 Well, it looks like everyone is here and it's seven o'clock at least all the commissioners are here. So I'm going to call the December 17th on regular meeting of the Santa Cruz City Planning Commission to order. Welcome everyone and could we have a roll call please? Chair Shifrin? Here. Commissioner Dawson? Here. Commissioner Conway? Here. Commissioner Greenberg? Commissioner Maxwell? Here. Commissioner Nielsen? Here. Commissioner Spellman? Here. I wasn't able to say here, sorry. Did you get me? I did get you, thank you Commissioner Greenberg. Thank you. Okay, there's nobody absent. Are there any statements of disqualification? Are there any oral communications? Are there people waiting to speak? I do not see anyone with their hands raised for oral communication. Okay, I know like the last meeting I heard after the meeting that some people couldn't figure out how to raise their hand or it didn't work. So if there's anybody who can hear me that is here for oral communications, this is the time to talk about items that are not on tonight's agenda but legitimately before us. You can contact the clerk or ask to speak on another item and just make it clear that you wanted to speak on oral communications but you couldn't get through. So I'm willing to go back for oral communications if need be. There aren't any minutes to approve. There's no consent agenda. We'll now turn to public hearings. I've received a request to hear item number two, the Pacific and French Street item first. Is that request still valid? Good indirectly from Ms. DeWitt. Did you want to hear the item number two first? That's all I understood, chair. This is Sarah, the clerk. Sorry, I stepped away for just a second. And either way, I think it's critical that we get to the Pacific station project this evening. And then I'll turn the number of things on the agenda. I don't think that we'll have a problem getting to both of those, but it's commission thinks that there will be a extended discussion on the inclusionary. Then we do want to make sure because of the time sensitive nature of the project and some grand opportunities that we have upcoming that we that we get to that item. So, up to the discretion of the chair and commission. And I'll be on the safe side. Why don't we hear item number two first? And hopefully that won't take too long. So, unless there's some objection from other commissioners, why don't we get a staff report on item number two? A variety of parcels on Pacific Avenue and from who is going to give us the staff report. How long did you, are you? No, it looked like it looked like Lee was trying to speak and he's muted, I guess. Yeah, you're going. This is Ryan. Can you guys hear me? Yep, we got you now, Ryan. Okay. Just about to run over to your office. Sorry. Yeah, I'm just trying to, I had to unmute myself and then I just need to share my screen here. Just bear with me for a second. I think I should be able to do that. Okay. Are you guys able to see that? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, so the subject site that we're discussing tonight consists of five downtown parcels that span between Pacific Avenue and Front Street. They currently consist of the Santa Cruz metro transit district with the, sorry, the Santa Cruz metro transit district owned metro station, which you can see is this three parcels here. And then also city, a city owned parking lot as well as the city owned NYAC building. So to give a little background, the city and the Santa Cruz metro have been conducting outreach and planning for redevelopment of the existing metro station complex since approximately 2002. Numerous programs and site layouts have been evaluated through this process. With the preferred site plan, locating buildings along Pacific Avenue to revitalize that area and continue the downtown urban form and streetscape around the metro site. And then the metro site gaining access from front street. So the proposed land use and zoning changes are consistent with this preferred approach and will facilitate redevelopment of the site. So this is a preliminary site plan that's been developed. The city and the metro are now applying as co-applicants for various grants. These funding programs are very highly competitive and only offered on an annual basis. So this fall, the city and the metro issued a request for proposal from a qualified pool of affordable housing developers to select a developer to be a co-applicant for the upcoming ACD funding applications. So while project development plans have yet to be prepared, the city intends to face that there will be up to 100 affordable rental apartments, including a minimum of 25% permanent supportive housing units within the specific station north building. In addition to the affordable housing, the city is also planning to provide retail space on the ground floor fronting Pacific Avenue. And the city will continue to own the land and ground weeks, the various components of this mixed use development along here. And the metro will continue to own this parcel and as far the redevelopment that fronts on the front street. So the proposed project that we're discussing tonight consists of a general plan amendment, rezoning local coastal program and to to reconfigure the interface between the regional visitor commercial and community facilities land use designations and and reconfiguration of the central business district and public facilities zoning designations for five parcels located along Pacific and front. The project also includes a coastal permit and boundary line adjustment to combine and reconfigure for total lots into two lots. There is an additional properties and I building at 333 front street, which is also included in this project, but it is not, it is not part of the boundary line adjustment. And those property lines remain unchanged. So here's kind of what I was talking about. This is the existing parcel configuration parcels one, two and three are the current metro station and owned by Santa Cruz Metro parcel for the NYAC building and five is the city owned parking lot. Here's the proposed parcel configuration, as well as the reconfiguration of the general plan designations and zoning. Partial A would be owned by the city. Partial B and parcel for owned by the metro and in terms of total of the square footages of what is currently owned by the city and metro. Basically, this reconfiguration is generally the same in terms of the square footage owned by each of the entities. Here is the current general plan zoning configuration. As I mentioned, here's the three parcels owned by the metro that is currently the metro station and then the two owned by the city. And then this is what's being proposed. So we have, this would be the CBD and RBC designated parcel. And this would be the public facilities, community facilities that would be designated. That would be the change. So going from that to that. In terms of looking at various policies, both in terms of general plan policies, local coastal program policies, as well as the downtown policies, there's various policies that support what's being proposed. In the staff report, there's numerous. I just picked out a few here. Just the quick ones certainly encourages higher intensity residential uses on the downtown facilitates the development of affordable housing. It's a collaboration of different agencies and entities to provide and develop affordable housing. And it promotes transit oriented mixed use development in terms of local coastal program policies that it's consistent with. It prioritizes development of high density mixed residential and commercial development in the city's downtown central business district. It provides for high density development and mixed uses as well as transit and pedestrian oriented land use patterns. And then also it really continues the active ground level retail along Pacific Avenue. Similar in terms of downtown plan policies. It provides new housing opportunities in the downtown. It also provides a pedestrian oriented development. Encouraging pedestrian bicycle and transit in the downtown. Again, it continues that retail along Pacific. And then it also is consistent with encouraging principal upper level uses throughout the downtown. So as I mentioned, a coastal permit is also part of this proposal. It's located the project is located within the coastal zone boundary with a small portion along front street being located in the coastal appealable zone. But the majority of it's in the coastal exclusion zone. So but interviewing the zoning code the coastal sections of zoning code. There's certain exclusions and it really wasn't clear as we went through it, whether or not a boundary line adjustment would be excluded. And so just to be safe, we included a coastal permit as part of this. And then the boundary line adjustment, which I've kind of described. So basically is proposing a reconfiguration where we're taking for parcel. For the five parcels and converting four into two and parcel for, as I mentioned, is not being effective. So the total lot areas owned by the Metro and city would remain generally the same as it currently exists. The central business district zone requires a minimum 5000 square foot parcel size and the PF zone district does not indicate a minimum lot size, but certainly, as you can see the lot sizes certainly meet that requirement. In reviewing, we, we worked with to take a look at the project in terms of secret and determined that the project is exempt from secret pursuant to section 15305 for minor alterations and land use. As well as 15061 be three where it's clear that there's that will not result in a significant effect on the environment. So in conclusion, the proposal is intended to provide flexibility and design for a joint project between the city and the Metro for redevelopment of the Metro station and a potential 100% affordable housing and mixed use project that is being considered by the city for the reconfigured city on site. So it's therefore recommended that the planning commission acknowledge the environmental determination and recommend that the city council approve the general plan amendment rezoning and LCP amendment coastal permit and boundary line adjustment based on the findings and conditions approval included in the attached draft city council resolution. And I'm available for any questions. Okay, thank you very much. I do commissioners have any questions. Before I open it up to the public. Maybe you could stop sharing the screen. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Commissioner Spellman. Yeah, just one quick question nine. So what is the process for ultimate approval here? So your recommendation will be going to the city council currently scheduled for the January 26 city council public hearing. And then from there, we'll be submitting an application for the LCP amendment to the coastal commission. Okay. Yeah, thanks to staff for this was a lot to online. And I just had a couple of quick questions. The first one was what's being proposed. These amendments and adjustments and rezoning only affect within the footprint of this project. Is that correct? Correct. Just those five parcels. Okay, great. So the next one is I was really happy to hear that 25% of the potential project is going to be permanent supportive housing. I was wondering if you could just talk about how that will be funded. I'm familiar with the veterans administration. I think the supportive housing project run here locally and the supportive services that they provide. So is that type of funding included in the grants you'll be applying for to support that 25% supportive housing? And then how would that be staff? If you were to receive the grants, would that be city staff or county staff? How would that work? Jessica Dewitt is on with with us. And so I think she could probably answer those questions. Yeah, no, no problem. Can you hear me? Yes. Right. So we're planning to apply for several different grants. One of them is the affordable housing sustainable community, which has a minimum requirement for affordable housing. I think there's a 20% BLI. And then we're also applying for the grant, which is the infill and infrastructure grants. They're all do around the same time. In addition, we're also applying for project based vouchers with the housing authority. That's one of the sources that will actually help fund this lower income level and services to go along with it. In addition, the developer that we've chosen for this project, they are a nonprofit affordable housing provider that has a very deep rooted program for all sorts of services for permanent supportive housing. They actually put together pretty extraordinary second street studios in downtown San Jose, which is. I'm not sure if one of the developers was on the phone tonight, but it's, it's, it's an extraordinary project with tons of services to support permanent supportive housing there and it's 100% permanent supportive housing. So they have a lot of experience doing this. Okay. Commissioner Conway. You have to unmute yourself. I think that I just was going to clarify that Vash vouchers can be project based a certain extent of them. So it's reasonable to think that that's that would be part of the planning for the project. And maybe it will be other commissioners questions. Thank you, but I think I'll wait until after the public testimony and integrate them with my comments. So, I see no other commissioners hands up for questions. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to testify after three minutes on this item. Please identify yourself and talk to us. This is the opportunity for the public. If you're interested in speaking on item number two, please raise your hand by pressing star nine. I currently do not have anyone with their hands raised chair. Okay. This is your last chance to raise your hand by pressing star nine and that doesn't happen right now. We're going to I'm going to close the public hearing. And from no one, the public hearing is closed. It's back before the commission. Maybe I'll start with some of my, let me first say in terms of comments, I think is, I know this has been a long time coming. It's a really complex process in terms of working things out with the transit district, which is really focused on providing bus service, which they should be. So, getting them to really concentrate on making this kind of a project work is a real accomplishment by staff and I want to congratulate them for moving this forward because I think it promises to be a very exciting project that will not only benefits the downtown in terms of its commercial development, but will provide an important resource for affordable housing. I do have a few questions. One of them is what's going to happen to the occupants of the NYAC building. I assume that it will be demolished. Is that the intention to provide the transit with sufficient space for their buses? I can answer that. Currently, there are city employees. It's the finance department that is housed at the NYAC building. So, we will be finding another spot for them within city limits in the city property, other city property. And that building will be demolished, sorry, that building will be demolished to be part of the metro overall mixed use, transoriented development. So, are there only city employees in it now? Correct. Oh, interesting. So, in terms of what's being applied for as a project, I would assume that the transit district portion and the housing portion will be all one project. I know the staff report talked about having a developer for a nonprofit developer for the housing. How is it going to work in terms of coordination with the transit district to have them move forward with their, will they get funding to the applications for their portion of the project as well? And will their, how's that going to be coordinated? Yeah, so through the affordable housing sustainable community state funding grant, some of the funding can go towards the infrastructure for the bus station and then a majority actually goes towards the housing. In addition, Metro is actually contributing $4 million to the project for improvements. But basically the affordable developer that's coming on board is going to master develop the whole entire property. Still working with Metro, I think believe it's Mark Thomas is the transit engineer that they've been traffic engineer that they've been using. So, it'll be a coordinated effort, but the affordable housing developer will be the master developer. From the first slide, it looked like there would be access from the city's building onto the Metro site. The intention to have the city's building provide ticketing services and restroom services for Metro employees and essentially take over the Metro services that are now being provided in the existing building. Yeah, I mean, like I said, we don't have a permit plan to submit yet, but that is definitely an option that has been discussed that Metro ticketing and customer service would be part of the building that on the ground floor of the residential building at grade. There would also be an opportunity to provide some, some, you know, uses ancillary uses. On the tarmac itself, but