 Alternatively, you may press N669-900-6833 and when prompted your collaboration code 815-8257-5618. If you wish to simply view today's meeting, it is being broadcast live on television on channel 25. For more information, please visit the community television website. I wanted to provide a couple of instructions about participating in today's meeting. You will be muted by our support staff until you are called on to speak. Following each public hearing item, time will be provided for speakers to contribute their testimony. When the public hearing is opened, any member of the public may provide comment. To provide comment, I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony via their Zoom link on the computer to remotely raise their hand. This will indicate to us that you wish to comment. When we 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. Members of the public will be provided three minutes to speak. For participants who wish to provide testimony via telephone, when the public hearing is open for the item you wish to provide testimony on, please remotely raise your hand by pressing star 9 on your telephone. I will call on caller's name by the last four digits of the phone number. When you are called on to speak, you must unmute yourself by pressing star 6 on your telephone. Please only press star 6 once, otherwise you will remute yourself again. If at any time you have difficulty connecting to today's meeting via the Zoom link or by calling and view the telephone, please email Michael Lamb, our planning commission support staff person, at Michael.LambLAM at Santa Cruz County.US. He will be checking his email periodically throughout the meeting and is on standby ready to assist. All right, it appears we are situated. I will now turn the meeting over to our interim planning commission chair who is Melanie Schaefer Friedes today. Good morning, Melanie. Good morning and good morning to all attendees. I'd like to welcome everybody to the February 24th, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Could we have a roll call please? Yes, Commissioner Gordon. Here. Commissioner Shepard. She's on mute. Whoops, here, sorry. Commissioner Dan. Here. And Commissioner Schaefer Friedes. Here. Are there any additions and or corrections to the agenda from anybody? I know there are not. OK, thank you. We now move on to declaration of ex parte communications. Does do any of the planning commissioners have any declarations to make? Commissioner Dan. I just wanted to disclose that I did communicate with members of the Davenport community on the CKD pile issue. OK, anybody else? OK, hearing none, we can then move on to item number four, which is oral communications. And at this point, I will turn it over to Mr. Drake to manage. OK, so this is the time on the agenda where members of the public who wish to speak about something that is not on today's agenda will be provided of two minutes to provide a comment on something that is not on the agenda today. So we'll open the public comment period. And it looks like I have one. I see one hand raised that looks like they have a member of the public calling in. And it's a private number, so I can't call on the last four digits. So I'm going to unmute you. Good morning. We please state your name for the record. Hi, this is Marilyn Garrett, and I have yourself by pressing star six. OK, just a minute. Good morning, Marilyn. We cannot hear you. Are you muted? Did you? Did you press star six? You may need to unmute yourself again. Oh, good morning. Now, can you hear me? I guess we can. Good morning, Marilyn. Good morning. I've been attending meetings for over 20 years in person. I'm a retired teacher and I want to give a quote here. And then I have two brief questions to my knowledge. This is a quote from Barry Trower, Royal Navy Microwave Weapons Researcher. I wish he were on your agenda. Here is a quote to my knowledge. Microwave or radio wave sickness was first reported in August 1932 with the symptoms of severe tiredness, fatigue, fitful sleep, headaches, intolerability and high susceptibility to infection. The paradox, of course, is how microwave radiation can be used as a weapon to cause impairment, illness and death. And at the same time, be used as a communications researcher. This is Barry Trower, Royal Navy Microwave Weapons Researcher, who worked in the British Secret Service in the 60s. Here are my two questions. One is item eight on the agenda. Do you have an estimate of when that will be on? The second question is, how does the member of the public who doesn't have a computer submit information documents like I'd like to give each of you a DVD to members of the commission? Since this is a democracy and our representatives need to communicate openly with the public, please answer that. Is there an address, phone numbers or what? Thank you on listening for the response. OK, thank you, Marilyn. I don't have an estimate of when we will get to item eight. We have two items before item eight on the agenda today. So I apologize. I'm not sure how long those items will take, probably at least a half an hour. But I don't I don't know. The second answer, I just wanted to address your second question. Staff is in the building and we regularly mail information to the planning commissioners. So if you would like to drop off hard copy materials for the planning commission to be provided in the packet, please just give us ample time to mail those. So we would want those ideally the Friday before the public caring and you can drop them off here at the county building at the planning department. We have a green drop off bin and you could just package it up and say that you want that to go to the planning commission's attention. And please contact me by email or phone if you would like more information. OK, so I'm going to go back to our our list of callers here and see if we have any other participants who wish to provide comment on anything that is not on today's agenda. And I am not seeing any. So I am going to see how do we have any other like to how do we I'm not I see these folks. But I don't see if there we have any other people. It's just attendees, yeah, even if they're on here. OK. All right. So with that, I'm going to turn it back over to the interim chair. Shea for Fred is. Thank you. Next on the agenda is agenda item number five, which is the approval of the minutes of the January 27th, two thousand and twenty one meeting. So moved. It's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second it. All right. Moved and seconded. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. OK, the motion carries a couple of administrative things. I would just like to ask before we move on to item number six. The first is could you confirm that the public hearings today are item number six and item number seven is item number eight. That's a study session, not a public hearing. Is that correct? It is a study session, but the public can comment on that item. All right. And six and seven are public hearings. Yes, correct. All right. And then I believe I just quickly glanced at my email before the meeting and I believe there was some last minute correspondence. I know there was some last night that we've received. And I'm wondering if staff could confirm the correspondence from this morning. OK, let me check in with our support staff. But they were saying this morning was everything. They're saying, yes, yes, that both of them and they looked like they were the same. Oh, they're the same. OK, what it looked like to me. Two items. Yeah, it was incorrect. Just two letters from the same two people. OK, thank you. Good. Yeah, this is that the last correspondence that was sent to you was last night. Was this morning by by Michael Lam? Did you receive that? OK, yes. And Commissioner Dam said it was the same correspondence that was sent last night. OK. That's actually not entirely accurate. So there are included within that packet two emails and then two additional emails this morning. So I don't know if you saw this or the total. Oh, yeah, there are four pages to what you received this morning. Melanie, OK, scroll down. So that is correct. There are two additional emails that looks like in the correspondence that was emailed this morning. Mike is looking at it now. Would you like him to resend that? No, I have it. It's just a matter of I don't want to leave my screen. I just don't know how to do things like that and run a meeting. So do they the last two pertaining to both items, six and seven, or are they pertaining to just one of the agenda items? OK, I see it now. One of them is on the townhome project, and then one of them is asking is on the wireless. One of them is asking how to participate on the townhome project. And then one of them is OK, less project. OK, yeah, I didn't see that. And did you respond to the person asking how to? And so our support staff responded. So the one item, as Commissioner Dan pointed out, was a member of the public asking how to participate in today's hearing for item six, the Mission Drive project and support staff did email that person back with instructions. So hopefully that person is squared away. And then we'll probably have a break, I would imagine, before item number seven, and we can get that one. We may. And if not, maybe staff can give you some. Yeah, OK, great. What that one says. OK. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. And so now we'll move on to item number six, which is three to one to Mission Drive in Santa Cruz. Can we have a staff report, please? Yes, and I'm going to. Yep, we are switching over to staff now. Good morning, Jonathan, are you with us today? Yes, good morning. Can you hear me OK? We can. Great. So good morning, commissioners, Jonathan DeSalvo, my department staff. The item before you is a proposal to construct twenty one two story townhomes, each containing three bedrooms. The project would construct a combination of attached and detached housing as part of a common interest development resulting in twenty one on the minium units within one lot with common areas for access, parking and landscaping. This project requires approval of a subdivision, residential development permit with density bonus, roadway roadside exception, overhight fence certification and preliminary grading review. Next slide, please. And next slide. Thank you. Thank you. The subject parcel fronts on both Mission Drive and Thurber Lane extending from the east side of Mission Drive to the west side of Thurber Lane. The project site is located in the live of planning area within the area identified in the sustainable Santa Cruz County plan as the medical district and flea market focus area. This area is anchored by large medical service facilities at Dominican Hospital and the Sutter Medical Center containing both neighborhood and regional serving commercial uses and a mix of medium to high density residential uses. Next slide, please. To develop the project, one existing single family dwelling and its associated accessory structures would be demolished. The existing home was constructed in 1935. The house has received numerous alterations since its original construction and the building is currently in poor condition. A historic evaluation was submitted to determine the historic significance of the property. The report concluded that the subject property is not eligible for listing as a local, state or federal historical resource. Next slide, please. The surrounding pattern of development consists of a mix of residential and commercial uses. The project site is bordered to the north and south by both multifamily and single family residential uses. Two parcels border the northern property line, containing five detached residential units and 16 two-story townhome units, respectively. The port parcels order the southern boundary of the project site containing a single family dwelling, a duplex with an active permit application to legalize a third unit and 12 two-story townhome units. Across the street from the project site to the east of Thurber Lane is a large undeveloped parcel measuring approximately six acres in size, containing split commercial zoning designations. To the west of the project site on the west side of Mission Drive is an approximately two acre parcel developed with medical offices doing business as Cyprus Medical Center. Next slide, please. The surrounding residentially zoned properties are developed with a mixture of one and two-story buildings containing both single family and multifamily residential development in a range of architectural styles. Next slide, please. The proposed townhome development would front on both Mission Drive and Thurber Lane with landscaping and right of way improvements along both frontages. From the street, the proposed buildings would be two stories with private yards and landscaping wrapping the northern and southern peripheries and a private access way would bisect the middle of the lot. Next slide, please. The subject property is a 0.88 acre lot located in the RM3 or multifamily residential 3,000 square foot minimum zone district, a designation which allows residential uses both attached and detached housing are allowed in the RM3 zone district. The proposed project would result in a development which is consistent with the permitted uses within the zone district and the zoning is consistent with the site's RUH or urban high density residential general plan designation. Next slide, please. As the subject parcel would have but two streets, it is considered a double frontage lot. The required front yards are measured from both rights of way. Therefore, front yard setbacks of 20 feet are applied at both street frontages. For the front yard fronting on Mission Drive, adjacent front yard averaging results in a reduced for first story front yard setback requirement of approximately 14 feet, 11 inches. The standard 20 foot front yard setback is still applied to the second story. Side yard setbacks are eight feet and five feet. A waiver for proposed minor encroachments into front and side yard setbacks is sought and will be discussed later in this presentation. The height limit is 28 feet and the project as designed would be more than two feet below the height maximum. Next slide, please. The floor area ratio or FAR requirement is 50 percent and the project seeks a concession to exceed FAR by 8 percent for a total FAR of 58 percent, which I will discuss later in this presentation. The project meets the lot coverage requirement and meets and exceeds the park requirement by providing two parking spaces per residential unit and six additional spaces on site. Next slide, please. The project is eligible for a 43 percent density bonus to allow for the development of 21 residential units in exchange for the provision of three affordable units. The total number of units allowed is calculated based on the number of base units allowed subject to the site's current zoning and general plan designation. This allows for 17.4 units per acre. Therefore, for the 0.88 acre site, the number of base units is 16 units. When the 43 percent density bonus is applied to this number, a total of 23 units can be constructed. The project proposes to construct 21 of the 23 units for which it is eligible. To qualify for this density bonus, a minimum of 19 percent of the base units are required to be provided as affordable units. The site currently contains one existing rental unit that is categorized as very low income. In compliance with replacement housing requirements, the project would provide one affordable unit to be sold at the very low income level and two moderate income affordable units. The three affordable units are included as part of the proposed development and will be regulated and restricted to rent and income limits subject to a recorded affordable housing and density bonus agreement. The remaining 18 units will be available as market rate units. Next slide, please. Density bonus law allows an applicant to request specific incentives or concessions in order to make the project feasible with the proposed number of affordable and total housing units. This project qualifies for one concession and may also request waivers of development standards, if necessary, to enable construction of the project. The applicant has requested one concession to increase the FAR requirement from 50 to 58 percent. This increase allows the project to be comprised of all three bedroom units, which will result in financial cost reductions for the development. The applicant is also requesting two waivers for this project. These are first a waiver to allow for an exception from usable open space standards, and second a waiver to allow for minor encroachments into setbacks. SAFINE's granting a waiver from usable open space standards is appropriate given that the constrained geometry of the site, along with the footprint and number of units proposed, restricts the provision of code-compliant usable open space. Additionally, as depicted on sheet A 1.2 of the project plans, the site is designed to incorporate as much usable open space as possible, even when meeting all locational and dimensional criteria contained in the county code would not be achievable. The requested waiver from setback standards would allow second-story encroachments of approximately two feet into the 20-foot front yard setbacks and approximately one foot four inches into the side yard setbacks. SAFINE's granting a waiver to allow for minor encroachments into setbacks is appropriate given that the parcel is constrained due to the number of three-bedroom units proposed, along with necessary associated site improvements, such as access, parking, and open space. As further allowed under a density bonus law, the project will provide parking as required for affordable density bonus projects. Next slide, please. This project would establish 21 condominium units within one lot, with common areas for access, parking, and landscaping. The condominium units will be bound by CCNRs. On both mission drive and third-row lane frontages, the existing streets do not meet county design criteria standards. As proposed, the project would tie into existing streetscape elements, such as sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. SAFES supports the request for a roadway roadside exception due to the fact that proposed improvements on both frontages result in a continuous transition and use of each respective right-of-way, both of which do not currently meet county design criteria standards. Next slide, please. The project proposes to construct 21 two-story townhomes and 11 buildings, resulting in 20 attached townhomes and one detached townhome. The building massing would follow a linear arrangement as is typical for townhome developments and will essentially be mirrored on the north and south sides of a new 24-foot-wide private interior accessway, extending from mission drive on the west to third-row lane on the east. Private yards for the townhomes would wrap the northern and southern peripheries of the site while both entries would be treated with landscaping. Next slide, please. The proposed townhomes would consist of three-bedroom four-plans ranging in size from 1,307 square feet to 1,317 square feet, inclusive of internal garages. Kitchens, living rooms, and garages are proposed at the first story and bedrooms are proposed at the second stories with attic storage space provided above. Next slide, please. Proposed architecture includes varying wall planes and an appropriate mix of materials to visually break up massing and activate each respective street frontage. The proposed stucco and wood crane siding material pilot is compatible with a range of building materials found in the vicinity. Both frontages along mission drive and third-row lane would include landscaping and greening solutions to soften the appearance of the development. Additionally, the buildings at each respective frontage activate the street and that they appropriately read as the front of the development. Townhomes are a type of development often located in medium-density residential neighborhoods or in transition zones between commercial areas and low-density residential neighborhoods. The surrounding area consists of commercial development transitioning to multi-family residential and then single-family residential housing progressing further north from Soquel Drive. The massing of the proposed project fits with the surrounding area and that the site is bordered by medium- to high-density residential development in a transitionary neighborhood. The proposed project complies with the requirements of the county design review ordinance and that the project will incorporate site and architectural design features to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development on surrounding land uses and the natural landscape. Next slide, please. The applicant provided shadow plans illustrating the potential shading effects of the proposed project at 9 a.m. noon and 5 p.m. at both the summer and winter solstices. As proposed, south-facing roof pitches will allow for optimal solar exposure for roof-mounted solar power systems on all units. Impacts to light on adjacent properties will be minimized in that the townhomes would measure approximately 25 feet, nine inches in height to their highest point, more than two feet below the 28 foot height limit allowed within the zone district. Furthermore, all proposed roof eaves would extend less than three feet into required side yard setbacks, qualifying as permitted structural encroachments that's limiting any avoidable impacts to solar exposure on nearby properties. Next slide, please. Project Proposes a new 24-foot-wide private access way with entries to Mission Drive and Thurber Lane. The proposed driveway entries have been reviewed by DPW Road Engineering and Mead County design criteria standards. For the county code, 24 feet is the minimum recommended width for two-way circulation within interior driveways. The driveway would function as an interior access way within a clustered common-interest development that will not be dedicated as a public street and a low volume of traffic and vehicle speed will allow for safe travel for all modes of transportation. Four-foot-wide, at-grade pedestrian walk aisles constructed of stamp concrete are proposed along both sides of the interior driveway. The proposed driveway has been reviewed by the Central Fire Department and Meads Fire Department requirements. Additionally, one sign will be placed at each entry to the site to read private drive, no through street, deter any traffic through the site by non-residents. Parking will be provided in accordance to the density of bonus law, which requires two parking spaces for each three-bedroom dwelling unit for a required total of 42 spaces. As illustrated on this slide, two parking spaces will be provided for each unit, one space in the internal garage of each unit and one nearby assigned surface parking space. While density bonus law does not allow localities to require density bonus projects to provide parking in addition to the per-unit parking ratio noted above, the project as proposed voluntarily provides six additional spaces on the site for a total of 48 parking spaces. Additionally, the project we meet the bicycle parking requirements by providing one bicycle parking space within the garage of each unit and five additional bicycle parking spaces on site. Next slide, please. To date, the department has received several inquiries about various topics relating to the project, such as on-street parking, traffic, and shadow impacts. All individuals that note further comment for planning commission review fall in correspondence with staff. After the staff report was published, the department has received two letters in opposition to the project, which were forwarded to your commission for review. Please note, after the staff report was published, staff revised the planning commission resolution to supersede the original resolution provided as exhibit A attached to the published staff report. The revised resolution was also forwarded to your commission for review. As proposed and conditioned, the project is consistent with all applicable codes and policies of the zoning ordinance and general plan. The staff therefore recommends that your commission determine that the project is exempt from further environmental review and that a California Environmental Quality Act and adopt your resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve application number 201212 based on the findings and conditions attached to the staff report. This concludes my presentation. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeSalvo. Are there any questions of staff from commissioners? Commissioner Gordon. Good morning and thanks for that presentation. I appreciate it. And get into some project specifics here in a little bit but I had just a general question as it relates to a parking in the garages. And I wanted to understand if that had come up in any previous discussions and I know that it's an item that's come up in other jurisdictions as well and other projects. So is there a way to actually essentially enforce parking in the garages as opposed to storage or anything else? Yes. See, am I? Yeah, so yeah, you can hear me, right? Yes. Okay, sorry. So yeah, there are conditions of approval that were added that we lost due for a moment. I think he muted himself. Oh, Jonathan, I think you might be muted. Oh, let me see if I can unmute. Yes, you're back. Yeah, great. So yes, I was saying that there are conditions of approval to that effect. And I'm just locating them at the moment. The African has also offered and communicated that they would include those types of restrictions in their CCNRs. So yeah, it's under condition of approval, room number three, F. And there are two conditions of approval, number F3 and F3 and four. Three is no inoperable vehicles or other objects, including trailers, boats, et cetera, shall be stored in the parking areas or on any other portion of the site. Then four is garages shall be used exclusively for parking, not storage. All parking spaces shall be used solely for parking operable vehicles. That sounds good, I appreciate that. I just wanted to understand as that relates to, and if this is too off topic, please tell me and I can save this question for another time. But as it relates to the new ADU regulations where presidential properties are allowed to incorporate ADUs into garage spaces and things like that, can you actually require that when ADUs are legally allowed by the state? Well, this isn't an ADU project. And if they were to add ADUs online, they would still need to maintain the parking as required for this project as it, if this townhome project, so they wouldn't be able to take away a required parking. Is that answer your question? Yes, a little bit. I think that maybe that's a little too detailed for this conversation. So I think I'm going to pass on that one for now. So I apologize. And I'm going to think I'll follow back up with staff afterwards on that one, unless anyone else had a question about that. Well, it's a really great question, Tim, actually, because we had a study session on the new state laws with regard to ADUs. And I recall reading that we, the HOOAs could not prevent the conversion of an ADU on site. So I don't know how that squares with this. So I just think it's a good question. Okay, I appreciate that. I think, yeah, I think we should follow up. I think we should, we are going to have a study session coming up in the next month or two on ADUs. And I think this is one of the topics that we wanted to bring to the Planning Commission for discussion. But my understanding is for a multifamily development or property that has multiple units in an HOA, there are percentage requirements that apply to conversions. And it can be really tricky to do that in an HOA. And so far, we haven't seen anybody do it. So it's a possibility that there could be a conversion in the future here, but they couldn't all convert their garages to ADUs under the current code. It's like a 25% conversion. And they would have to sort that out with the HOA. So I think it's something we should follow up on in the next study session. And discuss how that would be implemented on a site like this, because there's been some discussion around that lately. And I think we should discuss that. Okay, I was just gonna say I wanna be careful that we don't require something that we technically can't, right? So we should not, yeah. Well, if you spend any time in this, can I make a comment, Chair? Yes. And I have a question too. If you spend any time in this neighborhood, I thought this was gonna kind of be our, the whole area on Soquel and its environments was gonna gradually develop into our sort of medical community. There was plans for PAMP to expand and much more medical facilities. So as it is now, it is a highly trafficked area with very little parking. So I think it would have to be very carefully looked at because these people really will need to use their garages to park because I don't think there's much off street parking available, period. So converting a good deal of the unit state to use, there really wouldn't be any parking. I just think it's not just a matter of, well, they should be able to do it, but you gotta look at the community impact because parking is important. And because this area is going to fill up a good deal if all the medical facilities get built. That's what I wanted to ask. I thought this was going, this whole area of Soquel and its area was kind of going in the direction of being our medical corridor with much increased traffic use over the years. So I don't know if I would support allowing them to convert, I'm golf or ADUs where they're appropriate, but I'm not sure they're appropriate here, but that's just a very early comment. The other thing I wanted to ask is, I wonder if the planner wouldn't mind going a little bit over the traffic analysis, because it says, basically the decision was that the project would generate little peak hour traffic and we've got 22 units with potentially two to, you know, families living in them and families would have more than one working person. So can you just go over how the determination was reached is that there's very little traffic generated by this unit? Cause I didn't quite, I didn't find, follow that. Sure. So if you look at page eight of the staff report, there's a section there that discusses traffic. And so the applicants submitted a preliminary traffic analysis to estimate project trip generation. And the county requires a formal traffic impact analysis if the project would generate 20 or more morning or peak hour vehicle trips. And that submitted analysis found that the project would generate 10 morning peak hour trips and 12 evening peak hour trips. So that would be as indicated in the traffic analysis the project would generate fewer than 20 peak hour trips in either the morning or evening. So therefore, formal traffic impact analysis would not be required for this project. Can I stop you there? So the assumption is we have 22 units each with a family that needs three bedrooms in it or a couple that wants one is in office or one with four kids and they're gonna be really busy and they are gonna be taking people to school and who knows the future of work, but at any rate let's assume it goes back to some semblance of what it was in the past, half the capacity. And you're saying with 22 units, the traffic engineer decided only 10 people would go out in the morning. That doesn't make any sense to me. Commissioner Sheppard, I think it's 21 units. All right, 21 units, none the less. I think 22, I just wanted to clarify. This is a very busy area in the morning and late afternoon because of the hospital and the medical building. So this traffic report just, I'd like to hear what other commissioners said. It just doesn't seem very sound to me, frankly. So if I may interject, the traffic study is attached as exhibit I attached to the staff report. So this traffic study was reviewed by the Department of Public Works and they reviewed the analysis and they confirmed the findings and accepted the findings of the traffic study. So that was how the traffic study was analyzed. Well, then what about my other question to you about the general development? What is planned for this area in the future as a medical corridor? I thought in the kind of work we've done and looking toward the future that there was quite a bit more medical building development in this area, specifically in this area. Is there not? So yeah, if you look at page 10 of the staff report, there's a section there that talks about the sustainable Santa Cruz County plan, which I think you are looking towards. And so this particular site that would continue to be RH even as envisioned, RUH, urban high density, even as envisioned by the sustainable Santa Cruz County plan. So it is in line, we did review this project in light of the sustainable Santa Cruz County plan, medical district, flea market focus area and to determine that this site is going to continue to be residential even pending future changes in the area. Okay, that's good. And then I also don't quite understand you mentioned, can you go back to the map of the project because you mentioned their yards, in other words, where people can go outside and make a barbecue or something. Are there any? I didn't really see. What outdoor space is available? I just, this is not waiting on anything on that. I mean, in other words, I'm putting that way in and I just like to go back to where you were showing the proposed project. Do the units have any outdoor space? Yes, they do. And so I'm a little of, I don't know if we can bring up my presentation otherwise, you can reference exhibit E of the staff report, which is includes the plan set and sheet A 1.2. The architects kind of clearly showed where the yards would be located for each one of the units and showed kind of the comparison of- Okay, which exhibit was that, please? That the plan set is exhibit E. Okay. So if you look at sheet A 1.2. Okay. It's where you'll find if they open space diagram. Is it possible to bring up the PowerPoint again and show the site plan? Yeah, if you would point it out, that would be helpful. I am looking at the diagram. Okay, it looks like we're bringing it back up. Thank you. Let's see. I don't have sheet A 1.2 up here, but yeah, we can look at the site plan here. So as you can see from the site plan, you have yards that are attached to the rear of each unit and they follow the northern and southern peripheries of the site. So each unit has a fenced off yard in its quote unquote rear. Okay, I'll take over. So there is some variation in size. The, let's see here. The square footage of the yards is actually listed on page A 1.2 of the plans. They list the square footage of the yards. Yeah, so right, thank you for that. So it will be 270 square feet of fenced back yard space. Fenced back yard space for units two through 10 and 200 and 365 square feet for units 12 through 21 and 210 square feet for units one and 11 fronting on mission drive. The project is also providing balconies as you can see on the second access from the second floor of all the units. Okay, thank you, that's helpful. I'm not that great at reading plans. But I think the traffic report, I don't really believe that, that no one's out of 21 units, only 10 people are gonna go out in the morning and 10 people at night. That seems hard to believe, but okay. I've never believed traffic reports anyway, go ahead. Okay, are there any other questions of staff from commissioner Gordon? One followed question on the yards really quick. Is the waiver being requested for open space, including a rear yard or a setback, essentially not necessarily a rear yard setback, but I thought there was a rule around a certain depth required for a rear yard or a common interest development. And is that part of this waiver or is the waiver just for common open space? Or am I remembering it correctly there? The waiver is just for the, yeah, for open space, for usable open space and the amount provided for each unit. So planning code section 1310-323-F contains dimensional and other criteria required for open space to qualify as open space, whether private or common. And so given the constraints of the parcel, the project is not able to provide open space that meets all of the dimensional criteria as required by code. And so that's what the waiver is for. But as you can see, the project is providing a kind of a lot of open space as much as it can provide and fit in the project despite being unable to meet all the requirements of the code. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Commissioner Dan. Thank you, Chair. I just had a question as well about the yard. I appreciate how clear the outdoor, I don't even know how to call it, the open space diagram on the plans. And I apologize for looking down. My plans are laid out on the floor of my living room here. So what I can't tell though from the plans and it's very clearly spelled out how much total open, private open space, including like the deck area upstairs and downstairs and the outdoor yard space. But the outdoor yard space looks very thin, it's long. And so I'm just wondering how wide it is from the back fence to the unit. If that makes sense, if you could tell me. I'm actually going to go to my plan set as well in my scale. Luckily on a table, but I still have to move. Those measurements, they're going to be. So yeah, so the yards on the south side of the development at the narrowest part would be approximately four feet in width. And yeah, eight feet. I'm sorry, it's going to be five feet and eight feet. Okay. So the narrowest yard is five feet in width. Yeah. Do we have standards that spell out like how skinny a yard can be? I mean, I'm just, they looked skinny on the plans. And so that's why I asked the question. And I really appreciate that. Outdoor space included. I think it's, it's essential. I mean, commissioner at shepherd and I have harped on this for many years. And also providing common open space. But it kind of defeats the purpose of having a yard. If, you know, they're so skinny that you can barely fit. Like a table and a chair to sit around to eat dinner outside. And so. I mean. That's a, that's a, I really like a lot of aspects of this project. So, and I'm going to get into that like after we hear from the public and all that, but this was something that kind of cut my eye and five foot with yard. I mean, just wondering if that's something that we have standards. And if was this a concession that is that why it's skinnier. So, so yeah, so this. This, this is a waiver that they're, this is, they're requesting a waiver from the open space requirements. And those. Dimensional criteria that I think. You're, you're harkening to. Would be again in, in section 1310, three 23 F planning code. And that's where it says. You know, it needs to be. You know, a certain width and area and have certain, you know, clearance and everything to qualify as code compliant, usable open space. And what they're showing here with this diagram is the, is just comparing what the code is. Would require and will qualify under the requirements of the code as shown. Above. And in a way. And then below they're just providing, they're showing all the kind of usable open space. That's provided even though it doesn't meet all the, the dimensional requirements of the code. So including, you know, those, those five foot and eight. Eight foot strips of the yard, respectively. So how skinny would we allow somebody to go? Like with the, with the open space requirements. So how skinny would we allow somebody to go? Like with the, this concession, would we allow a three foot wide yard? I mean, I guess I'm what's, where's our, because I understand like according to the state law, we, you know, have to grant a concession. Do we have any discretion over how strict we can be? And because, I mean, obviously we want to make sure we allow something to be developed and they need to be developed that it's actually usable. Right. And so the waivers are based on. On. Let's see here. Good. Good. So page seven of the staff report goes into the waivers pertaining to usable open space. And set. Yeah. Yeah. So it's, you know, specific to, um, waving development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development. And I don't think that there are any hard to find, um, numbers or measurements, um, that are associated with the approval of a waiver. I think that there is discretion, um, that is something that is, um, involved in that determination. Um, So, so I think that is something that is, that's, you know, in front of you for, for your review. Um, we do have Suzanne, you say, um, I believe. Um, in the room and the virtual room today. Um, so, you know, if you have more questions about kind of. Parameters of state law, then maybe we can defer. No, no, no, that's not my question really. Um, I guess my, it sounds to me that we do have a little bit of discretion when a developer comes to saying, we want, I want a waiver. And this is what I want to do. And we say, yes. So I guess what I'm making a pitch for, and I'm not going to hassle this right now. Um, extensively. I'm just saying that to me. A five foot width yard is too skinny. It's too small. It's not usable. We have to make sure that. You know, what we're, what we're, um, permitting to be developing, to be developed, it's actually going to be functional for the people living there. Um, and so we have to think about like, how is somebody going to use a yard that's only five feet wide and they put a table back there and chairs. Not really. Um, so in the future, I think when we look at these waivers, I, I would like us to look at them. Um, in that context, but I don't want to take up any more time. We have a long agenda today. I just wanted to, um, make that pitch. Okay. Um, any other questions of staff. Okay. Hearing none. Um, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Um, and I'm assuming the applicant will be speaking first. And I'm turning over the management. And I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Um, and I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Of the public hearing to Ms. Drake. Okay. Thank you. And yes, we do, uh, typically start with the applicant. So I am going to. Our. Okay. And I'm seeing the applicant has his hand raised. So. I am going. Um, would you please state your name for the record to start? Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you commissioners. Um, And thank you staff. So my name is Chris Coomer of CKA architects on the project team. And, um, I have a little presentation to walk you through quickly. And if that can be loaded up. Let's see. And while doing that, um, I do want to, maybe while they're loading the presentation. We can talk quickly about the open space. Um, each unit has an 11, uh, 10 by 15 open space provided. The units on the north side are larger. And, um, so, uh, thank you. When we get to those slides, I'll show you. And hopefully that addresses that concern. Great. So, uh, thank you. Next slide please. Great. So, uh, as Jonathan discussed, this is an infill site. Um, which is ideal for development. Particularly from a multifamily standpoint. Um, because there is existing multifamily. Uh, development on the south and the north. Um, as well as it's very walkable to so Cal. And the bus stop. And of course the medical center. Uh, so we think it's a great location. Um, to be able to do that. Um, to be able to do that. Um, being infill. Thank you. Next slide. And as discussed, the state density bonus allows for 23 units. We're proposing 21. Which, um, Makes us eligible for the concession of 8%. Law area bonus. Um, and then the waivers. Um, are being requested arm for open space. And we can get into that a little further. And then slide encroachment of the second floor. Thank you. Next slide. The other way, please. Uh, so as discussed, these are. Duplexes. Of town homes. We've got 10 duplexes. And a through street from mission drive to server. And there's one standalone. Uh, unit. Town home. Thank you. Next slide. The other way, please. Perfect. Um, so, uh, the parking as described. Each of the town homes has a garage space. Also, it has a bike parking space within the garage. And then each of the town home has a dedicated uncovered space. We heard quite a bit. Of concern from the neighbors about parking. And so we, we added six additional spaces. Um, We also share the concern that. Uh, it used. Um, It wouldn't fit in the project. So I think along with the deed restriction for parking. A car in the garage. So that's, that's part of the project is to deed restrict. The garage use for only parking. We provided storage and addicts and various other parts of the home. And we can discuss that to try to mitigate, um, people putting things in the garage. The project team will also provide transit passes. And, um, it should be noted that. Parking garage is being built across the street. Now that isn't available for the use of residents, but it is available for the use of the medical office buildings. And the hope is that that will ameliorate some of the burden of parking and make it a little easier to park. One last note on parking is that the trip generation. In the parking study is a hundred and four, four trips daily. And some of the thinking here is that this project would be housing for people working at the medical center. And so that, and because the. Bus is so close by some of the trips ideally will be by foot, by bike and, um, by bus. Thank you. Next slide. Great. So this is, uh, this is a diagram showing the open space. If you look at the lower diagram, each of the town homes, you can see an X, uh, in the green space. And those are the 10 by 15. Required open spaces. Per town home. So we do meet. It is not a five foot, um, only a five foot open space. Each unit has a 10 by 15. Space that it's so generous space for a table. And I hope that, uh, I hope that makes everybody feel better. Um, it does provide a broad space to sit. In addition, it provides a 20 foot or 21 foot long, uh, by five foot space on one side and an additional 21 foot long by eight foot space on the other side, but each one starts with a 10, 10 by 15. Okay. Thank you. That is, I did not know what that meant. Um, so is that part of the fence yard then? That's correct. So it's, it's designed exactly to address the concern. So it's like an L. Yes. That's right. Okay. And now the waiver, if you look at the left of the sheet, the waiver is to allow that X space on the mission side into the front setback. So that, though, those two town homes, their larger open space, the L portion would encroach into the front setback. And that's, uh, what the waiver is requesting. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That actually, that clarifies it. I, I, it wasn't clear to me before. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. That was hammered home to us by staff. And so in, additionally, we wanted to provide the balconies. You'll see each unit has a balcony. Yeah. And then in addition to that, there are the common open spaces, which have this sort of darker green color. So we're providing. Two times as much. Of the required open space for the units on the bottom of the sheet. And we're providing three times as much. Then the required open space for the units on the. Upper part of the sheet. Thank you. Let's see. Next, next slide, please. So the design is based as a modern design. With south facing. In addition to that, we have a lot of different types of roofs. And the idea is that the roofs are. Optimized for. Votable takes or solar panels. That would provide electricity for the whole project. So both of the roofs, both sides are slanted towards the south. Additionally, we're proposing stucco siding. And the natural wood siding, as you can see. And some metal accents. Thank you. Next slide. So for the design. The design. Optimizers the roofs for solar orientation. And then provides natural wood siding and the stucco again. Thank you. Next slide. So in summary, the site is ideal. For. An infill project, given that it does have multi family. And again, the idea is that some of the folks that are working at the medical center potentially would be able to live here. We've also tried to be thoughtful about the cut and fill on the site. I'm happy to talk about that a little more. As mentioned, the South Facing roofs were very important to make this a net zero project as far as solar power goes. We're also using drought tolerant landscaping and eight new screening trees to soften the look. And we've worked with the neighbors in our community meetings in an attempt to address the parking concerns. That was one we heard quite a bit about. Additionally, there were privacy concerns that we moved windows and removed windows for. And again, we added those six parking spaces. To reiterate with the open space, we're approximately three times more than required open space. And each one of those units has a generous open space that's 10 by 15. We hope it's a attractive mix of materials on the exterior, particularly with the natural wood siding. And most importantly, this project would provide three affordable units and provide three bedroom units for families. So sort of much needed housing type within the county. So thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Chris. Chris, are there any other members of your project team who would like to speak about this project before we move to the general public hearing with comments from the public? I don't know. Let me message them. Just a second. I see someone named Charles Bruffy with their hand raised. Is that part of your project team? No, that is not. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm not seeing any hand. I do see John with us if Lend, but he does not have his hand raised. So I'm guessing he does not. We should just speak. He's just available for questions. I'm guessing. Right. Exactly. I think we're fine for the moment. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So at this time, I will move to the members of the public to see if any callers or participants would like to provide any public testimony today on this item that proposed project on Mission Dry. And I will call on you by either your name or the last four digits of your phone number. I wanted to remind everybody that if you're calling in to please press star nine on your telephone to remotely raise your hand. Otherwise, if you're joining us on the app, please raise your hand by using the little hand button on the Zoom app. So I do see a couple of hands raised. I will start with Charles Bruffy. Good morning. Will you please state your name for the record? You have three minutes. Hi. My name is Charles Bruffy. I represent Radiology Medical Group and the 1661 Medical Office Complex that's at the corner of Soquel Drive and Mission. I've heard, you know, I appreciate that you're addressing parking, but I still find it a bit dubious to think that people are going to keep their garage clear. You know, the parking around here is really tight. We're all happy to see REI coming in, but unfortunately, people in the medical community have been parking in that lot, and that's all going to go away in the fall. So we're just looking at a perfect storm of even worse parking than we have today. Dominican put up gates to the lot that everybody was sharing, with no public hearing, by the way. And so that even made things worse. To think that in an association community, people are going to police their neighbors' garage storage is, it's kind of laughable. I've been in association communities before, and I'll just tell you that doesn't, it's not going to happen. You know, they're going to be filled with Amazon boxes, or they'll never be emptied out. I, you know, we also have a building at the corner of commercial way mission. The parking around here is no better. And we have to deal with the Pacific family trailer park, whose residents parked dozens of cars on the streets. I have been told very unceremoniously by John Leopold's office and other county personnel that it's public street, and we aren't going to do anything to help you, even to the point of not even enforcing the no overnight parking areas that are up and down commercial way. There has to be something more strenuous than just some association rules about parking, because I can guarantee you that very few of those garages are ever going to be used for parking. It's just not going to happen. That means that we're going to have anywhere from 15 to 20 cars are going to be on Mission Street and probably Thurber as well. So there's, you know, it's, you know, it'd be great to have housing. I doubt any of my employees would be able to afford any of these town houses, unfortunately, maybe some. But again, something has to, there has to be something more concrete regarding people in this development parking on the street. There's 21 units with three bedrooms. That to me is there's 63 potential cars for 40. So that's 20 more cars we can see on the streets. The ADU thing is really bizarre. So anyway, I think something needs to be done to make sure we address the fact that we're not going to just flood Mission Street with a whole bunch of cars from this development. And I can tell you right now, that's what's going to happen. And I'll be back in touch with you to be told that there's nothing you can do about it. So thank you. Thank you. All right, I will go back to the callers. And I'm seeing, we hadn't hand raised. Okay, I will call on the next caller with the last four digits, one, five, seven, four. Will you please state your name for the record needed? So please press star six on your phone. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, good morning. Good morning. My name is Andrew Gluck. And I represent the six families that live on the northwest corner of the proposed development. So just to orient you, the west corner is the mission drive side. And the north corner is the part of the property furthest away from I'm sorry, from Soquel Drive. So my issue is with the waiver setback encroachment, where they are asking to pop out the second floor is another foot and a half. Currently, the height of the roof on that side is about 26 feet. There would be a eight foot step back between the property line and the first floor. But then as you go up, the roof sticks out about three feet. So without the waiver setback encroachment, you'd be looking at the top of the roof line, only being about five feet away from the border on the north side. And if you add the foot and a half wavering setback encroachment to that, then you'd really be looking at the top of that roof line on the north side, only being about three and a half feet from the end of the property line. On the report that the staff sent in for you folks, and specifically on page 49, by the way, I have to say that 91 page staff report was really well done. And I thought the staff did an excellent job. However, I do beg to differ with their recommendation that there would not be any shadowing or sun effect on the properties on the north side. The one that's actually the worst for the six families that are on the property that I'm representing is specifically units 15 and 16. If you look at the sun study on the very single family home that is shadowed by units 15 and 16, basically their side yard doesn't see any light of day even on June 15th at high noon. And the situation is much worse than that during other months and other times of day. Okay. Thank you very much. I will go to the next caller. And it looks like we have the applicant who wishes to speak. I wanted to check in. Maybe we should check in and see if we have any other members of the public first. And then follow up with the applicant at the end. So if we have any other callers who wish to speak on this item, now is the time to make yourself known by raising your hand by pressing star nine on your telephone. And I see the gentleman we were just hearing from has his hand raised. I wasn't sure he might have been cut off. Well, let me go back to Andrew for a moment here. I don't think he had his full three minutes. Andrew, I think you're muted, Andrew. Actually, it might be me. Monica McGuire. Do you hear me? I'm sorry. Monica, do you have the last word digits 1851? I do. Oh, okay. Sorry. Good morning. I just stated your name for the record Monica McGuire. Thank you very much. Good morning. Good morning. I have had tremendous difficulty getting on the phone line wasn't working. I've been trying with zoom. So I'm not positive where you are right now. Can you just refresh my memory because I was calling to talk about I definitely have. Yes. Monica, we are on item number six still, which is the mission drive project 21 units propose a mission drive. Okay. Well, I am I'm sorry. I missed the early part where I might have commented on generally just please utilize my husband, Dr. Carl Merritt. He is the local best expert that we have for understanding what what is needed for a greater safety plan here. And he just this morning passed on if you haven't heard it already that the electrohypersensitivity is now been upheld as a sickness as that is a disability for California. I'm sorry. It sounds like you're commenting on an item that is later on the agenda, which is item number eight. So if you want to hold tight and comment on that item, I think that's what the appropriate comments would be made here. I completely understand. I just wasn't able to hear where you were. And I probably missed public comment at the start. So I wanted to start with that. Thank you. And I'll stay on at this point. Okay. Um, do we have any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item before I check back in with the applicant for some wrap up comments? I'm not seeing any. So I see one caller here, which looks like a private number. So column user three, I will unmute you. Would you please state your name for the record? Hi, this is Marilyn Garrett, and I know that vicinity where this big development is planned and I share the worries about parking that have been expressed earlier. But also when I go places, I'm always trying to observe the you know, where's the cell tower? Because there's surveys around cell towers that show very adverse health effects. Now, as I recall, by Dominican, I think there's a huge cell tower by Dominican oaks there. And I wonder what kind of disclosure there is to people building or living in the area, because these are problematic exposures to people's health that are well documented. So where is that? And of course I'm listing so I don't see your visuals. I'm on a landline. Thank goodness I still have that. Where is that huge cell tower and other radiation emitting antennas in that that already congested area? So that's my question. Thank you. I'll listen to the answer. Thank you, Marilyn. Okay. And Chair, it looks like we're finished with the general public comments. I will go back to the applicant to see if he has any follow up rep of comments based on the comments that he heard. So Chris, I'll go ahead and go back to you. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Fantastic. Well, thank you for the these are all valid concerns. Just a couple of clarifications. One item is there won't be any cell towers or radio frequency emitting towers as a part of this project at 3212 mission. So I think those comments are likely directed at the item number eight. But it's our goal not to have any radio frequency emitting items in the project. Secondly, as far as parking goes, I just wanted to clarify that the project envisions deed restrictions that allow for only parking in the garages. So not just an agreement, but a legal document that would forbid stacking boxes to the ceiling. Then on the overhang concern, just some context that we had setbacks of eight foot and five foot. Those are determined by the ordinance. And we decided to use the more generous the eight foot on the north side, particularly kind of at the northwest, where the concerns were brought up. And that overhang then is a encroaches 36 inches into the eight foot. So it's five feet still away from the property line. I just wanted to sort of clarify that there. So thank you that that's it. I hope we've taken a thoughtful approach to the project. And again, I'm happy to try to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. All right, chair, I will turn it back over to you. Okay. Thank you, staff. I'm now going to I'm going to close the public hearing. And it's the time for commissioners to discuss the project. Mr. Gordon, since it's in your district, would you like to start off? Yes, thank you. I appreciate that and appreciate the presentations from staff and applicant and all the public comment. It's always so helpful to get to hear about it and not just read it. So thank you so much. I had a couple of questions again on that waiver for the setback as was just talked about the roof line and wanted to make sure that that was included in this requested waiver as or does the does the roof line being projected into the setback not need a waiver? I think that's a question for staff. Yes. So the the roof Eve would qualify as a permitted structural encroachment. So there's no waiver that's required for the roof Eve. That would be just permitted per code. What the waiver is that what they're seeking through the waiver is for minor encroachments of the of the second story itself into the side and front yard setbacks. Okay, thank you. So yeah, to be really clear then we are not considering that Eve as in the waiver that is that's allowed by code as is right now today. That's correct. Okay, thank you. That's the only clarifying question that I had. It did have some comments. You know, personally, I'm excited to see a development here. This lot's been on the market for a really long time. And so it's nice to see some housing being built as obviously as a community, we need we need housing, we need as much as we can get. The three bedrooms are incredibly hard to find. So I appreciate that the applicant has taken the extra step to make sure that we could get three bedrooms out of these units. I think that's really important. And I appreciate the creation of the extra storage space, you know, three kids and I can tell you I need all the storage I can get. So keeping that attic space accessible is really important, especially and then additionally I saw in the garage above parking there's additional storage. So I'm hopeful that you know that'll be enough for the families living there to be able to keep their their items somewhere that's been predetermined as opposed to the garage. So I appreciate that. I think the project fits within the neighborhood, it's obviously built in an area that's already zoned for this and meets the zoning code, it meets all the regulations. So I think that's really great to see and I I'm sorry, I feel like there's someone else talking in the background there. Yeah, Renee, can you mute yourself? So this area is mostly other common interest developments, apartments, it fits in with that. So that was huge plus for me. I know that developments like this bring challenges, parking and traffic are the main ones that, you know, we consider and I completely understand that and I understand the communities need to, you know, see more parking on site. Would say that, you know, just as a point of, you know, potential education for the community, the parking is based on state law and state code and at this point local jurisdictions don't have a ton of leeway there. And so I think we're going to, you know, we're obviously going to see a lot of projects coming up with less parking and more focus on, you know, transit in other ways. So bikes, bus passes, things like that to be able to incorporate more housing. And the ultimate goal is to build more housing because we need it. So I do understand that that's painful and we're in a painful growth pattern right now as a state. And it's something that will adjust as you can, you know, as one of the applicants mentioned, there's going to be parking garage right there that's going to help and that will come. But we just have to get there. As it relates to the waivers, I think they're appropriate and I, they don't seem like they're overreaching. And kind of in relation to what Commissioner Dan had mentioned previously, you know, I think that there is a balance there to be found. And I think that because they provided their required open space for the units, that's helpful to see. And I was concerned about that too. So I appreciate that they pointed that out. And so I think overall, I just want to say that I think this project is really appropriate for that location. And and I would be I'm in support of this. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Dan. Thanks, I'll be brief. I substantially agree with the comments that Commissioner Gordon said about the project. I am in support of the project. I also understand that for the neighbors when there's a development next year that there's going to be impacts. And I do understand that. And I liked the way Commissioner Gordon characterized what we're in now a painful development pattern, I think he said. And I thought that was a good way of putting it. I also just wanted to say point out that what we haven't really talked about very much is that there's going to be three affordable units in this project. And one is for very low income and two moderate income. And I just want to highlight that that that is really important component of this project. And glad to see that that's that that's there. And that that's what allowed for the them to take advantage of the density bonus. And so I appreciate that. And I also just want to highlight I really like the design. I agree the three bedrooms through bathrooms storage. I mean, some really thoughtful design elements in there. So I really appreciate that I want to see more of that. And that I also appreciate that you didn't max out. You know, I think that there was a potential to build a couple more units here and and they didn't do that. And they didn't max out on height. So I think that there are some other considerations taken into this project that made it that made it better. And I will be happy to support a motion if one is made to approve the project. Thank you, Commissioner Dan, Commissioner Shepard. I'm sorry, Melanie. Yes, you want to comment? Yes, I agree with my other two commissioners. I think this is an appropriate well designed project that'll give us some multifamily housing at affordable rates, which is quite an accomplishment. So I'm in favor of it. All right. I don't want to duplicate everything that has been said. I do want to highlight that I agree 100% with Commissioner Dan in terms of highlighting the affordability of the three units, how critical that is. And to get three bedroom units affordable is even harder. So that's a very important part. I think it's a thoughtfully designed project. I agree with its comments that were in a painful period. In regards to this, in regards to the issues around parking and open space also, I did have a real quick question about open space and common open space. I noted that there were two different common open space areas. And I'm wondering if staff knows offhand the approximate square footage of those and are they all landscaped? Jonathan? Can you hear me? Yes, yes. Okay, great. So they are both landscapes and let's see here. Common open space provided is 1,295 square feet. And there's two separate areas. Is that right? Well, they have landscaped area along both frontages, but there are kind of landscape areas throughout the development. There's little strips also kind of in the front of each one of the townhomes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. DeSalvo. So I think we've heard from everybody and we're probably ready for a motion. I'd make a motion to approve this project. Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I think we should have a roll call, please, Ms. Drake. Okay. Commissioner Shepard? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Gordon? Yes. And Commissioner Dan? Yes. Motion passes. Okay, the motion passes. And thank you to the applicant and to the public participants who commented also. At this point, we're going to take a break. I think we've been going now for, what, an hour and a half? So. Oh, my goodness. Yes. Yes. So we'll take a 15 minute break if that is appropriate. Other commissioners agree? Okay. So I've got it's 1105. So we'll start back again in 1120. Okay. Thank you very much. Yes. Let's see. Do we have, I'm seeing Commissioner Dan and Commissioner Gordon. Looks like Renee Shepard is with us. Commissioner Shepard. And we have Commissioner Shepard Freitas. Okay. I think we can reconvene, chair. All right. So we're continuing with our agenda for February 24th, 2021. And we're now on item number seven, which is a proposal project for 700 Highway 1 in Davenport. And we have a staff report, please. Okay. So that will be David Carlson with us this morning and we'll just load his PowerPoint up. Let's start with the other PowerPoint. There we go. Thank you. Okay. Good morning commissioners and applicants and members of the public that are joining us here. I'm David Carlson. I'm the project planner on this project. And we do have the applicant team here as well who will give a brief presentation after I'm done. And that will include the construction manager, the design engineer, the biological consultant, the environmental consultant on the initial study and the consultant that did the design of the retention basin remediation. And then the representative of CMEX Corey Andrews will be here as well. So this project is a proposal to implement the final north cement kiln dust or CKD area closure plan at the former Davenport cement plant as required by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The property is located on the inland side of Highway 1 on the site of the former cement plant adjacent the town of Davenport. And this is a picture that I took back in 2016 from the top of the tower at the cement plant looking north towards the North CKD area. The project requires a coastal development permit, a riparian exception and a grading permit and a public hearing before the planning commission because of the volume of the grading. And just backing up a little bit, the smaller picture on the left is the project area outlined in red on the map along with the parcel boundaries in black. Staffers recommending that the planning commission approve the permits for the project and adopt the mitigated negative declaration per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Next slide. Construction of the cement plant began in the late 1800s and cement production began in 1906. Cement manufacturing at the facility includes, included grinding of source materials, pyro processing or basically baking or heating those materials at high temperatures and a kiln storage of cement products and then disposal of waste products. The facility produced a large quantity of CKD as a byproduct of the cement manufacturing process and starting in the 1950s to approximately 1998 a natural canyon behind the cement manufacturing plant was filled with CKD and you can see that canyon in this photograph and the upper center of the photograph and what it looks like in this photograph is that canyon is filled with water. The CKD was introduced into the canyon as a slurry and allowed to settle out and then harden. Next slide. This just shows the existing conditions and just a few things that I wanted to point out on this picture is the north pond in the upper portion of this photo that is there and was formed because of this mounded CKD in the canyon and you can see the existing bypass pipe that takes when water rises to a certain level in the pond. It goes into the bypass pipe and which discharges at the end of that. It looks like black or blue dotted line and because the CKD filled that canyon there it blocked drainage on the on the right side where you see seasonal ponds that those developed because of the CKD that is mounded up in that area and blocks drainage and form those seasonal ponds. Drainage is currently controlled somewhat and routed around the CKD and down and funnels down towards that sort of constricted area outlined by red and the drainage is routed down towards the retention pond which is in the lower left-hand corner of this this photo. Next slide. So in February 2018 the regional water quality control board central coast region issued a wastage charge requirement order for closure and post closure maintenance and monitoring requirements for the north CKD area. The landfill will be covered with an engineered impermeable cap which will be covered with topsoil and revegetated. The primary goal of the closure plan is to minimize infiltration of water into the waste and thereby minimizing the production of contaminated leachate and potential groundwater impacts. The order requires completion of construction prior to October 1st 2022 and the order addresses a lot of issues but one that has come up in some of the public comments was waste characterization and and according to the wastage discharge order the CKD waste its alkaline it contains non-hazardous levels of heavy metals and is caustic which means it has a high pH. The CKD is considered similar to agricultural lime and sets up similar to Portland cement when it's hydrated. It has the potential to alter water quality by increasing alkalinity and it may leach to solve solids including metals and minerals. Next slide. So this has a lot of information about all the activities that will take place as part of the project but I just wanted I don't want to go over every single detail but I just wanted to summarize you know what's going to happen here and first of all I mentioned that bypass pipe out of the north pond that will be the existing bypass pipe will be abandoned and it will be replaced by a new bypass pipe which is labeled 7B on this diagram and you can see where it will the new discharge point there at the end of that pipe labeled 7B. Those two blue lines coming down on either side of the CKD area are for the purpose of collecting drainage. Those are drainage improvements that will collect runoff from the CKD area which will be mounted up so that the cap on top of the CKD will create a mounted area and runoff will be captured from the CKD and from surrounding areas in those drainage facilities and it'll be routed down as you see the blue lines routing all the way down to the retention pond with a series of manholes and drop structures to control the water. Where those two lines come together where you see the number four that is the toe of the CKD so it's a steep slope down to the lower area where the retention pond is. That area can't be closed with a soil cap because of the steepness so what will be constructed there is a soil nail retaining wall that will be blended into the cap at the top and then the retention pond which currently contains collects runoff from the CKD area will be remediated because it is has a lot of CKD in it and some ash from the or some coal from the coal storage area so that will be remediated excavated and the excavated material will be allowed to dry out and it will be transported back up to the CKD area and incorporated into the landfill and then capped. Next slide. So I'm going to go through a series of pictures here of the existing conditions and kind of explain a little bit more about what's going to happen with the project. So as you can see the photo point on this slide is up at the north pond on the west side of the north pond it's looking southeast at the pond formed by the upper limit of the CKD landfill. The landfill at this location as you can see is revegetated and blends in with the terrace surface on either side. Where the north pond contacts the CKD landfill it will be partially lined with a clay liner to stop infiltration of water into the landfill. The overflow pipe from the pond will be replaced and rerouted and after construction riparian and adjacent coastal scrub plantings will be implemented as part of the project's habitat mitigation plan. Next slide. This is from a point centrally located on the landfill surface looking north towards the north pond and the Warnella Road is up there in the distance. As you can see the landfill has been revegetated and blends in with the terrace surface. This area will be mounded up and regraded and mounded up to direct water away and off of this CKD area and then those drainage facilities will be installed on either side of the landfill cap. Next slide. So turning around from the same point and looking south at the active surface of the landfill with the cement plant tower in the distance and then you can also see that pile of CKD right in front of the tower in the distance. Next slide. This is from a little bit further south and it's looking over towards towards sort of this one of the southwest at the Davenport Sanitation District Water Supply Treatment Facilities which will not be impacted by the project. Next slide. So this is standing out in the on the terrace off of the landfill surface and looking south towards that grove of trees and in the lower portion of this of the photograph on the left. So the landfill cap will extend and so you're we're looking at this wetland area on the bigger picture on the right side of the bigger picture is the wetland area and the landfill cap will extend down into the wetland area to stop infiltration of water into the CKD and impact part of that wetland area. So as as mitigation the wetland area will be expanded out towards the where I'm standing taking this photograph and there will be coastal scrub plantings and other wetland plantings as part of the project's habitat mitigation plan. This is also the approximate alignment of the new outlet pipe from the north pond that will discharge into the head of the canyon seen in the distance on this larger photograph sort of towards the left on the horizon. Next slide. So switching back over to the other side of the landfill surface looking southwest down the west side of the landfill. This is where runoff is currently captured and routed down the hill towards the shop area below the toe of the landfill. And this area will be cleaned up to create one of the drainage channels that captures drainage that's directed away from the landfill. So all that plastic and those tires will be removed and there will be an engineered drainage channel constructed in its place. Next slide. So this is looking up from what's called the shop area below the toe of the landfill and you can see the landfill up there in the distance partially covered with plastic beyond those trees. The existing drainage and the proposed drainage improvements are routed down and through this area and the toe of the landfill that you see will be supported and capped by all that soil male retaining wall that's tied into the textile and soil landfill cap. The drainage facilities you see down here which are currently ditch lined with plastic will be upgraded and will be the continuation of the drainage channels on either side of the landfill. Next slide. So this is looking south at the retention pond where all the surface drainage will end up. The pond will be drained and excavated to remove CKD and coal laden sediment. A low retaining wall will be constructed on the other side of the pond on the downhill side and tied into ground around the perimeter of the pond to increase freeboard as required by the drainage calculations for the project. Again riparian container plants and willow pole cuttings would be installed along the north edge of the pond as part of the project's habitat mitigation plan. Also as you can see in the photo on the left that is the former that darker area is the former coal storage area as part of the habitat mitigation program for the project. A half acre seasonal willow pond will be constructed in that area after the excavated material from the retention pond is removed. Next slide. The next series of slide I'll just go over some of the major project issues and how those are dealt with in the project design. So the purpose of the project is to cap and contain the CKD to ensure that nearby water bodies and drainage are not contaminated by the CKD. The project does however have the potential to generate temporary water quality impacts during construction activities. The project's been designed in compliance with the waste water board's waste discharge requirements which includes these stormwater and erosion control plans. The project area also includes 15 existing groundwater monitoring wells associated with the north CKD area to monitor the effectiveness of closure activities at the retention pond and at the north CKD area. The wells will be monitored throughout the project construction and after completion to ensure project activities don't lead to contamination of groundwater and semiannual reporting of the monitoring results to the water board is required. The project hydraulic analysis modeled a 24-hour 1,000-year storm event for which the project was designed to convey flows without resulting in flood conditions within or adjacent to the project area. All proposed improvements to the project area water bodies and drainages would improve both water quality and flooding conditions following the implementation of the project. Next slide. The temporary impacts of construction noise related to the project were modeled based on the types of construction equipment that would be used and this is just a sample of some of the modeling results. The results show that construction noise would not violate any county noise standards. The noise planning ordinance does allow the building official to extend normal working hours and there are a couple reasons that staff is supporting a request for longer working hours than than the normal construction hours because overall the project would be completed in a shorter timeline and any disruption or inconvenience to residents would be shortened. In addition, based on the prevailing wind conditions in the area that typically increase in the afternoon hours, maximizing work hours in the morning is seen as helping to minimize potential dust impacts. Next slide. An overview of the habitat types and special status species and potential project related impacts are described in the biotic assessment report. This is a map of the special status wildlife habitats and a separate map of general habitat types is included in the biotic assessment. The North CKD landfill area itself does not contain sensitive habitat and the proposed closure plan has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive habitats to the greatest extent feasible. The sensitive wildlife species that are present or could potentially be present in or near the project area includes monarch butterflies, California red-legged frog, several types of birds, San Francisco dusky-footed wood rat, and bat species. Implementation of mitigation measures bio one through bio five will reduce those potential impacts to those species to a less than significant level. The closure plan activities would result in temporary and permanent impacts to coastal scrub and oreo willow riparian scrub and to wetland areas and implementation of mitigation measures bio six, seven, and eight would minimize those impacts to a less than significant level. Next slide. Actually could you go back to that last slide? I wanted to say a couple more things on that. Thanks. So I just wanted to just say in general that the mitigation measures would include monitoring by a qualified biologist, pre-construction surveys, avoidance measures, and then the habitat enhancements that some of which I've mentioned already. In addition the project requires authorization by state and federal permitting agencies due to the potential impacts to habitats and sensitive species that are protected by state and federal law and the applicant is currently working with these agencies to obtain those authorizations prior to construction. Implementation