 Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for today's Planning Commission meeting. Today's date is February 23rd, 2022, and the time is 9.30 a.m. Today's meeting is completely remote via Zoom. There are a couple of different ways to follow the meeting or participate in the public hearing today. To both view and to participate, I recommend using the Planning Commission Zoom meeting link, which is posted on the Planning Department's home page at sccoplanning.com. Alternatively, if your computer is not equipped with a microphone, you may provide comment by telephone. The phone number to call is 669-900-6833. When prompted, enter collaboration code 849-8564-9896. This information is also posted on the Planning Department webpage if you forget the phone number. We have one public hearing item on today's agenda. Time will be provided for members of the public to contribute their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either remotely raise their hand by selecting the hand icon on the Zoom link or by calling them by telephone by remotely raising your hand by pressing star 9. I will call on participants by either your name or the last four digits of your telephone number. If you're participating via the Zoom link today, when I call on you to speak, you'll see a pop-up on your screen that says Unmute. Please accept the pop-up, state your name for the record, and provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone, you must unmute yourself by pressing star 6 on your phone. Members of the public will be provided three minutes to speak. If at any time you have difficulty connecting to today to today's meeting via the Zoom link or by calling in using the phone, please email our support staff at Michael Lam. That's Michael.lam, L-A-M, at Santa Cruz County, U-S. He will be checking his email periodically throughout the meeting, and he's on standby and ready to assist you and make sure you connect. All right, it appears we're situated. I will now turn the Planning Commission meeting over to the Chair, Tim Gordon. Good morning. Good morning. And good morning to the Commission and members of the public. Welcome to February 23rd, 2022, meeting of the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission. The time is 9.33, and I'll call this meeting to order. Can we please have a roll call, Ms. Drake? Yes. All right. Commissioner Lazenby. Here. Commissioner Dan. Here. Commissioner Schaper-Fredes. Yes. Commissioner Shepard. Here. And Chair Gordon. Here. Thank you. Do we have any additions or corrections to the agenda today? No, not today. We'll move on to item three here, Declaration of Exportate Communications. Are there any exportate communications that the commissioners would like to discuss on at this time? Thank you. We can move on to item four, Oral Communications. This is the time when members of the public have the opportunity to speak on items that are not on today's agenda and are given two minutes to do so. Ms. Drake, do any members of the public that would like to speak at this time? I will check. I am not seeing any Chair. Okay, thank you. We'll close Oral Communications and move on to the scheduled items. Item number five, Approval of Minutes. The February 9th, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Do you have anyone who'd like to make a motion on this or discussion? I'll move. Go ahead. Go ahead. If there's no discussion, I was going to move approval. And I will second that. Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Any abstaining motion passes and we can move on to item six. This item is application number 211189, the 601 Bonney Street, Santa Cruz, 95062. And Ms. Drake, do we have a presentation today? Yes. Alice, will you please promote Evan Dittmar's Hello, the PowerPoint. Unfortunately, my video is not working, but I am prepared to do a presentation. My name is Evan Dittmarce. I am the project planner for this application. The project under consideration today is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve application 211189. This is for the appellants are Marcia White and Jerry Patterson. They are residents of the adjacent property at 210 Sixth Avenue. The property owner at 601 Bonney Street is Andrew Cohen. Next slide, please. The proposed project is to demolish an existing dwelling and detached garage in order to construct a 1,970 square foot dwelling with a 384 square foot ADU over a detached garage. And this project requires a coastal development permit and a variance for the location of the garage within the rear setback and also to have a garage door opening at less than 20 feet from the Assembly Avenue right of way. The project was approved at the December 17th, 2021 Zoning Administrator hearing. It was approved with design modifications, including increasing the proposed setback from six feet to eight and a half feet and tree protection measures and a requirement for the roofing to be non-reflective metallic. Next slide, please. The project was appealed by Marcia White and Jerry Patterson. Their appeal letter is exhibit 1A on page seven of the staff report. Their appeal largely focused on the location of the ADU in relation to their bedroom and living areas, the design of the garage and ADU in relation to the Harbor Special Community and existing development in the vicinity and