 All right, welcome everybody. Thanks for coming out tonight. So when everyone's ready, I'd like to call this meeting of the city of Santa Cruz planning commission to order. Tess, could we have a roll call please? Commissioner Conway. Here. Dawson. Here. Gordon. Maxwell. McKelvie. Here. Paul Hamas. Here. Chair Kennedy. Here. And both Commissioner Maxwell and Commissioner Gordon are absent with notification. Commissioners, are there any statements of disqualification for the items on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, we'll move on. I'm now going to open the mic for oral communications. This is a time to come talk to us if you want to on any items not on the agenda tonight. So we open up the mic in the sake of democracy. So if you'd like to come speak with us about something else, feel free. All right, seeing none, we'll move past oral communications. And into the approval of minutes. So we need to re-approve the minutes of August 3, 2023. I did the wrong procedure at our last meeting and forgot to call for a vote. So these are the same minutes resubmitted. Another clarification from the city attorney is that you can vote on minutes, even if you weren't at the meeting. So we have been doing that wrong as well. And that'll help when we have people absent. Because you're just certifying that the minutes reflect the meeting, not anything more than that. So with those two clarifications, is there a motion to approve the minutes of August 3? I'll move to approve. Second. All those in favor? All those opposed? I think you have to vote on that. I was going to abstain. You can't abstain. You can't abstain? Well, that's a new rule. It's an old rule that we just forgot. OK. So if you're comfortable voting, no, it just means. I'll vote, no. OK, I'll just land it on my desk, too, so I'm absorbing it. OK, so you got that. Good, now I'd like to open the public hearing. We have two items on the agenda tonight. Our first item. Oh, excuse me. Here, one second. And so our first agenda item is 1,800 Soquel Avenue. Can we get a staff report, please? Yes, good evening. This is Ryan Bain, senior planner. Before you tonight, we have a project at 1,800 Soquel Avenue. It's about a 0.1-acre project site that concurrently consists of three parcels located on the southeast corner of Soquel Avenue and Hagman Avenue. The commercial uses around the site, with the exception of residential to the south. Flat sites mostly paved. Commercial building constructed in the early 1960s. That's going to be proposed for demolition. And the site has had a number of different uses over the past few years, including used car dealership, restaurant, other auto-related uses. There are no trees located on the site, so there are some street trees along Soquel Avenue. That are going to be retained. So the project involves proposal to construct a four-story mixed use project at grade parking on the first floor, about 1,900 square foot commercial space, and then 84 flexible density units. And I should note that, and I may preface that, there's a condition of approval that refers to adding some retail space along the Soquel frontage. And the applicant, in the last couple of days, has basically to address that condition, made some revisions to that first floor already. And so there'll be some changes, some minor changes to that from what's in your packet. And I'll address that as we go along. So we'll be seeing that for the first time? Correct, yes. Basically, it meets the condition of approval that was part of your packet. So he's basically implemented it. But implementing that, it also moves things around, changes a few things up. So I'll address that. So the general plan designation is community commercial. Basically, that designation calls for businesses that serve the general needs of the community, including retail, service, office, typical uses, restaurant, grocery, et cetera, as well as mixed use projects that include these commercial uses on the ground floor. So as proposed, it's consistent with that designation. Flurry ratio for that designation allows 0.25 to 1.75. The proposed FAR is 2.45. And that is going to be one of the waiver requests as part of the density bonus. There's numerous general plan policies that it's consistent with, all of which is listed in the staff report. So I just provided a couple of key ones here, talking about discouraging strip commercial development, cluster commercial and mixed use development along transit corridor, encourage higher density, intensity residential uses, maximum densities, allowing and encouraging the high end of the general plan land use density, encouraging the assembly of small parcels consistent with all these policies. It's also located in the East Side Business Area Improvement Plan, and specifically in the East Soquel zone of that plan. And there are several goals that it meets there, including large scale buildings, pedestrian oriented, retail storefront, wider sidewalks, oriented towards the street and parking screen. So the development has been designed to meet all of these East Side Business Area Improvement guidelines. So before you tonight, what we're looking at is several different types of permits that are included in the package, one being the non-residential demolition authorization permit for demolishing the existing commercial structure, a boundary adjustment to combine the three parcels, a design permit, a special use permit, and then the density bonus request. So as I mentioned, for the non-residential demolition authorization permit, that commercial structure is supposed to be demolished. It was constructed in 1961 with later additions and has had various changes over the years. It's not listed and not eligible for listing on the City Historic Building Survey. And as I mentioned, so there's three current parcels that are being emerged. Also part of that boundary adjustment, there's going to be a dedication of a little over 1,600 square feet. That's going to be dedicated along Soquel and Hagman Avenue for street widening and sidewalk expansion. So the resulting parcel will be 0.1 acres, which meets the minimum requirement for 8,000 square feet for mixed use in the CC zoning. So the zoning district for these parcels is CC. The purpose of the CC listed in our zoning ordinance is to provide locations throughout the community for a variety of commercial and service uses for residents, encourage a harmonious mixture of a wide variety of commercial and residential activities, and then limited industrial uses that are compatible. I should also mention that special use permit and design permit are required for FDU developments, flexible density units, sorry, of 16 or units, as well as for mixed residential and commercial developments with 10 or more multiple dwelling units above commercial. So special use permit and design permit are also part of this proposed application. So in terms of CC development standards, it's meeting all of the requirements of the zoning district with the exception of height, and that's one of the requested density bonus waivers. So the CC zoning allows for three stories, 40 feet, and this proposed project is four stories, 46 feet. So six feet over what the zoning would normally allow. So the proposed projects consist of three stories of residential units above ground level retail, and parking with a foot print covers the majority of the site area. Vehicular access to the garage is provided via a 15 foot alleyway that runs along the south side of the property. It basically connects Hagman and Forest Avenues. The first floor consists of 1,900 square feet of retail space here at the corner of Hagman and Soquel, including an adjacent outdoor dining area for a potential future restaurant or a food service. Additionally, there's a residential lobby with a mail room that's accessed from Soquel, and so as well, and then along Hagman we have some trash, that's where the trash enclosure access is. And then as I mentioned, one of the conditions approval included, including an additional 45 feet of frontage along Soquel to really extend the retail presence and frontage along Soquel. So the applicant has included this area right here as an additional 45 feet of retail frontage. It's a little under 1,000 square feet of additional retail to the 1900 that was originally proposed. And before that was like a penciled in bike room and like a transformer room it looked like or something like that? Correct, there was a storage room, which that's one of the requirements for flexible density units. This provide a certain cubic feet of storage and then as well as meeting the bike requirements, class one bike requirements. So both of those have been moved and that does affect a couple of things. The bike parking has been moved to the second level and I'll show you that in a moment. And then some of the storage has been distributed here in the parking area. So basically it's kind of you would pull in kind of under the storage and the storage would be there. You can pull in underneath it. So that's been distributed throughout the parking area. So each individual unit would basically have their own storage space. So here's just taking a look at some of the renderings of the proposed project. This is from Soquel Avenue. See the retail space here on the corner. Here's the lobby entrance here and then this is the additional retail space that they've provided. There's another angle from kind of Northwest Elevation showing along the Hagman. And then this is kind of from the Southeast from the backside showing the alleyway. And there's some second floor open space as well. So this is the second level. This has a lot of the open space area. And as I had mentioned, there was a community room here and kind of a small community room, but the minimum 200 foot requirement and that bike room has been moved up here. So with that being said, there's a new waiver that's being requested for that 200 square feet of community room, a waiver to that. I should mention that the proposed 84, there's 84 flexible density units, 42 are the 432 square foot studios, and then the other 42 are 615 square foot one bedrooms. So as I mentioned, flexible density unit, our ordinance has some minimum requirements for those. There's a certain square footage range, which they're well within. The storage facility, as I mentioned, they had been meeting it. It was 16,800 is the requirement and they had been providing 17,800, I believe. And then with them complying with the retail, providing the retail space and having to move some of that around, they're just a little bit under the requirement now. So that'll be one of the waiver requests. Bike parking, they are asking for a waiver to that. 84 is what is required and they're providing 73. And then for the usable open space, they're also asking for a waiver and then they meet the laundry facilities. My understanding is that each unit will have its own washer and dryer. In regards to parking under AB 2097, which was effective on January of this year, it prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing minimum parking requirements. Most development projects located within a half mile of a major transit stop. So this project is within that half mile. And so they're actually not required to provide any parking, but they will be providing 78 parking spaces. That's another, I should mention, that's another amendment to. All right, so I'd like to remind everyone this is a public forum. Please be quiet and respectful. We'll do the same when it's your turn. Ryan, can you underscore that that's a state law that we don't have any control over that parking thing? Correct, that is a state law that's been implemented and cities and counties have no choice but to follow that. So by law and through, along these corridors, we cannot require any parking. So, but they were originally providing 75 spaces. Another revision that was, that was actually I should go back and show you is that there was parking that's located along the alleyway and those were originally angled. And with the alleyway being two-way, we thought it'd be best to have those at 90 degrees. So basically instead of when they're pulling out, they can go either direction and leave that option. And with doing that revision, they actually gained three additional spaces. So it's gone from 75 to 78. So offsite improvements, there's a few. As I mentioned, there was a dedication of a little over 1,600 square feet or right away. So as part of that dedication, there'll be widening parts of Hagman and Soquel there at the corner. They'll be relocating new traffic signals, poles and equipment. There'll be a dedicated left turn lane that there isn't currently. There'll be sidewalk expansion. So there'll be a 10 foot sidewalk along Soquel and eight foot along Hagman, which is following the east side business plan area design guidelines. Also under all utilities will be undergrounded. The 15 foot alleyway will be repaved and there'll be two new street lights. I think there's one along Hagman and one new one along Soquel and then three new street trees along Hagman. There's a density bonus request as part of this. So the applicants provided plans for a base project that meets all of the CC development standards, including high setbacks and open space. And it was a determined that the base density under those requirements is 67. So density bonus is basically calculated off of that base density of 67. And with the project requesting a 32 1.5% density bonus, the'll be providing a minimum of excuse me, seven very low income units, 50% AMI and seven low income units at 80% AMI or a total of 14 low income units, which meets our city inclusionary requirement. So for the density bonus waivers that are being requested, as I mentioned, one is to exceed the maximum height going from 40 to 46. The FAR, which is allowed maximum of 1.75 to 2.45 and then for bike parking going from 84 to 73. Usable open space would be going from the 12,600 to 6,700. As I mentioned, the storage 16,800 to 14,244 cubic feet. And then, as I mentioned, the indoor common space requirement of 200 square feet, that was replaced with the relocation of the bike parking. So, Ryan, I don't mean to interrupt, but could we talk about waivers? If we don't like them, can we stop them? Like as a planning commission? Again, this is a state law. And so- I can only say this a few times for everyone on TV. Yeah, it's a whole new, it's a, yeah. So the project, the applicants allowed to request as many waivers from development standards as needed of development standard would preclude the density bonus project from being built at that allowed density. So essentially, that's how we determine these waivers. So we really don't, the city must grant these waivers unless they violate state or federal law, create a specific adverse impact on health or safety or the physical environment that can't be mitigated or adversely impact real property listed on the California rest of historical resources, which this isn't. So there really is no evidence that the waivers requested should not be granted as required by state law. Okay. And then just from, well, never mind, I'll ask that question later. Thanks for going through that again. Sure. There was a community outreach meeting for our outreach policy back in May. Staff, as well as the applicants and then approximately 42 members attended. It was noticed with signage on the property, notices mailed to property owners and tenants within a thousand feet, as well as advertised on the city's website. So there was discussion items involving concerns about traffic, parking, intersection safety as it relates to bike lanes and as well as impacts to the public alley. There were also, you know, there were also attendants that were in support of the project, specifically regarding eliminating the current uses, which have been a nuisance to some of the nearby neighbors, as well as supporting high-density housing and affordable housing. So in addition to the webinar as we have for most of our larger projects, we have a webpage that was created on our city website for people to be able to see the plans and look at all of the information on the project. So CEQA provides categorical exemptions which are applicable to categories of projects and activities that the lead agency has determined. I do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. The project has been determined to be exempt from CEQA under categorical exemption, section 15332 for infill development. Through discussions with the applicant between the packet going out and tonight, there was a couple of requests by the applicant regarding a couple of the conditions of approval as well as it's mostly clarification type things. For condition 26, the applicant requested that we add some language, giving some leeway to the planning director to be able to issue a demolition permit prior to the issuance of the building permit for the project. Normally we require those be issued together. So if there is some type of special circumstance or something that it's giving the planning director a little bit of discretion if they wanted to issue it. Our general idea is that we'd wanna issue it together but if we were at a point in the plan check process where the project was, you know, there was only a couple of small comments that needed to be addressed. And it was very close to being able to be issued that we could let them do some demolition, you know, a week or two prior. So that's something- So they can make the overall construction period shorter in theory? And then it was pointed out that we kind of had a boilerplate bike parking condition and it was pointed out that it's actually, you know, because of the density bonus request, the waiver, we needed to reword that. So to indicate that it's providing the 73 bike parking spaces. And then this is another kind of boilerplate one that they just had some concerns about the wording. And so we broadened it a little bit in terms of allowing some substantial deviations from the colors. So in terms of recommendation, we're recommending that the Planning Commission acknowledge the environmental determination and that we're recommending approval of the non-residential demolition authorization permit, the boundary adjustment, design permit, special use permit and density bonus requests, including the requested waivers that I discussed for the proposed project based on the findings and the conditions that were provided in the staff report. And I'm available for any questions. And I should mention that the applicant does have a presentation, as well as there is a neighborhood group that has a presentation as well. Okay, so commissioners, do you have questions for staff? I do have one question. Commissioner McKelvie. Was there a, we discussed earlier the definition of the alleyway as a thoroughfare? Is that something that has come from a definition either in public works or in planning the zoning ordinance or is there a definition for a thoroughfare that includes alleys? I don't believe an alleyway would be considered a thoroughfare. I'm asking- I wanna take a look and see what our, in our zoning code, if there's a definition. Do you have one? I was the person I'm looking for. Yeah. Curtis was an art public works engineering. It is entitled 15, considered a street. A street, okay. And it's not, it's not named or, I mean, it is dedicated as a public way. Okay. Someone might have put that name on there, but typically we don't name alleys in the city. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Dawson. I just had a couple of questions. So it talks about improvements to the alley and I saw that it was gonna be paved and I may have missed it. So apologies. What other improvements are proposed for the alleyway? Well, it's gonna be paved. I mean, that's specific to the alley. It's gonna be paved. That is a requirement of public works for most projects that are adjacent to an alleyway. So if the alleyway is in pretty bad shape, they're required to upgrade it and pave it. In addition to the alleyway being paved, it's on the actual project property, but there'll be this parking that's along the backside that uses the alleyway for backup space. And there'll be, in addition to the alley being paved, there'll be another additional 10 feet or so from the parking space to the actual property line. So the alleyway will actually go from about 15 foot to about 25 feet in width for the span of the property. And then in addition to that, even it's not technically in the alleyway, but adjacent to the alleyway, it'll feel like it's part of the alleyway. So there's also some landscaping that's there as well. Great, just had a couple more. Sure, go ahead. Great. So one of the things that we're considering tonight is the issuance of a special use permit. And so I just wanted to clarify for the public and myself that so when a project is consistent with our general plan and the business area improvement plan, which this proposed location is, are we compelled by law to issue a special use permit or is that something we have per view to decide yes or no on? So you're asking basically, I mean, there's certain findings for the special use permit. And so we just need to make sure that it meets the findings to issue the special use permit. Yeah, well, what I'm trying to clarify is that there are many things that we are compelled to do, right? I think the chair was pointing out some of those things, right? Along the density bonus and the Affordable Housing Act, some of those things we don't really have or compelled by existing law to do. What I'm trying to understand is issuing a special use permit as is required for us to consider, right? Because we're more than 16 units. Are we compelled by law to issue a special use permit? My answer would be yes. I mean, the fact that the special use permit is required in order to build housing. And so since that is part of the application, I think that does fall under the Housing Accountability Act. Okay, great. Thank you so much. And I think I had one more. I did just have a question that I saw in one of the comments received and I don't know the answer to this. So that's why I want to put it out early. A neighboring business was concerned about the three parking spaces on Soquel and having some kind of protection for those. What are the options to do that or are there any options to do that protection, meaning keeping them for the retail businesses as opposed to the residents of the development? I might call Curtis up here. I don't think Curtis is aware or we just received that letter like this afternoon. Do you have a, I don't know if I have a copy of that. I don't think I have, I just don't know what the options are for protecting those spaces from residents parking there. So just to- Should we take a minute and just put that up? I mean, I saw like 15 plans, but it'd be helpful for me to see that. To see the- The parking spots we're talking about. I don't know, let's see. I might be able to show it on the aerial. Okay. Yeah, you can see it. So- Yeah, so the property owner, of the neighboring property here, they're, I think this is what he was referring to here. Right there. So when this property was developed, they required that they provide on street parking along here. So his concern, and I'm just trying to remember his letter from a couple of hours ago, was that any overflow from here that people might park and take these spaces does not allow for his customers to be able to park there? And he was asking if there's any way for the city to be able to put up signage that limits only customers of his businesses to use those parking spaces. Yeah, that's a possibility. They're not two-hour parking, we could post that part. I'd have to check with traffic engineering, but it would be since. That's the inset parking? That's, yeah. Correct. Yeah, no, that would, that's not a issue. Great, thank you. That was helpful. Just wanted to put it out there since we're gonna be talking about a lot of things. Commissioner Williams. Thank you. Yeah, I just had a couple of quick questions. So I thought I heard you say the washer dryer situation was gonna go to one per unit. And are those, did I hear that correctly? Yes, the FDU ordinance requires, there's a minimum requirement. And I'm trying to remember what it was. I remember seeing that. But I think they're more than exceeding it actually. Yes. I believe they're proposing that each unit have its own washer dryer unit. Okay, yeah, I saw the minimum on the washer dryer unit and are