only makes Reduces our discretion, but makes the staff slide miserable by trying to have to give them data that they then just God knows what okay. So any questions of staff on this item? I don't see anyone. I'll start and see if anybody wants to Um Follow me on it. I'm looking at the staff report And the staff report includes Table one, which which are this is a staff report This is the general plan staff report not the housing one And it looks at where we are with the arena numbers And it looks at 20. I'm looking at 2020. It has 79 units were created in 2020 43 low and 24 moderate and none of those are and 12 above moderate But none of the low or moderate Were are deep restricted and from reading later in the staff report. It appears that most of them were ad us and I'm just Questioning what the basis is of determining that I know that what staff used if it's under 650 square feet Considered low if it's over 650 square feet. It's considered moderate But what data is that based upon because given the current housing market? um, I question whether these non Units are should really be we uh, considered low income or moderate income Simply based on side. I mean, I've been in projects and lived in rooms that are smaller than uh, 600 problems smaller than 650 square feet And I did not feel I had a very much of a low market rent. So Could you explain how you reached that conclusion with those? um Sure, um, we did about 18 months ago. We did a survey of We set the survey out to all of the properties that have ad use and um This particular survey Was part of the work that Sarah noisy was doing on our ad ordinance at the time And it was not intended for this purpose. And so It the cutoff is at 650 square feet and um Then it went up in increments of I think it was 150 square feet after that and it asked a number of questions that you know who how much generally how much rent was charged and it was again in a In a range And so from that survey Um, I'm sorry. I'm trying to remember this off the top of my head. So it may not be exact here, but something like 40 percent of the ad use of the people who responded and we got a pretty good response rate. We got about a 40 or 50 percent response rate, which if you know anything about surveys, that's amazing um And about 40 percent of the people who responded um provide their ad use to family members or Family members or friends at no at no rent So they're they're rent-free And then of the other um Of the other Units that are that are rented for some cost we broke it we Just did a tally of the rent at the sizes and then broke it down Categorically and then we compared it to our to the um Rent levels and we made the assumption that all of the ad use were one bedroom um because we you have to you have to base their Rental amount on the number of people who live there, which is based on Uh extrapolated from the number of bedrooms. So we were Being the most cautious that we could and by saying that they were all one bedrooms we were um actually increasing the level of Of the of the of Or decreasing the level of affordability. So so if we said it was one bedroom, but it was actually two bedrooms then it might have rent been rented at the same amount and It could have counted as a lower level but because we were trying to air on the side of caution We just made that assumption that they were all one bedroom Now it was our goal to Redo the survey And design it more towards this particular purpose But um, we were not able to do that last year because kovat got in the way Um, but it's still our goal to do that so that we will a look at Units that are below 650 square feet and you know Break them down and we'll also ask for um the number of bedrooms so that we can get a more accurate count So that is where those numbers came from and we um the state allows us to use Units that are not deed restricted based on what their rental rates are And they specifically I had the first year we did this which was last year I had contacted hcd and discussed this with um the planners there And they said yes, that would be an acceptable um way to determine the the affordability of these units and I noticed this year in their directions for filling out this um report that they actually Included the suggestion that one of the ways you could determine affordability was by doing a survey Of the rental rates Of your of your units So I felt very vindicated by that and I I agree that If they are non-deed restricted units it The prices of those units may change over time um, but since this is an exercise that we do to Satisfy the state's needs for numbers um I don't feel too bad about it I think realistically We want to get as much affordable housing as we can And I think that the reality is We do that through other processes. We don't do that by counting numbers um, and I think um I I wanted to thank Commissioner greenberg for her point of adding affordability and I know that sarah is planning to do that So I think it was just an oversight of right actually writing it down in the goals But it is so important in this city Well, thank you for the response. I was aware of that survey. I thought that and I definitely want to encourage you to do it again It would be and I also agree with you that the point is to get affordable housing not to argue about numbers Unfortunately, there's a lot of politics around arena numbers Is the city really doing affordable housing isn't it doing affordable housing? And so the numbers become part of that whole debate and that's why i'm You know with de-restricted units, you know That they're going to go to low-income people that's or very low-income people. That's that's guaranteed um When you start having it non de-restricted it gets a little wishy and so Having these surveys I think would be very helpful and I do want to encourage you to To do it again for next year because I think It's you know, it's useful to know because there's a whole mythology or at least a philosophy about the role that ad use play And it's a little bit debatable as are they really helping to provide uh a low income of lower income housing stock or do they ultimately become a book market like everything else that isn't restricted and if that's That data is worth knowing and and you know, because they're smaller