 I'm going to go ahead and start the webinar. So we will end practice session. I ask everyone to mute their microphones and we'll let attendees in. Thank you. Thanks. All right, good morning. Thank you for joining us for today's planning commission meeting. Today's date is September 14, 2022. And today's meeting is completely remote via zoom. So we have a couple of different 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 homepage at sdcoplanning.com. Alternatively, if your computer is not equipped with a microphone, you may provide comment by telephone today to call in please dial one 669-900-6833. And when prompted, please enter collaboration code 814-815-28029. This information is also posted on the planning department homepage. So during key points in today's 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 raise your hand remotely by selecting the hand icon on the zoom link, or if you're calling in by telephone by remotely raising your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. I will call on participants by either your name or the last four digits of your telephone number. If you're participating via the zoom link when I call on you to speak, you'll see a pop up on your screen that says unmute, please accept the pop up, say your name for the record and provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone you must unmute yourself by pressing star six. And I'll remind everybody of these instructions as we move forward. And if at any time a member of the public has difficulty connecting to today's meeting, via the zoom link or by calling in via telephone, please email me at Jocelyn, which is J O C E L Y N dot Drake, dear a K E at Santa Cruz County dot US. I'll be checking my email periodically throughout the meeting and I can take a moment to assist you. All right, it looks like we are situated I see we have our commission with us this morning and when the chair, turn it over to the planning commission chair now, Tim Gordon, good morning Tim. Good morning Jocelyn and everyone thank you for the intro and thanks for everyone for joining us today today is September 14 2022 and we can now start the planning commission hearing for the day and call this meeting to order miss Drake could we please have a roll call. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Here. Commissioner Dan. Here. Commissioner Villalente. Here. Commissioner lasin be here. All right, and chair Gordon here. Thank you. All right, move on to our scheduled items today agenda item number two is additions and corrections to the agenda. Do we have any today, Mr. I know there are none. Okay, great. And then moving on to item number three declaration of ex parte communications do any commissioners have anything to declare today. Okay, I've received a few emails regarding today's sustainability update. And that's that's it for me. So, Okay, moving on to item number four oral communications this is the part of the hearing where members of the public could have the opportunity to speak on things that are not on the agenda today. Thank you. And I would like to speak at this time. Let me check. I see one hand raised. Sorry, my camera. I know what you're seeing right now. Just be really clear. So everyone who's going to raise their hand understands this is for things that are not on the agenda. So this, if you're going to raise your hand about sustainability update. That time will come to speak in a little bit. To speak and I am seeing one hand raised by Michael Lewis and Jean brocklebank. Good morning, please restate your name for the record. Good morning. Can you hear me. Yes, good morning. This is Michael Lewis I'm here with Jean brocklebank. I will be giving my comment and then Jean will follow with her comment for her own time after I'm finished on the same connection. I want to talk to the commission today about the committee, the planning commission agenda. The agenda does not contain instructions for public participation for these remote teleconference meetings on the agenda itself. You'll notice at the top of their agenda in all caps. Please follow the instructions that will be posted on the planning department's web page. And it gives the URL for the planning department webpage. That is not a clickable link. So someone has to know to copy that URL and paste it into their browser in order to get to the planning commission, the planning department web page. But that doesn't do any good anyway because the planning department web page does not have instructions for public participation. For the planning commission meeting. In fact, there is no link on the planning department web page to the planning commission web page. The link that's on the planning department web page. If you know what to click on is to the sustainability update, not to instructions for public participation for general planning commission meetings. And the this new sustainability update update pages are on a new website that is not accessible to people who have older computers with older operating systems. For some reason, it requires the very latest operating system and browsers in order to get to that. But it doesn't help the public at all in getting to these meetings. So what I'm asking you to today is to please direct the planning department staff to include specific instructions for public participation in planning commission meetings on each and each agenda and to add that link to the planning commission web page on to the planning department home page so that we can have full and easy access for all members of the public who wish to take part in planning commission meetings. Thank you. Now Jean Brocklebank will have your own time. Okay, we'll reset the timer for two minutes for Jean. Are you. Time to begin. Sure, go ahead and start. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners planning commissioners two things. First, I want to address presentations in general to the planning commission and ask the commission chair to instruct all participants at all participants at commission meetings, including planning department staff to speak slowly enough so that their words don't fly over the heads of everyone in attendance at this meeting. I had a lot of difficulty at the August 24 meeting in that regard. Secondly, I'd also like to ask, I'd like the planning commission to consider requesting that the county's fish and wildlife commission be given the same opportunity as the planning commission to engage publicly at its own meeting with the planning department on the proposed amendments to chapter five of the general plan before the before the matter goes to the board of supervisors. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jean. Okay, I saw an additional hand raised. So I will call on phone number last four digits 2915. Good morning. Please state your name for the record. You have two minutes. This is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning, Becky. Thank you. Good morning. I had a bit of difficulty finding the link this morning and tuned in just in time to hear the two previous speakers very. Addressing the very issue that I want to say as well, public access is very difficult to find and they're not on the website, not on the agenda. I had to guess how to raise my hand on the telephone for this call this morning and because I attend a lot of zoom meetings, I guess the right number. So it needs to be on the agenda, each and every agenda as I, I really was disappointed that the September 1st inter special meeting was canceled due to technical difficulty. I had rearranged my complete schedule for the day. I think others from the public had as well and it was decided by the commissioners and staff that that would be a workable day. When I was not able to get on to the meeting, it was not starting. I was sending messages to Ms. Hansen to Mr. Lamb to other people. I thought that might be on the call. And curiously, I received an automatic response message from Ms. Hansen that she was out of the office and I, I understand that things come up. I am hoping that that is not why the September 1st meeting was canceled. But I hope that this commission will schedule another meeting. This is all being very rushed in my opinion. The EIR was not given an extension of time as I requested. And I think others did. The, the whole process is being rushed. And, and for what reason, that's my big question. I don't know why is this being rushed. I applied for Fish and Wildlife. I would also like to ask the Water Advisory Commission also weigh in on this, as well as the Housing Advisory Commission. Thank you. Okay. Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak at this time to provide comment on a subject not on the agenda? The sustainability update is what is on the agenda today. So if you wish to speak on that item, we will revisit later in the meeting. Okay. Chair, I'm not seeing additional hands raised. I'll turn it back over to you. And you're muted. Thank you. Great. Thank you for that. Thank you for the public comment. We appreciate that. And, and I would like to remind everyone that this item does go to the Board of Supervisors. And so while, you know, we, we are all, you know, we all wish we could have met on the first unfortunately it didn't happen. But there'll be additional time if, if we, you know, don't get through everything today, we might have another hearing, but we're going to see. However, if that doesn't happen and we do get through everything today, then yeah, just as a reminder, it goes to the Board for more input. Commissioner Chair? Yes. Gordon, I wonder, could staff just fix the agenda links so they work a little better. I think that that's a very frustrating experience for people and it wouldn't take much. I can look into making some changes to the agenda, but actually it's, it's challenging to create links on the agenda, because it would be a URL, it wouldn't be a hot, you know, it wouldn't be an active link. So somebody would be required to cut and paste. I, we haven't been able to troubleshoot that we do have the link that is directly accessible to the meeting posted on the website under planning commission meetings. Why not just add the words cut and paste this link. We could. That's easy enough to do and then it would be clear. We can do that. Instead we just provide the actual email or the web link that actually has the active link so a decision was made in the past that that would be easier for the public to utilize but we can definitely take a look at that. I will look at making some improvements where we can. I understand the concerns. So we want as many people will participate as possible and it's perfectly fine to add a few words to make it clear. I think it would definitely be worth doing so that it's and what about saying you must have operating system whatever, whatever the system is to use this materials because that's a valid point to relate it to the information on the sustainability page and I'll have to check in with the assistant director for policy but I definitely will follow up with with her. Yeah, we want to. More people the better they're involved in this and I think if people have old computers. At least they need to know that they need to go to another computer to access that it is very frustrating to. Address these concerns can be met. I think we ought to. Good morning commissioners, Stephanie Hansen assistant director, CDI. I can help address some of these. We were aware of the issues that Ms. Brocklebank was having. We provided one on one service to her to help her access the materials. We also have provided additional instructions on the project website if your browser is too old here's what you do. So, while I appreciate that it may not be that easy. We have worked hard to address that that issue for all of our people who wish to participate. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Appreciate that. I know it's a challenging topic. And, you know, maybe if there's a way we could just the one thing that I've hear people have challenges with is like remembering how to unmute and I think we see that sometimes in the meeting, maybe that's an easy win to put on the agenda, just throwing it out there as an option. Other than that seems like we covered that topic pretty well. And we can move on to agenda item number five at this time which is the consent agenda item. On this we have the AB through 61 resolution, and we are going to do roll call votes going forward on all consent and scheduled items. And so, and if anyone had any comments, please go ahead. Otherwise we can do a roll call vote on this item. Well, we need a motion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Dan and be a lot they appreciate that. And now we could have a roll call vote mystery. Okay. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner Villalante. Yes. Commissioner Lee's and be. Yes. And chair Gordon. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay. Moving on to agenda item number six. Skiddle item approval of minutes from the August 24th hearing. As we did not have one on September 1st. Do we have any. Okay. I would like to make a motion or discussion on this item. I'll move approval. Thank you. Commissioner Dan. Second. I'll second that. Thank you. Wonderful. Okay. And then we have a motion and a second. Could we please do a vote on this mystery? Mr. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. And chair Gordon. Yes. Thank you. Okay. That motion passes. And we can move on to our next scheduled item, which is continued from September 1st hearing. This is a continued public hearing to consider proposed ordinances and resolutions related to the sustainability policy and regulatory update. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisors. Miss Hansen. Today we've. We are discussed. We are not going to have a presentation. We did that last time. However, maybe there's a little intro we could do and kind of recap and I'll let you take it over. You bet. Thank you, chair Gordon members of the commission. We're happy to be back today. Thank you. Great. Thank you for your time. I appreciate the technical difficulties, not to my vacation schedule. I was here like everybody else was. I'd like to just introduce a team that are with me here today, whom you already know, but I'm just in case anybody. Hasn't been at a previous meeting. With us today is a daisy. Allen. Senior planner, Annie. Natisha Williams, also a senior planner, and Ani Shank, our transportation planner. Also with us today, I believe, is John Ricker in case there are questions about water resources or water utilities in regard to work that he has been doing for the county. The staff report is the August 24th staff report. It is available online on the commission's web page, as well as on the project web page. There's a recording on the planning commission web page for that meeting. If anybody missed it, that has the whole staff presentation. And slides are also available on both of those sites as well as I mentioned the staff reports. So that would be what we're referring to today. Replacement pages have also been provided for the ARC element and sections of the code that were related to those improvements since we provided that last code section. There have been no more replacement pages. So the commission should have them all. The recommended motion is on page two of the 824 staff report. It is item three of the recommended actions. And that recommended motion is for approval of the project and recommending it to the board of supervisors. There were some comments about public input. But before I say that and wanted to say, we understand that the planning commission will have a discussion and we are anticipating amending motions. As we discussed at the 824 meeting, that chair would be leading us through motions in an organized fashion. First, the general plan chapter by chapter, then the codes, then the design guidelines that are proposed and then any comments on the map amendments. When we get to the point where the commission is ready for motions, we'll take a moment to review all that one more time so that it's clear. Excuse me, chair. I just want to, I think that's really helpful, but I just want to say, first of all, we, depending on the questions we ask and the responses back, we may want to go in a different order. And so, but we can discuss that this afternoon. Okay. And then let's see, the last item I just wanted to bring up was a little bit of a recap on the public community meetings and the public input and opportunities for comment on this project. As the commission has noted, there have been many venues and many opportunities and staff really tried to take the need for public comment seriously. The amendments have been available since February, so this is not a short timeline. The EIR was released in April and met all noticing and public comment requirements. There were 10 commission meetings, including four commission meetings at this body as well as six community meetings that were held in the evening during the spring. And the commission already had the first part of the public hearing on 824. We do anticipate pending the commission's recommendation that this item would be continued for approval at the board, hopefully starting in November and into December, so there'd be further opportunities as the chair mentioned. In addition to those opportunities, the project website had many ways and venues for offering public comment, including signing up on the email blast list and filling out the survey, contacting the staff. There's been no lack of opportunities and ways to participate in this project as it's been developed and reviewed. And all of that also went with a social media campaign with ads in the newspaper, Facebook, Twitter, email blasts every week. So we really have made a huge effort at involving the public. So chair, I think that's just all I wanted to say to get us started today. I kind of came in at the last minute of a discussion, but if there is a large amount of public here, we may want to hold public comment before, so we can capture those, but I'll leave that up to you. And thank you, happy to answer any questions. The team is all here also to answer questions as we move through commission comments. Thank you. Chair, can I make a comment quick? It's almost 10 o'clock. We still haven't gotten to public comment on this. We still need to get to commission our questions and then hopefully be able to take action in the afternoon. So I hope now we can expeditiously move on to public comments that we can get to the commissioners role in this. Yeah, absolutely. That's the next part of the hearing here. So we definitely want to do that. I want to have, or talk about a couple of housekeeping things really quickly. We do have some breaks and lunch is scheduled today, a 10 minute break at around 11, and then 12, 30 for a 30 minute lunch break, just so everyone's aware and we'll try to, you know, might stop it a little before after depending on how the conversation is going. But that's that. And with that, I appreciate the introduction Ms. Hansen and we will have public comment this morning and that time would be right now. And then afterwards we will move on to discussion with the commissioners. So with that being said, Ms. Drake, can we please open the public comment part of this hearing? And I would like to mention one additional thing as in regards to public comment, if you spoke last hearing on the 24th and you have a similar comments, I would just remind you that we were all here and we heard those comments and, you know, we'd really appreciate any new information today and, you know, focus on that, we'd appreciate it. And with that, Ms. Drake, do we have any members of the public that like to speak? I'm seeing some hands raised. Chair, would you, how many minutes would you like us to put on the? Yeah, let's see, how many do we have today? I think typically- So far, so far I'm seeing five hands raised. Okay. Why don't we keep it at our standard three minutes so that we avoid any confusion or challenges and- Okay. And then open there, thank you. All right, so I will start with David Reed. And David, you have three minutes. Please restate your name for the record. Good morning. Good morning, commission. My name is Dave Reed. I'm the director of the Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience here at the County of Santa Cruz. I want to acknowledge and commend the hard work that the planning department, now the community development and infrastructure department has taken over the last almost decade in moving this project forward. I was part of the very beginning of these community meetings to discuss this project in 2012 through 2014. And to see it here sitting before the commission for approval is a significant milestone. As part of the Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience, I'm tasked with managing our emergency response and preparedness efforts at the County of Santa Cruz. And one of the things that I want to highlight about what's before you to hopefully recommend and approve to the board for adoption is that the more we can do from a land use and regulatory standpoint to build higher density housing in our urban environment reduces the risk of residents' current and future from seeking cheaper or slightly more affordable housing in our wild and urban interface. So from a sustainability standpoint, but also from a climate change resilience standpoint, the effort that you have undertaken as planning staff and as commissioned before you to make determination today will significantly help current and future residents become more resilient to climate change by not forcing those folks who need or wants to live in our County to live in the wild and urban interface. So I look forward to your conversation today and hopefully recommendation by the commission to approve what is before you to go to the board and I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next I will call on front number 2915. Good morning, please state your name for the record and seeing it's Becky, I just wanted to remind everybody because she brought up a good point that it, you must press star six on your phone to unmute yourself if I call on you and you called in. So good morning again. Please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. This is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yep. Thank you. You should also announce for those of us on telephone you would have to press star nine to raise your hand. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for repeating the instructions. I want to take exception to Mr. Reed's comment that we want to prevent people from feeling like they have to seek what is called cheaper land or housing in the wildlands urban interface. You know, some people just want to live out in the wild. I'm one of them and it is not cheap. And I will tell the commission that yesterday County Board of Supervisors, Mr. Ricker can speak about this perhaps just passed or will pass have a first amended first reading for the new septic regulations. 700 of the people who lost their homes in the CZU fire because of this new regulation will now be required to put in very expensive advanced treatment systems. They cost $50,000 to $80,000. That is something that has to be discussed and examined in this document before you today. Regarding public accessibility, you know, I go to a lot of board of supervisors meetings and when something gets there, it's pretty much a done deal unless there's something so glaring that someone in the community of political or economic importance has brought to the supervisors attention, nothing changes. It's a done deal when it gets to the board of supervisors for the most part. So I want to address that. I attended some of the, as many of the early on community meetings in the spring, they were very poorly attended because nobody knew this was going on. Nobody knew what it was. I would like for the record to have staff read the attendance numbers of each of those public Zoom meetings. There was one in person. It was the first one and it was in Watsonville and, you know, I couldn't be there myself. So it has not been easily available for the members of the public who are not clued in and looking on their phones or computer devices all the time. There is, I had to fight really hard to get a copy of the sustainability plan in the Capitola library. There's still no copy of the draft EIR there, that it isn't there. So it is not accessible to the full public and it is often those members of the public that are not technology savvy, that are the ones that are really weighing in the years of wisdom and their input that are not being able to get in here. I request that there be an in-person and hybrid meeting at least one somewhere in the county before this goes to the Board of Supervisors. All of the board meetings are in the morning, yours are in the morning, the commission meetings are all in the day when people are working. So how... All right. I will call on the next hand, which is raised by Chris Berry. Good morning, Chris, please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning. Thanks for having me and thanks commissioners for holding your hearing today on this important stuff. I just wanted to provide a little bit of background and clarification on the fish and wildlife and water advisory commission involvement in this. First of all, I do want to acknowledge that there has been a ton of public outreach about this process. It's a massive undertaking and it's understandably confusing. Even for practitioners, the process has been a little bit confusing to that point that it's not surprising that the commission roles has been not well understood by the public and frankly, even some of the commissioners. It's sort of unusual in my experience to have ongoing public interpretive events for lack of a better term about the project after the final EIR has been developed. So some of us are a little bit confused about the process but nonetheless, the commissions over the years have been involved in developing a lot of the technical background for the sustainability update and frankly, I was pleased to see much of what the commissions have worked on over the years does show up in the sustainability update whether that's the idea of developing mitigation banks for riparian type projects, CARS protection standards in the county code updates, focus on co-recovery potential for reevaluating protection of significant trees outside of the coastal zone. There is the, I'll use the term footprints. The footprints of the commission involvement are in the sustainability plan and if you follow the long history, you can see that a lot of what we've talked about at the commissions over the years has been included and that's really gratifying. That said, I just wanna offer that the commissions will be happy to be more involved as much as I can speak as an individual commissioner that's obviously not my role to decide that but I know that based at least on the Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting a couple of weeks ago, there is interest and enthusiasm to be more involved if need be, but there's also again, a desire to not be involved late in the game and do so in a way that's not helpful to the process. So I suspect that if the commissions are gonna be further involved, it would be helpful to have planning staff meet with them directly rather than having folks interpreting what's happening with the planning process and help folks understand what the, just sort of the overall process and how the input could be most valuable and be received at the Board of Supervisors in a way that's most constructive. So thank you. Thank you, Chris. All right, next I will call on Kathleen McLaughlin. Good morning, Kathleen. Please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Excuse me. Hi, my name is Kathleen McLaughlin and I am a Climate Policy Associate with the Office of Response Recovery and Resilience in Santa Cruz County, as well as a GIS and planning intern with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments or AMBAG and I'm an Environmental Science Master's student at CSUMB. And as I've been working on the Santa Cruz County Climate Action Adaptation Plan, it is important to me that equity not only be incorporated into climate action planning, but placed at the forefront, especially with regards to land use planning and urban development. The future of affordable and sustainable housing is dense infill in our cities. And I believe that equity needs to be prioritized and woven into our local plans in a way that ensures all voices of our community are heard and that decision making power is given to these vulnerable groups. These groups not only bear the brunt of a changing climate, but are also historically and systemically excluded from the benefits of climate action planning. The sustainability update is the beginning of a positive change in this direction. So I just want to say thank you for your time. And that's all. I don't know, three minutes. All right, thank you, Kathleen. All right, I just, before I call on the next hand raise, I just want to remind folks that to raise your hand if you're calling in, press star nine on your telephone. All right, I will next call on Peter Detliffe with the County of Santa Cruz. Good morning, Peter. Please restate your name for the record. Thanks, Jocelyn. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Good morning. My name is Peter Detliffe. I'm a principal administrative analyst with the County Administrative Office. I'm a Santa Cruz native and I've been working in economic and workforce development for the county for nearly a decade. I too want to commend the work of CDI and the commission on this important issue. After many years of regularly meeting with our small business community and employers, the number one issue, most important factor affecting local business is housing. I've heard time and time again about the difficulty of attracting and retaining staff at all levels due to the affordability and availability of housing. This has dramatically impacted several levels in all business sectors, including hospitality, healthcare, government, agriculture, tech and more. The Santa Cruz County 2022 State of the Workforce Report indicates that 4,600 residents moved away between 2019 and 2021, representing a decline in overall population made up mostly of low and middle income workers, representing teachers and other essential service providers. This report also presents that there was a 5% decline in total workers in the county over the same two year period and that our labor force participation rate declined roughly 9%. These policy updates are critical to opening the door to housing for people and notably employees at all income levels along the transportation quarters and existing neighborhoods. I urge you to support the sustainability plan that was presented, thanks. Thank you, Peter. All right, going back to our participants here, I see a hand raised by Tatiana Brennan, the County of Santa Cruz. Good morning, please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Hello, my name is Tatiana Brennan and I'm a senior administrative analyst in the Office of Response Recovery and Resilience, which is in the County Administrative Office. I am project manager for the County's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and I'd like to highlight the connection between the sustainability update and what we're calling the CAP, which is the acronym for the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. I'd like to highlight the connection between these two. Land use patterns are a significant factor in climate change. And as we look to the future, we must design and plan our neighborhoods to mitigate the impacts of climate change and for them to be more resilient so that we can sustain current and future generations. The CAP data is showing that the majority of our greenhouse gas emissions, 72.3% are coming from transportation alone. A primary strategy for reducing single occupancy travel distances can be achieved by creating more vibrant neighborhoods that co-locate housing, jobs, and recreational and entertainment opportunities. We are seeing a shift as other regional climate action plans move towards 15-minute neighborhoods and the need to change our communities through dense infill in urban areas. I wanna commend the work of the sustainability, the group that has worked on the sustainability plan, the Community Development Infrastructure Department, and we support this sustainability update because it is a tool that will help us achieve the goals outlined in the CAP that support decreased greenhouse gas emissions, which are the primary contributor to climate change. As guardians of our community's future, we feel the proposals before the planning commission in the sustainability update as written offer a positive step forward as we begin to meet the challenges that lie ahead of us. Thank you. Thank you, Tatiana. All right, I am seeing a hand raised by Michael Lewis and Jean Brocklebank. Good morning again, you have three minutes. Good morning, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, this is Jean Brocklebank, four things. I really appreciate the opportunities that were provided by the planning department, as explained by Stephanie. That said, with 1,000 pages to review, finding everything has been impossible for the average resident of Santa Cruz. Even my supervisor was somewhat flummoxed and blown away by it. Second, I have found some good strengthening amendments and seeing good ones left alone. So that is good, I'm glad for that. Third, I want to draw your attention to the final EIR's Appendix B revised draft EIR, Appendix E, Biological Resources, Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species List. Because there are two plant species missing. These two species, Maga Sativa and Dianandra Cranbosa, found historically in our Marine Terrace Coastal Prairies and continuing today with restoration efforts, are both native to Santa Cruz County, with one of them, Dianandra, being endemic. I ask that the FBIR Appendix E be revised once more to make this correction for the record. Last, I draw your attention to County Code Chapter 16.92. It's not part of the sustainability update, but it's titled Environmental Principles and Policies to Guide County Government. It was first codified as the decade of the environment in 1999 and again in 2010. Unfortunately, renewal of Chapter 10.92 was not part of this substantial effort. Maybe someday this will happen because, and listen to this, even though it is never acknowledged, destruction of the natural environment is a major contributor to climate change. Listen to just one of the purposes of Chapter 16.92, to protect biological diversity and human health through protection and restoration of the environment. I'll repeat that, destruction of the natural environment is a major contributor of climate change. This is a little known fact, little acknowledged, and it's true. Every time we cut a tree, every time we pave over the living soil, every time we reduce vegetation for one reason or another, we are contributing to climate change. Thank you very much. Oh, and I'd like to, if I may, I'd like to be able to give my last 15 seconds to Michael Lewis. Okay. Okay, this is Michael Lewis. Thanks for this opportunity to speak and I'm gonna follow up on Gene's comments about the natural world because the natural world is not represented in this process. The habitat and the species in our area are not able to appear before you and defend themselves. There is a considerable amount of change of language in this sustainability update that waters down protection for sensitive habitats and for species, the species who live in them, changing them from active to passive direction and reducing specificity of habitat protection measures. For example, the word in the original language is request, it's been changed to maintain and enhance as feasible, designate has been changed to evaluate, require has been changed to consider, prohibit to limit or restrict, prohibit to maintain regulations and to prevent as much as possible change to support. This language is not a large amendment to the existing language, it is just a change in one or two words that really changes the thrust and the strength of these measures to protect habitat and our endangered species. There are also a couple of places in the language that make statements that are not supported by fact. In fact, there are opinions that have been suggested to add to it, which are not supported and therefore inappropriate. One in particular, the responsible use of herbicides to eradicate invasive non-native plants can be quote an appropriate management action in sensitive habitats. This is an opinion that not supported by fact at all. In fact, use of herbicides is not indicated in sensitive habitats and this should not be included in the updated language for the sustainability update. So I ask you please in reviewing this to pay attention to the language that's been changed on here, not just the entire amendments and make sure that we don't reduce the effectiveness of our county code and our general plan into the future to protect habitat and the species of our area. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. All right, let's see if we have any additional speakers. I'm not seeing any. I just want to give a final reminder. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand on the Zoom app or press star nine on your telephone. I saw one that go up and then go down. Let's see. I'm seeing a hand raised by Alex Barton. Good morning. Please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, this is Alex Barton. I just want to briefly add to my previous written comments I've sent in. I had some original significant concerns about the actual feasibility of building projects and mixed use commercial and multi-family zones given planning's original selection of floor area ratio and some other standards. And I just want to support their revised proposed increases. I think it's a good solution and especially want to support the provision of the special allowances to encourage structured and underground parking. I think it's really important. I would also really want to draw the attention of the commissioners as well as the listeners and the public to the comments from Barry Swenson construction in the staff report. I think it's really important that we take into account their comments as large local developers. We have a lot of experience in building these projects. And I will note that their suggested standards for density and height are to encourage actual feasibility of affordable by design units are really in excess. And sometimes significantly of what's proposed here. So I know there's been a lot of questions and concerns about the RF density, et cetera. But I just want to not only support the proposed density increases on the reasons being proposed, but also really I hope the commissioners will take very seriously the comments from Barry Swenson and just really want to add. I think I know that we talk about infrastructure and the appropriateness of density in certain neighborhoods. And that's a really important consideration. But I think we also need to just take into consideration the value of the very scarce land that we do have and really think about what we can do to really maximize its use when it is developed because it is very scarce. And it is a lot more scarce than anywhere else in this state in many ways. So that's all, thank you. Thank you, Alex. And then finally, I saw a hand raised by Jane Barr. Jane, did you wish to provide testimony this morning? If so, please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. This is Jane Barr, can you hear me? Yes, good morning, Jane. Jane Barr, I'm the resident of Corolatus and associate director of development, real estate development for Eden Housing and affordable housing provider. I want to commend the staff. This is a huge undertaking and it's a lot of work and I understand that. And I want to commend you on working on this for a long time, accepting public comments and making adjustments and changes. And I appreciate that. I would say that I would echo last speaker's comments in regard to land, there's only so much land we have that can be developed. It's extremely important to develop it as densely as we can in areas that are serviced and realize that this plan affects how we can develop going forward for a number of years. I appreciate the changes that have been made so far. I think we can go a little bit further but no plan is perfect. I would say that in regard to the residential use goal BE-2 urban residential designations, it's a little disconcerting to see the units per acre building intensity for the different land use designations be a range that's unusual. Usually if you're looking at urban high and it would be 30, not 11 to 30. So I worry about the interpretation of that in the future. And we should be looking at the maximum units per acre density on all parcels. And then of course with bonus densities those will increase and that's good for housing so many people who want to be housed here who have left who wanted to be housing here and taking care of our homeless. So thank you very much. Thank you, Jane. And I did see another hand go up by Patricia Brady. Good morning, Patricia. Please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Patty Brady, I just like to speak to discussion from the standpoint of pleasure point. I've spoken before, but I want to raise the issue that the residents of pleasure point over 400 unanimously designed with the county and MIT consultants the design guidelines for Portola that were to go from 26 to 40 First Avenue. This plan has been changed while adopted by the supervisors in December 2018. The residents continue to respect the guidelines that were adopted. We urge you to look at the issues of a beach area, a tourist area in comparison to an urban area. Issues on Soquel are not the same as the issues in Portola with the number of tourists and visitors that come into our community. Portola is often already overloaded. We support 30 units per acre plus density bonuses. Residents are not opposed to density, but they are opposed to 45 per acre. Again, I want to say that this was a democratic process that should not be overlooked. Thank you very much for your time and your efforts. Thank you, Patty. All right, next I will call on Susie Merriman. Good morning, Susie. Please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Good morning, thank you. My name is Susie Merriman. I work down here for the city of Watsonville and a lifelong resident of Santa Cruz County. I want to commend staff for your work on the sustainability plan and I have echo a lot of Jane Barr's statement with the recent vote on the rail corridor and knowing that at least from a South County perspective, not only are we dealing with significant housing issues, but we are dealing with significant traffic and ensuring that we have increased density along the corridor and in our urban areas within the county is really vital to getting housing where the jobs are, but also increasing the possibility for future multimodal ridership and that's both buses. If we ever do get that train along the rail corridor, that would be great, but also bicycling and walking and creating that last mile if people do have the option in the future for better multimodal transit opportunities. So I just want to say thank you. The density, let's get it as high as what works for each of the county areas in the urban areas and just thank you for putting this effort together. Ms. Drake, if you're there, you're muted. All right, thank you. My phone is ringing. Next we have Ashley Schweikert. Good morning, Ashley. Will you please say your name for the record? Hi, can you all hear me? Yes, good morning. Good morning. Yes, my name is Ashley Schweikert. I am a senior project manager for mid-pen housing. We submitted a comment letter yesterday evening so it may not have made it into the commissioner's packet. So I just wanted to echo what was stated in that letter. So mid-pen housing, we develop affordable multifamily rental housing in the county and we've been collaborating with the county for over 25 years on the housing needs of individuals and families with very low and extremely low incomes, including our most vulnerable residents, those who are experiencing homelessness and special needs populations. Mid-pen, we are wanting to express our support for the county's sustainability update. We believe that this update to land use and transportation policies does encourage the type of development that can accommodate future population growth in the county as well as improving the environment, the economy and the quality of life for those who live and work in the county. In particular, mid-pen supports the complete neighborhoods framework and specifically the new residential flex zone district which facilitates compact development along corridors. The availability of land zone for compact residential developments will streamline the land use entitlement and pre-construction process for housing developers. Additionally, we support the new design guidelines that focus on the creation of high quality housing within the context of transportation corridors. The ability to build more densely along key transportation corridors is critical for creating financially feasible affordable housing developments by achieving cost efficiencies. Also, it will allow our projects to be better positioned for the award of public financing. So, basically, we would just like to say thank you so much to the staff for all the work you put into the sustainability update. We all know that folks are being priced out of the county and our existing single family housing stock is not suited to meet the needs of a variety of our existing residents including students, young families, seniors and our most vulnerable residents. So, these policy and code updates not only do they meet the new state laws that have come out recently but they also provide an opportunity to greater diversify the housing stock that we have and that will in turn allow our residents to both live and work within the county. So I thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Ashley. All right. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? The sustainability update. I am not seeing any additional hands raised. Chair, I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you so much. And thank you to everyone who showed up to speak. We really appreciate your comments and your input and taking time out of your day to be here with us. So, thank you so much. At this time, we'll close the public comment and bring this back to the commission for discussion. Long-awaited discussion. Chair, can I make a suggestion? Sure, please, Commissioner Dan. So my understanding from the August 24th meeting with that, you know, we had a staff presentation that between the staff presentation and public comment, it was 1.30 and commissioners had questions remaining for staff on the project documents that we were able to ask. So I would suggest that we go commissioner by commissioner so that commissioners can get all of their questions answered and then take the discussion from there if that works. I just want to make sure each commissioner has an opportunity to get their questions answered. Yeah, I agree. I think that's a great idea and way to go. So I appreciate that. And let's start there. Who would you like to start, Commissioner Dan? I can, but I started first last time. So I am open to letting another commissioner go first. I know that Commissioner Shepard had a bunch of questions. So if Commissioner Shepard wants to go first, I think that would be fair. Oh, in fact, I would prefer not to because I think that you, I would like to hear what the others have to say because I have discovered that sometimes you eliminate stuff that was at my concern very handily and with great care. So. OK, well, I don't want, so I'm open. Since I went first last time, I don't keep going first. But yeah, no problem. Commissioner Mielsen, or Commissioner Lazenby, if you'd like, go ahead or I can start as well. Well, I would appreciate it, Chair, if you would kick this off. OK, wonderful. I can do that. Great. So, you know, there's obviously a lot of ground to cover here. I think that there's since the last time we had a discussion on this topic, which was now maybe a month or so ago, you know, we've had the presentation from the last hearing that really clarified a lot of things and brought in all the adjustments that we had requested on the way. So I just want to say as a general note, I really appreciate all the changes and how much, you know, staff heard what we said along the way and has really tried to incorporate that and know it's challenging and going back through and listening to all of the previous hearings, you know, keeping track of our ramblings. It's not easy, so we really appreciate that. So I think there's a lot that I could talk about, but I don't really want to focus on if it seemed like something that was maybe we're all agreed on or appropriate at the time and, you know, it was a change that was made that we don't probably need to discuss. I'll probably just, you know, I have a shorter list today, but just wanted to recognize that there were a lot of changes that I just wanted to say thank you for. That being said, a couple, do have a couple of questions and it's hard to keep questions completely separate from comment, but I'll try. One thing, I guess I'll just kind of start at the top of my list here, the FAR change. The adjustment to one and a half and then also the, the ability to have the parking, excuse me, the parking underneath the ODM style FAR adjustment. I really appreciated that. I did have a question as it relates to commercial requirement. So this is a little bit tricky to talk through, but bear with me. So what we had before was, or we have currently shown is a 25% commercial requirement on mixed use projects, leaving 75% for residential. As we heard from Barry Swenson's statement in the report, they would prefer to see closer to 10%, which I can understand, especially in today's market. And so when we adjusted the FAR, we essentially said that the same size parcel can now have a larger building by the way it's counted for square footage, right? So here's an example, say we had a 20,000 square foot lot at a 1.0 FAR, that means you had, excuse me, 20,000 square foot of a building size. Break that down to commercial, 25% is 5,000 square feet of commercial. Now we've said, okay, that FAR is a little higher because we want to encourage less parking lot style, design bigger buildings towards the front of the projects, that kind of thing like we talked about. And so now we're allowing, that same lot would have say 30,000 square foot of FAR. And which means that now our commercial requirement has gone up to 7,500 square feet. What we didn't really get is like more land space in that. So where we had 5,000 before was probably appropriate for a 25,000 or 20,000 square foot lot. Now we've got a larger commercial requirement, meaning that you're probably going to the second story with commercial space. So what this kind of relates to is, sorry, let me go in through the next step there. So my suggestion would be that, I appreciated that we upped that FAR, but with the relationship to the commercial size, I would request that we reduce that commercial requirement to 15%. So say that we had the same size lot, the higher FAR, 15% would be really close to what the commercial requirement would have been under the older FAR. So it's a little complicated to say all that out loud. Hopefully that people are following. So that would be my question is if that's possible. And just a couple of other notes on what that commercial requirement does do in today's market is, it really does make the rents higher because commercial spaces are really hard to fill these days or coming in at such a discount. And so when you're going to build a new building, if you're required to do a higher commercial component, what that really translates to is higher rents because that commercial space is such a discount in today's market. And so that being said, I think there's a lot of reasons to reduce that commercial space down to 15%. Like I mentioned, it still gets us like really close to what we had originally anticipated for our new commercial spaces with the zoning that was in place. So yeah, my question is, is that possible? Is that something that we could adjust? Thank you, Chair. Yes, it is possible. The, you might, I appreciate the thought process there because you might have picked up and kind of an unintended consequence of making that change. We don't wanna get rid of commercial altogether, obviously. We're trying to have more integrated neighborhoods so that people have services near them. But how much commercial to be available in our commercial zones is something that could largely be tweaked by the commission. It's not, there's no real magic formula. 75% residential to 25% commercials is something that we have seen. I think it's consistent with some state laws. On the other hand, it's possible, state law may change again to allow fully residential projects in our commercial zone. So I think if the commission's interested in tweaking that, that's definitely a possibility. Okay, great. Thank you so much and I appreciate that. Okay, next question that I have is on page 68 of the planning package. I just wanna get a little procedural question commissioner. Yeah. Sorry, Chair Gordon, so a lot of, if we're gonna go through and we all have suggestions that are ours, and are we gonna, are we, do you think we are all going to want to vote separately so we get the drift of the whole commission? Cause like you may really like what you're suggesting or I may really like the direction I think is appropriate, but I have no idea if the other members do too. So I'm not so sure that anything we suggest is the will of the commission or is it, but I don't think so. So that's different than making most, where are we and how we go forward with our suggestions? And I don't feel like if I say something to Stephanie, she says, well, we could consider that, that that's the will of the planning commission anymore than if you or Stephanie or Rachel does it. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I just, I agree with Commissioner Shepard that I had, I appreciate Chair Gordon's sharing his thoughts. I think it's valuable, but I had thought that this time was for us to get our clarifying questions answered, pardon me. And that later this afternoon, we were gonna do more of what kind of, what Chair Gordon did now, which is kind of make a recommendation almost. So if there are clarifying questions that you need answered in order to perhaps formulate a recommendation, then that's what I had thought this time was for. So I like, I know I have some questions that depending on how staff answer my question, I may or may not be making recommendation, but I agree with Commissioner Shepard that I thought this time was more question based versus the things I would like to see and sharing those. Cause I think if we get that way, because that way are the answers from staff are gonna be more like short, either short explanations of why a code is wasn't recommended, or if it's a kind of even yes or no, will allow us to later than kind of have more discussion about whether or not we support the recommendation. That was my understanding. I don't know, I understand what you're saying, but what I was suggesting is, if one of us wants to change, whether it's now or later, that doesn't represent the force of the commission. And if we're gonna make proposals for changes, I think we all, there ought to be votes on them, that's all. They don't have to be consensus, but I think Stephanie will want to know how many of us supported a change or not, that's all. Yeah, so just to be really clear, this is, yes, let's do it that way. We're going through questions right now. Sometimes a question just needs a little explanation. It's hard to, sometimes without the background information, have a really good response in my opinion. So that's where I was providing that. However, it is kind of blends into discussion and opinion, and we can try and limit that at this point. The changes aren't gonna happen until we all vote, right? And so that is something that I would suggest later when we get to the time to discuss emotions. And so we would make an emotion with an amendment, let's say, like for example, to reduce that to a 15% commercial requirement. And that's how we would make changes from here on. The planning department is not going to take our discussion today and bring it back with adjustments. We're gonna make adjustments with motions. Is that all clear, Commissioner Shepard? Is that me? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, okay, great, wonderful. Okay, so continuing on with my questions here, page 68 from the planning packet that we have shows notes from a board hearing that happened in 2015. And this was the last hearing on the sustainability update from long ago. And there are on this page, recommendations for higher FARs, building heights and stories for multifamily in particular, which some of them changed and some didn't. So anyway, my question was, were these recommendations from the board that the planning department went back to study or how does this relate to what we have seen today because they are a little bit different? Thank you, exhibit E of the staff report on page 68 is where the chair is referring. And this, when the sustainability update first was getting started after adoption of the sustainable, or after acceptance, excuse me, of the sustainable Santa Cruz County plan, staff did go to the board to kind of get direction. And this was a summary, an early summary provided to the board. We want to, you know, we want the public and the commission to be aware of what the board saw. But a lot of staff work went into refining the FAR standards, the floor area ratio standards and others, and other standards such as density to create kind of a calibrated formula where the higher density you go, the standards are reflecting changes that can get to those higher densities. And so for a floor area ratio, that became more of a variegated approach depending going from low density to high density. So there were adjustments made. And, you know, the other big one there is a, I thought it actually it's not here, but in the original sustainability plan, sustainable Santa Cruz County plan, the densities discussed for our F460 units per acre adjustments were made there as well, because we want to continue to really encourage the density bonus programs so that we're providing affordable units in our projects. So adjustments were made in consideration of meeting policy goals. Okay, understood. Thank you. I appreciate that. I answered one other question that I had about the density. And just another, you know, was that again, why are, why 45 and not 60? And that I understand that. So now with the density bonus, you're encouraging more affordable housing. I appreciate that. And did you feel like at any point, you know, you know, 60 was there before, I'm not sure what the lower end would be, but you know, what's there, you know, 50 units an acre, like why not, why 45? Is there a magic number there? There is not necessarily a magic number for this community. It's striking a balance in between kind of lower density and higher density and what the community can, can accommodate. So it's a balancing act. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. I have a couple of questions here on just some specific code stuff. There, the code section is 1310334 one D4 a, but I'll kind of highlight what it states. It says minimum street facing setbacks must allow 10 foot sidewalk along commercial corridor and six foot along streets. And then the key thing here is taken from private property area, if necessary. I just wanted to, this is probably a dumb question, but is that, can we do that? Is that legal? You can, you can force, essentially force people to make a public right of way on their, on their space. Yes, it's the commission is probably well aware. Our rights of way are pretty constrained in this county. And if we want to accommodate all modes of transportation, there may be areas where we need to accept a dedication from a private developer in order to make those facilities happen, as well as, you know, required open space, which could be in the front and public space and interact with public spaces. And there, there are times when even just to accommodate vehicles, we have to have a dedication. So yes, it's legal. Great. Okay, perfect. Thank you for clearing that up for me. In the built environment. Most of us really said built environment, I suppose. But I'd wonder if there's an opportunity to encourage. Developments to be built at the upper end of the density range, as opposed to within the density range. This is something that a member of the public also brought up. The large range can cause confusion. And if we really want people building at that upper end, but I've seen in what's true in the city of Santa Cruz. Is that, you know, the requirement is that. You build towards the upper end. And if you don't, then they'll likely be denied. So my question is, is that something that's we could add or has been considered. For the county. You know, I, I'd like to call on Daisy Allen. To help with this question if she's available. Sure. No problem. Hi commissioners. I was just taking a look at the draft general plan built environment element. Policy BE 2.1.9, which is development below the minimum density. So we do have a policy that development cannot be approved on sites within the US L RSL below the designated density range. So that is, that is in there. I was just seeing, I just wanted to take a look at the notes of how that was notified. Yeah. So that's similar, but stronger language than one was in the 1994 current general plan. And then there's also an existing housing element policy. So the housing element is chapter four of the general plan, which is not being amended as part of this project. Policy 2.2 and the housing element. It's the times you cannot meet the minimum density in the rural areas. But I believe the housing element also includes a policy. I'll take a look at it and get back to you, but I believe the housing element also includes a policy regarding building close to the maximum density. So let me take a look at that. It'll just take me a couple of minutes, but certainly additional language along those lines could be added in the general planner code. Thank you, Daisy. Appreciate that. Okay. Going through a lot of the documents. I've probably wrote this down somewhere. Might have misplaced it and just looking for a little clarification. Are we are duplexes in town homes? Will they be allowed in the art districts? And I apologize. I know I've asked this before, but I just couldn't place it again. Yes. It's in the code. Okay. That one is going to happen. And is that in all like our one zones or residential zones? I guess as they are now. Daisy. Can you remind us? Sure. Yes. Duplexes in town homes are not precluded in the rural residential districts. We actually for the planning commission hearing, we did make a slight update to the draft. Built environment chapter to clarify that it's not only single family homes. That are allowed in the rural residential designations. And that the housing allowed in those designations is really, it's based on the, you know, the density. Requirements. Okay. So this will, they would also apply to. One zone as well as the rural residential. Correct. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I think this is my last question here. Excuse me. I have one of the other sections, but last one for this section. Code 1310 510 D3. This is a code that discusses the next heights. What's allowed above a building height. Like mechanical equipment. On ours, things like that. There is sometimes this limiting for larger. Developments and I see it in many jurisdictions, but in the case of trying to provide open space on rooftop. And so, you know, I was wondering if there was any thought, or if this is kind of a new question. To. Allowing an exception for code heights. For height limit for roof access only. So like an elevator or stair core or tower. To be within that top or above the height limit so that you could have a roof deck. For open space. You know, otherwise the challenge is like, you have to reduce the story so that you can get that. So it makes sense. This might be a new one. So. I'm not sure if, you know, was ever thought about or not. And it's not, you know, we can bring it back later for discussion topic. Yeah. I mean, it's not, there are exceptions for roof equipment, certainly within the existing code. But. Using rooftops for. And requiring additional. Or meeting extra hype for decks was not something really considered, but for a lot of these types of questions, if you are seeking a density bonus, you can have concessions and waivers from the code that would, would allow for that kind of a thing. Daisy or Annie has anything to add to that. Please feel free. Any Murphy here. I just wanted to add that I know sometimes. Rooftop decks can be controversial in neighborhoods. So we might want to look at that more closely too before we, if we made any modifications. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. I appreciate that. And chair Gordon. I did just look at the housing element. And actually I was citing the correct policy policy 2.2 and housing element. Okay. So the first portion of that policy states continue to discourage development below the minimum density that is specified for each of the general plan land use designations. And then the second portion of the policy is recognizing that in the rural areas, some cases it may be undesirable or infeasible to meet the minimum density. So that's where that policy language currently exists in the general plan. Okay. Awesome. Thank you for that. Okay. As it relates to access and mobility. Question that's come up is, you know, we have this future potential rail. You know, is there any thought about. Density along that or what might happen. I don't believe that it would, you know, make any adjustments for today, but I was just interested. And I think that the, the general plan between the built environment element and the access and mobility element definitely encourages our residential densities along corridors. And that would include the rail corridor. And so one thing that will happen is as, as the commission should be aware now is that next year, we're going to have to look at ways to accommodate our new rena numbers. And rezoning in the rail corridor area is certainly something that will, that will look more strongly at as a part of that project. But, but I would say that is included. And I see Anise's face with us today. I don't know if you wanted to add any, anything to that. No, I think that's a really good summary. We did consider when we were doing the modeling. We did consider, you know, more growth around those areas, but you know, that's really a rough consideration because it's, it's done at the larger scale than parcels or even sometimes census blocks. So, but as Stephanie said, until there's an actual rezoning, you know, we're not considering exact locations for growth. Okay. Great. Thank you. Last question I have and right in time for break here. Do you, one thing that was mentioned in chapter seven parks and rec section was there's work with Cal trans to plant more trees along. Highway one. So my question was, are we, would it be considered a scenic highway again? Or is that still going away? Because like, you know, a lot of mission street is not, you know, like we talked about. Right. That, that's an addition based on the commission's discussion that, you know, we're changing the locally, the local designation for a part of highway one that has been highly urbanized and tree covers been lost. So the commission thought that it was appropriate to. Recognize that we don't have to just. Accept that the restoration would be appropriate. So that policies added to the drafts in order to address that, that comment. Okay. And so if, but sorry, so maybe I misunderstood this, but so then it's, we're still losing that scenic highway. Status for now. Yeah. Yeah. You know, part of what. Part of what goes on with that scenic highways, you know, you're really trying to cut down on visibility of new development. And it's hard to meet those policies. If you're trying to create an urbanized area that might have greater heights. And so those that, that kind of change in that designation. And again, it's not a state scenic highway. It's just a local designation in our general plan. That supports the development in our urban areas around our, our corridors as well. Got it. Okay. Understood. Thank you. That was all of my questions for now. So I appreciate it. We did have kind of a scheduled break right now, 10 minutes. And I want to respect that. And then reminder, we have a 1230 lunch. So why don't we take that quick recess? Be back at, you know, right about 11. 