those gonna be contained in each individual unit or are those gonna be consolidated somewhere else on the property or? They're gonna be in each unit. Yeah, it shows if you look in each of the units, I believe there is a little closet that shows. Stacked. Stacked, yeah. Nice. Okay, great. And then my other question was also about the alleyway. We had a little back and forth about that. And now that they're at a 90, I was doing some digging just through municipal code. And I guess the reason I'm asking this is because neighbors are concerned that using the public alley is gonna be a little bit more limited, a little bit more dangerous just because of the cars coming in and out. And I was digging through code and it said that when parking spaces are at a 90 degree angle, there's some sort of minimum amount of space behind them that needs to be allocated. And the reason I'm asking is basically trying to explore the options of what we can do to protect maybe a little bit of that thoroughfare for pedestrian traffic if that's even a possibility. I know that's, yeah, that's my question. What it refers to generally is a 24 foot backup space as a standard. And but there are, there are portions of our ordinance that do allow for some variations in that. I think as proposed here with this 90 degree, it's at 22 and change, I believe. So I think I actually talked with Curtis briefly about this and one of the things that public works wanted to have was just a maneuvering diagram that basically shows that that 22 is sufficient enough to sort of... So the applicant would have to submit a turning diagram. I kind of turned the auto-cassum sort of diagram showing that it is feasible. It's not like a five point turn. 22 feet is more enough. Typically the back out we approve those on a regular basis. And let me, but in real quick, while Curtis is up here, in my experience being up here many years is real common to kind of like fine tune those things between now and the actual project being built. I think we have a condition that says work with public works to get all these details nailed down. Yeah, I could jump in there too. It's actually in our code. It allows for an applicant to submit a turning diagram. What Samantha said or what I said? What on? It's my work. It sounds okay to me. Can you all hear it out there? Yeah, okay. It's actually in our code. It's in our ordinance. And it allows for an applicant to submit a turning diagram to reduce the amount of back out space. So it's not like a special thing. Okay, yeah. Thank you. More questions, I kind of cut you off there. Oh, good. Commissioner Conway? I was gonna wait until after the applicant has... Okay. I just had one just for staff. I'm really focused on the streetscape. I really appreciate getting more commercial, even though it's really small. Thank you for that. But Ryan, could you just kind of walk us down that sidewalk? We're getting a wider sidewalk. Are we keeping or replacing the three street trees that are on that frontage, like on SoCal? Yeah, there's currently three street trees along here that are proposed to be retained. And then the sidewalk will be widened to a minimum 10 foot. And that's, there's some dedication of some of the property to increase the width of the right-of-way to allow for that 10 foot sidewalk, eight foot along Hagman, as called out in the East Side Business Plan. And then kind of what's going on along here. So essentially we have on this corner, we have a almost 2,000 square foot retail space. And then connected to that retail space is a outdoor seating area with the assumption that if there were a cafe or restaurant that you would have outdoor seating here. Along here is a dedicated class to bike parking. So anyone who's coming to either the retail spaces can park here. That's generally for the public that are coming to the site to be able to park there and lock up their bikes. In class, do you use like an outside U-Rack? You just lock your bike to you? There's no locking or anything? Correct, class one is an enclosed, mainly for like residents to store their bikes. And then we have a lobby here with a mail room and elevator and main lobby for the residents to access their units as well as stairs. And then the new additional retail space that was conditioned. Okay, that's helpful to me. Thanks for leading it through. Did you talk with the applicant about additional street trees? It's always harder than it seems to add them. But were there any discussions about that? Well, there are additional street trees that are gonna be a long fragment. There's gonna be a minimum of three along here. So it'll kind of match up with the three that are along, so Cal. Okay, were there any discussions about additional street trees on Soquel? We didn't, that didn't come up actually. Okay, there's a lot of conflict around street trees, I understand, but I just thought I'd ask that question. Last question, and I'm kind of cheating because years ago, I worked on a project across the street. If I remember pulling that corner back and giving the city land helps like align Soquel better for cars and bikes a tiny bit, is that kind of the master plan for that? I might call Curtis up here. He kind of, you know, being public works, that's kind of more his realm, but yeah. That part of Soquel's weird, it like the lane shift in it. We laid out our town on couch rails. They're trying to improve that situation. Yeah. So on this project on Hagamint as you approach Soquel, we did move the curb line in board at an angle to line up the intersection better with Trevethan. There we go. Yeah, so we did do that. On other projects that are pending, we've asked for dedications for realignment as you get down towards Frederick street and those areas, but there was no realignment on Soquel there. Okay, but this project's given a little bit of land to help that. Correct, yeah. With the stignoco move in, everything will move in. Actually, the bike lane acceptance on Soquel will have a bigger throat to get into because existing curb line kind of bulbs out almost on the corner there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it's a 90 degree angle. Is there's that fatality not too long ago? So every little bit helps here. Thank you. Yeah, public works is actively looking at these bike lanes to do something in the big picture in the future. Yeah, I know you're all right. I just want to make sure everyone hears it too. Mm-hmm. I do want to ask one question now. All right, Commissioner Conway. All right, so I was also glad to see the additional commercial space. What type of business would be viable in that much space? Yeah, we had some discussions with the applicant. I mean, they were a little hesitant about the retail space and whether it would be viable. And so, yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of possibilities in terms of what would be a small retail business starting out, anything from like a small sandwich shop, small cafe, yogurt shop, something like that. I mean, it's a small space, but I think that talking with economic development over the years, it's good to have some small spaces for starting businesses that start out small and kind of get their feet wet and then assuming they're successful, they can move on to a larger space. So these kind of spaces are in demand. Okay, I guess I have one other question. Go right ahead. So, I agree that this is a really important alley. It's, you know, I could go on about all of the different reasons that it's such an important alley. And I didn't see any discussion about why it was decided to retain it as two ways. Was there any discussion about making it one way? Did that just not work? Maybe it's a dumb idea. It just seemed like there's so much and there has to be a lot of attention on safety back there. It never really came, I mean we, when we were first looking at it, that came up as to, is it one way? Is it two way? What is it? And so, it was determined that from Public Works that it's a two way alley. It's kind of, I mean, most alleys in town are two way. It wouldn't have had safety and, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Can you please not talk over us? We also, you're not on the public record when you just shout things out. So, just so you know. So the question on the alleyway, we don't have one way alleys. Okay. There might be some downtown with the whole arena, things like that, but for the most part, they're typically two ways. Okay. Okay, thank you. I just wondered if it had been looked at or, and that's a good reason. Yes, I did talk to it with traffic engineering. We went over it and looked at the pros and cons of it and keeping it the way it was. Okay. Best. Thank you. And Commissioner Conway, I just mentioned also that, for that, Sam was mentioning that, for that additional retail space, offices are a little loud. So, you know, the state office, or the municipal office. Insurance. Go in there. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. One more from, yeah, just really quickly in my conversations with staff, we did talk about the, you know, whether or not that alley was one way and kind of what we had talked about was that, if it was a one way going the way that things were initially planned, it would divert all that traffic onto forest and then anybody who was trying to turn left would be in a tough spot. And so with that left-hand turn lane on Hageman, people backing out of this development would have the option to turn onto Hageman and have that protected left, especially at rush hour traffic hours and so in my conversations with staff, that's, that was my understanding. All right. So, I think it's time to hear from the applicant with your presentation. Welcome. Come on up. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Vince Sosnkowsky. I'm a partner at 1800s O'Kell. I'm here with, I've got a partner Xander in the back there. You'll hear from Mark Donahue, our architect and should you have any legal questions, Darian from our law firm is here as well. Been developing for about 20 years. We've done a whole bunch of off-base military housing, done a handful of projects around all the partners are actually from the Bay Area. So not local, but not that far away. We came into this project. It was a 32 unit mixed development with a lot of surface parking. Ultimately, really did not address housing need from my particular point of view. I really don't like surface parking. I think it continues. What really looks like a used car lot. We're obviously keenly aware of the housing crisis here. And we came in with what we thought was a solid solution that provided a lot of housing. Yes, we are asking for some density bonus considerations. But I do want to point out, particularly to the public that we could have used other state laws and gone bigger and parked it less. So some of the things that we have focused on is trying to put as much parking in there as possible. Yes, we're asking for a waiver on parking. But as a recent example, we were recently introduced the idea of additional commercial, that 1,000 square feet that we just, and I was very adamant that I did not want to lose any parking spots by moving our bike parking into the garage. Ultimately, I think bike commuting is fantastic. But here in America, lots of people have cars, even if you do commute by bike. So we've really focused on trying to do that. And in fact, yesterday, the concept of turning those parking spots 90 degrees so that we could get another three parking spots, that's why we turned them, right? Because we wanted to be responsive as much as we could, at least to the neighbors. We focused on affordable by design. Obviously, we have a component of what is required to be low and very low income. But we've also tried to design something that is reasonably attainable given this market. A lot of the other things we've tried to do, we've tried to do this articulated tower so it's not just a massive, if you look at the view from the front, it does look like a massive structure, but obviously there's different towers. There's kind of this village approach where we're trying to break it up a lot. The access, which I know is a hot button here, we did, obviously we don't wanna make it on Soquel because that's gonna put bike traffic in danger and I don't think we can, probably. So we've tried to minimize use of the alley as much as possible. I mean, obviously our entrance is right there so that residents coming in and out from the underground parking won't be on the alley or any great distance. Obviously we've dedicated the corner, that's gonna make things safer. And though I know there's a lot of people that will disagree with me, we have tried to make this a community asset and park it as much as possible and create as much safety and benefit for the community as possible. So I'm gonna leave it there, happy to answer any questions, otherwise I'll turn it over to Mark Donnie, you are architect. All right, questions for the applicant? We'll hear from Mark. All right, thank you very much. So first of just for everyone's benefit, I think we all know the site and you've looked at the documents, but if we could go to the next slide, one of the reasons that this is really an ideal location for housing is where it's located relative to the other goods and services as well as Soquel as a main artery. You can see the walk score is actually surprisingly high, 81 and the biking score is very, very high at 93. So you have this location where residents have access to all the amenities of the Seabright neighborhood, very close at hand and next slide, particularly something that we do not often see is there are four grocery stores within a half mile of the site. Well, maybe I guess the whole foods is just under a mile, but there's Walgreens next door. The number of projects that we do where these kinds of residentially minded amenities appear is very small. I think the other thing that this map shows is that the uses to date have been primarily centered around cars. You've got several car dealerships, both used and new. There's a truck center that I think now is gonna also be developed as residential, but the neighborhood previously was really a car center. And so this is the first step in what is gonna be a series of developments that change this to a pedestrian residential quarter. Next. Here's the site plan. I think we've talked over many of the issues. You can ignore the parking on this one. We didn't update this plan, but let's go to the next slide. Next one. And so I wanna talk about a little bit about the way that we've masked this up. The street wall is on Soquel, which is the busier, more active street. And that is just from an urban design standpoint, typically what we do, we provide a street wall that addresses and defines the street. And then at the rear of the site, we have the smaller buildings that are facing the residential neighborhood. And we'll get into more detail later on that. Next. We've talked over a lot of the issues on the ground floor. We are adding seven and a half feet to the alley within the footprint of our site. And it is really, right now the alley is 15 feet wide, badly paved in two way. And so in the area where we have the parking, we really want to make it safer. How safe and to what degree we need to adapt further. We're happy to talk about. And you'll also notice that from the parking garage, there's left in and right out only. So that if you are somebody who's parked in the garage, that would be your customary way of getting it out. And so that would diminish the amount of traffic that would be on the alley. And furthermore, you can see that we've moved the parking entry all the way over towards Hagamon in the building. So we did have in mind the kind of safety issues and we did our best to find a solution that maximized that safety. The commercial viability, the space, the 900 square foot space, I think it's been addressed, but it could be any number. We do a lot of retail work and we do a lot of shops this size that are exactly as described. There's startups, it's a barbershop. It is some kind of community surveying function. It could be a small retail venue like sandwiches or coffee and those are exactly what they need, something that's small enough to afford, but is prominent enough to be successful along a major traffic lane. Next. Upstairs you can see that we've divided it into four wings, the two in the front that face of Cal are kind of connected, but the ones in the back that's intentionally meant to scale down towards the neighborhood. Granted it's going from four story to three story. There are some of townhomes that face the alley that are two and three stories tall, but that is a typical urban infill strategy to go from something taller towards the street and then diminishing the mass as you go back. Next. And then just a typical upper floor you can see the separation between the different wings. And so one of the other things that we were striving for was a more contemporary expression. I know that when it comes to aesthetics, there's a lot of different preferences that abide. There are some people who prefer historic styles. We felt that in this case, given the nature of the neighborhood and the fact that in many ways it's very tired, things built in the 60s that have not been maintained that we would be better off doing fresh contemporary expression colors that are more modern. And so that was what we were striving for. We have the base, the podium base, which is really at a pedestrian scale. It's almost like a separate building. And then as you move up the building, all the windows are layered in such a way as to provide human scale and understanding for somebody standing on the street that this is a building of a certain height. Next. This is the back elevation and elevation facing our neighbor to the east. Next. And then here's a view, aerial view from the neighborhood side. And you can see that even though they may appear to be large masses, these are much smaller than if we were to put the long portion of the building facing the neighborhood. There's a open space on top of the podium that's seen in the center. And that will be landscaped, but the boundary of it will not be accessible. So people who are living there will not be standing at the edge peering into the alley. And finally, this is the, I think you've seen this view before. Last one. And then this is a view from across. I just learned, Treveson is the street. If you're on the corner of Treveson and Soquel, this is what you would see. All right, same. Happy to answer any questions. Welcome your feedback. And I know we had a few questions. Do other commissioners have questions? Mr. McKelvie. Hi. Is the idea that this can be built with modular construction? It is possible to build this modularly. It's actually extremely efficient for modular construction. Of course, the prevailing benefit there would be the time of construction. Yes. Yes, I have one. I think you've really answered it, but this project is what, from what we've been seeing and what state law would say, this is over parked. I'm sorry. It's over parked. And parking, meaning you're providing more parking than you're required to provide. I appreciated your explanation and I agree with it. But parking is really expensive to build. And so you're making, it's a big decision there to make that. And yeah, I guess I just wanted to state that. You mean you're driven to do that because you believe that the future renters are gonna appreciate having both bike and car parking. I believe that's true that we are still, despite our best interests, our car centric society. And to get to your job to go out on trips on the weekend. The great thing about this parking though is that if in the future it is determined that that program is better utilized in some other way, it's relatively easy to convert. The retail frontage that we have now is essentially a program that's been slotted into what was a parking garage. And so that entire center portion, let's just say that the neighborhood really takes off. There's a huge demand for retail. Then we can look at converting it at a later date. It's easy. I have one other question about the parking. And it's a question that we see as we see these more dense developments. Where does the Amazon truck stop? Great question. I have this question too. Can we go back to that first floor plan and you wanna do a dumpster as well over there? Okay. So on the first floor you see that the trash room is located on Hageman. And the assumption is that one of those parking spaces would be transitory use for trash day. And especially if even the two hour parking would wrap around the corner, that would be a perfect solution. You can just reserve that space. To be honest, the delivery part of it, we probably need to give more thought and we wouldn't look for some feedback. The garage is tall enough for panel trucks to come inside, but we don't really have a location for them to stop. These days, a lot of times if you have a loading zone in front, that is where FedEx, UPS, et cetera will park and deliver into the lobby or into the retail. Which would be on Soquel. On Soquel. And maybe in those two hour spaces. So it's gonna be like it is in every other neighborhood. But that's such a busy corridor at that. Every busy corridor. If you look at the local businesses, you'll see there's not a lot of loading facilities separate. Thank you. Is there access control both at the lobby and at the gate for the entry to the parking? Yes, there would be. So even if there was, if a truck pulled up in the back, they can't get into the parking lot because they'd wanna go over to the lobby. And they're not gonna be able to get in from there without some kind of access token or something. Yes. And so we're pretty much, it seems like we're pretty much looking, if they want access to either the mail drop or access to the units, it seems like it's pretty much a given that they're going to be parking out on Soquel. Does that make sense? I'm just... I mean, when you brought up that question, my initial thought would be parking somewhere along that Hagman front edge because there actually is no parking allowed along Soquel Avenue, right? Right, and so is there even access to the building for a mail drop or anything on Hagman? It's for the, if you're dropping something for a resident, the entry is over on Soquel. So that means they'd have to stop on Hagman somewhere or probably park in, I don't know, Walgreens or something and then walk around all the way around that corner and try to drop something. This is a good question. And Mark, I appreciate the challenge with the specific feedback when you're gonna shift things around too. There's always competing curb space and alley space. So it's a juggling act. John, I don't know if this would apply, but I work in a very small office building, but the Amazon person just has the code and the post office person has the code and they pull right in. Yeah, the post office always does. But that's what we worked out because we wanted deliveries and you know it kind of applies in my opinion. Okay, more questions? Yeah. Just one quick one. I guess I'm just curious where you envision parking for the commercial, frequenting a commercial space is gonna go. I know, and obviously the ones in the back are a good possibility, along Hagman is a good possibility, but in terms of having a parking garage that is accessible only by residents, you're having somewhat dedicated parking and then the rest seems to be fairly kind of a free-for-all. Is that kind of how you see it? Yeah, I should clarify that there's a lot of ways to divide up the parking. The security points of entry can be defined by offense with an operable gate and so you can have things that are on the boundary line that are accessible to the public without compromising the spaces that where you have parking. You know, those are really great considerations and we'll further take those thoughts and develop them. Thank you. All right, I've got a couple questions. So street trees are hard. Did you guys ever think about adding street trees on Soquel? You know, I know there's underground stuff and public works and transformers and yada yada, but like if we don't condition five out there, we might never get four. So what are your thoughts on conditioning two extra street trees on Soquel? So the primary challenge is actually all the things that are already there. The utility lines, the lamp posts, you have to maintain a certain distance from the lamp