 Welcome back, Jocelyn and Tim and Rachel. Thank you. Nice to be back. All right. Good morning. Thank you for joining us for today's Planning Commission hearing. Today's date is August 10th, 2022, and the time is 9 30 a.m. And today's meeting is completely remote via Zoom. And so before I turn it over to the chair, I just wanted to go over a couple of instructions. 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 sccoplanning.com. Also, if your computer is not equipped with a microphone, there's another way to connect, which is via telephone. If you'd like to call in to provide comment, the phone number is 669-900-6833. The collaboration code that you'll be prompted to enter is 814-815-28029. This information is posted on the Planning Department's homepage under the Planning Commission link if you forget the phone number or if you suddenly disconnect and you want to call in. So today, during key points in the meeting, time will be provided for members of the public to provide their testimony. We'll be muting all speakers until we call on you to speak to cut down on background noise. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either raise your hand by selecting the hand icon on the Zoom link, or if you're calling in by telephone, I'll ask you to remotely raise your hand by pressing star 9. I will call on participants by either 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 asks you to unmute. Please accept the pop-up. I'll ask you to state your name for the record, and you can provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone, you must unmute yourself by pressing star 6. Then I'll remind everybody of these instructions as we move forward. If at any time you have any difficulty to connecting to today's meeting via the link or by calling in, we do have support staff with us today, Michael Lam. You can email him anytime at michael.lam, that's LAM, at santaacruzcounty.us. He's checking his email periodically, and he'll let me know if we need to pause the meeting to make sure somebody's connected. All right, those are the instructions on participating. This time I will turn over the meeting to the Planning Commission Chair. Tim Gordon, good morning. Good morning, Jocelyn. Thank you so much for the intro. I'm glad to be back and have a lot of us back here today. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Planning Commission today on August 10, 2022, and it is 9.32, and we can call the meeting to order. Ms. Drake, can we please have a roll call? Yes, Commissioner Shepard. Commissioner Shepard, you are muted. How's that? Great. Okay, thank you. Good morning. Commissioner Lazenby? Yes, here. Commissioner Villalante? Commissioner Dan? Here. And Chair Gordon? Here. Great, thank you so much. Moving on to item two, do we have any additions or corrections to the agenda today? No, not today. Okay, great, thank you. And then on to item three, Declaration of Ex parte Communications. Do any commissioners have anything they'd like to declare today? Hearing none, we can move on from that item and move on to oral communications. This is the part of the meeting when members of the public have the opportunity to speak on items that are not on the agenda today. Ms. Drake, do we have any members of the public that would like to speak today? So, I'll remind members of the public to raise your hand using the hand icon or pressing star nine on your phone if you wish to make a comment today related to anything other than what is on the agenda. And we will allow you two minutes. Chair, I am not seeing anyone. Okay, great. Then we can go ahead and close the oral communications part of the meeting. Agenda item four and move on to agenda item five, consent agenda item. We have AB 361 resolution again today. And would any commissioners like to make a motion on this item? I'll move approval. Thank you. I'll second that. And thank you, Commissioner Lazenby. The motion is second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, great. Consent agenda passes. And we can move on to agenda item number six, approval of minutes from the July 13th planning commission hearing. And would any members of the commission like to make a motion on that? I'd move approval minutes. Thank you, Commissioner Rialante. Any second? I'll second. Thank you so much, Commissioner Lazenby. The motion is second then on that as well. Let's take a vote on this item. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And any abstaining? All abstain as well. I didn't have time to listen to the full meeting. Two abstains and three, four. So leave it still passes. Good to go. All right. So we can move right along here to agenda item number seven. And this is a recommendation of the tiny house on wheels amendments. We saw this back in February. And so, you know, it's been a little bit, but happy to see it come back. And so we can go ahead and get started, Ms. Drake with the staff report if we have staff available at this time. Yes, if we could please promote David Carlson and Stephanie Hansen and Daisy Allen. Commissioner Gordon. I just like to request that you let the staff go over the options very thoroughly because I didn't understand them very well. So you said, well, there's this option and here's two more alternative options for you to consider. I'd really like to go over those in detail. Agreed. Yeah. Understood. Thank you. All right. And if we could, let's see, looks like we have, we've got policy staff with us this morning. Stephanie is David Carlson going to start us off. It looks like so good morning, David. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Good. Great. So I would like to share my screen. And that's that button. And I guess it's that one. Is that introductory slide visible to everybody? Yes, it is. Great. Okay. So let me go here so I can control that. Okay. So my name is David Carlson. I'm the planner on this project. And so I'll just begin with a brief outline of what this presentation will include. It will begin with the introduction describing what a tiny home is followed by a brief summary of the planning process to date. And then the approach that we took to creating the ordinance, a general description of the ordinance and those options just mentioned. And I'm definitely prepared to go over those in detail followed by some details on the key ordinance provisions. And then finally the staff recommendation. So what is a tiny home? It's a it's a specific type of non motorized recreational vehicle called a park trailer. And it's defined in California Health and Safety Code 1809.3. It's a house on a trailer no larger than 400 gross square feet and no wider than 14 feet and it's built upon a single chassis. It's registered as a park trailer with the DMV. It can be towed on public roads with a special permit from the DMV. Generally they're designed to look like a tiny house using various design and material options. They can be purchased from a certified manufacturer that has constructed the tiny home on wheels according to an established national standard for park trailers or they can be constructed by an owner builder on site under the supervision of a qualified inspection agency that that certifies that it's has been built to that national standard. They would come with a certification documenting that the tiny home on wheels meets that accepted standard for park trailers. For this type of structure that means the local building inspector would be verifying the unit has the third party verification or certification and would only be inspecting the on-site installation according to the approved site plan and the connection to utilities. Staff was directed by the board of supervisors back in 2021 to pursue this project and the planning commission and the housing advisory commission have both provided their input and direction at previous meetings as you recall. As described in the planning commission staff report from February 9th 2022 county staff my colleague Daisy Ellen conducted a large amount of outreach in the form of community meetings, surveys and research as preparation for the for development of the proposed regulations and this work is summarized in in that presentation on February 9th and in the staff report for that meeting. The current staff report to the planning commission just generally describes the feedback and direction staff received from the February 9th planning commission study session and that is incorporated into the proposed ordinance. However because some information has been updated and clarified since that study session staff has also provided some additional ordinance options for the planning commission to consider and I'll go through those the proposed ordinance and the two additional options and talk a little bit about each one. So in developing the options staff tried to maintain the simplest approach possible and construct a proposed ordinance that does not repeat existing requirements that apply to single-family dwellings or ADUs whatever the case may be the ordinance just addresses the unique aspects of tiny homes on wheels and incorporates all other existing requirements by reference. Under all three options the tiny home on wheels would be allowed to function as a single family dwelling on any property where a single family dwelling or ADUs are allowed whatever the case may be. Also under all three options the tiny home on wheels would be required to meet all site development standards and be subject to all the same regulations that apply to single-family dwellings or ADUs and as noted in the staff report these regulations do not change anything with respect to requirements of fire agencies, water supply requirements, sewage disposal system requirements, and environmental resources and constraints that may affect property. Other considerations include that because tiny homes on wheels are registered with the DMV they are not assessed for the purpose of property taxation. However improvements to the property such as the infrastructure associated with the tiny home on wheels may be accessible for the purposes of property taxation. Tiny homes on wheels can count towards the county's regional housing needs allocation under certain circumstances which are described in the staff report and staff believes that this is the case under the proposed ordinance requirements. So the proposed ordinance would allow a tiny home on wheels to function as the primary dwelling or as the ADU or as the junior ADU such that the total number of units does not exceed what is currently allowed on the property or up to three units in the simplest case. However most jurisdictions in the state that have allowed tiny homes on wheels to function as single family dwellings have allowed them to function as ADUs only. Placer County is the one jurisdiction that has recently adopted regulations allowing them to function as primary units and ADUs and their regulations also allow for tiny home villages. A consideration to note here and with option two involves allowing them to function as a junior ADU. In state law and county code as you know a junior ADU is defined as contained within the existing or proposed single family dwelling on the property and so replacing the allowed junior ADU with a tiny home on wheels creates a potential conflict with this definition. Staff has attempted to inquire with state housing and community development department regarding this question but we haven't received a response yet on that. So I don't know where they stand on the issue of a tiny home on wheels functioning as a junior ADU but they definitely encourage jurisdictions to allow tiny homes on wheels to function as an ADU new construction ADU. The ordinance is structured in a way that allows it to be easily modified however. So there's two additional ordinance options presented as attachments to the staff report. The second option would apply to a property with an existing or proposed conventional single family dwelling and would allow a tiny house on wheels to substitute for the otherwise allowed ADU or junior ADU. The tiny house would be subject to all applicable ADU or junior ADU regulations in addition to the special requirements in the tiny house on wheels ordinance. However obviously this option presents the same issue regarding the conflict with the definition of a junior ADU and so the third option would allow the tiny home on wheels to function in place of the otherwise allowed new construction ADU on the property. Normally the property would already be developed with a single family dwelling and may even have a junior ADU already contained within that single family dwelling and this option would allow a maximum 400 square foot 14 foot wide up to 14 foot tall tiny home to function as a new construction ADU. Any option that would allow a tiny home on wheels to function as a new construction ADU would also have potential benefits for those that lost their homes in the CZU fire in that the ADU regulations allow the construction of an ADU prior to the primary dwelling in the case of rebuilding after a disaster. The only requirement in the ADU regulations in this case is that the location for the development envelope for the future primary dwelling must be indicated on the plans submitted for the tiny home as an ADU. There is no requirement or timeline for actually building the primary dwelling shown on the plans. This provision is already in the ADU regulations and can be utilized now to build an ADU on a conventional foundation and this ordinance would allow that ADU to be a tiny home on wheels. And now getting into some specific ordinance provisions. Regarding the location on the parcel, in general the tiny home could be located anywhere that a single family dwelling or an ADU could be located under existing regulations. The parking pad would have to be provided for the tiny home in a location that would allow the tiny home to be safely moved on to or off the property and the tiny home on wheels and the parking pad could not block required parking for any other unit on the property. Hookup to utilities would have to meet current plumbing and electrical code requirements meaning no extension cords or water hoses laying on the ground. Utility hookups would have to be extended to the tiny home location underground with direct connection to the tiny home on wheels or just short extensions to utility connections next to the parking pad. The ordinance contains some design and material standards that are intended to mimic a normal house and references the fire safety standards in the case where the tiny home on wheels is located within the wildland urban interface. In terms of occupancy, because the tiny home on wheels is movable it could be conveyed and it's considered personal property. It could be conveyed separate from the primary residents. Per the planning commission direction the permit would be subject to renewal every three years or and staff has added this additional provision when the tiny home on wheels is conveyed to a new owner whichever occurs first. The permit would also expire when the tiny home on wheels is removed from the property. The permit process would be similar to the normal permit process for a house which could include which would include verifying the unit meets the ANSI or American National Standard Institute A119.5 standard for park trailers and it has a valid DMV registration for towing to the property. And here I wanted to make a clarification to this section of the proposed ordinance regarding certification of the tiny home on wheels per state law and consistent with nationally recognized and industry standards, the tiny home on wheels would just have to be certified to meet the ANSI A119.5 standard for park trailers. The other standards referenced in that the current version of the proposed ordinance are not necessary because the ANSI standard is sufficient and I make this clarification to the last section of the proposed ordinance depending on what the planning commission forwards as a result of this meeting. The all three ordinance options and the information in this staff report were presented to the Housing Advisory Commission on July 13, 2022. The commission supported the ordinance option that would allow a tiny home on wheels to function as a single family dwelling as the primary unit the ADU and the junior ADU along with the five-year permit term instead of the three-year permit term recommended by the planning commission. The vote was a split vote of five in support and four opposed and based on the discussion that split vote apparently reflected the lack of full support for any permit term at all. The argument against the permit term limit was expressed as a fairness issue and that the large investment to prepare a site for a tiny home argues for the expectation that the permit be issued with no permit term limit at all or renewal requirement consistent with any other permit for a single family dwelling. There was discussion of alternative means of monitoring such as an annual fee or checking DMV records for annual registration of the tiny home on wheels. If the planning commission wants to consider modifying the permit renewal requirement staff would suggest the proposed ordinance could include an affirmative statement that the permit shall be renewed unless a site inspection by county staff identifies a violation of the county code related to the tiny home on wheels in which case the permit could still be renewed if the violation is resolved concurrently. This would provide that sense of permanence related to a tiny home on wheels and also provides for the required monitoring of these units as required for them to count towards the county's arena obligations. And so in conclusion the staff recommendation is to conduct a public hearing to review the proposed amendments to the Santa Cruz County code that would add regulations for tiny homes with associated CEQA notice of exemption. Adopt the attached resolution recommending that the board of supervisors direct staff to file the CEQA notice of exemption with the clerk of the board. Adopt an ordinance as proposed in exhibit C or as modified by the planning commission adding regulations to the county code for tiny homes on wheels and direct staff to transmit the amendments to the California Coastal Commission. And that concludes the staff recommendation. I'll go ahead and stop sharing my screen and be available for any questions during the discussion. Thanks. Thank you Mr. Carlson. Really appreciate that great report and thanks for the refresher on a lot of that information since it's been a little bit. I'd like to ask the commissioners if they had any immediate questions for Mr. Carlson at this time. Well I don't mind going first. Please go ahead. So kind of starting at the beginning, thank you for the presentation. I am a little confused about how hookups for water service and sewer slash sheptic can the on page two of the staff report on the fourth bullet point it says that the the throw must be permitted by the lowest by the local jurisdiction meet the sense that the definition of a housing unit must have new hookups to services and other features to demonstrate a sense of permanence without being placed on a permanent location and the local jurisdiction must monitor the throws to ensure the unit has not been moved. Now I don't know what demonstrating a sense of permanence means and that's pretty vague and I also it sounds like we are being directed by the state to make sure they aren't moved so that kind of relates in my mind at least to some kind of permitting so that you can check in every five years three years ten years whatever to make sure they're being moved correct am I understanding that section of the staff report yes and that those criteria are based on our communication with a state hcd for the purpose of being able to count these units towards our arena numbers now that's if you would like to have them counted towards our arena numbers that if we want to be looser or more flexible with the regulations then they may not allow us to count them towards our arena numbers that doesn't mean we still can't do it well I think there's probably everyone wants them to count against our arena numbers that's such a stiff quota so I think that has to be followed which is we have to have an ordinance that has some provision for the local jurisdiction to monitor the throws to ensure they have not been moved if that's a permit then that's a that's a permit my next question is what is going to be accessible you indicated that I understand the property will not be assessed for real estate taxes but for example where I live we have a fire district assessment and a whole bunch of miscellaneous school assessments and so on so I want to be clear row owners will be paying all those other assessments that everybody else pays correct correct all improvement fees that would apply to either a new single family dwelling or an accessory dwelling unit what I was explaining was the issue of property taxation and because the tiny home on wheels is registered with the dmv it's personal property and it's not accessible for the purpose of property taxing taxation however the permanent improvements on the site to service the tiny home on wheels like the infrastructure related to the sewage disposal system water supply the parking pad all of that may be accessible by the by the assessor that that would that would be there they would make that determination um like I'm not sure that you have answered my question when I get my tax bill there's the real estate taxes which I understand the assessor's tax assessment of what I should be paying and I have a lot of miscellaneous charges for for for special programs to for example to build our firehouse for school assessments uh for mitigation measures this and that I I couldn't listen out for you but will throw owners be paying those because they're building if they're building primary residents or jds or is that's a question I have you may not be able to answer it yeah no I I can answer it in terms of the improvement or capital improvement fees that are collected by the planning department when we issue a permit for a single family dwelling or an ad you those would all still apply as applicable whether it's a single family dwelling or or an ad you in terms of of property tax assessments the those assessment the the applicability and amounts of those assessments would be determined by the assessor's office um so this is a big area for example we built a firehouse 20 years ago and we pay I can't remember maybe 27 a year to pay for that I want to know if those costs of supporting community services will be passed on so if you can't answer it now I'd certainly like to get that clarified um additional as of you maybe I could jump in here quickly thank you um it sounds to me like you're describing several different things that show up on your property tax I am that that are tied into uh different means of of assessment for example prop 218 assessments and the answer is if something if an assessment is properly assessed against real property you'll continue to be assessed against real property the toe itself is not real property wouldn't receive the assessment but if you were for example putting this on an ad you using a toe as an ad you that wouldn't change the that wouldn't change the special assessment um necessarily change the special assessment on your real property uh unless for example it moved the property into a different classification that had a different assessment rate so the answer is it depends but toes are legally vehicles rather than something that necessarily impacts real property and how real property is assessed okay well thank you that is more that is more clear but it does raise concerns because our our local volunteer fire department and a lot other local improvements have made do rely on these kinds of small assessments on our tax bills so that's a concern for me okay my next question is about parking in driveways this is on page three the staff report under development standards it says therefore a provision is included in the proposed ordinance that a throw may not be located in an existing driveway only may be located only if it meets the required setbacks it's not located in a required parking space and does not block access to required parking for other dwelling units well that's a lot of restrictions so that was a big concern at our initial hearing and it still is it sounds like effectively you'd have to have a huge driveway to allow a throw under what you're talking about right because that was a concern if you pack a throw in a driveway then the garage is effectively not a place for anybody to park a car etc etc so is this restricts roads to driveways that don't block the garage correct well that's correct it well it it restricts the location of the tiny home on wheels to a location that doesn't block require required parking for any other unit okay let's say I have a single family home with the two car garage and a big long driveway can I pack can I park a throw in front of my garage it will it will certainly not allow me any longer to get cars out I would I would say it depends maybe or maybe not okay and if I park a throw on a driveway and I am required to have water hookup and electrical hookup underground you're obviously going to have some construction there right right I just think that our general sense and I'm happy to hear from I'm hoping other members will speak to this I think that it's a bad idea to pack a throw in someone's driveway but I just wanted to clarify that okay I got a few more questions I won't take up too much time I ask you about impact fees what about those in areas that have special mitigation requirements like the sand hills where right now you have to pay mitigation fees that go into reserves or mitigating those environmental conditions I don't see that addressed those those same requirements would apply to the tiny home on wheels so to the extent that the new parking pad for example where the tiny home on wheels will be located represents new disturbed area then the same requirements for payment of mitigation fees based on the square foot of a disturbed area would apply to that parking pad so in general we constructed the proposed ordinance to just treat the tiny home on wheels the same way we would treat any other single family dwelling in terms of environmental resources and constraints and then my next question is in terms of for CVU that that's who are rebuilding their homes couldn't we make a special provision in this ordinance to allow people who have had a natural disaster such as an earthquake or a fire to have a special provision to allow a throw while they are rebuilding and it could be in lieu of their primary residence but it would be a special exemption when a natural disaster has occurred I didn't see any I would be inclined to allow that in the fake of a natural disaster but not make it a permanent thing because we know where homes were destroyed that that exists already okay then that's happening already so right now what you're proposing is you could build your though as a accessory dwelling unit it could count as your primary residence even if there is another burnt down primary residence I didn't quite understand what you were saying about that there's no implement so you could live in it forever well so so what's in our regulations currently is provisions for allowing people to install a recreational vehicle or a tiny home on wheels on their property while they're trying to rebuild after a natural disaster and then that's happening already in the burn area there's there's people living in RVs and maybe even tiny homes on wheels under temporary permits that actually in the case of the cpu fire rebuilding I believe we've actually extended the the time limit to allow people to occupy those as they're rebuilding but then and then also well and also you if you get a permit and this has been in the code for forever also if you obtain a permit for your single to construct a new single family dwelling and you have your permit in hand you can also come back in and get a permit for the ability to allow you to occupy an RV on the property while you're building your house and then once you once the final building inspection of the house is completed you're supposed to disconnect and the RV and not live in it anymore move into the house also we have the proposed provisions now in in the tiny home on wheels ordinance that would allow you to occupy a tiny home on wheels on the property permanently as a single family dwelling as as either the primary unit or an ad you or even a junior ad you depending on the planning commission's recommendation could you have a situation where you have a though on a property as a primary residence at 400 square feet would that not give you the right to build 1200 square foot ad you and whatever six or 700 j ad use so you'd have a tiny home as a primary residence and two other residences that were twice as big as it as officially junior to it right theoretically yes if if if this ordinance allows a tiny home on wheels to function as a primary unit and that's all you got a permit for at one time then yes theoretically that property owner could come back in and in the future and decide okay i want to build a normal ad you on a foundation on the property and then you could you could do that according to the ad you regulations well this this kind of gets back to the question of utilities like so we're going to allow such a situation and even just the primary though what's the difference between a primary though utilities and a recreational vehicle utilities because we have a tiny home parked down the street from us and they just have a hose to the house and electrical extension cord to the house so what exactly you mentioned that you know if you get a water hook up here which are very expensive and a meter it has to be installed underground so connections are underground what are what are we what is the difference between a cell you know in closed RV that goes goes and you know pumps their sewage out at a pumping station etc etc and the though obviously there's a big difference so what will we require i mean if you have if you use a though as a primary residence will you get a what do you have to buy a water meter yes and you have to have a good cost more in the valley than the though depends on the location of the property in the water system situation yes yes you have to have an approved water supply and an approved sewage disposal system just like any other single single family dwelling going through the process so that's the major difference recreational vehicle doesn't need any of that right well i want to be careful here i mean if in the case where we've permitted the recreational vehicle to be occupied while you're constructing a single family dwelling the requirement is that you have that developed your approved water supply and you installed your sewage disposal system and hook that RV up to those utilities while you're constructing your your house and so you're not allowed to live on a property in an RV and just use the facilities in the RV and maybe take the RV to a dump station or whatever that's not allowed in the case of a tiny home on wheels under this under these regulations you the tiny home on wheels the property on which tiny home on wheels will be installed will have to have an approved water supply proof sewage disposal system and the hookups to that will have to be according to the electric code plumbing code either either directly tied into the tiny home on wheels or extended to the parking pad and like a pedestal where where there's short connections that connect to those utilities just like you would see in say a recreational vehicle park there it would not be allowed to have extension cords and garden hoses on the ground that would not be allowed okay and finally I am not quite sure on that housing advisory commission vote what I'm not sure the context of that but I would like to see those especially since we can change your ordinance at any time I think when we start in my in my sense I just want to say I think having a permit whether it's three years or five years is a good idea at least for the first 10 15 years so we get this all kind of work worked out that's going to be my position I think okay I'm sorry too I've taken up so much time but it's great this is something entirely new and it's hard to get your mind around and I'm very concerned that the public really understand what is required because that was my question what's interesting RV in a flow because I don't think most people really see that they see themselves kind of pulling something onto the property and they're you know it's going to be more complicated than that okay thank you sorry fire truck going by thank you commissioner shepherd and what any other commissioners like to ask any questions at this time go ahead nice laser me yes I was I was just wondering when you were talking about having the proper or the approved hookups those people who are now living in an RV on their site where they're trying to rebuild a house maybe they don't have those or have you required it for anyone who is living in an RV right now or is this going to be retroactive you're are you asking specifically about the cz people rebuilding after a loss in the cz you fire I hesitate to provide detail I don't know all the details though I haven't been involved in all of the specific aspects of of the permitting of the temporary um our recreational vehicles for folks that are trying to rebuild after the cz you fire what I explained earlier is the basic requirement that has been in place for a long time is that if you have a permit in hand to rebuild us to build a single family new single family dwelling on a lot in order to be able to occupy that RV temporarily while you're constructing the house the water supply and the septic system have to be developed and installed for that RV to hook into for for folks that are rebuilding after the fire they they may have had their water system damaged or their septic system damaged and frankly maybe there's somebody else on this call from planning that can help me out here and describe what sort of special considerations we may be allowing for folks rebuilding after the cz you fire in terms of of those water supply and sewage disposal requirements I'm actually not sure maybe those have been relaxed a little bit maybe maybe where we're allowing these RVs to to be self-contained so to speak I'm not sure okay thank you I don't see any other hands for somebody that might have a I could certainly get back to you on that with response yeah that um the temporary housing program is administered by the rpc staff down in the basement so I would need to check and see how they're handling the temporary housing um in the case of cz you um situation I'm not sure if it's evolved since we created the documents for that process so um we can try and get that information for you thank you that's why I was asking the difference between an RV and a so and what we got before us is what would be required for a so right I guess I guess I would like to clarify though that that is a special situation that's happening with rebuilding after the cz you fire and doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what we're what we're considering here I mean what we're considering here is an ordinance that would uh that would allow tining homes on wheels um to be occupied a single family dwellings or ad us on a property and and all the related ordinance provisions on how that would be allowed um the the situations that are happening right now with people rebuilding after the cz you is it is a like I said it's a it's a separate separate situation it doesn't necessarily have any relation to what we're considering here except for the except for to the extent that this ordinance would would have some benefits for those attempting to rebuild after cz you in terms of being able to to um do that with a tiny home on wheels that's right okay thank you hey commissioner rialante did you have some questions yeah I was just hoping mr. Carlson that you could clarify in your presentation I thought I when you were talking about the ANSI you had mentioned that it wasn't in the ordinance that you had presented to us and you were hoping to clarify later you went over it a bit quickly and I was hoping you could just explain because it sounded like you were hoping that if we go this direction that something would need to be clarified in the code and since it wasn't in the staff report I was hoping you could elaborate on uh the I like I didn't have a chance to look up that particular piece of the ANSI and what that would mean and that would just be really helpful for me so if you don't mind both telling me that number again and then what that change would mean for the the code and the implications right right so yeah