It's not unreasonable to think that they may be cheaper But given this housing market, I don't think we can take that for granted. So again The only other thing I wanted to talk about was in the staff report Was the uh discussion of density bonuses Actually, I might have a few other questions, but um, they were I have there's this talking about I found the discussion in the paragraph and you know and the pages aren't numbered so I can't refer to the page Where it talks about the possibility of a 50 percent density bonus Allowing up to 15 percent very low and 24 percent low or moderate 44 percent and then it says for instance the city's 20 percent inclusionary requirement With the city's 20 percent inclusionary requirements developers can provide 15 percent very low income units and five percent low income units to meet the inclusionary requirement And achieve a maximum density bonus of 50 percent I think what this ignores on the problem I have of it is that the inclusionary requirement is on the base density Not the total density and so it's not What I think we what becomes clear is that the inclusionary Because of the staff interpretation that you can't count for them separately But the the inclusionary is the same as the density bonus Really means that you don't get any with the 50 percent as I understand with 50 percent density bonuses Because those density bonus units are required You don't really get anything more as a result of the inclusionary because the inclusion Units become subsumed in the density bonus affordable units There's a couple of points That I would like to make and one is that It is not a staff interpretation. It is case law that has made this determination But there's also a legislative proposal to change that that's Floating through this year and so we'll see what happens with that But currently our hands are tied on that But the advantages the the example that was given was that 15 percent of the 20 percent If the 15 percent were very low and the five percent were low that would satisfy um the density bonus If the 15 if they did that 20 percent the entire 20 percent was low then they would have to um do more Units to meet the density bonus requirement so I I see this as an advantage because we just have such a hard time getting our very low Income units built. I mean you can see we've we've met all of our other rena numbers and we barely touched the very low and so um Anything that that Gets us Some leverage to get those very low income units. I am Totally in favor of So so that was just one example. It does not mean that necessarily you The a density bonus project Would not have additional affordable units. It just depends on the level of affordability Well, I will agree that this is a very complex Calculation that has to be done um and would suggest that maybe in talking about it would be good to sort of break it down Because my reading of this is different than your reading of it And the law is confusing particularly now that we have 50 percent which has Different percentages than we're used to having. I'm not even sure that's in our ordinance yet. Um So I just think uh more details of This is these are the density bonus units. These are the uh the affordability requirements of the density bonus units These are the affordable requirements of the inclusionary. Here's the total number of units We have So I just think it's it's at least it was confusing to me. If not misleading I was confused by it And frankly, I I don't with your explanation. I'm still confused. So it would be it would be helpful to Sort of see it in more detail And frankly, let me just say that it was our housing people who Provided me with this explanation and and they had to explain it thoroughly to me Because it is very confusing The last questions I have are about the specific project list It talks about 314 jesse street with a total of 50 units. I wasn't aware of that project. Is that Project coming to us or has it been approved or no? I think all All I think all of these projects are um In the preliminary approval stage so they have they're none of them have even come to you yet Um, but we wanted to show that we do that there there is a possibility of getting um a significant number of affordable units and that we're We're in a position to be able to negotiate on some of those to get to get some very to more very low income units and I I'm not hopeful that we will need our very low rena by the end of 2023 but it's not it It's possible. I'm not hopeful, but it's possible Well, it's a downtown affordable projects happen. I think there is a there is a real possibility that it would have there won't be in time it because they have to the rena counts when the building permits issued and They would have to already be in the planning process If they were going to be a significant enough project to Do any good for us Well, the 75 unit one is in the planning process isn't it or is it not? I thought they got a the grant was received for that project Yeah, but I think it's in the preliminary Okay, I don't want to take time to Worry about it. Um I wondered why the 50 affordable units in the mixed juice library project weren't a warrant wasn't added to the list that I Probably because we don't have an application in This list was provided to me by the housing folks um And yeah, it may be because it's not I don't know where in that process it is, but it may be that they don't have An actual preliminary plan submitted yet It's all of these projects have submitted an application They've submitted a preliminary application, which is It's not a formal application But it is they do have something that they've given us with drawings and something for us to review and comment upon Okay, I appreciate you're answering the questions. I um thank the commission for Um letting me ask them and do other commissioners have any questions commission adoresan Yeah, I just have a quick one. I think I just want to make sure I understood Back to the the table with the read-in numbers so, um I heard you say that And congratulations on the survey response. Um, I do surveys in my day job and that's an incredible Uh Incredible return Um, so you said something like 40 percent of the ad us were going at no rent To family members or something like that was