11. Try to keep it quick. Move right along. Okay. We'll see you at 11 11. Thank you. Thank you. 11 11. Welcome everybody back. Like to make sure that Ms. Drake is here. Chair, I know Ms. Drake was having some computer issues and is switching over her computer. So it might be just another second. Sure. No problem. There she is. Thank you. This work. Okay. Let's. Can you hear me? We can. Can you hear us? Yes. My connection is a little slow. So I think I might reconnect, but we'll get us going here and I'll do that and I'll come back in. Should we take a quick roll call? Please. Commissioner Shepherd, are you back with us? Commissioner Shepherd, are you there? Commissioner Shepherd, if you're there. Yes, I am. There we go. Commissioner Dan. Here. Mr. Vialante. Here. Commissioner Lazenby. Here. And Chair Gordon. Here. Thank you. Great. Now we let's continue with questions from the patient. And who would like to go next? I'm sure. I'd be happy to go next. Wonderful. Thank you. Commissioner Vialante. For staff. My questions. I think I'll take them in order. Going through the general plan. And then moving on to the code just so you can follow. Kind of the direction I'm going through them. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I think the first thing I'll ask is that in, in, I'm in the built environment. So. For my commissioners, it's page two dash three six. And it's the one that chair Gordon actually asked about, which was the. Development below the minimum density. And I just had a question in there. It talked about a government code that allowed. It said accept for and then mentioned the government code. And I was just wondering. If this, how this would deal with. Rebuilds. So if there was. Fire. Like a home fire or if there was a earthquake and these kind of catastrophes or something about how would it deal with. That fall into that. And government code because I'm just curious about those types of situations. Yes. I believe that it, that it would. If we can get clarity for me, that would, that's just an important component. I want to make sure we're not precluding people from rebuilding. We've seen trees falls on homes. We've obviously with CZ view, we now know a very specific cause. And they just would. I want to make sure that we. Don't preclude people from rebuilding if they suffer from things we none of us wanted to experience. We appreciate that there shouldn't be anything in these policies that preclude rebuilding. The challenges are otherwise, as you know, septic fire, et cetera. Exactly. Thank you. I appreciate that. The other one is that just, it was a small change. And I just, it's a clarity because I want to make sure that I'm understanding the codes. Appropriately. I'm page two dash nine zero. The language has been changed. And I believe I just want to get there myself. I apologize. It's navigating it with you. I believe that the code now. It talks about. When we're redoing for vacate. Visitor serving accommodations. And I believe that the language is no longer necessary. That has been added in. So it talks about when market analysis of land. Demonstrate that the existing priority use. Or use designation is no longer feasible. And I think now that we've said that this can only happen on visitor serving accommodation. That the language of existing use or priority use designation is no longer necessary. But I want to make sure that I'm understanding this piece of. Of the code correctly, because I think it's just. We're saying only on visitor serving accommodation. I want to make sure that I'm right. But I'm reading it correctly that it is only on visitor serving accommodation where we're saying this. This can you. Can you tell us what are you in the policy or the code? I mean, I'm only doing the general plan for now. Right. Can you tell me which policy? It's on page two, 92 dash nine. And let me just get there myself. So I can read what I'm doing. So I don't think I'm in. So it's, it's. And then it gets to the bottom of it. So it's part of the whole thing though. So it's talking about. Consider allowing the conversion of visitor serving. Commercial land uses to a lower priority land use when. And then it gets into. I'm on page two, 92 dash nine. And let me just get there myself. So I can read what I'm doing. So I don't think I'm in. So it's, it's. Five. One. Three. Okay. Thank you. And then it gets to the bottom of it. So it's part of the whole thing though. So it's all about these, these possibilities. And then it says when the proposed conversion is not. And then the very last one. I think it's, I think. I have the right one. So it's the first bullet point. I have like notes of piece of the language that I confused about. Um, I'll say, while we're trying to figure it out, this, this language, um, has been amended based on, you know, it looks like maybe you guys next to my confusion, actually, even in the most recent version. Oh, great. Nope. Nope. Nope. Okay. Um, yeah, so it says that the proposed conversion will not adversely affect the ability of the county to provide appropriate locations or adequate amounts and or types of visitor serving land uses, which is right. This is as demonstrated by remaining. So maybe you guys didn't get fix it. So that's just, that was the one that I think maybe you did fix it. So that's great. We've been discussing this with the coastal commission staff a little bit. It's a little odd to have conversion policies in there so that language has been adjusted to try to make sure conversions don't take place inappropriately. And that was my concern. And so I was just, I was trying to make sure I understood the language. Okay, so going to the next chapter, which is access and mobility. They, it's am two dot three dot six. So it talks about delivery and services and it talks about the support delivery services by creating curb loading and short term parking zones as they have increased access to goods and services for the mobility impaired. And I just, I was hoping maybe you could tell me the goal of this one because I have some reservations about us using the words mobility impaired. So I wasn't sure maybe you could talk about is this a standard terminology because there are people who suffer from other disabilities that aren't necessary mobility impaired like chronic fatigue syndrome, oxygen shortages that still need these type of service like they still need access. And so I just wasn't sure if maybe you could explain to me the goal of this particular one I like the concept, but the language choice if you could explain this is like a standard phrase that you use in transportation. Yes, and it could definitely be changed to be more inclusive. The comment came from a commission that is a little bit more focused on people with hearing and vision disabilities but the comment came with regard to people who have mobility issues so certainly can look at making that language more inclusive. Okay, thank you I appreciate that. And then, I think that's the last question on that particular chapter from the general plan. The next chapter, I apologize I have a lot of questions so I'm trying to get through them quickly from my colleagues and you as well. And the next chapter is chapter five the agricultural natural resources chapter. I had questions having to do with the a zone a lot. And just want to get there so I can see what I'm talking about so on page five dash three five. So it's like it's arc 1.4. So it's talking about the 200 foot setbacks, unless an exception is approved. But the change has the vibe noted here is that we're only allowing exception. We're changing the way we're doing buffers and setbacks. And it says my notes say that we're saying one allowing setbacks and residential uses. And as I wanted to talk that you could explain to me why the changes were made in this particular section that would be helpful for me. Yes, thank you Commissioner Vialante the. It's not actually a change it was just intended to clarify our current ag buffer setback requirements so. So there's not any changes. They're still required to provide the 200 foot buffer setback for any habitable uses that are adjacent to a CA parcel or I preserve parcel. Yeah, I appreciate that any. And then my next questions I have any I may have the more questions questions for you than anybody for giving my district. My next one is on page five dash four four. I have a section, I don't have a policy right in between me if you may be interested in general questions, let me find out why. I think I just my general I think I just had general concern about this one which was was art 1.6.1. I just I had concerns about the fact that we were kind of expanding commercial activity on. I think I was just kind of wondering the logic premise because I have felt historically that there's been a distinction between CA's and parcels which are commercially designated and a zone parcels parcels which have a place, but that we kind of distinguish that they weren't commercially. That wasn't the primary thing and so could you maybe explain to me some of the what happened how we end up like this particular piece. Is this about changing what were specific cause could be on a parcel side. Yes, that's exactly right that there has been an expansion of allowing commercial activity on a zone parcels. And yes so. So partly what this policy does is align it better with what's already in the code like when you when you look at the use chart. Generally uses that are allowed in CA are also allowed on a so part of it is, is being more flexible what's in the code. But the changes also. As discussed at previous meetings. We are expanding sort of ag support uses that would be allowed, such as agricultural services establishments. So those those same type of agricultural support uses that are proposed for CA would also be allowed on a. So, so that does reflect that change as well and as I mentioned there is also to provide the, the areas for agricultural support that are needed by the, you know, commercial agriculture. Just to add a lot of the ag changes. There were a lot of community meetings back in 2015 and a lot of changes that are proposed are meant to provide more modernization and support for existing agricultural uses that are economically feasible and and accommodate, you know, uses that are a little bit more flexible but appropriate. Yeah and then adding to what Stephanie says these also would be discretionary uses so they require discretionary view and opportunities for public input and that sort of thing as well for the ag support uses. I'm sorry I was looking by next one. Next page so I can know what I'm talking about in advance it's opening my mouth. So, on page five dash. My memory of the hearing is that we wanted to deny it once and for all. Commissioner shepherd, you're not muted. Oh sorry. Thank you. So, on page five dash five on page five dash five three on C, it's C three. It talks about areas adjacent to essential habitats of rare endangered vet and species as defined in and then it says I'm confused about what it's referencing. I think it's probably just an error of all the revisions. But as a result, I wasn't sure what it was trying to reference. And that made it hard for me to know whether or not I agreed. So I think if you don't mind taking a peek at that and then me coming back to us by the afternoon session, it would just be helpful for me because it says as defined in. I don't know if it's going through either F below for trying to say for their F below. But we we struck F. So if you don't mind taking a peek at that little section. Thank you. Yes, it looks like there may know that I'm looking at it looks like there may have been a numbering error that happened at some point so I will I will look at that and I can get back to in the afternoon. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then I have a question that I think was probably not agriculturally related. It's, it's, it's about the when to commit director and chair Gordon's question when we talk about replanting of trees it actually references Ocean Avenue I'm not sure if they meant Ocean Street. Because I want to make sure that we are speaking about the right location, just so I know where we're referencing again I know that's on the ag question but that's in the section it's on page one dash. It's arc 5.2 be just want to make sure that gets fixed because I think it's important to know where we're talking about replanting trees. Thank you. Okay, so chapter seven parks and open space. Yes, okay so parks and open space age 7.103. I apologize like 100 different documents, I don't know what I'm talking about. Didn't reference, but I was referencing here so it's taking a run off. Yes, so the reason I didn't read it so it's in pf 4.4.1. And it says require run off levels to be maintained at pre development rates for minimum design storm. And I didn't know, or a minimum design storm and I don't know. I don't know what they're talking about. I think perhaps either there's some words missing. Yeah, maybe I can help a little bit with this or an ace. Do you want to do do you want to. I'm still trying to get there myself on a computer. Yeah, so yes page one, it's seven dash 103 and again I apologize, but I didn't work for myself for the actual policy number it's ppf 4.4.1. So generally the, you know that county design criteria are the public work standards for roads and stormwater and the driveways they cover kind of, you know, variety of situations that would affect the right of way or, or stormwater in this case. And you, you know, we calculate you do calculations on how the stormwater is flowing. And there are different levels that you can that you would consider it at one is how much water is flowing at in 100 year storm let's say or the 10 year storm and now I see Matt Machado probably is a much better answer It's just an activity is for a minimum design storm. And I don't, I usually have heard like hundred year storms or the minimum designed store I don't know minimum design storm Matt. So, so our standard is a 25 year storm event so that's, that's our, that's our design standard is 25 year. I do see Rachel Fatui on the, on the attendee list here if she wants to elaborate but 25 years storm is our standard to answer your question. So we just consider a minimum, just the language minimum design storm is that what we call it. Yeah, I believe it is. Yes. Thank you. That's, that's the, thank you. The language seem to awkward, this despite all my years dealing with water runner. So, thank you. Okay. That's just what we call it. That's that's the clarifying piece I thank you. That's my last one for that. I, I need to, I'm going to stay my next question is also for you. In appendix I, I, I, in the TDM. One of the recommended mitigation pieces. Am I understanding correctly that staff are saying that a way to meet TDM is to reduce the number of parking spots offered in my understanding that correctly am I reading appendix I correctly. Yes, so this would have to be all of these measures would have to be compliant with our current code, which is stated at the beginning of the appendix. There are some ways to reduce parking in within the codes such as you can provide more bicycle parking spaces up to a maximum you can't do that for all parking space all vehicle parking spaces. There's also a reduction that I believe we spoke about the last meeting, based on comments from the board of supervisors, allowing for parking reductions if other criteria are met, such as providing bus passes. So, yes, it is a TDM measure and it would have to comply with allowances in the code. And more broadly to answer the question, yes, controlling the amount of parking is a considerable TDM measure for starting to control how many cars are on the roadway. And how much VMT we're producing and thereby how much greenhouse gases were producing so yes it's a recognized control measure for that. And then I guess I have a question, kind of on the equity component I I understand is still on TDM and it's still on the next I word and Stephanie is I struggle a bit with unbundled parking from an equity component. I understand that there is argument on it reflecting the true cost of parking by unbundling it but I'm wondering if one of you can speak to the equity component that it presents. You know, there's a, there's a parking spot for example, in San Francisco right now that's for sale for $90,000. And the truth is when we unbundled parking, we are essentially making parking something available only for those who can afford it and it kind of becomes in the leadest and a privileged component of life. And I, and I just, I, if you could, because I read, I went and I did some research I read about unbundled parking and how it does disassociate the cost but I still struggle a bit on the on the equity component so if you, and none of the research I read really can't really address that component and since we're trying to have a lens of equity. Is this something we also contemplated. And could you speak to that on how we don't end up creating cars as something when the privileged have access to or is it just we're saying that in order to achieve a reduction. It's. Yeah, so I can understand that perspective. Typically, what people don't realize is that the cost of providing parking is actually pretty high. So the idea is when developer project development unbundles it, they can actually reduce the cost of the housing. We, we are a very different place in San Francisco, where the cost of parking is valued at a much higher rate because of the density levels that are there. So I don't, you know, I hope that we won't see see that kind of parking cost. And in other metropolitan areas, the cost when it's unbundled doesn't prohibit a person from affording the at least my own anecdotal personal experience, affording the parking. The other thing is that this is tied to, again, that piece of code that was requested by the board of supervisors where we do unbundle parking for certain projects that provide bus passes, as well as other incentives. So it's, it's something that's going to be tapped in well could theoretically be tapped into in the code. And therefore, we'd like to offer it as a TD a measure as well since it does encourage people to do things like scooter bike or walk. Commissioner, I would just offer up the kind of the opposite perspective of keeping it bundled may force folks to essentially pay for parking because it gets roped into rents right when they don't need it. So I think that there's two perspectives to two sides of the coin there. I don't know what you mean by bundled. I bundled parking is when you get your parking spot as part of your housing and unbundled is when you pay for the parking spot separately from your housing. So you're paying 1500 2000 $3,000 for your rental, and you're paying 100 $200 for your parking spot independently. I can just ask one other quick clarification about what you are talking about Allison. I think in one of our hearings you explained that this dependent and having the transit system operated a certain defined level which ours doesn't. I reminded of this because in San Francisco the muni is really good and stops everywhere that that's far from the case and you mentioned in one of our hearings that our transit system right now the bus doesn't really qualify for that kind of comprehensive transit system because it doesn't. No, so actually they we could choose to implement this without having a high level of transit, which is one of my concerns is that in places where unbundled parking is often popular like San Francisco and Seattle. It's because they it's places where they do have transit systems that can support not having a vehicle and while we're heading in that direction it is one of my concerns, but I share your concern I think it's a serious concern. But I appreciate Miss Hansen and the sharing with me some of the reasons that unbundled parking is beneficial and and the equity argument for unbundled so I appreciate you answering my question. So, I think that I have just I apologize. I have a lot of questions that are helping decide about some of my directions this afternoon. One of my all the rest of my questions are all in the actual code itself. So they're kind of everybody all over the place depending on where we are in the code. So I'll just go through them. It's I start in the ag use chart and let me just get there it's 1310 312-1 it's the ag use chart. I need to. My note says that we're allowing the processing we're allowing ag processing of 60,000 square feet on a zone parcels but we're not on CA zone parcels. I'm any of my rate on that. According to the use chart. Let me just get there for a moment. Trust me. My question is taking twice as long because I have to do the same when I'm looking. So I'm sorry you're asking ag processing facilities. When I when I'm looking at the code, it looks like we are with the CUP mind you but still, we're saying ag processing facilities. We're saying we are allowing them on a zone parcels but not on CA zone parcels and my understanding that correctly according to the. Ag use chart. And that's 1310 312-1 if any of my fellow commissioners like to know what I'm looking at. Okay yeah I see that I see the confusion because it looks like in the draft, the strike through language did not appear correctly so what it's actually saying is on. So we have the you know the development area cap with the intention to protect the agricultural resource soil so when CA ag processing facilities allowed up to 60,000 square feet and that's the maximum size on CA on a. There could be an application for larger than 60,000 square feet so that's where the na would be if it's larger than 60,000 square feet and that that again would be subject to discretionary review and and findings and that sort of thing but. So I am understanding it correctly. Yeah, that that's that size level yes. So I guess my question is any why are we allowing such a large kind of. Why are we allowing such a large processing facility on an a zone parcel that we wouldn't allow on a CA zone parcel when a is supposed to have these what I consider less intense uses on an a zone parcel why are we even contemplating them on an a zone parcel will be. I mean I understand we're protecting we weren't we're trying to protect type one type three you know this primary uses on the CA zone parcel but I have to admit I was surprised to see that we're allowing these even even with the greater. Why are we even contemplating these greater intensification of uses on an a zone parcel when we're not contemplating it even on an CA zone parcel. Well the intention is to be able to provide. Necessary act support. Well still protecting ag resource land so there aren't, there aren't. Many opportunities for our land available for those types of uses so so a zone parcels. See, it would be seems the most appropriate again considering all the findings that we made and public input so. And with with ag resource oils that the criteria come into play regarding conversion of ag land and loss of ag land so so there are more limitations in some cases for CA. Okay. Okay, thank you I appreciate that. Okay. Okay. Okay. So the next question is in 1310 323 be told you any I told you all my questions following your camp. 323. It has to do with greenhouses. No it's anything is I'm still in the use chart I apologize I'm still in the use chart. It references 1310.323 be and I didn't understand what 1310. That's what it was okay the use chart under greenhouses references 1310 323 be and I don't understand with 1310 323 be I don't understand how they're connected and because they're dependent on each other. I'm, I'm confused, and you could clarify because 1310 323 be has to do with the creek that the title is literally site area for the creation of new sites, and then you get down. So I'm I didn't understand the connection, because greenhouses are obviously a very big deal. And we're talking about greenhouses both 1000s per feet or less and larger if the references in both sections under greenhouses in that use chart. So I remember what I was referencing in my notes. Okay, so in greenhouses in that same 1310.323 in that in that in that use chart, maybe I'm in residential. Nice which, maybe I'm in the res chart, hold on. I'm in residential chart. I'm in any I'm not in your section anymore. I'm in the residential use chart now. Okay, not your problem. 1310 322 dash one the residential use chart references this section. And I don't understand how they're connected. So I don't know who wrote the residential use chart. But I'm confused. And I don't know what to do with this section because it has to do with greenhouses that are 1000s per feet or less and 1000s per feet or larger. It references this thing and I don't because they're principally permitted. And then, and then they also require MUPs which doesn't require notification of their neighbors and I want to understand. It's clearly dependent on this section and I don't understand how they're connected and so I can't make a determination whether or not I'm okay with it until I understand it. So I don't know if somebody can look at that and they get back to me. And when we have these references that they Yes, we want them to be helpful and I don't know if Daisy's on and has a ready answer but we might. If not, then we'll return this afternoon. Yeah, I can take a look and give you a more complete answer but just looking in the sort of text box explanation. That comes before the residential use chart. What we state there is the reasoning for adding that reference was to clarify that greenhouses are not subject to the accessory structures standards. But which are in 1310 611, but I will go ahead and check the reference of 1310 323 B and see whether that's a typo or not. Okay, thank you. The next one I have questions on this 1310 323. Oh, I'm still in. Okay, I think I might be in that same section 1310 323 B. Hi. So that's still sounds like that's still Daisy. It references In the zone districts listed in subsections a and then it says a through D of the section. But I don't, I don't know if they're talking. I don't know what they're talking about any I don't, and I'm sorry, this is Daisy Daisy I don't know what you're trying to tell me is happening here. So I'm in 1310 323 the development standard standards residential districts. The last one so Yep, I got it. So Commissioner Vellante, it looks like that's a typo and what it should say is in the zone districts listed in subsections one a through D. So capital A should be changed to a one. So one and then it should be lowercase a. Correct. I will need to go take a peek at that. Now that I know that thank you I appreciate the clarification. Yep, and we'll make a note of that as well. So I'm just making notes to myself so I can go back and look. Okay, this one is really important to me to 1310 332 B2. It has to do with. When we read it again. It's 1310 332 and B to the commercial standard. So what it has to do is a change of use. So it's when you have to like to find it by note I noted that first year is when you do or do not essentially have to seek approval for change of use. So if you are. You don't do an intensification of use. You don't necessarily have to go back out for an MEP or an MEP. That's what this piece of the code references but the language is important to have in front of me because it's I I that's really important to me and I can. The new use will not result in an intensification of use. And because it lists some circumstances that must be met in order for this to be true. I'm looking at B2. The change of use of an existing legal structure in a commercial zone district. Okay. And it says the change of use and existing legal structure may be approved with a zoning clearance, which is what I said that you don't have to go back out. If the following criteria are met. And it says the new use is allowed in the zone district. The new use will not result in an intensification of use. And and this is the one I'm hoping they see maybe can speak to which is, there's a use permit or master use permit for the existing use and or the new use is specified in a new in the parcel in a town or village specific plan. So you can speak to how often you think this happens because in some ways it feels very much like a loophole. It feels like you can just switch from having an admin, you know, you can have an admin use like a, you know, you can have some something smaller like a instruction studio and then you can go for something that's requires a bigger. You can only require a higher level of noticing. And so I'm hoping you can explain to me kind of how often you think this is met. So you can tell explain to me how this circumstance. The circumstance where you would not need a use permit or where you would change of use. Correct. Um, yeah, so some feedback that staff has gotten over the years and also from the economic mentality study process has been that one kind of barrier in the community for businesses is this use permit requirement being rather onerous the current commercial use permit requirement. Um, so the change that we're making here is to still require use permits but only in situations where there's no intensification of use and the use is allowed and also there's already an existing use permit. So I don't know if I would classify it as a loophole necessarily on its providing clarification on situations where it would be appropriate to to get a use permit with with parameters and what could be allowed on the property and the the intensification of use just to provide that information that is defined in the code that's in 13 10 700 so it's not a it's not squishy it is it is defined for commercial it's 10% or 100. Yeah, 10% right. I'm familiar. I guess my concern is that so if you had someone who like let's say they have a use permit for something that on the front end will require an AUP they could change their use to something that would normally require a use permit to be as long as there was an intensification of use and so and so that's when you buy a loophole. And so that's because the neighbors would not be given the right to be notified that something was changing. And so this is where to me I assumed in this environment that you've been talking to me is that perhaps, and maybe I'm wrong and it sounds like perhaps it was I was hoping that maybe you were going to explain to me that I the I was written in a way to limit how often this would happen because when I read it I said okay well there's a use permit or master use permit. And or there's this new use permit and specified in these town and asked insight specific plans that you are going to tell me that no this will happen not very frequently, unless they were part of a village plan. You know they were part of the sea the sea cliff village master plan unless they're part of, but it sounds like what you're telling me is no it's just strictly designed to streamline it my understanding that correctly. Um, well it's yeah so it's designed to yes streamline the process in terms of reducing the number of commercial use permit applications that that are required. But while still keeping in some parameters here but you are correct that there could be a situation where there's a use that in the use chart requires a higher use permit level and I don't see where in subsection three. That would necessarily require review for a new use permit, as long as there wasn't an intensification of use. So that is something that you know the Commission may want to consider making adjustments. Yeah, thank you I appreciate that just this one I mean I think of like the conflict areas and someone being like oh well we thought it was just going to be a small something and then the change so I appreciate that clarity. The next one is in the commercial use chart. There are three categories. Bars and nightclubs, pasting rooms and liquor stores that were all allowed in the PA zone district, as long as they were ancillary and I for the life of me could not think of when any of those uses would be ancillary to professional and admin. Can you give me an example of when that would be appropriate like ancillary because if it can't I kind of. Yeah, could you just give me an example of where we we staff and visions that being possible. Sure. So the so so what you're referring to is the use has a little like super script of a next to the permit. And the way we define that at the top of the uses chart is the use must be ancillary or complimentary to another allowed use a primary allowed use must first be in place or must be proposed concurrently on a site to allow an ancillary or complimentary use. The idea with the PA district, which is the office professional administrative district is that the primary, you know appropriate uses in that district, our office uses. However, one thing that we're trying to achieve with the sustainability update is to allow for more walkability. And part of that is allowing for workers to be able to walk to access restaurants for instance, during the workday and those kinds of uses so entertainment and sort of dining uses. Maybe appropriate in the PA district, but certainly the primary use on those on those parcels should still be the office uses. I would say, is this a recognition of how stressful it is to work inside the office now. Yeah, I have to admit I, I, I, I easy I 100% support the direction that the staff is going and creating these integrated workplaces, but I do struggle to see how bars and night clubs are needed in a walkable community when we're talking PA. So I, I might just ask that this afternoon. But I appreciate you being handed about how we got there because I completely understand how you got there just I was like night clubs bars interesting way to get people come into the office. Thanks happy hour very easy on Friday after this. Okay. My next question had to do with table 13 times 331333 dash one which was commercial site instructional dimensions chart. I put a minimum height of 15 feet. And I was just wondering about how we ended up with that because I, I think of like the written house building downtown some of the commercial structures on like say Scottsville I drive that are empty and how expensive the TIs are on these and I support 15 feet being an option that I just wondered on the logic of minimum versus maximum. And why we're searching for such conformity of a minimum. And I can sort of kick us off and answering that. So, the 15 foot minimum height is for the first story floor to ceiling height in the C three workplace flex zone district, which is a new zone district. And the kind of core purpose of that district is to provide for flexible space that can be easily converted between light industrial and other types of commercial uses. And so for that district, in particular, the ceiling height of at least 15 feet is useful to make sure that that those buildings are able to be converted in that way. In the future. And I believe that the, the research that was done related to that building height actually went into the sustainable Santa Cruz County plan that was completed in 2014. I guess I'm so struggling, they need to understand. I don't really, it sounds like that research went to just to justify allowing 15 feet but I'm still struggling to understand why it's a minimum. Well, it's allowed currently there's no, there's no minimum or maximum on ground, you know, ground to ceiling height for any of our commercial districts currently. And setting a minimum requires that you have a taller first, first floor on these buildings that can accommodate light industrial uses more easily. So the research so that by allowing 15 feet you accommodate greater uses did it did it did it speak at all about displacing any of these smaller uses. And because I think I'm, I think of some of our, our current kind of small amount of mom and pop shops that we don't want to displace by allowing some of these and I just, I, that's my best race people at the TI costs and we do lose businesses and people want to move into a smaller space and I want to make sure that we're not creating an economic obstacle of allowing small retail to go into these spaces and so I wasn't sure about that so I'm it's good to hear that we already allow 15 feet but I'm just the idea of creating a minimum. I like it's good to hear that it creates opportunity. I just, it's, I'm okay. I just add that the, the maximum building height in that district is 50 feet as well which sort of accommodates that first floor height is as well. Next question I had was in 1310343, which I think is ag again. The question has a and RA listed. Let me see what I'm talking about. Thank you to the Commission and staff for bearing with me on my 300 questions. And for me knowing what I want to clarifying for myself. My direction, my ideas this afternoon. 