 Right. Good morning. Thank you for joining us for today's Planning Commission hearing. Today's date is May 12th, 2021, and the time is 9.30. Today's hearing is completely remote, and we're using a Zoom video conferencing meeting platform today. So for you at home who are viewing this hearing or who may wish to participate in this hearing, I wanted to take a moment to explain the technological pieces of the hearing. To participate in today's hearing, you may connect with us via the Zoom link, which is posted on the Planning Department's home page at sccoplanning.com. Alternatively, you may participate in today's meeting by phone. Please dial 1-669-900-6833. When prompted, you may enter collaboration code 8621608-2651. If you wish to simply view today's meeting, it is being broadcast live on television. For more information, please visit the community television website. I wanted to provide a couple of instructions about participating in today's meeting. For the agenda's public hearing item, time will be provided for speakers to contribute their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either remotely raise their hand by selecting the hand icon on the Zoom link or if calling in by telephone by remotely raising 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 phone number. If you are participating via the Zoom link, when I call on you to speak, you'll see a pop-up on your screen that says Unmute. Please accept the pop-up, state your name for the record, and provide your testimony. If calling in via the telephone, you must unmute yourself by pressing star six on a telephone. Members of the public will be provided three minutes to speak during the public hearing. If at any time you're having difficulty connecting to today's meeting via the Zoom link or calling in via telephone, please email me jocelyn drake, which is j-o-c-e-l-y-n dot drake, at Santa Cruz County dot us. I'll be checking my email periodically throughout the meeting and I'm on standby to assist you. Okay, so to appear as we're situated with the instructions, I will now turn it over to the Planning Commission Chair, Judith Lazenby. Good morning, Judith. Good morning, Ms. Drake, and good morning to all. Welcome to this, the May 12, 2021 virtual meeting of the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission. The time is now 9.32, and I will call this meeting to order. May we have a roll call, please, Ms. Drake? Yes, Commissioner Gordon. Here. Commissioner Shepard. Here. Commissioner Schaffer-Frides. Here. Commissioner Dan. Here. And Shirley Zinbi. Here. Are there any additions or corrections based on them? No, there are not. Thank you. Do any commissioners have any expertly communications to declare? And I'll start. I did communicate with Ms. Hamilton, the applicant's representative. Anyone else? I had a short interaction, but that was about it. Yep. Okay. And anyone else? Okay. At this time, this commission will hear from any members of the public who have issues of concern that they want to talk about, and the issues cannot be on today's agenda. Is there any one member of the public that wants to take this opportunity? Okay. And I just wanted to remind members of the public that if you wish to speak on a topic not on the agenda today, you would press star nine on your telephone now to remotely raise your hand. Okay, Chair. I'm not seeing any. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to item number five on the agenda, the approval of the minutes of April 28, 2021. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. Commissioner Gordon. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? Say aye, please. Aye. So the minutes of April 28 are approved. Before we get into our next item, I wanted to say that as a reminder to myself and to everyone else that around noon, 12 o'clock, we will take a 10 minute break if we are still in session at that time. So at this point, item number six is for presentation. Okay. So we please load the PowerPoint for staff's presentation. And we have Nathan McBeth with us this morning presenting for the planning department. Good morning, Nathan McBeth planning department. This is application 191-157. It's located north side of Soquel Drive. Approximately 1,000 feet northeast of Highway 1. Project applicant is Hamilton Land Planning. And the owner of the property is Dignity Health. This is a proposal to amend the Dominican Hospital Master Plan application 88-0065 by establishing a planned unit development, PUD, for construction of an approximately 85,000 square foot addition to the existing hospital and construction of a three story 409 parking space parking structure. The project includes construction of a service yard and grading of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of material. Required approvals are a planned unit development, master plan amendment, commercial development permit, sign exception, and over height all approval. As you can see, the project here is located just north of Soquel Drive surrounded by a combination of commercial uses to the south. And the greater campus, Dominican campus to the north highlighted in blue. Next slide, please. This is kind of a zoom of that same shot here. The white structure is the main hospital. And the two highlighted areas in blue to the right are the other two parcels that are incorporated into this project consisting of three parcels with a total land area of approximately 20 acres. Next slide, please. Projects located and is identified in the Santa Cruz Sustainable Santa Cruz County plan as being in the medical district and flea market area. The subject parcel is highlighted there in blue to the top left portion of that screen of the shot. There are no land use designation or zoning classifications that are proposed to be different from what was envisioned in the plan. Next slide, please. Showing here in orange is the location of the proposed addition to the hospital. In blue is the location of the proposed parking garage. And clouded there in the middle of the slide is highlighted almost in gray is the service area, service yard. Next slide, please. So the proposal includes the construction of the 85,000 square foot addition to the hospital. This is a brief visual simulation of what the area that will be impacted by the addition. Three story parking garages to the right of the screen here. There's landscaping going to be proposed in and around the proposed addition as well as the parking garage. Tree planting will be a two to one ratio for trees that are being removed. Much of the trees being removed are all trees that had been planted previously. Parking will include a 409 car space parking garage with a net new number of spaces, about 60, 40 new bicycle spaces. It will be ADA compliant parking as well as electric vehicle charging stations. Throughout the site will be an enhanced path of travel for both vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian. Next slide, please. The project requires a plan unit development, as mentioned, master plan amendment, commercial development permit sign exception, and overhead fence approval. The sign exception and overhead fence approval are incorporated into the commercial development. Next slide, please. The PUD incorporates is a specific request to adopt an ordinance specific to the site. The variation, this will be a variation to existing site standards. In this case, with a greater hospital campus specific to the hospital addition, it will be a request to increase the allowed height of 35 feet to 60 feet. On the adjoining parcel where the parking garage is proposed, it will be an increase in height from 35 feet to 40 feet. And within the interior of the site, between the two parcels, between the three parcels involved in this project, there is a service yard that will straddle the shared property line. So this would allow structures within that service area to straddle the property line crossover. Property line, which is typically not allowed. Additionally, minor variations to site design would be allowed under the PUD provided that they're in general conformance with the overall concept and density of the approval. Next slide, please. This is a view of the north and south side. The south side is where you kind of first view the addition as coming in off of Soquel Drive, somewhat obscured by existing structures, shown here a maximum height of roughly 57 feet. So the 60 feet would allow them to go have a little bit room for error if that, so to speak. Next slide, please. The east elevation at the top there is probably the most prominent view of the hospital seen from the interior of the site. This would be the main entrance for folks visiting the emergency room. Next slide, please. This is the parking garage. The highest point of the parking garage being 40 feet. This is an element that basically this is the elevator shaft. And this is located on the southwest side of the parking garage, which is the interior portion of the site. The overall height of the remainder of the parking garage is roughly 22 feet. Next slide, please. This is a plan view looking down on the service yard. You can see where structures are starting to are sliding over, crossing over those shared property lines indicated in blue. And this is located at the west side of the parking garage of the previous, just out of the left side of the previous frame. Next slide, please. This is a elevation of the service area showing the proposed block wall, concrete block wall that would, that requires the overhead fence wall approval. Design is consistent with the remaining, with the rest of the parking garage structure and so forth. And it doesn't create any sort of site distance issues for vehicles traveling around or in and out of the parking