led the access and mobility element. Similar thing with the land use element, which is now the built environment element. So the four major areas in the access and mobility element are transportation system management, multimodal planning. There's a huge emphasis on integrating the various modes rather than keeping them separate as it was in the last general plan. And then place making in general, also I kind of think of coastal access as part of our place making strategies, environmental justice, economic vitality and innovation. And then as Natisha mentioned, we're also going to talk a little bit about the county code regulation changes, which is part of the code modernization part of the sustainability update. The code for transportation, namely parking circulation and access was all over the code previously. So these are the three main areas where they were. There were actually other areas as well, but the three main chapters are listed here. And then thirdly, we had the design guidelines that were created as a whole new set of guidelines that list out street standards. Their guidelines have been not regulatory, but they do provide a really nice set of relationships between the functional form of buildings and the streetscape. So I think they'll be helpful to applicants. So just to go into a little bit more detail with the transportation framework, the layer network approach is sort of the basis for all of our transportation planning and the access and mobility element. This is a concept that we actually developed or the county developed in the Sustainable Santa Cruz County plan. And it came about because they really wanted to have a complete streets approach. Complete streets planning takes the philosophy that all users should have equal access and be prioritized on our roadway so that there is no preference to just vehicles. However, in a network where we have very constrained right of ways, we can't provide the ideal sidewalk widths or bicycle lane widths to users as we would like. So instead, a layered network approach was conceived and what this does is it prioritizes certain user types on specific streets. So the end result is a network for let's say active transportation, another network for transit and so on and so on. So that each user type has a comprehensive network that's layered on top of each other. And then that allows us to build out a better set of facilities for those user types without compromising space. Another key component of the transportation framework is that there's a lot more coordination between the built environment element, previously called land use element, and the access and mobility element. So there's concepts such as 15 minute neighborhoods in the built environment element that were directly influenced by this layered network approach and key destinations. And then finally, there are new roadways that are called out in the access and mobility element maps or map, I should say. And this is really to help try to reduce the distance people have to walk or bike. They're mostly local roadways and in a very select few places. So I mentioned the layered network approach. I just wanted to give you an example of the four of the main types of roadways. Typologies, is there often called? There are a few other types that are not called out right here. And these are all listed out in the general plan. The multimodal corridor type is a typology that really prioritizes longer distance travel. So these tend to be wider roadways where we can provide better facilities for transit and protected facilities for bicyclists. An example of this is Capitola Road. So Cal would also be another example that you could easily conjure up in your mind. And then the next one that is pretty common in the county that you'll see a lot of in the map. And this is signified by the orange lines in that figure this last slide is the active connector. The active connector really prioritizes bicyclists and pedestrians. So wider facilities for those two user types. Brommer is a good example of an active connector. And then we also have some main streets. And so these are really for walkability. So we prioritize much wider sidewalks. So pedestrian oriented streets, pedestrian scaled amenities, transit access to those goods and facilities. And then we have the local residential streets which would be smaller scale residential communities where bicyclists would share the lanes with vehicles. You have a base level sidewalk width but these are lower speed commerce streets and those are signified by gray lines on the maps. So now I'm gonna talk a little bit about transportation system management which is a really broad term that covers a lot of topics. So I will try to keep this short. The major metric that has been used in the past to measure the performance of our system and performance of the system is one of the major components of system management. So the primary metric that was used in the past is called level of service or LOS. That's a metric that I'm sure you have heard a lot about in past applicant or project level review. Level of service grades the operations of a roadway on a scale of A to F. You'll see that grading system on this slide here based on how much delay a vehicle experiences. And the problem with this system as was realized about 15 to 20 years ago is that it really emphasizes the vehicle user experience and while it does get at greenhouse gas emissions vis-a-vis idling, it doesn't really address greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector based on how far people are driving and the proposed approach to reduce or to make level of service better to improve the operations of a roadway network was to grow capacity because when you grow capacity, then there's less delay. However, there's this phenomenon that when you grow capacity, more people will then use that roadway. So we were getting caught in this cycle of growing capacity to improve our level of service and get it back to grade of A and then it would go back down to lower grades of D to F because more people would use the roadway system. This is a phenomenon called induced demand. So increasing capacity was not working and it was actually resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that is being addressed at the statewide level vis-a-vis legislation. And so what happened with this legislation was that we took level of service out of the options for and any kind of measure of delay out of the options for looking at impacts, environmental impacts and transportation and it was replaced with vehicle miles traveled which looks at the distance that people travel. So now instead of measuring the performance of our system using level of service, we look at VMT. Now this is true mainly for CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act purposes. So when we're looking at a project for its environmental impacts, we still use level of service as an operational component for looking at a project. However, in the proposed general plan, access mobility element, we have proposed to reduce the level of service threshold to D and there are some nuances to that. But there is a almost a page of information about that in the general plan access mobility element. So that's a lot of information but it's the short end of that is to say that we are moving to a much greater focus on VMT and this is true not just at the County of Santa Cruz but statewide. So there you'll see that woven throughout the access mobility element. Can I just ask you a quick question there? Sure. I want you to go, don't wanna interrupt your flow but I'd like when we get to the end to see a specific example of what that means. I read this carefully and I saw that you kind of generally said but that's something people, whenever there's something proposed people are ought to talk a lot about traffic. I understand that the level of service was not functioning at all but can you give me an example of how you would evaluate something later on with the new system? A specific, very focused example. I understood the level of service even though it did work but this is more complex and I'd like to see how you would apply but I don't wanna interrupt you now but I'm saying that that's one I did not quite understand because it was on the stand. Yeah, let me talk about that at the end. It is, it actually is complex. But somebody's gotta, we need to understand it. Definitely. Otherwise you're only the, I'm gonna be the only people who do understand it which will not work very well. Right, and we actually have talked about having a whole study session dedicated just to this topic because it is complex. So there are actually, there's a number of things that affect how far people drive, VMT. And one of those things is transportation demand management which is often used as a mitigation measure when, and this actually kind of does get at your question. So it's often used as a mitigation measure when people exceed the thresholds that the county has set for VMT. However, transportation demand management is also a kind of a conceptual philosophy or approach that's woven throughout the entire code and general plan. So while there are a couple of specific policies that outright say the county will support and implement TDM programs, there are a number of ways that we are supporting TDM or transportation demand management throughout these updates.  It used to be used as a term that just meant to simply use the system, the transportation system more efficiently to manage choices and demand such that you were putting less demand on the system. Now we use the term so that we, to mean that we're actually reducing demand with the intended goal of reducing the amount that people have to travel by vehicle and single occupant vehicle, I should say. So we try to increase choices for car polling, transit, bicycling, walking, et cetera. So the way that we've done that throughout the general plan includes things by includes things like long-term parking demand strategies in the code includes items such as increased exceptions for parking. We've also, you'll see like even something like having designed guidelines where we are trying to create a more walkable environment actually encourages people to walk rather than drive a couple of miles. So these are some of the ways that TDM is philosophically woven throughout the general plan updates. The other element of transportation system management that's in the access mobility element is an inclusion of vision zero and safety. Vision zero is something you'll start hearing more and more about as the state starts to support it and even tie funding to having a vision zero action plan. Vision zero is a philosophy that fatalities and injuries due to vehicle collisions are preventable and that we should strive to reduce those to nothing. So that is something you'll start hearing more languaging around. It's interdisciplinary and interdepartmental so it requires a lot of effort to get off the ground but there are local examples specifically in Watsonville. So now I just wanna spend a little bit of time on parking and I'll try to speed up my pace here. So the policies that we have in relationship to parking are kind of in two categories. There's policies that are implemented through the proposed code and then there's a couple of policies that are long term that we do not have implemented through the proposed code. So the first four address items that are implemented in the current code proposal. So we really did try to change the parking ratios to right size them for the land uses. Our parking ratios were pretty off as compared to other jurisdictions or industry standards. We also actually already allowed for shared parking in our current code, although that was a little known fact because it was buried in the code. So we just put that consolidated that with the parking ratios but that is a common parking strategy which allows for a reduction of the use of land and more efficient use of land. We have a policy related to increasing access to publicly owned parking lots. We also have a policy related to conducting parking, quantitative parking studies so that we can understand our parking demand and supply better, which would then allow us to implement the longer-term goals which are programs that manage parking demand vis-a-vis paid parking, parking districts or moving parking pricing up and down based on occupancy. Those are all very long-term goals for which we need more data and actually more support of alternative modes of transportation. So then this slide slightly blocked by my Zoom window here. This slide shows some of the ratios that have changed. We tried to really simplify it here. So obviously we had some changes to residential parking requirements. We went from having two space minimum for the single family home to one space minimum and then increasing from there. This is more in line with what we're seeing around the state and also with more and more state legislation that's getting passed. We also added a category for townhouses being this is tied to some of the code and that relates to land use because that's a term or a category that wasn't found previously and was confusing people. We retained requirements for guest parking. That was a comment that came up or has come up for people is that they're really concerned about maintaining guest parking. So that is maintained in both townhouses and multi-family and that's from the existing code. The change regarding multi-family is that instead of having spaces tied to number of bedrooms, we're tying them to the size of the unit. And this is a recommendation that came to us to really try to encourage or allow for affordable by design type units where we can encourage smaller units for people who may not need as much space or be able to afford as much space. And this reduces the amount of land a developer needs for small units. And then this has a number of other retail commercial service type categories. And this is by no means an exhaustive table. But in some of these categories, we didn't reduce parking across the board actually in some categories we increased parking or slightly