1310343 is industrial. Yeah, but I, my question says what is the maximum building height if not within 200 feet of bar or, or a districts, as a read as a read none appears is what I wrote as my question. So, it, although it's the commercial use, my question has to do with. I see, yeah, with referencing to these. These are or a district. So is there a height limit. Right, so. Well, the provision is meant to kind of control the massing if you're near residential areas. And, you know, the R or a district that might also, you know, that accommodate residential uses so it's meant to kind of control them impacts when you have zoning districts that have very different functions and are immediately adjacent to one another. So, but I guess my question though, Stephanie is it in the M2 district. It just says it says three stories 40 feet if within 200 feet of our of our or a district so do we not have a maximum height. Oh, I see what you're saying. So in M2. Do we not do we not have an maximum height. If it's not within the 200 feet of our or a district of our districts. So in the middle of the chart on, there's a there's on my different. It's page 19. It is. Even on the online version. In the middle of the chart. Yes. I see where you're at. Yeah. And so there's just, there's no, this is three stories 48 if within like, so if you're not within 200 feet of a residential or an A zone parcel, and maybe there are no M2 parcels that aren't within that, but I assume there are. And so I'm going to be referenced this, like we list zero maximum height, and I feel like we do we need to give direction to provide a maximum height if you are in all of those situations. But let us look at that a little bit more closely and get back to you this afternoon. I am if you can't tell I'm one of the people who read all of them. I'm glad it's good and see 100 questions. The next one says 13 10 616. Okay, I think I might have fixed that already. Okay, I have a question about it's about the definitions but it's also about, I'll ask it now but it's really in the definition so there's inconsistency. So produce stands. There's inconsistency in the definition in 13 10 700 and what is defined in 13 10 640 on whether or not processed goods are allowed. If you read one, it says that no process goods are allowed and one the other one it says like 15%. And because of inconsistency, I'm not sure which direction staff actually intended. And therefore I don't clearly a correction needs to happen and I don't know which I don't know which you intended so I don't know which way to go in terms of my recommendation. Thank you. I, I heard the question. Let me, can I look at that and get back to you up to the lunch break. Absolutely. Yeah, I know so because because I'm a little unclear because there's the temporary and then there's the produce stands and produce markets. And they, they don't dive. And therefore, I would like to make some comments and recommendations on that section this afternoon and so it'd be helpful to me to know what staff had wanted so I can know how to respond. Yeah, okay, I think this is my last comment 13 10 689 dash to commercial VA maximum densities outside the USL. It's talking about the fact that you can, can you go over the numbers in this chart for me, it's the chart so it's table 13 10 689 dash to the visitor serving combination maximum densities outside the USL. I was just hoping you go over the numbers in the chart, because I read it and I kind of get to like 200 overnight guests, when I look at this, and then I, I, I would just, someone could go over the numbers and that would be helpful. Daisy and Natisha. Yeah, I can, I can get a start and maybe Natisha can help me. I know we both worked on this section. So I'm looking at the table 13 10 689 dash to the density. So there's no maximum density on hotels and motels, except in the TP or parks districts, where we allow 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit. And the rural matrix unit. You know that's that's calculated based on doing the rural, the rural density matrix. And then for bed and breakfast and ends we allow 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit up to 20 VA units total. But Daisy can I ask a question just interrupting you so it says 29 overnight guests per. And this is when I get to the 200 because it's 20 guests per unit up to 20 units. And so that's 200 guests crack. Well, so that's that's that's why I wanted you to go over with me or the whole am I understanding this correctly that you can get to get 10 guests per unit up to 20 units. Or and I'm understanding for the bed and breakfast and then for the rural matrix obviously there's a different calculation. Sure, so, so believe it or not, we're working on making this section simpler than it currently is. But the, the rural matrix units and the VA units are two different things. So the rural rural matrix units are calculated using the rural density matrix. So for most properties it's just, you know, one or two or three. Unless you have a really large property, and then you may you may have more. And a total of 20 units would 20 visitor accommodation units would be allowed and visitor accommodation units are defined within this code section and in 13 10 700, which means a room cabin or sweet. And so I'm not sure. So 20 would be the maximum not 200. But it's it's more than number of guests because I mean that's the number of guests. I think that's what I'm trying to understand. So it's it's like, it's 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit and that's the part where I'm trying to understand the language. So it is it is it 10 guests per unit. And then, and that's where I'm trying to understand this chart to so that I can understand what's being recommended here. Because because the way I read it and this is it and then so I really want you to talk with them I'm understanding it correctly is it's 10 guests per unit whether or not that's a VA unit or if it's a rural matrix unit. So I'm going to understand because we're talking about allowing in these in a variety of increased spaces we're starting talking about allowing these spaces we're talking and we're talking about expanding this and we're talking about these allowing us an hour and hour and hour and I really want to make sure I understand how many people are we talking about allowing on these parcels and so that's where I apologize when struggling to understand the numbers. Yeah, so so it'd be 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit and that would it would really depend on the size of the property, how many matrix units, you know, you would, you would have on that property. And that would, you know, that would determine your number of guests. And then those guests could fit into a maximum of 20 visitor accommodation unit so it's sort of two different controls on maximum density for bed and breakfast in outside the US L RSL and that one you know it's a little bit more. It's a little bit of a hybrid for that particular one. Because within the US L RSL there's a max of 20 VA units for bed and breakfast ends. In most zone districts and then outside the US L RSL the maximum density is for the most part driven by the rural mate rural density matrix. So that density calculation for Ben breakfast ends outside the US L RSL takes into account both of those controls on density. Left off understanding your response could you simplify what you're saying a little bit so if you so I understand what you both are discussing. You could have a bread and breakfast and you could have 20 cabins in each cabin could be big enough to hold 10 people, but it would be subject to the rural matrix code which has to do with the ability to land to support it in terms of services and capacity. My understanding right. Well, if I understand Daisy correctly and they tell me if I get this correctly but it's more that you can have 10 overnight guests per time multiplied by each by the matrix for a total of up to 10 units is that correct. So it's 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit so let's say a typical you know rural property might have two or three matrix units. So let's say it has three three matrix units you go through the whole rural density matrix calculation process that's in section 1314 of the code. And you are allowed to have 30 guests based on that those 30 guests can be accommodated with a maximum of 20 cabins or rooms or whatever kind of accommodations you're providing where the 20 maximum cabins or rooms really comes into play as if you have a very large rural parcel. That has a large number of rural density units. Then the 20 maximum cabins or or rooms would be the control that on density. That would be more important than the total number of guests. What's a rural density unit. So section 1314 of our code is called the rural density matrix and that is how density is calculated in the rural area. No changes are proposed to that calculation method as part of this project. Okay. I think I better understand that easy. It's worded just oddly. I mean it's basically you get up to 20 VA units and you can total period within those 20 units you can put 10 overnight guests per the rural. Exactly. The way it's worded I was it was a bit confusing. So okay I better understand now. Yeah, I better understand this map I still have. I still have some concerns, which I'll get into with the rest of the commissioners this afternoon a bit about the commercialization of some of our rural parcels, which doesn't really just have to do with this as to some of the other other code. But I appreciate you kind of walking me through that that was, like I said it was worded is worded in a way that it was a bit confusing. Understood. I think that would be up to 20 units and then explain how I do the fit within them. Because. Okay, I appreciate that. I think, I think that's all my questions I apologize I appreciate everyone's been talking to me through all of my questions. Commissioner be on a I thought I could respond now to your question about protest stands before the afternoon. So I did look at it and it should be the intention was to, as it's worded in 1613 10640 up to 15%, maybe use for the sales or process produced by the stand operator so the intent really is to support you know especially like small farms and support agritourism where they may need a sort of diversity of farm products to be able to maintain viability so that was kind of the intention of it. So we are allowing process goods on both types of both produce stands and produce markets. It's right but it's only on temporary produce stands that we're limiting it to non process goods and like this is strictly out of memory but is that correct. Yes, right and then for the for the produce stands there is that caveat that it's produced on site produced by the stand operator right so it's in other words not like selling corn chips or something it's like jams or you know fruit juice or that sort of thing. Thank you I appreciate that clarity chair Gordon I am finally done. This is what we had this meeting for so. Thank you a lot of good questions and clarifications there. So we do have a scheduled lunch right around 1230s about 10 minutes from now so I don't know if there's another commissioner that has about 10 minutes for the questions or wants to start and then we can come back to them after I think I only have about 10 minutes worth of questions but I want to really thank Commissioner Villalanti for her detailed questions and actually got rid of a couple of my questions. So I'll try to go quick. The first question I have is in the zoning code chapter 1310 311 agricultural districts, and on page six. I'm going off of the online version. Is there a definition is talking about agritourism. Is there a definition for agritourism, like what all of the uses that we're lumping into that term. See I, I don't let me look at the definitions quickly I don't I don't recall the top of my head if that's there. There is in 700 agritourism and education visitor oriented services events. Give me the page number. Yes, where I can find it so I can look at it at the break. You bet. So it's 1310 700 on page five. I'm sorry, I just look forward to. Okay, well I will take a look at that myself. Okay, good. Thank you. And then the next question I have also has. So now I'm in residential districts. Page eight of 1310 321 and I apologize if my page numbers are off. But this is about bed and breakfasts. And it looks like the proposal is to allow a BNB with 12 or fewer rooms with an AUP. And then my question is, so vacation rentals for a new vacation rental, we're requiring a public hearing still, which I think is a good idea, having gone through that process. But so you this would be like having a vacation rental with up to 24 people with no public hearing but vacation rentals of, you know, maybe just a free veteran vacation rental needs a public hearing. Was this purposeful to like, let BNBs go without a public hearing or was this something that maybe we should take a second look at. I would say was it's purposeful BNBs are allowed in the code now. And we, I think the big change was that we went up to 12 rooms instead of I believe the current code is five. And so it was recognition that Ben, Ben breakfast, you know, exist in our community and have a place in our community and we want to, you know, be able to support support those those those are separate from vacation rentals. Obviously, it's a more of a facility than renting out your house or a hosted rental. Right. So I guess I would think like, I guess. So, but vacation rentals are getting a public hearing of BNB that could have up to 24 guests, no public hearing. Because I'm just trying to square that. Like, why would one need to be here and the other one doesn't. I, I see, I see your point. I don't, I don't think there was an intentional discrepancy, obviously there, but if you do think that a higher level of review is necessary that that might be a tweak. Okay, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something, something I'm missing here. Okay. Thank you. The next set of questions are all having to do with chapter 18. The first one is the definition of variance on page 10. I didn't see was the old was there an old definition of variance that this is replacing that I just missed seeing the cross out. I'm not sure. Well, maybe we can look at these during the break and kind of get back to you. Okay. Yeah, that would be good because I just kind of the way that the various definition reads now. It seems to be a little bit different than what we've used in the past, which was, you know, variances would would not, you know, confirm a benefit on a property owner not provided to neighboring property properties which is maybe in state law so I just wanted to see how it was changed from the way we previously looked at a variance. And then on page 31, see discretionary permit approvals with public hearings. This was read to me a little confusing. And I think that it didn't acknowledge that from my understanding, if a project is in the coastal zone. It can be a field directly to the coastal commission. I think that it might be worth noting that and just read a little confusing to me so that I wouldn't necessarily know that that would be the case if that wasn't wasn't in there. Sorry, I'm going really fast because I want to finish before I got three minutes. The next question I had is on page 38. It's 181014 and has to do a general plan plan conformity. So in this section consistent was replaced with insubstantial conformance. But then at the end of this section consistent with is defined. And I'm just wondering why not just what was the thinking behind replacing consistent with substantial conformance. They have a different meaning and it seems like. Anyway, yeah, you could explain that the thinking behind replacing that consistent with substantial conformance. It's probably just meant to consistent is a pretty broad term and can be really subjective. And so I think this is this change in wording is meant to provide a little bit more detail as to kind of what we're talking about and drive that point a little bit better than just to say consistent. So if you're Jenny, you know, if you're, if you're mostly meeting the general plan requirements, then that's what we're saying. That's interesting because the way I read it I thought that consistent means you have to be consistent with the general plan but insubstantial conformance means you have to be just like you said, in general conforming so I'm trying to read it the opposite way that you just explained, which shows a difficult it is when we always do. I'll ask any do you have an, do you, the section I'll be super honest with you is written a very long time ago, we obviously looked it over for consistency with the other things that are conformance with the other things that we've done. It wasn't around for the initial thinking it through and so just ask any of, if she might have any better idea than me. This is 1810 140. Yeah, I, I know that the previous planning director was in favor of this language as opposed to consistent with. And I mean, I, I think that her understanding of the term sort of agrees with Commissioner Dan's understanding is sort of sort of more generally informs rather than absolutely consistent with so that that's good enough I mean, I'll sit on that one. And then I am completely sympathetic to we did this a long time ago and I forgot because I feel that way about so many sections of this. I'm like, Commissioner Vialante what was it what did I mean here. Okay, actually that was it. That was it for questions so I made it. I can just note, John record, just wanted to let the Commission know that he's available for any questions regarding water and sewer service or other related questions will be available until 230 today for questions and then he'll need to leave so Can I ask my own question then that I realize I didn't ask I'm so sorry to the Commission can ask one real quick. So in, in the, in the parks and rec open space, there's a can, there's a PPF board one K it says continue monitoring seawater intrusion in the Pajaro Valley so called area and along the north coast. I was just a little confused because the Pajaro Valley is not one of our planning areas, and the seawater intrusion is reserved in the mid county basin area which is like the San Andreas and the Selva planning area and I just wasn't sure what area was meant there and I was assured. If someone can, if maybe John can mention what was meant by that particular part of the general plan because I didn't. That's not the area I would have described it as maybe it's just, I don't know the so called area means. I don't think that policy changed I'm not aware of writing any new policies about that any was that the same as it's been in the general plan. I would need to look. I'm not sure if that's unless any of my other. Our other team members have insights on the policy but I would need to check and see if that was a change or not. That's fine. It seems like it's referring to the groundwater areas as opposed to the planning areas. Pajaro Valley mid county and also north coast all all places where we have seen some evidence of seawater intrusion. Okay, it describes it as the so called area. Okay, maybe we could look at the wording. Yeah, I mean we could change that to mid county then it would be consistent with the mid county groundwater basin. And can you read me the name, the number of that policy again. Yeah, ppf or got one K has a lcp next to it. Yeah. I wanted to mention that Rachel fatui has also been promoted and there was a question earlier that Matt Machado thought Rachel might want to weigh in on I don't know if the commissions still wanted to hear from Rachel but she's with us as well. I think it was, I think it was Rachel we were talking about the minimum design storm, or the, I think it was minimum use the word and I responded that we use the 25 year storm event, and there needed to be clarification to reference minimum design storm standards. Is it the 25 year was I correct or am I wrong. So the minimum required for a pie is always typically 10 years. That's when it's more restricted than we require five years. But the typical most most locations we require 10 years from within the pie. And we allow the county design here allows some flow to go in the street if it doesn't do I mean if it is contained within the traffic lane. So we allow safe conveyance within the road or other adjacent to the road conveyances up to 25 years from this is county wide and then we have larger watershed it can go to 100 years from the minimum. Yes, as Matt said is 25 years from and that 25 years from can be conveyed in the fight as well as safety. And that's for flood control when we talk about minimum storm that there are issues if it's mitigations then we go for smaller storms that's different than conveyance. Thank you. I'm sorry I didn't hear the question one Allison I was away from my desk and I came back and Matt was talking. Okay, so I didn't hear your question Allison but I'm just warming up one month with Matt said. I appreciate it it just is broadly worded so I appreciate that fine. Great. All right. Well thank you everyone. We'll go ahead and take a 30 minute lunch break at this time and come back at 105 and keep going with our questions. So thank you so much and we'll see you all in a little bit. Thanks. Great. Thank you. See Commissioner Vialante. She gave away. All right. Commissioner lasin be. Yes. Oh, I didn't. Yes, I saw the wave. I was worried you didn't hear me when I said here also. Commissioner shepherd. I'm here. Thanks and chair Gordon. Here. All right. Okay, now we can continue on return for. For the. Question and answer period. There we go. So commissioner's lasin being shepherd. I believe you're the last two and did either one of you want to start with some questions for. Staff. Well, I just have one question. I think everybody's covered everything else. But this has to do with pleasure point. And I was, I was listening to Patricia Brady who gave testimony this morning. About the pleasure points guidelines that they developed in 2018. These were guidelines for building development. Which limited it to 30 units per acre. Plus a density bonus. And now am I correct that our current requirement for. Density is 45 to 60 units. Per acre. The proposed density for residential flex is 22 to 45 units per acre. And I see any on maybe she could address the 30 unit max site. I'm not sure I'm aware of that. Yes, there was no. Density maximum provided it in the pleasure point. Guiding design principles. The division called for, you know, supporting workforce housing within the quarter, which is the. 26th Avenue to 41st Avenue. And that's a long portola. But so, you know, it is to our mind it's consistent with the vision of providing workforce housing, but there was no, there's no maximum density specified in that, in that study. Okay, so if I were a developer, and I wanted to build a multifamily building. I wouldn't be approved if I said I just wanted to build 30 units per acre. Right. You would be within the range allowed in the new residential flex if that was your zoning. Okay, but if I was commercial, is it 45 to 60. I'm sorry say that again. In commercial. Is it 45 to 60 commercial. commercial allows up to 75% of the floor area to be residential as currently drafted. And, and that's allowed at the residential flex zoning. Okay, but the density range 22 to 45. And that's just why I thought I put that down for residential sorry. I would get approval to build a development in pleasure point is that correct. You, well, you, you would need to be consistent with the zoning on the property and then yes, you could get a permit. Right. Okay. Thank you. That answers that. I have one comment, going back to highway one and the absence of trees along highway one there. In Watsonville we have a Watsonville wetlands watch, and they have a whole forest of trees, and they're giving them away, and they're coming out and planting them. And they're going to plant them in my front yard, well, one in my front yard. And I could check with them and see if they were help out in reforesting highway one in that section. That's just that would be, that would be, that would be lovely would certainly take some coordinate coordination with Caltrans largely we're talking about their right of way. Right. Okay. Thank you. And that's, that's it for me. Okay, well, I'm ready to go. Yes, please. Commissioner shepherd. Thank you. So first of all, let me ask a follow up question about the same pleasure point design guidelines. I thought that had been adopted to by the supervisor so wouldn't that govern the density to some extent. The pleasure point design district because we've always deferred to it and other role changes. The pleasure point corridor vision and guiding principles were accepted by the board in 2018 as a study. The direction was to analyze to analyze. Analyze impacts within the EIR and to include provisions in the sustainability update, which largely is what has is happening here there are a couple policies and couple implementation strategies that refer to the vision and to the Portola drive streetscape concepts. And then pieces of the design guidelines that are relevant for the commercial corridor are actually included as an appendix be in the proposed county design guidelines so they didn't adopt that plan. But it got it, you know, pieces of it got roped into the sustainability update for implementation. Okay, well my questions. Basically, could you go over briefly where we have ended up on the conversion of that way. I know you removed the good deal of the language about products specific about projects in general, but where exactly are we ending up. Yeah, maybe you could help with this one. Yeah, maybe you can just read the final paragraph because I had the original and I had what you said you were going to do, but I just want it and you said that you were still working on it. So we're, we're we ended up. Certainly let me. I know we've had several replacement pages so I believe that is in one of our replacement page. And the other thing, while she's looking for that just to keep things moving along my other question is, there was a question that referred to a table of specific measures for the VMT mitigation measures on a table but I never learned what you were going to suggest. In terms of policy, but I never did find them on the table there wasn't anything there. Do you know what I'm talking about my being too vague. The mitigation measures for traffic per VMT. Yeah, you referred to a table I went to the table but I'm sitting but one thing at a time sorry. Oh, no that's okay. Yeah, I somehow had that up on my screen and it disappeared so I need to pull it back up again so just bear with me. Okay, so this was provided in the replacement pages the general plan replacement pages that were provided for the August 24 hearing. And this is on page. Five dash 34 of the general plan, and this is policy. Let's see. Well, can you send that page to me. I'm sure but I probably the rest of the commission would like to hear it too so I'll read it and then I can certainly forward it. Okay, this is policy AR, ARC 1.3.1. And there was language previously regarding conversion of agricultural land, and there was a provision that allowed for conversion of CA land to accommodate a public quasi public use. And that was deleted from the general plan so that, and this was in response to concerns from your commission as well as the postal commission. So that was deleted from the general plan that was a provision provision that had been added that was new language so that's no longer included in the general plan language. Let's move back to what it said originally. Yeah, so basically there is an existing provision that allows conversion of ag land only when it's been determined that the agricultural land is no longer viable so that that is still a policy in the code in the general plan that provides a process for converting ag land. So there's no change. So regarding right so that that sort of new language that have been added about allowing conversion of ag land for a public civil use is no longer in the general plan as it's proposed. Okay, and then my next question is, why is, why was the thinking to unfold all trail planning into the parks program. The other counties that I'm familiar with involve conceive of trails. In other words, the way people can get around by bike by foot by horse, by bicycle, whatever, as an important part of circulation and accessibility and mobility. We have a lot of, we still have a lot of like worries that are now being mitigated and restored. In my district, there's currently two vacant quarries with future land uses. And the plan has always been that at that time whether they end up being residential parks or public or whatever that there would be trail plans for them. And there's also long been the idea that people should be able to get around by using trail access and so I have always thought that when there's a big development plan. People, there is a trail access plan. Sorry, I need to turn that off. And it was in it was in the circulation. It was moved from circulation to parks. That's a fairly big step. It just goes to show that we don't have trails plan most other counties in the Bay Area have extensive ones. And you just tell me your thinking. Yeah, so I believe we talked about this at a couple meetings ago. And this was done in coordination with the parks department who actually manages the trails planning process. They felt it would be better to have policies related to trails specifically within the park section of the parks and public facilities element. There are still some references in the general plan in chapter five to trails. And it doesn't preclude us planning for asking for trail development in the process of approving a discretionary approval of a or as a mitigation for a development. That's really what I want to know. For example, the quarries are hundreds, several hundred and three or 400 acres in 20 years that will be available for development. The plan is already always to have trail easements. And as you know, the county holds trail easements for the public. And as you know, the public is very interested in circulating around on on trail. What I'm saying is the parks department will continue to deal with trail development in the parks, but outside the parks to connect communities that would be an issue that would be something in the planning department still trail dedications for example. It would be a combination of parks public works and planning, working on facilitating a new trail development. And I think be more specific. There's two quarries. That's my example, they're not going to be parks. So why would park would parks wasn't involved because it wasn't going to be a park. If they were on if the trail ends up being through or on a public right of way or something that would be considered like a protected bike lane and protected paths and that would be under the supervision of public works and planning. Yes, and that's specifically. These are blank canvases we have for empty quarries all of which are under getting, you know, getting revegetated and so on. They're, they're not parks and at some point we'll be developing them. And I wanted to make sure there's a lot of people in their communities to that people can still cross that part of the planning would involve public access in the form of trails. So trails don't