structure. Next slide, please. The project proposes a kind of a refacing of the existing signage out there on the campus. The main issue, the main replacement signage is the emergency room and the badge, the dignity health badge at the top of the tower there. Our sign regulations allow for 50 square feet, maximum 50 square feet for a site and this would be proposing roughly 85 square feet due to the location of the building, the need for visibility of the emergency room access. This is all very appropriate for the site. There's another badge that we might have seen on the previous slide with the parking garage and it has another maybe another 25 feet, 25 square feet of signage on the interior of the, on the interior of the site for the parking garage as well. Next slide, please. Landscaping is proposed around the proposed addition. There's two primary courtyards. Next slide, please. The courtyard to the left be the entrance to the main lobby of the operating room and and then the courtyard to the right is the entrance to the emergency room. Next slide, please. This one's a little difficult to see all of the, you can see the various plantings but it's very comprehensive surrounding the proposed parking garage. Next slide, please. So, environmental review was done for the project. An initial study, mitigated negative declaration were circulated for public comment March through March and April. Comments were received from the Monterey Bay air pollution air quality controlled, excuse me, air, Monterey Bay Air Resource District and and the Regional Transportation Commission comments and response to those comments are included as Exhibit J, the packet, happy page 148. Mitigation and monitoring or reporting program was, is included which identified mitigations and transportation. Next slide, please. The traffic impacts associated with the project include an increase in vehicle miles traveled. As a mitigation, the applicant is going to be required to to develop an employer-based travel demand program such as cruise 511, which they're already enrolled in. Contract a transportation coordinator to manage the program and provide an emergency guaranteed ride home for employees that carpool and establish a successful success, success criteria for employee participation. It was an operational deficiency identified at the intersection of Soquel Drive and Soquel Ave. TIA fees will be required to help fund some of that improvement. Next slide, please. Just getting into the east elevation, probably the most prominent view again of the hospital addition. Next slide. This is probably the most visible portion of the project from the street, from Soquel Drive. This is an existing condition. Next slide, please. And the proposed, the lighting is a little different on this, but you can see the parking garage pops into the frame to the right where the pink tree is. Next slide, please. Here's a mission drive looking right at these two parcels that are currently being used for parking, employee parking. Next slide. This is a proposed entrance to the parking garage and new access drive to the right. The curb cuts are not well represented in this frame. Next slide, please. It's a bird's eye view, kind of looking southwest. Staff has not received any public comment regarding this item with the exception of the results of the community meetings that were held. And I'd like to briefly go over some changes to the staff report and additions. Let's see, on page eight and nine of the staff report, there was some missing text regarding drainage analysis. That was emailed to commissioners this morning. I'm hoping you all received that and had a chance to review it. Page 12 of the Planning Commission resolution should correctly read Judith Laysenby, Chairperson. The applicant has requested several changes to the conditions of approval. I'm going to kind of summarize those. Page 32, they had requested a re-wording of condition 2B. They have requested condition 2I, child care fees, would be waived. They wanted a revision to condition 2J. And wanted the TIA fees should be based on a prepare the analysis prepared by fear and peers rather than a square footage analysis has conditioned. And then on page 33, condition 2K, affordable housing fees should not apply. Regarding condition 2B, there was some additional language emailed to you, the commission this morning. The wording was worked up by our staff in Department of Public Works. And I believe the applicant is amenable to those revisions. Can you slow down a little bit here? Oh yeah, sorry about that. No, no, I'm sorry. So 2B, can you give me the page number? Yes, 2B is on page 32. Okay. So that revised language that was emailed to you this morning is kind of a lengthy condition. Otherwise, I would just read it into the record. But yeah, I believe the applicant is amenable to that revised language. Staff is not recommending any changes to condition 2I or 2J. And can what pages? Those are on page 32 as well. Child care fees apply to this project. And the TIA fees should be based on square footage as well. Staff, as far as and then on page 32 or 33, condition 2K can be deleted. According to our. Is that what you're recommending? I'm recommending that. Can you discuss why staff? Sure, sure, yes. According to our affordable housing guidelines adopted in 2019, hospitals are exempt from payment of affordable housing impact fees. And let me know I have one more. I'm caught up. Okay. It was brought to my attention. There's a any reference to a maximum height of 65 feet should be changed to 60 feet for the proposed hospital addition. And that may I may I interrupt you there? Sure. The that change to 60 feet should be to the hospital addition, not to the main hospital, which is it does refer to that in some of the instances. Correct. Correct. I'm I'm I'm seeing on page 11. There's a reference. This is the planning commission resolution. And that's on the third paragraph. There's a reference to 65 feet that should be 60 feet. And then the only other place I'm seeing that is a reference on page 24. At the top of the page, I would replace the main word words main hospital with hospital addition. And I have no other changes. Okay. And with that, as proposed and condition, the project is consistent with all applicable codes and policies, the zoning ordinance and general plan. Therefore, staff recommends your commission adopt the attached resolution recommending the board of super excuse me. Next slide please. Adopt the attached resolution. Recommending the board of supervisors adopt the mitigated negative declaration mitigation, mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Per the requirements that California Environmental Quality Act adopt the planned unit development ordinance and approve application 191 157 based on the attached findings and conditions. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. That was a very nice presentation. Are there any questions from the commissioners of staff? I had a couple of questions. Nathan, could you go over what you did traffic study in a little more detail? Is there a specific part of the traffic study that you would? No, just summarize the major impacts and mitigations. I know they're in the staff report. Like a language. Yeah, there is. Yeah, essentially, the analysis was done in itself. The threshold of significance for this type of project recently adopted by our county is with respect to VMT. We're kind of departing from our former level of threshold significance, which was a level of service. I think, really, we have staff available that could probably summarize the transportation analysis a little better than I could. There was a lot of back and forth on this particular project from our transportation division planning department and road engineering and public works to try to land on an acceptable analysis. I know Anais is available and perhaps she would want to take the lead on that question. Well, it's a significant impact and the report says that it will definitely, what's your latest term? In other words, things will slow down at that very important intersection and already gets real backed up. And then it talks about fees will be paid for mitigations. I'd like to know what the mitigations will specifically be. And yes, I'd like to hear a summary. Other commissioners from Annalise? Yes, go ahead. A brief summary would be best. My name is Anais Shank. I work for the planning department. So as Nate was saying, for the purposes of environmental analysis, VMT or vehicle miles traveled is now the measure of significance. And so when there's an operational impact at an intersection, it's no longer considered environmental impact. So I'm going to talk a little bit about VMT and the mitigation that were that Dominican is going to use for the VMT impact. And then I see that public works is here. And maybe Matt can answer the question about the operational impact when I should say operational deficiency, because it's not technically an impact per CEQA. Can you unpack some of the terminology that you guys use that we wouldn't be? Sure. That VM, what did you call it? Vehicle miles traveled. So I understand that, but the impact, you changed the names of the impact to? Yes. So under CEQA, if an impact means that there is an environmental degradation of some kind, right? So that's what the terminology impact means. And if that impact is significant, then we have to mitigate it. I understand that, but you are no longer using the gradations. Used to have numbers and letters to indicate the degree of the impact. So those gradations A through F are associated with level of service. Okay. And that level of service measures delay at an intersection. Delay at an intersection is no longer considered a