 All right, welcome staff and commissioners. I'll call to order the Planning Commission meeting of March 16 We have the roll call, please Commissioner Conway here Dawson here Gordon here Maxwell here. I'll miss here Kennedy here Are there any statements of disqualification tonight? I don't expect on this one and Oral communications Claire. Do you want to say anything not on the agenda? Good then we have the consent agenda would any commissioner like to pull an item off the consent agenda for more discussion I Would like to pull the approval of the minutes of March 2nd, okay That's good. Do we need to vote on that or we just pull it you could vote on the consent agenda now That does not include that I don't sounds good. So we'll vote on Items one and two. I'm happy to make a motion to approve the consent agenda with one and two Thank you. I'll second that in a second from Sean We have the vote I So for item three Yeah, I would like Okay, I Want to apologize. I think the way I made a point wasn't as clear as it could have been and I was expecting a point to be in the minutes And I am hoping that we could Ask for an addendum to the minutes of March 2nd And it would include the following and I'm happy to tinker with the language, but this is my intent Because additional height along the riverfront is discretionary proposed projects Will develop their base density without the discretionary extra height Projects will include an analysis of the base density and the base density plus the discretionary extra height The density bonus calculation will then be analyzed in regards to both as a part of the proposal So that sounds right to me. Can we get a motion in a second to adopt the minutes with that addition? I'm happy to move Julie's Commissioner Conway's addition. Thank you, Commissioner Dawson Second I'll second Seeing the second We'll have a roll call vote on that And I test you're able to get all that down Have it on the recording. Okay fantastic or radum. I've been written down Commissioner Conway. Hi Dawson. Hey Gordon. Hi Maxwell abstained Paul Hamas. Hi Kennedy hi All right with that business out of the way No, no Thanks So getting that business out of the way I'd like to open our one and only public hearing for the night item for Amendments to the parking and bicycle parking regulations. We have the staff report See you all in person. My name is Sarah Noisy Senior planner advanced planning division advanced planning division and I am joined this evening by Walking you through the post ordinance amendments. We have a little bit of background and we'll go through the amendments Good evening. So for the existing bike Parking code what we do for commercial developments is it's a percentage of the auto parking requirement And since we now have AB 2097 which exempts new developments within half a mile of a major transit stop from auto parking Requirements that would mean then in turn the commercial developments that fall into those areas would no longer require parking for bikes and We still want to require bike parking, especially if there's no auto parking in those areas This is the map of the areas that would be affected by AB 2097 so you can see it's quite a big part of the city of Santa Cruz and Of note is the purple line on there. That's the coastal zone. So a lot of the areas also fall into that zone there and These are all so major transit stop is defined as Where they have transit service? Every 15 minutes so that doesn't necessarily have to be one route this every 15 minutes But if there are routes that overlap and there's a bus stopping there every 15 minutes Then that would be considered that and then this the red and the yellow areas are showing Current and future with it the rate zone. That's within half a mile of those stops so our proposals are or This affects commercial bike parking because the residential we do per unit The commercial we now are trying to switch that to square footage as opposed to as a percentage of auto parking so that we can continue to require bike parking for all of the developments and Then we're updating the land use categories to make it a little bit clearer what the requirements are and also strengthening our objective standards and Updating the code to our current practices We're also making a slight change to the code to make it really clear what the requirements are within the parking district one So downtown parking district and then adding some requirements for space-sized for cargo bikes Which is something that we continually hear especially with the larger e-bikes that people are using now that that's a Concern for cyclists not having adequate space to park those and then adding requirements for fixic stations and larger developments If you're not familiar with that there's like tools so you can fix your bike or There's a compass you can pump up the air and the tires And then we're also adding clarity clarity to the substitution of car parking for bike parking and on the location Okay, so now I'm going to talk about how we're bringing our ordinance into compliance with AB 2097 so The state law, which is in effect. It was been in effect since January 1 Moves parking requirements for most development within half mile stops throughout California, so there is a carve-out allowance for acquiring parking for hotels motels bed and breakfast essentially all lodging There are the state law also includes some Alliances about requiring parking and at this time staff is not recommending that we Pursue any of those allowances we can get into why that is and but essentially they are They there's not a lot of clarity about how we would be making the findings that that would be required And they seem to kind of conflict or be too ambiguous relative to other state law Standards that we're also having to meet so our recommendation is simply that we go with Other than for lodging uses We're also doing this because our climate action plan, which was recently adopted also includes actions focused on limiting off-street parking In fact, that's going to be kind of one of the next work plan items to come out in the next year Parking city-wide as a result of the actions that are called for in the climate action plan the cap We also know that like fully eliminating parking standards is at this point in time A practice that's been tested in many cities around the country and throughout California. So, you know Buffalo, New York was Santa Monica has also done it in their downtown San Francisco has a city-wide zero parking Berkeley has a City-wide zero parking Standard and then San Jose recently adopted one as well. So some of these um Policies carve out certain properties or certain areas or certain specific things that they might still require some type of parking for Others are really just universal like no parking. There's no parking So, you know, there are different kind of ways that folks are trying to balance these competing needs for flexibility for development space for development and You know the cost of developing parking Find the right balance Also, you know mobility needs for the community. So any parking that does get built will have to meet state and federal regulations for Providing accessible handicapped accessible parking and then also state requirements for providing electric vehicle parking So whenever a parking facility is created, it will be required to meet those standards We also We also know that there are other ways to meet some of our accessible parking needs so on-street parking space can be reserved for accessible parking spaces at requests so folks can request blue herb and Department of Public Works and we are not we have We tried to remember we've never denied one request for blue curbs. So