currently in the ordinance um there is that that last section of the ordinance uh contains language that would allow this the um tiny home on wheels to meet various certifications including the ANSI 119.5 standard the NFPA 1192 standard um or be constructed according to the california residential billing code appendix q well and that was put in there because of of an initial an initial understanding on my part that there was a lot of overlap in those standards but what what's been clarified is that um the california building code appendix q applies to the construction of a tiny home on a foundation um and the NFPA 1192 standard applies to RVs in general and really just addresses fire and life safety standards for our recreational vehicles including RVs that you would see driving down the road the the ANSI a 119.5 standard is specific to park trailers which is what we are talking about in this ordinance and so that's all we need in this ordinance is that it meet that standard um and and so that's that was the clarification that I was talking about I want to strike the references to those other standards and just refer to the ANSI a 119.5 standard that is the standard that is referred to in state law uh when when in the section of state law that addresses park trailers and the and the standards that apply to park trailers it references that standard only so that's the standard we want to reference in the ordinance so just so I can clarify so we're talking about I1 in in the ordinance and you would recommend that we strike everything after the ANSI 119.5 yes yeah and so and that that's I just want to be I just want to be when we're talking about striking something from the ordinance I think it's really important we're clear about what it is you're making that commitment so I just I want to make sure I understand and and the public understands since it wasn't in the staff report yeah that's that's exactly correct that's what I have in my notes is striking everything after ANSI 119.5 and it's actually ANSI a 119.5 um and then striking everything after that okay we're then but it would be even two obviously for there yes valid dmv registration is required for towing to the parking location okay thank you I appreciate that I think I have other questions why I might I might wait on them that one I just think was important since it was part of the presentation and you're recommending a change to no matter which direct version we pursue thank you thank you Commissioner Violante and Commissioner Dan did you have any questions or comments um I don't have any questions right now I do have some comments of Josh but I'll wait till after public comment I just I do want to say I want to appreciate the other the questions of my fellow commissioners and commissioner shepherd don't ever apologize for asking questions I found your questions very helpful um and they were some that I had as well thank you agreed I do have one more in that case please go ahead commissioner shepherd uh David you mentioned that the in terms of considering a though a primary residence other yet you mentioned that place or placer county allows it but other jurisdictions do not so how many did you look at and who are we talking about because placer county is a very sparsely populated uh county and I don't think it's I'd like to some other frames of reference did you mention you must have talked to three or four others or looked at three or four others yeah other jurisdictions that have um ordinances allowing tiny homes on wheels to function as ad us include Humboldt county the city of Los Angeles the city of San Jose Santa Clara county the city of San Diego the city of San Luis Obispo um and and placer county so overwhelmingly other metropolitan communities have gone in the direction of allowing those as ad us yes okay well that's telling I think those are very big complex places that also have high housing needs so I would be inclined to be influenced by that strongly chair Gordon actually I may actually ask a couple more questions if we go since I since mr. Carlson's here if that's all right please I guess mr. Carlson I have a couple questions in in section e um the ordinance when we're talking about utilities um the the second half of that when it's talking about off grid systems it talks about solar panels battery storage things that we obviously want to encourage but the second part of the last portion of that talks about the connection to a generator and I guess my question to that was was the intention of staff that generators were meant to be used on a regular basis I mean obviously um the the intention is that the solar the solar ever said solar system um but that's that it provides the enough power but um in cases of days where it's too cloudy or there's high energy use is that the intention of staff that generators be used on a regular basis for these off grid systems no what section was that again I want I'm on e uh it's page oh I think 11 if and if you're on the first version of the of that the option staff provided us um and so I because nothing in the ordinance in my opinion says that these are only meant to be used as backups nothing in that says that they're only meant to be used in emergencies I don't want to get into discussion so thank you I appreciate the clarity I think I'll have some more comments on that later the the other question I think I had was that on section H2 um when we're talking so on page 12 for people who are listening um we're talking so section H2 the tiny home the permit shall expire that's what we're talking about um it says upon permanent removal of the tiny home from the property I'm just wondering if you can tell me what permanent is what do you mean it I'm wondering if staff had so so that the staff provides a definition that the permit shall be removed uh expire I'm just wondering there's no did staff have a contemplation or a definition of what permanent removal was so was there a timeline that staff had was there an intention that six months three weeks three months it was I I just wasn't sure if staff had I didn't see one and I wasn't sure if staff had contemplated this concept since it wasn't in the ordinance no we haven't contemplated what that would mean but um that's helpful for me thank you I appreciate that um okay those are my questions I think that I was hoping for clarity on I think those were important pieces like I said I think both of my questions will lead to some of my comments and questions and discussion later um so thank you I look forward to discussion with my colleagues in the day thank you Commissioner Villante um I had a couple follow-up questions here also and you know some some of these come from discussion that we had at the last meeting about this and I'm just not sure if they're reflected or why they're not if they're not included um and so um a couple of them here the first one was we kind of discussed allowing tiny home on wheels to be used for multifamily or mixed zone or mixed use zone parcels and I'm wondering if that is excluded because the phrasing just references single family residences and some of the areas says principal residence and so just wanting some clarity on on that I think just in general just the the nature of a tiny home on wheels is it's it's a it's a single unit it's it's not a multifamily unit and it can't be used as a multifamily unit so the the that's the reason for just the simply the reference that these would be allowed to function as a single family dwelling because that's that's the only thing they can be um in place of the other an otherwise allowed single family dwelling or adu when you get into you know multifamily dwelling zone the parcels that that that could get a little bit more complicated in terms of how we would allow a tiny home on wheels um on a parcel like that but but in any case they they would be permitted as a single family dwelling they would never be permitted as part of a multifamily dwelling because they can't be connected they can't be attached they are separate units towable onto and off the property as a single unit okay yeah thank you that that clears up my second question which was are we had discussion around allowing people to combine them so you can have like you know a kitchen unit and a bedroom unit and a bathroom unit or whatever but it sounds like that is not possible these need to be separate standalone yes they're intended to be separate standalone living units that's how they're defined um as a separate uh standalone living unit with cooking sleeping bathing facilities included in the unit just like any other single family dwelling yeah so and then so just to back up one quick step here on the multifamily so you know in theory you could you had a multifamily zone parcel you could build that say let's say had 10 units that were allowed you could build 10 separate apartments that you rented out right instead of one building that included 10 units in that case would you consider these as allowed in that multifamily zoned property because they're all single units separated as required for setbacks fire and all for us i i think that to be honest to you i think that goes beyond what has been contemplated here and so what what we're proposing is that they function and would be allowed anywhere a single family dwelling is allowed so this is a good question i think the planning commission might want to clarify this in their discussion whether or not um we want to more narrowly focus that on allowing these to be um permitted on parcels that just allow single family dwellings or do we want them to allow them on parcels that to on part to function as single family dwellings that would allow um multiple single family dwelling units you may or may not want to allow that i i that that was not part of the the thinking behind this i think the the the thinking here so far has just been allowing them to function as a single family dwelling where where a single family dwelling would otherwise be allowed and not a multifamily dwelling situation okay understood thank you um yeah we can talk about that a little more in our discussion hi another quick question here you know this is one of the the options are around how these get permitted every three or five years was there any idea around like a self certification like you know website a homeowner could take a picture and say hey it's still here and upload it and there you go and it's automatically approved something along those lines it just makes it really easy for people but still would count for the requirement of hd or ever need needs us to check in every so often for the rena numbers wait let me see if i understand your question in terms of just monitoring or construction requirements uh sorry mon long term permitting monitoring so you said we need to have that in place in order to have these count for the rena numbers so i'm just wondering if there's like a simple process that has been thought through but maybe you know it's not an option or it could be an option yes that actually occurred to me as well i i didn't mention it but i thought maybe that might come up in this discussion yes that's a form that would potentially be a form of monitoring just uh instead of staff having to do a site visit for example request require that the a picture be a current picture be submitted showing yes it is in fact still there or not well i'd like to suggest that since you have already looked in some respects to see what other a lot of other counties have instituted these ordinances many metropolitan areas maybe we ought to look at some of these things and see what everybody else is doing so we have some context and not act like we are inventing the wheel since in this case it's kind of a bad joke given that a throw us on wheels but we aren't and whether it would happen today or when you send it up to the board you were able to provide some insight on how many other counties are allowing them as primary residents which is only one out of a lot and then this might be another issue what is verification amounted to for the many other counties that have our ordinances in place in other words there's other there's something to draw here we're not pulling it out of thin air right this i'll tell you that this i think this question of of counting them towards our arena numbers is a question that um i actually had a kind of a hard time getting an answer to from hcd because it's a new it's it's a whole new idea for for housing it's going beyond you know the traditional construction of a house on a foundation so because it's movable although you know their hcd has gone on record with you know brief letters to jurisdictions saying we encourage you know we we like the fact that you're allowing these to function as ad us we encourage you to do that the question of do they or do they not count towards arena numbers has has not previously been addressed and so i believe i may have been the first one to sort of push that question with hcd and got a response from them and and and were they outline those criteria that they would like to see um uh because they're on wheels the the key issues for them in terms of counting them towards our arena numbers are you know are are they going to be that that sense of permanence are they going to be there for a significant amount of time and provide that that housing that's needed in the community uh on a semi-permanent basis um and so that's the purpose for the um uh the requirement that they get a permit that there be a sense of sense of permanence on the property to be that parking pad development infrastructure development to support it and then that monitoring to make sure that it's still there well i'm just suggesting you look and see what los angeles and santa clara and san jose and all the other many counties you hodja costs to see what they did with that i don't think they're doing any monitoring we are inventing the wheel on this i i'll definitely follow up on that but i suspect that um none of these other jurisdictions are doing any monitoring of them they're and they may not even be reporting them on their arena uh annual reports oh okay so we need to be very careful that whatever we do will allow it to be counted by rena that's the point so we need to figure that out yeah and that would be figuring out some way of doing them doing the monitoring um great thank you um i had a question on the solar as well it wasn't clear to me if power is required to be brought to location before in discussions that we had you know where with like composting toilets you could use the composting toilet but you still had to bring sewer to location you didn't necessarily have to hook it up um and as i'm not sure if that well that's another question out of the composting toilet but how is it with the power is it if you need to bring power but you can use the solar if you want to no it's different yeah it's a different issue with the electrical compared to the the sewage no you don't have to extend the power necessarily to the site so you would for a property that chooses not to or can't afford to extend power to their site they would have the option of being off grid with a solar power system but you are requiring a generator uh we're requiring the ability to connect to a generator we're not necessarily requiring a generator we're requiring the solar power system to be designed to serve the needs of the tiny home on wheels based on the the loads of the tiny home on wheels with battery backup and the ability to connect to a generator in emergency but not necessarily a requirement that they actually have a generator for example you know if during a major storm the last several days and the batteries are depleted and you don't have a generator then you may be faced with a situation where you don't have power for until the sun comes back out and you can start charging your batteries again so or you may have a generator that you could connect to under that circumstance but then that that would in practice the the use of that generator would only be for the length of time that it would take for the sun to come back out and start charging your batteries back up again would that be um inspected on issuance of a permit like i have a generator and i spent a lot of money and time getting it properly installed and inspected yes that would the the ability to connect to the generator would be inspected and if you actually did install a generator that was not portable that would be inspected too there's no permit requirement for a portable generator can you confirm also that the solar panels would be inspected by local jurisdiction is that correct yeah they are now i can speak as someone who has yes you have to get permits and you have to have inspected well yes to the extent that they're installed on site so um i believe there are manufacturers that produce tiny homes on wheels that do have integrated solar power systems in them so that they are self contained in terms of of power requirements and so um to the extent that that is already inspected under the ANSI certification then then no the the building inspector would not necessarily be inspecting that on site yeah that was it depend yeah it would depend on how it how it was if it came with the unit or or was installed post manufacturer or on site okay thank you i i think i have a little concern there um and i could probably just bring that back at discussion um you know just in the fact that that if someone parks this on a in the forest or there's not as much sun as what the specs for the tiny home builder require which is that you park it in a desert you know or it's all sun all the time right right and right and then we get a bunch of tiny homes that don't actually work that well with the electricity and then we end up with like tons of gas power generators which running our homes on gasoline from the station is not a good idea my opinion so um right yeah okay understood think about that well i think that's a real concern because to get in that case they'd say well i can't do this forever i better get a power hook up and that's a very expensive proposition and in forested areas probably may not always be available so we need to figure out if there's any way to craft this without ending up with just what tim is suggesting a whole bunch of people with gas power generators which drive neighbors crazy who would like crazy and use a large amount of gasoline yes and i think you probably could address that in a pretty simple way in the ordinance by adding to that provision that addresses solar power something to the effect of on the site plan needs to verify solar access i think that would be something we probably most of us i get a feeling support so why don't we bring put that in as something we'd like to consider okay um thank you a couple a couple last quick questions here why the 400 square foot max is that a requirement from the ANSI standards or where did that come from i don't remember that that's the definition in state law for a park trailer and yeah the maximum 400 square feet and maximum 14 feet wide in the maximum dimension that and then that that allows for it to be transported on public roads but god you need a special permit from the DMV to do that but you can do that okay and that doesn't seem like in my guess i thought i don't know on this that it's not wouldn't be restrictive i assume that's like pretty large floor plate you know for what can actually travel down a road anyway but you know i've you've done some research as to like you know i don't know if there's any change in that or if we even need to discuss that or if it's you know hey there's tons of options that are 410 square feet you know yeah i couldn't couldn't be 410 square feet um but that that's that the permit requirement from the DMV for transport on roads and then the definition of a park trailer and that ANSI standards that that sort of distinguishes these things from your typical RV or fifth wheel that you could that doesn't need a per special permit to travel around and does travel around more readily these aren't designed to be moved very often and the assumption is they're going to be towed to the site and they're going to stay there for a couple of you know years basis or in this case for possibly forever do those standards have minimum construction protections built in for earthquakes being in a very earthquake prone area i'm just wondering when you mention all the safety standards how does it relate to earthquake safety um the keeping the wheels on is what provides the seismic stability take taking the wheels off then then you start to get into okay how is this thing connected to the ground via a foundation and so that that's why that's the reason for the requirement of the ordinance that the wheels stay on basically well whatever requirement we have for verification that would be something whoever's looking either at the permit registration however we come up with that they'll be looking to make sure the wheels are still on them right yeah yeah once the wheels come off and it's you just start you just start going down the path of connecting it to to some kind of foundation that is that is semi or permanent and that's then that gets you in the category of of a tiny home on a foundation which is already allowed so there has to be some distinction between a tiny home on a foundation that was already allowed just like any other single family dwelling constructed according to the building code and a tiny home on wheels and that is keep the wheels on if you're building a primary residence and happens to be 400 square feet that's fine that's not really a tiny home a tiny home has a specific definition right well well it's a tiny home a tiny home on a foundation is could could be the same size as a tiny home on wheels 400 square feet it's just it's built according to the california building code appendix q which contains special requirements for tiny homes on foundations and and that's we've adopted that code already already that can be done in this county right now you can build a tiny home on a foundation anywhere that you can build a single family dwelling it's it's a single family dwelling just like any other house it's just 400 square feet and has some special provisions for lofts and stairways because it's so small um these are different these are tiny homes on wheels and we need to maintain that distinction by keeping the wheels on okay um thank you i have two last questions here uh on code section on the design code section section one f three states mechanical equipment that's not incorporated within the structure shall be screened from public view and shall not be located on the roof electrical and plumbing hookup shall similarly be screened from public view but question on this one just and the fact that it seems a little like we don't require this on single family homes we don't require this anywhere else we saw some pictures in the presentation where you know the mechanical unit wasn't covered and sometimes they can't be depending on how it you know it's built with fans and things like that and then the second thought there is that you know say you had a taller roof structure and you need or you needed a fan on the roof for the bathroom you know to push the air out this code would seem to eliminate like a rooftop fan and it's a little bit you know i'm just wondering like if what's the purpose for this could it be eliminated without causing too much damage to the intent just to reduce requirements and make this just a little bit easier and more standard and more in line with what we already do as single family homes and ad us point taken i i i think that what the the the reason for that provision in the ordinance i i think came out of the last planning commission discussion um where i think i think that we had talked to the staff had talked about incorporating all of the mechanical equipment within the structure and i think the planning commission wanted to allow a little bit of more flexibility on that and and so that's where that language came from but um i mean you know you don't want a lot of people build homes who have like different you know utility stuff build little fences around them i don't see why that that's just a courtesy to passers-by i don't see that as being onerous in any way and you put a fan on top of your house no one's going to make you build a fence around it i think we're sinking we have a bunch of apparatus on the ground and most people do that in their neighborhoods anyway i wouldn't support taking that out i think the key the key words there are public view so you're right how when you said passers-by that's what that's our intent public view so i mean if the tiny omen wheels is on a parcel that's way off the road and you can't see it then this doesn't apply understood okay that helps clear that up okay um last question i had is one from one of the members of the public and some of the communication and i had the same question can you confirm what the code distance between a tiny omen wheel and an existing building is excuse me i made that phrase out of purpose the distance between the two buildings what it what is it actually right i think for um for a non adu i think it's 10 feet but there's specific provisions in the adu regulations that allow for four feet or maybe it's three but yeah if it's if it functions as an adu there's it's subject to the um the setback requirements in the adu regulations okay so it'll essentially be whatever that is similarly to the rest of the codes whatever the single family or the adu or adu code is yeah that's what it'll be right minimum separation distance between adus and other structures should be three feet that's that's in the adu regulations okay understood all right thank you so much that is all my questions so if anyone else has any love to hear them otherwise you can move on to uh public comment at this time no others okay great thank you mr carlson that was a rapid fire lots of questions we appreciate that oh thanks no thanks for all those questions i anticipated that definitely because of the nature of what we're doing here it's yeah it's new territory yeah complicated okay um then we can go ahead and close the discussion or questions at this time and move on to public comment mr rake do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on the matter we do chair um so if we could get three minutes um the timer for three minutes put up i'll call on members of the public everyone will have three minutes to provide comment um and let's just see if we can get the timer going here and then i'll start calling on folks awesome so i'll start with someone by the name of gc good morning if you could please state your name for the record good morning if you could unmute yourself gc and state your name for the record that person is having difficulty unmuting um we will come back to you gc i will move on to jeffrey ellis good morning please state your name for the record having issues with folks unmuting oh hi this is jeffrey ellis can you hear me yes good morning um so in a previous study session for this ordinance we were told that in other jurisdictions that have tiny home ordinances that relatively small number of such units have been constructed however you know these are other places with other ordinance other economic situations and social situations so i'd like to suggest that at least for the first few years that the county would have a quota a maximum number of units that would be permitted just to see how the ordinance functions to be able to make changes if changes are found to be necessary and just as an example where there might be issues looking at the staff report under design criteria f1 where it says incorporate design features and materials typically used in houses such as siding or roofing material etc so one interpretation is that a guy could take a travel trailer go over to home depot um get a single roofing tile glue the roofing tile to the top of the roof of the travel trailer and voila blame that that's a tiny home um and because these permits are issued ministerially and and there's no discretion every application is potentially a lawsuit against the county if that permit application is denied so the the reason i bring this up is not to suggest that you refine the wording now but simply that you allow yourself time to get experience by limiting the number of units that are permitted each year at least for the first five years thank you i'm done thank you jeffrey all right let's check back in with gc and see if this person is able to unmute good morning gc will you please state your name for the record need to unmute yourself looks like still trouble there with unmuting um gc you might want to try calling in uh we have the number posted right on the planning department's web page that might be easier um i'll move on to the next person and we'll and we'll also check back in with gc i'm seeing a hand raised by alex barton um good morning alex will you please restate your name for the record hi uh alex barton i just wanted to call in to support the more expansive option of using tiny houses as single family residences um and just to make note um the especially because the the new law split state law i think in practice has and is going to be pretty difficult for people to implement and we have a lot of marginal parcels in this county especially in live oak that are larger they've got space on them but um have other issues with you know um which would be otherwise good candidates for um a lot split um but have issues with you know size in the full size single family home on um on the split lot and i think um that uh adding uh getting being able to use a tiny house on wheels um as a residence especially in that uh scenario is is really important so i would just encourage that the second thing i want to um remark on is sort of a subtle uh a subtle issue in the way um the proposed ordinance is written and i believe this is the intent of it that this ordinance and these definitions apply to tiny house on wheels as used in residential zones um the tiny house on wheels i'm familiar with tiny houses i have one built um in other jurisdiction and um tiny house on wheels as written in this code looks like it is used um the park trailer definition but a tiny house on wheels that um can also be uh seen as a um as an rv or travel trailer if it's 10 feet i think eight feet wide as well um so in commercial zones like rv parks it it is already allowed to use a have a tiny house there because a tiny house is also a travel trailer um and in those zones and locations i would hate for us to wrangle um residents of uh those travel trailer parts in with um uh single family residential zone intent because um they could be a big upgrade for people who have been living there long term um so thank you thank you alex all right i'm going to check back in with gc and see if we can manage to unmute so gc i'm going to go back to you you should have an option i'm asking you to unmute i'm clicking on a request for you to unmute see if you can accept that um are you seeing a pop-up asking you to unmute i'm not seeing that you are unmuting all right i'll check back in with gc um just want to remind you you can call in as well um i will move on to angie i'm joiceline want to read the number to call in out okay i'll read that number again um so the phone number again if you're having trouble unmuting or connecting via the team's link is 669 900 6833 and the collaboration code is 814 8152 8029 and this information is also posted on the planning department's home page sccoplanning.com and also you can email michael lam at michael.lam at santa cruz county.us um okay so the instructions again it could be just a hand of someone who also isn't intending to speak also sometimes hands just pop up so it's hard to tell all right i'm going to move on to angie um good morning angie will you please state your full name for the record you have three minutes this is angie pre-bore can you hear me yes good morning hi yeah it's it's kind of odd i use zoom all the time and there are no unmute buttons showing up on this zoom for some reason thank you for letting me talk i have a question around the requirement for meters what can you talk to the requirements on a private well we certainly would hook it up to a private well but requiring a specific meter um i wanted to understand the details around that if that is required or if it can just be hooked up to the well and all as well angie thanks for that question sorry i should say we can uh we'll come back after public comment and ask the questions okay yes thanks chair thanks angie all right i will um i'll try gc i still see a hand raised so let me see if i can get gc to connect i did just text our our zoom facilitator as well to see if there's something else i can suggest um so gc are you still with us and hoping to speak if so see if you can unmute yourself if you're calling in that that you press star six to unmute yourself awesome if there's no unmute button on the other side for people calling in how did how did they unmute i mean a couple of people figured it out um i usually see a pop-up that says um you're being requested to unmute um so olivia if you can give gc permission to talk that would be great i don't know if there's something i'm doing usually this works just fine you have permission gc to talk so you do need to unmute yourself i should see a pop-up yeah i don't i'm not sure what's happening with this one person here um well we do have another hand raised so we'll go over to gen for now and see if we can work something out with gc um gen levini good morning please restate your name for the record you have three minutes hi my name is jennifer levini and i'm a local housing attorney and author of the tiny home law book and i wanted to just weigh in on a couple of questions that the commissioners asked one of them is there were a couple of questions about how the elect how the utility hookups well first i want to thank you all for doing this the commissioners and the staff you're doing an amazing job and i wanted to just say something about the electrical hookups and utility hookups um that is that uh the state of california has health and safety code section 180 30.5 which specifically prohibits adopting any local ordinance or regulations which conflict with state standards for manufactured homes mobile homes recreational vehicles commercial coaches or special purpose coaches and that would apply to these tiny homes on wheels and their references health and safety code section 18550 which is our state standard which regulates the connection for gas water electricity and sewage connections for RVs and tiny homes this isn't a code that the um the county can create this is already regulated at the state level but just to answer your questions of what that typically looks like typically what happens is there is a trench that's dug the conduit for electricity and pipes for water run through the trench and at the end of the trench next to the tiny home or it's the same for mobile homes or RVs there's a small tower that sticks up from the ground and that at that tower the RV tiny home or mobile home is connected to water electricity um and then there's often some kind of sewer connection so this isn't uh inventing the wheel this is something that already exists um and is already regulated at the state level does not need to be in the local ordinance um and the other question was about other ordinances in the state that have renewal periods no other ordinances in the state have any kind of renewal they all just have once you're permitted you're permitted permanently this is something new that Santa Cruz is trying to create thank you that's all I have to say thank you very much again for working your work on this ordinance thank you Jen all right I'm gonna go back to our list of callers and attendees um just want to remind anyone who wishes to speak on this item to raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone or raising your hand using the hand icon on the zoom app she sees hand is no longer raised so I'm just going to leave that alone um and seeing any additional callers chair um I'll turn it back over to you I did want to just quickly before you go back to discussion report back that I looked back at the recovery center's website and the temporary housing units for CZU temporary housing units are required to be connected to a permanent source of water sewage disposal so septic and electricity so just wanted to report back on that great thank you so much and thank you to members of public for the comments really appreciate those good um questions came out of it and at this point we'll close the public comment and bring the item back to the commission for discussion um it's all right I'd like to ask Mr. Carlson to start with just a few responses do some of the questions from the community that came up um start with