 Alright, good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us for today's planning commission meeting. Today's date is September 21st, 2022, and then time is 931 am. Today's meeting is completely remote via zoom. There are 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 home page at sccoplanning.com. Alternatively, if your computer is not equipped with a microphone, you may provide comment by telephone, and the phone number is 669-900-6833. The collaboration code is 814-8152-8029. And again, this information is posted on the planning department public hearing page. So during key points in today's meeting, time will be provided for members of the public to provide their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either remotely raise your hand by selecting the hand icon on the zoom link, or if calling in by telephone by remotely raising your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. I will call on participants by either your name or the last four digits of your telephone number. If you're participating via the zoom link, when I call on you to speak, you'll see a pop up on your screen that says unmute. Please accept the pop up state your name for the record and provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone, you must unmute yourself by pressing star six on your phone. And if at any time you have difficulty connecting to today's meeting, be it the link or by calling in, I will be checking my email periodically, which is Jocelyn at Santa Cruz County dot us, and I will pause the meeting to make sure we connect you if you email me. All right, it appears we're situated. I will now turn the meeting over to the planning commission chair. Tim Gordon. Good morning, Tim. Good morning, Mr. Drake. Thank you so much for the intro and thanks for everyone for meeting us on this special time that we didn't have as our typical planning commission days so we appreciate everyone being here. Let's go ahead and call the meeting to order. And Mr. Drake, can we please have a roll call. Sure. Commissioner Dan. Here. Mr. Violante. Yeah. Commissioner shepherd. Here. Commissioner lasin be here and chair Gordon here. Thank you. Do you have any additions or corrections to the agenda today? No, not today. Okay. Moving on to item three declaration of expert take communications. Are there any commissioners that have anything to declare today? Okay. Hearing none, we can move on from item three and on to agenda item number four, oral communications. This is the time of hearing where members of the public have the opportunity to speak on things that are not on the agenda today. Mr. Drake, can you please see if we have anyone that would like to speak at this time. Yes, and two minutes will be provided for any speakers who wish to provide comment on anything not on the agenda today which is the sustainability update. If you raise your hand if you're calling in it is star nine. And I see one hand raised by Deborah still. Good morning Deborah please restate your name for the record you have two minutes. Good morning. Hi. Hello would you please state your name for the record. Yeah Jerry still. Okay. Yeah, I'm Jerry still and I'm with I'm here as a representative of say pleasure point. Patty Brady isn't able to be here today. She is a great voice of our group. I may not match your eloquence but I will strive for a brief. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Still if I could interrupt for one quick second. Time back if I'm if I made a mistake here I just want to make sure that this is not about the sustainability plan and if the remarks are about sustainability plan we will have that time in just a moment. Oh, I see. Okay, I'll wait. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. We'll get right back to you. Okay. Thanks. I'm going to go back to the public who wish to provide comment on any other topic other than the sustainability update. And so please raise your hand now. I'm seeing a hand raised by a caller to 915. Good morning. Please say your name for the record. So there you go. There we are. This is back in Stein Brunner. Can you hear me. Yes, good morning Becky. Good morning. And I'm very grateful for these two meetings that are coming along today and next Wednesday. I wanted to bring to your commission's attention the action yesterday at the county board of supervisors meeting regarding the tiny homes ordinance. I think it may be coming back to you. They discussed your their very thoughtful recommendations and I want to thank you for that. There are a number of changes, quite significant changes that were proposed. So I urge you to look into that if you've not already done so. And also the local coastal plan action with the coastal commission, the amendments were discussed. And unfortunately that is at the 11th hour and will likely be denied. But I do believe that the board voted to send it. The amendments to the coastal commission anyway, even though the commission has said they will deny them. I want to thank you for your public service. I really do. And I wish I appreciate that your thoughtful, thorough work and forgiving the public this extra time to review this very significant document before you today. Thank you. Thank you, Becky. All right. Are there any other members of the public who should speak at this time if so please raise your hand by pressing star nine or raising your hand on the zoom icon, not seeing any chairs I'll turn it back over to you. Okay, thank you then we can close the public comment and oral communications part of this hearing and move on. So the agenda is the consent agenda, and we have AB 361 resolution again today. And any commissioners, like any discussion or or emotion on this item. I'll move approval. Thank you commissioner Dan. I'll second it but since we second it I've heard discussion I don't believe we need to adopt this since it's I believe we only have to do it every 30 days. I think it was for consideration for the next meeting this break. I think that we did it last time. You did. Yeah, so we don't need it on every agenda. No, I second it but for next meeting we have one next week. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry who made the motion on that one. Commissioner Dan. Thank you. Okay, so since we have it and we have a motion to second let's go ahead and vote and it'll save us another 30 days. Okay. Our mystery. Can we please have a roll call vote. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Commissioner lasenby. Yes. Commissioner Gordon. I mean chair Gordon. Yes. Commissioner Vialante. Yes. Commissioner. Commissioner Dan. Yes. All right, thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, the consent agenda item passes and we can move on to the item number six approval of minutes. And. I believe that our minutes do say this is the approval of minutes from the August 24th planning commission. Or our agenda, excuse me. But I just want to clarify that we are actually approving the agenda from September 14th. Okay. I think we might be looking at the. September 14th agenda. Okay. If. But I can double check that afterwards and just clarify and make sure that it's for September 14th. Okay, great. Well, just to be clear, we are approving or looking at the. The minutes from September 14th hearing and what any commissioners like. Yeah, I just looked them up and it does say September 14th. I'm sorry. The delay. So yeah, I did check them and read through them thoroughly. And so I will move approval. And I will second that license. Okay. Thank you. Motion in a second. And any discussion prior to a vote. Okay. The street. Can we please have a roll call vote. Okay. Yes. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Shepard. Yes. Okay. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Villalente. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yeah. And chair Gordon. Yes. Thank you. That passes and we can move on. I just want to be clear that what I was looking at is today's agenda that's. And maybe I have. And not an updated agenda, but it does say August 24th on the agenda. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Jocelyn Jocelyn sent us all the minutes. I think that was Monday. I can't remember what day. Yesterday. And then attachment yesterday. And if you bring that up. It has. Right. And. Yeah. I'm on the online agenda. And it does say September 14th as well. So I. Maybe I'm. Something different. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm on the one that I was sent, but I haven't gone through the planning department and gender to get to there. So any case. We're all good. Sounds like. We got a lot of emails. So. Yeah. Right. And it's not as properly. So that's important as well. So it is there. Correct. Great. Thank you. Okay. So. On to the item number seven, we're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the resolution to the sustainability policy. Few things want to chat through here before we really dive in. I just a little housekeeping thing. So I think we're going to stick. With our same break schedule that we had. Last week, if necessary, you know, I'm not sure exactly how long I'm going to go today, but we had. Breaks at 11. Lunch. 30 minute lunch. Around 1230. So if you get into those. Not long one day, we'll, we'll try to break it those times. We are going to have. The process today will, there will not be a presentation. However, we can have another introduction. If that's possible. And then also we will open for public comment. After that introduction. And once we get to the public comment, I want to talk a little bit about how that'll go. But I'd like to open up to you. Ms. Hansen start. Thank you, chair. Good morning. Commissioners. Stephanie Hansen assistant director. For the new CDI department. Maybe not so new now. But. Thank you for. Having us back where we are. As the chairs that said, we are not doing a. Staff presentation. We would refer people back to. The August 24th meeting when the staff presentation was given. And as well as the packet material that is linked on the website. For actually the last three meetings have those materials. There were some additional. Correction pages that have been given. To the planning commission. There was also. An overall motion that was crafted in the. August 24th. Meeting agenda. So. I think. After we hear additional amending motions. From the staff. And after we hear additional amending motions. From the commissioners will probably circle back for an overall motion on anything that wasn't amended. And the recommendations to the board of supervisors. To certify the secret document and. And the other things that are included in that motion. And the commissioners. I just want to make sure that we do do that. We appreciate all the hard work that the commissioners have been doing to review these documents. We recognize it's a. Massive project for. All of us. And the team is here to help. Answer any questions that the commissioner may. Commissioners may have, although I think we're. Here to help. So. Thank you chair. And I will pass it back over to you. If you want to open public comment first or. The commission discuss how you want to handle. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. You know, I think it. Would it be appropriate to. Get through the public comment and allow people opportunity to, you know, hear from the last hearing or any new items. I just do want to. Make a note to everyone that is listening from the public that if you've written a letter, we've received it and, you know, read through it and that. Is all information that we've, you know, likely received. And so. If there's other comments that you'd like to bring up or new items, I think that would be most appropriate. If it's a kind of maybe repeat from the last few hearings, I would state that, you know, we've, we've heard. And so. With that, let's do, let's open the public comment at this time. And then we'll come back to the commission. To ask any further questions and discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair Gordon. Just one, one thing to that. Very introduction. And that is just to say for the public's. Benefit that this is not the last stop on this train. And that these are recommendations that will then go on to the board of supervisors. So any member of the public who is here listening. To just know that. The planning commission is making recommendations to the final board of supervisors. And then at the conclusion of today's meeting, maybe staff could talk about that timeline for the public's benefit. Happy to do that. Thank you for that addition. Yes. Great addition. Thank you. All right. So I will. Move over and see who we've got from the public. So this time that we'll have three minutes. I'll go through the meeting. I'll go to the meeting. And I'll be on the clock for each speaker and I see hand raised by Michael Metera. Good morning, Michael. Will you please restate your name for the record? Hello, everybody. My name is Michael. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning. Yes. So I grew up on 26th avenue. And when I was a kid, my dad worked as a lab technician at UCSC. and pay the mortgage. That is not a dream that is available to people in this area anymore. And the reason is housing. The median house price is well over a million dollars in this neighborhood where I still live. If we don't, so I really support the rezoning of Portola in the construction of higher density housing here. Because if we don't lower the price or if we don't build affordable housing in this neighborhood, the median house price will go up and up and this will become a soulless enclave of millionaires and billionaires. Who is going to buy a secondhand wetsuit from the carters if you have to be a millionaire to live here? No one. None of the businesses that we cherish will survive if this is just a playground for the fabulously wealthy. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. All right. Back to the hands raised and I'll just remind everybody if you're calling in to press star nine on your telephone if you would like to remotely raise your hand and I see the caller two nine one five hand raised. I believe that's Becky. Good morning again. Please restate your name for the record. Good morning. This is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning again. Thank you. Once again, thank you for having this additional meeting today. I've read through the proposed changes from your last meeting and I think they are all excellent. Because I am a member of the Lions club, I have become acquainted with a number of low vision and blind people and they have helped literally open my eyes to the access problems they encounter as they try to navigate independently throughout our county. One of the biggest issues is the non standard placement and type of crosswalk signalization and much of it is not audible. So if you're blind, you don't know you pressed the button. You don't know what the crosswalk signal is displaying. The county is doing a good job of trying to upgrade a lot of those intersections. But I see that you have some good comments here on the general plan access and mobility portion. And I would like to have some language in there that all crosswalks are standardized in terms of location and type of equipment and that all of them are audio activated and at an appropriate audio level. When it is near a busy street and the audio is way down low, the people cannot hear it who need it most. So I would like to ask for that. My second point is regarding the singling out the pleasure point area only for the ultra high density. It makes no sense. It should be moved to areas along the rail corridor in my opinion so that future rail public transportation would be accessible and supported by the dense development that will have to come to accommodate the Rena numbers but would better serve the public. Pleasure point is not on a major corridor. In fact, the four lanes that Portola Drive was is now reduced. And I feel that increasing density in that area will not serve the public and will destroy the nature of that neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Becky. Okay. Going back to the list of callers and attendees. Again, if you would like to speak on the sustainability update, please raise your hand by pressing star nine or selecting the hand icon on the zoom app. I see Mr. Still is with us. However, the hand is not raised. Good morning again, Mr. Still, will you please restate your name for the record? Jerry Still. Jerry. Good morning. Hi. Yeah, I'm with the say pleasure point group and and I agree with Becky the last caller. The nine parcels proposed for rezoning along Portola, but they're located between 32nd and 36th, which is only four blocks. And with the flex zoning, it could grow from 45 units per acre to 81 units, which could be 373 units on 4.61 acres. And it's yeah, it's only four blocks. So this is this is not sustainable. Please reconsider the zoning for Portola Drive and save the high density flex zoning for multimodal and active corridor streets, not Main Street. Thank you. Thank you, Jerry. Okay, last call for public comment on the sustainability update. For this meeting. All right, I see hand raised by David Faulkner. Good morning, David. You have three minutes. Will you please restate your name for the record? Yeah, my name is David Faulkner. Good morning. Good morning. I just chimed in and I'm not sure what's up and so far in the meeting, but I just want to address the smaller community community areas. I live in the neighborhood of Zionty in Lompico. And historically, we've had a downtown area, which includes the Zionty market. But the general plan has the area zone as residential. So it's currently it's operating on a use permit from the 1970s. And it's been a community center and corner store since the 1940s. I was hoping the general plan could recognize this area as a commercial zone and change the zoning to commercial and also designated as a RSL rural service line for two properties, one that includes the Zionty market and one that is across the street that used to house the club Zionty, which was also a commercial operation since 1929 up until 1983. I think the general plan kind of ruined the area by forcing everybody to drive five to six miles down to downtown Safeway. And I've been really struggling on the property owner. And I've been really struggling with expanding the market with extra seating and more retail space because the general plan doesn't want to store in the on the parcel. So I'm hoping that this general plan could recognize this area as a viable commercial area that serves very highly densely populated Zionty in Lompico. So I have a minute left, but I'm going to sign off here. Great. Thank you, David. Thank you. All right. Are there any additional members of the public who wish to speak on this item, the sustainability update? Chair, I am not seeing any, so I will turn it back up and just went up. Participant by the name of Oliver. Good morning. Please state your full name for the record. You have three minutes. Good morning. My name is Oliver Carter. I am the owner of Blown Out, Wetsuit Repair, and Surfshack on Portola. I just wanted to chime in. I appreciate what the committee is doing. All in all, I'm for housing in Santa Cruz. It's a very impacted area. And I understand that a lot of people who grew up here, including my wife, I've been here 30 years, you know, we're always seeking housing. But to be honest with you, the rezoning of my parcel is what I have to focus on. And I just want the commission to think about that. I know ultimately it's up to the property owner. But the rezoning of this parcel, you know, will greatly impact my business and and in concerns to Mr. Matera's comment, being able to buy, you know, a second hand wetsuit from us might not be an option for anybody. If this location disappears after 27 years of being a business that gives back to the community and gave back to the community. I hope that the committee takes that into account when making the recommendations. We've been in contact with with Manu and a number of people on his his staff concerning this. I just want to let it be known that, you know, we're fighting for our survival, we feel to an extent. Thank you. Thank you, Oliver. Are there any other members of the public who wish to provide comment at this time? So please raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone or the hand icon on the zoom link. I'm seeing no further hands raised chairs. I will turn it back over to you. Okay, thank you. And thank you to all the callers that spoke up. We really appreciate it. And, you know, for everyone that's chimed in along the way and giving us your feedback, we can't thank you enough for being here. At this time, we can close the public comment portion and bring it back to the commission. And I just wanted to start off with talking about a little bit of recap where we ended last time and where we're headed this time. So we've, you know, kind of officially got through questions and discussion and have been on to motions. Um, last time, correct me if I'm missing something, but we had motions on the built environment under the general plan section under the built environment, active mobility, agriculture, natural resource and conservation parks and rec and public facilities. And I think that that's all we went through last time. So I just wanted to start off by, well, first off, I'd want to see if anyone had any additional questions before we went into motions just to make sure, you know, that if anything came up from the last week that missioners had time. And then I just want to go through the sections one at a time to just verify that we didn't miss any sections that maybe people had a motion on that we that we maybe skipped over just to be really clear there. So I'll just go through them one at a time and then we can say yes, no to comments or motions and then move on. And excuse me, what I'm sorry, I'm unclear what you're proposing to do right now, because my understanding was we concluded our action on the general plan. So from my perspective, though, that action is in the minutes, we just adopted the minutes. And that's now been moved on to the board of supervisors will move on to staff to do what they need to do to incorporate those and then to write their comments and their staff report. And that's headed to the board of supervisors for final determination. And so my understanding of what's in front of us now is the remainder of the package, which is the zoning code. That is correct. To some extent, I don't remember if we went over the intro or made a motion on the intro to the general plan. And then we do need to, you know, I just wanted to make sure that if we went through all of the sections just in order to make sure not anything we've already discussed, but the ones we haven't discussed to make sure if anyone had comments, so we didn't miss them. Thank you. Just for my, so for my clarity, can you identify which sections you feel we did not go over? Yes, the the items that we need to cover today are the general plan introduction. I believe we didn't make a motion on that. So that will need to be included today. The general plan appendices are part of the packet, the design guidelines, and then code sections five, essentially all the code sections, then we have map amendments. Right. Finally, if there's any thing anybody missed or stuff like that. So that's okay. That's fine. If you want to discuss the general plan introduction, that's fine. My understanding was we covered that last time, but that's fine. So yes, the zoning code and the appendices we do need to cover. And that's what I had said. My understanding was where we are today. Yeah, I just my intention is not to reopen anything that we've already adopted and is in the minutes. And so I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Yeah, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we need to go in order of all the things we haven't discussed. Sorry, Chair Gordon. Yes. I need to ask a question of Stephanie at this point. Yeah, I think that'd be great. It's not a substantive question. It's about your organization you're proposing. Stephanie, what part of the code are the issues that I discussed with you in because I'm now on a fairly old laptop without much ability to search anything. So when Tim announces those, I can speak up. Yes, Chair Commissioner Shepard, your interest has been in code sections and we haven't started that work yet. So I believe what Chair Gordon is asking for is anything else on the general plan and the introduction. And we do need a motion on the introduction, the glossary and the appendices to also forward those along to the board. When we get to code sections, would you help me by identifying the code sessions that I have talked to you about? Because I don't have much access to anything. Certainly. Okay, that sounds great. And just trust me on this. Let me get started and it'll come together. Okay, so. Chair Gordon, you said if we had questions, I do have some outstanding questions that never got answered by staff. If now would be the appropriate time to ask them. I would like to follow up. Yes, let's do that. So there were two questions that I asked last time that staff said they were going to get back to me on and I wish just hoping that perhaps they had a chance to look into it. Since they, and they do have to do with the section, the code section that we're going to discuss today. So I'd be just helpful to know for our making, since we are going to discuss that. So there's just two, I promise. You said you guys are going to get back to me on. So if now would be the appropriate time. One was in the, the residential use chart. No, sorry, it was in the commercial use chart. We had to do with the green houses. No, it's the residential use chart having to do with the green houses. It had a reference to a section and Daisy was going to get back to me, I think on whether or not that code section, although it's green houses, it's not any we discovered because Daisy said that it was going to be her that got back to me on whether or not that section was the appropriate reference. I don't know if someone had a chance to look into that or not. We did. I think Annie is here to help us with that question. Perfect. Yes, thank you. I did. I did look at that and the reference should be it currently reads 1310 323 B and it should be 1310 323 C, which references a site and structural dimensions chart, which is essentially the, you know, setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, all the all this development standards that applied to residential zone districts. Can you explain to me how that determines the ability to have a greenhouse? Because if I recall 1310 323 had to do with like a lot side had to do with determining lot size, like so the ability to create a lot and I'm going to have to go back and look. I apologize. It's been a week since we talked about it and it's been even longer since I read it. But can you since I'm happy to go look at 323 C while you start your explanation, but it would be helpful for me if you could explain how that makes sense just because I want to, I want to understand when we're allowing these greenhouses of a thousand feet or more on a parcel because that's a big greenhouse on a residential parcel. I'm trying to understand when we would be allowing that. Yes. So the 1310 32B section that was incorrectly referenced does talk about determining lot size, but 1310 32C is the residential use charts section. So that provides the development standards for both. There's a chart for single family zoning as well for multi-family zoning. So it provides setbacks and lock covers. So for example, the greenhouses would need to comply with with setback limits for residential properties and height limit. So so in other words, they would be subject to all of the site standards that apply to the district. If I recall the reference to this though wasn't, it didn't say that they were subject to that. It said if and I think I apologize I have to get to the section of the thing. So you're saying that they had their subject to those setbacks. That's what that reference is saying there. Yes. Let me pull that up and I can read. I know I have to get there too. I apologize. Okay. No, that's that's fine. Let's see. Agriculture, animal agriculture. Okay. So greenhouse, there's two lines. One greenhouse is 1000 square feet and then the second line is greenhouse is larger than 1000 square feet. And then it says subject to development standards in 1310 323B and it should be changed to subject to development standards in 1310 323C which which there's you know that section includes the two uses the two development site standards charts one for the single family zoning and one for multifamily zoning. Okay. And so that's what they're sorry I just got that myself. So that's what it's saying that it's these it's these setbacks that are now. Okay. That's right. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I just think it's important when we're talking about putting these really large structures on residential parcels that I understand what what we're doing. Okay. So so obviously that that would and I don't know that we're going to need a direction but that would need to be changed. Okay. And then my other question. Thank you Annie. I really appreciate that. My other question had to do with the it's in 1310 343-1 it was the industrial site and structural dimension chart. It had to do with the height of structures. When we looked over it didn't look like there was any height limit when not on our or a district. Is this for bringing those for people? Yes. This rings a bell. We did have a look at that in the past couple of days. We think we think there's an error. There are just some left over text and so in the M2 zone for the maximum building height it should read the same as the M1 and M3. So just three stories with 40 feet and then delete if within 200 feet of an R or a district. So they're all the same. That way the 40 feet applies across the board. And we will we're intending to make this correction as it goes to to the board. So we've caught that. Thank you very much for that. Perfect. I just like I said I think it's important when we're talking about these types of things. So I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the follow-up. I think and thank you for indulging me on these two issues. Of course. Thank you. And any other questions from commissioners at this time to before we move on to each section? No. I just want to thank staff for answering my questions that I had during the week and the work that you put into providing some really helpful responses. Thank you. Well I had one. One of the questions I asked and I did hear from back from Stefan in a very timely fashion but I wanted to make sure the other board members know I asked how much it costs how much she estimates it costs to appeal a zoning administrator appeal approval or denial to the planning commission and it's basically and Stephanie correct me if I don't get this right because I don't have it in front of me. It's basically timed on at an hourly rate which is $199 an hour. She and her email estimated a ballpark figure of 10 hours minimum. So that's costing someone who wants to appeal a CA decision at least $2,000. So we all know what we're talking about here. And up from there. In other words at least 10 hours and equities of maybe 15 or 20 so it's really significantly expensive to do so. Thank you. I just wanted to hear that. Thank you Commissioner Shepherd. Thank you that's helpful. Commissioner Lazenby did you have anything? I just wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity. Thank you chair not at this time. Okay. Thanks. And Commissioner Dan. Good. Okay. I am also good to go. No further questions. Great. So we can just march through the list of items that we didn't talk about so that I know and we're all on the same page as to what would be kind of like a batch motion at the end. So I'm just going to go through all those sections really quickly. General plan introduction. Did anyone have any changes or plans for changes to a motion on that? No, but since we're talking about it I will just say that I really appreciate the introduction and I think it gives a great overview of the county. So good job. Okay. Then the next one is we that would then cover all the general plan. Then we have general plan appendices. There's a number of them. Were there any adjustments that commissioners were going to want to see on the appendices? Yes chair. I think that there are two different spots where I'd like to have a discussion about the appendices both in appendix J and then appendix I don't know if you want to take them as one motion. One is just kind of a general comment actually that I want to I think it's a we could discuss now or later but I think appendix I is the it's the TDM plans and I think it's worth discussing that one first actually but I don't know if other commissioners have things that we could take them together we want to take them one at a time. If I make a suggestion because a commissioner Villalonti and I worked on this together and we I think I think it's be helpful to discuss them and have questions now but the way we batched the suggested modification for that one in particular is in a is an emotion with some other items so it would make it easier for us if we could then just discuss that. Well I mean we'll propose those changes in emotion so I would prefer not to take them separately right now but we have them embedded in another document where we can see those reflected but if you want to have a discussion about it now that that doesn't mess up my plan yeah my process I should say yeah just to make sure this is all super you know clear and we've gone through this I haven't missed anything I do want to make sure that if this is anticipated to be in a motion separately that we're really clear about that and then I I think it would be helpful to have discussion on this item if it's in a separate motion so we can just march down the list that'll help my brain keep organizing yeah no I totally understand everybody's brain is organized in a different way and so I totally get that and then I'll just add that you know anything that is like a remainder dangling out there at the end of the day and you know Stephanie brought up a really important one that we have to make a determination on the sequel document that that could be also in a separate motion so I'm going to rely on staff to kind of make sure that we're not leaving anything we're not leaving anything out and that at the end of you know whatever Commissioner Vialanti and I propose that if we miss some things that you would let us know so that we can make the appropriate motions to follow the letter of the law and carry out our duty thank you we're happy to help with that great uh Commissioner Vialanti do you want to jump in on those yeah so in particular in appendix I with the TDM plans I think it was this isn't new to the commission that I have concerns and Commissioner Dan and I discussed them so I suppose I think I should use the we that um that about using the reduction of parking spaces as a TDM strategy and um to be one of the things I would like to discuss is although being comfortable with the unbundling of parking spaces as a strategy um that we only do it in for larger developments than is currently um being proposed so not not pretend but for possibly 25 or more and when they are offering um bus passes so those are the kinds of things I would like to see considered by the commission as alternatives to what's currently being proposed um and so those are the types of things that I would like to discuss as being forward and would we get to the point where you see exactly what it is that's being proposed I think that you know we can kind of get into more detail about what it is and why we came up with the proposal that we did or you did Tim thank you um which section do you plan on discussing that with because I might yeah I understand so we have a section on the zoning code that has a number of items in it and then we as going through the documents we realize there are all these other kind of like random issues and so we made a general document and the general document has the items that Commissioner Villalanti just articulated and then it also has um you know maybe a handful of modifications to Chapter 1810 which is the procedures so what I was thinking maybe we could do once we're you know done with the general plan and then any questions or discussion that you want to have um in general then we can put up what our proposed modifications are to the zoning code go through those in detail um and then take action on that and then we can put up the general directions that cover the appendices and Chapter 1810 okay so then after that whatever anybody else you know wants to do obviously we should consider that as well right okay so let's do that let's so we'll push the unless other commissioners had specific discussions on the appendices we'll push it to Title 18 and or kind of general all over things that are kind of hard to qualify and put a certain section it was like the like document we created for like I don't know where this should go yeah it's also intertwined I feel like you know some of them are hard to even pin into a single category might be multiple so exactly okay well that sounds great did uh Commissioner Layson be your shepherd have any other comments on that are we okay moving with that direction yes I'm I'm okay with that it that makes more sense I think great okay so then just marching down the list we had design guidelines just kind of the next thing and um were there any adjustments that commissioners had planned on on making for this section sounds like no okay great so that will include in kind of a batch at the end and then next section is Title 5 uh onto the county code portion Title 5 was the first one any adjustments or discussion there um why don't you name the code sections as you go through absolutely I can do that excuse me I miss spoke there's Title 5 through 12 are kind of included and then just again following the layout that's on the website and so there's Title 5 through 12 which is trip reduction building regulations and solar access protection in those sections I don't trust this laptop to go back and forth between the internet so I'm using my printed out believe it or not copy it so you have to give me a little time mostly for those sections there's a bunch of crossouts okay um yeah and then you know commissioners shepherded I think you know if there's stuff that we move past obviously and want to come back to it at the end there's we'll have this kind of like catch all motion so I definitely want to make sure we're all on the same page with that um do you all have the codes up on your computers then while we're doing this I do I also have the printed code in front of me I have both I'm with him yes I have the code sections that are relevant and I'm glad that I just want to make the looks like commissioners are using the printed code so thank you so much staff for doing that that was that was a heavy left so so this is we are going down through the tabs on the printed code that are title 5 and title 12 correct in this chapter is trip reduction 5.52 uh building regulations which is 12.01 and solar access protection which is 12.28 thank you okay um well let's move if there's not a lot any discussion on those we can move on and then commissioner shepherd if you find something or need to jump back let's do that we're not closing it out I'm just trying to go in order so I'll make a note that might want to follow up with you on that one okay you're good okay that was five through 12 okay onto the probably the bulkiest one here title 13 in chapter 13.10 so um commissioner shepherd this is you know there's a lot of things that I I mean there's probably 20 sections in this but um it's generally you know zoning regulations uh ordinance and permanent administration uh the districts and the uses um so I I'm sure vlonti and I do have some proposed changes and if it works to use the same process we did last time which I realize is not ideal because we're not in person but um so if I could share my screen and then commissioner vlonti could send the document to miss drake and she could send it to commissioners so commissioners could also have it um that's that's what I'll do if that's agreeable to everyone does that work okay yes let's not change it now we got it okay I appreciate that okay here we go okay can everybody see what I see yes my screen okay thank you and then I'll wait a second to make sure that that can get sent to everyone so um in the meantime I'll um make the motion to uh for the staff recommended changes in chapter 13.10 with the following additions so that's a motion wait what's the motion the motion is to uh adopt the staff recommended changes for chapter 13.10 with the uh with the added additions that are presented in this document that's now being shared on my screen and that will be emailed to you right now and then if I get a second I will go through each section and explain the context and the intent like we did last week. I'll second that. Well um I probably you know I was as you know from earlier sessions I wanted to change the language in a very specific section animal regulations and did I do that then separately well why don't we do this so I actually um yeah I understand you know you probably are the most equipped to let me just start over um we can do it a number of ways we can take that separately or if you have some specific language additions you can make a friendly amendment and we can you know either accept that or not accept that um however it works for you I would be uh glad to make a friendly amendment Stephanie where is the part about the planning commission responsibilities in this section when we go through it Renee we'll get to the section that deals with animals later no I there's animals and then there's what goes to the planning commission that I want to address specifically right we um we have that in here as well and um but if you we you know when we get to that section we can discuss all right just as long as I know what's going on definitely and I've now noted you have um you want to make some changes to the animal keeping regs and um so we will make sure to to discuss that and and entertain any amendments you might want to make on this and the other point was about um mitigations being recommended or necessary I don't I well let's just go through it go ahead okay sounds good okay um let me minimize my screen here okay um so we are trying to go in order well um of 1310 but I apologize if things are tiny bit out of order we really tried to put all the code sections in in order um so the first recommended change is um about intensification of use and for non-residential uses and so the original language here um had kind of uh one either one or the other or I'm sorry excuse me it had a that um that it's you had to achieve a metric of both a 10 increase and uh 110 daily vehicle trips and we um are saying um that it could be one or the other that um changes the definition of intensification of use and so we reworded this um section reflect that would you scroll down so I can see the rest of this yes this this the what I just explained is is just here 1310 260 b1 intensification of use what why are you suggesting that commissioner well um and commissure Villalanti should feel free to weigh in as well but so this was basically when you change a use so basically what the code is doing and this is a section where the code is actually going from what exists now and making a substantial change um to make it easier for businesses to change their use without um having to go through a cumbersome public hearing process and I support that um but I so but I think that we need to still be mindful that some uses do have a lot of impact so say for instance if you're going from an office to a dance studio um you know that could have a lot of parking and traffic impacts and that those should have an opportunity to be mitigated I don't know if commissure Villalanti wants to add anything else yeah that's exactly right so last time Tim we discussed this um that the standard through which if you have a one of the things we did in the the general plan is we said that if you have a use permit it's a ministerial process in order to change the what the business in there as long as they're consistent with the use the zoning and but as long as it's not an intensification of use and so we think the standard under which you should have that lower level of review just needs to be um we want to ensure that it it's appropriate like Rachel said we want to make sure businesses can change hands but we want we think that the standard under which justification of use it needs to be appropriate so that um if there is a intensification of use uh people are just notified it changes when they're notified of a change of business so it's consistent with the action we took last time essentially in the just to you know be transparent the um significant change here is we crossed out both thank you for that yeah no problem and then so moving on this is um on page two of thirteen ten three eleven be on agricultural districts and the direction here is to retain the original language and of commissure violence d wants to talk about this one okay so historically there's been kind of this distinction between commercial agricultural properties and agricultural properties and we felt that the striking of some of this language got rid of the distinction between commercial agricultural properties that were um commercial in nature and agricultural properties that are supposed to be primarily this was to have the agricultural knot in kind of the same scale and so we just restored some of the language here um that it's on small amounts um and that it's um so that's that's what we did it's kind of keep to maintain that distinction we felt like some of the choices to strike were just we wanted to keep that distinction between a and c in pencil are any questions on this one i'll move on and then this second one is also staying with ag districts and this is regarding agritourism and so the code is um doing a lot of great things to promote agritourism um which definitely think is a good idea um so this added language uh has to do with events on a zone parcels that um want to have events and one of the things that um i've learned on this commission is that events uh in rural areas are highly controversial and of all of the issues that have probably come before us i'd say probably the most difficult and controversial have been having events in in rural areas that um are adjacent to residential districts so this is really just to kind of like put up a guardrail here um so for if you have an a district and you want to have some events um that if but if you're in 200 feet of a neighboring residence or adjacent to an r zone where the residents that then you'd have to go out and get a public a c up which would be a public hearing um at the za and that and the distinction here is that is for events exceeding 12 per year so if you're an a zone and you want to have 12 events per year with no amplified music no problem you don't need a c up but with the change here that um we're recommending is that if you want to exceed 12 events per year which is substantial that you should you need to go out and get a public hearing or of any size that's using amplified music and the amplified music is because in my experience that's the kicker for the neighbors is that um and so what i've found is that public hearings can actually be really helpful and mitigating um some of those impacts while still allowing um the events um in the rural areas i would just like to add that in my experience i totally agree with rachel in its my experience when you have a public hearing i've seen i've seen things work out so that the event goes on with the neighborhood going for it once they know what's going on and make some suggestions so it ends up making much better resolution yeah thank you for that addition that's i agree that is there any questions on that one okay moving on so these are some okay so this is now moving on to residential districts we're on 13 10 3 22 the residential use chart and so this came up um when we were talking about the general plan two or maybe this was a question i had um last week about bed and breakfast um with over fewer rooms um having an an a up which means public noticing but no public hearing and so we're suggesting to to replace a up with c up to make it consistent with the requirements for vacation rentals so it just didn't make sense to me that you could have a bed and breakfast with up to 24 guests with an a up when you know you're a big you have a vacation rental application that has five bedrooms with that would be fewer guests than the b and b you would have to get a public hearing so um i just am suggesting this change to make that consistent since are there any questions on that one um speak up because i actually minimized my um screen so i can't see anybody right now so if you do have a question i'm relying on people just to speak up that's good thank you commissioner just to um point of clarification for us so we make sure we have it right you're talking across the board in all zones is that correct we're in the residential use in the residential use chart we're currently in the residential use chart you can see that that in the motion or in the residential use chart yes well i can only see what's on there but um for all zoning districts that are included in that chart you're requesting the shifts i would i just want to say i i i agree for the same reason before usually if there's people are interested go to a hearing they can often work things out very conveniently and it saves a whole lot of neighborhood misery when it just happens and i think actually this saves huh rather than doing it ministerially i actually agree with that comment that renais shepherd made um and so yeah and you know and like i said i i believe if like you have a a five bedroom vacation rental on doesn't matter the zone district that you know you would have to get a public hearing um so so it's it is just to out of fairness really um to the vacation rentals okay so the next one is um recreation events and community facilities of page nine of that code section uh if uh commissioner vilon team wants to address this one so it's restoring language it was in the original code um and it's it to us it doesn't make sense that you would allow like commercial we're not really sure why this language was struck we wouldn't want to allow commercial um or public spaces that seems like a larger impact than we would want um in residential zone facilities that we would in residential parcel we wouldn't want them to be commercial use so we restored language that was struck from the previous code just great restoring the language of private and non-commercial we're fine obviously with open spaces being used uh on residential parcels but we don't believe that they should be commercial and meet chart so we're just restoring language that had been struck okay and then moving on on the next page covers wineries um and we are um well i'll let our commercial reality speak to this one that's what's up on our that's what's our screen now right yeah wineries and so we'll get to wineries a lot more later in the code um because this is just the use chart there's later obviously big discussion about events and things like that but um the we we felt that these wineries and the impact they can have because they can have these um wine tasting they can have these events that they're much they're essentially commercial uses on residential parcel and something that we as a community should be have a higher level of scrutiny we want to preserve uh residential uses especially in our rural areas um we in our general plan decided that parcels outside the urban and rural services line will no longer have our one zoning so we think it's important that we preserve the residential nature of these communities i mean we had um we don't want to see them turned into um high-trafficked um commercial areas and so we think that although we believe that they should be able to exist uh similar to things like um Richard Dan was talking about on these events with um amplified music they should just have a higher level of public hearing before they proceed and so that's why we suggested these changes for these wineries and and i want to say at the higher level we usually have been able to work out something that most parties reluctantly agree to but nonetheless so that often what the wineries want want the neighbors want can be adjudicated at a hearing otherwise uh there's an awful lot of work for the sheriff that doesn't need to happen thank you and just to make sure um for the public as well c up stand for conditional use permit and if it's not noted as such it staff has indicated that would be a zoning administrator hearing and we're suggesting wineries in the medium level um be a planning commission hearing and i think that partly what commissioner shepherd said um that's the word is reflected in this recommendation because it will just save time in the end and and frankly permit and appeal fees as well which can be substantial well i just had one more comment i know staff feels that a lot of the simplification that they're looking for and having lesser levels of hearings is because they part of the goal of this is if it's allowed in the code then there's not as much need to look very carefully at it or or that doesn't need a high level of scrutiny i do not myself share that opinion because the and this is a good example it's allowed but it needs conditions for the neighborhoods it's in to make it work successfully and i think the sometimes the almost always the higher level of hearing airs all the issues and the parties we the the zoning administrator or the planning commission can come up with some conditions that well everybody not might not like they can live with and the project actually can proceed whereas if you just permit it and then all hell breaks loose you really have a whole lot more staff time and actually you know share of time to contend with so because people don't know what's happening and they feel like it just happened and they were not consulted well when in fact if there's a hearing you can then issues can be adjudicated and resolved so i i think the higher level hearing actually results in simplification curiously enough rather than not requiring hearings on or conditional use permits on on a whole lot of areas in this document i don't agree with making things at a lower level on that and that's why okay thanks thank you commissioner shepherd okay um unless there's any other questions on on that i'll move on to the next item which is page 27 1310 323-2 multi-family residential standards and concerning maximum building height and this addition is asking to restore the 28 foot maximum building height outside of the urban services line the usl for the zone districts reflected on the page rm 1.5 to rm 2.5 rm 3 and rm 4 i believe actually you know i think that's the type of what you'd say rm 3 2 rm dash i think that's a mistake on my part there okay i'd say rm 3 2 rm dash 4 right there i'm just looking at the chart apologize no that's okay i can i can fix it yeah okay i just want to be clear for the commission in the public so i'll correct it sorry there any questions on that nope um so the next item um i'll scroll down and i'm sure veal on t you can make that change yeah thank you um okay the next one is um regarding open space requirements for rm and rf and rf is the new residential flex zone district which is a new zone district that is going to provide um a higher density by please 40 units per acre um the rm district is uh district we currently have and so this was an area where staff was proposing to make what i saw was a significant change to the open space requirements for these two zone districts um i feel very strongly that requiring some open space private open space for high density development is is very desirable and makes for better designs in the end as well this is kind of a hybrid um i the rm requirement for open space was um reduced and so i'm not restoring i'm not suggesting that we restore that but instead take what the new proposal for rm is which is quite a bit smaller amount of open space and then applying that for rm and then applying that also to rf so that they um have the same open space requirements and i just think as we build higher densities that it becomes even more um important to make sure that we provide um a little bit of open space for the folks um that are going to be living in them so are there any questions about that i just want to comment that i've seen good designers over and over again able to accommodate open space in just this way so i certainly support this i don't think the open space should be the corridors inside the buildings and i was actually told by um the developer that um actually this is what the market demands anyway and so uh so for market rate development basically the point was for market rate development you're going to get private um open space anyway because that's what the renters or the buyers of the condo um desire so a lot of this also is for um the um the affordable housing projects as well and and then i was pleased to see that when staff interviewed midpen that they didn't have any issues with um the current um standards which are greater than what i'm even proposing here so yeah go ahead start him uh just um so are you i'm not clear on the language that you're proposing here are you saying that you need 60 feet of private open space per unit plus common open space yeah so that's the requirement for the rm district and so yeah i so yeah we're suggesting that um that that requirement be for both rm and rf so practically just like understanding how that gets applied you're stating that you want like private balconies on apartment complexes for every unit right so like for example you know are you familiar with the nanda downtown santa cruz that's the apartment complex that is on the corner of pacific and water okay single one of those units has a private balcony plus they have some common space inside yeah okay that's great um i just was you know thinking about the application of this and it's definitely possible but when you get to like lotline to lotline and i just do want to comment that when you have required private open space essentially in the form of a patio or a deck that i've seen a lot of challenges with neighbors because they don't want people in a more sort of building looking down into their parcel and that would be unavoidable in a high density area like this so sometimes there's options around private open space that is in other areas and doesn't necessarily need to be patios attached to units and i just wanted to comment that i understand the intent but i've also seen it become problematic with neighbors for viewsheds and private private views essentially so well i actually think you bring up an excellent point and i could see that that happening for sure and it's so it's like it's a delicate balance um so but if it was private the other thing i'm understanding you correctly you said the other ways it could be achieved what i thought i heard you articulate wouldn't be private open space though that would be open space it's not private but it would be common open space yeah i guess that's yeah yeah sometime yeah essentially there's i would say that i understand probably the intent of why this is mostly common open space and clearly i probably missed that that um i think it used to be that it was a certain amount required per unit but that it could be common or open or private and i don't have that the code open right now but um and i thought that that helped solve it but maybe there's a way to incorporate private open space where feasible as you know not to you know intrude on neighbor neighboring properties or something you know well yeah i yeah go ahead that was it yeah i'm so so two things one i think that one it's just desirable that if we're going to build a high density housing that we build quality units that provide a small modicum of private open space which makes a massive difference for the people that live there and then two my my hope and i believe is the intense the cdi department is that where these high density developments would occur would mostly be in in places where it's appropriate to build these high density housing so like some of the opportunity sites in live oak that probably are going to be right for redevelopment in the next you know 10 years like east cliff village and places like that so not to say that the don't have neighbors they do i know that like the eight three one water project had as neighbors you know to the back of it that are impacted and so it is like like i get it like there is going to be impacts on the neighbors so this is one of those things where it's like a balancing act of this commission yes do we um we need the housing so i support the high density housing and the changes that we're we're making but yeah i agreed to him that it's going to have an impact to the houses if they're single family houses adjacent to the high density housing yeah it's it's going to um it's going to impact those neighbors for sure um but i don't feel that i want to um you know take away an amenity that the folks living in those buildings should also have so but i so i guess like that does you know but i do believe that we have really smart designers and very talented designers who and um you know make magic with their designs that's my hope uh chair gordon uh yes miss murphy um can i ask a clarification question on the on the amendment um so currently for res flex um yep the standard is minimum and we creased it from 10 to 15 percent in response to earlier comments to you know try and provide can you wait the what do you the residential flex is a news zone district so what do you mean the current oh so so previously we had proposed 10 percent and then we did increase it to 15 after our discussions and we did additional analysis um okay but my question is um currently it reads minimum 50 percent of gross site area common and or private so right now the 15 percent is intended to provide flexibility of either you know the the choice depending on the property whether it would be common or private or a combination so so in your proposed change is the intention to keep that flexibility and then also require a minimum of 60 um square foot per unit private open space if i'm understanding you correctly yes okay thank you yes okay i'm moving on this next section page now we're on 1310 323 f2 on page 36 um this is just a clarifying addition that i believe that the intention of this section is is for 100 affordable housing units but um we just added that just for clarity sake and then here is where i think there'll be a lot of interest potentially um page 38 of this section i believe we're still in this section and this is about noticing in this uh excuse me i'm sorry i got confused we are now on 1310 323 f6a um i'm sure Vilante do you want to speak to this one yeah so we're just simply restoring um the notification when heights are if i'm if i'm checking to make sure i have the right section we're simply restoring the fact that there's notification when heights um go above certain levels so um and sure Dan please tell me if i'm incorrect about this but i were just saying that when initial heights are allowed that they're they're subject to this notification if they go above certain height limits so that's what this section is doing it's simply restoring the language that was struck by staff so that there is notification for their neighbors if they go above the allowed height questions on that one just one question um so an a up means an administrative use permit um discretionary permit with public notice what what is the public notice and the m up means no public notice so if anyone's following us but what is the notice on an administrative an a up well currently and um stay tuned but um currently it's um i'm not mistaken it's uh 300 feet of the proposed um project staff please correct me if i'm wrong but we are later um in our next document we're going to be making some suggested changes to noticing as well okay but just just so i know um i'm putting in my brain for the rest of this an a be an administrative administrative use permit is a discretionary permit with public notice what is the public notice i guess that's a staff question is it people within 300 feet 500 feet is it mailed how do how are at present there's no that's what i was asking at present they mail and stop this is confirm the regional commissioner dan and i cracked they mail residents within 300 feet according to the current code that's it that's correct and if you don't hit a certain minimum number of parcels you actually expand it to to hit that minimum number of parcels so they are they are mailed notices is it also posted um um you know a lamppost or i mean the way often notices of development are physically posted jocelyn can you just correct me if i'm wrong i'm not looking at chapter 1810 but i believe they are posted on site and hearings are published in the newspaper um yes for i'm not sure with uh with the code amendments how um the levels are are reorganized but yes for an administrative permit um level four currently we post a notice on the site and do the mailed noticing for the zoning administrator level hearings and above we do a big um on site sign i wasn't asking about the higher levels i was asking specifically about a up so is an a up um Stephanie and annie a level three or level four administrative four it's a four okay so for four it would be the mailed noticing and the yellow placard that is posted on site and then we also post on our website okay so we are changing everyone knows what a level three four five six seven mean we are adopting this new terminology and is eventually there won't will there not be published level three four five will they only say m up or a up with and will it have a statement of what that means someplace it's just hard to make this transition or or is that an internal m up is that for internal use no it's it's it would be in the code and um title 18 speaks to procedures well i'd like to suggest that every table um in the header of every table you you have enough room you once again define any acronyms more frequently because they're they're typically defined okay good we are you are just going yeah i think so okay yeah i even think um that in chapter 18 even under the amended section it says a up formally level four i think i'm i mean there's a there's a crosswalk table that's great yes i understand um can you refer me to that page because saying a level four for someone who has no idea what either mean that does not very helpful sure so actually um we actually are gonna we have a those are actually some sections where we're gonna get into the weeds on in our second part two of this i just like to once again remind staff internal use you understand these changes immediately and you use them fluently but as a planning commissioner i'm always referring people to sections of the code or suggesting they go down and people don't know what three