so there's that there's also the fact that the Handicap placard also entitles that vehicle to free parking at any meter space. So There are other tools in place that are ensuring that folks with mobility need still have access and are able to You know participating in The ordinance also includes some other clarifications around Regulations for parking lifts. So the last time we updated this ordinance. We like added some language about parking lifts, but it was a Little bit ambiguous. It's so we had inadvertently kind of not allowed them downtown So then that's kind of where they're being proposed is downtown So we were always having to like do this like separate process to like do a variation So trying to kind of clean that up and make it clear that these are allowed in any zone district with, you know, certain standards around them They need to be enclosed. So we're at this point not allowing them in any place that would be open to the sky or visible and If they are gonna be in places that might be open to the sky, then they can go through an administrative process Noise impacts or You know unsightly parking structures in our We're also adding definitions of major transit stop and a parking lift Cleanups so After this hearing tonight The our next step is to take this item to the city council with whatever the recommendation is from your commission Should it be approved by the city council in some fashion on that date? Then the second reading would be on the 25th of April and then this would take effect 30 days after that so at the end of May and so this is just I Want to point out that that's almost we're almost halfway through the year And so one of the reasons that we are bringing this now and feeling a little bit of urgency to get it over the finish line Is that we're getting development applications and currently, you know for these commercial spaces We don't have a way to require by Under this So after it's after the Second reading of the ordinance it would go to Coastal Commission, and so we'll get it to them Sometime this summer hopefully and then as I mentioned earlier We will have some further work later in the year and leading in and and then to next year working on the implementations from the climate action plan I'll also focus on parking and really focus on reducing Parking everything that goes along with them. So with that our recommendation is that your commission Pass a motion to recommend to the city council approval of the amendments to the municipal code chapters presented in your packet that update parking Bicycle parking requirements incorporate recent changes to state law relating to auto parking update other existing standards and add new definitions Including recommending that the council approves the associated updates to the LCP IP, which is our local coastal program implementation plan, which is essentially our zoning ordinance as it gets applied in the coastal zone that Answer any questions you might have All right. Thank you for the presentation questions Commissioner Conway Thank you, and thank you for that report So one of the things that I I would like to I have a couple of concerns and they may not all relate Exactly to this ordinance But I would like to understand better what it is that we still have the possibility of requiring in terms of EV and disabled parking Construction you're keeping in mind that any project may include parking if they choose to But I just would like to understand better at peace so The place where the state law sort of lays out what the allowances are Starts on page four dark dot 45 of your packet page 18 of that attachment of the text of 97 yeah So So Yeah So Subsection B here says I'm notwithstanding subdivision a which so subdivision a says There's no parking within half mile of a major transit stop So notwithstanding that you can require a city or county may impose or enforce minimum auto parking On a project in those places if they make written findings within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application That by not imposing or enforcing a parking standard The development would have a substantially negative impact on any of the following and then it lists these three items That Seem like they make good sense and then when you actually try to think about like what would that mean that like not requiring parking would have a negative impact on The city's ability to meet the arena and the housing allocation like How would you make that finding what are the things that you would look for to determine that you're not going to be able to meet Not being able to meet any special needs special housing needs for the other layer persons with disabilities It's sort of like the same thing like what are how are we defining those needs and how do they relate specifically to parking? And how do they relate to the parking that happens on another? development and That like how would you make that finding and how would you do it within 30 days and then the final one is Sort of like the biggest and most nebulous one That there would be a negative impact on existing residential or commercial parking within one half mile of the housing development project So is that only off-street parking? Is that also on-street parking? What's a parking impact? You know parking isn't a sequel issue. So there aren't really like thresholds that are set for You know determining when is there a parking? What is a parking impact? And what does it mean for a place to be parking impacted? so Given that none of those things are defined here in the state law or in really any part of state law We think that's kind of a ball of worms that like leaves us open to Kind of some liability about like unfair treatment like we make this determination and make this finding that there's going to be a negative impact And then the developer comes disagrees like what is the evidence we're going to take to a lawsuit like We really just don't understand how to interpret this. There's no case law about it and there's no definition So that's that piece Theoretically we can acquire those and then there's another place where it talks about Continuing to be able to require EV and accessible parking Um So that's on page four dot forty-five Subsection F the section shall not reduce eliminate or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on new multifamily residential or non-residential Development that's located within one half mile public transit blah blah blah to provide Electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities That would have been that would have otherwise applied to the development if this section did not apply So that would essentially allow a jurisdiction to use their existing parking code to determine a parking requirement and then determine like of that parking requirement how much would be ADA or I'm sorry not ADA California accessible we need California code and then Cal Green or in our case in Santa Cruz So So then we would make that determination required those we could require those parking spaces I Completely agree that this is a it sounds like just a Gordian knot of language but I What I guess the piece that I that I'd like to understand I just think about how is this actually going to work and And I think that it's probably true that the ordinance maybe should preclude all of it Maybe you know Any requirements at all and let development by development decide what they're going to do But I am concerned about a couple of things and one of them is Access to any of the densely built areas that are being proposed for people who are either Disabled and in a private car, and I don't think it's directly Pertinent here, but I'm just concerned because I spent a couple years using