the requirements for a private well can you explain that a little bit so to connect to a private well would require approval of that water supply system by the environmental health department and then and hook up to that there there's not a requirement by the county planning department for a meter necessarily for that that's you're hooking up to your own private well you're not required to meter that um unless there's some separate program with environmental health for metering with respect to um you know water resources management or something like that but um I don't think that's the case currently but I know that there's been some ideas regarding that in the past but for the purposes of of permitting it uh to a private well there's not a meter requirement for that the meter requirement would apply to a an established water utility that would that would want to meter the water for the purposes of charging you great understood thank you very much um there is a well permit you have to get to when you drill the well with the well the registered well well driller exactly yeah that would have to be that water supply would have to be approved by environmental health because you kind of want that because you get the water tested and etc as a well owner that's a good thing yes great thank you um question came up about this code being used in residential zones and how it affects commercial zone trade I just trying to make sure I got this but I think the question is around like existing trailer home properties like where mobile homes aren't allowed or excuse me not mobile homes trailer homes are and allowed to use currently I think that was the question oh okay well this this would not affect anything regarding existing mobile home park yeah um this only applies to um properties where the county is authorized to issue permits for single family dwellings so it doesn't this doesn't overlap with any all any all the separate requirements that apply to um regulations that apply to mobile mobile home parks okay no mobile home parks and then thank you I think there's like a question about the commercial zone areas where like a trailer could already be used I think there's like you know separate like RV parks like things like that are this going to affect those in any way no no and you and I and I think I heard from one comment maybe it was getting to the to the issue of using you know sort of modifying existing RV to make it look like a tiny home that wouldn't be allowed that the tiny home on wheels needs to be certified as manufactured and constructed to that ANSI standard which is which results in tiny homes on wheels that look like the pictures that I showed you in the slideshow but we're not talking about RVs that you see driving down the road to the to the to the RV park that's not what we're talking about here well I'd like to further clarify that because even a couple callers said well whether it's an RV or a though or so an RV is not a though because a though is built to specific building standards and to those standards you just why is an RV not a throw or why is it though and not a well actually the definition of a recreational vehicle in state law has two parts to it one part is your traditional RVs that fifth wheel trailers that you see at campgrounds that are towed by trucks or driven and or have integrated internal combustion engines and you drive them down the road the other the second part of the definition of a recreational vehicle in state law is a park trailer and a park trailer has is is separately defined as what we're talking about here and there's that ANSI standard that applies to park trailers so so we're talking about park trailers we're not talking about which which are a type of recreational vehicle but we're not talking about the types of recreational vehicles that I think some people have in mind here we're not talking about the ones that you typically see at a campground being towed by a truck that have wild designs on them that are made out of plastic and metal and that sort of thing that's that's not what we're talking about here those those don't require any special permit from the DMV you can take those on vacation what we're talking about here is park trailers that are built to a specific standard and look like tiny houses so when when I come into the planning department and I have been told that I can get them pretty easy to get a permit for a tiny home I'm going to be presented with definition of what my tiny home needs to be I eat this park trailer definition so it'll be very clear because I think it's clear it is in fact very confusing because you as you just said it's not an RV but it is a park trailer um and there are our specific differences and I think whatever permitting is involved because there will still be a permit even if it's it's a not too complicated or expensive one the people really need to know what they're getting into here clearly because it's easy to confuse these the ordinance is clear that that they need to be certified as meeting that antsy standard for park trailers I'm just saying to to avoid any more planning commission counter bad interactions it's gotta be really make clear when people step up with one conception and are going to be clearly informed of what the actual ordinance is a question on that note if someone goes to build a single family home or something else they go to the code they look at what it says and then they do that thing right so in my perception of this you know it says you can build based on these standards it has to look like this thing you know there's pictures that they can go back and review to me it's I guess I'm just saying that it's not as confusing as maybe as it sounds because we've kind of got to this point where it's got the right verbiage right um so and you know I was gonna say like you know I think that and then on top of that there is a permit process so someone would have to come in and say hey here's the thing I want to do it is this work yes or no and then go from there right so I guess I'm not understanding the confusion from commissioner shepherd I wonder if like if there's any clarification that would even need to happen or if this is not like clear enough only because go ahead commissioner dan I just was wondering if I could weigh in at this point yes I think what commissioner shepherd is saying is she's just I think what would maybe solve what she's trying to address is maybe like a brochure that describes what a tiny home on wheels is that could be made available to the public in the area and fourth floor where we have a display of brochures I think that might just satisfy what she was trying to get at and then if I could just move along now I had a couple of comments if it's the appropriate time to please yes yeah go ahead thank you so I have one small question and then some comments that and then hopefully we can get to the point where we're ready for a motion I wanted to know if the other jurisdictions that you looked at define jadus or define tiny homes as wheels on wheels as being able to be counted as a jadu or is that something that we are singularly looking at doing ourselves that's that's correct I'm not aware that other jurisdictions are mentioning them in their ordinances as junior adus it's pretty consistent uh that the other jurisdictions are allowing them as just new new construction adus okay thank you for that um so I would say um I am not comfortable as counting a tiny home on wheel as a jadu at this point until the state has changed their definition I think that we have been pretty consistent in this commission as being consistent with the state definitions and I think we should continue to do so not comfortable um going sideways from the state at this point um so I would be supporting not defining the tiny home on wheels as a jadu at this time um but what would you be supporting counting them as then an adu okay so there's two some options given to us and one of the options is not to count them as not to not that you would not be able to define it as a jadu and one that you would be and I am indicating that I am not supportive defining the though as a jadu at this time because it is inconsistent with no I understand but you are yeah please can I just get through my comments I've um thanks I'm also um be open to not allowing them in driveways I think that when we have had this come up in the past it creates a lot of conflict to allow a tiny home on wheel in a driveway so at this time I would not be supportive of allowing them in driveways um um uh I also wanted to suggest that before this gets to the board that if you look at other counties um and talk to other counties or cities um and ask them what is working that you also ask them what is not working so that we can um create an ordinance and learn from what's not working in other areas to minimize uh conflict um I also want to be sure that tiny home on wheels um be only allowed where single family homes are and I understand the ordinance currently says this I just want to emphasize that I think that that's important for the time being that we only allow them where single family homes are allowed um I also would be supportive of of um within the urban services line disallowing tiny home on wheels to use generators at all I think that if you're in a within the urban services line um having a tiny home on wheels relying on a generator or part of their energy use um is just a recipe for conflict and in the rural areas we already have a lot of issues with excessive generator use um so I think that it would be magnified if that were the case in the urban service design so um I think if there's a motion I hope that that's included in the motion and then lastly I just want to say that um I believe this will be an iterative process this is our first crack at regulating and allowing tiny homes on wheels so I think the best way to craft these ordinances is to be conservative at the beginning and then as we see how it goes that we come back and take a look and I would be supportive of having a review of this ordinance either in a year or when we have a certain number of permits that we've issued so that we have something to take a look at maybe that's 25 maybe that's 50 tiny home on wheels permits and then we can have something come back to the commission of staff thinks that that's appropriate to review and possibly make modifications to this ordinance so that's it for me thank you Dr. Chan Gordon if I may yes thank you Mr. Dan please go ahead Commissioner Vialante thank you yeah I appreciate Commissioner Dan's comments many of them are very in line with the ones I I have myself I appreciate her saying that she is not supportive of them in driveways that's actually one of my comments as well especially my comments were going to be going to focus on um the the coastal zone in particular I think that by allowing them in driveways we um even if it I know the staff report said that we weren't going to allow them to take away required parking but I think that it's an issue and it takes away parking in general especially in the coastal zone because ultimately what we we unintentionally do is create on-street parking impacts and I and I don't want to see that happen especially as um we're already um intensifying organized development we are reducing our parking requirements and I I'd hate to see us take away parking that already exists um by by this type of development so I support Commissioner Dan's um idea that we don't we disallow them in those driveways I I I share her concern I I I do not want to see us be contrary to state regulation about JADUs um and be inconsistent with their definition about them being an attached unit and so I don't support um allowing these as JADUs I I have to say I I'm concerned about the idea that these units will not be contributing um property tax I think it's essential that they help support the facilities and service um provided by the county and other agencies that are dependent on these and so I um I just want to raise that concern in general because you could have ultimately potentially I would say um at least an option one three units that weren't providing property tax to support the services of three housing units and so I I agree with Commissioner Dan that it's important we start conservatively um and recognize the impacts of these on our area and our community um I I think I alluded this in my previous comments that I I have some concerns about the idea that these are both permanent and impermanent um the HCD is asking us to meet certain circumstances that include this idea that they are have a sense of permanence so we're not requiring them to be on us this foundation and this I feel like the ordinance in some ways is incomplete it's a very good beginning um but the fact that we don't have our own definition of what permanent removal is um are we okay with them leaving three months or six months I just I worry that we need to to to say what is okay when a unit is removed because we want these units to provide housing for our community we want them to provide a place for people to be part of of our place and the intention is that they be here a long time and I want to ensure that they are here a long time they are providing housing and so to that end I think it's essential that we do have permit renewal it is not out of the ordinary that we require renewals and check-ins we do it for vacation rental permits we do it for things like cannabis ordinances where we have this kind of recertification and renewal process that requires either staff to do an inspection or to um to chair Gordon's point even if it was a self-certification I think that that's essential um that we include that kind of language um in our recommendation to the the board of supervisors that we do not eliminate that I know the hack was split but I in my recommendation would be that we we maintain that language that there's either a three or five-year renewal process because we want these housing units to become part of our our community so that's the direction I am going I I would be to not to to not do the option that allows them as JADUs and to continue requiring um some sort of permit renewal and so that we ensure that they are staying here um so that that's those are kind of my comments I think I touched on everything I was hoping to thank you and chair Gordon thank you commissioner Villalante commissioner lasin b did you want to have any comments on this yes thank you chair um I agree with commissioner dan and commissioner Villalante's remarks I did not understand one thing that uh you said commissioner dan about was it not allow generators or not make that a requirement if you have solar panels I am actually in favor of not allowing generators for 20 home on wheels right so they would this would be within the urban services line okay thank you and um while we're making changes or suggestions to the ordinance will it have the two options also except that um if you know would it be cleaned up and still use the formatting where it says option two and option three because I would have a suggestion on option three that we correct the lettering on page 20 it has two number h's and the last one should be an I for making those corrections I have one of those too go for it in the definition you need a comma I have those for the resolution I'll get to that when we get there okay that's that's all I have on the um the ordinance thank you okay I'll um Tim do you want to go and I'll go last you go ahead commissioner shepard that's okay I agree with uh commissioner Villalante that let's see did I unmute myself yes with commissioner Villalante and commissioner dan um I think they should be allowed only as a to use I do not think we should allow parking in driveways I agree with no generators in urban areas I need to ask mr. Carlson the whole valley is not rural for example if you live in Felton you're just as close to your neighbor as if you lived in live oak so I'm thinking maybe we might consider and I would look to the planning department to help define this but I was thinking maybe not in our our too because like the towns have been lowman boulder creek and felton are urban essentially in terms of the spaces between houses so that would still pertain so whatever the zoning is in all the towns which I think would be rural residential to do that we could recommend including the rural services line as well that would incorporate the the areas of felton and and much of the areas you're so we could add to if commissioner dan is open to it we could out we could say there were no generators allowed in the rural services line as well which is the areas you're talking about which are also more dense but not as dense as the urban services line yes I agree and also I had one so I agree with what's been proposed 100 percent I did have one question would these those if established count toward growth can the annual count we get for number of new units in the county and when we set the new numbers for each year would they count for that yes that's that's the goal and not not just to the state but in terms of our own ordinance for growth control which is sort of pro format this time since we've never met it but they would count wouldn't they yes okay so I agree with what has been proposed strongly and would support um a motion if commissioner dan wants to move ahead or allison wants to move ahead but we haven't heard from commissioner borden yet sir thank you yes um I appreciate all the feedback in the comments um and I just had a couple follow-up questions with the jadus I definitely understand the concern of being in line with state code but I wanted to understand if running backup steps in some cases we are allowed to be more lenient than state law and is this one of those cases where we can say we want to count it as a jadu or we just like really going against what state law is by allowing it to be a jadu that's a good that's a good question I um I don't know how if I have an answer to that I certainly as a conflict but it does it could you know maybe in a rare circumstances it could lead to a circumstances in which say a tiny home on wheels was permitted as a junior adu on site with an existing single family dwelling and then the property owner came back later and said I still have a right under state law to do a junior adu contained within my existing house and then we'd be getting it just I don't I'm not sure we want to go there yeah my concern is that the definition for a jadu and the definition for a tiny home on wheels are completely different so how could we say that jadu can be a tiny home on wheels if then you look at the definitions and a tiny home on wheels is definitely by definition not a jadu so I just think we're setting ourselves up for all sorts of problems and let me just say now that this is being brought up I am almost 100 sure there is a state bill being crafted at this moment to deal with this issue and I would think within a year it'll be remedied so I don't think we should remedy it here I think we should just sit tight and then I would just say also on substance it presents a completely different policy consideration for us in that we would be considering two tiny home on wheels in a single family parcel rather than one and I think that that presents a whole other set of issues as far as compatibility so there's kind of two two issues to think about when when considering this definition which must be the reason the other the other municipalities have gone with considering them not considering jadu so I think those that's good rationale I'm being inclined to follow that commissioner or Mr. Carlson did you have any other comments on there I didn't know if I was going to interrupt you there I I mean I guess I actually would agree I mean just laying them as an ADU is the simplest most straightforward initial path and that's what other jurisdictions have done okay and if I going if I could just just stepping back a little bit I wanted to clarify that you know I was I was explaining how this doesn't affect the regulations in RV parks you could you know this I'm not saying that you would not be able to put a tiny home on wheels in a mobile home park or a recreational vehicle park but that just would that would not be regulated by the county and so I just wanted to make that clarification and then also I'm not 100 certain that the the ANSI standard well one of the reasons why we have the the aesthetic design requirements in in in this ordinance and then also referring to them in the ADU ordinance is because the ANSI standard may not provide that level of aesthetic criteria so we wanted to just make sure that these things look like houses like the pictures that I showed and not while allowing for some creativity of course but I wouldn't want to rely completely on the ANSI standard in terms of how these how these would look in in strict compliance with the ANSI standards we so we wanted to have some local criteria just for design standards to make them look like houses thank you okay understood um question for other commissioners here you know the concern about permanence I wasn't clear if there is an adjustment that wanted to be made for that um and I just you know my thought on it is that you know we have mobile home parks which are not permanent right and the ability to everyone has the ability to move their mobile home if they wanted to however the reality is that it doesn't happen hardly ever um so you know that tied with the idea that like someone is paying a lot of money to put this thing you know on their property they're getting a permit their pain fees are getting sewer power water you know all the things makes me inclined to think that people wouldn't really want to do that short terms um and so you know I'm feeling that the permanence thing will probably is maybe not um doesn't make me as nervous but I so I want to understand if there is some kind of change that was being requested to accommodate that or if it's just a concern that was being voiced it's a it's a concern of mine I mean so the difference is when you have mobile home parks they are assessed as property and and they're these are not um and so my concern is we are we are going down a path where we are allowing for a type of dwelling unit that is admittedly impermanent and not contributing through assessments and participation through to the county process um and there are already paths to people building tiny homes and what we're saying that and that would be assessed right that would be contributing to property taxes that would be without question it would be part of Rena and yet we are creating this alternative path that says no this is a tiny home on wheel this is this is um this is this is property but in in the tangible sense not the dwelling unit Rena assessment and so it's a I just want to raise that concern we need to recognize what we're actually saying and we need to be honest about whether or not this is how this is benefiting our community and if it's benefiting the county because the type of housing we're building um is is very different and whether or not it is housing and the permanence of it is it's just different permission or Gordon um because it can be and it's not that I'm worried I mean I do worry actually I shouldn't I should be honest I do worry that people could choose to live here six months and move it six months and that that's it is a reality and it is a slight concern of mine um because they could have the same infrastructure say in Arizona doesn't matter right um but but and part of that is that they're not paying property tax here and they're not necessarily having that same type of contribution to our community versus if we just said no it's a tiny home they would and so I think we need to be honest about the pathway and what type of housing we're providing and I just think it's important that we contemplate that um in an open and honest way as it is as or if we build uh this ordinance because it's a big change I mean um commissioner shepherd raised this at the beginning which is your property taxes are what pays you know mr Carlson's salary it's what paves your road it's what provides for our health director it's what it what's pays for your sheriff when they arrive at your door um it's actually what pays for your part of those schools um and we're saying this type of housing won't be contributing towards that um and I think we just need to be honest about is the the other side of that you know lever which is like it does the good of being able to build this type of housing outweigh giving that up and I just think we need to be we we need to have a candid conversation about that um versus if we just said well you can still build a tiny home because we do as mr Carlson has said repeatedly that's already in the code you can already build a tiny home um on these properties and in this manner and I just think it's it'd be disservice to the public if we didn't have an honest conversation about what allowing tiny homes on meals mean um I would say that I agree because this is an experiment we'll have to see how it goes I mean as someone who pays a lot of property taxes and relies on those services especially here in the rural area for the fire district the schools and a lot of other things that I consider vital to the community want to see how this goes and we need this kind of housing and we should try it but I I agree with commissioner violante and I I would keep the permanent the permit structure in just because we're remember we can always change this if it all works out wonderfully can I ask a clarifying question on this issue of this section h2 um so commissioner violante you were you suggesting that to be more clear and more fair that we remove the word permanent because I see that someone could I mean I your point is well taken I guess is what I'm saying and I'm trying to think of a way to remedy this and one way is to just take away permanent it's an engine I I I appreciate I'm sure Dan I appreciate you bringing that up I my point is I think I think that would be an interesting way to remedy that um that now I just I appreciate that um and that could be the absolutely could be um a way to remedy it because then we would know we're building permanent housing and these people would be because the point the point is to build housing right the point is to say we're willing to give up these things in order to build housing that's my point right it has to be worth it and and yeah maybe removing the word permanent with all that it also is a subjective standard yeah and that might just be a very simple and and very elegant solution and so I appreciate your experience on the commission being able to find such an elegant solution commissioner Dan evidence of your experience here sorry commissioner Gordon no that's okay no I appreciate it I think that was a really good solution there and I think that you know for me that that's kind of solves at least from what I can see here kind of solves the issue and I think one thing that you brought up commissioner Daniel it should be really great is a check-in you know any year or two years or whatever it is and like you know see how it's going um so are you changing commit condition h2 on page 12 all right yeah but you're taking out the word the though permit shall expire when the though is conveyed to new owner or upon removal right I don't I'm not sure I understand yes okay got it um chair Gordon yeah could I add that we do our annual reporting to hcd on new housing units permitted and constructed and you know in in the notes column we we know whether there's single family dwellings or ad us and and we would be noting that these are you know if it was a tiny home on wheels so there would be an annual reporting that goes that goes to the board of supervisors and then we submit that report to the well actually goes to the planning commission and the board of supervisors the general plan annual report that we do every year and so you'll see you'll see the reporting of the number of units and type of units permitted every year do we in that report get like a can't remember you know it's a lengthy report is there like a homes that were demolished and not replaced category or something like that that we could say okay we've got you know we had 20 tiny homes permitted but now people have taken 12 on the way this isn't really working yes yeah we would in the case of development that would be demolishing one or more units and then building one or more units yeah that would be accounted for in that report and I could I mean I guess I could see in the future based on the monitoring if the tiny home on wheels was removed from the property that we would have to go back and do a correction to the report that it's no longer there so with someone okay sorry you know we would have to yeah if it's no longer there then no longer be could no longer be counted as a as a housing unit so we'd have to and we can do this we've done it in the past where we've discovered new data or whatever you can always go back hcd allows us to go back and submit you know corrections or updates to past year's reports okay thank you so in the brought like just from a process question if somebody's like you know I'm going to take this thing there is on and I'm done in Santa Cruz what do I like what do they do do they have to like request a demolition permit because that's kind of what you do if you're going to take your single family home down or does it just like five years later when we get to our reporting we realize it wasn't there and now we have to redo five years of bringing numbers and five years of you know is there a way to clean that up a little bit uh there yes I mean the only way I think you can clean that up is require annual reporting not three year five year reporting um and if it's removed from the property and the permit expires uh or you know we're not necessarily going to know about that you know they're not going to have to check in with us on their way out of town um they don't stop by the county building no they don't stop by the park no but we wouldn't pick it up when they didn't renew it right right that would trigger it so I think the renewal process is a good idea so we know from that from that census point of view of knowing who and and kind of getting a sense of how the program's working because I think Commissioner Gordon's make a good point if somebody moves the housing unit goes with them and it would be good to pick it up I think five years is reasonable for that especially since we can count it for five years I mean however you know all the infrastructure is still there and so you have this property owner that has a parking pad that has the utility connections for a tiny home on wheels and and there's so there's going to be it's I would I would um hazard to predict that there would be a new tiny home on wheels installed on that on that property in pretty short order I mean if the property order wants to get some rental income from from doing that or a tiny home on wheels owner is looking for a place to put their tiny home on wheels I'm not sure that that um if a tiny home on wheels is removed from a property that it's going to be permanent I think that you'll probably see and a new tiny home on wheels moved in there pretty quick with the new owner need to register it yes okay yeah that would require a new permit yeah the permit would be would expire and the new owner would need to get a permit kid is there maybe if there is I apologize but is could we add something in the ordinance that says that the property owner the permit holder needs to notify some way that because I was thinking about the same thing that you just said David that if their tiny home on wheels tenant decides they want to move to Arizona how would we know that we wouldn't know that until we did our and say this is in year two we would be three years behind knowing that they did that and then what would be the length of not having that housing unit I mean I didn't really want to go down this rabbit hole but you know because I you know you just without having experience with this we don't know what the issues are going to be but I could see that you know then they could just not renew a permit and just get a new tiny home on wheels how would we know that that is different it was looked exactly the same I don't know I think it's I'm relying on you guys to come up with some we don't need to invent the wheel but you will yeah I mean you could I mean you could require that the permit be surrendered upon removal of the property but how would we enforce that how would we know we wouldn't know but I mean I think there are just some things that are going to happen that we'll have to figure out is this move some long wouldn't go ahead I'm sorry no good adding a clause like that you know for a majority of people I assume you know if it was a simple process like an email I am taking this away I just so they could give us a lie I couldn't rely on that process but a certain amount of people would comply agree couldn't hurt to add it Commissioner Lazenby it looked like you might have had a comment there and I well I I think I had a question but they I've just been assuming that the property owner is going to be the owner of the site where the tiny home is the tiny home on wheels and also the owner of the tiny home on wheels but Mr. Carlson did bring up the idea that if if I wanted to build a pad let's say a parking place for a tiny home on wheels then I could rent it out but wouldn't I have to go through the permitting process to get that tiny home on wheels approved correct correct yes okay but and that in that respect you would find out that I had a different but that I had occupied that pad correct correct we would even though I don't own that so we could it could just pick up and go someday right and then we would never know yeah they the guy the owner of the tiny home on wheels right somebody with who is going to rent their pad at a lower cost they could pick up and move to the other you know next door neighbor who's renting their pad for lower and then the permit holder would have an empty pad that he could then rent out to another tiny home on wheel owner or the owner of the single family home could purchase their own tiny home on wheels permit that and rent it out to a tenant who did not own the tiny home on wheels I believe that this is all possible right right yes this is a brave new world yeah I can my concern that would be that every time there's a new tiny home on the permitted site that that new tiny home registers and meets the standards yeah so that would be required that that's in the ordinance that if the tiny home on wheels is conveyed to a new owner the permit expires yeah right yeah and then on this point I guess I'll just mention a couple of ideas that came up at the housing advisory commission that I just recalled they suggested on an annual basis that we could be checking DMV registration records I don't know if we're it's possible for us to do that because they're supposed to be registered with the DMV and then an annual fee it was a suggestion from a housing advisory commission member of payment of an annual fee and so you know if the annual fee is not paid then that's an indication that maybe it's gone or that we need to contact them about paying an annual fee I had thought about that also if I could respond to that really quick and you know even if it was a minimal fee 20 bucks you know something where people just like don't want to they don't like who wants to pay 20 bucks shouldn't they don't have there's really no benefit to someone not like having this permit but not having it there you're right so they have to do the reporting they put in all the money for the infrastructure like there's not a ton of benefit outside of actually having a tiny home there so like I think the reporting itself if it was maybe more often or self-certified of the picture something that just makes people report you know you know 20 bucks you know something like that would effectively do what you're saying however I don't know that I want you know do we want to make people pay extra when we're considering how a single family home or a du is you know people don't pay extra you know to report for anything but again this is a kind of new territory so well yeah I'm wondering if maybe I could try to make a motion okay before commissioner now I did have a few other comments really quickly if that's okay and we can definitely continue this conversation um but it um just to respond to some other things that you had mentioned so the gas generators I 100% agree with this I think that that's a bad I wouldn't be in support of gas generators for daily use of a junior or of an ad or tiny on the wheels excuse me um is there a way to claire would someone like be on board with me to make sure that you know if they're going to use solar