measure of impact. So the logic behind this, and this is based on state law that was passed back in 2013, that is just now becoming well in 2020 became absolutely mandatory for cities and jurisdictions to implement. And what that state law says is that when you're measuring congestion, well, when you're measuring delay, vehicle delay, you're measuring congestion, which is a measure of driver's level of convenience, rather than a measure of how we're moving people around. And so they determined the state determined that vehicle miles traveled was a better measure of environmental impact, because if we reduce vehicle miles travel, then we'll get people to drive less. Whereas if we're reducing delay, what we're actually doing is making it more convenient for people to drive. So are you saying that under the current state mandated program, if people are backed up at an intersection, that's not considered a bad thing. It's actually a good thing because then maybe they'll give up driving. I wouldn't say that that's explicitly the logic, but it's not considered a significant impact. In fact, it's made through case law, it's been made very clear that we cannot consider it a significant impact. So you're saying if this any project made an hour time before you get off the freeway, that would still not be considered a significant impact under the new law? Under the California Environmental Quality Act law. So it can't apply to the impact law designation, but it's still something that we can take into account in our agreement with the plan, right? Right. So what a lot of local jurisdictions are doing is looking at operational deficiencies. We're kind of reframing how we look at a project and making sure that when we design the project, we're looking at the surrounding network and how that project is interacting with the roadway network. But we can't wait. I don't, you just went off into technology, technical talk again. So you're saying if you are saying that you're moving to another definition of operational, what did you call it? Deficiency. What does that mean? The intersection is not operating at a standard that we consider acceptable. So the net result of that is the same determination in another language. In other words, this is intersection is no longer functioning effectively. It's similar, but we no longer have the force of the California Environmental Quality Act behind it. Okay, but this is something that supervisors and planning commissions can still have an opinion about and approve for that. Yes, but it has to be discussed under a different framework because it's no longer enforceable under the California Environmental Quality Act. Okay. Thank you. That is a change that I don't think most of us were aware of. And I think when we deal with traffic reports that you might have to remind us of some of that as things come up. It's a pretty significant change. And from now on in initial studies and CEQA documentation, level of service and those grades that you were used to seeing will only be provided for informational purposes. So how will the impacts of this project be medicated? So the impact, remembering that the impact was related to VMT and not to level of service was actually very minor and was looked at in two ways. They analyzed it both based on number of new employees and based on potential new trips based on square footage. And in both cases, the total new VMT was very low. And the threshold for VMT for hospitals and medical uses, large medical uses, is no net change. And that's based on state guidance. And so the mitigation for that is to start a more robust or to expand their current transportation demand management program and I'll explain what that means. They already have one, so they're just going to expand it. And the transportation demand management program is basically a program of various measures that encourages and helps people incentivizes people to use modes of transportation that are not drive alone. So one of the suggestions at the public meeting was to institute a jitney between the three major medical facilities and apparently and I'd like to when when the hospital speaks I'd really like to hear what they thought of that idea that sounded like a very good one. So basically you're concluding that this new structure at 85,000 square feet is really just modernizing everything, making it easier, better in every way, but will not generate any more impact because any additional plays are going to be encouraged not to drive themselves. Is that a fair summary? I would say that the summary would be the impact was mitigated to less than significant based on the TRA-1 which is the transportation demand management program. Is that equivalent to what I just said? It's similar. It's without that mitigation there would be an impact. So I'm getting a little technical in my language but I'm just recognizing that the mitigation is important to implement. So therefore from the applicant we will hear about that program that you are referring to which will create the mitigation. Yes and it's an expansion of an existing program that they currently have so they're very well set up to implement it. Okay tell me what it's called again technically. It's transportation demand management program and that's a general term. Well it's quite a mouthful so I want to try and write it down here. Thank you. Okay thank you. And then I can let Matt talk about the operational deficiency at SoCal and SoCal. Yeah that's that's a new term which to the lay person sounds like totally incomprehensible. Say it again. Operational deficiency. Yes I want to know what that means. Well we used to call it an operational impact. So it still refers to level of service. It's what you're saying. No we can still call it level of service. It's it still refers to level of service deficiencies. So what is it going to do to getting off at SoCal Avenue? I will let Matt take it from there. Thank you Anais. And good morning chair and commissioners and commissioner Shepard. I'd like to respond directly to your your questions. Also probably later on have an opportunity to respond to some of the applicants concerns and questions and comments but for now I'll just limit it to responding to commissioner Shepard's question. We do have a number of projects on SoCal Drive that will improve operations and reduce congestion and this project is actually conditioned to do some of that mitigation in the conditions of approval are TIA fees and that's a topic of today actually because the applicant has concerns with that but we believe strongly that those TIA fees will go towards real improvement to improve the operations and reduce congestion on this corridor as part of this project's impacts and a couple examples and these aren't completely inclusive of everything but we're looking at dedicated right turn lanes on SoCal Drive from SoCal Drive to SoCal Avenue that's a real choke point here and so to improve traffic flow to and from the hospital that'll be a critical project another one it would be another right turn lane that's needed on SoCal Drive at 41st that would improve traffic flow to and from the hospital and then we have a very very large project I don't know if you've heard about this one yet but we received a large state grant but there's a very large local match and that will improve SoCal Drive from in essence the city limit all the way out to state park we will be upgrading about 23 signals which will improve flow will be interconnecting those signals they'll be active transportation management which means these will be smart signals will they they will they will not only promote smoother traffic flow they will prioritize transit which is important and it ties directly into some of the programs that this project is bringing forth while promoting transit use and then it will also that project the same project will be improving bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities which all go into this project need this project will be you know as we saw a minute ago they're adding bicycle facilities they're promoting you know car pulling they're promoting transit they're promoting pedestrian use and we're trying to support that with projects like our SoCal Drive corridor project which I will tell you the local match is about nine and a half million dollars it's a very very large project it certainly serves more than the hospital but clearly we're not asking for them to pay more than their fair share and we calculate that fair share on on you know through our own process which maybe I'll save some of those comments or after the applicant has a chance but Commissioner Shepard I tried to respond with some specific projects that I think you can under that you can almost visualize right we all know this area quite well and you could probably visualize the need for better signal timing better operations at intersections where right turns will help the throughput better bicycle lanes better pedestrian facilities better transit flow so I'll stop there and happy to answer any additional questions that you may have just one more for me so this revital changing SoCal lights and so on that project that you just referred to it's got the local matches nine and a half million dollars this project will provide some of that what's the time horizon for that assuming this project got approved in some fashion sure so that very large project is starting design this calendar year and it'll take some time to design there's there's you know quite a few components to having it ready to list which means construction ready and I believe our construction schedule is proposed for 2023 and I know Russell Chin is on the phone or is on the zoom call so Russ if I'm off on that correct me but I believe it's 2023 