 Okay chair we're ready. This is the April 16th 2020 regular meeting of the Santa Cruz City Planning Commission. I want to call the meeting to order. Start by giving some background on how we're doing this. I want to thank you all for joining and for your patience and flexibility while we establish safe ways for public participation given the coronavirus. To mitigate the spread of the coronavirus the city council chambers is closed. All commissioners most of staff and the public are participating through alternative means. Staff in the chambers is hosting the meeting and they are practicing social distancing. This meeting is being broadcast live through Comcast on channel 25. Those without Comcast have two live streaming options including community the community television website which is www.communitytv.org slash watch or you can use the live link from the planning commission page www.cityofsantacrews.com slash PC. This live link became available once the meeting started and is located next to where you access the agenda for the meeting. Again that is at www.cityofsantacrews.com slash PC. You may need to use the Windows Internet Explorer browser in order to for this link to work. If you don't have a TV or another device that can stream you will be able to hear the meeting by simply calling in and here are the phone numbers are on the screen. Again members of the public who wish to comment should call into the phone numbers provided on the planning commission agenda website and on the screen here. If a number is busy please go through the list of options until you enter the meeting. Remember you will need to enter the meeting ID provided which is available on the agenda. The number is 497604405 and the webinar ID is also on the screen if you can see the screen here. Each agenda item will be announced as will the public comment period for each item and the public will be able to speak on each item. Those on the phone will be asked to press the star 9 button to raise their hand. Raising your hand allows the clerk to inform me as to who and how many people wish to speak on each item. Prior to beginning public comment for each item I will allow a few minutes for the public to call into the conference if they are not yet present. It is important to mention while making your comments if you are watching the meeting live to mute the stream you are watching given delay between broadcasting. It takes a while between our speaking and what shows up on the TV or screen. Instructions for public comment will be announced again at the time of each agenda item. Normally individual public comments will be limited to three minutes. However if a greater number a great number of people want to speak on an item less time may be allowed. Each speaker will be notified when they have 30 seconds left. If you are having technical problems calling into the meeting please call 831-420-5245 and a staff member will assist you. Now get on with the meeting and ask for a roll call. We'll move on to statements of disqualification. Does anyone have a statement of disqualification? Yes, I do. Commissioner Spellman. On the 122 Benito project I will be recusing myself from that discussion. Okay, thank you. We'll now move to all communications with those who have called in and wish to speak on items not on this evening's agenda but within the purview of the planning commission please press star 9 now. You only need to press star 9 once. I'll wait a few minutes to give additional members of the public time to get on the phone line. If a number is busy please go through the list of options until you remember you will need to enter the meeting ID provided which is available on the agenda. That ID number is 497-604-405. When it is your term to speak a staff member will inform you that your phone line has been unmuted which is your cue to begin speaking. It is important to mention while making your comments if you are watching the meeting you need to mute the live stream you are watching giving delays to the broadcast. The numbers to call are on the screen. Again this is a time to talk about agendas that are not on our agenda tonight, items that are not on our agenda tonight. I want to ask the clerk for the number of people who have asked to speak. Presently there are none. Another minute so I can't see a minute handle so will the clerk please tell me when a minute's gone by. Okay it's been a minute chair and I do not see any hands raised. Okay things that no members of the public wish to speak during oral communication will move on to the next item on the agenda which is announcements. Does anybody have any announcements? Seeing none we have no presentation so we'll move on to the approval of the minutes and does any member of the commission want to make any changes to the minutes? I'll move to a further minute. Before we act on that is there any member of the public who would like to speak to the item motion to approve the minutes of the March 5th 2020 meeting? A couple of few seconds for people to call in. Commission discussion of the minutes. The minutes I'm sorry. I did. Commissioner Neal who seconded it? I'll second the motion. Commission spell men it's been moved in second to approve the minutes of March 5th 2020. All those in favor say well why don't we do a roll call since we can't really know what's going on. I think it would probably be best if we do a roll call on all the motions. So could we have a roll call for the minutes? Commissioner Maxwell, Conway, Bellman, Dawson, Nielsen, Greenberg. Chair Schifrin. The minutes are approved. We'll now move to the consent agenda. There are two items on the consent agenda. One is 238 Carbonara Drive CP 19-0111. That's a slope variance in design permit to construct a single family dwelling on a slope exceeding 30%. I'm not going to read the whole description because the recommendation is staff recommends request continuance of this item to the hearing of May 7th with renoticing to include the permit entitlement of a variance to the project description. The second item on the consent agenda is CP 19-037122 Benito Avenue APN 01042-21 a special use permit and design permit to demolish an existing commercial building and construct a new office and warehouse building with two apartment units above on property in the CC community commercial zone district. The recommendation is that the planning commission acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the special use permit and design permit with the conditions attached to the staff report dated April 10th 2020. Both of the items on the consent agenda will be voted on in one motion unless a member of the planning commission wishes to put an item on the regular agenda. Or a member of the public wishes to speak on either of the consent agenda items. The thing to do is to press star nine if you wish to speak on one of the consent agenda items to let the clerk know. Again at this time we're taking comment for both of the items on the consent agenda. The first one is on 238 Carbonara Drive and the second one is on 122 Benito Street. In it or so to see if anybody wants to log in and speak. The commission has received correspondence on the 122 Benito Avenue which I assume everyone has reviewed. I remind each anyone who wishes to speak that they can only that they can only speak once per item. If a number is busy please go through the list of options until you enter the meeting. Remember you will need to enter the meeting ID provided which is provided and available on the agenda and again that's 497604405. When it is your turn to speak a staff member will inform you that your phone line has been unmuted which is your cue to start speaking. Just wait another little while to see if there is anyone who wants to speak on an item on the consent agenda. Chair Schifrin one member of the public has raised their hand to speak to this item. Okay so when it is your turn to speak a staff member will inform you and your phone that your phone line has been unmuted which is your cue to begin speaking. It is important to mention again while making your comments if you are watching the meeting live to mute the live stream you are watching given delays between broadcasting. The clerk will give you a 30 second warning you have three your your comment you can talk to the first tell us which item you'd like to speak to and then you'll have three minutes to talk on the item and the clerk will give you a 30 second warning when you're warning when 30 seconds are up and that would your cue to wrap up your comment. So let me ask the clerk to unmute the speaker and you can begin. Hello can you hear me my name is Hannah Nevins and I'm a resident of the adjacent area to the 122 Benito Avenue site. Okay what was your comment? I would like to make a positive comment that we feel that that's appropriate mixed youth in our neighborhood including housing which is an important component of our neighborhood area. I would also like to point out that we've had a lot of issues with on-street parking along Benito Avenue in the stretch between Water Street and Soquel and the city has addressed some of that towards the building site but not the whole thoroughfare which includes Benito which originates on Water Street and dog legs around the schoolyard and ends on Soquel Avenue. So I would like that the Planning Commission consider additional parking rezoning in that area so that there's less of an impact in our neighborhood with the addition of houses and businesses at this site. Okay thank you very much for your comment. Does any commissioner want to post items? No one the only item before there are only these two items before us and I will open it up if any of the commissioners want to make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Dawson? Yes I move to approve the consent agenda. Is there a second? I'll second it's been a motion has been made and seconded to approve the two items on the consent agenda that is to continue the item on 238 carbonara drive and to approve the special youth permit and design permit for the application at 122 Benito Avenue. Is there any further discussion? We'll have a roll call to act on this motion to approve these two items. Commissioner Maxwell? Aye. Conway? Aye. Spellman? Aye. Dawson? Could I just clarify Commissioner Spellman you're only voting on the carbonara avenue item. Thank you. I thought you would be choosing yourself on the Benito Avenue item. That's correct thank you. Okay continue please. Nielsen? Hi. Greenberg? Commissioner Dawson did I already record your vote? Yes it was I. Thank you. And Chair Schifrin? Hi so the two items the staff recommendations on the two items on the consent agenda are approved. We'll now move on to general business. We only have one item well actually we have two items well we have one item in general business and one item on information items. Let me go through the process for the public hearing. I will announce the item the staff will make a staff report and answer commissioner questions. There'll be time for an applicant presentation. There'll be time for a public comment and I understand that there'll be one 10 minute presentation by that's been requested in advance and after that the advisory group will our group I'm sorry I'm reading here the commission will deliberate and ask the commission can will ask questions after after the staff report and before public comments if there are any questions on the staff report. Since we are presenting today under different circumstances we ask for everyone's patience during the applicant's presentation as well in presentations from any organized group groups and those from the public who've coordinated with us in advance. Staff in the chambers will be controlling the slide shows for the presenters. Public comment will be announced and we will allow a few moments to make sure all are on the phone for public comment and for the clerk to tally the number of people who wish to speak. Again you will be informed that the phone line has been unmuted when it's sure which is your cue to begin speaking. If a number is busy again please go through the list of options until you enter the meeting and remember to enter the meeting ID the number being 497-604-405. It's important to remember that while making your comments that you mute your speaker mute the live stream. Remember each person will be able to speak everyone will be able to speak who wants to the clerk will give you a 30 second warning when only 30 seconds of your time remains this is your cue to wrap up everyone who wishes to comment will have an opportunity to do so. However if there is a very very large number of people who want to speak it may be necessary to reduce the time for each speaker individual speakers to less than three minutes otherwise my intention is that everyone can have three minutes. So the item before us on general business is CP190029 APN0415101. Two alternative proposals to subdivide a 1.62 acre property rezoned R1 single family residence. One residential slash commercial development demolition authorization permit to demolish a church and a tentative map to subdivide the parcel into 12 single family lots and the second option is residential commercial demolition authorization permit to demolish a church and a plan development permit design permit and tentative map to subdivide the parcel into 16 lots consisting of single family parcels and six condominium units the environmental determination is a categorical exemption the owner is circle of friends community LLC applicant at least parker files of February 19th 2019 so at this time I'll ask for a staff report on this thank you chair shifrin uh sarah if you could stop the screen sharing on your side then ryan will attempt to share his screen here a good evening this is a senior planner ryan vane presenting for the 111 errat circle project okay go ahead this is a project 111 errat circle to fill in familiarize ourselves with the location it's it's a 1.62 acre circular parcel located at the center of the garfield park circles neighborhood on the west side of santa cruz property contains a u-shaped church building on a circular parcel as you can see here the church was constructed between the years of 1958 and 61 and as you can see the site is surrounded primarily by single family residents or uses there is one local market convenience store adjacent to the parcel to the southwest so just to give a little background this application has been in the process for quite a while actually even before the application was formally submitted the applicants had a community outreach meeting in December of 2018 also through the summer of 2019 they held weekly meetings at the site for interested neighbors to come and learn more about the project and talk about the project the civil neighbors did express concern with the project specifically the demolition of the church some felt has historic significance and should be added to the city's historic building survey historic evaluation was prepared by a city approved historic consultant that determined that the property does not meet the criteria for historic listing in addition the city had a peer review done of that report by our city consultant dudek who agreed that the property does not meet that criteria in response to a concerned citizens and neighbors the city council directed staff to refer that historic report to the historic preservation commission for a view and to make a formal recommendation to the council as to whether the site should be listed as a historic building on the historic building survey for as a historic landmark on January 30th the historic preservation commission did hold a hearing to consider that report a historic report and the commission recommended the city council on a 501 one vote that the property not be listed on the city historic building survey with some additional advisory recommendations regarding this pending project that I'll get to a little bit later in my presentation on February 25th the city council held a hearing to consider whether the property should be listed on that historic building survey and the council after hearing testimony voted and upheld the recommendation of the HPC to not list the property as well as support the additional recommendations proposed by the HPC the proposed project originally consisted of two alternatives that involve demolition both involve demolition of the existing church and subdividing the 1.62 acre site alternative one the original proposal an alternative preferred by the applicants consists of subdividing the parcel into 12 individual single family parcels surrounding a common ownership parcel in the center this option requires a non-residential demolition authorization permit to demolish the church as well as a tentative map to subdivide the parcel into 13 lots 12 single family and then the one common ownership parcel individual property owners would develop each lot separately with a single family home following the approval turn of two was developed by the applicants in response to earlier early discussions with the planning department with recommendations to try and maximize the density on the site consistent with certain general plan policies pursuant pursuant to the L low density residential general plan designation a maximum of 16 units can be constructed on the property alternative to the alternative preferred by the planning department consists of subdividing the parcel into 10 individual single family parcels and one lot with single with six condominium units and four ad use all surrounding a common ownership parcel in the center this option requires again a non-residential demolition authorization permit to demolish the church as well as a tentative map and then in addition it would require a plan development permit to allow that multi-use multi-family use in the r15 zone district as well as variations to lot size lot width and setback reductions a design permits also required for the multiple family structure so after after the public notices were published the applicants withdrew this option from their proposal but staff continues to believe that alternative to is more in keeping with the general plan policies aimed at promoting the maximum densities of social diversity and sustainability as I mentioned the general plan designation is l for low density residential this designation allows for a density range of 1.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre which based on the 1.62 acre site would allow a range of two to 16 units on the parcel therefore both alternatives are consistent with this designation so while both alternatives are consistent with the residential density called for in the l designation further general plan policies encourage maximizing densities at the high end of the general plan designation here are a few examples policy l u 3.7 encourages higher intensity residential uses and maximum densities at 371 allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the general plan land use designation density l u 3.1 foster my news patterns that balance economic housing community and environmental needs and promote social diversity the housing element speaks to it and I say in clustering of units through the plan development process is encouraged to facilitate projects being built at the higher end of the allowable density and our mobility goal and one talks about land use pattern street design parking and access solutions that facilitate multiple transportation options so these policies really are the basis for the planning and community development support for alternative two which maximizes density on the site while alternative one meets the requirements of r15 in regards to the proposed single family use the minimum 5000 square foot lot sizes and the minimum 50 foot width because of those development standards only 12 lots are possible so alternative to the project would maximize the density the number of units allowed on the site at 16 and also as part of that would provide a varied housing type to promote social diversity encourage a sustainable and healthy lifestyle given the project bikeable and walkable nature to its proximity to commercial uses job centers such as the west side industrial area and downtown as well as recreational amenities such as westcliffe drive the site is also in close proximity to public transit stop thereby further promoting sustainable transportation used by by residents through some of the permits that are involved or as part of this project as I mentioned a non-residential authorization permit is needed to demolish church we as I mentioned earlier we went through that process of evaluating the historic aspects and I'm going to plan a hpc and city council determine that it's not eligible for listing on the historic building survey or as a city landmark the tentative map is also required for both alternatives alternative one would include subdivision of the project into 12 5,000 square foot single family detached residential lots also there would be one 10,686 square foot common area in the middle alternative two would include subdivision of the site into 10 4,933 square foot single family residential lots and one 10,670 square foot multifamily residential lot to be developed the six condominium six condominium units and for ad use there would be two common ownership lots as part of alternative two one for the condo project and then for the shared parcel in the center as part of alternative two as I mentioned a plan development permit would be required to be approved the intent of plan development permits is to allow creative and innovative design to meet the public interests and general plan goals more readily than through application of conventional zoning regulations on this case alternative two would require a variation to the r1 zoning regulations to allow a six unit multiple family condominium development and for ad use in addition other variations include permitting the single family lot to be less than 5,000 square feet they would permit those lots to have a width less than 50 feet to 49 pretty minimal and then also to reduce the front yard setbacks for the single family homes to 15 feet as well as the front and rear setbacks for the multifamily structures I should mention that a study was done looking at the setbacks around Eric circle and the average front setback is approximately 14 feet