the paratransit a lot and Paratransit is just incredibly important as a way of both People having independence or even if they if they're not independent having access to the community So I'm I am and I've been concerned about these as we've looked at different projects anyway, just Where are these little buses pulling up? Where are even deliveries come up in a lot of different ways? And again, it isn't all to remain to this discussion But if we're not okay, here we are so I'm concerned about those transportation issues and despite the really Gordian knot of language of what we can work with in terms of Would we possibly want to still have the ability to require Evie parking disabled parking all the time? Sometimes would we want to read just because it's one of the last little shreds of local control that we have and I Kind of want to cling to it before we let go of it I Clear globally transportation planner and I can jump in on the Paratransit element there I think one of the important elements of paratransit is the ability to have proximate loading to where you are going to Coming from any of your origins and destinations that relates to our on-street parking which is in chapter 10 What I'm hearing is a big interest in examining our loading Requirements in chapter 10 of our municode that is something that I can take back and look at that would be reviewed by our transportation and public works Commission one of the things that we have in our work plan right now is to do a deeper dive on our curb management Holistically, what does that look like for parking parking management loading? Capacity that we want to see their parking turnover Bike lanes all of these things that relate to as we're having less and less parking in private development How do you best utilize the public space and the public supply? so Herd understood agreed and we can definitely take a look at how we relate Loading zones to development, especially in these areas that are that fall under AB 2097 Thank you Yeah, I just wanted to Agree with Commissioner Conway as far as I guess the question I have for you is why I understand the language challenge Just there those three things that are listed Two seems probably the clearest to me, which is around an impact to an elderly excuse me our disabled person because That kind of access is defined in code and I I know people who use bands that have a really hard time using street parking for bands They really need because they have a ramp that comes out of those bands and so That's certainly a concern With these huge changes that the law has brought and this being new Why wouldn't we keep that? Flexibility and come back in a year or two and if we don't need it. We don't need it Why would we give it away up front? Sure. Yeah, happy to speak to that. So thanks for that question. I am So I think it's a matter of like of interpreting these words and Recalling that the these apply these this law applies to all development. It's not just for housing and it's So what what I'm struggling with is What would it mean for like a new retail business to open and To not provide any parking on their site and How is that Affecting our ability to meet special housing needs for the elderly So, you know, what is what is the reach? What is the commercial component of parking have to do And like by not requiring parking there, that's negatively impacting our ability to meet those Housing needs like what would be the criteria that we would use? That's that's kind of what we struggled with We have some thoughts on that Well, I just to be clear for clarification if we kept this Ability these for these accommodations the default would be no no parking requirement. Is that correct? What depends how we write write it in the code But we could write it in a way where the default would be No parking requirement unless we can make these findings and support them. Is that correct? We could write it that way. Yeah I mean, I think you could write the local code in us in a couple of different ways Right where you start with like the default is they're required unless you disprove this finding or you know what? I mean or the other way around they're not required unless we make a finding, right? We feel we could strongly support right and then that in some ways addresses the concern right because you would only be moving forward with a requirement if You as planning staff really felt like you could put together something that would stand up in court, right? I mean I Theoretically sure. Yeah, I mean I guess my concerns. So this would be my concern commissioner Dawson is that by having that like caveat available in the code that then There would just be a ton of pressure to always be able to make that finding and I just honest Like if I'm being really honest, I don't know how we will make that finding and I don't Want the public to think we can make it because I'm not sure that we can I don't know what it would look like I think That section you pointed out number two To me makes no sense at all because There's already a carve-out for accessible parking. So if the city wants to require it They can require it So what what type of circumstance would necessitate us for even even Having to make that finding is The question we have. I mean it makes no sense to us And then the first one You know, it's it speaks to the city's ability to meet Rena For low and very low-income households. I mean by eliminating parking You're providing more area for units to be built. So What does that mean? I Mean we we struggled like you did at the staff level on the whole EV and and Accessible parking and I think the reason we arrived at this point was probably three-fold One you look at all the cities who have eliminated parking already and they're still building parking So they're getting accessible spaces and they're getting EV spaces We have the cap plan that seek the cap policy that seeks to eliminate parking So it's sort of pointed that way. We've got public works who has a program that allows accessible spaces to be Provided on-street and I know we're doing EV spaces in our parking garages. So it's happening and then functionally I mean you take a development in the downtown Let's say a mixed-use development It just seems like it would not be an efficient use of land to provide Access into a first-force space behind maybe a commercial That only has three or four accessible spaces and a couple of EV spaces It just it just doesn't seem very functional Especially for folks thinking that they can park in there and then finding out they can't So that's why we arrived at at at the recommendation that we did Just to follow real quick. I'm remembering the corridor plan process where we went through like almost lot by lot Looking at what requiring that parking like did to all those Relatively narrow it just destroyed. I mean there's no way to develop that land I was thinking of how great it would be to not require parking for those Not to get into discussion more questions Commissioner Gordon, yeah That wasn't what I was waiting for I want to support this because for all the things that you're saying and from a development You know just a logical standpoint having a bunch of useless space for certain used for circulation in these developments is not efficient, but I Can't help I Again sound a little bit like a broken record is that I kind of want to know the bigger picture Like I want to say yes to this, but I want to know as we're looking at the downtown expansion and all these major changes that we're making and that That we are going to be able to meet the needs of our demographic I saw the list of all the cities that are doing that. I look at that and I'm like, okay It was my time up. Okay. No