it's just again, we're so we're so we're too soon into this yet to be able to give you. You know, real details, but I hope you come to the community meeting and I hope you are attending the council meetings. Well, that was going to be another question. Is this project on when it's going for discretionary permits needing to be approved by the planning commission? I know the 85 unit project next store only needed design permit. I just went to the VA is this one because it combines with the transit district project as well. Going to come before what's going to be a approval process. Will we be seeing the detail project? I'll take that one. We're still trying to figure out exactly how we're going to process the package entitlements wise. I will say what we're looking at for the, the site, the city site along Pacific is potential streamlining under AB 2162, which is what we did for the Pacific Station properties. So that waves all discretionary approvals, though I will say because it's a density bonus related project and because it's in the coastal zone, there will need to be a hearing on the coastal permit for that. So that's that's the similar process we did for the Pacific Station. So for that particular piece, it only goes to planning commission, if it's appeal. But since from what Mr. said, the housing portion is going to be combined with the transit district portion. Probably. I'm just wondering how that's going to play out. I'm not saying that I think it has to come to us. I mean, I'm just wondering how that would work. You know, sort of procedurally, given the very what kind, you know, if the transit district project also needs a coastal permit, would that would be sufficient for that to go to the VA. Yeah, if it's if it's ready at that time, that would be the most efficient way is to process those two together. Certainly. Okay, my final question has to do with toxic cleanup. I know that the old Greyhound site was problematic when the transit district boarded. Lots of discussions about cleanup given how the site has been used over time. Have those been incorporated into the discussions for this project? It combines the old, some of the old Greyhound site as well as the transit district site. Yeah, I can speak to that. So, so, yes, there have been environmental studies done. Pat Hogan has been, I think, done. I've done most of them are a majority of them and we are working with him on the Pacific Station South project currently that also has some mitigation work. So we're anticipating that it'll be some kind of a vapor barrier, similar to what's happening on Pacific Station South, but it's nothing that would prevent having residential uses that would start at the second floor anyways, they won't be on the first floor. So it'll be ground, the ground floor will be entirely commercial. Right. Okay, well, hopefully it won't hold things up or at the cost too much because that's been problematic with other projects. So thank you very much again those are my questions and I just wanted to say I'm excited that this project is moving forward and hope it continues to do so. And so quickly and that the commission will give a positive recommendation tonight. Are there other commissioners who have comments or additional questions? Seeing none, a word on someone. Commissioner Conway. Yeah, I would just like to move the staff recommendation and also offer my congratulations to the heavy lift to give it to this place I echo all your comments. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Commission Spelman. Joy, your name first. So moved by Commissioner Conway seconded by Commission Spelman to approve the staff recommendation. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Could we have a roll call please? Yes, Chair Stifren. Hi. Commissioner Dawson. Commissioner Dawson. I'm seeing that as a, I think an eye, not sure. Star six, Commissioner Dawson if you're struggling. It seems to be unmuted, but we couldn't hear you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Conway. Hi. Commissioner Greenberg. Hi, and congratulations. Commissioner Maxwell. Commissioner Nielsen. Commissioner Spelman. Hi. An anonymous vote in favor of the staff recommendation. Thank you all very much. And let us move on to item number one, the ordinance amendment. And I'm not going to read this whole paragraph, but it has to do with employer sponsored housing as an inclusionary option. We have a staff report please. Good evening, chair and commissioners. What we're presenting to you tonight are the remaining inclusionary ordinance amendments that staff and the housing subcommittee worked on over the last few months. In the first part of the presentation, I'll discuss the employer sponsored housing recommendation. And then Jess Miller also from our housing team. We'll discuss the ordinance cleanup items. Here you have the recommendation for the proposed inclusionary, inclusionary ordinance amendments to recommend that the council add an alternative for compliance that would allow employer sponsored housing as an inclusionary option. And then we'll discuss the residential rental development projects and accept corrections to inconsistency created by recent amendments to the code. Next slide. Yeah. So, why are we bringing an employer sponsored housing ordinance amendment proposal forward. Council provided direction to explore ways to make inclusionary ordinance more effective for workforce housing projects. At the same meeting, the Santa Cruz city school district raised concerns on the increase of the city inclusionary requirement to 20% and how that would impact the feasibility of their proposed employee housing project. The goal of this proposed ordinance amendment is to help provide more opportunities for affordable housing. That retain the local workforce. The dilemma is that several people in our local workforce fall into the moderate and middle income category. And the household don't qualify for the traditional form of affordable housing, but they can't afford market rate housing either. This is the case with the Santa Cruz city school district where they're having a lot of challenges attracting and retaining their teachers and support staff. The city staff and the housing subcommittee focused on the school district as a case study for how to crash an ordinance for employer sponsored housing. We studied models for the district housing and other jurisdictions. And looked at what financing tools are being used to fund this type of housing. Some of the financing tools are included here. The city of mountain view has a project where they're using a public private partnership to build market rate school district and city employee housing all together. Other jurisdictions are employing ballot measures, certificates of participation and general obligation bonds to finance school district housing. Another source is tax expense bond financing and one bond financing tool that we would like to take a closer look at is the California community housing agency. This agency was recently formed in 2019. It issues tax expense bonds to finance rental housing for low moderate and middle income households. To be able to access these bonds, the city must become a Cal CHA member. There is no fee to join. Catalyst housing group has partnered with Cal CHA to help implement this program and over 15 jurisdictions to date. Staff and the subcommittee are recommending that the city explore this option further by having catalysts provide an in depth presentation at an upcoming council meeting. But in the meantime, catalysts is attending the meeting tonight and available for questions. In addition to looking at how these projects are financed. We also took a closer look at the Santa Cruz city schools district employee income levels. Including those hardest to attract and retain to better understand how they compare with the city's inclusionary affordability requirements. Several of the salary levels fall into the moderate and middle income categories. Unlike market rate housing that will charge the highest rents the market will bear. Employers providing employee housing are highly motivated to charge affordable rents to retain employees. With the 100% employee housing project, it becomes really challenging to provide affordable rents for all of the employee rental apartments. While still needing to meet the city's inclusionary requirements that may not match all of the affordability levels that will help retain local employees. We have also been tracking on recent state legislation focused on school district housing like assembly bill 3308 and the teacher housing act of 2016. The bill 3308 was just approved this fall and its provisions have all been incorporated into the teacher housing act of 2016. So, on the next slide, I've summarized the key points here. Essentially, it allows housing built on school district plan to be prioritized and restricted for school district teachers and staff. The state or tax credit funding is used, but the district may also allow local public employees and the public to occupy the housing too. In addition, the school district must provide a majority of the housing to low and moderate income households. And with all of this analysis we did staff and the subcommittee crafted a proposed inclusionary ordinance amendment to help address the needs of employers that are desperately trying to retain their local workforce. Following is the summary of the proposed amendment detailed in the staff report. It applies to rental developments only. The employer must demonstrate that it will retain its employees and provide more affordable units. It also comply with state and federal fair housing laws, including affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements, and the approving body must sign off on their inclusionary mix breakdown. Now, since the staff report was posted, our legal counsel took another look at the language through the lens of meeting objective standards and made some minor modifications that you see here. The employer sponsored housing section 10 is now split into two subsections. One for employers in the city, whether they are public or private, because the city is not allowed to discriminate based on source of income or lawful occupation. And the second section focuses specifically on school districts, which I'll get to on the next slide. In this first subsection, the language was tightened up to provide more specific criteria for approving bodies to use to evaluate whether a project should be allowed and alternative means of compliance to meet the city's inclusionary requirement. In item B, which is now two, the criteria is more definitive because it's being directly compared with section 24, 16, 020 of the ordinance, versus trying to define a public benefit, which can be subjective. For item C, which is now three, there is an exact percentage listed, which provides a more objective standard for evaluation. Item E, which is now five, further clarifies the language by swapping restricted with affordable. Then, as mentioned earlier, this second subsection of section 10 only applies to school districts. After further analysis, it seems cleaner to align the school district affordability requirements with what is allowed by state law. And it also streamlines the process for the school district to help expedite getting this housing built. So if a school district complies with the requirements of the teacher housing act, then this subsections requirements would replace the city's inclusionary requirements for the school districts only and no further approval for the affordability breakdown would be required. Then finally, on the last change to the posted staff report is in section 11. Similar to what was originally provided in section 10, it to delete the subjective language on providing a public benefit and provides a more objective standard for evaluating the, this alternative means of compliance. The next step just will discuss the cleanup amendments. Okay. Thank you, Jessica. The cleanup amendments coming before you today are in response to city council action on December 12 last year. And that's where council directed staff to review the inclusionary ordinance for any inconsistency inconsistencies and bring amendments to the planning commission for consideration. The amendments presented today are not excessive and further amendments to the ordinance will likely occur in the future in order to continue refining the ordinance. So, a majority of the amendments are located in the definition section of chapter 24, 16 of the municipal code. The first amendment listed here will specify that the definition of affordable ownership costs applies to inclusionary low income households. Our legal council advised us to separate very low and moderate income affordable ownership cost definitions from the low income definition. And in an effort to be consistent with other sections of our code, we're recommending citing very low and moderate affordable ownership cost definitions found in our, our density bonus ordinance. The next group of amendments pertains to the definitions of households that different affordability levels. Our legal council recommended that this part of the inclusionary ordinance reference the California code of regulations as this is actually going to direct anyone reading our ordinance. To the actual income limits for each category, which is set annually by the federal housing and urban development department as well as the state's housing and community development department. The next set of amendments pertains to the addition of language clarifying that small ownership units can be a type of inclusionary unit. There's currently no reference to use and the inclusionary ordinance and the inclusionary requirements actually do apply to projects. So these amendments will explicitly include so use as a type of inclusionary unit. And the definition sites another section of our municipal code. So if there are any changes made to that section of code, our inclusionary ordinance should be updated by reference. And lastly, those changes six through nine includes some clarifying changes legal council advised with adding to the definition at 24 16 015 24, which is the residential development definition. And again, at 24 16 020 1 a, which is the applicability of the inclusionary ordinance. Proposed amendments number 10 and 11 pertain to the fractional inclusionary requirement of small rental projects. So for example, a six unit rental project currently has an inclusionary requirement of 1.2. The proposed amendments would only affect the 0.2 portion of that requirement. They're still going to be required to provide the inclusionary unit for the one, the one part of that requirement. And these proposed amendments are actually going to treat smaller rental projects in the same way that we treat larger rental projects. And it's going to provide staff developers in the public with a clearer understanding of how this fractional inclusionary requirement for small rental projects should be treated. And our final amendment was a suggestion from our legal council in response to some litigation they've seen recently with the housing accountability act. So once again, here's our recommendation that we are recommending you take action on tonight. And before I turn it over for questions. Jessica and I would really like to thank our three subcommittee members commissioners Conway Greenberg and Spellman for their health and their amazing input into the recommendations before you today and we want to offer them the opportunity to add any additional comments to the presentation. Do any committee members want to add any additional comments at this time. We have the full screen please. Thank you. Commissioner Conway. I don't have a lot of comments. Commissioner Greenberg or Spellman may but thank you. That was very kind of you to recognize the committee. It was fairly challenging to meet as we were trying to figure out how to deal with COVID. And I think staff did an amazing job. Also, I do look forward to discussion of the commission this evening. Other members of the committee commissioner Greenberg. I would just echo Commissioner Conway. It was really a pleasure working with both Jessica and Josh on this and learning with them about this. You know, this needs for this missing middle of housing for for employees here and school district in particular. Learning about the state law later in the game has also been important and I look forward to discussion about how we're going to both think about workforce housing and housing that's particular for the school district. And, you know, enormously important and I feel so gratified to have been able to work on this with all of you. And I look forward to discussion. Thank you. We hit something. Did you want to add anything? Yeah, just briefly, I would say, you know, it's been an interesting conversation. We were fortunate to have the school district sort of pushing the discussion and trying to, you know, force the city to look at how can we address, you know, teacher and workforce housing in our community. So it was an opportunity that council recognized and school pushed. And I think at the end of the day, luckily