 All right. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for today's planning commission meeting. Today's date is February 22nd, 2023. And the time is 939 a.m. I apologize for the late start this morning. We had some connectivity issues. As everybody can see today's meeting is completely remote via zoom. And there are a couple of ways to participate in today's meeting. If your computer is equipped with a microphone, it is recommended that you participate via the planning commission zoom meeting link, which is posted on the planning department's home page at scco planning.com. Alternatively, if your computer is not equipped with a microphone, you may provide comment by telephone. The phone number is 669-444-9171. When prompted, please enter collaboration code 814-8152-8029. And this information is also posted on the planning department web page. Today, during key points in the meeting, time will be provided for members of the public to provide their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either remotely raise your hand by selecting the hand icon on the zoom link, or if calling him by telephone by remotely raising your hand by pressing star nine on your telephone. I will call on participants by either your name or the last four digits of your telephone number. 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 six. If at any time you have difficulty connecting to today's meeting via the zoom link or you forget the phone number. Please email our support staff Nick Brown at Nicholas dot brown at Santa Cruz County dot us. He is checking his email periodically throughout the meeting and he will alert me that someone is trying to connect and we'll take a quick break. All right, and with those instructions, I will turn it over to the planning commission chair Tim Gordon. Good morning Tim. Good morning Jocelyn. Thank you. Thank you for that great intro and welcome back everyone to planning commission first one in 2023. Excited for a good year ahead of us. And looking forward to some good meetings here so we've got where can we go ahead and open up today's planning commission hearing with a roll call mystery. I was just promoting Denise it looks like she has been promoted. Okay, Commissioner shepherd. I'm here now. All right, I'm getting feedback. Okay Renee you may want to try calling in. I did, I get I got Renee for the commissioner shepherd side for roll call so I'll move on. And Commissioner Holbert. You are muted. Here. Good morning. Nice to see you. Nice to see you. Commissioner Villalente. Yeah. And chair Gordon. Here. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I agenda item two on our agenda was election of officers. I think we might have a little bit of transition there potentially. What, how do we want to handle that? I was going to recommend that the planning commission consider continuing this item or rescheduling it for the March hearing because we do currently have a vacant seat on the planning commission. I think that was also one of our commissioners wasn't unable to participate today. So that was just a recommendation. I don't know if the planning commission would like to have discussion. Okay. Any discussion by any commissioners thoughts. I'm sorry, but I'm getting huge reverb. Renee, are you by chance connected on to devices or. Yeah, actually. Right. If you're committed, if you're connected on to devices that can happen. You might need to mute on one. And that might solve it. Originally called Renee, as she was logging in and she was on on the phone as well logged in. So I think she can hang up and just remain online on the computer on one device and it should be successful now. Thank you, Nick. Okay, can you hear me now. Much better. Yes. Unfortunately, I cannot hear you. That's why I called in. Okay. I can't hear what you're saying unless I call you back. Can, can we take a quick break to get this figured out and then come back. Okay, yes. Let's just take a two minute recess. I'll, I'll give commissioners shepherd a call. We'll have her call in. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we'll reconvene at 947. Thank you. 947. And let's see if we have a name on. Doesn't appear so. We just want to hang tight. Miss Drake till we see her name pop up and then reconvene. We do have a quorum so you can continue. Okay. I think she's supposed to be calling in. So when she does, I'll promote her. Or. Or you can take a break. I think. I think we can just go ahead and move on. I'm sure that we can get her in here. In short order. So. She's going in right now. Yep. Okay. Okay, great. Well, there she is. Renee, can you hear us now. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I mean, she's just continue the conversation while she's getting that figured out. So we are again, just for clarity. We're on agenda item number two election of officers and discussing whether or not we want to postpone this. Agenda item till a later date and any commissioners have any thoughts on that? And you hear me. I think you just should do it next month. I mean, there's only three of us. And I'm, this is my swan song here. So. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right. If that's the case and then we could use a motion on the item. Renee, just to clarify. Yes, we can hear you. If you have any thoughts on that item. And I'm one. Two is going to be the last. She saw. Renee, can you hear us? I don't visit. I'll go since I just want to make sure Renee can hear us, but I don't disagree. Commissioner Holbert, but we have. One commissioner absent and. Another alternate present tonight and apparently commissioner. Shepherd having difficulty participating. I feel like it'd be difficult to make a decision for a year long seat with so. So few of us present. Agreed. I think that that makes the most sense to move this along and. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Preconvene on this item on the next agenda. So I apologize to commissioner Shepherd, but I guess I agree commissioner Holbert. I'll be happy to make a motion unless commissioner Holbert. I see if I need it. If you'd like to. Oh. Well, I move that we reconsider this in the March. March. Do we have a March date? I think you can just say the next available meeting. Okay. It looks like it's going to be March eight. I second that motion. Great. We have a motion and a second. And. Ms. straight. Can we do roll call vote on this, please? Yes. Commissioner Vialante. Yes. Commissioner Holbert. Yes. And chair Gordon. Yes. Thank you. And. Renee, are you there? Can you hear us? Okay. Renee's having some connectivity issues with her audio. She, she can't hear. She's telling me on the phone that she can't hear. Okay. I see her. Or she can hear, but she can't. She needs to be unmuted. I asked. CTV staff to promote. Renee to panelists. She's calling in at five, nine, one, two. Can we please promote her? Yes. We can promote her then and just leave her. Unmuted like they do when someone tries to make public comment for us then. Yes. I just asked her to. Unmute. Okay. Commissioner shepherd. If you'd like to just unmute yourself. Pressing stars six. We'll just. Have you unmute. Good morning. Commissioner shepherd. You don't really need to postpone it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. There's something wrong that I can hear you, but you can't hear me without reverb on the computer. Never happened before. So I don't know why. Okay. You just find now. Good. So let's proceed. Okay. So. We're. On item number three. That correct chair. Correct. Thank you. All right. We will move on additions and corrections to the agenda. Do we have any today, Ms. No, there are none. Okay. Great. Thank you. And then item number four declaration of expert aid communications. Do have any commissioners that have anything to declare today? Okay. Thank you. With that, we can move on to agenda item number five or communications. This is the time of the hearing where members of the public have the ability to speak on items that are not on today's agenda. Ms. Drake, do we have anyone that would like to speak today? Okay. And if we have callers who would like to make a comment on any. Subject not on today's agenda, please raise your hand by pressing star nine. And I am not seeing any chairs. I'll turn it back over to you. Okay. Great. Thank you. We can go ahead and close oral communications at this time. Okay. And just want to thank the members that are of the public that are on today for. Being patient with us while we kind of clean the rust off. Being gone for a little bit. So. Next agenda item consent item. Number six, AB 361 resolution. So resolution to continue virtual planning commission meetings. And be looking for a motion and a second on that. Can I ask a question? When are we going to have the option to resume live meetings? Commissioner Shepard, maybe I should jump in on that one. Live meetings are essentially the mandatory rules starting in March. There are some provisions that allow for remote meetings under certain exceptional circumstances, which we can discuss if those circumstances arise. But you should essentially assume that. The old blood brown act rules about remote meetings are in effect. Effective March. And your meetings will be in person in life. So we're training on March eight. So this resolution is for the month of February. Since we didn't meet early February. I see. Okay. Okay. Any other further questions? None. Would any commissioner. Like to make a motion. I believe we need to do it a public comment. Did we do that? For consent items. We don't have public comment. I apologize. I didn't know we were on concern. Yeah. Sorry. This is consent agenda. We can move it to public comment if desired. That someone can make this motion. But then I approved the recommended actions. I just didn't see it on consent. Okay. Thank you. And so. We have a second. Commissioner Holbert. Appreciate that. Can we have a motion to second? Can we please have a roll call? Vote in a streak. Commissioner shepherd. Yeah. Commissioner Villante. Yes. Commissioner Holbert. Yes. And chair Gordon. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That passes. And we can move on to our scheduled agenda items. The first one being approval of minutes from December 14th. Planning commission hearing. Okay. Any members of the commission have any questions or discussion on the minutes? Okay. Hearing none. I'm going to go ahead and just make a motion to approve the minutes from the December 14th hearing. I can't hold on. And I have to. Correct. Just a point of clarity. Jocelyn for the rules that we operate under. Can the chair make a motion in the PC? Or maybe that's a question to Justin. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely as possible. It's not often done because. Not a respect to let the other commissioners. Go forward, but that's possible. Yeah. In the board of civil rights, if they can't. So she wanted to clarify. Gotcha. I didn't know that. So it's still learning. Good to know. Even two years. Yeah. I do. And then I would second your motion. Chair Gordon. Thank you. Mr. Thank you. Mr. Can we have a roll call vote on that, please? All right. Commissioner shepherd. Yeah. Commissioner Villalante. Yes. And chair Gordon. Yes. And as commissioner Holbert stated, she will abstain. Since she was not present. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We can move to agenda. Item number eight. This is application number 211 192. Located at 1000 Bonnie June road and 443 Smith grade road. It's a proposal to transfer a hundred. Approximately 105 acres to another parcel. And reason it to TP. Mr. Do we have the staff. Present for a presentation and applicant available. We have Evan. From the planning division with us to present on this item. And if we could please load the PowerPoint for his item, that would be a wonderful. Good morning, Evan. Good morning. Just to clarify, can you guys hear me? Okay. Yes. Okay. Great. So good morning. My name is Evan. I'm the project planner for application 211 192. The applicant is David. David Ketchel of North Coast remediation. And the owner is North Coast LLC. And next slide, please. Both parcels are located in Bonnie Dune. Approximately 2.3 miles from the highway one and Bonnie Dune road intersections. The larger parcel is located. At 1000 Bonnie Dune road and spans eastward to Smith grade. The site totals 253 acres and was historically used as a limestone quarry. But is presently used by Joby aviation. The smaller parcel is northeast of the quarry parcel and takes access from Smith grade. The site is presently vacant. And has never been developed. But a timber harvest did occur in 1980. And next slide, please. The larger parcel was last mined in 2010. And is currently in the reclamation process. The site is primarily zoned M3, which is mineral extraction industrial. Except for two portions of the property, totaling approximately 1.4 acres, which are zoned agricultural and residential agricultural. The entirety of the project site, it does have a mountain presidential general plan designation. And the eastern portion of the project site. Was was not part of the mind area. Next slide, please. The smaller parcel is 48 acres. It's located on the north side of Smith grade. It is zoned TP across the entirety of the parcel TP being timber production zoning. And most of the site has a mountain residential general plan designation. But there is a 0.05 acre portion of the site, which has a rural residential general plan designation. It is vacant, undeveloped. And as I mentioned, it was last harvested. It's circa 1980. Next slide, please. So this proposed project. Involves two approvals, both of which are represented by the shaded area in the. Involved area. And then we'll go back to the graphic on the screen. The first approval is a lot line adjustment to transfer 105 acres from the quarry. To the vacant timber parcel. Following the lot line adjustment. The area of land transferred would be rezoned. To timber production. And that would result in a quarry parcel. Reducing from 253 acres to 148 acres. To 153 acres. Next slide, please. So the first part of the approval is the lot line adjustment. And lot line adjustments do not typically require planning commission approval. The majority of lot line adjustment applications are processed administratively. As level three applications in the planning department. But planning staff felt that it was imperative to couple the lot line adjustment approval. And that was the only way to do that. And that was the only way to do that. With the rezoning. Because although. The proposal fully complies with our county lot line adjustment regulations. The resulting split zoning with half of the parcel zone. M3 and half of the parcel zone for timber production. Would present a limited and complicated land use pattern. However. The split zoning is not precluded by cap by county code. And the only way to do that is to have a minimum parcel size. And the minimum parcel size. For a lot line adjustments. A big part of the discussion is centered around. Minimum parcel sizes. And the minimum parcel size. For an M3 parcel is described as. The minimum economic unit. Required for mineral extraction. And given that there is no mineral extraction occurring at the site. Now we're in the future. The parcel does not have a minimum parcel size. And the only way to do that is to have a minimum parcel size. And the only way to do that is to have a minimum parcel size. And the minimum parcel size adjustment would be to rezone the shaded area. In the graphic to match timber production zoning. Of the adjacent parcel. This type of adjacency rezoning is facilitated by government code. Which allows a parcel, which is not zoned. TP. But is contiguous with an under the same ownership. As a TP zone parcel. We have a01 forest unit. Among the short list of requirements to qualify for this type of zoning. The applicant needs to provide a plan prepared by a forester. The parcel needs to meet a minimum stocking standard. And the existing uses on the parcel must be compatible with the uses allowed in the TP zone district. Now importantly about this government code section is that it additional requirements on an application for a timber production adjacency rezoning. Next slide please. Some additional considerations on this project are detailed here. The lot line adjustment is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the rezoning to TP is statutorily exempt. The second note is that future uses that are not proposed on this application on either parcel including the remaining quarry parcel would be independent of this application and subject to their own discretionary review and this approval does not authorize any development beyond the rezoning. And finally the basis of this application is the acknowledgement that the site does not have a future as a mineral extraction industrial parcel. The quarry is decommissioned and under reclamation. The county code does not provide explicit direction for the succession of zoning from a decommission quarry but this proposed application is supported by staff and that's a reasonable and practical use of the non-mined portion of the site. Next slide please. Therefore the recommended actions for your commission to take are to adopt the attached resolution which is exhibit G of the staff report, sending a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for approval of application 211192 and to adopt the ordinance rezoning the property to timber production and that ordinance is exhibit H. And next slide please. That concludes my presentation and I am available for questions. Great. Thank you Mr. Dittmars. I appreciate