So I See the demographic I mean I see the list and I think through our demographic versus some of those cities and I wonder you know, how does that relate to us and So I'm curious are there What are what are the elements that we can look at and say, okay? if we say yes to this and we give up the the last bits of you know, like Things we can grasp that we actually have control over for the city Where is that going to lead us a decade from now when the expansion is fully, you know expanded and The demographic is X and we have Y Right So I have a couple of thoughts on that. So so first of all, I Just want to remind us that most Development that happens that has happened in these places that have eliminated minimum hasn't Been developed with zero parking. There are there are a few right and there are a few ways that projects that are built now Are eligible for zero parking? And I actually want to I'm sorry. I meant to do this during the staff presentation I forgot I wanted to correct a statement. I made in the staff report about eight three one water I Said they were providing 80 parking spaces for 140 units and they're not they're actually providing 139 Spaces for 140 units of housing By using parking stackers I was look I was counting the spaces on the plans and there are 80 spaces on the plans But they're using a stacker to get to that higher number. So I apologize for that They are actually getting to about one space per unit And just to say they didn't have to provide any they could have provides provided zero Parking the same at Jesse Street They could have provided zero parking and they're providing, you know, not a ton but it like I don't know it doesn't The the one place where we are seeing development go in with zero parking is pack south Right. So that it's like on top of the metro station right directly next door And then targeted towards supportive housing, right? So this is serving a population that is much less likely to be and so I Do think that you know Probably most places in Santa Cruz are going to continue to provide some amount of parking and this is just going to allow Those, you know developers to really look at the market and look at their demographic that they're they're seeking to serve and then Decide how much parking is the right amount of parking and then the first space they build is an 88 And then the second space they and I think it's actually an EV charging So So I do think that a lot of those things are going to be met You know, you're thinking about the warriors arena. Should they like should that actually come to fruition building a permanent warriors arena? I don't think there's any way that they would run a successful business without having a pretty significant parking there so I Do think there are like Reasons to believe that adequate Parking will be built and the other thing that I always kind of remember with these is that Habits around driving aren't habits that change because we just decide we want to change them there They change because it gets inconvenient expensive And so if we're really committed to reducing Driving as a primary mode of transportation around Santa Cruz We're going to go through these tight changes and so the thing that kind of helped me relax about the Accessible parking in particular was a couple of things. I mean first of all, it's the curve management They're already mentioned like there is Some work to be done around that and at the same time We allow by request to create on street marked Right, and so yes, there's some work to do to make sure that those are van accessible And that's what's needed and that there are some portion within the public realm and the public right-of-way that are Already van accessible without meeting that request. And so yes, there's some work to do there and it's And all of us the rest of us able-bodied folks are gonna get a little more uncomfortable and we're gonna bike more And we're gonna take the bus Yeah, I just wanted to expand on What Sarah had mentioned already so I think there's two sides of it There's the private side and then there's the public side So as Sarah mentioned many of the private-side developments are still providing parking I like to think that we're in the messy middle right now as we're transitioning away from how we've done things to how We will do things and starting to Achieve and realize a lot of our policy statements and our policy ideals So on the public side, we're seeing the provision of parking Maybe not to the same level that our code would require if if our code still could require parking but still a level of parking that That there is still some there it does require EV and ADA parking spaces as well on the public side This is one of my favorite things to talk about even though most of my work is in active transportation But parking management is a huge driver of behavior change Private parking is the least efficient use of parking when we have Public supply when we have shared supply We are able to utilize fewer parking spaces for higher and better uses in the downtown Our parking spaces get used three to four times a day You guys may have heard me say this before as we talked about the library before but All it pancakes pottery pints and pillows So for different uses people coming for four different times of the day Using using those spaces so as we do grow specifically thinking about the downtown plan expansion Is there a public role there to provide a shared parking facility that's then used much more efficiently than each of these buildings individually providing parking is there a way to make sure that we do have Loading zones and ADA accessible spaces in closer proximity to some of these developments that we're seeing I think that's something I feel very very comfortable realizing and it is going to be a change from how we've done things of This is my parking space in my building to This is the parking facility that I have a permit to park in and every day I'll probably park somewhere different. That's part one part two is as we transition away from Every individual trip being or most individual trips being in a personal personal automobile We have the ability to expand the type of program that Joanna and I run for downtown go Santa Cruz which provides free transit passes Carpool cash bike locker cards education encouragement free helmets free lights Just a plethora of incentives to help people change behavior One of things that we have been looking at is how do we expand that to broader areas of the city and what is What is the mechanism to do so and I think as we do see Increasing density and increasing development Hand in hand with that we will be looking to expand our non auto programs as well So really it is the messy middle as we're going through this transition But I have a lot of hope and a lot of confidence that we have a lot of good tools to get through this messy middle Thank you. I and when I was talking about a plan and wanting to say as I was actually separating the two between I Actually don't think that this it should be a burden on developers that are doing this density But I when I said the plan I wanted to know like as a city what is our plan because as we've seen here there have been some of the largest projects that we've seen yet and I We got the answer. Yeah, we're gonna look closer at that loading zone or that drop-off zone So as we're making big moves here to say yeah, we're on board but some of these other things aren't Quite up to speed with the projects that we're seeing I get concerned about like what's our What's our plan as a city? You know like when we're saying yes to all these which we want to do because we want housing Where is that gonna leave us and and how