forced us to bring something forward in a much quicker fashion. So I'm excited to see the changes that are being proposed. Thank you. Other commissioners with initial questions. Seeing none, open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the public who wants to speak to this item? If you have one hand raised chair, I'll unmute them. Okay. Identify, please identify yourself. And you have three minutes. Hi, good evening. Could you hear me okay. Yes, go ahead. Wonderful members of the commission. Thank you so much for having me. My name is Allison Arnold. I'm the director of partnerships that catalyst housing group. As Jessica mentioned, we partner closely with the California Community Housing Agency to implement their middle income housing program, which was referenced in your staff report. The program serves folks that tend to make too much to qualify for traditional forms of affordable housing that increasingly just not enough to live within the communities that they serve. And that depends upon them. And so I'll keep this short. I just wanted to reiterate that I'm available to answer any questions you may have, but we're hopeful that we will receive your endorsement to take this to the full council. So I appreciate your time this evening. Thank you for having me. Thank you. I have a question. The recommendation is to get a presentation. Yes, there are a number of communities that have already joined Cal FHA. Why wouldn't it make sense for the commission to recommend that the city just join it and then become a part of that process? Are there any obligations that the city takes on by joining it? Can you still hear me all right. Yes, go ahead. Thank you for having some issues on meeting and raising my hand. Yes, as you referenced, we have Cal FHA has 20 municipal partners up and down California, which we're pretty excited about. That certainly as well within your rights, we would certainly love the endorsement to take this to the council to join as you pointed out there's no cost to the city. So no liability created by joining the joint powers authority as an additional member. And we think that we're able to create this pretty unique form of middle income housing without any cost to the underlying jurisdiction. So I hope that answers your question, but happy to elaborate as needed. Let me add to that. Is it possible? How does joining affect the ability to apply for funds from the agency? I mean, it doesn't affect when you say apply for funds, you refer to funds from the California Community Housing Agency, or do you mean from other entities? Yes, for projects. It doesn't affect the ability to apply. I'm joining the joint powers authority and sort of authorizing Cal FHA to issue bonds locally within your jurisdiction and sort of the first step for us to be able to implement this program within the city. And so from there, you know, it's really Cal FHA that looks for properties to acquire and then restrict them. But to answer your question, joining does not, you know, it doesn't affect your ability to apply for funding. As there's not really an opportunity to do so, we sort of look for opportunities locally, hand in hand with the agency and then come back to the city for individual approvals there. So is Cal FHA a developer of this housing? So Cal FHA is a joint powers authority whose jurisdiction and member whose jurisdiction sort of encompasses the collective jurisdiction of its underlying membership. As I mentioned, its sole purpose for existence is the furtherance of this middle income housing across the state. And so how the program works is that Cal FHA issues its own governmental revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of these apartment communities. The apartments are 100% debt financed by the issuance and sale of these bonds and then backed solely by the project revenues. And so these are Cal FHAs only bonds, so the city is not backstopping or credit enhancing the bonds. And these are also not private activity bonds, so we're not diminishing the scarce resources that exist for other forms of affordable housing. And so, yes, that's generally how the program is set up and structured. So if I'm understanding it correctly, being a project under this program allows for the issuance of tax exempt bonds for construction. Yes, so we would basically, it doesn't allow for the tax, the predation to tax exempt bonds for construction or give, like pre-approved entitlements for any individual projects. You know, authorizing the membership of, authorizing the city's membership within Cal FHA allows us to begin scouting for acquisition opportunities and construction opportunities locally. To date, the model has been an acquisition model to date. We have acquired in partnership with Cal FHA more than 1500 units of existing market rate housing that has been converted to this form of rent restricted housing. So the agency is really focused on existing housing instead of constructing new housing. We, as I mentioned, we're, we have done acquisition to date, but we're highly focused on new development as well. Okay, thank you. Are there, is there anybody else in the public who would like to speak to this item? I do not show anyone else, chair. Thank you very much. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission on there. Let's just have discussion for a while before we get a motion. Are there commissioners who have questions or comments on the on the project? Let me on the proposal. Commissioner Dawson. Yeah, so thanks everyone for the work on this. This is a really important issue. In reviewing the language and also the changes that have been made, which are pretty substantive that are that were brought by staff that wasn't in the materials we received. Um, I, I really want to stay focused on providing and prioritizing kind of how this was brought up, right? The school district is who brought this up as was brought up by some of the subcommittee members and, you know, certainly this is a limited resources, right? Affordable housing and the ability to build affordable housing. And I think it's a clear community priority to prioritize that housing for teachers. And I think that AB 3088 provides some really good, clear, simple language. Um, and I really would hope that we would consider maybe doing this in a stepwise process and moving forward with some language that focuses just on aligning with AB 3088 and getting that under our belt and seeing how that works. And then if there's a need that other employers in the community that aren't the school district, you know, we could come back and craft something specific to those needs. But it seems to me that we went broader than the need that has been being expressed. And I think the state law really provides us with some language and I'll leave it there so other commissioners can chime in about that. But I would like to see us narrow this and focus it and align it with the language in AB 3088. Kind of in a cut date. What is it? It's 3308. Oh yeah, 3308. Okay, that, that one. And I'll leave it there. But I do have some language that I might propose dependent on the comments of the other commissioners. So thank you. Other commissioners, I have a number of comments. I wanted to thank staff for talking to me about my concerns. I share commissioners Dawson's general approach. I was particularly concerned with the two aspects of the proposed ordinance initially. One was that it provided companies like Google and Amazon and Facebook the ability to avoid our inclusionary requirements and come with a very vague proposal to the city council, which might or might not really include much in the way of affordable housing. And so to say, well, if you want us to come to Santa Cruz, you better approve our project. And because there was at least at that time so much discretion in the proposed ordinance that I would see the council would be under real pressure to approve whatever they wanted. So I'm not really, I really think that there's a fundamental difference between public employees and public agencies and private employers. And I understand that staff feels that it would be discriminatory to just make the program available to public employees, although the state law is just making a program available to school district employees. So I would like to see, certainly before I would vote on an ordinance or vote to support an ordinance that would apply to both private and public employees, I'd like to see a written opinion from the from the attorney about why that that would be discriminatory. There are a number of programs that seem to me that have been applied that are both public agencies and not private employers. The other concern I have is I, I'm always a little bit nervous about acting on an item that sort of comes to us on, you know, to a slideshow at the, at the, at the meeting. Because this is these are complicated issues with real potential consequences and to try to understand through a few slides what's really being talked about. For example, the only one I could really focus on was the proposed change that the project must be affordable to 50% of the employees. Well, what if it's a Google where everybody makes over $200,000 a year? And is that, if half of them, it would be affordable to $200,000 employees, but not the $600,000 employees, does that mean it would be consistent with the ordinance? I mean, I think that we really need to look at if we're going to move in that direction, more detail about how is this going to work. I know that the staff is recognizing that objective standards are important, but I think the commission, it would only be fair if we're going to go in that direction to give the commissioners time to read what exactly is being proposed. I don't feel like I understood just by hearing the, going through the presentation over a very short time. I have spent time and I've talked to staff a good deal about 3308. I think it's an excellent opportunity. I don't know whether Mr. Witt has been able to reach the school district in terms of what their reaction is, but there are two real benefits that I see in the approach that 3308 provides. It provides that a majority of the units have to be affordable to low or moderate income people. So that, it doesn't mean that a certain percentage has to be low income. It can be half of them could be moderate income and the rest of them can be market rate. So to the, or middle income, it could be whatever the school district is able to put together and that's really going to be the problem in my mind is how are they going to finance whatever projects they want to do. I can understand their concern about 20% inclusionary requirement. They already have a, even if they had no requirement, they were going to have problems, but 20% increases them. I think 3308 is a way of really dealing with that in a realistic way that assures that most of the units are going to go to low or moderate income employees and teachers and the rest of them will go to whatever the, you know, however they, they're able to structure the financing. The other real positive part of 3308 is that, which I think really makes financing possible as it says school district employees and teachers will have priority, but if there aren't enough of them to fill up the project, it's possible to rent, rent the units to other public employees and there aren't enough of them then to the general public. And that allows the project to receive financing because the financial entity will know that one way or the other there are going to be people who are going to rent that if there's anybody in the community that wants to rent it. One of the concerns I would be, and I think one of the concerns I had with the ordinance that was presented to us, I don't know if there was a recommendation to change that or not, is that if any of the units didn't go to a school district employee, there would be a 20% requirement. Well, that would, that's going to, you know, make the financing more difficult because how can the school district, or how can any agency guarantee that their employees are going to, you know, they're enough of them are going to want to all live together in one project. I mean, I remember when the county set up its employee-sponsored childcare after employees are saying, we need childcare, we need childcare, it was just going to be for county employees that lasted six months because there weren't enough county employees to make it economically feasible. So I think AB 3308 really solves that problem by allowing flexibility. So what I would prefer to do is just, you know, codify 3308, recommend that, put the rest of the ordinance, send the rest of the ordinance back, continue it for more discussion in terms of dealing with some of those complexities, public-private, what we need by affordable, what will be the objective standards. I think we need more time, and I think it would be actually beneficial to have an experience with the school district project and see what the actual obstacles are. And let me just make clear that I see the, I very much support this AB 3308 as an alternative to the inclusionary requirement. It's not in addition to the inclusionary requirement, it's an alternative to it. So that would be the approach that I would recommend, whether if we could just, I didn't really, again, having something disappear as we're sitting here makes it very hard for me to understand what was done. But the staff will say that the added language regarding 3308, the school district, really carries out the provisions of 3308. I'd be willing to support that. I'm also willing to support the other amendments to the code. I think if I'm concerned, they're fine. And since, frankly, after asking my questions about Cal, CHA, that's been more confused than I was at the beginning, I will support, I'm also supportive of the staff recommendation of getting a presentation so that we can get more information about what that. Agency is really doing, which I'm still not totally clear about. So those are my comments. I appreciate the work that's been done. I think this is, you're moving in a good direction. I think the option of a Cal CHA project might justify another amendment to the ordinance that would allow that to happen. But I just think we need more information before we do that. And we need to really think about how we're going to, one, provide for a range of housing. And of course, but also not exclude those people in the affordable, those households who are in the affordable category. So anyway, those are my comments. Certainly happy to hear a reaction from staff or from other commissioners. I just wanted to make one clarification. If you'd like us to put the language back up so we can go like through it again. We're happy to do that as well. Commissioner, I think that would be, I guess that would be okay, except it's really hard for me to be able to absorb something. I like to think about these sort of things, especially when we're talking about ordinance amendments that once they go into effect, you know, you never know what the unintended consequences are going to be. But at least if you got the chance to think about it, maybe you can come up with understanding some of them. Commissioner Conroy, did you want to have your hand up? Yeah, I, I'd like to weigh in on a number of the things that points that you made. First of all, I really hardly agree that we should get a full presentation on the Cal CHA. I think it's a very interesting opportunity. It's not something that should just be, you know, forced into this discussion by any means. It's not something that we should learn. And I do think that we're all going to be in support of it. And I actually was, first of all, the clarity that was offered today by the amendments that were brought by Ms. DeWitt, I think are overall very helpful and very much in the spirit of the conversation that the subcommittee had. I think that too found it frustrating, however, to hear about it and without having a chance to fully pull it apart and deliberate over it. And while I did talk to staff about it, I wasn't able to contact the other committee members. I think, you know, whether or not we discuss it for her as a committee would take special action by this commission, maybe it's not necessary, but the whole thing as a point I've made before was rushed in the first place. It was very fast and changes to the ordinance without due consideration. And I agree with you, Chair Schifrin, when we're changing ordinances, it's really a time that we need to talk through and think about it very carefully. We did deliberate on employer sponsored housing beyond the school district. It certainly wasn't meant. We weren't talking about Google as alternatives. We were talking about hospital workers and nonprofit clinic and other government efforts. But it should all be deliberated. I don't have a problem with it. I was taking action on nothing except for the cleanup items. I do think the cleanup items would be easy enough to do tonight. But further deliberation, further clarification that everybody sees ahead of time about the, you know, the proposed changes seem like a good idea to me. That being said, if Ms. Witt would like to clarify