 Hello. Okay, good. All right. Oh, sorry about that. Yeah. Call the May 22nd, May 20 meeting at 1.30 in the afternoon, not at 7 p.m. And can we have a call to order and a roll call? Mr. Nielsen. Here. Spellman. Commissioner Spellman, I can see you. Dr. Unmute. You're here. Say here. I'm here. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Dawson. Here. Conway. Here. Greenberg. Maxwell. Here. And Chair Shifrin. Here. And I take it that Commissioner Greenberg's action with notification. Yes. Are there any statements of disqualification? Seeing none, we'll go to general business. The 2021 through 2025 capital improvement program consistency with the general plan. Could we have a staff report, please? Good afternoon. Welcome to the Catherine Donovan special planning commission meeting. Let me share my screen with you. Please bear with me. My computer is not as fast as I would like. 2021, 2025, CIT GP consistency. This is a requirement of state law that local jurisdictions improvement programs be consistent with the general plan. And it's considered to be consistent if it furthers the objectives and policies of the general plan and does not obstruct their attainment. And as you know, the general plan is the city's blueprint and there are different general plans have different numbers of elements. There are certain required elements and then some have other elements included. Our general plan has 10 elements, including housing, historic preservation, art and culture, community design, land use, mobility, economic development, civic and community facilities, hazards, safety and noise, parks recreation and open space, natural resources and conservation. And normally most of the CIP are in the civic and community facilities area. This time we have quite a few in the parks and recreation and open space. So in the capital improvement plan, there are three categories, new projects, ongoing carryover projects and maintenance and infill projects to existing facilities. And if you looked through the CIP at all, you'll notice that not everything that was listed as a new project was included in this analysis. And that's because each department does their own entry into the CIP and they don't always recognize what under state law consistency review would be considered a new project. So usually what happens in the CIP, it's listed as a new project if it has a new general ledger number, which does not necessarily mean it hasn't ever been seen before. And so there were a number of things that were listed as new projects that actually had already been reviewed for consistency, which is why this list was not significantly longer. But rest assured that we do make sure that everything gets this analysis. So I have here a list of all of the projects that we analyzed and how they are consistent with the general plan. I'm not going to go over each and every one of them unless someone has a specific question about any of these projects. I will just move on to the recommendation. The finding is that the CIP is consistent with the 2030 general plan. And the recommendation is that the planning commission by motion make the finding that the city of Santa Cruz 20. I'm sorry, I did not update this. It should be 2021 2025 capital improvement plan is consistent with the city's 2030 general plan. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Do commissioners have questions on the CIP? I have some questions on some of the projects. I'm not sure that they're that they're consistency but sort of like trying to understand what's happening. The first question I may or may not be able to answer that I can try. Okay, and maybe if you can't, you could find out the answer and send it to us. On the PDF, the CIP I had, there weren't page numbers that I saw. But on page 29 of this PDF was the Wolf master plan improvements and $200,000 is proposed for 2021. And I just wondered what since the draft the IR was just been released, what wasn't what that $200,000 was going to was intended to be spent on. And as I remember, it didn't really show the future year project. There was just 20 21 showed $200,000. And I know the Wolf master plan has many other improvements. And I was just wondering why more weren't shown. I can't answer that question for you. If you have. So I can't answer questions about the CIP in general. Those questions would need to, you know, the CIP is going to be going to council. And that would be the time to ask the questions about them, or you can reach out to the specific department. The entire CIP is way beyond my. I guess I have a little concern that we're terminating consistency of these projects with the general plan when we don't know what the projects are. Like the Wolf master plan improvements, if it isn't clear what $200,000 is going to provide for and, you know, having looked through the Wolf master plan, there's certainly, you know, I think millions of dollars of improvements. So I'm a little concerned that we don't have the ability, we don't have any other staff from any of the departments here to answer those questions, answer questions about their projects. But we're being asked to find that it's consistent. The Wolf master plan has already been found to be consistent in a previous year. And you're not being asked to find that that project is consistent this year, because it's already been determined in a prior year. Okay, even though it has not been adopted. Because it had to have been found to be consistent when we first approved a budget item for it, which was several years ago. It might be easier for me to just send you my questions, because I'm not sure who would, I guess I would have to send these various questions to different departments than if I was going to try to get an answer. The other, you know, the finance department is sort of the overarching group that puts together the capital improvement program. So it's possible they might be able to answer some of your questions. Probably if you want a robust answer, it would be better to go to the individual department. But if