tweaked it to really address the use specific to it. In other cases, we consolidated various uses that had similar parking requirements but didn't actually change the parking requirements. So this list tries to just present those that were that there was some kind of change to the parking requirement. So as an example, public assembly, really standard parking requirement is you have one space for three seats or for each three persons of design occupancy we also had an outdated parking set of parking requirements for nursing homes or assisted living facilities. Oh, and another thing we did is we updated the terminology a little bit. We had some antiquated terms for things like assisted living facilities. I can't remember exactly what term it was in there. Can I interrupt you just here? Cause I think that this is actually a question that I had and maybe it's because I'm lazy about doing math, but can you go through each one of these and just, it looks to me that you're reducing parking requirements for everything in this grid here. Can you just go through each one and say this is a reduction, this is an increase so that it's clear for us and the public what is actually going on because it's hard to just calculate on the fly what the change- Sure, so for public assembly, it's hard to say this is probably- That one looked like a reduction. It's- Cause that's per seat. But I just told me as a public assembly are we increasing parking requirements or reducing parking? It's actually, I mean, it's for- If you can't explain it to me then, right? We need to be able to say to the public for public assembly, we're going to be increasing parking requirements or we're going to be decreasing parking requirements by X. Does that make sense for future meetings? I agree because it seems all I could think was, well, one space for each three seats means you think that three people are gonna, two of three people will take public transportation to get to a public assembly, right? Right, so previously- That means you think people are gonna do that at night and when it rains, et cetera, et cetera. So previously, if it was 0.25 spaces per seat for three seats, that would be 0.75 spaces. Now we have one space for three seats. So it's an increase? Yes. So you're gonna add parking for new public assembly? That's all what I'm asking. So going down the list, nursing homes and assisted living facilities is also an increase. Hospitals is a probably an increase because it's based on employees instead of office space. So the number of spaces per bed is a decrease, but we're also changing the number of parking requirements to be tied to employees versus office space. So we looked at a couple of examples of recently passed or proposed, expansions and this would have resulted in an increase. Let's see, for retail, commercial services, et cetera, this is actually the same except for the second area. So there is, this used to be two categories. Retail, commercial services, shopping centers, convenience stores, supermarkets, et cetera. And the second category was supermarkets and convenience stores, which had a one per 200 square foot. So that has now been combined and the new requirement for all of these categories is one per 300 gross square feet. So that means that the supermarkets and convenience stores will now have a increased requirement. Whoops, sorry, didn't mean to go back to the next slide. I said that as a decrease. Sorry, sorry, I meant for the, yes, that is a decrease. I was kind of looking ahead to the next one here. And then we, for another change here actually is that cafes with 12 seats or less were split up with, split up from cafes or coffee shops with 13 or more seats. So the idea is there is that cafes with high turnover, which tend to have fewer seats would have a lower parking requirement than coffee shops, which have a lower turnover or cafes, restaurants, bars, et cetera, which have a lower turnover where people stay longer. Yeah, I think we get that part. So they have a higher parking requirement at one per 100 square feet. Okay, but so the change for restaurants and bars though is that increasing the parking requirement from what restaurants used to have or lowering it? So we are increasing the parking requirement for coffee shops or cafes with 13 or more seats. We are not increasing the parking requirement for dining in restaurants. Sorry, Anais, can you explain that to me? Because I see it as the opposite. So I see it as dining in restaurants used to have one per 100 square feet plus 0.3 per employee versus we've gotten rid of the additional 0.3, so I would do that as a decrease in parking. Right, so we are not increasing the parking requirements for restaurants. But this is extremely important though because this comes up quite a bit at the Planning Commission, especially with restaurants because parking is always an issue. So I just want to be very clear for the Commission and for the public what the change is being proposed to be. And so that is a reduction for parking for restaurants as the proposal. Correct, so for restaurants and any kind of cafe with 13 or more, the requirement is one per 100 because restaurants used to have an additional requirement for parking for employees. This is a reduction. Okay, so in the future, when this comes back to us in the future, I would want this to be spelled out in a way that's clear because it seems like it wasn't clear to any of the commissioners up here who are pretty experienced. So it's probably not clear to the public as well. I would agree. Could you just explain your rationale for getting rid of employee parking requirements because any cafe of any size is three or four people there who work there? Why not specify parking for them? It's to simplify the parking requirements not to tie it to the user. Most parking requirements are not tied for these types of uses are not tied to a specific user but just simplified at a rate per square foot. So it's one per 100 or one per 200 or one per 300. If there's a desire to talk about the rate, I would recommend doing that rather than tying it to over complicating it by tying it to a rate plus number of employees, which is a variable that changes all the time. So I'm gonna make a suggestion for us right now. Since this is a study session, we're trying to study the material. And then in August, we're gonna have the opportunity to actually take action, make any changes to the recommendation that we see fit. So right now, I just wanna make sure that the commission and the public actually understands the material in front of us. And so that's why I asked such specific questions about this, cause it wasn't clear to me in the packet. And so then in the future, when this is revised or well, yeah, revised for when we see this again, if this could be spelled out much more clearly, that would be very helpful. I would agree with Ms. Dan, because although I am a numbers geek and I would just say that I would appreciate staff spending some time being able to articulate this. I feel like I agree with Ms. Dan that even staff struggled to answer some of these questions and it would be good that when they come back that they were able to say, not only in a column, maybe saying increased degrees, but also being able to speak to it in kind of an articulate way. When we discuss it later, I agree with Ms. Dan that this is a study session and it would be good to continue on with our material so that we can study it and have these questions answered and then have discussion in the future. But I would just encourage them to not only bring back the material, but also bring back, spend some time so they can speak to it in the future in kind of a very articulate succinct way because it sounds like there's, we wanna ensure that there's not confusion. Well, I agree with what you both just said, but I am prepared to hear the staff report and then make some suggestions and some of the things I think don't really make sense to me given my careful reading of the input and I don't wanna wait till August if I have specific suggestions of things that aren't clear. That's all. No, no, I wasn't meaning to suggest that. It was just more of to make sure that we at least have the understand the information so that we can then, you know, I mean, I couldn't have made any suggestions on this because I didn't understand it. That's all. But there are the other parts that, yeah, I have general comments as well. Okay, so thank you, Anais, for letting us clarify that with you and yes, please proceed. Can I add something as well as I'm a little, I have a question that's, I noticed that as you get closer to the ocean, things get tighter and more difficult, but as you, you know, get on the other side of Soquel, drive, you know, things lighten up because you don't have the tourist industry bombardment. And I'm just wondering, does all of this make a difference in where it's located if it's along certain corridors or is it just a random, has anything ever been designated in different sections of our community? Because it doesn't, it doesn't look that way. It just- I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean is, have there been specific, like different parking requirements implemented based on the location?  Portola. What am I thinking? I think that- Yeah, Portola, if you go down Portola and you get in the Pleasure Point area, I mean, you just can't find parking along a lot of the areas. And then you get further to Soquel Drive and you can. And so our community is based on this tourist industry and density issues. So I have a hard time understanding how, like if you go down Warf Road, it's in Capitola. So it wouldn't make any difference. But if you go down one area and you see that a convalescent type home, there's just no parking anywhere in Pleasure Point. And then you get a little further away in there is. So it's probably a really difficult thing to designate any type of parking per square footage in our community. If it's, I mean, you have to apply this general standard, but in our community, things are really affected by relationship to the ocean and geography. Yeah, I mean, I can't speak to the historical application of parking standards, but certainly there is greater demand in certain areas of the county. And that's where some of the policies could really be helpful for long-term parking management strategies, such as parking districts, shared parking, even having some county managed parking lots. So, that's something that encouraged the county to think about in the long-term. And then just to speak to some of the comments earlier, we do have a much more involved table that shows all of the changes from the existing parking code to where we're at now with the proposed. The complexity with trying to follow some of those changes is that a lot of the land uses have been consolidated. So they're not as easy to track in a simple spreadsheet. We can certainly provide that as an attachment, and I'll practice articulating this in a way that simplifies it more. Well, if it's complicated to explain to us, how are you gonna explain it over the counter every day? Yeah, I think the point is to create a final table that's simple and not to track, when somebody comes in, not to track where we were 20 years ago to where we are now. Yeah, but that's what we know for our purposes. We need to understand what is changing. And so I think that we beat this horse to death. So I think, John, I used to you understand what we need is to be able to clearly track what's being changed in this parking table was difficult to figure it out, even for a numbers guru like Commissioner Villalante, which I am not. So if Allison couldn't get it, then I know there's no hope for the rest of us. So yeah, let's try to get through your presentation because we are required to take a break at 1.30. So the parking reductions, which follow the parking ratios table, these are mostly a consolidation of parking reductions that were actually previously available in the code. There are a couple of new ones. So the new ones include that up to 10% of parking may be converted to bicycle parking. If you're located within a transit priority area, which is defined by public resources code, then there are some parking reductions allowed. Shared parking, again, that was previously provided for. If you have a approved transportation demand management plan, then there are some parking reductions allowed. And then the next three bullets there summarize state law required reductions. So due to historic resources, ADUs, or accessory dwelling units, affordable housing, and then, sorry, not the next three, the next two. And the last bullet point there shows a parking maximum. We actually had that in our existing code, was a little known requirement, but we do have a parking maximum to not allow more than 10% above the required parking. And then the new major section of the code is for bicycle parking, which we had very few standards for previously. So we've completely re-hauled this section. This includes bicycle parking requirements as a percentage of vehicle parking requirements. This is modeled after the city of Santa Cruz bicycle parking code, which we got a lot of really positive feedback from bicycle advocates on and some developers on. There's also new design standards. We looked at a few design standards from around the San Francisco Bay Area. And then my work with public works on those. We also allow properties, as I mentioned previously, to convert vehicle parking into bicycle parking spaces. Shower facilities are now required for new development or what we call major enlargement, so not for existing facilities. And then vertical bicycle parking may be allowed with specific approval. And then we have some other major changes to the code. So one of these, I know, has come up a lot here, which is the exceptions to roadway standards. So there is in the public works design criteria, there is a set of roadway standards that define the widths for vehicle lanes, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes within those roadway standards is actually an exception for the local roadway standard, which reduces