posts, the traffic signal hole, all of those things occupy a footprint along the frontage. For my part, I would love to see more trees if we can find a spot where they can land because it's just going to make the building nicer. It's going to make the street nicer. When we were looking at it, though, it's all those challenges you're talking about. Utility, like falls and the like. Like I said, I've never seen street trees added between this stage and construction docks. So, you know, that's why I kind of attempted to ask for a bit more there. Understanding it would be a difficult challenge. So I don't want to get into my comments, but the plan for this area in my mind is 50 years from now, beautiful sidewalks with trees, beautiful stores along thriving businesses of all sizes. So in the interest of that vision, not that your project's going to give that to us, but at least for your little part, could you describe how adding that commercial is going to make that elevation in particular, you know, closer to our dream of this magical street, you know, that we all have together, including you guys, like maybe the elevation we could put up. And again, I'm sorry, because I'm asking you to design like on the spot, but would it look more like the main corner or maybe just verbally describe it? So I guess the first thing to point out is that this change to the retail program on the east side of the building is happening today, happened prior to this meeting. So we haven't had a chance to go back into the elevation and make it feel like a retail venue. I think the primary advantage of having retail of any kind or commercial is just the sense of activity. You're walking by, there's people occupying, you see the lights on. We particularly are targeting that corner for a cafe. I know the client has had talks with potential retail tenant, restaurant tenant already, who would love to have that outdoor space for a little garden. And we haven't had a chance to approach anyone on the smaller space, but we do a lot of retail and those types of uses are actually fairly easy for service type and for small cafes that are serving food that doesn't require a grill or that kind of thing. So for example, a sandwich shop that's just serving sandwiches and it's not serving hot food or is microwave hot. And also like a yogurt or a cafe, I mean, it's amazing to me how insatiable we are for coffee. And whether there was ever a tenant there or not, it would provide some more transparency to that corner. That's right. There'll probably storefront, which is not like our vision of clear last, but you know, some more windows, some more stuff down there. Because my main concern was like that, shared with staff that really long space with really no active anything going on. Okay, one more question. So like I work in clean energy, you know we worked on a through on water together, but the pressure in this type of building on all those spaces that we just talked about, the service spaces. And then now all the heat pump water heaters and you know all this other stuff is huge. You have the ability to delete parking at will is my understanding. Like you could do a no parking project if you wanted. If we relieve the bike condition, would that give you some more square footage for something else that would be useful? I see you're taking it down from whatever 85 to 73. And it feels weird to ask for that, but you know, if we could free up some room for something more useful, would that help? That is a very loaded question. Yes. Because first part of it is what do you mean by useful? And then the second part of it is that right now we've got the resident parking is on the second floor. So you'd have to take your bike into the elevator. Not typically ideal, but workable if you have nice durable finishes in the elevators. It's very close to the front door, just up a floor. But that space doesn't really lend itself to any of these other functions that we are looking at. I see. The between the cafe and the lobby, that span is very shallow. I mean it fits parking for bikes. And it's impossible to have a retail that would function in that space. So that's more part of the 50 year deal where you eliminate the parking and you can get that 30, 40 foot depth. And just a side note, there is one class, one parking space out there. We have a locker. So somebody can take their $5,000 bike and lock it up. Okay, that's enough. And that was a loaded question. Thank you for calling me out on that. Last one is, this project applied before the objective standards. Is that my? It did. Understanding, okay. So that's good. The things that we're gonna work on together tonight are things we all want to do by consensus and not by force or us telling you what to do it. Because I think we all have a strong interest in this neighborhood thriving. Absolutely. Both in the next 10 years and the next 50. So I look forward to this discussion and let's figure out what we can do that will come as close as possible to make everyone happy. That was kind of comments. Okay. I have one more question if I can. The lighting in the alley was mentioned. Yes. Do you have a scheme in mind for that? Just in terms of the impact on any of the neighbors as far as shielding or dark sky concerns or anything that, is it attached to the building? Is it mounted in the alley? Can you just grab that a little bit? I'm so glad you brought that up because I personally, I find up lighting get abhorrent just personally. I think it's just like really turning our backs on a very important resource, which is to see the cosmos. So we always on our projects shield the lighting and we do the cut off so that they don't extend past the property line. Now, does that mean that there's not gonna be reflected or diffuse light that makes its way? No, but we do everything within our power not to light the structure, but to light where the people are. First thing is that if you have a glare source and so an unexposed luminaire, it just is less safe because you can't read people's faces. You can't see what's on their mind. And so we always avoid that. But also, there's no reason to light the building. People's windows will be lit and so there'll be that warm glow. And if you wanna see what the building looks like, come during the day. So we'll keep everything low and shield it and just meet the minimum code requirement for exiting. Have you, is it building mounted? Is it on a standard? It would be building mounted and it would be just above the first level. So it's not like way up on the building and it's definitely not on standards out in the alley. Is there any chance, I don't know if there are guidelines that the staff have communicated, but is there a chance that it could be lower then? Coming from above the first floor, just I'm just thinking about the illumination that is inevitably gonna happen on those walls that are quite tall on that bottom floor. We would absolutely be open to that. I'm not creating another condition, I'm just wondering what your proposal was. You know, at this point, we have more of a diagrammatic approach to the lighting. So we will definitely take that into account and applaud that sentiment. I'll just mention that there is a standard condition about lighting and it being screened and make sure it's downward and not outward and it stays on the property. Shielded. And it's usually cheaper to do it that way, which is fantastic. The above, less energy needed to do the same job. All right, thank you. Thank you. Good, so I'd like to just take a deep breath and get ready to hear from the public. We're extremely happy you all are here. Thank you, sincerely, I'm not just saying that. I live on the west side, I don't know your neighborhood as well as you do. That being said, public comment can go on and on and on. So one popular thing to do is the speaker can say, can I get a show of hands for everyone who's into that? You know, maybe once or twice and don't get out of control, but then everyone can express how they feel without necessarily coming up and saying the same thing over and over again. We have allowed a special request to give a 10 minute time limit to come on up, introduce yourself. Thank you so much for having our group. And let me just finish. The timer is just to keep things going, keep these meetings going forever. So in the meantime, if anyone else wants to add, please come on up over here on the left. And if you want to, you can put your name down. And if you just queue up a few minutes ahead of time, that keeps us moving. Again, the 10 minutes is not so I can cut you off at 10 minutes, but to keep us from going for half an hour. I think it'll be okay. All right, go. Okay. So again, thank you for having us. And we really appreciate the extra time to speak with you. My name is Reena Dubin, and I'm here representing the group Concerned Neighbors of Hagamon. Some of the neighbors in our group are against this project in its entirety, believing that the scale is too big for this area of our city. Other neighbors like myself are generally positive about the addition of rental housing in Santa Cruz. I personally have spent thousands of volunteer hours advocating for more affordable housing projects downtown. But what we all agree on, all the neighbors in our group, no matter our other politics, is that this project, as it has been presented to you, is dangerous. It will increase collisions. These plans will not work in the real world, and we are alarmed about the safety and livability of our street. We ask that you delay approving this project until our concerns have been addressed. This is fixable. As one neighbor states, all the residents here are asking is for a better solution, which in reality is a more sustainable solution for all of us involved. There is a better way. Our group is composed of neighbors on Hagamon, Hagamon Court, and Forest Avenue. Many of us came to the community meeting and commented on the absurdity of the plans and how dangerous it will be. We thought that they changed the plans based on our feedback. We were really naive, and we didn't realize until about two weeks ago that the only difference to the plan is the inclusion of an extra parking space. Our streets, Forest and Hagamon are unique. It's a horseshoe with a cul-de-sac. As one neighbor says, the planning commission must understand Forest and Hagamon. Everyone who lives here has to get onto Soquel Avenue. It's super busy to go anywhere. Unlike most small neighborhood streets that have multiple ways to get in and out, we only have one cross street in that Soquel. Next slide. We are dependent on the alley and the light at the intersection of Hagamon and Soquel to be able to get in and out of our homes. Whenever there is road work on Soquel, for instance, like maybe putting a pipe carrying water from Santa Cruz to Soquel Creek Water District, we can't leave our streets without the alley and the light. If PG&E is doing any kind of upgrade or there's an accident or road work or even just an extra tremendous amount of traffic, we can't leave without the alley and the light. As one neighbor states, if this proposal is approved, when and if a future fire or earthquake were to occur, I foresee unnecessary tragedies. This project, as it stands now, commandeers the public alley that is crucial for our streets. A neighbor calls it an important traffic corridor that mitigates some of the worst traffic in the neighborhood. But this development uses the alley as its own private driveway and makes the light at Hagamon and Soquel impossible to use. And I say that even after seeing what they have come up with today, I still stand by all of my comments here. They could have easily fixed this by making the egress on Soquel. Let me walk you through this. We'll start with the alleyway. Here's the alleyway. It's one lane alley, but traffic goes in both directions. It's 15 feet wide, which is big enough for one fire truck, but not wide enough for two cars to pass each other. Here's how one neighbor describes the alley. I live at 178 Hagamon Avenue and ride my bike down the alleyway twice a day with my child on the bike. I have used the alley every day for 10 years and it is our neighborhood's outlet to Erana Gulch. Almost every time I ride, I see people riding their bike or walking their dog or pushing their kid in a stroller as many people use this alleyway. Whenever a car comes while pedestrians or bikers are in the alley, the car has to pull over to make room as it is too tight. Another neighbor says, presently, we are all able to travel back and forth down that alley with several spots to pull over, which allows a polite neighborly flow of bicycles, walkers, dogs, and cars. There are about 90 homes on our two streets. The one lane two-way traffic works because there are only 90 houses. This development is 84 units. This is in effect doubling the amount of traffic on the alleyway. The one lane alley can't handle doubling traffic. One neighbor says this plan is going to create a major dangerous throwaway adjacent to what is already a very dangerous intersection. This proposal is so ludicrous that it doesn't even work for the development. So look, this is the slide. You've got people leaving the development going one way and people coming in the alleyway to get into the development coming the other way. How are they expected not to bump into each other? Where do they go if someone is coming out the other way? Are they supposed to back up? What if a car is coming in from forest? What about the cars parked outside? So you have all those cars that are now going to be backing out into the alleyway. The developer's traffic study in your packet says that there will be an additional 409 trips per day. That's 409 chances for a collision per day. And then we get to the intersection on Hagaman and Soquel. So the next slide, please. If we need to go towards Morrissey, we need to make a left at the light. Most times of the day we can't cross Soquel without the light at Hagaman allowing us to make a left turn. This is true for anyone on a bike as well. It's a dangerous intersection. You have neighbors from forest in Hagaman needing to make a left. Next. You have the Walgreens exit for people making a left back onto Soquel. You have this very wonky intersection at Trevathin that is at an angle and difficult to see. And I appreciate that there might be some mitigation but I still think it's going to be very wonky. Next. You also have pedestrians crossing. As one neighbor says, I have had cars hunk at me and almost hit me many times. Next. We also have a new development coming in here on 162 Hagaman. And that's going to have a minimum of 21 cars but it's going to likely be more. It's townhomes with ADUs. So you need to consider the impacts of these two developments together. The development at 162 Hagaman will dramatically increase the number of cars at this light. Next. And you have this project with 409 trips. The light on Hagaman is long and even if there's a protected left which is great is still going to be very long. The traffic study says that during peak hour we can expect 35 new car trips. If half of those are going to the light at Hagaman to go straight or make a left turn then it will as one neighbor explains back up the Hagaman light. It will likely back up the car traffic enough that it blocks the alleyway. Next. According to the developers own aerial photo in the packet it looks like it'll only take about 10 cars until the alleyway is blocked. Then what happens? The existing neighbors can't leave the people who live in the development can't leave and we are all in effect trapped. Next slide. According to one neighbor the alley and the intersection will never safely accommodate this project. We know much of this can be averted. You can make Soquel the access point and not the alley. Let's go back to the slide. There we are. And this here again is the developers own photo and we just want you to see how all the parking spots along the street are taken. They're already used. The street parking is already full in this just random photo that was from Google Maps or wherever. As a neighbor says the community already is impacted by more vehicles than places to put them. Another resident adds we know you're constrained by the state in regards to parking but the situation is already untenable. It is unrealistic to believe that the number of parking spaces provided in this design will come anywhere close to accommodating the number of cars that residents of this building will bring with them. Additionally and neighbor states we already have no parking on the street. I never get to park in front of my house at 161 Hagamon. I have to park down the block and walk back with my groceries and parcels. There are solutions, creative solutions to parking. I know some cities are rethinking parking lots like Walgreens and doing creative 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. Partnerships with businesses and residents. Some neighbors here want permit parking for only the existing residents. Some don't like permit parking but we all agree the time to mitigate is right now. I'm almost done. Go ahead, finish your thought. Okay, thank you. Next slide, please. This development has an outsized impact on our little horseshoe street. If these exact plans are approved, there will be more accidents. A cyclist already died at this corner. Please insist that the entrance to this development is on Soquel and keep them from overloading the alleyway and our intersection. Thank you. Thanks. All right, so who here agrees with that statement? I thought so, I just wanted to get on the record. Thanks and that was a good applause round but let's keep it to a minimum. Please, as others speak, no booing, please. Come on up. Nope. Sorry. No, that's fine. Stand in line. So we'll give one minute for public comment. I live on Mentell Avenue, which horseshoes around to Park Avenue and goes along Arana Gulch. I understand we need more affordable housing for our residents in Santa Cruz and I support that. The 1800 Soquel Avenue development consists of 14 low income and 70 market rate rentals. How will 70 market rate rentals help our community? It will not help our teachers and locals who work at the grocery stores, the restaurants and the small business employees. I'd also like to know the long range plan for transportation in the city of Santa Cruz and has a current traffic impact study been performed on Soquel Avenue. The Water Street Brantza 45 story building has not been constructed yet but it's in the mix, right? Adding 84 units on Soquel Avenue in addition to that housing development will have severe consequences on traffic and impact the safety of our neighborhoods. It will, the extra vehicles from both of those projects. So just finish your thought, please. Okay. We'll cut off access for the Midtown residents needing to get to urgent care at the hospital or out of our neighborhood if a fire occurs, especially our neighborhood that's also adjacent to Ronald Gulch and we've had fires out there before. This area of Santa Cruz can't accommodate all of this additional housing, specifically both of these projects and developments. Soquel Avenue is unable to meet the needs of the public that reside in the neighborhoods as it is now. The site of this development will only impact this area further. And my neighborhood is an island with only Soquel Avenue available to us to get in and out of our neighborhood. Okay, last sentence, please. I've spoken to Carmel, Pacific Grove, and Monterey. And I think we all need to work together and discuss with the state how we can work together because I know this whole density bonus permit is working and your hands are tied, but it doesn't work in these small communities and we have no infrastructure to house all these people with our roads, especially Soquel Avenue. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners and staff. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening. My name is Larry Wolfson. I'm a 60 year resident of the city of Santa Cruz. And you have before you a letter that I wrote, it's in your packets. My family and I own the adjoining property. You could sign up and have the adjoining property. We have- The one along Soquel there. Yes. Yeah. Just to these. Soquel and backs up against the alley. Got it. Yeah. It, my family and I have had a number of concerns which we've discussed and decided we can live with. Boiling it down to just two that we really want your consideration on and support. One has already been mentioned which was the parking in front of the retail establishment that was put in when it was required. Maybe just nine a.m. to nine p.m. Keep that available and during the night it could be used then for other parking. The second one is a little more complex than that's the alley. That alley is basically one way when a car enters from one end if a car enters from the other one I'm asked to back up. It's used primarily by strollers, how's it, walking people, people walking back and forth. The concern is with the addition of the access to the parking that that alley will become used fairly regularly and often. And we ask that if that is the case, the developer and subsequent landowners be required to maintain it because that is, the way it is now requires little maintenance unfortunately but it does work. But if you get more traffic on that alley it just isn't gonna work and it should be the responsibility of those creating that traffic to take care of it. Thank you for your time. I am available to answer any questions that you may have. All right, thanks for coming up. Letters in your packets. Great, thank you. Hello commissioners, thank you for hearing all of us. I will keep my comments short as many of them are repetitive, I'm aware of that. But it is a huge concern as you can tell from all of our people here who took time out of their lives and so forth to sit through a very long presentation and we now have a very short amount of time to express our feelings and our thoughts and our concerns. I was quite dismayed, Mr. Kennedy to hear you say that you have a vision for our neighborhood but you live on the west side, not in our neighborhood. So it's a little bit, as we say in my tradition, a food spot. Got a business feedback during the corridor planning process too. Okay, well, many of us, I would be happy to ask for a show of hands if we want to, many of us have lived in this neighborhood for 20, 30, 40 and more years. More of most of us own property, it is our neighborhood and this is not our vision for our neighborhood at all. I hope it's very clear. I understand that to some extent your hands are, quote, tied but I think there are many ways, as the person before me said, that we can work something out. First of all, this project is enormous for the size of our neighborhood. I think that's been made very clear. There's nothing else anywhere near that is that height near our specific area so it would be a complete exception to that. It would change the nature of the neighborhood significantly, okay? I hope that's very clear to you all. We are unhappy with that. It's not that we're against providing housing. We, all of us are concerned. I ride my bike almost every day and have done so with my two children who've grown up in the neighborhood. It is not a safe neighborhood to ride a bike. Gone cars are driving by on Soquel at 50 and 60 miles per hour on a regular basis. The bike lane is extremely limited. I know that's not our concern here at the moment but everybody has spoken about the danger to all these add-in. I wanna say one more thing and then I'll give my space up and that is that these units are 432 square feet. Some of them are bigger, I agree. Now if I had a tape measure, I'd be more than happy to walk along and say this is how big this space is. It's probably about the size of this space. The DS here, yeah. Okay, so we are talking about quite small spaces. Now I would love to ask the developer and his other, you know, and the architect if they have children who are grown young children. One more thought and then wrap it up please. Yes, and how much money those children are able to make and if those children would want to live in these little homes because I work with people who are UCSC students who are making minimum wage. If you're making minimum wage and you're working 40 hours a week, you're making slightly more than $2,000 a month. These are gonna be homes, they're gonna be market rate. We all know the chances are high that there will be more than one person living in these units to pay for the market rate rent. Therefore, there will be even more cars than are currently being imagined, okay? I want that to be clear to all of you. That is not, it's not gonna be 84 cars. It's gonna be over 100 cars easily. At the risk of more conflict, wrap it up please. I'm finished, thank you very much. Good evening commission and staff. Thank you for having me. I wasn't planning on showing up, but I opened the live stream and saw it was still going at eight o'clock, so I thought this was very exciting. My name is Ryan Mechel. I'm a lead with Santa Cruz EMB. We are fully in support of this project and very much would like to see it move forward as our members. I'd like to speak personally to this project, especially with the comment prior to mine, how this would impact me. I've lived in Santa Cruz the past six years. I rent and work at the university. I would love to have 435 square feet of space to live in. Currently I share 1,000 with two students at UCSC. I haven't been a student for the past two years and I'd like to move into a space of my own. I'm not gonna own a home any time soon with the prices, but I could rent a studio or one bedroom apartment maybe. I would really like to see this project move forward because there are not enough options for people like me in Santa Cruz. I don't see many people that look like me here in this room right now and I think that's a voice that isn't being heard. There are a lot of people that will live in this project that are currently sharing a room with maybe two to three other people that because there simply aren't options in Santa Cruz. This is a project that would give people like me options to continue to work and live in Santa Cruz. Please move it forward. