 Today's date is July 14th, 2021, and the time is 9.30 a.m. Today's hearing is completely remote. We are using a Zoom video conferencing meeting platform today. So for you at home who are viewing the hearing or may wish to participate in the hearing, I wanted to take a moment to explain the technological pieces of the remote hearing. And we also have a slide that should be providing some information as well. So to participate in today's hearing, you may connect with us via the Zoom link, which is posted on the planning department's homepage at stcoplanning.com. Alternatively, you may participate in today's meeting by phone. These dial 1-669-900-9833, or 6-833, excuse me. And when prompted, enter collaboration code number 836-885-64623. If you wish to simply view today's meeting, it is being broadcast live on television. And for more information, please visit Community Television's website. A couple of instructions about participating in today's meeting. For each agenda's public hearing item, time will be provided for speakers 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 if calling in by telephone by remotely raising their hand by pressing star 9 on your telephone. I will call on participants by either your name or by the last prodigies of your telephone number. If you're participating via the Zoom link, 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 telephone. Members of the public will be provided three minutes to speak on agenda's items. If at any time you have difficulty connecting to today's meeting via the Zoom link or calling in via telephone, please email our support staff, Michael Lamb, at michael.lam, that's LAM, at Santa Cruz County dot US. He will be checking his email periodically throughout the meeting, and he's on standby to assist you if you have any questions. All right, it appears we are situated. I will now turn it over to the Planning Commission Chair, Judith Blazenby. Good morning, Judith. Good morning, and thank you. And the good morning to all of the participants. And welcome to this July 14, 2021 meeting of the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission. The time is now 9.33, and I'm going to call the meeting to order. Can you all hear me? Yes, we can, Chair. Oh, thank you. It's 9.33, and I'm calling this meeting to order. May we please have a roll call, Mr. Yes. All right, we'll call Commissioner Schaefer-Freitas. Here. Commissioner Schaefer. Commissioner Schaefer. You may be muted. I thought she had her all alternate. She's on here. Let's see. Commissioner Schaefer, can you hear us? Oh, and she's off. Sorry. Sorry, I had to relaunch the meeting for some reason, but I'm here now. No problem. Good morning. Commissioner Sheridan. I'm here. And Commissioner Holbert. Commissioner Holbert, you may be muted. Here. Good morning, and then Chair Judy Laysenby. Here. Good morning. All right. Thank you. Moving on down the agenda, are there any additions, changes, or correction to today's agenda? No, there are not, Chair. Well, having none, then may I have a motion to approve the entire agenda, including the consent agenda? I'll make that motion. I mean, all confused. This is different than how we usually do it. We move on to number three and number four. I don't understand why we're approving the whole agenda, right? The consent agenda in three and four at the same time. Well, because we have not had a consent agenda item since we started making the approval of minutes part of the regularly scheduled agenda. This because we do have a consent agenda item. Then I'm asking for a motion to approve the agenda so it will take care of that item. So when you, when you say approve agenda, what item numbers do you mean, if you can clarify that please. Okay, that would be all the items from from the beginning down through item number eight. This is just approval of the order that these things are listed and will be entertained. Okay, and then we'll come back to each individual item after we approve. Well, we won't come back. We won't come back to the consent item, because unless I hear a motion that that that that be pulled off and heard as the regularly scheduled items. Okay, so we won't open up the consent agenda again. But we will go back to then. Item number six. Well, what happens items number three and four. No, we, we will go back to three and four. We will just right. Okay. Okay, I just don't remember you're doing it in this order before bed. We have not had any item on the consent agenda for about five years. That's true. So it's more than my memory that's not working. Okay. Well, you know, it doesn't really matter if you if it's cleaner and easier for other members we can approve the consent agenda and then move on like we always have I don't think it makes much difference. Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda. That motion. Second. Thank you. All in favor. I then are there any declarations of X party communications. Hearing none then I will move on to the oral communications and this is the time when the commission will hear brief statements from members of the public. Please speak regarding issues that are not on today's agenda. You will have two minutes each one of you. Are there any participants online. I'm seeing a hand raised by Michael Lewis and Jean brockle banks so we will hear from them. Good morning Michael and Jean, will you please state your name for the record in case I misstated your name you have two minutes. Hi, this is Jean brockle banks speaking now, we are two individuals who are sharing the same computer. So we hope that as we go through the planning commission meeting, we will be able to each speak individually. I'm asking that of the chair now just to alert you. Secondly, I was confused by the way you began the meeting because generally. You know the agenda which I had studied, and you go, you do number one first and then you do number two, and then you do number three, and then you do number four, and then you get to number five, which was the consent agenda so that was very confusing to me. And also members of the public are generally asked if they want to speak about any consent agenda item. So that didn't happen either. And I think that's all that I have to say except did I hear you say that when it comes to an agenda on the regular agenda that we will only have two minutes or we will have three minutes to speak. I just wanted to confirm that for the agenda items that we will have three minutes to speak in the in the public hearing. Yes, you're absolutely. All right, so thank you very much. It's good to be here at this meeting and it's good to see the be able to see the faces of the various commissioners. Thank you. Thank you, Jean. Okay, we have another caller today by the last four digits to 915. Good morning. Please state your name for the record. Yeah, you have two minutes. Oh, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me. Yes, good morning Becky. Thank you. Good morning. I am not sure I will be able to stay to listen to item number seven I have medical appointment this morning if I speak now, and I'm able to stay. Would I be precluded from speaking about it again during scheduled agenda time. You wouldn't be precluded but we at any time that you speak during this particular part of the program, the we don't have any discussion of that. Thank you. So if I am able to stay I could testify again. Yes, item number seven. Right. Oh, that's great. That's not how it works at the board of supervisor meeting. So I'm glad that you allow ample public comment. I am concerned. Well, first of all, just let me say that I am watching the on a different topic the local hazard mitigation plan that is now open for public comment and comments close on July 23. I'm wondering if there will be any kind of a public hearing or meeting about that go over that very extensive document as it is informed going for approval. I haven't seen anything like that I have many concerns about the wildfire component of that hazard mitigation plan. And then to speak to item number seven in case I'm not able to stay, I'm very opposed to this project. I think this will cause great harm to the Simkins swim center users and the traffic and the quality of what goes on there in terms of focus on the swim center. The construction itself of this live oak annex, which they're calling a library and using measure as funding for is not is not a library. I mean, I read in some of the board of supervisors materials, there may not even be a librarian staff on on duty there yet measure as money is being used to fund it. There would be a total of 990 truckloads of cut and fill that would take to construct this this annex right on the property and connected to the parks department building and the swim center. That's a lot. Thank you. That is. That's the two minutes for public comment. Okay. And finally, if I'm not able to say, I oppose that there will be. Miss Steinbruner. I think you were referring to item number eight on the agenda. That's correct chair. Okay. Let's see if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak on an item not on today's agenda. Please make yourself known by raising your hand, not seeing any additional callers chair. Okay, thank you. And we will go on to the regularly scheduled items since we have approved all the other items, and especially the one on the consent. The item number six is the minutes. I'll move approval of the minutes of May 26. Is there a second, I believe I have to abstain from that. Right. Commissioner Schaefer Fredis. I need the motion. Okay, I'm sorry. Okay, I'll second it. Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. All in favor. I. Any opposition. I'm not Denise Holbert not voting. Okay, there'd be two abstentions then. Commissioner Sheridan and Holbert. Correct. Thank you. Okay, so then we move on to item number seven. Renewal of the partners in restoration. We need to promote Juliet Robinson making the presentation today. Walter, will you please promote Juliet Robinson. I'm not, it doesn't appear that I'm able to. Thank you. Good morning, Juliet. Good morning, Jocelyn. Good morning. Do you have any additional members of your team who we should be promoting to speak today. Matt Johnston and I think I believe Kelly Kamara should be on the line as well. Okay. From from the resource conservation district. I see them both. Thank you. And it looks like they've both been promoted. Thank you very much. I also have a brief slide show that. I sent over. Great. Walter, you can go ahead and. Go ahead and bring up the slide show for item number seven. Thank you. Okay. Are we ready? We are ready. Great. Thanks, Jocelyn. Good morning, commissioners chair. I am here today to present the resource conservation district of Santa Cruz County's request for an extension of their existing master permit for environmental enhancement projects. Next slide, please. The master permit is a programmatic type permit that has been in place now for about 16 years. It covers a number of different county approvals as applicable for certain types of projects that qualify under the program, including a coastal development permit, riparian exception, grading permit, biotic approvals and encroachment permit. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. The master permit was originally approved by the planning commission in 2005 and has been granted a number of extensions since that time by both the planning department and the planning commission. These extensions have occurred approximately every five years and some minor changes and additions were made to the permit in 2011. Today's request is for a five year extension to the permit with some minor amendments to the practices covered by the permit. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. This program partners local, state and federal agencies with the purpose of helping private landowners on a voluntary basis who are interested in correcting problems on their properties like erosion and degradation to sensitive habitats but are often discouraged from their properties. So this program helps streamline that permitting process. Property owners are faced with a number of issues that can be streamlined by this program and I've included a few examples here of some of the more common problems. Next slide, please. Unpaved rural access roads that have poorly designed or maintained drainage infrastructure are common throughout the county. All these roads may look fine in the dry weather when it rains, not only does it create access issues but all of this sediment ends up in our streams and waterways. Next slide, please. Another common problem is native habitats being overtaken by invasive species that can out-compete native plants and degrade natural habitats. Next slide. Man-made dams and other structures that create barriers to migration of endangered fish species are also much too common throughout our county streams. They are often on private properties and removal of these types of barriers can be some of the more complicated projects to complete because of the presence of endangered species and the many regulatory agencies that become involved when working in a stream like this. Next slide, please. Under the Partners in Restoration Program, the Resource Conservation District coordinates with these other agencies who are partners in the program and it helps streamline the permitting process so land owners deal solely with the RCD who then is responsible for ensuring that all of the county, state, and federal requirements are being met. The master permit authorizes 15 different types of projects all are intended to create, restore, or enhance natural habitat and or protect water quality. Eligible projects are subject to certain size limitations and other parameters and conditions that are built directly into the permit and overall each project must demonstrate a net benefit to the environment. I've included a few examples here on the following slides of some of the types of projects that are commonly have been covered under the permit in the last 16 years. Next slide, please. Sometimes something as simple as improvements to the slope and drainage infrastructure on these existing access roads can greatly help reduce or eliminate erosion and sediment that would otherwise end up in our streams. Next slide. Implementation of fish habitat enhancement projects including the removal or modification of barriers to fish passage can sometimes open up many, many miles of stream habitat for endangered fish. So while the footprint of these types of projects and the impacts may be small, the net environmental benefit can be huge. Next slide. The removal includes the removal and disposal of unwanted structures from waterways and sensitive habitats. Next slide. Removal of exotic plants and replanting with native vegetation can restore rare declining sensitive habitats and improve habitat for the species that live within them. Next slide. Installation of sediment basins can help stabilize downstream channel flows and reduce sedimentary runoff. Next slide. The protection is the practice of using vegetation or structures to stabilize slopes and this helps prevent further erosion and future sedimentation. Next slide, please. Wetland management was one of the practices added to the program in 2011 and this practice has been utilized to restore or enhance wetland conditions at 10 different sites since that time. Next slide, please. The program has shown continued success throughout the 16 years since its conception and there have been no significant violations or other problems with the master permit since its original approval in 2005. So since that time, the master permit has facilitated 116 environmental enhancement projects across the county. Approximately 40 miles of Salmon at Habitat have been improved with the program. Around 40,000 tons of sediment have been captured and prevented from entering our waterways and approximately 200 acres of upland, wetland and riparian habitat have been restored. Next slide. This is a map that's just showing the distribution of projects that have been completed under the program countywide since 2005. Next slide, please. So at this point, the program has been successfully underway for, like I said, approximately 16 years since that time. So the program has been working and other participating agencies have really been able to hone in on what works and what can be fine tuned to strengthen and improve the program. So some minor changes to the permit are being proposed for this extension, all of which are intended to either refine permit efficiency or improve resource protection and enhancement. New terms are also being proposed regarding the level of approval required for these permit extensions that would allow future extensions to occur every five years at a level three approval by the planning department. And so these extensions would only come before your commission for approval if any major amendments or visions were proposed that require additional CEQA review and analysis. Next slide, please. For CEQA, a mitigated negative declaration was adopted by the planning commission in 2005 for the original master permit. The currently proposed changes to the permit and program itself have been reviewed and involve minor technical changes that do not change the CEQA determination and would not require additional environmental review or revisions to the mitigated negative declaration. So we prepared an addendum to the 2005 MND, which was included in your packet for review. Next slide, please. In conclusion, the original CEQA determination for the master permit is still valid and with mitigation, there will be no significant impacts associated with the program or the minor amendments being proposed. This extension of the master permit would allow for continuation of a successful program that partners local, state, and federal agencies to help private landowners complete much needed environmental enhancement projects across the county. So staff recommends that your commission approves this five-year extension of the master permit with minor amendments and approves the addendum to the 2005 mitigated negative declaration. Next slide. And myself, Matt Johnston, the environmental coordinator, and I believe Kelly Camaro with the Resource Conservation District are all here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Are there any questions by every commissioners? I have a question. I came to the meeting with information as of yesterday, and I'm wondering if you could list the minor exceptions that are being part of this approval. The changes to the permit? Yes. There are several changes to the size restrictions. So most of the changes, there's a minor change made to the wetlands management, which was added in 2011. And so they've really been sort of fine-tuning what works and what doesn't work. So they've increased both the, or asked for increases in both the cubic yards of grading that's allowed and also the area of grading. There's also some increases to the linear feet of stream habitat improvements. So dewatering, linear feet of dewatering has increased some and that's mostly to match the other regulatory agencies. So no fisheries has a thousand linear feet area of dewatering that's allowed. We've changed some minor language to the revegetation portions of the permit that, because in the last 15 years, we have a much better understanding of what works for restoration and what doesn't. Some minor language changes to allow for better improvements to monarch habitat in case that species becomes officially listed in the