for construction you're correct Matt beginning of 2023 okay thank you okay thank you thank you Matt any other commissioners have questions chairperson Lassenby I do yes commissioners shape for freighters I just a very general question I'm just trying to wrap my head around what the project is so I just want to verify my understanding of it it's new construction for a three-story structure 60 foot height which will include a surgical unit on the first floor and on the second and third floor beds it looks like to me and then in addition to that new construction there is the new construction of the three-story parking garage there is also renovation that is taking place um in the emergency rooms the existing emergency room no additional square footage but renovation of that emergency room and then as I understand it on the second floor there's renovation of existing rooms changing switching them out to one bed per room is that correct yeah I would say that that's accurate the specifics of each of the rooms and spaces I would defer to the applicant right yeah right I just in general wanted to understand what the project was so thank you correct yeah okay thanks any other commissioners I had a quick question yes is that counselor oh this is Tim oh okay hey um I just wanted to understand why the applicant is is not combining the lots as opposed to building over the lot lines you could help me understand that I'd appreciate it sure that's a good question uh the the two parcels where the proposed parking garage is um those two will be in our condition to be combined the greater campus is not proposed to to be combined it's a you know one of the tools that we can incorporate into the planned unit development is not require them to be to be combined they can function together without being combined the you probably picked up in the staff report that those those two areas the parking garage and the main hospital both have different zoning classifications the uses are both allowed in those zone districts but it would make it a little little wonky to have them be combined with different zonings but either way they function to separate the same as a whole this way got it okay thank you I'm sorry Commissioner Dan thank you um I just had a quick question in just reading um this in the context of the Sustainable Santa Cruz plan so if that were had been adopted and which allowed by right up to 60 feet would that have precluded the need for a PUD or would there still be a need for a PUD even with that I think that if if yes there the limited amount of information that the plan provides regarding increase in height yeah I think we could we could probably work the project in a in such a way that would preclude them from needing a PUD thank sure anything else Commissioner Dan I have a question about the intersections that we were talking about the the operational deficiency are are we only focusing on signaled intersections Nathan I would defer to Matt or Anais on this one I'll take a run at it chair so we're looking at the entire corridor I mentioned the signal upgrades because that's a critical piece of the project but we're looking at lane configuration we're looking at improved bicycle lanes we're looking at improved pedestrian facilities we're looking at more than just signals in fact we're even looking at another project that's in the queue is the intersection at Soquel Drive and Robertson it feels like it's far from this project but it's a really critical piece of this entire corridor and when you use the corridor like this to get to you know projects like this like a hospital all those choke points are important and so I can tell you that we're working on design elements to upgrade even that intersection at some point which would be from an always stop to a signal so we're looking at the entire corridor and all the elements okay thank you I was particularly interested in the Robertson intersection any other questions then I will go ahead and open the public hearing and the applicant or the applicant's representative will go first Ms. Hamilton did you ask for extra time are you muted sorry I was muted hi this is Deidre Hamilton and yes we would like to ask for some extra time there were some questions from the commissioners that we would like to address also we have more than myself to speak to the project we do have the project architect that I think is important to discuss the specifics of the plan with you and to answer some of your questions regarding the plan and we also have Dr. Nan Mekowitz the president of the hospital prepared to speak about the public facility and the public service and the need for this project so I would I'm not sure how to quite do this with this format but if we could be allowed those three speakers as being all part of the applicant's presentation I would appreciate that okay we can assign 20 minutes okay and Deidre will you please I promoted Nan will you please provide the name of the architect and anyone else you would like me to promote to be able to speak freely um the architect is Dudley Campbell with Divini group I'm not sure if it shows up as Dudley or Divini group there he is yep I see Dudley so I've gotten Nan Dudley and yourself any others um not right now I think if there's some questions that come up we can have that person raise their hand okay making our presentation I know there was some questions about the cruise 511 program and we do have someone that's working directly with that program right now and if there are questions around that Jeanette from Dominican hospital who may be in the room with Nan can answer those questions right okay will that work yes that sounds fantastic thank you thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today first of all let me just think that this has been a Herculean project we had time constraints placed on us primarily by the state and the planning department has worked very diligently to get us to this point um and we really really appreciate all of their hard work um I want to clarify a few points that were brought up one being the combination of the lots um we do intend to combine the lots together however we did not want to do that prior to the approval of the project so since the lots are currently separate we we did not move forward um with combining the lots until after this process is over so we wanted to be able to have the flexibility um to move the project forward without having to do that so that's that's why you see that as part of the community but um be assured that we will take care of that um once the project is approved I also wanted to mention that um as I said earlier we have started the cruise 511 program with Dominican Dominican has um in the past made efforts to have a car pooling program but with this project and with the traffic study that was done we've stepped up our efforts a hundred percent and have made contact with ecology action who is helping us administer the cruise 511 program and that program is up and running as we speak um I want to talk about the project what is the project I think commissioner um I'm not sure was was it Renee or whomever it was but they wanted to know what the project was about so it sounds like a lot of square footage and it is a lot of square footage but when you look at what the project is about it's about seismic upgrades and modernization a lot of the hospital hasn't been approved in over 30 years and you can imagine with technology being what it is we're a little bit behind the curve when it comes to being able to be our best selves in terms of delivering um top notch health care in Santa Cruz county so we wanted to do two major things one we wanted to take the rooms that are now double rooms and have them become single rooms we're not increasing the number of patients we're not increasing the number of beds that we're licensed to have we're only increasing the size of the rooms and turning them into single room the size increase has to do with being able to get equipment in and out which doesn't really lend itself well to doing that the way that the hospital is currently configured so the impacts of that are an improved hospital experience for the patients and improved health care for the community in general the second thing is the operating room the current operating room as you know has not been remodeled for quite some time and if we look at the standards of health care nowadays the size of the operating rooms has to increase in order to meet some of the equipment needs and some of the state mandate needs um of the current day so we can't really fit it into the space that we currently use for the operating rooms so we are taking the operating room that currently exists and turning it into a pre-op post-op support facility and we're creating a new operating facility with only a net gain of two operating rooms so again it's not a matter of trying to intensify it's a matter of trying to modernize the other thing that we're doing um there was mention of the emergency room we want to um be clear the emergency room itself will remain pretty much the way that it is there will be some remodeling done the area where people come in the lobby area where people enter and the outside area around there is what is being improved again we're not adding beds we're not adding staff we are trying to modernize that space and the parking garage I think the parking garage sort of speaks for itself if one thing that you can universally hear around Santa Cruz County is off that parking that Dominican is terrible and I would agree with that I'm not necessarily thinking that it's all Dominican's fault because there are a lot of medical office buildings that utilize the Dominican parking but be that as it may I think that the