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Smedberg. I live at 170 Eggman. I've lived there for over 30 years and I agree with pretty much the sentiments of some of the other neighbors in the area. I understand that your hands are tied. There is gonna be a development at this location. I'm actually happy to see a lot of units being built and would really appreciate if they were all affordable units because that's what the people of Santa Cruz need rather than making money for developers. So here's just a couple of points I wanted to make. One of the commissioners, Commissioner Conway mentioned, where's the Amazon truck gonna stop? Well, how about the mail truck? The mail carrier is gonna be stopping there in front of the entrance every single day. Right now, right now there's parking. The parking for retail is in the back off the alley. Where's the retail parking gonna be? If there's so much going on in the alley, I think we need a sidewalk in the alley. So with all the cars backing up, that there's a place for the pedestrians which don't wanna have to dodge cars. How about, I appreciate the parking that's been put in there but how about bus passes for all the residents and that might reduce some of the parking and traffic. And in all the drawings I saw, I did not see solar panels on the roof or they're gonna be solar panels, thank you. Solar panels are mandatory for building like this these days. I live at 144 Mantell Avenue which is the horseshoe right next to this horseshoe. So I echo what everyone says about being stuck with Soquel as our only outlet and just how absolutely huge of a burden this is going to be on us and our neighborhoods. And I just, I'm pro housing, I'm pro building this and the original plan was 35 units that's super reasonable for a neighborhood our size. This is absurdly dense. This is going to ruin and destroy our neighborhoods with all due respect, we like our neighborhood and I understand we have to build but that vision that you put out sounds like a traffic nightmare. I mean, that's going to be, it's gonna destroy our neighborhood. We're not trying to turn into a small San Jose. So please just be humble and realize that your vision may not be the vision that everyone shares and that we all actually have different visions and it's our neighborhood. This is selling to the highest bidder. I mean, this is not what is best for our children. This is not what is best for the neighbors. This is not what is best for our community. Most of what I've really wanted to say has already been said though, so. I thought it was really interesting in the architectural drawings that you had of the building, there was no traffic on Soquel. It was just, it was blank and that is not the truth. There's like 10 trees too if you know. Exactly, like a little forest. But I think the big problem for me is the layout of the city. I mean, as everybody knows, there's a traffic funnel that comes in at Frederick Street because you've got Water Street, Broadway and Soquel all funneling in to Frederick Street. There is always traffic there at rush hour. It extends not only there, but for anybody that has tried to drive east from Santa Cruz to Live Oak to Capitola, it's like a parking lot starting at about three o'clock. How is adding 84 units going to make that better? Yeah, we're just going to have more traffic, more pollution. I also agree that there does need to be housing. I think this, I think this is just a recipe for disaster to add this much housing in this particular place. And I agree with what I've heard from everybody else. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Much of this has already been said. Hagman is a cul-de-sac and is connected to Forest Avenue in a horseshoe. It's got 90 homes in it and the through street is Soquel. During most times of the day turning left is impossible without the protected light at Hagman. Instead of putting the egress on the proposed development on Soquel, this development of 84 units doubles the traffic and needlessly complicates our limited traffic options. The alley and the intersection cannot safely accommodate this impact. The alleyway is a one lane road used for two way traffic. We've seen tonight you make a lot of effort to accommodate a back row of parking. I didn't see any ideas like make the whole lane, two lane alleyway back there with two way traffic and why prioritize the back row of parking. If you're not going to even consider egress through Soquel, you need to really reduce this impact. We've seen all the ways that this impact is gonna go sideways. The plan eliminates the room to pull over when a car is coming in the opposite direction. It doubles the two way traffic. There'll be decreased visibility for cars turning under the alleyway and also Hagman making the area dangerous for cars, pedestrians, and cyclists. We spoke of the tragic death on the corner so Kelin Hagman, this project will increase the likelihood of future accidents which are preventable with better planning. Thank you. Yeah, hello, my name is Levi Glatt. I'm 22 years old and I live on Forest Avenue and I ride my bike to work every day through this area and I fully support the addition of small rental units at this multi-use parcel. However, I have very strong concerns about the neighborhood impact of increased cars and vehicles in the alleyway and Hagman intersections. The current plan significantly changes traffic patterns in the neighborhood streets and will be dangerous for everyone involved increasing the likelihood of collisions. I urge you to postpone approval until the project is safe for multi-use functionality for bicycles, pedestrians, and accommodation of vehicles. I will be in support of this plan eventually but I feel strongly that this project should not get approved tonight. I urge the planning commission to only approve 1800 Soquel until after the entrance is modified from the alleyway to Soquel or if you can find a option that accommodates everyone in order to reconsider community safety concerns. Thank you for your time. My husband and I are lucky fortunate enough to own a house on Forest Avenue. I say fortunate because it's a beautiful neighborhood, yes, but also I mean fortunate because we have generational wealth that allowed us to consider purchasing a house in Santa Cruz in the current market. I have seen too many of my peers educated, engaged community members move away from Santa Cruz because they couldn't afford to build their lives in this housing market. I know more who are considering doing so. These are not people who need options significantly below the market rate. These are individuals who just need more options. More options that will bring rent down costs just a little, options that will make this market more competitive so that landlords cannot get away with being slumlords. We need more housing options. One definition of a crisis is a time when difficult and important decisions need to be made. We are in the middle of a housing crisis and the decisions that need to be made to get us out of it will be difficult for everyone. I encourage everyone to consider how we can be part of the solution that is best for the future of our whole community. I'm especially passionate about the future of our community now that I have two young sons, two and a half years and two and a half months respectively. I feel so lucky they will, I feel so lucky to be able to raise them in beautiful Santa Cruz, but I wonder what Santa Cruz will be like for them. I want them to grow up in a city that is working through this crisis, making an important and sometimes difficult decisions necessary to create space for those who want to live here. So I am here with all of you with an open mind to learn more about this development. I plan to stay actively and collaboratively engaged and I'm grateful to everyone who is participating in these discussions. Building an apartment complex at 1800 Soka Avenue would provide more housing options that this community desperately needs. I hope we can work together to welcome more neighbors to our special corner of Santa Cruz in the near future. Thank you. Good evening, my name's Deborah Bone. I've lived on Hageman Avenue for more than 30 years and I'm not gonna repeat all my concerns about traffic because those are well articulated already. I put a letter in the packet, you can read my suggestions. I'm grateful that the one that I said about the angles of parking was maybe listened to because that was, I think better that the 90 degree angle has been changed and I really honor all of you for thinking this through. It's not an easy match to do. Really what we want is that you don't just quote, follow the letter of the law but actually take all of our concerns and use this as an opportunity to find the balance between building more housing and yet protecting our neighborhood streets and our alley. And it's not an easy solution but we believe that with more thought, maybe it could work. I think part of the more thinking is that the developers might be asked to concede a little bit more territory on Hageman and Soquel so that there is room for a little bit more delivery trucks, bigger bike lane, better left turn traffic, figure that corner out that's such a mess with Trevathon so that just that actual intersection can be more functional. The other question that I think is certainly on my mind and others here is how is this development gonna be managed? Is this gonna be only a rental property? Are these units each gonna be sold separately? Can flexible density units even be sold individually or is it gonna be like under one housing authority? Are there gonna be absentee landlords that each can buy one or can invest in them as a speculative real estate? Is there gonna be any kind of rent considerations for those market value that they can't go up more than a certain percent each time that a new person leaves? I suspect there will be high turnover in such tiny little units. People will come until they can get settled and then they'll look for something a little bigger. Can we make it a little bit closer to a model where I know with the very low income and the low incomes there's considerations. You can't just keep raising the rent. So maybe there needs to be something like that for something as small as this. Maybe the city needs to really think through how do we protect the longer range so that it doesn't just be a speculative real estate investment. And for those of us who live in the neighborhood, absentee landlords and separate people who know one person is in charge or in control is a recipe for disaster. So one more statement. These are great questions and staff can answer most of them too after the meeting. Thank you. Anyway. I'm honoring your questions but there's answers. Good, good. Because what's the responsibility that the city has to assure that this large complex of very small units will have uniform oversight with such a large population of residents. All these tiny units may be some kind of a contractual limit to how quickly the rents go up. And maybe not, I don't know. I don't know how it works, but I just think, and then the other question that we all have is what are the restrictions and the conditions of approval around the construction itself? The alley needs to be kept open. No, no big trucks dropping off materials so that we can't use the alley. And there really shouldn't be construction noise between eight a.m. and early than eight in the morning or six in the afternoon. I don't know when you do it. I know the city allows construction to go on till 10 p.m. I think that would be horrible. The city's plenty loud already. Anyway, so those are the kinds of considerations for us that are gonna be living with whatever final plan there is. Okay, can you wrap it up please? Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Just to answer that quick question. This is a rental project. They won't be owned individually like condos. They'll be under one guy. Under one management, yeah. Right. So thank you so much for your time, the council. I just am filled with a tremendous sense of awe for the strength of our democracy that we're able to actually sit here like human beings and actually have this dialogue. And I just really wanna say thank you so much for taking your time to be here to do this service for our community. So I am with along with my wife, the homeowners at 251 Forest Avenue. We are the only house that uses the easement to access our parking. Our parking is in the alley, our driveway. Our garage is in the alley. The only access to our garage is in the alley. I know the gentleman who spoke earlier who owns the unused fallow warehouse space across the street. It has been fallow for almost a decade now. I could go into detail about pricing and why that sits fallow, but that is the case. In any case, I wanna share with you that I have a ring camera in that alley. And if you're interested in seeing what traffic patterns on that alley look like, I will give you access to that camera. You must know this. It's not only my 75-year-old quadriplegic neighbor and her pug. It's not only the neighbors on Hageman who are raising small children with tricycles, riding through those potholes, that the city will not fix. Even though the gentleman with the dreadlocks, and I, several years ago, took his tamper and some cold patch and patched that alley. Because the people at your, I don't know what's going on in the city works, but that's what's going on in my neighborhood is that we are patching that alley ourselves. In any case, I also just finally, one last thing, there are enormous trucks. The liquids for the auto parts store, it's on their delivery route. They come down and knock the trees, knock the limbs off the trees weekly with their deliveries. This is not a standard small truck, gentlemen and ladies. This is a serious, heavy-duty, rear-dually monster truck. This is a delivery vehicle. And my understanding, and it's been my understanding since I bought the place five years ago, and I actually was born here in the beach flats in 1969, but what I see is that the plumbing supply company will stop and block that alley for 15, 20 minutes at a time to load and unload, and that's been the case for decades. That alley will get blocked for long stretches of time by industrial traffic, right? So this is all, and finally, let's be real about semantics. Semantics matter, especially with regard to law. And so what we're talking about here, this is not an alley. Don't buy this. Oh, the alley, the alley. Guys, ladies, this is a thoroughfare. If you look back far enough into the records of this city, it is a named street called Forest Lane. We could call it Bike Boulevard, maybe. Oh, and the other thing, everybody's so concerned about the bike lane on Soquel. Guys, the bike people don't ride their bikes on Soquel. You die. They come down the alley. OK, thank you so much. God bless you. Bless you all. Candace, two minutes, please. Yeah, I'll try. But also, you gave people more time also. So my name is Candace Brown. I live in East Morrissey. I live on Trevathon. And I'm also on the Transportation Public Works Commission. But I'm here as a personal representative. As you can tell, there's a lot of discussion about traffic, which I find interesting and not really about housing today. So just to point out a few things. First of all, this hexagon transportation consultant, it was done by the owner with a consultant. And they used numbers that were in the I.T.E. generation manual. But they did not use really the guidelines of the city of Santa Cruz, August 2021 transportation study requirements for development, which basically uses a totally different number for evening peak. So it would make a difference in consideration of a traffic study. And it also says in here, a traffic study will be required if a proposed project disrupts existing pedestrian bicycle or transit circulation. I think that you can clearly say tonight that that is the case. So you really do need to think about this. And you do need to do a traffic transportation circulation study here. The intersection itself is not only problematic because it's a skew and it's misaligned. But we haven't talked about the crosswalks. A lot of people get bumped in that crosswalk. People walking and bicyclists. I know people in the neighborhood that have been airlifted because they have been so severely injured. And many of these are not actually even reported. I'm beginning to try to report them to the county coalition because we're trying to keep better statistics. That also, even if you align it, then you're going to drive all the traffic into Trevathon and most of that street, which is about 65 houses, most of it does not have sidewalks. We already have tracked, during the peak period, 600, 900 cars coming through Fairmont going down. And also, because of that, they're then trying to make a left because they are trying to get around Soquel. And also, that is where we see all the collisions. It's people going on Trevathon going left and then people going northbound and Hageman going straight and a misaligned. And there's a confusion about who has the right of way because one's over here trying to go straight and the other one's trying to make a left. And everybody's like, well, I have the right of way. I'm right there. So this is what happens. So this is why it's so problematic. The bicycle lane itself is very inadequate. We approved Vision Zero in 2019. And when are we going to execute? And we have a once in a lifetime to set this back. The only other point I want to make is that if we do these set-asides, then the base of that unit would change the base numbers. And I was not able to see anything that established the calculation for the density bonus based on the tentative lot plot and the setbacks. And if it includes the piece that's been allocated, then that's really not part of the lot. And I'd have to talk to a lawyer, and I probably will, because I'm not sure if that is the proper way to do the calculation. Right there in the staff report. One quick question. Yeah, I looked for in the staff report. I didn't find it. You live down in Travis, and if I remember right, is there traffic coming in that direction? Like toward your house? Are there speed bumps or? Well, we do have speed bumps, which is interesting. And yet we. I'm trying to remember. So basically Walgreens is a convenience store. So I actually have the traffic report from 2016 when there was 32 condos. And it's interesting because there's a lot of traffic going this way. There's a lot of traffic going the other way because they're all going to Walgreens. There's a lot of people that go in there to get quick things right after work. So there is a lot of traffic going both ways, which is interesting. Thank you. I'm certainly not disputing this traffic on Soquel. That's for sure. And just to mention, Soquel is the third most busy area of that intersection of the entire city. There's 25,000 to 33,000 cars per day. Thank you. I call it Highway 2. Hi, my name's Fred Malouf. I'm at 148 Forest Avenue. A couple of things not mentioned or not made as clear. The left turn on Soquel from Forest is not only hazardous because of traffic, but because it's blind. The restaurant blocks any view. So you have to inch out into traffic from the left. Yeah, don't do that. And so the other day, I went around to Hegeman Light. And guess what? I was 10 cars back. I was blocking the alley. Secondly, sidewalks are inconsistent in this neighborhood. So people walk in the streets. They walk their dogs. They walk their kids. So you double the traffic. You double the parking issues. And now you've got more safety concerns. And I think that's what I wanted to add. Thank you. So I am actually for housing. If this were across the street where maybe there's more outlets for cars, I might not be as objectable to it. 35 units, OK. 35 units. It's too slow. 84 is too high. So what about something in the middle? Hello. My name is Eric Bustamante. First of all, I want to thank the neighbors who came out here to voice their concerns. And you guys pretty much get the point, right? Everybody is against this project. I understand the developers are here to run a business and make money. Fine. I don't blame them. But I do blame the people who are allowing this project to move forward, especially for how big it is. I know it's not to your concern, because I mean, you guys don't live there, right? West Side must be nice, correct? Yeah, I never go on the East Side. It's never been over there. Yeah, and then another thing too. Plano guy came up here and said, there's not too many people of his age up here. Well, I'm right here. And like I said, the neighbors have spoken. I will make my comments very brief. I see a one minute on the timer here. My name's Dave Cole. And I moved to Forrest Avenue in 79. I bought my house in 80. I've been away for a while because I was taking care of an aging parent. But I'm back. And I walk that route in that alley every day and I echo what people said. But I just want to add something that wasn't said. I'm a real estate attorney. I do development work. I do land planning and development work, master plans, general plans, and have done what I've been doing for over 40 years. I know the state has changed laws that requires you people who are doing excellent job in a difficult circumstance to approve a lot of units. I know this because I get them going 130 approximately units right now in Orange County. I understand the rules here. But something that said at the beginning that I wasn't planning to speak, but he said, wait a second. Yes, I agree that the state has some crazy parking laws. And we as municipalities are not allowed to, or you as a municipality, are not allowed to go against that. But I strongly disagree with the assertion that you're required to approve special uses, variances like a six foot height variance if you have a 40 foot and now you're going 46. I don't think there's anything in the state law that requires you to approve that. Or 84 units when you could get 70 units or some other reasonable number. You've got a four story building going in there. And there's a reason that we have height restrictions. And it could be a three story building. I'm for development. I do this for a living. I can't wait to retire, frankly. But I just want to point out you're not, unless the city attorney specifically directs you that you're required to, I do not believe that was a correct statement at the beginning. Thank you. Hello, I'm Francie. And I've lived on Hagamon for 40 years. And my concerns are to sum up the traffic problem. With this development, or without it, the Soquel area in that part of town is a disaster already. So with or without this, it's a