further the purpose of them, the importance, I think we've all learned the importance of converting these to be objective standards. It's really clearly and all of that clarification was intended. So I, that's my point. Thank you. Let me just clarify one of my comments and then I'll call Commissioner Dawson and Commissioner Spelman. AB 33 is state law. It's already the law and the school district can come in and do it. So I don't think there's anything, if the commission just recommended codifying the state law as an alternative from meeting the inclusionary requirements, I think it's pretty clear the school district can already do it. This is just a way of clarifying that they won't also be subject to the inclusionary requirements and that then makes it much more feasible. So I don't see any reason why we can't move forward with that. Since it's already, the state law is already clear and that law was put on the agenda. So everybody had a chance to read it. It's not, you know, it's not just been forecast this evening. So Commissioner Dawson and then Commissioner Spelman. Yeah, I was going to make a motion. But now I'm kind of second guessing it because I'm trying to think of the language that we could do what you said. So I'm going to give it a go and I'll take friendly amendment. So I'd like to make a motion that we approve the cleanup amendments and that we change the, let me get the section right 24, 16, 0, 30 under that section alternative methods to comply with the inclusionary housing requirement. The proposed changes were number 10. I propose that we change that language to say that an alternative method to comply with the inclusionary includes the provisions of AB 3308. And I guess we would need the code, the actual law section for that. I guess it's assembly bill number 3308 chapter 199 that that would count as an alternative in this to meet the inclusionary requirements under our code. So that's the motion. So what you suggest, since I don't think it's generally, I mean, I don't think it's generally a good idea to have an admissible code references to provisions and state law. It can be very confusing to people. So would you be willing to change your motion to state that the recommended recommended amendment to the inclusionary ordinance would be the provisions of AB 33 incorporated into the city's municipal zoning code? Sure. I also have language that I crafted that does that and also includes some of the provisions that the housing committee put together. I just wasn't sure if we wanted to try to do that on the fly. I mean, I can also rescind the motion and just suggest that we continue this so that we have time to go through it. Well, why don't I ask you to throw the motion at this time, and especially since there hasn't been a second. And then Commissioner Spellman can say what he wants to say and then I'll call on me to wait. So go ahead, Commissioner Spellman. You have to unmute yourself. Yeah, I wanted to echo Julie's comments as well on that. I do think there's opportunity here to vet some of this language of more fully. I think we should run test scenarios on potential projects. Both from private sector and public sector and see the results of those applications, let's call it. For me, that section that was just quoted 10, you know, 24, 16, 030 section 10 for alternative methods of complying. I myself put a lot of weight in section B there, right, where we're not really giving them a path on affordable housing. Right. So the way I understand it, I mean, we're actually asking for something more. Right. We're giving them an opportunity to craft an alternative method based on their conditions and allowing that alternative to happen. We're not eliminating inclusionary housing requirements. So I think that's an important concept to understand, but I do think further work and study would be helpful and clarify that what we're proposing is not something that, you know, we don't want to be proposing actually. Thank you. Next. I just wanted to clarify. So, AB 3308. It's really, I'm trying to do this in layman terms. It's basically an amendment to the teacher housing act of 2016. So everything that was approved in 3308 is rolled into the housing act of 20, the teacher housing act of 2016. So really the teacher housing act of 2016 is the body of work that encompasses everything in addition to 3308. Does that make sense? So that's really what you want. It depends on what more is in the teacher's act that would affect these kinds of projects. Is it undermined what 3308 says? Or does it expand it? I mean, how does it relate to what's in 3308? It expanded it. So basically that's where it added in the language that it could also be besides having a priority for teachers and staff and district staff. District could also provide the housing to public employees or other members of the public. So it kind of expanded on the original concept of the teacher housing act. Well, I think that makes sense because that makes it financial. But I'm not hearing that. In other words, it's the city codified the provisions of 3308 as an alternative to the inclusionary ordinance provisions so that a school district could meet the, could do a school district project, housing project. And if it would meet the requirements of the codified 3308, it would be considered to have met the requirements of our inclusionary ordinance. Is there anything in the teacher's act that would prevent that from happening? It's basically that this, that assembly bill amended the housing, the teacher housing act. So in a sense, in a few years from now, no one will even reference AB 3308. They'll only reference the teacher housing act. Does that make sense? It just, it made an, that, that assembly bill amended, provided an avenue to amend the teacher housing act. Well, that's, that's fine. And it's another reason for not referring to the state law. I guess what I'm suggesting is what would make sense is to just codify the provisions of 3308. It allows for these school districts to do this kind of housing. It should be for their employees. The majority has to be affordable to low or moderate income employees or teachers. If there aren't enough of those, public employees can be allowed in. And if there aren't enough of those, it can be, it can be members of the public. Now, assuming that the city would approve such an ordinance and the school district would move forward with a project, we would be able to see how that all worked out and how this approach to greater flexibility in terms of affordability and allowing the wider workforce could, could function. And it might make, it might be a good model that could be used for employee sponsored housing generally. That's why I mean, I'm supportive of the notion of continuing the proposed employer sponsored ordinance amendments for more discussion. I think, you know, a number of issues have been raised tonight. I thought Commissioner Spellman's concerned about seeing some examples was good. I'd like to see written justification for why it has to be both the public and private. I think the whole notion of letting us think about objective standards and how that would affect what kind of housing a project would be are all worth for the discussion. But I don't think that that negates the ability to recommend to the council that they approve an ordinance amendment that would essentially incorporate the provisions from 3308, because I think that would allow the school district to go forward. And it would, you know, it would give a meaningful alternative that we could see how well it works in terms of providing housing for low, moderate income people as well as more middle income and higher income people. Commissioner Greenberg, you haven't had a chance to speak. Did you want to speak to this? Yeah, thank you. I really appreciated this discussion. I think we really didn't have such an opportunity to talk about AB 3308 and the teacher housing act more broadly. And it is also the case that this process was initiated by the concern voiced by the school district. And that that is kind of our preeminent sort of concern and was the case study that we were going on so forth. And so I really like the idea of not losing team and momentum on the needs to support the school district. And it's quite an urgent need that they have in, you know, even while they're in the midst of all kinds of other challenges right now, I think that they hope to soon be able to move forward on this. And so I support this idea that we that we can still help in that effort by clarifying that the provisions of 3308 would be made, you know, in addition to, you know, they would not be tampered by the inclusionary ordinance. It would be something that's done in addition to the board that outside of the original ordinance they wouldn't. I should say instead of the inclusionary ordinance, and that we continue the discussion of employer sponsored housing in the broader sense and that I like this idea that we use the this as a case study as a as a model. To see how it works and consider, you know, how they are or not able to fill the housing and the degree to which, you know, other public employees might be included. I like the idea of considering and perhaps looking at examples throughout California of how employees sponsored housing desert does not include public and private employees and what the consequences of that might be or have been. Since there's probably many examples of this in Silicon Valley and so forth. So, I think this is a wise direction to take. And I appreciate the question. Could I ask, Mr with a question in terms of what the commission might do, if the commission would. Will to recommend to the council. And would that be enough of a direction for you to bring such an ordinance directly to the council, as opposed to having the need for it to come back to specific language to come back to the commission, although it went by so fast, the specific language might already be there. So, just pull up that language again, just I don't, I don't know if you're able to pull up, or maybe Sarah can pull up the language. Or, I see her going. It is fairly straightforward and I apologize if I went by too quickly. Yes, I think we could pull parse it out so that it could just go to council. Just this section to help the school, you know, push the school district along with their project. So we could, we can, we could take out the actually, you could keep the following alternate means of compliance only applies to school district employers sponsored housing. It would become its own alternate means of compliance, its own section. And like I was saying before, AB 3308 is all it is is an amendment of the teacher housing act of 2016. Right, but the section that you provided doesn't include the other sections of the law that say a majority have to be affordable by low or moderate income, and that other employees could besides school district employees could be eligible if there weren't enough school district employees. This just seems to be. Yeah, all of that is actually inside. They're all provisions of the teacher housing act of 2016. And I'd actually be a little concerned about doing just AB 3308 because I'm not sure if only that piece, you know, if only one piece of it is approved and you would be missing the rest of it. So really the teacher housing act is the full encompassing of everything you just said, all those. I hear what you're saying, but I guess my concern was, we wouldn't even have to refer to AB 3308 or the teacher housing act, we would just take the language from there and put it into the municipal code as an alternative. And so it would be, I mean, one of the nice things about AB 3308 is that it's comprehensible, unlike a lot of state laws. So, you know, reading the specifics. And again, I think it's better to have the specifics in the ordinance rather than making people have to go back to the state law to figure out what's allowed and what isn't allowed. I was trying to back up to the slide that has the bullet points that you wanted. It's just that I'm sorry. What did you say? Oh, sorry, one more. The teacher housing act one. Sorry. I was trying to get there. I think this is the one chair that you're referring to. Is that right? Yes. Yes. So if that language was in the ordinance, then that would be fine because that includes, now, the thing about having to get local or state tax credit funding. I didn't think that that was a requirement. I thought that was an option. Um, and so I would ask that exclusive land school visits are allowed to priorities and restrict occupancy. That's local. The act states if local state or tax credit, it doesn't have to be all of the above. Yeah, but how do you get local tax credit funding? No, no, I'm sorry. So it could be just straight local funding, or it could be state funding, or it could be tax. Okay, that makes sense because I'm sure that the school business will be asking the city for some support to help with their project together. So, okay, well, that's what I sort of had in mind as put that in the ordinance. And then we have an old, you know, we have something specific to recommend to the commission will agree to recommend to the council and the school district would be able to move forward with their project. If we send the whole thing back, it will be, you know, we can try to have it come again soon, but there will be that delay. Now, Commissioner Dawson, I know you wanted to speak and then I saw Commissioner Conway. Yeah, could I ask the clerk to bring up my proposed language that I sent you that is essentially a cut in paste of the language from the health and safety code that we've been talking about AB 30208. I don't know if you can make that bigger. So just for reference for the council or for the commissioners, the red language is language that was included by the subcommittee. The blue language is essentially a cut in paste from the AB 30308, those sections of the health and safety code that were amended by that assembly bill. I didn't change any of that language. I basically cut and pasted it from the act. And then we would also need to add, I think we would need to add some definitions. We would need to add further up in our ordinance under 24, 16, 01, 15, we would need to define local public employees, which isn't defined in our code. And we would need to define teacher or school district employees, which also isn't defined in our code. So this, again, blue is essentially a cut in paste from AB 30808 or 3308. And that was what I brought over from the original recommendations. So that's just for consideration. If somebody wants to make a motion on it. Where does it say that 50% majority have to be of the units have to be affordable to low or moderate income. So that's just to see where that section is before okay. I think it's in there. Yeah, you talk about job classifications and salary levels, including those hardest to retain, whatever that means. Well, let's hear from Commissioner Conway. Did you want to comment on this? Yeah, thank you. So, I don't disagree with the intent of this conversation. But I am highly concerned about proposing ordinance amendments on the fly during a public meeting. I think they need to be written presented to the commission and deliberated over carefully. That's one of my point. The other point, I have two others. One of them is that the state law is in effect now. And there is that it's on the books. There isn't anything that we could that this isn't necessary to rush through this. Because it's already in effect if the school district was poised and ready to move forward with their project. They could do it under the state law. So we're not accomplishing anything other than potentially muddling our own ordinance and having to do cleanup later. Finally, I know we are all highly aware that the school district has been profoundly impacted by COVID to the point where it was very difficult for them in the face of all their other challenges to even respond to our questions as we were going along. They are swamped. Their project is not imminent. So because we aren't accomplishing anything for anybody by rushing, I would be far more comfortable doing this work more deliberately and asking staff to come back with revised language. I do think it's perfectly fair for everybody to have a chance to digest and understand. And, you know, quite frankly, it may change some of the recommendations of the committee. But it covered many of the points that we were trying to make. And I think it does so clearly. I think there were some very good recommendations from council, but it needs further deliberation. It might even be that it needs further subcommittee time, maybe a new subcommittee. I'm not sure about that, but obviously it's interesting. Let's do it carefully and let's do it right. So could I just clarify something you said? Because I don't really disagree with a lot of it. I'm happy to have it continued, although I'd like two ordinances to come back. I'd like a separate ordinance that would just slide to the school district and one that would apply more generally. But I think you've made a point and I want to ask staff if that's correct. You're saying that the school district