four five six means is and now we're changing again so just saying a up equals level four is not helpful to anyone who's not part of the planning department like you gotta say you gotta say what it means that's all often part of the purpose of this is to align our permit structure with how other communities do it so it'll be a little bit actually easier for people to understand a conditional use permit um rather than a level six or seven um that has you know there's a little mysterious so the the intent is the the opposite it should be clear to people i don't mean that using initials or letters instead of numbers isn't fine if you feel and that's a good rationale but don't assume that if someone moves here from wisconsin or santa claire for that the aup is a transparent term it's still a planning jargon and it doesn't hurt to say what it means often commissioner shepherd just to answer your question page nine since you have the physical printout of title 18 there is the uh crosswalk of what level four and the aup and the sup uh so you can just have it in front of you we'll continue to try to explain it when we use it but just well i have printed out a page mean so i've got that tape to my desk so i'm using that is that what you're referring to no it has a i think i did both work probably it has the tape it has the level one level four level etc and then what that means in terms of the aup c up is it ministerial is it discretionary i won't waste their time i wasn't i'm i guess i'm just trying to point out that you really you know making the successful for the average citizen is important that's all and letters or numbers aren't helpful so having yeah right i've repeating myself go on thank you now i think you're making some good points to the average citizen trying to figure out what's going on across the street you're making really good points i think that um stephanie is correct that for the development community this will make more sense for them so i think both both are true in this instance and so moving on to the next part oh sorry sorry yes yes i was um i am a little confused about the height when it goes over 28 feet up to 35 feet it's m up then when it goes over 35 feet it goes back to a up is there a typographical error or am i just not understanding that no that's a good catch go ahead else i'm sorry no so the m up is a lower level of review than an a up so when you're on a larger parcel it starts at m up because the parcel is so large okay and then it goes to an a up versus on a smaller parcel it has it starts at a higher level of review because the parcel is smaller if you're right we could we could have a smaller level of review on smaller parcels but no the idea is that you don't need that higher level of review um you start higher for the smaller parcels versus we in that tinier window from 28 okay because the parcel is larger the review is smaller it's because thank you so big another question on this one so um you know these i believe that these height limits were probably based on the old height limits but those have changed so it's this i'm just confused to where this would apply because um and if it would need to say or instead of the specific height listed what the planning department said was um uh any increase over permitted building height because building heights vary from zone to zone in the residential district um so this could require an a up for a standard project technically as written even if it meets the limit it's a good catch tim because you're right the narrative does say um over the permitted height but then you're right so um there are certain districts you are correct um where we where we could now increase it to higher so i because it does say because if you read six just standard six it just says structural exceeding zoning district height so yeah i suppose it's um and i think that is you're you're right i have to look at that the the res use chart to figure out could i say i mean it seems like the intent was projects two and a half on let's just work in our way from the top down projects to under two and a half acres would be anything over the permitted height and then the two and a half and larger would be anything permitted height plus five feet and then anything or excuse me seven feet simple math not my forte um and then anything seven like permitted height seven plus seven feet or greater would be the third category for the aap yeah that's i think you're correct thank you for catching that we were like i said we just restored we were restoring the language in order to do a beer crack that we should amend our emotion to language there so um to include instead of saying over 28 feet it should be over um zoning district height limits and then so we should we should make that change rachel if you're okay with that yeah yeah definitely um do you want to yeah i can go in and do are we is that a technical friendly amendment is that what do we need to rephrase how we offer that change or okay on it yeah i mean i think we we both think that was good catch thank you the we can just like i guess this is one benefit of doing this remotely we can quantify the document in real time that's up to seven feet yeah up to yeah additional i think maybe maybe a good way of saying that yeah i don't want to seven feet i wanted to suggest that we're saying they can be seven feet you can have a seven foot tall building or you need an m up that's that look good to everybody there's only just right person right because it's over that yeah thanks yeah could you retain the feet in the last bottom category great um i had one other request for an addition at this section something that i've talked about and asked about but um you know i haven't got we haven't all discussed it as a group really and it's the idea that um within the urban services line in particular where we have rm high density rm zones especially which occurs along the corridors that we could allow the far exemption for parking underneath a structure as is currently in the rf but adding it to the rm densities that are the high densities inside the urban services line which again is like that corridors and that's typically our i think correct me from r and one uh or one and a half whatever our lowest one is through rm four and so anyway that's a long way to say would you guys accept an amendment to include the far uh just or um not parents i think you got my point and i can read it word for word here better um tim can you go ahead else is it tim can you tell me where in the code you wanted to insert this so i can yeah context from i can write it it doesn't i'm not i'm not exactly sure which part of uh code section 310 1310 323 because it doesn't really have a space there was in the rf district there was like an added um uh section for it and so it's not it would be in addition in the you know in a place that is appropriate does that make sense it doesn't i vaguely i vaguely recall what you're talking about i have no recollection where that is but basically what you're saying is there's some you would like what is being proposed for rf to apply to rm correct at least the high density rm which i think is technically the rm 1.5 through 4 which right yeah occurs on on the um yeah like in concept that's i'm i think that's a good idea uh if but if we could find exactly where that is so we can sorry go ahead so i can understand him i think maybe what you're talking about is maybe in the multi-family residential site and structure to mention start which is that 1310 323-2 you're talking about this f a the the f a r the max f a r in rf um is 1.1 when it's less than 30 um or something i'm trying to look at the language and then and it's 1.5 when it's greater and then versus in rms it varies from 0.5 to 0.7 and you're wanting to amend that am i understanding you correctly i don't think i'm trying to understand yeah no problem so i think technically we don't need to amend those i mean i don't think we have to amend those f a rs i would just add at the side on the chart i'm looking at the new packet here to see exactly where that is but um chair if i might on page 39 there's a f a r parking exemption highlighted in yellow um which incorporates 75 percent of spaces and underground garages and podium parking um are not subject to the maximum far so this applies to the residential flux and we could add in those zone districts there that you specified thank you yeah so that if unlike the packet that we have it's the last page of the first packet page 160 um the highlighted section is the code section and i guess we could just as you're saying stephanie adjust that code section to say f a r parking exemption residential flux and high density um multifamily zones um yeah well well i think we're well we're better off kind of specifying the particular zones as you mentioned before just to be consistent yes this is code section 13 10 3 2 3 i'm sorry there's so many it's crossouts i'm hard to keep in track of which ones where three three yeah it's hard you guys um yes f eight f eight thank you okay so let me let me see if i can summarize this so we're trying to say that if they incorporate at least because stephanie you're talking about the part that says residential flex projects that work really 75 percent of parking spaces for underground garages movie that's what we're talking about yeah yes the guys yeah i know that we're all looking at the same page they're laughing and stephanie am i correct in the in the assumption that we kind of consider high density multifamily as kind of up to the rm4 stacy available or any i can't remember exactly how they're broken up i had noticed that in some material somewhere in all of this um and that as it had been noted that way in another section and so that was my assumption and so that's what i was going with but yeah uh yeah i'm just taking a look through the um residential development standards to see if that is defined um i can also i would yeah i think it's better to probably list the exact zone districts yeah um we do in the in the development standards chart group our group group the those rm standards together uh for those districts um rm 1.5 to rm 2.5 and rm 3 to rm 4 um but it doesn't stay in the in the dimensions chart that those are particularly you know where the where the uh break is for high density okay that makes sense for process wise that change seems good to me and i'm okay with it uh commissure of volunteers can you just tell me again what it means so you want to exempt f8 you want to allow them not to have maximum f they are when what happened the sorry end of the end i'm sorry yeah sure no problem and to um it's essentially when you have this when this code applies here when you do these things incorporate at least 75 of parking spaces with underground garages multi-story above ground garages or podium parking located on or off site and those are not subject to maximum fr this is in the uh adjustments that were provided to us last time in code section 1310 323 f8 on page 160 of per handle so i and we want to do this for rm zone parcels correct i that that seems okay um not all rm the highest the two highest groupings of rm right about 1.5 to 2.5 and then three to four in the u within the usl within the usl correct the only part that makes me a little hesitant is this the offset site parking because when we do rf we're talking about having some peripheral insight where they may have like shuttle parking or something at an alternative site when you're talking strictly residential i can't envision i don't i don't know what off site parking would look like um they're just not being creative enough um i don't that's fair yeah so what if we like added uh you know this would be an addition then say code section f9 and it could say f-air parking exemption for um rm 1.5 through rm 4 and then it would say everything and then leave out the or off site part of it so i could i could read that as a whole for everyone is outward staffed is that is there a there might just be not creative enough i mean please tell me i i want i want to know what that might look like i'm happy to we can leave it in too if it's if it's something reasonable that we think that may come i just don't want to i want to ensure that there's enough parking and we're not creating unintended um excess car trips by allowing this off site parking i don't know what that looks like i can just chime in i do know one project which is still sort of being worked through but the um the former lumber site on portola drive there they they purchased a lot across the street to provide additional parking for their um multifamily project their mixed use project and that's my concern is that's mixed use and that's strictly residential um so when we talk about um maybe strictly residential um but again i don't want to be close minded to this idea that i'm just not obviously they're just across the street that would work they're meant you know there are if you're going to locate your parking off site you kind of need to prove that it that it works and study it um so they're you know there are going to be times when when um multifamily developments may need to be as creative as mixed use developments maybe there's a church next door for instance where they could locate parking but um you know that where peak hours are different from um the the use that's on that site so provides a little bit of flexibility um and and the requirements are in the uh chapter 13 16 for shared parking agreements okay that's great i really appreciate when when stock can help me think of things that i just didn't immediately i just like i said i don't want to create additional car trips that's what we think that it's possible to have that kind of shared parking and then i'm really comfortable we can leave it in um as long as stock thinks um there'll be enough scrutiny uh on those types of shared parking agreement so and yeah we can just we can do the easy easy fix and just add it into eight there so procedurally i would like to embed that in this document since um staff is um um hosting them to make them available so it would be helpful i think if we could add language yeah thank you allison there you go okay so do you want me to try to to sum it up here and you can type it or do you have it um yeah let's we can watch her type so when she gets oh yeah right can staff tell me it was 13 hf8 i think i got the numbers right thank you f eight and then here is the code section and so oops type the eight twice um essential flex projects and r r m i got the number right yep actually use chart okay so we want one point do you want anything less than a 1.5 right no yeah to r m 2.5 and i'll fix the spacing here in a minute r m dash 3 2 r m dash 4 within the usl stop tell me if this works though because i want to make sure i need to make sure that this part is within the usl how can i help staff make sure that part is only in the usl typically r m is something would be in the usl or uh maybe the r s l there's not a rural density they're definitely parcels that meet this definition inside the r s l within i know within our district the second district so how can i ensure that it's only within the usl for for these zonings in terms of the language we put in here there is you don't want it in the r s l as well to have that flexibility inside within the usl i didn't know you know if the other commissioners would want that or not and so that's why i started there but if it applied everywhere it would make sense to me because the location of these are in mostly in the corridors and high density areas and so that's you know how i'll leave it to commissioner dan and be a lot bigger i mean i guess in the third district the only r s l we have is in datumcourt and so i you know and the only area where i could ever see this as being applicable would be if the cement plant was ever redeveloped um which could happen in our lifetime it would probably benefit from this also so i could you're right if it was but i'm not sure that it would be appropriate in new town or old town um it i agree though if the cement plant was redeveloped it possibly could be very appropriate for the for an eventual project there so um yeah it's a tough one i so in our district we have parcels in the r s l that meet this definition in areas that i don't know that this would be appropriate um smaller communities like with all of each that are on on septic um that are um traditionally kind of single family homes and while obviously would they got redeveloped the high density would be appropriate i don't know that um having news well i can say it's not particularly appropriate for the rural area of san lorenzo valley because we don't have any sewer systems and we have a very limited water capacity i think we might want to stick with the url um we i'm fine with that i think we should don't totally stick with the urban services area because we would be a big step to make a change that has so many implications of our infrastructure that we that change from one part of the unincorporated area from the other so i don't think it's appropriate and i wouldn't vote for it okay that's fine though um i was and i'm fine i can go with with that um the one thing i'm going to suggest is we could say within the rsl where there is sewer and water service that's that's that is extremely ambiguous well so that would cover uh the c max reuse plant because they have sewer and water and why don't you just why don't you just i'm fine usl is fine and i was just trying to think of ways we can right other area i think a project the size of something for semex would involve probably a general plan change or considerable rezoning anyway it could be addressed site specific i wouldn't support that general change so i think you're right you're right commissioner shepherd that would have to occur so you're right i also want to just comment that this doesn't i mean not that i'm trying to change it in his minor opinion but it just as a general note um this doesn't change densities by any means or anything like that's really just like how you park your building mostly than anything and so but i appreciate that i appreciate the additions um okay so you are changing it to be re read for urban services right yeah yeah thank you uh i'm gonna show you a little deeper adding that in there okay great um thank you for that okay sorry move on unless you had other stuff on that one i just see um annie murphy's ann daisy ellen's hand up and they might want to potentially add something although we might have decided so i just want to give that opportunity since they both have their hands raised um i yeah i just had a suggestion um that would for the wording of this sentence you could start the sentence by saying within the usl so that it would read within the usl comma residential flex and then on to the rm districts and that would be very clear that it would only apply within the usl overall but the way you've written it i think would um technically work also dc i was going to do that but i would the residential flex but i guess we only have residential flex inside the usl so it doesn't matter okay yeah i see your point and uh chair gordon i just had a yeah i was thinking a little more about high density that the rm4 is 11 units per acre so just as an idea maybe consider rm 1.5 to rm3 just because when you you know if you have that exemption for units that already are you know 4 000s worth of lots it can to sort of in some sense encourage larger units with with garages so so it might sort of promote larger sort of more luxury type units potentially so that was just a thought i just wanted to share appreciate that um totally understand i think that for me the reason i wanted to include the rm4 is because i think that there's a lot along the corridor especially like on sokel drive which is rm4 and that's like the densest it gets on the corridors and some of those lots are really small and you know i've done a lot of case studies and have projects there where it becomes really tricky to fit it all without the ability to park under the building and so i appreciate that um inside i have also just you know like to leave it if possible if that works still for the other commissioners thank you thank you any address i want to understand your concern that you're concerned that by leaving rm in that we're going to end up with luxury units well i mean i think chair gordon makes a good point about a smaller lot where it may be very constrained i was thinking more in terms of maybe a larger new development where it's rm4 and so you know it's already a fairly generous you know um size area per unit so it could potentially allow for you know 2000 square foot unit without with the parking garage so um so that was sort of my point but i do understand chair gordon's point about smaller more constrained sites where it may be challenging to park those so yeah i think a lot of those two on the um along those quarters is kind of if you've you know when you kind of look at the zoning map a lot of those larger parcels are actually split so they have a dual overlay zone of like an rm4 and an rm6 and so you know as it kind of like steps back away so my thought was that if we're not including rm6 and those have that dual overlay where it could be you know a little bit it will be a little bit less dense it wouldn't apply there because they have both zones does that make sense so this really only applies to like lots that are really like on those corridors um smaller lots on those corridors that was my intent and kind of thought process of why this would work that makes sense to me and i mean i think that you know when this project is concluded staff is going to be embarking on the next massive project which would be um to rezone um parcels to satisfy our arena allocation so i think we'll have to stay tuned so go ahead sorry did somebody start to talk okay sorry okay so um are we done with this section i think so um um i hate to we're on a roll but i know we kind of had an 11 break and i could use a quick break okay and then come back to the 1310 331 right after um i'm just wondering before we do that how long the 1310 331 might be just because we're getting really close to the lunch break time i'm wondering if we should break for lunch now or if that's going to be a short section i mean i think that we're probably halfway through this document okay so maybe we should break for lunch early i don't i'm for that i don't whatever everybody wants to do fine with me this is a good stopping time i would be providing for lunch early yeah i'm fine with that i want to be conscious of ctb and the schedules that we need to keep so we're we're in the right time refrain for lunch for them and everything also correct and say we're halfway through the document the jocelyn your question of how long 1310 331 is that's not a particularly long portion of the document so it's up to you if you think like we could i'm well if we it's up to it's up to you guys if you think we could get through it in like a half an hour i mean if we take a break now and come back and do that in a half an hour we could take a a lunch break after rachel you also have the second just that section in front of you i'm just looking yeah i'm i'm fine taking lunch now taking a break now tim indicates you know we should all take we should take a break we haven't taken a break yet so okay right he's like i don't break just to be honest so okay um i could i think five minutes and then you can come back and do lunch later or just hit lunch right now and be done and then truck on through let's take a break so then we can play to other actions we all need a break so it sounds good we'll take a 10 minute break how does or how about 11 minutes tim and come back at 11 45 perfect okay thank you so much great so looks like we have all of the commission back with us chair great thank you so much um and let's uh resume we were going through motion for 1310 yeah let me share my screen again and again i in order to be able to see i have to completely minimize everything so i i can't see anybody so it's kind of a bizarre way of communicating to communicate to us i apologize if i talk over somebody unintentionally it's just because i can't see anything okay so we can move on okay so this next section um um i was on commercial districts so we're on chapter 1310 331336 and article three commercial districts so there was a well it's up here a part of the code that eliminated a section about energy efficient energy use and in commercial districts and so we're just suggesting that that be retained are there any questions on that one pretty uncontroversial so i'll just move along so the next section is about change of views and i'm sure if you want to do you want to talk about this one yeah so this is something we talked about at our last uh hearing uh last week and it has to do with the idea that if uh we and i dark actually a little bit this morning which is when there's a change of use it allows staff to approve it with the ministerial approval which is good because it streamlines that process but we wanted to ensure that they that if because some of those means that it would have been required of public hearing or public notification that that was only allowed um that that ministerial approval doesn't sorry he's got really loud in my ear um but that doesn't usurp kind of the process of public hearings and public notification so they're only allowed to do this ministerial approval had the original the new use um not required that a lot higher level of of public hearing or public notification than the existing use so it's kind of closing what we see as a loophole to the ministerial process we don't want someone that that used to have a required of from a hearing not not go through it because of a previous permit well i i think that sounds good commissioner vialante but i i wanted to explore this one a little bit so i had a question when the kmart then was converted to a home depot truly not a change of views but it brought up because the home depot was obviously going to be very popular we did have a general uh planning commission hearing to discuss the traffic and as a result of that hearing um there was a lot of community involvement and as you know there are our new turn lanes and new traffic signals that everyone it really wasn't much argument about it from anybody but i wonder if under this system that would even happen because the zoning use didn't change it was you know kmart home depot there wasn't that much of a difference they didn't remodel it greatly but clearly they were going to have because of what they do and who they are a lot more traffic so a lot of people came to hearing and i think the traffic improvements that we did were what we could do but i thought a planning commission hearing was very useful now isn't my understanding that this would say that wouldn't involve any hearing so a building a commercial use could become anything else it wanted to or maybe i'm not understanding it could staff give me some feedback or would that have counted as an intensification of use and let's use that as an example how would you have judged whether home depot was going to be an intensive occasion of use from kmart and what hearing would that have mandated if you decide it was or wasn't uh thank you chair gordon i wasn't around for that particular item um well it's a while ago now but it's a good yeah yeah um um gosh i think i think actually i'm gonna ask if daisy is around for this for this one and and annie and what there is in the code that would have suggested anything beyond kind of the zoning clearance for such an action and my question is why did it come before the planning commission during the current code was that director thought it should or was it in the code that it had to i don't quite understand the extent of this change but i want to be pretty careful about it for example okay yes okay yeah so the um the existing commercial change of use requirements are more strict so um what we're proposing here is uh would allow for some commercial changes of use with just a zoning clearance in the case of the project that you're bringing up where it's the similar use type and there's no major you know site development permit needed i think the factor would be whether or not there was an intensification of use that would determine whether or not that change that change of use could be allowed with just zoning clearance or whether a use permit would be required if there was a use permit required it would be a conditional use permit right uh yes i'm just opening up that code section to make sure i get it right and under the proposed changes that would only go to the zoning administrator right that's correct well just it just um uh commissioner shepherd if i might i think that you have you have some motions that you were considering that might address yes i am later suggest that we not change those hearing levels but i didn't know how it would apply to this part of the code um i that was a good example so i'm picking it out but an intensification of use is a subjective thing there was really no way do the other commissioners see what i'm saying is this really a good idea i mean that was that was a legal change and really no one was opposing it and we're just going to say what changes is this going to make that we should consider for the this being a you know 41st avenue already being a very complicated intersection with a lot of traffic the city of capitola was invited at the hearing we came up with the traffic mitigations that were actually built um and i don't know under this let's just the way we are changing the code of any of that would have happened and it would have been pretty much an idea can i um say something i think that um so first of all there there there is an objective standard for the definition of intensification of use and actually in this document treasurer violonty and i are proposing to strengthen that so i think it's possible that given the change that we're proposing to make in this document that the k mark to the home depot if it was determined that it would have increased um that it's possible that i would have met that definition or even the current one that's in the the code right now so it's possible that that's why it came before us and i completely forgot about that project and now i remember it so thank you for jogging my memory so i i think that it probably like if it happened today and if this change is accepted um in what we're proposing that it's possible that it would come before at least uh get a public hearing i commissioner shepherd i would just say that we share your concerns about exactly that type of project but something which is we are what the changes that commissioner dan and i are proposing strengthen the likelihood of things like that coming before the public and before administrative bodies and pardon me administrative bodies instead of just being a ministerial decision and so we did strengthen the definition of intensification of use because what's that staff was proposing said that as long as the use was the same and there was an existing use permit it would not require be required to come before the zoning administrator would not come before the planning commissioner and by inserting the language here we are increasing the likelihood that that happens both if it's a change of use that needed a high level public hearing in addition to the fact that previously in this document as commissioner Dan said we strengthened the intensification of use meaning that if there were a higher number of partrips or the 10 increase um so that both both of those standards could trigger a higher level of review versus staff's proposed language had said and so we agree with your concerns but we so we if there are things you we're hoping to to not allow things like that to to go okay um thank you for that i will just be patient as we go through this but i think the part that i continue to have issues with and wanted will suggest language a little later on is i think i do not think a lot of these involve should be za i think they should be continue to be planning commission for conditional use permits and i'm not exactly sure what i'll make that suggestion but it involves this is an example of why i think that and it's based on my experience of seeing projects come across over and over again and i where i don't think just a za hearing is is sufficient or comes up with the best results because i see them always appeal because they get appealed to the planning commission but now that's going to be two to four thousand dollars and i think they should stay at the same level they were but i'll wait to make that suggestion a little later um if i may i just wanted to clarify regarding the change of use in the proposed code section so if if a project if a proposed change of use did not meet these criteria then it wouldn't automatically get a conditional use permit it would go to whatever the permit level that is reflected in the commercial uses chart which may may be anything ranging from a minor use permit up to a conditional use permit i say that again i really didn't understand you sure um so you asked earlier whether if so if a project did not meet these criteria for a zoning clearance whether they would automatically get a conditional use permit wait a minute stop there the first part of what you said if a project did not meet the criteria that are on the screen regarding change of use in an existing legal structure in a commercial zone district in other words if it would result in an intensification of use yeah or you know met one of the other criteria here for instance if there's not currently a use permit on the site um or um the the use would have required a higher level of public notice for