it. Reminded how well your team all does, takes complicated things and makes them easy to understand for us. So I really appreciate that. Do any members of the commission have any questions for Mr. Dittmars at this time? Yes. Commissioner Holbert. I believe you're muted there. I have a question about the applicant is able to do this because he owns both parcels. So I'm just interested in in the future if he can he sell off one parcel? I mean, does it all have to be under one owner or it's just the first time that you do this? Yeah, it should be retained under one ownership. It is retained under one ownership currently. But there is nothing in the code that can allow us to requirement that it be retained that way. Once the lot line adjustment is completed, it will be one parcel and it cannot be split and sold off again. So the approval of the lot line adjustment will create one parcel and it won't be able to be further subdivided for a number of reasons, including our subdivision regulations for timber production parcels. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Villalante. And Mr. Dittmars, I wonder if you can talk about the adjacency here because I know that's a key component of the rezoning. And I I don't want to make assumptions about the intention of the code. But I I'm hoping you can speak. I assume that the reason for the adjacency regulation has to do with the the minimization of impacts of the timber production by allowing these parcels to be joined. But I noticed that the adjacency here is I think it's about 200 feet. And it and it also crosses a county roadway. And so I wonder if perhaps you could speak to what the regulations consider adjacency and the intention there and our leeway or or if there is any or if it's something that because it's adjacent, it's adjacent. If you could just speak to those and that's kind of a lot of questions. But if you could speak to that that be helpful. No, I agree. I can't speak to the intention of the code. But in in this government code section, they do define contiguous. And it's defined as two or more parcels of land that are adjoining or neighboring or are sufficiently near to each other as determined by the Board of Counsel that they are manageable as one forest unit. So there isn't a requirement that they are, you know, don't have a separation such as such as a roadway, which they do have. They are just separated by by narrow roadway. And I can't speak for for the intention of that code. But the forester's letter supports this proposal as the two parcels capable of being managed as one unit. I'm sorry, you said that they determined as vacancy by I'm sorry, what type of council can you I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. Yeah, sorry. It simply says as determined by the Board of Counsel, which would be which I believe would just be the planning commission itself in this case. This is this is referenced directly from the government code section. So are you telling me then that the planning commission has the authority to determine that these parcels are not adjacent? Yes. And actually, there is clarification. Board means the Board of Supervisors of a county or city and county, whether general law or charter, which establishes or proposes to establish timberland production zone pursuant to this chapter. So I believe the interpretation we can ask county council to weigh in that the board can make the determination that these two parcels are sufficiently near to each other to be managed as a single forest unit. Can I ask a question? Do you mind if I just I just finished my my train of thought real quick commissioner Shepard. I'm right. I'm on the phone. So I don't have any sense of anything. Go ahead. No, no problem. I just and perhaps council could weigh in here because I was under the impression that this was not something so it would be really helpful for my clarity. I thought the code was pretty strict here. So perhaps Mr. Graham could weigh in that is it within the planning commissions authority or is it simply within the board's authority to determine adjacency. I was under the impression that if they touched and if it was determined by a forest or they could be managed as one, this was kind of not within our authority to determine this definition. And so it would be helpful for me if someone could provide that clarity because this this is new information for me. This differs from my impression from the staff report. Yeah. And I did want to clarify the parcels. Do you physically touch? There is a road barrier between the two parcels, but it's Smith grade isn't isn't very wide at all. I mean, you can quickly walk across that road. But yeah, I just want would like to weigh in about the approving body. And this this is in reference to a government code section 51104. Admittedly, this is a somewhat new code section for me. But it appears under the government code that it does 51104B actually does the best the board of or council, which apparently was delegated to the planning commission here, the authority to determine that something is manageable by as a single forest unit, which is a prerequisite to to the lot line adjustment that's being proposed and 51113.5 also talks about a petition, which also would suggest that there is some degree of discretion invested in the approving body. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I may have I'm going to sit with this. This is new. I may have additional questions. I thank you. Commissioner Shepard, I'm done with my line of questions for now. Thank you. Commissioner Shepard. I really didn't have any questions. I'm just saying when the TP zoning was changed some time ago, we saw dozens of these. So I know it's something we haven't looked at before, but I've certainly seen a lot of these requests in the past. And this seems to fall into the same scope as lots that we have that the planning commission has approved over time. When we change TP zoning rules, so I would like to receive to the public hearing if there's no other questions. Okay, thank you for that. Good to know some history there. I appreciate that. I had a couple of just thoughts. And one question on that. Is this going to the board? It is correct. Okay, so I'm making a recommendation. Yeah, okay. That's good to know. And then just, you know, can't say the intent of this law in particular, but a lot of new housing laws in particular consider parcels contiguous, even if they are across streets. And so I think that's something that we kind of see often. So I personally am not concerned about that. In this case, either. So any other questions or comments, or we can go ahead and move on to well, actually, let me start there. Any questions or comments from the commissioners or staff? I think we got them all. Great. Ms. Drake, is the applicant available today or do they have a presentation that they would like to do or give or are we going to move to public comment directly? The applicant is David Getchell. I see he's present. Okay. Yes, I see David's hand is raised. Good morning, David. Please unmute yourself and state your name for the record. I'm muted. Can everybody hear me? Yes, good morning. Fantastic. Yeah, my name is David Getchell. I'm the owner's rep for this project and really all of the North Coast LLC lands. And thanks so much for getting us on the agenda today. And I don't have a big presentation, but I am available for any questions you have. I would like to state just for the previous discussion, as a matter of clarification, the division between the two parcels we're speaking of is actually not divided by Smith Grade Road. Smith Grade Road goes through the upper, you call it the northeast section of a small portion of the large parcel we're talking about. And the parcels actually do touch North of Smith Grade Road for, I don't have the footage down here, but it's two to 300 feet, something like that, but they actually do touch. So technically, they're not divided by Smith Grade Road, just as a point of clarification. And I think on the map, I think you may have all got a large format map printed that it's kind of easy to see that section. So I guess I would ask if anybody has any questions about that particular point when I'm open for that or any other questions anybody has. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Getchell. I appreciate that. And I just pulled up the big map that we have and I do see what you're talking about. So I appreciate that clarification. And any other, do any other commissioners have questions for Mr. Getchell before we move on to public hearing? Okay, great. Let's go ahead and open up the public comment portion of this agenda item. Ms. Drake, do we have any other or any of the members of the public that would like to speak? Okay. So if you would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand by pressing star nine on your telephone or using the hand icon on the zoom app. I am not seeing any. Chair, I'll turn it back over to you. Okay, great. Then we can go ahead and close the public comment at this time and bring this back to the commission for deliberation. Do any commissioners have any further discussion or questions that they'd like to start with? I don't have any questions. And just to move it along, I will put a motion on the table to approve staff recommendation that seems in line with zoning and the state board's forestry intentions. It's obviously forest land. There's no mineral extraction. It seems reasonable to have it be securely in a timber zone where it will be managed well. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Shepard. We do have a motion and we look okay. Commissioner Olver, we have a motion at second. Do we have any discussion before we move to a vote? I actually have a note to make before a vote is made. I don't know if that's out of procedure here. Well, let's hear it and then we'll figure out what the procedure is. The applicant did raise an issue with one of the conditions of approval that was placed on the staff report. It's on page 11 of the staff report is condition of approval for. The condition of approval requires them to record a declaration of restriction acknowledging the parcel's non-buildability. This is a standard format for us to record as a lot line adjustment when a parcel's buildability has not been established. They are concerned that this conveys that the parcel to never be buildable in perpetuity and that is not the intention of that declaration. The format for that declaration acknowledges that is deemed unbuildable until the required technical studies are presented to establish the buildability and so he requested some clarification on the staff report and we are amenable to just extrapolating on that condition to add a sentence at the end of that condition for to say that the declaration shall remain on title until such a time that technical studies are submitted and buildability established and that the condition is not intended to preclude the site from any development and this gives the this does not foreclose the opportunity for development that would otherwise be allowed on a timber production parcel. Well, my comment is it's very unusual. The applicant had an opportunity to put this forward in generally speaking if you want a change or a modification to what you're proposing that time to bring it up is before the Planning Commission. I want to ask County Council if he's really going to start bringing up applicants' objections to every proposal on their behalf. I mean if that's the applicant needs to say that if that's what a change he wanted. Commissioner Shepard, was that a question if I'm bringing up applicants' objections? Commissioner Shepard, you might not be able to see this but that was Mr. Ditmars that brought that up, the planner. Correct, I'm