could go forward now under state law and that would be fine. The problem is that I understand that they would then be subject to the city's inclusionary ordinance. That's why I want to get clarified. The reason for doing this is that by putting AB 3308 provisions into the city ordinance as an alternative, it allows them to go forward without having to meet the inclusionary requirements. So let me just clarify this with Mr. Witt whether they, if they can go forward under the state law, but wouldn't they be subject to the 20% inclusionary requirement? That's correct. So I assume that that means that. So I think Commissioner Conway, that's the reason for doing this. I think you're right. It's not like the school district is ready to break down the day after tomorrow. So it's not the end of the world to put this off. But I think it is important to provide this as an alternative AB 3308. Oh, yeah. To the inclusionary requirement. And, you know, that can be done to ordinance language. So I wonder if someone would be willing to make a motion to recommend approval of the cleanup provisions, to continue the discussion of employee sponsored housing to a future date and to separate the employer sponsored housing from the school district housing. And with the possibility of them coming back separately instead of them both having to come back together. Because I think we could move the issues around the school district housing, I think of much simpler and straight forward than some of the issues around the school district. So if somebody wanted to make that motion, essentially to recommend approval of the cleanup ordinance language to continue the discussion of employee sponsored housing and separate the two employees sponsored from the school district. Commissioner Conway, you're saying yes, you're willing to make that motion, but you're not. I would make a slightly different motion, but I think it's definitely in the spirit of that. I think the motion could be simpler and that we would move the cleanup provisions today and continue the employer sponsored housing to a future meeting. I don't think, I think that this discussion is enough guidance to continue it. And I don't think we need to have it that complicated. But that's just me. Is that a second? Is there a second to that motion? Oh, second. I heard Commissioner Nielsen first. Let me clarify this with Jessica. Essentially what I understand Commissioner Conway saying is that by keeping it simple, that doesn't prevent staff from coming back separately with an ordinance on the school district as we talked about with just focused on city COE and another, and continuing a little bit longer the employer sponsored. Is that, would that be consistent with the motion that you're making Commissioner Conway? Yeah, that's exactly my point. Continue it, clarify it. We don't need to give it a lot more shape or language. Just move approval of the cleanup amendments and continue the rest of it for further analysis and clarification consistent with tonight's discussion. Well, I would be willing to support that with the understanding that staff could come back with the codification of AB 3308 separately. I don't think there's any problem with that. Pardon me? No, I think that's what I was saying to the chairs. So that's consistent with your motion. Is that understood by staff? Is that good, could that work for staff? Yeah, but we had already kind of separated them out under the same section, but yeah, we can continue to do that. Well, I think I mean my sense is that there are fewer issues with the school district ordinance than I think they're all with the employer-sponsored provisions. And so I would hope that the school district ordinance could come back quickly and not get bogged down with all the issues in the employer-sponsored ordinance. What I'm understanding is that's not inconsistent with the motion that's on the floor. Are you spaying any? Yeah, I mean I just want to make sure we all understand it the same way. Otherwise, I think it's important to amend the motion, but if that's the understanding, then I'm fine with the motion. Further discussion, commissioner, how many of you have your hand? I don't know, commissioner Dorsen, you have your hand up and then commissioner Greenberg. Yeah, I feel a little uncomfortable with the motion as is because I really, really want us to move on this teacher provision. And I feel like in hearing what the other commissioners say that I think there's a lot of agreement with that and that language could be quickly crafted and probably even come back. It's very soon in the next couple meetings. So I would like to amend commissioner Conway's motion to just clarify that we are continuing the discussion on employer-sponsored housing with the expectation that there will be two packages either brought back together or separately. One for teachers' school district housing and one for employer-sponsored housing. And they can come together or they can come separate. So that's what I would like to move. Is there a second to that? Well, I was- Commissioner Greenway, you seem like you're considering seconding yet. You can second this for the purposes of discussion and you don't have to vote for it just because you second it. Okay. Maybe I'm trying to figure out the procedure. I was just gonna ask for the discussion that- Well, are you seconding the motion? But we can't really talk about it unless it has a second. Oh, that's true. Okay, I'll second that motion. Okay. Go ahead. Well, and I'd love to have more discussion but it strikes me that and I wanted to hear if there was any concern about this but it seems to me that it's pretty straightforward that what we're trying to do is say that AB 3308 of the teacher housing law is not subject to our inclusionary ordinance. And so it's a pretty straightforward thing that would still further the initial impetus behind our entire discussion on employer-sanctioned housing which was to start with the need for the school district to be able to move forward. Even while it's true that the school district is hampered by many other challenges right now but it's something we could accomplish pretty straight in a pretty simple way it seems to me while continuing the discussion about employer-sanctioned housing more broadly and addressing these more complex questions. So I find that- Sorry. As I understand it, Commissioner Dawson's ordinance just makes explicit what's implicit in Commissioner Conway's motion makes explicit what's implicit in Commissioner Conway's motion. And so I guess one thing to ask rather than having to vote on it are you Commissioner Conway and Commissioner Nielson willing to incorporate language into your motion as a friendly amendment? So my reason to keep it simple is that this is a- It's a big item. I'd like staff to consider it and I actually see that Mr. Butler was wanting to make a point. What I do know is that every time we change an ordinance there's a whole process, it's expensive, it's on a bunch of different points. So I was just looking to streamline. That's all. I don't think anybody disagrees that the school district or the school employee housing is really helpful to our purposes. No one's arguing that. So I would love to hear what Mr. Butler had to say. Okay. Mr. Butler, you have your hand up and you have to unmute yourself. I like that everybody has made the same mistake. I didn't feel so good because I stepped. I'm not muting myself now. Sorry, good about that. So I just wanted to make the point that it sounded like there was an interest in maybe potentially continuing this item to a date in the near future and from a procedural standpoint and from a fiscal standpoint, it would be helpful to continue. If you are continuing a portion of it, it would be helpful to continue it, say to the second meeting in January. That will save us some money and some time and doing the republishing. So if that is the will of the commission to continue some or all of an item, I would request that you take that into consideration to save some time and money. So since there seems to be so much agreement to that the new district provisions make sense, I haven't heard anybody disagree with that. I'm a little, you know, I had since, I tend to share Commissioner Conway's concern about and others that material like this shows up on our agenda needs time for thoughtfulness. So, you know, that's why I felt that it makes sense just to incorporate the provisions of the act, essentially as recommended by staff. So in a sense, the provisions of AB 3308 are already being recommended by staff as a part of this ordinance. So one of the things we could do, we could approve, recommend the cleanup items, we could recommend the approval of the provisions in the ordinance related to the school district project and continue the rest of it. And that would then, we have an ordinance that's already proposed that would incorporate 3308 and we'd have that sort of, we would have taken action on that and that would move forward. And, you know, the course 3308 was on the agenda. It's not new. It's something that commissioners kind of read. And so what all staff did was incorporated as ordinance language. So one, you know, one possible amendment to the ordinance, out of the motion would be to continue the employer's sponsor ordinance to approve the cleanup items and to recommend the cleanup items and to recommend the approval of the school district alternative language that's proposed by staff. Is that something that, and, you know, I do, I really think we're all on the same page and Chair Schifrin, I'm making the point again and I appreciate Mr. Butler clarifying that what we need to do is to continue it to a date certain, which would be the second meeting in January would be the 21st of January that would prevent re noticing. And I think it would be helpful to look at the ordinance language in a packet, in a published packet that everybody sees ahead of time. And we can take action pretty quickly at that time. And again, we don't have any advantage in hurrying any piece of it and there is nothing pushing on it. So, you know, the change that I'd like to make my motion is simply we do is continue it to date certain. And if we want clarification in there, you know, some simple language, I don't think we need to define it a lot. But, you know, in accordance with this meeting, we're, you know, separating the, you know, school sponsored versus other employers. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think we need to belabor it. And I really don't think we should jam it in on the fly. And even though staff worked on it a little bit before the meeting, not in time for us to all see it. So, if I understand what you're, how you're rephrasing your motion, it would be to continue to approve the recommend approval of the cleanup items to continue the employee sponsored housing and to the second meeting in January. And when it comes back, that there would be two alternative approaches to meeting the inclusionary requirements. One would be an employer sponsored approach and the other would be a school district approach. Is that it? And once again, I don't think that's necessary, but I'm not against it. Okay. Is that accepted? Yeah, Commissioner Dawson, you're about in a sense that it is incorporating your motion because it does make explicit the difference between the two issues. Are you willing to withdraw your motion based on that? I have a clarifying question first and then possibly. So the motion as I understand it is requiring both school sponsored and employee sponsored housing to come back the second meeting in January because I really want to give enough time for deliberation about the employer sponsored housing. So as you are proposing it, Commissioner Conway, are you asking for them both to come back the second meeting in January? I was hoping to read the motion on the floor. I've written it all out for you guys. I can read it verbatim here. So originally, Commissioner Conway made a motion to, excuse me, let me zoom up a bit. Commissioner Conway made the motion originally to clean up the provisions today and continue the employee sponsored housing to January 21st, 2021. She originally said to a future date, but per leave discussion, she has changed that. And then the change, the amendment on the floor from Commissioner Dawson and seconded by Commissioner Greenberg was an amendment to clarify that we are continuing the discussion on employer sponsored housing with the expectation that there will be two packages either brought back together or separate, one for the school district housing and one for employer sponsored housing. No votes yet. Well, then I understood that Commissioner Conway then clarified her motion that she was okay while not wildly enthusiastic about the idea that when it does come back, there would be separate provisions for employer sponsored housing, separate provisions for the school district housing. And is that correct? Commissioner Conway. And then Commissioner Dawson, in terms of your clarification, we're continuing it to that time. And if the commission at that time needs more discussion on employer sponsored housing, it can be continued again. I mean, the commission will have to feel comfortable with it. It can continue to feature the school district housing as well. It's just that we'll have both provisions and we'll have them in writing. And I can support that. If I'm not happy with it, I'll continue to complain and I won't vote for it in the end. This will do what they want to do. But I think it's fine to have, I can understand the staff's concern about the problems of noticing things differently and separating them all out. Let's have it come back and then we can just decide what we want to do. So again, I'd ask Commissioner Dawson and Greenberg if you'd be willing to withdraw your motion and what do you say? I would be willing to withdraw my motion. Is that okay with the second? That's fine with me. Okay, so we have the original motion on the floor, which is to recommend approval of the cleanup items, continue the employer sponsored housing to January 21st was it? Second meeting in January 2021 and have the employer sponsored housing and the school district housing return as two different sections or alternatives to meeting the inclusion requirements. Is there any further discussion or need for clarification of the motion? Could we have a roll call vote please? Yes. Chair Chifrin? Aye. Commissioner Dawson? Commissioner Conway? Commissioner Greenberg? Aye. Commissioner Maxwell? Commissioner Nielsen? Commissioner Spelman? Aye. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you all very much. I appreciate the work that staff has done. I appreciate the work that the commission has done in terms of trying to work together on this issue. So let us now move to item number three, which is the Brown Act and Planning Commission comments in advance of public meetings. Could we have a staff report please? Good evening, commissioners and Chair Chifrin. I will try to keep this brief for you and feel free to ask any questions following my presentation because I am keeping it so brief. Essentially, the Brown Act speaks to one of its principles of having deliberative bodies make decisions in the public and there were some questions that came up in a meeting a couple of months ago about memo that had been provided from a commissioner to the rest of the commission. And that one had actually occurred through or during that had been presented during an item that was continued. So it would be similar to the item that you just had if one of the, so like for example, the materials that commissioner Dawson presented tonight, those could be presented to the full commission at the meeting on January 21st. However, that's separate and distinct from, because that's happening as part of a public meeting, that's separate and distinct from communications happening at, or sorry, outside of a public meeting. So in reviewing the Brown Act, the Brown Act speaks to a series of communications I think that there is a letter of the law there and a spirit of the law there that I tried to capture in the report that was prepared related to this, which is theoretically, and I wanna acknowledge our city attorney, John Barassone, who's helped me work through this multiple times over the last year, so thank you. But theoretically, one commissioner could provide comments to the full commission. That could have limitations on the other commissioners deliberations. However, there's also a theory that one commissioner's comments to the full commission could constitute a series because it's going to all of the commissioners. What it boils down to is if one commissioner were able to provide comments that would be challenging for staff to decide who gets to provide those comments and no one else does. And then secondly, it would also present challenges in terms of the types of communications that the other commissioners could have with one another. And so for simplicity purposes, and to meet the intent, I would say, of the act of the Brown Act, we are recommending that commissioners not provide comments in advance of the meeting unless that's actually