disaster. And as I said in 2016, when the previous development was trying to get approval, when the VW. Oh, yeah, the Volkscafe? Yeah. No, no, not the Volkscafe. The whole dealership, Nissan VW, they made a lot of concessions to the city, to the street of Soquel. They have a wide sidewalk. They have greenery. They have gardening. They have everything. I know that these people are asking for this, that, and the other thing. They're not conceding one thing, not one thing. They're not conceding any, so OK, we're getting a wider sidewalk, but nothing to really help the traffic situation. I know they don't have to. They don't have to have 80 units. They can. They don't have to, but they can concede some of this to get every other things that they want. They don't have to do any of that, but they could. And as other people said, this is going to end up like a slumlord situation and not really help any of our housing difficulty. It's just going to be a problem. So those are my concerns. And without this project, there is no beautiful Soquel Avenue bike lane, bike pedestrian. That's why we use the alley. You know, we don't. And so many other projects in this town, they had to put in a park. They had to do this. And then they could put their 170 units in or whatever. We're not getting anything out of this, nothing, not a thing. We're just getting a slum development. Hi, my name is Ellen Manko, and I've lived on Mentell Avenue since 1988. I just want to say two things. One is when you think about the mock-up, the picture that they had, it shows a cosmopolitan city. We are a beach town. I mean, I can't even tell you how ugly that looks to me. And aside from that, it's a behemoth. And I want to echo what the man said, the last man that spoke. It doesn't have to be four stories. All of us would like to see some kind of affordable housing for nurses and teachers and service workers and that kind of thing. But four stories. And it just makes me wonder, because if we have height limitations, then all of a sudden, then there's a waiver. You can have a waiver for height recommendations. You can cut down heritage trees with a waiver. You know what I mean? I don't even see the point of having limitations if you're just going to wave a magic wand and get your way. Just saying. That was vigorous and good public comment. A lot of good things came up. Deep breath. Anyone else want to come speak? Come on up. You're really sorry you said you live on the West Side. That's OK. If it wasn't that, I would have said something else dumb. I'll respond later to that question. OK. So now we'll close the public comment, bringing it back up here to the commissioners for some more discussion and emotion. Oh, I forgot to offer the applicant a chance to rebut any of those public comments if they would like to. Thank you, Eric. I've got this. Michael, I picked that up. I would like to take one exception, though. I take a lot of pride in my work, as I'm sure a lot of you do. And quite honestly, to be called a slum lord is a little insulting and unfair. So applicant, applicant, stop. Yes. Speak to me. Thank you for that gesture, but you see why it doesn't work that way. Fair enough. I have a history of building quality projects. I am trying to build a quality project. I understand that a lot of people are upset about it. I do not consider myself a slum lord. It is not my intent. And that is the one comment I'd like to make. Thank you. Thank you. All right, well, maybe a commissioner who doesn't live on the West Side wants to start off. I'll start. Is that OK? Go ahead. Yeah, please. OK. So I am your neighbor. I live on Hanover. And I just wanted to ask staff a couple things that came up. Could you speak to the management plan agreement and how that would be if there is one associated with this project for the units? I was actually just having that little conversation with Samantha about that. And it's interesting that I think our SRO section of our ordinance requires that, but the FDU does not. So I don't believe that is a requirement. But it's not to say that you couldn't condition something like that if you wanted to have a management plan submitted. So we could condition something based on the SRO requirement that would probably be the simplest way since that language is already created? Yes. OK. So where to start? So we talked a lot about transportation, health and safety issue, bike rider, rode my bike here today. I don't ride on Soquel. I ride through Irana. I ride through that alley. It's really dangerous. And so just know that I'm familiar with that area. And to me, the health and safety concerns are very compelling. I also want to just commend the neighbors for putting together a visual representation for folks who don't live on the east side so that they could understand that there's some real concerns with Soquel. Misalignment all along. That turn on to Frederick, which is kind of in my neighborhood, is you think you're going to get creamed every time you're stopped there. But I just got to keep it short here. I do want to say some things about housing since I do and take a brief little opportunity to be on a soapbox really quick. So the density bonus law at this state is really constrains our ability to get affordable housing. So other people would tell you it actually gets you affordable housing. From my perspective, it does the opposite. We have 20% inclusionary in this town. With density bonus, we usually get about 13%. I will say that this developer is actually giving us 16%. We all know that's not enough. So I just encourage you all to pay attention at the state level. Your assemblymen, your senators, that law is on the books. And it's not going away anytime soon. And that really constrains what happens. And it also speaks to some of your concerns about just waiving things. It's designed to incentivize affordable housing. But from my perspective, if we're in a town that has 20% and you never get it, I don't know how that incentivizes affordable housing. So the other thing I would just want to say is that this project, because of the way the laws are, it's going to be really dense there. And it could have been more dense. They took a 25% bonus. They could have took up to a 50% bonus. And so I think as we talk through this, and I could go on and on, but I want to leave space for everybody else. It's already 9 o'clock. But I do think that your health and safety concerns are compelling. And I would move to continue this and work on a plan that is safe for this neighborhood. And I'll leave it there. All right. Any other commissioners with comments or discussion? Just a general comment. I want to commend Ms. Dubin. That was a fantastic presentation. I think we all need to acknowledge that the changes to state law, they do create strong limitations to what we're able to do to even modify proposals. And I personally acknowledge that I'm strongly in support of densification generally. But one thing I think needs to be said is that a lot of the uses that were described in the alley particularly, nothing in this proposal precludes it. I'm not saying that there isn't an impact, but all the uses that are so cherished, they are not prohibited by this project. They are impacted. I understand what you're saying. And I'm just putting it out there that I don't. There are no prohibitions being put on any of those uses. There are impacts. I understand. I would also like to say that every Santa Cruz neighborhood is unique. That's one of the things that was said. There have been 40 years of arguments being put forth about why this project can't be put in this location and that project can't be put in that location. And I really think it's great that people are engaging at this level and with this kind of intensity to try to get the best solution possible. And I would just encourage you to keep doing that. I would also, though, encourage everyone to make yourselves familiar with the state laws that are being discussed here, because they are a result of that same trend of people just being very resistant to change of any kind. And it's, for better or worse, it's the reason that we have many of the affordability challenges that we have. So. Right on. Thank you. I just wanted to address the public on some of the comments I heard. And I think, for me, one of the things I really love about this town is exactly the fact that we are near capacity tonight. And there's a lot of passion in this neighborhood and a lot of, I think, territoriality is the right term, but a lot of care about the structure and function and livability of one's neighborhood. It's a really important factor in terms of quality of life, in terms of the way that we live, work, and play, the people that we interact with, and the uses that we have in our city. It's a very, very important thing. So I do want you to know that I also live on the West Side, but I also took the time last night to drive down that alleyway and all the way to Iran-a-Golch and to do the U.E. and to make a left on Sokella Forest. OK? Yes, it was 8 PM, but I took the time to do it, OK? And then I got up at 4 30 this morning and I took my daughter to the emergency room and I still showed up here. And the reason is because I care, OK? So I hear a lot of comments about how, you know, we're this, we're that, and, oh, it's not your neighborhood. You don't care. I could have very easily called in sick to this meeting and I didn't because I wanted to be here and I wanted to show up, OK? So I need you to know that first, OK? Secondly, we are in a housing crisis, not just a housing crisis of market rate apartments but also of affordability, OK? And these things matter, OK? And I have seen almost every single one of the people that I know and care about move out of this town because they can't afford to live here and they can't find spaces even if they could. So we have very, very intentional competing interests here in terms of, yes, we all want to live in a nice place, but we also want our kids to be able to live here, OK? So I want to put that on everybody's plate just so you know that, you know, this is, I think, one of the most important things to understand is that there are many different competing interests. There is no perfect project and we all want your neighborhood to be just as good as ours. And so I want you all to know that. And we'll move forward and we'll make decisions here but I think that that needs to be understood. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Conway? I'm not quite sure where to start either. Thank you for caring a lot about my town. I spend a lot of time over on exactly this street and I do understand the concerns. And also, I think fellow commissioners, thank you for addressing some of the needs that we have here. And you know, this neighborhood, it was designed for car culture. There's not good connectivity as there should have been when it was 40 and 50 years ago. There should have been better connections from this street over to Frederick Street to get to Galt School where my son went. It's problematic and we're dealing with what's been built already. I also want to remind everybody that as a community, we decided when we adopted a general plan that we did not want growth and dense buildings within our neighborhoods. We wanted on the corridors. We did that on purpose. We have to do the growth. Four stories is not too much. It is going to work better. And even as it is, we just don't have the opportunity to not approve this project. I want to also say that I appreciate that the developer has taken great steps and will continue to take great steps to try to address the challenges of safety and circulation. It's not all figured out. We know that. We look at projects all the time. I'm absolutely insulted by the implication that this is going to be a slum. That was a mistake. I am, if there is not the requirement, I spent 35 years working in housing. And management matters a lot. It's one of my passions. One of the mistakes that we made, I think, as a city is thinking that we were going to have a map for these dense buildings. And what that means when you file a map, that means you have an APN and a unit that can be sold. And it's a nightmare of management, mostly for neighbors. I am so glad that this is going to be a rental project. We are going to expect it's going to be well managed. And I'm really happy, and I will be proposing a condition to make sure that there's an adequate management plan. This city does have standards for analyzing a management plan and expecting that it's going to be well done. And it will be well done. And I mean, I don't know these particular developers, but I do see the care that they've taken to try to address some of the complexity. And I know that they'll continue to do that. And I guess what I can say is I am going to be proposing at least two additional conditions. I'm not ready to make a motion yet. Everybody hasn't spoken. One of them is going to be, I think it is reasonable that the developer is required to maintain the alley along the frontage of their property. And I think we probably have language for that. This alley is tremendously important. I've taught kids how to ride bike on this alley, too. And also to make sure that we condition a management plan and that we find language that is acceptable to the developer for that. And I guess I'm done. Thanks, Julie. I appreciate your expertise in that area. And your comments. I also have a lot to say. Let me start with two quick factual clarifications. Ryan, is the new alley whiter or more narrow than the existing alley, excluding the row of parking spots in both configurations? Because I'm trying to understand. I hear you all, but the alley is getting paved. And is it narrower or whiter? Is it going to be taken away? The alley itself is remaining 15 feet. But what's being proposed adjacent on their property along the alley is an extension of the pavement of the alley with those 90 degree parking spaces. So visually, it's going to go from 15 feet to I think it's going to be around 10 feet between the back of the parking spaces. So don't quote me at 10 feet exactly, but around 10 feet. So basically it's going to go from 15 to about 25 feet. So the alley will remain the same width that will be paved by this project, at least behind their project. Follow on question. I acknowledge the other business owner. We had this project, similar project like many years ago and went through all these scenarios. So could we condition this project to pave that alley all the way through if we wanted to? You know what I mean? Like this project clearly has nexus on that half. But what if they were willing to pave it all the way over? It is still here. I might ask that of him. Because I know that is kind of a standard condition. Perhaps we can take some of the burden off your shoulders, sir. So the project will be conditioned to pave the whole entire alley. Fantastic. For the whole length along their property? From forest to argument, yes. Oh, the whole thing. Thank you, Curtis. Simple answer. OK. OK, second question kind of. So I can't express how against adding a driveway on Soquel is all of our plans across the board, excuse me, are about eliminating curb cuts on our corridors. The reason we do that is because it's more walkable. It's safer. We get nice, wide sidewalks. I'm letting my own emotions come through. I have a three-year-old and a six-year-old. We're learning bike riding too. It's freaking terrifying taking my kids on Mission Street. And I pulled my little daughter like this, you know? So I get it. But if that was a tree-lined 10-foot wide sidewalk with flourishing small businesses and cool things happening along there, again, not now, but in 50 years, that would be a great spot to be. So I'm against Soquel access. Is there any possibility to access off Agamon? I'm not even in favor of that idea. But I wondered if I could ask staff and applicant to respond to whether that deserves a little more thought or if it's just like a no-go at this point. Well, I just want to hear the neighbors see. I agree. There's like rooms going to go somewhere. It's probably a question best asked of the applicant, the architect. Thanks for coming back for one more question. This is my understanding. But my understanding is that we are too close to Soquel to create an entrance. You created a safety hazard at that intersection. Thank you. Everyone's saying it's terribly unsafe now, too. You got it all out? Let me remind everyone public comment time is over. All right. So yeah, I went to Galt School. I rode my bike through this neighborhood you all wouldn't believe. I'm 47. And we used to ride our bikes to Aptos on Soquel. So things changed. But I want to push back a little on that insulting comment that I don't care about your neighborhood. Let me let that go. With my kids in bikes and walking, I think it's speed that gets them. I want a narrow alleyway because no one can drive fast down a narrow alleyway. And I'm not worried about the Amazon guy bumping into my kid on a narrow alleyway because they're going two miles an hour because they're like this. So I think people maybe should think a bit more about safety and traffic calming rather than stopping things. I'm not making this up. Go do some research about what happens when you're hit by a car as a kid at 15 miles an hour as opposed to 26 miles an hour. So I just like to say that. It's the speed that gets the kids. Also on my neighborhood is a project I approved up here where you can either go on Mission Street or you can cut behind the hotel through the parking lot. And we added some bike striping and stuff back there. And it's really nice because if I'm not with my little girl worried about her going to Mission and getting run over, we go on the streetscape because it's nice. It's beautiful. There's four street trees there. There's public art. This is the Hampton Inn at the end of Mission. And so that's what I want for your neighborhood too is we have the option to zip through the alley. I don't know about you all when you're in your sweatpants with your kid or if you're like me in 50 years, I'm not in a car. I'm in a wheelchair. I'm 97 years old. And I want a wide sidewalk with trees that my kid can push me down. So you guys misconstrued that. And you could tell how car focused all this comment was. It's all about turning in a car, turning in a car. I love bikes. I do not think 100% of people are going to ride bikes ever. But I want to create safe spots for old people in wheelchairs, kids on bikes. And I think this project increases safety on the Hageman sidewalk. I understand people disagree at the intersection, crossing the intersection along Soquel and critically in that alleyway. So that's why I'm in favor of this project. Just from a traffic thing. Someone talked about peak traffic. Again, I don't care how many cars are going by. It's the one that goes by my daughter at 45 that I hate. But even the peak traffic number was one car every 90 seconds. So that's how good traffic studies are. You're all experiencing different traffic, but that's not a lot of traffic in my book. And you're going to have a rush hour. So end of day, I should respond to that 50-year thing. Again, I kind of took that personally. But I want to keep my vision 50 years from now where I'm in my wheelchair on Soquel. And I think by then, a little bit of it might have been converted from the hellscape of automobile capitalism that it is now that's been held in place by people not allowing any growth or any projects or any new thinking like apartments. That's why Soquel is so bad today. We like it. This is a new mentality that's looking forward. And it's not stuck in a past where we're burning fossil fuel in our cars and stuff. It's a lot more awesome than that. Unfortunately, and I wish I'm 47, right? So I'm thinking 50 years, I hope to be here. It's changing. It's changing. We cannot keep it the same. I wish we could. I like a lot of that. I like riding my bike to Soquel, on Soquel to Aptos. Things have changed. So that's what I have to say. I can't make any conditions if any other commissioners would like to add a condition, making it five street trees instead of three. I'd love it. I expect there may be some more discussion. OK, what's that? He's got a call. Oh, yeah, we've got. Who would like to go first? Would that be you, Cindy? Well, we'll just keep it going down the line. However you like, it's fine. Is that all right? That is absolutely perfect. So a couple additional comments here. As I mentioned, there are going to be a lot of units that go in this spot, full stop. And we have very limited ability to do anything about that or really talk about that. Once again, we'll say I don't think 17 or 14 units is enough. It's 16%, but that is actually more than we usually get, and that's the law. So we all as a community need to think about how we get more affordable housing. We need to subsidize that, so we have to create revenue streams to do that, because developers, even developers who are giving a little extra are never going to meet the demand. So I think as a community, I just want to put it all out there that we all as a community, if we want affordable housing, everybody says it all the time, we need to figure out how to subsidize the creation of that housing. Otherwise, we are only going to get on a good day 16%. So there's a little soapbox again. But I will say that I do feel like there are a lot of smart people involved in this project that work for the city that really admittedly the developer and the architect said, we didn't really think about the flow so much. And I think that we need to do that at this place. There is going to be a ton of units that go in here, so I think we need to think about that. So I'll put a motion on the floor and see if I can get a second. I would like to continue this with the specific direction to focus the continuance on the traffic flow and coming up with a plan that may allow some of the concerns about blocking up the alley. And I don't know what the solution to this. I'm not a traffic engineer, but I would like to make a motion to continue this item so that we could work with the developer and the architect to come up with a plan that is safer than what is proposed right now. We'll see if I can get a second. Second for delaying the housing project. Seeing none, we'll move on. Commissioner Dotson, do you have further comments? Commissioner Conway. I'd like to move approval of the project. And I'd like to propose, and I'll need help with the language, I would like to require, add an additional condition that is going to require. Heat test. OK, thank you. That's going to require the developer to maintain the alley at their property line, and maybe not the whole alley. And also, that's going to condition them to submit a management plan that meets the city standards and is approved by the planning director. I think that's what the language says, as I recall. While you guys were discussing it, we did a quick draft for you. Let me know if that works or if you'd like me to add to that. The alleyway shall be repaved and maintained between Hakeman and Forrest. So I think we heard it is already going to be repaved. It's going to be a condition of approval already. And what I'm proposing is that it will be an ongoing, it'll be maintained on an ongoing basis. So the developer will be responsible for making sure that those potholes are filled. Is there a nexus to require them to do the whole alley? I'm just not clear on that. It seems to me it might be that might not be that might be too much. I questioned that as well. But that was something, I think, that Curtis said, if I heard you correctly. I know I heard him say that they have to improve it. And what I'm wanting to add to that is a requirement to maintain at least their frontage and it seems like there might not be a nexus to have them do the whole thing. So the original condition is for improvement of the alley. So that's paving if it needs it, slurry, selling whatever, depending on the condition of the alley. As far as maintaining it long term, we've never done anything like that. But we could. I mean, we can condition it that way if an applicant could. Currently, public works is not maintained. And just to clarify, is it along the southern edge only of this project? Or is the entire stretch beyond and that's behind the neighboring commercial property? That would be. I drove through there recently. The alley is in bad shape. It's terrible. Pots are in there. So we were going to require that because it's going to get more traffic. OK, that's the next step. To get to that one part of the alley, you've got to go through the other side a lot of the time. I mean, I appreciate that most of the development, the traffic is really for the development is on the Hageman side, which means it's providing more use. To me, it does not seem unreasonable to require them to maintain it. Along their section of the property. Along their frontage. OK, so I could add some language specific to that. OK. OK. And getting some final language in there. So we paid the whole thing and just maintained their half. Be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of their frontage on the alley. And that's my motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. And I wanted to make possibly a friendly amendment here. I want to see what the language ends up being here really quickly. Sorry. No worries. So maybe just the part that abuts the property in question. Don't say that, but something like that. Can I ask a question? So are we saying that the pavement is going to take place along the entire length of the alley, but the maintenance is only on their frontage? That the developer is required to install the improvements on an ongoing basis, just their frontage. Just their frontage. That's what I'm proposing. Should we just ask the applicant if they want to do the whole alley? And then for my friendly amendment, I just wanted to offer something. I sent some language to Ryan and Tess. I'm not sure who to send this to. But the alley will preserve the safety of pedestrians, bicyclers, strollers, and other non-vehicle uses at all hours to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and or Planning Director. I'm going to throw that out and see what my colleagues thought about that and the maker of the motion. Just got your email, so I have it here now. Love the idea. I'm not sure what it means in practice. So figuring out the safety, what I heard from both the developer and the architect is that they are continuing to consider, and prior to submitting for their building permits, they're going to be working with staff to figure out what safety enhancements they can do. And I think that's all we're asking. Was that your intent? So my intent here is to include, to the extent possible, work with the Public Works Director and Planning Director to make sure that pedestrians, bicyclists, strollers, and other non-vehicle uses are safe passing through that alley as opposed to SoCal night and day to their satisfaction, to least satisfaction, to courtesy satisfaction. So I don't know what that means. I don't think that's up to me, but sorry to put you on the spot. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, because I really agree with the intent. I just don't know what it means. Sure. Thanks for that question. I'm Lee Beltler, Director of Planning and Community Development, and I think what that would mean in practice is we would evaluate any conflicts that occur out there, accident rates, and our Public Works team does track accidents. And if those were to occur, then we'd be looking at installing improvements or mitigation measures, whatever that may be. That could be convex mirrors, or that could be beacons. Flashing beacons is something of that nature to alert individuals to, whether it's bicycle or stroller or pedestrian traffic or vice versa, to vehicular traffic that's coming out. So our Public Works team would take the lead in that. But we could look at a condition like this to help require the developer to put in some of those types of improvements should we find that conflicts are occurring. I think my intention here is to give enough leeway in the language so as not to make specific requirements, but to rely on the professional opinion of our city staff to make sure that that alley is safe for people walking, biking, strollering, or e-biking now. We got kids going 25 miles an hour on these e-bikes and skateboards and unicycles or whatever kind of weird stuff people are doing. So people can use this alley so they don't have to go on Soquel if they don't want to. So here's my question. And again, I heartily embrace the intent. Having been a developer, I am concerned if five years from now a change is required. And I'm not sure are we putting a condition on the property that is going to, how is that going to show up? Or are we putting a condition for the city to make this a priority? It's a city requirement. And I'm all right with that. OK. Yeah, my intent is not to be onerous, but to respect what the neighbors who know their neighborhood probably best are saying. But also how it's going to be enforced. Sure. But also to move this project forward with that in mind. Let me first, real quick. I feel like this happens already. I just want to say that. So I think we're just adding a condition to make it very clear, which is great. But I'm thinking of all the projects with all the weird parking lot on a hill, things, and they do get worked out. Again, as long as we're not going to trigger some death loop. And maybe it is. I just wanted to spell this out for this particular project so that it's very clear. I think one thing that might help is to put the responsibility on the developers, because this is a little bit open-ended. So maybe the developer shall be required to work with the city to determine safety. But change the wording so it's more on the developer to work with us rather than just the alley shall be preserved. I could word Smith with you, which would be the property owner shall be responsible to in coordination with the city, maintain the alley in a manner that preserves the safety of pedestrians and so forth. OK. Yeah. No, I'm good with that. Lee, you're good at that. Maybe build and maintain. Is that too hard? What's that? Build and maintain. Otherwise, your words? Oh, you mean where would you where were you putting in building and maintaining? You were saying maintaining, but I was thinking of signs and flashing lights and stuff. Oh, right, right. Maintaining, getting that. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for that correction or that suggestion, because it could be something that is an actual addition. I think what we, what was missing right here, OK, you've got to work with the city to preserve the safety of the alley. And improvements could be improvements or changes to the, at the end, you could just say improvements or changes to the alleyway may be required by the director of public works to address those safety issues, maybe required to achieve the, or to maintain the safety, to get rid of achieve, be required to maintain the safety in coordination with the director of public works and get rid of to achieve there. So yeah, that's my friendly amendment, all that. Can I offer one thing? OK, please. We have a condition. Do we have a condition for three trees? Is that it? The three trees that are there now will remain. OK. Can we go to the rendering of the perspective with the traffic? There's five. Can you find that? And, you know, I actually, I want to hear this, but I wasn't quite ready to move on. I'm sorry. Nope, that's OK. I want to hear this one too. But before we move on, my concern about, and again, I like the idea that it's going to be reviewed and that there's some teeth. I think the neighbors know where to go to do it. And the language is a little bit squishy on where the cost is going to go. And, you know, I do feel concerned that we have been known in the past to burden projects with enough additional and vague costs that it can be hard to get them to get a construction loan, for instance. And I just want to make sure that we're not, that we are both keeping our eye on the ball for enhanced safety. We're asking the developer to stay at the table. But we're also saying that we know that this is a city alley and a city responsibility as well. And I want to make sure that everybody thinks that that's what was stated by the language there. A little bit vague. There is some vagueness to it. I think that is in recognition that we aren't sure what safety concerns and considerations may arise. Nor are we sure about what improvements would be required. I do think that the types of improvements are fairly limited in terms of what can be done there. And I don't think that they would be excessively costly. I think one thing you could do is, if it is the pleasure of the commission, a request of the applicant, whether or not they have any concerns with that condition. I'm planning on doing that. I just want to get all the conditions out of here. And then we'll talk to y'all how you feel about them. Okay. All right, that's good then. I'm good, thank you. Go ahead. I just wanted to point out the five trees in the rendering and say, yes. And I'd like to make a motion to change the condition to reflect the rendering that's provided. Add a condition. Just change the existing. I mean, I guess that, again, I agree with the intent, but as it was, and you know this, the, we'd like to make sure, I mean, if possible, there's got to be some squishy language because we know it could completely screw up underground utilities or. So on the alleyway improvements, we have never improved an alley with, very rarely we've ever put sign-up, share-os, flashing rapid beacons, things like that. So we got to be real careful with this language because we're not going to start doing that on, because if we do it on this alley, then every other alley is going on. So I think there's some mitigation to be done with maybe some signage on the private property sites and, you know. One way. Left turn, kind of like they have like the ingress egress coming out of the structure. I think that would be better. I just don't want to get in a situation with public works and all of a sudden, every alley wants all this safety. And a lot of signs are not going to make it instantly safe either, so we wouldn't acknowledge that. And on the street trees, so conceptually, we look at the plans and we work with fire and parks and rec to come up with adequate trees. There is utility conflicts and fire has conflicts with access to the building for fighting a fire. So we came up with three trees on the frontage. Could more be added, that's possible. But if you condition it as five, there's no guarantee that we could buy it. Fair enough. Give them an out. Condition an attempt. Sure, we could include a condition and just say if supported by the fire department. If feasible. That's fine, it's not going to be feasible, but that's all right, at least we're fighting for it. We just had a question for Commissioner Conway, I think on your condition around the management plan. So staff said that we have specific language with requirements of what's included in a management plan and all that. And I'd just like to see this condition tied to what we have in place, so it's not, so we don't have a back and forth with the developer of they give a management plan, it doesn't have the stuff. So can we just say, and I'm not sure the best way to do that, and this is kind of your... And I do agree with that, and I actually accepted a finalized management plan. Maybe we could say that meets a city standard because there is a standard. Yeah, the provision that's currently contained in the SRO ordinance states, the management plan shall contain management policies, maintenance plans, rental procedures, and it rules and security procedures. So that's the specificity of it. So could a friendly amendment be the management plan that meets the existing city standards? Would that tie it to this SRO, or do we need to call it the SRO specifically? Yeah, it's not technically an SRO project. So if you wanted to pull language, I'd just sort of state that verbatim. Point to that, into the provision. Or we could point that we could call out the section... Yeah, 24, 12, 10, 40, 50. I agree, specificity helps. I mean, because I will say it's pretty comprehensive. It's not just like, hey, there was a bill, you know, it's maintenance plans. It's the whole... We're pretty much there. I'm thinking of like, she'll provide two speed bumps in the alley, but now I'm probably getting carried away. Don't figure it out. No. I'm trying to be objective and specific around standards. Yeah, that's right. All right, I'm good. Okay. Any other comments? No, but I'd love to hear what the developer has to say. Totally. We got the language pretty good. Otherwise, so we have an amended motion. We've accepted it. Do we need a second on the whole amendment? I don't think so. Is it both the maker? Do I need to accept? Do I make a new motion with all these? No, we don't need to accept it. He was asking, it was friendly. He was friendly about it. We're good. Now it's all that. We're good. 65 through 68 and all the other stuff. I'm good. Got it. Has anyone seconded? Yes, he did. Okay. Excuse me, ma'am. The public comment period is over. I'm sorry to say. We wanted to ask Vince. Can we hear from the applicant how they feel about these conditions? I'd like to again highlight that it's in the applicant's interest to have this alleyway be an awesome place too. So I think this supports you, but I just want to hear a response. So I'm just going to go one by one. 65 management plan, we've done deals. We're very familiar with the management plan. We are interviewing local managers. We expect to manage this in a professional manner. Alleyway, obviously I would rather not pay for the entire alleyway, but I understand that that's important. And I agree that maintaining the alley behind our property is fair. However, I think 67 is too squishy to... If we had something specific, Commissioner Conway, I entirely agree with you. For it, I am happy to work with Public Works and the planning department and come up with some specifics that will ensure that. But as it is, it's kind of open-ended, right? And my concern is, in an extreme case, a six-year-old goes in there on a tricycle and falls, and somehow I get tied back into it because the alleyway wasn't safe. So I am happy to work with everybody involved to make sure that what we have is as good as we can possibly get it, but I'm a little concerned that that is just a little too open-ended. And with regard to additional street trees, honestly, I think we got to three because... Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, and... It wouldn't kill you if there's... You know, if we can put another tree in there, honestly, you know, urban cooling, et cetera, I don't know, it's great. But I, you know, once again, just concerned about second expectation that is not up to us. Understood. Any questions on that, Commissioner? You grew up reading the Lorac, so, you know, hope springs eternal. I think you have a valid concern on 67. I don't know. Yeah, I share that concern. Do you have a better... Well, I guess I would ask, what would you be more comfortable with in terms of that? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I think it's important to have something. And I do otherwise trust that that would happen, but I think we do need to probably spell this out, but I'm happy to work with you on this. I get where you're coming from. And, you know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm happy to work with planning so that we can, and we will continue to improve, but that's a tough one to codify, right? That's... Does the turn, do you wanna speak? Lee, do you have... Oh, sorry. Just give you the opportunity if you'd like to. And I think Lee has some thoughts too. Oh, excuse me. Which is always helpful. Thank you, commissioners and the public. It's good to see good turnout on these events. And let's say again, it's good to work with you guys on a good product here as a consensus solution. Yeah, we share those concerns with 67. I can't see as drafted. There's a way for it to be enforceable. And for us to take on that liability is far outside the norm. I think we could be open to having discussions with the city and make sure safety concerns are addressed but to push that liability on is maybe the step too far. Okay, Lee. There may be an opportunity to identify certain improvements that the developer would be willing to do from a public works transportation perspective. I don't think that we'll be able to identify all of those right here. But if it's the will of the commission, we could add a few things such as installation of mirrors, installation of speed bumps, installation of beacons. And I'm not sure if our public works representative here has other ones that they may want to include. Those are just some of the things that come to mind to me right now off the top of my head. And those I think give a greater degree of certainty to the applicant about the potential implications of this. So should I traffic engineer that, Ellie? Two speed bumps, two sheriffs, two mirrors. That's just nothing's gonna catch on fire if we do that. It's not gonna break their budget, I'm pretty sure. I think the conditions say work actively with the public works department on improvements. Truthfully, we don't want a lot of improvements in there because once they get put in the alley, then they also wheel them, right? Speed bumps in an alley could be dangerous if someone's riding a bike at night time. Typically speed bumps are shut off, bike lanes, gutters and things like that. Putting one in the alleyway could be a hazard. So I'm not a traffic engineer. So our transportation manager would have to weigh in on that, but I think there's some things that can be done on the private property side and maybe the minor things in the public right away. But you place something in the public right away, you go to council, you approach them from it, and things change. Yeah. Thanks for reminding me of the realities, as always, public works. Is there something that we could say that would be the property owner will work with the city to ensure that the design of the alley addresses the use by pedestrian cyclists, strollers and non-vehicle uses and maybe just leave it at that. So we've got a condition in writing that, but it's really through the development process and it's gonna be, and it's gonna also support the city's goals and limits. I see a new thought. Maybe they can just do this on their side of the line, like signs you certainly could. We saw a diagram of that already, but then they're reaching out into this other city land, go ahead. Our assistant director here had a great suggestion that maybe amenable to the developer, which is that they would offer up a certain dollar amount to work with the city should these issues present themselves. And then that could go towards some of these improvements should they arise due to conflicts that would limit their liability. And it doesn't predispose what outcome that would be. So it's a dollar amount. And I mean, they're already gonna be paying some kind of traffic impact fee, I assume. So are we talking about in addition is that what we're trying to do is? That would be in addition, the traffic impact fee is not gonna go towards the alleyway. So I think there may be some small amount that is agreeable to the developer that also could help go towards whether they're mirrors or- That would be a containment of assignment also. I'm just reconsidering this whole adventure now. It's very complicated. What dollar amount? We just put the number out of the air. Like what's fair? 20 grand, 50 grand, 80 grand. I don't know. I don't wanna get too heavy on this, but one mitigation device could be like when you have a zero step back frontage and there's a parking garage or something, there's an actual warning device when a car is pulling out, excuse me, maybe something like that can be placed on the property that people in the alley could see if they were traveling from east to west that would flash vehicle backing up. It is on their side of the line. Correct, but it would be on private property side. It's just cleaner that way for maintenance. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Who's responsible for what? I dig that idea. We did this on the Front Street project. The number I always forget that the boomerang shaped one. Oh yeah, a 555. It's got a nice high brand, brand, brand, brand. And then it hasn't been built, but a 331 water, which I believe Mark is on him, I remember that, right? Yeah, that had that same similar thing. Correct. An applicant wanna think about that for a minute and see what you think? Yeah, I was thinking. Even a light, a flashing light might not be ideal. It could be challenging in the evening. Well, if you live next door to it. That's what I'm saying, yeah. Yeah, again, I think we're all in agreement with our concern about the safety of the alley. And I think we also have to balance the impact on the city. The city's got policies about what they can do. And I understand that too. I had to build an ADU back in the day when I had to improve the alley. So I'm not sure, Mike, how we can find a way, because I think what you wanna say is that this matters. And we know it's gonna matter on an ongoing basis. And, but I'm not sure that we found a way that's gonna work, do you have another idea? No, I don't, other than asking the developer if they have an idea for something that might address the concerns of the commission and community as it relates to this, that it would provide enough certainty for you that it's not so loose and open-ended. I would love to come up with something we could engineer tonight, but I'm not a traffic engineer. And I do have to agree with public works. Like I can't take on responsibility and liability for a public right-of-way. I am happy to work with whomever to make sure whatever is on private property is as respectful and supportive of that as possible. But just from a function actually writing at point of view and more importantly for me taking any sort of liability for a public right-of-way that ultimately I'm not supposed to, you know, it's a city street. So I don't know how we get there. I'm with you in the spirit, right? And, you know, as much as there are people who would disagree with me, we've tweaked the project a lot to make sure that we are not using that alleyway as much as possible. So I'm with you in spirit, I just don't know how that's possibly gonna get actually codified in a way that, you know, everybody's lawyer's friend isn't gonna have a field day with. Right. Yeah. And I think what we're expressing is what my concern was, but I do think maybe there's a way that we can say is just soften the language. The property owner and the city will work to, or rather, how about this prior to submittal of building plans? The property and the city shall work together to ensure the safety of the alley in the ways that we've talked about. To maximize alleyway safety. To maximize all the way and you're gonna come to an agreement together and you're gonna submit it as part of your building package. So I like that because it expresses our concern and it doesn't burden these folks and we're not inventing. And we make you guys look at it really carefully. No, I think that's good. And I want to, you know, you have a legitimate concern and I wanna respect that too. I wish I could word Smith is better. I'm running on like 18 hours right now. So. I think the challenges until we have, you know, engineers come up with specific, you know, hey, this is gonna fix things. No, totally. I think it's enough, at least in my view, to assess what, you know, a reasonable person would consider to be concerns and to try to address them. I'm not sure how you write that, but yeah. And I'm happy to, you know, if you wanna write something that, you know, we try to address it. I'm happy to try to address it. At the end of the day, it's still an alley. So. City to address the safety concerns in the alleyway, including to ensure the safety, you can cut out that middle part to propose responsible to work with the city, all that preserve the safety of the alley for pedestrian cyclists strollers, leave that language in there. Yeah. But remove the language about, so that responsibility and there's take the shell out and think we're almost there. I just delete everything after that period. Yeah. Does that do it for you? How about that? Mike, does that do it for you? That encapsulates the spirit of what we're talking about for sure. Yeah. I mean, personally, I like the pedestrian bicyclist stroller language. So I personally like that in there. I mean, what we're asking at this point is now to assess and address. And make sure you think about it, Mike. I think that's, that limits your liability and also, you know, takes into the consideration the safety for the neighbors. And it formally expresses the concern of the community. Yeah, absolutely. So my suggestion would be that in front of safety, we put pedestrian, and I don't know, but does pedestrian encompass bicyclists and strollers at all? Pedestrian, bicycle, strollers, wheelchairs. At all, safety, yeah. In the alleyway. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We missed the last part of this. So while you finalized that language, I wanted to address the neighbors. Now is your time to work with city staff very intensively to get what you want. Because I assume you're gonna be able to counsel that the process goes on and please respect these professionals. They're here to help you. They will help you, you know, get something worked out so we're not all at the council. Please. Yeah, go ahead. Can I ask a related question? Can I ask the applicant? Do you have a traffic study, a traffic analyst on board? There is a traffic, I forget the correct term for the traffic. Engineer, traffic. Yeah, yeah. Consultant. Yeah, there's one in your package. Right, but it doesn't really address the alley. I'm just wondering if there could be some recommendations that could come from that person and maybe that's what the language is based on. Is that something that you could ask them to append to their scope of work? We certainly can ask it. I, you know, a traffic engineer actually coming up with solutions. I'm just saying, we're missing the specificity, right? So if there was a way to kind of condition it to say, you know, you'll, you know, detail your consultant to come up with the high points for preserving safety within the property boundary. And I'm not against that whatsoever. I'm wondering if that's better done by somebody in public works, but, you know. The city isn't going to be really happy about taking on that responsibility either. I'm just saying, if you have someone that is familiar with the project already. We can certainly, and again, I'm just worried about kind of the squishiness there. But if you want us to go to the traffic engineer and say, do you have specifics that the neighbors are concerned about acts? That's when I have specific suggestions. We are absolutely happy to do it. Exactly. That's really, that's really what I'm thinking is then we are having an engineer look at it. We're getting specific measures to consider and we're drawing a line around it for the property. Do I need to be in the condition or can we just ask him to do it? Yeah. I'll leave that to the staff. I don't know how you would. I feel like the language might have addressed that. We've talked about that publicly and we're adopting it. Got it. I'm comfortable with the commitment. I was like, last language. Yeah. We did have one more point, one thing to clarify. Okay. This was, did you decide that this was only going to be required on the private property portion of the alleyway or were we thinking they would be required? If I may, I can't take, I can't do improvements on city land. I think that was one of the things we agreed on. I think private is fine. I don't have an opinion. We happy with that? I'm good. I'm good. Yeah, it's still taking on a life of his own, but it's getting longer and longer. Yeah, I'm good with that. Okay. Get if there's no more discussion. I'd like to offer a roll call vote, please. On the motion and the seconds. Can I just clarify? This is a motion to accept these new conditions and not the entire project. Where is it for the whole kit and caboodle? I understand. The whole kit and caboodle. The motion was to everything and then the project. The amendments were accepted by the maker of the motion. Right? Yes. Sweet. I did. Yeah. Commissioner Conway. Aye. Dawson? No. Galvie? Aye. Wilhameth? Aye. Kennedy? Aye. All right, that does it. Thanks, everybody, for your time. We'll move on to the end of our agenda, which is an action announcement subcommittee. Sure, Kennedy. And we have a whole other item. We have a whole other item. Let's take a 10 minute recess before we address agenda item number two. Can I maybe make a motion to continue that to the next commission meeting? I mean, you can. Yes. Dawson, do you have a second? So I, you know, I know Mike's had a long day. I've also been up since four for another reason. I don't think these are simple amendments. I think they're actually gonna take some time to go through. So I would like to give them the due time. We're at 10, 10 now. So I'd love to make a motion to continue this to the next meeting. Do you have a second? All right, 10 minute recess. We'll be back quick and finish it off. We have to make a motion to go past 11. We have to go past 11, you gotta make a motion, right? Okay, so that's if there's a cutoff. All right, everybody, let's get started again on agenda item number two, rank with the staff report on the down plan plan amendments. Yes, good evening. It's you again. I'm trying to just get through this quickly. So yes, we are proposing some downtown plan amendments. The main reasoning behind is for some streamlining processes to minimize unnecessary delays, updating standards that have proven to be problematic, ensuring consistency throughout the many sections of the plan and updating the plan to address recent state law changes. So kind of going through each of these, and I wasn't sure if I debated, and Eric suggested just going through the red line that I prepared this anyway. So we can always bring it up if you'd like to after this. So I'm just kind of just give you just a quick overview. So we're looking at eliminating administrative use permit requirements for ground floor supportive and transitional housing and existing ground floor residential units and for small and large family daycare units and existing ground floor residential units, making them principally permitted uses. Also eliminate for upper floor multi-family residential. This change would bring the plan into consistency with state law and simplify the streamlined certain, streamlined certain residential and daycare uses in the downtown. Regarding theater and commercial entertainment, we get over the years, we get various inquiries about different types of entertainment type of uses in the downtown and it's a little limited in terms of how it's described or listed in our use table. So looking at expanding that description for theaters and commercial entertainment to include arcades, billiard halls and other indoor recreation uses in order to more fully encompass the different types of recreational uses that would be acceptable in the downtown area. This includes a new ground floor footnote to require that recreational uses or other active ground floor uses be visible from the street frontage. Also amending a ground floor footnote, specifically footnote number two, which would amend the ground floor multi-family housing to include supportive and transitional housing and flexible density unit housing to limit the frontage of residential lobbies and leasing areas at the ground level and the Pacific Avenue retail district to provide other clarifying language. Flexible density units were recently added to the zoning code so this provides consistency with the downtown plan. Supportive and transitional housing was added so that those units are treated the same other multi-family residential uses consistent with state law and the frontage with limitations for residential lobbies and leasing areas has been included to maintain the retail and active uses along Pacific Avenue. We commonly get developers wanting to just have the whole frontage be lobby and kind of this dead space so we really wanna maintain that active span of retail along Pacific specifically. Looking at amending the regulations for hotels and motels limiting language regarding the locations and prohibiting hotel rooms on ground level frontages along the river walk, the ground level frontages and along the river walk level frontage. This change actually reflects previously approved changes made by City Council in 2017 that were inadvertently left out of the Coastal Commission's previous approvals. So we're basically bringing that back and getting it approved by the LCP. In the additional height zone areas of the downtown plan, we're doing some cleanup to remove language that has redundant in terms of density bonus law which already allows additional height for waivers. Amend additional height zone B criteria to eliminate by including a concentration of new housing. This existing language is overly limiting as it only takes into consideration projects that include housing, which is not consistent with the city policies that encourage visitor serving uses in the downtown and specifically within the coastal zone, nor is it consistent with policies of the downtown plan and general plan that support a mix of uses in the downtown as a means to support economic and cultural activities. We're also adding a section to the downtown plan regarding rooftop amenities to encourage the use of rooftops for many space such as rooftop bars and pools, including a section on activated rooftop amenities because the reality is open space is really limited in the downtown, so this is one way to provide open space in the downtown area. The proposed amendment allows community amenities including rooftop bars and pools, shade structures and associated access facilities to extend no more than 15 feet above the otherwise maximum allowable height. These improvements are required to be set back at least 15 feet from the edge of the buildings and are limited to 50% of the rooftop area. Also, we're amending sections related to parks and recreation to specify the required tree species and locations because some of the tree types currently listed have just not worked in practice. We've met with the parks and rec department and they've outlined some of the problem areas in the downtown plan that are fairly limiting to what they would like to do with the landscaping downtown. So the proposed amendments to the downtown plan meet these goals by streamlining both residential and visitor-serving development in the downtown, encouraging rooftop open space and amenities and supporting overall economic development by encouraging a mix of uses that are appealing to both residents and visitors and that allows people to bike, walk or park and visit a variety of businesses in the downtown in one trip. There are portions of the downtown that are within the coastal zone and so therefore require approval of a local coastal program amendment by the California Coastal Commission before they take effect in that portion of the coastal zone in downtown. Following action by the city council, city staff will prepare an application to the coastal commission for approvals and the local coastal program encourages the expansion of visitor-serving accommodations in the coastal zone and the proposed changes are consistent with those policies which are listed in the staff report. Let's see, in regards to CEQA, an addendum to the 2017 downtown plan amendments, program EIR has been prepared pursuant to the CEQA guidelines. The program EIR examined essentially the same project that is now being considered by the city. As a result, the amendments would have no new impacts or more superior impacts than previously discussed and analyzed in the adopted program EIR and would not require additional mitigation measures. The subject project and the associated addendum do not prevent the city from conducting environmental review on subsequent entitlement requests nor does it preclude the city from requiring additional mitigation measures for those subsequent requests. So next steps, should the city council ultimately adopt these edits, they will take effect immediately except for the edits to chapter four, which are part of the LCP. The edits to chapter four will take effect immediately outside the coastal zone, but will require approval by a coastal commission before they take effect within the coastal zone. So, a rather long recommendation. I don't know if you want me to read it. Please don't read it. You probably already read it, so I won't go into that. All right. Well, I want to hear from everyone, but I've got two kind of quick questions and I'll spread it out. I have three. Okay. Gentlemen. We were just discussing, we've been in contact with the coastal commission staff and keeping them abreast of these amendments and we did receive an email from them that there was one change to the language that they wanted us to add and I forgot to add that here. That's what I did then. So, I can probably, yeah, I'll type it up on the slide and then if you guys want to continue to discuss. While I do that. Let's come back to it. I want to make sure all the commissioners see it. Sorry about that. So we knew what we were voting on. That's fine. Thanks. The coastal commission doesn't honor our schedule, usually, so. Miranda, I got two quick questions for you. Can I fire at you? Sure. Okay. Love rooftop amenities. Why 15 feet from the edge? Is that a fire department thing? It's more of a visual control. And people falling off obviously. It's more of a preventing, with it at more of an angle. I mean, at that height, generally, you're most heights. Yeah, yeah. When you set it back 15 feet, you're not going to see it. Sounds good. There's so much going on on roofs with exterior building. Maintenance and solar panels and roof decks. Thank you. It's so fun to see this plan evolve because it's worked so well. I love it. Why no hotel rooms on the riverwalk side? The idea of this was that some active use would be better there. And that kind of stretch between the corner and down the way. And so I'm fine with it, but I just, our thinking was it'd be better to have hotel rooms than empty, unused, tiny retail spaces. And is that thinking change, or is it just tidying up, or what's driving that change? I mean, I think the idea was just that it's almost the equivalent to Pacific or the front street, having a span of retail and active areas along the riverwalk. Fair. It was pretty controversial to talk about ground level residential in that location. Thanks for clarifying that. Last question, is that current until I have them? I haven't looked at the plans. I don't know if anyone remembers. There's a proposed hotel there. Oh, I'm sorry. What was the question? Is there the proposed hotel on the riverwalk have hotel rooms on? No. Okay, cool. There's amenity spaces, if I remember, right? Yeah, it's above, yeah. Okay, thank you. Well, let me get the rest of my comments out now. Great progress. This plan is part of how we got to 48.5% affordable units on our last housing element. So it's exciting to see it evolve. Comments from other commissioners? Cindy, questions? A couple of questions. One, what does it mean that we're, I had to write it down. What does it mean that recreational or other active ground for uses must be visible from the street frontage? What does that mean? That recreational or active ground uses must be visible from the street frontage? Again, I think it's about activation of the streetscape and keeping that, not having any dead spaces along there. So you want, we want those activities and recreational uses to be visible from the sidewalk, from the street. Okay, I think this is just a typo. I just want to point it out that there is, I can't, I think it's around page 32 in the document. There's a part that talks about affordability and it has 15%. And I think that should be changed to 20. So that's just a typo, I think. Always just an oversight, yeah. Okay, and then- Can you, what page was that? I'm sorry, I missed the page number. You know, when I did the pages, they were different pages and now the packet does not align. So I don't know, I could search for it. Oh, I'll search for it right now. Okay. Yeah, I'll control those 15. Yeah, okay, I had one more question. Let me get it organized here. Yeah, so I just want to, well, I guess this is a comment. Oh, it was about the trees. Okay, this was a question. So there's like a lot of change to the tree species and the height and the spacing. Like, and it was a little unclear to me like where those came from and why we're doing those. So could you talk a little bit more about that? We have Travis from our Parks and Rec Department who worked on that section. So he can probably speak to that for you. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for that question and making it worthwhile for me sitting through the previous item. I know what it means to be seen, I suppose. The reason for that change is that the way the downtown plan is currently written is basically the way it was since the original design of downtown took place. And in many ways, it's a description of the landscape plan as implemented. So what we tried to do in the changes, they do appear at many places throughout, but they're simply the same concept repeated in many places, which is where there's a specific recommendation for a specific tree species or type of tree to just refer back to the approved street tree list. And then where there were many different recommendations about spacing in this and that area, consolidate all of that into one comment that said 25 foot spacing on Pacific and 50 or less on the side streets. And the sort of logic behind all of that is to not constrain the city or future project developers in being forced to use a specific street tree selection, several of which have not worked out in practice. And that was a recommendation that actually came from our street tree master plan, which was approved by council in 2021. And it is up on the Parks and Recreation webpage. So if you're not familiar with it, please do explore it. And one of the key objectives of the plan was to promote species diversity to build a more sustainable urban forest and by avoiding monocultural plantings, which is really what's codified in the plan. So that's the logic behind it all. Can I just ask you one more question? I haven't actually looked at that plan, but is there consideration in that plan for future climate change and that we're gonna be drier and hotter and those kinds of things with the trees that are the tree species that are part of our list? I mean, is that part of the... Yeah, one of the other objectives which is on our department goals for the year is to enhance resiliency with a comprehensive tree species palette by updating the approved street tree list. And that's one of the factors to consider is climate change and its possible impacts. And that'll be brought before the Parks and Recreation Commission for review when we're ready to present that updated list. Thank you so much. Thank you. Well, that was definitely worth the wait. Thanks for being here. Good questions. Street trees are kind of like in an unhospitable environment now, too. They're hot and run over by stuff. I think three questions for me. Can you explain the residential lobbies limitation? I feel like activation is important no matter what, but if other uses aren't supported economically, is there a downside to having residential lobbies be more expensive? What is the limitation? I don't know what that detail is, first of all. I'm happy to. Yeah, either way. Either way. Yeah. Thank you for that question. This was something that we had extensive discussions on in our internal meetings. And we ultimately landed on restricting the residential lobbies just on Pacific Avenue, as you'll see, with the purpose of that being that that is really the prime commercial corridor, where we wanna have maximum pedestrian activity. And we've actually experienced pressure from developers to expand their residential lobbies. And when you talk about an area, whether it's considered active because they have some kind of lobby space where people are intended to gather or not, the public accessibility of that area is often not available. And so those were some of the factors that we took into account. We actually contemplated whether or not we should allow for publicly accessible lobbies to be wider. And we had concerns about, well, all right, well, what does that mean in practice? Like someone puts a coffee cart in there. And what if that coffee cart's not successful? Now we've got a large residential lobby. This is my point that, you know, with all the best of intentions, you don't necessarily know what the best use is going to be. I remember many decades ago for several decades, you had all the elders in the St. George kind of hanging out in their living room on Pacific. And it was, I always felt that that was wonderful that you would just cruise by and they're all having their, probably tea cup full of whiskey or whatever it was. And I guess what I'm saying is that similarly to the regulations where we've always said retail spaces have to be 65 feet deep or whatever they are, those trends have changed because people are having trouble justifying having larger retail spaces that kind of fed into the discussion about the Soquel Project. But I hesitate to put a symbolic limitation on it when it may come down to an idea that retail is not as much in demand or something like that. I think the idea that it's public versus private is compelling. I don't know if there are other ways that you could deal with that, like similar to what you were suggesting, but it's just a question that I had because I don't think necessarily that it's, it may be an arbitrary thing. That's my only concern with any given project. As far as the rooftop amenities go, when you say the 15 foot setback, that's just structures only, right? You're not going to stop people from using that 15 feet on the roof. Is that correct? That was the intention, yeah. I think that's awesome. They can't stop you from putting solar panels there, for example. No, definitely not. But I'm just saying even as an amenity space, that's incredible from many of these sites. I would not want to limit that either. And then the concentrated residential language is that being modified in order to increase opportunities for residential? Is it, it's not, you're not saying that it, the current language is that it needs to be more concentrated, but your, is the suggestion that it will be more diffuse and there'll be more opportunities now? Is that the basis for it? I just saw a bullet point that you're removing the concentrated residential language. Yeah, that's correct. Do you want to scroll to that on the changes? That's correct, we're removing that language, but that is not the outcome. Okay. So what, there's a finding that says if there is additional height, and we'll get to it in a second here. It says you need to make a finding that there is economic and it's just a little bit further down, Ryan. That there are economic, it's a little bit further past that, just past that, I think. Just a little bit. Yeah, just a little bit further. So yes, the additional height will contribute to an improved social and economic environment by including a concentration of new housing. So what that means is right now, this is one of the findings for additional height criteria. So right now the code says as a finding that the improved social and economic environment needs to also include a concentration of new housing. So it's removing that requirement. So it doesn't have to have a concentration of new housing and part of what we noted in the staff report is what is a concentration of new housing. Yeah, I was actually thinking of the original downtown plan and because I think there is language in there about concentrating housing and I thought maybe you were sort of saying that that was creating a limitation that you wanted to remove. No, this is where that was referenced. I get it, thanks. Good ones, I appreciate all your questions. I might have the page wrong, but the red line page 87 is allows 50% of the space for a structure. This is on the roof again. No, do I have the wrong? I thought it was page 87 of the red line, almost at the very end. Right, yep, we got it, let me see. That's 87. 87, yep. Yeah, did I read it right? I just wondered, so 50%, I agree with you about rooftop amenities. I mean, what a nice place to be and all of that, but is 50% a lot like adding yet another story? I mean, construction at 50% of it. I mean, what are we talking about here? Like cabanas, bar, and I don't know, I just kind of wondered if it seems like a lot to me. I want the stuff, but I'm just wondering if building it out at 50% is a lot. Probably dependent upon the size of the building too, right? Right, right. So it can't do a whole lot of like a floor, right? It's not supposed to be a floor, it's supposed to be, it's not exactly that it's open and the weather's blowing through it, but I guess I just... And it can only be 15 feet tall, whatever it is, total. That's another story. 