sorry I know you don't have visual aid here but yeah I'm Evan Ditmars I'm the project planner and this was something that the applicant did ask me to to address and I did not bring that up in the end of my presentation and I wanted to clarify it before a vote was made by your commission. I apologize no I can't I am not looking seeing anything. If this is a standard language we've applied to many many other parcels asking for a lot of adjustments to be included in TPC I would be hesitant about adding it to this one. If you're saying that that is the way the law works then they could find that out at the time at such time as they wanted to think about looking at those technical studies but I don't are you sure you really want to agree to advocate making new language for this application when we've never done it on other applications and beside if they inquired they could find out that what you just said is the case. This is not typically included as part of the timber production rezoning it's more part of our lot line adjustment applications this is something that we can either make a buildability determination before we adjust the parcel boundaries or we can reserve that determination to a future date for example if the applicant hasn't prepared the technical studies geology or the septic suitability for a site they can basically defer that in the future but we require a deed restriction to acknowledge that just because we are adjusting the parcel boundaries we are not certifying the parcel suitable for development and in this case that determination has not been made and our code would say to make to make that declaration it's noted in the findings for the lot line adjustment and as I mentioned this this ability to provide technical studies and rescind the declaration is described in the format of the declaration of restriction but the applicant's concern was that the plain text read of condition 4 makes it sound like we are determining this parcel to be not buildable in perpetuity and he did say I admit but if they came into the planning department and say what about this you would say what you have just just stated and beside it while it's in tpz it's not buildable anyway so I don't I don't see why we should change the way you've always done it there there is some potential for buildability on tp parcels it's very limited it has to be consistent with with the timber production operation which is going to be the primary use of the site but there are ancillary use is allowed and again the interest of the owner was to um to ensure that they do not condemn the site to uh perpetual non-buildability um any forest or worth assault would be able to make sure that the owner knew that that's part of the management practice I just don't see me uh sorry I'm sorry I don't care whatever other commissioners feel is fine I have a just a comment yeah commissioner holbert I just just didn't leave it the way it is it um if it if we're worried about what's going to happen here I would have liked a lot more not that I would like to know a lot more about what they're thinking about so it just seems um that we would have needed more information about what kinds of uses they were going to use and how and use it for and what kind of building and so forth so I don't see any reason for changing it I think there should have been more work done if that's what they wanted I understand thank you for that input and that is you know the direction from the motion in the second or so um commissioner vlonti did you have any discussion on this before we move to vote I mean it sounds to me like both the maker of the motion in the second there I'm willing I apologize I understand you know consider that Mars willingness to accommodate the applicant um but it sounds like even his recommendation wouldn't change the intent and so we have a motion in the second neither which are willing to incorporate this so I I think that's where we're at and so we should yeah okay I understand I appreciate that I did have one just clarifying question to kind of together in my own head though I have in the this is regarding the lot line split right not the tp zones that's what you said not the reason excuse me and so what you're saying is that this means that the new parcel added to the old parcel hasn't been studied for buildability as to what is required under the tp zoning so we can't guarantee that whatever the code currently says will apply as far as development activities so that makes total sense to me is there any way to and maybe not for this one because the you know I wouldn't be the one that changing the motion necessarily but is there any way to adjust it to where that restriction is only on the new proposed added portion of land as opposed to the entire parcel or does it run it's a de restriction that runs with like the apn and you can't do anything about that right the lot line adjustment will create one will create one parcel so it is going to be on the d for the one parcel okay that's okay that's okay the way it's worded I think yeah okay understood thank you I just wanted to know that and just from out of principle I totally understand conditions of approval are tricky enough from an applicant side it's hard to you don't have a lot of time often to like think about or understand how those could get changed and so on a case by case basis I do see the need at times to adjust them in the planning commission hearing so I'm definitely not opposed to that out of principle but I agree on this one that if we haven't done the studies we can't go forward and say that it's you know buildable in some other way that would be putting us at risk as a county for approving something in my opinion that maybe we didn't study and I don't want to put us in that position so thank you for letting me think through that if there's any other comments I'd love to hear them otherwise we can move