seven inches I believe so we're supportive of the 15 foot front setback as that's a basic development pattern for that for that general area also required as part of alternative two is a design permit this is to propose this is for the construction of the six condominium units as well as the 480 use they'll be made up of two separate two-story structures which would also include a garage spaces the proposal site design is fairly simple balanced with the shared interior driveway that separates the structures for the units are oriented towards Eric circle here's a here's a street view with two of the lower floor units having front entry porches facing the street so they clearly facing the street they really come across as single family and they're really not too large and have that appearance of single family they have a simple contemporary architecture with sufficient articulation and compatibility with the area architectural features include porches balconies donor windows and belly bands to balance the height and mass of the building at approximately 25 feet in height the structures fall within the 30 foot height limit in the r1 single family zone however setbacks have been reduced to accommodate the structures in the parcel with approximately six foot front yard setbacks and 10 foot rear setback as I had mentioned earlier when the historic preservation commission considered the historic designation they did have a couple of design recommendations that they made to the city council and the city council agreed with and supported as well those are that the project design includes some types of open space at the focal point of the Woodrow Avenue viewshed as you can see here they've included that the project includes historic interpretive plaques and signs and that the street pattern be retained so the open space measures approximately 43 feet in width at the edge of the sidewalk and narrows to about 15 feet towards the center of the space it includes a garden area of Oji court as well as 12 foot gravel path to be able to access that center area in regards to the interpretive plaques that we've included a condition of approval that requires that four historic interpretive plaques be displayed around the site for the public to view the plaques purposes would be basically to provide information regarding the history of the circles neighborhood including the origins of the concentric design of the area the original Tabernacle church and the historic development of that Garfield Park neighborhood the design and content of the coordinated with the historic preservation commission design standards um so the general plan also has a variety of policies that support quality design such as the following that are directly applicable to this project um this is a the subject parcel is very unique in its shape and surrounding located at the center of this Garfield Park neighborhood a lot is visually is visually significant with uh four intersecting streets meeting the arid circle roadway which encircles the site so we've included design standards um in the conditions of approval that address the inclusion of front porches diminish the visual impacts of the garages as well as address proportions and massing of the homes at each of the street terminuses looking at the site currently there are 18 trees on the site of which nine are identified as heritage trees the project would result in a removal of 13 on-site trees most of which are ornamental landscaping five of the trees to be removed are heritage trees that are in fairly poor condition the severe structural defects that would be removed due to their condition city regulations require tree replacement for removal of heritage trees so therefore 24 24 inch box replacement trees are proposed the city arborist has reviewed the arbor support and agrees with the findings um site improvements the applicants submitted an improvement plan and conceptual landscape plan that details the street improvements and related to landscaping new curb gutter and sidewalk are proposed with a relatively large five foot planting strip located between the gutter and the seven a seven foot sidewalk all utilities will be under grounded and new handicaff accessible ramps with crosswalk striking will be incorporated at the various locations around the site for inclusionary housing the application was deemed complete prior to our current inclusionary ordinance taking effect therefore both alternatives require 15 percent of the units being made available for sale to low and moderate income households at an affordable ownership cost based on that 15 requirement both alternatives calculate to require two affordable units for alternative one in reviewing it providing two losses inclusionary is fairly impractical as eligible households would likely not be able to afford but the purchase of the inclusionary law in addition to securing a construction loan to build a house given the uncertainty of the sale and development of the two parcels coupled with the fact that in the loopies could be leveraged to achieve significantly more than two single family detest units the pavement of in loopies would be a preferred option for alternative one for alternative two an onsite option could be accomplished through a for sale deed restriction on two two bedroom multi-family units coupled with a rental deed restriction on two of associated adu we've discussed this and this could be a really good option for the city to consider those provide four units on the site including two deed restricted rental units over the arrangement with the deed restricted purchase and a deed restricted rental included with that purchase is somewhat complicated so the city is actively pursuing several affordable housing development proposals and contributions to the affordable housing trust fund through in loopy and payments in the short term could be leveraged to create a more affordable units than what could be fries onsite however there are some timing issues with leveraging those funds therefore with an accelerated payment the in loopy option may be preferred over four alternative two discussions are still taking place regarding this with the applicants and will ultimately be decided by the city council and through negotiations with the applicants an environmental checklist was prepared by a du-deck environmental consultant that we use on a regular basis to analyze the project and determine consistency with the california environment quality act based on the checklist and pursuant to public resources code 2108 3.3 and state secret guideline 15183 no further environmental analysis is required as it's been determined the city's general plan 2030 er has adequately addressed the issues and there are no impacts peculiar to the project that has been identified in addition to the above statutory exemptions that I just mentioned sequa provides several categorical exemptions which are applicable to categories of projects that leads a that the lead agency has determined you only do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment therefore the project can also be considered to be exempt from sequa under a category exemption pursuant to state secret guidelines 15332 as it's been in field development there are certain requirements or conditions that under 15332 has to be consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations which it is occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres this is less than five acres that has no value as habitat for endangered rare or threatened species that's been determined and would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic noise air quality or water quality and that's all been determined also the site is can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services so the recommendation for the planning commission is one that you acknowledge the environmental determination and two to mention while both alternatives are consistent with that low density residential designation many of the general plan policies that I mentioned directly support alternatives to overall turn of one because it maximizes density at the high end of the general plan designation promotes social diversity by offering lower priced housing options and to use a higher degree of sustainability by more efficiently using land by providing more housing options in an area where healthier and more environmentally friendly transportation options such as pedestrian, bicycle and transit are convenient particularly given the central location of the site because it needs to do various amenities these policies are the basis for the community development support of alternative to and it's recommended that the planning commission recommend the council recommend to the council approval of the project with the plans for alternative to subject to the conditions of approval in the task as a staff report based on the findings listed in the staff report I conclude my presentation I'm available for any questions thank you could you please stop sharing the screen so I can see if any commissioners have questions by a show of hands Neilsen I saw you first my first question goes back to the general plan that you the item that you are sorry that the slide that you pulled up regarding the density it does say in that slide that from what I read it says that maximize the density would be encouraged is that is it encouraged in this case or is it required a general plan is allow and encourage I believe is one of those things where it doesn't say require but it does say allow and encourage for the higher densities and so that's that's why I'll turn it to better to fees and in meeting that policy based on based on the policies that you bring up does the the would would there be any cause for you to deny application number one based on those policies no so that so especially one fits it's fully within the policies of the general plan this is Lee Butler and the planning director and yes the project meets the general plan and I think one of the things that we should both projects meet the general plan one of the things that I think we should point out here is that the the housing accountability act actually precludes the commission from denying these projects one of the projects needs to get a formal recommendation or I should say one of the projects should get a formal recommendation of approval or some version of one of these projects you know with alternative conditions however the commission sees fit however the the city council then will be bound by the housing accountability act to approve a housing project on this site and so both do meet the general plan and it is our recommendation based on the variety of the goals and policies that are identified in the the general plan that Ryan spoke to that it's alternative to but yes both of them can meet the general plan and one of them should get a recommendation from approval for approval from the planning commission based on consistency with the general plan and the applicable zoning criteria and pursuant to the housing accountability act okay okay thank you for that clarification another question I have relates to the 15 foot setback that that was brought up is that is it setback considered for both applications or is that only for application number two it's only for application or alternative two because basically it's allowed through that plan development permit as a variation to develop the standard on that being said with alternative one you might recall that in our zoning ordinance we do allow for front yard averaging in the zoning code and so alternative one could reduce those front setbacks based on that front yard averaging section of the ordinance so regardless one where the other those those front yards could be reduced to 15 feet just through different is that would that need to be established now or is that during the building permit application process for alternative one it would be done at the building permit process time okay okay thank you that's that those are my questions for the moment thank you commissioners stone and you were next I have a couple of questions so one is relating to the inclusionary housing question and I'm interested in understanding further two things one could you elaborate on why you believe the in-loop fee is the right option for this project and two given I guess our current economic climate what is the viability of our current in-loop status I understand potentially putting the money into the affordable housing fund as part of a different project that would theoretically garner more units than we would be able to get on site I support that concept but I'm I'm questioning what is the viability of that project currently do we have a timeline for when those units would actually come online so you can elaborate on that that would be helpful this is Jessica Dixie way I'm with the housing department so trying to answer both your questions for the first question is the in-loop fee um what could we do with the in-loop fee why do we prefer the okay so why are we preferring the in-loop fee uh so so the state is putting out a NOFA in the next month at least the latest feedback I got last week was that in the next month they're putting out a NOFA notice for funding availability yeah notice for funding availability thank you um that would allow us to the city to show any funds that we have in our trust fund the state could potentially match them up to five million dollars so we're trying our our best to to pull together as much funding as we can to show that it's in the trust fund to be able to double that money that's that we can show this in the trust fund now I you know with the COVID-19 and everything going on that NOFA could be delayed slightly but as of last week I was told that it should be coming out at the end of April so what does that mean as far as when we need to show those funds in our trust fund we're looking at most likely latest mid mid-June is when we would probably be getting ready to submit for for the state funds so I know that timeline is tight but we've looked at our ordinance and there is flexibility as to when a developer can pay the in-loop fee so our preference would be you know if a developer can stand up and pay that fee early it could double our money double those in-loop fees which could then be applied towards projects that we have in the pipeline right now so I think this is moving to your second question which was you know what's realistic what do we have going on in our pipeline right now so in addition to the library site that's floating out there that I'm sure a lot of people have been hearing about we also have the Pacific Station site and I know that one has been floating out there a little for a little while too but we we have recently been able to assemble parcels adjacent to it's basically the putney carry building with the parking lot the pipeline parking lot sorry the pipeline shop and we've been able to assemble that piece of property together to be able to generate most likely 85 affordable units we have also applied for apple tech funds that would be another five million potentially coming in we should hear about that in the next month ish month and a half so we're basically trying to to get into again a project going right away and this funding could really help with that okay thank you for that clarification um the next question is on the density calculations in general for the project and I noticed that um so ADUs are not included in density could you describe explain for folks that aren't aware of those conditions what why they're not sure so there are a number of things there are provisions in state law that speak to accessory dwelling units not counting towards density there are also provisions in our local code and one of those provisions was identified in the the agenda reports for the planning commission that spoke to a specific general plan policy that identifies accessory dwelling units as one of the housing types there are a number of housing types that do not have the standard density requirements applicable and accessory dwelling units are called out as one of those okay thank you and my last question has to do with the housing accountability act and you touched on it a little bit um obviously there's some explicit language in that act that would forbid the jurisdiction from essentially reducing density for a project and I couldn't find anything explicit about increasing density for a proposed project and I'm just wondering about the potential exposure do you do you feel we have a strong standing to be requesting the additional density in relationship to that act thanks for raising that question commissioner spellman the um you're correct the housing accountability act does preclude the decision-making bodies from reducing densities proposed by applicants or from denying projects proposed by applicants those are residential projects I should say and residential density when those projects meet the objective standards of that are applicable to the particular site there isn't anything that says the the city cannot require more there is a provision in the housing accountability act that speaks to the act being interpreted in a manner so as to maximize the production of housing so there are certainly overarching goals in the housing accountability act that speak to the promotion of housing and so that is something that we took into consideration when making the recommendations great thank you other commissioners have questions I have a question to follow up on the housing accountability act issue because my reading of it and the language is in the staff report seems to be pretty clear as I understand it the only application before us is for alternative one the applicants have withdrawn application the alternative to application so that really isn't before us what that application is the staff recommendation that this would be preferred but it's not really an application it's a variant that the staff is recommending am I understanding that correctly what what application is currently before the city is there two are there two applications or is there only one application so the second alternative is one that the applicants did initially present and have subsequently withdrawn approximately two weeks ago that application was withdrawn and you'll see that the recommendation before you is not to deny one and approve the other it's actually to approve the project with the condition that it matches the alternative to for the lock configuration and so so essentially you're you would not be denying the project that's before you would be making a recommendation that the council approve um the project with the condition that it conforms with the second alternative that has subsequently been withdrawn it's semantics but I think it is important semantics that you are picking up on their chair shifrin and so um that's why we we worded that um in the manner in which we did but to clarify then the application that is before the city at this point is alternative one that's correct the applicants have withdrawn the the second alternative okay so in reading the housing the language in the housing accountability act that was in our staff report the act applies to housing applications submitted to local agencies that meet that following criteria meet the city's objective general plan and zoning standards which the staff report says it does the development would would not cause a significant adverse impact to public health or safety which the staff report says it won't and the development meets the standards of the california environmental quality act and the coastal act which the staff report says it does then the housing accountability act says if an application meets these criteria the city council or planning commission must vote to approve the application so given that language i don't see how it would be possible for the city to legally uh approve something else they've asked for essentially alternative one that meets the general plan and zoning standards it doesn't cause a significant adverse impact to health and safety and there are no sequel coastal commission issues on what basis could we approve something different and not approve where the language says we must approve the application i don't see are the basis on which at least i like an explanation of the basis on which we could deny the applicant or approve something different than what they've applied for sure it's a valid question one that we've spoken with our legal team about as well and because of the the broad implications of the housing accountability act there is not anything in the housing accountability act as commissioner spellman was pointing out before there is nothing that says we cannot condition it on the fact of needing to provide additional housing and you know with with this particular project given its proximity to public transit to services it's its walkability and bike ability it's you know proximity to the west side jobs the downtown you know we wouldn't necessarily on every project site feel that maximizing the density is as critical but given that there's convenience markets right across the street there's public transportation and literally every direction that you can go from that center circle there's a bus stop and given all those factors the the staff felt that it is important to to accomplish the general plan goals of maximizing density and that would be done through an approval of this project with the recommended modifications to increase the number of units it would not be and it is a semantics thing but an important one it would not be done through denial of this application and approval of the other okay I guess I'll pursue this later thank you is to any of the other commissioners have questions of staff okay then the next part of the hearing will be to hear from the applicant my understanding from staff is that the applicant would like 15 minutes to make their presentation standing that correctly okay why don't we um talk to the uh applicant's presentation then will there be a slideshow with that commissioner has a question it's me uh chair shifrin uh commissioner dawson okay commission dawson um I did just want to make a comment um about the process a process uh comment since we were discussing a little bit about the housing accountability act and the process