of the of the plan would result in impacts to riparian resources which are regulated by the county's riparian corridor and wetland protection ordinance and because the project activities are necessary for the landfill closure staff is recommending approval of a riparian exception for the project. Now we can go to the next slide. The implementation of the project would temporarily result in an increase in construction related traffic on highway one near the main entrance to the plant and on Warnella road where construction equipment and personnel would enter the project area. There would be a temporary increase in trips to and from the project site when fill is being imported for the cover. Approximately 47,400 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the liner and cap installation and fill import is assumed to require approximately 6,321 one-way trips. Therefore there could be an additional approximately 60 trips or 120 round trips on highway one each day during the approximately 100 days fill would be imported to the site. Fill import would occur Monday through Friday not on Saturday. The increased construction related traffic could slow traffic traveling on highway one as the trucks enter and leave the site but overall conditions are free flowing traffic along highway one are not expected to change substantially and that's more further described in the initial study. During the public comment period for the initial study local residents expressed a concern about increased truck traffic and the use of cement plant road. There's no need for truck traffic to use cement plant road and the truck route requirements are clarified in a condition of approval. Truck traffic would be limited to two routes to enter and exit the cement plant site. One route is the main entrance to the plant that exits off highway one and the other route would exit off highway one north of Newtown to immediately access Warnella Road if that's necessary. Trucks would not be allowed to travel on cement plant road between Davenport and Newtown. Next slide. Construction activities associated with the project would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions. Project construction emissions were modeled using air quality modeling software and based on those modeling results the project would not generate particulate matter or PM10 levels in exceedance of the air resources district thresholds. However, based on the comments received and common knowledge the community is concerned about dust emissions during the grading for the project. Windy conditions are common on the north coast particularly seasonally and in the afternoon. As part of the project the applicant prepared a dust mitigation plan in conjunction with the air district. The dust mitigation plan describes the best management practices and monitoring to prevent dust that might be transported off site. Some of the BMPs are listed here and they're more fully described in the dust mitigation plan. The project director will be the on-site person available to respond to community complaints. The BMP measures will be continuously applied throughout the project with locations and intensities of application informed by the monitoring program. Adaptive management is part of the plan and additional measures may be used if needed. The monitoring network will utilize sensors that will be located in source and receptor areas to detect dust emissions. These instruments are they're internet connected so they can be accessed and provide notifications to on-site personnel. The real-time information will facilitate immediate actions to address dust issues. Information obtained from the monitoring network will also be shared with the Air Resources District and Plenty Department staff. The project director who will oversee the BMPs in the monitoring network and also direct remedial actions stop work if necessary until and stop work if necessary until remedial actions have been implemented. Included in the dust mitigation plan BMPs is posting of signs indicating who to call if a nuisance is perceived and a condition of approval is included that specifies that the contact information will be posted at the front gate and provided through other community networks. Next slide. During the public comment period for the CEQA initial study two virtual community meetings were held to present the project to participants answer questions from community members and gather community feedback. Planning department staff and CMEX representatives participated in the first meeting which was organized by the Davenport North Coast Association. The second meeting was organized by CMEX and publicized in the local community by the DNCA and CMEX. Planning department staff and CMEX representatives participated in both meetings and responded to community questions both during the meeting and separately in writing. The written comments that have been received are included in exhibit F. The comments from Davenport residents highlighted their concerns regarding air quality, traffic and noise and those issues are addressed in the staff report and have been highlighted in this presentation. Next slide please. So our recommendation is to is that your the commission adopt the attached to mitigated negative declaration per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act that is exhibit A of the staff report and approve application 28372 based on the attached findings in exhibit C and the conditions in exhibit D. And then just lastly I wanted to point out the obvious here that this is a schematic representation of what the closure project would look like when it's completed. Obviously it's going to look a little bit more natural than this but it just gives you kind of an idea of what the result will be and that concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions from commissioners. Thank you Mr. Carlson. I believe that we do have some questions for you. Commissioner Dan. Thanks I'll go first. Thank you David for the presentation and some of these questions maybe well I'm not sure we'll see if you can answer them or if they're better answered by the applicant. So I just wanted to start with the construction times. It's a little unusual for staff to be recommending such an early such a long day basically for a construction day from sunrise to 7 p.m. or no sunrise the sunset I think is what's being recommended. So that means in the summertime that's as early you know as 5 in the morning. My impression is that's that's just a little bit unreasonable. Did you did staff or the applicant solicit any feedback from the community to arrive at this construction window or how I mean I understand the the reasoning for it. It tends to be windier in the afternoon tends to be calmer in the morning and we you know this is a project that's widely supported in the community. We all want this to get done and so I understand the reasoning that the longer the day is the quicker the project will get done. But can you just talk a little bit about any feedback you heard about that or how that was arrived at? I have not received any feedback on the the the increased extended construction times that have been proposed and you're correct they were proposed for the purpose of trying to maximize the working times and and overall it's an it's also an attempt to facilitate completing this project in one construction season when it was originally projected that it would take two construction seasons to construct the project. So two summers basically the applicant is going to try to complete the project in one summer which would dramatically reduce impacts of the project. So it was staff's effort to sort of facilitate that and try to get the project done in a shorter timeline. Was the at the two community meetings was this discussed with the community? I mean did you receive feedback? I mean I guess I'm guessing no because you said you haven't received any feedback about it but was this brought up I got I was told that this was like the first they've heard of this was in the staff report so I guess I want to hear I have some reservations about that long time frame but given the trade-offs I guess I'm interested to hear from the community about that when they get a chance to speak it's just very unusual right I mean I don't think we've ever approved a construction time frame that started at sunrise and this project would go through the summer right so that caught my eye. And then I just want to confirm so staff is proposing three Saturdays per month for construction but not truck traffic? Yes so that would facilitate on-site work on on those Saturdays but no import of fill would occur on weekends and that's for the obvious reason that we all know that traffic becomes quite impacted in that area on weekends. And holidays let's just say so what kind of work like what kind of so the work that would be done on the Saturday what kind of work is that? Oh all the various on-site projects the construction of drainage facilities moving fill around. So like I guess I'm like the what I'm looking for is like what kind of noise impacts would the community expect for a Saturday workday? That would be the use of all the on-site equipment so as I showed in that one slide the modeling of the construction noise was the was the modeling of the use of all the various pieces of equipment that would be used to do the on-site construction so and those models results show that the noise levels would not exceed county standards at the at the property line and so that that same that would go that would go for Saturday as well. Okay I'm interested to hear what the community thinks about that too and so moving on to the the dust mitigation plan I mean this is this is really the big one of the big issues and so I think one of the key things here and and I understand the project is indicating there's not going to be any dust impacts and I think that's really important and that's what that's what we have to ensure actually occurs and so one of the key elements to that I think are a couple things the air monitoring of course but then also the project director who would be kind of be the the key point person for the community where they could go you know if actually you know they're seeing they are seeing impacts so I just want to get a clear picture about so who's so and I you know and let me just preface this by saying you know in our role at the planning commission we always have to think about worst-case scenarios so I'm not assuming you know that that this is gonna like that what the questions that I'm going to happen imply that there's going to be you know that the project director you know may not be as responsive as possible but I have to assume worst-case scenarios so in that context what what authority you know if the project director is ignoring the community and not adhering to you know the provisions that we're outlining here what what happens like who who has authority over that what are what's the recourse I guess for the community well the next recourse would be contacting either planning department staff or air resources district staff to for those individuals to monitor the site and determine if if dust impacts seem to be occurring and obviously air resources district staff would be more capable of doing that compared to me um but that and so just in general if there is a major issue that we've identified and it's not being dealt with we do the county does have the authority to step in and stop the project at worst-case scenario until remedial measures are implicated implemented and so there's a condition of approval somewhere that clearly spells that out I not necessarily find it okay I guess I'm saying that I think that we should have something either condition in the condition of approvals or some some some ways so that we don't leave the community on its own if things don't go as well as planned and again I'm not assuming that that's going to happen I just think that when we're you know I'm dealing with a project of this magnitude that has the potential for some serious impacts if it's not done correctly that we need to you know cross all our teeth and dot all of our eyes right now while we have the chance so so maybe between now and the end of the hearing um maybe there's there is an existing condition of approval but if not like it would be helpful to draft something to just make sure it's tidy that you know if things don't go as planned that you know we can you know and I'd rather it be you know the county could come in and um have some authority over making sure that um the project is is going as planned okay I I think there is a condition of approval let me get the number here Roman numeral 4c all best management practices and monitoring requirements contained in the best management plan intended to prevent air quality impact shall be implemented at all times during construction um so there's that and then page 48 and then yeah the next one is about a contact person um yes um and and then just in general you know as part of the issuance of of any permit a grading permit or a building permit that you know the county if there's if we document non-compliance with those permits as I said before we have the ability to issue a stop work notice which would which would require all work on the project to stop until adequate remedial measures are taken okay um and okay I think and I think at a certain point I have some additional language to um to add to to de under that condition but I I want to hear from the community first um and then um the other the other big issue here is um truck traffic and I mean I just want to point out this is a lot of truck traffic 60 trips 100 round trips a day is like a lot and um you know we just heard this other issue with the felton quarry it's I mean like the truck traffic in the third district is um significant right now um so I just want to clarify um so I understand that the route um is going to use the cement plant um the main steemax entrance and I think that's probably preferable the other alternative is using warinella road and I can see why that that's um makes sense because there's you can access the top of the project area for warinella um so I just want to make sure off highway one so you're so the project is proposing that um they would use the railroad crossing access to get to warinella is that is that what you were suggesting yes I believe that's the one that's contemplated it's a exit off of highway one that is north of new town it's not um it's not an immediate exit on to warinella road but it's an exit you take a short jog and then you're on warinella road yeah I'm very familiar with it um so let's just say that that access is no longer available um what would be what how would how would the trucks get to warinella they would have to travel up through the cement plant you know come in the main entrance and then travel up through the cement plant property um and access the area it's a that way it would be a longer route but that's that's how they would do it that's the only other way they could do it um then there is that would that would go on cement plant road no no they would the the trucks would just access the cement plant property through the main entrance okay so they wouldn't use warinella then if they're not using warinella they would be using the main entrance and and the main entrance is just a straight shot off of highway one and then you're on the property and then there's roads on the property that would take you up to the to the to the work area okay just so i'm clear so so if that the railroad crossing um access wasn't available then they just the trucks wouldn't be able to use warinella is that what you're saying that would be the result because we are prohibiting truck traffic on cement plant road okay i just wanted to make sure that was clear okay thank you um so then i wanted to ask about um air monitoring you mentioned that um that the air monitoring will be in real time yes and so is that something that um like the community or the public would be able to access as well i think i need to defer to the applicant on that because it's a system that i am not setting up the applicant will be setting up that system and designing it so it'd probably be better if they answered that in the in the staff report we've requested that the data from the monitoring program be submitted to the air district and to the planning department on a weekly basis okay um yeah i think that i think that there is some interest um from the community to be able to access and look at that data themselves so that's possible that that would be um that would be good um and then um i just wanted to put this idea out there before the applicant makes their presentation and maybe they would be open to commenting on it that um i think that in other situations like this where there's big projects and small community nearby um having the project director kind of hold weekly meetings or just send out a week a weekly email to the residents that kind of say you know this is what we did this past week on the project this is what's coming up this week so that the community knows what to expect um and maybe can plan their lives accordingly i think that that would be that might be really helpful um so i just wanted to put that out there and i look forward to hearing from the applicant and the community and so that concludes my comments for now i think you're muted uh there you go there we go um any other commissioners that have questions of staff okay mr carlson yeah uh excuse me i'm sorry i um i think that um i this was just a comment i think all rachel's questions are very timely and i think her last idea of maybe having some kind of it could certainly be a social media site of some kind where um residents could have some idea of what this long process a necessary one but a long and complicated one has some idea of what's upcoming and where they are in the process i think community understanding and support would be much stronger if there was that kind of ability to have kind of a bulletin board a schedule and let people know what's going on as it happens in in a general or more specific way i think that's a great idea okay thank you commissioner gordon i thank you a couple quick questions um kind of tagging on to what everyone else out here i think those are awesome ideas and would be really helpful for the general public i had a quick question as far as like geotechnical review or inspections like is there a third party other than the applicant who is going to be out there every day like managing the dust or making sure that it's you know following protocol um and what's what's that process look like yes i i didn't mention in my presentation but there is extensive geotechnical um investigation and design that went into the the design of the project and and those and that there will be oversight from the by the geotechnical engineer during the project because of the requirements during the grading for compaction inspection of the film material to make sure that you know it's it's the appropriate type of material to be that's being imported um and a whole host of other onsite tasks that the geotechnical engineering firm will be available to observe during construction and then there's requirements um for the geotechnical engineering airing firm to submit to the planning department at the end of the project a statement you know all of their testing results and monitoring uh documentation of their monitoring and and sort of in and a statement at the end of the project that has been constructed according to all the geotechnical recommendations okay great thank you i appreciate that clarification and so normally they they would you know manage the compaction and the grading and that's you know they would make sure that the soil if you will is wet for the appropriate compaction do they also help manage the the dust that's leaving the site or is that someone else well no not directly the geotechnical uh firm would not be involved in and you know mitigate observing or mitigating dust impacts um but there is in terms of watering the site for dust control and for um compaction requirements you know there's a balance there you can't get it too wet because then you can't compact the soil but then if it's not wet enough you know there there could be additional you could be producing dust if it's too dry uh so you know there's sort of a sweet spot in terms of of watering of the site and that's going to be occurring during construction you know watering enough to control dust but not watering too much to um sort of you know mess mess up your your compaction requirements okay thank you very much that's the only question i appreciate it okay any other questions from commissioners all right um and that is um the end of your staff report is that correct mr carlson yes that's correct and i believe that the applicant has some uh presentation obviously and some slides to show all right thank you okay well then at this point it's appropriate to open the public hearing and i'm going to turn it over to mr rake again okay thank you chair so yes we do have um we do have a presentation from the applicant so we'll start with the applicant and their presentation so i am connecting you now cori um if you would not mind stating your name for the record and we will load your presentation cori are you unmuted can you hear me yes yes okay great good afternoon thank you commissioners and david for giving that presentation and asking those questions um i said my name is cori andrews and i'm the semex representative for this project i'm going to allow yasha sabre um who's our construction manager to answer most of your questions in just a moment and speak further about the project um so if you could open his microphone too um as soon as i get done talking or now um but i do want to say that we're really pleased to engage in this project because of the long-term benefits to the community and the property um that this project will bring it'll improve the area visually it'll improve water quality and it'll improve the water flow on the site um so i know we're talking about some of the short-term impacts today but i think the long-term impacts are going to be very beneficial um and i'll turn it over to yasha now to allow him to address your questions okay and i am not seeing let's see yeah it's y a s h a oh i see yasha thank you good afternoon yasha you should be able to speak now as well yasha the strike this is yasha sabre can you hear me okay yes okay good afternoon sorry when you gave me that permission it actually reloaded the system for me so i could respond uh commissioners and members of the public that are listening thank you very much for for having us today appreciate the opportunity to provide a short presentation before we dive into the details of the presentation i would like to take a moment to address some of the questions from uh commissioners dan and gordon i appreciate those questions and i've written them down and i'll walk through them one at a time to provide hopefully some additional clarity and comfort in what it is we're proposing to do before i do that so my my background is in construction and in the mining industry so i'm no stranger to the issues that have come up and the questions that have been posed semex has retained my firm to serve as a construction manager on this project we've also been involved since day one of the permitting process with the county so i'm intimately familiar with all of the details including the design of the project permitting processes as well as the regulations that we're going to be working under to complete this work the first question that came up was in relation to the hours of construction operation and i wanted to clarify our request we we are actually not asking to start at sunrise necessarily um or to finish at sunset necessarily what we're asking for is to be able to work outside of the county's standard construction window which is 8 a.m to 5 p.m and extend those hours to a 7 a.m start and up to a 7 p.m finish on a daily basis uh the the key reason for that is that the original vision for implementation of this project was that it was going to take two construction seasons to complete so that would have been the year 2021 as well as all through the summer of next year to finish this project we have worked with the contractors and quality control team to try to condense that schedule as much as possible to finish the whole project in a single season so the public and the neighbors don't have to experience the temporary effects of construction twice and we've made that our goal we think it's it's better for the community as a whole it's also better for managing uh the conditions of the site through the upcoming wet season so that we're not leaving unfinished work exposed to the elements so we'll help with that without the ability to extend those construction hours with a start time of 7 a.m it would simply not be feasible to complete all of the construction activity in a single season and so that is the nature of our request we made that request to the planning team early on in the application process and the environmental document that they prepared also addressed that request that we had made so we would appreciate greatly consideration to that so that we can get the work done in a single season as far as saturday goes it as david explained it would be similar nature of work with the exception of no incoming imported truck trips to the site during the weekend to keep that traffic off of the roads but we would have to the extent necessary grading work happening on the property we would have the installation of the landfill cover liner we could have drainage improvements happening etc on saturdays most of that work is is not going to be visible to the general public in fact the closest uh residential receptor for example is about a quarter mile away from the area happening so it is a fair distance away uh we also have a requirement that by october 1st of each year we have the site fully buttoned up so that is sort of our backing constraint on the construction schedule for the year 2021 so hopefully that helps answer the first question commissioner dan uh raised the second relates to the dust mitigation plan and i can really appreciate coming from my experience in the lighting industry how important dust can be to the neighbors and how sensitive um people are to dust and so we do recognize that and we take it very seriously um i want to start by saying there will be two water trucks on this site on a daily basis one of them will be an on-road type of water truck that will be watering all of the access roads the perimeter roads the locations where there is the most amount of travel happening and the second will actually be a larger off-road 6000 gallon tractor basically that is pulling a water trailer that will be on the grade where grading activity is happening and so that will provide moisture control to keep down fugitive dust who will also provide the moisture necessary to achieve the compaction on the project during this whole time there will be perimeter dust monitoring sensors that are set up uh before we get constructed with the before we begin construction of the work we'll actually begin collecting some of that data for the ambient condition so that will give us some baseline information about what the levels are of PM in the air before any activity actually starts and then as activity starts we will be continuously monitoring that those sensors pick up information and they send it to a laptop that will be managed on the property from that laptop then that data is analyzed and then will be submitted both to the county and Monterey Bay air resources district on a weekly basis so that is a commitment that's been made both through the air district and to the county as David has adopted or proposed to be adopted as a condition of approval when we speak of the project director and the person that will be responsible to oversee dust it's actually going to be a team effort for the most part so there will be direct