the width. And then there's an exception to that exception in our code, which allows people to not build that reduced roadway width, but actually get approval for something that is not that reduced roadway width, but something totally different based on a design that they get approval from the, both the commission and the board of supervisors on. And these exceptions can be based on a number of things. Sometimes they're environmental. Sometimes it's due to neighboring developments not having the same facilities built out. There is an exception for that in the code. And then, and some of the justifications have been because of the size of the roadway facility available. Sometimes it's due to the parcel size. So what we did is we looked at a number of examples of where these exceptions have been approved. A lot of the developments that were getting exceptions to the roadway standards approved were minor land divisions. So very small roadway or very small projects where the roadways were functionally a driveway. And so there's now in the code a proposed approach that allows for what we call internal roadways and internal driveways. And these two types of facilities allow for a different build out than what is in the design criteria currently. They still provide for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. So those two are still built in there. They still have to meet fire code requirements, but they can do that within a reduced footprint for the roadway. The internal driveways are meant for four units or less. Internal roadways can be for a larger development where the roadway is essentially it's been offered to the county for dedication, but the county is denied it. And it's not connecting to major, it's not connecting a publicly or county maintained roadway to another county maintained roadway. So the idea is that the roadway is something that's probably maintained by an HOA or by the residents. And it's a smaller one that's functionally a local roadway. And again, it would still have bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the parking requirements would still be met, but we would allow for a reduced roadway within the code so that they wouldn't have to come for an exception and go through the whole design process vis-a-vis that exception. We also have a new set of standards for drive-through facilities, which we do allow for some drive-throughs. And so we went and looked at other code examples or code examples from other cities. The site distance is a new section in the code as well. That was previously just in the design criteria and sort of implemented through the industry standard practice. And so now we've codified that. And then there were some changes to the surface lot design standards just to reduce the required aisle widths and bring that up to current practice. And so the next slide here, we're gonna talk a little bit about the Portola Drive streetscape concepts. I know that some of you are familiar with this project. This was incorporated into the EIR and sustainability update project. There is three, there's the existing conditions as you can see on the slide. There's a near-term concept and a long-term concept. The main difference between the near-term and the long-term concept is really the feasibility and cost. So the near-term concept can be done without making changes to the curb line. Whereas the long-term concept includes major changes to the curb line and the landscaping. They both are a road diet. So they, as the term implies, a reduction in vehicle lanes where you go from four lanes to three lanes where you have one lane each direction and the center turn lane. They both have improved bicycle facilities and sidewalk facilities. The near-term concept focuses more on because there's no changes to the curb. It focuses more on improving the sidewalk at crossings or intersections, as well as providing painted improvements for the bicycle facilities. Whereas the long-term concept actually can provide wider sidewalks and improved curb cuts. So those are the major differences there. And I think now I'm gonna pass it back to Natisha to talk about the coastal access and placemaking and move on to parks. Sorry, on the East before you continue on, can I ask you a question about that and about the Portola specifically? Sure. Because you're talking about the near-term and the short-term. I just wanna clarify, is that you're talking about the one lane in each direction with the internal turn lane? Is that still the plan for that area given? These are all, yeah, I should have said this is all plan level. So these concepts that you're seeing are considered design concepts. They would need to go through design engineering and if or when they were gonna be implemented long-term, there's no funding identified for these projects. I know that there's a lot of community feedback on these concepts. Another, we recently released the active transportation plan for the county and that came up as one of the comments or questions on the active transportation plan. And for that, they've identified improved protected facilities on this corridor, but it doesn't necessarily preclude or incorporate a road diet. So that's sort of a long-winded answer for saying we don't know what will happen on Portola Drive. The EIR will cover a road diet if that's the direction we go, but we do need further engineering studies. We also do know, and this is called out in the list, it's Appendix J of improvements for intersections and roadways. We do know that there are intersection improvements needed in this area, both for operations and safety. So we did look at that as part of the background information for the EIR as well as just the general planning and identified some basic level improvements for the intersections. So that specific, those specific improvements are included in the general plan update or sustainability update, but the road diet itself is very conceptual, it would need to go through a lot of work before it became real. I just, hi, everybody, Stephanie Hanson. I just wanted to add a little bit to that, that after the pleasure point plan was accepted by the board in 2018, the direction was to study these concepts in the EIR, which has been done, there are some recommendations for where intersection improvements are necessary to accommodate the concepts here. We recognize there was a pop-up project this summer that had some execution issues and didn't go as well as a lot of community feedback about the concepts. So the general plan policies and implementation strategies in the access and mobility element have some general language about this concept, which is to study it further and determine what improvements are good for development, seek funding and so forth. I just wanted, I didn't want the commission to be under the impression that these are the improvements that we're making. There's a reason why it was studied in the EIR and then there's general language now as a policy and implementation strategy regarding it. It's not necessarily something that's going to appear on the capital improvement program next year or anything like that. So just to add a little bit. Yeah, thank you for that. Since this came up, now I'm confused because nine of the staff before you identify the proposed general plan, the implementation strategy that actually does seem quite specific if there's a new development, it says clearly require new development to build plan lines for the Santa Cruz County SPCP, which is the plan. So I'm a little confused now. The plan line has to be developed, right? But there's a lot of work that goes into that. This is just a study. This isn't, this is general, but actually, you know, it seems like if you are building a new building, you actually will have to make improvements consistent with this policy. If, should this policy be adopted? With the plan line. A plan line, yeah. So, I mean, a plan line is simply a plan for improvements that could be made. We wouldn't necessarily, it doesn't necessarily mean that those improvements get built. We actually have a lot of plan lines that are not getting built right now in the county in one of the major projects that we identified with Public Works is to update a number of those plan lines to be consistent with the ATP. So, it's, but it's the first necessary step to identifying whether or not the improvements that have been, I looked at at a conceptual level or will work at an engineering level. Well, and it seems a little premature given, you know, the pop-up project last year yielded kind of questionable results. Yeah, I think that the pop-up project yielded questionable results for a number of reasons. One was that the intersection improvements weren't implemented alongside with it. Well, we don't need to go into the specifics of that right now. I'm just, I think that this section needs to be clarified and yeah, it's frankly a little confused by it right now. So, I'll let you finish the presentation because I know we're almost up to 130 and we can talk about it after the break.  So I would also like to circle back on this when we have a chance. So thank you. And pass this off to Natisha then to talk about coastal access in place making. Thanks, Ani. So one of the major changes that's happening for general plan chapter seven is that a lot of the coastal access policies used to exist in that chapter seven parks, public works and sorry parks, recreation and public facilities chapter and a significant portion of those have been moved to the new chapter three access and mobility chapter. So I think I will pass this back to Ani to kind of discuss that more access portion of the coastal access place making policies and we'll discuss a little bit, touch a little bit later on coastal access that's included in chapter seven. But I just asked what you mean by place making. Sure. So. A way finding. Yeah. So place making is generally a concept or a term used to refer to the community creating a sense of identity within the public realm. So it's in the roadway, it's often done by, sometimes you'll see it with murals on the street or in general art in the street. Sometimes it's done through signage and sign it when we say way finding we really mean signage that directs people to a particular set of key destinations. I think to really, I don't wanna take up your time but a lot of these terms which I guess are planners terminology are not accessible to most members of public. So once again, as I did make the same suggestion I made before when you have these terms that are specific to your area of expertise could you make a definition page? Cause I wouldn't have any idea what those terms mean and yet they're very, very important. Maybe there could just be the definitions when you're using terms that need to be explained to the general public. Yeah and I think it's a good idea to have call outs like that in the general plan as well. Because it's getting more technical and more jargony. I understood the old titles these are good and they're more inclusive but they're obscure. I know when you get used to using them they're clear to you but they are not gonna feel very accessible and you can explain them pretty well in a short period and give them, give them the context they need. I think that would be really helpful. So just to get to Natisha's record. So I got placemaking, what's wayfinding? Do if you read signage, why not just say signage? Because it's a specific type of signage that directs people to a set of key destinations identified by the, it's often for tourists or people who are in the area. That was good, you just made a very clear explanation in one sentence that I could look up now. So the coastal access section as Natisha was saying or the coastal access policies as Natisha was saying, a lot of them were moved from the parks and recreation elements relating to specifically to points of access that are places that people can access the coast from our roadway system. So that was the thinking behind it is that they're related to how people move and how people need to get there. So we moved a lot of those policies over to access and mobility. If they were specifically related to trails or maintenance because the maintenance of coastal access is done by the parks and recreation department, we left them in the parks and public facilities element, so you'll still see some there or if they're trail specific, then we left them there. But in general, the majority of them were moved over to the coastal access, excuse me, to the access mobility element. Also, we had a major update to the local coastal plan guidelines between 1994 and now, so we had to create a lot of new policies to be in compliance with those LCP guidelines. Most of them are about maintaining coastal access, improving coastal access and creating new coastal access. So not surprising policies out of left field, but just supporting that recreation. What you're saying is anything having to do with trails and the coasts are separate now. So if we had a trails plan, would it include coastal access or would it not? That would be up to the parks department, but it certainly could. Trails are generally within the way we sort of made a fuzzy separation is that trails are generally within parks and used for recreation, whereas the facilities that are discussed in the access mobility element are, they can be separated, meaning not in the roadway, but they're all inclusive. So not just recreation, but often used for commuters or access to destinations for daily purposes. Okay, what about the tremendous number of places where we have public easements? What, sorry, what's the question? Is there, is a trail a public easement? I, it could, a public easement could be part of a trail. All right, well, I'm not gonna, I think that's a very narrow definition, but go ahead. Okay, I'm not sure I understand the question, but there are policies related to easements in, I believe both the access and mobility element as well as parks, recreation and public facilities element. Okay, real briefly, there is a large plan, which has been around a long time, to connect the parks with trails, which involves public easements. So you could get from one park to the other, it's a safe park, too, and I don't know where that would fall in this. That would be a parks master plan, which is out of scope with this. But there, the trails that will connect parks would not be park trails. There would be public easements. That would be included in a parks master plan, which is out of scope with this. So I'll pass this back to Natisha now. And so I just wanna let you guys know that we have to take a break at 1.30, so if you could wrap up the staff presentation by then, that would be great. Yeah, so we had originally proposed to allow the commission to sort of have a focused discussion on transportation at this point, but it sounds like you prefer to kind of continue on and just finish the presentation. Well, because I think we do, I think the commissioners probably do, I'll have a lot to say. I know that I have some comments, but we're mandated to take a break at 1.30, and then we need to take public comment, and then we'll have questions for in comments for a staff, I'm sure. Natisha, is this a good point to take a break then?  