quickly can we mobilize as a? as a city entity to meet the needs of the community is as the community sees these big projects come before us, so thank you Commissioner Maxwell Yeah, thanks again My question I have a couple of I know I think I've read something in the staff report around commercial space and like or like mixed-use projects and You know when we have a rush like we went through the what if the other not a three one, but the nine something Water Street project where it's not necessarily gonna be a restaurant, but it could be and With you know a large-sized restaurant and they're we're not really requiring any parking for like a short-term use in an area Where there probably isn't and we're gonna see overflow into the neighborhood behind it and How how is that gonna work with this kind of with this with just no requirement on these and like a use like that I Mean I think That's kind of the same answer. I gave commissioner Gordon is that it's gonna be Inconvenient uncomfortable and expensive, right? So Overflow parking like parking on the public street, you know that that parking is available to everyone, right? public curb space and So without you know having a permit a parking permit Program in place then You know there there would be Parking So, you know, I think that's you know, that's just kind of in that middle ground where we are right now You know, I think that's just that's true. That's just a reality. Yeah, I mean I get it just really unfortunate if you live I mean it's really not gonna happen downtown, but along the corridors, you know, that's where we're really gonna see the impact into those neighborhoods back there The other thing too is with around regarding the language that we are having such a hard time Quantifying Since there have been other cities and especially in the Bay Area that have Tackled state law Language, is there any other do we have examples from? anything that has happened, you know, that has precedence as far as like Berkeley or Oakland around Tackling that language of those three items. I am not familiar I haven't found any other examples of implementing this state law So the the regulation that Berkeley has precedes this and it and it exceeds the requirements So, yeah, I haven't I didn't find anybody else's Potified language yet, right? Okay Yeah, it seems like it. The last thing is I Was reading like the the bill goes on is reading it verbatim The bill goes on to then limit these findings ensuring that they do not apply to housing with a minimum of 20% of the units Dedicated as affordable housing or to projects with 20 housing units or fewer or in a case where other provisions of state law such as Densey bonus law and others allow for parking reductions Can you explain that a little bit better? That seems like there's a lot of commas and like in this and then this so there's like Yeah, so there's like this Standard that they sit set of like no parking is required and then there's an exception to that standard That's like oh, but you can require parking in these three circumstances and then there's an exception to the exception That's like actually no you still can't require parking if any of these other pieces are true and so one of those is like That development contains fewer than 20 housing units got it. I understand that Problem The first one the development dedicates a minimum of 20% of the total number of housing units to very low low or moderate income Households students the elderly or persons with disabilities So that sounds very clear, but like how do we interpret that 20%? And how do we What does it mean for a housing unit to be dedicated to students like we don't have a way to record that and How do you check and what's a student? How do you define these terms? So, you know, there are definitions for elderly and persons with disabilities, right? Like that's pretty clear So anyway, you know, I basing our Interpretation on the way that we have read other state law and the way other state law has been interpreted by the courts We would read that 20% as to be 20% of the base of a density bonus project in which case that's every development that we have Unless it exceeds 20% so they would already be Accepted from the exceptions that we won't be able to require parking then either and then Number three the development is subject to parking reductions based on the provisions of any other applicable law So that's basically saying like if there's any other reasons that they don't have to provide parking Then you don't have to use this reason to tell them they don't have to provide parking That would essentially be once that I'm familiar with our basically density bonus pieces that you can get a waiver of parking requirements and in some cases some cases require zero parking, so yes, just other other ways that the state law incorporates like all of these complications and we're like Let's just not require any parking, right? Okay, so and then we don't have to get into parsing all of these bits Sort of makes sense, but yeah, got it you get enough of those except. Yeah, it's like all the way around Thanks for that answer though. I know that was I was like a I was doing circles What's the exception to the exception? We've been circling that law for three months now. Yeah Okay, well, thank you, that's all I have Thank you Lou I just wanted to clarify some of this language and one thing I've learned about and big a ambiguous legal language is it's Unforgiving and so I want to clarify and get your understanding on this So a preponderance of the evidence would be More likely than not like 51 percent is enough To satisfy that that would be my understanding. Okay. It's a I mean a preponderance of the evidence is like It's actually a pretty higher. It's a higher legal standard than I think there's Substantial evidence is the other standard that they use sometimes and preponderance is Substantial, okay Okay, so then in theory to make a finding of a Negative impact whatever Substantially negative impact whatever that means the city would have the burden of proof and they would have to walk into court and By a preponderance of the evidence prove that it's a negative impact We would have to be able to do that. Yes, we might not actually have to walk into court We would have to be like have the findings and if we got sued we'd want to be like that's gonna stand up Right, you'd want to be ready to go. Okay, and all of that With essentially your hands tied behind your back with exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, right? Okay Awesome. Thank you I'm curious Like I'm assuming that parking deficiency fees and things like that will not be in existence any longer if Hello, this is language that is going to the downtown commission next week on Thursday morning the 23rd whichever day that is Yes, we are sunsetting we're proposing sunsetting the parking deficiency fee We had that in our plan for downtown COVID hit we hit pause and now we're just proposing to get rid of it rather than resume In Luffy's we allow in the downtown right now, and then we also allow outside the downtown on a case-by-case basis They will only be allowed for projects in that are in the AB 2097 areas for lodging and the other very very minor kind of event centers lodging and event centers well, I Mean our ordinance isn't making a carve out for events event centers. Okay. Just lodging. Yes You could use in Luffy's then for just lodging Within the downtown that's set at twenty thousand dollars per space elsewhere. We require a little bit more economic analysis It's not a separate so There in very very limited cases would we see the in Luffy Before you go This is the bike stuff I'm hearing tons of interest in the parking