done as part of a public meeting. That is clearly consistent with the Brown Act. And I think there's one more thing that I would add similar to the issue tonight where all of you, I think every one of you participated in the discussion about the inclusionary. So now that there has been a conversation amongst you all, there really shouldn't be any conversations that you have in advance of that next public hearing because you're aware of the other commissioners comments. And therefore those comments outside of the public meeting could help to form a forum decision. So I think with that, I'll stop ad-living on the memo. And I'm not sure if Attorney Barassone had anything else that he would like to add to that. You're muted there, John. We still can't hear you. We have a very confused problem. Can you hear me now? Yes, go ahead. Okay, I don't have anything to add at this point. I'm available for questions. Okay, thank you. I have a lot of questions since this is really directed at me. I will first I'll ask there are other commissioners who want to ask questions or make comments at this point. Commissioner Dawson. I just had a clarifying comment. So, well, actually it's a question. So I understand the forum requirements, the serial meeting requirements, but what I don't understand and perhaps you could provide some clarification is if just like the public can write a letter and it's included in the briefing book or the agenda package and then that becomes part of the public record for everyone to see, including all of the commissioners. I don't understand why commissioners' comments don't fall under that. As long as they're published so that the public and they're part of the public sphere, it's not just among commissioners. It goes to everyone, staff, the public, everyone has equal access to that information. I don't understand how that violates the act. It constitutes deliberations. The moment you deliver your thoughts to the other members of the Planning Commission, you've created deliberations. And what the Brown Act says is that you have to deliberate in the presence of the public so they can observe your deliberations. And that's why it prohibits a series of communications outside the public meeting scenario. So when you provide comments to your fellow commissioners before the meeting, you're providing a communication outside of the public meeting scenario. And what we're saying is that once that's done, deliberations are taking place because the other commissioners are considering your comments. And what we're saying is that once those comments have been considered and they have been spread among all seven commissioners, you're setting yourself up for a violation of the Brown Act. If, for example, your memo sparks up a discussion between two other commissioners, and that's what the Brown Act prohibits. Well, two other commissioners wouldn't be a quorum, but aren't you already shared your thoughts? Why don't we just have our son who wanted to let her finish her statement and then you can respond? I'm sorry. So, but I'm not, maybe I didn't articulate my question clearly. So I'm not asking about if I sent a memo just to the other commissioners via email. I'm asking if I had a memo or comments or clarifications that maybe I received from staff. Maybe I spoke with staff and received some clarifications and put it down and that I want the public to have that information. If I submitted that as part of the submittal process for the public briefing book, you're saying that's a violation. If you received information from staff and you submitted it to be included in the agenda packet, that was your saying? Yeah, that or just I had general comments about a project or something, not about how I was gonna vote, but these are the questions I'm thinking about as I'm going into the meeting or something like that. And I wanted the public to have that information. You're saying that's a violation. Well, if you're sharing it with the rest of the commission, yes. And maybe commissioner Dawson, if I could just add, I think that let me, I'm gonna share my screen here because one of the things that we did when we were looking into this issue is, and can you guys see this, my screen here? Yep, okay, great. So one of the things that we looked at was this memo from the attorney general and really considered these issues carefully because it specifies something very similar. It was related to email between, and it talked about even if the emails were sent to the secretary and chairperson and the emails were posted on the agency's website and a printed version was reported at the next public meeting. The challenge was that the deliberations on a particular issue could be completed before an interested person had the opportunity to become involved. Really, the issue is the Brown Act speaks to having the deliberations occur at a public meeting. And so that was a big part of the determination that we were. You're selecting from that section, put that section back up because it's a very, what you've not quoted was the key part of that section. Could you put that back up again? Yep, yep. Because what it says, the office concluded that a majority of a body would violate the act if they emailed each other regarding current issues under the body's jurisdiction, even if the emails were also sent to everybody else and their uncle. That is the key point there is if they email each other. What I think Commissioner Dawson is talking about and what I've been talking about is there wouldn't be an email to other commissioners. There would be, as I did with AB 3308, I just sent that to the court to put it on the public correspondence agenda. And so that it would be seen by everyone. So I think that those provisions that you're citing are all based on the assumption that the particular information is emailed to all the other commissioners. Well, I would say there's not a difference between emailing the commissioners and posting your email on the packet where all the other commissioners, it's effectively the same thing. And that's why we included the provisions is because one commissioner's comments are going to all the commission, which is the same as the emailing the rest of the commission. Commissioner Dawson, you finished. Would you have other questions? No, except that it isn't the same as emailing the other commissioners because the public has the information. That's, I think, the real difference. If you send something to staff, it's going to the other commissioners, but it's going to everybody in the public. And that's the part where I sort of get stuck. But go ahead, Chair Schifrin, I'm done. Are the commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Greenberg. Yeah, I realize this is very complex in terms of how this is worded and so forth. What's confusing to me is that whenever we read a staff report or comments from the public, we're deliberating before the meeting. If that's how deliberation is being defined, we're considering the issue as best we can and developing a comprehensive and understanding of the issue prior to the limited time we have in the meeting. So, for instance, had we had access to 3308, kind of read through it prior to the meeting, had a staff person put, anyone put it, we would have had a chance similar to, which would have been very helpful today, similar to reading all kinds of information that a developer might send to the public or a member of the public might send or a staff member might put into a site in a staff report. So, you know, why is it that we're not allowed to deliberate, we're only allowed to deliberate over those kinds of items and not items that might come to us via the staff from other commissioners. We are deliberating before the meeting. When you review the comments of members of the public, you're not deliberating with one another. It's a distinction. What the Brown Act, what the Brown Act emphasizes that the deliberations of the planning commission, when they're coming to a conclusion as a seven-body member that that be done in public. I think I'm getting information that's informing my decision-making. Maybe I should put it that way. And so it's, right? Right, you're getting it from members of the public and not from other commissioners as you're- I'm getting it from the staff. Yeah, I'm getting it from the staff. Yeah, and that's the difference. The law that's going into effect that we made reference to in the beginning of the year talks about social networking, like FaceTime and Twitter and things of that nature. And it specifically says that if one council member responds to a member of the public posting on social networking on a matter of planning commission business, none of the other planning commissioners who review that posting can make a similar post in response. This one final point I would say that makes sense. And so there's a difference maybe between responding and having conversations amongst ourselves and putting something on the record. But I also get the point, I think that Mr. Butler was making that it would affect how other people and what I think you're perhaps you're saying it would affect how other people could respond. So if chair Schifrin were to post something that we consider before the meeting, we shouldn't be able to talk about it amongst ourselves. Yeah. But I don't, but maybe it should be. Right, but that's a critical description. You know, I don't have any disagreement that we shouldn't be talking about it amongst ourselves. But it's, can we even read it? Can we even be informed about it? And that's my concern. And I'm gonna go through my, I've had conversations with Mr. Butler. I've had conversations with Mr. Barassone. And, you know, I have no sympathy or illusion that it's gonna be possible to convince either one of them. But I do want to present my point of view to the commission and I do then want to make a recommendation which is different from the staff recommendation. Let me emphasize certain of the things that are in the Brown Act and also in the AG's opinion. The opening lines of the Brown Act state it is an intent of the law that the actions be taken openly and their deliberations be conducted openly. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments that they have created. And my feeling is by putting something on the public correspondence or on an agenda item is simply allowing the public to know just as much as any of the commissioners. Then of course, another section about the definition of a meeting means any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location to hear, discuss, deliberate or take action on any item that is within the subject matter of jurisdiction of the legislative body. In other words, there needs to be a majority and there needs to be discussion. I must, I mean, I just fundamentally disagree with the notion that the liberation means reading something, but that's the liberation that if the commission gets to read what and let me just say it, I may be the test person here but I'd be interested what some of the other commissioners might think on a particular project just to hear about it before the meeting. So I could be somewhat informed about what their concerns are rather than trying to absorb it when they say it at the public meeting. I don't think there's anything wrong with all of commissioners that they have a comment to make on an item to say, this is what, these are my concerns or these are my questions. As long as we're not talking about it and there's no inter communication between a majority of the commission, I don't see how that's a violation of the ground act. So in terms of the AG's opinion, all of the deliberative processes of a legislative body including discussion, debate, and acquisition of information be open and available to public scrutiny. That's what the AG's opinion says. And by putting it on a public, not sending it to other commissioners, but sending it to the staff to put on a public agenda, it is open and available to public scrutiny. Another one on page three of our agenda packet, one should be mindful of the ultimate purposes of the act to provide the public with an opportunity to monitor, monitor and participate in the decision-making processes of boards and commissioners. That's such substantive conversations among members concerning an agenda item prior to a public meeting, probably would be viewed as conformity to the development of a concurrence to the ultimate action. So there needed to be substantive conversations. The idea of just simply putting an item on the agenda is not a substantive conversation. Conversations which advance or clarify a member's understanding of an issue or facilitate an agreement or compromise among members or advance the ultimate resolution are all examples of communications which can contribute to the development of a concurrence. Accordingly with the items that have been placed on an agenda, are likely to be placed on an agenda, members of a legislative body should avoid serial communications of a substantive nature concerning these items. So conversations, communications of a substantive nature between commissioners are, are a violation and I don't disagree with that. But simply putting information on the public agenda that can be seen by anyone, by members of the public, in which includes the commission members. And I'm not sure how many commission members even read AD 3308 that it was put on the agenda, but yet they had the ability to read it. And I think that's legitimate. So we've already talked about email communications would not be available to persons who do not have access. But this section really does apply to commissioners or commissioners emailing other commissioners. It doesn't apply to a commissioner. I don't think it applies to a commissioner simply adding a document to the public correspondence agenda. Okay, I'm almost done, I'm getting there. The new law says that there was a reference to the new law. It states that once one member of the legislative body posts a communication regarding a matter that is in the subject matter of the legislative body, other members of the legislative body may not directly respond to that post the communication. That's what it says about social media. So, and I think that's totally consistent with what I'm talking about, that there needs to be communication between the members of the legislative body or the commission for there to be a violation of the Brown Act. Simply having information, it's not communication. Allowing multiple commissioners to provide comments would certainly represent a series of communications which would violate the Brown Act. That's what the staff is saying. That's not what the AG was saying. It's not a violation if it's just placed on public correspondence with no in conversation, communication, or deliberation between commissioners only making material available to the public. Finally, it's noted above a commissioners communication request for the public union. I don't think that was. So, as I say, I think this is the opinion that commissioners putting items on the public correspondence agenda is not a violation of the Brown Act. I understand that it is impossible to convince Mr. Butler or Mr. Barassoni to that point of view. So what I would like to recommend is that the commission formally ask the attorney general to answer the question, is it a violation of the Brown Act or one or more commissioners to submit comments on an upcoming agenda item only to staff a placement on the public agenda as an addition to public correspondence prior to the meeting? I think, I understand what staff is saying. I think their interpretation of the law is overly restrictive and not consistent with what the AG has said or what the law actually said. But I think it's possible and Mr. Barassoni can tell me how to ask the AG for his opinion. But it doesn't really talk about, none of the items quoted talk about just putting something on a public portion of the agenda that can be seen by everyone. And I think it would be legitimate for us to ask since there is this difference of opinion and at best I would agree that the law isn't clear. So Mr. Barassoni, how, if the commission wanted to ask the attorney general opinion on this matter, could they do so, could we do so? The city can't do so directly because the city is not a client of the attorney general. Only clients of the attorney general which are state agencies and state subdivisions can ask for opinions. What we've done historically, I've only done it one on one occasion. It was about probably 30 years ago is we had a question about the application of the subdivision map act to a housing developments on university owned property. And I contacted Dwight Herb with county council and wrote a request for his signature. And he courteously submitted that request to the attorney general. And he could do so because the county of Santa Cruz is a subdivision of the state of California and I got an attorney general's opinion. So the way we would go about doing it would be to prevail upon hopefully the county council to cooperate with us as a matter of courtesy and submit it on our behalf. Did you be supportive of doing so? Sure. Okay, well, I mean, we've