15 feet is, you know. That one. I think the idea was for like shade structures. If you had a rooftop bar or something, some type of amenity like that. Yeah, I know. So you remember the senior housing one down by West Cliff watermark or water or something or other? They had this really nice little, it's kind of a different thing, but a nice little patio up there with little trellis for the seniors to sit and drink their whiskey and then some panels on top of it. And staff, right? Just they was like, get that out of there. It's over the height and the neighbors ate height and that's what I want to allow for. This language seems to allow that to me. 15 feet's enough to get a trellis. You can do a trellis, you can do, but it's not more, I don't exactly, it's not like it's conditioned space, okay? I know. It's just structures that enable the use of the roof. As an amenity. Yeah, as an amenity. Okay, I guess, I just wanted that to be chewed over a little bit. And then Julie, I want to say again, based on my day job that like these roofs are so busy with. I know. Ventilation, like if you can squeeze on a little green roof, we're happy. Yeah. I had a thought though, also, on the, I also remember the days of the St. George. I really do think it harkens to a different era. Absolutely. And I feel like leasing offices take a lot of space. I mean, that's dead space. It's often pretty and designers have spent a lot of money on it. But it doesn't, it's not active. So I kind of like the having it. Because I don't think in these days, I'm just not seeing us. I mean, we don't even watch television together anymore, you know? But maybe we should drink whiskey and teacups my own. Pluses and lenses. Promoting social, I mean, I get that. But I kind of like the idea of shrinking it because I'd like to see something more active going on there. And that's, that's like, you might be transparent, but it's kind of, I don't know, I feel like it's elitist. I guess my point is that, you know, if you have a use downtown that, if you have a space downtown and it's not in demand for something else, I'm just wanting to provide for the possibility that there is another use that might activate it because the worst thing in my mind is having empty storefronts or empty retail or, you know, office space or worse yet, in my opinion, is the kind of the display panels that create, you know, obscure windows that are just, you know, I just, I wanna make it possible for people to utilize the space in a way that is supported so that it doesn't just fit. That's really what it comes down to. And if you say you have to limit it to, you know, 15% of this front edge or whatever, then, you know, that's, that's, I understand what you're saying about it being, because I think you're, correct me if I'm wrong, are you referring to residential lobbies only? Like, or not a, Yeah, I'm talking about residential. Not a hotel lobby or, Yeah, that's a whole different thing. Well, that's just my two cents. I would like to make sure that it's a dynamic place that allows for changes in the economy, because we make rules that start to get, they start to shift depending on what's happening with, you know, the internet, basically, I mean, Rip Curl was a perfect example because they were in that space, in the ground floor of the Rittenhouse building, and they said, we have a massive room at the back of our shop that's full of surfboards. And we sell, you know, a surfboard a month, and most of it's online. And so we, you know, we have a lot of lease capital tied up in that and it makes it difficult to have flexibility. So, just a general comment. I see projects in many jurisdictions and I got like a four foot long, four foot deep, you know, curtain wall, long narrow lobby, concrete wall, and you're like, yeah. So, people can always cheat and they'll try. But I think this improves it. All right, so quick check in, we have 10 more minutes. Commissioner Dawson expressed concern about time. Do we wanna extend the meeting or are we feeling close to a, I think we had a motion soon, we could finish this off. I definitely have some more comments. Okay, would you like to move to extend the meeting? Wait till 11. Okay. Why don't we wait till 11? Sounds good. So you don't feel rushed, you know. Okay, so this is I think a question first and then perhaps comment under the additional height stuff. There's all this, there's red line that says additional height will help meaningfully achieve one or more of the following key objectives. And then we have the red line that says economic development contributions to downtown. That's really different perhaps than the other stuff on the list. So the first question is economic development contributions to downtown defined in code somewhere? No, economic development contributions is not defined that I'm aware of. That is existing text, but it is. So you're talking about B2 here? Yeah, where it says- It's in both for the height sections. I think it's on page, your page 73 is one of them and then- 78, yeah, I'm on 78 now, I think it's the same. It's in both of the sections. So where it says the additional height will contribute to an improved social and economic environment? Is that? Well, the one I'm looking, but yes, that too, which also seems to be undefined, but the one that I am looking at is on page 73 and it is number five, B, B5. B5, got it. Under additional height, zone A, B5. Oh, right, thank you. Thank you. Same list. So the additional height will meaningfully achieve one or more of the following key community objectives and we've added economic development contributions to the downtown. Thank you for helping me find that location. Yes, there is not a specific definition to that. I think the intent there is to allow for an opportunity for certain types of projects that maybe we haven't contemplated at this point that would bring a draw to the downtown, for example, that will help to increase foot traffic, support the businesses, not necessarily that business itself, but it could be that business. Same thing if it were a hotel, for example, that would certainly be bringing a wide array of economic development contributions to the downtown with the draw that it would have. And so yes, there's not a definition, but I think that would be one of the ways in which we could make the determination that it is meeting one of those objectives for additional height. So currently, as written, something like, without these amendments, something like the hotel that is proposed, the community credit, I don't remember on Fred Street what's the address of that proposed hotel. That would not be allowed without these amendments, is that correct? That's not correct. I mean, what this says is the additional height will help meaningfully achieve one or more of the following key community objectives. Public right-of-way improvements are included. Publicly accessible open space is included. Public access easements are included. Structured or shared parking is included in that project. So all of those would still be met. And this is just adding that additional opportunity to really recognize the importance of economic development and economic development contributions that a project could bring. This plan has done it twice after the earthquake and then with the revision. I think that's it for right now. I would, if you don't mind, I did find that reference commissioner Dawson were to the 15% inclusionary. That was a holdover, this plan when it was last updated actually was in 2020 when we had the, right when we were making those same changes. But we can, I think what we can do is clean that up as part of this and just strike the 15% and say include the, or maintain the inclusionary requirement. Okay. That's a good idea. Thank you. I actually did have one other thing. I apologize. Okay, so looks like we're adding some level of review for particular projects, which I think is great. And then we're also removing some level of review for this 60 SROs. Is that right? Is that ringing a bell? Section eliminates the requirement for special use for SRU, can we look at that section really quick? That's the upper level table, I'm assuming. Yes, so on the upper level, yep. So yes, your point of adding reviews. I believe that the only place that we are adding is where we say the additional height request requires planning commission recommendation. Right now it is just planning director recommendation. And we have encouraged applicants to come to the planning commission on those projects because we wanna get that feedback and your recommendations on that. And so this would just set us in line and eliminate those questions that we have with the applicants about where is it going? So that's the intent there. For here, really what we were looking at is, again, this is the upper floors. And on the upper floors, we're looking at how to support residential uses on those upper floors. And this is actually something that we're, in coordination with the State Department of Housing and Community Development on a regular basis as it relates to our housing element and then pushing us to remove procedural encumbrances. This does not mean that there isn't a requirement for a permit, this means that they still have to go through the design permit. They just wouldn't have to do the administrative use permit. And I think one of the things that's important to consider here is when we're talking about a use permit versus a design permit is that you're not, with the use permit, you would be putting conditions on the use and with residential uses, there aren't a whole lot of conditions that we put on the use of that. And so the use permit isn't always matched well with residential and we've got a lot of instances in our code. And so we're seeking to clean up some of those instances where we're looking at the design of the building and not how that is necessarily used. And so we're not gonna revoke a use permit and say you can no longer use it as residential when it's built as residential. Okay, could we go to page 44? It's like at the bottom of page 44, which is the change in the actual language around special use. Yeah, right there. Yeah, so I just, it seems to me that these changes, you know, I mean, that's a significant change under CEQA to me. Like why isn't that a significant change eliminating that? There really isn't a change under CEQA. I mean, if it's a project that requires discretionary review, the city's still obligated to do a CEQA review. So it does nothing to the CEQA process whatsoever. It's just what type of permit they go through. A design permit versus a use permit. All right, that was the time for that motion. It's 59. Okay, I move we extend the meeting by 15 minutes. I second. All those in favor? Aye. Bye. Yeah, I don't know. To me, this seems like a pretty significant change. I mean, in reality, most of the projects that you're seeing downtown are asking for additional height, in which case it would come to the planning commission. Many of them require density bonuses comes to the planning commission. So, you know, we're not really seeing a lot of projects that are approved at the staff level, you know, in the downtown. It's just, it's like the director was saying, you know, when you have a use permit requirement for a residential use, you know, the conditions are very limited. And in reality, you're really not gonna be revoking a use permit and getting rid of units. So it's just not sort of a superfluous process. I know, I thought this sounded like a great idea because it seemed like a totally extra thing. It's more like it was a restaurant and now it's gonna be a tattoo parlor. That's a little controversial or a hair salon, you know. I mean, that's what I thought of as a residential or as the use, the administrative use permit is that type of use. You're not gonna build something as housing and create it, turn it commercial with a low level approval or vice versa for that matter, which we probably will be talking about converting office space to housing. That's a much higher level change. So I saw this as being a simplification and removing an obstacle. Well, you're talking about the administrative permit, which is not what, this is the special use requirement. Oh, the special use? Yeah, yeah. So I agree with you there. I think that the administrative use is totally redundant and this is removing a different requirement around a special use permit. Explain again why? Because to me, it seems like it makes sense. Residential. Well, you want staff to explain their logic one more time or my logic? I don't understand your logic. This just seems like a significant change to me. That's, I mean, that's what it comes down to me. I don't think this is redundant. And you know, I think we just have a different difference of opinion. I mean, I can't really say it other than, I do think it's a significant change. And they've given you their reasons why they think it's not. So I think we could just move on from there. Okay, I mean, I don't think there's anything more to discuss around it. Okay. I'm good with that. All right, any further discussion? I shouldn't. Any people feeling, I'm a little tired myself. Did you want to see if there's any public input? Absolutely. I just reminded, you guys just reminded me of that. Before we move to voting, we'd like to open this up for the public. Candace Owen or anyone else want to come on up and speak? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Thanks again for the reminder. And do we have a motion? I would just note, Ryan, did you add that section that we talked about with the post-op commission? Yeah, I appreciate that. Of course. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm writing this point when there's zero. Okay, so this is the change. So the purple was a suggested addition by Coastal staff. That's great. Love it. We didn't really have any issue with it. Right, which is exactly the original intent of all of that. Yeah, I agree. Just restating that and clarification. Yep. Yeah, really quickly, if we could go down to the roof top amenity section. I just want to clear some. I had most of my questions answered about this before the meeting. But I just wanted to make sure that there's no, I guess, possibility that this can be interpreted as adding another floor. So for example, should there be language in there about condition space? Should there be something around that? I don't know. In my conversations with staff, Ryan, thanks again so much for working this out with me. It seems sufficiently broad to allow a lot of different uses, but I just want to make sure this can't be interpreted like developer comes in and asks for 50% density bonus. And now we're looking at a tent story building and they're like, oh, but this isn't another floor. It's a rooftop amenity. So this is going to be even higher. So I mean, just want to make sure that we can respond quickly. When we wrote it, everyone explained that if you put an apartment up there, you need an elevator, there's all sorts of these other things that come that would make it hard to misuse this. You need an elevator for amenities as well. Sorry, more just a question than anything else. Just as all this controversy around heightened density bonuses anyways, we don't want to provide room for that to be misleading. I had a similar response at first because we worked so hard on, first, we wanted to have sort of a gradual increase and we wanted to make sure it was broken up and there was articulation and all of that. So I did have a similar response, but I feel comfortable with it. And yeah. I would just say as we're talking through it, we've got the amenities here. And there may be with the elevator and so forth. You'd have to do that. Yes, you're right. So you may have some of those facilities. Yeah, and the part that I thought might have covered this was such variation shall be minor in nature. I mean, that is left to interpretation, but I think it might cover it. And I don't know, I'm just looking for your and my colleague's opinion. That was intentional when we were thinking about that and especially, I think it's getting it, Commissioner Conway's comment about the 50%. If we've got 50% covered by shade structures, that's very different than 50% of the rooftop that is a conditioned space, right? If we've got a rooftop bar and there's a walk-in cooler or a space, that may be conditioned space, but it may be a small portion. So there it's minor in nature. And so that was something that was taken into consideration and why we included that additional text. Yeah, no, that's a good point. And then you have the planning commission and the city council. Yeah, there's a lot of opportunities to, you know, use judgment to, yeah, sniff it out to make sure it has the smell test. Okay, I'm good. I'll move the staff recommendation. Can we bring that language back up just so the public is clear on what we're doing here tonight and us? Oh, for the recommendation. Yes, yes. I assume that got, yeah, okay. Read it over one time. I'm not gonna read all that, but. Can I ask one more question? Is there any requirement for any of those amenities to be public? No. At this point, there's not, you know, if it were a residential rooftop, for example, there would likely be a desire to have, well, yeah, there would likely be a desire to be a private. And, you know, there are in San Francisco, for example, buildings where you can access those rooftops. Yeah, we should pass that law. In this text, there is not any requirement for those to be public. That's not to say that they wouldn't necessarily be. I would be for that, but, but if a developer wanted, say, to make it public, they could do so. Absolutely. So, you know, I think about the Paradox Hotel, that, you know, you can go to the pool, you can go to the restaurant, and if they were. I have weird dreams of there being like a small soccer field on top of the building one day. I don't know if that's ever gonna happen, but, you know, that'd be great. Would you be satisfied with botchy ball? Yeah. Only if I had a cup of tea and whiskey, right, with the old people. They used to play basketball on top of the old jail. That's right. Okay, so, we need a second on that motion. You're moving the staff recommendation. As, do I need to, as amended? Yeah, with the purple language. Because there was, as amended. With the purple language, and perhaps. The changing of the 15 to 20. Oh, okay. So yes, the staff recommendation as amended with the correct 15% corrected to 20% correct. Actually, it might be best to just distract the 15%, so it's whatever the inclusionary is, because that could change over time. Then we don't have to update every day. I would be happy with that change. So can we just say the current inclusionary or just make it really clear that whatever is in code currently? In effect at that time. And then you don't have to go back and clean it up. So I'm next. Did anybody second yet? No, we need a second. I will second. Seconded by Commissioner Conway. Any further discussion? Oh, one thought was like a massive art thing up there. We don't have that yet, but that would be awesome. We could use that to approve something like that if we loved it. I'm all for it. Including joking. We're becoming a senior here. It'd be cool. 15 foot high art installations. Yeah, yeah. Possibly be there too. It'd be cool. So, yes. Moved, seconded. Can we have a roll call vote? Please test. Commissioner Conway. Aye. Dawson. Nope. McKelvie. Aye. Paul Hamas. Aye. Kennedy. All right. Do we have any informational items this evening? Like a calendar? We do. Five minutes worth or more? I hope we can do it in less than five minutes. Let's go. I'll start off with mine. We just finished a survey for the downtown plan and the next step of engagement is actually to do focus groups. And we would like to invite, we have seven focus groups and coincidentally we have seven planning commissioners. We would like to invite one planning commissioner to each of those focus groups. And I have the dates here for those. They are between, they are Monday, October 2nd, Tuesday, October 3rd, Wednesday, the 4th and Thursday, the 5th. And then the next week they are Monday, the 9th, Wednesday, the 11th and Thursday, the 12th. So four days, Monday to Thursday, the week of October 2nd and then Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, the next. The first question I have is whether or not any of the commissioners are fluent in Spanish because we do have one that is a meeting with our beach flats and lower ocean residents that we will be hosting. That will be the only one that is not here at City Hall and that is on Thursday, October 12th. I learned a lot about Spanish in Argentina, but fluent in, no. The pair is better than you. It's better than the others. It's all in Alexander, sir. Thank you. So October 12th, October 7th at night. I think. I guess I did, yeah. I mean, we'll see how much I pick up. Great. So we will mark you down for that. Thank you very much for that. And then I will let you know what the others are and then you can decide. So Monday, October 2nd, streetscapes and public spaces. Tuesday, October 3rd, mobility and beach connection. Wednesday, October 4th, building design. Thursday, October 5th, uses of the arena and public plazas. And then on to the next week. Monday, October 9th, downtown residents. October the 11th is Beech Hill residents. And then the 12th is the Spanish language with beach flats and lower ocean. Sorry, what was the 11th? The 11th is Beech Hill residents. Did you want us to claim one? I would love it if you claimed one and that will save us. I would go to the 4th and let's draw the ones together. Timmery is not here. That's fine, no, that's fine. What was the 3rd again? I'm sorry. The 3rd is mobility and beach connection. I would take that one if no one is jumping at it. The 2nd is streetscapes and public spaces. They were also good. I would claim that one unless someone else wants it. We've got 4th, 5th, 9th, and 11th. All from 6 to 730. Are all these 6 to 730? 6 to 730, yeah, congrats. What did I say, the 4th? 4th. I'm totally flexible, Cindy, if you want to swap. No, I'm just kidding. Where are the 2 of us can go to? So there's 4 left, 5th, 9th, and 11th. There are 3 left, the 5th, 9th, and 11th. The 12th is commissioner public. The 5th is uses of the arena and public plaza. The 9th is downtown residence. The 11th is beach hill residence. Beach hill residence is always a fun part of your life. Great. And just a quick question. There will be availability of a translator there. I got about 5th, 6th grade level Spanish. Yeah, we will have a bilingual individual there. I will look into that for you. We need more Spanish speakers on this. I'm not sure, no. Great. All right, did we do it? I believe so, yes, all of you have signed up and we will connect with the other 2 commissioners. Thank you so much for doing that. All right, right on the naked time. Do we need more minutes or are we adjourning? You want to talk about schedule? Yeah, I can do schedule a little bit more. Yeah, please extend the meeting. I'm going to move that we extend by 5 minutes. Check it. Sweet. All those in favor? Aye. So the Windsor project that you heard last August was appealed to council. It's going to be heard on the 10th of October. Upcoming agenda is nothing scheduled for October 5th. For the 19th, we have a couple of potential items, one involving an outdoor dining ordinance and then another potential ordinance involving new construction decarbonization. And then out in November, you can expect to have the housing element before you. That's exciting. The decarbonization is the response to the lawsuit, huh? Right, that's correct. Bring it in soon, quickly. It's a 10 at a time. We're still working on that, but we're trying to get it to that second meeting in October. Has anybody tried to submit a gas building in the loophole? I haven't heard of anybody. We've had questions from some small developments. I haven't seen large ones. I'm going to care about the wolf stove. I mean, the big ones. Excellent. With that, I will thank everybody. Long meeting and great work, everybody. And then we'll adjourn this meeting. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Thank you.