an assertion that the location of the garage would present a hazard to neighboring properties and to pedestrian and vehicular traffic along Assembly Avenue and a general disagreement regarding the findings made to support the variance. Next slide, please. So the staff response to the appeal letter can be summed up as follows. The design and the location of the ADU are largely allowed pursuant to zoning code and state law. The design matches the existing pattern of development along Assembly Avenue and the design was evaluated to be compatible with the coastal and Harbor design criteria. Next slide, please. The next five photos are some neighborhood context which demonstrate how the project fits into the patterns of development found on Assembly Avenue. Next slide, please. So this is a garage immediately adjacent to the project site. The project site is seen on the right. These two garages here are less than 20 feet from the Assembly Avenue right of way. Next slide, please. This is another garage again at less than 20 feet from Assembly Avenue. It's about eight and a half feet enough width for a car to park there. Next slide, please. This garage is located approximately 500 feet north of the project site. You can see again a garage and other development here and further in the background, you can see two more garages also with less than 20 feet from Assembly Avenue. To their garage door opening. Next slide, please. This is looking back towards the homes that were shown in slide seven. And you can see that there are many houses here that enjoy the benefit of garage access from Assembly Avenue and or reduced setbacks for the structures to Assembly Avenue. Next slide, please. This home is located at 210 Sixth Avenue. It's adjacent to the subject property. And the development here is very similar to what is proposed at the project site. The project site is shown on the left-hand side of the picture. This is their existing back fence. Both of these structures have approximately 20-foot wall heights, 24-foot roof peak. The structures would both be located within five feet of the side yard property line. The garage step back here is around 18 feet, and it was approved as part of a variance in 1999. But this is about 10 feet further back than what is proposed. The proposed development is at 8.5 feet from the property line. What you're seeing here in the picture is just under 20 feet. Next slide, please. So when the applicant received notice of their appeal, they voluntarily revised their plans to try and address some of the privacy concerns that were raised by the neighbor in their appeal letter. They relocated the heat pump on the northwest corner of the structure. They located it to the east a little bit away from the living areas in the adjacent property. They also moved the deck and the patio from the western side of the ADU to the southern side of the ADU. And you can also see that the structure is moved back from six feet to eight and a half feet as required by the zone administrator. A note that the eight and a half feet in front of the garage in the garage apron serves as a parking space. It fits the requirements for a full-size on-site parking space. And it also will provide a little bit of room for a turnout for two-way traffic on Assembly Avenue. Next slide, please. These are the changes on the north and west elevations. You can see on the north elevation, the window sill height was raised. And you can see on the west elevation that the deck and porch and the stairway were wrapped around away from the area closest to the neighboring property. This is a design supported by staff. It's substantially in conformance with what was already approved and it achieves the objectives of what the property owner would like to do with the property as well as the privacy concerns raised by the neighbor. Next slide, please. So in conclusion, these plans were approved by Public Works, by Central Fire and the Coastal Commission. The project is substantially in conformance with the county zoning code. And the proposal matches the existing pattern of development along Assembly Avenue. And the property is constrained in that it has frontage on three rights of way. And there are two large trees on site which contribute to constraints to development. Staff did receive one letter of correspondence prior to the hearing. And I wanna take a minute to at least answer one of the questions that was raised there. And that was some clarification on what the 10 foot driveway to roadway separation was. DPW requires that a driveway and a roadway have 10 feet of separation between the two entrances. So in this case, a driveway paralleling Assembly Avenue would need to be set away from assembly at least 10 feet. It also appears that I misstated an actual distance between the trees and the right of way in the appeal response letter. And I wanted to clarify that although those measurements were called out incorrectly, the development constraints encountered on the property still stand. And the proposed location of the garage remains the superior design and best use of space on this parcel. Next slide, please. The staff recommendation is that your commission conduct a public hearing to consider the project appeal and to approve application 211189 based on the December 17th, 2021 zoning administrator findings and conditions of approval as well as the revised project plans included as exhibit C in the appeal response letter. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions. Great, thank you so much, Mr. DeMars. Appreciate that very clear presentation. At this time, would any of the commissioners like to ask any questions of staff? Chair Gordon, I'm just- Yes, please. Thank you, your indulgence. Could I just ask that the first four slides be shown again, my computer wasn't cooperating. I could hear but not see. Just real quickly, if you wouldn't mind. Alice, would you mind? Yeah, thank you. Are you seeing the commissioner shepherd? Let's see, Evan, maybe you could walk us through things. Sure, so I can go over these again. So the proposal is to demolish the existing structures on site to construct- No, these two are fine. I just thought if there were any location photos I missed. Sure, next, can you advance two slides please? No, okay. Please go one more, please. Okay, good, thank you. Commissioner Shepherd, did that give you the answers you were looking for? Yes, thank you. Okay, great. Hey, any other questions of staff at this time? One, just to clarify and the regulations for the ADU would allow for a two-story ADU four feet from the property line. Is that correct, Mr. Goodmars? That's correct. From both the side and the rear property line. Okay, I just wanted to be really sure on that. I appreciate that. Any other questions? Okay, then let's move on. This time we'll hear, we'll have 10 minutes for the appellant and then we will have 10 minutes for the applicant. Then we'll go to public comment. At the end of the public comment, the appellant will have time to speak again as well. Ms. Drake, can you kickstart that for us please? Sure, thank you. So let's see, I'm checking. So the appellants, if you wouldn't mind raising your hand, we will start with you. All right, I see we have Marcia White. Good morning, you have 10 minutes. Okay, well, my husband, Jerry Patterson, is here with me, you can't see him, I guess. I don't know if you can see me, in fact. A couple of things we'd like to clarify. One, we have never protested the ADU, we are protesting the variance for the garage. And the reason we're protesting that is because it's one of the largest slots in the neighborhood, it is- I apologize, I need to interrupt for a quick second. Can we get the timer started, Ms. Drake? Or Alice, please. Thanks, Chair. So 10 minutes, please, Alice. Thank you, I'm in the back of that. Thanks. Thank you so much. Sorry, Marcia. Yeah, sorry, go ahead. Thanks, I appreciate it, go ahead, Ms. White. Well, we're not protesting the ADU, as I was saying, we are protesting the variance being granted to the garage setback. And as Evan said, the existing pattern of development would allow it. And I mean, the existing pattern of development that you have chosen, and in fact, in all of your exhibit pictures, are the non-conforming properties. About half are conforming, and I'm using just the block between Bonnie and Carmel, as an example. About half of the properties, the newer ones, especially, are conforming. And all of your pictures, with the exception of showing ours, the 2106 Avenue one, are conforming. So you're seeing all of the non-conforming properties, which are a problem for even the residents there, which the fire department is concerned about. And they were developed, they weren't developed, they were existing properties that were badly pushed together in the 70s and 60s. It is a pattern of development here, but it's the worst pattern of development. And it seems that the planning department in relative to this development is choosing the lowest bar for considering it existing pattern of development. And that's part of our complaint, is no, use the better properties, use the newer properties, use the conforming properties as a standard, not the worst ones. And by the worst, they're non-conforming and the reasons for it are obvious from some of the pictures. And also with respect to the pictures, our property 210 is not similar to the project going in. We have, we may have a 20 foot setback. I measured it from the edge of the paving to our garage door and it's 19 feet eight inches. And I don't exactly know where the property line is. I assumed it was postal design area. Are we still here? Ms. White, can you hold for one more moment? I apologize. Sure. Sorry about that. Sorry about that. Recording in progress. We're back. Looks like we're back. Okay. And then with respect to- Ms. White, I'm- That's okay. Can we get the timer going? I'm not gonna go on for more of this a few minutes. Yeah, so. That's okay. That's okay. Thank you. There we go. Thanks for your patience, Marcia. Yes, so anyhow, I feel that certainly with respect to ours, our property matching this, the ADU garage, you're wrong in height, you're wrong in setback and everything and it's simply not a match. In fact, ours should be the standard and effect that it is conforming. And I don't, I just measured it. I don't know what you guys have on yours, but I took my paint measure and I know what the setback is to the garage. And it's, I don't know, somewhere between 19 and 20 feet. And with respect to the changes, we appreciate them. We think the heat pump was moved the foot back from our house. If