addition of the parking structure will greatly help to reduce the congestion of parking at the hospital site I want to be clear that the purpose of that garage is for the use of the employees the doctors the patients and the visitors of Dominican however it is going to be open we're not closing it off we use by other surrounding um office uses um but if it becomes the problem there will have to be some attention paid to that and I'm not sure what form because my hope is and I'm sure the hope of the hospital is we won't run into those sorts of problems but the the holy grail in this if you will is to improve the parking for the hospital itself I've said all of that I'd like to talk about the conditions that Nate mentioned earlier and I did condition 2b roman numeral 2b which is on page 32 um I did receive a copy of the revised condition and Nate is right I did review it and it is in keeping um with my intention of what I wanted to see um and a amendment so I'm fine with the um revision that staff is proposing on that also on that same page 32 condition roman numeral 2 I um staff is not supporting but we are asking for an exemption from the child care fees um when I look at the county codes regarding who this is applicable to I look and it says um right there that for non-residential projects which this will be a non-residential project when considering whether or not to apply the child care fee it says the number of employment opportunities resulting from the development to be considered and if that um increase and and the number of employment opportunities is reduced or is insignificant then the child care fee would not apply and as you have seen in the staff report we have done a thorough analysis of what this increase will do in terms of increase in the employment at the hospital and that number is 39 employees currently the hospital has between 15 and 1600 employees so we're talking about a less than 2 percent increase I would consider that insignificant and that's why I think we are justified in asking for an exemption from the child care fee um I'm also asking for consideration on condition roman numeral 2 J um that's the transportation fee or what they call the TIA fee um you have in your packet there a analysis that was done by our transportation engineer which gives justification for why this request is being made um and I want to start by saying the traffic study that was done wasn't done once it was done twice and it was done using the um VMTs as well as the um LOS the level of service so we we looked at it from every which way and in both instances it was found that we did not have a significant impact on traffic increase and the number of trips that um public works is saying that we are generating the 901 which they multiply times the square footage of the project to come up with their number is not taken into account the youths we're we're looking at sort of apples and oranges they're saying well you've got 84 000 square feet that's how we look at it we don't care that it's you know enlarging something and not trying to increase the number of trips we just purely look at square footage and I'm saying it's time to change that if you're now looking at having applicants do these reports based based on the VMTs then it's time for the county to get on board and start looking at these projects and what the real impacts are versus just taking a number and saying well it's it's the way that we do it we need to stop doing it the way that we do it and look at a different way of doing it um you have that ability to do that today we are looking to lower not eliminate lower our fair share based on the VMT trips that we generate which would be 148 trips which means that our fair share of the contribution would be 88 800 dollars and I think that we have given serious justification as to why that should be but if you want a another look at it when I look at the county's fee schedule it says that um a lower rate than that which is thrown in the table can be considered if we do a traffic study and it would be based on the traffic study information if that traffic study was approved by the county our traffic study both times were approved by the county so I ask that our fair and pierce traffic engineers analysis of the project be the consideration given for what the fee should be the TIA fee should be and lastly on page 33 um condition Roman numeral 2k um I agree and I'm glad that staff has re-evaluated that we are not um supposed to be paying the affordable housing impact fee and um I would hope that the commission would agree with with our analysis and with staff's re-analysis of that situation and exempt us from that fee as well um I am available for questions but at this time I would like to have uh Dudley Campbell present the project to you there are some slides um that we gave earlier so if those could be queued up good morning everybody this is uh Dudley Campbell with Divini Group Architects as Deidre mentioned I'm the uh project architect for uh this project at Dominican um and again thank you all for your time this morning as well I'd like to uh echo the same communication that Deidre mentioned regarding working with the entire county staff on getting to this point of this project um and uh looking forward to the dialogue today as well as uh getting the project moving forward so once once sorry to interrupt I was just not seeing your slides coming up Kingston you should have the slides emailed over for the applicant thank you again as Deidre mentioned the the main impetus of this project is again a modernization of the existing uh facility uh the two areas that are being focused on with this modernization are the surgery department as well as the patient rooms as you can see from this slide this would be this is the main level of the hospital you can see there in the in the right top right area the green and orange area that is the new building footprint that will house on the ground floor uh the new surgery department that includes the operating room central sterile uh support spaces etc which are all part of uh requirements uh within the California Oshpod code um the area to the in the center of the page that's outlined in the red dash line that is the existing surgery department that exists today that will be converted to pre op and pack you so again as you're coming to the facility for a procedure getting prepped ready to go into the um ORs you'll be in there as well as uh afterwards in recovery um as Deidre mentioned from a modernization and a seismic uh compliance standpoint um the current ORs in the facility are right around 400 square feet um where the new ORs in the new footprint will be on average about 650 square feet uh the reason for the increase in the square footage for these ORs is is really based upon additional equipment that's used in procedures from robotic equipment to uh booms monitors etc as well as additional staff that are participating in the procedures again that just is increased over the time uh from when the existing ORs were were constructed the other key component here with regards to a modern uh surgery department is obviously the flow of both patients uh coming into the surgery and going out of surgery but just as important is is the way that those ORs are supported by you know all the equipment tools etc through central sterile how how cases um uh equipment cases um are built um in central sterile brought into the OR as well as once they're done brought back into we'll call the the dirty side cleaned and then getting ready for um the next uh days cases um so so again operational flow is is is key and again making sure that um the patients and staff are being um taken care of and given the most efficient space to work in um if you see here um in right below where the new building footprint is the kind of i'll say uh light red color that's the existing emergency department and just above that there's a yellow uh rectangular area that is the new uh emergency uh entry for the public uh so again public can can drive up drop their family member love going off and they would walk in through that area um from a public entry standpoint um that is the that is the emergency department change that we will be doing as part of this because as you know from your knowledge of the existing facility where this building goes is where the existing uh entry would be so we had to reconfigure that entry to the emergency department um next slide please the second component here what i talked about was the patient rooms as didra mentioned um in the existing building the area that you see outlined in red here kind of on the left side of the slide those are their existing um patient rooms that are right now semi-private so what that means is those rooms would have two patients in one room that would share a bathroom those rooms are approximately about 290 square feet and again there's roughly i'll say 60 of them the intent of the second and third level of the new building footprint is to create new private patient rooms 60 in total again roughly of the same square footage around 290 square feet um that would provide a private uh patient experience and family experience for that for the person uh getting care we would also go back into those uh existing rooms that are going to be outlined in red and we would um convert those rooms from semi-private to private so when we say there's no increased capacity um in the facility with regards to license bed count which is what the state looks at from a from a um regulation standpoint we're essentially taking 60 semi-private rooms making them private and taking those uh those second beds that are now um being put into the new building so again the license bed count right now today is 221 or 