stuff and the curb stuff in your natural course of business when is that being revised Also, I just recognize these things take forever to get through the process So in the bike stuff related to the like the curb thing you mentioned Oh current management. Yes parking broader issues. Yeah, broader issues So it revised every three years or when you have time for no, it's in our work plan for the next year plus We have a new parking programs manager on board. So as we're getting right now We're dealing with downtown and a lot of things related to state law changes as soon as we get our arms around that then it's looking Citywide likely we'll start on Arterials and collectors and then as needed expand from there because that's the next step in this transformation. All right Mr. Conway, yeah, and I actually had some questions about bike parking as well, but I'll let Joanna take those unless she needs me And so thanks for your patience with this, I know you guys have been, you know Circling around it and so we're basically saying that we're going to have a market driven Parking creation program So and I'm not worried about the commercial spaces because it's really clearly in their economic best interest to provide the parking that they think they need and Hopefully they're wrong because everyone we're getting so used to doing something other than driving that Maybe they over build it. Maybe this is a segue into one of my questions So, but I guess I I do still wonder if You know, there's and I and don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of building less parking Absolutely, that's been the pain of much of my professional life But even still Is are we having outside of whatever the Warriors are going to do and Actually, I might have some more questions about there. There's going to be we're presuming there's going to be some parking built South of Laurel That's going to serve the the stadium or arena. I Think yeah, I mean How much we the only standard under the state law that we would be allowed to set Employee and worker parking. Mm-hmm. That's another narrow carve-out. Sorry that I forgot to mention Event centers also not defined in the law They were pretty into it like at the public open house. Yeah I mean, I think so where the city isn't defining it is they're going to do they're going to do what they want to do Is that my question is? So, I mean, I'm sure they're going to have some good studies and figure out what they need and they're going to Build a bunch of parking so that they can have a successful arena Is that parking then limited only to that use is the city going to have a relationship with it? Is there any kind of a You know, I love how Claire put it the three P's, you know, the different reasons of space gets used Is that is that going to be some part of of our future? I'm not actually that comfortable with with relying on painting a curb blue For a bunch of reasons, I mean, I know we can do it and I see them all over the place But I worry about how do how do we know so So I'll answer the first part of this is I Think the the use of those spaces is still Being determined right like the downtown plan expansion isn't finished. We've had kind of this delay through the winter here as we're figuring out the details that are going to go into the sequel work and The discussion of how the parking resources that do get built in that area how they will be used and shared with the parking district We're also discussing, you know, are we going to annex this whole area into the parking district or are they going to create their own district? for a south of Laurel and and that is not You know, I think we're leaning in a direction, but we haven't resolved that And I also think that like that, you know, the use of that parking facility that We are assuming will be built with the arena I Think that that's something that could be Part of the negotiations that the city has with the warriors around like Without putting public funding in how are we supporting, you know, creating kind of a mutually beneficial relationship and all of that Still a few months out But yes, that's definitely like on the table. It does make sense that we're not going to have totally pinched parking Every everywhere downtown except for the ginormous empty Parking ramp that's down by the stadium Expecting that's not adding to that on a couple levels. I think It would I would hope it'd be readily apparent to the warriors that that doesn't make economic sense especially with housing development occurring in the South Laurel area and game days being Not all too frequent Other options that exists that the city has done before is to partner with private businesses in the past We partnered with NIAC and allowed for public use of their owned parking lot After 5 p.m. So they had use for their employees during the day and then it was publicly available in the evening The city did all of the maintenance and enforcement on those lots. So there are both opportunities for private private agreements to share parking as well as public private agreements to Utilize either private parking or public parking. So we've done those before work. We're comfortable with them and as we do expand And that's why we'd look for those areas that we could do that in New and emerging areas that don't have existing shared parking supply you guys have just gotten to go through the joy of Recommending the library affordable housing project that included a parking component that I've been working on since 2016 so I do think that publicly available shared parking is a really important component of Utilizing our limited land area to its highest and best use I do think that the city should play a role in that we have the ability and Capacity to do so. So I think as we do look to these areas There will be some hard choices on land use and saying we're going to dedicate some space to a parking facility, which is a Hot-button issue, but allows for the increased Intensification for other uses. I Would hardly agree with that and I'm glad that you're having those conversations That's it for me on parking Yeah, thanks for Talking about the warrior stadium and it just brought up for me that does couldn't that Hypothetically put us in a situation like to want to retain this ability because Julie hit the nail on the commissioner Conway hit the nail on the head, right? This is a market-driven parking system. We're sort of setting up And the warriors are going to run a business They're going to want to build a certain amount of parking associated with that business if that number Comes out to be very very large I mean couldn't it affect our ability to meet our arena numbers for low and very low if they're going to Take over large swaths to build parking. I mean if they build too much parking Yeah, well, obviously, it's not too much to them, but maybe from our perspective It would be too much because we would maybe want to build low-income housing in that area so so what you're talking about there is sort of a parking maximum Right about limiting the amount of parking that they can build and what this law is about is about parking minimums so Parking maximums is something that the cap directs us to take a look at like after we've implemented a few other pieces about eliminating parking requirements to then come back and look at maximum parking and That's not what this law allows us to do. Okay, and let me just add to Don't lose don't lose track of that concern because We can regulate that through the downtown Actually, if we feel there's a need to do so, okay. Thank you So I just had one more multi-mark questions The downtown library was good because I'm getting my brain around Parking districts and how awesome