gone around and around, Mr. Butler, would you be supportive of doing so? I mean, I think- Yeah, I've got no problem with that. I mean, if the attorney general says I'm wrong, I will bow down to the city attorney and apologize. People disagree with me all the time. Me too. You know, I've taken a lot of your time. I've taken a lot of Mr. Butler's time to try to resolve it. And I think we need to resolve it because it really does, I really think it really hampers the commission for commissioners not to be able to make their concerns or questions known to the public and in writing before action is taken. I saw Mr. Spelman's hand and then I saw Mr. Nielsen's hand and Mr. Spelman, commission Spelman, go first. You unmute yourself. You're muted. Commissioners Spelman, you're muted. All right, thanks. Go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted to speak quickly about, from my perspective, I think there's a few things that are problematic. I'm all for clarifying what is in our curfew and jurisdiction to submit to the public record prior to a meeting. I think that's appropriate to understand what those parameters are. I would be leery of submitting comments prior to a meeting. I think that speaks more to public confidence in the commission and their deliberating capability. If there's discussion happening prior to the meeting, I think that's problematic. So I don't know what your intent is or where the limit is of what you're asking. I would say that in a way that you submitted, say the article on AB 3308, which was pertinent to the conversation at hand, I would think that there's a vehicle to do that in a, you know, whether it's anonymous or a way that it gets into the record and is available to anyone that makes perfect sense to me. And I would think there's gotta be some distinction between that and actually providing your intent or comment prior to the meeting. Well, I certainly agree. I would be wrong to provide my intent. What the comment is, you know, it's tricky and doing it anonymously is, I think, questionable. But commission, Nielsen. Yeah, that was basically what I was, I mean, what Commissioner Salomon said was pretty much what I was thinking. I think there's a difference between providing information and also providing basically comment and also recommendations in terms of how you may be voting on an item. But providing information, you know, such as the AB 3308, I think it's completely appropriate. I don't know if it needs to be, you know, I mean, anonymous or not, but it seems to me that, you know, information is information. But when it comes to deliberation, which is what I'm hearing is deliberation has to do with discussion around formulating your ideas. I think that I don't think that's appropriate to be coming before outside of the meeting. And I think it does, it potentially causes problems, you know, in terms of the optics from the public in terms of how they see us doing our job. And our job, my understanding is that we are to deliberate during our meetings. And also I thought, I don't know if this is really a thing or not, but I thought that we were supposed to be coming with an open mind to our meetings and hearing all testimony from everyone. But when I see comments coming in from commissioners prior to the meeting, it seems to me that that's not happening. So that's how I understood how these meetings are supposed to go. Commissioner Conway. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, our only role is to deliberate together in public. And that's the only reason why we exist here. And to send a comment in, a comment from us is not the same as a comment from a member of the public that is, you know, to be added to our deliberation. A comment or a piece of information, frankly, which was a very pertinent piece of information, which by the way, could have been provided by staff. Because I certainly felt like because that piece of information did come from another commissioner, I didn't have the opportunity to follow up on the only time that we get to talk separately as there was an appointed subcommittee to talk about a specific item. But because we'd already had conversation in there, and sharing a piece of information is conversation, I didn't feel like I had the opportunity to call committee members and just say, hey, there's an advancement. I think it further all of our discussions and maybe there was some additional complications because I'm not sure we're still in committee, but it just felt like it would have been polite to give people a heads up to that. So I guess my point is I think that all of our conversations, even if they drag on longer than we'd like to, should be here. And information coming from any of us is inappropriate. If there's a piece of information that's remain as this was, I think it should have come from staff. So speaking further input, I don't have a problem with that, but this is the only, when we're doing this is the only time it's appropriate. That's fine. Other commissioners? Well, I mean, I think there's a couple of issues here. One issue is what's legal? I mean, what's allowed and what commissioners think is appropriate? And I think some of the distinctions that other commissioners have made are distinctions I would agree with, that it's providing information that it's a recommendation. It's not appropriate. Indicating what you may do at the meeting, it's not appropriate. Providing questions, even raising concerns. I don't think that one commission is doing it or other commissioners doing it is inappropriate. It's one of the problems I feel I have is that the only time we have to think about what other commissioners' concerns are, is at a meeting on a particular item. And I think it's overly restrictive. Let me give an example in terms of some of the housing projects. I've been very interested in some of the comments that commissioners Spellman has raised and some of the concerns that he raised about some of the design issues and the specific applications. I'm not an architect. I don't have a good design. I don't have a design background. And it's hard for me to really absorb and think about what he's saying. I have a hard enough thinking about what the staff is saying. But I think it's important that the information we get from each other also be able to be considered and to only be able to consider it at the time we have a meeting when we've got a recommendation, we've got an applicant maybe or members of the public who want us to make a decision. And there's a reluctance to make a decision because I don't really understand what other commissioners are saying because I haven't had a chance to think about it. And I think tonight with the important sponsor housing is a good example of just having it appear on the agenda. A whole major changes to the ordinance for me is it's just very, very difficult to deal with. So, but again, those are sort of attitudinal that meet if the question, the fundamental question is, is it a violation of the law for a commissioner to put a communication on the public agenda, not share it with other commissioners for consideration by the public and the commission before a meeting? That to me is a simple question. I would propose that the commission, if somebody be willing to make a motion that the commission recommend asking the city attorney to ask the county council to request opinion from their attorney general with their violation of the Brown Act for one or more commissioners to submit comments on an upcoming agenda item, only the staff replacement on the agenda in addition to public correspondence prior to the meeting. Is somebody willing to make that as a motion? Commissioner, I doubt, Commissioner Nielsen, that you will, are you willing to make it as a motion? I wasn't gonna make it as a motion. I have a clarifying question for you about that. What do you, I mean, what is the, specifically what do you mean by providing information or I don't recall exactly what you said in terms of what is provided to staff to put in the staff report. Can you clarify what that is? Well, okay, like AB 3308 would be providing information to the commission for adding to the public correspondence agenda or submitting a list of questions on a staff report so that now I can submit them to staff and argue with staff about it and they may not have any effect on the outcome, but I think I and any other commissioner should be able to raise questions on the staff report and inform the public beforehand about what the questions are and inform the commission about what the questions are. So the recommendation is to ask the attorney general if that's legal or not because the city attorney does not believe that's legal, but everything I read in the AG opinion and the Brown Act is nothing that would prohibit that. So I think it's legitimate to ask for an AG's opinion. The law is as most many laws does not totally clear and doesn't for everything. And I think, you know, it is a pretty, I think there's a pretty significant issue that if it speaks to what the ability of the commission is commission, the avoidability commission is passed to participate in the deliberation of the matters before them. Under the staff recommendation, the only time they can, we can deliberate is at the public meeting itself. At the only time we can prevent, present any information is at the public meeting itself. And I think that that's very overly limited, particularly given some of the complex issues that we have to deal with. So Commission Dawson, you raised your hand. Were you willing to make the motion? I am, I'd like to make a motion that city council contact county council and ask the AG for an opinion regarding whether one or more commissioners can submit an informational item or questions prior to a meeting to be added to the public agenda through staff. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. Maxwell second the motion. Can we have discussion on the motion? Richard Greenway, I'm sorry, Greenberg. Yeah, I think, and I hear and appreciate the spirit of what some of our fellow commissioners are saying about distinguishing between types of communication. I think there's both the question of the degree to which we are or are not communicating amongst ourselves that we wanna understand what is the difference between giving something to be read versus having a conversation and substantive discussion. And what I think deliberation has been about, kind of coming to an opinion collectively, I guess is what we're talking about. We're talking about deliberation. So there's a difference between presenting something to be read versus that conversation. And then there's a question about the content of that contribution, the content of that reading. Should we be reading someone's opinion? Should we be reading information? What do we mean by information? Should we be reading or questions, clarifying questions? So the way that Commissioner Dawson put the motion, I think was saying informational. Was that right? Commissioner Dawson, you were saying specifically, informational and maybe we, you know. I think I had the word questions as well in the motion, but yes, I was trying to narrow it and to address exactly what you were bringing up. Okay, so away from a recommendation or an opinion that already is kind of exists. And I really appreciate the spirit of like, we hold the public trust, we don't let them think that we're coming to decision prior to the meeting. I appreciate Commissioner Conway's point that also our communication is different than communication of other members of the public potentially and carries more weight. So but to the degree to which, and so how do we weigh that with the importance of often having information? Let's say the staff doesn't present information that actually might be really helpful to us in making and coming to an informed decision together collectively at the meeting. Is it possible for us to share, let's say, a law that might be relevant or questions that, you know, that we have about, you know, something that haven't been clarified in the staff report or something along the way? Is there any difference there? I think it's an interesting question to me. Even while I want to protect our, you know, the appropriateness of what we're doing and the perception that what we're doing is not coming to any prior conclusions before the meeting. So how we can help by, you know, adding information, you know, via the staff, not with any communication to each other? Well, I think the first question is, do we have, I'm sorry, are you finished? My last point is that people might not know our opinion about that. You know, maybe I agree, maybe I disagree with this law, but I think it's relevant to the discussion and people should be able to read it, for instance. Those are, from my perspective, the subsequent questions. I mean, as I understand the opinion from the city attorney and the planning director is, we can't put anything on, period. Right. Anything that's put on the public agenda is a violation of the drama. And I think that's the question. And what's appropriate and what's not appropriate, those, you know, we have things in our bylaws and we could deal with that. But the first question is, can we put anything on? If we can't put anything on, it becomes a loop. If not, we're having a discussion. If we can put things on, then that becomes a more relevant discussion. Mr. Butler, you wanted to say something? Yeah, I would just add that, you know, I think that we as staff have tried to, in large part, use discretion related to this, while also hopefully you would understand we're also trying to take a fairly conservative approach in terms of not having a Brown act violation, you know, that's something that we want to avoid, of course. But we're also, we try to take a reasonable approach. If things such as just a state law are forwarded, then that has been posted. But, you know, absent any comments, you know, that's just, that is purely informational. I would say, as I'm listening to the conversation, that, you know, questions very much can lead to deliberation. You know, that is a deliberative issue. And so that distinction between like posting a state law and posting questions, you know, I think the approach that we as staff have discussed with the city attorney's office, we would not post questions under our current standard operating procedure. So I just want to make that distinction. It's like, you know, we also try to use discretion, but we also admittedly want to take a conservative approach to not, whether intentionally or unintentionally, create a Brown Act violation. So I just wanted to put that out there. And I appreciate that, let me say. And that's why I think, you know, my recommendation is to do what the motion says and ask the attorney general's opinion, because I don't think the law is clear. I don't think putting something on the public agenda is a deliberation. And that's really what it comes down to. That's, as I see it, the essence of what city attorney opinion is, is that a commissioner putting an item on the public agenda to public correspondence is deliberating and violating the Brown Act. If more than one would do it, maybe one could do it, but there's no fair way to make that happen. I just think, you know, at this point, given that, you know, we've gone around and around with it and the, I think the staff, I've taken a conservative approach and there is a substance of disagreement. I think it's legitimate to ask the attorney general to clarify what is allowed, what isn't allowed. Commissioner Nielsen, did you want to add something? Well, I just, I mean, just in terms of what you mentioned, I just think it has to be really clear in terms of what type of item that you would intend to put on the agenda. I think they're very, there's very differing things. I mean, there's informational items and then there's also recommendations and comments. And so like the whole reason why we're having this conversation has to do with a document that you provided for the work master plan, which had specific comment and very specific recommendations to it. And so my question, I guess what I'm wondering is do you, is that what you want to have like an understanding of that you would be able to do that or that one would be able to do that or is it just about providing information? Well, if I remember correctly, I provided that at the meeting, correct? Yeah, okay. I guess that's the last thing that's there. So certainly there's no question I could do that. Frankly, I mean, I think a commissioner should be able to provide information and comments. It's not, it isn't appropriate to have a case to provide recommendations because you have to legally, we're supposed to hear what the public has to say before making a decision. So certainly that would violate that law to do that. With public policy matters, I'm not sure it wouldn't be permissible to provide recommendations to commissions that take them or leave it. And I wouldn't be sharing them with, I wouldn't be sharing them with the majority of the commission. I'd just be letting them, essentially letting the public see them in advance. So I wouldn't have to try to expect people to understand