I think uh as a commission I think we should really consider about um you know one of the challenges around development is having a very um transparent and predictable process and so when an applicant comes forward um with the significant investment of time and resources um to put together something that meets all the requirements under both our um planning guidance our zoning our general plan as well as meeting the housing accountability act um I think it's very important for us to consider um that those proposals be taken on the face of their merits and so um I think it says a precedent we should really uh be of uh for future that if an applicant comes with the development and then we're going to tell them that they need to do something completely different than than than what they are bringing forward so I just want us to consider that and consider ways that we can continue to make the process of approval um as transparent and predictable as possible moving forward thank you thank you but let me ask commissioners to hold their comments until after we have the public presentations um so could we hear from the applicant now hello this is Caitlyn can everybody hear me yes I can yes great so hi everybody um this is Caitlyn Wilde I am one of the circle of friends members um I can't quite see uh there's a delay um is our slideshow up no I don't know I don't think so Caitlyn if you could allow us no problem okay loud and clear right so I'm going to start I think sorry Caitlyn um Sarah I'm not seeing their slideshow I'm seeing your um phone call slides your patience struggling with technology here okay here we go this looks no problem okay great so um yeah like I said my name is Caitlyn I'm one of the circle of friends members and about two and a half years ago we purchased the circle church property with the intention of building a communal green co-housing space next slide please this is us um this would normally be the part where we would all introduce ourselves um but technology is such that we can't so um Finney and Joe here both born and raised in Santa Cruz uh Dwight moved from Marin County a couple years ago and is quickly weaving himself into the community Mark Thomas uh been here 40 plus years raised with four kids here he's a local teacher um Alex is a retired businessman split this time between LA and Big Sur and Brett sitting six feet away from me right now um is a he's been here what 30 plus years um and I moved here 20 years ago so local work and folks um next slide please so um this is a conceptual plan showing alternative one formerly known as plan A um 12 single-family residences and 12 80 years um we're maintaining a common green center just as it is now and the areas where our houses are on this drawing are mostly where parking lots are now and persons of the church as well we're maintaining the open corridor down Woodrow not to mention adding extra wide sidewalks and planting strips congruent with the sidewalks on Woodrow next slide please um so this slide shows the zoning for the area most of the lots on this map are 5000 square foot lots um some of them smaller lots closer to the circles most of the west side is zoned r15 single-family residences 5000 square foot lots um there are no multi-family units on this map the little purple um spots are where circle market is and the other circle market on california there's a little white dot it's the barfield library and the green is the Bethany curve next slide please so um co-housing a lot of people have been curious about what the co-housing community is um the way we see it we buy together build together and live together this is a project that would um otherwise be impossible for us to make happen so pooling our resources investing together planning together building together um pouring our sweat equity into a grassroots bootstrapped project um enables us as individuals to create homes on the west side that we wouldn't otherwise be able to afford um and just a note on the co-vid 19 pandemic that's happening right now has really reminded us of how important the community is and how important it is to have friends and family close so we can share care and um co-housing enables us to do that um some of you might have noticed some real estate signs up at the circle we are opening up our circle for folks to join as partners in the co-housing endeavor and there has been a tremendous amount of interest so we're happy about that and then on the right here there's a poster that we found at the national housing museum in washington dc that praises co-housing um our very own coyote crossing up on western drive that demonstrates an exemplary use of land and community next slide please so our intention is for our circle of homes to be an exemplary model for green building and community and Santa Cruz and beyond we're planning on recycling the existing church as much as possible and meeting or exceeding green and lead standards for home building next slide we will have congruent design threads um each of us will be building our own unique home and our own unique taste we'll be working together throughout the design process to ensure our homes and the site layout complement each other and the neighborhood and we will incorporate welcoming front porches encouraging community interaction with our homes and i next slide please i'm going to pass the baton to my co-member brett here he's going to take over hi everybody my name is brett packer and i'm one of the circle of friends um we originally purchased this property two and a half years ago um as a group with the intent of building our co-housing and our first plan which is now called alternate of one we're 12 houses and 12 ad use um we worked up in commerce we had multiple conversations with city staff prior to buying the property and after buying it um to make sure that that was doable and fit the zoning five zoning um and we got positive feedback on that um and then a couple months into it we had a meeting with the entire planning staff and um the planning director felt that we should um increase the density um and provide more diversity with our plan um the original plan could be done under the zoning um the plan was suggesting it would be done under a pd so um somewhat reluctantly we developed a secondary plan because we wanted the support of the planning staff so we went through this process um and decided to submit two plans um so we worked up uh alternative two which is 10 lots and then uh six condos which are on two of the lots um from the beginning we've been committed to providing ad use with the single family home on both plans um particularly look at alternative one with 12 single family homes and 12 ad use you know that gets you up to 24 units and a lot of diversity with those ad use um and some of those would end up being rentals which um we need also so we went forward with both plans through the application process and then through all the departments then through two or three different city councils and some changes in the planning commission um any other bumps along the road and um we felt we could live with alternative two if it if it was what the city council chose although all along we've been fighting for alternative one because we're not developers we are a group of friends who have gotten together um so houses for our families and we don't have the resources the organization um the skills the financial wherewithal to build out those six condos um that takes a big chunk of cash several million dollars up front to build those out we don't have the means to get that and I'll get more into that a little in a little bit um so we we were I'd say we were okay with going forward both plans until um COVID hit and with the COVID crisis and the ensuing economic meltdown that's happening around us right now and it looks like it's going to be with us for quite a while our chances of getting financing to build the condo complex are pretty much nil and same with the possibility of possibly selling that part of the development to a developer um probably not likely in the next few years which would if this were approved it would leave us stuck in a place that we couldn't move forward with the project um until the market changes which could be many years so at that point we decided to um um whole plan a from our uh sorry plan b alternative to from our application and just proceed with alternative one and alternative one um is fully supported by the housing accountability act fully supported by sd330 um which we were just discussing it's also much preferred by the neighbors we had a series where we had a big public meeting in november and then over the summer we had a series of open houses uh where neighbors came by and we discussed our project with them and the overwhelming feeling from the neighbors was that they did not want condos here at the circle and it didn't fit the neighborhood so hence we officially pulled plan a from the application they just coming up in this meeting um we do not want to move forward with plan two and we will not be in a position to move forward with plan two we um it's financially unfeasible at this time and will probably be unfeasible for many years we do appreciate the need for housing and for affordable housing hence the ad use that we are willing to commit to building um and plan a a single family homes um offers us bite sized chunks that we can chew off and get those individual homes built rather than trying to build a six unit condominium complex um can we move on to the next slide please so um and we can even go to the next slide so here's a picture of those condos are quite large and the other houses in the neighborhood are much more modest our houses in general will probably lean towards the modest size as most of us that would be what we would need and can afford to build um can we move on to the next slide and once again there's the zoning which is where this all started for us both of those watch you see there are 5000 square foot lots and um we really would like you guys to consider how the COVID crisis is changing the world we're living in and how finances will be an economy and the real state market and it it will be almost impossible for us to move forward if alternative two is chosen and it's no longer on the table really we've pulled it from the application alternative one follows the zoning follows the law meets the general plan it fits the neighborhood and the neighbors prefer it um next slide please so once again we got into this not to make money um to build houses for our families and friends at this site to have a to create a tilt housing community um we believe and we know that we will care for the site and um this that will bring a lot of community benefit through our living here our families here we're going to bring life to this circle that hasn't been here for many years um it's been lifeless for the last 20 or 30 years um I think that when people think of Santa Cruz and they that we'll be able to demonstrate the best that our community has to offer and as it's the Circle Church has historically acted as a place for people to gather and we're updating the building here and adding housing and then we'll be stewarding a welcoming gathering place to foster social connectedness in other words there'll still be activities that can happen here and I can actually speak to that now um we will have a open center circle about 10,000 square feet we'll contain gardens playing field and hopefully eventually a shared common building there'll be a common kitchen where we can have shared meals uh classes art um do art and um the way that we're feeling like we can open that up to the community is that if community members want to use it or or have something they'd like to do there they can get one of the owners at the property one of the partners of the co-housing group to sponsor them and then uh people from the outside community would be able to use the space with the sponsorship of one of us partners um so and we've been working with the talking to local dance groups we'll dance um yoga groups music groups um that were involved in singing etc um then people are asking us about a space and so we're working on that as once we get further along towards um I said making that space available to the public through sponsorship of the residents um so what we need right now through this process is flexibility this has been a very challenging um journey for us over the last couple years very expensive more money than we saw more time than we saw it we're certainly weren't planning on COVID crisis and so the most flexibility um the more flexibility we have the more likely that we're going to succeed so we need to get alternative one approved and we are requesting that you recommend approval of alternative one so that we can get moving on this and get some houses built and get some life's breathed back into this site um that's all I have for now and if you have questions at this time we're happy to answer them um and we really appreciate everybody um during this meeting tonight dealing with the technology is this the it's at the end of your present that's the end of our presentation are there any questions from commissioners for the applicant yes commissioners spellman yeah one clarification on the ad use are you planning to build 12 homes and 12 ad use or just the possibility of the ad use well as you know the ad use are allowed from the beginning of this project in our box with the city and just to the general public we've been committing to the ad use we're saying that we're going to build them because we want to um basically address the housing crisis and we feel this was a strong way to do that it's it's also you know it's good for our families it's good for us so when we say we're committed to that we haven't codified that we've talked to the city about that to staff and it seems like it's a difficult thing to do we're open to it if it if need be um so that's kind of where that's at right now thank you any other questions of the applicant yes our commission agreeberg can you hear me yeah okay thanks uh for the presentation um i was wondering about the question of uh you know the final slide about community over profit and the desire to address the affordable housing crisis and um this question of how any thoughts on how you might assure that affordability is a part of this project um for instance i know that some co-housing developments have limited equity co-ops kind of built into them is that any part of the thoughts around this one how are you thinking about you know the potential for the housing that you're building to in the future once uh houses are resold and so forth to remain affordable so as um either leon or leo ryan said we've been talking with the economic development um trying to sort this out and there's um a possibility right now if we're able to get in-loop fees in early that they can double them and put them into the portable housing projects they have going and that's our preference so we think it's good for both the city and for us and we'll get more housing built than if they're done on site um the on-site potential is um as again any grand mention would be two units um if it's uh alternative two which is no longer on the table you know alternative one with the lots and subdivision that would be done as an in-loop fee because it's it's really not practical for someone with moderate income to purchase a lot and then build a house and another part of this is that um a couple of our members are would qualify for moderate income housing um so in a way to doing this as a bootstrap sweat equity project it's an affordable housing project I know that's hard to clarify and hard to take into the future but that's why we're doing it and how we're doing it I hope that's helpful okay thanks yeah so in the in the present moment that would be true um and um yeah I guess I'm interested in sort of thinking about how there might be partnerships possible the question of who could partner in terms of the affordable units if the second option were to be you know in order for the second option to be feasible um how there might be partnerships with uh developers who are invested in affordable housing and whether that's something that's been pursued for instance midpen or other kinds of developers who might be able to build affordable housing or you know partnerships that would enable um city to step in in a more significant way or other other partners to help you because I understand the feasibility questions and whether that's something that's been pursued um actually I'm not familiar with that and we haven't pursued these options um the ADUs will be affordable by design um and we've been um you know some of this is is quite new to us we have been talking to the economic development department department since we purchased the property two two and a half years ago uh there's been changes there as well but recently been talking to Jessica and Bonnie and um we we appreciate the need for affordability and um if we did talk to Habitat at the very beginning of the project and they were not interested um the lots it's too much part of the problem is the the value on the west side here is this high and it's it's hard to make affordable housing work there's other places where it's much more efficient um as far as getting units on the ground this is my understanding okay any other questions before we um if there's someone else Lee did you want to we're not able to hear you Lee sorry thank you chair shifrin um I just wanted to chime in there was a question about the adu requirement and yes the applicants have um indicated that they want to um build adus on either proposal um I wanted to clarify we did not include that that condition as a requirement all we included was the condition that they show that it can be done and um you know certainly while we encourage and want that adu production and that can bring a level of uh design of affordability by design um however you know understanding the uh the way that this project is being developed we didn't necessarily want to require those up front in case some of those individuals didn't have necessarily didn't necessarily have the capital to do both the the residents and the adu up front so um I just wanted to to make sure because there was a question about that is what's required and we haven't required it um there does seem to be that commitment certainly there'd be a uh economy of scale if they build it at the same time but um we did want to make sure that they're not precluding the you know by the site design that they choose they're not precluding the development of adus in the future so we just said um when you come in for a design permit for the single family homes that you show an adu can be accommodated on the site and the applicants were agreeable with with that approach okay thank you um I understand that there's a missed read who wanted to make a 10-minute presentation um is that uh Jessica reads yes we're ready your presentation hi yeah okay can you hear me yes we can hear okay great um do you have the the first slide up bear with us this is we're getting there oh no worries yeah no worries I it's hard because I can't see the slides so I'm just like so I just uh we'll let you know where it comes okay cool see the screen the zoom screen except us or can the public that that's available hit the heart of the circles is the first slide then you're ready to go okay great thanks so much thanks everyone for putting in a great effort uh to be here tonight given all the the crazy circumstance so yeah I'll introduce myself I'm Jess Reeves I'm a resident of the circles neighborhood I live on walk circle a small 22 hundred square foot lot and I'm here representing save the circles save the heart of the circles um and I just want to get started today by showing you so sorry next slide thanks um so our goal um as a group of concerned neighbors is we would really like to buy the property at one one one air at circle and preserve it as a community space and you know we've been trying to get fundraising up and going and there's lots of information on our website um but what I'm going to talk to you more specifically about today is if developed um we really want this property to provide some sufficient public benefit um next slide please um and by sufficient public benefit we're just going to be real up front with with the things we're looking for here is we want to see a prominent structure in the in the plans that are that are finally um okay by the commission we'd ask the commission wait for a historic district designation before the demolition of the church um and I'll get more into that later but we'd also ask that the planning commission incorporate some mixed uses into the plan we've also we'll also put forth some ideas towards a community hall a gathering space and just also asking for the planning commission to consider possibly smaller lots some affordable units which would allow for more green space that could be shared by the community so today I'm speaking for a number of people we have 117 people on our mailing list 280 people petition like paper petition signatures and 2,200 people have signed our petition online so this is a really large group of people um that I'm speaking for today and a lot of them come from the neighborhood so some points of order we wanted to get to first is in the staff report um it was it's constantly being said by the owners and now we see it in the staff report which really kind of hurt close to home was that the church ceased use several years ago which is just not true um the gospel community church has over 200 congregants and they've been they're happily been at this location for two years of service and they're thriving they're they're a big part of our community so another thing we wanted to talk about is um we went through all the documentation that was put up online and we read the letter from Arnett Fox LLP and it's constantly coming up that the clients are not developers and we see the the sort of information coming up again and again in social media in different forms and now that we have this public form form we just really want to say like there are six locals that are part of the circle of friends um but Mark Thomas is one of those locals he's the current listing agent and he's a property developer um and Brett