next few years. There's an increase in the width of in-stream dam removals by 10 feet. So a bit of a larger width of dams can be removed for fish passage. And then Kelly, you may, maybe some additional changes. I think most of the, there were some minor administrative corrections and changes to reporting procedures. So rather than having a full end of year report, we're going to do more of a table format because it's easier to review and easier to prepare. I think that covers most of the changes. Thank you. Any other commissioners have questions? I just like to make a comment. Okay. I think this is a great program. I've seen some of the results and it makes it easy and possible to do some really important stuff. So it's really nice to get the report. I haven't seen a summary of all that's been going on. So I found the report really interesting. And I'm really glad we have this. And a great report too, by the way, I think it's a great question. I think it's a great question. I think it's very clear and understandable. And really insightful. Chair Lassenby. Yes. I agree with commissioner shepherd. It was a very interesting report. I wasn't aware of the depth of the, of the programs. I just had a great question about the mechanics of financing this. Most of the clients are private property owners. I would imagine. Is that true? Yeah. And then on a, on a cost basis. Kelly can probably speak more to the financing of the actual projects. My understanding is that there are some tax, tax funds that are available and then also grant funding that the RCD looks for the county is not part of the funding for the projects. Kelly, do you want to speak to how the funding for these projects works? Yes. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this morning and for your continued support of the program. Our, our clients come to us on a voluntary basis. The resource conservation districts works in a non regulatory non enforcement. And our mission is to help private landowners restore natural resources. The funding sources for permit coordination are multiple, like Juliet mentioned, we do have a small tax base from the county, but predominantly our funding comes through grant funding. So our funds for implementation designs and completing all the documentation for permits is either, or predominantly through individual grants or through fee for service agreements through private landowners when we don't have grant funding available. Do you ever have a situation where the client, where there's not grant funding available and the client can't afford to pay the cost based on service? We always have to prioritize resources within the community. If it is a high priority project and we don't currently have funding for that type of project or one of our programs, we will seek funding for that individual landowner. We do request some kind of in kind, if not cash contribution from the landowners. We've just found that there's a lot more buy in and commitment to long term maintenance of the project. When they're either involved through ongoing maintenance, maybe they do the revegetation themselves or a small contribution. It tends to lead to longer term buy in and management. Great. Great. Thank you. Sure. We'll wait here for Mr. Johnston. I believe he's available for questions. I am available for questions, but I think Juliet and Kelly have fully represented and have all the facts that you need. Okay. Does that end your presentation? That's all I have for now unless you have more questions. Well, what's our official action on this? You should be open. This would be for. Yes, I was just getting ready to do that. Okay. I will now open the public hearing. Okay. Thank you. And all of the ones that the participants online. Ms. Drake, are you still with us? I am. Yes. And so this is the, the chair has opened the public hearing for this item, which is item number seven on the agenda. And I just wanted to remind anyone who may be calling in with a comment that. You would press star nine on your telephone to remotely raise your hand. And so let me see if I see anyone here. And. Chair, I'm not seeing any callers. For this item at this time. Okay. I, I show there 34. Participants. Is that online. On the phone. Um, I'm seeing, uh, I am seeing a number of attendees, but I'm not seeing anyone. Raising their hand to speak on this item. Yes. If there are no, um, participants that want to address this issue, then I'll bring it back to the commissioners. For discussion. Well, I'd like to, um, move approval of the renewal. Okay. What's the language I need here. Okay. Do I hear a second? I'll second it. Thank you. Any discussion. I think what commissioner shepherd is referring to is that she's moving the staff recommendations. Thank you. Um, on page five of the report to adopt the addendum to the staff report. I think we're ready to vote. Okay. All in favor. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. And so, Walter, we would need to promote Randall Adams. He's presenting on this item today. And please also promote Damon Adlow. Thank you. And we can go ahead and load the PowerPoint for item number eight. Good morning, Randall. It appears you're muted, Randall. Sorry about that. Good morning. Randall Adams, the county planning department. I'd like to begin by stating that we did receive an item of correspondence early this morning from a member of the public opposed this project. That was an email forwarded to support staff. And then you also had an opportunity to hear during oral comments from Becky Steinbrenner. Hopefully she'll also have an opportunity to speak on this item during a public comment. As noted in the agenda, this is a proposal to construct a library annex at the Simkins Swim Center. And if we could go to the next slide. The project is located to the west of 17th Avenue behind Shoreline Middle School and adjacent to the upper portion of Swan Lake of the trails above Swan Lake in the Live Oak planning area. Go to the next slide, please. The zoning for the site is PR, which is Parks, Recreation and Open Space. Go to the next slide, please. And the general plan land use designation for the site is O-R, which is consistent with the zoning. It is Parks, Recreation and Open Space. The site is currently improved at the Simkins Swim Center, which includes the Live Oak Community Center and Administrative Offices for Parks and Recreation staff. Yes, thank you for showing the site photographs. We can go through those. We go back to that. That's fine. These are some photos that are showing the site as it currently exists and including the front entry to the Simkins Swim Center, which is the area where the annex is proposed. The traffic circle there with the oak tree. The tree would be retained. Traffic circle is proposed to be removed. Next slide. These are existing shots of the existing front entry showing how the Simkins Center is currently accessed. The proposed annex would be to the left of this in the photos. Go to the next slide, please. This is a site overview and this shows that the project would occur in two phases. The first phase being the most substantial. It would be on the front of the property, including the traffic circle, the annex addition and a new pedestrian plaza. With the second phase occurring later at the rear of the building, which would include a childcare facility and some landscaping improvements. Next slide, please. This here shows on the site plan the total new footprint of building area. As you can see in red, approximately 2000 square feet of new area is proposed at the front of the building. And then in the second phase, approximately 550 square foot addition of building for a childcare area facility would be proposed. Next slide, please. This, the lower elevation, the upper elevation is the existing front elevation along the building. It is just to be looking kind of along the whole driveway of the parking lot area across the building. The lower slide is difficult to read because of the line weight, but the primary purpose of this slide is to show that the existing addition would be on the left portion of that image, and it is no higher than the existing building. Next slide, please. These are more detailed elevations of the proposal. The proposed 2000 square foot addition would also have adjacent to it a covered area with seating, which would be adjacent to the entrance into the pool facilities. Next slide, please. And this is a better visual rendering of that. This shows how there would be an awning, the library annex on the left side of that proposed addition, and then the open area that is covered, which would be an area adjacent to the pedestrian plaza. So this would allow more outdoor activities and so forth to occur with this facility. Next slide, please. And this shows how the landscape improvements would change. The traffic circle that is currently there is shown in the upper portion of this slide with the oak tree in the middle, which will be retained, and then showing how the pedestrian plaza would be configured around the proposed addition. The total new floor area for the proposed library annex would be approximately 2000 square feet, as noted, in the first phase. The second phase would include approximately 550 square feet at the rear of the building in the second phase. The design of the proposed additions would be consistent with the architectural style of the existing building, and the project would be compatible with the surrounding pattern of development, including the adjacent boys and girls club and the shoreline middle school. Landscaping and paving improvements would also be included in each phase with the circular driveway at the front of the facility being replaced with the new pedestrian plaza indicated in this image, and the entry to the combined facilities for the annex, the swim center, and the administrative offices for parks and recreation. Adequate shared parking would remain available for the combined uses, as indicated in the traffic study prepared for the project, which is also included under exhibit G of the staff report starting on page 53. As proposed in condition, the project is consistent with the county code, the general plan, and the local coastal program. Staff recommends that your commission accept the determination that this project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act, and that you approve application 201354. That concludes the staff presentation, and we are available for questions if you have any. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions by the commissioners? I've got questions. Okay commissioners, Sheridan. I have several members of my family that have physical disabilities, and I also have a young grandson, and I can't sometimes, they have to stay in the car, and libraries often need a way to drop off a book or approach the building and check out a book, and I was surprised that all the handicapped access, all of the parking was removed from the front of the building, and I'm concerned about that because you can't, the child out of the car, inside, if you just want to drop off a book, it's maybe too far away. So that was question number one. Question number. Mr. Adams, were you going to respond? I thought there were more questions coming, but definitely I can respond to that certainly. The plans indicate that the existing accessible parking will not be modified, which is adjacent to the entry to the swim center now, which is actually, if you were looking at the building to the right of that, and that on the plans will remain the same. I would defer to the project architects with Nolan Tam and the project manager as to how decisions were made about the library annex and the ability to drop off books at that location, but there will continue to be a vehicle drop off for individuals to be dropped off at the front of the pedestrian plaza. In terms of accessible parking, I don't believe there's any change proposed to the actual designated accessible spaces as shown on the plans. Thank you. On the lighting, so you're recommending that that would be a question for the architects. For the accessible parking? No, for environmental impact for birds, for example. Oh, I didn't hear a question about lighting. I think the volume may have cut out on that question. I think that's correct. Would you mind restating that question, Commissioner Sheridan? I think you cut out for a moment while you were asking the second question. Okay, thanks. So what I'm concerned about is that any additional lighting would not be would would not be having an impact on wildlife. So we're not increasing any lighting and that it's progressive in thinking about the fact that there's a huge bird rookery and bird habitat next door that would be affected by increasing any lighting. I'm not aware of any increase in lighting beyond what is there other than perhaps just replacement of lighting along the front of the building and under the canopy area. I would defer to the architectural team if there are proposing any brighter lights or lights that are not directed downward, keeping all glare on the site. Yeah, hello. Yeah, if I may, I'm named Adela. I'm a project manager with the Department of Public Works and I'm likely to answer that question. So the new lighting will be consistent with what's there currently. The yeah, the intent is definitely to have all lighting to be downloaded and it shouldn't be anything more than what's currently there. I believe the Nolan Tam team, the architecture team may be on the line. Leah Martinson, she can be promoted to maybe respond to this question. Yes, Walter, will you please promote Leah Martinson? I see her hand is raised as well. Thanks, Joffre. Repeat the names please. Leah Martinson, she has her hands, her hand raised. She's an attendee. Will you please promote her to panelists? Thank you. Good morning, Leah. Hello, everyone. Thanks for having us. Yes, I can confirm what Damon said that all of the lighting is dark sky compatible. So they're all down lighting and the plaza is really replacing that existing traffic circle, which had pretty tall parking lot lights, and we're replacing it with fewer parking lot lights and low level ballard lights just to maintain, you know, safe lighting levels through the plaza at night time. So it's not increasing the light levels. It's changing, but not increasing. That's good to hear. Do you want further questions? Elaboration on that? Where's that answer your question? That answered my question. Thank you. That sounds better than what's there actually. It's going to be beautiful. I'm not supposed to say that right now. So the the representatives from Nolan Tam are available for further questions than Ms. Marthason. Yeah, I'm the representative for Nolan Tam. So yes, we are available. I'm happy to answer anything else. Okay. Any other questions from commissioners? I chairperson Lazenby, if I may. I had a question. So this is called a library annex and its use is going to be what again? Could somebody describe that please? Yeah. Yeah, if I may, I could describe the use. So primarily the use of the space is to accommodate library programs for Santa Cruz public library system, but specifically the LIVO branch, which doesn't have the space. It's roughly a 12,000 square foot building, but they don't have the small conference rooms, the group study rooms, and the tutoring center, which is, which are just a few of the planned programs for the annex itself. So a lot of it, I guess, for lack of a better term is maybe a little bit of overflow for the LIVO branch to have their library programs in a place to do it. In addition, one of the things that this site was identified for those programs because it also the adjacencies with the Simpkins Swim Center, the Boys and Girls Club, Shoreline Middle School, and then developing kind of a sense of place for LIVO. We thought this was an ideal place for that. I also want to add that the Plaza, while it's not additional building space, it also is being designed to accommodate programs. And a lot of these, the pro the outdoor programs have yet to be decided that there's talks of, you know, that it's food trucks or potential types, arts and crafts types of type areas. And that's really going to kind of humanize that space a little bit more in my opinion. So we just felt like this is an ideal place for that. But to answer your question in short, it's primarily the library programs. Okay. And then the Child Care Center, which is a second stage improvement, um, that would be a publicly run child care center or private or divided? I'm sorry for interrupting, but to answer your question, it would be run by the parks department. And some of the programs there's currently an MOU being worked on by the two by the library and the parks directors to share the spaces. But getting back to the child care area currently the discussion is that it would be run by parks department. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? I have another question. Okay. Commissioner Sheridan. Thank you. Um, is this going to be a library housing books, or is this going to be a facility for, um, meeting rooms? I'm confused about what the whole purpose was. Yeah, the, there will be the opportunity for holds. And I think that's maybe Leah, and I'm not sure if there's anybody on from the library to talk specific programs. Um, there, there will not necessarily be stacks of books per se, but it will be a place and opportunity that have holds and you could basically through your system, through your account, ask that the the books that you're reserving are held at this space. But the the actual spaces themselves again are for library programs, some of the reading programs, literacy programs that they have there as well as opportunities for, for kid group study and and similar things. But as far as it's, we're trying to, it's sort of rethinking and a lot of the projects that I'm working on for the library, it's rethinking what a library is a lot of times the term 21st century library, which is the in general, the model is to remove some of the books from the space still obviously make them accessible via the reserve system, but create spaces for community, spaces for group study. Again, it's that's kind of the focus and a lot of the builds of these new buildings. So yeah, hopefully I've answered your question. Maybe Leah, you could add anything and I'm not sure if there's a library staff here and would like to comment on the program specifically to raise your hand. But we have anything else? Yeah, I mean, I think Damon probably can and the library can speak to the specifics of the programs, but you're correct that there is no permanent book storage currently planned in the annex space. What what is being planned for is automated book lockers and hold space so that people could pick up and drop off books in that case. And then they would be transferred to the other library branches, but there is no no stacks for a better word. Damon, I'm seeing my hand raised by Heather Norquist. Is that someone with the library? Absolutely. Yeah, she's a regional manager. Thank you. Yes. Walter, we please promote Heather Norquist. Good morning, Heather. Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I can talk about some of the programs that we would like to offer at the Live Oak Annex. We, one of the problems at the Live Oak library branch is parking. It's very limited because of the site. And we have some very popular programs that are very well attended, but there when so many people come that there's nowhere for them to park. So this annex gives us an opportunity to invite huge numbers. For example, our toddler time sometimes gets up to 70 people attending. And that's a noisy program with a lot of movement and action. It would be great to offer that at the Annex. We also during the summer offer performers such as bubble magic or magic shows or puppet shows. And we can get around 100 people attending. And this is a space because we'll be partnering with Parks and Rec. We'll have through the MOU agreement. We'll have access to that big community room that can fit all those people and we'll have all that parking. Also being close to Shoreline Middle School and the Boys and Girls Club. It's transportation is something that that is a challenge for children and middle schoolers to get to a library after school, but they can just it'll be right next door to Shoreline Boys and Girls Club. So we can offer more after school programs that it'll be easier for them to attend. We could offer a craft program. Let's make it a party then. Off in space and in the meeting. Okay, I'll see you then. We offer homework help in those quiet study rooms. Right now we have to take over the teen room for any kind of program where people are talking or making noise. So that that makes the books in the teen room not accessible to teens. So those are some of the programs that we're hoping to offer. Yeah. Uh, Sheriff, could I speak please? Yes, Commissioner Shea. Yes, I'm glad that we got those further explanations. I think many of us are familiar with the improvements at the Capitola Library and the proposed improvements at the Actos Library, all due to the new funding that's available. And in both of those libraries that I'm familiar with, there's a lot of more group rooms, more community services for facilitation rather than the traditional checking out a book. And there's also in those two proposed improvements or finished improvements at Capitola, a lot of indoor outdoor kind of facilitation of group activities and using outdoor space is better. So that's what I see this at first. I think it's the word annex that I just, it's hard for me. I'm not quite sure what that means, but now I understand it's an expansion with types of activities that will be available for live vote residents. Is that a correct interpretation? Okay. Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sheridan, did you have further questions? Just a comment and thank you. That really helped clarify for both of several of the architect and the library representative. It's wonderful to think that you could have better access and include programs. I don't know how many people would be able to fit into a room, but when you have a community room like that and toddlers and loud voices, that sounds wonderful. So thank you. Can I make a comment? Yes. I'm not sure if this is going to the board or not, but if it does go to the board, may I suggest that you put some of this explanation of what's going to happen there into, yeah, into whatever you give the supervisors, because that's the first question everybody asked. And I think we all think these are good and appropriate uses, but it was sincerely missing from the report. It may be obvious to you, but it wasn't us. Those sound like great uses to me too. I totally agree. And this is a good place to do it. Yeah. Thank you. It will go to the board of supervisors once the, we have permits in hand and so it's approval of the design and approval to bid. So I will make sure that there is a good summary and explanation for the project. Thank you. If there are no further questions, I will open the public hearing. Ms. Drake, do we have participants on the line? We do. Alter, if you have a timer, you can set that for three minutes and we will start with Gene Rocklebank. Good morning. Please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Hi. This is Michael Lewis. I am using this, the same computer that Gene is. I'll be speaking first and then Gene will follow with her comment afterwards. Okay. Good morning. Okay. My concern for this permit process has to do with a phase two section of this, which was not mentioned in Randall's presentation and which appears only superficially in the planning documents that you have before you. Phase two is the so-called child care facility to be built on the southern border of the existing building. However, it is much more than just a box that will have child care in it. It also includes the patio area that exists on the south side of the building today, which has a large wall around it that separates it from the riparian buffer zone. Unfortunately, the plans for phase two as shown in the plans today call for the removal of that separation from the buffer zone. This makes this the most environmentally impactful part of this project because it opens up that riparian buffer zone to all the activity that will go on in this patio area, including, as commissioner Sheridan suggested, an increased lighting into that riparian zone. The patio area will be extended farther closer to the riparian zone as it is now. The wall will be removed and there will be an extensive modification of the landscaping that currently exists on that that will affect both the noise and light coming from that patio area. If you'll notice on page 10 of the permit application under section operational conditions, it says that the review of this phase two may be processed initially as a building permit. This is more ministerially as a building permit. This is more than adding a building to the project. It includes increased intrusion into the riparian buffer zone and the removal of that wall, which will increase the intensity of activity that affects the buffer zone. So I'm really concerned that this part of phase two be addressed now and not be a ministerial decision. That means a decision that will be taken without public input when the plans for this phase two are completed. Also, it should let you know with regard to the previous discussion that there will be no library staff in this facility except when there are activities going on. The facility will be staffed by parks by a park person, a park employee, 30 seconds, and not by staff. So this makes it more not not a library facility. It's just a an extension of the meeting area of the existing parks facilities and it it's very different than what has been described. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Um Gene would Gene like to go ahead and start making a comment at this time? Okay, hi Gene Brocklebank. I'm a 33 year live oak resident. My main concern aside the fact that there will be no books, no bookshelves and no librarians at the live oak library annex unless there's programming. My main concern is also the phase two expanded patio area. Wildlife biologists already know that night lighting disturbs circadian rhythms of all species. This disturbance is a stress factor affecting the well being of species including our own. Also, if we learned anything during the covid pandemic shutdown, it is that wildlife benefited from the reduction of noise in the environment. Indeed, we all remarked upon the relief from traffic noise ourselves. Scientists globally, nationally and even here at UC Santa Cruz are now providing data that shows that great beneficial response of the lack of noise and just basically the cacophony of modern urban civilization on. So my thought is we can have an expanded patio area at Simkins as proposed and still protect riparian wildlife habitat. All we have to do is make the design of this project reflect that care. The county general plan acknowledges the intrinsic value of wildlife habitat. The coastal commission will no doubt look at this also the existing aesthetically pleasing patio curved wall that now separates the riparian buffer zone from human noise disturbance and building lighting currently acts as a buffer this wall currently acts as a buffer between wildlife habitat of the riparian buffer zone which is itself a buffer to an extension of riparian habitat. Nighttime patio lighting should be minimized so as not to intrude into the riparian buffer or beyond and that wall is a good way to minimize that that light disturbance. Therefore I ask your commission to amend the conditions of approval of this project application which we see in the staff report. 30 seconds. Amend the conditions of approval of this project application rather than approve the application is provided by requiring that the phase to expanded outdoor patio area be redesigned to retain the existing wall that separates it from the riparian buffer zone rather than demolish it as planned and also will be required to incorporate the same kind of wall in the expanded patio area. Thank you. Thank you Jean. Thank you. Okay um let's see chairman to go back to our callers I do have a comment um which I will read that was emailed to me just now from Becky Steinbruner but I wanted to check and see if we had any additional callers on the line first so I wanted to remind folks who may be calling in via telephone to press star nine on your phone to make yourself known if you wish to make a comment on this item the library annex project and I'm not seeing any so chair um if you're amenable I have an emailed comment from Becky Steinbruner she has requested that I read it into the record. Certainly mistress go ahead. Okay um so uh Becky Steinbruner says I'm opposed oops pardon me uh Becky Steinbruner says I'm opposed to the design because it is not harmonious with the Simkins center design there is a large and modern library located only one mile away on Portola Drive the Live Oak library and there has been no finding providing the need for this library annex and that this project would be better fit with the existing boys and girls club adjacent. Why can't the library system just use the existing large community