We have about four more slides. Let's get through those four slides, and then I wanna apologize to the public that we're gonna have to take a break until two o'clock, and then at two o'clock, we will hear from the public. Okay, great. So community services are critical to both high-quality neighborhoods and commercial vitality, and chapter seven of the general plan, the parks, recreation, and public facilities element, excuse me, addresses topics related to community services as well as community facilities to support existing and future populations in a manner that's consistent with sustainable growth patterns. More specifically, chapter seven includes policies on parks, recreational, and cultural facilities, public facilities, public services, and utility infrastructure. The sustainability update project proposes a partial update of chapter seven. So it addresses the new element, addresses the same topics as the existing element, and incorporates some updates to a chapter that hasn't been substantially changed since its adoption in 1994. So it's now consistent with new state laws with new local plans and industry practices, but most of the changes that you see in the chapter simply streamline, consolidate, and reorganize existing policies. I had a question on tape in that section of transportation parks and public facilities. There's a table called 3.9 that has stuff like large animal keeping regulation and regulations for offenses and stuff. What's that doing in parks, public features, and transportation? And I thought we were gonna discuss that kind of thing separately. Sorry, I'm not sure what table you're referencing. Can you clarify? Yes, on page 34 of the staff report, paper 3.3-9, summary of Santa Cruz County Code Amendments. But it's under this general section of Transportation Parks and Public Facilities Graph EIR description. Okay, so is it included in the attachment, the project description from the EIR? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, that's yes. Renee, that's just a summary of all of the code amendments. It hasn't been edited down this particular table. So we're not talking about any of those specifics now. No, we'll get to those on the 13th. Okay, so. All right, I'm trying to follow you along in my staff report, so we'll go ahead. Okay, great. So first we're gonna talk a little bit about public facilities. So the public facility institutional land use designation was previously included in chapter two of the general plan, the former land use element. And it was moved to chapter seven in this update in order to consolidate public facility policies in one location. The P designation characterizes lands used for a variety of public serving uses, including schools, fire stations, government buildings, water supply and treatment facilities, as well as privately owned facilities built and maintained for public purposes, such as churches, hospitals and landfills. And the destination was updated to establish standards for maximum building intensity as required by state law. So this sets a maximum building height consistent with the standards and the implementing public facilities zone district, as well as a new maximum lot coverage range of 40 to 95%, which accommodates the variety of public and quasi public serving uses that are appropriate on P designated lands. The P designation is also intended for appropriate ancillary public facility activities and this includes residential uses. And this update retains existing policies that permit residential development, including 100% affordable multi-family housing on P designated lands, as well as school employee housing on school properties. And the changes that you can see in this section simply reflect the density increases that were proposed for urban residential designations in the built environment element that we've discussed and reviewed at the last study session on June 8th. In the county code, the proposed changes to the PF or public facility district incorporate new development standards that are consistent with commercial zone districts, including increasing the height maximum from 35 to 40 feet, as well as new standards for medical mixed use, which we also reviewed in detailed at the last study session, but the standards are provided here as well on this slide. So some of the most significant changes are pretty much focused on consolidating and streamlining and updating the chapters. We noted earlier, it's really a partial update. And so some of the changes that you'll see in this section combined some related public service sections that used to be separate. Those are listed here, school care facilities, fire and public police protection were combined and the three separate sanitation facilities sections were combined into one section in this update. Other sections of this chapter that include more substantive changes, updated for consistency with current plans and best practices, particularly related to the utilities and infrastructure sections. And this includes policies related to water supply and storm water. In the county, local water districts and groundwater management agencies are responsible for planning for the water supply in our area, while the county plays a more important role in protecting the quality of the water supply and then requiring users to conserve water. However, there was a new strategy added to the general plan to support groundwater sustainability and bring the general plan into consistency with the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. And another key change in the general plan related to water is that policies were updated to be consistent with low impact design strategies that are already required in the existing county design criteria. And that includes, you know, bioswales, permeable services. And this update simply requires new development to maintain the capacity of the site's storm water retention as well as recharge groundwater resources consistent with the design criteria. So we'll discuss some of these water policies in more detail at our next study session on July 13th, which will focus on natural resources and additional water policies included in chapter five of the general plan. Chapter seven also includes new policy based on the county's climate action strategy regarding wastewater reclamation and energy conservation. There's also some updates related to the integrated waste management section which makes it consistent with new state waste reduction laws. And the chapter also includes a new telecommunications and broadband objective which includes a new forward-looking policies that really lay the groundwork for expanding broadband access to underserved areas of the county and according with environmental justice schools. My just so you know, we're at 130. So is this your final slide? This is the final slide and then we have the recommended actions. So I can kind of- So let's move through it quickly. We need to respect the TV folks. Thanks. Yep. So to talk a little bit about parks, policies in this element, it addresses land use related to recreation, set standards for parks and address the provision of adequate park facilities in our communities. The revised element really retains and consolidates and updates those objectives and policies related to parks and recreation. So that includes that the designation was updated to establish new development limitations as required by state law, including the new maximum building height which is consistent with the implementing zone districts of parks and recreation and open space and the timber production district. It also includes a maximum lot coverage of 0 to 40% which accommodates the existing range of building intensity allowed on or designated land which can range from, you know, the out space, open space for active recreational uses such as neighborhood parks and recreational facilities like the symptom swim center to more low intensity passive uses to preserve the scenic values of open space lands. And the changes to the parks planning are not really proposed except to reflect any projects that have already been completed and to align with the county park strategic plan which was completed in 2018 by the county parks department and developed in collaboration with the local community. This plan sets out the vision and strategic priorities for the county's park system for the next 10 years. In chapter seven, there is a new goal created based on the strategic plan, the goal 2.0, opportunities for all to provide opportunities for people of all ages, incomes and groups and abilities to recreate and active spaces and enjoy passive natural open spaces. As Anise already mentioned, some of the coastal policies were retained in this chapter specifically related to recreation at the beach and maintenance of coastal access because those are closely tied to the concepts of parks and public facilities. And that's also closely related to, as we discussed earlier, the trails and recreation corridors section which is included in chapter seven. This section largely remains the same as the existing general plan with more of a focus on recreation that works in conjunctions with trail access policies included in chapter three of the access and mobility element. And it also provides strength and support for the development of a future regional trails master plan that would link county park facilities and implement the Monterey Bay Sanctuary scenic trail and California coastal trail. So looking ahead, we have another study session scheduled with the planning commission for July 13th to review code modernization, agriculture and resources as well as a review of the EIR. And following these study sessions we'll return to the planning commission in August for public hearings. With that we'll end the presentation today with the recommended action which is to conduct a study session on the sustainability update focused on the access and mobility element, the parks recreation, public facilities element and amendments to the county code. And we also just wanted to confirm whether the commission would like to hold another study session for further discussion and for the commission to provide additional comments and any proposed changes that we might want to discuss before the public hearings begin. Otherwise that concludes our presentation and we're happy to answer questions. I know we'll be taking a break here but I wanted to add that Annie Murphy and Stephanie Hanson who are involved in this project will also be available to answer any questions and should be elevated to be able to answer any questions that the commission has. Okay, thank you very much. So I wanna let the, any folks I understand there's a number of people waiting to speak on this item. So I just wanna apologize that we are required to take a break now to give our community TV folks who do such an awesome job building these remote public hearings for us so they can take a break. And so we will return at five minutes after two continue the meeting and we will hear directly from the public at that time. Thank you so much for your patience and understanding. Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. This is now 205 and we are back. I just want to apologize. If there was anything that I was saying during the break I did not realize that I was unmuted and I hope there was no offense caused by anything that was discussed. No problem at all. So let's go directly to the public. Lizanne, can you tell how many folks would like to speak to us this afternoon? Right now I have one hand raised that is Patricia Brady. Good afternoon Patty. Could you please unmute yourself and speak for the record? Yes, thank you very much for the time. I really wanna send my appreciation to the commissioners for the level of detail you're really taking on this issue. This plan has been in process for six years and basically over 12 days, you and we the public are being asked to accept it. I'm really here for another agenda item which is the density but I'm going to have to leave. But I would like to speak to the fact that as one commissioner commented there are different needs throughout the county regarding parking, transportation and even road modifications. And this does not seem to be the concept that's being presented here. And pleasure point is one of those that even yesterday as I was coming back from the airport the driver said, wow, there is so much traffic and there's no parking. So this is a known issue to people. We in our position paper which you have all received as for the county's plan to be realistic, flexible and balanced. And we would really appreciate if the drawing table would make these considerations rather than theoretical what ifs because the reality is different than what is on paper here. Also, let's see, what else? Well, again, I'd just like to express my appreciation to the commissioners for the level of detail that you're inhaling on this very, very important issue. Our legacy as those that are speaking out in yours depend on how this plan plays out. And what happened in the past doesn't matter for 2022. Our realities are very different and that's what we should be looking at. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Patricia. Lizanne, is there anybody else? I'm not seeing any hands raised at this time. Oh, Celeste has just raised a hand. Good afternoon, Celeste. Would you please unmute yourself? Good afternoon, Celeste. Hi, I'm sorry, I just missed the last speaker. I hope I'm not repeating anything. I wanted to speak about the rezoning of the corner of Thurber and Soquel Drive. And it was existing as office commercial, neighborhood commercial and urban open space. And the proposed change is to urban residential, high-density flexible use and community commercial. And I wanted to ask that it not be light industrial. I feel like the corridor that that exists on has plenty of that type of business adjacent to it. And it doesn't really respect the residential neighborhoods that abut that area, like Santa Cruz Gardens, the residents behind Dominican Hospital and also that Thurber is a single lane, mostly in and out to at least Santa Cruz Gardens. And so I just feel like there's enough of that type of business already. And there's also all the high-density housing that you can imagine in that corridor from Mission to How along Soquel Drive. So we have all of that. And it seems like a really strategic lot where it could be a lovely community plaza similar to the Swiss street plaza for the residents that are, I feel, largely ignored. It's always thought that Soquel Drive is just businesses and it's not. There's tons of residents that could benefit that wouldn't have to drive elsewhere to receive those types of benefits from that plaza, a community plaza type of thing. Thank you. I was one, hello. Okay, I don't see any additional hands raised this time. Okay, I knew some folks were there earlier in the morning, but it looks like they probably dropped off. So if you do one last check and see no one else, I will then close the public hearing. There's nobody else who has their hand raised this time, but I will just remind everybody if you would like to speak, please raise your hand by hitting the hand icon which you will find at the bottom of your screen. If you move your mouse, you're cursor down there. And if you're speaking, if you're speaking by telephone, joining us by telephone, please press star nine. And we do have one additional person who's now raised the hands, Alex Vatan. Alex, good afternoon. Please unmute yourself. Hi, I hope you can hear me okay. I just wanna add, sure, thank you. For some reason I got the hours on this meeting wrong and I wasn't able to attend the earlier part of this meeting, but, and I don't know if it was discussed or mentioned, I just do wanna mention that in my read the plan and the code updates, I did find missing some discussion or again, maybe it's not quite right for the planning department, but I think with a lot of parking technologies changing very rapidly with stack parking and robot parking, that really dramatically changes the economics of a lot of that say the fixed cost of doing underground parking, if you can now amortize that over a much, larger volume of parking, if you can do stacked parking like that. And I was somewhat surprised that it was really not germane to the analysis, but that if we're gonna really think about this plan for a long term, I was going to talk to be, take more time if possible or maybe look at what other communities have done, if they have thought about how these more emerging parking technologies can be considered as we're rewriting the code. And I guess the, or Larry. Alex, we can no longer hear you. You seem to have lost connection. Can you hear us? It seems that we've lost Alex. At this point, I could hear he was breaking up. Alex, we do apologize for that. All right, can you hear me? You're back. Yeah, I don't know where you lost me, but I just wanted to say, yeah, I think it would be great if we can figure out a way to encourage underground parking a little more and think about that in the code, however possible to allow for some of them the more emerging technologies that are gonna be able to increase the density we get with stacked parking, et cetera. So it'd be great to see some consideration of how can we get more parking actual underground. So anyway, thank you very much. Thank you, Alex. Is there anybody else who would like to speak at this time? If so, please raise your hand by hitting the hand icon at the bottom of your screen or star nine if you're calling in by telephone. Not seeing any additional hands raised. Okay, so then we will close the public hearing component of this item and bring it back to the commission. There is no action really needed for this except to ask questions, comments. So is there a commissioner that would like to start us off? I will be glad to. Thank you. My comments, I'm just gonna go through the document where I had comments or questions and by the page number. So my first question is on page 10, which I think I already referred to, which is, I'd like to see an example when we come back to look at this of the LOS and VMT applied standards. VMT standards applied to a specific project or street improvement or something. So I can understand how you're evaluating traffic in a very specific way because of necessity, when you explain it, it's very general and I don't really get a sense of it. So I'd like to see some examples. So I understand what the change means. And then on page 11 on the second paragraph above the chart, the board directed staff to make additional changes to the TDM approach. The first change was incorporating an incentive in the SCCC that reduces parking requirements to people within the urban services line and with a half mile of public transit stops with the bus pass provision.  Is there any, aside from this one project which you have given bus passes out, do you have any sense of if other jurisdictions have tried that? So there are state laws that allow for parking reductions or exceptions if you're within a half mile of high quality transit. There's also some cities that allow for those same reductions that go beyond what the state laws allow for. I don't know of specific developments that are comparable to the types of developments that we see here in Santa Cruz. So I'd have to do a little digging to find something that would satisfy your question. Propose that to you. So this is, okay, that's fine. And you're only proposing it within the urban services line, correct? Right. And high quality transit is something, is a very specific definition in the public resources code. At this point in time, we don't actually have any in the unincorporated county. High quality transit has to meet, it has to be 15 minute headways at a stop satisfied by more than one bus route. And the way that Metro or transit district plans, bus routes means that we don't actually have a bus stop that meets that definition currently in the county. In the county period? In the unincorporated county. I believe there are a couple in the city of Santa Cruz, but not in the unincorporated county. Well, I just find this a prop. I think I can understand why you're proposing it. It might be worth doing, but to use it as a way of getting people to drive less. I'm not so sure what about people have to take kids to school.  And most people drop their kids off and someone picks them up coming or going from work. What about senior citizens for which a half mile is a long walk? And what about if we ever get a winner again? I just don't, I can understand why we want to encourage it. And it's maybe a great proposal, but to say it's gonna cut down on people using cars. I don't know if that will attain that goal. And those were just a couple of examples. I know that when I looked at public comments, which I looked at a lot, the biggest objections to people that people are the most trouble to were this idea of trying to reduce driving by coming up with prohibited ways that make it harder to drive. And I'm just not sure if that's gonna really result in what you want to happen. I think, so I'm not sure if that, do you really think that's gonna work? I don't think having a bus pass for a lot of people here, it's true that a lot of people are low income people will may use them, but other people will just think, well, that's nice, but I'm gonna get in my car. Especially if you've got to drive kids or you have doctor's appointment. So for whatever, is it realistic to think this makes people's drive less? And then the other thing is, I think it's fairly unenforceable if you're gonna, people are gonna sell their bus passes, give them away, forget them. I mean, it's just to administer, it's gonna be a nightmare and I don't see developers wanting to do it because you're putting the burden on them. Large projects have a lot of turnover. I mean, I can think of it and I won't go into it here. Lots of reasons, I don't think it's a measure that's gonna necessarily get people out of their cars. I don't think it should, I think it's a great idea, but I don't think it's a strategy that has money legs. So the bus pass program along with a lot of other TDM measures is an incentive. It's a carrot, not a stick. It doesn't force people to get out of their cars. It doesn't require them to do that. They can still drive their kids to school in a vehicle should they choose to. It's an incentive that if not provided isn't going to change anything. If it is provided is one more way that people can change their behavior. So by not providing it, we're not changing the status quo. By providing it, we're at least providing some kind of incentive to do something different. It does have to be provided. I think we're agreeing with each other. As an incentive, it's a good program to put it to purport that it is going to get people out of their cars, I think is a misnomer. I just want to say that. I just don't think it fits in a way to get people to stop driving. But I think it's a great incentive and something with considering if it could really be administered and forced in a way that makes economic sense. And if developers are willing to become administrators of parking permits, which I doubt, but that's what you're proposing. Well, we're not proposing developers become administrative managed parking permits in the bus program, bus parking, excuse me, bus pass program. It would, if it was a residential development, the passes would be administered by an HOA. If it was a employer based type development, then it would be managed by a transportation coordinator. The developers, we all know once the project is developed is no longer in the picture. Well, I agree with you that I think for employers, it has makes some sense. If you've ever belonged to an HOA, it's a volunteer organization. Sometimes you have people getting a hard time getting people to even join it. And if you're going to give them administrative duties that they'll need to do anyway, I've dwelled in that long enough. I wanna come back to page 13, which is big change, which is reducing the number of parking spaces. So if you build a one bedroom home, you're gonna require one parking space, which means that people are gonna have to use a garage to park their car because there is, in Santa Cruz, it's unlikely that there is one person living in a one bedroom. It's more likely that there's at least two people. And if it's students, maybe five or six. So how does, I just don't know that it has any legs in reading the comments that there was uniformly, if you look at pages like 95 to 103, when people were talking about what they want, it wasn't less parking. So I just don't know if it really makes any sense. And I also wanna say in the rural area, everybody needs a car so there's no other way to get around. So if you have a house, a two or three bedroom house, there's gonna be teenage kids or maybe seniors or maybe, you know, the idea that everyone's gonna, I just don't see, I don't think it's, it's realistic. So, and of all your feedback, there wasn't any, there were vast majority of people who didn't think it was a good idea. So I can't, couldn't, I don't see how it's really going to be effective. And if we have tiny homes and they're gonna park in driveways, then no one's gonna get out of anywhere. So I don't know. But I mean, two spaces means you, most people use their garage as kind of a storage place and they have games there and equipment and so on. So you're gonna change the way people live because everyone, most families that have, you know, two or three kids, they get older, they have a car, their grandparents live with them, two people work in different places. How do you see that working? For what, the way people, most people live here? So the parking space reduction for residential units is based on fairly common standards that are used at other jurisdictions. We are seeing Santa Clara, San Jose, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, in Monterey County. So we are also seeing that the state is now through legislation requiring a reduction in parking spaces for residential builds. If somebody were to build a new single family home, they could choose to build a two car garage for a one bedroom if they wanted to or requiring one space. So... That's a parking space that's not a garage, right? Just to be sure that I really am understanding you. Your garage doesn't have a parking space. Off street parking. So the, you know, the code is a minimum right now. Some codes in some cities use parking maximums. We have a parking minimum and we do have a parking maximum, which is no more than 10%. So that would have to be, you know, acknowledged but an addressed, but I, you know, it's for one bedroom home, if you have a garage and a driveway, then you've got two spaces in tandem. Well, then maybe I'm not understanding. What do you mean by parking space, though? We don't mean the driveway. So what you're saying? A parking space is any space that's off street. So a parking space would be your driveway. Sure, or a garage. So if you have a garage, you can have, you can park one vehicle in a garage and one vehicle in a driveway. Okay. But I don't see any responses to the feedback you got. There was, this was the most strongly opposed by all the people who commented, but you don't see any response. We are still collecting in the process of collecting comments and I don't know that we're gonna prepare individual responses to every comment that we receive, but we are just now starting to update the draft documents that were released. So, and this is part of that process that we needed to collect input from the Planning Commission before we started making changes. Well, I was referring not only to the individual comments, but when you did the surveys, looking at the guesses and knows of what I would like to see and what changes I think are okay. It was startling how many people opposed the decision to limit parking. I just know when I look at the denser developments in Santa Cruz and up here in Scott's Valley too, everybody's got to get to garage.  