222 license beds well we're done with this program that will be the same license bed count there will be no change um and part of the driver for um this project again is that modernization and when we talk about the transportation report and no added capacity that's what we're referring to uh based on um again no additional license beds there's no new service lines being developed as part of this is really just an upgrade of existing spaces and services that are at the facility to again get with modern uh health care trends as well as seismic upgrades mandated by the state that have to be completed by the beginning of 2030 um uh again in in the information provided by our traffic engineers Farron Pierce um there was a document provided that starts on page 179 or excuse me 169 in the in the report that again outlines the daily trips and VMT comparisons based on actual added staff and as we communicate we anticipating an additional 39 staff um once this building is complete uh and this project is complete I should say um versus the actual square footage which is the 84 000 square feet uh and the 901 daily trips versus the uh daily trips based on staff um so again uh in in in our mind and it's just our mind in our opinion you know there is no added there is no added capacity uh related to um you know a whole new additional 60 beds etc because that is not occurring we are keeping the same license bed count the next slide please that's just the third floor again it's a duplicate of the second floor that again will be at a you know 30 bed footprint so the second and third floor essentially the same the difference with the second floor is we will connect back into the existing second floor of the facility um obviously we can't do that at the third floor because the existing building is only two stories next slide please from a schedule standpoint um just wanted to highlight a couple things here uh obviously we're looking to um what we've projected here is starting the project uh in July the green bars uh we have two sets of bars here we have the hospital component on top and the parking garage on the bottom uh the green bars are the design phase the design phases and timeline uh the orange are the approval process whether it's Oshpod or uh the local permitting uh and then the blue bars are actual construction so with this project the intent would be to uh start design at the same time for both scopes the hospital and the parking garage hospital would or the parking garage would follow a different track uh because it will be reviewed and approved by the county um and we will look to have that uh designed permitted and built prior to starting any hospital construction uh and you can see there we're looking at starting construction roughly mid-year of 2022 and it's approximately a one-year construction period for the parking garage so looking to have construction done by mid-year 2023 um for the hospital um because of the complexity of those buildings the design and permitting goes uh goes longer than the parking garage as well as different types of packages but you can see here we start design design goes through mid-2023 we will start the permitting process with Oshpod in mid-2022 with all permitting being completed uh by third quarter of 2024 but we will look to start construction uh of the new building footprint uh the 84,000 square foot footprint um in the second quarter of 2024 which will continue through the first quarter of 2027 okay we need to get the new building and the new footprint complete uh and uh ready for licensing um before we can do any of the remodel work related to the existing surgery department being converted um because we just due to the phasing and the requirement uh with uh needing to have the number of beds available etc so you can see here the completion of the original the addition in again first quarter of 2027 we've got a six month period for licensing and approvals to be able to see patients and then once we have that complete uh we will start uh the work and renovation within the existing building starting again in fourth quarter of 2027 and then that will take us through um end of third quarter of 2029 um again running up against the state mandate uh from a seismic compliance standpoint of uh being ready having your building seismically compliant by january 1 of 2030 um so again modernization of existing services and uh patient areas is the focus of the uh work in the hospital uh as well as bringing the existing building up to seismic compliance with regards to uh the state mandated requirements um any questions so if we could unmute um dr mecca witz's um mike she will close out our presentation and then if you have questions we'd be happy to answer hi good morning thank you um so much for this opportunity and thank you for your consideration of this uh project uh before you as you know for the last 80 years dominican hospital has been providing um high quality comprehensive compassionate health care to our community um we've provided this health care to everyone in the community regardless of their ability to pay and we focused on making sure that we do provide the most up-to-date care possible some great examples to share of our award-winning cardiac care program that also um provides state of the art um treatments like taver and robotic surgery and patients can have this care locally and don't need to go out of the community in addition i'd like to highlight our birth center you know we actually have the only level free micu in collaboration with lucille packard so that our smallest community members can be born and cared for here in santa cruz we really value our partnership with the santa cruz community we're a long-standing community partner every year we provide about 40 million dollars to the community through our benefits programs like grants sponsorships and uncompensated care and i think last year has really highlighted how dominican hospital steps up during times of crisis and in times of happiness um with the covid pandemic we were able to safely expand and creatively use our footprint to take care of covid patients as well as other community members so there was very limited disruption in care over the last six months we've been focused on vaccinations and we have worked not only with our local um doctors and nurses but also the county of santa cruz health services agency the santa cruz county farm bureau the santa cruz county office of education and multiple other um groups of local agency and vaccinated almost 30 000 people at this point just through the hospital programs we see this modernization project that you are reviewing as an opportunity to enhance the excellent care that we provide as well as to improve the patient experience when we're able to go from two rooms into one larger room and of course to expand the services and build on the advanced technology that we've already introduced to this community over the last several years so we're very hopeful and appreciative that this proposal will be given strong consideration and i appreciate your time and they told me three minutes and there it is thank you so much so just to close it out i i want to thank the commission for their consideration of this project and just to remind you the hospital is the only hospital in santa cruz county there is watsonville hospital but it's in the the city of watsonville so when we look at regulations this is not a medical office building or even a clinic it's a hospital and you you have to put on a different pair of eyes when you're considering the modernization and revitalization of a hospital and i just wanted to keep that in your minds as you're considering the project and i hope you would support staff's recommendation and approve this project thank you thank you miss drake do we have any members of the public that want to speak let me go to our list of callers um so i wanted to remind anybody who is on the line who'd like to speak on this project the proposed dominican master plan amendment and pd to raise your hand on your telephone by pressing star nine so we can identify you i'm actually seeing a hand raised being raised by by a member of our staff but let me check with let me just check our callers for a moment before we bring it back to staff chair i'm not seeing any members of the public who was to speak on this item i am seeing a hand raised um from matt machado and dpw okay go ahead i got it i got the button pushed all right good morning again chair and commissioners i'll be brief um you know this is a large and important project with the addition of nearly 85 000 square feet and significant new parking it is imperative that we apply good planning and policy to make the to make this a successful project for the community regarding the transportation impact fees we have applied our standard approach the same approach we apply to all other projects in the county we use industry standards to ensure we can mitigate the impacts of the project the applicant is asking to dramatically modify this approach their ask is similar to a home builder building a single family residence where only one person will live there and thereby asking to pay only one-third of the fees from a staff perspective this would be bad planning and bad public policy we do have a counterpoint to each of their points which really just further explains the complication and debate to what is their fair share this is true for every single project in our county which is why we follow industry standards to determine traffic impacts i'm asking that you support staff's recommendations and recommend this project forward to the board of supervisors additionally this project has been in the process and discussion phase for at least two years it's