necessarily mean park trails. That's my point right in the in the access and circulation or access mobility element we refer to those as often as class four facilities or protected facilities where people can walk and bike off of the street. So they're not sidewalks, we don't use the term trails as much. But that kind of facility would be in line with the ATP the active transportation plan, as well as the team mitigation for development. Okay, then my other question specifically is, we talked about, let's see, strategies and our 3.3 and 3.3k were added about establishing a mitigation bank to offset perperian corridors. Yes, enough of a reference. I thought that mitigation banks were being looked at a little more carefully, because they have so far in created by private trusts or nonprofits that are set up and there's some question about how effective they are in being administered. So this policy was actually requested or implementation strategy was suggested by the water shed folks at the city of Santa Cruz. I don't have any reference to mitigation banks in the general plan at all really. We thought it was a good, a good suggestion to allow for that possibility. If it comes up. However, it's not, it is, you know, not the only way to mitigate and every development will have to mitigate their impacts to wetlands and other riparian areas. Okay, because there's been a lot of concern on the, on the, you know, in the special district of which is part of the fifth district with the San Park when we have mitigation banks as a question of, are they being kept up. Yeah, their challenges. So there was no monitoring of what's going on there and stuff. So, you know, are they, is it really, it's a great concept. Does it really work. I just wanted to say don't hate to see the county saying oh, not a problem we'll have a mitigation bank and get set up and no one ever really sees what's going on there. I agree. There's been issues with some mitigation banks they need to be set up correctly they need to have an agency that monitors them and, you know, I think that those concerns, it's still a very valid measure because it's often not disagreeing with them just aware that it would have to be more elaborately set up your correctly set up. Thank you. The other big one is I am still quite a little not quite getting what, what changes the changes proposed what the planning commission hears and doesn't hear. I think the planning commission is a really vital thing for the community because it's the only place that we have people who don't work for the planning department are not part of the infrastructure. I'm kind of looking at what's going on and it's a great place for the public to have an opportunity to weigh in. And sometimes as we all know, the public doesn't get involved until there is a planning commission hearing. So, I am not quite clear when it sounds like, aside from senior housing, you know, non housing projects won't be heard anymore by the planning commission so my question is, we have heard across proposals for libraries systems, animal shelters, parks, I do not want to be clear if I'm really understanding what are you limit, what are the significant changes to what you are proposing for planning commission overview. It seems like it's a lot. And I would like to hear your rationale because I don't see any reason to cut down the role of the planning commission frankly. I believe everything much more to the, you could say well, it's okay because anybody can appeal the zoning administrator, but that's a tremendous burden of cost and organization for the average citizen and I don't see why I would like to understand better why you're proposing to reduce the role of the planning commission significantly. Well, I'll just start off by saying that unless I'm not understanding it right, which there's no intent, there's no intent to reduce the role of the planning commission significantly. There, there was it in the code modernization project. There's really a, there's a lot of smaller types of uses that don't have impacts that require public hearings and so a review of all of the kind of level of use permits was done across, across the board to help to streamline development where where that's appropriate and to keep higher level, you know, projects that kind of challenge our policies and keep that kind of thing at the planning commission, as well as legislative matters. So, so, so it's about right sizing the process for the type of development. And I see Daisy so I know she's got a lot of good things to say on this and I'll, I'll turn it over to her. Sure. Yeah, thanks, Stephanie. Yeah, so one issue that we've noticed in relation to what the planning commission currently reviews is that it's, it's pretty different from other jurisdictions of this size. So actually we did take a look at Monterey County, as well as Marin County and Sonoma County, which are all similar to Santa Cruz County in certain ways. And for all of those counties, the planning commission only reviews policy matters, appeals and projects that have significant impacts of some kind or or set some kind of new precedent for like a new type of project or a new issue that is being dealt with. And that's different from the plan from Santa Cruz County where currently the planning commission is the standard, you know, reviewer for many types of projects including you know, projects that meet all of the county's objective standards aren't different from other, you know, projects that we've that you've seen before. So, one of the ideas here is to make sure that your commission is really getting the chance to focus on policy matters and more big picture decision making. And that smaller projects or projects that don't have impacts or aren't setting new precedents are, you know, heard at the zoning administrator level and maybe elevated up to the planning commission level if appropriate. And there's certain types of projects that will or certain types of reviews that will still be at the planning commission, you know, for instance, you'll still be looking at reasons, general plan amendments, subdivisions of more than five sites. And certain types of projects. So, for instance, certain types of commercial uses, certain types of agricultural uses, and certain types of, and certain types of uses in residential zones and all of the uses that are for planning commission review as proposed in the sustainability update are those uses that may have some special impacts that need to be looked at more carefully. But it does say on specifically that all non residential projects would be reviewed at the zoning administrator or lower. Now, all non residential projects is a huge category, usually with very significant impacts on their communities. I, well, this isn't a part to rate recommendations, but that's just a blanket change that I don't think is merited with we at this. First of all, a lot of people don't even find out to anything till after the zoning ministry level, and it'll be all in all done by that point. There's often EIRs on many of these projects that people don't even know about till it gets to the planning commission level. I do not think this is a, well, particularly public serving change to the zoning administrator or lower. Also, it's subject to interpretation. I just don't agree with it, but I'll say that later. I just want to hear your logic and I understand that you were looking at a very high level. Okay, and let me just say one thing regarding, I think you were maybe looking at the staff report regarding the, yeah, regarding that statement about the non residential uses. So during the staff presentation on the 24th, I did note that there is an error in that portion of the staff and so there are some uses, non residential uses that will still be seen at the planning commission level and that's borne out in all of the detail in the use charts. And so some examples are medical clinics, auto sales, transit stations, various types of agricultural uses, air strips. So those are sort of examples of the kind of types of projects that are still proposed to be reviewed at the planning commission level just to give you some more nuance there. Once again, can you give me any more detail then about what is included? What about auditoriums, animal parks, recreational vehicle parks? We had something that didn't come to fruition but we were looking at a huge, enormous mountain bike park. It didn't actually come to that but it under my understanding, that was a huge community concern here both Rowan Khan, would that have been heard by the planning commission? You know, it's going to depend on the zone district and you need to look at the use chart for the zone district to determine what level of review would be required. But I don't believe that RV parks are generally opposed for the planning commission level review. No, I'm sorry, that wasn't an RV park. It was proposed a very large mountain biking park in a, it was actually in Mount Herman, it didn't go anywhere so it's few years ago I might as well mention names. They wanted to take most of their life, a good deal of their open space and convert it to a mountain bike park. So if that had been heard? Yeah, well if it wasn't something that would have been heard at the planning commission level to begin with, if it's a controversial project where there's a lot of public input on it, then what might happen is it might be heard at the zoning administrator level and the appealed or the the CDI director or assistant director might make a call to elevate it to the planning commission level to begin with, just due to the controversial nature of the project. Yeah, okay. The only problem I still see with that is, you all know what's going on at the zoning commission, but at the zoning administrator 99.8% of the citizens in the county pay no attention to it. I don't know what exists till they come up against it, but certainly don't follow its agenda. So something could pass that way and they wouldn't know about it. In fact, that's more normal. Well, yeah, so the actually the outreach that occurs for the zoning administrator is very similar to the outreach that occurs for the planning commission there's a postcard notice that goes out to all residents within at least 300 feet of affected properties. In either in either case. So there is a notification to neighbors for zoning administrator here. I understand and you know I get that unfortunately in the rural areas there could be three neighbors within 300 feet, but thousands of people's very much effective so anyway, I just wanted to know. I don't just don't agree with that but that's okay. No, those were my questions. Thank you very much. Okay, that's what I wanted clarification on which I think is the, is the idea here. Yes. Perfect. Thank you appreciate that. All the commissioners. I had two questions that I missed. Maybe it's one. But it's a clarifying one in the pleasure point community design guidelines page B five. There's worse. I put away but that's along the lines of like this, there's a certain high limit, no exceptions, not allowed. And I wanted to understand the intent of that. I assume it means like through a variance or something but I just want to be clear that I don't think we can limit like density bonus and things like that that are state law. And just wanted to clarify the intent of that. And if we understand that language will hold up or if it should be changed in order to accommodate the intent. Could you direct us to the language you're talking about. Sorry, let me. Okay. And the pleasure point community design guidelines so in the general plan or design guidelines and it's appendix B. And then page B. Item F. And it states require buildings in the corridor to respect the existing high limit with no exceptions and minimize the appearance of height through setbacks, upper story, step backs and articulated colleges. And yeah, so my question there limit with respect existing high limit with no exceptions. And then understand if that was. Go ahead any. So, that was part of the. When we went through the process the community was, you know, felt very strongly about sort of limiting the height so so we retain that language. But it does not change the fact that under state law density bonus you can request a, you know, a variation to the development standards or where it would, you know, limit the density proposed. So, so that, that, you know, that does not. A density bonus, you know, if they would qualify for height limit they can still get one under under state law and our density provisions. Okay, thank you. That's what I had figured and my assumption was that, you know, this is, we're not going to maybe allow fair like arbitrary variances. But the density bonus, you know, the benefit is you're, you're getting the public benefit of affordable housing and that's why you get the bonus height. So, okay, that makes sense. And I appreciate that. No, Commissioner chair or and I do have one more question. Um, about changing the parking regulations to eliminate parking spaces to encourage less parking less spaces for cars and therefore try and have less cars based on the idea that people would bike or take the bus. And you have to help me out here because, you know, we haven't had one for a few years but given climate change will probably have some severe winters to and I just don't see how people are going to walk or bicycle in the middle of winter in the same way they're going to want to use a car or the bus. Unfortunately, the bus system has still a lot of ways to go. For example, they continue, they just just continued some of their service to less selva these stuff like that happens all the time. Um, do you really see that as a viable alternative? Honestly, I just don't understand. You know, I always try to come back to the concept here that the general plan is a 20 year plan. It's meant to lay out a vision. We, we, we understand that there's going to be aspects of these policies that are appropriate when certain conditions are in place and so we hear what the commission is saying regarding that. But without that 20 year vision and laying the policy foundation for taking those steps to make our communities more walkable and to support transit. Um, then we're, we're kind of nowhere in addressing community needs in the future and greenhouse gases in the future and the climate change that the or three folks were talking about this morning. So the policy basis here is really, really important. And I see any ease. So I'll ask her if she has follow up comments. Yeah, I mean, I really appreciate that perspective on the long view here being that it is a 20 year plan. And that in 20 years there's a lot of things that can change it in technology. For example, more and more people are using electric bicycles, which makes it much easier to to ride and get somewhere very quickly. I dropped off for some reason. Did anybody else drop off or just me? Just me. We're, we're all here. Okay, I didn't hear what you just said. Okay, did you ask, or can I ask you, did you hear what Stephanie and said or I didn't I apologize. My connection dropped and then it said connecting and connect it back up. My, my, my biggest statement here is that the general plan is a long term document to 20 year plan. And it presents a vision for our communities does not mean that every aspect and every policy is implementable. At the same time, we do recognize that we need improvements in transit and that all these different components work together to really create those more walkable communities that we need in the future, in order to kind of accommodate housing that we need to accommodate address climate change, help people get around without being clogged up on highway one. So it's important to keep, keep your eye on what the general plan does which sets a policy basis and then I'll let on ace follow up. Well, I'm going to just comment I do think that's useful and very thoughtful but can you put some language in this document that says what you just said because when I have read bits of it to my neighbors and friends. That's the they don't certainly don't get that and obviously I didn't, because they think this is what's going to happen in the next five years, because it reads that way. Okay, maybe is perhaps there's a motion commissioner would like to make to that. And, but I think that it's the documents pretty clear that it's a 20 year plan and vision. Okay. I have a question I realized I forgot as well do you mind if I asked her if you had a second. He said, I'm really sure he said the one. Yeah, thank you. I did only have one after all so please I think it'd be great time to ask any follow up questions that we missed. Thank you I'll be really brief I just want to know if the section of the code is new or not I was a little unclear from the text box. It's in that same section that I last last talked about which is the 1310 689 it's talking about visitors, and it's talking about a calculation that they're talking about it's page four. So it's talking about the guests and it's talking about the ability to consolidate them into a particular part of the year, if they're not if they're not open year round. And I just was unclear from the narrative, whether or not this was already in our code, or if this was a change from our previous code. I'm sorry tell me the subsection again please. Yeah, I apologize let me just pull up. So it's 1310 689 C six. So it's, it's right after that use chart that I was talking to the table with the visitor serving accommodations. It has to do with day use guests and limited visitor accommodation and it's talking about the fact that if a site isn't open year round, they have the right to kind of compress. It's going to take your entire years allocation and kind of compress them into the duration that they're open. And I just was unclear from the narrative that's in the box. If this was a new code, or if it was adjusting, because the narrative makes it just a little unclear. So I don't mind if someone could just clarify for me was this new, or is this just I'll look at the code just to just to make sure that that we get you the right answer or it looks like the teachers here and can provide the answer. Yeah, so I believe this section of the code we can double check on this but I believe the section of the code was taken from the existing calculation from the heat. The parks and recreation district visitor uses a comment visitor accommodations calculation. And so what this does is just kind of move it to this section and we did also simplify it because there were some internal calculations that staff were using to sort of make these determinations as well. So this is kind of moved from the PF district calculations and also somewhat updated to kind of make it a little bit simpler. But this concept is something already in our code, which is if you have a year long allocation, you can compress it into the time that happens. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that clarity. And I had just one more question which is, how does this go to the board. Just my way it came to us in pieces and when. So based on the commission's recommended recommendation and any motions to change, we would provide new versions of the code. The general plan will largely be available the way it is with of course any changes. The code sections are being turned into ordinances, because the supervisors will adopt an ordinance. So we'll have track changes versions for them to show them and the community a little bit more clearly. And then they'll be clean copies of ordinances largely organized by the chapter or title that is being amended. And that way they can adopt ordinances that then go into effect. Thank you. Hey. Any other questions last minute questions, Commissioner Dan or at least me. Okay, so now we get to the tricky part. You got to figure out how to discuss in an organized fashion, go through some hopefully some motions today. One other housekeeping thing I think I missed a break mentioned around 230 today. I think we have a couple of minutes and then hopefully we can get through a lot today and if we don't will at the end discuss potentially continue and if needed. I don't know if we have a hard stop time, discuss that. But I would say, let's keep going along and figure that out later. Any thoughts on discussion, I can tell you what I had planned, however, you know, I would love input, since it's a little bit complicated. And I go, Commissioner Dan, you've got the plan. So what I do is turn off my phone so I'm not distracted. So what I am actually ready to go through is start making motions and what I can do is put up some amendments that Commissioner Vialanti and I worked on and go by each chapter. And then we can go from there. So, so I can do one of two things. I can share my screen, or I can send our first document to Jocelyn who can then put it up on the screen we've written everything out to make it easy for our fellow commissioners to digest. So let me know. I've never shared my screen in a public meeting like this, but I'm happy to give it a try. Is there a, I don't know if there's a problem with that with CTV or what. Oh, Jocelyn, I can't. I'm not sure if you can. I think you could shoot them over to you. You could. I think it might be better to send it over to one of Stephanie staff just so that I can be on here and also not be sharing the screen at the same time. What do you think Stephanie, because I think you guys can share screen since you are panelists right now. Oh, I see. And Rachel doesn't have the little green share screen at the bottom. I do. Okay. Then I would think she could try. So just to be clear, I think we're going to make some, we're going to have discussion on some, some topics. Hopefully, you know, So what I'm going to do right now is I'm going to. So does everybody see my screen here. Yeah. Okay, so make a motion. So the motion is to move for the built environment general plan to move the staff recommendation with the following changes. Are you making a motion right now or are you making a motion right now. And if it gets a second, we can discuss. Rachel, what are we looking at? We're looking at some suggested amendments to the staff recommendation that if I get a second to the motion we can discuss. I will. Are the underlines what you're suggesting. I'll explain everything once I get a second. Oh, I'll second it. So what, what we've done here is we've just taken the built environment chapter. And then we are accepting all the staff recommendations with the following amendments and the following pages and go over those amendments. And what they are. So what I can do is go through them one by one and explain and then if other commissioners would like to. Add to this. Myself and the second can accept or not accept. Second, I didn't hear that. Okay, thank you. And then, you know, we can't. Yeah, okay. So we're going to go through them. So, yeah. Yeah. So this first paragraph is just saying that if these are passed by the planning commission for a recommendation to the board that any changes should be incorporated directly into the general planner zoning code. Or other draft documents prior to the issuance of the board agenda, just so that they're incorporated actually into the plan. So the first one is. Well, I don't know if you guys just want to read. I don't, I don't like reading things when people can just read them themselves. And if you just have questions, we can ask, we can answer any questions. But this one. A little tricky when we have people that maybe don't have video, just my only comment, you know, maybe public that doesn't have video. I don't want to see what we're doing. So someone might have to read it at some point. Well, I don't know that we need she, I would argue, I would suggest if the chair is open to it that perhaps in a scan to give a commissioner Dan to give a summary of what it's about if you want her to give a verbal presentation. I agree that I think reading it could be confusing in general since they're strike out and underlying. But if chair Gordon would like there to be some sort of verbal explanation, I would argue that I would suggest that the summary might be better than. Yeah, I'd appreciate it. However, you know, because I'm not sure if these things you've already talked about in your questions or what they are. So, you know, I have talked about and some I haven't this one's just a real general. As you can see, it's just adding some specific language about water supply during drought years, some added detail about what road capacity means. The next one is striking the word prime so that agricultural land stands on its own. And then the third part of that policy is just adding, adding some specific language. So adding specificity here. The next policy is about growth rate and this just instead of using the word encourage replaces encourage with require. Since it's, it's in my view or view it's more objective way, and this just specifies that we're talking about urban development to be located within the USL and RSL so that it just doesn't say development in general. The next policy again replaces encourage with require and specifies we're talking about urban residential commercial and industrial development. The next policy is just specifying that with regard to annexation we're talking about non agriculturally designated land. So it's just adding some greater specificity to protect ag land. The next policy. I apologize. I have to think a little bit because I have to remember what I'm was talking about here. So this one we were saying that you have to have the infrastructure for for developments for transportation. I'm not mistaken. That's right. Thank you, Alison. Yeah, I really appreciate all the greater specificity. I think that's what was needed. So, go on. Thank you. Yeah. And I want to be clear. This was both Mr. Villalante and I worked on these together. Okay. And so again it's instead of evaluate the adequacy were saying require adequate infrastructure and adding in some language about protecting adjacent neighborhoods. The next section is just adding instead of replacing the word consider with facilitates so we facilitate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. And this policy as you can see is adding in specificity specificity for the uses as far as urban ag. The next policy is about Cabrillo College and UCSC long range planning planning efforts and so we added a sentence about the community protecting the community's housing stock there. So now moving on to residential land use. So this is about making sure that we include in our cognizant of including density bonuses. Since that's such a big part of our development these days. Can I ask a question on this one. Sure. Is there a wide urban and residential land use techniques designation that a range of building intensities inclusive of any density bonus increases. So is this suggesting a change to the densities that are proposed. No, I think that it's just suggesting that we take into account. Bonus. When we're looking at the, how many units are allowed that we make sure we also say okay and that's also inclusive of what's allowed with a density bonus. So that's transparent to folks that we know actually how many units are actually going to go into an area. That creates transparency. Okay, so I guess my just a really drill down, because you've made a motion on these and I want to make sure I understand them really well. Um, chair just to sorry to add one thing that we might have a concern with this density bonuses state law. So if you, if we try to limit it to any density range. We could, we could come up against state law and state law would override so I don't want to discuss this more. That's not what this is doing though, in my opinion. So I do understand that and I know that density bonuses are allowed by state law that I, that's, I don't think that we're trying to limit that or try to get around that it's more about making sure that we are inclusive of the density bonuses. When we're contemplating development on a parcel that's going to use a density bonus. So, let me give a quick example of why I feel like this is going to cause confusion. Use a density bonus to get three stories extra in height and 80% moderate income and 20% moderate income and it creates a form based density. That is one option with the state density bonus, which is exclusive of any density. So, my question is, how does this relate when state bills actually can in fact eliminate density. Are we, are we kind of muddy in the water there. I just want to be really clear I'm not really sure I understand the intent of what you're going for so it's hard to Well, I guess you could look at it the other way to you're saying that we have the RF district that is 40 units an acre. It's actually more than 40 units. Use a density bonus right so it's actually not transparent to say that our is 40 units an acre because is it in fact the density bonus. It's going to be a lot more dense. And so what I'm saying here is that we're saying is that We should just be transparent about what the actual density is. I'm not opposed to the RF district you'll see when we get to the zoning code, not making any I'm very supportive the RF just but but I think that we have to be transparent about when we say the RF district is 40 units an acre it's actually not 40 units an acre actually more dense than that. Could you simply leave it at its is and add language or another category with density bonus and show that additionally So you've got both things available once people can see what it is and if they take a density bonus what they'll get. I think that's what you want to show We may be able to specify that density bonuses may increase the rain from from what's given in the range because of the density bonus program. Yeah, Stephanie I guess my question to you. I mean here listening to chair Gordon and and and obviously having worked on these is, I guess I'm struggling and perhaps you could explain to me how using the word inclusive would be seen as bumping up against state regulations and if there is a recommended language change I'd be curious to hear it because I don't see this being as exclusive to something and I agree with Christopher Shepard that By including more information seems better. I mean that seems that seems obviously you've heard that that was the objective of this language is to be more transparent and if you have a thought on how now that you know the objective is obviously to be more transparent not to be exclusive if you have a small language change. Obviously we're going to I'd like to let Commissioner again continue through these so we can hear all of them. Maybe you could think on if there's a small language change that you would recommend because I see this as the objective obviously being transparency to the public. It's not meant to limit the densities in any way shape or form. So maybe you could think on that and if you have known the objective because I don't see this is precluding anything but if you feel it precludes something I'd be curious to hear from you working in Council on why it does that so we can go on in the meantime and maybe you can come back to us before we actually go. I think we should address Commissioner Corb Warden's concern if we show both what it is and what it will be with density that meets his you know what he brought up. I agree and I don't think this precludes that from happening but I want to be cognizant of the fact that staff is here because they're experts, and I want to let them think on it before we go in case, like I said it Council or staff as a recommendation. I'd like to let Commissioner Dan continue. Yes, we can keep going, but if by the time we vote Miss Hansen or Council has recommended language changes I'd like to hear them so I'd like to let Commissioner Dan continue. Yeah, we're open to that and you know I can change the language directly into the document too so it's clear. And yeah we're open to that. So moving on residential public land uses on commercial property. Can you go up one I think we skipped. Oh did I skip this one I'm sorry. This also is about infrastructure requirements, which we've had issues with various districts. So, this is just adding hand available at the time of occupancy, which is just adding specificity. So this next one. Do you want to do you want to talk about this one. Sure so this has to do I think it speaks to what Commissioner Gordon was speaking earlier, but also preserving and Miss Hansen spoke to afterwards was we want to preserve commercial space in the county and so we don't we want to ensure that we're not ending up with single story residential developments. 