 Okay, show of start. Good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us for today's planning commission meeting. Today's date is September 8, 2021, and the time is 9.31. And today's meeting is completely remote via Zoom. So for you at home who are viewing the meeting or may wish to participate in the meeting, I wanted you to take a moment to explain how the meeting will run today. To view follow along or participate in today's meeting, I recommend using the planning commission Zoom meeting link which is posted on the planning department's homepage at sccoplanning.com. Alternatively, you may participate in today's meeting by a phone. Please dial 1-669-900-6833 to participate via phone. And when prompted, please enter collaboration code number 832-9065-6284. This information is also posted on our website if you would like this number again. And if you wish to simply view today's meeting, it is being broadcast live on television. And for more information about the channel, please visit the community television website. So I wanted to provide a couple of instructions on how to participate in today's meeting. So for each agenda's public hearing item, time will be provided for speakers to contribute their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either remotely raise their hand by selecting the hand icon on the Zoom link, or by calling in by telephone by remotely raising your hand by pressing star 9 on your telephone. I will call on participants via either your name or the last four digits of your telephone number. If you are participating via the Zoom link, when I call on you to speak, you'll see a pop-up on your screen that says Unmute. Please accept the pop-up, state your name for the record, and provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone, you must unmute yourself by pressing star 6. Members of the public will be provided three minutes to speak on each public hearing item. If at any time you have difficulty connecting to today's meeting via the Zoom link or calling in via telephone, please email our support staff, Michael Lam, at Michael.lamlam at Santa Cruz County dot US. He will be checking his email periodically throughout the meeting and is on standby to assist you. All right, after covering those meeting logistics, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission Chair, Judith Laysenby. Good morning, Judith. Good morning, Ms. Drake. And thank you, and good morning all, and welcome to this September 8, 2021 meeting of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department Planning Commission. The time is now 9.34 and I will call the meeting to order. May we have a roll call, please, Ms. Drake? Yes, Commissioner Gordon? Here. Commissioner Schaefer-Fredes? Yes. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Jones? I'll see you about 8 o'clock. Yeah, call and checking. Have a good meeting. Commissioner Dianne? Here. And Chair Laysenby? Here. And are there any additions or corrections to today's agenda? I know there are not. Thank you. Are there any ex parte communications from any commissioner? Hearing none. At this time, the commission will hear comments from the public on issues of concern, but they will be issues that are not on today's agenda. So do we have any members of the public, Ms. Drake? Good morning. I'll check in with our support staff to see if we have any attendees in the lobby. Okay, thank you. And I'm not seeing any. Thank you. So we will then move on to the scheduled items, the approval of the minutes from the July 14th, 2021 meeting. Was that a motion to approve? Yes. Is there a second? I'm sorry, Commissioner Dianne, did you second? I didn't, but I can. I'm just absent for this meeting, but I did review the minutes, so I can't end it. It would be better if somebody else who's actually there seconded. Okay. But I'll second for the record. Okay, thank you. Any discussion? Then, in favor of the approval of the minutes? Aye. Aye. Abstain. Okay. And so now we are going on to item number six, the public hearing on the proposed year 2022 growth rate, growth goal. Do we have a staff report? We should have Daisy Allen joining us from our team. Walter, you should have an attendee named Daisy. No, we don't have any attendee. What about Natisha Williams? As I said, no attendees. Maybe you should have them called in on a panelist. Okay. Okay. Let's take a short recess while we connect with the staff member for the presentation. Chair, may I recommend a five minute recess until 9.45 and while we connect with the staff person from our department for the presentation? Okay. That'll be fine. Okay. So we'll take a break until 9.45. We will see you in six minutes. I apologize for the delay. It seems to be taking longer than we thought. Yes, chair, I am back. I just spoke to our CTV staff and it looks like we need to disconnect from this meeting and reconnect because our meeting is not in the correct webinar format. So we cannot connect to attendees at the moment. So CTV staff has informed me that we need to disconnect all of us and rejoin in five minutes. It's the same meeting link. So for members of the public who I don't think actually we have any members of the public who are able to hear us right now, but if you are a member of the public and are able to hear us, we will be reconnecting using the same link posted on the planning department website and all of you should be using the link sent to you directly by a CTV staff. So we would reconnect then at what? Immediately. I actually have a meeting scheduled and then like an hour, so because we just had a real short meeting today that I could get away with that. So yes, let's all do this rapidly so we can get back into it. Okay. The CTV staff told me that it would take about five minutes, so we should reconnect at 9.55 and we can reconvene the meeting at 10 a.m. Okay, great. See you guys then. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. And then you can let all of the attendees in as well, please. And we need to promote all of, we need to promote Stephanie, Paya, and Natisha to participant. One more time, please. Will you please promote me to co-host and Natisha, Paya, and Stephanie should all be participants when you let the attendees come in. Natisha, I do see Stephanie Hansen. Okay, just when we let this, are you going to let the attendees come in? I apologize for the technical difficulties this morning. We had an issue with our Zoom TV link. I wanted to provide a little bit of information quickly on how to participate via phone because I believe we failed to air the instructions earlier. So just quickly, the Zoom meeting link for today's planning commission meeting is on the planning department's website at sccoplanning.com and you may follow the meeting or participate in the meeting using the Zoom link or alternatively you may call in to provide comment today, which is on the phone number is 669-900-6833 and the collaboration code is 832-9065-6284. First public hearing item on the agenda, which is the Public Hearing Recommendation to the Fourth Supervisory Guard in the proposed year 2022 growth goal. And we have us with us this morning, Natisha Williams with the planning department who will make a presentation. So good morning, Natisha. Good morning. Will you please load the PowerPoint for the growth goal? That's being handled by CTV, correct? Yes. Great. Walter, will you please start the slideshow from the beginning? Been running. Walter, will you please start the slideshow from the beginning? We're seeing the PowerPoint screen. Will you please press from beginning on the PowerPoint screen to start the presentation? Are you able to load the PowerPoint? Jocelyn, is it possible for me to share my screen? That might be better. Is it possible to allow Natisha to share her screen alternatively here so that she can run the PowerPoint presentation? Alternatively, Jocelyn, I can forward it this your way as well. It looks like he's having some technical difficulties. Hold on just a moment. It looks like we're having a Zoom issue again. So it looks like I have the ability to share video, so let me try to share mine. Okay. Okay, it looks like I cannot share my screen while someone else is sharing their screen. Okay, I'm asking. I've been texting Walter. Let's see if we can get that. All right. Let me know if you can see that. Yay, we can. Okay, great. Okay, good morning, everyone. Got enough to a little bit of a bumpy start, but here we go. Today I'll be presenting. My name is Natisha Williams and I'll be presenting on the year 2022 growth goal. The county's growth management system was instituted in 1979 following the adoption of Measure J in order to address the resource and public services impacts of population growth in Santa Cruz County. As part of the growth management system, each year the county is required to set an annual growth goal for the upcoming year that represents a fair share of the state's growth. The 2022 growth goal report is before you today for consideration prior to making recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. This report examines various factors used in establishing the year 2022 growth goal for the unincorporated area and includes analysis of population growth trends, resource constraints, and the status of this year's allocations. The report also includes analysis of the county's housing needs, including progress towards meeting county's arena or regional housing needs allocation, as well as demolition permits and density bonus projects approved in the past year. The report also includes the ADU annual report, as well as a discussion on the permanent room housing project applications and the impact of recent state law on the county's growth management system. As noted in the growth goal report, the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County had an estimated negative 0.43% growth rate last year. All jurisdictions in the county, except for the city of Scotts Valley, also saw negative growth rates and the county as a whole has seen declining population totals in recent years and the state population also decreased by negative 0.46% in 2020 and this is the first annual decline in state population since population estimates have been recorded. Population estimates for cities and unincorporated counties are determined by the department of finance using the housing unit method, which means that the number of new housing units constructed each year plays a large part in determining the population estimates. And the DOF also notes that the state's unprecedented negative growth last year is the result of three major factors. The first is the continuing decline in natural increase