responsibility on the part of SEMEX and their environmental manager project director which is Corey Andrews who introduced yourself moments ago but I personally will also be taking responsibility for managing and overseeing dust control on this project and we've made it a condition of all of the contracts that we've issued to the contractors that they take that seriously and implement all of the measures that are specified both from the dust plan as well as conditions of approval we will be monitoring all of that through the duration of work there'll be a sign posted at the entrance to the facility that sign will provide contact information I'm happy to share my personal cell phone number with the members of the public that live around the site they can call me anytime if there's a concern the jurisdictional body that technically has the most enforcement authority if you will relating to dust is the air district and so if neighbors do contact the air district what typically happens in that process is the air district will send out one of their employees to inspect the site and if the air district has a concern about something that's happening they would have the ability to stop work but in addition to that they'd have the ability to levy fines and take other enforcement action as appropriate the district has rules that relate to fugitive dust and so we can't have that fugitive dust leaving the property line period so we are aware of those requirements moving into truck trips so there was a question and a concern about the number of trips so it is true that on average there would be about 60 incoming truck loads of material per day this material is important to set the final cover and bring in topsoil materials so that we can actually revegetate the ckd area when we're finished with the work that we're doing on average that that works out to about one truck every five to ten minutes they'll be coming into the site and the trucks are going to be coming from the same source location so when when the trucks are getting loaded at that facility they have to go through certified truck scales and stop and talk to the scale master and get ticketed so that by itself creates sort of a staggered delay in the amount of time that it takes each truck to get on to the roadway make its way to the site and enter the site so we're not expecting to see any backup of truck traffic at the facility entrance unless there was a backup of traffic already happening for some other reason on highway one out front then you might see you know a few trucks in queue waiting to get into the site but we are going to keep those trucks off of the portions of cement plant road that pass by any of the residences and the community that surround the site I do want to clarify um uh one of the responses that David gave you about the use of warnella road so our goal or proposed use of warnella is really more about being able to mobilize certain pieces of construction equipment to the north end of the project for example to the north pond area it is not intended to transport large volumes of material via warnella road those materials that are incoming to the site are going to pass through the main gate for the most part there might be rare exceptions for that for example when we're importing bentonite clay material in small quantities that goes to the north pond area to set the clay liner they might come up from that location but the hauling that we're talking about these heavy truck trips these would be coming through the main gate so further weekly construction meetings so those are not only already planned but they are actually an obligation of the water board pursuant to the order for this project so we will be having a weekly construction meeting i will personally be overseeing that meeting the contractor and our quality control contractor is going to be golder associates will all be participating during this weekly construction meeting we will be taking minutes from each of these meetings and i i traded message with miss andrews from from semex and we would be willing to communicate our progress on the project on a weekly basis to the community we're happy to do that but i think that was a great suggestion uh commissioner gordon asked a couple questions about the geotechnical review and inspections for the project i think david did a nice job addressing the review aspect of that it the project materials including the geotechnical report went through extensive review by the county geologist and um mr parks for the planning department together uh took a look at those materials they ultimately issued their opinion that those materials were were deemed acceptable and that they were discussed in the environmental document in the mitigated negative declaration but we do have an obligation uh once again through the water board order that we have a third party that is not affiliated with the design engineer or with semex that oversees and certifies the construction of this work and so golder associates has been selected to serve as that third party certifying entity we refer to them as the uh construction quality assurance officer so that's the role that they fulfill or or in short cqa officer so they will have full-time on-site construction observation uh for this project and at times they will have multiple persons on-site fully observing all of the work that's happening the geotechnical aspects of the work such as the soil nail wall or slip support system at the bottom end of the cement kiln dust area that's going to be stabilized is also going to be subject to special inspection uh both by the county through the building division as well as by boulder personnel um as special inspection agency so those are in addition to the requirements that the water board is actually imposed through the adoption of the order the county has its own set of requirements relating to the issuance of the building permit for the structural aspects of the project that require special inspection and the county is always welcome to come out to the site and inspect as well so that could be a planning division official or it could be a building division official um that is sort of baked into the entitlement that you would be granting to us I think I think I've covered the questions that came up and if there are other questions I'm I'm happy to address those as well uh Commissioner Dan I see you're raising your hand yeah thank you um I guess I just was curious um this is the only ckd pile I've ever been familiar with myself um has your firm remediated other similar I mean have you been involved in other similar projects like this we have been involved with similar projects absolutely but not cover systems specifically for cement kiln dust okay because to be honest it's not that often that a cement plant undergoes this type of a closure process these cement plants are usually in operations for generations quite literally like this one was and we have done similar projects where we've remediated and closed mine sites that have cover systems on them um so my background actually before we started our company I worked for granite construction that's headquartered in Watsonville just down the street from you so I was there for nine years and involved with similar projects for granite um in my low rearing construction okay great so with that I think we can move into our sort of official short presentation that we had for you there's only six slides in total including the cover slide and three of them are just photographs just to give you a feel for what certain areas of the site look like so next slide please okay before we get any further and I think it's a good opportunity just to share what is ckd material because some of you may not be very familiar with that so in the manufacturing of cement which is the sort of fundamental building block of making concrete uh the the process of producing that cement or taking the raw material generates some fines and those fines are actually nothing more than the raw materials in smaller fraction that it collected in things like back houses through the exhaust that comes up from the cement kiln and then that material is what was placed into the canyon above the cement plant and it's composed of a combination of ground limestone clay and sand so these are natural materials that we're talking about they're not chemical laden materials or or hazardous waste um in a traditional sense but because they are considered and defined as solid waste under the state of California's regulations we are treating the closure of this facility as a closure of a solid a solid waste land-built facility under title 27 so it has all of those tight requirements for monitoring and for certifications of all the work that is being done the ckd area itself comprises about 18 acres so it is just limited to that canyon above the site and that canyon over time was filled up with these materials uh next slide please so david had these uh this information on this slide already covered in his presentation and i'm not going to go through the details of this unless there are questions but there's just a couple of things i wanted to sort of explain maybe in more layman's terms about what exactly is happening here so in the center of the photograph on the right you'll see an area that's sort of a lighter color it's like it looks like a white that stands out what you're seeing there is ckd materials that are sort of exposed at the surface and there's a large mound of that currently that is on that sort of southwest end of that cq a ckd area and if if you drive by the site from certain angles you can actually get a glimpse of that mound and there'll be a photograph of it later the first step in this process is to level off all of those materials toward the north and so we're going to re-establish a compacted foundation layer that's gently sloping from the north towards the south the maximum slope on that's about 13 percent and it's got a great break crest in it so that the water can flow off to the sides towards the drainage ditches as well we are not producing a new mound of material what we're actually doing is taking the existing mound of material an irregular surface and we're leveling that generally off with positive drainage control to make sure that the water runs on the way that it's supposed to the second thing that we're doing once that layer is set is we're putting down an impermeable liner that's the lldpe liner once that liner is in place we'll be covering the liner with soil and installing the drainage improvements along the perimeter edges of that working down towards the shop area and the retention bond at the base of the project once all those improvements are placed we'll have a final revegetation cap of soil and then the plantings that sort of go over the top of that so we'll have the whole site hydroceded with native grass species and other areas of the the site will actually also have additional plantings for riparian species and trees and shrubs that will be planted at the lower end of the project which is shown as number four on this map it's got a gray or sort of a brown patched line type underneath it that's the lower end of the ckd field in that spot we're installing a slope support system consisting of a soil nailed and shock free cover wall to ensure that that ckd material doesn't mobilize over time and that is one of the structural aspects of the work subject to special inspection next slide please so the the last three slides we have here are just some representative examples of the ckd area and other parts of the project so this is taken from up towards the north pond area looking back towards the plant site you can see in the foreground and middle ground of this picture there is already some grass mostly non-native grass that is over the ckd material and then in the far ground you can see the mound that I was talking about there next slide please here's a closer view of that area where there is some exposed ckd material at the surface including a large mound that you see in the middle of the photo there that's going to be completely removed and placed underneath the liner system in that gently sloping field as I mentioned earlier and all of the tires and plastic sheeting that you see here will be disposed of appropriately offsite by the contractors next slide please this is our our last slide I believe and it's just a photograph of the location where the soil nail wall or the slope support structure is going to go and at the top of the photo is actually that same mound we were talking about that will be removed so that's actually the most visible part of the project site from public access areas is that mound that you're looking at right there that will be gone and everything below that mound in this picture so from that flat terrace which is actually a road that's running across the top of the soil nail area the area below that is where the soil nail wall and shot creek cover is going to go so all of the sort of weedy you know plants that you see here will be replaced by that soil nail wall system as the sort of down gradient structural support for the project in total the area we're working in here is about a half acre so it's not a large area it's 28 000 square feet in total and that concludes the formal sort of presentation we had for you but happy to answer other questions if you have them okay are there any um Elaine do you want to check and see if we have any questions of the applicant at this time and the commissioners are there any questions of the applicant I I do have a question um and I appreciate um Mr Saber's um clear answers to some very technical issues and somebody like me who isn't involved on this in a daily basis and my first exposure I I appreciated your clear answers um I also had a question though for Kerry I believe um or Cory I'm so sorry Miss Andrews um I maybe I overlooked it but I'm I was just curious during the presentation how is this site going to be used after all the remediation has been completed we do not know we do not have any plans for it okay so next does not yeah okay thank you can I uh ask a question yes go ahead commissioner shepherd not two first of all I'd like to commend the applicant and and staff for such a comprehensive excellent presentation that makes relatively complicated and complex processes uh accessible to us this is a big project it's a big combination of very long chapter in our local history and it sounds like it's going to be done carefully and well so thank you for that isn't there any prezoning at all um or thoughts or is that a that a stage like first we get it closed and remediated and then at some future general plan update I mean when will we start to think about what the future of this site is is there you know what are we is it just too soon that's a question for staff for David right thank you um I think I can partially address that and yes there has been some thought about the future use of the site uh just on a very conceptual basis but there is no and there and there is some existing general plan policies that guide that will that will guide that uh any future uses in the in the future but at the present time there is no um there's there's no set plans or ideas about what what the site might be used for in the future the ckd area well um rmc owns part of it the land trust owns part of it so is this something that the county will consider when it's totally remediated actually I can I can partly answer that there actually was a cmax reuse plan that was completed a couple of years ago um but it didn't go through the process of environmental review that would have resulted in general plan and zoning changes um so that's the status of that and and um tpl doesn't own any of the cement plant property they they own some of the ag land that's adjacent to the property okay I was just asking because on we're currently in the remediation and revegetation project for several big quarries in the county but there is general plan in a general direction for what's going to happen to them even though the uh you know the remediation plans are going to take 15 20 years so it's just it's curious the first time I've ever heard you say no we have no idea what we're going to do with it but then this is a one in a this is a very unusual and only time we're ever going to have a closed cement quarry too so um good with that thanks any other um commissioner Gordon uh thank you I just wanted to say a quick thanks to mr saver for that presentation and answering our question so well um and so clearly um something I might have missed is this planning on happening this year or next year since it's been condensed into one season mr Gordon we're hoping to start construction uh by April of this year and finish construction by October of this year thank you all right I don't see any other commissioners raising their hands with questions it is a public hearing if I'm remembering correctly we're still in the middle of a public hearing and this is the opportunity for the public to make comments and again miss drake I'll hand it over to you okay thank you melanie all right so I just wanted to remind members of the public that if you wish to speak you would like to uh you would need to raise your hand by pressing star nine on your telephone and I will call on you by your name or your phone number and I'm seeing that we do have a caller um by the name of allison edwards on the line so I will unmute you have three minutes to speak in please state your name for the record in case you are not the name of the caller good morning or good afternoon allison can you hear me yes okay great sorry um I live this is allison edwards I live in davin court just down wind from the cement plant and um I just wanted to make a couple comments and ask a couple questions um first all of all I just want to say that I think that for this project that dust is the biggest issue because it's a potential health issue the other issues are can impact us in other ways but this is a health issue with the dust so um for us who live here so first of all in regard to working on saturdays I would just ask that they don't do grading on saturdays because if we do see dust happening on a saturday and our and we we don't get in contact with anybody the project manager aren't we're supposed to go to the county or to the air resources board and they're not open on saturday so I would say no grading on saturdays um I would also say starting early is a good idea because that is when it's not windy basically they're starting this project in the windiest time of the year up here it's howling wind north wind blowing towards us from the cement plant so I think being able to work when it's not windy is a good thing um and then and then they need to reduce the work hours when there is extreme wind and I didn't hear them talking about that so I would be interested to hear what they're going to do when the wind really kicks up um and then lastly around the air monitoring it needs to be made available to the people who to publicly to the people who live here so that we can access it real time like Rachel suggested I also want to make sure that that information is available real time to the county and to the air resources board not once a week mitigated through cmex and their contractors because cmex is a huge corporation and I just want that information to go straight to the air resources board I don't want it to go through cmex um I know it's in cmex's interest to get this done as quickly as possible and it's good it'll be good to have it be done and I just want to make sure it doesn't impact all of us who live here and um from a health standpoint negatively so I I just don't know how it's not going to create dust so those are my comments um that's it thank you Allison all right the next caller I will call on has a private line it looks like call in user three um we'll ask you to unmute yourself and we please state your name for the record good afternoon this is Marilyn Garrett and um I'd like to make this factual statement corporations privatize the profit and they socialize the costs who's paying for all this cleanup from cmex that's my opening question and um air monitoring we already know it's toxic that dust flies around and it carries contaminants I recall maybe it was about 10 years ago going to Davenport and hearing Erin Brockovich talk at the school community room about chromium six from the plant and many of you some of you might remember the film Erin Brockovich about the chromium six contamination and the um cancers and other health negative impacts so I'm sure that's going to take place um and I'd like to hear what the planner says about chromium six this sounds like totally toxic project and there aren't plans for future use I think cleanup and remediation are misnomers because these poisons last for for decades often and they end up in our bodies and moving stuff is just moving them somewhere else with all the poisons and when you talk about the words like appropriate disposed of appropriately I just think that's that's ludicrous and I want to leave you with a personal experience to indicate that to me how these contaminants end up in our bodies in 1969 when I was a nursing mother I was in a lawsuit to ban the carcinogenic pesticide DDT a nursing mother's lawsuit we all had DDT in our breast milk I never sprayed with it so the problem is how do we stop the generations of these poisons in the in the first place instead of allowing corporations to destroy the environment and our lives and a good book on that is Sandra Steingraber's book living downstream where she says any college that looks at cancer in the environment it's in thank you Marilyn I'm sorry you ran out of time there um our next caller is um looks like Brian McElroy will you please state your name for the record hello this is Brian McElroy can you hear me yes yes okay so um my comments are I am I live very close to this project when you talk about the closest residents I am one of them I can tell you the noise will be impactful it will be very impactful what's not considered in the noise study is the constant backup bells there will be constant backup bells going off so construction from 7 a.m to 7 p.m is going to be just a din of grinding machinery and backup bells so I would ask that we get some relief in the afternoon I agree that the early morning start is important but I think you can end earlier in the afternoon so I would ask for an ending time of five or six in the afternoon and not running all the way till seven um dust my concern is that we still haven't heard exactly what triggers stopping grading when there is dust I've heard that there have to be mitigation measures in place and that they all have to be in place but I haven't heard what happens when the mitigation measures fail and dust is moving so I'm still unclear how dust will actually be stopped uh is it going to be a certain miles per hour of wind blowing is it going to be a certain amount of dust movement uh it's unclear to me uh hydro um I've brought this up in the public meetings at the time um but the erosion that is north of Davenport that blocks cement plant road I believe is partially caused by the failure of the drainage system above Newtown and I believe that the erosion that has occurred in the two arroyos facing Newtown is partly a result of this project area essentially having filled up with water and water moving subsoil and that modern moving to the west and causing a significant erosion in two arroyos and I think this project is going to have the equipment in place to take action to mitigate that erosion and I think it should be part of the project um I think those are my comments and I would love to hear answers and I would love to be able to have an opportunity to ask questions about those answers in addition to the time that I've been given today and I agree we all want this project done so uh thank you very much thank you Brian okay we will call on um Monica McGuire next please state your name for the record Monica McGuire thank you um so Monica McGuire asking what are the provisions made to extend the summer work uh past October 1st or to begin sooner if if possible because of course geoengineering has been really obvious this whole last fall and winter preventing most rainfall so if if you can see as most people can the lines in the sky then you know we will have changes in the weather according to the geoengineering and maybe you don't have to stop October 1st if you wanted to keep going instead of extending until next year and maybe all of that as well could be information you get through the county who clearly understands and knows um what's going on with it with the way that they ignore the public questions about it so if you could address that um it seems very reasonable um and then the chromium 6 problem plus other contaminant reporting I understand you may have already done all that at previous meetings but I haven't heard it and I would really like to hear how all of that mitigation is being done because that should be real mitigation of course um what we saw was people followed the trucks from the Aftos Village project out to the dump sites and they were just dumping horrendously toxic toxic material directly into the dumps so hearing how that's not going to happen here would be terrific uh otherwise I also really want to hear the answers as to how the public will be consulted um the the people who live there better to make sure that that's really wonderful that Yasha Saber promising to give his cell phone number will actually happen and that people will have the ability to respond and um and get responded to with needs as they come up thank you so much look forward to hearing the answers thank you Monica okay um looking at our list again and of people who may wish to speak on this item and I wanted to remind everyone that you would raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone if you wish to speak and I'm seeing a caller with the last four digits 2915 can we please see your name for the record hello this is Becky Steinbruner can you hear me yes we can good afternoon Becky thank you good afternoon and thank you for the presentation I've joined a little bit late but I hear and uh the the residents concerns about dust what I would like to see built into condition of approval is that there be a specific wind speed established that when that um that level of wind occurs all grading must stop and not have any subjective uh discretion at all in that matter so I would like to suggest that that be added in as a condition of approval a specific wind speed and the residents will be your best source of information for that and I would defer to them thank you very much that concludes my comment thank you Becky okay let me see if we have any other callers who wish to speak on this item and I am not seeing any chair I think we're I think that concludes the public hearing list of callers and I think you're muted um I believe that it's appropriate for the applicant to respond at this time okay so Cory would you like to respond or shall we have uh yasha going to defer to yasha sorry I interrupted you oh that's okay defer to yasha okay yes I'm going to defer to yasha okay all right it's like I am unmuted now thank you so I wrote down the questions the best I could as I heard them here and so I'll sort of go through an order uh miss edwards started by of course sharing her concerns with dust being the number one issue and again understandable that would be the primary concern asked for no grading on Saturday so while she was speaking I actually did pull up our construction schedule I do not think we can accommodate completion of this project in the year 2021 if we cannot grade on Saturday so the construction schedule includes about 50 days worth of grading activity um and all of the work that follows the grading is very tightly scheduled with pretty much zero float in the schedule to meet the water board's requirement that we finished by October 1st that comes back to another question that we had received um miss mcguire