Something I'm sorry. I haven't looked at that survey in a while, but that it's it's something in that range In the ballpark, right? And so I just said it so were those units Those no rent ad units were they included in this or they were not included? No, we didn't we just So so you can assume that that 40 percent are probably going to You know low-income people or maybe even very low-income people, you know family members who can't afford to rent something else out I mean, yeah, I mean I I we're not about the net of that Yeah, I was worried about the flip side of that and that we were counting those numbers and you know If that family member moved on or something it wouldn't actually be available in our housing stock So thank you for the clarification. I appreciate sure Okay, are there any other questions on this item? Yes commission neelson uh, I'll still looking at Yeah, looking at table one. Um, this is a question. Um the um the numbers for 2020 are like Extremely off from the other numbers the totals. Um, is that do you have an is is that a COVID related issue or is there something else going on? I think it's probably COVID related. Um, I mean we do have things that vary widely from year to year but COVID makes a very sensible explanation um Especially when you consider that almost all the development with 80 years and and the number of 80 years didn't drop Um, so it makes sense that people are building 80 years during the COVID time because hey, they're home. They can they can deal with it Uh, Matt has actually just been looking at these numbers over the past few years. So he might be have something off the top of his head. He could hand us Yeah, I I just wanted to add that those numbers the to the change in them also has a lot to do with large projects and when when they When they come online and get final for building permits Uh, so sometimes it just depends on the year too and when that happens Uh, because we we might see two large projects come in one year and it's 300 units And the next year might be 70 just just because of how those large projects Uh came, you know came to be finaled as well So there there has come up that as well So it might be COVID related, but it could also just have to do with where large projects fell in our process and when they got approved for instance, uh 100 Laurel project, which is 200 plus units just filled the building permits They're all above moderate And they'll probably be in 2021 even though they might have pulled their permits just before Turn of the year I think they pulled them. I think the permits were issued in 2021 So that they'll be in next year's renas numbers and are above moderators really going to shoot up there Yeah, too bad. We can't wait until you know after this next period Have those in in our 2024 Yeah, it is too bad Okay. Well, thank you very much other commissioner questions or comments Um, okay, there's no action that needs to be taken. Uh, are there any subcommittee or advisory body oral reports? um My understanding is that the west cliff, uh drives adaptation plan has gone to the public works Commission or is going to the public works commission as a public works plan and if that's going to go directly to the council It's not going to go to come to us Um, but down the road, we will be seeing the beach plan lcp amendments whenever those I'm surprised the public works plan isn't coming here because it is a you know, it is a Has a strong land use component. Anyway, um I'm hoping that Housing subcommittee will be able to meet again without staff given staff's other work But we haven't been able to find a time yet to do that Anybody else want to add anything to this item commissioner greenberg? Well, just um echoing commissioner nielsen on the question about what's happened in 2020 particularly with um, I mean It's there's such a long record of such low deed restricted developments But the fact that um, particularly for very low income and I would hope that that could be something You know moving forward we think about particularly with changes in the budget at the state and federal level potential with the You know with with infrastructure Um plans and so forth. I'm excited to see how we might Focus on as has been done around the metro center attracting deed restricted developments And I just wanted to this seeing the rena numbers so starkly Reinforces that so perhaps the The um, you know the housing subcommittee could could brainstorm Um those questions Okay, thank you. If there is no other Um Comments on this item we move to adjournment and we are adjourned I usually get into the information items. Oh, I guess they're planning directors on vacation because usually he gives us a Update of what's coming. Do you want to do that matt? Yeah, I can provide you a quick update. Thanks chair So catheter and I are going to be back here on may fit for the capital improvement project and general plan performance item And that's that's the yearly item. We take to the planning commission prior to the budget process Happening and so that that always goes in early may and so we're going to be taking that item capital presenting that And then just an update on objective standards We completed our spanish outreach event last last week and that was the that was the same kind of event We we held earlier in march But just this one was uh, it was all spanish translated With uh members of the the latinx community Joining and helping us with that event And so with that kind of our first phase without objective standards outreach has been completed and now we're moving into the next phase where We're going to start figuring out how to gather community input on objective standards themselves and and With with the goal of you know, really start starting to draft of the alternative objective standard to then show the community Several months from now And at that point One once those draft standards are complete too. We'll be coming back to planning commission for our next checking for further Input from you all so we'll keep you posted on that further, but just wanted to let you know about where we're at with that process Thank you Hey, thank you, uh, if there's no other business, um, we are adjourned. Thank you all very much and I guess we'll see you on may 6th night Goodbye