or the number of births minus the number of deaths and the continuing decline in foreign immigration, which was recently accelerated by federal policy as well as increased deaths associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased deaths across the state by an estimated 51,000 or 19% above the average death rate for the past three years. As deaths related to the pandemic decline and with federal policy changes, it's expected that the state will return to a positive annual growth rate in coming years. Recent population estimates for Santa Cruz County also indicate a continuing downward trend of population growth rates in the decades since the 1960s and 70s when the county grew much faster than the state. The 2020 census is expected to provide more precise and up-to-date population numbers for our county. However, insufficient data was available at the time the population estimates were prepared, so these figures will be included in next year's report. In accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, also known as Senate Bill 330, Santa Cruz County will continue to not enforce the Measure DRA growth goal limit on residential allocations within affected county areas while this statute is in place, which will be from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2025. In Santa Cruz County, this includes the following CDPs, Live Oak, Paso Tiempo, Paradise Park, and Amesti, all shown in blue on this map. All other aspects of Measure J unrelated to limiting building permits in population, such as the county's affordable housing requirements, will not be impacted by this bill. And staff will continue to track Measure J allocations and subsequent building permit issuance for reporting purposes. In addition to pursuant to Santa Cruz County Code section 12.02.0, all residential units impacted by the CZU August Lightning Complex fires will continue to be exempt from the Measure J residential permit allocation system. Based on the analysis detailed in the report, staff recommends that the growth goal be set at 0.25% for calendar year 2022. In past years, the county's growth goal has been consistent with the state of California's growth rate. But as noted earlier, there were a number of anomalies in the state's 2020 growth rate that contributed to population declines. And the state population estimates are expected to show positive growth in coming years. The county is also in the final few years of the 2014-2023 rena cycle, but currently more than half of the units allocated to our region have not been built. And also, if we look at DOF and AMBAG population projections, the forecast is growing population rates in our region. And it's important to note that state and housing and ADU laws continue to be refined. And the state legislature has recently passed additional bills aimed at streamlining housing permits and increasing infill development. So in light of all of this, staff is therefore recommending a 0.25% growth rate for calendar year 2022. This growth rate would result in an allocation of 130 market rate units available for the year 2022. Allocations will be distributed between the urban and rural areas of the county at a 75% to 25% ratio in order to recognize the greater potential for infill development in urban areas. The 2022 growth goal report also recommends, as in previous years, that the unused market rate allocations from 2021 be carried over to 2022, in accordance with general plan policy 3.2 of the housing element. This would result in a projected total of 219 market rate residential building permit allocations available for 2022. Staff has found that establishment of the 2022 growth goal is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, and a notice of exemption has been prepared. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission, 1, conduct a public hearing on the proposed year 2022 growth goal, 2, adopt the resolution exhibit A, recommending a year 2022 growth goal of 0.25% for the unincorporated portion of Santa Cruz County, and 3, recommend the filing of the CEQA notice of exemption exhibit B with the clerk of the board. This concludes the staff presentation, and I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Thank you, Natisha. I have some questions. Yes, Commissioner Gordon. Thank you, and thanks for the support. I'm so glad we were able to get this moving, so I appreciate everyone's hard work this morning to make that happen with all our technical difficulties. Add a couple. There's generic quick questions. What happens if we get to the limit of units? Well, the board always has the discretion to, you know, we can always come back to the board and discuss that with them, and they can decide if they feel it's appropriate to increase the number of allocations. But it's important to note that we have not reached our maximum allocations for almost 20 years. And these are, can you clarify one other thing from here? The number of allocations is units or building permits? They are market rate residential building permits. So in essence, it is equivalent to units. So like if you have an apartment complex, you, with one building, you would get one permit for the whole building. So say you build a 10-unit apartment complex, so it's within one building, that's one permit, correct? So that would only count as one, not