it creates a problem, as I said in my letter, we can resolve that with lawyers later on. If it's, I mean, that's measurable. It's something we can fix. It's a shame it's not addressed, but that's the least of our worries. So I think that's basically it. Just the existing pattern of development should not be the least conforming pattern of development. And in your exhibit pictures, that's pretty much what it is. And there are multiple conforming properties and the two properties featured that are non-conforming 80%, well, no, all but one driveway is owned by a single owner. And it was all part of a development parcel that that was, has been sold in the last couple of years and is again, for sale. And it's a problem. It's a problem because their parking isn't adequate. It's a problem because no one knows where they are. There's no, it's crazy to try and duplicate something that doesn't work as it stands right now. And that's again, the issue being that apparently a variance is being given because the proposed project matches that mess. And the other reason is because they have trees which, you know, could be good, could be bad. It could be designed better and differently and still meet the zoning requirements instead of having your variance. And that's what we and all of our neighbors, I think 15 or 20 people signed a complaint about it. And the answer was the garage got moved back another two and a half feet. And that wasn't the issue. The issue is why doesn't it conform? And the answer we're getting is because it has a hardship because it has two tree, two big trees and because it has streets on three sides, which we point out because of that, they're allowed to choose which their frontage property is, which gives them less setback, even less setback than corner development properties. So, or less setback loss than corner development properties. So, I mean, that's what we don't get. Why is a variance being given and the answer seems to be because it's kind of conforming. And we think that the level of conformance that you're looking for is the worst possible example. And that's it. I'm done. Thanks, Marcia. All right, chairs. Now we turn it over to the project applicant for 10 minutes. Okay. Looks like we have the applicant with us today. If you would like to speak, please raise your hand. All right. And Alice, will you please put 10 minutes on the clock for the applicant? Also, if you'd like to reserve a little bit of time at the end of your response, we can bring it back to you after public comment as well. So good morning. Please state your name for the record. Sure. Good morning. My name is Andrew Cohen. Good morning. Good morning, Jocelyn. Good morning, planning commissioners and to Evan. My wife and I bought this property in 2004 and we've lived there for the first five years and then we moved away and rented it out. And so we are now in a position in our lives that we're gonna retire. So this is gonna be our retirement home and we've been working on this project for about three years. And so I totally disagree with Mrs. White relative to her concerns on variance. Almost every project in the harbor has a variance. And I'm not gonna go through all of the locations that have variances relative to the properties when Marsha and Jerry's property was built. They have about six or seven variances on their property. They're on a 20 foot wide lot and in 1890, her lot was split and that became part of my lot. And therefore it's been there for a long time. There are constraints on this property with the coastal redwood tree that's over 75 years old and there is a very, very large avocado tree, right? Both of them right in the center of a lot. I'm not too sure why there are all these concerns relative to getting approval since it's already been approved by Department of Public Works. The Coastal Commission thanked us very much for the design work that we had done. And that was really enlightening. And then having to have this appeal after it's been approved has been a real concern. So I'm not gonna start defending what the design is and things like that. I think Evan is gonna do a much better job than me. So I'm gonna reserve my time for after in order to make a response at the end. So I thank you for your time this morning. Thank you. All right, eight minutes left. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Do we have any questions via the commission of the appellant or applicant at this time? Seeing none, we can move on to the public comment portion. This application. Thank you. So at this time, I will ask any members of the public who wish to speak on this item, the proposed appeal of the 601 Bonnie Street project to raise your hand using the hand icon if you're on a Zoom or to press star nine on your phone. Chair, it does look like Marsha would like to provide some wrap up comments. Hey, yeah, if we don't have any other public comment then I suppose we can move back to the appellant for the remainder of her time and then over to... Okay. I would just suggest if anyone chimes in because we're moving pretty quick that we do give them an opportunity. That's probably one. Okay, thank you. I will let you know. All right, Marsha, back to you for five minutes. Sure, I mean, I just one surprising comment from Mr. Cohen that is that he said he lived there