it's a more superficial level, finance may be able to answer all of them. I don't know whether the planning department has been involved with the downtown library issue. So on page 85, there's a project for at least my 85 that's labeled downtown branch measure S. And I assume that that's the rebuilding of the library downtown. Measure S was the library bond that was approved. So was it two years ago? Yeah. The general bond for library improvements that include, you know, and included, I don't remember how many, but several rebuilding of, you know, that the Capitola library project, the downtown library project. And I don't know, I think there were various others, but I don't remember them right off. Well, in last year's CIP, the downtown library project was defined as a mixed use project. This time is just being a downtown branch measure S project, which I think measure S facility remodel project, which I think given the status of it makes more sense. But I just, I just wanted to clarify to make sure that was what that was about. And then I wonder on page 134. It talks about a downtown mixed use project. Do you know what that is? She's affordable housing project. I believe that that's the, there is a mixed use project that is adjacent to the Metro Pacific station. That's a different one. I'm sorry. Okay. Then I can't answer that question right now. I just don't know. I just don't know. Okay. Well, meaningless to say, yes, it's all in conformity when we really can't get any questions, specific questions answered about the projects. I understand that the staff will be there when it goes to the city council. If that's the way it is, that should just, it should just go to the city council. But if, if we're being asked to make a meaningful decision and there's no way when, before we make that decision to get questions answered, it seems like a very meaningful process. So commission, I just want to make it clear that we're not, we're not looking at the entire CIP. There's separate processes for those and different avenues for those comments. We're really solely looking at these six projects in front of us right now that are, that are new to the CIP this year and ensuring their conformance. And we, we've outlined how they, how they, how those, each of those project goals do meet the general plan. Peter, you wanted to say something to your hand. Yeah, can, can everyone hear me? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so I just said, yeah, thanks for clarifying that. I think that's the way I understood the, our role today is just those six items. And I think the, the larger budget that was given is more of a reference and a, you know, larger guideline, but we're really tasked with conforming or making sure that those six items conform with the general plan. My bigger question though, however, is just, you know, in light of I don't understand completely budget processes for the municipality. And I'm sure the community at large doesn't completely understand that. What happens, for example, given, you know, the situation we're faced with today with, you know, severe economic ramifications from, from the whole COVID scenario going on. Does this budget get reworked and priorities potentially change? And how would that process work? I know you don't, maybe not going to, may not be able to give a full answer, but I'm just looking for some general sense of how that process would take place. My understanding is, Martin Bernal has been keeping staff updated on what is going on citywide. And my understanding is that they, instead of passing the annual budget, the way they normally do as a one year budget. They are passing a working budget, which they're required by law to have an annual budget. So this is their, this is the way that they're moving forward in these uncertain times is that they're passing a working budget that will carry us through the next month or two. I think, actually, I think the next time they're planning to come back in September and then they would go like every two months. Be coming forward with a revised budget based on new information. If I could add something. Okay, I mean. Sure, go ahead. The council adopts an operating budget and a capital budget each year. And the capital budget talks about or make allocations to specific projects that they're hoping that the council is hoping will be constructed over the next year. The CIP is really a planning document. It's a way of projecting, you know, what the priorities offer the city five years down the road. And it can change every year. So there's no, this, it's not, this doesn't approving the CIP doesn't tie the city actually into anything because even with the capital budget, depending on what the economic realities turn out to be that that can change. But the strength of a CIP is that it lets the decision makers, the staff and the community sort of look down the road and see, well, what are the projects that are the high priority project? What is the city trying to get money for? What is the city intending to do? So I think it's a, it's an important decision. I, I, while I understand what the staff approach is, terminations of consistency aren't set in stone. One council can decide a project is consistent and the next council can decide that it's not consistent or it needs to change in a certain way to be consistent. So, well, I think generally it's best to focus on what are the new projects. I don't think that's a requirement. I think the commission, if it wanted to, could look at other previous determinations. And if there was a desire to recommend a change in whether a particular project is consistent or not based on new concerns or new information, that's totally appropriate. So that's, at least that's my understanding of it. So any other commissioners have questions about the CIP? Somebody like to move the staff recommendation. Lili, are you moving the staff recommendation or do you want to speak? Yeah, I'll move the staff recommendation. Is there a second? A second. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. I'll wait a minute. I'm sorry, we need a roll call. Okay. Mr. Nielsen. Aye. Bellman. Aye. Dawson. Conway. Couldn't hear you saying aye, but. Okay. Maxwell. Mr. Nielsen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen. Mr. Bishop. Hi. Thank you. That's unanimously. So let's now go on to the next item, which is. We are now on item number two, the electric vehicle charging station. Exposited processing ordinance and amendment to the local coastal program. Excuse me. Implementation plan. You get me all day today, or at least as much of the day as your meeting is. We are coming forward with an ordinance to amend our municipal code to comply with Assembly Bill 1236 that was passed in 2015 that made changes to the government code section to expedite permits for electric charging stations. And the majority of this amendment is in the building code section of the municipal code 1806, which the commission does not have purview over. However, there were two small changes that we made in addition to that, adding that section. One was to our design permit standards to design permit section to exempt the electric vehicle charging station from the requirement to do a design permit. And that is required under state law. And then the second change in our existing parking lot standards, it specifically says that the parking lot standards refer to electric vehicle charging stations level two. And we, since we were doing these changes anyway, we wanted to make a minor change there to allow higher level charging stations to also fulfill the requirement in our parking lots. I think at the time that it was originally written the higher level charging stations were not really in existence yet. And so this is just to bring our code up to date. There are some other actions that are involved with this. The amendment, the sections in the zoning ordinance are also part of the local coastal program implementation. And so it will involve an LCP amendment. And there's also a requirement that the city have on its website a building permit checklist that can be used to ensure that when a building permit is submitted for an electric vehicle charging station that everything, if everything on the checklist is submitted, it is, then, qualifies for the expediting process. We are already using that checklist and have been for some time, but it is a requirement of the law. And another requirement is that we accept electronic permit submittals. And we have accepted permit submittals on some other very simple permits in the past, things like water heaters. We had not gotten our permit system for planned submittals up and running yet, but we, with the COVID, encouraging us to come up with alternative means to get through our various building processes, we now have our blue beam, it's called, is up and running and we can do the electronic permit submittals. There is a caveat in the law that allows jurisdictions that can't accept electronic submittals a waiver for that, but we're hoping that we'll be up and running by the time this gets through our approval process. So our recommendation is that the planning commission recommend to city council to approve the ordinance and approve the resolution adopting the LCP amendment and authorizing the city manager to submit the LCP amendment to the coastal commission. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer. Okay. Do commissions have any questions? Christian? I don't, it's not so much a question, but just a comment on the checklist that you, that was provided. There is a typo in that, and so I just wanted to call that your attention so you could take care of that. Yes. Yeah. The first paragraph, the last sentence for the first paragraph, you'll just see that in front of the word help, you need to have a word, you know, to help needs to be added in there. That's it. Okay. Thank you. I did not write that myself, so I'll make sure. No judgment. I was just calling to somebody's attention. Any other questions or comments? Okay. I didn't ask before, are any members of the public called in for this meeting? No. There are no members of the public on the line. Thank you. I assume that this LCP amendment will be submitted to the coastal commission and they'll consider it like a minor amendment, so it shouldn't take long for it to be approved. Is that kind of the intent? Yes, and we've actually had a really good working relationship with the coastal commission staff recently, so I think they will expedite it as much as possible. We let them know when things are coming. They tell us it's either a minor amendment or de minimis, and frankly, I don't really understand the difference between them, but it should go through as quickly as they can make it. The process is a little slow, so I would imagine it will be a couple of months, but it'll be as fast as they can make it. Does that mean that the ordinance only is in effect 30 days after the council approves it outside of the coastal zone, and it's not in effect inside the coastal zone until the coastal commission approves it? Yes, although we have been operating under the state law, so the changes to the ordinance are a legal requirement and a cleanup for us, but we are not, you know, the practical matter is that we have been expediting these submittals already, and we don't require a design permit for any electronic vehicle charging stations, so the practical effect is it doesn't matter, there won't be a difference, but technically you are correct. Okay, and is there some grant that the city is going to, after that is going to be, is the city going to qualify for by approving these recommendations? It's not a grant, if you recall there was a scandal with the Volkswagen having conflated or fraudulently claimed their gas mileage on their vehicles, and it's part of the settlement on that lawsuit, they are, one of the things they are doing is installing a large number of electric vehicle charging stations, and the contractor that they are using in, I think, all of California, but at least Northern California, had some experience, very unfavorable experience in another jurisdiction that had not adopted the streamlining regulations, and so they are ready to move in and put a number of charging stations in the city, but are reluctant to do so if we don't have the ordinance in place. Do you know if the county is following a similar process or not? I don't know. I think the state law required smaller jurisdictions to adopt this ordinance by 2018, and I imagine, I read somewhere that I think it was 60% had complied with that, so we are not alone in being a little late, but I don't know if the county or other local jurisdictions have already done this or not. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments? If not, would somebody like to move the staff recommendation? I'll move to accept the staff recommendation. Is there a second? A second. Is there any further discussion? Do we have a roll call vote, please? Mr. Nielsen? Aye. Spellman? Aye. Dawson? Aye. Conway? Yes. Julie, we'll come back to you. Maxwell? Aye. You're different. Aye. Passes unanimously. Let's move on to item number three, the general plan report. We're going to get through an item that's been on about the last three agendas, I think. We're finally getting, so could we have a staff report, please? Okay, there is no report on this. This is an item that we bring to you as a courtesy. We have an annual report that is required to be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development on our general plan compliance and our housing on an update. And those reports are presented to the council prior to the April 1st deadline to submit the plans to the state. And then we normally, we actually wish that we could get it to the planning commission prior to that, but normally we're working on this right up until the last minute because it's a pretty extensive report. And so this year, as in previous years, we were prepared to bring it to you just as a courtesy so you could have that information in April, but unfortunately that meeting was canceled. And then the second meeting it was on ran until after 11. And so it was continued. And now we're finally here. So I don't have a presentation for you, but I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Do any of the, any commissioners have questions for staff? I have a couple. One of them, and I'm trying to remember, I don't have the report in front of me, but as I remember there was a survey that was done on rent levels in ADUs. Is that correct, am I remembering that correctly? Yes, that's correct. And if I'm remembering the determination of what category on the RENA numbers to put the ADUs was based on the kind of averaging of the responses that staff received. And if I'm remembering correctly, it was a pretty good response rate. It was a surprisingly high response rate for these kinds of surveys. Am I remembering this correctly? Yes, you are. And the survey itself was done for a different purpose. It was done while Sarah Noisy was working on last year's ADU update, and we were trying to get information for that. So the intent was not related to this report. However, we always have this problem with we have all these ADUs, we know that a lot of them are being rented at a lower rent than market rate, and we want to be able to use them, and there is a mechanism to use them. And normally we just do, you know, I go online and go to all the different rental sites and try and see what kind of rents are being charged. So we had this survey, we used that data, and the survey was set up so that it was looking at rents within a range for ADUs within a size range. And so we took a very conservative approach here. We made the assumption that each ADU was only housing one person, which is, as you can imagine, a pretty conservative assumption. And then we took, we didn't actually take the average, we took the, for each size category, we took the, I think it's called the mode, where the most, the range of price was for most of the houses in, or most of the ADUs in that, and characterized them by that. And then using the state housing income rates for housing, we've calculated which category each of these were, and basically we had a cutoff at if an ADU was less than 650 square feet, it qualified as a low income. And if it was greater than 650 square feet, it qualified for moderate income. And unfortunately, we didn't look at rents below $1,000 a month. And so we couldn't, that's too high to qualify as very low. So we weren't able to see if any of our ADUs might have qualified as very low. And one other caveat is that a fair number, I think it was close to a third of the ADUs, are basically rent free because they're going to family members. And we just didn't, we just didn't use that data because we didn't figure it, it would, it would be tough to argue that these were being rented at zero because they were simply being provided to family members. Does that pretty much answer your question? It helps me understand what was done. I think particularly now that ADUs are ministerial and that they're not, at least during this period, they're not going to have a owner occupancy requirement. I, I think they, they could, they're likely to be an even more important component of the, what's considered the new housing stock. Although I imagine many of them are going to be legalized. It seems like that's happening now because it's so much easier to legalize them without the owner occupancy requirement. I think it would be very helpful to do a survey of, even if it's just a sample survey and, but a survey that is really based on the income ranges for the Rena numbers, the very low, low, moderate and above moderate to really get a sense of how many of those units are in each of those categories. The general feeling is that the, the ADUs are potentially an affordable housing, a part of the affordable housing supply. And I think as more of these are being put on the market, it would be useful to find out to what extent is that true. So from my perspective, the size doesn't, isn't as important