Packard who we gratefully heard from earlier today he owns a construction and development company as well um and the main developer is one how Alex Akakian um who is a real estate developer from Los Angeles um and he owns properties up and down the coast of California and just to put it out there for the commission we'd really like to say maybe he could possibly provide some capital to help develop the higher density uses um and alternative to um next slide oh i keep forgetting to say next slide i'm so sorry so right now i'm on conditions of acceptance is that okay if we go up to there okay so sorry i'm so sorry about that it's like i'm not used to it okay so condition 37 um we we're really going to ask the planning committee commission to uphold that if um alternative two is recommended um and we also ask that in terms of condition 35 we actually want affordable housing in our neighborhood it may be more economically beneficial for the affordable housing to go elsewhere but we really feel like it's a it's an important part of the socioeconomic fabric of the circle's neighborhood um next slide please um and so i just want to speak a little bit towards the demolition plan um the owners are often saying that this is a dead amount of property um but there's a lot of people that are stakeholders here um the church is up and running it's been running for two years now there's a social hall and gymnasium um there's classrooms there's an autism center there's a chiropractor and all these people including the neighborhood around are stakeholders and we really would ask that the commission consider how the demolition would affect um all these different stakeholders next slide please and so we really ask is could this church be something else um this secularization is happening all over the country and different really awesome communities are making decisions to preserve these church places and make them into mixed use places um so the brooklyn collective you can see there's an event space um they have offices there they have a coffee shop and says carolina the church there there's a church there it's the one that's called make it charlotte that is a makers market that's open once a month and people come in and there's a coffee shop and it's really bringing the community together and on the right i just have some wonderful images of beautiful churches that have done a great job at sort of modernizing themselves into to our more secular society next slide please and so we just want to first ask for this prominent structure you can see it as you look up west cliff um and it was brought up during the historic planning committee um this idea of the view shed incorporating a focal point up the ocean from woodrow and we really don't see that in um either alternative one or alternative two um next slide please um and then i wanted to also speak towards this prominent structure and how it could play into our historic district so we met with christina who's the was one of the dpr historians and she said actually the historic the circle neighborhood already qualifies as a historic district and if you look at the map on the left these are all the locations that make our district historic and so although we're still going through the process of getting the designation if you look at page 25 on the environmental checklist it says in the report that the project site is not located within a designated historic district that's true but it might not be so long and so we really ask that the commission take that into consideration when giving the green light to this demolition um next slide please and so i'm just going to talk a little bit about serving community and you know the church is owner to serve the community um in many of ways there's all these mixed uses on the property that are still happening today there's this large area green space that everyone's been able to use and we really don't see any sort of large amount of service to the community you know there's a small courtyard in the middle and private property it's not zoned as public there's no way for us to see that the public to use it um so just next slide um we were thinking maybe there could be this idea of the communal house as we read more about the co-housing literature our group we found that there was these great communal houses and this is an example this is this is of a community uh co-housing community but this is the community house it's the first life sitting club at freshwater beach in australia the top level on the right you can see is this beautiful um banquet hall on the bottom they have a cafe possibly if it was similar something similar in the circle location there could be a gymnasium on the bottom that could incorporate the mixed uses that we see um and so next slide so this is just another sketch up of the way the property could potentially look um all the if it's truly this co-housing communal community all the parking could go towards the back of the property um the front could have a communal house with a gymnasium and a cafe lots of things that could service the community have um a beautiful maybe lighthouse type structure on the top that would have a prominent view down woodrow and then all the other houses would be surrounded by you know beautiful yards going around and it would be great um but it would definitely much better serve the community in this way um next slide please so here here i'm going to talk a little bit about uh community co-housing development and data and you can see that the proportion in this one that the houses are much higher density and it's really a focus on having more shared space and they actually have a communal house you can see them in the back there um and we really don't see that in the plans that are put forward um by the owners it's really one seventh of the space is designated as communal um and that just doesn't really fit in with the co-housing jives and if you look on the right hand side we can see towards the center of the circles the lofts in the circles are actually a lot smaller like i live on a 2200 square foot lot and i'm really happy here and it's part of the nature of our neighborhood um and so next slide so it what if we could retain the viewshed get more communal space that could possibly be open to the public as a community if we have this festival lawn looking down woodrow it would really um preserve that that viewshed down woodrow um and then you know some of the lots could be larger six lots for the local families could be larger some of the lots could be smaller um providing affordable housing that people could actually buy on the west side um yeah so that's that's kind of where we're at um if you can go to the next slide please so once again we're just gonna hit sufficient public benefit for us means a prominent structure waiting for historic designation mixed uses possibly having a community hall or gathering space and then incorporating some smaller slots with affordable units that are actually on the west side of Santa Cruz would be really great and next slide we just have a couple final remarks um from the city council meeting on February 25th um Mayor Justin Cummings said he wants to see places for community members to gather and spaces for different types of community events and classes on this plan and we just don't see that right now and so we'd really like the planning commission to ask the owners developers locals to go back to the drawing board and really take our suggestions and comments to heart this time um we'd also ask the developers to consider sale to our group we've got to pitch it there and we've contacted the current listing agent and and he refuses to sell to us and so next slide and that's us the heart of the circle thanks you so much everybody for your time today thank you very much miss Ruiz do any commissioners have questions we don't usually do this with every yeah that's okay there's um since we have two these two presentations i want to give the commissioners a chance to ask questions if they have any okay seeing no no one um i'm going to now open it up to the public um in general i want to ask the clerk how many people have indicated their desire to keep going this item which are the two parties that just gave presentations just give it a moment that'll give everybody an opportunity all the other 20 folks that may want to uh raise their hands right now there's about 10 each chair would be great to have a video to check up as well as people in dialogue okay it's now 845 um i'll wait till 848 but i'd appreciate it if you stop sharing the screen so it's possible to do something else thank you since we want to let people call in if they haven't called in maybe you need to share the screen again i was just wanting to look at something else and i couldn't want to share screen but why don't you do that reminder to the public watching on Comcast channel 25 or through community television to call in now for public comments on 111 errat circle we're doing this pause for individuals who are not already on the line to join us on the phone line okay thank you uh chair chifrin there are 12 members of the public that have raised their hand at this time to uh speak okay assuming that that's going to be the full number of people who were speaking um i ask each person to keep it brief but you'll have up to three minutes to make a presentation as i mentioned before the the clerk will notify you when you have 30 seconds left um so let's get started thank you this is soup howl can you hear me yes go ahead hi um commissioner um chifrin um my name is soup howl and i have lived um i will circle for 36 years so i am a neighbor of um the circle church i've been here for quite a while and uh i've been working with residents of the circle's neighborhood since november of 2018 to ask the city and the owners of the 111 errat circle property to listen to our concerns and to integrate these concerns into the proposed development plans our concerns have great value and importance to the future of our community we are advocating for the integrity of the circle's neighborhood planners and urban designers from all over the world agree with our perspectives and goals an example is discussed in an article titled the five seas of neighborhood planning by howard blackson he discusses the most essential components that create health and vitality in a community he states that vibrant flourishing neighborhoods are complete compact connected complex and convivial he also provides an illustration of a model neighborhood that has a center with a public space these components and the ideal model are exactly what presently exist in the circle's neighborhood with the circle church at our center the circle church has provided a commons an open space at a place for our spiritual and community gatherings for 130 years i submitted petitions with two thousand three hundred forty signatures by email to the planning commission yesterday um we are asking the planning commission to recognize the important public benefit that the circle church has provided for a great length of standard history and to work with the developers to integrate the needs and concerns of the community our preferred option is to preserve the circle church we do not want to lose public access and opportunities for community gatherings at this beautiful and iconic site like no other on the west coast of the united states but if the planning commission must move ahead with approval for subdivision and development then please recommend a project that fits the scale and the affordability of the circle's neighborhood small houses small lots and that provides for community benefit with public space and mixed use opportunities affordability is especially important right now with the worldwide economic downturn as a result of the pandemic at the city council meeting on february 25th mayor justin coming agreed that Santa Cruz needs more space for community gatherings is stated about the arid circle project and i'm quoting i am hoping that as this continues down the path of the developers continue working with the community members continue working with the city council so that we can try to have as much community benefit that comes out of this project as it moves forward so thank you for considering um our input thank you very much is foul yes um is that me yes it sounds like it is go ahead okay um i've been a 29 year resident of Santa Cruz county and i lived in um Santa Cruz for 17 years i've been felt now for 12 years um but you know what i think is really appalling to me is the neighbors that are opposed in this project are not willing to accept this is private property now it was not bought as a community space it is not a community space it's not a park it's private property and the fact that the owners are willing to accommodate the neighbors and open up the space to some classes or some youth it's really generous of them because it impacts on their right to peace and quiet to privacy even having an open place in their backyard which i don't really understand why that is seems like it's being requested or something is really an invasion of their privacy and as far as density goes i consider the ad use even though it's not officially considered density units that's dense enough to put 12 other units behind these houses um affordability as far as that goes you know this is not a big construction company like swenson or granite that can afford to build 100 units of affordability or even the condos and you know it seems like it's union members are accepting these owners to finance their wants and they're trying to build their own homes so to me it's really inconsiderate of these other neighbors a circle save a circle people that they're putting all these demands on this property it's been sold it was not sold the community space it will not be community space it's private homes for locals who can't afford to buy some of these 500 to 1000 of a million dollar homes are on the market um and you know as far as the plan plan one also known as plan a which is what the owners want it's what the neighbors in favor of this project wants and it meets the zoning there shouldn't be any question and trying to put these conditions on it that you know um to make them have these additional density is essentially trying to coerce them into having plan b which i don't think is fair of the city members you know it's not their property they're not building their homes they're not developing this property so you know this manipulation needs to stop okay the property's been sold show some respect for the owners and the plan that they have it is meeting all the criteria please vote for plan a slash plan one design a would you like to give us your name please patricia comb thank you very much felton resident thank you bye give us your name if you would thank you this is ross gibson i'm a resident of the west side one of the residents who was invited to the 2018 outreach meeting but i was disappointed that it was nothing but a take it or leave it meeting the developers have been particularly deaf to calls from the community from planners from historic preservation and the city council hoping to mitigate the loss of something originally designed to be the centerpiece of the circles and everyone's public commons the current building was custom made for this lot with sensitivity to its place in the neighborhood the festival lawn is spacious it is the width of the broad woodrow avenue view shed providing a vista to the central tower over the broad park space that is iconic to the neighborhood's character the real estate ad described the church campus as the heart of west side santa cruz but the developers misunderstood how central it was to the neighborhood's activities co-housing is a shared community and privatizing a neighborhood shared spaces misses the co-housing ethic entirely evicting stakeholders without mitigating the loss of community resources puts the development in opposition to the neighborhood as opposed to partnering with how the neighborhood functions proposed this proposed pizza pie subdivision is just unsuitable to the site and the neighborhood yet this is the exact same plan they designed in 2017 resisting any accommodations requested from the public or city government it has insufficient community benefit the developers need to go back to the drawing board to create a courtyard subdivision that includes a central open space and tower like vista features and includes more elements of the current facility such as gym church and community center thank you for your attention thank you next speaker please hi my name is jenny stone and i'm one of the circle of friends members i was born in santa cruz and i've lived here my whole entire life um i currently reside on the west side in a 600 square foot rental um and i am very excited to move half a mile away over to 111 eric circle we are a really diverse group we are not wealthy some of us live in trailers some of us qualify for low income we definitely aren't developers from out of town we we um we seek a creative solution to a price tag that has driven many long time residents out of town and we have worked very very hard within the existing framework put forth by the county by the city sorry to accomplish that goal it was definitely we were a little naive going into this and it was definitely more than more work than we expected but we have maintained um one one of the things that we were able to do was rent some space within our church in order to offset some of the property tax costs while we're waiting for this to go through approval but i want to express to the planning commission that our tendency is about one fourth we cannot keep it rented and that is even at cut rate prices and currently we have had our tenants leave in droves with the covid situation so there's not really a whole lot happening at the church right now um as far as any kind of use um what can we do um so lee was telling you guys that he did not want to codify or commit us to do abu's because he was worried about our ability to pay for those i would like to express that it would be much more difficult for us to pay for condos than it would for abu's and we have said from the very very beginning over and over that we would be willing to commit to those abu's if there was some way of doing that we all plan on building abu's and even junior abu's this is going to be an extremely diverse um network of houses um of varying sizes and there um so just if anybody wants to do that further that is something that we are extremely open to um so again i just want to drive home that we're not developers we're locals we're some of us are realtor some of us are builders and um but realtors and builders should be allowed to build their houses too um for their families to live in and finally i just want to say um i really look forward to what we believe in is the best use the highest use for this site and that is housing in tana cruz thank you very much commissioners thank you next speaker please um my name is jesson um i'm a resident of uh the circle's neighborhood um so i actually don't have any personal connections to the church and i um i'm probably like i'm probably to be a new neighbor but i'd like to offer some negative comments on the proposal um just during my short stay here i can totally feel the sense of a resentment within the entire neighborhood i feel this is probably going to be a huge battleground for the neighborhood for the years to come um and i i feel the whole thing doesn't really have enough transparency and doesn't the entire process just doesn't attempt to incorporate the community feedback um and i understand this is a private property but what we are talking about here is the dramatic change in the usage of land and the division of one is existing in the 12 blocks and even that this is such a historical site and but essentially can become a historical district designation i um like i would say i really recommend recommend to some um and it is to wait to approve this um and particularly also given the current um causes situation like we're having those virtual meetings um and a lot of community is not really being engaged and i'm not sure how the construction will really work out for the circle circle of rent or even if they go with their preferred plan will the community community be eventually disappointed at the uh result or will the country construction really work out for them this is all very uncertain so i think we should probably pause the decision and try to incorporate more community feedback um into this whole conversation so that's my take thank you thank you very much next speaker please hi this is uh carolyn on plano and i will again uh sound the creates for over 40 years i was on the west side in the circle for 21 years it's where i've raised my daughter and um the center has been a part of our neighborhood is a spiritual center community center a park for over 130 years it's always served people and it's integral to the quality of life to this working class neighborhood and then the original design for the smaller lot was for affordable housing for working class folks this was the first affordable housing but we're so critical to that design and why it works is this large grounds area this open space in the center many of these people don't have yards just telling you she has a 2200 square foot lot and i know she has a three-year-old daughter and it's a daily ritual for her and her daughter and her dog to walk over it seems to be it's really key to the current design and to reduce it is a deficit to public benefit and i don't see any public benefit with this proposal there's absolutely nothing to do with affordable housing um the lot they bought their shares were selling two years uh two years ago for $330,000 they are now selling for $460,000 so there is going up i do go to one of their um summer meetings and i ask the same question the commissioner asked if you think affordable housing what does that mean when you resell it when you resell it at an affordable price and i was told by jimmy stone these will be million dollar homes and i'm also very concerned about the smell of that thing you know there's going to be a lot more dire needs for that money and if it's not been obligated don't count on it i work i've had money be appropriated on federal