I think this is a big change. Okay. I just think we need to respond to the fact that that is the single issue. It's a big change. So we've got the most negative response to. You have other comments, Commissioner Shepard? Yes, I just need to turn my pages to them. In addressing water, which I guess we'll talk about a lot more in the other study sessions, you didn't go into much detail about the fact that the districts have planned project to address water availability and new development must secure. I mean, I think it kind of lost over that because it's not your responsibility to provide water, right? And we're sorry, I'm slashed out. We do have some policies that address water quality as it enters the supply. So low impact development policies, but we are not water suppliers. So we don't address that aspect of water management. We have one policy that might be an implementation strategy to be in compliance with management plans. But in general, our strategies are more around managing the water as it enters into the groundwater supply. There are also existing policies on requiring letters of water availability from the supplier before permits are issued for a project and those entities are part of the review team that looks at any project as well. So without that, they couldn't get a building permit. That's not new, that's the case now. Okay, on page 33 on section 1310, 2020 to 2080, you mentioned the proposed amendments for modernization amendments to permit application processing procedure changes use approval to use permit separate from site development permit, redefine site development permit, the separate from use permit. What does that mean? We'll go over this in depth at the next study session. No problem, we can just skip it then. There were a lot of those changes I didn't quite get. And I assume that that would also apply to changes in 13.10, the 20s and 30s. All the items on page 34 and 35. Some of these are related to the parking standards that we have looked at. Well, I don't think anything on page 34 is right. 34 does have the parking standards. This table is meant to kind of help anybody trying to get familiar with the project, understand what sections of code are changing for the project as a whole. So specifically then, there's regulations to concerning fences and retaining walls. Is that going to be discussed on the 13th? Yes, we can discuss that on the 13th. Highlighting what's interesting to the commission and what we think the major changes are. And if that's one of them that the commission wants to particularly review, we can make sure we cover that. I would like to review the combining districts, the agricultural preserve and farmland security combining district, the regulations for fences and retaining walls, the outdoor storage of personal property and materials, and the animal regulations specifically. And then on page 35, the last, very last Title 16 environment on resource protection. Design standards for rural, private roads and dry voids has moved to parking and circulation as has updates and clarifies ag and land preservation standards. Is that something we will talk about then as well? Yes, there's an access question in there, Anais. So the beginning, so I'm not sure if we made that clear. I'd just like to know what has, what it is now and what you've proposed changes are for those two seconds as well. The first part of that question I can answer, which is just to say that the requirements for access and circulation have moved and were consolidated into a new chapter, 1316. 1316 is about parking and circulation. So if there's something in particular of concern there. I'll have the design standards for rural, private roads and driveways changed. They were moved into 1316. But that's the change, let me just move them. We move them, there is some strike through underline listed out in them. I think we actually made the, so the driveway standards, even though they were called rural driveway standards, some of those standards were applicable to all driveways. So we made that section more comprehensive to address standards for all driveways. All driveways, whether they're in the urban or rural services area. Right, right. You don't think there should be different standards for places that are in large parcels in rural areas? There are still different standards that I don't have the section memorized, but there is strike through and underline for the exact areas where code was changed. Okay, and then moving up, and I haven't got many more, but on page 53, I'm bringing this up again, where I think it says the third paragraph, the first complete paragraph on page 53 is breaking the cycle. And then there's a small paragraph under it, which says this ordinance, which is about, again, bus passage, will incentivize the construction of low car housing, allowing projects to greatly utilize reduced parking requirements in exchange for consistent metro funding. I think having underground parking, shared parking, those are policies that can achieve some of those goals and they're doable, but I don't support allowing developers to have much less parking in exchange for bus passes. I just don't think it really works or makes sense. I just want to say that. And we need to see how it's going to reduce, how it's really going to work, and if it would really work. I think there are those other policies, just like that person who got cut off, his phone didn't work very well before. Let's work on reducing cars parking by policies and recommendations that we can actually achieve and that are doable. So I think, so I'm just pointing out to you that this is looked at here in this section that I just read you on page 53, it looks like you're going to, the impetus is to make that into an imp policy that achieves that goal. And I don't think that that makes much sense or that it will work, whereas the others are doable and I think they'll work. And again, I'm only bringing it out because I'm looking at the large percentage of what feedback you had in the surveys you did and what people have said, which is mostly more about parking than any other thing. Okay. I've got one more. And I'm just saying I'm referring to some of, if you want to see what I'm talking about, look at the surveys on page 92, 93, 94, up to 100. Okay. Those were my specifics. I have to say it is really useful in our role as planning commissions, which looks at code to see what changes are made to all these code sections. I understand that when you give us a general overview, that's helpful, but we're going to deal with people who are actually needing to know what the code says and they want to know what it means. So I would like to see in the upcoming study session what codes are changing with great consistency because that's what we live with, is what the codes are, not what the policy is. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Shepard. Those were all excellent comments and I wrote down some of the follow-up items that I can summarize at the conclusion of our comments. So is there another commissioner who's ready with their comments? Yes, commissioner Sheridan, go ahead. Thank you. So in the recreational part of where you say parks, recreation, there's a section there that you originally referred to it as park recreation and open space, but then as you went down the column, it became parks and recreation. I don't know what page that's on, but I think it's important to be consistent to include open space in all the sections that refer to parks, recreation, and open space because I think they're all supposed to be under one title. Is that? I'm not sure I'm following the comment. Are you able to be more specific? So my understanding of parks is that parks is referred to as parks, recreation, and open space. That's their official title. They're not referred to as parks and recreation. So at one point it was referred to as parks, recreation, and open space. And then later in the column is it parks and recreation. I think that can be extremely confusing, especially for somebody like myself who has had a lot of interaction with parks, recreation, and open space. So I think the title is really important to make sure that's included. You're talking about the title of the department. Of the sections that all the sections should include, the department is not referred to as parks and recreation. It's referred to as parks, recreation, and open space. Okay, there are actual titles even longer than that for the department. Is it? Cultural resources too. Oh yeah, they have, oh that's true. And then another comment I had about this is at some point you mentioned the trying to create a trail that was consistent through our county to connect trails and to connect transportation trails. I can't be specific because I wasn't taking Copey's notes, but there's a little bit of a slippery slope when you start putting open space, passive trails that then become transportation avenues. And I think it's important to have delineations when a trail is part of an open space that there needs to be some sort of caveat when you begin to create transportation on an open space corridor. So I don't know how to address that, but just being somebody that is highly conscious of open space and passive recreation, I can see how those kind of trails could easily open up to transportation and yet they're at the same time, there's that balance of protecting the passive element. So can I speak to that for a second? Yes, yes. So I'm not sure if I made that comment in the presentation or where that comment was made, but we did intentionally separate out trails as more of an open space recreational element and keep that in the parks, recreation and public facilities section or element versus the access and mobility element which addresses more of a transportation facility. So we did work with Parks and Recreate, the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Cultural Services department to kind of figure out what the policies where the delineation of those policies would be. And we know that they have a lot of work to do with regard to identifying trails and maintaining them and making sure that they aren't overutilized or not to say abused but used for the wrong purposes. So we did try to be conscious of that. We don't have a, in this update to have a trails master plan or anything that identifies specific trails, but I know that that is on the radar for park staff. Well, I should mention that there has been plenty of work done on it in the past and those documents still exist for a trails master plan. And I think I brought that up. There are a lot of places in the county and the rural area like railroad track, for example, along Zioni where people use it to walk their dogs and walk. So it is essentially a trail corridor. That's the kind of thing I was meaning and the idea was to see if you could get people from one park area to another. They're called kind of linear parks in other communities that's common and they are not all within the parks department but I didn't want to get off track and then with passive recreation that nowadays includes bikes for better or worse. Yeah, I kind of agree with the concept that these are really helpful connecting pieces between land elements and sustainable communities. It's a very helpful thing. And I think ultimately when you try to do something like that you need to be able to have some caveats in there to protect an open space element that is definitely not, should not be part of something like that because there's elements in there. And when you start changing the general plan sometimes those elements fall off and the protection elements fall off. So I think I'm just putting this in as a comment of an awareness and with no specifics just that it's there and that it could be extremely problematic. Well, one more comment. We don't have a lot of large open spaces but up the North Coast we do. And I think what I was meaning is you want to have trail access put down when you develop property so people can get through them if they're large open spaces and that's just part of a planning process. All right, so, and then another, let's see, that's it for now I think. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Sheridan. Commissioner Villalanti. Thank you, Chair Dan. I just had a couple of questions that I was hoping that we could ask the staff. One of which, and I just want to pull up my notes here. I had a question on that same chart that I think it was Commissioner Sheppard was asking about on page 11. In reference to the TDM when it's talking about the proposed changes it says that the way that because staff is proposing essentially reducing the size of development to be consistent with some of the actions of the board from 25 down to 10. But the way they're saying that this development can come into compliance was to choose real list of strategies listed in an appendix to the general plan. And I apologize if I just missed it. I wasn't, I didn't see it either. I thought it was valuable to have access to that list because the way in which developers could come into compliance with that TDM and select from that list in that appendix was I thought to be a valuable piece of information and I'm glad it wasn't the only one that couldn't find it. I mean, it said it should be listed as an appendix to the general plan and I didn't see it on the project website. And so I don't, I don't know how to provide it next time or if you guys can even provide it sounds like maybe hasn't been crafted if you guys provide what that might look like though because I think it's really important when you're talking about especially lowering that threshold that any development 10 or less would have to meet these standards. I think it's really important to know what, I don't want to use the word burden but what requirement would we be placing on developers that are building 10 units or more in our County because I think the direction from the board with the 10 units or more with the change in the parking was actually to actually make development easier and if we're putting this other one I want to make sure we're creating a balance because I think we were making recommendation back to the board about, well, we made this to be consistent with your previous recommendation that we might be saddling developers with this other TDM requirement. I want to make sure that I'm informed anyway about what that looks like and what I'm making the recommendation back to the board. So I understand that it hasn't been created yet but it would be helpful for me. If when you come back you could give examples of what that might look like give us a sense of what that might include because for me not having a whole appendix of the general plan feels like I'm making a decision with an incomplete picture. So that would be helpful was a question I had. So thank you for letting me know.  I easily could have just missed a whole appendix to be honest. The other question I still have that I'm still, I know I don't want to beat it to death now but I still would really like clarity on that portfolio question. I would like to better understand really what we are saying we want for the future. The portfolio plan is so clearly called out in the general plan and in their sustainability plan here that I want to make sure I understand what recommendation are we as a planning commission and therefore then the board ultimately creating as a vision and then saying we want as a community moving forward. I want to really better understand so if you guys could come back to us. I know that there are some planning language with this planning line stuff but I would like to really better understand are we just saying we want sustainable transportation and that's just too vague. So what parameters are we saying we're looking for? Because I know that it was an imperfect pilot program but I also know that the iterative response to that was that it didn't increase the bicycle transportation. Even if we set aside the fact that it had some obstacles with being able to stay in place, let's say it's a play with putting it but it didn't create the results that we wanted, right? It didn't create increase bicycle transportation which is what we would have expected and so I would like to better understand what is it we as a commission are saying and what is it we are saying as a community that we think sustainability looks like in that quarter because it's so specifically called out. I would like to better understand when we come back what the planning staff feels that's part is supposed to say and what statement is the board saying because I think it's a really important piece of the transportation quarter just similarly like with the portion we did last time when it came to zoning we had very specific language about what do we think the medical corridor is.  I feel like the portal pieces called out means that we have a vision for this piece of the community and for me it would really help in making a decision to better understand what you guys feel this language means so that I can make a recommendation in the end. So those are the two things that I would really like clarity on for this piece and I appreciate you listening. Thank you. Do you have any other questions or comments? Commissioner Vialanti? No, thank you. Okay. So I have a few and but I, the first one was Portola Drive and so I wanna thank Commissioner Vialanti for articulating pretty much exactly what my comments on that are as well. So I don't need to go over that one. So one of the things and first I just wanna start by thanking you all for the tremendous amount of work that went into this staff report and the level of interest that we all have in this and the public I think is that this is one of the more important elements of the plan that we're gonna be considering. And when we have development projects one of the main things we always hear about is parking and traffic. So it's of no surprise that this is probably one of the sections of this proposed update that's gonna receive the most attention. So lucky you guys. So one of the things I just wanted to say in general is that there's a lot of aspiration in the plan which is good. I mean planners, policy planners should be aspirational and looking to the future. So but some of the things I think we need to think about a little bit differently. And one of the items that struck me was that like I'll just use for instance with the VMT discussion on page 10. So there's a lot of reference to moving to VMT will reduce cars on the road and reduce cars on the road will reduce greenhouse gases. But there's no visioning or thinking into account that we are moving pretty rapidly to electric cars. And I just read of something when I was reading this item I started looking about what are the projections for electric cars in the future? Well by 2040 pretty much all of the things I've read seem to be there's an agreement that at least 30% some projections are even higher will be electric cars. So I do think that we need to take that into account when we're talking about cars being responsible for greenhouse gas emissions that's gonna change in the future. And so I think that this in general needs to think about how we're all not just cars buses everything moving to electric and not hang our so we're not gonna be able to hang our hat entirely on reducing greenhouse gas emissions because we're getting cars off the road.  So that was that. And then I had a question about the TDM and Renee actually was bringing up some of my questions but then what came out from Renee's question was that we don't have a high quality transit system as defined right now. And so that wasn't made clear in the staff report that came out as a result of Commissioner Shepard's question. So I think that's really significant and needs to be acknowledged in the plan documents because when I was reading this, I was questioning like, well, Jesus, our Metro is that, are we a high quality transit system? And then later on on page 11, it kind of implies that we're not, but it doesn't really say that. It says, the element includes new policies that just worth the development of high quality transit. So I just think that this needs to be spelled out a little bit more grounded in reality in that we currently don't have a high quality transit system. And so we have to also think realistically, are we going to be able to get there? Because if we can't get there, then that cannot be a component of the TDM, right? I mean, we can't like it's, we can't hang our hat on like giving developers less parking and giving them bus passes. There's no bus stop near them or there is a bus stop where the bus only comes every half hour. And that's just not gonna work for people to get to school or to the job. So I think that that needs to be, and it wasn't clear to me. So when that's as moving forward in this process, I would like that to be a little bit more clear both for the commission and for the public. Okay, I did have some questions about the employer, the proposal to require employers with 50 or more employees to implement a TDM program. I'm not opposed to this. I think this needs to, we need to know more about it. And then more importantly, my question on this is, has there been outreach to those companies that have 50 or more employees to find out how this is gonna affect them? Because looking at the chart, it looks like what might be expected is to hire a transportation consultant or they have hire a staff person to manage this like they do up at UCSC.  But if you're a mid-sized retail store downtown with 55 employees, that's a big ask. So I'd like to know if there's been outreach to those employers. So this is a requirement for new development or at enlargement of development. The transportation coordinator requirement can be met by working with the RTC. They provide a free program or low-cost program through Recology Action. So you don't actually have to hire a full-time person or even a part-time person. You can pay for this program through Recology Action. And I also would like to get to... That's for the 200 plus employees. So does that mean that means if there's a new company coming in? So like... New or enlargement of development. So the... And I would also like to get to Commissioner Violante's question because this is related. I think that the TDM and VMT requirements are complex. And so I'll just break it down a little bit more, which is that all of these requirements are like a menu of options. They're not... If you're a small residential development with 10 units, the list that's referenced, which has not been created yet, would not... You would not be required to implement all of the things on the list. You would be required to pick and choose to reduce your VMT down to the threshold that's required by our adopted code, or sorry, by our adopted regulations. The regulations are driven by state law to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Acknowledge that more electric vehicles are coming online, also per state law, that does not negate the former state law, which requires us to regulate and reduce VMT on a project level basis, based on regional goals. So that said, the TDM reductions, we have gotten the comment that they need to be simplified from supervisors. So we are looking at that, and that little table is partly to say, we know we need to simplify this in the code, the proposed code, to make it easier to understand. The intent is to make it as easy as possible to implement, while also requiring TDM to be something that's done at the point of building your project as a self-mitigating strategy, so that you don't have... So the developer has less impacts when they come into the environmental review process. I thank you for that. So I'm still unclear though about the proposed requirements for there's 50 to 200 employees and then 200 plus employees. And so you indicated it's for new development. So does this mean if you have company acts that is here, that's 200 employees and we don't have that many of them, and they want to expand a building, then this would be a requirement on them? If they came in for a permit to expand a building, correct? Now...  We don't have the resources to do that, right? So yeah. If that could be made clear, so if your company acts and you're reading this, you know, oh, actually, this is not gonna apply to me. It's only gonna apply to me if I expand to this building over here. That would be helpful to have made clear. Does that make sense? Okay, thank you. I'm moving on. I'm sorry to interrupt. I have an engagement I'm late for and I have to leave. I don't know how that affects things and I don't think you're having any vote but I'm sorry to interrupt. Okay, thank you, Lisa. I wrote down your comments so we'll summarize them. Thanks so much. Thanks everybody. Yeah, okay. Okay, now I just have a couple more comments about parking. So on the chart on page 13 that other folks have referred to, why is the park, why are the parking requirements different for multifamily than simple family? So as I was saying in that presentation, maybe not clearly enough, we're trying to tie them to square footage, we're trying them to square footage to try to incentivize or assist developers who want to build smaller units to not have to eat up so much land with parking. So in other words, it's allowing people to design smaller homes without having to build out the same amount of parking. So I mean, I think that's a really worthy goal from my perspective. I also think that we need to build multifamily development that actually will serve families. And so that, you know, that does mean a higher bedroom count. And also, you know, I think that one of the things we should think about is if we, you know, we're going to have to build up and at higher density, but we also want not just singles and students to be able to live there, but we want families to see that as a desirable place to live so that we can sustain our community. And so I think that, you know, one of the things I think is a tough one to think about because I understand what you're saying. And I think that is correct. Developers prefer to have lower parking requirements to facilitate their project. However, at the same time, when we're thinking about building different types of housing for different types of uses and families and having fewer parking spaces makes that development less desirable for families. And that's, so I mean, I think it's just like a philosophical kind of question that, you know, the commission here, and then of course the board is going to have to be grappling with. And, you know, I'm pretty sure the direction is going to be in lowering parking standards, but at the same time, that makes it tougher if you're a family of four to choose to move into that multifamily development if your parking is going to be constrained and then it's going to be in the higher density area where parking is already hard to find. And, you know, in lower density, single family home neighborhoods pretty much easier to find parking. So it's, you know, I'm okay with it with the single family homes because we kind of have a lower density and unincorporated area. But if we're going to be building up, I think we also have to think about, you know, building, creating spaces or, you know, different types, not just singles and students