instance than the existing use and if you know any one of those criteria were not met then the use permit level that would be required would be indicated in the use chart the commercial use chart and what page is that um that is section 1310 332 um immediately following the change of the change of use uh text i'm sorry i can't i can't hear you it's on page 11 is the beginning of the commercial use 10 technically because but really the the use is on page 11 of the it's the commercial use chart so that shows the level of review for each zone district Rene we can't hear you well i'm sorry yeah looking can you hear me now yes so looking at that chart on page 11 for use permit required by zone there is nothing on it that would involve planning commission hearings at all they're all either um discretionary permit with public notice which is an administrative use permit which means there's public notice but that's all and a c up being um the zea hearing so the project that i was talking about would not have had a planning commission hearing agree well i guess i'm just yeah just to clarify there are um c up planning commission level reviews in the commercial districts for certain use types i guess they weren't um so the various cannabis uses um automobile sales are rental in c2 for instance so there's various uh various ones but i uh there is not a c up pc for uh retail okay well that's the answer i was getting let me give you let me ask you another one this did not happen since target found a better space that everyone is very pleased with but they a few years ago were proposing to be able to i think it was a 90 000 square foot 60 or 90 000 a big store next to the hotel um in scott's valley that's just off the freeway it's i think it is zone commercial it's been vacant for a long it's never had anything on it but i think it is zone commercial would that have had and that was going to be a huge change for that whole community because aside from the hotel it's all residential and would have been obviously huge changes to circulation and traffic and a whole lot of other stuff so would that have had a planning commission would that have had a planning commission hearing it certainly was an intensification of use so the idea that that big a project with that much community impact could go ahead without any public input is difficult for me to imagine so what if you i unfortunately don't know what the zoning is but i'm pretty sure it's let's assume it's commercial on i'm pretty sure it is actually it sounds or any like you sorry christian shepherd that you when we were the next section we're going to discuss is this zone chart it sounds like you would like to see since you it sounds like you particularly have interest when it's going to be a retail community um page 16 if you're in the print version um and it sounds like it sounds like you have a you might want to see some increased level of review for these retail community it's it's called retail dash community which is department slash big box stores home garden nursery auto supplies office and technology products is it is it specific to that that you would like to see an increased level of review because i think we with the commission could discuss um that being incorporated into the motion or is it in general overall for all commercial um uses that you would like to see uh increased level of planning commission or zoning administrator uh hearings just so i understand um i came at this by basically going by the years i've sat in the kind of commission of what kinds of intensification of use in commercial zones have had beneficial public meetings or a lot or a tremendous amount of community involvement or effects so yes that was what i've given you two examples i note on page 15 there's um an m up level for um a no public notice for research and development laboratories it goes back a ways but we were we were once the home of a very big bud plasma laboratory that involved on the north coast large herds of goats and they took the plasma from their blood and turned it into something else and that was a hugely controversial one because they wanted to expand hugely and there was a lot of public involvement that happened today um they would fail through and so yes i'm there are there are many examples here in the code which i think in my experience have always involved in community and i do not think the outcomes were poor through having a public hearing in the end there's you try to reach a consensus of what will really work but there were always lots of concerns of the large surrounding surrounding community and i think that by having a higher level of public hearing you're actually avoiding lawsuits or stalling the project sometime because you can work things out so yes on this use chart i would say that i want to make a motion that the current levels of review where the planning commission has been involved not be changed i don't see downgrading them i fundamentally disagree that if it's allowed in the code it should automatically get an m up with no public notice or or even an a up i think zoning administrator hearings and planning commission hearings have have on the whole been very successful in meeting neighborhood and community more than anyone say neighborhood but community concerns on project non-residential projects of any size could i just add something to this conversation in addition to the uses chart for new site development you would also need to look at the site development permit chart in in chapter 1311 so in that chart any new construction non-residential new construction larger than 5 000 square feet requires a conditional site development permit which means public hearing before the zoning administrator so so for for essentially any construction that's commercial larger than 5 000 square feet it would receive a public hearing with public notice and then that doesn't kind of mean what i just said so i i so um we are going to touch these issues that um you're discussing and i don't think i mean everybody sees what we're proposing now um i don't know that if it will go as far as you want but why don't we get into that discussion um further once we've gotten through this if that's all right that's fine i i can i can come up with an example of logic for each of what i what i proposing based on my actual experience of what hearings have been useful and and and move that move projects along rather than slowing them down and while i understand staff's intention and the need to simplify things i think this is a mistake and there'll be more lawsuits and other and people will not be informed and issues will not be looked at plain and simple because the community brings up the issues that staff may or may not be aware of or see um if i could interject real quick commissioner lasin beast had her hand up and then so i want to give her an opportunity i'm i'm through and i am content go through a once by one but the ability to go through every single youth chart in this whole thing i my proposal is just going to be not to change what comes to the planning what has in the past come to the planning commission if we need to go through every single use that's going to be complicated but i think big projects need scrutiny by the community at large and i think that it's just wrong to make it only on appeal which has cost thousands of dollars and actually obviates against anybody who doesn't have the means which i don't think any of us want to uh you know contemplate and i don't but i think that's essentially what we're doing okay you can have a voice as long as you have plenty of money to spend commissioner shepard if if i may i believe that um you have a list of the types of projects that you're particularly interested in going to the planning commission so maybe um at the end when commissioners um dan and vila want to get through their document then you can bring those up and we can circle back um if that would be amenable yes that's fine but i i i think right because we we weren't to get a specific list here i think they're going to address some of this let's see let's go on and i don't rune we can't hear you i think she's deferring to the commissioner lasin b okay taken thank you thank you i i too was concerned about the wording of this of a lower level of public notice but then i read again that number a or letter a a change of use in existing legal structure may be approved with a with a zoning clearance if all of the following criteria are met so we don't just take one by one is this correct that it's supposed to rely on our having all having met all of the criteria yes that's correct thank you wonderful seems like it seems like the criteria would be kind of a guardrail well i would suggest that the new use have the have required an equal not lower level of public notice i don't it says both it says equal or lower level of notice so you have to meet the standard that the the use the use cannot have required a higher level of approval and and not have it so if it if it required higher level review it must go back for that higher level of review if required so that's that's that's that's what you mean here that's what it says there that's correct that's what will happen unless staff it does it not worded that way it's intended that way it says it's sort of a negative statement for you're saying the new use would have required an equal or lower level of public notice for hearing then the existing use correct so what you're saying that means is it needs to be heard at the same level as the existing use was heard it cannot be approved through this process that staff is proposing unless that's true is is what they said why not say what you just told me instead of what it says because it does so it says so because you have to read a what a is saying it must meet these standards so i through four the one through four is saying you have to meet these standards in order for a to happen we added a standard yeah okay i i'm not going to hold things up i'm not clear but i trust you so okay i said go ahead i don't i think you had if you have to explain what your sentence mean i'd rather you straighted the sentence in a clearer way but if it's clear to everybody but me then let's go out uh uh chair cordon are there any other hands up i don't think so and i uh i think we should be good to move on okay um the next item is page 13 um use permit required by zone chart this was just a change to four restaurants greater than 12 seats to um require an a up for all commercial districts and this was um just to provide at least some noticing um when a restaurant is going in restaurants um tend to have a lot of neighborhood impacts and um so it's just making that small change uh the next items are oh sorry go ahead yeah what does make an aiming i'm sorry oh so that's the next section so i um i thought if there are no questions on the restaurants we can we'll move on to the next table well are you on are you on what i'm paying for restaurants greater than 12 seats and a up is required for all commercial districts that's a proposed addition oh well okay i certainly agree with that that's what you just yes so for no questions on that modification then we can move on to table 13 3 3 2 the commercial uses chart and this is to make consistent with um what we did in the general plan last week which is um removing um bars nightclubs tasting rooms from the pa district this is table 13 10 3 3 2 that's fine yes and let me scroll down as much as i can to there we go a commissioner shepherd na means that it's not allowed in that district i don't know if that's specifically for the na we literally means that yeah i'm not allowed so you know so you're right now says bar night club remove from pa make not allowed so you want it to say not what do you mean so we right now according to the staff's proposed use chart if you look in the either printed or online version um it's they're allowing it in the zone district when ancillary and we're proposing that they just not be allowed in that zone district so we don't feel that bar the nightclubs are ever appropriate in the professional administrative zone district um we we we when we at when i asked staff last week to give examples of when they thought a nightclub would be appropriate in a pa district i felt that they struggled a little bit to answer the question and i didn't feel that it that it met what we're really trying to achieve even though we are trying to create um walkable um administrative and professional communities where people can perhaps shop where they work i don't know that bar nightclub is really what i'm looking for in a professional administrative zone district and so bars and nightclubs um we feel that there's not it is similar to the fact that we don't allow i'm looking at the use chart here we don't allow it looks like dance studios and visitor serving accommodations if you look at the use chart it has na for that as well so they're they're it's not uncommon that we have some uses that are just not allowed in certain zones so we just wouldn't be allowing bars and nightclubs in the professional administrative zones nor would we be allowing liquor stores and tasting rooms well but on uh as far as tasting rooms there are tasting rooms in the whole area around swift street is that's commercial i don't see that that's so that's that's commercial that's not professional administrative so professional administrative is designed to be offices um often like we go doctor's offices uh yeah so realtors lawyers um things like that are often in the professional administrative zone district so you can have a coffee shop in other words you don't want anywhere that alcohol is sir that that isn't the intent if that's not the it's more that i don't see a way i don't see how a tasting room or a nightclub is appropriate in a professional zoned district but could you have a coffee shop i can look to see the zoning for that but i can look staff you know the answer i i have that page open um so for eating and drinking um there is a separate entry for dining establishment indoor um and it let's see um it would be allowed in pa so if you have a big office complex you can have a Starbucks or a restaurant well correct you can also have like neighborhood retail um you can have lots of things according to this huge start um just maybe not nightclubs i i certainly agree with you about i wonder what judy and tim think i i can't see a bar nightclub and i don't see why he couldn't have a place to get a beer or a glass of wine what are the others think commissioner lasin b did you want to try them in first well i was um i was thinking about the ancillary um businesses that we had said would be okay in agricultural areas and i think one of the things that was allowed was a bar or it was in a liquor store it seems that what does that have to do with professional offices agriculture is a farm well but one of the ancillary um allowed was a medical facility or a sales store of something kind and then it had added a another business could be a bar or a liquor store i can't remember which and therefore an agriculture commissioner lasin b well but the the fact that they had a semi professional um establishment that was allowed and then also a bar or liquor store so it's somewhat similar to this right i'm sorry i'm struggling to find that that we allowed bars and liquor stores i know we allowed wineries and breweries in agriculture but any do we allow bars on agriculture no no that's correct we would allow wineries and breweries but not bars or liquor stores on agriculture's own parcel i i i don't know i don't know if i would agree and i maybe we don't need to spend too much time in this but i'd like to hear from tim if you're in a big you know area where there's hospitals and offices and so on i don't see anything wrong with a place to get a beer or a glass of wine so i don't i i don't see why that's na maybe not a bar or nightclub but a tasting room or a brewery tasting room i think that's fine we have so it seems like there's a so there's a separate youth category for bar nightclub and that's suggesting to be eliminated then there's another use category that includes brewery brew pub winery and distillery and and we're not saying that that would be eliminated but what a subsection to that is tasting room and that's what you would want taken away and that one in particular i also don't feel like i understand the intent tasting rooms are in my you know opinion fairly modest they're not as much it's not like going to a nightclub right it's a little bit more user friendly a little more appropriate for that kind of for like a mixed use area um so i think brewery is still being allowed brew pub winery distilleries great and you know i'm fine with the removal of a technical bar i understand the intent like you know i have an office and if there's a bar next to me which i've had before it becomes a little challenging at certain times but it's also one of those things where the hours are different you know you're not typically in the office when the bar is really going strong but you never know i work a lot of late hours so maybe it's just me that noticed it more than others but um so anyway i would be i'm kind of impartial i would say if anything adding the tasting room back in would could be beneficial for the community the bar nightclub um yeah i understand that intent and i and since there's still an allowance for brewery and brew pub and winery and distillery i feel like that would kind of solve those things that that a pretty clear as my answer commissioner shepherd i guess what i'm asking is where the makers of the motion consider leaving the tasting room option and i'm definitely room i agree of the bar nightclub and i in the you know in the soquel area where it's all going to be offices and professional i i could see a tasting room we could put the i mean i got my ratio on commissioner dan i don't know how you feel we could we could be open to putting the tasting room back in my my concern is it said it had to be ancillary and i they didn't i don't know how it could be ancillary to um since there's not allowed to be that thing but i we can put it back in uncomfortable with that yeah i'm i'm i'm fine with that okay i'll i'll just i'll just strike this strike that yeah on well um on this page in the c1 zone changed the a up for a big box store there was my target example so we're gonna and here it is which one are you on commissioner shepherd i'm on the on page 15 retail is on this what's on our screen change they're a rachel and alson are suggesting that in c1 jones changed for a big box store and or or department store such as they are anymore would change um to a up which is and it's administrative permit with public notice i think a big box store is also is always a big community issue and there's my target example on my home depot examples were directed to that i don't i think there ought to be public hearings when you've got a something that's above a certain square footage how does anybody else feel i mean i think that there's other triggers in the code that can always bump things up to a different level of review if i'm not mistaken staff should weigh in so i mean this is why this is so complicated because um you know i agree with you from commissioner shepherd um you know with your general comments about how helpful public hearings and planning commission hearings can be to both come to resolutions provide mitigations and then also frankly to save time in the long run for a lot of projects um so you know i do overarchingly agree with everything you're saying about that what makes this complicated is that there's so many other factors that are involved in determining what level of review something gets um so i don't know if maybe staff wants to talk about that or tell me i'm wrong that would be helpful i'm specifically talking in this on page 15 retail use chart i think i'm gonna i don't think we're gonna get any more department stores in our lifetimes but big box stores for sure i'm not worried about home and gardens industry auto supplies office and technology products but i think big box stores are always big and always have community impacts and need a higher level review so i would have i i don't know i'm not as good as you are rachel and alson i don't i i think that ought to stay at a higher level that yeah that's that one does should not just have an administrative uh hearing just because it affects all community out people with 300 feet if i could help maybe commissioner shepherd sum that up so you the a up is is being proposed as discretionary permit with public notice and it sounds like what you're trying to what you would prefer to see is a c up which is discretionary permit with public notice and public hearing right specifically for big box stores and department stores if if i might i think um commissioners shepherd wanted to see a c up dash pc so it went to the planning commission um and uh was suggesting a square footage amount so might be retail stores over 50 000 square feet for instance have a c up at the pc is that correct well you know we're picking in yes i'm not sure what the minimum square footage is because i don't really know how big home depot was or the proposed target would be so um targets are also also also um they tend to be 60 000 to 130 000 right and 50 000 yes they have big impacts and deserve the full on public that doesn't mean that people don't want them and they'll pass but it needs to be looked at carefully and i gave you my examples of why i think so and so yes i would propose that department and big box stores over 50 000 square feet the subject in which i guess are covered in this particular chart would have um a what are you dash pc hearing level commissioner violante is 50 50 000 oh it's five zero thank you i was i was going to ask for clarification i was just trying to type so i caught it in so thank you thank you yes i think a really small yeah i think i'm fine with go ahead judy i'm sorry i have a question about when you use the term big box store do you have a certain square footage that that relates to when you call it a big box store this is calling it projects over 50 000 square feet well you know that is there is no definition of a big box store except such as okay yeah this is why i think commissioner shepherd thought a numerical want defiable threshold was appropriate well i just thought maybe somewhere there was a list of things you know if you say a funeral home and that would be an average would be that and then big box store would be something else but i guess i'm i guess there is nothing like that so i'm fine by using this language you're kind of creating that distinction by saying these larger projects have this higher level overview okay thank you i'm fine with this change okay can we consider that a friendly amendment and then and i can accept absolutely okay i'm moving down the list are there any other comments questions suggestions well um this page unfortunately in my code it's not in there so page 17 conference facility auditorium event hall needs to be ancillary and the va and ct zone districts meaning mission shepherd the page numbers may just not match when i did this the printed numbers and the online numbers for page numbers don't line up because of the edits so you might just have to be a little bit off on the page numbers i apologize um so you should be able to find at least if i bought i hope you have the page somewhere but but i just want you to know the numbers the numbers might just not match for you this page 18 of the printed yeah i had to go through them and change them so i apologize but yeah all right that's fine i'm just saying for commissioner shepherd if you have the printed big binder of the code it's page 18 it skips from 13.10 341 to 346 and then it skips to it's the same use chart we were just looking at it's just like the next page so we're in 13.10 331-336 at the top of the page is what it says and that's that we're in the teens of that chart okay well i don't want to hold everybody up but could you just explain what um what means needs to be ancillary what does ancillary mean again and what's the v can you just say what that means needs to be ancillary and va and ct zone districts so you can't just put up a conference an auditorium hall in the visitor serving zone districts it would have to be ancillary to a visitor survey or some other use so it's just it's just it's a minor change i'm not saying it's not it's just that i don't i don't work in planning and i don't always understand what seems so obvious to you i think you've just explained in other words what you're saying needs to be ancillary which means that in addition to i mean what do you mean in other words you can't you can't develop it just on its own like if you have a parcel owned for visitor serving like a hotel or something you can't just put an auditorium there or like a dance hall there without the visitor serving okay so you have to be a visitor serving uh zoning in order to build an auditorium or event hall in those two zone districts okay well what about if you have a restaurant and you want to add an auditorium and have concerts or you want to provide a music space is that what we're dressing here or not like for example in felton we have a restaurant that is next door it's a felton music hall that has a big public space where they have musicians they wouldn't fall under these two categories of zoning they're not visitor so i doubt i don't know they are i don't know the zoning of that parcel but i would i would i would wager that it is i know i it's not visitor serving combination okay i can't speak anymore or ct okay but they would not fall under this category and then on page 20 that's the change that we talked about at our last hearing right yeah that's right so the change here is just to bring into conformance that we change 75 to 80 percent and then not to skip over funeral burial services that's a change to increase the level of review sorry to have a lot of questions in this section but what about that company that wants to bury people in um simple shrouds in the forest are they included here no because the zoning isn't in this chart okay thank you are there any other questions on this section do keep going no okay that's should i move on yes was that a yes yes okay the next okay so this section is about residential in commercial areas and it's adding some private open space requirements to those residential developments in commercial areas and it's a little bit different than what we had discussed previously so if you want to take a look at it and we can discuss i don't have any questions should i move on okay it's the end of that section since it's it's 1230 yeah should we check in about taking a break you know or i think that's a good time it's right in line it's what our goals were so um let's make that happen maybe we come back so usually we're about 30 minutes six maybe make it 110 that works for everyone yeah sounds good okay you at 110 thank you all right okay so i see commissioner vialante commissioner dan commissioner lasin b i heard commissioner shepard i think and i see chair gordon here all right i think we can reconvene do we have i'm guessing the policy staff is also with us yes definitely a question i think so i think she's here maybe not uh i don't think she's back with us yet okay hold off just a few minutes here yeah hold on just a moment i'll i'll try to grab her okay you know my hard drive failed today that's a bummer of course my car my car cranked out last week you know it's the time of year well they say everything goes in threes so maybe you're in for another one yeah hi everybody sorry juggling a little bit Stephanie i asked chair gordon if i could ask you a question which is when do you think it would be appropriate for me to bring forth the motion that you helped me compose should i continue you think it'd be more useful to go through section by section wait till the end or like it feels a little bit to me like we should let commissioners dan and vialante get through their amendments and and then do it um there is a little bit of overlap i think on some of these things but um in the interest of trying to kind of get through these proposals that would be my my suggestion just to do it after i will take you up on it and yes they are already addressing i'll address some of the things that's right okay thank you yes thank you the chair yeah let me know when everybody's ready it seems like it miss hanson and is everyone on your team ready to go we're ready thank you great let's do it we need to like officially take say we're back on the record and oh yeah things or anything three is going good i think miss drake said we're reconvening but officially we're reconvening and continuing the hearing um for the sustainability plan update we are now continuing through a motion that was started for section uh code section chapter 1310 and um we're hoping to get through that now and when the end is in sight i promise so the this next section is regarding community events and the level of uh review for those community events and this can be found on page 10 and we're in chapter 1310 611 so here what we're doing is changing the level of review from m up to c up um as noted and underlined so let me scroll down so we can and these are for community events and fundraisers on private residential or ag property and so here's the the meat of that and so it's really all that all we did here was every time it said uh m up we changed up to a c up and the reasoning is for a lot of the reasons that commissioner shepherd has been articulating that a lot of times these things can be worked out pretty well at a public hearing i agree once the neighbors know something's going on you can get a lot settled uh i agree i think this is a good change in i supporting are there um any other questions on this one i think we're okay okay i'll move on okay this is about noticing um for the same section and this is just making consistent i think we discussed this last week about noticing in the rural areas and so um this was just saying that the added language excuse me is in the event that there are fewer than 10 properties within the 500 feet um of the boundaries of subject property that that distance should be extended an increments of 50 feet until the owners of at least 10 properties have been notified i think the language that we changed originally said 300 feet and so we're changing that to 500 feet to declare to clarify sorry no no please so this is actually in order to create consistency with the neighborhood notice which is above this is ensuring that those same neighbors are provided the contact person's contact information uh so uh it's 500 feet for noticing the neighbors that that the permit is being requested and that the ones are happening and in a of the section but in b of the section there was no um the same the same language didn't exist that if that if 10 people weren't reached that they needed to extend that balance and so that's that's what this language does is just creates consistency between a and b um so that those same neighbors have the contact information hopefully to prevent conflict so that they have the ability to contact the property owner should they're you know have problems with noise or barking or something along those signs hopefully it's just a decreased conflict by any any consistency in the code thank you pal soon well am i right in thinking the way you've changed the language before this would involve no i can't hear you rene are you stepping away from your microphone no i'm just using a laptop i'm not familiar with let's see just let me move the noise level up is that better that's better you kind of cut in and out sometimes yeah i'll just stay four square in front of this so um if there is in fact as you have a public notice then that will you mean so the 10 people sorry till there are 10 properties have been notified by mail and that would mean that they know about the admin the project and the administrator and then administrative hearing that's going to be held on it correct so no so but so b so a in the section does what you're talking about which is it lets them know about the event um b the b the section here says that um that part of the permit is that they that each property i shall have a contact person for that event and and so what we're saying is that those the neighbors should know who that contact person is as part of the permit conditions and so we're just saying that they not only should they contact 500 feet out but because some of these rural parcels you might not reach a large number of people but sound travels really loudly in some of these rural areas that you should ensure that if you don't hit 10 separate parcels within 500 feet you just keep going out until you hit at least 10 10 parcels this is actually pretty standard in the county code that it says for me i am not disagreeing with that just want to make sure i understand and i strongly support this and then the next section is just an added language to um um to make it clear that there should be sufficient parking to serve the guests um for the events um okay any questions on this one before we move on i would say that that is the point that it go often gets really argued about so i think putting it in is very appropriate okay so many questions that you see thank you um okay commissioner dandy mind if i ask a question oh please uh let's see since it would require a c up then that would sort of imply that it would be subject to the noticing in 1810 for c up yes um so i i believe that the requirements here are slightly i guess the idea would be to i've made the changes in 1810 to to make it consistent oh okay all right you already looked at that okay yeah i said