I think suggested perhaps there would be provisions to start earlier or finish later and that is something we've already thought about and it requires water board approval we are going to be talking to the water board about that possibility but there's been no formal approval given by them to do so the weather can be variable and I agree it does seem like things have been drier than normal and I really hope they continue that way because any significant delays on this project will will jeopardize the ability to finish in a single year which is really why we're asking for flexibility more than anything it's not necessarily a guarantee that there will be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. construction activity or that there would be six days per week every week necessarily um but the flexibility we would appreciate maintaining so that we can keep to this schedule uh let's see there was uh additional questions about the dust monitoring information so the way these dust monitors work so that by the way the dust monitoring plan was reviewed by the air district and so the semics coordinated with the air district in preparation of that before it was ever sent to the water board and was determined to be an acceptable plan those dust monitors when we say they collect information continuously that is true they continuously record readings and those readings get sent to a laptop on the property but it's it doesn't get uploaded automatically into some cloud that that everybody has access to if there was continuous monitoring to be done that would have to be done by the air district for example themselves to to be able to do that but once the information is submitted to the county and to the air district that information is publicly available so the public would have the right to obtain that information and if somebody wanted that information directly from us a little bit sooner then they could contact us and and I don't see any reason why we couldn't provide that Marilyn I didn't catch her last name apologies for that but asked about who is paying for this cleanup and semics is paying for this cleanup 100% both for the portions of the CKD closure that are happening on semics owned property as well as the portions that are occurring on TPL owned property semics is paying for the construction contractors the CQA officers are paying for construction management team including myself the biological monitors and all of the consultants and technical experts that have weighed in and will be participating in this project Mr. McElroy raised concerns about noise and particularly from backup alarms and it is true that construction equipment for safety purposes often does have these audible backup alarms and I can't commit today that that we would not use those but what I can do is speak with our contractor about the use of potentially the use of silent alarms which are more of sort of light flash systems in lieu of the louder audible system so I can ask that question but but we can't commit to that at this moment. Mr. McElroy also raised questions about or concerns about the erosion that's been observed in the Newtown area. Mr. Carlson from the county actually presented this question to us in the past and we did look at this topographically there's a grade differential between the project area where the CKD field is and the watershed that would move down into the Newtown area so that the CKD area actually is not a contributing watershed to those areas where erosion has been observed and we will be containing all of the drainage and hydrology comes off of this project in fact we just got confirmation from the hydrologic engineers that are working on this project that have to present the the stormwater pollution prevention plan and notice of intent to the water board that there's actually going to be a significant net reduction in flow off of this project when it's completed by about six to seven cubic feet per second which is pretty pretty significant so we actually have less water coming off in the finished condition here. Ms. McGuire and I think at least one other person had asked about Chromium 6 we have no reason to believe there's any Chromium 6 in this material so once again back to the second slide of our presentation which explained what CKD material actually is it is just finer grain fractions of the raw materials that are used in cement manufacturing process so it's the limestone material that came from the body dune quarry some clay and some sand material and those are some of the basic raw materials that go into cement that is the only thing that was deposited in the CKD area is those raw materials that are used in that process elemental chromium can be found in trace concentrations in natural stone in the state but elemental chromium is very different from Chromium 6 which is not much less common form as far as the wind speeds go in relation to grading activity so again it's an item that was coordinated with the air district before the dust mitigation plan was ever turned into the county and incorporated as a mitigation measure due to the coastal environment that we're working in both Semex's team the technical team that prepared that plan as well as the air district agreed it is not feasible to set an explicit limitation on wind speed for this project that is what the dust monitors are there for in these ambient dust monitor collection sensors is to remove the subjectivity about whether there is exceedances of dust or not it sort of takes the guessing out of the equation and the monitors will record that information and that information will be provided and once again Semex would be subject to enforcement action either by the air district or by the county if there's an issue so while wind speed is not a feasible limitation there are all of the other best management practices that are required pre-wedding construction surfaces use of the water trucks visual observation for any dust the ability to stop work I would have the ability for example to stop work if at any time I observe visible emissions they're leaving the property so I think I've addressed the questions that have come up but if I missed something please let me know and I'll try to address that as well could I ask a question yes go ahead would the applicant or I guess I can't remember who the applicant is anymore anyway would the project be adverse to putting a condition in that silent alarms the flashing lights alarms for backups be used whenever possible or as feasible but be required in some way that's a question for David actually how could we push it a little farther and say if silent alarms can be used they should be the flashing light ones they were they were very they're very effective especially since there's not tons of people going to be walking around up there the only hesitation that I would have with that is a lack of clarity about the actual legal requirements for these safety measures to be in place on a construction site there's OSHA requirements for safety measures on construction sites and they require certain warning measures and to tell you the truth honestly I'm not clear on whether you could uh legally you use an alternative to a backup beep right I know that there's alternatives out there but but we would have to do some investigation on that well maybe the applicant speaking for the quarry group can speak to that I know though flashing lights have been around now for 15 years so it's not exactly new technology are they getting used are they part of the infrastructure of your catalog of environmental remediations you can use they are used often in the mining industry in particular at night time during night operations they're not commonly employed during the day because they lose their effectiveness well you're going to be working before it gets light anyway aren't you no in fact we we cannot we cannot work before it's light because we have strict requirements on this project for the monitoring for California red-legged frog so we have to be able to have daylight conditions before we work okay well it doesn't sound like it's going to go anywhere but I understand the person who lives close to the quarry asking for looking into it in a fairly serious way because anything you can do to minimize incessant hours long beep beep beeps it can drive you crazy and I realize this project needs to get done but I think anything we can do to help would if you can look into if you could use them I I would like to ask you to do so we will look at that we will talk to the contractor about it if the silent alarms are some alternative or not are not feasible or could not be used and the other thing we can talk to the contractor about is just minimize the extent they can the amount of backing that actually occurs there will be time where it's not it's not feasible to do that but with the flow of traffic on the site and the available space I think we can reduce it but when we're working on placing cover over the liner system for example they're setting out road rows of sort of film material and be a bulldozer involved with that that moves forward moves backward moves forward moves backward that's really unavoidable but we will talk to them about okay thank you commissioner Dan thanks um so I just want to appreciate the applicant particular yasha for your answering all of the questions from the community proactively it gives me a lot of confidence that this is going to go well and I really appreciate your willingness to be available and offering your cell phone and all that I have a couple of questions I just want to go through one by one in that I might depending on the answers you give me I might make some modifications um to the staff recommendation so um so the the hours the work hours so what you were proposing was a 12 hour workday 7 a.m to 7 p.m and how much would it affect the schedule to kind of shave that off in the afternoon by an hour or two I don't think it would affect it very much if provided we can limit that shaving off so for example I think we could work with a 7 a.m to 6 p.m if in the final hour there can be activity that doesn't include heavy equipment operation you would be agreeable to that that would work there's going to be many days commissioner dan where the heavy equipment won't even they wouldn't even want to operate heavy equipment that late into the day but having sort of flexibility to be able to do it particularly during the grading phases is going to be important but we we could commit to a 6 p.m stop on heavy equipment operation that would that would be great um and then so I really appreciate that you agreed to provide weekly updates um so I think I'm going to just add that into the to the conditions if that's okay with you I think that'll be really helpful to the community and then so I'm understanding the the contact person will be you is that was that the suggestion there earlier um it's your phone number that's going to be the one that folks call if they have question or concerns or you and somebody else I think it would be a combination of myself as construction manager and Corey Andrews with CEMEX who is the project director and an environmental manager for the company okay that's correct okay great and um and then if there's Saturday work that you or Corey is are going to be available if people need to give you a call for whatever reason yes so that there would be so that there was a question like well you know what if you're doing work and the county's closed and the airboard is closed they can still get a hold of you or Corey correct okay yes the association has my cell phone as well already so yeah yes I'm glad to provide that to whoever needs it okay excellent thank you um and then the air monitoring so um what I think I heard you say was that um that you you would be able to provide the air monitoring they that you're uploading you would be able to provide that to the community could you so how would that work would that be like on a daily basis or on a weekly basis or do I understand that you know the the data gets uploaded to your your laptop and then you submit it to the airboard in the county um so would then you be able to send that to a contact person in the community so that that is possible so I'll sort of defer to Corey on on what SEMX's comfort level is but when it is transmitted it would probably be transmitted by email for example to the air district and to the county at the same time and um others can be added to that distribution for example but I defer to Corey yes so the air district only one at the data once a week um that was their recommendation if we do provide it to the public I don't know that someone would want to look at it on a daily basis um or that they would know this community very well yeah very well might be people that would or that well or that they would understand it well enough um to um so well I want to let's just assume that there would be somebody who would want to look at it and there are people who would be able to understand it is that something that SEMX would be willing to do we we could provide it as long as the computer could produce that in a um provideable form um okay so I'm just not sure like once the monitors give us the data it's on the laptop and then how do we get that off to like is it how difficult is that to get off and then send somewhere else it's not only hesitation okay how about this as it sounds like um a little more thought needs to go into this how about this then if I um craft a direction that um is going to ask you and and yasha to me with the community to discuss how to best get that air monitoring data to the community in a way that works for them of course we're glad to meet with the of course we're glad to meet with the community at any time but the intention here is that um that any any data that you know is recorded is going to be made available of course yes I understand yes okay so that's that's the clear intention here um and I think oh and then one last thing so it sounds like that the Warren Ella road really isn't going to be used for heavy truck traffic I mean my concern here and I forgot to address this in my first round of questions um is that if there's any damage to that road that um usually you know when there's a project and then and the project you know damages the road then the road is repaired after um was there I didn't see anything in this staff report that addressed that but then I heard I think I also heard you say that Warren Ella was really wasn't going to be used that much so um could you address that so the use of Warren Ella would be for mobilizing equipment primarily so uh for instance if we need to mobilize an excavator to the north area you would have a low bed track during that takes that excavator up along Warren Ella so the excavator doesn't have to track walk all the way up the CKD field which is hard on the equipment so that would be sort of the scenarios in which you would see that the other scenario would be for importing the bentonite clay material it would be used as a liner it could be more efficient to move that up Warren Ella but even on that material it could probably be transported in from the main gate we are not intending to bring in heavy truck traffic onto Warren Ella for the imports of the general cover topsoil material for the project okay okay okay thank you um after my fellow commissioners speak I can make a move okay so um we're about ready to close the public hearing and I'm assuming that commissioners have no further questions of the applicant or staff at this point um so we'll go ahead and close the public oh yes sorry I did have one last question um I appreciate every all the other commissioners responses and I agree with that direction that sounds like we're headed I just wanted to be really clear if there's a problem during the day there's a wind event or something like that that happens the communities have an issue there's a lot of dust maybe you guys can't shut it down right away like like or I guess I just want to be clear that like you guys are on top of it so the community feels that if they call you because they are having issues that you know you're going to be there for them right like shut down like is it that kind of thing like hey it's when you were going to shut down for two hours and you're going to just know that and maybe there's a channel where you can communicate that to the community immediately so you you know maybe you don't need to field 100 phone calls that's that is our sort of plan and our expectation if there's a problem we're going to stop until we fix it absolutely and and if they're so in terms of how we communicate that to the community most effectively I think that speaks to Commissioner Dan's recommendation that we meet with the community to talk about that maybe there's a primary point of contact we communicate with regularly to disseminate that information great thank you so much for explaining that I appreciate it that was all my questions okay great so I think at this point we will close the public hearing and I would like to check in with fellow commissioners and staff um it's 115 um we have a couple of options we can keep on going and then take a lunch break after our vote um or we can take a lunch break now and come back and have a motion and discussion what I'd rather I'd rather um conclude this item first I think we can get through it in a couple minutes right I agree with you okay if that's all right with everybody else um then maybe it's appropriate for you to make a motion yeah and then let the rest of the commission weigh in on it once you have the motion yeah sure I can do that um so I'll move the staff recommendations with the following changes that the work for this project occur between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. and everything else will leave as is and then I want to add to condition uh Roman numeral 4d on page 48 um at the end of that paragraph that we add weekly updates on project progress be provided to the community through a designated contact person I'm going to suggest the dnca did you say for f on page 48 I d I think it's for Roman numeral 4d yeah where that it's the paragraph about a contact person be designated okay so that weekly updates on project progress be provided to the community uh through a designated community network one suggestion would be the dnca and then period and then another sentence that the contact person project ran this company by uh rena can you mute yourself sorry thanks um and then the next sentence that that the contact person project director be available Monday through Friday during work hours and Saturdays during work hours and that the number be provided to the Davenport north coast association and also the third district supervisors office and then the last part of the motion is that um that the c mix project directors meet with uh designated community members in order to work out the best way to provide the air monitoring data directly to the community in the the best way our most expeditious manner awesome and then let me just say um or I'll wait for a second and then I just want to make one more comment go ahead well well I don't think I heard a second yet oh okay sorry is there a second I'll second it okay so let me just second it now we can have a discussion thank you um I just want to um say I'm really thrilled that this project is occurring this ckd pile has been an eyesore as long as I've lived in this community um you know it's um when you go up up Warren Ella you get an a beautiful panoramic view um except for that ckd pile well and the PGD substation but um so I truly look forward to um the remediation of this and I know that the community um shares that any other discussion um I would like to add kind of build on what commissioner Dan said in regards to I feel that the representatives uh the applicant representatives today have indicated a responsiveness to the community that I think will be continued they seem genuine and very informed and educated and concerned about the community so I have a high degree of comfort that this will be continued um during the process so uh we've got a motion that's been seconded and discussed and I believe we'll have a roll call on that motion okay commissioner shepherd yes commissioner shiver frittis yes commissioner uh Gordon yes okay and commissioner Dan yes great motion passes great okay so we're going we still have another item on the agenda item number eight um and I'd like to propose that we take a 45 minute lunch break that would are 40 minute that would bring us back at two o'clock is that comfortable for everybody yeah that works for me okay so we'll reconvene at two o'clock and this will be a continuation at two o'clock of the public hearing for February 24th and item number eight thank you thank you thank you do we have everybody on board I'm here I'm here I see Kim yep ready to go all right okay so we are um changed rooms oh okay um are you all settled in uh yeah let me check in with everyone here and it is 202 and I see we have commissioner Dan commissioner shepherd commissioner Gordon and commissioner shaper frittis um and we have mr. Zezweta who is presenting on the last item so chair shall we reconvene today's planning commission hearing the hearing of February 24th yes well we reconvene it and we will start with item number eight which is a study session to consider the wireless communications facilities ordinance amendments and um um for the public's information we will be receiving public comments on this as I understand uh this afternoon after the staff report is that correct yes that's correct okay all right so um we'll start the study session then with um a staff report please thank you very much chair good afternoon everybody I am Daniel Zezweta I am the assistant county council for the county of Santa Cruz and I'm working with the planning department to update our wireless communication facility code sections now this is a study session and this is going to be one of several study sessions that we are going to bring different sections of these code updates to the planning commission for a study session eventually for a review and recommendation to the board and then eventually to the board so this is going to be a long process so I just want you all to kind of be aware of that strap in it's going to be a long season um this is a complicated area of the law complicated area of regulations but if we do this carefully and together we can make it through I'm confident that we will make it through and we'll have some good updates first all to follow um now I wanted to start this off um this states that it's uh I saw a public comment issued this is section 1310663 of the Santa Cruz county code now this obviously is a study session we're not adopting any ordinances today this also is a placeholder when we are doing our code modification or code updates this is going to be kind of the new 663 that doesn't mean that the current 663 is is gone forever it's just meaning they're all getting reshuffled this is going to be a placeholder for section 663 modifications to wireless communication facilities and specifically this section is about eligible facilities requests and we chose this section number one because it's one of the easiest sections to start out with this is kind of the appetizer or the first course if you will of a long series of code amendments that we're going to introduce dealing with wireless communication facilities um now this was like I said the easiest one to start out with because really we already have regulations in the county dealing with eligible facilities requests they're just not codified we have our administrative guideline practice guidelines that we wanted to adopt into code so I'm going to read the purpose section here I'm sub subsection a eligible eligible facilities requests so this section and I see it on the slide here it's kind of cut off but if you're able to follow along subsection a I'm not quite sure why it's cut off I apologize but it it says this section implements section 6409 subsection a of the middle class tax relief and job creation act of 2012 as interpreted by the federal communications commission which requires the county to approve any eligible facilities requests for modification of transmission transmission equipment of an existing tower or base station submitted with a written request for approval under section 6409 subsection a that does not result in a substantial change to the physical dimensions of such tower or base station and basically what we're talking about here is when we say modifications we're talking about co-location removing equipment or replacing equipment right this is not about new towers new facilities these are just you know replacing removing and then co-locating on an existing tower or base station so existing is very key to this code section as I mentioned we are codifying wcf 05 now the reason why it's also important to codify this eligible facilities requests section is because we've been having some recurring issues with applicants who will submit an application without payment and then that starts the clock ticking which we'll get to in a bit of our review now we have a practice here at the county that unless we get paid we're not going to review anything because that's kind of how things are done and unfortunately there's been a disconnect between how carriers or applicants will submit something and then submit to their finance department to pay the county and it usually overlaps you know there's a month discrepancy so we've run into some problems where we have applications that are submitted without payment and really what we want to do here is make sure that that's crystal clear in our code language that we must receive payment in in addition to the application for it to be submitted next slide please so we're going to start off with the federal communications commission um this is an independent united states agency and it's basically in charge for regulating communications across the united states they have jurisdiction over telecommunication services and they regulate telecommunication services um under title two of the communications act of 1934 there's also the telecommunications act of 1996 that is very instructive um basically what we're dealing with here is and this is one of the reasons why i wanted to give this presentation to start us all off um the federal communications commission and the united states congress has has limited what local jurisdictions can do with regard to communications wireless communications facilities in particular now the telecommunications act of 1996 it preserves state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for wireless communication facilities but it also gives very specific limitations on that authority um and i wanted to kind of go through that here so it's clear to the commissioners and to the public um local governments cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services it may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence and a written record so basically what that means and that's coming from section 332 subsection c subsection seven of the telecommunications act of 1996 and basically what's saying is that any applicant who's going to put up wireless towers or services facilities has to be treated equally among other um functionally equivalent services so anybody else is up up there uh providing services be it wireless be it other communication services they have to be regulated in the same way and we cannot implement regulations that functionally prohibit such services so we can't really put any roadblocks in our code that is somehow going to be sneaky and trip these guys up and say oh well sorry you didn't a block you didn't abide by these very specific roadblock provisions and therefore you can't put up any of your communications facilities so they're very specific in the language here and one other point that i think is really instructive is that the telecommunications act also provides a preemption so low preemption in terms of what we call