time to get this project moving forward for final approval and implementation i want to thank you for your support and i can answer any questions that you may have or at least try to answer any questions you may have thank you there can i i didn't want to ask a question about this um thank you mr. machado i appreciate that explanation i was going to ask about that as well um because the tia fees are substantial um and so i mean i thought miss hamilton made some a pretty reasonable argument logical argument because we're measuring traffic impacts in a different way yet we're not we're not calculating our fees in a different way and so i guess i wanted you to address that specifically and then some information about why we can calculate you know our um you know we're not using level of service anymore we're looking at trips which i think is logical um but why wouldn't our fees change to match that so you know i was honestly hoping to avoid some of this debate because they can get complicated but let me just add a couple of thoughts to that just for your consideration and so for instance and we went through this quite a few times with the applicant which has all been very good debate and i appreciate their hard work they really put a you know a stellar effort forward but for instance uh as they expand um the single room type idea which makes sense there's some logic to that that they're not adding beds they're just spreading out so that you know for patient comfort but one of the things that came out of it was that it's not just for patient comfort it's for visitor comfort and they fully intend to see more visitation which is great that's what you should have right but we see that having that additional accommodation of visitors is going to increase traffic impacts just clearly and simply we saw a similar situation in the OR expansion we even heard today that they're focused on improved flow and so when we look at you know a significant increase in operation rooms and improved flow we know that the throughput is going to go up significantly which will result in traffic impacts now you know it's it's easier just to use a metric like the number of employees but when you look at visitation improvements and you look at improvements to the operational rooms all we see is increased traffic and that debate can go on and on and even though the VMT is a new uh CEQA category uh it doesn't change the industry standard of looking at hospitals and their traffic generation rates and that's what we use we use a national standard uh we look at building square footage is true because we do need a metric because otherwise this debate could go on and like I've said it's we've been talking about this for a couple of years and I wonder when was the last time our our fees were reevaluated and how we calculate them so I will share with you it's been a long time since our fees have been looked at we are proposing to update those with the there's a general plan update moving forward right now with the new circulation element we will be updating our fees but I gotta tell you we're still going to promote the building square footage approach because it is the industry standard it's the most fair way it's the most fair metric to look at all projects equally otherwise it gets really dicey and it's hard to know everybody has a perspective and so we do need a consistent methodology we do need a consistent policy we do need a consistent approach uh but but commissioner dan to your question we are working on updating those fees but it will not change our approach we will still use building square footage and we do not oh sorry good yeah I was just going to say so and I understand that and I don't want to get into a big debate about it here but when you use the example about a residential building but this isn't residential and we do treat commercial or public facilities in a different way than we do treat residential so I think the residential analogy works well but I mean I do think like if you've got you know a business and they found a way to not have any additional vehicle trips added to that business then it and they are existing and so they you know theoretically have paid their uh tda fees at one point and then they're remodeling but they're not like increasing their vehicle trips it does seem like it's it's a vulnerable to an argument that we should not be recalculating them and I guess it is kind of shocking that over half a million dollars in fees I mean you know the childcare fee that's you know $20,000 so it's really not not that not that that's not the issue I think but but the tda fees are significant and I and I see I see Ms. Hamilton's argument on this if I can just and I don't want to debate it either but I started my thoughts with the facts of the project you know adding nearly 85,000 square foot of building space and significant parking and so that's a really clear metric to us and and I agree that residential and commercial different but I could use the same example for any other commercial office if you're adding square footage and you're adding parking you're clearly going to be adding trips and we're trying to use a consistent approach consistent metric that we can apply to all commercial facilities and so I'll leave it at that it this is you know the commission's debate and the commission's decision today I'm just trying to add a perspective that we had and we have in terms of making a recommendation that has policy implementation implications and good planning because we all know that that's important to our region and to successful community projects thank you Chair Lazenby I'm confused where we are in the process is the public hearing still open yes it is I'm prepared to close it at any time if there's no one else that wants to speak do I have a chance to rebut well uh briefly yes Ms Hamilton very briefly since there was only one speaker um and I think that what Matt had to say regarding the fees I just want to point out two things the net increase in the number of parking spaces is 60 so even though there is a large number of parking spaces added the net increase is not that large and we did look at the number of visitors that would be added as a result of the rooms and I'm telling you we did a very thorough analysis and this chart is in the report from Karen Pierce the number of family members for bedside we found to be 1.5 so one and a half people or you can round it up to two the future project that would not change and we got this information from industry standards for other similar projects that have been constructed thank you thank you any other uh individual wishing to speak then I will close the I'm sorry I'm sorry it was actually Melanie um she for Friday tonight I lowered her hand oh okay excuse me then I will close the public hearing and bring this project back for discussion with the commissioners I guess this is in commissioner Gordon's district so I guess I'd like to hear what he thinks first although it's a hospital that we all use okay thank you I appreciate it and thank you everyone for the presentations and the discussion uh it's great to see some updating here so I'm excited about this project um I I think everything's pretty clear to me the only obviously hot topic is the TIA fees and I had a question for staff and uh potentially maybe this is a Daniel question you know are we allowed to even adjust the fees in this hearing on a per project basis is that in our purview to do it it seems that there's a standard that's set forth based on the fee schedule that is followed outside of the planning commission's discretion is that correct I would defer to Daniel uh Zisweta on that one as well Daniel are you muted yes sorry I had my hair and turkeys and audio issues um Tim can you sorry commissioner Gordon can you repeat that again oh absolutely no problem at all so uh just really basically are we even allowed to adjust the fees at this hearing on a per project basis I'm sorry I'm just cutting out just a minute uh I need to try to get to a better rich can you repeat that one more time I yeah sure absolutely um okay so I just wondering if we're allowed as a planning commission to adjust the fees on a per project basis like this when we have impact fees set up with this with the fee schedule and all the rest that is you know outside of per project basis and and uh outside of a planning commission's discretion at this time I would say here I'm gonna get back to you on that question I just okay just give me a one second no problem at all um I can move on a little bit from there I mean it really seems that this discussion about the fees is whether or not we feel like they should apply at this time and you know the state is pushing towards per square footage fees on almost everything right so for example our fees for um traffic impact fees for housing I think per bedroom right now right so it doesn't matter if you build a three bedroom house that's 20,000 square feet or you know 2,000 square feet the fee will be the same so that's why that change to square footage is happening right um so I guess in reality I don't know I guess I want to understand if we are approving this project are we approving which fee are we approving I guess I'm a little confused on on that well if I could weigh in here I think Ms. Hamilton was asking us to use a different standard instead of this by square footage to use the increased trips correct yes yes I agreed and I just don't understand that I don't think that that's a standard that's been used before and maybe Matt you can chime in on that um or especially not in the county have we used that on other projects and we have not it's not our it's not a standard review so any other project okay and and just to respond