that's um yeah the next step okay all right very good thank you too okay but thank you for catching up can i would like to ask this next section does not apply to cannabis right that's its own separate ordinance or code and this does have its own section of the code for are you talking for cultivation yes there's there's standards for cultivation well i'm at this next session coming up six six thirty one through six forty four on agricultural processing and so on yeah let's take these each paragraph one at a time because they're about different things so this um come sure if you want to do you want to discuss the first first two yes give me a second yeah no problem yes so what we did is we just we we we struck the code so it because it says new agricultural processing that it shall be cited to minimize the impacts the offsite residential uses we just struck the part that said um shall be that residential uses that shall be located within 200 feet we think generally that they should just minimize the impacts the offsite residential uses um that that should be um the objective so not just those that are closest to the the property um so that was the first change on page 22 and then let me get to page 32 so i can be within that one page 32 so 32 is a bigger are there any questions on page 22 because page 32 is more complicated not for me the page 32 do you mind just going down a little bit rachel yeah so on page 30 it starts on page 32 it actually keeps going through the next a couple pages um has to do with uh wine what we talked about earlier which is wineries breweries and distilleries and there there is a bit of um inconsistency on whether or not they were using a standard of within 500 feet or within 200 feet of parcels with residential use and so uh i would like we are proposing that they create consistency of using the standard of facilities located on r a r r zone parcels or within 500 feet of a property line of a parcel within the residential use when bifurcating the hours of operation the tasting rooms indoor events and small outdoor marketing events because in all of those categories right now they have kind of the the categories of r a r r and then this a distance it actually differs in each one of those and then there's another category which is all other sites so we'd like them to use that standard for those categories just consistently and then in the indoor events category we would like them to say that just it's kind of an oddity that for some reason they have it have 9 p.m for all of their zones there which is longer than any other indoor event for tasting rooms and things like that and so we'd like it to have the 8 p.m which is the same as tasting rooms um are there any questions on that because I then we can move on to the next piece just because that bifurcation piece is a little confusing well i'm sorry i i'd want commissioner shepherd you went back on mute so i didn't catch what you said what is bifurcating uh they split so there's two different standards so there's a standard for those that are r a r r and parcels within 500 feet and then there's standards for all other so they have two different standards you want to change the hours for indoor events from nine to eight sorry from yes from nine to eight correct i mean we're proposing the change for indoor events to not be nine p.m as an end time but eight p.m via the time missed the end time that's correct but um why i don't they're indoors so because it's consistent with the rest of sacks proposal because the rest of sacks proposal includes things ending at 8 p.m yeah but that mostly relates outdoor events no no so they they have the tasting room ends at 8 p.m and and for all other sites and so we were making it consistent i don't care but seems like i think what rena is so i i see what what we were doing was trying to make sense out of what was being proposed i think rena is suggesting that for indoor events we could let them go later what we were doing is just trying to make them like consistent yeah she was suggesting rena i don't see why an indoor event couldn't go until nine o'clock till nine o'clock yeah i'm okay with that we could we could do that it just like i said the goal was just to make consistency but we we could have we could do that um give it because not the time not zero nine we could make that nine o'clock and then for when you get down to a large outdoor marketing events okay 50 or more guests and sorry was there any other questions other than that one well i question about that then what about there's several wedding venues up here where they hold people's weddings and um but i don't know if they have a commercial use permit so our wedding venues uh included here you said inclusive of weddings if that's their business um i don't understand why they need to be limited to how many they have if that's how they make their living so and for and staff can correct me if i'm wrong but i believe for these events or when we get to the section on events because we get there in a minute that they have to be the primary use for these because what we're talking about right now is the primary use of wineries and breweries not their primary source of income has to be right the brewery and the winery right if they are doing weddings and other celebrations it refers you back to that other section of code this is for wineries and breweries that are also hosting weddings well or like a party or a a release party maybe or large marketing events that says in the code um well for for example well very close to highlands park is a facility that's been there for 30 years it's owned privately and they hold weddings and birthday parties and so on it's outdoors and they have a barn for indoor affairs but that's their business so are we that wouldn't that's not that's not part of this code this is specific to wineries and breweries okay thank you so so we're talking about wineries and breweries that have that we're allowing them to have events kind of ancillary to their their brewery and winery income generating component then why are we restricting small ones to 10 are we penalizing them because they're not big i don't because they're allowed on art so small ones are allowed on r a and r r zone parcels which are residential in nature and we don't think that they should be having these large events well wait a minute up in the santa cruz mountains there's a good handful of small wineries that are open by appointment so we're not worried about that um they don't usually but they do open for the wine passport but that's not an event people come and go so when would this apply so this is consistent the 10 for small wineries and breweries we did not propose changes for that's that's consistent with staff's recommendation well what was it before staff's recommendation how has it been for the last next years i can believe and staff can tell me if Stephanie you can answer this better than me but i believe that there weren't regulations around these large events which is part of why we're doing this this code modernization that is now part of sustainability update is because there were not regulations that's right a lot of these types of uses were not regulated there were a lot of complaints so we kind of retracted you know uh kind of step back to look at how we were regulating them and that's what you're seeing before you know and this small wineries and breweries if they have more than 50 guests then they're limited to 10 if if it's a brewery and a winery they would be limited again through staff's proposal that and and we're incurring for small wineries and breweries again this is on residentially zoned parcels so but but it says large outdoor marketing events of more than 50 guests so what if you were having 10 people then they would not fall under this category okay large events there they're allowed to have smaller events and indoor events that doesn't fall in this is we're not making any changes to staff's proposal for small outdoor events these are for large events more than 50 guests outdoors so and then also a lot of these if they're outdoors they're going to happen between the months of May and October and so that you can't think of it as where you can't you it's not helpful to think of it 365 days a year it's more like during the warmer months so if you think about 10 outdoor events 50 more guests that's why I I think 10 is a good number well I live not too far from Hall Crest Vineutes they in the summer like to have music and invite people to come and taste or just come to hear the music this would apply to them and they might have 50 for an hour and then or go to 10 and then it will get big I don't know would this apply to them as are going to be some of they they just know that they have to cut off if more than 50 people show off are they considered small or large it's just I don't know me neither so what about a winery that is open to the public and has a musical event maybe better able to answer because if it's a tasting event they may fall under the tasting staff maybe able to speak to them yes so um so for there is a music is addressed separately in the in the in the chart just because we know that can impact neighbors so um acoustic music is permitted during outdoor events if you have amplified music then we would look at that and sort of look at any site specific conditions including proximity to noise sensitive uses and we may require an acoustic study or other information to make sure it complies with the noise standards in the code I do understand that I think their music has been acoustic but they're already open and people are invited like they had a if they had a fundraiser as they did a few last month for Ukraine they would get more than 50 guests the music is acoustical are they and how do you know if you're a larger in other words it's one thing to have an event where you invite people and a lot of people show up but what if you are a winery or brewery and you didn't people come and go all day that wouldn't be an event then right I mean what concept I'm sorry to split hairs but if you announce here's the schedule of acoustic acoustical musicians groups that we're going to have this summer every Sunday from 11 till three please join us and enjoy glass of wine which is what's going on that's that's still permitted is it not or does it flow under this yeah I guess I'm looking to stop to see what they think I understand I'm hoping Annie can help with this so we the code does does also specify the maximum number of guests at events I mean I would think that if they had music and they sent a notice like please come join us for music and there were guests there that would be considered an event and we did just oh I'm sorry I was going to say we did spend a lot of time with local winery and brewer owners developing these standards so they were comfortable with the way they were crafted in terms of being supportive of their needs for marketing and so so all right well if you felt like you have met with the wineries and breweries and they're good with it then I am far be it for me to question if you really feel that this is a this regulation has that has had a lot of input from small wineries locally of which we have a great many and it's a thriving growing business and I wouldn't want to but if you're feeling if you feel confident that this had a had a good look at by the industry involved wineries and breweries I'm okay with yes I think we probably met at least five times with wineries and then we had a series of community meetings as well where we took them out to the community in different parts of the county sort of pre zoom meeting days to get feedback from the community as well all right well then I'm not going to stick on it if you feel like this was something that is supported by them so let's go on well can I can I ask really quick just to be clear on that point the proposed part here has not been coordinated with any wineries or breweries this is a change to what was proposed correct yeah I have I this is the first time I've seen these proposed changes okay and so the proposed excuse me the current changes are hours of 11 to 9 and that's changing from 11 to 8 and then the number is changing right 10 is the same on small wineries and breweries medium was 16 and large allowed 20 events and so we're reducing the number of events and the number of hours is am I capturing all those things correctly yes we were doing it yes that's correct for large so large events is the main change large is going from 20 events per year to 15 can ask a question regarding that um we do have provisions for the large outdoor marketing events currently in the chart which I think the wineries felt were important um additional large marketing events maybe consider with the conditional use permits so there's currently provision that you know says if there's a need for additional you know that's right that's beyond the number specified you can go for that's right thank you annie that's important that what you're proposing would stay yes right yes we can be more explicit about that we can add that language in and be more explicit that's helpful I think that because I do think that's important but that you think there is a not there's another path that they want to have more events this is the path and you're making sorry just to really clarify this now so large events are are 15 medium would remain at 16 and small would remain at 10 yeah I don't believe we're proposing any changes to the small and medium yeah okay but then what's the reasoning behind the like it sounded like for consistency but you know for the hours going till 9 p.m seems especially in the summer months when it's you know light till really late like almost 10 what you know I I would say that feels a little bit possibly a little restrictive for some wineries and places that maybe would one and expected to have this day open till 9 I can see that I think that the thinking was these and part of where I think I was coming from and from sure be allowed to is that again these are the these are the issues that generate probably the most voluminous complaints from neighborhoods are events from commercial activities and in the mountain areas a lot of the commercial activity are wineries so I mean I guess I I'm I hear what you're saying though and I'm flexible with that to a certain extent but that's that's where it was generated from is basically because and I think Annie mentioned this too we get a lot of complaints I think as long as we are carefully stating what's going to be permitted and this is more specific I would agree I think we should allow the events to go to nine in the summer doesn't get dark till then I would be in favor of nine o'clock if you are both amenable to it also especially if that's what the wine owners and brewery orders were given to expect that this anyway I support nine Allison what do you think about that I mean I agree with you we were doing it to reduce conflict but I I see commission that chair Gordon's point but it does stay a light rather late into the evening especially since most of these events do happen in the summer months so I could be open to the idea and I know if you are yeah I am let's make that change okay thank you thank you I didn't have any other questions on that's on that section and any other questions about the winery and brewery section of our changes no you just answered all of mine okay the next section that we have some proposed changes are in has to do for skipping ahead to 13 10 640 which has to do with some of the code changes that were made around agriculture and we're very in favor of the idea of allowing modernized sense of agricultural uses but we were concerned about the size of some of the proposed new pieces of the code so in temporary produce areas the proposal was that it should be 1600 square feet and we just thought that this was a rather large and that's bigger than a lot of homes from Santa Cruz County and so we were proposing the smaller 800 square feet seems big enough for these temporary produce areas and then produce markets similarly we felt that 800 square feet seemed big enough to have these produce markets that to both support the agricultural community and their their needs and desires to have these produce stands and be able to sell the wonderful agricultural products and produce that comes out of our area but they just seem I mean again 3600 square feet is quite large it's larger than a lot of well does this mean you mean like a roadside stand is that that it's that would be a temporary produce area and a produce market will be a permanent market right so a produce market is designed to find it back in and we'll get in 13 10 700 is a structure for ancillary sales area cumulative and we change this later to to find the produce area that we define here as 1800 square feet accessory to an onsite agricultural production used to sell unprocessed fruits vegetables nuts and other agricultural commodities produced on the site along with limited processed foods and non-food items and then it references actually back to this section of code temporary sales produce areas are structures of areas up to and again we're proposing this change in smaller square footage including any outside display area up to 90 days a year consecutively or longer if they get an AUP it is accessory to an onsite agricultural operations and is used to sell only raw unproduced processed fruits vegetables nuts cut flowers and other unprocessed agricultural commodities grown on site and then actually I think similarly we probably need to change produce stands to be down to 800 square feet I think I missed making that correction as well where did staff get it's get the bigger sizes and what's what is the issue here um temporary produce area is just so i'm clear is when someone has a roadside stand where they're selling their produce because they have a lot of it like like the strawberry place what's the difference between a temporary produce sales area is just 90 days a year and a produce market is permanent they also have the ability to sell different things and Annie I'm sure can talk to this but they so they can only sell and we talked about this last um planning commission meeting last week about the fact that um the the smaller markets are only able to sell things they were grown on site and were unprocessed and then markets are able to sell processed things and Annie is going to have to help me because there was an inconsistency last time and I didn't actually fix this document to make sure that I assume Annie you're just going to make that change when it goes to the board since I didn't didn't put it in here um yes so so let's see um there are three types of produce sales uh areas that we're discussing one is the temporary produce sales area um the second is a produce stand which you know can be there year round and the third is a produce market which is a building so produce markets would only be allowed on on a not ca um and the let's see the produce um uh sales area would be able to include um products that are produced on the farm such as jams or dried fruit that sort of thing so that would be allowed which is I believe that's in 13 10 700 um already I I did have a question which is um the the produce stands and produce um sales area do require parking um so the size areas that you're proposing would that be not because I I believe that if it included parking it may be difficult to accommodate both the parking required as well as the sales area so would those areas be not include the parking required don't believe the definition includes the parking area does it I mean I would have the definition I I didn't yeah that that could be I yeah when I read the definition and that nothing in it but tell you know correct okay yeah I just wanted to make sure that it was intended to be exclusive exclusive of the parking requirements so that's how I read it if you're asking I mean yeah I didn't think that we were including parking okay okay and we're only talking about in ag ag zones here what zones does this apply to it applies to commercial agriculture and agricultural yes just the commercial I mean the agricultural zone districts the ANA actually have any of these in Santa Cruz produce stands we have lots of um unpermitted ones so you mean last day you know you see where people set up on the side of the road and they sell some fruit and or flowers or whatever so this would govern them obviously they don't have a permit and they come and go and I doubt we'd be able to regulate them any more than we do so you don't mean those people because they don't have any permits and and you produce market that if they're if they're in the agricultural zone this applies to them if they have a year-round market like we have a few that are just sell produce this is not what we're talking about correct this is only um so the produce so so the idea here is not necessarily require permit to clarify what the standards are so um produce sales areas and produce stands are permitted by right as an ancillary use to the um to the farming operations so so these provide standards but a permit isn't necessarily required it just clarifies what the standards are for these uses okay so this is a new requirement that we're adding to just regulate more and yes we're we're you know we heard a lot from the farming community a lot especially like smaller organic farms that they really need to have these be able to market the produce on site in order to be successful and remain viable so the ideas to you know support these ancillary uses and to support our local small farms while having standards that protect ag land and and you know address any impacts to adjacent properties that's for the thing and when I look at 1310 640e which is the produce stand section I don't see anything in here that defines the square footage for the produce stands I see it in the definitions but unlike produce markets and temporary produce sales area I don't see anything in 640 that actually defines the square footage if you find it can you tell me because I will add it to this document to correct it but I don't see square footage actually in 640 I only see it in 700 in the definition that could be I don't I'd have to look and see whether it's also included in these in the section we could certainly add it to it if it's not there because I just want to make sure our motion includes amending that square footage as well and I realize it's not there I'm just dumping around between sections let me get back to that okay and you're asking about the produce stand the square footage for produce stands correct is this just so I understand the process has happened has this been something that planning is discussed with farmers as well and kind of sold the 1600 and 3600 yes we did I don't remember exactly how that specific square footage was arrived at but we met multiple times with the farm bureau with APAC with the farming community and tried to develop standards that were supportive of you know farming needs yeah okay thank you let me I'm sorry to go ahead and let me say I think that if you were thinking that the 1600 and 3600 would be inclusive of parking that would make a difference but that's not how I saw it so my so the intent here is that I did not think that 800 feet would be inclusive of parking that would be required for this use yeah thank you I didn't I didn't read that either I'm just you know to be honest my only thought is like I'm not a farmer I don't know what I need or what these people need and there's been a lot of research and sounds like conversation going into those square footages and so I don't I don't feel like I have the grounds to change them or argue with them because I'm not as informed but maybe you both are and you have any reason to make them lower but I don't know if we've sold this to the all these groups and that's been the discussion it just feels like if that's what they need I I personally couldn't you know I couldn't make findings to reduce it that's all yes and I I honestly don't have enough sense of what the needs are myself to you know weigh in on whether that seems like it would meet the needs of the farmers I do know that you know that we did work on these standards with the farming community but it does seem like floor areas specific to the market area but this parking is addressed further down in the section yeah I think that's probably true I think part of the reason to reduce the size is again to ensure that the CA and A zones don't become something other than farming um so it's it's kind of speaks to ag protection the only time I can think of or this might be a problem and just let me run it by you what if someone at the pumpkin field are they going to be limited by this when they need to spread out sell all their pumpkins I don't think that this would apply to that thank staff and correct me I mean I would think that the pumpkins would be part of the growing area rather than a than a brick and mortar sales area right yeah okay so just to know that we're in it let's finish digging in a little bit so this is the applies to one of these per site this I think how it's described is that correct and what does that define as I mean if someone has you know a thousand acres I could see them needing 3,600 square feet or more but does this mean that they need 1,800 square feet on multiple parcels now as opposed to one bigger one on a single parcel and then the flip side is if you only have one acre you know and you're taking 3,600 square feet which you probably wouldn't need you know is that is that considered too much you know that's almost 10% of a site of an acre site so I don't know you know just some food for that and how is this going to actually be applied well to the second situation I mean there is language it says at least 75% of the growth site area is devoted to agricultural production so what I mean one there I don't know that we have any well that's not sure we do have some small one acre parcels but most I mean CA zone parcels have to be minimum any is it 20 or 10 I'm sorry the minimum size for CA zone parcels is it 20 or 10 um let's see it depends on the type ag soil for type one it's 10 and for type type one and three it's 10 I believe and for type two it's 20 so I mean for the CA zone parcels they're predominantly larger there are some small parcels that got like what we did rezoning but there is a requirement that at least 75% of it is dedicated to agricultural production so the 3,600 square feet in particular is less than 1% of that project well you know we could always do something like this and say you know larger like we did on the other one that if you want larger square feet then you can uh may be permitted with you know review you know review or something since we don't obviously are feeling totally solid that we know what we're looking at why don't we leave that option open on a case by case basis someone has to come in and say I need a thousand square feet instead 800 and here's why and then they could get permission I'd be in favor of that I believe that the code um provides a path for that am I correct I think we could the any does it have an option if they want to okay let's see here I mean we just did it in the section we finished about wineries if you want to have more events then you have to you know it's possible but you have to get whatever we said that I can't see the screen anymore I'm just navigating to that part in the chart here it just says p ancillary for produce stands it says c upa for produce markets I think it could be an administrative permit if they need more space but I think we ought to leave them an avenue toward asking for it I think it should go in the regulation and say that because otherwise people think this is the rule in their screw and then they refer you back to the code well we could just add some language right now indicating that and then if it's redundant if it exists already in the code then you know no oh yeah so I'm sorry I am at the code it's um it doesn't have a provision for larger it just the code reads produce sales error temporary and produce stands um limit of 1600 square feet and it's provided in the chart so we could add a line if if you're proposing 800 square feet it could say something like larger than 800 square feet a m up possibly that would be appropriate any since they're all principally permitted uses on the zone could we say if larger than principle be permitted size something along like that be our direction I'm sorry can you say that again since since these uses are all principally permitted in these zones as long as they're ancillary could our direction be something on the lines if like if larger than principally permitted then next you know a up I mean could we could that be our direction would that be appropriate I'm trying to figure out language like I'm trying to figure out language to put in the document okay yeah I was just thinking if um the we might want to have a separate line for produce sales area produce stands if the size limits are different one for produce sales area and I believe that's where you're proposing 800 square feet so it could be you know update 100 square feet principally permitted larger than 800 would be an m up and then the produce stand I don't remember the size of it's you know it's right here 1800 okay yeah that sounds good okay and an m up I think is appropriate okay like that all of them yeah yeah you change the chart later okay yes I can do that but that that makes sense to you Annie yes okay so if you look at it tomorrow you'll know I'm taking notes too okay thank you for helping us work that through thank you're welcome are there any other questions on on this section okay we'll move on okay the next item is um regarding bed and breakfast and farmstays and it's just adding in a zones to this language and otherwise the language is unchanged questions on my end yeah I have you said no questions or questions no questions no questions commissioner and it's at 1310 641 I think we're missing a one uh oh okay start oh yeah you're right sorry about that and I apologize all the little oops oh we both did it we know we know how hard it is thank you okay thanks sorry I think I cut commissioner liaison be off sorry oh I have no other questions thank you okay um and then um this next section is um adding a definition wait a minute if you don't mind you are going over uh the animal regulations oh okay we can stop now and talk about animals sure okay now I am no longer in a position to show the current state of the animal regulation is there any way you can show it the chart me um okay I'll have to stop for for someone else why doesn't why don't I so procedurally here do you want us to just because if I stopped share I love to come back to this okay let me see how I can do without doing anything without interrupting your flow so Stephanie if I am correct um for large animals we made the changes that I recommended or made a motion about they're incorporated now for large animals correct right we incorporated the changes previously done the new changes are related to small animals and table I had yes this is table 10 point oh sorry 13.10 so six four five dash one which requirements for small animals I this is a very minor change so you don't need them I can read it the maximum density of noisy and noisy small birds roosters peacocks unifold tom turkey or similar noisy fowl I want to suggest it be changed from four per acre to four per parcel I should have said that in the first place and the reason is that people keep those keep those animals together so if you have five acres you're not gonna put four here and four in your second acre and four in your third you're gonna have an enclosure for them so I meant originally and I still mean four roosters is plenty so I was testing that under on RA specifically and PF which is this applies to it be changed to four per parcel they are currently and will remain I'm not allowed on our or our one that's roosters I'll just say the proposed one acre minimum parcel size is also still in there so you have to have an acre to do to do these noisy fowl and you can have four per per parcel and I think four is very generous frankly um that makes a lot of sense to me really I can't imagine having four roosters four peacocks what were the other ones tom turkeys guinea fowl guinea fowl that's right okay no yeah we wanted four per parcel working on it and commissioner Villante um also minor a little change that goes with it instead of maximum density we just put maximum number I'm literally pulling from the online code I literally copied and paste from what you have online right yeah this change would go along with it to say maximum number as opposed to density okay I think it's a lot clearer if it says number than everybody knows exactly where they are no density bonuses for roosters in your dream and in our our our one it's not allowed so that's a friendly amendment I would accept that I'd accept that okay that that's it because the other changes I recommended are already part of the language for large animals correct yes okay okay great anything else on animals commissioner shepherd no fortunately we defer that earlier um and there's been some clarification with what we change so I'm good with it okay anybody else have other questions no thank you all right I'll move on then to the end of this um so the next item is adding a definition for hoop house for any questions on that commissioner Dan I feel like there was a definition for hoop house there's not you guys have if you say in within embedded within the definition of greenhouses you make reference but there's not a definition for hoop houses this is pulled straight from another place in county code where you literally define who houses