as 10? That is a good question. How is that normally processed? I guess it would depend on how the building permit is processed. Right, like condos, town homes. Those are usually issued individually, I know for sure. Each unit gets a permit even in a rental scenario. I, for the rental scenario, I'm not quite as certain. I know for town homes, those are usually issued individually, but I don't know if Jocelyn would have a better understanding of the building permits and how they're usually issued for rentals or apartments. I am not, but I do, I can, you know, I can look into it and clarify this for you and confirm with the, the code, but I do believe it is supposed to be equivalent to units. I have other quick questions here on age, and I'm not sure if this is leading to discussion or I think this is still appropriate for these questions, but tell me if we need to let people talk before I ask more. Just a note, I don't know, Jocelyn, if you can elevate Pia, but she might have more clarity on the unit permit kind of question. Yes, it looks like she has her hand raised and then, Walter, will you please promote Pia Levine to panelists so she can speak freely? Okay, so I believe Pia clarified that it does not matter, rental or affordable. It would be the, per your question, it would be 10 allocations. Okay, so number of units. Okay, all right, I appreciate that. So on page 30 of the full report, page 16 of the, of the housing report here, table nine, we, this is where it talks about the Rina numbers, right? And so as you mentioned, we're pretty drastically below or about halfway there and we'll name two years left. So if we limit, if we're limiting the number next year to 219 and assuming the next year is very similar and that's our only two years left, are we, we're effectively saying that there's no way we can actually get to those Rina numbers because we're not allowing it? Is that legal? I think it's important to note that the growth goal only limits market rate residential units, so that number would be more than sufficient to address our above moderate income units for the next few years. So it does not limit affordable units and those are primarily the units that we need to see developed to address our Rina. Okay, that makes sense. And SB 330 takes away any limits on any affordable units anyway, correct? It would also impact market rate units, but it's only specifically in these affected county areas that I showed on the map, so it's a pretty limited geographical region that it would impact for the affected county area policy that I mentioned. We're still going to have more units available than essentially the answer is we're not limiting our Rina numbers in any way by this. No. The last question that I had was on page table 13, which is page 21 of the report and 35 of the packet. There's preliminary of some projects. This is an upcoming Densey Bonus Projects list and some of them in preliminary review right now, the last four, one, two, three, four equal about 237 units. So are those four slated for next year already? And if so, does that mean we've already met our goal? Do you mean our growth goal limit? Yes. So these are in preliminary planning review and the growth goal limits allocations of building permits. So there I would say be a good amount of time in between these projects getting passed and actually being issued building permits. So I don't know that we can predict exactly when these building permits will come through, but that will be part of our analysis next year when they have been approved or will examine where they are in the process and will accommodate for them next year. So there is potential based on some of these that we, you know, if, you know, magically they all went really quick and happened to be ready to pull permits next year. I don't know what any of these projects are or where they're at, but there's a potential that, you know, if not next year, the following we've already met that goal. And so you're saying that next year we'll relook at it based on. Right. Yeah, it's important to note that these are preliminary. So a lot of these are simply design reviews or pre-applications. They don't even have full applications in a lot of the time. So it's anticipated that in the next six months, they won't be passed. So we probably won't see them coming through the building permit process for a while, but we'll be examining, you know, next year and see, and we'll keep track of this obviously. And if we haven't, we see there's any issues and we're coming close against that, that growth goal limit. We would, you know, approach the board and bring this up to the board if it seems to be an issue. Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions for now. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other commissioners have questions of staff? Hearing none. I will open the public hearing. Ms. Drake, do we have participants? I'm looking at our attendee list and I just wanted to remind any member of the public, if you are calling in to press star nine on your telephone to remotely raise your hand. Not seeing any members of the public chair. Thank you. Oh, I do. I'm sorry. A hand just went up. I'm sorry. I'm seeing an attendee by the name of Tino. Good morning. Will you please state your name for the record and can we please unmute Tino? Good morning. All right. Good morning. Tino here. Thank you, everyone, for your time here. I do have something that I wanted to ask that isn't not been necessarily connected to the current topic. Is this all right? Well, it's not related at all. It is. It's more, it's regarding housing and the restrictions. It's about the legacy older structures program, which I think we touched on it a little bit earlier about the CZU burn area. Okay. Well, I'll allow that. Go ahead. Okay. Great. Thank you. So the main issue is that for, there's, we have a lot of unpermitted units here in Santa Cruz County. And I think it would be great for us to have a way to permit our structures. The problem is that the current programs that we have available kind of restrict us from ever, for that ever being possible. The legacy older structures program for anybody who has had an unpermitted structure built before the late 80s would be able to get permitted as long as the building of, you know, we meet all the building standards and meet all the other standards. But in terms of getting permits for zoning, a lot of times this becomes the issue. There used to be time when we had the legalization assistance permit program. Unfortunately, even that had the same kind of restrictions when it comes to zoning. So any homes that were built, you know, in the 60s, in the 50s and 70s, of course, might have kind of been a little bit in, as far as current zoning centers might not be exactly eligible for that, especially if you're building on a fault line area or in any areas that are hazardous for fires. Now, what the legacy or older structures program does offer is for everybody who has a legacy structure to be eligible for that. Unfortunately, it's only if we fall into the burn area. And that's what I'm hoping I'm asking if we could kind, if we could extend that towards older structures, pre that time period, any old structures before that time period. It gives a lot of us, any of us who live in structures, a way to be permitted and also safe when it comes to fires, earthquakes, and all of those things. Unfortunately, the legalization permit program, that's no longer an option. And no matter what we do, we have to go right back to the safe structures program, which is still unpermitted, still undocumented. It makes it very difficult to kind of get insurance coverage for all at very expensive, on top of that, even if it is for certain things, we can get coverage and stuff. So that's all I'm asking for is if we could extend that, it would make a lot of different homes in the area safe and be prepared for what is going to happen at some point as climate is changing. So that is my request is if we could get an extension from for the legacy older structures program. And, you know, if not at least at a minimum, like a new addition for the legalization assistance program, which is closed for some time now. That's all I ask. Thank you for your time. Please feel listening. Thank you. Is there anyone on staff that would want to address that very quickly? We do have Paya Levine, the interim planning director with us this morning, and I see she is raising her hand. So I believe she would like to address the comment. Paya? Yes. Please unmute Paya and allow her to speak to me. Can you hear me at this moment? Yes. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Thank you very much. Yes. Tino, I would like to address a few of the things that you said because I'm not sure that they're actually accurate. The board's LIAC program, which is the Safe Structures Program by another name, is still happening. And I would encourage you to come into the planning department and find out whether your individual situation could be covered by that. When you speak about the legacy program, that is a program where the board determined as an emergency measure after the fire to extend legally non-conforming privileges to any property that was built prior to 1986. Those entitlements being considered legally non-conforming typically extend to anything that was built prior to 1957 because that is a date at which you first needed to have a building permit. So that's a way of recognizing properties that were built before the time permits were required. The board extended that to go all the way to 1986 in an effort to bring more of those properties into the fold. It was done on an urgency basis and only for the burn area. If your request is that that sort of thing be extended countywide, that is a very large change in how business is done. The planning is based on the issue with the permits. So what I would encourage you to do is come in and talk with us at the building counter and we'll see whether there's a way that you fit into some program that that that may help you in legalizing. So that that's what I would recommend. Thank you, Ms. Levine. Are there any other participants that have comments? No chair, I'm not seeing any. Okay. Then I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Do I hear a motion or is there any discussion? I had a little discussion chair. Okay, commission. I'll let someone else go if anyone had anything else to say first. I just had a question. Please. Yes, I'm afraid. Okay. I just wanted to first of all, there's a lot of information in this report and I appreciate staff's work on it. It was very good and I didn't have questions. I