that just at the meeting. So I think though that it really is a question of what's allowable under the law. We may have disagreements about what's appropriate and the commission could maybe try to, if people talk strongly enough, try to have provisions or policies in the bylaws. But the fundamental question is the legal problem because none of us, myself included, want to violate the Brown Act. And so to do what I want to do, it's for it to be considered a violation of the Brown Act. I think it needs to be clarified. And that's what I'm hoping is if this notion passes and the city attorney is able to get the County Council to ask the AG for an opinion, we'll understand this. Well, we'll put it to bed. What can and can't be done? And I think that's, I think that in the long run, we'll be helpful to commissioners. You know, commissioners clearly have different points of view about what's appropriate to provide an advance to the public in advance of the meeting. But frankly, I am concerned that what the public, all the public can see is what the staff report presents. And it's totally legitimate for the staff to present their perspective and their recommendation. But I think it's also legitimate for members of the public to hear prior to a meeting responses to that and questions about that or concerns with it. And, you know, the only real question is to put that on the public agenda without circulating it to other commissioners, but making it available to the public so it's all done openly, is that a violation of the Brown Act? If it is, that's the end of the discussion. If the city attorney, if the AG says it's permissible, then the commissioners have to decide what they wanna do and take it from there. But I think all we're asking at this point, all the motion is for which I support, is that we get clarification from the AG on what really, whether that kind of communication is allowed or not, commissioners Spelman. Yeah, in that spirit, I wonder if it's not a simple question that we're asking the attorney general. You know, what if anything can be provided in advance of the public hearing through the public record, I'm assuming is also part of that. And then if there are things that are allowed, how are you allowed to do it and get clarity around those two points? Well, my point for clarification is that if the commission makes this motion, you know, we'd run it by the city council, let the city council know that the commission has asked us to do that, and that without objection from the council, that's what we intend to do. But we take direction from the city council on matters such as this. So I do think we need to let the council know that this request has been made of our office, we're happy to comply with the request by the council to know that it's being done and if they have any concerns about it to let us know. Which is neither. Yeah, I'll just say one quick thing that is striking me that I feel like we're distinguishing between things we might put to the public that we have not ourselves authored, like a law or information that we have that we think could help us to understand something one way or another versus our questions or our concerns or our thoughts one way or the other. And I don't know, you know, so to Commissioner Solomon's point, we're trying to figure out what if anything is allowable. And I don't know the degree to which it would be helpful in what we're asking to distinguish types of things that we might be able to put forward. I mean, I think we are often called to be commissioners or, you know, there's a balance on the commission based on our different forms of expertise. And so we may have access to information that will be helpful to contextualize a decision that might be made on the day, you know, and as somebody who's an academia, like I think about this a lot, it would be really helpful if we could read more. I'd like for us to do like, you know, more research on the laws that exist and more research on other examples of things that have been done and so forth. And I sometimes would like to be able to share some of that, but that might, and perhaps that would be different from me saying, I'm concerned about XYZ. Similarly, when we have designers and architects who might have access to expert information that we could pour over and try to understand prior to a meeting, as I think you're saying, Chair Shipman, that would be helpful to you, rather than trying to interpret what people are saying on the slide. But maybe we wanted to distinguish between that and our own, you know, expression of our own concerns or opinions. And maybe in fact, under some circumstances, that would be admissible. I don't know, but it does seem that we're trying to figure out what is anything admissible and to distinguish between types of communication. Can we communicate at all if it's not with each other and just to the public? The other stuff, A, and B, are there distinguished precinctions between types of communication that are salient here? Is, you know, informational versus other forms that we have not offered versus other things? So I don't know if that's helpful, but that's sort of how I'm thinking about it. So yes, Commissioner Dawson. I'm just wondering if Commissioner Greenberg would make that as a friendly amendment and we could just replace the original language with the language that she just laid out. I think that building off of what Commissioner Snellman said is really, really clear what we're asking for and kind of creates these buckets. One, can we do it at all and then getting some additional guidance on if we can, what does that look like? Because that's really what we're gonna need moving forward. So perhaps that would work. So let me ask Mr. Barrisoni, is the re-praising of the motion clear to you? What I'll do is I'll go to the tape of the meeting and make sure I understand it because there's been a lot of discussion. I'll talk to Mr. Butler tomorrow and we'll make sure that we have it straight. Okay, thank you. So is there any further discussion before we vote on the motion? Commissioner Conway. Well, I'd just like to say that since you will be thinking about it tomorrow, I think that using the distribution of AB 3308 is a bit of a red of hair in here. That is something that could be very easily have been distributed by staff for, I mean, everything happened rather quickly. And I don't think that is the type of strictly information is something that can be proposed to staff. If it's meaningful, they can distribute it. I don't want to, I don't want the discussion muddied up by that any further. Commissioner Billerson. I just want to make sure that Commissioner Greenberg is okay with that being an amendment and we do that officially. When you say if I'm okay with what being an amendment or adding the distinction between types of information. Yes, that's fine. Basically, replacing my original language with the language that you had so that the attorney has somewhere to go back in the tape and that's what we're voting on is your language. That's fine with me, yes. Any further discussion? Can we have a roll call please? All in favor of the motion say aye. And those opposed to me. No, no, no, I was not voting aye on that. I know you're not. You're doing a roll call. Okay. Gonna have to be a roll call vote. Good, okay. Roll call vote. Chair Shipman. Aye. Commissioner Dawson. Aye. Commissioner Conway. I want to thank Mr. Verifoni for being gracious enough to ask a favor of county council to further this question of clarification. I actually feel like it's his job to provide clarification to the commission on this matter. And I'm gonna, but I mean, I appreciate that you're willing to further it. And I'm gonna abstain from this matter. Commissioner Greenberg. Commissioner Greenberg. Aye. Commissioner Maxwell. Aye. Commissioner Nielsen. Aye. Commissioner Spelman. Aye. Here's that the motion passes six to zero to one with one abstention, which I'm not sure you can do, but fine by me. Okay. So is there any further discussion on, well, we're done with this item, I hope. So thank you all very much. I know it's a difficult item in a way I apologize because I'm the source of the discussion. And I really wouldn't have been pursuing it if I didn't feel it was an important, an important issue to try to get clarified given some of its implications. So I appreciate it. And I'm sure staff will report to us as once we know what the city council has done and if they're willing to ask the AG through the county will be kept informed. And I assume that during that time period, I will have to follow the current direction from the city attorney and staff. I just want to- Chair, before we end, I apologize for interrupting. I just wanted to note for the record for the last item, there were no members of the public present who wanted to speak. Oh, right. Sorry, I forgot about that. I got too caught up in the moment. All right, thank you. No problem, just the record. Thank you. Thanks for helping me follow-up, Sarah. I move to information items. Could we have a report from our director if there are any information items? Sure. So we did have the city council approve the second reading of the section eight updates to the inclusionary ordinance that the planning commission saw in October. So that'll be taking effect 30 days from December 8th. And then on your upcoming meeting on one seven, I believe the only item that we have is the objective standards item that was continued from your last meeting with respect to the test that you'll recall the consultant wasn't available for this meeting. So we pushed it out to meetings. And then on 121 at this point in time, we only have this inclusionary item scheduled. So there could be some late additions that we would be noticing in the next few days. But at this point it's objective standards on one seven and then inclusionary items that were continued from tonight on the 121 meeting agenda. Okay, thank you. Under subcommittee oral reports, my understanding is that the housing subcommittee has now ended. Is that correct? I'm seeing the chair shaking your head, yes. It is possible for the commission to reestablish it. And I would ask that that be put on the next agenda for consideration of reestablishing the housing subcommittee. Again, as we all know, there's still a significant number of housing related issues with and without considering the inclusionary ordinance itself that are worth going to need further discussion. So I don't think there should be any objection. I think there's no legal impediment to reestablish the committee. So why don't we just ask that that be a fashion item on our first meeting in January and we'll appoint a new subcommittee. Happy to add that to the agenda. The West Cliff technical advisory committee, technical advisory group, whatever it is, is grinding forward. And I don't know if you know, Mr. Butler, when we're actually gonna see some plan. I've forgotten what the schedule is, but I'm sure sometime in 2021, we're going to be responding to a particular plan. That's correct. We don't have exact dates yet. I would say as early as February, but likely sometime in March is when it would be coming to the planning commission. I should have raised this during the information items, but I understand the council has approved the Walkmaster plan and it's been submitted or it's going to be submitted to the coastal commission. And there's a public works plan that the staff is going to be providing for consideration by the coastal commission. Would it be appropriate for us to get a report on the progress on that public works plan and how it relates to the master plan itself? Since the city is not going to be asking for a coastal permit, but going for a public works plan. I think it might be helpful to the commission to understand what that means. So the public works plan is essentially a master coastal permit that allows for a number of projects to be implemented under it. The warfare is actually in the original permit jurisdiction of the coastal commission. So they actually consider and approve that public works plan or if a coastal permit were to move forward, then they would take that into consideration directly. So essentially the public works plan is kind of like, we've got enough detail on a number of projects that we're going to be doing over a course of time and they're more or less combined into one coastal permit. So that's my understanding of how that would work. I see our assistant director, Eric Marlatt is on the line. I don't know if he would have anything else to add in relation to that or in relation to the expectation for the next public works plan as it relates. I would just add one clarification. The work master plan itself is not going to the coastal commission. So they would see the public works plan that's my recollection and I know Eric's worked on some of these procedural issues. So do you have anything else to add on that, Eric? Nothing much to add. We can certainly let the commission know when that is submitted, that would be fine. But the public works plan is going to be based on the work master plan. That's correct. Yeah, that's correct. I guess one of my concerns has to do with the sequel and what was looked at in the EIR on a project level and what was looked at on a programmatic level and how that would be treated in the public works plan. I'm not, I'm supportive of it. I just think it's a complication that isn't really totally clear to me and I'd appreciate getting an update on how that's developed. Like to respond to your question, I will say that under the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission review of something like a public works master plan is a functional equivalent of CEQA. I'm sure they're going to be considering the EIR that the city certified as part of that whole review, but there is no separate CEQA action that needs to happen per se when they take action. There's no separate CEQA action, but there very well could be additional technical analyses that they require in order to reach the conclusions related to environmental impact and any mitigation measures that are necessary. It's just interesting that it's actually outside of CEQA because, and so it doesn't have the standard CIR or MND. There, as Eric said, the Coastal Commission's review is a functional equivalent of CEQA. So it's just... Well, the certified regulatory program under CEQA and they and some other state agencies have it, but the substantive question is whether the public works, you know, the off master plan, the EIR said two of these projects are analyzed at a detailed level, the entrance, and I think it meets common eye and we don't need to do any more CQA analysis. For all these other projects, we'll have to do other analysis later, like the new buildings and et cetera. The question in my mind is, with the public works plan, does that still hold or is approval of the public works essentially can it go beyond what was considered and what was proposed in the off master plan in terms of the next steps as to the analysis? I'm not expecting an answer tonight, but I think it's just a confusing question to me. Yeah, I'll venture an answer and Eric, you correct me if I missed that here on any of it, but I would say that it can go beyond, but only to the extent that the additional analysis are provided that give the coastal commission a comfort level in understanding that all the issues have been analyzed and mitigated. So that's how I would expect that to proceed. Okay, well, I appreciate the commission taking the time to get that question answered. Are there any items to be referred to future agendas? Seeing none. I was just gonna say, I would add one point, which is, I think, part of your questioning was probably related to what's gonna be seen by the public and I would expect that there are gonna be public processes associated with that. The city is gonna be doing outreach, even if it is something that's going on elsewhere. If we're doing the sign, for example, we're gonna get public feedback. So I just wanted to make that clear for the commission and for members of the public who may be watching. It wouldn't just be like, oh yeah, we submit everything to the coastal commission and the city and the residents aren't aware of what it is. So plus, there may, under the city zoning ordinance, it might not need a coastal permit because you have the public works plan, but it might need a design permit. Yep. And that would need to go through and that would be discretionary. So that would need to, I think there's going to be, the public, the coastal commission is going to have the public well, but I think for the individual projects, it's very likely that there'll also be a process at the city that the various projects will have to go through, even if they were, even like the sign. Yep, you know, I wasn't trying to imply that that wasn't the intention. I'm just really trying to understand how the public works plan relates to the normal city process. Because as you say, they do use a different SQL approach. Okay, well thank you. Thank you all, have a very good holiday and I hope everybody stays healthy. Thank you all. Goodnight. Goodnight. Goodbye.