project here 75 percent complete i think that they need to be held to the 15 percent affordable housing you know and i also like the idea of exploring partnering with um developers that could assist them in affordable housing we don't want to lose the church we do want to preserve it for the neighborhood and but if we do have to lose it we want to make it count we should address affordable housing and this area with working class people is the place where affordable housing is needed most especially with the gentrification that's happened in the last 10 years so i really hope that and the other thing too i'm really concerned about thank you is i'd like to ask that they should prove that they can actually give them funds to build this before they get issued a demolition um permit so then thank you for your time um and please support with best free will communities not just 10 people thank you very much our next speaker please can you hear me yes go ahead um my my name is bria sams i live on wilk circle and my message is fairly simple this is a matter that should not be rushed through the neighborhood will lose a treasure if the church is demolished and developed if the church is demolished and the property goes for development a community that will lose some of the benefit of the past and all of the future of the benefit of the will be gone forever so please take this into account as you make your decisions thank you for your service thank you very much next speaker please good evening chair shifrin and planning commissioners um my name is alexia garcia i work with the monetary bay economic partnerships housing initiative and i would like to express our support for the proposed project our housing initiative was founded in 2015 to support an increase in housing production across all types and income levels in our region excuse me we support increasing density and locations near existing jobs and services in order to minimize urban sprawl and increase sustainability and eric circle is aligned with our housing initiative goals and um for that reason we've endorsed this project in addition to our own support numerous community members have submitted their own letters of support for eric circle through our online action center and overall we think this is a really thoughtful proposal and both um alternative one and alternative two would yield highly needed housing for the santa christ community but we do align with the city uh with city staff's recommendations to approve alternative two in order to maximize density and carry out the general plans land these goals um ultimately with everything going on i think we think more than ever we need to promote the health of our community by supporting housing opportunities like these so we ask that you'll consider joining our diverse coalition of stakeholders and supporting this important project and recommend the approval of the eric circle housing development thank you thank you very much next please thank you and that's me we can hear you go ahead yes uh my name is uh ken white i uh lived in the circles uh neighborhood uh and uh i want to say i have no particular attachment to the existing uh building or any association with uh with you know any of the groups involved in this um but i do live your i do experience this i've looked at this space for a long time uh and i have to say that although i don't have an attachment to the building the location is literally central to the entire design of the neighborhood i do support housing and i support the continued uh use of you know a range of multiple uses which have been there and more that you know could and should be there and i don't see any reason why we can't have both at this location this is you know has historically been a single lot it seems like it is you know an optional thing of the the community to decide whether or not to subdivide it but uh keeping publicly accessible commercial use potentially on the ground level or something along those lines with housing above we seem to meet both goals uh and be far better in support of a real mixed use i'll note that the uh uh but despite living you know in the i never received any outreach by mail by flyer or elsewhere so i came to this late when um to this event as far as it was um and i'll also say that that co-housing is absolutely great i've supported co-housing i've helped create co-housing for over decades but taking away community use is terrible and is contrary to spirit so i strongly request that uh the design be modified to achieve a win-win solution for everyone with housing and with continued mixed public access we use in this location thank you very much it's sorry okay hi um my name is barbara alan yang i'm here with my husband jim alan yang and uh we've been residents of um the circles for 28 years uh we're we're actually in support of this project um just to briefly address what the last speaker said this is an r1 neighborhood you know so uh having businesses on the bottom housing above you're talking about two or three or more story buildings in the heart of a neighborhood that is all for the most part single story um home and um gosh there's a lot of things you know i i just want to address i have friends that live on the upper west side co-housing at no time has the common space there um you can walk through it it's never been closed you can walk through it you could go see friends that live there but it's never been thought of as like a park like um aspect that you could just come with your dogs and let them run free and and have it be a park like aspect you know it's there but that's not what the common space is actually used for and um another uh point that i wanted to make is that there are two parks in our neighborhood two active parks there's garfield park and there's natural bridges those are huge open spaces with well i mean not so much garfield park but uh natural bridges park and garfield park are two parks that are in our neighborhood there's west cliff there's the beaches that are always in walking distance of of the church so it's not as if the church is the only space in our neighborhood i was on the um save the circle website i appreciate their passion for saving the church i however have lived right across the street from the church for 28 years i have been here through good times and bad there was a solid year that i looked at a porta potty that was placed there by a previous pastor trying to do good you know but it was it was definitely the first thing i saw in the morning and the last thing i saw at night was a porta potty and these folks who are trying to build you know co-housing are a thoughtful group of folks um they are trying to build fairly dense housing in our neighborhood um i often think what it would i would like to actually you know have input from folks who live around loud nelson how does it feel to have a community spot that's used quite a bit including myself when my children were small you know day in day out theater groups okay thank you thank you very much next speaker hey uh this is matt wertha uh housing program manager which is the monterey bay economic partnership um you heard earlier from my colleagues that we've officially endorsed this development after thorough evaluation i wanted to hit on at least two or three items that had come up in um commission discussion and earlier on here in the public hearing um one is around feasibility and you know in working directly with uh circle of friends um they absolutely have moved forward in a thoughtful and as cooperatively as they as they can given all the circumstances and challenges that they've outlined we're certainly sensitive to the issue of feasibility and as they go forward if they can demonstrate that um that alternative two is is not feasible then certainly uh that bears consideration by the city um secondly around the 24 homes that we see certainly the the 12 lots um we're very interested in making sure if uh if there's ways that that the city can codify or condition or potentially even ask the developer to voluntarily agree there's some kind of recorded memoranda something uh some mechanism that there's a guarantee for the community that that those additional the units uh ad use will actually be be built i think that that's uh very important to us as well and then finally if there is a way for the developer to pay the in lieu fees um under either circum either alternative pay those alternatives uh pay those in lieu fees early in order to match the funds as was mentioned earlier by the housing staff um that would also generate more affordable housing for the community uh through deeply targeted affordable housing offsite um so i think there's absolutely a way to get uh a lot of additional um win for the the whole community here and we're excited to support the efforts there thank you very much thank you next speaker hello can you hear me yes hi my name is robins john and i've been a resident of santa craze county since 1972 i raised my children in this community and have worked as a public health nurse for the county of santa craze since 1989 i am here to support the co-housing project at 111 eric circle my daughter is one of the members and i have had the good fortune over the past two plus years of getting to know the partners and to witness the group working diligently cooperatively with grassroots integrity to try and bring this project to fruition these are local people who want to create affordable homes for their families in a community setting the circle of friends plan is consistent with the city zoning plan and requires no variances the plan will provide 12 single family homes with 12 agus which will provide much needed housing i know that my daughter is very concerned about how i will manage as i age and her vision is to provide her ag for me these are the kind of people that are part of the circle group the circle home fits in with the existing neighborhood single family homes with agus we've spoken to resident neighbors who have expressed great concern about higher density housing the neighbors do not want condos in the neighborhood that there would be additional traffic and it would be an eyesore additionally the circle members are not developers they are local people who have local jobs they are already financially strapped after two plus years of jumping through hoops and now contending with the financial devastation of the covet 19 pandemic additional requirements such as higher density housing and additional hoops to jump through would create much would create more hardship and strain for these families please do the right thing by allowing the circle plan to move forward once and for all thank you for your time and consideration thank you very much does this look like no how many more speakers we have i've lost count we have one okay Heather my name is uh rosses on himself uh we've been uh standing crew since 1989 oh i uh grew up on the west side uh went to bayview elementary school and i've spent a lot of time in the circles um so i definitely appreciate everything that the circles have been i also know how important it is for going to prove to have more affordable housing and i have to say i was actually disappointed that the adult this project uh and this plan didn't have as much density as it could have had um if if uh we developed this project with the maximum number of affordable units and the maximum number of abu we could have something like 44 project uh units on the site and uh either of these uh uh plan a or plan b gets quite close to 44 units um the situation where we are now with uh choosing a lower density or a higher density and i think we need to move forward with plan b there are opportunities for uh for the for the multi-family housing on the on that in that plan to be developed uh if uh if the circle of friends can't come up with the capital i'm sure there are other private developers who would be willing to uh to buy that section of the property and maybe even redevelop it into a higher density uh space or they could squeeze in another company units or something like that uh i i work with a community land trust and if we were able to arrange the uh funding to acquire the land we would be interested probably in in stewarding the land uh perhaps the city itself would be interested in buying the land for the multi-family housing in order to make it work um i also agree with not where so i think it's important for uh the uh the 10 or 12 uh single family uh lots to have codified uh ad requirements so i think we should go with plan b and we should uh codify the ad requirements for the other lots thank you very much thank you friend yes um since identifying that that was the remaining speaker for other folks have raised their hands um so you may want to let anyone on the line know they need to press star nine now if they want to join in it looks like we probably have about 10 other people that have not indicated that they want to speak aside from the four that just raised their hand okay um it's now now we have seven it's almost 9 30 um i'm going to limit the testimony of the next speakers to two minutes each um and we have how many seven more people one nine now there's seven more that have indicated that they want to speak and it looks like there are um five that have made no indication so okay so those seven will have two minutes and then if any of the five want to speak they'll have one minute okay so so let's start with uh first the first next speaker hello hi go ahead you're on hi my name is mark thomas i'm one of the circle of friends and i was identified earlier as the realtor who helped purchase the property and is now selling shares in the property so i want to clarify a couple of things um number one um there's a question about uh from the um nimbis of um the status of the developers are not um they're suggesting that i'm a developer i have developed one project it was a church we refurbished it it's over next to the buttery on the uh seabright area of Santa Cruz and that's it i'm not a regular developer i'm a school teacher and been a school teacher for 30 years i became a realtor when i figured that i better be able to make some more money but be able to send my kids to college um Brett Packer is not a developer he's a contractor and he does fine modeling and then alex hacock in is a furniture store owner he owns two homes one in southern california and one in big sir and so he's not a developer there is um concern about how many people use the church and what a community asset it was the average number of people using the church for hours four um there's a lot of time where the church is not used at all particularly during the the day and the night um in general the circle church had a lot of problems over the previous 30 years and pastor very will bank said it best when he asked the neighbors where were you the past 30 years what what the church was slowly dying it was dying from lack of support you weren't there to save it so the church failed but our church failed twice the church failed twice and that's why they sold it because they didn't have no parishioners so we bought it with the intention of building homes and the 12 um pizza slice was actually identified in the uh prospectus for the sale of property by their land use consultant that was the church itself thank you very much thank you next speaker please hello go ahead hi my name is hillary martisius and i live on rock circle many many years almost 30 now and i just want to say that i don't think this is an issue of affordable housing at all because i don't think anything that's going to be built there is going to be affordable in even two years it's all going to be a million dollar investment and that's what i think of affordable housing i don't think that's what this is what i'd like to talk about is something a lot deeper than development i want to talk about the purpose of that circular piece of property go back 135 years and you'll find out why it's in a circle it is because people of a spiritual nature not very popular among anybody who's been talking here but there is a christian christian jesus christ yes what's the raising we hear and it and if we can afford housing is the court giving people 30 second warnings i did give her a 30 second warning uh chair i did i didn't probably hear it okay please do okay next speaker please hi my name is steve clay bush can you hear me yes go ahead go ahead i've lived on the circles for 30 years i'm a property owner on the circles for 30 years and i kind of take offense to the the comment that it's lifeless in the past 20 or 30 years i don't think any of the people that are involved in this have lived on the circles for any length of time so they don't really know what has happened or is happening on the circles and um if you go to their website the circle of friend friends website um for the people are listed as developers whether they want to admit to that or not they put it right out there in front of the public that they are developers three of those own over half the shares and so if this is a shared community um they're not sharing very much so to me that looks like a development project a land speculation project and if you do the simple math um the original sales price was 3.3 million divide that by 12 that's 275 thousand dollars per lot they are now selling the locks for 450 thousand dollars so they are not part of the solution to affordable housing they are the problem thanks very much thank you next speaker please my name is white bandak i'm also one of the members of the community uh and i'll just be quick to this uh regarding developers um the bottom line is nobody here is is building anything to sell it for a profit um including alex who who uh who is wealthy and the reading the own three lots is that he could afford to and we wouldn't have been able to do this without it his plan is to build three homes for his kids um i own two shares and one of mine was going to be for my niece or my brother um so i'm it's sad that we are being three of three of our members have never owned homes and it seems like the entire group that is that is levering these assaults on us are all homeowners in the neighborhood secondly um i just wish that that uh the use of the property argument which i respect for their passion but the general plan uh was something that was undertaking for a couple years and there was community input as all cities have and so i understand the frustration but directing it towards us is just not fair um lastly um as far as the cost um we um i'm selling my second share because i can't afford to help my brother or my niece get it one of our members is getting a partner in a share we're we're at our financial width and as far as the sales price as far as the sales price we're carrying cost that's how much we have in the project thank you very much thank you very much uh next speaker please hello hi are you there go ahead we can hear you uh hi my name is Barbara Benish i also live in the neighborhood uh i raised my two teenagers here as well as my taking care of my elderly mom so i understand the lady who was talking about the co-housing issues and being together as a family i totally get it and we all who are in the neighborhood feel i think um empathy for the people who want to live here and this isn't about an us and them thing and it's unfortunate it's kind of deteriorated to that our issue for those of us who live here is about maintaining the community space that has been here for 130 years it is a public space it is a common it has been open to the neighborhood which is diverse and has been basically an african-american neighborhood which is very unique at Santa Cruz for a very long time and we we want to maintain that the proposition that the developers and yes they are developing that land is not a community space it's not even affordable housing if it's for 12 people so let's try and keep it realistic about what that is the the proposition to have a very small open space for the community will never happen because there's such antagonism with these people who are thank you who've bullied us that nobody will ever go into that space that lives in this community now i promise you anyway thank you for your time and for making this happen during this um extremely uh technological um challenge tonight thank you all well thank you very much uh next speaker please hello my name is john sears i've uh lived in the circle's neighborhood for 44 years and um um i'm i feel like um the the main thrust of this uh development project has not been addressed i if i were to look at this application i would look at it as two separate parts both eight plan a and plan b start with a demolition and the demolition is the thing i oppose because of the relationship of the church property to the neighborhood if the neighborhood was designed in 1890 1888 1890 uh to facilitate congregation of people in the middle of the circle and has been has worked fantastically ever since through all kinds of economic cycles and and even when the original building there the tabernacle burned down after a few years the city of tana crew recognized that by leasing it as a public park and they wanted to buy it and then the um uh the the church decided they wanted to build this church which is an incredible example of fitting into a public into a into a neighborhood in terms of if you stand in the middle of those circles and you look out at this at the ocean you see land you feel enveloped in the arms of it of a sacred space you you um this is a would be a terrible thing to be lost and i don't see how this has ever been addressed in this process that we are doing tonight under extreme conditions so thank you for your consideration thank you very much the line is clear there are no other members that have indicated they wish to speak okay then what i'm going to do is close the public hearing um does the applicant public hearing rules have an opportunity to respond um i never can remember that seeing some head shaking staff waterway in here does no uh mr butler is that the normal rules i didn't see it written down here but i sort of remember that the applicant uh normally in a public hearing has an opportunity to take um maybe up to five minutes to respond to the public comments is that the case i practice that is often the case and it's uh the chair's discretion