and flexible those are and it's like it's a really big adjustment Even though I feel like I'm kind of you know on the bleeding edge there Is there the potential long-term to develop parking districts along the corridors? Or I mean, it's kind of silly because that's where generally we're getting rid of parking, but yes We have flexibility. I know the Ocean Street plane kind of has us in it. If I remember right parking district law of 1950 something Allows for a process to create parking districts in almost any location You have to there's a whole process to go through you need the property owners to to endorse it buy in and then It creates the most powerful tool that it creates is the ability to bond and That is as you see in the downtown That's how we fund our parking facilities is that we bond and then we share the overall Expense of bond repayment over the universe of spaces not just a specific project That's why we can raise parking pricing by 25 to 75 cents and pay for an entire new facility In other areas of town we do have the ability to do that hand-in-hand with creating a parking district I would encourage in every instance to also price parking in those areas as one of our most powerful parking management tools And is that the same in the coastal zone or does it get weird? It is the same in the coastal zone. It just involves a little more process As with all things in the coastal zone So then the like the second and last question and like I lived in Berkeley So I've experienced like non-stop parking tickets for not having the right. I was younger than you know I didn't take care of my business But the next extension is like the neighborhoods and it's politically unpopular to say this but that would be the like I don't know that Council is ready to go there, but eventually this leads to Permit parking everywhere or the whole city's a district at some level So I'm saying like it'll be a hundred dollars a month or anything, but that's the idea here, right? Our code does allow for the entire city right now to be Permit parking residential permit parking right now It's written that you have to opt in you need to get a petition of 50% plus one of the neighbors Move through the process some of the earlier tools I think that you could use on that right now in our existing residential parking zones We allow for five permits per residence. They are priced at thirty five dollars per year and Then you can also get up to 30 day passes for guests, etc So using pricing or using number of available permits is Probably an easier tool to start with Getting 51% of your neighbors to agree is the impediment there But it's good to remind everybody that even though it's like kind of clunky in my opinion that that process does exist All right, so unless there's other questions, I think we'll bring it back for a motion and some more discussion No, we should open the public hearing just in case Would anyone from the public like to speak? No, we don't have to wait for the zoom delay anymore. So I seeing none. Well, thanks John Mm-hmm. I wanted to actually talk about bike parking a little bit, too. That's fine. Is there you're discussing it? Yeah, okay Just not quite ready to for a motion. I just had some kind of dumb questions. Yeah, no, that's fine And I think the Yeah, I wasn't trying to push it through I've got a few more thoughts, too Okay So commissioners Discussion or emotion you want to start and so this is just a couple of very practical things. I'm thinking about You know the little bike tool area, which I think, you know Such a great idea certainly would have been very happy, you know There used to be a place you could pump up outside of the spokesman and then they had to take it down Which brought up for me How how's this managed? Where are these? Places so any place that there's could you I just like to know a little bit more about how they will really work and who's watching them and so where we are talking about are in Usually would be in a bike room inside so for mixed use developments that have a lot of housing I see they Sometimes will add they'll meet their class one pike parking requirements by having a bike room That's only accessible to residents Maybe they have a key card and then they can individually lock their bikes up there So that's the kind of place where we would put a fix it station um And so this is part of the property management Yeah, if we put them out in the public right of way They're gonna the the tools are all gonna get stolen. So that's not the kind of place We're gonna we're trying to add those into private Areas that are secure and only available to residents or employees of those Um developments So if I did have a flat on my way to work, I'm pretty much out of luck just like always Well, I think there'll be something eventually at the metro station. That's a little bit different because Um, but that would probably be something connected with bike link. So that's who we use right now for the bike lockers So that's one case that would be different if they I think as part of that development as it You know comes down the pipeline that they would consider putting in a bike link managed room And they might have something like that, but yeah, I think it would be mostly Like we do have one here in our bike cage for city employees. That has a code Again, because the same thing The tools I know we had when I worked at ucsc We had a few I don't know if they still do but they were constantly having to replace the tools and it's just not um a good use of those Fixed stations in a public area like that. All right. Thanks for talking more about those Soon they'll be a B cycle station nearby so you can hop on an e-bike and get home Yeah, that's true. That's good I have another question. It's kind of a dumb question. No dumb questions. Come on. So um At some point and I'm sorry. I didn't I think I wrote down number six that there's a trade-off If we do over build parking We can convert that to bike parking So let's say that this, you know, this is we're really successful. We've completely embraced it We have built parking and we find out we have too many parking places for cars So then we're going to take I mean we there's it's a huge financial investment to build a parking space and So I was just curious about about where this Ability comes from that you can convert it into was it six? A certain number That's I think you're referring to a provision or a code that allows the conversion of required Parking okay to bike parking Yeah, so it's a six for one. I see okay trade-off And we've used it from time to time and development on my second reading and I thought wait did I miss that? But with as much of the city that's now exempt from parking I think we're going to be seeing less and less of requests for those Right Okay, hi one question about the bike Parking and different sizes is As we're seeing a lot of these projects come in and there's it's sort of a new Priority for us as a city and developers Working in this way How are we Evaluating the functional aspects as these plans are coming in and are we prepared to address circulation and You know storage and getting in and out and interfacing with Audis and cars and all those things So is your question about when we're reviewing the plans Yeah, I guess the question is like are we prepared as a city, you know to to from a design perspective to evaluate the functionality and That meets the alignment of the amount of storage, you know Because there's just like we know how to do that with parking and cars going in and out and spacing and I mean we've got Decades of experience in that and this is, you know, so something newer to us as a city and so Just curious the requirements for