this way so that's where it's pulled from we didn't make this okay thank you um agricultural shade structure is an official definition now because the hoop house you know is actually a growing structure it isn't just a shade it's not a temporary shade structure it can be but basically that's the way most berries are grown permanently so yeah everybody who needs to know knows what it is so any questions on this part no okay we're up to 700 now yeah and so and if we're done with this section there's one change in chapter 1311 that we're proposing and this um commissioner shepherd speaks to some of the issues you brought up about what items should be heard at the planning commission and in this section um it goes over um it goes over that and so what we are proposing is that um we just add that for any project over 25 units that that goes straight to the planning commission these are residential units correct yes yeah i hope i got the page in code section correct yeah it looks like it yeah but can you can you move your um the screen uh yeah i'd have to find out which one of these up here um if you actually okay let me see i can share my screen that's helpful yeah go ahead why don't you share your screen for and we can take a look at that chart and then we can just circle back to this we want to take action so 11 037 page page nine yeah page nine online yeah you all see that it's pretty small yeah can you make it bear yeah so as proposed you know this speaks to what commissioner shepherd was talking about as proposed um you know i understand what you know staff is trying to lower the levels of review from my perspective this represents a really substantial change and so what we proposed kind of as a middle ground is to for large projects residential projects um that they go to the planning commission well right now before these changes are proposed residential projects including attached to attached single family dwelling groups multi-family mobile home parks of five units are greater come to the planning commission and you're proposing to change it to 25 um because i she's in the existing residential use chart because i'm i'm looking at this residential use chart here more than 10 units is a csp which is a zoning administrator so i'm suggesting that 25 units or more should be a csp psp planning commission um i am confused because i what i just read you was my understanding that's what it is before this change that's what it is currently is that correct commissioner shepherd and that not it and that like if we have like six months ago that's what it would be i got six months from now yeah okay so you're yeah okay so i'm kind of in the middle then yeah also just to clarify there's the use charts and then there's the site development charts so we're going to a two permit system now one is a permit approval in the use charts that we've previously reviewed and commissioner shepherd that's what you and i were talking about this is when you're actually breaking ground and you have a site development permit as well and between the two permits and this is the way the code works all around if you have a code process that requires you to go to a higher level everything kind of goes together to that higher level so um commissioner shepherd but uh you were looking at the old use chart that said you know greater than five units went to the planning commission and um and when you're actually developing these now you have a little bit more of a breakdown here in terms of um the process well i'm not sure i'm following all of you but i was i think 25 units we have we we're going to have a lot more of them obviously because we're going to be building more housing so i think definitely those should go to the planning commission just to get the larger community and deal with all the issues that comes along with them but i think i feel strongly that having been on the planning commission for a long time i think we serve a very vital role role to give the community access to projects that affects them so and we have often and staff has often heard input from the community which is very useful and how one has resulted with developers ending up with projects that are much more buildable um so i i was going to suggest that we keep the language that says residential projects of five units are greater continue to go to the planning commission i understand that on the whole i'm not quite understanding this particular chart i'm looking at now that they'll be appealable but that that isn't a good answer for me because that means that you have to have probably two to four thousand dollars to appeal a zoning administrator hearing and that's a lot of money and i think the system works i i honestly do not feel that just because something's zoned that it should be i i understand the simplification is based on the idea that if the zoning is appropriate it should just go ahead but i think that Santa Cruz is a place uh that has a lot of community interest in what happens and the planning commission has been very successful agency to hear community concerns and we've made a lot of changes to projects that ended up with there being very little controversy about them when they get built and i don't see pushing all this on staff you're going to have to have three zoning commissioners so i don't think you're going to save that much staff time or money for that matter so i don't think the change uh to eliminate the planning commission is either viable or necessary so i don't agree with 25 units and i want to go for five which it was which is in other words as we have performed i realize that we're having long hearings than this but generally speaking it's not a great burden our meetings are largely half a day and i think we do a good job and i think it's a vital community process in Santa Cruz which is a rapidly changing and um community now we want to have buy-in from the whole community and i want to hear the voices of people who who these things affect and i think if you did again i i just think this is going to cause a huge burden on the zoning administrator so that's what i so i i think we ought to reduce the number so if you and so what i'm hearing just so i can reflect back what i think i'm hearing is in commissioner shepherd is that you are suggesting that we consider retaining the um what's what's what's currently the language exactly okay and so i mean i'll just say i'm not inherently opposed to that by any means i guess i'm in in um making this suggestion i was trying to you know reflect what i was reading in the code that staff was you know driving towards and um and you know you know and which i understand what it is is to you know try to make things a little bit more streamlined and um have less pc hearings um though i do agree in large part with what you're saying um one and that's why i'd like to hear from other commissioners and then i might have an idea of how to move this forward so but i'd like to hear what other commissioners think like commissioner vialante or laison b go ahead if you'd like okay well um i i agree with you commissioner shepherd to a certain extent i'm i i'm a little bit confused here by the just when it says one to two units where that could be one to two houses or excuse me or one to two smaller units but i think keeping things similar to what they are now has a lot of merit in it because if you come to the planning commission and you don't like the decision it's a great expense to go on to the board of supervisors if you can and it's much but it would be much more if you came in from the zoning administrator then came up to the planning commission and then still was dissatisfied and went on to the board of supervisors so maybe what we have now is workable and i go ahead no go ahead finish i'm sorry but i i agree that it's it doesn't seem to overburden the planning commission except you know in projects like this which take years that's that you know that's an extra added burden but that's not what we do every day or every month i could be very happy never hearing another cell tower appeal and i'm hoping the new cell tower ordinance will will exit the planning commission out because we don't do anything useful in those but i think in the other work we do we are very useful i don't think we're overburden i think it's very expensive it's you could say well everybody can appeal everything from the zea but i i think this is very discriminatory on income and i don't think it's appropriate and i i think people will not be satisfied with this it just cuts off the public voice i'm sure we wanted did you have anything to add i'd like to hear your thoughts chair gordon actually okay uh yeah i mean i can see both sides of it and um from the perspective of the planning department i feel that it is important to streamline a little more and and help projects move a little faster and ultimately reduce costs for projects i think that's a big factor in today's market with getting anything completed timing and of course cost and you know the cost of the planning commission hearing is cost projects more than a zea and so i think from the public side that it'd be a benefit um i like the idea of it moving a little faster and then i you know i'm from what i understand the zea hearing would still have public notice it just wouldn't have us the same thing it's just that we're not there and so we're not you know limiting the public's ability to participate from what i understand and correct me if i'm wrong on that but i think that would eliminate a great deal of what we hear now would now fall on the zoning administrator so i'm not so sure about all the staff time would be saved because you need another zoning administrator so i i mean to me a lot of what we hear are these divisions where people are going to build you know more than five units and i think they you know i'm going to repeat myself i don't think this is wise i think there's a whole lot of streaming we're spending you know hours on it and there are really good ideas here i really support a great deal of the stream money but not this i think the planning commission serves a vital role and i don't think it makes sense to reduce what the really important public voice we have in a very disparate community that needs place to voice their concerns um these before i you know abort of their peers frankly i i do agree with those points and i i i was thinking also in reading through this chart that one result probably would be that we would hear more appeals at the planning commission because in the end for these types of projects there is a lot of interest and so i i do think that that would be one of the consequences though i do respect what staff is trying to do here and was trying to kind of um create a middle ground um so so i have an idea of maybe something we can do but oh i see annie's hand is so i'm sorry oh no that's okay do you mind if i just um i just wanted to point out one big difference here from current the existing chart versus what we're proposing here is not even so much the hearing body like i agree you know a public hearing whether it's the planning commission or the or the z a is a similar process but the big difference i think is that three to ten units is an administrative permit and then more than ten it's a public hearing right now it's more than five and i think that's an important difference to point out because we do hear from a lot of developers where you know once you get to that public hearing it adds so much to the time and the cost and some developers just choose not to develop here and we need housing so desperately so i would hate to see us making a change like that that would discourage people from wanting to develop in our county so i understand that concern but i have to say that you're dismissing well they're still going to hurt it the planning commission it's a big difference they heard before a planning apartment official and and the planning the planning commission which are people from the community we have a different perspective and we're more representative of the community at large that's why we have planning commission so i mean to say well it doesn't really matter they're gonna get hurt by the z a then what do you need a planning commission for i mean a plan commission is really important for the community exactly because we are going to grow a lot if people should buy into it and feel like they're heard and i just think this expense of getting people right now we know if anything happens in the houses along the beach at ria del mar it's a given that it's going to get appealed because they all have the money but people in live oak and the san lorenzo valley and a lot of places might not have four thousand dollars to appeal it well in the interest of finding a compromise um i think commissioner dan was about to propose something she she had started to say i actually had a proposal um and i and i trust in her experience on this commission to know that she probably has something we all might be willing to think about so at least um because i know we still have other things um so i'd like to hear what commissioner dan was about to propose because um usually we we all i don't know i'm just gonna thank you i don't know i think i'm getting a little bit too much credit here it's not that convenient to play but um so because i think there's merit to what commissioner shepherd is saying yet i think that the direction that staff is going in also has merit and especially annie i really appreciate you pointing out that three to ten unit with an asp i think is is really important there um why i would propose that we send both options to the board well if this motion passes that is that um we send what what we have proposed in our motion but then also note that we also want the board to consider um keeping the levels of review that are in the current plan and outline the reasons that commissioner shepherd has just put forth what is what is what you are proposing so my proposing my what i'm proposing basically is to give the board of supervisors so basically what i'm proposing to punt is what i'm doing i don't think that i think that's a very weak position and we'll basically get ignored i don't agree you've we've made a proposal i just i what what tim has up on the screen now is not what your proposal is right but tim has up is but the staff proposed this is can we go back to what you are proposing uh sure tim has to well i yeah okay so the it's really just a minor change but it is significant and that is that i'm just proposing that for residential projects over 25 units that that goes straight to the pc but but that retains you know that projects three to ten units get an asp you know and i'm not proposing to change other things in the chart but just so i'm just trying to capture the large projects that generate a lot of interest go to the pc because i think they would end up at the pc anyway is so i'm just so the the reasoning behind this suggestion is because in my experience any project of this size would just get appealed up the up the up the chain anyway and so that's why i agree with you that any project of more 25 or more units would get appealed anyway i would like to think that the planning director would figure that they should go to the planning commission as a discretionary matter asp i'm standing here with my residential uses chart key and i don't see asp on it is that it's a administrative site permit and that was formerly a level four so that is public notice no public hearing i just most a good deal of what the planning commission has done is see projects under 25 i don't i think that's way too large i mean we get a lot of people who have a large remainder lot and they want to put five houses on it or seven houses on it and we hear those and we get very large parts of the community and i think the community relies on it and um i i think that's i think that 25 is way too high and i agree that over 25 units i can't even imagine that 25 units or more wouldn't go to some public hearing so i would i would make it less i know i think well what about seven so that i think is not something that well i guess i'd like to hear what commissary viola thinks look like we're cutting the public out of everything that's what the planning commission's for you know i'm torn because i mean i i i really i hear what future shepard is saying and i and i agree that we've seen you know communities want to get engaged and i i think what sap is trying to do is is change the way projects get heard and i don't think that that's trying to cut out the planning commission it's it's just shifting for public hearings occur it'll still be a public hearing um and i and i you know the equity argument is is not one i take lightly because you know two thousand dollars is a huge amount of money to a lot of people two thousand dollars is a minimum let her finish please and you know i but i also just i i really am very very cognizant of those same people who can't afford the two thousand dollars for the same people who are being priced out of housing right now in our community and we've seen developers not be able to complete projects because the length of time that it takes between finding a parcel and going through the significant amount of administrative and you know regulatory process not just here at the county but with the water agencies with with some of depending on where the parcel is um you know fire and all these things um to get clearance to build and our our county does take time um and and that includes actually the appeals process that gets put on top of it um and i do want to encourage development in st. Andrews county because i want to provide housing for the breadth of people that need to live in our community in order to create a thriving community and that includes people where two thousand dollars is is is insignificant and people where two thousand dollars is a struggle because i think including all incomes um is important in order to have a thriving community and i so i absolutely hear what commissioner shepherd is saying um but i but i also think that the reality of the housing crisis is is present um and i like commissioner dan's idea i i understand central shepherd's concern that if we often when we put up one proposal and and and say you know that i understand you're concerned that that might be not particularly seriously but i've been there where the board has taken seriously the idea they just actually did it with the tiny homes yes great you know they just we put forward a proposal and we staff included the idea that there was a i'll call the minority opinion i don't know that we didn't pass but there was an alternative option and the board still adopted it so i um i i think i i i think i think i like mr dan's proposal of we can add in here direction that says this proposal which is projects of any pc hearing for any products over 25 units and then include a direction to staff to to say that there was strong discussion on this in fact that this may be one of the biggest discussions we've had um uh is around not just and i don't just mean this item commissioner shepherd i just mean this idea of noticing and engagement in the public has been a big discussion point today and i and you'll see in our next um our the proposal we hope to put forward is all surrounding this idea of noticing and i would hope that staff when they present the the board uh talks about the fact that are there is a concern from the planning commission about the the decrease um in opportunities for public engagement and i and i do think that hopefully the za will become the body where people are able to have their voices heard and and they'll start doing basically what the planning commission has done which is take people's ideas into consideration find compromise and it's not that the planning commission the planning commission might not be the body that hears um these things anymore but they will be the body that allows for compromise um and and will it'll just change who does what now so i i really hear you commissioner shepherd i agree with you but i i like the idea of of presenting both opinions because i think your point is so important um that i think it's important that the board be the one who decides and they may find a compromise they may decide that it's one to two units in the msp and it's three to like you said seven um is something else and i i think that they should know that there was a robust discussion here today about that well i just have to say that i think what staff what staff is trying to do is i understand what i was told is simplify the code so if something is allowed it can happen with the minimum of hearings that's simplifying and having less hearings and i don't think that makes any sense i mean the idea is that if it's allowed in a zone you know if you can have 20 15 units you should be allowed to 15 units without any further review because but the zoning and what people have to live with and the circulation and the traffic and the shading and all the other issues we hear about because Santa Cruz is not a place like Santa Clara Oklahoma Ohio or a great deal where it's flat and the zones are easy to deal with and if it's zoned for that then you can easily build what you need to or construct or configure things as you need because there's never there things are not complicated everything in Santa Cruz is complicated because they have limited resources and the terrain is not uniform and we have a lot of old neighborhoods that have particular abnormalities where i live the zoning change where i live in the San Lorenzo Valley on my street the zoning change is almost for every parcel so what you're going to end up with is somebody who can do something essentially with permitted by right or with a with a ministerial permit or with no overview literally next to somebody who has to have a much larger review because the zoning has never been really particularly updated and it's not clear that it can't i live i am you know residential i have a cultural next to me is rural residential i mean it just it's all over the place so that's why i think you know looking at looking at smaller projects has been very very appropriate and i do think reducing the role of the planning commission um ism state for this community and i think most residents are going to feel very betrayed and i don't think that most most people we all agree we need more housing that and and that we should allow it but i i've not it's not my role to totally represent how much we can develop it's my role to still pay attention to community involvement and community acquiescence and understanding and accommodation and that's what i think the planning people feel like that's what the planning commission does and i think it's different appearing before the zoning administrator um who is basically going to apply is it if it's zoned for that it's in that because that's their job and our job is different historically so i i don't know if this is going to prevent me from voting for the whole thing i hope not but i don't agree i think 25 units is too high rachel and alson if you can see your way to bringing it down so it'll involve more of what we have been hearing um then i can go along with it but no i this is the core issue for me well you know again this is not the last stop on this train and so ultimately this is going to be decided at the board and since this is such a critical component of this code update um i anticipate that this section will be paid attention to um so i'm also thinking about that and how this will be moved moving forward and so that partly speaks to trying to create um kind of a middle ground here i i want to say that i 100 agreed with what commissioner vialanti said and how she characterized you know the tough decision that this is because i also agree um fundamentally with a lot of the points that commissioner shepherd has said on the other hand i also understand the reality of building housing i mean not you know certainly not to the extent that commissioner Gordon does but you know and that you know if you have a three unit project you know that for a five unit project that has to go to the planning commission but over in the jurisdiction the city of Santa Cruz you know you have a much more streamlined process you might not look at developing in the county and so you know and then also we might get different housing types in the county that maybe aren't the priority housing types that we need um and that's also what's happened a lot in the county as well and you know we need all housing types in this county um so let me just say that so i you know i don't know what the right answer is to this um i really don't i don't um i put something out here um i can justify it but in the end i i don't know if this is the right direction to do i don't know what the exact right number is i'm just basing this off of my experience as well um well would you consider a lower and get to 15 um i could consider that commissioner veal empty yeah yeah i can consider that i mean i mean as if the other that's yeah i don't have the chart right in front of me so i'm i'm if we didn't change the other stuff yeah so basically anything between 10 and 15 would go to the zea and i think about 15 would go to the you see and then the three two three ten with david same yeah i mean unless we wanted to change anything else i know but i just don't know why we would are we going to get to non-residential hearing levels by the way in your document i am not addressing those i'm just okay because we're having until right now um go ahead sorry else i'm just gonna say i don't think i don't i don't know if there's anyone from staff or do you want to just name them commissioner gordon chair gordon yeah i'll tell you my input is anything i mean there there is i see this anything that can make it faster and easier would be probably what i would hope that we could achieve and the reality is that as people other people have stated it's hard to develop in the county that's just the reality it takes a really long time and there's a lot of process and there's a lot of cost and i mean if we want to make changes in this county to make to actually produce housing we got to make some changes and i would say that you know the this number is probably a little bit you know it could change one way or the other and still be fine my anticipation is that if there's a big you know any size project that maybe has a bunch of variances or really impacts neighborhood they're gonna figure out a way to appeal it at the same time there might be projects and there will be that meet all the codes and have no business coming to planning commission um and so it's kind of a tough and fine balance um but i would say that where we have what we have now is a good start and it's worth a try and if we can't if it doesn't work there's always ability to change again later how about this um how about then this is just thinking off the top of my head um we make it 15 and then we add a direction that one year after this code is implemented or um yeah or one year or two years after this code is implemented to give it time to projects to come through that planning staff will return to the commission and evaluate whether or not this is the right permit review level like kind of speaking to what you were saying commissioner garden about coming back and tweaking things yeah i'd be fine with that you know i think a 15 unit is probably fine as well you know 15 isn't i mean that's a big project by standards yeah from what we see hopefully we see a lot bigger stuff and then even the bigger stuff 25 is the bigger if they're going to be much bigger they're probably going to be over 25 you know so i would be fine with either number you know 15 or 25 whatever you both are good with and then if we want to you know address it again in a year i think that's a for me that's a great solution because it's something that's new territory for us so commissioner shepherd does that work for you well you know what i would prefer but i think it should be two years or something a year's not going to tell us much right i was thinking a year or enough staff what do you think is the right time frame there to come back and evaluate the efficacy of this i i think a couple years maybe even like three years um uh to have enough different types of projects that we are able to look at each level um so that's what i would suggest for report report backs take you know take time they take data and a year in a year we're going to be trying to get the housing element passed so i you know i'd say let's give it a little bit more more time so so you are saying that we'll go with 15 and it'll come back in two years for review of how well it's working yes essentially i think i think it sounds like miss hanson saying yes two to three years depending on how many projects come through and maybe the fact that you know if we're seeing smaller projects it's indicative of the fact that it's still an obstacle but they'll come back with the report on whether or not this number is appropriate or if they still feel like yeah so so this will result in anyone who has a project where they're going to take their property and subdivide it and build let's say 12 units um with ad us and junior ad us or tiny homes they will have a ministerial review and and the neighbors in the community really won't have any input or will that still go to the zoning administrator 12 units would go to the zea so it's three to ten would be administrative permit with public notice and it's available and appealable and then above that is essentially zea until we get to 15 so 15 and up would be planning commission how much does it cost to appeal the three to ten you said gave me a quote of 10 hours minimum for a planning commissioner here hearing so what does it cost to want to appeal an automatic you know a three to ten unit who's gonna for a neighbor who feels strongly that the ad use windows are gonna you know shine right into their bedroom dross selen had some corrections to what i was saying the the um feed chart is a little funky so dross can you can you help with that this would be basically appealing a level for yes the fee the fee chart is strange but um but but yes an appeal if an appeal is filed by a member of the public um the fee is a flat fee it's $1,200 if an appeal is filed by the applicant then we bill off of the existing deposit account and um and you know they do typically take 10 or more hours um is that for an appeal of any kind so if i was building let's say seven units i'm dividing my property i'm going to you know create a new little mini development with seven homes on it um i have let's say i have four acres and it's in the hills and it's all going to be you know it's going to be complicated how to fit it in and so on and my neighbors think that is the worst place in the world to put the driveway um and i or that really floods in that south section where you're thinking of putting a home and to have their voice heard how will they do it i think you're saying they would need to appeal it because it's by right essentially or ministerial no if it's a land division it gets a csp a csp being a z a and and so if they want to appeal the zas the c a goes out and said i it hasn't flooded for 10 years so i don't think that's important any then in the land or the person next door still wants to appeal it is that a flat fee of $1,200 yes okay uh well let's make i still i want to vote for this whole motion so i'll go along with the 15 and let me make that so now i i think people in Santa Cruz who who are current residents losing their voice is going to be a pretty big deal so i think i'll you'll hear we'll hear from a lot of people beside people who want to develop you there's i understand the need for more but i also have a lot of respect for the people who have built this community and and live here and think that this is a community where their voice is heard i feel like we're we're really changing things but okay and i i do have uh something at some point before the afternoon's over that i want to add about non-residential projects is it in is it in chapter 1310 yes or 11 we're on 11 no right sorry yes before we move on to that one add one thought on this last thought on this that mishanson if it turns out where there are a lot of appeals like it's just happening all the time within the three years can we can we just put a note like hey let's revisit it sooner because i you know when on the flip side if i'm developers and i'm going to go build you know 10 units or nine units and and now i get appealed well i've just not i didn't streamline my process i got it just got extended by two or three or six more months and so you know i think both sides of that coin are true and we just want to be really conscious of that so if there's like lots and lots of appeals it's actually kind of hindering what the yes that's right i understand and and then we then we didn't meet the intent of the amendments at all which would was to not only streamline the process but also provide you know a definitive process that helps you know that helps things move forward appeals as you know take a lot of not even the same in the money it's all the time and the fees don't even begin to cover the staff time or planning commissioners time that goes into those so yes we can we can revisit jostle and i keep a close eye on it revisit if it looks like we really miss the mark on this or frankly anything else will be back and if i haven't said this before you know our intent is to have an annual housekeeping amendment cycle my my intent was to start that next year but housing element might get in the way but have a regular cycle where we can bring things back concerns back corrections that need to happen on a much more