in terms of the amount of time that is given to them up front as well as for the rebuttal and and so um oftentimes they are provided that opportunity and sometimes they're requested to not bring up new issues but only respond to those issues which have been raised so i will do um we've heard since this has been there's been so much testimony on both on all sides of the issue um i would ask the applicant if they'd like to have five minutes to respond to rebut any testimony that has been uh presented you don't have to do it don't feel compelled mr packer are you on the line oh sorry can you hear me yes yeah we're happy to answer any questions but um we don't we don't need to respond to anything at this point okay thank you very much so i'll bring the matter back to the commission uh why don't we take commissioners comments first um anybody want to raise their hand to go first well um i'll start with you commissioners spellman since you're on my the top of the top of the screen here do you have any comments you want to make yeah i do i i want to start by um clanking everyone for putting together the presentations tonight i want to thank the public for for their patience in having their voices heard um aside from listening to people that were actually able to call in there was quite a bit of documentation received by the commission uh for folks commenting on this project i just want to let you know that those were all received and and looked at by all the commissioners i mean obviously this is a very important you know parcel piece of property it's very unique to our city uh and because of that there's a lot of heartache in this community towards change and something different happening there i mean we've heard a lot of discussion on both sides of folks that support this project and folks that uh support having that space continue as a community use um i've i've struggled with you know my thoughts about this seeing the two proposals that were brought uh in front of us thinking of other options that you know i would propose if i were looking at this property um but there are many things tied up in this not the least of which is um we're in a housing crisis we we need to be extremely sensitive to housing projects that do come along um and this one has the added scrutiny of being in a very public and open space so i you know i'm in support of the project i actually hope that there was a proposal for doing more lots on this parcel that would potentially be more in line with the existing zoning parcel sizes let's call it in the in the immediate vicinity of this project it's one thing that was missing from the the documents that were submitted there really was no delineation of the actual properties even on this a long arid circle on the other side of the street that front onto this parcel if those would have been shown in relationship to the r15 standards that um you know are the underlying zoning in the area you would see that those are very different sized parcels right they're much smaller parcels um that being said i do think we have an obligation to abide by the rules and have clear standard for applicants that are putting projects forward this project has been around for a while i think it has gone through the hearing process i'm i'm actually was happy that the historic preservation commission had the chance to review and then the city council had the chance to review their review essentially um so i'm i'm confident that doing a housing project here is the right thing and i will listen to other comments at this time thank you commercially in the hillside um yeah um i would um i i i agree with a lot of um with um with commissioner helman um i i also um agree that about the um that i think that i think you know the residential doing a residential project here and and is is the right thing um providing housing is the right thing i i think i mean i wasn't i hadn't really thought about the smaller lots you know until you brought that up and and also through hearing some of that testimony tonight that's an interesting idea i mean i don't know how um how that would exactly play out within r15 but i'm sure there could be a way to do that um the um i guess you know you know for me the i'm having i'm having some difficulty with i i think application number two and for me um i think it comes down to that the the applicants have provided a um a design and and provided a proposal that fits within the um that fits within the general in general plan and within them um within the zoning ordinance and and so i have i'm i'm i'm a little um well i'm just i'm just not in favor of the the city necessarily pushing on them to make this a much denser project uh you know i from my perspective i mean i'm typically i'm when i'm sitting in the planning commission i'm usually pushing for denser projects and and you know more dense housing and in this case um i think with a um with an applicant that um that is not desiring to go that route i don't i don't i'm not convinced that we should be pushing them in that route and down that path um i think there's you know we've received some um correspondence from um an experience developer that stated that doing the multi-family um project on its own would be um could be very challenging and may not even be viable um but you know if because there was there was comments about the possibility of you know selling that you know those two parcels to a developer to actually develop that multi-family um and um and that correspondence received was stating um that that that may not be a viable option i mean especially with the um the uh the requirement of the um of the low-income housing and the inclusionary housing within that uh and you take into account the um kind of where we're at with um with kind of our current situation with COVID and um we just you know who knows how exactly what's on the horizon for that um um so with that being said um i'm uh i'm leaning towards um i don't know exactly what the mechanism mechanism is in terms of how we go about or you know if there was an agreement to go with application one because the recommendation is set up as um as approving alternative b but anyway we could discuss that um depending on kind of where everybody stands but um that that's that's um those are my comments at the moment i i do have some other things some other kind of uh housekeeping things i'd like to talk about you know when that time comes in terms of conditions and things like that so i'll i'll wait until that moment okay thank you uh commissioner maxwell do you have anything to add at this time uh thank you um i this is pretty much my first main uh big taking a big bite here um as far as the meeting a meeting goes with something that's really controversial i live on the west side so i drive by the circle church all the time um you know i'm glad that the historic you know all the processes went for through the historical commission it's had their say city council had their say i feel like at that point we really can't go back and change what that those decisions were um that being said out of both of the projects that i see being you know viable as someone who lives on the west side but alternative one seems like to me the best option i don't really see a big condominium complex sitting in very well there um and i definitely want to acknowledge like how much time the uh these people spent trying to get this project going my main concern the only thing that's really i would like to to bring up is the affordable units the inclusionary rate and making sure that there's something where we can hold you know the accountability of like we need affordable housing this is an opportunity i know i don't know the mathematics around what's feasible what's not feasible i've read a lot of it but um i definitely want to highlight that as an importance on my part thank you thank you mr greenberg um yeah i i first want to echo um thanks to everyone for participating in this very unusual circumstance and for sharing i know this is um it's of all of the kind of the things that have come before the commission i feel like this one is kind of connected to a lot of very um deep feeling um that should be recognized for for folks who live in the community there and who want to develop this space as well um and you know also given the physical uh and geographic and symbolic nature of this particular site um and so it's one that we have to think about with um an enormous amount of care and um so in that sense i really appreciate you know all the thoughtfulness of the of the comments that have been made and presentations and so forth um and i guess i would say that um you know thinking about the the general plan and thinking about what happened in sites like this that have served a larger purpose certainly you know over a century um while also trying to weigh that with private property rights and so forth of people who are wanting to develop it um how do we you know we are on this commission and a position at this point of trying to balance these competing demands in a sense these competing needs for the community um it would be different if this was in a different site so that the idea that this is at the literal center of the literal heart of this community um you know in terms of the viewshed as well as um geography and the symbolic nature of it so how we balance these things is something that i think a lot of us are um are struggling with alongside of course the challenge with the general plan um of trying to maximize affordable housing um and the crisis that we're facing in that regard and so as you know and i would say just to add on with some of the comments that it's true also that on the west side this neighborhood has you know part of its historic nature has been as a working class uh and more socially diverse neighborhood than than most of the rest of Santa Cruz and so part of our kind of challenge as commissioners also is how do you maintain um and and sort of prioritize that form of social diversity and sustainability also given the proximity of the site to public transit and so forth so in that sense i see the density that's being um requested on the part of the planning department as in really um in line with the the general plan as well as the history of this community and many of the comments that were made um and that that is associated with the size of the lots surrounding um the smaller houses unlike on the upper west side and many other parts of the west side the fact that you know a lot of folks could move there um and much more affordably and the idea that back to continue to be the case of the sustainability of that affordability which potentially could be lost if the lot size you know and the housing that goes there which is not in any way um going to be restricted you know could become a kind of speculative development on with very large lots so i would support um the proposal of the planning department to you know really try to ensure as much affordability as and as much density as possible in that on that site i would also hope that there could be some kind of further discussion about how the feasibility of the parcel that could be used for um for condominiums and how partnerships could be developed to you know if in fact the circle of friends is not in a position um especially given the current pandemic and so forth and that the time that this is taking to take that on how could partnerships be created that could enable that um seems to me something that the city could really get involved in and others could get involved in if this is indeed like a priority for us um so that's one thing and then the final thing i guess i would say is the question of the commons in the central space and i would hope uh you know that that could be an ongoing discussion as well it's an incredible opportunity and i understand you know it's uh it's something that would have to be balanced between uh what the circle of friends is interested in and what the community needs are understood to be but given the really special nature of this site that more thought could go into what that commons really represents and that there could be more kind of collective and collective discussion that could take place um around how that's being thought through and what's what the elements of that common space are going to be and how it's designed um so i think i will i'll leave it there for now and i look forward to discussion thank you okay commissioner conway um we're not able to hear you um oh sorry i don't quite have the whole mute on mute thing down um thank you um very much for recognizing me and um i and i i know other people have said it but i i need to repeat it i really thank the community for their continued engagement and their passion for this obviously very important um property and it really is the heart of the circle and uh it matters to all of us and i also want to thank the um the circle of friends for taking on a really thoughtful project it i was really fascinated to hear your evolution as you went through um that you've gone through um and especially before being willing to um step up and work with the city um to imagine um you know the alternative number two to uh help help us to meet our really dire need for additional housing and i want to thank city staff um be for your hard work to make sure that um we this is an important development opportunity and we need to make sure that all of our development opportunities are used to the best extent possible to meet our housing needs because we just don't have very many of them so um i'll stop with that and move on to affordable housing because i have to say that um i was very disappointed initially um that uh dianlu fee was being used and invoked on the site um to meet the affordable housing requirements um i think that that in lieu the option it's important to have it there but i also think that it should be used in very limited circumstances um in my view reason why uh an in lieu option is maintained is to be used in the circumstances where um the community benefit truly is furthered by invoking it um and i'll tell you i think that in that that test is met um in this case i became convinced because um as i as i watched how the task of creating this housing was being taken on um and i know there was a lot of debate about whether this group of people are they experienced developers are they not you know how experienced are they how hard is development um there's a lot of discussion about that but in fact this the arduous task of identifying a site purchasing it um carrying it throughout the period um where the development is being envisioned and to bring up uh something forward is really difficult and once a map is approved um then the work begins begins really by individuals and as i started to think about well what if we did have are um two lots of that would be measure a lot um i can't imagine um there's going to be very many of those households who are going to have the wherewithal um whether it be you know the um borrowing capacity um the building capacity all of the different roles that are taken on when someone is building a single family house um so i um i think that that it would be a fairly difficult thing to do and i ended up feeling or at least being open to the idea of invoking and being loosey and i want to talk to you about that um a little bit more because i pressed for some more information on actually suitable imminent projects that the city has to face the first thing i want to um talk about the alternative to the multifamily portion of the parcel um and again i do appreciate city staff trying to maximize the use of um the land in order to do that and i actually thought it was very well designed and attractive i think it would fit in i don't think it's a monolithic condo structure um i know that you know things could always be done but i thought it was very thoughtfully done and undertaken and what i really liked about it is it provided the opportunity to create what we talk about so often a diversity of housing types we need this but again um i agree with the assessment that um there was a letter from a local developer made um that building a uh a condominium project like this with ad use is a fundamentally different undertaking even than building a single family house which is not easy the borrowing for it is completely different ensuring it taking it on as a builder it's a very different kind of a deal and the other thing is that this project i don't believe this project would pencil even if it didn't have the number of affordable units that are being proposed there i just don't think it would with our who knows what's going to happen be true on the other side of this but our construction costs are very very high and uh because of that i really think that even if the land were free which you know the owners have told us they can't possibly do i still think it would be really difficult to to build that property and um and make it pencil at all um so then i want to go back to the and luffy i actually called um jessica do with actually for a couple reasons partly i wanted to talk about about our committee which we'll talk about later but um i wanted to know um how there's there's a lot of multi-family properties um on the horizon right now and the one that we've talked a little bit in the commission is the um uh the pacific station i think that's what we're calling it now um that is the one that by the metro station that is 85 units of deeply affordable housing and i think i'm convinced that at this moment in time building up the and luffy building up the capacity to make investment in really deeply targeted units is the best thing uh that we could do um at this time and so for that reason um for the long winded way to say i have really become convinced that um the project that we had before us um in option number one uh creates housing i i thought that they were awfully big for the neighborhood too but they're smaller than they are in many many neighborhoods um five thousand square foot lots thoughtfully designed um building community um and i think that they should all have ad use i'm really glad there's an intention to be i'd be open for a reasonable way um to uh enhance that expectation um but that is the uh project that i'll be supporting thank you uh commission johnson yes thank you um i'll i'll keep my thank you's brief but i did would like to just as the other commissioners just echo my thanks uh for everyone's participation and thoughtfulness around this project staff um the circle of friends and certainly hearing from the community members has been really important um i do want to go circle back to this idea of inclusionary housing and um the ability of this project to provide two um two affordable units uh based on the calculation i think it's um incredibly important to move forward quickly with this pacific station and some of the other projects mentioned are out on the horizon but that horizon could be quite extended and there are a lot of um things that have to happen and be approved to aggregate those funds and get those projects moving so i i really feel like um i am not in support of in in lieu fees for this project and um i think one of the reasons that i'm not in support of in lieu fees for this project um is that i don't feel that this project meets our definition in our inclusionary ordinance of a co-housing development um i think it's mostly co-housing in beam only um things like the community the community shared space um there's there's nothing in the maps or the documentation that we have in front of us that really clearly did alleviate this as a co-housing there are many definitions of co-housing i understand that but some of the core tenants of co-housing aren't really clear in the documentation that we have and so i think we lost you are you with us are you on your phone can you hear can you hear me uh commission Dawson everyone for your patience i'm back sorry everybody not sure what happened there um but the short of it is i'm not in support of in lieu fees for this project because i do not believe that this project meets our uh inclusionary uh definition in our in our ordinance and i would really support moving forward with an amendment to the conditions um requiring the applicant to meet them some key points um related to our co-housing uh definition um that would include the common building being structured um prior to or concurrent with the first dwelling unit um some documentation and our cc and rs that could include some things related to sharing sharing of space um how how community decisions are going to be made um i have specifics on those but uh again i think it's just incredibly important for us as a community to think about having affordable units um throughout our community and this is a this is a very desirable location um it's it's convenient to a lot of uh different types of employment um further over on the west side in the commercial space and downtown so having two affordable units i think it would be uh really important in this space you've heard from several community members um and and some of the other commissioners about how this has been traditionally a working class area um it's there are a lot of creative ways um people can finance different things um and so i think just precluding it because it might be challenging i don't think is the right approach and i'll leave it there for comments from other commissioners and when we get to it um i do have specific language around um amending uh the condition and generally um before i uh turn it back over um as i said my early comments i think it's incredibly important for us as a commission to be um transparent and predictable and how we um evaluate uh development proposals um the applicant has come forward with a proposal that meets all the required elements with um the housing accountability app uh we are um mandated to approve those types of proposals so i feel like our hands are tied with this this overriding state law and so i am supportive alternative one with um the amended conditions related to the in lieu fee that would only be used if they met a higher standard of proof for it being a co-housing development and i'll leave it there for now thank you very much i do have a number of comments sure not isn't going to surprise anyone um when i first started uh thinking about