as just knowing what the income, what the rent, what the rents are charged, what rents are charged and whether those rents are within the range of the various Rena categories. And I just think as that, as ADUs become a more significant part of our, the annual housing distribution, we should try to refine how well they, you know, they, how well they're being made available to various income categories. So I don't know what the city, the city staff is intending for next time, but I would certainly urge that there be a real effort to look at how the, how the, how those units are being rented, who that, what their rent, what the rent levels are. Cindy, did you have a comment to your hand? Yeah, I just wanted to second what you said, and encourage staff. And I'm not sure what the requirements are and why there was a 650 square foot cutoff. It seems to me if we're doing these surveys, we need to be doing them the same way that housing authorities and others look at, at housing stock. And so is it a one bedroom? Is it a studio? And so regardless of the size and then make those income determinations based on, on a similar scale, essentially, I do agree that there, there is the potential for, for ADU to be addressed the needs that were the low and very low income. But I think just knowing people in the rental market and knowing people who work in housing, there are a lot of these very small units that would, would not, if you did the math according to the housing authority of a studio and how much a studio would be in that very low income range or low income range, the rents being charged are much above that. So I would just really encourage us to get more precise about that information and also do it on a scale that we're comparing kind of apples to apples so that, you know, it's compared, whether it's a studio or one bedroom or two bedroom, regardless of the square footage. Thank you. Any other commissioners want to weigh in on the general plan report? Yes. Christian? I had a question just in terms of, you know, and looking at the, at the rena numbers and looking at the very low category, obviously we're, you know, we have a number that's, you know, a high number that needs to be addressed still. And I'm curious if staff looked at other, has compared, maybe compared our numbers against other communities and looked at, you know, how, you know, if other communities are in the same, kind of in the same boat on this. I did a little bit of research, but, you know, I didn't have, I'm not really sure where to look, but I did kind of see that there's rankings and grade levels given for different jurisdictions, but I'm just curious, you know, how we stack up against other communities. You know, the rena distribution is at a regional level and within our region, I think generally Santa Cruz is expected to grow more than many of the other jurisdictions in our region. So we usually get the larger percentage share than other communities. That said, I believe that they're pretty careful about the distribution of the income levels, so pretty carefully, so that if, say, we got, I'm just making numbers up here, if we got 50% of the area housing retirement, we would also get 50% of the very low. But I think the problem is that there's a higher need for the very low and so those numbers are based on what the need is, not on what the, how practical it is to build that number. You know, it's very, particularly now that we don't have redevelopment, it's really hard to get those very low income units. And just anecdotally, I've heard from jurisdictions all around the state and we all have the same problem. It's quite expensive. You have to be able to subsidize these units and they're very expensive to build. So it's, you know, we use what tools we have, but it's hard. It's hard to get those numbers. I mean, I, sorry, go ahead. I was just going to say to Commissioner, you can finish, Catherine. Okay. I think very, very few, if any, jurisdictions statewide have actually met their arena and it's because of those very low units. You know, there in a lot of other jurisdictions are like we are. They could provide the overall housing number, but getting those very low units is almost impossible. Monica. Just, and just for a sense commissioner of the numbers, it's about 3% of all cities in California are currently meeting the arena. And only about 25% are meeting the other, like three of the four categories, which is what Andrews falls in. And so we are doing better than most. Yeah. I mean, I think for my, in terms of me asking this question, it's more what I'm trying to understand is, I mean, I know that Santa Cruz is doing, I mean, when I looked, when I did the research, I know that Santa Cruz is doing a good job. Obviously we could be doing better. But what I'm trying to understand is, are there communities or jurisdictions that are doing a better job at meeting these very low numbers? And I know that the, that it's difficult. I know it's difficult to produce these very low units, very low income units. But there's, but, you know, we have a, there's a goal, right? I mean, so how do we, how do we reach that goal? How do we, how do we get there? So what I'm, what I'm wondering is, are there other communities that are possibly doing a better job at meeting that very low income number that we could be looking at and seeing what, what is it that they're doing? Are they, are they incentivizing, are they subsidizing, you know, to, to developers? Or are they creating incentives that are unique to their, to their area that, that we could be looking at to help, to help for us to provide incentives to developers as well. Because, you know, you know, it's going to happen one way or the other. Either the city needs to, the city has to build these, which we're not seeing that happening, or developers have to build them. And if developers are going to build them, they, they're not going to, with it being as expensive as it is, they're not going to just do it because they want to. I mean, they're going to need some