couldn't quite follow and I just wanted to make sure I was understanding it. On page, let's see if I start with page 21, it lists the approved projects that will need, if I understand it, allocations and that's 119 in five or more lots of units of approved projects and then pending projects, 38 units. Is that correct from staff? Yes, that's correct. Okay. So if you add those two together, 38 and 119, that's 157 units that have already been approved or pending and we anticipate they will need an allocation. So I then looked, because I was trying to get the bottom line of figure to reconcile for me, I then looked, so that's 157 units and on page 22, it shows the remaining allocations available as 288 and if you subtract 157 from that, that's 131 available. And so that didn't reflect what is listed later on in the report on page 41 that there are going to be 89 remaining allocations. Is the discrepancy there between 89 and 131 that we anticipate that there will be more units that we're not aware of that were finalized or approved or pending and the data stands for that? So these are slightly different figures. The carryover of 89 is based on an estimation of the number of allocations that will be left after all of the allocations granted. So what we did was we looked at the allocations granted. So if you go back to that page 22, that table shows the allocations granted as of this year were not calculating the pending and approved projects in the number of allocations granted. We're just looking at what was granted as of the first six months of this year. And so what we do is we project that 21 allocations granted for the first six months out to the first for the full year and that gives us 42 allocations granted estimated 42. And we subtract that from the carryover available for this year. So the carryover of units is it is the number of allocations set by the board for this year subtracting the allocations granted this year. So that is where that number comes from. Which number is that? Could you go if you go back to page 41? Yeah, page 41. So that shows you under 2021 carryover allocations there were only that is the number of allocations that we estimate will it be available if you subtract the number of allocations granted this year. If you subtract the allocations granted from the allocation set by the board last year. Sorry, that was a little confusing. Yeah, it is because you're talking about our allocations in projects that have been approved. So maybe the thing to clarify is the tables five through seven, those are all planning applications. But what the growth goal is counting and tracking are building permit issuance. So there's a big, there's a big change, you know, there's a big amount of time between when a project is approved and when the building permit is actually issued. Right. Okay, that that helps clarify it. Sorry about that. Yeah, because it didn't when you did the number when I did the numbers, it's net up that way. So on page 41, then the 89 that are anticipated are then actually they are, they are allocations, not building permits. Well, those are, that would be equivalent, essentially. Yeah. Right. Okay, well, thank you, that helps clarify it. And I also, it's very confusing. I also wanted to commend you on providing information about affordable housing and ADUs, which I found was really interesting in terms of tracking the affordable housing that's been produced. I know that it's not a whole lot, but I believe on, let's see if I can find it. Yeah, on page 32, it does show that the total affordable units in that table is 21% of all units since 1979. And I just, I just thought it was important to note that it does include ADUs, which we are assuming are affordable by design. But to me, that's a great number to see. Just just wanted to point that out. Great. Thank you. Any more questions from the commissioners? Yes, Mr. Commissioner Gordon. Thank you. I had a follow-up question to that, and I got a little lost there, but the, so commissioner Schaefer Freitas pointed out that a tables five and six equal 157 units, those are, so that's what we assume is going to happen next year. Is that correct? You're saying that there's going to be 157, most likely currently we're expecting that at least. So yeah, what we're saying is, you know, we've identified these projects that have been approved in the planning, like they have received an entitlement and been approved through the planning process. And we anticipate some of those may come through with a building permit. In the following year, they have not yet some of it looks like only six of them have come through so far this year. But we made sure that our growth goal for the coming year accommodates this number of units. That makes perfect sense. So that leaves us 219 minus 157. My quick math is not so good today. So that's 62 units that we may not know about, and that includes single family homes, you know, everything that's on a fire, essentially fire. Correct. 