it's actually checked at the local level where you do need to provide sun studies to show that your solar is going to work um or what kind of you know what other things can we put in place to make it so that people aren't just sitting there running generators in any zone consistently and like providing housing or a rental to someone that's run on gas you know like if I was renting a place and I had to go get gas for my house every day that wouldn't be an ideal scenario so what kind of safeguards would you know people be happy to put it in there um if through through the chair of me if I could we do have an existing noise ordinance that addresses emergency generators and it provides for um on residential properties the ability to install a permanent a stationary permanent generator to power the home in in a case of an emergency only in only in an emergency situation where there's a power cutoff provided that the generator is is low is property is big enough and the generator is located far enough away from property lines such that the the sound level coming from the generator does not exceed um the county standards for sound levels at the property line and so um but that's that but that's a permanent installation what most people have is when they wheel up and plug in that's what we're talking about right to do the installation of a permanent in place one involves the county inspection and a permanent it's expensive but to get put it at home depot and get a you know get a portable one that you plug in to you know that you can run on gas is what I think Commissioner Gordon speaking to you right and that's an issue that we currently have um county wide anybody can go to home depot and buy a portable generator and you don't that plugs in I mean that um you can plug into and a permit is not required for that and so um for the the ordinance the noise ordinance I'm talking about right it does just address stationary um permanent backup power supply generators you know like your generac or type of generators and we're talking some thousands of dollars to install so that's not what we're trying to address here we're talking about people who would have a solar installation that's not robust enough so that they would most of the time or certainly when the power goes out have their portable generator gasoline generator on all the time yeah and so I guess maybe one way of addressing that would be you know in the ordinance right now the language is that the if if it's a off-grid situation and if there's a solar power system with battery backup that it have the ability to plug into a generator um maybe go further and say that that if in fact the generator is installed it be according to the noise ordinance it be a stationary backup generator that meets all the requirements in the noise ordinance for the location in relation to the property line to mitigate the noise levels well are we going to require batteries to then because in the short term if you have the deep storage batteries which probably costs frankly more than the tiny house but be that as it may those that will come down in price so you have a solar system with backup batteries which takes you for a day or two and then if you want to generate it or have to be permanently grounded is that what you're saying because having backup batteries can make some difference for sure yeah and I think in general where where you're going to really need the backup batteries is where you are off the grid you are beyond PG&E power so it's cheaper to invest in a solar power system with battery backup and bring in the power lines from the nearest end of the line and so in those cases those are going to those by definition are going to be pretty remote properties where you know the use of a generator is probably not not going to be an issue however you know we we still could have the requirement in the ordinance that that any that a backup generator you know not be a portable generator it has to be a stationary installation and it has to meet the requirements of the noise ordinance well I have to say living in the rural area that would be I think commissioner Gordon's on the right path there I would support that simply because the built-in ones with permanent you know the permanent generic types are way quieter than a backup gas one that you just you know run off a couple gals of gas so I would support that do we need to specify that in the in this though yeah wait hold on isn't it understood that they would have to meet that the generator ordinance we could refer to that yeah we could make a reference to that we wouldn't necessarily have to restate it but yeah we can make a reference if we didn't reference it wouldn't they still have to adhere to that section of the law of the code yes yes okay I think for clarity's sake and for the neighbor's sake and for the person walking in the door and about to spend a bunch of money and time letting them full disclosure saying you know you need a solar system that's adequate and if you want to have a generator it off to be installed yes I think that should be clearly stated I'm fine with that I'm also want to move along and there are many things that we could reference that they have to adhere to that are already part of our code and I don't want to go through each and every one of those things so can I try to make a motion now it's going to be a very long multi-part motion my my only last thought that I have is that which I agree with you on the generators if it's already referenced somewhere you know to me either way oh you know but my question is on the multifamily properties so is this specifically excluded for an apartment style development like you couldn't put 10 of these on a on a multi-family zone lots and rent them as apartments can I ask him because I thought of this when you brought this up before if we have a vacant piece of land that's zone multifamily wouldn't we want to build to the highest density possible and a dozen tiny homes would not even come close to reaching that density that's a good question um so technically the general plan and code says that you have to you have to meet the densities in the general plan so you're not tech you know the county shouldn't allow a developer to develop to less than the general plan densities already so if you can't fit all of those tiny homes so say it's for 30 units and you can't fit 30 based on the general plan it's a you know the answer should with lots of caveats you know would be no so it's just how those units are built and the reason that I'm concerned about this is because you know the main purpose of these tiny home on wheels is to really reduce our cost of housing and the biggest thing right now is construction right construction costs are through the roof and this is a is a means to a way to actually build some housing in a cheaper model but you're talking about the stackable like type of module housing that like homeless service center is thinking of building this isn't tiny homes on wheels isn't that right that's a separate you get to the density with tiny home on wheels for any any property that's zoned multifamily so if you can't do it then that's you know then that's fine but say you have a large parcel that's zoned you know rm8 or something you know like where it's not actually a quite a high density it would be possible to fit enough tiny homes to meet that density and and get us some be like a more affordable housing here if I might um thank you good morning everybody it's still morning by two minutes um tiny homes villages was also a concept um that the board wanted us to look at and um because this is so new um and tiny homes villages may um result in increases in density that needed to be analyzed we're just talking about the single units um we spent a little time with just that and then we'll come back and have a look at whether we actually want to be permitting tiny home villages um so there will be an opportunity to kind of consider that um multi unit sort of concept in particular to provide um you know supportive housing for folks or you know that kind of thing um so I wanted to just say that there will be kind of a part two I don't see it come in right away but we we certainly are um aware that there were kind of two phases to this to this project so um if that helps kind of address that situation there there will be a discussion in the future on that thank you thank you um can I also oh go ahead I always ask when that part two is expected or what's the plan we hit we have a lot on on our uh uh plate so um I don't think we're in a big hurry on it because we um have a lot of implementation to do with the uh sustainability update uh we're updating the housing element next year um so we don't have a timeline for that but but please be aware that there was a part two to to this project thank you mr. Carlson I'm thinking limiting them to replacing the otherwise allowed ADU only may address this question um because um you know although I on multifamily zoned parcels I think that requires attached units and so but but at the same time ADUs are also allowed on multifamily zoned parcels so um just just allowing them to function in place of an otherwise allowed ADU I think would preserve the the the tiny home the or would part would I think address I think address this concern I mean it wouldn't preclude otherwise developing a multifamily zoned parcel the way it should be developed at a highest density possible with attached units but at the same time it would also still provide for the potential if it's large enough after you've maxed out the density with attached units to possibly do it a additional ADUs on that property and like and then potentially those ADUs could be tiny homes on wheels so allowing them as just ADUs I I think might address your concern in that regard if you if if that makes sense yeah I understand that I appreciate that so yes because technically if they're allowed as ADUs then they would be allowed on a multifamily property as an ADU yeah and uh so I think that's great I you know my preference would be to allow them anywhere I think that's a great form of housing to reduce our you know housing costs I do 100 understand and agree with Commissioner Rialante's comments about providing you know uh like attack spaces and things like that and I'm sure that there's going to be some I'm hopeful there's some state law that will you know clean that up um but in this for this one in particular you know if we remove the JADU what I didn't hear and just to be clear with Commissioner Dan too that you're not saying only ADU you're saying the single family and the ADU is that correct or are you just saying you just want it to be just ADU uh no no um just my only issue with uh with the JADUs being defined as a tiny home on wheels so yeah single family home at 8 a.m yeah thank you okay that was my last comment um I still have one question I think you answered me earlier so if we're Commissioner Dan's motion is going to include those as single family as primary residents and as ADUs I could have 400 square foot though and build a 1200 square foot ADU on the same parcel right no no you will unless your 1200 square foot ADU was attached to your single family home no no because then that would be larger than as allowed as a JADU you could have a single family home at JADU and a tiny home on wheels that's not what I'm asking no even if she's correct Commissioner Shepherd is correct you could build you could have a tiny home on wheels as the under you could have a tiny home because Mr. Crosley answered this earlier you could have a J a tiny home on wheels as the primary residents yes and and by right you can build a 1200 foot ADU yeah and then when I decide to move to Arizona what happens you've got the 1200 square foot ADU and an empty primary parcel I see this is a problem well we could we could it sounds like you're suggesting that we only have them as ADUs well my question back to David did you not say that all the other jurisdictions with one exception had allowed them only as ADUs yeah that's correct that's what I'm supporting because of these things that we haven't even thought of that are that could easily have yeah I think yeah that's correct and I my sense is I think that's the direction that commission is going is just allowing them as as the as a new construction ADU not as a primary unit so can I ask why staff was suggesting that we allow them as a primary dwelling unit um that that was well based on incomplete information that was the direction that I that we got from the planning commission uh at the study session um however I in in in in that direction there the planning commission did express some uncertainty you know based on lack of information on the property taxes and some other things and so um just for full this you know just kind of just to put it all out there we we propose these three options that you know going from allowing them to function as primary ADU, JADU all the way down to just ADU knowing that the planning commission would would need to discuss it and decide what what they actually wanted to do but it was based on the sort of direction we received from the planning commission at the at the study session. Mr. Carlson do I take your answer to mean that staff does not their recommendation is not weighted one way or the other it was simply ordered based on your perception of the planning commission's conversation am I taking my interpreting your answer correctly staff does not recommend one more over the other simply you ordered them based on previous conversation. Yeah that's correct and um and I think I appreciate that. Yeah I think you might notice that I did in the staff report I did write it up as recommending uh Exhibit C which is the proposed ordinance primary unit JADU ADU but then in my presentation I modified that and said based on what the planning commission decides based on this hearing and this discussion knowing that uh so you're correct yes we're now I'm not waiting it anyway to either of any of them. And you said earlier that all the other major counties and municipalities have gone in the only for ADU's directions with only one exception in a rural mountainous county. That's right. So I guess I had interpreted the recommendation as recommending to us that we do consider these as both an ADU or a primary dwelling. Is there an argument from staff from any staff to recommend that we go in that direction otherwise I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Shepard. No there's there's not those three that that was I guess I probably should have maybe presented those three options in a different way as as three options on the table equally able to be discussed I so to thank you Commissioner Villalante for clarifying that it's it's three options and it was staff's expectation that the planning commission would would choose one of them or a combination of them or something like that. I would echo your comments Commissioner Dan that I I got the impression both from your presentation Mr. Carlson and from even from the staff report that there was significant concerns based on the lack of property tax in the way that I would agree with Commissioner Shepard that I would lean towards only um the ADU if Commissioner Dan's ready to make a motion I think based on our conversation um I see Chair Burton has his hand raised but I yeah I would I I would just echo your comments Commissioner Dan. The response that I have to the original question there is just you know could we add in language that says if this is a single family home it cannot be removed you can't take it somewhere you put it here it stays here and if you want to replace it with a new model cool but you can't just take it away. At that point I don't know why they wouldn't they wouldn't just that's a tiny home to me though yeah I mean that's the reason you bought it if by nature you can't take it away let's what about if we hear commissioners Dan notion we'll at least have a motion to work on all right that sounds good okay um I will move the staff recommendation with the following modifications that the tiny home on wheels can be considered an ADU not the primary dwelling and not a JADU that tiny home on wheels not be allowed to be sited in driveways that tiny home on wheels are only allowed where a single family home is allowed in those own districts that a tiny home on wheels must go through a permit renewal process every three years that in section H2 we remove the word permanent that tiny home on wheels are not allowed to rely on generators within the urban services line and the rural services line and in excuse me and in rural areas tiny home on wheels if they are to rely on solar must have adequate solar access that before this item goes to the board of supervisors that staff look at annual fee options for tiny home on wheels and that staff also look at options into self-certifying for purposes of the permit process and that staff also determine when appropriate for this ordinance to come back to the planning commission after an adequate number of tiny homes on wheels have been permitted so that the commission can review this ordinance and make possible modifications I would second that but I would like to ask commissioner Dan if she would include in the comments on generators that in the rural areas not only does they need to make sure that there is adequate solar access but if a generator is installed it be I guess the term is built in as opposed to portable absolutely yes so with that amendment that slight change I would like to second that motion which is like to say I appreciate commissioner Dan kind of compiling all of our comments and absolutely ideas and I support the motion you've put before I say I think you really aggregated everything that we've discussed here and particular strong motions and thank you can I ask for I think this time or let me ask for a clarification on just one item and just the verbiage with it the solar access it and I was trying to catch all that if allowed to be on solar must have solar access I think is what you stated yes yes I think that was based on mr. Carlson's comments earlier because he said the site plan you do the verify solar access I assume that's where her language came from yeah and that's the language I should have articulated commissioner be allowed to thank you well I could offer a I could offer a friendly amendment that it use that language if you'd like that it say the site plan needs to verify solar access if you'd like I could make that friendly amendment I would accept that I would accept that so it has to provide solar verified solar access and if there is going to be a generator it has to be built in yes okay do you do you mean not necessarily built into the unit but stationary on the ground yes yeah could I ask for another clarification I'm wondering if the commission would add in one more item for me here just you mentioned that we would bring this back here a certain amount of time to review kind of how it's going and to I'm really passionate about making these work in other areas especially single family homes and as you've heard multi-family and I'd like to ask if we can include or could be possible that when it comes back if we can ever review of those things as options again and put a timeline of you know whatever feels comfortable for Miss Hansen a year from now kind of like the idea of a certain number of permits rather than a timeline and the reason for that is that while we're allowing a new type of housing unit there are you know significant utility challenges that are in the other parts of our ordinances and requirements so hooking up to septic or um having a electrical source and water source that we think may temper the rush of tiny homes permits that could have occurred um so I'd rather say after say 25 permits are issued than we could return about so I also think it's and let me know Stephanie if you agree that it would be maybe six months after that 25 so that we have some time to see how things are going yeah that that'd be even better okay so does that would that satisfy what you're looking at Tim I mean because I agree it's it'd be helpful to come back and take a look at this again yeah I appreciate that that would be that would be great so so I'll specify in my motion that we come back um six months after at least 25 tiny home on wheels permits have been issued that's fine with me as a second and could we include that we would look at this as single family homes and multifamily properties at that time I I I don't think that Stephanie indicated that sounds like a lot of staff work and thinking about it I know I wouldn't support that how about look at all aspects of the ordinance and what's functioning what's not functioning sure that's a little more open-ended and doesn't tie us in so there's no reason not to look at all aspects of the ordinance at this point at that point you want to bring that up again we could bring that up again then but we at least have some experience and granting some permits and having some installed so I agree okay um thank you I there's one other item that I'd like to just see if we can get it in or not see what you both think about it um it's really simple but to me it's just like sticking in my head and not allowing mechanical equipment on a roof of one of these units really is like such a limiting factor for not much benefit is what I'm seeing like a roof fan from a bathroom has to have somewhere to go this code specifically says you cannot do that the roof fan has to come out the side and it's just like one of those little nitpicky things but for me as a person that deals with code a lot you know it's and if I'm getting stuck to an objective standard that becomes really challenging so would you would you allow an amendment to eliminate code section f point f3 requirement of not allowing mechanical equipment on the roof well I'd like to ask mr. Carlson what other you said fans what what is the definition of what did you call it mechanical equipment mechanical equipment that's what are we talking about beside fans mr. Carlson what does that term refer to um air conditioners generators fans anything anything mechanical well alternatively if if it's allowed on the roof like allowed on the roof but then you know use the screening element like you mentioned you know which is already standard in every other type of development this is what I would say so let me just say I'm not really in favor of that within the urban and rural services line because we're talking about something that's going to be four feet away from the fence line of your neighbor and so I think that 14 foot height limit must be adhered to I'd be open to it if it were you know in the rural areas on parcel size an acre or larger but not within the urban or rural services line understood thank you for the consideration and that's just because you know for neighborhood compatibility if I have one of these you know right next door to me it should it should follow the 14 foot height limit like everyone else I just hate to just make hasty decisions I mean I live in the rural community I there is an acre you know they're in acres when my when my neighbor turns on their gas generator I hear it loud and clear maybe even more so so I'm a little confused by what we're doing here it should be I agree about all plus screening I have screening for my built-in generator that works quite well so how about a screening requirement at a minimum insulated and screened it can make a big difference I don't know I just leave it as is and you know we could we could make a staff can note to the board that this was something discussed and if the board you know wants to do something different they can do something different at this point I'm not really willing to we're basically saying well go over it again Tim you don't want to see things on the roof no no Tim wants wants mechanical equipment to be allowed on the roof well I don't know if it makes any sense to put a generator on the roof we're not talking about generators talking about a vent for a ceiling fan I mean you go by these you go by tiny I didn't understand I have I know what you mean there are fans that evaporate hot air on roofs of and I expect tiny homes would want one to have a fan on the top to get rid of hot air is that what you mean yeah that's exactly it's that simple and the reality is you go by these things off a shelf right they're not custom built typically to know our specific zone and so that's why there's this challenge presents like limiting factor for an unnecessary reason in my in that case I understand better now and I would agree I wonder if an exemption you know just everything all mechanical equipment except fans wouldn't be allowed in that way you at least get that fan feature because I can kind of imagine that you know a lot of these are going to be somewhat vertical and you'll have a sleeping loft it could get warm up there and as you also mentioned bathroom fan so maybe just a clause in there that it exempts fans out of there would that help well the maker of the motion said at this time she's not open to it and she recommended that a note be made to the board so unless Miss Dan has changed her mind right I think that at this time you should mislead and be raised her hand so I mean Miss Dan unless you I believe I mean I'm ready to move on from this topic I'm happy to hear from Commissioner Lazenby yeah well I I was just going to point out that we have gone well past where we normally have a break and we still have 42 participants online so we need to kind of move this along I think don't we yeah well if you don't have any more comments as Miss Dan has said she's not open to any more amendment so I believe we've probably already did so yeah so thanks so where are we on this last thing can we just add an exemption for fans and call it a it's up to commission just fans but I'm concerned about increasing the height beyond 14 feet so that's that's my and without going into how much does that increase the height blah blah blah I don't want to get into a 15 minute discussion about an exemption for just fans I would I'd rather staff look into this and make a recommendation to the board to this effect since we are not the final decision makers on this so you're saying we are and we're asking David when he takes it to the board to say that we discussed adding an exemption for things like fans we want the board to act on that yes keeping in mind the 14 foot limit inside there but I would agree with Dan on that as well okay I would be in full I think people in tiny home when it gets real hot are going to need a ceiling fan so I would probably agree with that let's the word can we move on to a vote I think so and I and I am trusting that Mr Carlson is and we've all kind of taken our own notes is a little messy are you clear Mr Carlson on what this is entirely you're muted David sorry yes I'm I'm pretty clear I'm clear I'm clear enough for now and to tell you the truth I can always come back and listen to this whole discussion and tighten everything up thank you sir appreciate it okay then great at this point we can close our discussion and move on to a vote Ms Drake can we please have a roll call vote on this item all right Commissioner Villalante yes Commissioner Shepard yes Commissioner Lazenby yes Commissioner Dan yes and Chair Gordon no and I would like to specify that I really appreciate where everyone's coming from I think there's a couple key things that are really important for me in here that I'd really like to clean up a little more although where it's at is is a moving in the right direction and I appreciate that so the motion passes Ms Drake great thank you at this time I reiterate how thankful I am for everyone's time and especially Mr Carlson for hanging on and walking us through that item and again this through it it was you know it's challenging new territory so we appreciate it appreciate the public hanging on we do need to address taking a break and typically we have a lunch at 11 30 especially for CTV staff Ms Drake are we at a point where we should take a 30 minute lunch can you help me clarify that yes okay okay great thank you so much I appreciate it so we will it is what time is it 12 25 or reconvene at 12 55 can we just make it one o'clock yeah I would agree one o'clock it is 35 minutes thank you everyone see you soon thank you Mr Carlson and chair okay great Ms Drake are we all refreshed a little break there you go for the next round yes maybe we should take a roll call really quick to please everybody's here okay thank you uh-huh all right I see Commissioner Villalante and Commissioner Shepard looks like Renee's with us Renee are you with us yes thank you all right and Commissioner Lazenby yes and Chair Gordon yes all right great chair chair I'm sorry I have a question about the last session we had a resolution that we did not sign or approve last session I'm not following I'm sorry okay it was on page it was page seven the resolution from the planning commission with recommending adoption the notice of exemption I believe Commissioner Dan recommended move to recommended action did you not Commissioner Dan which would have included that I believe my language said to move the staff recommendation with the following modifications okay so then you you would be the the one that made the motion okay and I it was Commissioner Shepard that second correct okay I apologize I should have restated that for clarity although that's okay okay so we're clear on that and so coming back to things here just to recap we are now on agenda item number seven which is a study session for the sustainability policy update excuse me item number eight agenda item number eight my notes are not updated and so at this time Miss Drake do we have staff available for a report and you could start it on the study session um yes I Annie I just saw Stephanie raised her hand and I just promoted her so we have as Stephanie Hansen and Annie Murphy in the policy section with us today to present great hello everybody again I'm going to share my screen to get us started are you seeing the presentation yes right okay thank you okay everybody uh Stephanie Hansen assistant director community development and infrastructure department presenting with me today is Annie Murphy senior planner um I haven't looked at the attendee list just now but um we're also scheduled to have two other planners who've worked on the project Daisy Allen and Anais shank to help with questions and answers uh today we're going to focus on the code modernization part of the sustainability update as well as agriculture and resources and um do an overview of the draft environmental impact report uh we'll begin today by discussing uh how the proposed updates uh fit into the framework of sustainability um then we'll go over some key changes in agriculture and the conservation of natural cultural resources um I think we'll have an opportunity for a break at that point if the commission wants it um then we'll get into the details of code modernization highlighting the new permit system and this will be followed by a review of the EIR and the potential significant impacts associated with the project as analyzed in that document we'll conclude with the project schedule and next steps and then take uh comments and questions from the commission and the public um chair can I ask a quick question right here um Stephanie how long is the staff's presentation portion about a half an hour if the commission likes we if we go through the whole presentation then do discussion it might go a little quicker than dividing it up but I'll leave that up to you I'm all for that all right I'm turn it over to Annie is going to talk a little bit about agricultural resources thank you Stephanie and good afternoon commissioners the county's existing general plan local coastal program was adopted in 1994 with a focus on preserving agricultural land natural resources open space and rural character and limiting urban expansion outside of the urban and rural services lines the usl rsl concept remains at the core of the county's development framework and the county's environmental protections remain intact with this project the sustainability update includes a partial update of general plan chapter five the agriculture natural resources and conservation element formally titled conservation and open space this chapter provides a framework for the conservation and management of cultural natural resources including agricultural land timber minerals water biotic resources and open space substantive updates focus on amending policies to support commercial agriculture as well as other updates to ensure consistency with state law in the county code policy language has been streamlined and reorganized for clarity county code chapter 1310 the zoning ordinance includes updated regulations for agricultural zone districts to implement these updated policies and chapter 1650 agricultural land preservation incorporates updates related to public facility uses on ag land as the majority of change is proposed to natural cultural resources are focused on reorganizing and updating general plan policies and reflecting current practices no updates are proposed to other chapters in the county code title 16 environmental and resource protection will begin by reviewing agricultural resources agricultural is essential to our community and contributes significantly to the local economy and rural character commercial agricultural land consists of lands best suited for commercial production of food and livestock and includes agricultural resource soils these lands are zoned commercial agriculture or ca the agriculture or a zone district includes land in rural areas that does not contain agricultural resource soils and support agricultural uses and is also appropriate for low density residential use land within an agricultural preserve is identified by the ag preserve combining district or p combining district and can be zoned either ca dash p or a dash p the county code currently also includes the agricultural preserve or ap zone district however all parcels previously zone ap have been rezoned in prior years to the p combining district therefore as part of this update the ap zone district would be deleted since the general plan was adopted in 1994 the local agricultural economy has evolved in 2014 and 2015 the planning department met with the farming community to better understand how policies and regulations might be updated to support modern farming practices planning staff also met with local winery and brewery owners really drowsy the updated regulations for agricultural land and for wineries and breweries were reviewed in 2015 with the farm bureau the agricultural policy advisory commission and the board of supervisors planning staff also held several community meetings the updated draft regulations for agricultural land and for wineries and breweries was reviewed by apac again in may of this year who recommended approval moving on now to review agricultural support uses to support modern farming practices and address the needs of local farmers the general plan and county cone are being amended to allow new and expanded agricultural support uses on ca and a land these changes will help ensure that commercial agriculture remains viable in the long term the updated code would allow agricultural areas for equipment storage in addition to storage buildings already allowed in the code agricultural service establishments such as farm equipment repair or retail sales of farm equipment currently allowed in the a is a district but now also be allowed in the ca district agricultural research and development facilities would be recognized as a new use that would be allowed in the ca and a districts the updated code expands agritourism to include events such as farm dinners educational activities school field trips and farmstays these uses are especially important to the viability of smaller farms streamline reviews would also be provided for greenhouses changes are also proposed to allow the extension of water or sewer district boundaries to include commercial agricultural parcels were necessary to address public health and environmental issues policies would also allow the placement of water and sewer lines on ag land in the coastal zone to serve farm worker housing and for irrigation this project also expands expands the list of public facility uses allowed on ca to add a general category of essential public facilities these facilities could be considered on ca land where a compelling need exists and where other locations are not available for these essential uses limited subdivisions of ca land would be allowed access to water distribution and wastewater treatment for these uses would also be allowed where no other location is feasible with access to these services and no other options exist for wastewater or