the fact that this was going to actually be in front of us tonight um i thought there'd be a lot i'd have a much more difficult time figuring out what to do um but then when i finally read the material i had followed the discussions at the historical preservation commission and the council about the historical designation and it seemed clear to me that that really wasn't an issue that we could change um i think it may be and i think there are lots of good arguments for why um this is a culturally significant site why it might be a starkly important site but that's a decision that the council made and only the council can change it as far as i'm concerned i don't think it's our role to second guess the council on uh on on this matter so while i have a good deal of sympathy with the um the the desire to um designate this as a starkly important uh site and building i don't think that i wouldn't support us trying to make that as a recommendation because i think the council already acted on it and they're the final uh decision makers on that i do feel the other thing that i thought would be more difficult was um when i saw the two alternatives that the staff had come up with it was sort of like well what should go there should it be alternative one should it be alternative two should it be uh smaller lots more lots more there you know there are lots of ways of looking at this site should it be some kind of a community facility but it really comes down to what is our legal role in making these decisions as far as i'm concerned traditionally the role has been if a if a project doesn't need a change in the general plan or a change in the zoning ordinance in order to happen where we have a lot more discretion what we really need to do is look at whether it's consistent with the general plan and whether it's consistent with the zoning ordinance it's consistent with the general plan consistent with the zoning ordinance then we really need to approve it now historically some of the issues that were involved with that was were around it's addable to the neighborhood traditionally that would be a way of trying to look at some alternative approaches to this site but the state legislature and governor have really changed the playing field we are required to follow the law we're required to follow the law in terms of general plan the zoning ordinance and we're also required to follow state law whether i like it or not and the housing accountability act is extremely clear and i disagree with the interpretation that the playing director has provided that somehow where the where the act every report says and i think it's pretty clear that it does the city council planning commission must vote to approve the application the application is for 11 units it's not the application isn't the project which is staff defining it as 16 units um that's not the application the application is for 11 units the state law says we must vote to approve it i don't like that restriction i don't like that the the discretion of the city has been reduced that greatly but i think that that's the way it is i mean that's i don't see we have that we have any discretion if we acted in a way that was contrary to the law we're essentially exposing the city to liability the letter from the attorney for the circle of friends makes that abundantly clear he quotes the act he quotes that position and i think it would be very difficult to say somehow changing the project is by changing the project project we could still be approving the application it's not the application it's simple meaning of the words are very clear so i think we're um in terms of the six the the 12 units subdivision i think that it's pretty clear that we need to recommend approval of that unless there's some general plan or zoning standard that somebody can argue and nobody in the testimony has argued uh it's being violated or that there's some significant adverse impact of public health and safety no one has made provided testimony to that effect so i think it's pretty clear what um what our jurisdiction is when it comes to that along those lines i want to say that i have real concerns that the planning develop the pd process is being used essentially in my view and i know no one will like my or many will not like my words as a to make a mockery out of our general plan and zoning ordinance if we want to start having multi-family housing in single family neighborhoods we should amend the general plan the zoning ordinance to do that we should not be gerrymandering that in through the pd which as proposed by step not only imposes multi-family housing in a single family neighborhood contrary to to the zoning ordinance but it also creates substandard lots it seems incredible to me that we'd be using the when we have so there's so many difficulties with substandard lots and development on substandard lots and yet we're uh the staff is recommending that we do that i think this need or this this um attachment to the planning the general plan policy that we should allow or encourage maximum family multi-family density high density housing is leading up the city in a direction of it doesn't matter what anybody wants to do anywhere we want to have the highest density possible and i think that's a mistake i think it's particularly a mistake since the council very recently adopted a policy that neighborhood protection was important then has to be balanced this is a perfect perfect situation where the imposition of multi-family housing in this neighborhood is contrary to the notion of neighborhood preservation so in the end clearly i support the applicants application i do want to also agree with commissioner dorsen about the inclusionary housing i think it's really important that we um that we get inclusionary units i understand and i think i don't i don't fault staff for wanting to have fees um but there are certain things i'd point out i think the beginning of commissioner conway's presentation was really clear the ordinance um the inclusionary ordinance really anticipates that um the the in the fees will only be used in in an infrequent and when they use they should be clearly creating more units than they would have otherwise had to had to create at least one or 30 percent more that's what the ordinance said the ordinance requires the city to make a finding before allowing in in lieu fees i don't think that finding can be made because there is no project if there was a project before the city that was application had been submitted if there was evidence that that application that project needed the in lieu fees in order for it to happen for it to be feasible those would be much stronger arguments on the other hand the the inclusionary ordinance is clear that for co-housing projects um the the applicant gets to make the choice it's not the city's choice if it's a co-housing project then doesn't matter whether the city council whether we recommend the two units of the city council recommends the two units it's the applicant's choice that's what the uh uh inclusionary ordinance says for co-housing projects but i think the point that commissioner dorsen made is a very good one from reading over the material from reading over the cc and rs from reading over the conditions this really looks like a subdivision i understand that the intention of the applicants is for the vehicle housing project as traditional co-housing projects are i'm not unsympathetic to that but i've had enough experience knowing that um the best intentions before the decision-making body at stage one don't get implemented necessarily in stage two so i think um it really would make sense to me to have the conditions be much clearer about what what what what the project would have to be alike to assure that it's in fact a co-housing project and as i understand it at this point there's no requirement when the common building be built um and it could never be built it's there it's supposed to be built but there's no requirement that it be built before or concurrently with the uh market rate units or the the subdivision units there's no requirement that there be uh there certainly not there may be the governing documents were not um in the um in the packet so there may well be requirements in the government documents or provisions in the government documents that would talk about the the the need for the or the availability of shared meals or shared facilities in a common room um the common building i think that i think there could very well be evidence that this is truly a co-housing project i just don't think the evidence is there yet and because the evidence is not there i think it makes sense to say well if this is going to be really um cracking like a subdivision it should be treated like a subdivision not like a co-housing project and the city should require that the two units of affordable housing be be be included at to meet the requirement so my think my my my preference is to approve the the application that is before us because we really don't have any choice we have to approve recommend approval um and but that we uh change the conditions uh revise the condition number 35 which is the inclusionary housing condition to really say one if there's going to be if you if this is the co-housing project this is the evidence that needs to be provided to document that if it's not a co-housing project then i think um the the inclusionary requirement should be meant by providing two affordable units so um all of the commissioners have had a chance to speak does somebody want to uh make a motion you know i i wanted to make a statement okay all right just wanted to talk about if i necessarily have to go right into a motion uh any way in if they would like to go ahead commissioner carway yeah um thank you uh i think i'm off mute getting used to this technology um i um appreciate the uh thoughts on uh this this project functioning as co-housing i to me i'm very convinced mostly because it is not being undertaken as a typical subdivision um with this you know circle of people who've undertaken it but i'm i'm not necessarily against further definition around that i am concerned about um the additional financial burden um and that or rather um i want them to build out everything um that makes it co-housing that makes it the community property they've talked about but we this is a really sensitive time financially and i'm aware of that but as to the in-loop fees i do think that it would be and i don't i wouldn't say want to require it but uh having them pay their in-loop fees early in order to help the city um qualify to use their sb2 money which is called the permanent local housing allocation um to commit it to the um the housing trust fund would be really important and really meaningful at this time so i'm not meaning to be contradictory i both i i am sensitive to the uh financial nightmare they're going to be everyone's everyone's going to be dealing with coming out of this but at the same time i really want to emphasize how important and how meaningful it would be to um be able to leverage 85 deeply affordable rental units downtown right where that what right where we need them so um i i just want to make that point and i i'm not not willing to bake that into emotion um but that said i am ready to make a motion in support of alternative a are you making that emotion yeah second to the motion i'll second that motion okay uh so the motion is to i assume your motion is through the staff recommendation um but for uh alternative number one is that correct that's right that's correct discussion on the motion and that would be with the okay commissioner dawson um i'm not sure the parliamentary procedure can i offer an amendment now or are we pass that point no we're not past the point emotions on the floor it's legitimate for your ipad perhaps maybe separate it okay chair we're going to keep you unmuted and you can continue okay um appropriate to make a uh a motion to amend the motion on the floor um and it could be taken as a friendly amendment or um if it's not taken by the by the maker of the motion and the person who's seconded it's a friendly amendment you can make it as a motion to amend it if somebody seconds it it can be voted on so do you want to make to amend yeah okay go ahead what motion yes i'd like to make a motion to amend um again around getting further documentation uh in support of this being a co-housing project um so it would be uh condition 35 and i would move to strike um towards the end it says an in lieu fee i would motion to strike everything after that and then i would insert after an in lieu fee i would insert will be used only if the applicant can provide sufficient evidence documenting that the development meets the zoning ordinance definition of a co-housing project um and and um tess and sarah i also have emailed this to you if that may help um okay receive the email so do i need to continue reading this i probably need to read it anyway for the public correct okay if there's more to your motion you need to read it out loud okay so that was the first part so we're going to have an an in lieu fee will be used only if the applicant per can provide sufficient evidence documenting that the development meets the zoning ordinance definition of a co-housing project evidence documenting that the development meets the definition for a co-housing project shall include the common building shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the first dwelling unit and shall include extensive common facilities for communal uses uh where community members can interact and share facilities may include a dining area a sitting area a children's playroom and and or a guest room um number two the governing document and or cc and r shall include but not limited to the following provisions uh frequently scheduled congregate congregations um related to managing the property a non hierarchical structure for decision making where decisions are made through consensus and then moving on if the development does not meet the definition of the co-housing project based on substantial evidence the following inclusionary requirement shall apply as a minimum two affordable units shall be provided prior to or concurrent with the market rate units the first affordable unit shall be sold prior to the concurrent with the sale of the first market rate unit the second affordable unit shall be sold prior to or concurrent with the sale of the sixth market rate unit so that's a lot but again it's it's just requiring documentation documentation on the co-housing go ahead um first the question is does the maker of the motion accept this as a friendly amendment we're not hearing you you want to say something yes thank you chair shifrin um one of the things that i would um say in response to that um very last part i want to clarify that the the development application for um or it shouldn't it's really the math application that is uh before the commission for alternative one um just does the subdivision and so that uh the uh specifics of that condition spoke to um actually um providing the units when um with the math being the application before us it would be tied to actually dedication of the parcels so those two parcels would be sold at an affordable price um to um you know a non-profit developer for example or to someone who is income qualified who could go through and actually get the the financing for uh building a house on the lot that they acquire at a below market rate um so there's there's a little bit that you it would be a matter of substituting the word parcel for the word unit yes it would be applicable to the maker of the amendment motion yes that's correct so we could substitute that word parcel for the word unit and i i think it would be helpful to get um sarah i'm not sure if you've got that and if you're able to share your screen i think it might be helpful for um everyone to actually see that written out um because i hand but um we're sort of in a it's a strange situation because essentially we have a proposed amendment to the motion with a question to the maker of the main motion whether she wants to accept it or not before we know whether we have an an amended motion that we can really talk about so okay and i think i'm back on okay um yep and of course i um i missed everything that was said since i was dropped off um but i did hear um commissioner dawson's um proposal for amendment and um as to the um you know the clarification about the co-housing structure um and you know in the cc and r's looking for the for the those definitions i will definitely accept those as friendly amendments i am concerned that the first one requiring reconstruction um you know concurrently and right away um could endanger the project feasibility so i am concerned about that one and i wouldn't be accepting that as a friendly amendment and everything else i'm i'm good and in support of so um commissioner dawson are you prepared to change your amended motion to only include those portions of it that has to do with the cc and r's and uh governing documents or do you want to stick with your full motion i'm going to stick with my motion um i understand commissioner conway's concerns but i really do feel um and there are many definitions of co-housing but one that has been universal in all of my research has been having a shared space from the beginning of of the habitation of that location and so i think so we get into it um let's see if there if somebody will second your motion is anybody willing to second the motion uh to amend the motion on the floor can i ask a question about it first yes i just want to clarify so the applicant at this point those uh your amendment would not come into play unless they chose to go for the in-loofy option if they chose to not do the in-loofy they wouldn't have to abide by the the co-housing setup or definitions or meet the intent okay yeah i just i'm not sure if the applicant is ready for that i mean i think they have a spirit of co-housing with with what i've understood about their project i don't know that the the definition of you know the zoning ordinance is is what is at play here um so does that mean you're unwilling to uh second the motion commissioner spellman or will you second the motion yeah i i too have concerns about conditioning the building of the common space structure i am in support of the spirit of greater scrutiny on making a co-housing proposal i'm in support of that i'm just not in support of the the phasing and making sure it's built first well is it will another commissioner second the motion i will second that motion okay so that the motion to amend is on the floor let's have discussion more this motion let me just say one of the problems here is and because it is such a difficult time and the financial the financial realities are so um volatile it's unclear to me uh what will happen with this project um i know what the um what the circle of friends want to do and it's very laudable in my view um it's a i think it would be you know given that uh that there's not a way to have a community facility there the having a co-housing project makes sense but i've just had a couple enough bad experiences that once a project has its discretionary approval the value of the property goes up so horrendously that you never can figure out what's going to happen hopefully they will be able to develop it as they intend but my sense is at least in terms of the inclusionary housing um if that turns out not to be feasible for some reason or other and ultimately all that is a single-family uh subdivision with a common room or community room um then i think it's you know from my my preference would be to be assured that we would get those uh additional affordable units so i'm willing to support this to be a motion any other commissioner comments can everybody read the motion well that's one good thing about this technology at least um we all get to see what we're voting on actually i can't can you hear me can it be enlarged i can't see it and i can't seem that my i don't see a way of enlarging it on my screen but i may be missing do you have a um a little box at the upper right like a little square if you clicked on that that sometimes lets you pick over your full screen if you haven't i think i should have my glasses is the problem oh that's better thank you okay they were able to enlarge it thank you now you have to be able to move down through it sorry couldn't understand you just let us know when you guys want us to scroll down are you ready to scroll down commissioner greenberg um one second jaunton um yes and you're ready for it to be scrolled further scroll it down further make the change in the language to reflect that it's two affordable parcels shall be provided as opposed to units since we're related to alternative one okay well if you don't have to write it but we'll just um two affordable parcels shall be provided prior to um provided to occur with uh the sale of the market rate uh uh parcels and then just substitute parcels for unit so is that clear to everyone what the what the motion is yeah can i ask a question definitely commissioner neilson uh at the beginning of the beginning of motion or sorry beginning of this um the text that talks about the definition of a co-hazarding project um based on the ordinance do we have um that language somewhere i have it right in front of me i um i can read it if you is it from are you pulling it directly from the municipal code yes it's any tell me what section can you tell me what section it is and the definition very affordable housing um that deals with inclusionary and it's one of the definitions in the program section can you tell me what section it is is it possible to send a link to that 416 010 and the definition is 24 16 015 did or would you rather bring it up go ahead you can read it but i'm also going to pull it up okay um the co-housing development definition it's an intentional community of private dwelling units clustered around shared space each attached for a single family home has traditional amenities including a private kitchen shared spaces typically feature a common house which may include a large kitchen and dining area laundry and recreational spaces households collaborate collaboratively plan and manage shared spaces the legal structure is typically an hoa condo association or housing