62. So essentially we're saying we actually are only allocating 62 more than what we know of. Well, I think, you know, we have six more six months left this year. So some of them might come in the end of this year, they might not, they might all come in 2022, but we have the allocations left for this year. And we believe we have enough allocations left for 2022 as well to accommodate this need. So but then if they come out this year or next doesn't really matter because it's the remainder just is less next year than it's that. Correct. Exactly. So they're still like kind of the same kind of bucket. Okay, I appreciate that. I feel like, you know, just as a point of discussion for everyone here, you know, there's a lot of state bills coming up like you mentioned, SP nine is a huge one, you know, that could make a huge dent in this number. And just in general, I would say that I I know I hear that we haven't met those numbers yet. I think there's a lot of state bills coming up that are going to change at least the planning side of things to make growth more possible from from the state's perspective. And so I want to be careful that, you know, and no one can project what that is, right? But I'm concerned that if we don't allocate enough right now, that we just have to come back to the board to allocate more that we're kind of wasting a little bit of time. So is there a harm in upping this number by, you know, a little bit since we only have 62 units essentially available that we don't know about right now? Is there like, you know, is there process for that or, you know, not sure really where that goes? So let me clarify my question. So I guess I would say I'm not I'm not prepared or in a position to consider that right now. I don't think that that's been agendized properly either we're going to consider, you know, changing the parameters of the growth goal document. So I wouldn't be prepared to do that right now. But if that's something that you want to talk a step to or put a letter on, that's something. Yeah, I guess I'm just I guess when I'm just concerned that maybe we aren't counting for enough based on the state level. So if we just said there was a higher percentage like 0.5 percent growth, make that number go up a little bit and be a little safer. So I guess my ultimate question is, I know that the 0.25 is over state's current growth goal. But what what prevents us from just saying, okay, we just pick a higher number so we don't ever have to go back to the board or worry about it. I'm that's fine. You can propose that I would vote against it. I also I also would like to see some reason why we think it's going to be greater. I mean, what the methodology is that I agree with Commissioner Dan I couldn't vote on that right now. There's too many unknowns and it's not agendized to be discussed. So I would not be prepared to understand. I guess my question is really more for staff is like, where does that number come from? Is it just a number we pick? Or is it considering all of these things that are happening in the world? I'm seeing that. Yes, from it. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Gordon, there is a top left. There is a limit to what the growth goal could be. So it's not just any number. And that limit is equivalent to the state growth in that year. So the idea of Measure J was for the county to take its quote unquote fair share of state population growth, but not more than that. So that is the functional top limit. Understood. Okay, that makes sense. So we're not like projecting out based on possibilities really. It's all based on historical data. That's correct. Understood. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, everybody. Is anyone ready to make a motion on this? I'll move the staff recommendation to adopt the 0.25% growth goal and the filing of the CEQA notice of exemption. I'll second that. Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, I will call for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposition? Any abstention? Thank you all and thank you staff for a very comprehensive report and discussion. Thank you. And we will move on then to number seven on the agenda. If you have to leave Commissioner Dan, that would be okay. It's the planning director's report. Yes, let me have this. Paya. Paya Levine, the interim planning director this morning. Good morning. I don't have a specific report to make. I just thought that I would just let you know and acknowledge that I am acting as the interim director right now. And so Kathy has retired and I will be in that role for the time being and I look forward to continuing to work with all of you. Paya, what is the status of recruiting for a new planning director? The recruiting has not yet begun but I expect that that decision will be taken at some point in the not too distant. So we're probably talking about the end of the year beginning next year. I think it's reasonable to think that by the end of the year we'll know where what the path is. Okay. Thank you. And the reports on upcoming meeting dates and agendas. So the next agendized meeting date is September 22nd chair and we do not have any meeting reservation forms in for that date. So it's looking at this point like the September 22nd meeting will be canceled. However, we will confirm next week with the planning commission and we also do not have any reservation forms in for the month of October. However, I expect that that will change here in the next couple of weeks. Okay. Thank you. And county council's report. You're muted. I believe he said he had nothing to report. Oh, thank you. And thank everybody for this meeting and I will say that it's adjourned. Thank you.