room in the Simkins center for programs that bring large crowds? Heather in our quest just said there's insufficient parking at the Live Oak library how can there be no impact on the Simkins swim center use parking as stated in the project stop report this makes no sense the construction would cause great potential harm to Simkins swim center traffic in an area with many young children due to the 990 truck trips required to cut for cut infill activity and significant dust noise and vibration impacts tree replacement will not equal the number of trees replaced the construction would remove 11 trees but only eight would be replaced this is not in keeping with the intent and purpose of Santa Cruz County code 1634-010-A stating that the board of supervisors supervisors recognize trees are a valuable resource and necessary for public health safety and general welfare the county has already removed over 100 trees in the county for the installation of the parking lot solar panels and many were and many were removed from the Simkins swim center but never replaced this project results in a further diminished tree population and cooling effect in the overall area this project would remove this circular circular driveway area that I have many times seen elderly patients of the swim center use for a drop off by a paratransit in private vehicles not only for swimming but also for attendance of community meetings in the Simkins swim center parks and rec building this project would require those people to be dropped off at some distance because the circular driveway would be eliminated the main entrance to the Simkins center which is near the existing handicap parking areas is usually closed during evening public meetings in the community rooms finally this overflow area for the existing live oak library should be addressed to the existing should be added to the existing live live oak library not to Simkins swim center it has been stated in SAP reports to the board of supervisors that there may not even be library staff at this annex and there may not be books available unless requests are made this is not a library it should not be funded by measure five monies this belongs to the existing live oak library or at the adjacent boys and girls club i regret that i cannot stay to comment this morning and that i was only given two minutes during public comment rather than three minutes for comment on this item and was cut off mid sentence and that concludes Becky's comments thank you thank you and i will go back to the list of attendees one more time okay and i am not seeing any additional hands raised chair okay if there are no more participants that want to address this issue then i'll bring it back to the commission and we'll close the public hearing and bring this back to the commission well i have comments okay commission share it well i agree with gene and michael unfortunately being a late late coming to the meeting i could not review in detail what i would have liked to um i apologize um i think my initial question i didn't realize the back child care area was going to have that kind of impact and that is a huge concern for me so um i'd like to understand more about that project i don't know if that could be separated uh is probably part of the same funding but if it was able to be a separate discussion and mitigation regarding the wall and its relationship to the riparian i think is a critical factor um setback setback i'm not sure about the setback but the wall would have a huge impact of affecting light and any other kind of impact on the riparian so that would be an important question um as far as the trees i think becky is bringing up an important point about replacement uh there probably is room for adding on the the one-to-one on the tree replacement and um i am also a little bit confused about the use of the annex for what is the percentage of time that it would be open hours in a day is there actually funding for staff is is this something that's going to be shared by parks that seemed really confusing so i i like uh just to close i i do think that the um uh the proposal made by um earlier by gene brockelbank about the uh a possibility of maintaining that wall made sense to me so if you'd like to comment on any of that that would be helpful for the okay just one moment uh commission share share it in commissioner holbert do you have yes i i had a suggestion because i agree that i think we need to look at the the area where the child care um is the child care center is proposed and i think we could just change the uh operational conditions and number one just to um say the review of the design and construction of the child care area proposed in the second phase of the project shall return to the planning commission for approval and redesign to protect the riparian area i don't agree that it should just be a mysterious ministerial approval i think it does need some more work okay so you would you would favor then um i'm okay with the rest i'm okay with the rest of it but i think we need to stop and look at that again okay separating phase two yes okay to come back to this commission yes i i would support um that language and i think it makes sense to break it up that way okay are there any other questions and then i'll ask the uh representatives to comment on on your your comments also commissioner chevron i mean cherim chair yes i mentioned made in a previous public i believe it was miss steinbruner that the circular driveway is being eliminated and i just want to clarify it doesn't look like that on the plans to me is that correct what is happening to the circular driveway the existing the circular driveway is proposed for removal and replacement with the patio area so there's going to be no circular driveway to drop people on or off that's correct it appears they're proposing a vehicle drop off um in a pocket that is adjacent to the oak tree that was in the center of the circle uh you can see this on sheet a 2.01 probably most clearly uh in terms of the overview of the site yeah i'd like to confirm yeah there will still be a drop off area um as mentioned by randall and then we're retaining all of the uh pda parking to the west of the main entry how far away is that the current ada parking as i recall was just before the circular driveway on the west side but i can't remember the um i hope i can speak out of turn no go ahead no change is proposed to the the location or number of accessible parking spaces for the plan yeah okay and as any representatives you want to address the idea of separating phase two to be another application later okay if i if i may um so currently um the work for phase one is funded um i i do want to note though that the area for phase two there was no intent to um impose and or go into the current riparian zone we wouldn't be able to do that and there there's nothing designed to remove the existing wall currently i i do want to state that um but going going back i mean the main focus for us right now i mean this is a larger project for both phases but um only phase one has been designed in detail i don't believe you want to add anything yeah i would just re-emphasize that you know what's shown on phase two is essentially diagrammatic it the child care function hasn't really been defined we don't really understand we haven't figured out or no one's figured out what sort of access what sort of security would be required whether or not the wall remains it's transformed is adjusted i think all of those questions are i mean i agree that they should be addressed there shouldn't be easy access into the riparian zone the intention is not to extend the boundaries of the site beyond their current boundary but we we suppose that there will likely be some reconfiguration needed once that space is designed and the requirements are defined but we haven't done any of that work yet so it's it's diagrammatic only at the stage so one of the things we could do the the main purpose of the master site plan or even amendment to a master site plan as this project is is to get a conceptual approval we certainly could have this item come back to your commission for further review um alternatively what we could do it seems like folks are in agreement that the wall that is there now is effective and extending the wall along any expansion of the patio area would also be equally effective it would stay out of the riparian buffer zone so you'd have the wall for noise and light and then you'd have the riparian buffer area both as protections we could instead change the review of the design and construction the child care area to a level four review which means it is still um a review that the public can comment on and potentially appeal to a higher body if they'd like and we could also add a condition that requires them under Roman numeral uh four a one a that uh for that facility or that that phase that we retain the existing patio wall and extend the wall along the expanded patio area um I don't know if the exact shape of the wall with the two wings on it is what would work with the child care area but we could we could fine tune that language to say to maintain a patio wall that that that uh that establishes an effective barrier between the riparian area and the patio I would recommend keeping it flexible just because there are so many unknowns at the point and if the goal is to you know not infringe further and maintain a wall of equal or greater separation as a boundary I would recommend allowing that um making sure that there's no flexibility to see what's needed when perhaps the correct term would be to retain or replace the existing patio wall and extend the wall along any expanded patio area yeah um may I comment yes go ahead um I would uh I think the suggestion of it not being ministerial