water wastewater treatment on the site while allowing new and expanded ag support uses the county code would continue to protect agricultural land for these ag support uses discretionary review will still be required the code requires that these uses be cited off the farmable land where possible to cluster development and to not adversely impact farming in the area these standards would also apply to public public facility uses existing ag buffer set by requirements and limits on residential development are being retained to further protect the viability of ca land new concept of development area would apply which is the total area on a site that is covered by structures or any material that affects the viability of the agricultural soil projects that would result in a total development area on a ca parcel that exceeds 35 000 square feet be required to be redesigned to reduce the total development area below the threshold or consider alternative sites where these options are not feasible the code requires a property owner to place farmable land in a permanent agricultural easement in addition the development area limitations will be extended to also apply to public facilities wineries and breweries are currently allowed in the ca and a zone district as well as the residential agriculture and rural residential zones updated regulations allow for expanded indoor and outdoor tastings and marketing events such as tours the code limits hours for events and tastings the number of guests and amplified music to protect residential neighborhoods from impacts distilleries would also be allowed subject to the same regulations areas used for outdoor events would be required to be buffered from adjacent residential sites and to comply with noise standards development applications would include conditions as needed to further limit impacts on ca sites wineries and breweries would be required to be ancillary to an agricultural use incited to protect ag land and now I will turn back to Stephanie to review natural and cultural resources thanks sanny like many communities in california water in santa cruz county is severely limited the county staff worked with water agencies and groundwater management districts to protect water quality and plan for future water use the 2014 sustainable groundwater management act requires water agencies to prepare 20 year plans to protect and provide sustainable groundwater supplies a new strategy in the general plan supports this effort and brings the general plan into consistency with this act the county also coordinates with water districts and developing urban water management plans these plans require the districts to forecast their existing water use and their future water use and to ensure that they have enough water to provide for future populations and then when a new development is proposed water agencies are required to approve the water service an issue will serve letters if the proposed development is in accordance with forecasts provided in these plans uh existing requirements in the county code and the county um design criteria provide for development standards that protect water quality habitats control pollutants and support groundwater recharge policies and regulations also require water conservation primary change in the general plan is to update policies to be consistent with low impact design strategies that are already required in the county design criteria these strategies require new developments to maintain the capacity of the site to retain storm water and recharge groundwater low impact design strategies also include things like bioswales um that utilize landscaping to filter water and screen pollutants um the sustainability's update uh sustainability updates focus on infill development will also help with more efficient water use existing policies and regulations protect biotic timber mineral resources and these will remain in place with this update the sustainability update also introduce introduces a new open space plan which is required by state law and includes an inventory that identifies the categories of land um with open space values policies and regulations that protect open space um will remain in um in effect in the visual resources section uh the policy protecting scenic assets such as ocean views and ridge tops that have not yet been mapped has been added to strengthen the design review for development on sites that have these resources the visual resource policies in the general plan also protect scenic corridors and roads um there's a long list of scenic roads that are in the existing and the proposed general plan um and these include the entirety of highway one within the county um since it was originally adopted in 1994 much of the tree cover in the urban area um has been lost analysis by planning staff determined that the urban corridor of highway one between western drive and sienna cruise to the west and bay avenue in capitola to the east no longer meet the general plan criteria for designation as a scenic corridor so this portion the urbanized portion only would no longer be considered locally scenic uh photo on the bottom of this screen shows um highway one along mission street which is in the portion that would be removed in the photo on the right shows highway one near real demar which is more forested would be uh retain its local scenic designation the updated general plan includes new policies that um recognize tribal cultural resources um policies are added requiring the county to work with affected tribes and identify and protect their resources policies has have also been updated to implement best practices for archaeological sites and for historic resources new policy encourages the maintenance and upkeep of historic resources to reduce the risk of demolition through neglect fire or natural disaster a new strategy also clarifies that a historic evaluation is required prior to demolition of any structure over 50 years old um that may qualify it as a historic resource um i think this was where we had a moment in the presentation to offer a break but i think we'll just continue going so um i will turn it back over to any to do an overview of the code mod changes thank you Stephanie the Santa Cruz county code was first adopted in the 1950s and has been amended in a piecemeal fashion in the decade since as a result land use regulations have become increasingly complex and challenging to navigate recognizing the need to make county code regulations more user friendly county staff begin engaging with the community in 2013 and after meeting with the board of supervisors in 2015 to review code drafts included the code mod in the sustainability update project for today's meeting we are focusing on the new permit framework new regulations for weddings and community events other amendments to moderate modernize and reorganize the code key goals for the code modernization include creating an efficient permit review process clarifying and updating regulations while continuing to protect the neighborhood and environmental quality the most significant change to modernize the code is the introduction of the new permit framework currently planning permits or approvals are categorized by processing levels for minor development and use changes that only require administrative approvals processed at levels one through four two more substantial projects that require a public hearing processed at levels five through seven the new permit framework replaces the process levels with more descriptive terms that are commonly used in other communities a crosswalk of bold to new permit types types is provided in chapter 1810 of the county code and is also summarized on this slide first the new permit framework introduces two types of planning permits use permits for projects related to land use such as the establishment of a new restaurant and site development permits for projects that propose physical development of a site such as the construction of a new building secondly the framework now includes descriptive terms for permit and processes based on the intensity of the proposed project zoning and environmental clearances provide a new ministerial over the canon review to identify relevant standards and verify that no additional review is required before the applicant can apply for a building permit these clearances are generally equivalent to level one and two approvals currently in place minor use and site development permits are discretionary permits approved administratively without a public hearing or public notice similar to level three projects in the current system administrative use and site development permits are discretionary permits for projects that may impact neighborhoods and so would require public notice but are still approved administratively by staff without a public hearing like a level four permit additional use and site development permits are required for projects that propose more substantial change to the existing land use and require public notice and a public hearing additional use permits and conditional site development permits are equivalent to existing levels five through seven updates to the new permit system also includes streamlining reviews where appropriate and allowing some uses to be approved administratively where a public hearing was previously required more uses that are compatible with the zone district are now permitted by right to provide a more efficient permit process a site development permit may still be required for uses that are permitted by right where physical development is proposed additional use and site development permits generally would be reviewed by the zoning administrator while many projects previously approved by the board of supervisors would now be brought to the planning commission as a key decision maker such as large mixed use projects requirements for commercial weddings and community events on private residential and rural properties have been clarified with this update a new code section regulates commercial weddings and similar events on rural and agricultural properties located outside of the urban and rural service lines these regulations would not apply to private family events or other non-commercial celebrations the primary goal of these new regulations is to accommodate these types of events eliminating impacts to the surrounding neighborhood as well as to preserve the primary use of these rural parcels the code allows commercial weddings is a secondary use on properties where the primary use is either residential or a winery or brewery or vineyard with approval of a c up new approval procedures and standards require permit conditions appropriate for the neighborhood context specifying the maximum number of guests allowed the number of events per year limits on amplified music and parking requirements new regulations for community events and fundraisers establish similar requirements for events on private residential or agricultural property new regulations would allow one event per year without amplified music and up to two events per year that can include amplified music with approval of a minor use permit community event organizers would also be required to notify owners and occupants within 500 feet of the event 10 days prior to the event responding to comments from your commission staff is proposing to extend the noticing requirements for community events and fundraisers in increments of 50 feet were needed until owners of at least 10 properties have been notified by mail this update would be consistent with existing noticing requirements for discretionary projects other changes are proposed to the county code to update regulations and make the code easier to navigate the code has been reorganized in and consolidated where appropriate including moving procedural requirements such as general plan and county code amendment requirements to title 18 which is procedures the list of uses allowed in the zone districts have also been updated obsolete standards such as local solar access and gas station requirements have been removed to ensure consistency with state law use charts are also updated to include modern uses such as new research and development uses in urban industrial and commercial districts or a variety of uses including residential care facilities visit accommodations and animal keeping amendments update terms clarify standards and consolidate regulations outdoor storage regulations include new requirements for the location and amount of firewood storage and prohibit commercial firewood operations on residential sites definitions in county code section 13 10 700 were also updated to be consistent with new regulations state law and the general plan today's presentation highlights the most significant code modernization drafts of all county code sections we reviewed today are available on the sustainability update project website are also linked as exhibit e in your staff report now I will turn the presentation back to Stephanie to review the eir thank sanny sequa requires local governments to local governments to analyze proposed projects to determine any environmental impacts and how to reduce them the county determined that an eir was the appropriate level of analysis for this project and the eir for this project is a program eir which means it's relatively high level countywide analysis of environmental impacts and it does not analyze specific project impacts which makes sense because no specific development projects are proposed for this project all non-exempt future developments that occur would still need to analyze their impacts under sequa and some projects will benefit from tearing off of this eir but still may need supplemental analysis to fully understand any impacts because the general plan is a 20-year plan the eir does analyze the indirect impacts associated with growth in that timeline for the purpose of the eir it's assumed that approximately 4,500 dwelling units would be developed and about 6 million square feet of commercial building square footage over the 20 year would be developed over the 20-year planning horizon the draft eir was released on April 14th and had a 45-day comment period as required by law a community meeting was held on the eir on May 9th and 14 timely comments were received from the public and agencies and those are included in the staff report starting on page 55 responses to the comments are being prepared and will be addressed in the final eir which is scheduled for release on august 12th and staff will report on the final eir including the responses to comments at the public hearing on august 24th as part of the project adoption process the planning commission will be requested to recommend certification of the eir as a part of this project so the eir analyzed all environmental resources as required by sequa basically comparing what the impacts of the new policies and future growth would be when you compared them to baseline situation baseline is basically our current situation with the current general plan and current regulatory codes that are in effect now while the eir found that there would be less and significant impacts to most resources in the county a conservative analysis of potential future growth could have some significant and unavoidable impacts as explained in the eir eir identifies these impacts along with proposed mitigation just talk a little bit about the impacts first and then we'll talk about the mitigation the first resource area would be in agricultural resources the new policies that allowed ancillary uses support uses and utilities and essential public facilities could result in the conversion of prime unique or farmland of statewide importance and conversion of agricultural uses in the area of biological resources the the project includes the redesignation and rezoning of 23 parcels and one of these parcels is the six acre site at thurber lane and soquel avenue and that would change from commercial zoning to a mix of residential flex and c2 commercial zoning this site is a key opportunity site but also has a stream that bisects the property from north to south and future development could impact the stream especially if it's piped or moved to the prop to the perimeter of the site which would be a permanent impact to riparian habitat and cultural resources although it's unknown at this time it's possible that future development could affect undocumented historical built resources particularly if preservation or avoidance of the resource is not feasible and again this is a very conservative approach there are some codes in place that would protect these resources but mitigation is offered to further strengthen those codes in transportation sequo requires that we analyze transportation impacts in terms of vehicle miles traveled or vmt vmt is the number of miles generated by vehicles so in other words one mile traveled by one vehicle is one vmt in this way transportation impacts are more closely tied to the statewide goals of reducing greenhouse gases and the county has adopted as required by law has adopted at vmt thresholds for new development although the urbanized development pattern policies and programs in the sustainability update will reduce vmt when compared to current conditions the eir found that it would not be reduced enough in order to meet our threshold of 15 reduction especially in the areas of residential and non-retail in addition when these projects are considered along with cumulative projects which are projects that are in the permitting pipeline or projects that are in neighboring jurisdictions there would also be a cumulative impact the last area was in the was the effect on water resources the draft eir analyzed future potential development and found that the potential development and growth appears to be within the growth projections developed by each of the six major water districts serving the unincorporated urban areas however depending on the timing of development there are two districts where there could be not enough water compared to their forecast and it also has to do with the fact that some of that growth is in city of santa cruz and some is in the city of capitol us it's a little hard to tell the timing of it the eir found that the project and our forecasted growth may result in an exceedance or approach the limit of the city of santa cruz's forecasted growth and the soquel creek water districts forecasted growth for the communities that it serves these impacts are considered again conservative but it's important to acknowledge the the issues with water supplies and again like transportation the project could contribute to a cumulative water supply problem when or impacts when compared or when considered with development in other communities so the eir has several mitigation measures that it offers in agriculture we would amend the code to add public and quasi public facilities to the types of projects that require special findings in order to address the conversion of ag land in biological resources mitigation measure would require a preparation of a mitigation plan that details the replacement of habitat areas on that parcel at thurburn soquel it would also require maintenance and monitoring for the establishment of the mitigation in cultural resources there are two mitigation measures one is a preparation of a historical resources evaluation to avoid impacts for any properties that may be over 50 years old and of historic value and the second mitigation measure would require that historic that a historic building proposed for major alteration or demolition be thoroughly documented with with video pictures recordings etc according to industry standards and transportation there are also two mitigation measures mitigation measure tera dash one would develop a regional mitigation banking program to start to create a mechanism for funding transit active transportation and multimodal transportation improvements private development would offset their vmt impacts by contributing to the mitigation program a second mitigation measure would add additional implementation strategy in the general plan to start to evaluate additional parking related measures such as paid parking and the use of parking fees to fund transit and finally in water while the policies in the general plan and other documents encourage conservation and water demand has been flat and decreasing within several of the districts and there are policies that require that development only be allowed where adequate water supplies are available and all water purveyors have to approve new connections with those things in place the eir doesn't didn't find any other mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset water impacts i just wanted to spend a little time talking about level of service because i know that this continues to be an important issue that the community expects in the cqa document and although level of service is no longer an impact under cqa the draft vir does include an analysis um level of service analysis measures the amount of traffic congestion at intersections and along roadway segments um level of service is measured on a scale from a to f with a being free flowing traffic and f representing congested conditions where traffic can be described as stop and go and vehicles have to wait more than one traffic cycle to get through an intersection the sustainability update does include a list of future transportation projects that can be considered in the future and would be candidates to be included on our capital improvement program when funding is available on this is appendix j of the general plan so in the analysis that's contained in the eir eight intersections were found not to meet the county's level of service standard of d under future conditions um these include um about five intersections along sokel drive and a couple of other intersections um at seventh and eaten and capitol road and 17th and portola drive and 41st um and so additional improvements would be needed in those um at those intersections to improve conditions and and meet the county's level of service standards um as required by the board of supervisors operations along portola drive were also analyzed if the portola drive streetscape concepts were implemented the concepts and vision a transition between 26th and 41st avenues from four lanes to three lanes uh three lanes being two lanes plus a center lane in order to accommodate a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly streetscape in that area the level of service analysis revealed a decline in the operations of major intersections at 30th and 38th and 41st um and actually at 41st that intersection would operate at a level of service f whether the sustainable um excuse me whether the portola drive streetscape concepts were in place or not so signalization improvements are therefore recommended at these intersections which would improve operations back up to a level of service a um in addition if a roundabout were to be considered at 41st um avenue the peak uh level of service would actually be a little lower at level of service speed for these improvements additional analysis engineering programming funding sources would have to be um secured before they could go into effect and I think there would be other opportunities for further input for instance when you know such a project were to be incorporated into the capital uh improvement program which happens once a year um also as required by law the EIR analyzes several alternatives for the project the first one is the no project alternative um that's where none of the new documents would be adopted and and uh future growth would occur as it would occur under the current general plan alternative to had reduced growth um so we didn't grow as many um get as many housing units and as much commercial development um instead we met ambags um current adopted regional housing and employee employment growth projections so a little bit lower um and then the third alternative was a reduced project this would mean that uh some components of the sustainability update didn't go into effect and we would eliminate the zoning map changes on the 10 parcels to residential flex um and um the existing zoning designations on these parcels would be retained the second component would be to eliminate the um regulations that allow public and quasi-public um uses on ag lands as required under CEQA um we had to identify an environmentally superior alternative and that was alternative two with the reduced growth um that comes closest to meeting the goals of the project while reducing the most uh environmental impacts um and lastly the AIR also studies the significant irreversible impacts of growth and found that no irreversible impacts were identified that could be not that couldn't be mitigated and the project would not directly or indirectly result in unplanned growth or projects that would remove obstacles to growth so we wanted to just take a moment to review the timeline for this project as you know the draft amendments have been out since February and the draft documents are still available for public comment there's a series of community meetings this spring and we also met with several of the commissions including your commission the agricultural policy advisory commission the latino affairs commission and the historic resource commission um just recently on july 29th um staff is analyzing comments from previous planning commission meetings at this time and also comments from agencies that have been collected either as part of comments in the project or part of comments on the EIR including comments from the coastal commission and these questions and comments from these study sessions and the public comments will be reviewed for you again on august 24th and we'll also talk about the final EIR um at that meeting we'll return to the planning commission for a second public hearing on september 14th um and then we'll be asking at that at that meeting for recommendation to the board of supervisors board of supervisors with an intern had public meetings hearings from october through december after the board adopts amendments they would need to go to the coastal commission for certification and with that we'll end today's um presentation with our recommended action which is to hold a study session on the sustainability update focused on agricultural natural resources um code modernization and the EIR and that includes our presentation all of our this is a group effort uh this project so uh there's four of staff available to help answer any questions that the commission may have thank you very much great thank you so much miss hanson and um for everyone who helped and looking forward to digging in and i appreciate the presentation um we can go one or two ways i'd like to hear the commission other commissioners ideas here but um i would suggest that maybe we let the public have their time to comment before we dig in too much um yeah miss sure gordon i agree with that can i just ask how many members of the public are here to to address the commission on this matter um i'm not seeing a long list to be honest to maybe a handful small handful okay great i i would agree that we should um hear from the public first uh before commission comments okay thank you let's go ahead and do that we can open the public comment for this at this time all right so this is the time to remotely raise your hand if you're calling in by pressing star nine or raising the hand icon on the team or the zoom app and i will call on folks you'll have three minutes to speak um let's see if we have any i'm seeing a hand raised by patricia brady good afternoon patricia will you please restate your name for the record patty brady i'd like to just um reemphasize the um residents concern about the uh residential flex increases on portola and encourage the planning commissioners to really recognize the beach area differentials from other parts of the county from the standpoint of both our weekend and daily um visitors residences etc the um changes in upgrading or changing zoning to up to 45 units plus density bonuses if they are allowed would really create major impacts on both portola and within you know the pleasure point community so we've already had discussions on this since you we've sent an opinion paper there have been two articles in the newspaper about neighborhood concerns and we very much appreciate your attention to the residents knowledge of our neighborhood and the issues that um this impact this increase would um how it would impact the neighborhood and just the commercial area we totally support a downgrade of the 30 units we're not against growth but we are against an overage of density so thank you very much for your time your efforts and certainly the hours you put in on this it's very much appreciated thanks patty all right um are there any additional members of the public who wish to comment on this item the sustainability update i'm not seeing any chair um if i see a hand pop up i'll let you know great thank you so much i appreciate that um so then for now we can go ahead and close the public comment and bring it back to us through the commission for discussion anybody want to start with any questions or comments i'll just say i have uh quite a large number of comments and questions so i'm happy to go first or last whichever um whatever the commissioner commission um would prefer i think it'd be great if you went first perhaps i would save some of the duplication actually okay i'll do that um so i'm going to start with the general plan and then hit the zoning code second and you know because i'm toggling back and forth um online um i just be patient with me um so starting with the general plan and i'll just start by saying um you know goes without saying that um i appreciate the enormous amount of work that staff has put into this um this is also from my perspective one of the most important parts of of this project and i really appreciate staff moving this uh study session at a time when i could be here and i know that that wasn't easy and so i just want to acknowledge that and thank you for that um and i think you'll see um when i dig into this why it's so important um i don't also just say that um a lot of reading is a lot of the changes and what's been put in here was like a a blast from the past because so many of these issues are in here because they originally came up um as you know areas of conflict that the supervisors offices had to deal with and i see commissioner vialanti nodding her head because i believe that she's um had to deal with a lot of the same stuff and uh so um well most of my questions are asking you know because there's quite a few changes that are being proposed in the ag section and a lot of them i'm just kind of like what's the reasoning behind this and so most of the questions are going to be asking for your thought process and what specific situations where you are you thinking about you're trying to address with this change in the language because some of the changes are quite significant in my view um so starting with the um the types of the definitions of the types of ag land um type 2d um is proposed to be uh eliminated and this is land suitable for commercial ag use but with limiting factors including pressure from residential use um just so why is this why is this being proposed to be eliminated um let's see um i am looking at policy arc 1.1.2 is that where you're looking types of yeah land right um okay um yeah so why i so in the draft that i'm looking at i wonder if there's a mix up in the draft but in the draft i'm looking at type 2b is not eliminated um i'm sorry yeah i i didn't mean to say that um so but it's being added oh right it's underlined in mine um so so the intent mainly of of these um this update to this policy is just to clarify what and add more detailed descriptions about these um types based on language and the glossary so so type 2d is an existing um ag land resource type and it the land added language is just intended to clarify based on the glossary definitions a little give a little more information about these land use types in the policy okay um okay so um the next one i have is um 1.1.9 let me get down to that one myself um and that is about coastal access through ag land yes um oh i'm sorry did you have a further question or i do i'm just i'm just scrolling down to it myself okay so i believe this is so what is added is um protect coastal access and agricultural land use is in the coastal zone by minimizing coastal access ways through an adjacent agricultural land and then follow well um so i well let me just ask what was the thinking of adding this specificity in here um so this policy was so part of what we did was like reorganize and try and put policies where they made the most sense so this policy was actually it's not it it summarizes a policy that was actually in chapter seven of the jano farm previously so we thought it made more sense to put it in with the section of the code for um agricultural land so it doesn't really change and then there are implements patient strategies in the section that also implement the policy but it doesn't really change the language it's just sort of consolidating and putting it where it seems easier more logical to find it okay thank you that clarifies that um the reason why it flagged for me is that um there are situations where um coastal access is necessary like on an existing road or a trail through ag land to access another uh like a state park or another public some other public land that is used by the public um so i just want to make sure that this policy wouldn't prohibit um wouldn't prohibit that it would not yes it's it's read as minimizing but i think that the intention is that if you know you minimize it but if you need to have access there to provide access to you know a park or other land that it would be allowed okay great jules you go on could you say what page you're on um yes i so when i started my notes i didn't put the page number but um as i move on i i did um right now i'm going to be on page 33 this is the online version 33 of 146 and so the next one i'm looking at is a is a is a significant one and that's the utility district expansion and that's policy 1.1.13 on page 33 um so this is quite it's from my perspective this is um a substantial and significant change and um the i had some concerns about it reading it and then i read the letter from the coastal commission and they um have similar concerns so i just would like to know from staff's perspective what the thought process was in modifying this section um yes so um so one thing i want to clarify that the intention is to serve um existing development where um there may be a failing um septic system or um a well water where it's not meeting minimum state health standards for drinking water so so the intention is really to address these sort of limited safety concerns on existing development um we did um discuss this with um environment of health with john ricker as well and he kind of brought up these concerns um there are a couple of sites um and of course there's it would also need to be consistent with the um the w combining district the utility combining district in san andreas area that prohibits extensions of um water and sewer lines from the city of watsonville to cross that to to the south to serve the san andreas planning area so they have to be consistent with that but its intention is really just to be able to identify sites where there are filling systems where there isn't really another option to allow water and sewer lines in those cases and then there would be um it would be required to be located below the tillable soil depths to protect the farmland um and then further on a policy also um requires that um service fees only be um charged to the policy to the property that's receiving the service to minimize um you know additional fees for ag land so i i see that um i think that though there could be some additional language to more specifically identify the specific circumstances that you're identifying here and but i'm not sure that expanding an entire district is the right way to go about it and i have some ideas about some language that might um satisfy my concerns instead of the coastal commission that i i can offer um on the 24th or the september 14th whenever the data's were making recommendations but um this is a significant one for me and um and i as i've seen for the coastal commission as well but thank you for that um okay so the next couple i had were related to to the water and sewer lines um okay the next one oh gosh okay um was on page 39 i don't say so page 39 when you say the online version yeah the online version um 1.1.3d okay that won't work if we're not looking at it online so maybe you could just say what it's about it's the only version i have i wish i understand but maybe you just tell us what yeah