to a roll call vote on the matter okay hearing none mystery can we please have a roll call vote on this item yes uh commissioner holbert yes commissioner shepherd commissioner shepherd I think she went back into the I don't see her here anymore she's still on the attendee was her computer was on but her I think she was speaking through the phone and I don't see her cell phone here anymore oh I do right she's back on the attendee there she is five nine went to yeah thanks commissioner shepherd oh star six again Renee if you can hear us how about commissioner Villalante yes did you hear me now yes commissioner shepherd yay or nay uh yay and somebody muted me I didn't mute myself sorry and chair gordon yes did we get everybody yes motion passes okay thank you oh man we're real rusty we're gonna get this okay with that we can close agenda item number eight thank you Evan and move on to regular agenda items agenda item number nine planning directors report do we have a report today mr machado hello how are you yeah good morning thank you chair gordon yes I actually asked Stephanie Hanson to provide a quick update on our housing element so Stephanie I'll give it and I'll give the mic to you thanks Matt hi everybody um we are um feverishly engaged in the um housing element update um we need to accomplish a lot in a pretty short timeline the updates being run out of our policy division with support by our um our house policy section with support from the housing section um in December we released an RFP to seek technical assistance um and uh with from a consultant with expertise in housing elements and also in public engagement um we visited the board uh back when we visited the planning commission on this but we heard from the board um that they wanted a kind of a specific type of public engagement for this um one that's more intensive um and involves um more outreach so that you kind of create a citizens group of folks who are representational of the county's demographics so we're engaging in that process we're actually doing a two pronged approach on public engagement one is to create a stakeholders group of people who have an interest in housing in the county um develop you know in terms of developing housing um or are with an organization that promotes housing or as an affordable housing developer kind of thing um real estate agents so forth and then the the other piece is the citizens panel um that will reflect those um the county demographics and so that outreach is starting right away it might take a little bit um but then we'll be heading into a series of meetings for those two groups and then community meetings afterward um we're we're also looking at the schedule again um we think there may be benefit to releasing um a draft um in the summer um because there are guidelines and requirements that it be a public document before the initial draft goes to the state housing community development department um and we're taking a close look to make sure that we can um adopt the housing element on time in December so it's a big big lift for that those two groups um but we're we're working on it so that's that's the update for that one and that completes our report today thank you chair and commissioners but any questions if you have them thank you a lot of work coming up looking forward to helping out however we can so um any other commissioners have questions on that no okay all right we can go ahead and move on uh reporting upcoming meeting dates and agendas and straight do we have any reports there um yes so the next regularly scheduled meeting is March 8th and we have two reservation forms for that meeting date so it looks like you will be meeting we have a land division application and the general plan annual update scheduled um and as we mentioned earlier that meeting will be in the chambers um and we are going to retain a call in feature so that members of the public can call in with comments but it will not be a zoom meeting it will be a live in person meeting with the call in component so that's exciting um could be a few um a new little bit of a learning curve for us um returning to the chambers um so we've been doing a lot of testing and I'm looking forward to seeing everybody's face again and being all together in one room um and I do believe we have some reservation forms for the um second meeting is in March as well um so it looks like we'll be meeting both times in March so far but definitely on the 8th and that is all I have great sounds good looking forward to it I haven't been in the chambers yet I mean I was like a commissioner you know it's an applicant a long time ago but um yeah um you may have already answered this when I was dealing with trying to get in but um when do we elect new officers will that be at that meeting I will put it on the agenda um for March 8th okay and just so or I mean the practice has been before to just rotate correct however the next um appointee in the rotation would be would have been uh commissioner dan and that is going to be a newly appointed position I believe so well then I'll do respect to whoever takes it we ought to just do what we've done in the past which is give them a pass for a year well that's not it's not going to be that goes by district right so maybe we should and say that this is something that's been moved to the next agenda yeah thank you I was just gonna say that thank you so um we can have a discussion on it on March 8th great thank you all right um then last thing on today's agenda is the county council's report do you have a report today Mr. Graham uh nothing to report we already discussed AB 394 going away um so uh we will speak yes sorry 360 and uh we'll see you all in March wonderful great we did it made it through thank you everyone really appreciate it and um with that we can go ahead and close today's planning commission hearing and we will see you in March