regular basis and it could be a part of that as well right well i changed some language in here to say it's up to you i just had a question if someone appeals the zoning minister administrator decision and they pay their twelve hundred dollars but the zoning administrator is very busy so it's going to be three months before their item can fit in does that put a stop on the project just as tim is asking i uh do you mind if i weigh in on that okay um we have three zoning administrators right now um working the circuit so we have not had any issue with with delays in getting to the zoning administrator and we don't have that many projects under 15 units that come through our office so i don't foresee this adding significantly to our zoning administrator workload to the extent that it would cause delays in processing and when is the appropriate time to talk about well if you're a do you want to go all the way to the end of your suggestion yeah so this is okay this is it for us this was the end of our right also this is the end of 13 10 and 13 yeah that is correct so we have a separate document that covers chapter 18 10 and like two or three little cleanup items um but if you have stuff for chapter 13 and if we're done with this part that would i think we should move on to that yeah we could either take a vote on this and just i would like to see if you would be interested in a friendly amendment or not if you rather than make it a separate motion okay so i would like to propose um that residential non-residential projects um that require conditional use permit um that the sorry i moved that the use charts at 13.10 reflect a conditional use print approved by the planning commission for the following types of projects in zones where use permit is required animal shelters or hospitals retail stores greater than 50 000 square feet we already took care of parks museums residents um visitor accommodations of five units are greater and organized camps skilled nursing facilities where the elderly continuing care retirement communities industrial public and community facility projects over 5 000 square feet uh i can we yeah as much as there her screen or something yeah you either go over those ways lower or share here then because that was hard to track yeah um i unfortunately don't have any screen to share because i don't have any screen i mean i have what i'm looking at but i don't i can't go share my computer's dead so i can i think i could share my screen because i helped a little bit with this although it has changed a bit because of the motions that commissioners dan and vialante have made miss handsley just clarify as you get that ready that we're talking about the commercial use charts we're talking about 1310 332 dash line it's mostly the commercial use charts at this point because we've addressed residential um in what we just did let me tell you the rationale here can before you do that i want to find it so i can so now i can have it up can you tell me what what page sepani it is on the online version of 331 we actually just looked at the uses so um wherever like a use for like a kennel was allowed with the conditional use permit instead of the just a conditional use permit then it would be conditional use permit dash pc so instead of just going to the zoning administrator it would go to the planning commission i want to amend the list that's sorry everyone real quick real quick let's get commissioner dan to where we need to be we're at the use charts in the commercial zone back in 1310 page page 11 on yeah thank you print outsizing i basically let me give the commissioners shepherd sorry i just want to make sure in fact i want to get i want to understand what you're suggesting so i want to be able to look at it yeah okay thank you i'm there to give you a little context i was thinking back on the kinds of non you know non-residential uses where planning commission hearings have been useful and productive and make sure that they are still heard by the planning commission and sepani generously made me a list i want to modify that list slightly so animal shelters i do not need to include kennels or animal hospitals just animal shelters that was a very big complex hearing with an excellent result and if we got another animal shelter i think it should be heard by the planning commission retail stores greater than 50 000 square feet we've already addressed park general plans and master plans we've always heard i think it's critical we continue to hear them museums you know there's there's going to be one proposed actually that would come to the planning commission um we'll skip residential projects uh five units are greater because i already lost that battle but we've got a accommodation there uh visitor accommodations of five units are greater and organized camps a lot of the hearings we've had are for the and there are i agree mostly in my district there are big organized camps that have residential development and large programs and when they in mount hermit would be one and i can't remember the other one off the end of Lockhart Gulch i think the really big one um what am i thinking of um anyway i'm drawing a blank that they are very big communities and when they come in for changes to their master plans or if ever one ever one wanted that we had a new one i think that is a big enough project involving very large development with a lot of community impact those should continue to come to the planning commission and then i was thinking kind of the senior housing a large one not not i don't i'm not worried about residential care facilities except large ones um and um and then community industrial public and community facility projects so i need to modify this residential homes of seven or more residents take that off skilled nursing facilities i think continuing care communities i i'm not concerned about skilled nursing facilities or residential care facilities but large continuing care retirement communities that's something i think we should hear so i would take i'm trying i was trying to follow and scroll down as quickly as i could as you were running through just to see what staff is proposing to remind myself and what you're proposing well i think that would not be heard by the planning commission so i'm saying these particular uses should be heard by the planning commission i understand what i was getting at is what i what i could see from having to quickly scroll through as you're running through the list is that most of them from what i could see are proposed to go to the z a exactly one more i mean when i finish my thought well i want to get it list right if you don't mind first before we address it so go ahead on visitor accommodations the five units are great or no i meant organized camps or visiting sephia i had a little trouble identifying what i mean what is mount hermit is it an organized camp i don't think the camp i believe it would fit under the organized camp okay so the master plan the large communities mostly started out as religious base that have both many large programs and heavily are heavily visitors serving with a huge influx of people on the weekend sometimes hundreds we have three of those in the county i if organized camps and is inclusive then that's what i meant so what i'm saying is i think these types of not a residential project should continue to be heard by the planning commission not the zoning administrator i'm not sure if i meant mixed use projects i would probably be okay with increasing the mixed use projects to make it over 10 000 square feet and i'm not sure what i what we wrote down for industrial public and community facility projects i would make that you know 10 000 square feet two or five thousand i'm not sure what what that exactly means but i meant larger ones that involve the community so i'll make the size bigger so for example if you want to put a this is happening in scott's valley now so it wouldn't be under a jurisdiction they're building a theater and i think that has a lot of community impact and would be worth talking about at a planning commission hearing so i'm i'm narrowing this list to be the ones i think are critical i don't think i think you can take out group quarters i don't even know what that means but i know what i mean by large continuing care communities we have heard most of those that exist with you scroll up the list because i was trying to follow and the and so what's crossed out is what you don't want to include anymore i don't i don't think it's necessary and but animal shelters retail stores bigger than which we already included parks um i got it can i have some questions for staff um staff so i was trying to look at what's proposed in the code and is it correct that for these right now is proposed to the zea it's a mix but um um several of them would go to the zea i think a couple of them were administrative use permits as well um commissioner um uh shepherd was focused on uses that had been listed in the staff report and so regardless of the zone like if animal shelters for instance also appeared in the industrial zone let's say the same change would be the same change would be made i believe that's what she has in mind and then could you scroll down so i can see the rest again of course yes thank you so what's large continuing care communities um that would be we don't have any currently in the county i don't think that i'm i'm hoping we will where you have senior living and then you have um what do you call it assisted living and then you actually have um the next step after that you know there come right what is in charge though this is my question i don't know how quite to define large but over something they would have over a hundred applicants well i'm sorry i didn't push your hand but you can stop telling me i mean since i'm i also i'm trying to follow along on the use chart i'm trying to understand where and i know you said you kind of went along in the code but i'm trying to understand where this some of these exists like even animal shelters technically we have like we have shelter canola animal hospital that one's easy to find but continuing care retirement facilities i'm just trying to figure out where that um that probably appears in the residential code i think um commissioner shepherd was focused more on the type of use that she's seen in front of the planning commission as opposed to the exact district that it's um referenced in the code and that's why it's a little hard to pinpoint exactly which use chart we're talking about because i think she was thinking that wherever it appeared in the use charts it would then go to the planning commission yeah staff could figure out where it was in the youth chart that was way beyond my capacity so in the um commercial use chart it's in the housing section of that chart uh on page 18 of that documents um and continuing care retirement communities are grouped with um skilled nursing facilities and residential care facilities um with a c up required so i think based on what commissioner shepherd is proposing we would then break out continuing care retirement communities as a separate line item requiring a c up pc review in the commercial use chart as an example that's actually the most obscure one because we don't have any continuing care um facilities in this county now i hope we will we're gonna need them but the others are pretty i mean parks museums and retail stores bigger than and organized camps those are something we have wow and i think those projects need to come before the planning commission and they are not happening three times a year they're happening once every few years if that so this is not going to add a tremendous amount of you know it's it's not going to change the basic structure of the reforms we're talking about it's just being very specific of where in my experience planning commission review has been very useful to the large republic and much and we ended up getting better projects um i just had a couple of clarifying questions about this proposal so for the continuing care retirement community actually it would be just the large ones that would be subject to the c up pc is that correct yes okay so that so that would be we so we would add it in that way and we would need to define large i would say with over a hundred occupants okay and then the commercial the last two line items that you have the um commercial projects over 10 000 square feet and industrial public community public and community facility projects over 10 000 square feet is that then referring to site development permits um the site development permit chart rather than the use permit chart i think i need to help from stephanie right yeah jay z i think we probably would look at both of them okay for that yeah i'm just asking clarifying questions since the if it if if it were referring to the use chart it would need to be a lot more specific than that but i think it's yeah it's more broad we could find the permit chart i just think that in other words large impactful projects that involve a big section of the community and there are not that many they should come to the planning commission i think that's the very definition of what the planning commission does and i think the non-residential ones are very important so i can add to a question on the commercial projects including mixed use one um can you correct me if i'm wrong here but i'm looking at the use permit required and i'm not sure how this correlates to the section we were just talking about a minute ago but um i think it says and this is this is the chart that we're on earlier for the commercial uses 13.3.331 or two or something um five plus units for commercial mixed i think this is saying commercial mixed use and this is already c up pc it's already supposed to go to planning commission so it's not a square footage but it's saying anything five units or more in a mixed use would need to go to planning commission is it am i reading that correctly and how does that correlate if so with what we just talked about um i will let staff answer that because if you're right then that could be eliminated if you're not right then i'm keeping sorry i'm taking a look over the use charts i can clarify if it's useful um definitely the the um mixed use uh uh threshold for number of units is different um from the like 100 residential project threshold number of units um and the planning commission may wish to change that to make to make them the same that's that's something that staff has has noted is um an inconsistency between the mixed use standards and the uh 100 residential standards well the commission may wish to keep them keep them as they are if we were going to make them consistent what would the language be well the uh the the threshold is five units for a pc review of a mixed use project well that seems reasonable so what has to change well there was you just had a discussion about the appropriate threshold for number of units for pc review on residential projects and decided on 15 units we're talking about commercial projects here not residential it's a clarifying question to understand how those two things apply and it sounds like what we talked about in section 1311 refers to residential only right i would like them to apply to a commercial mixed use as well it seems to make sense to have them be consistent thank you daisy for catching that i don't see why they should be consistent between residential and commercial they're apples and oranges it's what i believe daisy was talking about was residential mixed use right uh correct uh the number of residential units in a mixed use project that would trigger planning commission review so i wasn't addressing residential units i was addressing non-residential you're you're your motion make your first mixed use projects that's why we're okay take out you mentioned it here commercial projects including mixed use projects that's why we're talking about it i thought that meant mixed use commercial projects so obviously you know my my lack i am not a planner no background in planning so i'm not doing very well against all you experts so let's change it to be more appropriate so commercial projects over 10 000 square feet then if i'm understanding you correct the term mixed use refers only to residential projects right no let me let me talk a little bit there and once i wouldn't say that commissioner shepherd you've got you've been here on the commission for a very long time and so you know i wouldn't discredit yourself that much there's the the term mixed use is is essentially that it's mix of commercial and residential primarily it applies in the commercial zones correct me if i'm wrong daisy however in the use chart that is in code section 1310 mixed use projects require with five units or more are required to go to planning commission already that's what that's no one's changed that so that's what it states i would prefer not to change that and if that is already there then i would take out this provision entirely and and what i'm hearing from commissioner dan is that she would like them to be the same whether it's mixed use or strictly residential and correct me if i'm wrong i don't put words in your mouth i just thought that that's no i think that it makes a whole lot of sense to be consistent yeah so we have two opposing views here you know again and so yeah yeah figure that out yeah but you know let me also just say um you know we don't have to have all the answers today because this is going to the board and so let staff has really done an excellent job with a bunch of different items of characterizing discussions where the commission didn't come to a consensus and presenting that to the board for a choice to make and so um you know i'm just assuming staff is going to continue that excellent work to be able to do that in a lot of areas where we're either ended up being inconsistent or we had you know areas where there was um just agreement would you consider in your um proposal admitting that change and put in a letter to the board that we did not come agree to agreement on this in that case because i would like to vote for the other aspects of everything yeah i think that that that's fine and and let me just say i think that um and i want to hear from commissioner veal on t2 that um in general i am willing to accept um what you have here with the exception of the last two bullet points the commercial and industrial just because i'm just um well i'll just leave it at that so but i would be amenable to um the other bullets scroll up you know i was thinking an industrial which is we really don't have that anymore but when the whole area along mission street was developed with a lot of semiconductor plants which are now all converted to other uses um that was already zoned industrial so what about just if i limited that to industrial and pop take out industrial and public and community facilities i'm and left to only communities facilities uh commissioner veal on t yeah thank you for sure and that was actually going to be the question i had i was kind of what the conversation take place around next use first because i um miss shepherd had originally kind of started this by saying her questions were i i know miss jensen had said her concerns were across all zone districts but she keep it seems to me her comments keep focusing on the commercial zone districts primarily um and i one of the my questions was is this word industrial in this last bullet point because um it seems that i'm not sure why we have this high level review because industrial seems consistent with the zoning of commercial zone parcels we do have um different levels of review depending on what the industrial uses and i just i wouldn't want to assume that all industrial uses require this high level of review necessarily and i was going to ask some questions of staff about that so i appreciate that she it sounds like my comment on this sounds unnecessary at this point that maybe we're willing to get rid of the word industrial because i am willing to get rid of the word industrial and public and leave it at community projects um and because i also share commissioner dan and i think chair gordon's concern about well it's not like jc clarified that as well about mixed use projects because i think there's already that they already go to the pc and so i i agree that i could support um most of what we're gonna live if we're gonna leave it as it is and tell the board that we had a lot of discussion about it then that's this isn't necessary well i think what commissioner dan and i are trying to do is say that we're willing to incorporate actually what what you've proposed i'm letting you know the pieces i have concerns with that i would want to take out before we adopt before we were willing to accept your friendly amendment um which is the industrial piece and then this mixed use piece because i'm good i'm good with that um so that's that that's what i that's what i'm trying to clarify and since i haven't weighed in yet um since it just a while to kind of understand what we were we were clarifying um and so i just i appreciate the conversation that led because that was my point of concern if you don't mind this you can just scroll up again so i can see them again certainly thank you i appreciate your hard work no problem um rachel had to do that for us real here i just i just made the notes you have to do both of those things um so i um i just was kind of look and it sounds like i just want to miss shepherd if you don't mind just clarifying you would like to see these changes in all zone districts or could you just clarify from the record are you hoping for these changes to be strictly in commercial zone districts so that if we accept a friendly amendment we understand what it is your amendment is well i'm not exactly sure i understand your what you're saying because you wouldn't put a animal shelter anywhere i mean these wouldn't be located in residential districts anyway well i just want to understand for those for those uses that are allowed in both districts in multiple zone districts because some of some of your recommended changes are allowed in multiple districts um yes i think the answer to your question is yes parks museums large retail stores animal shelters and organized camps in any zone district because they're very large institutional projects okay just want to make sure i understood thank you thank you for that clarification i i would i would be i i think i've reduced this to the minimum of what i think really needs looking at on the planning commission and remember these come up they're sort of like him yes come up very often so i just to move things along i think both the maker of the motion and the seconder have accepted the friendly amendment so um so i think that maybe we should conclude the discussion on this item and take a vote if if after everybody's questions have been answered and then take a break and then try to finish up okay that's the chair's discussion yeah i'd go ahead commissioners shepard if you want to be clear on the on the uh hearing the level of hearing going aside from this going back for a minute to where we ended up with the friend with the the change to 15 units in the in the residential zone area that's where we ended up right yes okay uh yes i would i'm ready to vote on this okay um two quick questions commissioner lasin do you haven't heard from you in a minute i just want to make sure we're not skipping over you or missing anything that you might not want to comment on exactly i've been kicked off the island a couple of times so i'm back on the zoom so i apologize the um no i i think i'm in agreement with everything that i've heard lately so okay wonderful thank you and so to be clear on what we're voting on excuse me we've gone through 13 10 and 13 11 do you want me to bring back up what we had or it doesn't matter um just the final are you guys all have that yeah i think we've added can you we should show what we've just added for commissioner shepherd as far as the uses so that it's on the screen right gordon are you hoping that miss hanson will put back up miss shepherds changes so that ours will incorporate oh no that the ones that you are incorporating that's what i'm hoping to see really yeah let me because that's yeah sorry let me um somebody else is sharing okay now sorry uh here we go we don't yet have miss shepherd shepherds changes so we'll miss hanson has that language and i think she'll add it to the final while we're looking at that just i wanted to make sure that organized camps is the right descriptors to the institutions that have been here for many years are very large like for example montherman and the one i can't remember that's even big above scott's valley and there's several more in that if organized camps are appropriate but i mean there there aren't just a bunch of little cabins you know they're right no i think we understand okay okay and then you so um yeah so this is and so staff will add the friendly amendment okay thank you so yeah i i'm good to go if everybody else is okay so um we're voting this is titles 13 and 13 11 through 20 correct we're on the same page on that okay i'm sorry to throw a wrench in the works but i'm still on about this shouldn't we be calling them visitor serving camps no they're organized camps the wording it would also incorporate things like girl scout camp in my district and also there's all sorts of types of camps that aren't necessarily like visitors RV camps and stuff like that so i think staff is going to pull out organized camps from visitor accommodation camp or to meet your request you're gonna it's gonna be its own category but if i was walking into the planning committee into this the county planning department what would i be told like uh you know an organized camp is um if i can i i do have there is a definition of 13 700 for organized camp organized camp means the site having day and or overnight facilities for the purpose of conducting a supervised program which provides educational spiritual social or recreational elements subject to SCCC 13 10 6 8 9 and 13 10 6 9 2 well that would include facilities that have programs that you describe plus residential development etc and have their own infrastructure so for example if mount herman as they have comes back and say we want to put a new water treatment facility in uh and and we're going to recharge we're going to start a new recharge program and so and so forth that would still apply well i believe we need to look at whatever use they were proposing to add to their facility and if it needed a separate permit or not but it would be i mean i think their camp would fall under the organized camp definition certainly they would they would want to these large institutions want an amendment to their master plan if they came in for an amendment to their master plan because the master plans are very specific i want to make sure it comes to the planning commission does this accomplish that i would need to look at the i don't unless you're familiar with it definitely look at the master plan code section and see if it talks about amendments to these master plans i think some of the most important work we've done is exactly the large master plans that affect hundreds of people stuff will confirm that the master plans are are included as we look at that work all right good thank you sorry but i wanted to be sure okay sounds good are we there are you ready yeah okay um i don't know if i need to or could even clarify anything further so let's just go with the roll call vote please okay okay uh commissioner lazenby yes commissioner dan yes commissioner violante yes commissioner shepherd yes yeah okay sorry and chair gordon no as much as it pains me i do want to say i really appreciate everyone's work there's 99 of the things that i agree with there's just a couple that are tough for me um but i overall i really i'm grateful for everyone's inclusivity and ability to work through that that was really amazing yeah that was a great way to organize it um i think we're due for a break and my brain's a little fried so i could use one um so if that works before we go ahead i just want to thank um i'm just going to use your first name because i'm too tired um rachel and alson thank you for all the very heavy do the lifting you've done with this i really appreciate it and i have a clear notion of how much work it took so thank you thank you thank you great okay um 326 um okay it's like a 14 minute break and back around three about 40 three 40 you 40 okay um commissioner violante commissioner lazenby here commissioner shepard here commissioner dan here and chair gordon thank you here appreciate it okay reconvening and sorry to interrupts miss straight boy you're going to say um i was going to say it looks like we have a stop at 515 for ctv they could look at trying to bring someone else in taking a recess but that sounds like that might be possibly a challenge so if we could end by 515 we'll see okay so we have coming up next just to push along pretty quickly then we're at title uh 18 then we would have remaining as map amendments and then miscellaneous mist stuff as well as any like bulk items so commissioner dan yeah thank you so i'm sharing my screen now and up on the screen is a motion to accept the staff recommendations um on chapter 18 and the uh appendancy is listed below when i go through the document um i'm sorry my brain is right okay to accept the staff recommendations with these modifications contained in this document um and they're mostly all on chapter 18 and there are a couple of the added appendices um below do you have any seconds on that motion i'm sorry i agree my brain is right i can second that that's okay yep okay and then if we could send that out to jocelyn and she can send it to the commissioner i that would be great so to incorporate that uh and you mentioned this before and i misstated so right now we are just to be really clear this is title 18 and the general plan appendices are we is that correct so we cover both of those here yes from our perspective yeah yes um so let me just so this actually shouldn't take much time um most of what this is is making some modifications regarding noticing um so the first the first uh item here is actually just um um a suggestion that staff come back to the commission within two years to um do a study session on the efficacy of the noticing requirements and i call out um a especially for a up and asp and um review the effect of eliminating noticing requirements for projects that are now mup and msp and part of the thinking behind this was that um and this has changed slightly because we've we've made some modifications um um but part of this was seeing that we are we were staff is proposing to uh change the level of review for so many projects um down from what was planning commission to the za za to administrative um permits that um as you'll see then we're proposing to increase noticing to kind of make up for that so we've kind of made some modifications with what goes to the planning commission but i think that um that what we're suggesting here still hold and then secondly that from my over a decade experience on the planning commission um what probably the most common thing that i hear from the public when they come in front of the commission is well i didn't get i didn't get noticing about this i only do about this because um this is the second time it's being heard at the planning commission or my neighbor told me or i ran into renay shepherd and she told me about it um and so a lot of what um is being proposed here is to just increase from 300 to 500 feet the noticing requirements of who gets those blue cards and so this first suggestion is then to just say should this motion be accepted should those new noticing requirements go into effect that uh i think it would be great if staff would come back to the commission a couple years and just review how that's working and if they need to make any modifications to that so that's what i'm really understanding you on first of all on that paragraph where it says previously level four that did require noticing i would want to include that to look at as we discussed before the break looking at uh you know level five our level as well yeah and so that that's captured in the noticing requirements of the c up and c sp so basically like you know i could have just said just come back and talk about you know if you need to make changes to noticing so that's basically the intent of this paragraph is but and and as i understand it from listening to stephanie she plans to come back to this commission every year anyway so it's a little bit redundant but it doesn't have to say um zoning administrator whatever i lost my sheet of paper now the planning zoning administrator planning commission the planning commission level had its own initial cp i believe or pc i'm sorry right one of those and something with three letters with dash cp in it right well the noticing requirements are the same so okay um and then i would strongly support changing the neighborhood notification to 500 feet for sure i would even say a little bit but it might cost too much okay so there's um i'm going in order of 1810 so before i get to the neighborhood noticing um i wanted to this next item is about um items that are required to have a public hearing and so this section 1810 112 on page 15 item c is about um is suggesting to add density bonus projects to this list of what would get a public hearing and i added this because this makes this code consistent with what happens at the city of santa cruz and so that's that the next section is there any other any questions about that i did have a question on that one um i do yes this is that would be more consistent with the city of