i will read it so um this is um proposed policy 1.3.1d small letter d and it's regarding the conversion of commercial agriculture lands which as you commissioner shepherd know we have really really tight policies about the conversion of commercial ag lands and so um this is speaking to that issue and d from what looks like to me is a new proposed policy which is talking about an exception to the findings of a and b um applies to the conversion of agricultural land to accommodate so this is speaking to the public quasi public use where necessary to address the compelling public health and safety or environmental concern subject to the findings of bubble box so this is one that i i'd like some explanation why this is being added um i'd like to hear some suggestions of what you would consider something with overwhelming need too yeah thank you yeah so i think the intention here is to be able to provide um a public facility use in an area where it's needed um the social dresses concerns with the board supervisors that public facility uses be able to be provided where needed um and like what kind of public facility we're talking about a park we're talking about a wastewater treatment i mean that public facilities can be anything a county building i mean i think that a prison a prison if we're talking about converting ag land um i think we need to be really specific yeah i mean it must if you saw the need to do this there must have been something that raised well we really need to have an axe but this is wide open do you want to add to that Stephanie yeah like maybe i can help um i any can confirm but i believe this in part came up from the um necessary changes at the Buena Vista landfill that facility is coming to a close um and they're going to need to build a transfer station they're doing some other work um and having no no policy that allowed um our ability to locate a facility in a place that really you know needed facility in a place that made sense like makes makes much more sense to build a transfer station at this site than to find another site in the county to build a transfer station because you already have similar facilities there the landfill will then be transferred to another facility landfill contents would be transferred to another facility in Monterey county um and so there are times when you have a facility and there really isn't another place where you can locate it and i think it was the concept that we provide some very limited circumstances where if you have to have a public facility and there's nowhere else you can locate it um that there be provision for that okay that makes sense i understand now why this was put in here um if it's for the Buena Vista facility though i don't think that um if it's just specifically for that facility i don't even think it's worth it because um i doubt so first of all i don't think that it um it squares with the coastal act um and i i mean i don't think that the coastal commission would agree to converting ag land for that purpose um so anyway i'll just say this this um addition um is makes me very uncomfortable and i'm not sure i i support it and then i actually don't know that it will um it will actually meet the goal that it's intended to meet if it's for the uh transfer station um so the next one i have i believe is let's see okay okay it's uh it's skipping quite ahead to uh 3.1.14 which i'll give you the page number in just a second if somebody can has a good for me feel free to yell it out 3.1.14 it's about harkin slew road i'm looking at a different version than you have i'm looking at the um the i have the same document she has it's page 64 3.4 you said 3.1.14 right it's the online version for me it's like the if you go to the sustainability update website i mean i i'm using the same version she is i would just if richa could just say what it's about i don't want to go i only have one screen i can't look at another screen and look at you guys so totally agree i am i'm getting there it's the okay here we go 3.1.14 can i just give a little background of this before you dive in okay i have background but go for it yeah well so so the coastal commission what are their comments was there they're adamantly opposed to changing this so i could just tell you that what we're proposing for the when we come back with the final draft is basically to keep the policies as they are now consolidate them in another section and just not mess with it so that's the that's right thank you any if it in the vibe yeah we saved a whole bunch of time right yeah like 20 your history with that yeah all right okay that was the great compromise okay um the next one is on page 91 this is where i started getting smart and putting in my own page numbers and it has to do with septic issues and which policy is this i forgot to write down the policy okay some reason i'm looking at the online version but i'd have it different page numbers i'm not sure why so okay um so annie it's not the page number at the bottom it's like the page number of the pdf so it's 91 of 146 versus the bottom it's page 85 you're saying oh gotcha okay thank you i took me a minute to realize that clarifies okay like wait why am i not seeing the same pages yeah no it's page 91 uh for it 146 that's really quick just to be really clear because we have a you know a handout that probably people in the public are following and that's what i'm following and i'm not seeing exactly where you guys are at either so that's because i'm on the website are you i can't see either so she's in the general plan itself so it's it's it's not part of the staff document it's it's thank you then you then you gotta tell us what you're talking about i am going to i'm so sorry but so i actually i'm reading the entire general plan on this section because that's where the the money is the meat is um so right now um i am referring to page 91 of the online version of the the ag portion of the general plan um and there's a whole bunch of and for now you might be very interested in this because there is a whole bunch of septic requirements that are being proposed to be deleted um and so i wanted to understand what the thinking was behind that um yes so are you saying that we didn't have this i i am a little confused as to i thought i read the big documents i got the call and the staff report is this something else yes they did not provide us the entire general plan in our staff report well of course they just provided a summary which didn't go over you know of course it didn't go over all the changes so to really see every single change in addition that's being proposed you have to go on to the sustainability website and and click on the actual chapters of the general plan well i have to say as a district that you know being the district has all septic tanks i really need to look at this and i i have not but we got another crack at it later this month so can i uh stephanie could you help me find that section i don't want to have to read wasn't planning to read the entire general plan if you can help me out by saying just sending any email and maybe anybody else who wants it too with some direction and how to find that certainly we can provide the direction um these all of these documents are on the project website and you know the general plan is quite large and when you um taken in all of the underlying strike-through changes it gets even larger um so i i'm very happy to point out the policies that commissioner dan is um is picking up on and i can i can help you you find them well thank you i would appreciate just some guidance on anything that particularly applies to fifth district which is all septic tanks for example that would be anything that you know from new york's sense of knowledge is particularly pertinent to this district which has different constraints and different realities than the rest of the more urbanized districts i would appreciate that help i i think when we have a chance to hear the comment and respond i think that might help with the concerns so go ahead commissioner yeah i'll just say before you tell me your thinking behind this that i actually would encourage all of us even though it is extensive but we all have to read the general plan i mean that's the only way we're going to know what's happening here is if we go into it and read those strikeouts and additions otherwise um you know staff's well attention staff report is not going to give you what you need to know to make a thoughtful recommendation to the board um so anyway um so yeah could you explain what's going on here um right so we worked with john ricker on this section um and so many of these deletions he um just felt that it was more detail one of the goals of you know the updated general plans to try and streamline policies and sort of keep them at a higher policy level so so these aren't um these most of these aren't really substantive changes in terms of the county's process and requirements but a lot of these um are are referencing the uh septic disposal ordinance entitled seven of the county code um so um so yeah for the most part we're not really changing our um existing um sewage disposal requirements that um john ricker will be bringing ordinance to um you may have already come to the planning commission for for septic so um this will also be brought in line with with that um amendments so there may be additional policies will be added to that um as part of his update to the sustainability update but generally it's not changing existing practice it's just trying to consolidate and reference the code okay okay that makes sense i figured it had to be something like that yeah maybe at our next hearing we could ask him to attend and give explain it why he made those changes he's usually very succinct and to the point or i can also if he's not available i can also see if i can give you a little more detail about each policy if that'll be helpful yeah okay um so the next section is on visual resources um and it's five point five point one point one and now i'm lost on the online version i have to say okay so i'm just gonna go by my notes because somehow i i'm not going in order here so this is a designation of visual resources um yeah and i can um if people are looking at the online version this is page 104 of the pdf thank you i'm definitely gonna be writing down online page numbers in my next go of things so i apologize for being so confusing okay you said one of okay there it is yes thank you okay so actually the one i'm more concerned about is five point one point five preserving ag vistas so i think it actually five point one point one i have some language some real kind of um easy language that i can um suggest when the time is appropriate but the one i'm more concerned about is five point one point five which changes some language from yes it takes out shall be and ads are considered which to me seems to weaken this policy what's the what was why why was that modified in that way um to be the the previous planning director felt that general plan policy should not use the word shall for the most part i don't necessarily agree with that personally to be honest but that that's the reasoning for it i think she thought it was more appropriate to okay not use that type of words in a kind of policy so okay why not the other thing to add to that stephanie i don't oh you're muted all right um just that this is a policy document not a code and a lot of the language cleanup tries to keep the policies consolidate them keep them at a higher level policy so that when like the septic ones we were just talking about so that when you go to the code you have the actual requirements in in the code and so that's part of what's happening here not to remove um any regulatory power at at at all um but just to distinguish between a policy document versus a you know a code of regulations that actually that actually helps a lot to understand a lot of the language changes actually so um i appreciate that and um so this that may actually be the explanation for the next one which is open beaches and bluff tops which is 5.1.7 page 106 and the issue i have here is the sentence that says um do not permit the placement of new permanent structures to be developed in a manner that would be adversely visible from a public beach so the word that sticks out for me is adversely because there's a lot of subjectivity to that um so i'm just i guess i'm wondering what staff thinks about that i think part of it is clarified somewhat in the next um underlined sentence that some development may be permissible but should be appropriately designed to to minimize visual impacts and versus used again but honestly i don't i don't think it's possible like just thinking about you know development you know along the coast of bluff on the beach like i think it's impossible to if they're if they're replacing a house with a new house i think it would be impossible but not to be visible so i think maybe part of it's just acknowledging what's what's possible you know on certain sites but i mean it stuck out to me because you guys know we have bad issues that's come up um so the next one is ridge tops okay and the similar issue here um different adjective so that is 5.1.8 let's see protect ridge tops where am i here this is hard i have to say having to do it this way okay i'm actually page 106 right at the bottom protect ridge tops and prominent natural land farms such as cliffs left students rocks blah blah blah from inappropriate development and impacts on visual resources public vista scenic assets so i like the second underlined section inappropriate development why not just say development that has impacts um if it's interfering with a public vista wouldn't that by definition mean it's inappropriate um yeah i think the original language read protect ridge tops and prominent natural land forms such as cliffs plus etc from development so i think that language in itself probably is doesn't quite work but i think you know if you if you wanted to reword it um i think what you're saying is other significant features from development that impacts visual resources right is that kind of what you're thinking pretty much yeah that that could work and it speaks to um sea of that section which i actually have all of these feel like is the one that is weakens the policy the most as modified i i like the language that was crossed out which just says prohibit the creation of new parcels which would require structures to project above the ridge line tree line or along the edge of prominent natural land forms and that was replaced with restrict the height and placement of buildings instructors to prevent their projection above the ridge line restrict structures and structural projections adjacent to prominent natural land forms to me prohibit is better than restrict though i mean i guess we're parsing language here though it seems like a weakening to me unless i'm missing something i just want to say that i think commissioner dance making good points because these things she's bringing out are the ones we spend hours on and planning commissions with people who want to do just that so it is worth picking picking nits on language and i would support what she said so far it just brings back endless conversation from people who want to do whatever they want to do on the bluffs yeah thank you um a lot of this is from uh many years of uh dealing with stuff here um so yeah i'll just put that that was just you know food for thought first step when this comes back um the next one is about timber um so this is page moving on to 117 and there's some significant proposed changes about how we deal with timber harvest plans so let me get to the item so i can remember what i was thinking okay so so this is speaking to when a timber management plan should be required and when a timber harvest plan is required i guess i just wanted to know where this was did this come from discussions with um foresters or farm bureau or big creek um what it's actually doing is is making sure there are some inconsistencies between the general plan and between the county code so it's actually the code is what we've been following so it's actually bringing the general plan policies into alignment with the code aha okay yeah in terms of when we're required a timber management plan great okay well that um that satisfies that um then let's see i think that might be it for my questions on the general plan and then so i have a couple on the zoning code um um so i'm going to start with community events let me see if i can find that section here oh yeah here we go um so this is the zoning code now so we're in a different online document and from my online um version of the chapter 1310 it's page 10 community events and fundraisers on private residential or agricultural property yeah this code is um the section of the code is 1310 six many events six 14 six 14 yeah six 14 yes yeah i know it's two um so this one um i just so my understanding for this one is that uh as you said in your uh introduction to what this is proposing is to allow up to two events per year with no noticing and uh no public hearing which is a it's a quite a big change so i just want to make sure i'm understanding that correctly if that's what's being proposed with it so it's being proposed with a minor use permit which would be no noticing no public hearing um that's correct these do require a a mailed notice prior to the event but there is not um there's not so i guess that's similar but there's not notice of that like the permit approval but there is notice required to be sent out um if you look at um e e1a on the top of page um page 11 um neighborhood notice for each event a notice is required to be mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property at least 10 days in advance of the event right okay yeah um okay so i'm this this one i um can be thinking about quite a bit i mean this i think this one and then the next item i'm gonna move on to which is commercial weddings on private property is probably one of the most contentious um issues that have come up in my time here um and so i think it's it's worth um worth really thinking about and in general i guess i'll just ask a general comment in general it seems that um the the great the the need for public hearings is being reduced and so i guess i wanted to know given how contentious these these have been um with neighbors and how many times are usually appealed um what was the thinking behind reducing the amount of um um public hearing requirements are you speaking generally yeah just generally i mean i'm speaking towards um you know community events but also the proposed regulations for um weddings and commercial events on private property um well so so in terms of specifically the community events um the idea was that um you know if they're just limited in number and that they help sort of serve a community purpose and fundraise from organizations and there's you know one event without amplified music or a couple events with amplified music where the conditions can be applied that it made sense to provide sort of a streamlined process for that um or for weddings and um commercial events for weddings where they have like a you know a site that's used for regular weddings um that would require a notice of a hearing so for that there is a conditional use permit that would be required um and i don't know if you want to speak Stephanie to the general um you know move towards fewer public hearings in general yeah well i i think there are um some conditions where events are going to be limited and i think the thought process is that those just may not require the same level so it's you know depending on how intensive it uses in other words how many times per year they're going to do it um that that you know if it's a lot that requires a higher level of um scrutiny so it's it's a matter of just trying to not put the little guys through the same big processes you know the the events areas that are having a lot of events and so i think it's it's just finding the right process level um so can you um clarify for me then somebody applying for commercial uses on their property a wedding an event um center on say an 11 acre site they want to do 12 a year what would that be what what would that be an a up or would that be a c up um all of the wedding so community events are are sort of regulated separately they have one or two community events that's so much easier but i get community events now right yeah okay yeah so for any wedding venue any any number of weddings at all would require a c up so that's always uh notice public hearing yeah c up right yeah sorry that's a these are new terms so you don't know i'm trying to use them i mean i the only way i'm gonna get to know them is if i try to use them so yeah a c up means a notice public hearing before the planning commission doesn't um it's for the zoning administrator unless they're unless it specifies in the code that it would go to the planning commission so for this one it would be proposed to go to the zoning administrator and that would mean it that would mean a notice to neighbors within more than 500 feet um let's see the standard that's a lot of weddings in and i would share with commissioner done this we've heard a lot about people just feel really betrayed when someone has 12 weddings a year because wedding guests don't take don't tend to place any attention on where they're supposed to park and stop especially in body doing that's been very contentious right um yeah so for the weddings another um thing that is required is to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to um issuing the permit so i think the idea there is also to understand neighborhood concerns and have the permit conditions you know address the most important thing from my perspective about it needing a c up is that that's appealable so even if it's a zea hearing it's appealable so um so that that's so that's good um so because i'm seeing i'm already taking up too much time i i just i'm gonna move on and i just had a couple of questions from the staff presentation and one was about the scenic designations and i think that i heard us stephanie say that because of the loss of tree cover along certain areas of highway one um and there was a photo of mission street in santa cruz that those that certain streets are being removed from scenic designation was that did i hear that correctly just just along highway one um so the areas that are um still have trees where it is more scenic in the county those continue to be a scenic corridor and the more urban areas where there's been a loss of trees i understand there was a disease that a lot of them um trees are lost now you're seeing buildings and development that really doesn't qualify as scenic so just in that area along highway one um we would remove the the designation okay i understand that that it is um troubling to me that we can lose a scenic designated um areas because of of tree loss um i would kind of rather that if there's a tree loss we would have policies and code to replace the trees so that we could retain uh not just the scenic designation but just retain that the canopy cover and the tree cover um so i'm going to think about for when we come back um and then for um for administrative use permits and administrative site development permit permits will the same signage requirements um be in place you know will a development that just needs an a up still have to put up the big sign that says notice the plan development on the site yes we're not proposing any changes to the signage requirements including that new that new signage requirement that came into effect a few years ago about the large sign okay um and then um one last question and this is with regard to um a letter from the sierra club that indicated that monarchs were taken off of the species list can you speak to that i can speak to that um so the uh eir uh the biologists who helped with that section with our consultant did a um did did the normal research in which they find um species of special concern and um endangered species and federally listed species and they kind of do their regular research and then they look at them and see um which have a propensity to locate in a certain area and it's kind of how they decide if there's going to be biological resources um the monarch butterfly is a candidate species it was not included in those lists because the us fish and wildlife um or um yeah us fish and wildlife has a lot of species they look at and so it remains a candidate and so it fell off the list um and when we saw the letter we hadn't realized that that that loss had occurred so the will be replacing that um list both in the eir and in the general plan with a new list that um includes not only the monarch species but also includes several other uh candidate species that had been lost so it was unintentional right okay that's that's great um and then the last thing is just a process um question so we have a meeting on the 24th of this month and a meeting on September 14th I originally thought that those two meetings were both for us to take action um is that still the plan or is it the meeting on the 24th I have something else and our day for action is the 14th of September yeah you know um there there's so many ways to go about this right um uh but what we figured is we'll start the public hearing on August 24th um we'll do the presentation you can take public comment um you can uh we were thinking if you have direction that you want to give to staff that you know these changes that you want to make you could do that then then we'll continue the public hearing on the next meeting at September 14th and you wouldn't actually take action until the end of that meeting so that would be um when we thought we would get motions for changes and um and what you actually want to send on to the um the board okay that makes sense okay so if that is the case I would make a strong plea to have no other items on September 14th because I see this taking quite a long time and I see us having to take each section of the general plan by chapter this is what we want to change in this chapter this chapter each chapter separately and same with the changes for the zoning code so I see in that seems to me the most organized way to provide recommendations to the board so that I think will take up a full day potentially and if there's any way to just have that be our only item that would be that'd be great I would I'd like to second that because I do not see daylight today this is one of the most important things we'll do on our service to the planning commission I really want the extra time and I'd like also ask that items be postponed until after we do these very important upgrades just as Jocelyn if there is anything coming up on that September 14th meeting that could get would there be a problem pushing um we I think we do have some items at least one on that date um I will take a look at the schedule after the meeting today and check in with the planning commission I'm wondering if we could potentially look at adding a a special hearing date um so that we can keep our other work on track as well but I I'll I will email I'll email everyone and and work that out afterwards I I understand the request for sure well I would be willing to do a special meeting but I'm not I just don't see how we can do it justice if we try to pack it all in one day it'd be worth postponing someone's project they're gonna get a lot better fair hearing if we're not got this in front of us it won't sit around all day either I'll follow up my email I just wanted to note Commissioner Dan that we also are looking at the Postal Commission comments regarding policies for ag lands so we may be proposing some amendments for the final the public hearing draft in addition to the the changes that I already mentioned for the the MOU policies okay um yeah maybe we yeah I don't know how appropriate this is but I actually had some ideas that I thought probably could satisfy um their concerns um that would also kind of meet the needs of what I think we're trying to achieve here too so so I appreciate that and thank you thank you so much for all the work that went into this I mean I only had to read this through I can't imagine the amount of time and thinking and analysis it took to think through every single piece of one of these policies and change the language and and all that so I mean so I really appreciate it and I hope you see my appreciation and that actually read it all so yeah thank you Chair Gordon I'll go next if that's okay sure please go um thankfully um Mr. Dan you go over several of mine I just I have some clarifying questions even on some of the ones she brought up if that's okay um I'm gonna go through it the way I think that Chair Gordon would prefer which is using the the staff report as for my page reference number although sometimes I do reference the way I often read it is like like Commissioner Dan I read the staff report and then kind of reference the the the code or the the general plan as appropriate which makes it really back and forth when I read this document um I don't know if that makes it harder or easier um one of the questions I had which was you know Chris your shepherd brought up as well which is this question about on page 10 when we were talking about the the quasi public use it's both in the general plan but it's also in county code section 1310 315 um which is this when it's appropriate to minimize the loss of agricultural land as possible when that talks about so it talks about subdivisions and lot line adjustments and I I would just share Commissioner Dan's concern and then my question had been and I don't know if we need to answer it so much as like when would that be necessary for public use we don't really know that that question got answered if it's if it's specifically if the only concept we're even considering is this one isolated use I'm curious if that's our answer if we're talking about things like cell powers if we're talking about you know county public buildings I'm just I'm I don't know that I was satisfied with the answer of are we are we really contemplating the singular option of because it's both in like I said the general plan and the county code of this idea of reducing and doing a lot line adjustments of of ag parcels because we have these minimum standards of ag and I'm just curious is that is that really the only time we're contemplating it because it seems like it seems like a really big change for a single instance um uh let's see I'm are you I want to make sure I understand your question are you asking specifically regarding subdivision of CA land when that's appropriate well so in in this part of the it's it's the part that Commissioner Dan referenced she just did it with with regard to the the general plan but it's also in the county code change as well as the staff report it talks about these subdivisions or lot line adjustments on county code specifically for the establishment of public use or quasi-public uses and I just wanted more clarity of if the sole reason that staff put this in there was because of the landfill um no so it's I think the landfill that Stephanie mentioned as an example of like a facility use that's that's in this case it's already on CA land but the county did like an extensive search and couldn't find alternative sites so so that's sort of an example but I think the idea is that you know where where there might be a similar example where they did like an alternative analysis they couldn't find another location um where there's some reason maybe where there's some nexus to ag land where it needed to be provided I know already in the code they allow I think recycled water facilities but that's sort of an example where it's sort of needed in that location um but the yeah so so where where there would be an essential public quasi-public use that the county determines would be appropriate on on CA land where they did that analysis showing they weren't all the other alternative sites then for that there could be a land division considered for that use an idea really would be to um in in a sense to like be able to protect to subdivide that part of the parcel often necessary for the public facility use in order to protect the viability of the remaining parcel which would remain in CA so it's intended to facilitate a public facility use but also protect the ag land okay and then I if you don't mind I'm just going to come back to this one too so if we'll go could we would you consider Commissioner Valenti if I'm going to address the same thing maybe I could ask my questions about that one at the same time because otherwise I got this we have to go back and forth I would I just don't want to make sure we don't get distracted and I only have a few to go through um I I just want if that's okay um on page 14 of the staff report um we so I'm going to back up because I just um I will be a tiny commissioner Dan and I have many of the same but I just want to get some more clarifying questions on places I didn't feel got answered when we're talking about the scenic corridor um the project for highway one when it got constructed for the auxiliary lanes and they did all those tree installations were part of the reason that Caltrans did all of that was that part because of the scenic designation that they did so much vegetation restoration I don't think so the scenic designation is a local designation it's not a state designation so the highway is not designated by Caltrans um but I think that they recognize that as appropriate mitigation for for that type of project um like they would do a noise wall for some or okay I just I thank you for that I I agree with commissioner Dan's concerns about that we simply because we lost ground on keeping something scenic I worry that we would be seeding um and instead I I'll contemplate that as well um yeah and I would I would just add that it was you know disease as I understand it that really took out that whole kind of area worth the trees it wasn't attrition by development um so much and at one point when it was fully vegetated it was a you know a nice area to drive through now it's really more of an urban area so that was the point and then on page 18 of this AF report on the very top of the page it talks about um more efficient permitting process and it says for instance attached single-family dwelling units are now allowed um are now are now and allowed use permitted by right in the single-family zone districts um can you there's no code attached for me to know exactly where in the the code this is being changed referenced and so I was hoping maybe you could further elaborate on what this is in reference to because I understand on obviously multi-residential on on our flex zoning but if we're having a parcel that's done single-family dwelling I'm just wondering if you could and what what an attached single-family dwelling would look like on a parcel that's all in zone for one unit obviously we have ADUs and we have JADUs but since there wasn't somewhere for me to reference this can you explain yeah I you're contemplating here and what your yeah I think so this will be over in the residential code and um I think I'll ask Daisy Allen if she might be able to help us with that sure happy to help hi there um well sorry about me um yeah so when we say attached a single-family um we're generally talking about you know townhome style development and uh we're clarifying in the code that we allow um townhome style development in single-family zones um with uh as a common area development or um if you have uh two two single-family zone properties next to each other you could have uh two townhomes that share uh the property line um in that scenario so that that's that's sort of what's meant there um if that clarifies yeah I know the fact that they would be able to share property lines that's because I was trying to be trouble kind of visualizing if you had a single-family home how you'd have an attached style so that makes sense you we allow it now with an attached property line it sounds like that's what we're extending to allow right exactly okay um I also I could clarify a little bit also additionally on this the scenic corridor um one of the issues that comes up sometimes in development review um along highway one uh specifically in the urban area along like the Soquel Ave um frontage road and that area is that um with your um in that scenic area you are required to um meet certain uh design requirements um related to like whether the property can can be seen from the highway and it's not really possible to meet those requirements given the existing situation without vegetation on highway one um so that designation is sometimes problematic for approving development that might otherwise appear to be you know appropriate in that that urban area especially where we are proposing to enhance our