commissioner Gordon you know you can always make a recommendation right because this is really just a recommendation to the board and if there's going to be an adjustment of fees that's something that's a decision that the board is going to make but I don't think there's anything that necessarily prevents the planning commission from making such a recommendation on a pro project fee adjustment I guess a central question is something can be discussed oh sorry I'm sorry I apologize I didn't mean to interrupt you I'm sorry I guess the central question what I heard commissioner Gordon asking was whether there is even flexibility in the code for TIA fees to allow the commission to reduce them or use a different formula or in this case because it's a recommendation to the board recommend to the board um a different amount and I think yeah not that I'm not that I'm aware of I am not aware I just don't have the history either to know whether or not we've done that in the past but not that I'm aware of I don't know code right and code provision right I don't know of any code provision that allows us to adjust fees on a per project basis um happy to look into it really quickly while I get back because I think with the child when I can't remember who was discussing it earlier it did sound like the code allowed for flexibility with one of the other fees so I think commissioner Gordon's question is a good one for us just knowing going forward in general honey console could check the fee schedule he'll find some language there we can um one thing we could do is we could take a break um and look into this question and reconvene if the planning commission would like county council to look at this particular issue okay for other commissioners can speak well without going around or I don't know yeah I think as far as what my questions were that was really it I would you know I would probably at this point not make a decision to reduce fees as it's not clear that we can even do that and I think that that's the board of supervisors decisions um and and and I yeah I think I'll stop it there so that's the only question and comment that I had uh it's Renee I I agree um I think we should let the board of supervisors decide this and we're gonna vote on it and prove it just pass it along as is fee wise and let I think that's their purview uh chair yes here to vote on the motion um there is no motion yet I when I was gonna say when it's made um I'm prepared okay I'll just say a few words I think this is an excellent project I really appreciate um the volume of information that was provided the plans were so comprehensive it was almost you you could learn everything about the project just with the plan set so I imagine that was quite a chore to put together and I just want to really appreciate the effort because it made it easy for a planning commissioner to figure out what the project is all about so I'm gonna be supporting it and I just want to thank Nathan in particular for all your work and and Ms. Hamilton as well and if I may just kind of I did I don't see anything in our code that allows us I'm sorry if this chair that might just kind of wrap up the Mr. Commissioner Gordon's question certainly regarding fee adjustment I guess a good rule going forward would be that you know the planning commission can recommend an adjustment to the board of fees it has to have a pretty good reasoning behind that adjustment for a per project basis right it can't um just recommend a different fee than the standards that we have set forth in the in the code and I feel like that rationale needs to be set forth in the resolution so if there was going to be a different adjustment of fee recommendation to the board it had to set forth the rationale in the resolution that recommends um and you know the resolution that is recommending action to the board but there's nothing really to prevent the planning commission from making that recommendation just wanted to make sure that if the planning commission sought to make that recommendation today or in the future that it would have to be substantiated in the resolution to the board if that makes sense well if I can just comment I don't think we've ever made a recommendation the board when we didn't tell them why we were recommending it so I don't think you need to worry about that okay is any well I guess I guess I would point out that I'm not aware of any fee adjustments um on a per project basis that's the only reason I state that is that it had to be very specific as to why that was happening for this particular project at this particular time well we are making an adjustment for fees let me just point out um with um you know on page 32 um b um so so there are and then k we're being the staff is recommending to get rid of the housing impact fee so um this is after the fact that the staff report's been published so I'm just saying it does happen and it's it's all it's all good there's an explanation provided so um I don't want to belabor the point anymore ready for a motion I just follow up with one last comment on that yes thank you thanks Daniel for that information I appreciate I agree with what everyone's saying just for the applicant to understand the fee schedule is a is a bigger topic that came up in the last public hearing that we had and it will be going for you know is something that's due to get adjusted in the near future and and it's and it's not necessarily at this level to start with and so I just want them to understand that that that is you know something that they probably will be able to comment on in another's in another time and place um and additionally I think that they are far more qualified to talk about this as well as Mr Machado on the you know with the board where the decision is going to be made I would support if the if the code is exempting the affordable housing impact fee and I think that that's what we need to go with and then the only other one I didn't quite understand is why we would not do the child care mitigation it sounded like it was just because it's not really that much so why do it I don't know that that's an appropriate response however I think like one of the commissioners mentioned it it's probably somewhat negligible for a project of this size can we call the question yes commissioner Schaefer-Fredes are you prepared to make a motion I thought Tim was going to make the motion well usually it's the whoever district whoever district is in yes I'm happy to do it I appreciate that I'm a little lost now with the adjustments to the fees that came this morning what the motion would be so I appreciate it there's a lot there yeah I move the recommended action with the recommended changes by staff which was to eliminate the condition of approval k on page 33 regarding that affordable housing impact fee and the modified language on page 32 under B for the stormwater drainage fees oh I second that motion we have a motion and a second is there any discussion I would just like to say that this is an excellent project all of the supporting materials both by staff and the applicant were very detailed and I appreciate that and I appreciate their presentations that helped to clarify it as a resident of Santa Cruz County I'm looking forward to this very much to the modernization and my only disappointment is that it's not going to happen for a couple of years just because of the construction and all the different details that it's a great project and I support the motion as it's made and I too support the motion I'm in favor of this so shall we take a roll call vote yes okay commissioner Gordon yes commissioner Schaefer-Frides yes commissioner Shepard yes commissioner Dan yes and chair leson b yes okay motion passes thank you all and particularly thank you staff for this mega work that you did on this thank you going back to the agenda do we have a planning directors report no I have no specific report today thank you okay and report on upcoming meeting dates yes our next scheduled meeting date is May 26th and so far we have one item on that agenda which is the ADU amendment package that was continued from a prior hearing so I think that is all we have in the hopper so far I don't have any tentative items for the one planning commission date which is June 9th okay thank you could I just ask how the community meeting went yesterday was that it was very well received there were a number of questions asked by you know apparently by the people who were applying for ADUs the downside I guess was the comment on the ever increasing price of going into ADUs but it was very well given the presentation chair leson b I'd like to thank staff at this point I thought that daisy did a terrific job daisy ellen presenting the information last night it was simple just a few slides but very informative and I think I saw it one time over a hundred people I is that correct staff do you know how many people watched last night I do not people attended I'm not sure of copy was at that public meeting but I was not so I'm I do not know well excuse me I do think it was at least a hundred if not more I think there were some technical limitations but you know people could at least listen even if they weren't formally recognized I think so we had quite a very large attendance great so thank you very much I thought that was so helpful to have that and to have so many people in the community participate I'm seeing a comment from one of our staff members who did attend that we had over 120 attendees that's terrific thank you yes thanks for all the outreach okay county council's report nothing to report chair thank you okay well thanks to everybody that participated and made this meeting possible and we are adjourned thank you thank you everyone