75% of the structure I know that it requires them to either put the parking underground but we would like to see this be only in multi story developments that we still preserve commercial to be forward facing to the public. And so we'd like to see it where we only have this available when we have multi story developments where you're having residential above commercials that we're still preserving a front facing commercial area. And the next one is about permanent room housing and so it's just adding some specific language about making sure that there's inclusionary housing requirements apply to those when when applicable. The next one is about drive thruers and so this is actually a substantial change from what was which didn't allow drive thruers and so what we're doing is just adding unlimited to kind of pay respects to the fact that this is a major change and actually I think it was a very, very good policy not to just allow a gazillion drive thruers. But still allowing them now. You got the one right above I apologize. The. Sure. You add add inclusion. There's to me at the end with an approved use permit and inclusionary housing requirements. So what is that. That means like, if the permanent room housing project is large enough to require inclusionary housing requirements, then they should have to do that. Okay. And they're going to be affordable by design anyway, but I don't know how many projects we're going to get for PRH. Thank you. The next one. The next one is just adding language to take into account scale and size of the distinct neighborhood for new development and then added some language about shading adjacent properties. When setbacks and landscaping. The next one is replacing possible with required with regard to using. Using objective standards. Sorry, you got to go back one more going pretty quick and it's hard to read through all this while you're talking so. I'm just one mind you here. So you've added development towards the end of this. This is neighborhood scale, sizing contact. Essentially new development, skipping down should provide appropriate building massing so as not to overwhelm or primarily shade adjacent properties, including appropriate setbacks. And adequate and maintained landscape buffering to reduce perception of height. So you've added the underlying part there right on. The underlying is what we've added. Yes. So, so as not to overwhelm or primarily what is primarily shade adjacent. Yeah, thank you for that struggled with which were to use there. The thought process there was to try to use a word to indicate that the objective here is to new development. Obviously is going to have an impact on their neighbors, but we don't want the new development to completely shade adjacent properties or over. You know shade and neighbor so much that you know, it's causing an impact that could otherwise be avoided with a different design. Okay, and then of including appropriate setbacks and adequate maintained landscape. You're just saying meet the setbacks and the landscape requirements essentially essentially yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And so the last two are about disadvantage communities and the addition here is including a phrase to include the loss of open space or access to parkland and community gardens and make sure that those communities are protected with their open space. Leave it up there for a second. And then the next one is also about disadvantaged communities and is similar and includes development and I added we added including the addition of parks and open space in these disadvantaged communities and include in addition to the other things listed. And then the last two items. Is about services for fringe and island communities. And so yes instead of support. We are suggesting that the wording be evaluate where appropriate. And then we specify non agricultural land with regard to annexations. So I think it's just emphasizing what the intent already is with this policy and being more specific. And then the last item is that when the sustainability plan comes before the board that we would suggest adding a policy to encourage that surface parking lots and commercial developments be covered with solar. So that's that and then. So the way we're kind of thinking is there is other commissioners that have other items that fall under the general plan built environment that they could offer them or we could just take this separately take a vote on it and then other commissioners could make their own motions on the built environment. I think, well, it's a good question. We have a motion and a second. How many other any other commissioners want to make any adjustments or additions to the built environment. I have two things. Okay. Why don't you go ahead and then we'll see myself in the second or agree. Great. So the commercial mixed use requirement, which I mentioned or had a question about at the start, reducing to 15% instead of 25. Because our buildings got bigger. Essentially we've, we have, we have created more commercial space than what we originally anticipated and recognizing that commercial space adds cost to rents the same way that parking does reducing commercial space only reduces cost of France and, you know, to that effect and try to see if we could reduce it to 15%. And like I said, based on the current FARs that is equivalent to or really closely equivalent to what was in the original plan before the FARs were changed so it's no loss of commercial space. It's just a reorganization of the percentages. So if you're making an amendment to this, what would the language be. Yeah residential square footage right certain in the middle residential square footage, including common areas within residential portions of a structure. Excuse me. May account for up to 85% of building square footage. Instead of 70. Like, that's the same. I once again, here, Gordon, didn't really understand you because I'm not in the business and you are. Why does this really result in no change. Okay, great question. So building square footages in our code that we have here are based on land area, and then an FAR application. Floor area ratio that FAR was at 1.0. So essentially it said that if you had a 20,000 square foot lot, for example, you could have 20,000 square feet of building floor area. Follow me there so far. Yep. Okay, so we've changed that to say in mixed use projects that now we're allowing a 1.5 FAR that means that where you used to have 20,000 square foot building now you're allowed. 30,000 square feet on that same lot. So the square footage got a little bit bigger. The density didn't get bigger just the square footage. And that wasn't an effort to allow more underground parking and things like that that we discussed and remove maybe FAR as a boundary and make it more of a help to a project. So, in that same scenario, you would take that maximum FAR let's say you're building out the max that you could on a building so now instead of my building being 20,000 square feet is 30,000 square feet. But because the commercial square footage is a percentage of the total building. So that 25% commercial requirement on the 20,000. Now I have a 25% commercial requirement on 30,000. Does that make sense. Okay, so when you run those numbers side by side, essentially we've got the FAR to make that space is a little bit better and easier to build and that kind of stuff. But we've in in, you know, maybe accidentally now up to the commercial requirement as well without Ms. Hansen put it much better than I just did not it wasn't an accident. We've now we've had 25% of the 30,000 instead of 25% of the 20,000. And so what I'm saying is that if you reduced that number to a 15% commercial requirement. It gets you the same square footage are really close as far as round numbers go to what the original 20,000 square foot building would have had. Yeah, but is built and you're looking at it whether 20 or 30,000 square feet. This just means that it'll be mostly largely residential and just a few little stores in the first story right. Well it's still, it's still be a, like a pretty high, like a 30,000 square foot building that would have minimum requirement of 4500 square feet. Before it would have been about 5000. So you know if you wanted to get to exact numbers it'd be something like, you know, 16.5 but that just doesn't really roll off the top. So, you know, if we wanted to say 16.5%, that would be exactly the same. But it's also worth noting that about 30,000 square foot building you're only ending up with 4500 square feet of commercial. Thank you very much. I don't know if I can support that you want to cut the baby in half. I hear you a bit let's think about what that is per floor right. So let's see. I'm not going to do simple math very well right now. What's 30,000 divided by 47500 square feet per floor. So that means 5000 of your ground floor is commercial 2500 and believe me we just like, you know, designing commercial spaces and multi story buildings. There's other things that you need on ground floor, which are circulation, trash enclosures electric rooms, spaces, you know there's all kinds of things so leaving 2500 square foot on the ground floor, and the rest commercial is really the same ratio as what it was before. Does that make sense. It's actually, it allows. Yeah, it used to be where you'd have the entire first floor as commercial and if you couldn't fit all the commercial you'd have to go second floor commercial so in most of the designs. Right now what we have is first and some of second floor as commercial space is what we're going to require. That's what it comes down to. Okay, I have a question. We have to add in here somewhere that this applies only to the 1.5 RAF. This in the mixed use right residential uses and commercial designation so this is really talking about the mixed use spaces that are already 1.5. So there's no already built. No, no, no that are already planned to be 1.5 the code we've adjusted 1.5 and that all of the projects or parcels in this paragraph are at a 1.5 FAR. Okay. Yeah, so in the short answers, it's already. It does refer to that already. Rachel as the maker of the motion. Yeah, I mean, I guess, Alison, I'm curious what you think about this one. I mean, I, I, I hear what Tim saying and he obviously has a lot of experience in the building for all time. It makes me a bit nervous, given, given the lack of commercial space in the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. And the direction we're going and trying to encourage these mixed use developments so that people can live and shop where they are. Because we're trying to build these types of places where people can experience commercial. And a variety of ways where they are so it's so it does make me a bit nervous. What about 20%. Yeah, I'd say anything is better and like we heard from Barry Swenson, who is also, you know, this is what they do. They said 10. So, you know, I hear that and I'd be happy to at least get 20 but if we wanted to make it the same as what it was originally planned 16 and a half is where it is. You know, which is like, that's not a commercial reduction by any means to what was already anticipated. So it's not reducing commercial square footage. We also, I don't know. 16 and a half percent. Well, it's up to the motion maker. I could maybe support 20%, but I don't think I would support. Well, increasing this to 80% of residential. They wouldn't that increase the cost of the building and increase rates, rents. You said commercial is doesn't draw as much in rental as residential. So if we had 80% of the building, or I'm sorry, 85% of the building in residential wouldn't that increase the cost and therefore the rents. That's a good question. It's possible, but the reality is, it ran some numbers on on this and did a few specific test cases. And the way it was before the average unit size would be somewhere around 500. And so, you know, well, that's good. That's also really small. So we're not allowing which we do need two bedrooms, one bedrooms, you know, that's more of a studio. So, you know, the, what the FAR change was the ability to have units that average closer to 700 square feet, which is more typical to allow for more size units. That makes sense. So even though the building might be bigger, it just means that you can actually have like two bedroom units now, where before it would be challenging. So let me just kind of bring us back to the 75% is what staff is record the language that is recommending. And then this, the language that staff is recommending represents a huge departure from where the code currently is which I think is like 40% something So, so letting 75% of a building in a commercially zoned area already is a huge change from where we are. So I just wanted to contextualize this a little bit right now residential is the name of the game right now and in the world and the development world so yes like there is a need a desire to have as large a percentage as possible residential. But we should just, I just have to keep bringing us back to these are commercial zones. And so we do need to retain some commercial use so that we actually have a neighborhood when we're creating 15 minute neighborhoods we actually want a neighborhood for people to walk in, whether it's 75 or 80 fine. I think once you start getting up to 85, then you kind of it's like, Well, what, why is this even zoned commercial anymore, if it's like, you know, over, you know, 85% residential are really in a commercial zone So, you know, I'm squishy enough to go up to like 80 I guess but I also, you know, would want to hear from Commissioner be allowed to. Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Dan that it makes me nervous because we have we do have to recognize that these are commercially zoned properties. And that while I am very in favor of us building housing and if we do not have places for equal to work, if we do have places for the shop, we end up with a community that can use whether or not that's to drive 10 minutes to work or if that's driving 15 minutes to the nearest grocery store which happens even in my district. And that's not what we want to see happen on a regular basis and so I have to admit that it does make me nervous to go. I agree with Commissioner Dan I would not be comfortable going 80, 80, but based on staff recommendation, I almost have to have been a I have to admit I'm hesitant to even move from the 75 I know this is a 20 year 20 year plan. But I, I, these are commercialized owned properties. And I think I think I, I actually should share garden I absolutely respect what you do and the work you do but I, I almost feel comfortable just keeping the number because and if the board decides to change it then they can and maybe we could, you know, the staff generally is honest when we, we have different, you know, opinion but I, yeah, I definitely wouldn't go below 80 and I almost feel comfortable keeping where we're at. These are commercialized owned properties. Well I would support whatever mission or Dan and the Olenti want to do with this though that logic that you have just explained Allison is quite convincing to me. I appreciate the, the listening and understanding, you know, I think 20% would be or 80% residential we put it that way would be probably the highest that would make sense for any building just if you think through the numbers just really basically a quarter of the building as residential means that the, or as commercial means the entire first floor is commercial and just about only these two things. Circulation and elevator course those in your description are residential. And so if you don't even have space for those that doesn't make sense so I appreciate the 20% or 80% and I feel like that would be like the minimum to actually make a building even available. Otherwise you're going to see people use the density bonus waiver on this every single time. And you'll get very little commercial and so I think going to 20 I appreciate that and I think that would be a good minimum. I guess my expectation chair Gordon is that the first floor should be commercial, like I, but to me I don't want to see residential on the first floor I want to see. I'm not saying residential first floor I'm saying you do have residential uses that must be on the first. Access to the stories above elevators all those kind of things that are not commercially use and so just if you do the basic math that is not going to fit on any building the 25% in a mixed use song. So I appreciate that. Unless the front for unless the story the primary build the building that a street facing is commercial and there's a building in the back that is multi story, and that's residential which is also possible here. There have to be one single structure in the staff report they showed us examples where there are two buildings that meet this example, and not just one, and they can still meet this and that could meet the definition of multi story developments that were the back building is two three stories high only residential and the front building is commercial. Not all of these buildings will be not all these parcels, pardon me, will be stacked in order to meet this 75%. But I hear what you're saying if they are a single building meeting the definition, then then you have first floor needs that are residential but that that's not the only time where this could be possible. You got it. Thank you, I appreciate that. So, yeah, 80% would would make it possible and I feel like if that's, you know, works for everyone that's that that helps a lot. Well, I'm okay with that. I don't know though where Renee and Allison, where you two are, I thought this far as that's as far as I could go in a commercial zone, I think, Renee you're the seconder. I said that I would go with whatever the two of you. And if we could let the board decide and register the fact that we had a lot of debate about it. Okay, why don't we do that so let's leave it as is but let's make a notation staff could could make a notation to put into the staff report that there was a lot of discussion about what percentage of residential work footage should be allowed in the seas owned neighborhoods. Well, can we ask miss Hansen what do you think. Actually Rachel gets to decide if she accepts the. If he has a friendly amendment as a maker of the motion, Rachel has the right to not accept your friendly amendment. I don't have to all agree. I understand that but I would like to hear. Miss Hansen if you had any thought. Yeah this is staff 75% is would stop foot forward so maybe it is helpful to care. Yeah, yep, I appreciate that. We, we think that raising is really appropriate to raise a percentage allowed in residential in this climate that we're in we desperately need housing. There's developments that have to have too much commercial aren't penciling. We're seeing density bonuses that are constantly asking for a reduction because they can't get tenants in the world is just changed considerably so I, I think 75 is okay I think raising it would, would be helpful in in that manner. I just like to register that it's a little unclear what happens when you have a horizontal development. If we add in this multifamily development language so what if you had, you know commercial along the frontage and then residential and back with this no longer apply just unclear to us. You mean it's been a multi story development. Yeah. So that was to make sure that there was some commercial retained. I believe. Right and so the way it's crafted now that commercial would. Apply whether it's multi story or a horizontal development of course we prefer to have multi story, but we certainly could see redevelopment of the site let's say an old mall or something in which it, it made sense to be more of a horizontal divisions we wouldn't want to lose that cap. In those types of developments as well. So how would you suggest, how would you suggest changing the language to meet that concern. I'm removing the underscored language. The language we added, which the purpose was so that if we did have a one story building, there would still be some, some commercial. It's a mandate multi story story. Stephanie does it it just says in multi story. It just leaves it unclear what happens if you don't have a multi story development. What could you add some language that would satisfy you for clarity, maybe a few more words. Wouldn't removing what was written there already. That would make it clear. Yes. Okay, let's move along somebody. Okay. So, if there aren't any more questions. Well, I have another addition or a suggestion and to finalize the thought so are you saying you will not accept the amendment to make that 80%. Well I think where we landed was instead we would indicate asking staff to indicate in the staff report that there was a lot of discussion on this. I mean, this was that's not so the interesting thing about that section was the debate is not about any language. We changed this was about language that is staff. So, I guess I would leave it up to staff to defend their own language there. I'm not think I'm not going to change the 75%. But if staff wants to, when this goes in front of the board, if staff is convinced by your arguments, Tim, and they want to recommend a change to that percentage, they should do that. Because I just feel like that's not my language that was staff's language. So, yeah, you're asking me to approve a bunch of language that you've added without having it. I haven't even had a chance to review it, or read through it. Doing that right I mean that's the whole purpose and I do appreciate that we should, you know, ask staff to double check and see if 80% makes it sound like from his hands and like that's totally cool. She understands the challenge. So, you know, 75% if now staff is saying actually they, they think it should be 80. So, good question. I'm the, the floor area or excuse me the recommendation from the board when this went back in 2015 was to remove the limit, the maximum limit limit. That's what it says on page 68. Because I think at that time it was 40. No, 50 it says remove the maximum limit of 50%. So I guess my point is like, everyone's trying to do their best here that doesn't mean that without a lot of input and thinking through it and which is why we are here. Help them and which is why you wrote this entire document is to help provide the feedback that you felt was important and that's the one of two things that I feel like is important in this section. Okay, you're wearing me down. I'm fine with 80% if commissioner shepherd is. Renee. Yes, I will support that and let's move on and get through the rest. Okay, let me make this change here to say 80. Thank you. I think I do think we should. But I would like what you suggested before I'd like to suggest that we, that staff put in the report to the board that there was quite a bit of discussion around this and further a careful look at it would be something the board ought to do. At least that we had considerable discussion over this percentage agreed and staff is new information that would change their recommendation further than they should. Yeah, so for the board. Yeah, and staff thinks it's good or bad this where we're ending up and please express yourself. And then I also just want to say like doing this remotely is not ideal like if we were in the board chambers where we used to have our meetings, I would pass out a hard copied everybody's everybody could have it themselves. And so I just want to acknowledge that this is very difficult the way we're doing this now and so and I apologize for that. I've been through it. The last question I appreciate that I appreciate you listening and and that amendment miss Hanson mentioned and I tend to agree that adding the in store in multi story developments. It creates a gray area or non multi story developments and so I feel like if you want to add that you should also clarify what happens on non multi story. Because if it was me coming to you as a developer saying I'm stuck to only these objective standards. It says if I don't do, if I do a one story building, I have no requirement. So you want to just add in multi story and horizontal developments. Well that would, I would say if you and I don't quite understand the intent and so I'm just offering my opinion based on what I'm reading here is black and white. And I hope you understand that, but if it would seem to make more sense that if you deleted what you added that it was still accomplished what you want but I'm not sure because I'm not quite getting what you're trying to accomplish with that addition. I think what we were trying to accomplish since I was part of this conversation I know not the maker of the motion was essentially they were trying to maintain ground floor and accessible commercial. And so we only wanted to provide the option of doing this type of now 85% residential when they're doing. What did I say, 85% residential when they're creating a density. Even if it meant, like I said, if you had a single story in the front and then multi story in the back it would still be a multi story development that's why we didn't say will be very structure. So that's where the language kind of was coming from. Can you clarify it slightly. So I don't know if we would want to say in multi story developments or redevelopment projects. But that was the intent was that we didn't want people to create these, these properties where they were kind of creating single story covering a lot in a way that we didn't, we want to have commercial funding and not and we'd rather have people create higher density. What about what about just saying up to 80% of building square footage in both multi story or horizontal developments. So that's precluded what I was talking about, which is someone coming in and building a single story development, we're okay with redevelopment of a single story property but we wouldn't want someone to develop a single story property when they could go higher density and build. If you're going to go for this 80% housing, it should be. They have the capability of building more housing should they go vertical. And instead of doing this kind of covering the lot. So just note that there are policies that specify that ground floor, you know commercial should be on the ground floor so it's accessible to the, to the public so there are other policies that cover that concept and the code as well. Well, at 80% we have 24,000 square feet for residential and 6000 for commercial. Can we do that in a multi story building. Yes. Okay. You could, you could not with the current. Well, I mean, I think we were trying to do just so I'm repeating this so I make sure I understand it. You're trying to prevent someone from building a one story commercial space where there's an opportunity for a three or four story density bonus mixed use project. Okay. Is that what you're getting at. Right. But if you limited the ground floor to 6000 square feet is going to be difficult to put those other stories on. That's, it would have to have residential and the ground floor as well. Oh, I hear what you're saying. That's a residential use could be not probably not a residence, like, you know, it's like mailroom package delivery. Okay, room like those kind of things take a lot of lobby, and they have to be on the ground floor. Yeah, lobby. Perfect. Okay. And so that's this is getting a little contorted. Can we so Allison, I think you had some language maybe to specify to kind of what the thinking was here and I think that was that in multi story developments or redevelopments. And I might just answer and I would not fix what you're talking about, which is if we just said or redevelopment projects, I might fix what you're talking about. It will help. Yes, but you could still have developments that prefer to have their commercial in the front and residential in the back. It's not unusual at all to have some sort of division between your commercial and residential uses and want to protect the impacts to residential. So there's, you know, encouraging mixed use and allowing them to figure out what works well for that particular site and that particular neighborhood. You know, make some sense from a policy perspective. So Stephanie, can you come up with a little language here you're the expert. I think I did a, which was to remove the underlined language. I think if that's the only solution this handsome can come up with it seems unnecessarily. If that's fine, if that's the only way she can talk with I think that that's. I totally understand that people can do that with a commercial in the front and the housing in the back I just believe that if they're going to do that that we might as well encourage them to do multi story development in the back is my point, which is what this language is designed to do. I'm going to give them this 80% residential and then we should. I have to be one heck of a large person when you can meet 80% of your residential if they're putting residential in the back without going up to movies, story development. And the sentence in my mind, which is why the language seems fine to me but if this isn't truly released it's not possible then we can strike the language. I want to ask a clarifying question that might answer the problem. If you go for mixed use development, which is not required, but possible. Are you not required to meet the densities of the general plan. You are correct. You would develop at the residential flex range. And just thinking through that, you know, you have to add 30 to 45 units per acre, and it doesn't really, in my opinion, from what I've seen and this is up for debate obviously. It doesn't matter if you have a small parcel or a large parcel, it's going to be really hard to fit those number of units and 20% commercial without having a multi story somewhere. So Tim, you're saying that the practical reality is favors what Allison is concerned about. That's what you're saying. Yeah, that's what I'm getting. I think that adding this language can is a little redundant. However, it doesn't preclude the fact that someone could and correct me if I'm wrong here. Someone could buy a commercial property, build a new one story strip mall. Is that possible. Yes. But that's within our code. So it doesn't really matter. You know, let's just strike the language and move on you guys. I mean, I think that my language is fine. Like, to chair Gordon's point, I think you won't find many where this language isn't just come isn't just true. Which is why I think the language is fine. But if their solution is that they just don't want the language that I think it's fine to just strike it. So I struck what was in addition and underlined. What is the new addition based on the discussion here. And I agree as the second as long as we have one of once again mentioned that staff should let the board know that we had a lot of discussion over the building square footage. We will do that. All right. Any other questions. I have, I have one question that's the last sentence that says a higher percentage of residential square footage is allowed only via a waiver or concession associated with a density bonus. If it was 75% this applied to that, but we've changed it to 80%. So how do we square it with the last sentence. Well they are going for a density bonus they can ask for concession. Correct. Yeah, but it was, it was 75 right. Yeah, that's a fair point. With the density bonus, you could eliminate 99% of it. You know, but we don't want that. Right. We want people to make commercial. So if we give a percentage that works for them. We have a much higher chance of people actually building the commercial space and not just saying, you know what rule doesn't work. See, I'm not going to do it. Yeah, good point. Okay. Your point is nice indeed. You don't want that sentence to exist. Are you just asking how it works. I think she's satisfied now. Perfect. I'm, I'm, I'm okay with it. Okay. Any other questions on, on this or. Yeah, I had one on the on section. I'm not sure if you've highlighted or made adjustments to this section. But it's B E 2.1.8. And we just continue on with this document. Well, it's in this. Oh, that's what I'm asking. I'm asking. So I don't. So I didn't, we didn't make any modifications to that policy. Did you say 2.1.8? Correct. Well, I have to bring up my photo. Well, I can't cause I'm sharing my screen. So I can't bring up. So can you read what that policy is? Cause I only have one screen. So I can't bring up another screen. And I only have one. Two. Couldn't we just go through. Yes. Document. We aren't through with it yet. And then go on from there. Actually, just because we are remote, that might be an easier way to do it. So can we vote on this? And then Tim, if you have a modification. Let's take a look at that separately. And then you can share your screen and. And make a suggestion just. I don't know. It's, it's good. I've never done. Yeah. Well, I hear that. It might. Let me just ask. The question to see what you guys think about this. Cause this is the section that's about our requirement for people meeting the general plan densities. And the request was that we, you know, try to get people to be towards the upper end. And that's what's true in the city of Santa Cruz. And I feel like it's beneficial. To be there for us as a community to provide more density of housing and. And to, you know, align with the city where possible, which, you know, it makes sense. So any case. People would support adjusting it to say something along the lines of ensure developments. Are in the upper end of the density range as provided by the general. Stephanie, can you clarify? Because when I read 2.1.8, it has to do with adequacy of infrastructure. And I want to make sure that we're all talking about the same. I need to see it in front of me. You guys are saying, let's do this and this and this. I don't even see the language. I apologize. I wrote the wrong one down. I think maybe it's a different policy number. Okay. Great. Cause I just, I like I read and I'm reading 2.1.8. And it has to do with adequacy of roads, sewers, water, service, restrictions. I would not want to change needing to have stated is we stated earlier in this document that. I would not want to change needing to have stated is we stated earlier in this document that. Adequacy of. Infrastructure services need to be there. So no, I wouldn't. I would not off the cops. Say I support saying that. No commissioner shepherd. That's a different topic. I apologize. That. I wrote down the wrong reference. And I need to. What about if I call the question on where we are now and get it voted on. What's that? And I call the question on the sections we've gone over and let's get a vote on what we've done so far. It just seems like we're going to make another vote on the exact same topic. Why don't we just finish the topic and be done with the topic. Is that topic already been covered in the few pages we've gone over? It's not something that commissioner Dan and be a long day have brought up, but it is something in this in which we had discussed previously doing this section by section. And we are in the general plan. Built environment chapter two right now. So if we want to have multiple motions on. Built environment. Or one additional item we can, however, I feel like that is a bigger misuse of time. Does that make sense? I understand everything that we've discussed and I'd like to vote on it. Okay. So right now we'll just take your item separately. So I'm going to go ahead and vote on it. So there's a motion and a second. Okay. Let's so to be really clear just for the record, we are voting on the amendments to chapter two built environment. As. Proposed and motion created by commissioner Dan and seconded by commissioner shepherd based on the PDF. Shown here. Which I will send to staff. After both taken. Have a roll call vote on this. Please. I'd appreciate that. Okay. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, yes.喔. Yes. Chairman and. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Chair cordon. I'll get a clean now. I really want to say yes, but honestly, I need the time to review. I, you know, I have a hard time making general plan amendments without fully understanding exactly what it was. And without people having the time to go through this challenging I mean, you had something that you wanted us to consider. Do you want to bring up the policy and share your screen so we can all take a look at the policy that you wanted to suggest a modification to? Yes, thank you. Give me one second here to find the method. If it's policy 2.1.9 development below the minimum density. Thank you. That was one. Okay, let me share that really quick. Hey, can you see my screen here? I can't. Oh, yeah. Oops, sorry. Now? Yes. Okay. This is the section right here that we're talking about. 2.1.9 development below the minimum density. A development cannot be approved on sites within the USLR cell, a density below the designated density range, except for written findings required by California government code section 655.89 have been made, which we talked about earlier. The adjustment that I would like to see here, and I just want to get feedback to see if I would even get a second on this before I make a motion is that this says that I would like this to say that we encourage or require if possible densities to be in the upper range of the general plan density. What I don't understand is, if you want to require them to be up in the range, then why would we have a lower range? Sometimes you can't, that's a good question. And let me caveat with, there's still the accept where written findings and certain densities can't fit on certain sites. They have a site that's got a lot of trees or on a slope or something like that. You're not gonna, there's a chance you might not fit all of those units. So there's still opportunities where it may not work, but encourage at least would be something that would help people know that we're serious about making sure they're going towards the upper end of the density, not creating bare minimum. Is bare minimum? Encourage is a much different concept than mandate. Yes, absolutely, that makes sense. So you want it to be mandated, I wouldn't support that. Encourage, that's a recommendation, but it's not the rule. So I could not support mandate. There's too many exceptions. This county is just not like flat. And we're not in Ohio where you could mandate anything, but here, everything is so determined by a patchwork of septic system, water systems, terrain, any number of factors. I don't see mandating that. I understand that. How about an encourage? People go for an encourage? I personally support what it says. I'm not in, I don't want to really modify it. I understand your concerns and your interests, but I think that's, I think the whole way we're planning, we're changing all these codes and the language and the general plan makes it pretty clear what we're encouraging. I see no, there's no two ways about that. So I'm satisfied with what it is. So we're- Did you have something to add to that? Yes, I did just want to point out in 2.1.8, it does say where adequate public services exist, development at the highest high end of the density range allowed by the land use as a nation is preferred and encouraged in order to maximize the utility of scarce land resources served by public infrastructure. Well, that's clear. I mean, I think that's a clear directive. Don't you agree? Chair or Tim? Tim, does that meet here? What's that, Commissioner Vaughan? I said, Tim, does that meet your language that it's in 2.1.8, even if it's not in 2.1.9? I'm just reading it. I apologize. Stephanie, did you have a chance to look at my question about 2.1.9? Yeah, we did look at the, that section of the government code, hang on one second, and it's findings for approval development under the Housing Accountability Act. And it basically has the findings that you make if it development is consistent with the general plan. And it kind of stops us from disapproving developments that kind of meet our standards and general plan. Or, but you could do that if there was an adverse impact on the environment. It's that kind of language. It wouldn't have a bearing in rebuilding in the fire zone. Well, my question was just about the fire zone. The fire zone is just, we've come face to face with the reality of disaster. If the CZ fire, my question had to do with any sort of catastrophe. I mean, we unfortunately live in an area right with disasters of floods, rides, earthquakes. And I just wanted to ensure that if someone lived, I mean, we're obviously changing our densities to be much more intense. And I don't want to see someone whose home gets destroyed from a fallen tree from a cracked foundation from an earthquake who suddenly finds themselves living on a, perhaps in a single home on RM's own parcel who's told that they have to build four units. And that's why, because our general plans as you shall not build below the density. It says, except we're written findings of that code have been made. And so I want to ensure that that's, do we need to be more explicit about the fact that, I mean, does that fit within that government code or do we need to be more explicit about the fact that we allow for rebuilding to be built below that density? If that's, I don't think the government code limits it one way or the other. But I think the intent, if you have a development in the urban area that has services that the intent so far has been your meeting that those density requirements, even if you're rebuilding after, say, I don't know a tree. Okay, I don't want to interrupt Tim. I was just hoping to get an answer. I'll let Tim talk about whether or not the language in 2.18 met his desires for 2.19. But I would actually like to hear from the rest of the commission about their thoughts, given what you just said, because I would be surprised to hear if the commission agreed with staffs not moving to let people rebuild them after something unless they met the correct densities. But anyway, I don't want to deter Tim. I was just hoping he was reading, so I figured I might as well ask my questions. I don't mind at all. That's good news of time there. So sitting near watching me read very slowly is not a great use of time. That didn't answer my question. I think I'm fine with that. And I appreciate that getting pointed out. Must have missed it. So it does say what I was hoping to say, at least encourage higher density where a brand were possible. So I appreciate that. And I would just thank you, Tim. I'm glad and thank you, Annie, for finding that for Tim, so that it's already in there. I'm curious to hear from my fellow commissioners. I hope we were done with both environment. But for me, this idea that the general plan says it cannot be approved on sites within the USL and RSL, identities below the designated density range is a bit of a concern for me. That there isn't an exception for people who experience unexpected disasters. We unfortunately know we live in an area that is prone to these. And I, the USL incorporates areas like West Elba Beach, probably the RSL incorporates areas like West Elba Beach in parts of areas that consider themselves towns. And I think people would be surprised, obviously, people, a lot of people live in the USL, including places near, say, the harbor, which is prone to even tsunami damage. And I just, I wouldn't want people to suddenly find themselves, when they're willingly in choosing to build at a higher density, like I said earlier, I'm very in favor of more housing and those building to these higher densities. But when people are experiencing the trauma of disaster, it's hard enough to build often the single family dwelling that they lost. And I wouldn't want them to unexpectedly find themselves with the expectation that they're building four or more units, which is the low end to Tim's point of these densities. And I think I would be supportive of us putting some sort of language in there that said something along the lines with the exception of rebuild after, either something like disaster or unexpected loss of property or something like that. I don't know exactly what the language would be, but perhaps we could even give a general direction about specific language to staff. I don't know how the rest of the commission feels. I agree with that. How about I'll move that in this section, is it 1.1.9? 2.1. 2.1.9 that when this item comes before the Board of Supervisors that staff add language to this section to provide an exemption for people rebuilding after a natural disaster. So that's a motion. I would strongly agree on that. If we have a second before we. I'll second that. Sounds like we have two. We'll take Commissioner Villalantes this time. Sorry, Commissioner Shepherd. You got the last one. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we please have a roll call vote on this mystery? Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner Villalante. Yes. Commissioner Lazenby. Yes. Commissioner Shepherd. Yes. And Chair Gordon. Yes. Okay. Question passes. Okay, I'm going to pause us for now. We're at a good stopping point. We have a break due about 30 minutes ago. So we're going to take a quick, let's make it 12 minute break and be back at 3.15. Okay. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you, everyone. See you in a minute. Okay. 10. All right, about that. Trying to catch up with the breaks. Let's continue. And go with the roll call again to make sure we're all here, please, Ms. Drake. Okay. Commissioner Shepherd. I am here, thank you. All right, Commissioner Dan. Here. Commissioner Villalante. Here. Commissioner Lazenby. Here. And Chair Gordon. Here. All right. I'd like to talk about a quick housekeeping thing just to make sure we're all on the same page. I do have a hard stop today at five. And so I'm not sure everyone else's schedules are looking, but based on the rate and who not knowing what everyone else is going to have, there's a chance we might not get all the way done. So just want people to be thinking about that. And if we want to either stop 15 minutes, maybe a little bit more than 15 minutes beforehand to chat about next meetings and get through the rest of the agenda. I'd appreciate that. So we got maybe an hour 20 left to talk about the items. Well, I'll try to go quickly. So let me share my screen again. I want to move on to access to mobility. And there are fewer recommended changes here. So again, I'll make the motion, ask for a second and then we can discuss. Okay, thanks, Alison. So the motion is to move the staff recommended changes with the following, I'm sorry, to move the staff with the following changes that are in this Google doc here. I'll second that. And then I was thinking on the break, Chair Gordon's comments about not being able to see this. And I was wondering if the commission would like us to also, and Ms. Drake tell us if we're allowed to do this, I believe we are to email the, when we make the motion, not in advance, obviously, to email them out to the commission. So they at least have them in front of them. It was the closest thing I could think to replicating being able to hand out our motion. I don't know if the council needs to weigh in on our ability to do that. But now that it's been motioned and seconded, I believe we can then email this out to the commission. So they have it in front of them. So they can read along. Are you talking about as we consider it? Cause we've all got it up on our screens and not quite understand. Yes, you do. But I know Chair Gordon was saying that he wasn't able to read it at the pace he wanted. And so during the break, I was considering a way to address that. You'd have it in front of you as we considered it. You'd have it in front of you. And so I was just asking the, if that was allowed and I'm trying to replicate as best as possible. Everybody's the ability to hand out emotion physically, we are remote and accommodate different people's need. And so I just wanted to ask. That seems reasonable to me since like I was mentioned earlier if we're in the chamber as we'd be handing this out. Justin is in the background here. I don't know if he has any comments on that. But yeah, I think that that makes sense to me. Okay. I will. Good idea. As long as Justin is not objecting, I will only do it after there's a motion in a second so that we're not violating any Brown Act. I'm sorry, what was the question exactly? So Justin, Rachel and I obviously we've spent some time for Brown Act buddies prepping these motions. So after there's a motion in a second, I was asking if I could send out this document that Rachel's sharing on the screen to the commission so that they could consider it as we go through it. If there's any problem with that, because normally if we were in the chambers, we'd be handing out a physical copy to our colleagues. I assume there's not a problem, but I wanted to double check. It doesn't sound like there's a problem to me considering that it's something that's being discussed and it's just essentially a parallel of what would happen. Were we meeting in person? Perfect, I just wanted to double check. I apologize for the delay of the discussion. I just wanted to thank you. Alison, do you want to email it to Jocelyn and then she can send it to the commissioners and whoever else staff and all that. Perfect, Jocelyn, is that okay with you, Ms. Drake? Yes. Perfect, I'll send it to you. I'll send it your way. And then knowing that as was with the other document, there may be modifications. So the final draft, if there's changes, obviously I'll send a final copy of what the planning commission passed to Jocelyn. Just in case, just so like, obviously what we're sending might change depending on the discussion. Okay. I have a question just about process here. We had talked about doing this in more of a fashion of questions than discussions and emotions. And what we've done is skip the discussion partner. And so now we have to do it in a way where there's a motion that's been made as opposed to having the time to understand what you're even talking about. And so I know everyone's trying to push this along and move quicker, but the fact that I'm 30 right now, 320, I have my doubts we'll get through this anyway today. So anyway, my question is, would it be a better process to do the discussion about these topics as opposed to emotion? Well, I think that sometimes emotion can actually generate the discussion. And what I found with items that are really complicated like this is that if you just talk in generalities, you don't actually get to emotion. That's why somebody's unmuted and it's distracting. So that's why I spent considerable time going through the documents and analyzing them and picking out just a few things in the grand scheme of things. It's a very small number of changes. So the way I thought about it is if we just talk, we're just gonna talk and talk and talk and we'll never get through anything. And so the putting forward emotion isn't trying to stifle discussion. It's actually trying to provide an actionable venue in order to have discussion that results in action. So I would support that. Let's just move through this for the rest of the afternoon. We're making some progress here. Let's keep going. I don't wanna have a long talk about what we can talk about. You know, let's just go. Yeah, I mean, I figures we've had six months of study sessions and talking. So now I'm just right to make, to take action. So, okay. So this is on access and mobility. So the first substantive item is about open streets, low streets, and this is just language to indicate that this like has been done in the city of Santa Cruz would be on a temporary basis. The next item is just adding, changing some language to highlight. It's to say prioritizing safety instead of saying prioritizing just bike. So we're prioritizing all pedestrian access is what we were going for for this one. Sorry, Rachel, just, no, no, please. I appreciate that. I just couldn't find my toolbar here. Great, I had a question on that. Why would a plan, what does it mean? This is just probably for staff. Why does that plan have to be coordinated with parks to incorporate greenways? I don't understand. So you mean you, so you have bike paths through parks connect up with safe streets? I don't quite understand that. Yeah, we didn't mess around with that language. So that's what staff is recommending that active transportation plan coordinate with parks. And I think that since we actually approved the ATP that that's kind of just standard. But that's something that staff can address at the end of the discussion if that's something you want to know more about. Okay. The next item is changing out one word stripe to prioritize and taking out strictly since that's subjective. The next section is eliminating the word encourage and then instead putting in the word require as a condition of approval improvements at access points. The stop then is an issue. The next item is just putting in as required by law with regard to applying the objective criteria since there are state laws that speak to this. And then yes, this the next section is about protecting biological and visible and environmental resources and just strengthening the language a little bit there. And then the next one is putting in some specific language here that indicates what we're talking about is achieving a minimum level of service. And so adding the word minimum there. And then the last item is direction to staff that when this plan comes back before the board that staff add a policy stating the requirement that the integration of a micromobility will not obstruct pedestrian access. And I think that that's it for this one. Yeah. Can you go up to the top one again? Absolutely. Yeah. Open streets solicitors consider limiting through vehicle traffic on select local roadways on a temporary basis and opening the streets to bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Doesn't this change the complete intent of this section? Well, I'm actually not sure because my thinking was it could not have been the intent of staff to completely close off the street. I don't know that that's happened anywhere else in the county and certainly it was quite disastrous when the city did it even on a temporary basis and they completely taken that off the table now. So honestly, with this one, I think that we were just kind of specifying what we thought was the intent of staff, but it's also what we think is reasonable. Because even in San Francisco when they do close some streets, it's usually on weekends or designated time and everybody looks forward to it. I wouldn't, that's maybe staff can respond but I think that makes sense on a temporary basis. Sorry. I would say so. On closed streets though, saying limiting through traffic essentially creating is the idea that we would wanna create roadways for more bicycle and pedestrian traffic. And it's just saying like, this is the direction that we as a community wanna go. Limiting through vehicle traffic on select roadways. Right, I'll just say that when this happened in the city of Santa Cruz, it was disastrous and they actually rejected grant funding to continue the program because it was so unpopular. And it just, I mean, so I actually don't support the policy unless there's this added language that indicates that it's temporary. And this isn't to say that we don't want bicycle and pedestrian traffic, it's just that I think we have to be practical about where and where I am very familiar where this program was implemented. It didn't work. I don't know the program that you're referring to. So it can't comment, but I know in other cities, it's common practice to temporarily close on maybe twice a month, some streets and people like it a lot on that basis. But I don't think you mean that. I mean, I think on a temporary basis, it is a good, I agree, you know, because if there's traffic, there's traffic. I thought the idea was to close some particularly, the scenic streets and let people have bicycling or walking on them once or twice a month in the summer or something like that. Or could staff comment on what they had in mind? Thank you. You know, there are certainly cases where, I can think in kind of downtowns where you wanna promote closed streets on a more permanent basis for kind of open space and greenways or farmer's markets. So I think staff's intent was to be a little bit more open, but, you know, I don't think we're running into any kind of conflict or legal issue if you make this change. Yeah, I personally think just like going in, if that's okay. I actually found this one without the inclusion of temporary basis to almost be in conflict with one or the other pieces of the general plan where it actually said in AM 1.1D where it actually said in reference to discouraging cul-de-sacs, which essentially was suggesting that we want to encourage kind of through traffic in our street designs. So I thought that I agreed with Commissioner Dan that this idea of allowing it on a temporary basis because in other places of the plan we actually do talk about making an effort to, you know, striping or pedestrian access and bicycle access and encouraging this kind of more pedestrian and bike friendly, but the idea of not having through vehicular traffic is something that we explicitly call out in the general plan of wanting to prevent versus but on a temporary basis, like Ms. Hanson said, for performance markets, for events, obviously we do want to have that, but not on the ongoing basis. So I agreed with her, especially given how you do remember open city of Tanaker's got the grant to do open streets. It was a very contentious thing. It happened in the community. People were fighting over where the signs were placed. And so I think that no language of a temporary basis makes sense based on not only some of the experiences in the city, but also, like I said, some of the other language in the general plan. Well, if I could make one more comment on page 49 what we're looking at now on streets, the second sentence on streets that prioritize bicycles limit on street parking. Is that really a good idea? Oh boy. Is that staff's language? I would have to respond to that. So the question that Commissioner Shepard is asking is it wise to limit on street parking? Well, we're already limiting parking quite a bit now. And I think people will continue to park on street whenever they can. And they're going to ignore the bike lanes. I don't really know if that's enforceable or practical. You know, this goes back to the concept of the layered street network. When you want to do this in a safe fashion, so you don't want to conflict, right? With your protected bike lanes and parking spaces. So I think that's what this was, that language was trying to get at. And I think when I read this policy, like that when they say streets that prioritize bicyclists, so in my mind, this would be those, I think I'm losing my vocabulary, but streets that are ones that people use a lot and there's a name for it, would that have already bike lanes there and you want to minimize parking and maybe to make a bike lane bigger to minimize conflicts, people opening their doors and dooring a cyclist. And so I'm okay with the staff's language, but I understand the question. I think we are limiting the amount of parking spaces and new development. And then we say and bicycle and there, and then say this street is reserved for the bicyclists. I just don't think it's enforceable because people are going to be forced to park on street. Oh, go ahead on A.S. David, you're there. Yeah, hi, thank you. So the intent was to specify that where we are providing parking limitations for on streets, not off street, but on street parking limitations that we actually enforce those. There's a lot of safety issues with both bicyclists and pedestrians when they're not enforced, including dooring, which is a really big one where a door opens because somebody parked halfway in the bike lane or parked in a place where they weren't supposed to, parked in a bike lane that was intended to not have on street parking. So the intent of this policy is not to necessarily specify that there would be more limitations on existing roadways where there are existing bike lanes, but that we should enforce those limitations that we do have. The second sentence is getting at places where we do wanna prioritize bicyclists and limit on street parking, where we need a bike lane to connect to others for connectivity. And that's the link is that last sentence to provide opportunities for filling a gap. So I hope that all made sense there, but it's really not to create a community where there is no on street parking. It's just to say that where we want to enforce limitations on on street parking or where we have existing limitations that we should make sure that they don't conflict with our bicycle facilities. And then if I could just quickly address three dash 34, that page, I think a temporary basis on a temporary basis would not conflict with staff's intent on that policy. Thank you, Anais, appreciate that. Any other questions? Yeah, while we have you and maybe Anais, you could hang out for a little bit. I just wanna go through these line by line so I understand them. So you're taking away in second section for protected bike lanes and paths and just changing it to for safety. So this is saying we are not necessarily prioritizing protected bike lanes and paths anymore. We're just prioritizing safety. That could be vehicular safety. I mean, my question is would it make sense to just leave what's there and add for safety? I don't understand why you're deleting because that seems to remove the intent of it. And maybe Anais, you could tell me if I'm interpreting that differently than how you would. So I think the concern was that it didn't, it looked like it was just addressing bicyclists. Yeah, we wanted to include safety for pedestrians as well. So one way you could address that is add the word multimodal in front of safety or you could clarify for safety of bicyclists and pedestrians? Yes, I think that part of it also is it said bike lanes and so we wanted to change the lane into a person. So yeah, I think that Commissioner Villalanti, does that, is that where I'm at? You? Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate Anais coming up with that language because yes, the idea was that we didn't, we didn't, yeah, we wanted the multimodal or a bike for the second option of, I agree with Commissioner Dan, my brain is stopping working. I think early in that sentence, it identifies bicyclists and pedestrians and that's good. And then I think the protected bike lane is too restrictive because sometimes you can't get a protected lane, but you can get an improved bike lane or improved path or improved sidewalk. So I don't think you have to add for a bicycle, I think just for safety, because earlier in the sentence you already said it was for bicyclists and pedestrians. And that's what we felt, thank you, Matt. We just felt like safety was encompassing. So thank you. It looks like a good edit to me. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you. No, that's great to understand that. Can we just keep walking down the list a little bit? Sure. Next one, please. To 4.1 point, just the one at the bottom of the page I think as well. Oh, okay. Yes. Require as a condition of approval improvements and major access points that provide services to the public, such as path improvements or maintenance, recycling garbage collection, vehicle and bicycle parking, beach shuttles, et cetera, or signs. So encourage, it was encourage provision of and or require as a condition of approval. So this is saying you want all new developments to be required to do some form of improvement at a major access point. Which is the case now. So this doesn't change anything except replaces the subjective word with the objective word. You're saying that this is the case in other code sections somewhere that it's zero? This is the case in my experience with any major development project. We require some sort of improvement, whether it's a single family home development that doesn't have a curb. We have required curbs, if it's the Aptos village plan we require all sorts of staff. So it's, I don't see it as a substantive departure from what is currently the practice now. Maybe. I'm not just saying encourage and require. That's what it said before. No, it said require. Yeah, I'm not, I don't understand the difference between provision of and or require. Why do I seem like it was a little, I wanted to provide a little bit more direct wording. I would say that, and Matt would know this better than anyone, but it's not always required. Sometimes you might be asked to, there's certain things that you do like curb strip, right? And you, if you're redoing the sidewalk, that makes sense. And that could be one of the things that you're required to do. But then like, upgrading a light or something or something a crosswalk or, it might, for example, be in the counting's plan to do something down the road and it wouldn't make sense or help to do it now. So I don't know, Matt, what do you think? Is this require gonna cause us problems? I mean, the old language actually has already had the word require. So I mean, the encourage, provision of and or require seems like the require is already in there. I don't know, the old language seems pretty encompassing, but if you just go with just require and if the improvement's already there, then it's a moot point. Well, it's okay. So Mr. Machado, are you saying that you would hear on your experience that the language of encourage provision of and or require is preferred or are you saying the require is better language just so we can come? Yeah, I would lean towards the original language where you've got encourage and or require. I mean, that covers both bases really well, actually. I think the concern was that it wasn't strong enough. Can I say something, which is just that sometimes we do have smaller developments that may not be subject to the same requirements as larger developments. I think the words provision of is probably extraneous, but allowing for encourage where some of these improvements may not be appropriate or may not be having access to the development gives us more flexibility there. And A's could ask a follow up to that and just as a real world example of where this could be a challenge if someone was going to create a new single family home or replace one that was already there or they didn't have to do any street work, just a single family home, we wouldn't really wanna force them to pay for expensive things like traffic lights and crosswalks and things like that, which wouldn't be typical. In that scenario, this code would now say that that single family home person would have to do something. And that's what we're saying. We should, the old language made it so we didn't have to enforce that on every single person. Am I understanding that? Right. So there are some laws that prohibit us from requiring certain improvements of smaller developments, but we don't want the policy in the general plan to be in conflict with those laws. I don't understand exactly because over and over and over again on the planning commission, when people have wanted to say develop a parcel with two that has single home into two or three homes and use a lot to more advantageous residential development, we certainly have always said that they needed to build curb and sidewalk because we wanted to get curb and sidewalk. Does this change that? No, this is talking about major access points and larger improvements. So why would just plain require? It seems like this, I agree. I think the language is called for. I don't quite understand what you're suggesting. So how about I can change it to require and or encourage, which is almost exactly what was there. Is that satisfied everyone? I was gonna suggest require when appropriate, but then maybe that's still subjective as well. How about require when appropriate? I like that. Mr. Rashada, what is best for your department? I mean, your department is in charge of these major access points. I wanna, I think the intent is that it's not, so it's not optional when these required, when these access points need improvement. What language is best for your department? Is it require when appropriate? Is it require? And or encourage. And or encourage, what language is best? Actually require when appropriate makes a lot of sense. Let's do that. Good. Thank you. That also allows staff to consider kind of proportionality and nexus and all those other good things that keep us consistent with state law. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, do you wanna go on to do? Yeah. I mean, you wanted to go by these line by line. Yeah. All right. Neighborhood, apply consistent and objective criteria as required by law in the review of discretionary development applications that is based on existing code plan policies throughout interdepartmental working group. That's the idea. You have any questions about that? I don't think that that makes a substantive change because whether we write it or not, it's still whatever law requires. I think that's fine. Thank you. Environmental alignment account with the constraints that affect the project's corridor to minimize impacts to physical environmental conditions located in design public and private roads to avoid or minimize if necessary, impacts to significant biological visual and other environmental resources. That's not, that's the first thing. Any questions on that one? So we're just saying instead of minimizing, actually avoid or minimize if necessary. I think that's all, it's pretty much the same thing, right? What's the reasoning for, is there a thing to add? I mean, just not to like go into the weeds, but it's just to strengthen the policy. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. I was interested about this next one. It's you're saying to make it minimum level of service of D and I don't know this section as well as you. It seems I was not, or maybe didn't just think about it in that way, but is this is already what we're proposing? It's just really clarifying in this section that you need to meet that minimum level. It seemed odd that if you read it without the word minimum, it says required development projects to provide multi-modal roadway improvements necessary to achieve a level of service of D. You can do that, yeah. I think the goal in our general plan is to, I think we'd all would like our roadways to have a higher level of service, right? Which is why we inserted the word minimum. We'd like a level of service to be C or B or A, right? That clarifies the intent. So I think staff just missed a word, quite frankly. And if not, we sure would like to insert it. Wonderful. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then did we talk about the last sentence there? Sure. Or did we already? Sorry. No. The sustainability plan comes for the Board of Supervisors out of policy stating requirement that integration of micro-mobility shall not obstruct pedestrian access. So micro-mobility, when you read it in the general plan, included everything from electric scooters to bikes. And one of the biggest problems with micro-mobility is that they conflict with pedestrian access. So as they got rolled out to the community, don't want to name any names, there are some companies that were not responsible in their rollout. And we found as a community that many of their equipment pieces were just left on sidewalks. And I think that the county probably would like to state as a goal that we don't want micro-mobility to conflict with pedestrian access. So I think it's reasonable that we encourage the Board to integrate a policy objective that micro-mobility shall not obstruct pedestrian access. So that means bikes shouldn't be left on sidewalks because people who use the sidewalks and other types of pedestrian access with strollers, with walkers, shouldn't be obstructed as micro-mobility becomes more common. Got it, thank you. Really great explanation, I appreciate that. All right, any other questions? I would suggest we take a vote and move on to the next one. Yeah, I think I'm good. Can you do me one favor? Sorry, can you scroll to the top one again? Sure, Dan, you should also have these in your email as well. I mean, just see what we're happy to scroll. OK, all right. As part of the conversation at the beginning, I mean, we're happy to have them on the screen as we discuss them to the public who's online. But you should also just so you know, I asked Jocelyn. They came from Jocelyn so that I was not emailing the PC. So that. Rachel, can you make the provision change in the page 57, 4.1.12 that you make? Can you make that in red so it's consistent? OK, yeah, that's my problem. Things are in red. Some things are in black. But what's underlined is an addition. Yeah, anything else. Everything else is in red, so. I know. Tim, did you have a question about something still? No, that was it. Thank you. I just wanted to refresh one of the things we already read. So I think I'm good. And so does anyone else have any other questions or suggestions for amendments? I don't. All right, let's vote. Great. Miss. Great. I can't see you, but I assume you're here. Can we do a roll call vote? I am. Right. Commissioner Lazenby. Yes. Commissioner Villalante. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner Shepard. And chair Gordon. Yes. All right. Motion passes. Thank you. I actually think there's a chance at least I can get through what I want to get through. We have a little more than an hour. So I'd like to move on to the ARC, the ag resources and conservation. I mean, the steps with me. Sorry. Well, the which? One second. I'm going to move on to the general plan. Agricultural policies. I can find them. Here we go. That would include sections. Numbers what? It's a general plan. OK, I got it. So I'll move the staff recommended. The staff recommendation with the following changes in this Google Doc that's now shared up on my screen. Oops, I think I was. I'm sorry. You all not hear me say chapter five, too. Oh, yeah. Now I didn't hear anything. End of day. Seconded and sacrifice. OK. And then can you send it out to Jocelyn? She can share it. I sent it to Jocelyn and she will probably be sending it out. OK, so all right. So the first change that we're proposing is personal access through ag lands. And this is just calling out that sometimes we need to access public land through ag land in various select circumstances. And so I'm just adding some language here to acknowledge that so that so that it's in our general plan that sometimes that occurs. We have a specific situation in the North Coast where this is the case. The next section is about utility district expansion, which in the study session we had long discussions about. And I really want to appreciate staff's attention to this particular issue. And so the language that's added in one and in two, really just to emphasize and to make more specific what I believe the intention is these policies, which is to provide service but only to existing development. And so the language is designed to reflect that. And then we can we'll go back and discuss these in more detail as you guys have questions. But so going on sewer and water lines in the Coastal Zone, again, is the same language that were in the first two policies about this issue. So it's just the same language here. And this section is about agricultural buffers. And added section here is highlighting a section that refers back to any changes in the buffer going through APAC. So this was a confusing one to me because I have to go and figure out what 1.4.2 said and all that. So it's just adding language there to highlight that. So the next one, OK, the next one, I'm asking that actually we keep the current language, the old language, the current language in the general plan, except for change in the second to last sentence noted below and underline. Yes. OK, I hope that makes sense. And that's it. That's it. OK, that's for that one. Wow, OK. So I'll go back to the top and then we can discuss and take amendments if necessary. Tim, I think you're muted. Thanks. I just make a joke anyway. I was saying that it feels like it takes so much longer to write all these up. And it's like this big thing. And then it's only like a couple items section. But it's all so much reading to get there, OK. Rachel, I think one of them got dropped off. Oh, really? Uh-oh. That did seem a little like I was missing something. It's just the one that this it's one something Tim cares about too, which is the scenic designation. Oh, yeah. That should that should be on there. Sorry, Tim. No, I don't. I want to make sure it gets added because I think it's something a lot of we've discussed a lot. Am I right? Am I right? That should be on this one, right? That's this chapter. Staff, am I right for the designation of the scenic quarter is in this chapter? Yes. OK, I'm going to add it to the document while Tim asks. Yeah. Also going to need a new motion. We'll probably need to turn them in a minute. But give me a sec while I get the language. I may have missed this. Did we have a we have a motion? Did we have a second on this? Yeah, Alison. So I personally am not in favor of forcing the scenic highway if it's not appropriate. So, you know, we've heard that staff says that that's not what we have anymore. And I it makes sense to me to to eliminate that until at what point we do have one again. But so but for the rest of these, see, I didn't have any questions on the first one. All right, let me scroll. Can you scroll back to the top? Yes, I'm so sorry. Yeah, this is the top. Renee, did you have any questions on the first one? I didn't want to jump past it without giving everyone an opportunity. So this is pretty much all about the coastal zone, right? Yeah. OK. Then I think that I would support these things in your district, because I think you have sort of done them carefully. And I think these are appropriate changes. Yes. Tim, did you have any questions on what's up in this Google dot? You added that. Well, I guess on the first one, you added and access to public lands. What's the can you give me a little insight? Sure. So we have a national monument up on the north coast and one of the access points you will need to cross Agland. And so it's just basically making sure that that's called out specifically. OK. It's a rare circumstance, but we have so many state parks and now the Alam land that's buffered by Agland that I didn't want the policy to prohibit accessing public land just because they need to access it through an Ag parcel. Got it. OK. Thank you. That makes sense. Second one. I think that makes sense. This policy for the second one about county sewer district boundaries, utility district expansion, I appreciate the addition. I don't have any problems with it. I don't know if there's like plans or something that we're kind of doing. But no, it's just an added layer of protection. And these were policies that coastal staff also was concerned about as well. I think the adequate, the addition of more explicit language is well-merited. So I would normally support it because you never know what's going to be proposed. And we really need to protect that farming land for the next 20 years. That was the intent. So I'll move. I'm sorry, Rachel. Can I clarify? So 1.1.13, there's additional language in that policy now. Are you proposing that language be removed? When was it last updated? So let's see. In the staff report that was 8.24, staff report? I believe, yes. If it's the language from that, I think that I liked that language. And I like this language more, I guess, I would say. But I feel like I liked where you're going. And then I just went. So essentially, I think all that language then is underlined because it reads differently than what's in the policy now. OK. I'll just take a toggle back and look at it. But I think it's getting at the same intent. So I don't. There is additional language regarding what in sewer lines located below the fillable soil depths, but I think that's addressed elsewhere. Sufficient construction buffers from pipelines to ensure public health and safety. So I think it is getting at the overall same intent. And there might be some additional language in the policy that's intended to be protective of ag land. I would be happy to add to the motion where staff can add additional language to further strengthen the policies to protect ag land from development would be welcome. OK. I would definitely support that. Rachel, I don't know if you can scroll down to the bottom if you can see that I added the language back to the proper document. Hopefully people can see. Oh, good. You have to accept it. But I put it in the Parks and Rec document. So you're going to have to go accept that I deleted it out of there. But so what we added back in is we actually added how it was designation from the same material county down to Monterey and you're going to have to accept my friendly amendment that we put this back in. And then there was another. And I apologize. The document I sent out to everyone did not include this. And then on page 122, we just added a direction that the sentence needs to be reworked because it's the standards for considering timber harvest plants that says we're applicable do not support and or recommend denial of a timber harvest plant based upon its potential for cumulative adverse impacts to water quality, traffic, wildfire, and other affected sources. And I think that sentence could be interpreted that the way you are assessing these plans, cumulative impacts are not considered. And I think staff, I do believe staff wants them taken into consideration. And if they don't, I think we believe they should be. And so we added a direction that the sentence should be reworked to be clear. In fact, I had some people read the sentence not telling them my own personal views. And they're like, no, no, they agree that the sentence was recommending not taking cumulative impacts into account. And I don't think that that's what the counting would like to have happen. So those are the two things that are also in this section that we have intended to include. So if the maker of the motion is amenable, I believe even as the second or I can add a family amendment. Yes. Yes, I am. Thank you. Chair and commissioners, can I ask a question, please? On that sewer districting discussion just a second ago, did that was that in the coastal zone only or is that countywide? My intention was in the coastal zone. I think the general plan only deals with it in the coastal zone, but staff can probably speak better to it. It's been a long time since I've had much information. Knowing that the coastal zone goes up to the summit and a lot of our northern part of the county will be. And I just don't know if it overlaps with our CSA 7 SLV expansion discussions trying to fix some of the septic problems. I don't know if there's a conflict there. I just don't have it in front of me. But maybe maybe one of you know, unless we can scroll up to look, I apologize for taking this back. No, no, no, that's fine. This this policy and I'm sorry. I just about your earlier point to Rachel, I see you're now only addressing one and two. And I was looking at the language at the beginning of the policies. I think your intent is to keep the language as written plus, but change visions one and two. Correct. OK, got it. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. OK. And so this policy applies countywide and it talks about type one and three agricultural CA land. So I don't I'd have to look and see whether there was any CA land in in the areas that you were referencing, Matt, in terms of whether I don't think it is. But well, I don't know. It could be. I there's you know, there's like seven neighborhoods up in SLV from, you know, all the way up through that Boulder Creek Air, including the downtown that desperately needs sanitation services because their septics are failing. And you know, we're working hard to develop that plan. But I wouldn't want new language here to limit a site. Maybe we should either. But this is just dealing with CA. Yeah, we can. We can check that and verify that there's no CA land. That's in district. Can you say again, which District five, District five? Yeah, Boulder Creek, they have some issues up there. So I will add to my motion of the seconder is amenable to it that county staff take a look at those areas outlined by this DDI director to ensure that this would not prohibit the county from providing a utility district expansion to residences that currently are in need of that. Thank you. I doubt it's CA as well. But I just wanted out of caution. Thank you. I definitely don't want that on my conscience. I'm amenable to that. But I also don't. I don't just a mad question. I don't think this would include that because it does. I mean, it allows us to serve existing development. It also allows us to address failing systems. So I don't I don't think that that's a problem anyway, but I'm absolutely amenable to Boulder Ridge. Should we go down to the scene of Highway and see if there's questions on those last two policies in before we take action? So the intent here is to restore the urban area as a scenic highway is a designated scenic road in the county. That's right. That that the unincorporated portions of Highway one be retained as a scenic road. We just reiterate kind of the impacts on our ability to approve urban developments that might be visible from the highway. That would be the one consequence I would just bring up. I do understand that. I think that there's been a couple of examples that we've had recently of developments that are violating this policy currently that should not have been allowed to violate it and that that we should it's a beautiful stretch of roadway and we should strive to keep it that way. And I think that there are a lot of mitigations we can do that are reasonable to development that has satisfied the policy. So any questions on the timber harvest one? I'm still on this on the one before. Sorry, just thinking through this. I mean, these are big decisions over the county and I just don't understand necessarily is the value of the scenic highway to preclude development? Absolutely not. The value is to to retain its scenic nature and that that didn't happen on accident. It happened because we have policies to protect the scenic vistas. So it's not a it's not a. What's the word I'm looking for? It's not an accident that we don't have. You know, billboards or big ugly signs or you know, you go to other places, even along Highway One, and you'll see that it looks quite different. And the reason why it's so scenic in Santa Cruz County is because we've had policies that require protection from some of those eyesores that you get in other places. I understand that completely. I do, you know, I do get that. You know, I'm inclined to this is one of those. Like you said, you know, the planning department has specifically said that this is important for us to adjust this and they're also going to replant or work to replant a lot of this that they didn't have to include. And so it seemed like they had made concessions to help, you know, make this make our concerns feel validated with like also getting what they needed to get done, get getting done. So, I don't know, my inclination would be to accept with the planning commission or the planning department suggested knowing that they had to plan for this. And without study on what this means, it's hard to just say that it's the right thing to do. And there's been more study as to removing it. Well, I actually would like to see studies on what would happen if we did remove it. I think we already know what happens when we retain it. We retain a scenic. We can re retain the qualities that we have now. So I actually think we're moving it. I'm not comfortable removing it because I actually don't know what that means, except for the couple of mistakes that have been made where a violation of this policy has occurred. And so I think of that and think, oh, that would be all over up and down how we want. And that's that's why I want to retain it because I actually don't know what what it would look like without it. Yeah, I share Commissioner Dan's concerns about what I absolutely hear from Gordon's concerns about listening to staff. And I know that there's some projects proposed along the corridor that are larger in mass and may be visible from the highway. But I do worry that essentially the logic behind removing it is we didn't do a good enough job of enforcing it. So we lost some of the justification for scenic. And that seems like a terrible reason to just continue down the path like God is here. And instead, we need to have a conversation about better protecting the scenic corridor through either visual screening or things like that versus kind of throwing up our hands and saying, what we're fine with, we don't know what, which is Commissioner Dan's point, which is how much are we going to see lighted signs, less greenery and things like that along an area that we have historically protected and preserved in the community has asked us to. And so I think there needs to be greater exploration about what it would mean to remove the scenic corridor. I mean, because essentially you're asking an entire community to just, we're already designating all of these places to have greater development and rightfully so. But we also should have greater conversations about screening and not allowing a light pollution into these communities simply because we unfortunately didn't do a good enough job of historically as a community of enforcing some of the protections, like Ms. Dan said, there are some areas, there are some projects that have gone through in the not too distant past where we have allowed some of these to happen on that corridor that perhaps shouldn't have. And without knowing the full scale of what it could mean to get rid of it, I'd rather say, Santa Cruz County has historically wanted to not have these large lighted developments, billboards and things like that along our area. And I know that that's not the highlight of this, but I think it's better to keep the protections in terms of trying to protect the almost the whole nature that we've asked for in our area and then to just say no. Well, if I could just weigh in this one, I'd like to support what Commissioner Villalante and Commissioner Dan said. I think it's something most residents strongly endorse and there's so many ways that can be mitigated. Sitting and hearing after hearing if it's in place, then developers look to see how they can fit into that, how they can make it work and they all, and they have pretty much always been able to do that. And I would totally support this language. I don't know about Judy, do you have an opinion? It's also spread at the bottom. Are we ready to vote? I wanna ask one more question on this really quick. So I appreciate everyone's responses and I thank you for digging in a little bit. I just wanna dive in from Ms. Hansen. Is this gonna preclude us some developments? Is there a way to say that we could mitigate developments in the view shed as opposed, if we leave this in, what does it do? And is there a way to either dig in a little more and provide at the board of supervisors some alternative that we could keep this in and then also still get the development potential that we're trying to get? There's many policies in this section of the general plan that would apply to new development. And just trying to think, it'll take more work for those properties that are in the designated area and are visible from this portion and it would take some mitigation, could add to some costs. It doesn't necessarily preclude development, but it does take some discretionary review to make sure that policies are consistent. There and commissioners would, and Stephanie might know the answer is I just don't know, would wireless facilities be impacted by this one way or the other? I know up in the North Coast, we do have some real need for additional connectivity up there. The wireless ordinance goes a long way toward its own type of mitigation, so I wouldn't be too concerned about that. The new ordinance really requires them to do quite a bit of work to mask and camouflage the facilities. Great, thank you. Okay, so just to process what you said, also I think that there's ways to mitigate around being by the scenic highway and still be able to build what we're saying we want people to build. Baloo, we've had loads of developments since the last census policy has been in place, so it doesn't preclude development. Yeah, the only thing that I would add to the discussion was that when we first started to embark on whether this would be a good change, it was more about the loss of the trees in that particular area to disease over time as opposed to the development itself, so just to add to the discussion a little bit. Right. I mean, so I'm sorry, you're talking about because we lost trees to disease, that's why we should get rid of it, but to me that's all the more reason to keep it and just over time the trees will come back as people replant as part of their participation in plans. Is that what you're saying? No, that's not what I'm saying. Just adding another layer to the discussion that it was about the more of a natural loss of trees as opposed to developments that had been approved when we started this. And so the trees are necessarily not there. The right of way gets pretty, the Caltrans right of way gets pretty skinny in some areas. And so I think when you look at that urban portion, it gets hard to say that it's still scenic. So I was just adding a little bit to the discussion not trying to change the direction. Well, we talked about this a lot, maybe you could go ahead and vote on it now. I agree. So I would move. We've already had a motion. Okay, and a second. Yeah, and a second. And so once we're all done with conversation, then we can definitely go to a vote, but I don't wanna feel rushed like I don't have the time to discuss these because that's what we're here for. Right, so do you have any other additional questions? I don't have this time, but I would appreciate the opportunity and not being pushed, I don't appreciate that. At this time we should take a vote. I believe that we are ready. Can we please have a roll call vote, Ms. Drake? Yes, Commissioner Lazenby, I think I muted you. Keep getting kicked off the island. Sorry, when there's background noise at any at all, it's, I mute, I've been muting folks. I'm sorry about that, sorry. That's okay. Well, I vote yes. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Vialante. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner Shepard. Yes. And Chair Gordon. No, okay, that is completed. And do you have another item you'd like to go over, Commissioner Dan? So I can, we can bring up the parks. This is the last general plan section. So this is a parks recreation and public facilities general plan chapter. So I move the staff recommendation with the following changes included in the Google Doc that is now up on the screen. Can you email this out? Oh, excuse me. Do we have a second? You're muted, Alison. Oh yeah, I was just saying yes, we were gonna email it out. And yes, I'm happy to second it as well. I just send it to Jocelyn. I think she probably just hasn't sent it because nobody seconded it yet. I will send it now. And these are just a couple. The first one is retaining a sentence in this policy 4.1.2 that actually is basically restating in a different way what is in the policy. But the final sentence is you'll see down there in cross out we are suggesting to retain that the county decision making body shall not approve any development project unless it determined that such project has adequate water supply. So it's re-emphasizing the process of re-emphasizing some language that's also in the policy. There's a misspelled word in the second line. Oh, geez, thank you, Judy. Determines. Oh, thank you. Gosh, you're right. You're welcome. Got it? Yeah, that's it. Okay, is that it, Alison? Yes. Okay, so that's it. Was there any discussion? Questions? I'm sorry, I'm reading it. It's still on if anyone wants to go ahead. Yeah. All right. This utilities and infrastructure language, which seems to change you have made is very agreeable to me. But is this an exploration and public facilities element? It is. It's about public facilities as opposed to parks. And I also want to say I spent a whole batch of questions to staff on this general plan chapter. And I just want to thank staff for replying to those questions. And it was super helpful. And that's why I just had one because you guys did such a great job responding to those questions I sent you ahead of time. I want to hit you for that. Thank you. Thanks to Natisha on that one. I don't have any questions on this. It seems to make sense. I don't know what the substantial change between purveyor and agency, but it seems like the terms are probably fine. I mean, the same thing sounds fine to me. Anybody else? I don't have any questions. And take a roll call on this section. Mrs. Drake. Okay. Let's see. Mr. Lazenby. Yes. Commissioner Vialante. Yes. Commissioner Dianne. Yes. Commissioner Shepard. Yes. And Chair Gordon. Yes. Okay. Question passes. So we're at 430. I understand the chair has a hard stop at five. We have, from what I have prepared, we have the zoning code and then some other random cleanup items. The zoning code is pretty substantial. I don't think we can do it in a half hour, probably. I would be for moving, maybe shutting down our tent a little early. I think we're all tired and I certainly, and don't feel like I'm thinking on all four cylinders or two. So what about, we do have another full day. Maybe we can all plan for as long as it takes on the 24th. 21st. 21st. Sorry. 21st. See what I mean? Could I ask a question, Chair? Yes, please. Thank you. Will the other commissioners also be offering amendments on the general plan or would this be the end of the general plan discussion? I didn't have anything further on the general plan. So I think if we, maybe the intent is to maybe close that item out and we could probably do that. If that's, I honestly can't say that I don't have a few more comments. We can also wait. You know, I think that this, I know we got to get through this, but we're here to give each other the time to think through this and do this right. It's a lot of work to go in to be rushed at the end. And so if you feel like you have more comments, let's wait. I just like to leave the possibility open for the meeting on the 21st. Agreed. Thank you. Well, commissioner Dan. Yes. Would it be helpful if you, well, I don't know whether this is Justin might not like this, but to send us out the pages on this neck, this upcoming section on zones. Boy, what I love to. You haven't finished yet. I don't think we'll let us. Like obviously commissioner Villalanti and I are Brown acted up. And so we've been working together. And so I'm not allowed to talk substantively about the issues with another commissioner. Okay. Is there an opportunity to present them now without a motion and I don't, I would be happy to present them now, but I would want it there to, I wouldn't do it as a motion. Don't understand. So, so commissioner Gordon was asking if I would present commissioner Villalanti in my recommended changes to the zoning code outside of the motion. And I replied that no, that I'm only going to do it as a motion. But we need to wait till next time then. This is long and short of it. Yeah, I mean, yes. You wouldn't have to commissioner Dan does it not want to sound like it doesn't want to share those opinions early. I mean, on September 21st is that one we're going to talk about changes to the code? I don't quite understand what we're doing. Absolutely. On that day, I'll be prepared to share a number of changes that commissioner Villalanti and I have crafted. And then, and then that could extend to the meeting on the, on the 28th. No, I will, we will finish that on that day if I have anything to say about it. Second that motion. So we are going to try and finish up the zoning changes, et cetera, and then get on to the code amendments where I have much more to say myself anyway, right? So that's our plan for next Wednesday, right? Next Wednesday will not only the zoning code, but any item that we haven't discussed. And I would suggest that we go through all items that we have to talk about. And then at the end, we can make one motion to approve the remaining items that weren't discussed. And then we'll be done. And hopefully we can through that next week. Do we need a motion to continue the hearing to next Wednesday at 9.30? Yes. Someone like to make that motion. I'll make that motion that we continue the hearing to next Wednesday at 9.30. Wonderful. Thank you. Can we have a roll call vote on that, Ms. Drake? Yes. Commissioner Villalante? Yes. Commissioner Lazenby? Yes. Commissioner Dan? Yes. Commissioner Shepard? Yes. And Chair Gordon? Yes. Great. With that, we can close that item for today. And then we can move on to the next scheduled agenda item, which is my schedule, Planning Director's Report. Well, we just- Real quick. I do want to say thank you to everyone. All right. Thank you. Really stressful. I appreciate it. And I apologize if I feel a little grouchy. I work really hard to give everyone the time that they need. And I just, when I feel rushed, I feel like I haven't been given that same level of respect. And so I just appreciate that you guys give me the time that I need. And I know that took a little longer. So thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate you've done an excellent job, Ms. Chair. Thank you. Yeah. And thank you from staff too, to the commission to working through all this. It is not easy we recognize that. We just lost the CDI Director to a meeting he couldn't get out of in District One. So I'll just say we have no directors report. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. Report on upcoming meeting dates and agendas. Clearly we have the 21st. And then after that, what do we have coming up? After that, we have our regularly scheduled meeting date of September 28th. And we have three items on that agenda, not related to the sustainability update. And and then in October, the only thing I have on the horizon so far is a potential water presentation on October the 12th. But we're waiting to see if we have other PC reservations that come through. So that's tentative. And beyond that, we do not have, let me just, I see. Commissioner Scherber, excuse me. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Yeah, sorry. I was like trying to find a way to mute. Thank you. And yeah, beyond that, we don't have anything on the horizon. However, we do have a lot of projects that will be coming to the Planning Commission in process right now. So I expect we will see a project or two this winter. I also wanted to say two things. One is I wanted to apologize for the snafu that occurred on the September 1st special meeting date. It was due to a technical error. Stephanie mentioned that, but I wanted to just say I'm sorry about that. There were some issues with the CTV overbooking that Zoom link actually is what happened. And so we got that sorted out for the 21st. Just say everybody knows should be good to go for the 21st. And then the other thing I wanted to report on really quickly as we are trying to bring the meetings back to the chambers this winter and I'll probably send a poll out to you all to just get your thoughts on that. It comes up every six months or so. We discussed bringing meetings back to the chambers. So we would like to do that if there's support from the Planning Commissioners. So I'll send a poll out there. And I think that's all I have. Great, thank you. The report on the 12th about the water information. Is that what Mr. Machado was talking about last week? Yes. Okay, great, cool, awesome. That's exciting. Okay, then we can move on to- Can I just ask one quick question? Sure. He's gonna make a water presentation. Is there a water project coming up? Is there something? What is it? I don't get it. It's really just to let the commission know about what the water suppliers are doing. I think based on the discussion you had previously, they've reached out to Soquel and the city, I think, to get their perspectives as well. And water is such an important issue. I think the director thought it was worth a rounded discussion for the planning commission's benefit and the public. Thanks. Okay, thank you for that. Any update from County Council today? No report, thank you. Okay, that brings us to the end of our hearing. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All the staff. Yes. Thanks, everyone. We'll see you next week. Thank you. Bye, everyone. Thank you very much.