you know medical office building type of development in the future thank you and then the next one I have is I I know Mr. Dan asked about these two but I I'd like to touch on them a bit which is the community events and then the weddings I'll take the community events first which I just would like clarity on this um which is in the staff report it very specifically talks about community and non-profit events with 100 um or more guests um and so I would really like to touch on this because I I one would like I couldn't find anything in the in the code this was a thickly referenced 100 guests and I want to know the other question is I would like you to specify for me if someone's having community events with 75 guests are we having no limitation on the number of events whether or not they have as long as they're having acoustic music are we okay with that versus obviously or do we have different do they not have to get permitting for the event component if they have amplified music obviously perhaps they need an amplified music permit but could you I know it's like a lot of questions at once but if you could maybe speak to the things I just spoke to that'd be helpful because like I said the staff report specifically references 100 people or more I couldn't find that reference in the code and then could you clarify for for if they having less than 100 events are we not being bothered um with requiring permitting or tracking or anything like that because that would that would be helpful for me um and understanding what the direction the staff is kind of making this recommendation um yes I I would like to verify that in the code so I can maybe I can get back to that question in a moment but um but it certainly I mean I believe that's correct that it only if it's fewer than a hundred guests and it wouldn't be regulated but um it still would be subject to our noise ordinance for example so so that would affect you know the ability to have amplified music um and that sort of thing but it's generally intended for those larger events where they would be regulated okay thank you for that I'll ask you my next questions about kind of the what we're calling commercial events I know that we often think of them as weddings but they can be commercial events as a whole they could be um concerts for example and things are like that as long as they're paying they come into this category of commercial events I know we just usually say commercial weddings um as I kind of paintbrush to deal with them but I I'd like to touch on these because what I what I didn't find when I read 1310 um 615 was the standard um I what I found is it kept saying that we were limiting the number of guests hours of operation hours of operation amplified music and number of annual events permitted that they'll be established for the condition and use permit but I found no regulation no regulatory framework and I'm wondering if I missed it or how this will be structured moving forward because although we had minimum standards on the parcel size I basically found nothing else in fact when reading the staff report I mean you're allowing them on r a and r r I mean a rural residential parcel um is a residential parcel and while the the the code says it needs to be secondary to a winery and a brewery and residential and um residential ad parcels it also says it just has to be secondary to residential use so you're to me I I don't know how some parcel couldn't meet that standard right um and so I'm I'm a little if you could clarify for me what framework you're asking us to build around these commercial event on these residential parcels they are rural residential parcels and and rural agricultural parcels um that would be helpful for me because I think these parameters are important um this is something as commissioner jan mentioned we dealt with quite extensively in 2014 which is what led to this and I think it's important that we talk about um are we allowing 300 events a year are we allowing 30 events a year um and how many guests are we saying 250 um is that only allowed on parcel sizes of 25 acres to 25 acres um and I just didn't see anything in here it's very possible I missed it I did try to read all of the code and I tried to read all the the um everything but you know a lot of work um yes okay so um so let's see in terms of um where there would be allowed um you know you're correct in terms of the zone districts that you um identified and the minimum parcel size would apply so the idea with that um minimum parcel size is that there should be enough area to you know provide a buffer to adjacent land uses um and um in terms of um there is not a absolute limit specified in the code um for the number of guests per event um or events per year um the the idea is that um through through this neighborhood meeting and um that parameters be established that that are appropriate based on the the site um neighboring parcels and that sort of thing but there's not a limit specific limit on the number maximum number um for for weddings commercial at the similar events in the code but I guess my question miss murphy then is how are those standards set so if it's not in the code when someone comes to the planning department or if the permit comes before sorry check checking checking which level it's a c up right when it comes before the z a what standards will be used to determine the framework under like it seems very sub sorry it seems very subjective if it's not in our code how will how other I mean you're saying that conditions on the ground are essentially going to decide the the the conditions that like the the the conditions of approval for this permit what I'm hearing at least me and let's tell me I'm wrong but I'm hearing from you my reflexive hearing is that you're telling me that there are not any parameters in the code that says max like let's take cannabis for example different permit parcel sizes have different you know square foot footage they have a different um all all these different things are based on parameters that are in the codified and what I'm hearing is that those framework doesn't exist for this am I correct am I hearing you correctly that those aren't codified they aren't here in the code yes that's correct the code does not have like this is the maximum number events per year that could be loud or maximum number of guests it doesn't okay okay okay thank you I appreciate that clear clarity um thank you I appreciate that um okay um sorry to harp on that one it's just it's a really big one because in these rural communities it's something we just as I just want to make sure I wasn't missing um I think that might have been my last question of clarity because like I said thankfully commissioner Dan got a lot of them out of the way I just those were the couple pieces I wanted to um make sure I didn't misunderstand so I really appreciate you walking me through once again um since I touched on the ones commissioner Dan did some of those pieces so I I appreciate that thank you so much actually great thank you commissioner Rialante um commissioner the liaison be your shepherd and either one of you want to go ahead with some comments or questions well I have um I have a comment and commissioner Dan may remember these two cases we had one was the brewery that wanted to have concerts and and gatherings in the sort of in the courtyard there that wasn't that in near Davenport or do you remember that then there was the other one that was at the winery and it was at a very narrow road it wasn't so kill it was um Paradise Valley or something and the biggest complaint was the traffic trying to get there but they worked it out so each the winery had uh got a license to have onsite sails and then they had a very large piece of land but there were some there were some meetings where the neighbors were very upset but I don't know how to tell you to find those there's been several um I don't remember one in Davenport though I there was a big brouhaha up in uh bony dune the sovereign kaya property there was a um yeah but right yeah I don't even want to mention them all there's too much PTSD but yes it has um it has come up quite often and so I appreciate the attention we're giving to this this particular item um just because uh uh Commissioner Lazenby you mentioned the road there is a specific language regarding road capacity use permits for weddings exceeding 50 guests will be reviewed by the public works department as necessary to assess road capacity and infrastructure so we are trying to make sure that that's addressed for these states um thank you there was also one about a uh wedding shop and then she wanted to become commercial and have weddings onsite and that that's in a case somewhere it's actually a case uh precedent I guess but my memory is not that good yesterday I I know this is a controversial issue I think the general the general intention is to provide a lot of opportunity with the free development neighborhood meeting there'd also be a person that would need to be onsite available for questions or concerns the permit also for weddings expires in three years and requires renewal so there is some intention built in the ordinance to try and address neighbor concerns and make sure that these are operated in a way that's compatible with the neighborhood thanks yes that's all I have okay great thank you um Commissioner Lazenby Commissioner Shepard did you have any other comments or questions are you there Commissioner Shepard uh thank you I am now unmuted um I would agree that the wedding venue issue has been fraught but I would hope that with these more ways of guiding the path to getting a successful permit um that it'll work a little better public works commenting on the roads neighborhood meetings and so on I think a lot of it happened because neighbors didn't know it was going to be there and all of a sudden one peaceful sunday their neighborhood was usually disrupted but I think that you know can try these and see how they work out um however what I wanted to ask about was um going back to the two items that have been touched on before loss of urban trees um I understand the trees are gone and they were set but isn't there somewhere in the general plan that we talk about a policy of trying to replace trees that have been lost to disease in other words if you lose the trees because oak trees got oak disease it'd be nice that the policy was not oh well there's no more trees so we don't need trees there but uh you know if we ever get an urban tree planting ordinance or many other communities have an active policy of planting uh street trees and it's part of how they see their huge you know that what the municipality does so can we get some language in there if we're going to take that designation that that's a scenic border if somewhere else or in that saying you know policy would be to plant more trees of a different kind that are not susceptible to disease there's not trees well I just do we have to just concede that the trees are gone and therefore not hail the trees I mean wouldn't we suggest that more trees should be considered um question mark and there any can help me out with this I'm sure but there there are lots of policies that encourage um uh replacement trees and protection of resources um and require tree plantings in the code so so there's a variety of mechanisms where trees are are protected and um uh and uh there's a significant tree ordinance that's in the coastal zone for instance so so there's a variety of ways but I I'm wondering if you're asking if we shouldn't have a policy in the general plan that speaks to restoring vegetation in that area um because they don't think that there's something specific in this proposal for a policy like that um and I I will also note that um uh Highway 1 is largely in Caltrans's jurisdiction and it it does limit what we can require or achieve but a policy or an implementation strategy could be added to the general plan that speaks to working with Caltrans for you know restoration of trees in in in the area I think that would be useful to add to the general plan we've lived in a county for a hundred years or more where we had plenty of trees but as you know with fires and urbanization and so on we no longer may be in that position I'm sure it will be more of the case as time goes on most other communities have such policy you can go to places like Chicago and other cities Pittsburgh they have an active policy of planting lots of trees we have a needed one but maybe it's time to at least put the policy language in there so yes that's specifically what I am proposing okay the other thing on the allowing some development in ag land I think this is widening a crack that could be just burst open I agree with the other commissions why not list more specific uses that the amendment could be applied for and otherwise if for example a major concern was moving the waste disposal maybe you can mention that and then say that allow for some otherwise they got to come back for a general plan amendment which is costly and time consuming but not impossible right I think this language is still too general and with the right political agenda you could use it to different times different people I think either we're going to protect agricultural land has been a good policy and I think you can craft this a little more carefully and make it less general and more specific to the kinds of project that would be considered I think I don't think everything here is done very carefully very well very thoroughly but this is one area I think you could be tightened up because you're kind of writing policy case things happen so maybe you could make some specific suggestions of the kind of things that would be allowed otherwise it can always come back for a general plan amendment if it's that big and that important and then on the changes to the level three and level permit proposals you mentioned in your introduction that some things that have not come to the planning commission and then thing proposals that have come first the planning commission and then gone to the board with the final decision would now rest at the planning commission level can you give me some examples I mean that's a big change I want to know what we're in for Daisy do you think you might be able to speak to some residential examples of that I'm sure I'll have to give me a minute though because I need to pull up the code and take a look at it yeah I can do the same as well well I have another specific one in the code not about that but about something else you know that I can go to a few right or we can just wait a minute while you look that up I really want to know what this change means in terms of month-to-month planning commission meetings and you know we have there are very few things right now that don't end up in the board of supervisors if that's going to change I'd like to know what kinds of things it's fine I'm not objecting but I want to know what we mean and does that also mean that proposals that have in the past come to us will just go to the zoning administrator and if so they continue to be appealable I am sure yes and I'm just looking through the residential code and this is section 1310 321 sorry 322 and there's a text box that precedes that section on page three of that document that explains the changes to the residential uses chart so that's that's what I'm taking a look at and one change example is that congregate senior housing has been updated to senior rental housing and now requires a cp at the zoning administrator rather than a level six or seven so the planning commission would not be seeing applications for senior rental housing so that's that's one example um is it your sense that this that these will be more isolated examples like that is there's not a whole class of items that we once reviewed that we no longer will or is there a whole class of items that always went to the board that will no longer go to the board so the so there are very few items that would now go to the board the highest level that we have in our updated use charts is c up pc so an item would only go to the development project would only go to the board on appeal and so that that is a fundamental change here in terms of how the levels are working and then some items that the planning commission had looked at in the past would would now be looked at at the zoning administrator level and some items that were looked at at the board level would be looked at would be the planning commission would be the final decision maker I know I know that large subdivisions will continue to go to the planning commission we know in our subsequent hearings this is pretty important I'd like to get more detail you can use past projects if you want but I'd like to our job is going to change word shops going to change the zoning administrators jobs going to change I'd like more than a paragraph on what that means in terms of what kind of projects I mean first of all I don't work for the county so I don't go around the new names easily so just looking at a chart once and say well it sounds fine I can't do that but and I'm not asking you to a lot of work but you must know what kind of projects you mean and you could use a little you know projects that have come before the planning commission in the last six months or five months that no longer would and things that have gone to the board that no longer will go there I just want to know what this means and then I want to think about it too the planning commission exists to give the board and the zoning you know the whole county government ability for outside individuals that are not employees county you know not elected officials to have some say and represent the community at large and that's got to be carefully thought about that in terms of what projects come to them so I'm very interested I'm not saying I post I just don't think that you explained it enough for me to have a useful comment on it and it is a big change I think I don't know maybe it's not a big change I I can't address it yeah got commissioner shepherd we we can start to address that but I will say that you know all of the use charts have been reviewed and uses have been modernized and staff has looked at each of the uses and said is this the appropriate level you know are there times where we're overdoing the public process where it's not necessary and then there were other times where we thought well this really needs noticing it needs a public hearing it's legislative it really needs to go to the board so all of the use charts have those levels and I'd be happy to show you online where where they all are we'll we'll do our best to summarize what might not come to the planning commission in our in our next hearing well just a general summary would be would be in fact quite useful because I think I think it is important that the public we represent the public at large have some input to what we think needs overview all of these new designations would be appealable continue to have appeal right yeah okay well all right so I really like to know a little bit more about the actual effect of that okay maybe I can show you where they're located in the code as well but I'd like to know if you can just some specific types of project because the charts just saying this will go here but doesn't say what they're talking about um the other thing I wanted to talk about that I wanted to get into was specific to the code if we can move to that and I wanted to talk about and I think I've mentioned this to Stephanie before about a month ago if we go to the code on animal regulations which is 15.3.645-16648 on the um in the zoning code pages it's page I guess page two in uh animal in chapter 13.10 where I've identified enough it's table 13.10.645-1 so it defines requirements for small animals and large animals so on small animals um I just wanted to say uh I wonder if it would not be reasonable to not allow people in Ari zones because in Ari zones I know people in the urban section think that means huge acres just but it were large parts of the valley Ari zones are houses next to each other it's just the way the zoning falls out I think we ought to limit roosters to four per acre instead of I think roosters should be limited where people live not that would be minimum parcel size for roosters peacocks tom turkeys loud loud birds peacocks etc there's there's no limit on them now and that can be very annoying and I'd like to suggest a limitation in terms of quantity be added because you don't need roosters to get eggs then the other changes I think a misunderstanding because I did meet with some of the folks from the horseman's association and this Stephanie you and I talk right now uh for large animals there is an minimum setback for stabbling or paddocks and I believe when we talk you thought a paddock was a structure of some kind and a paddock will person who keeps large animals means the fence line so they're very different things and for example many many people existing horn horses or llamas or donkeys the fence line is the paddock that a paddock doesn't mean a structure so therefore I think 25 feet from side in their property lines preventing the paddock from extending that way would mean almost everybody now keeps a horse or a donkey or a large animal will have to change their fence line I don't think that's what you meant because I think you were defining paddock as some kind of disable yeah we did have that discussion maybe we can talk about the small animals first and then talk about the paddocks and the fencing okay and then on the subject of paddock the old language said the minimum lot area upon which a horse may be kept is the gross acre two horses by kept in one acre and then it said for additional an additional horse may be kept reached 20 000 gross square feet by which the parcel land exceeds one acre I think that should be kept because it reflects common practice of the two three thousand horsekeepers here in the county I just think you drop that it's a small item but it's important because it it really doesn't affect horse care at all and welfare or public interaction and the other thing is I think there should be some mention of a manure control plan the boarding facilities are worth more than some minimum number animals say six to ten the county has good documentation on how to control manure and you mentioned erosion control I think manure control should be something that is mentioned as required for beyond a certain minimum number of horses maybe six to ten so those are very specific but I actually thought this was important enough to meet with people who carry who keep such animals Annie could you clarify the small animal requirements for the commission and then we can talk about the setbacks on paddocks okay yes so we do have a table as commissioner shepard mentioned on page two of that code section and so there is a minimum density of two small animals per thousand square feet so that's obviously much higher I think than what you were recommending commissioner shepard for roosters but that is the minimum density that as proposed would apply for small animals the way it says in r a on the chart I'm reading help me out here is this on in the public draft page two requirements for small animals minimum parcel size minimum maximum density minimum parcel size for loud noisy animals that's what I'm reading for right so that maximum density above that line that specifically mentions roosters that applies as well and that's where you find the number of animals per this is per thousand square feet yeah so in other words for for those noisy for roosters another noisy fowl the minimum parcel size is one acre and the maximum density is two roosters per thousand square feet so that would allow how many roosters in an acre um a lot so that's exactly what I'm addressing right there's 40 000 square feet in acre you could have 40 roosters that would be awful and we'll probably exceed the you know roosters in fact if you have to live around them don't crow it down they crawl the time and peacocks are even worse if you could have 40 peacocks you'd have a real nuisance problem so I am suggesting that this code be changed I think it's appropriate a lot more people live in the rural areas now and I think I just think it's out of day so I think we should limit the number of roosters okay you have to have it you have to have for r a r a can be quite dense in a good deal of the valley because it's already zoning but they're actually the houses are pretty close together are you making a suggestion for what that density should be I believe that you said four four loud birds per acre on r a is that very generous I was going to go for two but oh okay I misunderstood okay two okay two to four but I mean two to one who lived I you had so give if you wanted fertilized you'd still have let's put it down so four loud birds per acre and then we can talk about paddocks what they are and how they apply because I think I think language is just plain wrong on what a paddock is and I think there should be something about manure control yes I I think your suggestion about manure control is there's a good one and we can also check with varmilla health if they have specific recommendations so I am not saying that there has to be regulation of someone in care cups here keeps a couple of horses but we have some sizable stables all of them are pretty good neighbors but the county has developed manure control recommendations they're good ones and it's kind of the gold sander so why not just have some general language that there should be a manure control plan in place for you know boarding stables at board more than I don't know six horses well also look at other sections of the code that may apply here like in title seven we can report back on on that or and what environmental health says yes they have experience with it but the other than the other thing there's 600 people along the horsements association so I know the other members are starting to roll their eyes but what a paddock is matters yes so I I did want to clarify about paddocks what we did is we combined paddocks and stable requirements so there are some adjustments to the setbacks but currently if you look at like this the strike through language on page three of that code section um 13 10 6 4 1 is struck out animal enclosures stable and paddock so we do have existing paddock requirements um number three there paddock shall be located on the rear half of the lot and not closer than 20 feet to any property lines not closer than I understand I am saying that when I um when I talked to Stephanie she said well a paddocks like you know stable they are different things is my point a paddock is a fenced area it's not a stable or or any kind of place that the horse goes into it's just the fence line a paddock is a horseman's term for a fence lot yeah so if you drive up to the valley or any place of horses there's a completely new big facility on say any road actually and the fence line is the paddock line this does not reflect reality of how horses are kept as my point and yes I know the whole one it's just a it's just a wrong definition as my point um we had we we did discuss this with our planners on over in the development review side who specialize in more in agricultural projects and um they suggested that it was really appropriate to have some kind of setback for either paddocks or uh stables um specifically for erosion control and manure control as you were mentioning so um if if this goes in the books then we've got not going to dwell on it but then almost 90 percent of horse owners are out of compliance so we have rules that nobody complies with is that a very good idea um so these regulations would be for those who are getting permitted you don't need a permit to keep horses or goats or llamas or whatever as long as you're in the as long as you have two per acre etc except I'd like that one exception there's no permit involved I mean people put up a fence line usually you know within two feet of their property line that's come up you go around and look at a horse facility because you want to have the most space for your animals you can so I I don't want to take up endless you and I can talk about this but I I've gotten lectured on it quite extensively um nobody wants to make things less or more restrictive we just think that animal keeping should reflect what our best practice is and this doesn't reflect that okay well um we uh I think what we would ask is if you have better recommendation for how the code should be changed that um during probably the second hearing there are motions for um what you think those standards should be okay I won't take up any more time and yes I didn't say well I said that doesn't seem appropriate but I didn't say well how about this so I'll come back yeah with a considered how about this where I have also talked to people who keep the animals the small animals with the noisy with the noisy birds you already got the recommendation that that doesn't need any more analysis okay thank you and thank you that we have more time on all these I I have to agree there's an awful lot to take in and I have not read the whole general plan Rachel says I need to then I will but I couldn't do it in one week that's for day I'm sure if the chair please I really have to leave I'm sorry but I have another obligation understood thank you thank you all for all that hard work I'm glad you're doing it and I'm not and I like everyone else apologize for having my own special interest in particular concerns but I guess if we're going to do it this is the time so we won't do it all the time therefore I'm sorry Tim you must have a lot of stuff you know it's good I appreciate it um yeah well then I'll go ahead I actually don't have a lot of other comments I think a lot of what I had questions on was already talked about um but I do have some so um in regards to the EIR I'm a little confused about process with the EIR and how we are increasing density but maybe not I'm not clear how we're specifying like where it goes since we don't have what I understand is that we don't have a zoning map yet to see applicability and so or maybe we do and I missed it and I didn't know if that was a process that needed to happen or is this just like saying this EIR says like if you change the zoning to what we're saying we want to do the impacts could be these things and then each new project that gets you know that applies for development would need to do their own EIR or similar you know go through that process right so the um the sustainability update is largely a policy update right we're creating policies and regulations much more than any kind of a mapping but there are policies and regulations that talk about or policies that talk about for instance the residential flex should be located along our multimodal corridor so it gives direction on where you might locate that um we have we have a zoning map but we don't um we are not proposing a lot of change to it as you know the project includes zoning changes or general plan changes to only 23 parcels in the whole county and 13 of those are corrections that won't result in additional growth 10 of them are are starting to look at areas where we have underutilized parcels or vacant parcels where we might be able to utilize that land for the new residential flex zoning um the the EIR not only looks at that at those 10 parcels but we also went through a um a very detailed exercise of understanding how the county could grow in 20 years right it's not parcel specific but it does project a certain amount of growth and I talked about um while it doesn't say parcel specific area um that would be 4500 units is what's projected for the EIR so it's looking at a very high level it's not looking at it at a parcel specific level when new developments come along they may well fit directly into what's in the EIR and they'll be able to use the information in the EIR um for their uh environmental review and where they're operating or proposing something outside of what was anticipated in the EIR they'll need additional studies so um while we're not giving you a new zoning map right that has these new areas we certainly will be back within a year as we're looking at the housing element and we're then having to show the state how we have enough land zoned for 4600 housing units and we'll be kind of forced if you will into the position of looking at areas to to rezone so think of that as kind of part two of this particular project if that helps that does and I think that's you know spark something that we might have talked about previously and forgive me it's been a while and a lot of information but um essentially like the new rf zone gets applied in a it's a general plan designation but it gets applied when you look at the zoning code it says you know c1 or whatever uses the density of this general plan designation for residential service for residential space stuff like that okay the general plan sets the the residential densities for for rf that'll be 22 to 45 units per acre um and there are um other standards in the code that speak to mixed use on a commercial uh property so you don't know you don't necessarily have to change the zone to a new zone it's just a new designation as far as the general plan right um think of rf as a tool we're going to use that tool um next year to really think about where those housing units need to need to go and we'll be we'll be talking about specific areas then okay thank you um there's mention of change to the historical 50-year marker did that actually was there actually a change because when I looked through the you know it's maybe I missed it um if there's actually a code changer can you explain what that what that part was about I'll give that to annie she does her historic reviews um so the change that was proposed was currently um we do review discretion when the discretionary application comes in we do look at it to whether it might meet the criteria if if the building is 50 years old or older whether it might meet the criteria for designation and if so we require historic evaluation prepared by a qualified consultant um so so the change in the general plan is to make that clear that's our current practice and we don't have that in the code at this time as a change but we are planning to bring that forward in the future it would go to the historic resources commission for review and then and then you know to the to the commission and board of supervisors and that's pretty much an industry standard that's right yeah the 50 years is generally um for example um for the state of california it has to be at least 50 years old unless there's special criteria that applies so it's sort of a general rule of thumb about when something might be considered historically significant a general criteria okay and so that 50-year mark is still saying it's just kind of cleaning up all the language yes right clarifying yeah the solar access change it'll look like the whole code got deleted and there's a note that it's now like a state law or state controlled um uh bill or or code I guess and so can you just explain that to me a little bit wasn't clear um yeah so the there is under state law there is a solar access shade control law that regulates like when when um regulates trees in terms of shading solar system so we we had our own regulations that made conflict with state law that was part of that ordinance was regulating like when a tree can shade a property so we thought it was more appropriate just to reference state law rather than having potential conflicts between local state regulations and then there there are the other part of that was was regulations about if you have an existing property where there's solar solar uses and it regulates sort of what can come in adjacent to that site but it was it was like really difficult and difficult to enforce and complicated and now under state law um under the California building code new residential development is required to have solar solar installed anyway so so it may also conflict you know or complicate compliance with the building code so it seemed cleaner and more state law to just delete that chapter altogether okay so that's deleted in that well that I appreciate that that makes sense so um then is it referenced to somewhere or is like because solar access is something that you really do need to know at the planning level um even if it's a building or maybe I misunderstood you said there but you know something you need to know early on because shading other structures shading your own property that kind of stuff from solar access really challenging yeah you know I'm sorry no yeah I think that's a good point and I think I don't I don't know for reference but I think it could certainly be referenced in chapter 1311 the site development and design chapter I think it may be appropriate to reference it