radio frequency emissions and this is a very sensitive topic and i understand that we will hear a lot of public comment on this and and rightly so because this is a very sensitive issue and it's one that i wanted to make very clear to the commissioners and to the public that the telecommunications act of 1996 preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions or rf emissions assuming that the provider is in compliance with the federal communications commission rf rules um now i say this because this is something that um i wanted we're not going to talk a lot about radio frequency emissions today um and that's something that we really aren't going to talk about too much in the future other than the conditions that we put into our regulation so so let me back up a second i wanted to kind of state clearly that local hands are tied when it comes to regulating radio frequency emissions that's just something that the federal government has made very clear that they want to preempt that field so any safety issues with regard to radio frequency emissions needs to go to federal representatives like senator diane feinstein senator uh alex padilla local representatives uh jimmy panetta or ana eschew those are the folks who need to hear concerns about radio frequency emissions local governments cannot weigh in on the safety of radio radio frequency emissions the one thing that we can control here at the local level is we can retain the right to determine compliance with FCC regulations concerning radio frequency emissions so say that again our local government can retain the right to determine compliance with FCC regulations regarding radio frequency emissions we cannot deny or question the safety of rf emissions in our decision making process um i'm happy to revisit that and uh later on the conversation um but i bottom line we have control over the location of a facility and the aesthetics or what a facility looks like the construction and the modification of that facility but we cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers and we cannot weigh in on the safety of rf emissions that is not what is the board is not sorry the commission is not authorized to weigh in on that the board of supervisors are not authorized to weigh in on that on those concerns so um you know i like i said i know this is a sensitive subject i know that uh we're going to hear a lot about it and i and i applaud the public for voicing i mean that's what public comment is all about that's the beauty of our government is that we get a chance to voice our opinions and voice our concerns and be heard by our local officials and so i applaud everybody who's going to speak today but i also wanted to make it clear that commissioners do not have the authority to weigh in on the safety of rf emissions and and you know that is something where um commissioners also if you have any questions about that i'm happy to answer after um we do the presentation uh next slide please and i guess i would like to also as you say here the goal here with with wireless communications facility is is to strike a balance right we have applicants residents local businesses schools first responders local officials everybody has to be satisfied with the right balance of of regulations it's very difficult to do but we want to make sure that we are um citing these facilities in a timely manner and preventing any unnecessary visual obtrusive facilities and that's pretty much the name of the game here all right so the spectrum act as as noted in my staff report who are in our staff presence a um is part of this omnibus bill that is the middle class tax relief and job creation act of 2012 uh as with a lot of federal legislation you get tons of different provisions that have nothing to do with the title of the bill um and so this spectrum act or specifically 6409 subsection a was meant to expedite the availability of spectrum for commercial mobile broadband or in plain english as i pointed out it's to make it easier for wireless carriers to deploy more wireless infrastructure without too much local intervention so 6409 was intended to spur the creation of a wireless communications network limiting local authority over the review and timing of this process uh 6409 actually has uh go to the next slide please actually has in the language of the of the bill and i apologize this says the FCC provided this is actual language from 6409 or from the spectrum act i should say and it states very clearly local governments may not deny and shall approve any eligible facilities requests for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station now that is pretty clear language that we may not deny and we shall approve eligible facilities requests for modifications within specific uh within specific criteria right so the FCC has since this language came out issued orders that clarify kind of what what we're supposed to do here kind of clarifying there's been lots of lawsuits there's been other subsequent orders promulgating rules to clarify all right what what are local jurisdictions what's what are the rules of the road for the local jurisdiction to site these different wireless communication facilities next rule next slide please so of those rules i'm going to focus on three different aspects and that is kind of reflected in our code today so first we'll talk about the the 60-day shot clock second we'll talk about what exactly are substantial changes and then we'll talk about any additional requests for information under section 6409 subsection a next slide please and so before we get started this is after the purpose section we have subsection b and c of the proposed code section this just goes through the application and review process i want to point out that at the very bottom of subsection b we added the language and application will not be accepted as submitted without payment of required fees now that is something that we found to be very important to spell out in our code so that applicants are on notice and they understand that they need to pay the fee with the submission of their application so that can start our process of review and subsection c is really just something that's already been in our regulations that we're codifying here that it's a level three review permit next slide please all right the shot clock so shot clock i've become so used to this word or this this phrase but it's funny when you think about it you know it's taken from basketball right this this idea that you have this countdown this timer so when you have a application to modify an existing structure or existing wireless communications facility or base station you basically have 60 days to do it and if you don't if the county doesn't review and approve within 60 days it's deemed granted meaning that too late you missed the deadline it's approved and i'll go through that in a little bit more detail in the next slides so but the idea being the federal government wanted to take the red tape out of the equation because i think what had happened in some jurisdictions is you get an application and sits on a shelf and folks don't really get to it after a while and then you have months and months of waiting so the powerful communications lobby said hey you know that's not good enough we need to we need to get deployment of our wireless communications network and we're hitting a lot of roadblocks so let's start this shot clock at 60 days and that's something that was clarified in 2014 through an FCC order next slide please and through that order in 2014 FCC set up similar if not very identical shot clock rules and this is as we say that the timeline for review so this is i go through this in the staff report i'm not going to read everything here but these are the proposed code sections dealing with the shot clock basically you have 30 days or sorry the county has 30 days to review and then provide written notice to the applicant that we have received the application and if there's anything missing any information missing required in the application we have to tell them within that first written response so if 30 days to review and provide a receipt and written response to the applicant and during that time we have to delineate all the missing documents or information that we need to process the application i'll get into it a little bit later but the information that we are requesting is limited so after we have sent this first written response that pauses or tolls the shot clock so then the shot clock is paused after we've done that within 30 days then the applicant has time to receive our correspondence and provide whatever missing information and if they send a the the supplemental submission the second supplemental submission sorry second submission the county will then have 10 days that'll start the shot clock but when we when we receive that they'll have 10 days to review and and then request any other or sorry any information that was identified in the original notice if that's still missing then we can tell them hey you know you're still missing this we can send it back to them within 10 days and that will pause the clock again to which once we received a subsequent submission that will start the clock again so if i don't know if that's confusing but basically anytime that we send out a notice that'll pause the clock within this time frame next slide please so if additional information requests the only information that we can request for eligible facilities requests right these modifications for co-location replacement or removal of facilities is to determine whether they are eligible facilities requests right so we can't ask them a bunch of other information that's unrelated to determining whether or not they qualify under section 6409 subsection a so any during that 30 day written response hey we need more information that information is limited to only making a determination is whether or not this request qualifies as an eligible facility next slide so this subsection f this kind of talks about that whether or not it qualifies under section 6409 and if it doesn't then the regular shot clocks will apply for if in other words if it's not an eligible facilities request then the other FCC promulgated rules regarding shot clocks will kick into gear which is 60 days or 100 sorry 90 days or 150 days depending on what the project is next slide please all right so what is the substantial change i think this is kind of the meat of the whole ordinance or proposed code amendment here is what can what is considered substantial change when you're talking about modifying existing tower modifying existing facility or base station so give you a second to see the pretty pictures that provided here with some kind of ideas of what some of these facilities look like sometimes it's a pole with this cylindrical antenna on top sometimes there are these in the middle you have you know so many different little antenna kind of array around a base station sometimes they're building mounted stations and you can see how they're constructed how they're painted if they're going to add something to one of these towers or one of these structures is that a substantial change so next slide please so subsection g goes through what is considered a substantial change again i'm not going to read every word here but you have six subsections under subsection g that talks about towers outside of public rights of way towers inside public rights of way and for all base stations and for installation of new equipment cabinets for example whether or not there's any excavation or deployment outside of the current site whether or not the proposed modifications would defeat existing concealment elements of the tower base station and whether or not they comply with the prior approval of the tower base station next slide please so defeating concealment or stealth of the tower or existing base station that is something i think that is a little bit more nuanced now because obviously it's it seems like it can be very subjective so the FCC provided clarification that said to defeat concealment or stealth of the proposed modification it must cause a reasonable person to view the structures intended stealth design as no longer effective after the modification and here's some some photos from around the country of different stealthing or concealment efforts for these wireless facilities sometimes they're trees sometimes they're water towers i'd never seen the cactus one before that's interesting i don't think that would work here in santa cruise but maybe the bomb tree i don't know next slide please and finally the failure to act this is the deemed grant provision so basically if we blow the shot clock and do not get to the applicant in time um then this kicks into gear and and stating that the deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the applicable reviewing authority in writing after the review period is expired accounting for any tolling that the application has been deemed granted next slide and that is the presentation hopefully short and sweet happy to take any questions you might have thank you very much um i can see it helps to have your sense of humor as a staff person who we would all be done yeah yeah i really appreciate it um are there any questions of staff at this time from commissioners i i was just wondering i i do remember we've had applications for wireless towers in the past um and the shot clock was always a big deal and i was wondering if you could just maybe give an example because you had various time frames if applications were deemed incomplete the first time the second time could you just take us really quickly through an application that is submitted on january 30th say or a certain day and and it's bound to be incomplete then at what point and how long is the shot clock from that point so um that's tricky because uh february only has 28 days so you're throwing me a curve ball oh oh take another tune i'm kidding i'm kidding it doesn't matter um so let's say there's a submission on january 30th um and they've paid right so we we consider it to be submitted that's currently something that is not codified so that's something we would like to get codified sooner rather than later um so we have 30 days to take a look at the application and then determine whether or not there's anything incomplete if we have any questions about determining whether or not this is an eligible facilities request um for example um if we have questions about the stealthing or about the concealment elements or um we have questions about well how high exactly is it that this new antenna that you're gonna attach to this tower how high is it going to be really and is it still going to be concealed with a reasonably reasonable person so anything dealing with um questions that we might have about whether or not this is an actual eligible facilities request meaning that we may find that there is a substantial change so we want to ask some questions related to that substantial change so within the month of february after we received it hypothetically on january 30th we'd want to get back to them in writing again we have 30 days to get back to them with an initial response that we hey we've received this we've reviewed it and here are the number of things that we have questions about whether or not this is an actual eligible facilities request then that pauses the shot clock right um and they could sit on it for as long as they want really i mean there's no rule about when they have to send it back to us so that it you know goes through their departments obviously they want to get this project underway so it's it behooves them to sit on it for too long but they'll respond to us and likely they respond pretty quickly sometimes they'll just respond in a day or two which is you know not much respite for a very weary review team so once they've said hey you know they answered all of our questions they've sent us a response to our initial 30 day written response that will start the clock again we have then 10 more days to review their response and if there's still some questions that we have about eligibility then within that 10 days we have to send a second response and then once that second response is out it will stop the clock again until they send it back to us so really when you're looking at it you have 40 days to kind of formulate these responses within the shot clock and then after we were received the second there could be actual more you know if we're still not if we're still not satisfied we can really just call them up and say hey you know what we're still not getting the information that we need and and we can reach an agreement to continue to toll but we still need to turn around those those concerns quickly right that's not something where we want to get their response and then sit on it for another 30 days so the idea being that we get into some trouble if it gets lost in the shuffle or if we don't act on it quickly um we'll get these nice letters from carriers saying you know hey time's up um you know it's deemed granted and we're just giving you notice under 6409 up section A and we've gotten you know a bunch of those letters and so then I have to get on the phone right to their counsel and say hey you know there was a misunderstanding we didn't receive payment there was this or that um you know a lot of times these there's no problem with these modifications but we can get into trouble if we genuinely have questions about them and we want them answered but if the shot clock is running and we aren't kind of on top of it then we'll run out of time to ask our questions okay yeah thank you sounds like a lot for staff oh yeah they um they don't really get a break yeah any other questions from commissioners yes I had a question go ahead I was wondering um is it possible that you could prepare an informational brochure and I don't mean a long thing but just like a folder you know thing page folded in half like you have so many of them that would tell people what would give people a general idea of what control the county does or doesn't have like the very fact that we really cannot address health issues it would save everyone a lot of time at hearings I understand people's frustrations and strong intellectual and emotional feelings about this issue but it seems a shame at hearing after hearing public comes with impassioned pleas to us to do anything about it and we have to kind of say that's not within our purview at least something so from the get-go when they they would you know there there's a public document over what control the county does and doesn't have I think I would like to see that just to shorten the planning commission hearings if nothing else you know I I agree I think that would be helpful to have something on our website to provide something to the public to outline just exactly what we are authorized to do you know it's it's such a complicated issue right I mean people take it very seriously and they should right it's it's it's where we live and you want to make sure that you're living in a safe location you see tears you see people who are you know at a loss of of what they can do and unfortunately it puts you all in a very difficult position because you cannot do anything about it right your your hands are tied like I said you just local governments do not have the authority to act but um yes and our local government has offices for our federal legislators and that's where they should go and they should know that so they can feel empowered to go there so it's not just saying we can't do anything it's saying here's who can do something go talk to them that's right and unfortunately the House of Representatives and the Senate don't have office public comment I was talking about our local our senators and congressmen do have offices and assist people who listen to the public about issues in their district I was saying in such information as you might put online you would put the contact information for our congressmen and senators yeah and I think that's absolutely right and that's something that most of the public don't realize is that um local representatives have to see you they have to take your visits and your calls and your meetings they have staff to do that taxpayers pay for that right so these questions should be brought up to them to those who can actually influence federal legislation so I absolutely agree um I don't know um to what extent a brochure would list um well I think you could have it online and I would request that you work with the planning director to implement this into the county's website and or paper brochures that happen when people come to the planning department one or both whichever is more effective yeah it's a great suggestion thank you any other questions from commissioners okay well seeing none um we'll go ahead and open the public comment portion of this study session and if I can say one more thing um I know this is a study session but I'd like to get it find out if the other planning commissioners agree with me on asking the planning director and uh to to move toward having more information on what the planning commission can and can't legislate on just so they know when they come here and and and then letting them know that they need to contact the local offices of their federal congressmen and senators I think I think it'd be a really valuable public service I'm not unopposed to it I I I know that in other public meetings um we've all made that same comment um but I'm not opposed to it I don't think it's a bad idea I mean I think that if we're having a public hearing if we're if we're required to hold a public hearing on a wireless item we're going to hear from folks regardless of whether we have any authority to approve it or disprove it or not I I don't disagree with you but I I have said through hours of testimony of people I think it really erodes people's confidence in local government because they feel like we are ignoring them and I think just saying where you can go is your federal officials here's who they are I just think I think it would make sense to do that because it's not only the people who come for everybody comes to a hearing there's these petitions they bring and a lot of people feel strongly about it and they're very frustrated I'd like them to know at least where they can go yeah but I hear you saying it's a very simple brochure that's available in very as plain language as possible yeah like two or three paragraphs and I think it should go up on the county website I just like to know if other commissioners would support that and that would give that as a direction yes I would I don't have as much history as everyone here but I would suggest that that's probably not a bad idea you know you keep the the public informed as much as possible I think there's a lot of other bills that are you know kind of happening especially around housing where this is going to be a bit of a similar conversation and it might be good to be prepped for that for how to deal with those when they come to us because there is there are going to be things where we don't really have as much of a say you know so it's good to be upfront about that I think personally so yeah let me just say I'm not opposed to it at all I just think that you know I'm just trying to be more reality based and I think every staff report I've seen on a wireless facility explains this very clearly and I know that I've explained it to the public too but I think when you're in front of a public body people are going to have their say and regardless of what whether or not we have discretion over certain areas or not but I I'm not opposed to it I think it's it's it's a perfectly good suggestion well I I think you've heard from the other commissioners and they seem to commissioner shepherd I think that they you hear and I don't know if I could use the word endorsement but definitely a green light in doing it well can I ask that some someone on staff takes this the planning director yes I can I can take that to the planning director and we can add that to our work program to create a little brochure I'm wondering if the timing of the brochure might make more sense after we adopt the amendments I mean we can do a very brief brochure that just covers what is and is in our purview and outside of our purview at this time or your purview the decision makers purview um but I do think that with the amendments that we're going to be um bringing forward we're going to be asking the planning commission and the board to um consider changes to what requires discretionary permits so it'd be nice to in the future I think if we do a brochure now I think we're gonna have to revise that which is okay or we could just do a brochure later after we you know do our amendment package that kind of includes you know everything as updated but we can we can do a very short thing now sorry I'm just thinking out loud let's do a short thing now we'll update it to incorporate some of the amended language in the future if that changes what is in our purview after we adopt the package does that sound okay to everybody that sounds fine I just like to get something going if it gets amended later that that's fine okay great right commissioner Dan um thanks I just have kind of a process question um um dan y'all thank you for your presentation um I I think that I heard you say that you're gonna be bringing a bunch of these in subsequent meetings like one section at a time was that did I hear you did I hear that correctly unfortunately you did hear that correctly yes so I guess I'm just I'd like to make a suggestion that we not do it that way and that and I guess let me ask the question first um so I am what why was it um why are we doing it that way instead of just bringing a packet with all of the changes at once it just that just seems like much from my perspective that would be far preferable yeah um that's that's fair point um because why prolong it the the the issue being that it's it's a lot right there's there's a lot of moving pieces that we're not ready to bring to the full planning commission so this piece was ready however the other pieces that deal with small cell deployment that deal with um wireless facilities in the rights of way which we don't have a code that speaks on that um there's also a section of just about the application process in itself so those would be three different sections we I think we can do it in two other I don't think we can do it one more I think that's too much it would be an intact almost entire day it would seem like um but if we can do two other study sessions I think that would be perfect that we could bring you know two sections and then two more sections to finish it off if that makes sense to you am I under I I do understand I understand what you're saying um I guess I would just say two things one I think this commission has taken on a lot of very complicated issues in the past and I think we're we're capable of of you know oh it has nothing to do yeah has nothing to do with your competency I assure you it's it's with the time that we have to get these sections in workable shape that we all agree on and bring them before the commission okay um and so I don't want I'm not trying to be difficult here I just um um so two things then um is there a reason why you we couldn't just wait for all of them to be ripe enough to go in front of us and then we handle all of them at once we could do that I think the idea was we wanted to keep this going um we you know this is something that has been in the works since I got here in November of 2019 seems like there's been talk about updating our wireless code um and it's just it takes a long time and unless we have some very specific deadlines these will get pushed um look I understand it's a fair point we could wait a couple months until we got it all ready and just do it in one one shot um I just think it might be oh sorry go ahead no no that's that's fine go ahead I was just going to say and also it's just easier for the public in some ways like um rather than having to come to multiple