bike parking aren't new. We're just adjusting so we do so every time there is a development or Someone's changing the square footage of their Like they're remodeling and there's adding new square footage or they're changing the use We do it does trigger a review of are they meeting the bike parking part of the code as well as all the other things they have to meet and so They have to meet the things that are laid out in the code But we do look at this like is this something that's logical if you were a person using a bike Are they building it, you know on the fourth floor? Away from an elevator that we wouldn't approve that because that doesn't make any sense So we don't want to get too nitty gritty with all of the details in the code because We're trying to make it easy for people to include bike parking in a way that benefits the community But we are looking at it from a lens of what it would be like for a cyclist every time we're reviewing the plans Does that help? Yeah, I You know, it's just not even as a architecture firm. It's not something that we Have gone through extensively because We're just now seeing this level of development in our city You know like to this degree with these requirements and I know that In things that we've seen recently again, we're talking about How to get deliveries into restaurants and there's plans that have come before us where they're like, huh? Yeah, we're thinking about that. So I'm wondering like You know, how Are we, you know armed with yeah adding adding to what Joanna said, I would say specifically We do plan a review on every single project that comes through and oftentimes more often than not I would say Uh applicants get the bike parking very very wrong Very like behind the trash enclosure places that you would think A they don't comply with our code in any way, but B my favorite was a paved pad in the middle of landscaping with no path to it That when I went out to do a site review was no, that's obviously not going to work But during the plan review process we do offer to do a lot of hand-holding we offer to help Select the style of rack. We offer to help select Elements of the bike room we offer to Meet prior to a plan is submitted in order to provide feedback useful feedback to talk through those design issues Joanna does a really great job with that making sure that she's available to Help people better understand who don't have that experience as a cyclist or haven't designed projects with cyclists in mind before So we are also working on kind of a handout sheet to go with that About here are some of the things that you should think about stuff. That's a lot more challenging to make into objective standards But here's our recommendations. Here's kind of a cheat sheet for how you can best Do it right on your first try or maybe your second try Perfect And I'll add that Especially on the bigger projects We always encourage applicants to go through the pre application process so that um, you know before the plans get too fully baked That um, we can work out some of these details and and we and they do take advantage of that quite often So we're trying to get to them as early as possible All right and more discussion I've got just uh Two more quick things to say much as I love ev parking like I don't even get it in this context Because it's not like overnight parking if you're using that spot for three or four So, you know, you saw me on apartment projects Pushing that in I just like much as I love it I don't think it applies here because the point is to have those spots be like interchangeable and can be This one day and this another day or different times a day So I and I work in the energy code So I'm really used to the government just like spitballing stuff into these laws Literally like the day before it goes to the Legislature so I didn't like follow this one But it just has that feel of like at the last minute we're gonna like throw all these things in there So I want to support staff in saying let's not adopt that I know the position that puts you in when the language is really Awkward or unclear even right or wrong just if it's like terribly written I really wanted to say again that I support that Last concern is we have a little loophole here where projects might go through Without bike parking required. Is that a big concern? Can you write me a condition of a On those projects or you know, how seriously should we worry about that? Given there's what a year of process probably until this gets into law Well, so so this would take effect if we if it gets recommended The council approves it the first reading. Um, this would take effect End of may okay, so we're not talking this is it the work has happened. So pretty good. Um I I don't know so so for bike parking. They already have bike parking standards that covers residential development That's like fine. Um, the concern is new commercial development See it. Do we ever Unless it's attached to Of the Delaware addition, maybe Um Most of that stuff's already entitled. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So no big deal. So I was like, I mean and Yeah, I mean, I think a condition of approval might be An okay way to handle that if we do run into one in the next couple of months I would love to see it if it does come up Yeah, but I I don't know we're not like panicked about it yet and also we don't You know, these things are gonna start And we're gonna negotiate with applicants, you know in the early stages anyways and you know point out that You know, hey, this is gonna be a good selling point for your project when it gets to the decision makers I'm with commissioner conway. The last little grasp grasp of local control. We have I like to hold on to it Um, good. Well, I'm ready to hear a motion and a second unless other people feel differently I would move the staff recommendation. All right I'll second Moved by commissioner conway seconded by commissioner bolhamas Any further discussion? Let's have a roll call vote, please Mr. Conway Hi Dawson hi Gordon hi Maxwell hi Paul Hamas. Hi Kennedy hi So the motion passes unanimously with all commissioners I'm supposed to say that per the bylaws. So I'm trying to train myself It's kind of like you should state what happened, you know people watching like what was the vote? Good with that we'll close the public hearing Do we have any informational items? I can give you a couple a couple items. Um, so Last Tuesday the library mix use project was at city council and was approved on a five one one vote With a couple of additional conditions added around additional tree planning I think it came out to about four to one And then reuse of some of the magnolia trees that were going to be Eliminated to within the parking reusing that wood to be used within the project. Sorry Rail trail that project's been called up by council member bruner under provisions of the zoning code that allows council members to Bring projects up. That's going to be heard on monday evening at 6 p.m by the city council And then that's just like a special meeting It is a special meeting. Yes And upcoming Reminder we have a special meeting on the 30th of this month regarding the coral street visioning Exercise that we're working on We have nothing yet on the agenda for april 6th But april 20th, we have a couple of Mainly informational items around The cip. We have a housing element general plan annual report Um, and then a review of the draft housing element. So pretty full agenda on the 20th exciting business for earth day That's all I have. All right. Thanks, Eric We don't have any subcommittees and nor any items referred to future agendas So I will now adjourn the meeting. Thanks everybody Thank you all. Thank you