for five years. No, to our knowledge, when they first bought it they spent a couple of weeks painting it and fixing it up a little bit. And then we could think of maybe three or four nights that they made him spend here in Santa Cruz. Otherwise, no, they've never lived here. And our lot wasn't split in 1890. I was split in 1940s, which is, that has nothing to do with anything. So, but no, the Cohen's haven't lived here. And that's the one comment that surprised me. The rest of it is all known. So that's it. I'm done. Thank you, Marsha. Okay, Chair, I'm still not seeing any members of the public. So I believe Mr. Cohen has eight minutes left on the clock. You wanna send it back over to him? All right, Mr. Cohen, you have eight minutes left. Provide some final comments. Thank you. So, as you can see, there's a pattern of animosity towards me by my neighbor. She's telling me how I've lived in my house. So that's irrelevant to this whole conversation. So let's just drop that part. She also says that if the heat pump causes concerns that will settle that with a lawsuit or lawyers, it's like the issue here is getting approval for something that has been so due diligently planned and executed and approved. So I don't know how much more the commission needs to hear relative to properties even on the same street that have variances. I'm the only property that is being built that requires four off street parking. It's a long-term rental and there are four tenants currently in that house. One of them is a professional as a truck. So there's now five, and each one has a car. So they have five cars, two of them have significant others and they come over and they have cars or seven cars. In addition to that, we're gonna take down the non-conforming garage and that's gonna allow another parking place, public parking place, on the harbor. So now you have eight spaces relieved because it's gonna be my wife and I and we're gonna be parking on our property. So it's a benefit to the community. I've talked to many neighbors and when Marcia says all the neighbors are against it, that's just not simply not true. People realize that there's development and it increases the value of their properties. It increases the value of the aesthetics for people visiting the harbor and this is all conforming and it's gonna be a beautiful property and it's gonna help appreciate everyone's values in the area. So really, I don't know more I can tell you other than if it comes down to the fact that you need to have more evidence on who is getting various as and not, it's a pretty routine thing that I see as a project going forward in that it is required because the department of public works has actually reviewed other alternatives for the garage and things and they will not support it. So really in summary, I hope this gets approved. I hope you realize it does increase the value of everyone's home in the area. It's gonna increase the aesthetics of the neighborhood and it's gonna be enjoyment for all that pass by. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cohen, appreciate that and Ms. White as well. Thank you for your comments. At this time, we'll go ahead and close the public comment and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Would any commissioners like to talk about this item? I can go first, that's okay. I just have a clarifying question, which I think I know the answer to, I just want to be clear. So the variance is in here because of the garage setback. Is that right? Okay, that's it. Not, doesn't have anything to do with the ADU because as commissioner Gordon said, they could just construct a single family dwelling and then after that, go in with a building permit and build an ADU four feet with a four foot setback is that right? Right. I just want to, I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Yeah, I think that's the only question I had. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner Dan, commissioner safe afraid is? Yes, I have a clarification question too. So it's on the same vein that commissioner Dan was talking about. So this is a variance for the garage setback and the variance what's proposed is eight and a half feet and what would be required is 20 feet for conforming. Is that correct? Right. So the rear yard setback from assembly avenue is 15 feet but there's also a standard in the zoning code that requires 20 feet from a garage opening to the street. So the structure itself and the opening to the garage door both require variance. Okay. And the appellant lives to the north of the proposed site. Is that right? Correct. Okay. So does this variance approval of this variance change in any way? What kind of solar access they would have to their property? I think that was one of their concerns. We don't believe it does. I did pull their project plans that from 1997 when their home was built and both of these structures are very similar in height within a foot of each other. So the likelihood that shading between the two structures to the roof is highly, highly unlikely. Okay. That's all that I had. Thank you. Commissioner Shaperfreitas, commissioner Lazendee. To your hand. Yes. I had a question about the heat pump. I think that I read that correctly that said that it would be moved to another side of the garage or the ADU or was it just