meetings for small snippets of it it's kind of like when we get a big EIR we get the whole EIR we don't get like we don't get it in sections you know this is all one project about wireless communication facilities like so I think you know in that sense we should look at it as as a as a whole and then also um and then the second thing is I would also suggest that maybe we don't have study sessions like this one was great like that was just fantastic history and overview and um but for the next ones can we just come with the items and take action instead of having a study session and then action that would be my strong preference I think that's fair the thing with this was the study session is meant to to take your recommendations on hey this doesn't work for example the total height of a new tower that's something that we would like the planning commission to weigh in on so we you know hypothetically have a study session that would that would put forth hey these are the different height limitations that we want to put into code what do you think let us know and then we'll come back with code but I think I'll talk to the planning department folks to determine whether or not it's something that we want to just bring for review and recommendation and that doesn't mean that you can't make changes to it right I mean obviously we have study sessions just this kind of discussing I think it was good to have maybe a good you know intro to what is to come and maybe we have you know maybe we just bring two more sorry two different items the next item well I'm not sure if it's going to be the next item but I feel like and just hear me out is that if we bring them all at once I feel like there may be too much attention given to one section and not necessarily enough so for example we have wireless facilities in the rights of way that's one of the sections that we would like to bring for for review but then again we would also have a section on small cells or a section on kind of application and other review sections and I wouldn't want the rights of way to fall by the wayside and not really get as much feedback I don't know that that's just kind of some thoughts that I have about splitting it up but I think your point is taken I think that there's you know a fair fair argument can be made to go to do either process I guess I also you know one of the main points that you were getting across to us is is how limited our discretion is on these and I think that it almost might create a false narrative that we have more discretion than we have if we're here if we're you know if we're being put in the position to weigh in on things that we really can't weigh in on to a large extent do you see what I'm saying I mean yeah yeah I mean that I see what you're saying and that we're like oh we actually we do we're telling you we don't have any discretion but look we're going to hear this four times so yeah well the the idea would be to bring you things that you do have discretion over right so aesthetics citing those are the things that the county still has control over so we want to get those right and we want to make sure that we hear your voices we hear the voices of the public when it comes to those code sections but that doesn't mean it can't be done in one session doesn't mean we can't do it maybe two sessions but we'll see I mean I would like obviously in a perfect world I would love to bring it all in one one session it's just it's it's it's pretty overwhelming the type of review and then getting it all in a nice package with everything else may I make a comment yeah and let me just finish by saying and I'm I'm happy to go either way and and you know obviously I'll participate in whatever process that you know works best for staff you know taking into account um what also might work best for the public so I just thought I just thought this is this is the purpose of the study session right as I talk about thanks Daniel thank you um I would like to have it be in one session I'd like it to only address things that we have any ability to change or have an influence on things that we can't really change I don't think we need to have long discussions about and that's the important distinction as far as myself as applying commission exactly what do I have discretionary powers in and what is my discretion I'm intellectually interested in all the other bureaucracy that you are dealing with but I don't care deeply about it if it doesn't affect my ability to affect it frankly and in times in element two I still have a full-time job so I'd like to make the best possible use of long hearing so that's what I'm interested in great thank you okay it sounds like you've been given some direction at least staff and I believe it's probably time for us to open the public comment portion um so do you want to go ahead with that um and Dasha sure sure Dasha can I ask um how many people are here to speak I have a hard stop at four o'clock um you know I'm only seeing two people with their hands raised right now three people and probably a total of five unless other people join okay thank you all right so um the chair has opened the public hearing on this item which is the study session for the wireless amendments um and I will call on your name or your phone number by the last four digits of your number and when I do you'll be provided three minutes to speak and when we unmute you please state your name for the record um so we'll start with um the caller with the last four digits two nine one five good afternoon hello this is Becky Steinbruner can you hear me yes we can hello thank you thank you good good afternoon and thank you for bringing this to the public uh commissioner shepherd I really appreciate your request to honor everyone's time and efficiency so thank you for that I really appreciate also that this whole discussion needs to take on as commissioner shepherd has alluded at a focus on what you can do it has been very discouraging as a member of the public to hear uh the planning commissioners the zone zoning administrators the public board of supervisors always begin these hearings saying our hands are tied it sets a mindset that there's nothing we can do when in fact you have lots that you can do and I'm happy to hear that you will in the future focus on that for example I have seen Verizon themselves in alternative analysis discredit any other possible sites that they don't want to use because of the money it would take to develop them they have declared other sites to be a public nuisance and that is public resources code 3479 a public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal that is exactly what you can use and you have people that come who are medically sensitive to um to RF and I know you're thinking we can't go there but this affects the American Disabilities Act you can incite that you can reference that and that has standing you can use your own code 13.10.663 a 3 rich line visual impacts and yet this county allowed a ridge top cell tower above the seventh day Adventist camp it you can use your own code that you have but you have to enforce it and that is the problem when Verizon comes in and threatens a lawsuit everybody backs away because they're afraid but you have the ability to stand up and enforce your own codes you have the ability to enforce your own code to require an onsite mock-up but that is rarely done you have the ability to um require that the applicant submit a detailed analysis of why other sites are not feasible but that is rarely done you have the ability to stand up thank you Becky sorry got caught up there um we'll go to the next caller which is um Monica McGuire good afternoon again Monica you may unmute yourself Dastlin and um I do hope it's more than just five of us who took the time to be here and therefore be able to say sadly none of this was informative we've heard it all many many times as have you but I agree that Becky is giving you specific things that you can do that are not ever talked about for some reason and that's very frustrating as I you know I've been here since the morning waiting to say this and then weighing in on a couple of things but just yesterday the California appellate court upheld that Wi-Fi sickness is a disability so adding to the disability act that you can follow with your ability to not just take a look at what else you could stand up and do as Becky is saying and please consult her please take her incredible prowess into account when you look at what your options are here um because basically the the multiple ways that you have a better ear of the representatives who wholly ignore us you're right we should be able to go to our elected representatives they not only ignore us they they purposely put us down and lie to us about what they can do so you have their ear in a different way and we are really hopeful that by coming to you we help you do your jobs and employ us as part of your jobs if you were to go beyond making a flyer and actually ask for all of us to sign and get signatures to give you a little more power when you go not just to the county representatives but to the state and um and federal ones as you as you mentioned who equally ignore us and use political sly language to get around it all of us have our children and grandchildren's future at stake with this subject we are asking that you stand with us to take a stand where you've been told you're not allowed to you can do more and we would help you do it gladly i feel angry that the paid government representatives put you in this terrible position but you you have a better chance of saying that to them with our supporting you than we do of getting heard also it's completely clear and i'm sorry there's a phone ringing i'll ignore that that this latest um e h s uh as a disability is something you want to look at it was just from yesterday right now um in all kinds of places and my husband as i said earlier dr carl mary is a local expert who can help to come up with more ideas in ways that you can do this and you can reach him by reaching me at monica at monica maguire.com 831-465-1851 please contact us so we can help you better and thank you for your good work i'm so sorry it's so hard thank you monica okay the next caller that um we will check in with um has a private line um calling user six so i will ask you to unmute yourself and please state your name for the record this is naryland garrett and um thank you for becky's and monica's comments if everybody had the attitude oh we can't do anything we would never have abolished slavery or established the right of women to vote if something is wrong and harmful we need to speak up and advocate to change that however we can and i'm looking at the universal declaration of human rights here article three everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person when we are being microwaved harmfully well documented involuntarily we don't have any rights if we don't have the right to help we don't have any rights and i want to play and this is a dictatorship of the horizon and the telecom corporation um saying what to do i want to play let's see if i can do this a little excerpt of a doctor this is dr sharon bulberg testifying in michigan october 2018 against the rollout of 5g before a sentence here and hearing it in the state so here it is this is no longer a subject for debate when you look at pub med and the peer review literature these effects are seen in all life forms plan we have clear evidence of the DNA damage cardiomyopathy which is the precursor of congestive heart failure neuropsychiatric effects the 5g is not a conversation about whether or not these biological effects exist they clearly do 5g is a conversation about unsustainable health why do i say this are you sitting on the evidence for e mr and chronic disease thank you maryland write the next caller that we will uh call on this morning or this afternoon has the last four digits of seven six one seven good afternoon please state your name for the record yes this is winner for thomas i'm assuming you can hear me yes good afternoon hi hi basically all i wanted to say the points have been made but the one point that i don't think you may have it been made is that every single person listening is affected by this you may not think you're having health problems now but you do your blood is not running the way it's supposed to and it's only a matter of time that every single one of you becomes disabled there will be we are coming to a point where we will not be able to support the people who are sick by this i don't care what the what the things are this has got to be stopped period for everyone and yes there are people on this phone call who are willing to help and whatever it needs to be done we just need but you know i'm not if i was a politician i'd be on the board we need guidance and i'd also like to know exactly you said you're putting some information up at a place i would like to know that thank you goodbye thank you very much and it looks like we have another caller so we are getting a couple of calls coming in the last four digits one through six eight i will unmute you good afternoon please just state your name for the record hello my name is Seth Baron can you hear me yes we can hear you good afternoon hi thank you thanks for taking my call and thank you becky and miss mcguire that was very informative and i'm sure the panel there agrees on many of these points and anyway um i'm just wondering why is there a proposal for fewer regulations in this area when the overwhelming majority of residents desire stricter regulations i mean whose idea is this um it's nobody wants more more cellular i mean there's just a scattered few amount of people so there is there's a dictatorship running over us all and i think that the the previous comments were very accurate and hopefully we'll get to the bottom of it but with reading the body of the staff report the measurement of the cell towers and the additional um heights um should be measured top of the existing antenna to the top of the new one not to the bottom of the new one because they could simply build a taller antenna um in other words if you have a fourth one also there's the 20 foot um increase in height without any um without any public notice so essentially if you have a 40 foot tower and they choose to increase it 20 plus the unmeasured or to the bottom of the antenna tower you could have a 60 percent increase in a 40 foot tower without any notice so go from 40 feet to what 65 feet right back where most of them wanted when most of the uh applications are for the tallest tower impossible so it seems like there's a lot of built-in forgiveness and wiggle room and the the proverbial red carpet is being rolled out and also when adopting the code uh it has to be very carefully looked at because no two situations are the same for example a cell tower slated near the airport um that's been on hold for three or four years for some bizarre reason um certainly can't go up higher than than it is safely allowed to go for departure and landing zones and things like that so there's a lot to look at um and it's a changing world and I feel that this needs to be really carefully addressed and we do have the power to enjoy our our lives our safety our health and welfare in this area um and that that uh some very accurate points were made that we have some some very very realistic uh reasons for not wanting these everywhere some place is fine not everywhere let's be careful thank you panel you're doing a great job I appreciate it thank you for your comments um okay I'm looking at our list here do we have any additional callers who wish to speak and if so please press star nine on your phone to raise your hand and I'm not seeing any additional um members of the public who wish to speak at this time chair so I will send it back over to you thank you so um I believe that with those comments unless the commissioners want to discuss this any further um commissioner Dan did you want to add something just a very very quickly um just to say that I think that there are this this issue does have some nuance across um the county and while um I agree that well one of the callers said that nobody wants these but I just want to point out that um there are a lot of people in our rural areas that are advocating very very strongly for increased self coverage because when um there's an emergency or the power is out um such as during the CZU fire a lot of our constituents up in the mountains didn't have any communications capabilities because they don't have self coverage up there so there are a lot of people who actually are petitioning the cell providers to add service up there so it's it's um got um complications on all sides there are people that don't want them but yet there are people that actually really do want them and um for very important reasons okay good anything else it's been a long day for everybody I realized that well uh to make a comment just to reiterate since we're closing what I said before I really like more information given to the public either on the county's website or in a simple brochure about what jurisdiction we do and don't have and especially recommending that people talk to their federal legislatures who actually can control and still prepondently the bulk of the issues they care about I think it would save I think it would save a lot of frustration on the part of the public especially on the health issues from which we have taken endless testimony a lot of times and I feel as frustrated as the people who are testifying when we don't have jurisdiction and they just I think it would just be sensible to redirect redirect them to the people who actually vote on it a and b I think it's really important for people to have any faith in local government because they feel like they're hitting a brick wall and that's not really what's happening it's just that we don't have they think we have jurisdiction and we don't so I really think this is important thank you okay thank you I'm seeing no other comments from commissioners so I'm going to close the study session um and I'm assuming that we will hear further in the future um we still have some items um on the agenda um item number nine is the planning director's report um yes and the planning director is out today so she's not with us um to be able to provide a planning director's report I ask that at our next the hearing that we're going to have on the quarry road uh the request for night hours and weekend hours can we ask could you uh just ask the planning director if she could attend I think it's a big public hearing with a lot of public in but she used to attend most of our meetings I know she has many many many other obligations but I'd like to ask that she we she attend that one especially since she can do it virtually um I will definitely forward that request to um Miss Malloy the planning director I'll drop an email now and see if she can be available I cannot guarantee that but we will definitely ask for that and if not maybe the assistant director yeah I'd like I'd like to think that one or the other of them is listening to our hearings and I know that they seem to have more obligations than ever but they someone used to always attend planning commission meetings and it was very helpful when we needed help in crafting legislation or we had a recommendation we'd like to make we didn't exactly know how to phrase it um that's always very helpful to have okay net um leave this right into the item number 10 which is if you could update us on upcoming meetings and agendas for those meetings um the next um meeting that we have on the planning commission calendar is um March 10th and we will be having a meeting on that date um um I don't have the calendar totally set for that for that meeting date yet but I do know that we have a couple of things that look like we'll be putting on that agenda date including potentially the the quarry project for the continued hearing um and beyond that I'm not sure you will be considering the ADU ordinance amendments sometimes shortly it was going to come in March but it seems like it's a little bit delayed but that will be a study session maybe in the second meeting in March or early April and we have a couple of development permit projects that will be coming your way so that's there are going to be several items coming your way but I don't have they haven't been quite nailed down but for sure on March 10th it looks like we're going to have one or two items and didn't we continue to the quarry to that date certain I thought we did we did and I haven't had an opportunity to check in with David to make sure that he's been able to have the community meeting and that we can keep that date um or you know we keep that date if we have to continue it we'll have to check in I know he's shooting for that date so um I didn't have an opportunity to check in with him before the hearing though yeah I think the idea was scheduled for that definitely the idea was that he would have had at least one significant community meeting we should make sure that happens before we hear it for sure I don't believe it's happened yet but we can't discuss anything else yeah so if I um if something changes we will send an email um we will send an email to your commission I also wanted to for a report on upcoming meeting dates this is slightly related but off topic is that we are making a strong push to switching over to miniatrack um and um it'll be very similar to the way the board agendas and pockets are released to the public and posted on our website now that we've switched over to this zoom ctv platform when we combine that with miniatrack our sites are look or will look very much identical that the board site and how they operate and how the planning commission operates at least for the remaining period of time that we're dealing with COVID um with ctv that aspect so um we are testing miniatrack and trying to get that going I we've had discussions with the planning commission in the past about paper materials I do want to come back to the planning commission and revisit that topic um once we have miniatrack um you know up and running and we'll try and provide the least amount of paper I think as possible in the future um and I also just wanted to make a comment we did send on the most recent packet we sent a link to the initial study for one of the projects so we did get some feedback from at least one planning commissioner that they wanted the entire initial study and all of the attachments printed out I think it was 900 pages um I wanted to just propose that we if for now while we're still doing paper and we can talk about this a little bit more when we get to miniatrack I would propose that we if we're going to print the initial studies that we just printed the initial study checklist and maybe provide a link to all of the technical reports because as you have seen a lot of times the bulk of the initial study attachments will be like traffic turn signal you know calculations and things and you could certainly review that but maybe not print those I'm wondering if the planning commission would be amenable to that approach for while we're in the paper packet phase I think it's really reasonable I think it's reasonable I really like to read the SAF report so I can go back and forth and and on paper and you know that seems like a good medium step okay well we'll do that for now and like I said when we switch to miniatrack we'll let you know and um you know we'll still provide paper as necessary while we make the transition but I just wanted to give you a heads up and that is it I could you just tell me one more time what is on the March 10th agenda if the quarry is questionable um it was we continued the quarry item to March 10th at date certain and I just haven't had a chance to follow up with David to make sure he's the project planner that they've been able to have that community meeting I'm sure that's the item right now for March 10th um we haven't set the agenda yet I was just looking at that um let me let me look at that one more time here since we're here yeah right now right now CMEX the continued item um for CMEX is the only thing that we have that is more solidly you know scheduled for March 10th and I haven't heard from David that we cannot keep that date um not not CMEX you mean granite I'm sorry yes thank you sorry didn't we just do that we did let's not do it again I'm sorry the quarry the granite rob quarry yeah okay um yeah so let me check in with him um and I will send you an email because yeah we also have the wireless ordinance and just based on the feedback that we heard from Commissioner Dan I don't know if we will be putting any wireless um code amendment portions on that agenda I don't think we would make it for March 10th and then the other one was the ADU code amendments um study session and that also is not going to make it for March 10th so um let me um follow up with with David and um I can provide you an update okay great good um I just want to say things like the code amendments that you really have to read and study carefully that's kind of thing I really would like to continue to get in print because I carry them around with me literally yes we will continue doing everything in print for now except for we're making a change that for the initial studies we're just providing the initial study we just did a link and maybe a link is a little bit too you know uh too digital um so we'll provide the stack report the attachments the plans like we always have and the initial study but not all of the technical um information that follows the initial study we'll provide a link for that and then when we switched to minute track um Renee in the next couple of months I'll have another discussion with the planning commission about who might be amenable to to reviewing some of those materials um through minute track as opposed to getting a full paper pocket but for now we're doing paper and you'll get those stack reports and and I have to say getting late correspondence by email is just fine okay well I hope so because we we don't have time our mailing well I understand I I don't think those of us who want to get in our wanting to be unreasonable and that certainly works just fine great okay is county council still with us still here want to congratulate you all on a nice session today um there was some serious serious decisions to be made and you all did really well thank you for your feedback on the study session I will take it back to the planning department we'll discuss whether or not we can bring the future code amendments or proposed code amendments in one session so we'll be in touch thank you thank you uh thanks to everybody um I I really appreciate everybody hanging in and uh thank you Melanie for sharing last minute yeah thank you for taking over I appreciate that sure sure well yes like it's not it's uh you know just so Tim knows it's it is unusual we have this long hearings but there were many years when they were normal so you've got to be prepared for whatever happens but this is longer than normal okay these for these days yeah I need to bring some more snacks right right I I think we usually are done by by noon but every once in a while there'll be one like this or um but it's not the routine right anymore used to be okay that is true absolutely true we do have quite a few code amendments working however and some rather large complex projects that are making their way through the planning department it's it's kind of a busy time right now for our department um which is a little bit surprising I think we had sort of I think everybody kind of paused last year with COVID and the fire and it feels like everybody's back up and running um in our section so you you might you might see a busier schedule this year than you had last year I think we are trying to consolidate hearings a little bit just because of ctv and the expense associated with that but um anyways all right what we will probably see you on March 10th thank you thank you to the thank you thank you thanks ctv