cooperatives and the problem i have with with the project is that there's no um there's nothing in the ccnr's or in the conditions that really um carry that out and i think that that's why i'm supportive of the amended motion because it does make it clear that the vehicle uh uh you know to be a legitimate co-housing project there needs to be a common structure there needs to be some shared activities and i think that's what's being um required if the developer the applicant wants to pay you know wants to have the option of deciding whether they pay in new fees or not otherwise it doesn't matter whether it's a co-housing project or not um because there's no particular benefit from being a co-housing project except that it'll allow that i can see except that allows the applicant to not have to pay and not have to provide the units the affordable units on site so yes commission and neilson you it works yeah i'm just i have a question is it required within the the ordinance that um that co-housing or sorry that that um that shared facility is built prior to um the rest of the units or houses i wouldn't say it's required but it's certainly implied i mean how are you going to have shared um activities if you don't have a shared space um but if i mean it if i mean unless i i mean maybe maybe i need to look somewhere other than other than the definitions for that but um but i i understand that that i mean i understand what i understand the concept of of having a communal space for everyone to use um but i also um i i i share concerns um similar to um commissioner conway uh regarding um the ability of having that built prior to the um prior to the residential units um or conditioning that it has to be done that way so um so that's where i stand on that would you what would you think would be a legitimate amount of time before the um the common space was provided so you're i think the concern that both you and commissioner conway raised is sort of the financial concern on the other hand if the common building is never built it's really not a co-housing project as far i'm concerned so at some point needs to be built that's what's a reasonable amount of time well i mean i think you know obviously with uh that's a that's a difficult one to say at the moment um but maybe maybe there's some way to maybe there's a way to to do it where it doesn't have to do maybe it's more along lines of a certain number of houses are completed um you know you know you can only i mean i think that was one of the conditions that was that was provided originally having to do with the multifamily was that there was some condition that those single family homes could be built prior to but only a certain number and then you know within that then you know the you know you could have the you can't final out the the remaining until the communal house or the communal um space is completed um maybe something like that would be more acceptable um just because you know i i think you know at this stage it's hard to say how it's fine financially where things are are going um and you know i guess with that being said also the the ability of building single family is you know even just doing that is um it is questionable at the moment in terms of how that what exactly what the market's going to do and how things are going to play out so at least tying it to the construction you know happening around with you know um or within the time frame of you know these houses being completed is i think is acceptable but i don't necessarily think it has to be right away or like prior to them even starting or being completed hey let me i'll make a procedural point um i can't see all the commissioners so if you want to there's a place if you do manage participants where you can raise your hand and um you can click on that button and i'll know that you want to speak i saw uh commissioner Dawson wanted to speak um and so i'm going to call on her next and then i see commissioner spellman but you should be everybody should be their hand and then commissioner Conway okay so commission did you want to speak yeah i just wanted to add that again um this is just to try and provide the opportunity for the applicant to support that this is a co-housing development because otherwise it's just a it's just a subdivision and the benefit in the code of being a co-housing development is the applicant gets to decide just as a chair shifrin said and so um i feel i feel that um i'm happy to potentially tweak this language um based on on uh suggestions from other commissioners to address some of their concerns but um as long as uh you know the intent is that that uh we provide some sideboards around the co-housing part of this project so that they can clearly provide that that evidence and and its function as a co-housing development okay um commission spellman you were next yeah i think potentially saying the building of the common facility maybe we push it to you know halfway through the project at a minimum right is that a specific slots for of the motion slots could be built that at least yes the heat off of having to build that right away okay and then i just wanted to clarify is can can staff speak to the point about the in-loop fees in general in relationship to the co-housing gives you that vehicle i'm just not familiar with that that code you're allowed that choice if it is in fact a co-housing development so there is clear language um related to co-housing development um the co-housing development um based on our initial analysis has a substantially higher affordable housing in luffy than it would for the project if it were considered a um a standard um subdivision and so that's our initial analysis i mean it was on the order of 300 000 more i'm i'm looking at yeah as we have over that um and the original intention of the the original intention behind that piece is that it's it's lumped in with assisted living um you know it's sort of the like like student co-housing it's more of a um supposed to be more affordable by design and because it's sort of a separate a very unique living concept if you want to call it that uh the just i mean i didn't make this code but the the ordinance was written so that it was based off of square footage versus off of um you know sort of an appraised value of you know how we normally do our measure our measure out so it ends up being a higher fee is what we're what we're getting at okay yeah i mean i think i didn't make this to your question about where it is and read you the language it's in section 24-16-030 um number six uh applies to in-loop and then section a forces for residential development that the approval body determines our assisted living co-housing developments congregate living or live work units the applicant may elect to pay in-loop fees for the entire inclusionary uh unit requirement so um that's the section that really we have to determine that uh that or the city council we have to determine that it's a co-housing project and i think the intent of the motion is to you know verify provide uh evidence that in fact it is a co-housing project and if it it does provide that evidence then it's up to the applicant the applicant could decide that they want to provide the units but it's up to them not the city otherwise it's up to the the approval body and the approval body ultimately would be the city council we would just are uh if this if this amendment uh if this or uh motion passes and it and the final motion passes it's just a it's a recommendation to the council the council makes the final decision this is the clerk i just wanted to let you know that um commissioner conway has her hand up as does the applicant um i'll i didn't know about that applicant i knew about commissioner conway uh but commissioner spellman had uh well first i want to make sure he's finished and then i'll hear yeah essentially i mean i i am in support of having the inclusionary unit be built on site so i think my hope is that that's about the applicant will take and i am in support of putting more weight behind the option of doing the in lieu fees okay uh commissioner conway and i think i might need some clarification on that um commissioner spellman on on what you just said um i am very much in support of the clarification about co-housing i think the spirit of co-housing runs very strongly um throughout this proposal um uh i appreciate the idea of pegging it rather to some time period which is often what we'll see it'll be like within x years we have so much uncertainty right now that instead tying it to um you know it needs to be done by the time some certain number of um of uh units are built i i would be in favor of that i do think we need to be really careful that recommendations that we're making right now really could make this project impossible to build and so that's what i'm sensitive to um my thought was going to was going to be that um the community built space which is really key and i just want to be clear that i'm very much in support of it and i think it's a big part of this um that it needs to be done um by the time units i don't know uh you said unit six i was leaning a little more towards you know unit eight but later in the project would need to get built well the motion hit to state unit six the six year the six okay all right i i would deal with that we're making all sorts of um changes to the conditions that we haven't been voted on it yet yeah so let's hear what the applicant has to say in response to these the proposed this is what we're talking about is simply the mo the amended motion that's on the floor so i would ask you to keep your um your comments to that if you would so who who's speaking for the applicant can you hear me now yes go ahead who's speaking hi this is Brett Packer okay very much appreciate you guys recognizing me um and appreciate the discussion so um um um are very much to housing group and have become very solidified through the two and a half years we've been working together and the central shared area um is the main place we will interact and our intention and desire um is to have a common area to um share meals and share arts and events and has been from the beginning and we may well be in a difficult position with the covid crisis in order to build that and my concern is that tying it to building of homes is that um you know what do we say to our group well eight of you can build your home or six of you can build your home and then um if we don't have the money to build the common building the other four can camp in the center you know if it creates a real challenge we don't know how it's going to go we want to build the building that's our intention um our intention is also to sort of what's best for the city for the inclusionary fees it is good for us it's simpler is really what it comes down to i think it's probably the same amount of money it's very challenging for us to come up with that money as soon as um it's likely needed but we're going to do everything we can to make that happen and um my biggest concern i want to raise here is that tying the building of the building doesn't necessarily define us as co-housing we haven't developed our cc and ours yet those are kind of a placeholder that's in there now um they will be developed and they will be reflecting um aspects of co-housing in terms of things we share and time we spend together and um how we share the common space as well as how people enter the um the group but in terms of you know how we maintain the group as things change over time um that's important to us too that this thing keep going um you know the current group is super solid and we're hopeful to set up the cc and ours so it maintains that over the over time so i'm fine with um you know developing those uh before we get to city council um if just i want you guys to know that's our intention to build that building um as soon as we can um it's it's very important to us and it's important to what we're doing there but to tie it to building homes feels like um dangerous and something we we don't know how bad this COVID thing's going to be right now it looks like it's going to be really bad economically and we're going to be challenged just to get houses on the ground to get our families in there so that's just what i want to say and i do appreciate you guys your discussion on all this and all your thoughts thank you so much okay thank you i think to clarify the the um cc and ours and documents would need to be uh clear to meet the condition at the time of the building permits not necessarily at the time that goes to the city council let's say city council approved the the uh if the motions passed and the council approved it then it would be um the the applicant would have until they come in with their final map i guess to or even the building permits for starting to build it to to show that they are that they met the requirement uh about changes to the governing document i i think my fund you know i was on the planning commission for eight years in the in the 80s and one of the hardest lessons for me to learn from that experience is how easy it is to well how important did it to recognize that once the permit is approved once the conditions are added to the permit that is all that the applicant the developer has to meet and while they may want to meet all sorts of other things and they have all sorts of concerns that's what they have to meet and let me say that the city has been very um understanding of applicants if as they go through the process and they're you know they're still having problems and it's up to the six six well six uh house and they need more time they can come in and ask for an amendment to their permit it's in the permit that they have to build the house by the sixth unit if this if this motion passes if that turns out to be infeasible and they have good reasons for not being able to do it when the time comes they can come and ask the city for more time that happens all the time the developers need more time to do what they're required to do however if they're not required to do it there may never be a common building and therefore I think it's important if we agree that um the it's essential for a co-housing project to have a common building the condition should require them to provide one and so let's see if there's any more if anybody else this is the clerk I'm sorry but our bylaws require that when the meeting goes to 11 you need to have a motion to extend to adjourn to a specific time you we're having so much fun it's 11 o'clock it's similar like let us go for another 15 minutes and maybe we can vote on this yes I make a motion to extend the meeting for another 15 minutes is there a second I'll second all in favor say aye aye I know I won't do a roll call on this one okay so let's try to see if there's any more there's an there's a a motion on the floor to essentially approve the staff recommendation I think for option a alternative a there's an amended motion on the floor to make um revise the condition number 35 having to do with the with the inclusionary units is there further discussion on that amended motion okay let's let's uh I just want to get clarification we just had to discuss them that part of that amendment is to uh require that community meet all the co-housing pieces and require that the shared space is built um at the time that the sixth home is approved yes is that what we agreed to yeah okay I will accept that as a friendly amendment um commissioner neilson will you as a secondary accept that as a friendly amendment yes okay so the motion on the floor now includes the staff recommendation on option uh an alternative a with the revised condition number 35 is there further discussions on as um as it's been revised both initially and then through amendments in terms of uh substituting parcels for uh unit and extending the time for provision of the common building until the sixth unit as the subdivision before we vote on it I see the end up um what would you like to say thank you commissioner thank you chair shifrin the comment that uh we were discussing here with uh jessica dwitt and myself was surrounding the timing for the sale of the unit um or excuse me the sale of the parcels um I I think it may be worth um hearing from the applicant if they have concerns about that timing um particularly given um some of the concerns that jessica was raising and uh that very well could be the case in terms of getting someone who is actually income qualified um I I think that um that could be a challenge to someone um there may be a uh habitat for humanity um but I understand there is uh I think uh Brett Packer or someone spoke earlier and said that there wasn't an interest from habitat for humanity and and so um but I I think um if it pleases the chair and the commission um that may be something that the applicant wants to speak to in terms of that timing I'm happy to hear from the applicant I expect that the applicant will not like that provision but my sense is that the provision that a lot of that that for the co-housing is one that the revision that would allow this project to go forward as a co-housing project would mean that the applicant would be able to choose paying the uh the in the fees so um um you know if the applicant really feels the need to speak um I'll be I'm willing to let the applicant respond to the concern that you raised otherwise um I'm not I I think I think it's unlikely that that's the option that's going to come out and from my perspective that's the way to assure that we set the affordable units if the affordable units have to be um provided so it's what we're here for is looking out for the um public interest and I think unless somebody has a way of wanting to fix that I think that's not a an unreasonable condition so I know commissioner Greenberg had uh had her hand up maybe the clerk can check with the applicant if they feel the need to say anything but what mr. Packers unmuted if he's been listening okay um yeah what were you gonna what did you want to say before we vote on this motion and should I wait for mr. Packers all right mr hi this is that and I'm okay you guys can continue thank you very appreciate that commissioner Greenberg yeah I mean I was just quickly gonna say that my understanding of the spirit of that um provision in the in the city code around co-housing along with senior housing and other things is that when it's legitimately one of those things there's some assurance that speculative potential of that kind of a development is somewhat limited um and you know as a result there's some kind of trade-off where the developer of that type of housing would have more leeway in terms of choosing between in lucy's and so forth um than a normal type of a development but if we don't have any assurance that that's actually going to happen in the future and I think that's part of the issue with this proposal for me I totally respect the spirit of the current effort but there is little assurance of what could happen down the road given this housing market um and so I would be more comfortable knowing that it is from the get go really going to be um a co-housing development in order for that leeway um in terms of inclusionary to be provided okay I would assume that the essence of your comments are supportive of the motion yes okay is there any other commissioners who would like to speak to the motion on the floor otherwise we'll have a roll call vote um okay um all those in favor why don't we have a roll call vote to make sure the other Mr. Maxwell hi funway hi bellman Dawson hi hilsen hi greenberg hi chair chifrin hi the motion passes unanimously the project is approved with the revised condition number 35 um thank you all very much and if there are any members of the public who are still hanging in there again thank you so much for your testimony and putting up with what is uh question logically challenging for all of us uh and we know it's challenging for the public as well uh I hope you felt uh I hope everyone felt that they did have a fair chance to make their views uh known to us um we have one more item on the agenda but I'm going to recommend that we put it off till our next meeting given the hour and the fact that we're uh we need another motion to continue after four more minutes is there any objection to continuing the 2019 general plan and housing element annual progress reports to our next meeting seeing none I'll do that um I don't know uh can we put off our subcommittee reports as well or did Julie uh Commissioner Conway did you want to say something about I just wanted I wanted to check with Lee to make sure that we are I know we're in the grace period for the general plan annual report um and we can meet that by putting it off to the next meeting we have one more roll in front of the council already they've already oh that would do which we're seeing it as just to be nice great great that that was my only concern thank you and I'm fine putting up a subcommittee report okay and the council has put off um uh staff working on both the corridor zoning and uh inclusionary ordinance changes I think until June at this point given the workload around the um the health emergency so we'll have to wait on that and this is really before us because legally or adipine so uh the the director of anything further you'd like to say just a couple of brief things um one uh the city council approved the building electrification ordinance the second reading at the their last meeting and I wanted to thank the commission for the comments that they provided um that influenced and really improved the ordinance um when we brought it to council and then um we do have meetings scheduled um for May 7th and then again for May 21st so we do have items lined up for both of those okay thank you very much are there any items that anybody wanted to refer to our next agenda speak to agenda okay I really want to thank all the commissioners for your patience in going through this it's difficult enough when we have an audience facing us but if you when you can't even see them and uh you know people feel strongly about the issues it's really challenging so I appreciate everybody hanging in there and uh our you know it's been treating everybody else respectfully so with that I'd say we're adjourned and uh we'll be back on May 7th thank you all very much stay healthy thank you thank you