and having it coming back to the planning commission is important and I would not recommend making a suggestion of expanding the wall because that becomes an entire brand new environmental impact so um I think the whole thing needs to come back for review but if it's not ministerial then you can have the opportunity to have public input however it's decided I don't think that needs to be figured out right now it just needs to be able to be commented on and the planning commission needs to have an opportunity for that again okay and commissioner hobert I agree with that I just want to make sure that we somebody gets to see it again and it's not just good intentions I think um good intentions often go astray so we need to be we need to keep track of it okay um are we to the stage where someone can make a motion on this well we we didn't get a comment on the tree replacement why that was not a one-to-one would one of you like to comment on why there are more trees removed and replaced I would defer to the design team on that decision um I do not want to answer this exact moment so I would have to go back and look at it I know that we um involved in arborist at the early phases of figuring out which trees would be removed and some of the trees on site did have some health issues and I would have to find out in more detail exactly how those decisions would be made I don't want to speak without having information on hand sorry Damon that could be part of the the proposal is that there's plenty of room there even in the park next door to probably have native a native tree fell in somewhere on a one-to-one I think that should be I think that's part of the county requirement isn't it I don't know I so the trees on the site are not considered significant trees in the coastal zone which would require a replacement ratio to be determined by environmental planning staff one-to-one would be a common method so the protections for those trees would be under our design review ordinance and generally those are just trees that are six inches in diameter or greater in this case since a lot of that area is being converted to hardscape for plaza type uses my my guess is that the idea with the design would be to not have so many canopy trees be better to shade the parking lot another commenter said that some trees were lost in other improvements on the site so I don't know if there are other locations on the site where trees could go that wouldn't interfere with the solar panels or the plaza plan right the if I can comment again that parking lot definitely lacks shade I I don't know if there's trees that could be added in that area but it'd be great because there's a lot of concrete there and I think that's a worthwhile thing to follow up on whenever there's concrete or space to plant a tree and especially in this case one-to-one so I'm going to clarify what thank you for those that input I think the one point I do want to say is 11 trees are proposed for removal and eight trees are proposed to be planted so we're actually talking about three trees here okay and some of them are small quite small already once they're being removed okay well I think whenever we can plant trees it's important would there be any possibility of planting trees in the parking lot you know in squares that are blocked off for trees if I if I may comment that may be a little bit difficult due to the solar panels that have been that been installed in the parking lot there is an opportunity potentially though and hopefully I'm not speaking out of term but I believe we we've talked about to the I want to say the north side closer to the proposed rail trail there may be an opportunity there for additional trees to be planted we've talked about that with the landscape market does that sound correct yeah there's there's there's some landscape space sort of where the existing monument sign is as you come into the parking lot and I think you know something that's come up is putting more actual landscaping in that area and again it's not within the scope of this for this particular project right now but it's certainly area that is available and that's been identified as would be nice to put more planting in there for sure uh I'd like to comment yes Commissioner Shepherd well I'd like to have Commissioner Holberg make her suggested motion if that's what's going to be again about separating these projects I certainly think we don't want to redo anything uh on tap as we're discussing anything I think it should come back and be available for public comment and I think the staff agrees that these concerns that were expressed are valid and can be accommodated so let's just separate them I see no reason not to suggest that as part of this project trees that that they we give direction the trees in the parking lot we looked into after all when commercial supermarkets and shopping centers redo their sites they always put in trees and parking so it's obviously not complicated or too expensive to do it or else all those commercial entities wouldn't be doing it and they seem to be required to in every case so I think let's give a little more force to that direction um if I may add or comment um just so it's known a lot of times when you add trees to parking lots it's when they're new parking lots and to modify an existing parking lot for trees is more difficult I just wanted to add that and and if I may I have another comment um as well and hopefully this is the right time um the the idea of separating the conditions for the the wall adjacent to the riparian zone I just I just want to reiterate that it's there's no design has occurred yet for that and that any conditions additional conditions uh put on that that phase two work should be uh very flexible um I just I just want to note that while it is a riparian zone it needs to be preserved there is uh land adjacent to the riparian zone that is part of parks land and that currently that area is actually um being utilized in encampment uh homeless encampment so it's um I think maximum flexibility there uh any additional conditions that is is what we're requesting thank you thank you Damon uh Chair Lazenby yes if I may um I'm seeing that the um parks director Jeff Gaffney is raising his hand as an attendee and I think um the commission may wish to hear from him um so shall I go ahead and ask that he be promoted to speak uh yes go ahead even though we've closed the public hearing but this would be part of the project team and I would say right okay um Jeff good morning morning thank you um so I was uh unfortunately I was in another meeting and wasn't able to hear all of the comments but I did just want to make sure if we're going to have a library project start to make determinations about what's done on the park land that we were involved in that decision making so it sounded like um a library project that we've worked collaboratively with was now making some determinations about what's happening on a park land so that was my concern um so happy to to entertain any questions or thoughts um I think that there's been um plenty of discussion on this already and um I wanted to say that um we are more than happy to try to um satisfy any concerns that are brought forward and I know it sounded like some of this was about a wall behind the community room and um some trees that we were concerned about we definitely have the ability on some of our park land back here that had a recent fire on it as well as the homeless encampment that we can definitely do some and should do some tree planting back there um and additionally we would never do anything to impact the riparian area if anything I think it would be important to embrace that riparian area in a very positive way so um I didn't know that the project was going to be split apart so I just wanted to jump in and see if that was something that needed further discussion. Thank you Commissioner Hobart. I don't want to over complicate this in terms of trying to protect the riparian area so I don't even know if we need to if it's considered splitting it apart but I don't think that that part of um any construction or anything should go ahead on um that building unless it returns to the planning commission or zoning administrator or whoever so that the public has ability to at least know what's going on and comment on it and make sure that it's happening so whatever the simplest way to do that is the way that I would like to do it and I don't know whether it just means changing the operational conditions I am concerned that when we talk about it it's sort of like well we don't know what's going to happen we don't know what we're going to do it's all just theoretical at this stage that's what concerns me so I just want to make sure that we do protect that area and I would look to staff to come up with some language there. I guess I would just I wanted to share the fact that the homeless encampment was able to be developed back there was partly because the wall is there and so if we're able to embrace the riparian area and protect it more visibly I think that was part of the concern for us and so you're right um it is not necessarily clearly outlined what we would do but um definitely we want to improve the riparian corridor and protect it and do a better job of that so that's part of what we're trying to accomplish here um so I I just wanted I don't want to overly discuss I don't want to discuss this too much but um I feel like the the intentions that we spent the last couple of years working on here are being sort of misconstrued and also that we we're now sharing that explaining the project apart concerns me I I'm going to defer to Damon and he's going to tell me whether or not this makes sense or not. Well I I don't you know I don't I don't see that this is I think we're