incentive to do that. So that's what I'm wondering is it, are there other, can we be looking at, you know, other communities that are possibly doing a good job with, with that number? Because obviously that's the number that we're having, you know, or the very low is the, is the category we're having a very difficult time with. So that's, that's what, that's my reasoning for bringing that up. As far as I know, all jurisdictions are struggling with the same problem and the, there are specific jurisdictions that, well, as Matt said, 3% have actually met their very low, Rina numbers. And I think we are using the same tools as other jurisdictions. We're using our, our remaining redevelopment funds. We're using our affordable trust house, trust fund, affordable housing trust fund funds. And we're using things like the density bonus. And I have been pushing hard to encourage whenever we have a project that wants to use a density bonus to use, to, to push to get the very low income housing, even if, you know, we would get, you know, one or two units of very low income rather than five or six units of low income because we need those very low income much more. And actually Julie might be able to speak to this a bit. Do you have anything to add to this, Julie? Give, know of any, but he has better tools than we do. You have to unmute Julie. I don't think I'm neat. Oh, there we are. There you go. I don't think, okay. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Catherine, you're right. The tools that are available, the only way to get very low income units built is with public financing. There are very limited public financing tools available. I think the city does a really good job of leveraging what is available. It's the reason why it's important, why it's an important option for certain projects to be able to pay into that trust fund because we get the much more deeply targeted units affordable when they're built by publicly financed projects such as those that use low income housing tax credits. So I agree with you, Catherine. Every tool available needs to be used. The city's doing that. They're doing project based section eight wherever they can. And the very low income units are going to be really hard to build. I'd like to add something to that because I think the arena numbers are really built on a big lie. And the lie is that if you require the local jurisdictions to set aside to identify a particular need for very low income units, that somehow is going to create the units. When, as Julie said and Catherine said, it's incredibly expensive per unit to make a unit available to very low income people. What that, the reason I call it a big lie is that the other part of that distribution of arena numbers is that for very low income units, for a jurisdiction to justify that they've provided the opportunity for low income units, they have to provide higher density zoning. And so the jurisdictions are required to have, provide enough units, zoning that would allow for the construction of their arena very low income units without any requirement whatsoever at the state level that those units be for very low income people or without any really, with a very limited federal subsidy or state subsidy to provide those units. So what the effect of the arena numbers is really to generate high density development in all the communities in the state without necessarily getting any additional affordable units. We get some through the city's aggressive attempts and I think the county as well has been pretty aggressive in trying to get those subsidies but it's never going to really meet the arena numbers. On the other hand, for communities that may not want to have, and I think at least when I moved last, there was at least 20 units an acre have to be made available. There has to be zoning that would allow for the arena numbers of 20 units an acre. What it's really doing is recurring in my view is just encouraging high density market rate units. That's the effect of it because without those deep subsidies from the federal, state, and local level, those very low income units are never going to get built. That's how I see it. So any other commissioner comments? Catherine, I just want to ask, is there, do you think there is going to be another survey next year of ADUs to try to get updated information on their rent levels? Well, I think that having a survey that's specifically trying to get at these arena numbers and the rent levels will be really good. We know from experience that people don't like to fill out surveys and so when Sarah did this survey, she did a really good job of keeping it simple. And people, especially if they see it as being personal information, just don't necessarily turn it in. We got some, not too many, but we got some really rude responses from the survey. And I think we will try to design another one. We'll try to do the same thing where it goes out. The ADU owners need to certify annually that they are indeed living at the property. And so sending this out with that certification I think helped to get our response rate higher. So we will certainly try to do that. But it's not necessarily a quick and easy thing to design and you know how our time is constrained here. So we will aim for it. I think those letters go out in April or May. So we've missed this year. But we will try to get a survey in place in time to go out with next year's letters. Okay. Any commissioners who have any final comments on this? There's no need for us to make a recommendation or pass a motion. So there are no other comments. We'll just move to adjournment. And I can never remember whether we need a motion to adjourn or whether the chair just says we are now adjourned. Chair. Okay. So our rules are as the chair, I'll just say we are now adjourned. Thank you very much. Oh, when is our next meeting? June 4th. June 4th. So it's at the regular time. Yes. And I believe the 914, 916 CBR item is one of the matters on the agenda. Okay. Thank you very much. So I'll see you all on the 4th, if not sooner.