santa cruz code um personally i think that that code in the city is not the best use um because projects some projects don't necessarily need it however let me just i'm not discounting it i want to figure out how this correlates with the things that we just mentioned so density bonus project has to have at least uh five units or more um and so we're saying that on residential projects we need planning commission or excuse me we need z a with public hearing um at 10 units to 15 planning commission from 15 and up so you're saying that if someone had let's say a density bonus project that was six units and they got the bonus up to nine you would want that one also included as a z a or or um planning commission i just want to make sure that this is clear with that it would get a csp yes i believe that yeah sorry there's all the letters sorry and i'd have to look back at chapter 18 in the specific i'm pretty sure that csp um yeah and so yes that that is correct i think any project that is getting a density bonus should get a public hearing um so the next one is the next three are on neighborhood notification and uh it is uh suggesting a change from like i said before 300 feet to 500 feet for the purposes of noticing a neighbor this one is for neighborhood meetings and then the next and so over here it's just replacing 300 with 500 the next one is for the a a up and asp projects the next one is for conditional permits and projects and then i think i just wanted to make sure that um for the next section ensure consistency with noticing requirements of the above sections changing 300 feet to 500 feet and then the next section here 1810 140 is a um is a section that's talking about that zoning code needs to be consistent with the general plan and i just i think i asked a question about this last week and the sentence to me at the very end didn't didn't make sense so um i um i'm just rewording it and so um yeah if you want to read the whole section um you have to take a look at the actual code but um the sense i'm adding at the end is state substantial conformance as is just defining because substantial conformance is used in that section so i'm defining what that means based on what staff had included um substantial conformance as used in this section means that the permits approvals must be in harmony with the policies objectives and land use programs of the general plan and then the last items are on the design standards and appendices with Alice and if you want to talk about those yeah so the the last these ones are kind of the ones that are for general statements this is especially the first one that kind of didn't work but so throughout our conversation as a commission we discussed the fact that staff um and the staff report had kind of said that when they did the pilot program for the the Portola Road project that the the data didn't kind of bear out that the road diet had been a successful in terms of meeting the objectives of it um and we are you know while we we support the rezoning of Portola we're concerned about whether or not the redesign of that road is appropriate especially given um the long-range plan for that area um again rezoning that this area doesn't mean that redevelopment will happen it means it can happen but that the redesign would be something that would happen sooner rather than later for the for the road um and we aren't staff had kind of said that we could recommend changes to the language and we didn't instead of recommending specific language changes in either the appendix or the general plan or even in the accessibility access and accessibility part of the general plan we thought it was more appropriate to just kind of express um kind of displeasure and opposition to the road diet design in Portola given the numerous comments we got um and where and where that area is going um so that's what that first one is about and then the second one is specific to appendix i which was the TDM plans um we were not supportive of reducing parking spaces as a TDM strategy um and we while we are in favor of unbundling parking as a strategy um we are only supportive of it in larger developments so 25 units or more and and when the developer offers subsidized bus passes which is consistent with with the board um the board when they had done it they had said that they wanted to do it when the the developer had offered subsidized for bus passes which was not included in the language of appendix i um because at the time when the board considered this that was actually in the draft if i'm not mistaken so we would like to restore the the development size to be back to 25 instead of 10 units because I know that's something that staff had contemplated previously was 25 units so we'd like to restore that number for clarity um you're you're uh this part of your motion is expressing this information to the board of supervisors as opposed to actually making a change for appendix i it's it's it's making the change or for the first one it is an expression um can you just be a little more explicit express opposition to road diet in port of tola and current road design proposals are there any current road design proposals they try and by the road diet you mean when they they limited the number of lanes and try to hold bunch of stuff which nobody liked correct so in if you read the design standards there there is an approved like portola road design in that area and instead of like I said trying to find specific language because it the the road the portola area shows up in several areas throughout the general plan and the appendix j and the road design it shows up in multiple places and instead of trying to find specific language um and correct it individually we felt it was better to leave the ultimate decision up to the board of supervisors but express kind of the planning commission's opposition to the the road diet design for the portola area that's a little more explicit so express opposition to the road diet design for portola and and ask for other design proposals and because that's what you really talked about right correct because we think the the board and staff can make final language on where it needs to change because like I said it's in several locations and and then on the removing parking spaces the TM TDM strategy that means as I remember traffic what what and man management yeah okay and then allow only allow unbundled remind me what unbundled is again please that's when a property owner or or landlord can charge separately for the parking space as they do for the unit itself so we would only like to see this on larger developments um while there are some strong equity arguments on why this can be a good thing we also think it can be certain concerning that we're not that yet there as a community and we would like to see it only offered when there are subsidized bus passes so that transportation as a whole doesn't become um something that's only accessible to people who can afford it so we'd like to see it on projects where in the reason for larger project is usually there's um more involvement and engagement with the developer in terms of being able to offer that continued subsidized bus program um well I I am in support of that as long as we all acknowledge that is that our bus system our bus system system does not really offer an alternative transportation system because it's not extensive enough there aren't enough buses I mean it's not like the Muni or anything so I think offering subsidized bus pass a great idea but it's no substitute and and that's why we don't want to support yet the idea of unbundled parking because what ends up happening is the people who can't afford to have to pay for their parking separately and if not being able to um they still a lot of times they still need their vehicles and we want to ensure that they at least have access to some port of transportation system because the way you just said Renee because our our public transportation system can't accommodate people's needs at this point well should we should we give that opinion since we are I I don't know how the chair feels about it but I feel strongly that that is the case and I my it really stuck in my car a little bit to have the bus system proposed as an alternative to parking it just doesn't work that way particularly um in large parts of the county as far as removing parking spaces that I would say of the things that I've mentioned the other people that we are considering that that is the one that reached the most you gotta be kidding that's a bad idea I hope they don't do that response so I strongly support I would support that um but should we actually what about adding a little language about the bus system you know acknowledging that our bus system is not a comprehensive transportation solution as of 2020 or you know in its current situation I'm not saying it couldn't be but it's going to have to have a lot of public money we could certainly I include in our motion we could you know I'd like to say the emperor has no clothes on I think we should say that we could certainly add in our direction that included in our motion that staff relay that the reason for this change was a concern that the that um alternative transportation including the bus system does not yet support we're not there yet basically on on things to get people out of the vehicles we hope to be and a lot of our changes are aspirational enough but we're not there yet so we could certainly include that in our motion that that staff relay the reason for this change to be that I'd be comfortable with that I mean Rachel's the maker of the motion but I mean it's I'm going as we can do that I'm trying to craft some language at the tail end of this right now if I could chime in on my opinion and I know it's going to be opposite of what everyone here is talking about but um two things number one reducing the park reducing parking spaces a TDM strategy I don't understand why you would eliminate that it is a true TDM strategy where you have less cars you have less people driving on the road at certain peak hours it reduces it's a traffic demand management strategy so what would be the reason for removing that well because of what Renee was just talking about it has no public support and if two people work and they have kids uh you know and have one parking space and one person goes to work what's the and then saying the other person can take the bus it's just not practical yet maybe it will be well I disagree I have I mean co-workers that take the bus every day to work so just because you don't do it or you don't know friends doesn't mean no it has nothing this has nothing to do with me I don't even have a boss even if I wanted to go to work well my point my point is that just be okay two parts number one parking reduction is a TDM strategy doesn't matter how you reduce it doesn't matter if you go from two spots to one or from 50 to 49 it is a reduction strategy so that I think is inherent in what you know that's separate of bus passes you know and then the unbundled parking is what are you gonna do are you going to make it a are you going to like de-destrict each parcel in each project to preclude them from charging extra for their parking spaces you are you gonna manage it that way the other option is to just not allow unbundled parking well what I'm saying is that if I developed a project that had all the parking that was required by code I could still then charge for that parking space correct miss hanson is that you mean are you talking about if you're the landlord yeah that's right if you're the owner manager of a project you're not restricting it because that's essentially de-restricting every single parcel to manage how they manage their parking there's nothing in the code now that would dictate that some of these things we count on what's best in the market what the developer feels is good for the market that they are focused on so you know I are while we may not this change may not recognize that it's a TDM strategy anymore I I I would still allow that you know for them to figure out their pricing as we discussed last time unbundling may have equity issues but so does bundling it goes both ways so I would I would suggest if you want to clarify that this happened in the future when bus passes and metro is in better condition fine but I don't I do not think we should dictate in the code whether they how they structure their parking payment system yeah I agree with that and you know I just wanted the last thought is that this is a short-sighted change in my opinion that the reason that we don't have enough ridership is because people aren't riding so we have to change that so once we get more people on the bus which is what the purpose of this was is to provide subsidized parking parking passes or tenants in lieu of parking spaces until we do something more drastic we're going to be at status quo same thing like I said before unless we make some changes to what we're doing we're going to keep being the way we are and the way we are with no bus ridership and and car-centric in major corridors is the problem with greenhouse gas emissions it's the biggest problem with equity it's all the things that you're saying you want to try to solve and yet we're like not pushing for those things like I just blows my I don't understand it okay let me respond to that because I don't want to be lectured by that I'm not being green the reason why we have low ridership is because of a myriad of reasons it's it's very simplistic to say we just need to get more people on the bus but the but that that has it's a complex it's a complex dilemma because the way you get more people on the bus is the bus needs to go where people want to go the bus doesn't do that right now the bus is funded by ucse students and by career college if we didn't have ucse the metro would be bankrupt so it's far more complex than that and so we need if we want more people to get on the bus the bus system needs to go where please go places where people need to go so it's it's not it's just a very simplistic way to frame that and there's funding issues that go along with that and then also I think that we also have to recognize we are a suburban community this is not San Francisco I grew up in San Francisco I was taking the bus at eight years old so in San Francisco you can get away with not having a car you can't do that here very easily people do but it's very very difficult I did that for a while when I had a young child but I had to create my whole world I had to be walking distance and that's just not viable for people who live in other places in the county where the bus doesn't go because there's not enough ridership the metro right now is cutting bus routes because they don't have enough ridership because we are a semi rule suburban area and it's very very difficult to sustain a bus system when you have a population base like Santa Cruz County does so maybe in 10 or 20 years when you know all of this housing that we're planning for gets built and our population increases by 100,000 and the university grows to another 10,000 and Cabrillo grows maybe the metro system will be subsidized to the extent that they can improve the bus system where there will be ridership that people will it will be convenient for them to take the bus but right now you know I agree with Commissioner Villalante that we're just not there yet but but we're getting there and but right now people still use their cars and when you use your car you need to have places to park and from my perspective I don't see the car as the enemy from my perspective the fuel that is inside the car is the enemy and so I kind of reject this whole notion of lecturing folks about cars and rather it's not about the car so much is about how the car is powered that's great I appreciate that feedback you know we can fundamentally disagree on how communities should be built and that's fine and in my opinion they should be trafficless nodes of housing and mixed-use commercial spaces and that's the best way to solve greenhouse gas emissions and equity and all the other things like I said however you know we're not going to come to that conclusion here together so I don't have any further comments on this section I'm here okay we have a motion and a second correct yes we do I'm ready to vote if we want to I I am ready as well great let's do that Mr. Drake can we please have a roll call vote on this and just a quick reminder this is Title 18 and general plan appendices so that'll cross those off the list okay all right Commissioner Shepard yes okay Commissioner Dan yes Commissioner Villalante yes Commissioner Lazenby yes and Chair Gordon no okay thank you and on to the next one we've got about an hour till we have to be done done so let's see where we are there are map amendments and then have any other and or missed and or bulk stuff that we need to sign off on like general reduction Commissioner Dan and Villalante you've been leading the charge do you have anything map amendments I do not have anything further to share oh okay all right so we and then I'll open up to any other commissioners Lazenby or or Shepard do you have any other adjustments that you'd like to see and if not we can probably just both to accept the remaining chapters that we haven't discussed the sequel and all of the rest okay um I had one question on the the map amendments excuse me the uh that was on the list of proposed map amendments the third one down 3051 Portella Drive and we heard from Oliver Carter this morning who owns the surf shop how does this change affect him is it the residential unit or am I missing something so if I may that the change is is on the general plan and zoning designation um it does not require redevelopment of the site it just suggests that in the future when the site is ready to redevelop it could develop at the new RF zoning density and the commission will remember I'm sure that we recently added a provision for commercial to be allowed in the residential flex zoning so any of these properties could have some commercial not that they don't have to but they could have some commercial included and so it would be up to each property owner when they are ready to sell or redevelop their property they would just need to be able to do it consistent with the new zoning district and its regulations there's there's nothing that would force this property or any other property to redevelop before they are ready I will say that this particular property owner has been supportive of these changes we have been in contact with him long ago when we started working on it and he's checked in um occasionally on it as well so I'll just add that to the record okay was he what was his issue then maybe he's not the property owner right he's a store owner he's a tenant oh I'm a sinister that right as as opposed to the property owner what he said is is the property owner wanted to redevelop this property and he chose to keep this tenant it would be permitted sure because now residential flex has that commercial component allowed okay well too bad he's not probably not listening anymore I hardly think he is but that's good to hear but if he wanted to buy the property it would probably have gone up considerably right you think we have no indication on whether he's interested in buying the property oh I know that that is in the plan I don't know I think he was more afraid of getting kicked out so it could be redeveloped yeah were there other questions on that commissioner lady uh no and I was wondering about the SoCal cemetery though and the Jewish community center they're all together yes they're on neighboring parcels okay and that's just a correction to bring all of the general plan and zoning together into a public facilities designation I have one more question commissioner shepard okay I want to I want to confirm something we talked about last time it is at the planning director's purview that any project that he thinks needs to come at a higher level of review or public review that is always his discretion correct and many of these kinds of projects that we have changed the level of review on I believe we're discussing the map amendments but yes there's a provision of the code that allows the planning director to increase the level of review for any particular project that they view may be controversial in the community thank you oh do we need a motion to adopt the proposed map amendments with chair Gordon I'm sorry I can make sure we want to can you say that again of course I apologize do we need a motion to adopt the proposed map amendments uh yes and I was just thinking if we're done with questions and um would we want to just incorporate the remainder sure okay one motion and then miss hanson we want to make sure we include everything the sequel adoption and all the rest so do we need to formulate this in a specific way you know I I've been kind of studying that along the way and perhaps I can read this out um I think it's fairly simple we're just going to refer to the previous amendments that the planning commission has made so adopt the whole thing inclusive of the previous amendments so it would read as such and this is basically following the recommended motion that was in the 824 staff report so the planning commission would be recommending that the board of supervisors a certify the california environmental quality act environmental impact report for the sustainability update based on the sequel findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations attached to the resolution be adopt the proposed amendments as previously modified by the planning commission um including amendments to the general plan and lcp the um san jacuz county code the general plan land use designation maps and zoning maps as well as the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan attached to the resolution see adopt the new county of san jacuz design guidelines and direct staff to submit amendments to the lcp and general plan and coastal implementing code amendments to the california coastal commission for certification so that would include the reference back to all the motions that the commission has made in the past couple of meetings um was that a motion so uh somebody could say so moved if they wanted to miss hanson do you have it in a way you could share to the screens everyone can just see it or do you have it okay i mean i'm happy to say some move but i think it'd be helpful go ahead and i'll second and i just i just want to make sure that yeah hang on one second and let me see there bear with me here i didn't have it up on the screen hang on this doesn't mean feel free to make the motion i was just wanting to make sure it was up but we didn't see it if you can see that so it begins here adopt the attached resolution recommending that the board of supervisors and then here is the language um the differences right here adopt the proposed amendments as um amended by the planning commission including the amendments of so it that would be inclusive of all the motions you've made can i ask a clarifying question before we before our motions made to make it a little easier i you know didn't vote for all the things and so i just want to make sure that i can vote yes to this without like negating other things that i voted on so i you know i'm not sure there's something to to adjust for that um yes you could do that and we'll we'll note the motions in the um staff report to the board of supervisor wonderful okay great thank you any other questions or comments um or someone that would like to make a motion and close this out well i thought that uh commissioner fialante did make the motion technically not yet no i didn't i was letting you do it mislead to me because i felt like we kind of i'm not voice meeting so oh you're okay i'll let you close this out here okay so moved as was read and i will second it wonderful we have a motion and a second and any discussion before we make our final vote on the sustainability plan update let's do that then uh mistreat can we please have a roll vote on this item yes all right commissioner dan yes commissioner fialante yes commissioner lasin b yes commissioner shepherd yeah and true gordon yes all right passes that is so that's it for that item so now that this is concluded i just i've said this before but i would like to really recognize stephanie you in particular and all of your staff daisy annie anise um everybody um it's been phenomenal um both putting this document together but then also the study sessions the community outreach um and then of course the work that we've been doing you know we've had complicated in the weeds questions and you guys have gotten back to to me i can speak personally um really quickly with um really clear excellent explanations and i just really want to appreciate um the work that you put into all of this and then also um the stuff that we're adding i understand that our work is now concluded but your work is not and that you you and the rest of your staff are going to be continuing with this project and so i want to make sure to acknowledge that that we know that and um appreciate that and all the effort you're going to be putting forth from here on in so thank you so much thank you commissioner and i'd like to echo that and i'd also like to appreciate the ctb staff for hanging in there with us and all the planning staff who've done a marvelous job thank you of course i was second back third back like specifically want to point out how amazed i am that the at the whole staff anyone we ask it's like immediate rapid fire answers you guys know the stuff so well and you've done such a good job interpreting it for us and getting us through this and explaining and and it was just really impressed and amazed at how how easy that part has been to uh to get through and so thank you i appreciate all the hard work that's gone into this sincerely for everyone involved thank you yeah i um i'll just say it's a group effort and we have an amazing team and thank you for recognizing them okay feels weird to say that that one's done remind the commission that i believe you wanted a quick review of the next the timeline for the yes thank you yes thank you actually not done it's going off to the board now so one for us yes yeah thank you um yes we are intending to go to the board on november 15th with a first reading and we are anticipating that we will have more than one first reading if they have changes they have two other meetings i'm hesitating a little to kind of define that you know they will hear it on december 6th and december 13th it'll be a little bit up to them on how they want to do it but the first or totally up to them the first meeting would be on november 5th uh 15th and um while i'm still speaking i wanted to say thank you to commissioners dan and vialante for all the very detailed work because you're right we have more to do but when you're so specific about it it really helps us with moving it forward and not having to figure out the best way to do things um i will say we'll we'll look out for some pitfalls if there's a problem with state law or um uh or an inconsistency that we find as we're trying to rectify ordinances we'll we'll uh note note those for for the board but otherwise thank you so much and thank you to the whole commission for for your support and staying and meetings and um and really sticking with it thank you yay so we'll we'll we'll be back in a week right yeah well let's uh we have the report on upcoming meetings to get there still so are we done with the sustainability plan any final comments from anyone anything we missed great then let's do let's go to planning uh we'll close that item and move on to the next schedule agenda item which is planning director's report do we have anything today um i i'm not seeing the the cdi director with us at the moment i don't know if stephanie you wanted to provide a report um just a report on one thing and no matt had to move on to two other things um i just wanted to we're going to do a little outreach to board members on this but i wanted to let the commissioners know that the board directed our co-compliance staff to um to start to do code enforcement on uh vacation rental um property owners who are um advertising and renting out vacation rentals without benefit of permits and so as directed by the board that effort started late last week we've had a lot of interest as one can imagine and those coming forth and saying oh wait i didn't know you know that kind of thing so bear with us while we um work to address the follow-up on that i'll be sending in an email out to the staff of the board members later this evening to to clarify some resources and and how to address any inquiries we realized for some people there may be some pain coming in the future as their rentals may run up against our maximums in the designated areas but we are um going to work diligently to to help those who are acting in good faith to get their permits and um and we'll starting up kind of a whole new program so i just wanted to let the commission know about that otherwise i think that's all i have today so good i commissioner shepherd read um are we meeting next week oh that's what we're on right now but thank you stephanie appreciate that good luck with that yeah thanks um yeah so item nine then report on upcoming meeting dates and agendas what do we have uh yes you're meeting next week um and we just mailed out the planning commission pockets today um and there are three items on the agenda a report back on the olive springs quarry a report back on the 375 old mount appeal and the sea cliff hotel project um so shouldn't hopefully be as long of a meeting as it was today um and then uh moving forward i think we only have one item so far sort of potential item for october 12th which is the the water presentation um so that's a that's a tentative and i think that's the only thing i have on the horizon at the moment for planning commission but i just asked you jaslin then did um the county attorney's office approve your findings for the old mount denial are we just to prove them or what what's going on um i think we should probably avoid discussion about item so it um what is that item is that was that an item heard in july where i was absent okay i'll talk to my alternate about being there again thanks are we can i ask are we hearing the appeal are we hearing the findings um i will um i will send out a quick um email to the planning commissioners this evening with an update okay it'll be on the agenda which is going to be posted tomorrow and the staff reports will be posted tomorrow on our planning department page and the water hearing on the 12th the topic is what it's a presentation um by our um environmental health staff um downstairs and i think matt machado the cdi director is going to participate in that in addition to i think some representatives from the water districts and um it's just a presentation on this you know the state of things um as far as i understand it as far as water goes yeah so i don't have i don't have the reservation forms i don't have really detailed information about that presentation yet and we're trying to put it on a agenda on an agenda that has other at least one other item um so that we can you know stock the items and so we're just waiting to see if we have any other agenda items to put with it and um i'll check in with matt and see if he wants to move forward anyways or if we should move it to the next meeting is is there any is that a study session or is it a public hearing or what is it it's a it's a presentation just a presentation for the planning commission to receive information as far as i understand it okay great thank you yeah looking forward to it okay um do we have an update or a county council's report today well i'm sorry to you have not said what i meant just one more thing so if it's a presentation is it open to the public that's what i really want to know because if he's doing a presentation on water then a lot of people would probably like to attend is it going to be noticed um it that's a good question if if i mean we always post the agenda in the newspaper um it won't be a mailed noticing because it's county wide um so that usually um requires a a newspaper posting so um i will check and see what kind of outreach will be included with that presentation i i agree rene i'm sure there will be quite a bit of interest from the public in in hearing that presentation so um thanks for that question i'll check in with um with the director and see what he'd like to do there that's why i was asking few probing questions because if it's going to get an idea of what what the subject is so that because there's a lot of people interested in water and i i you know just say what we're going to have a presentation i'd like to be able to ask you know there's a lot of people would like to know about it if it's going to be some kind of grand overview of something or another involving water it's just you could probably let us know next week that would be useful even if it's not going to happen on the 12th just you know what are the topics he's going to be talking about is it open to the public etc okay and i have nothing to report okay thank you appreciate that all right with that then i think we've gone through all of our agenda items and um we can close out today's playing commission hearing and in here so thank you everyone thank you 435 early to the chair that you're doing a great job too and i want to congratulate you and getting through all this and staying calm on the whole oh no i appreciate that i mean being here being here is difficult when everyone feels strongly about things and i think you did a great job thank you i appreciate that um you all make it easy on me so thank you