it's kind of you're overblowing what's what I'm asking for here it okay it's just because there are no plans and that's been people have testified we don't really know what we're going to do we don't really know what the design is we really don't know about the wall we think we're going to keep the wall let's have some certainty before we move ahead with this project that's all I'm asking it's not it's not trying to interfere in parks business or anything like that just let's do it right. Shae, if you're afraid is commissioner? I would support a motion made by either commissioner Holbert or commissioner Sheridan since it's in your district I believe supporting having it come back to the planning commission rather than a ministerial changing operational condition A1 so that it comes back that's what I understood commissioner Holbert that you're suggesting. Yes. So I just wanted to say I would support if a motion was made in that direction would that be a motion for the entire matter to come back? No just for condition on page 10 condition A1 instead of coming back ministerially that it come back to the planning commission which I assume would be a public hearing yes it would be just for that section of the project. Now I'd be happy to make that motion and I believe that our planner had discussed what actual level it would be coming back as so I don't if it's not ministerial and you want to have a public hearing what would that be staff would need to explain that possibly. If I may it sounds like the idea of it being under these master site plan approvals oftentimes if there is acceptance that things could move forward and there weren't the concerns that have been raised we would review those as either a ministerial building permit sounds like that is not acceptable or a level four which would be an administrative review with public notice it does not sound like that is what the commission is asking for so staff recommends with the request made by Holbert and others that the operational condition Roman numeral for A1 of beginning on page 10 be modified to delete the portion that says maybe processed ministerially as a building permit and replace that language with shall return to the planning commission for review of the design. Great yeah that we put that I'm not well practiced at this but that sounds appropriate if somebody wanted to try to reword that well why can't we just adopt his language it's good you want to read it out again and we'll make it into a motion I'll just read the whole condition Roman numeral A1 it would read the review of the design and construction of the childcare area proposed in the second phase of the project shall return to the planning commission for review of the design and then it goes on to say about the architectural style and character but that doesn't seem to be of a concern yeah and it and it uses the language would not be ministerial delete stuff that's struck great and replaced by shall return to the planning commission for review of the design or the project design yeah that part works for me I would second that as a motion okay oh in favor I'd like to just um would it be okay with maker the motion be to determine that the proposal is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and approve application 201354 based on the attached findings with the revision of operation condition A1 as as described by staff okay would that be acceptable would you want to make commission or share it yeah can we read that one more time please okay um that we determined that the proposal is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act this is under staff recommendations page three and approval of application number 201354 based on the attached findings and conditions except that operating condition a dash a point one will be revised so that it's not a ministerial but it will be brought back to the planning commission um I'm confused why the language would say would not have an environmental review because all projects have to be environmentally reviewed don't they through county uh general plan they have to meet general plan and they need I don't know is that normal to put that in there that they wouldn't have an environmental review correct the commission is tasked with accepting the determination that this proposal is exempt from further review under the Environmental Quality Act that doesn't mean it was not reviewed looked at or considered under those provisions it's just determined to be exempt from further review uh right and the um so if you were to expand if you were to expand the wall how does that could be an environmental impact how how does how is that managed so the way this is lining up now with a return to the planning commission it's essentially getting rid of the phasing for the project it's maybe approving it in concept for that second phase but basically the phase two project will be a whole another level six application planning commission review public hearing and we'll look at that for environmental impacts my assumption is that the placement of the wall if it's done in a similar manner as it's been done previously would not trigger further environmental review would likely be exempt as well but we would not make that determination until plans were before us which is it sounds like what your commission would like to see that's correct um if any other commissioners want to weigh in on that to help i'm a little bit not up to speed on how it's done so if any other commissioners want to weigh in i think i think it's um the way to go okay thank you i'm good can we call the question so do we have us do we have a second chair i have the motion made by commissioner shared in second thank you all the question okay all in favor hi hi raise your hand uh you can't see me so i'm raising my hand okay thank you so the motion carries and the um so this would be exempt from further we're keeping that language right further sequel review yep we call the question on the motion as proposed right okay so that takes care of item number eight on the agenda thank you by the way for letting me jump in i appreciate it oh thank you and thank everyone who participated in this we always need um the public's input as well before we make decisions on these so on item number nine do we have a planning director and uh chairman can we take a break it's 11 13 well we only have three items okay yeah just the three okay following along yeah planning director's report um chair i see that payah levine uh has her hand raised so um waltz can you please uh promote payah good morning payah good morning is she muted it appears she dropped out here hi can you hear us oh she's muted you're muted thank you good morning i just wanted to respond to the uh to the item there's no specific planning director's report today i just wanted the commissioners to know that um i've been present sitting in for happy during the hearing thank you thank you and a report on upcoming meeting dates and agendas um yes chair we um the next scheduled meeting date is july 28th and we do not have any items uh scheduled for that hearing so it appears we'll be canceling that that hearing date um so the next scheduled uh hearing would be august 11th and so far we do not have reservations for that um hearing date but i will keep you posted as to whether or not we will um hold a meeting on that date so july 28th will be canceled um and i just wanted to let the planning commission know that we are working on bringing uh live um in person planning commission hearings back to the board chambers um we hope to um retain the call in the phone in component for the public so michael lamb and i will be working with our um it department to um put together a hybrid type meeting um model um and we're shooting for september of this year for bringing the planning commission back to the chambers but i will definitely be sending some emails to the planning commissioners to um keep the commission abreast of our plans and field any concerns and make adjustments as necessary i just wanted to let you know it looks like the board is coming back to the chambers and in person meetings in um august as i understand it and that is that is all from the planning department okay thank you and county council to report good morning chair and commissioners um i wanted to comment on a couple things that i witnessed this morning and um just to clarify a couple things i think the chair had asked me right before the meeting about the consent item and i think there was some confusion over how that proceeded this morning so i think in the future what we'll do is just once we come up to the consent item on the agenda we will have a a roll call vote on that item i i sent the chair a follow-up email on this i don't think it was received in time um but just to avoid any confusion in the future we'll do a um a vote on the consent item and you know had there been any public comment on that consent item we may have had to rescind the motion and actually revote but there were no public comments on that consent item so all went well and then the other comment that i had was um since we're doing this virtually and i don't how much longer we're going to be doing these meetings virtually it always helps to have a roll call vote rather than a voice or hand raised vote just for a just for the record it's it's a lot easier to distinguish who's voting on what and who's making the motion so that is all i have and i wish you a very good week thanks thank you youtube so that includes our meeting and um i want to express appreciation for all the it people who've helped out in this and just as we're almost getting used to this i guess we're going to go back to in person but i would call the meeting call the meeting adjourn thank you all thank you all bye thank you