reference that state law in that section so okay I think that would be helpful give some clarity and anytime you know there's so many state bills as we all know coming down for housing and things like that that are really hard to both reference in our own code and then also even know that they exist and so anyway I think you know it's tricky but I appreciate you taking a taking a shot at it um I had a question on the level of service for the traffic but I think we kind of talked about it with the zoning so my question was how do you like how do you know what the traffic reports are going to say if you don't really know where the units are going to go but it sounds like what the EIR based on what we talked about before you kind of you have a plan for where they're going to go so then you kind of input all of that and then it tells you where the traffic is going to have trouble right yeah I I've I haven't gone through the whole process um and here's Anais and she can speak to how we forecast units it's directly try tied to traffic analysis so go ahead Anais yeah I think you know Stephanie did a really great job of giving an overview um but basically we we took the units that we forecasted and we distributed them into what we call traffic analysis zones which are based on um census block groups um so they're based on census geography and they're they're um they can be fairly large in some areas and smaller in other areas but they are always larger than the parcel level um and um we focused the growth in the urban services area um and we did also attempt to focus the growth around the corridors that Stephanie was mentioning earlier um it's not an exacting science it is an approximation and it's a bit of an art um but we do the best we can with the tools we have until we have a actual zoning update and we have more information um the other thing that we do consider when we do the traffic analysis um are uh plans for uh growth that is um and this is covered in the EIR but um there is the kind of ongoing growth that would happen with business as usual so um the the units that are forecast as part of the project are added on top of the business as usual uh growth and then um there's another scenario that also looks at adding it on to that the um the growth that is planned but not approved um so that would be things like the um the Capitola Mall or um the Watsonville downtown specific plan um the growth that's kind of outside of our control but we know or we think we're pretty well certain it's going to happen uh and so we need to look at that and consider how that might affect traffic patterns that's great um sounds really not complicated at all it's super easy I did have so one follow up question there you does this eliminate need for future traffic studies on a per project basis if it fits within the general plan designation no okay um no not at all actually it's okay but it does um it it it does help us identify projects that uh can improve operations so that if a project does have an operational impact not a sequel impact because LOS is not a sequel impact anymore but if it does have an operational impact we have a set of projects that we can look to to say oh well you can contribute funding towards this or you can implement this specific you know operational improvement and we know this will help and it's I already I've been identified so that goes into what's called the nexus study um and gives us the legal basis for uh charging development impact fees or traffic impact okay thank you for that explanation um and so one last follow up there I guess you know one of the ideas to lessen the impacts is to reduce parking requirements in general and different ideas around you know how to reduce vehicle miles traveled and so is all of our those ideas incorporated now or there's something we're going to look at to reduce the impact later um yeah so we we did incorporate um almost everything we could think of there is um some of the more controversial parking measures um we're not incorporated into the code but we're um uh general plan kind of like long-term strategies and then came up as mitigation measures in the EIR um and um that includes it's it's not specific in the EIR they're long-term TDM strategies to look at for parking management um and then another mitigation measure that is in the EIR is a VMT mitigation bank which we do have a grant for we're currently implementing but it's um it'll take a few years to get underway okay so to sum that up we've included a couple items that you mentioned but anything else that's like kind of outstanding or a little nebulous as far as new codes or bills that would reduce or parking or trips are not really included then really need to either uh okay let me rephrase that we have um we've incorporated a few new parking code uh exceptions to help address VMT from a TDM perspective uh we also have a new TDM ordinance um so these are the things we're doing to attempt to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips uh we also have a new bicycle ordinance um or a new bicycle code which um requires more bicycle parking than previously required um we have also incorporated a uh a requirement for um showers to be provided um and I think those are the big items that really address TDM and reducing vehicle trips the the biggest really is is updating the TDM ordinance which previously existed but it was no longer enforced based on the way it was written um and then on top of that there's a number of policies in the general plan that address uh vehicle trips including uh no longer uh just doing when when we have an LOS impact we no longer are just looking at improving vehicle operations but the idea is is to look at multimodal operational improvements um and ensure that the um the LOS analysis the resulting improvements do not impact future improvements for bicycle pedestrian or transit operations so for example if like a right turn pocket is proposed as a solution that right turn pocket won't then prevent a bicycle lane or a sidewalk or crossing so there's there's actually a lot of really small changes that we've made to make the general plan and the code more multimodal friendly and therefore reduce vehicle trips um but the question I was answering when I first heard your question was uh what would what did we not do and so there's two things that we did not do which are now mitigations in the EIR got it that clears it up okay um thank you so much I appreciate the insight there um last couple questions here the zoning map from title or their zoning changes in title 13 I think and specifically regarding the zoning map and those got moved to title 18 but then I don't see them on the website anywhere is there am I missing it somewhere on there they're just literally like a copy and paste so you didn't need to yeah I mean that's largely reorganization um I I forget which section of title 18 they went into um but but they are they are in that document 18.4 through actually I've set it down and don't know where I put it it was past 18.4 and I didn't see that on the on the website anyway when I was looking at the code but um if it's just copy and paste and no change yeah it's pretty much just reorganizing but title 18 is included below title 13 all the way at the bottom and it's procedures title 18 right so I went there and it's all maybe I just need to read each each line but it does go to 18.10 but then it said on the handout and I'm sorry I lost my page reading through things that I thought it got moved to 18.4 yeah so it'd be on page 40 of our handout it says section 13.10.210 zoning map and I just got moved to chapter 18.4 and then I don't see 18.4 here maybe I'm just missing it's down there that that that document starts with 18.10 oh and then goes on to 18.20 18.30 and 18.40 and 18.40 starts on page 68 of the document great thank you sorry and it pretty much is cut and paste okay perfect I'll dig into that 13th thing yeah um I was expecting a thing at the top yeah sorry yeah no problem um okay and then last thing I had was just a process question yeah changed the packet okay commissioner shepherd could you could you mute yourself sounds like you're on a talking sorry that's okay um so process I maybe I misunderstood like exactly what today was gonna go over I had thought that it was really just the code sections that um are kind of highlighted in the report but maybe I misunderstood that we had like now is our only opportunity to talk about all code changes and am I misunderstanding that is there this is the next meeting about like the other code sections yeah so this is um as you know the fourth study session that we've had so we've been talking for the past couple months about the different aspects of the sustainability update um you know we started with built environment and design that and then um I know you weren't around for at least one meeting we went on to transportation in a meeting um and so we've covered uh several different topics that kind of the big chunks so today's the last of the study sessions and then next we'll go into public hearings I'll be almost like starting from scratch um however we'll probably do an overview of of the project we definitely at the next meeting we're going to focus on some of the direction that and questions that we've had from the planning commission um in your previous mostly your previous uh study sessions so we can address some of those things for instance and I don't want to get into any detail but but you were asking about the feasibility of having three stories and you know for RF and that kind of thing so we've been doing research to the past couple months since those study sessions and we're going to address um we're going to address the results of the research that we've been doing in response to your comments and questions and then we're going to focus as as we had decided um where we do have a couple of changes a few changes that we're making we're going to um highlight those in yellow and put them in your packet so you can see that the exactly the changes the change to language that we're proposing um and then you'll uh start the public hearing take public comment I imagine we would continue the public hearing to the next session on um uh September 14th and and then I I would hope we would have um motions well we would like a motion to approve the project and recommended to the board of supervisors but we know that there are changes that the commissioners are interested in seeing and so we we would we would hope to have motions that would suggest what those changes are um to be incorporated as it goes to the board great okay that makes sense thank you yeah um you know like the built environment we talked about a lot of things and and so I wasn't sure if I you know it sounds like you guys are gonna go back or like kind of well get everything kind of wrapped up and then send us a new document next time that has like all of the requested changes that we've all brought up along the way yeah it's going to be pretty targeted and highlighted so you can see highlighted in yellow the text change um we're not going to bombard you with all new 800 pages of documents we're going to really focus in on the changes okay great that makes sense I appreciate that I will say though that we are going to we are posting the new documents on on the website once we get the packet out to you can I ask a question about this um just for clarity sake so when you have modifications um you know what's on line right now how will are you going how are you going to know what's changed I mean I understand what you're saying that you're going to provide in our packet sections that are highlighted and then I would hope that you would include everything that you're proposing to change so that it's clear for us but then online if I'm you know if I want to see the entirety for a sense of a chapter of the general plan how will I know because I will not remember if that is for sure what is new and what is not new what is new and what was the draft the yellow highlighting would be in the packet and in the documents online as well you'll be able to see both yeah so like so like right now the new is underlined so it will be just highlighted but not underlined or underlined it'll it'll be it'll be uh underlined and strike through kind of similar you know um but where things are changing we will we will show them in underlined strike through and the yellow highlighting so you'll be able to the packet will be helpful to focus in on those areas thank you that's much appreciated that makes it really possible to do having it all in front of you so I know it's a lot of extra effort for you but I think we can conclude more much more concisely and usefully I want to clarify Rachel's question though because I want to make sure that I because I have the same question Rachel's have which is we're going to be able to track the changes from the original version the draft version you brought to us and the highlighted version and we'll be able to see all three in the version both online and in our packet that's I that's what I I I think Rachel's asking and I want to make sure that we're going to be able to see that using this yellow highlighted version we'll be able to essentially see all three versions kind of at once within the document using your yellow highlighted version everything will be in track changes yes okay okay yeah and then as far as you know the meeting on the 24th and the 14th I guess I I do have concerns about structuring the meeting so that we're organized in a way to be able to make our recommendations in an organized way and so I mean I think that I suggested this earlier and I'd like you know staff and then us as commissioners to think about this as well but I mean I think that the only way really well I shouldn't say the only way one way to kind of accomplish this is to just is to be able to take each section one at a time so and separate between the general plan and the zoning code and otherwise if we're just throwing everything into the kitchen sink it would be absolutely impossible to keep anything straight so that's kind of how I'm thinking we should structure it and the general plan should be divided into each chapter and then the zoning code should be divided as well which I think will be a little bit well I shouldn't say it's easier but yeah yeah we've been thinking about this for a long time too because there are many ways to present the information and as you know we've really up to up to through the study sessions and all the community meetings we really focused at a topic level but as we're heading into an actual adoption here we are going to do it at a document level pretty much as you're suggesting okay good yeah so then I still on the 24th I'm still a little kind of it's a little nebulous what the meeting on the 24th is I guess since we have the 14th to take action I'm thinking I'm going to be prepared to take action on the 14th and then the 24th will be just kind of more discussion this gap I guess um unless people feel otherwise well I guess my question to that commissioner Dan is since it is so much and I almost feel like there's going to be a series of motion like we're gonna I mean I almost feel like we're gonna because I can't imagine us having one big motion at the end because I think it's gonna be overwhelming I almost wonder if we are gonna have a motion at the next meeting where it's gonna I'm gonna make this up obviously but maybe we're gonna vote on um like 13 I have to have the thing in front of me so I can actually do better job making something up like we're gonna vote on title 13 um then we're going to vote on title 15 then we're gonna vote on title 16 and I almost wonder if we are gonna make some motions and vote on pieces of it next meeting because there's no way we're gonna get through it all and we're gonna need the second meeting to get through the rest of it I don't know that's the best way but what do you what do you think um like do you think we could really get through all of it and have motions ready all in one meeting it's so much uh no I don't think in some motions the next and this the following meeting because we need to take piece by piece by piece multiple votes because I I don't know if you can do a chapter by chapter because 13 is like huge I made it up for me exactly it was it was I mean I just picked well I think the way it's divided up online is you know chapter 13 is divided up into several sections and what would be simplest for me is to use that as the guide because that's how I'm I'm reading it as I'm just clicking on each section that planning staff is put online for us so yeah um Commissioner Villante I I think that that's probably makes sense to do it that way the question is what do we prepare to deal with first the general plan of the zoning code I guess I'd kind of like to know now so I can be prepared on the 24 one I guess to your point though I have a question to staff because I mean just even like what we talked about today there are pieces of the general plan that are so interwoven to the to the ordinance and to the code is it even realistic for us to separate them as such because one motion will obviously dictate the other I mean definitely maybe we take the general plan and then staff makes modifications to the zoning code that would make it conform yeah it's really it is really confusing and then I'm thinking if you're going to bring draft of changes before the next meeting I'm not sure I will be prepared on the 24th because I might have to evaluate what those are it'll be tough I don't think I would be ready is my guess just to sorry to interrupt it just add to that conversation that by next meeting if we just get the yellow lined versions it's going to be a lot to go back through and like re-engage on those sections that we talked about and I'm sure we're going to have conversation especially when we get to 13 you know Stephanie I think we're giving you a lot of a little bit of pushback that we need more time Well my consensus I was going to say to Tim is like my can sorry Commissioner Gordon is my concern is we're going to have the same problem for these pieces in September we're going to have the same and so I'm trying to come out through like what is the best way for us to be ready to make motions because I think we're going to have discussion right we're going to we're not good I don't know I mean this time like taking our first item today you know Commissioner Dan was able to aggregate kind of a lot of conversation to create one motion we were able to vote on and that's going to be every single piece of that yeah it's going to be like every single one of it's going to be like all of us talking and putting together one giant motion but we're going to need to do it six times for the ordinance and you know Maybe we could ask Annie and Stephanie to they've done a lot of organization they're very good at it maybe they can think about this question of how we can get through this and present us with the plans is all of us are saying we can't quite figure out how to get what we need to get which is motions that are representative and inclusive so maybe you've already come up with a plan to get us you know they'll crust out and highlighted section can you can you put a little time to think about how we can deliver deliverables to you so to speak well I would say to Stephanie if you have the highlighted version the sooner you can get it to us the better if you have this tracked version I mean I'd rather see it in pieces than all once if necessary but I'm yeah I mean I just think the sooner we can see whatever it is we're going to consider we we are we are diligently working to finish up those yellow highlights honestly we needed to get through today's beating to know if there were going to be any others and we have talked about some of them some of the coastal comments you know have taken a bit of thought we've already had two meetings with the coastal staff on those so we are working diligently to get those out and we can maybe what we can do is get them posted and let the commissioners know when they're when they're posted online I know that we can also perhaps work with Mike Michael Lamb to see if there's a way to get the packets out earlier too so that it's a tight it's a tight turnaround for us as well and I think maybe I just reiterate that the schedule was somewhat dictated to us by the CAO's office just in terms of trying to get this adopted this year and there's you know there's going to be a change in board members next year and I think that there's concern that bringing somebody new you know along on on a project that's taken what seven years to get to this point it is not really even fair to to do to somebody and so that along with the fact that we have to get to updating our housing element next year or we're going to be behind that that is really driving those two things are really driving the schedule so I just want to share staff's appreciation for what the commissioners have been able to read and absorb and try to get feedback back to us we we know it isn't easy and we really appreciate all the work that that you've done so on our part and keep keep moving ahead to get things out to you as early as possible and I'll just take a second to tell you how amazing the policy staff has been in in getting this work done it's been a lot of work and non-stop and so we're almost there just hang on we're almost we're almost got got through it but the staff report for next week for next time it's just about completed and I think what we're doing is focusing on the general plan and then the code and and then we're going to present it that way and I suggest that the motions that follow whether they be at the next meeting or the meeting after either either way is fine I suggest we go through the general plan first and we can call for motions on introduction motions on built environment and try to organize it that way that that would be my suggestion and if there are places we understand what Commissioner Villalante was saying there are places where we might have some overlap between general policy and code we'll work through that you know we'll make sure that both are captured but I think that's the best way to organize it otherwise if we go commissioner by commissioner it'll start to get kind of chaotic yeah okay that sounds good and then I would also just say that you know depending on what happens on the 24th that I'm also open you know to a special meeting if that's necessary to get this done on your timeline because we didn't even talk about we'll also be evaluating the final EIR so there's also that too at the next in the next staff report you'll we'll talk about the final EIR the response to the comments and there will also be the statement of overriding considerations that the board would adopt and the PC would recommend I hope that helps to say we understand that there are significant impacts but there's overriding considerations and benefits to the community in this project and we're willing to accept those significant impacts because there are consider these other considerations and benefits to the community so you'll find that in your packet next next time too so what what I think the staff won't do in our presentation we'll keep it as an overview of the sustainability update mostly for the public you know if you have somebody who's just now entering a public hearing it'll be helpful to have that overview and then we're going to focus in on those staff changes and the planning commission driven changes that we've made so far or also on the research that we've done to address the planning commission comments and then I would suggest we start the public hearing process right public comments and then and then go into motions so whether that happens next time or the time after we can we'll be able to proceed down that path that's good yeah I have another question and I really don't mean to throw wrench and things but you know I'm going to go back through and like look at my notes and just think through stuff and try to be really prepared reread all the general plan again you know put a bunch of time in between now and the next meeting but let's say there's something I missed and I found now and you know is there going to be opportunities still for adjustments or is it something like I should just email a list of all the things and like then that's it I don't get any more chances no I we've been talking about this too I think we can start to have a discussion if there's things that the commission wants to talk about and and we can take some direction from the commission if there are changes that you you can agree to that you want made we can add them into the packet for the September 14th meeting aside from that I would ask I think I would ask if you're not asking for information or there's in clear direction and then we're really going to be about making motions and having the commission vote on those motions yeah I would just say Tim like that is absolute that's exactly what we'll be doing is like you'll come and say like say we're talking about built environment and you'll come with like this is these are the changes I want and then Michelle Villanti will say oh well here's what I want and then we'll hash it out and if we you know and then at some point there'll be a motion and we'll have to vote on it and I imagine that some things probably most things will be unanimous other things probably won't so so we'll have to be mindful of you know as we're hashing things out there'll be a point where we're just going to have to take a vote in that we it's okay not to always agree I think you know this commission is always likes to be unanimous but I think with this item probably it's not always going to be unanimous and that's okay but but to make sure we move things along we'll have to be okay with things not you know taking a vote even if like we're not agreeing on stuff okay yeah and along those lines I just I think there were some comments at one point that you know this is the only chance that we're going to get and and that's that's not that's not really true you know we're putting a lot of new things out there and if we're you know for finding that they're working great or not working they might need tweaking we do tweaks to ordinances all the time so you know we recognize some things are going to be very new and we'll have to see how it goes and and if if changes are necessary that can happen down the road so what what I hope will never happen again I think we talked about this is that we're 25 years in and trying to do something this this big um my my plan for the policy group is if we can get through this project and then um and the housing element next year and we can start to focus on annual housekeeping updates and annual updates so it you know we're not throwing things into one big project year after year after year but we can start to tackle things on a more regular basis awesome understood thank you that sounds a lot easier yeah I'd like to I'd like to just reiterate what commissioner Dan said which is we're going to take votes we won't have unanimous votes we're not it's not a requirement that we all agree with each other that's okay yes absolutely uh great any other comments questions before we move on from this topic thank you everyone really appreciate it um then with that we find my agenda again great we can close the study session and move on to planning director's report item nine do we have plan director's report today yeah I don't know that we have a planning director still with us so I'll just say I don't know of any reports do you jocelyn uh no it looks like and Matt was tuned in earlier but it looks like he's since signed off um so I'm going to say there is no planning director's report today okay and then sounds good agenda item 10 is reporting upcoming meeting dates and agendas um yes so the next agenda there's been some discussion about it already you've got the sustainability update which is the august 24th agenda we also have an appeal um for 22 702 east cliff um and also the growth goal is on that agenda so I'm sorry I didn't quite hear which which day um so the next meeting for august 24th has those three items um scheduled and then the next meeting after that is september 14th um which again will be the sustainability update um public hearing hopefully um moving towards um adoption and recommendation I wondering we do have right now on september 14th the hotel project down in seas cliff um proposed also to be on that agenda I'd really like to keep it on that agenda if possible what I'm thinking based on the conversation I just heard is maybe what we should do is at the next meeting on the 24th check in and see where you're at on the sustainability update to see if we need to add an additional hearing date and if so maybe we can look at adding one um at the end of august or early september to continue the sustainability update I'm wondering if folks would be amenable to that or would you be doing a separate hearing for the hotel project um I would prefer I would prefer not to but we can so we've already been advertising the public hearing dates so have okay so you don't want to add another date for the sustainability update is what I'm understanding like not in between okay if we can manage it okay so maybe I will just wait until we finalize the agenda for the 14th to see if we might potentially have to bump the hotel to the 28th okay all right can I ask is there is there a challenge with yeah I know this is all I don't understand all the process behind all this but is there a way to just add another like the next planning commission to add on to the sustainability update is that or is you're saying note the noticing and everything and that's not possible I know it's pushing another it would be it would be great to not push the sustainability update to the 28th in order to help us get to the board because I know that there'll be work after the planning commission to make sure we get your recommendations in the drafts for the board and get that into the packet and time because those are due a month early so we're really squeezed for for time so if we have to have another hearing I'd recommend it be for the hotel and any other project look to that end Stephanie if we're having another meeting for the hotel could we I don't know Jocelyn if you've already noticed the appeal I assume perhaps you have should we not just put the appeal and the growth goal on that meeting so that we're only having two meetings specifically dedicated to sustainability and the special meeting has that's what I thought too can we can we move the growth goal which is pretty pro forma I would agree if we can have the meetings be on just these topics that's what they that would be the best use of our time okay well we cannot move the appeal date that I can say for sure because we're mandated under the code of when that needs to go to the planning commission the growth goal though potentially could be moved but I'll let Stephanie ran on that so yeah maybe I'll just go ahead and assume we're going to have a meeting on the 14th for the sustainability update and it doesn't seem like we'll get through everything at the next meeting and I'll just go ahead and for now bump the hotel keep the appeal on but then we have the two meetings for the sustainability update okay if you're setting up a second meeting the growth goal could be on there the 28th of September mm-hmm oh I see so you're just pushing it off okay uh no under the code we have to go to the board in September okay well the growth goals doesn't take very long no okay that's not a big deal all right the appeal item I think is going to take a little while the one that's on the next agenda so what is an appeal of um a denial of a coastal development permit large house variances project on east cliffs so can we have it later in the day we need to address the sustainability report and all these other issues the appeal can be after a certain time maybe heard after 2 p.m. or something and there's time certain we need to give ourselves the morning to do the sustainability update and then if we don't finish yeah we could do that the bill why not I think the noticing already went out actually for the appeal and so and I think the agenda has already been posted and we usually put well then we need an extra sustainability meeting those appeals of course should take hours they do seem to take a while let's I would say since it's the 24th let's see how it goes and that gives us enough time I think between then and the 14th to see where we are with the sustainability plan and how much we're able to get done okay so let's go let's go over what our agendas are now we've had a lot of discussion late in the day and I am so sorry yeah so the pencil and paper here and what are the next agenda on the 24th is going to have the east cliff appeal the growth goal and the sustainability update and then on the meeting of September 14th we will have just the sustainability update and then on the meeting of September 28th we'll have the sea cliff hotel and anything else that comes up between now and then you absolutely can't change the hotel people let them know they're not do they have to go first the hotel people are in the 28th so I'm sorry they I think we've already finalized that agenda I can double check after this meeting well if you haven't then let's put them last if they're first then you just need to agree we're going to try and move them forward that could take a half a day I will see if we can I think we've already sent the notices out today though but I will double check I have a rookie question for you do we have an like an end are we supposed to be done at five or something or it's like because if this could go on online no we you know ctv staff actually might have an issue with that but I don't but you don't have a time limit um council and the the planning commission can change the agenda around can't they they can't at the meeting definitely I just oh well you know I just uh we usually try and put public hearing items for projects on first just to be respectful of all of the community members that are there for a project related item um that is why we schedule it that way but you guys can certainly revise the agenda we're definitely gonna have a lot of neighbors on for the appeal item so I would say I would rather get the appeal over with and then do the sustainability plan from my perspective um so and I understand we can't move it so we'll just make it work I that's how I'm well that's what I would do I just want to say that having been on the planning commission longest believe it or not our genders were normally nine to five for many years so I don't I think we should prepare for these next two hearings to be nine to five and it's not unusual we just had years of having light agendas frankly so all right I'm fine with the nine to five I agree if it's easier to just get the appeal out of the way we just we just do okay but I think it's also important we you know appeals are you know important and we have to you know look at them seriously so it's important they go first and as scheduled and not mess around with it well let's just move it through that's all I mean yeah fine that's that's great we we have now know what we're going to do and we're all knowing we're going to be here all day I mean that's okay that's what you signed up for why could if I we could just keep going that has been done we've had a dinner break and come back at seven I can't stand when we had the abalone plan a thousand years ago we passed it to 11 p.m on the core ordinance oh man yeah all right so I think that wraps up um the report on upcoming upcoming meeting dates and agendas from me and yeah yeah so great thank you no it's okay uh county council report today we have I was just gonna say and I don't see county council with us I was gonna I was jumping the gun gun let me let me make sure he's not yeah he um Justin was with us Justin Graham is our new county council person appointed to planning commission meetings he was on here earlier um and I will notify him actually I'll email him and let him know to expect some longer meetings on these next couple of agendas um so let him introduce himself at the next meeting yeah that would be great if he were just for 30 seconds yeah I didn't know who he was I was wondering he is already with the county he has been county council for the department of public works um up until um Daniel leaving and then since we're under one cdi umbrella he took over our department as well so he's overseeing um all sections of the cdi so he's he's been with the county for a while just not hasn't been with us all right well thank you everyone appreciate it um we don't have anything else we can let everybody go home thanks everyone we will see you in a couple of weeks thank you bye thank you so much bye