one foot away from where it was going to be? It was not moved to another side. It was moved away from the previous location. I don't have the exact distance that it was moved. I can reference that quickly if you want to say it. I would estimate it's several feet down the northern wall, but it has not moved to another side of the building. Could it be put inside the garage? No, the heat pump is on the exterior of the building and it's on the second story of the ADU. Okay. So a couple of feet would diminish the noise that was affecting the appellant? The additional distance is probably not going to make a huge difference in noise, but the heat pump is a component of a building that's normally associated and it meets the setbacks. So in that sense, there's not a lot of regulation that we would have in the location of it. This was just a building permit and the structure already met the setbacks. The heat pump could be there. So the applicant did make an effort to pull it away, apparently as far as they felt feasible away from their living area, but there's no variance or anything requested for the heat pump. This is a normal component of a dwelling. Okay. And I think the appellant was concerned that maybe the fire department had some concerns about an 8.5 foot setback for the garage door. I didn't see anything from fire. Yeah. I was not made aware of any issues fired. The applicant was routed to fire. They approved it. They actually approved it with the six foot setback. And so the eight and a half foot setback should be even better, but they did not raise any concerns with the location of that garage six feet from Assembly Avenue. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Laysenby. Commissioner Shepard, did you have any comments or questions? Sorry, no, I'm good. Great. Thank you. I did have a couple quick questions. Just to clarify, this variance has been a big effort to keep that big redwood tree, right? That's the main purpose here. Okay. And practically we have a 20 foot setback from garage door to, in general, correct me if I'm wrong, but to allow for a parking off the street, right? And so it's a driveway. In this case, because there's parking, it's an alley, it's not the main street and there is parking provided. The 20 foot rule seems like it wouldn't necessarily apply as much because we're keeping the tree, we're providing the parking and it's like kind of similar to like a front yard averaging, right? Where, which is already allowed and typically where, you know, we're kind of looking at the other parcels to figure out what that setback would practically be allowed to be. So that all makes sense. Yes. Yes, that would compare to front yard averaging. Okay. That all makes sense. Thank you. Those are my only questions. If any other commissioners had comments or questions, happy to hear them. Otherwise, anyone would like to start with a motion? I can do that. I'll just say first that, you know, whenever we get an appeal from the ZA to the commission, these are always real tough because it indicates, you know, a disagreement among neighbors. So, you know, I understand change is difficult, but I think that this project overall, that is conforming the variance I read through the variance findings very, very carefully. I think the findings are correct. I know this neighborhood really well. I used to live on Fifth Avenue back in the day in the late 90s. So I understand the issues with parking and whatnot. And I do appreciate the extra parking spaces. And I think that this project was a really good example of why we retained the requirement for parking for ADUs in the coastal zone because that was a big kind of like a point of discussion when we were considering the ADU ordinance. And I think that this neighborhood shows why it was a good idea to keep that because parking is so difficult for visitors for this area to access the coast. So, I will move the staff recommendation and hope that the neighbors can get along in the future and work out some of these differences. Thank you, Commissioner Dan. Chair, I'll second that. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer-Fredes. Do we have any other discussion before we move to vote? I'm just like the second what Commissioner Dan said. I appreciate that it was really well said and variances are challenging and typically they're reserved for really special needs circumstances. And so I appreciate the careful thought that's gone into this by staff to really look at both sides and try to make something that works. So thank you for that. At this time, then we can move to a vote. Ms. Drake, can we have a roll call vote, please, on this item? Sure. Commissioner Shepard? Yes. Commissioner Lazenby? Yes. Commissioner Dan? Yes. Commissioner Schaefer-Fredes? Yes. And Chair Gordon? Yes. All right, motion passes. Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone on that application. We appreciate everyone's hard work on that. And with that, we'll close item six. And move on to the regular agenda items, item seven. Do we have a planning director's report for today, Ms. Drake? Actually, the planning director or interim planning director, Payah Levine, it was not able to join us this morning. She did send out an email to Mike and I, which you should have received, which was an informative email just notifying the planning commissioners that the sustainability update effort is getting closer to the finish line as far as preparation of materials by staff. And I believe Payah sent the commissioners a link to a webpage on the planning department page. If not, I can send that later. If you receive any questions from members of the public, all of the materials as they're finalized will be posted there along with the timeline for the CEQA document review and public hearings that will follow, I guess maybe later this summer. So that's exciting. Gear up, lots of hearings will be required for that update. It's a monumental achievement really on the sustainability team's part. So she just wanted me to relay that information to you and I think that is it. Thank you. Looking forward to it. I know that's gonna be a lot of work for everyone and we appreciate the hard work that goes into that. Any commissioners have questions or wanna talk about that any further? Okay. And let's move on to item eight, report on upcoming meeting dates and agendas. Do we have anything to report, Ms. Drake? So on March 9th, the next scheduled meeting date, we have the wireless communication facility code amendments coming your way. And that is the only item we have scheduled at this time for March. There are a couple of other update type projects, code update projects that should be making their way to you shortly, but haven't been totally nailed down as far as a date, so. Great, thank you so much. County council report, anything to report, Mr. Zizweta? Good morning, just a couple items on the wireless communication ordinance. I wanted to just make you aware if you weren't aware already that this ordinance went to the board first for their recommendation, right? So this was kind of a different process that the board had requested that it go first to the board to take a look to make sure that this is gonna be kind of what they had in mind and then they would send it to the planning commission. So I just wanted to make you aware that that was the process this time around. You're welcome to listen to that meeting. That was in December. And I'm happy to discuss anything and everything related to that ordinance. It's a fun one. You guys are gonna have lots of fun with it. And I look forward to talking to you about it. The other thing I just wanted to just commend Commissioner Dan on her comments. We see a lot of these neighbor disputes. It's unfortunate and it puts the commissioners, I think in a tough spot sometimes because we are seeing projects that conform with our regulations conform with the law and there's really not much we can do if folks are unhappy with something like this where it just, I think it's important. That's why I wanted to kind of make a point to say thank you to Commissioner Dan because it's important for folks to hear that they need to resolve their differences without lawyers and kind of try to figure out what works best for the neighborhood. And it's, yeah, unfortunately, I see this all too often when it's too late and lawyers are involved. It just gets very messy and very long and very expensive. So I appreciate those kind of comments. But that's it for me. Thank you, sir. Okay, great. Well, with that, we can close today's. Could I just ask one question? We say our next meeting in March. Are we also meeting the second date in March? We haven't finalized the March schedule yet for the second meeting. There still is time for folks to make reservations for that date. So, yeah. I was just going to add with the comment about neighbor's disputes that is kind of in my years on the Planning Commission, we used to hear a lot more of these. So actually they declined a lot in terms of how many come to the Planning Commission. But in fact, that's kind of our job. So we may hear more in the future. And I think it does provide an opportunity for people to put it, who have concerns to at least help they got heard. So I think it's, so I think it's important and probably a vital part of what we do, which is I haven't seen a lot of it, frankly. Used to be there'd be one appeal after another. So I think obviously planning is doing a much better job of explaining things. So I just want to note that. I think you'll see more. And as seen as, yeah. The ADU's especially just a quick comment. You know, we're starting to see some of these ADU projects come through that are, you know, in the urban services area on the smaller lots and the two-story ones can sometimes be controversial. We had another one recently at ZA that was controversial. And I was wondering if that one would get appealed. So I think as some of the amended regulations come our way that serve to implement additional density, we might see more appeals. Well, that's a good case in point. And another reason why I think we need to have enough hearings and public outreach on the tidy home ordinance to do whatever we can to make sure the widest band of the public understands what's going on. Because that's the way it come back to haunt you and people. So well, I didn't know anything about this. Well, we need to make plenty of opportunities just so people really know what's going on. That's all. Great. Well, thank you everyone. Appreciate it. Everyone's agreed. Thank you everyone. All right, we'll see you in March. Thanks everybody.