and, but for people with kids and families and higher and more people in their household. So I'll be thinking more about that. And it's also the reason why I harp on making sure that we incentivize more open space. It's for the same exact reason so that people see those places as a desirable place to raise a family. Michelle, can I just add something to what you're speaking about? Sure. Right now we are really encouraging accessory dwelling units. So for new construction, we're going to see a lot with accessory dwelling unit and a junior accessory dwelling unit. But the new parking requirements is, how do they fit in? Accessory dwelling unit parking requirements are actually regulated by state law. So we cannot require more than one parking space for an accessory dwelling unit. And if it's within a half mile of any public transit spot stop, we cannot require a space at all. Just to add to that and maybe to circle back to the comment about parking in the coastal areas, we are able to kind of address the Coastal Act and do have different parking standards, higher parking standards for ADUs that are in the coastal areas, the designated areas, the Solstead, Dozdo, Loda. Right. So the way the state laws is even if the bus might area this is case comes every hour they can still not have a parking space. Right. Unless it's in the coastal zone. Yeah. Go ahead. So I was just also going to say that for the multi-family comments regarding multi-family, you know, we do see mix, it's really a mixture of housing units that get built in multi-family. So it's not, I don't expect that it would just be all small unit developments, but a mixture. And so the parking requirements are structured as I'm sure you know, they're structured so that if it's under, it would be under 750 would be one space and then over 750 would meet a different requirement. And then there's also guest parking still built in. So we did try to account for having a mixture of sizes of units in a single development. I appreciate that. So I'll leave it there, it's been a long day. And I really appreciate all of the work that went into this. I'm sure there'll be more. I had one more question or comment on that appendix that we know that you mentioned you haven't made up yet. I don't see how we really, when we come back, I don't really see how I can usefully address this without knowing what kind of things are going to be on that appendix for developers to choose from. I have zero idea and it's such a core principle in this plan. I'd really like to see that. So it's, it actually, the basis of it already exists as the county's VMT guidelines, which are the adopted guidelines for our VMT thresholds that we have to implement for any project that's subject to CEQA. Those are available on the planning department's website. We might have to send out a link separately because they're, I have to describe to you how to navigate to them since we've been making so many changes to our website right now. I'm just saying when you bring this back, we'd like to see it. I don't want to spend another half an hour trying to find it. Yeah, I would suggest, you know, at least before the August meetings when we are to take direction. And then I, you know, for me, one of the other general comments is that, as I think it was mentioned by another commissioner is the most important part of this document group that for us to look at, look at are going to be the strike through versions of the code. And I understand that, you know, there's a lot to print and so you don't want to give that to us.  So, but if the staff wants to print those for the commission, I think it's really critical. I mean, that's where the rubber meets the road is the strikeout version of the chapter 13. I have to say when my constituents come to me, they have the current code and to have the strikeout version what's proposed means I can explain things clearly and people can understand clearly because people don't go to the planning commission very often, the planning part very often. So they may know what it was 10 years ago. So having what it was and what it is, I would agree. I think that's going to be a document that we'll keep and make use of and maybe save you guys some time and trouble later on. Yes. I understand it is available. So it is available online and I have been looking at it but it hasn't been super helpful to me to just look out online. And so I will be printing them myself. So I just wanted to put that out there. It's quite a lot to print. So maybe you could consider and then let us know by email after you've talked about it amongst your staff whether or not that's something that you could provide to the commission. I'd pay for getting it if that's the issue. We held off thousands of pages, right? So in making them available online gives the commissioners an opportunity to really choose which part of this massive project you wanna look at. If you're requesting that we print part copies of the general plan or maybe just the strike out version of the code, we can do that. It takes about 10 days to make it happen. We won't charge you for them because it's probably, I don't know, $300 a pot but we can do that. We're trying to save some trees and trying to save for Michael Lam having to do that. But if that's what the commission wants, that's fine. I mean, for me, I was really having the strike-through version of the code is what would be helpful and I also wanted to save you from all of the things you've just mentioned. Is the just the code changes 1,000 pages? Because if that's the case, I almost feel like that's a whole other separate issue, maybe. It's just pretty hard to navigate online, especially if you don't know, as you say, the county site changes all the time. Not everything works. It depends on what browser you work. I really wanna be able to have this as a reference. That's all. And I agree, it is the code changes. We're happy to provide you with the code changes and strike-through in paper, if that's what you're asking for. The project documents are available in one specific place that has been available since the end of February, is not broken down. We just added one appendix to it, it hasn't changed. It's all been there. And I realize, do realize this is very different from what the commission is used to. It is for us also, but there shouldn't, at this point, I hope there isn't any confusion about where to find the documents. They are there. I think your website is great. I think it's really well done and all the documents are listed with a link to each one and that's been great and super helpful. But now I feel like, at least for me, I'm getting to the point where actually I have to start really thinking specifically about what's being changed. And so when I get to that point, that's when I usually like to specifically look at what exactly is being changed in the code and not just kind of like what is described or theoretical. So anyway. So you can certainly order those and make them available for your next meeting. That would be great. Just want to express my appreciation, because I do and I really am hoping it's not a thousand pages of code. It might be as possible. The underlined and strikethrough, you know, tend to get really long because you've got both the existing and the. So it's like two codes, two sets of codes. Yeah, it is, yeah. But that's fine. I'll do that. Okay, I really appreciate you. Yeah, not just to be clear, what we'll print is what is out there for public review now. It won't have any of the changes that we've been talking about. I think we'll have to kind of take the commission's action and incorporate that into the next draft that we make available that you'll have for ordinances as we go to public hearing. So are you still iterating then and making revisions to the. We are just starting right now to, we have not done any other iterations. We wanted to get to the commission, consider the public comment that we've heard, consider the commission's comments and feedback, and then prepare the new drafts that would appear in the ordinances for your recommendation. So I can make the print copies happen, but just so you know, it's what's out there now, not what we're preparing for the ordinances. So we'll not reflect the comments that you've had since we've been meeting together on these study sessions. That's fine with me. Okay, I guess I'd like to hear from Allison what you think, I mean, if I'm gonna ask to print the codes, I guess I'd rather not see them right before, see the final version, like your final version. I just want to have enough time to really look at it, that's all. And it takes time.  So I have to set aside a lot of time to do it tonight. I really want to be able to do that. This is very important in my role as a planning commissioner, and I still work full time. So I just want to, I don't, to me just getting either the current version or the revised one as long as we have time to look at it, it's fine. Yeah, I was gonna say our last planning, our study session is July 13th, correct? And then we don't have another hearing. We started hearings on August 24th. Yeah, we put out there, the question of whether the commission wanted to schedule an additional study session to return to some of these issues. Because I think we're getting some comments, but we're not necessarily coming to resolution on how the commission would want to see the change. So there's two ways to go. We could schedule another study session. I'd have to recommend that it be on July 27th or if that's inconvenient, maybe a special session on the first week of August in order for us to have enough time to prepare the ordinances. No, no, I apologize. I wasn't, I wasn't clear with my point of my comment. I share Dan's concern about spending a significant amount of time dedicated to reading a thousand pages of changed code, holding to have it not really be the version we're considering. And so I was trying to understand the duration of time between our next study session and when we would actually be considering the actual code is what I was trying to make sure I understood our timeline. So I apologize, I'm not suggesting we have another. Oh, okay, no problem. I was trying to understand timeline, so I apologize for not being clear on my question. We're trying to come back with ordinances on August 24th. Yeah, so that's what I was trying to understand. That's about a month. But that also assumes that you're not going to make additional revisions based on that. That July 13th. July 13th is to finish up these study sessions, go over the code mod and what's in there. And then at that point, if we're not going to have another study session, we'll be diligently working to modify these drafts to address comments that we heard from the commission and the public or the direction we got, for instance, from the board on the TDM item. Well, on the 13th, how many other items do we have? On the 13th, we have a big agenda. You thought this one was big, this is the code mods, which is a lot of what's happening in the code changes and changes to agriculture and natural resources. There's not too much in natural resources. And then we're going to do an overview of what's in the EIR so that you're aware. Well, I wouldn't be willing to break it up and have a meeting in La Cholla. I guess my concern is I want to make sure we, whatever we're reading, I want to make sure it's the final version. I don't know that it serves the commission to spend hours reading code that is not really what's going to be before us. Whenever we take it up, I almost, if the timeline hadn't been so public, I almost would recommend that we push out our hearing on this in order to give us time to read, since you are making changes, and I don't know that it's even possible given that we've published our hearing timeline at this point, but I almost, given that you are making changes, there are revisions and I want to make sure that commission, I mean, for my own comfort, and I don't know, again, I don't even know if this is possible given that we've made our timeline public. I agree. This is probably one of the most important things we'll do for many years, and I want to try and do it, see how fast I can get through it. That's not the way I want to do this. It's almost like I would, and I don't know, Stephanie, seeing your face, like how possible that is, because there's going to be revisions to this huge package. I'd rather have us dedicate the time to reading the final code, what the changes to staff is making based on the input we've provided, and give us the extra couple of weeks to not have our first hearing until, I'm not talking about adding a meeting. I'm almost talking about delaying until September 14th being our first hearing or something like that. Again, I don't know if that's even feasible or legal given that we've already published these timelines, but I'd rather have the commission, and I obviously would like to hear my fellow commissioners' input. I'm sorry that there's only two other ones of them here today about this idea that if you guys are still in the iterative process, I'd rather not waste my colleague's time reading code that's still changing. I don't know, Commissioner Dan. I totally agree with that. I would rather just get a printout of the final code changes and as far in advance to the August 24th hearing is you can do that would be great knowing that we have another opportunity, I think September 14th to make a final recommendation. So yeah, I agree with the commission ability. I would agree too, as long as I think that's planned. If we have to re-notice something, well then that's still possible. Okay, does that sound somewhat clear, Stephanie? Thank you. Yeah, I guess what I wanted to say is that staff has some corrections. We've seen some errors, perhaps cross-references aren't correct. That kind of thing. The more substantive changes are anything that's happening at this commission. So there wouldn't be all new material that it was like, oh, we never saw this before. We never talked about this before. We were thinking if the commission is unhappy with this parking standard or whatever that standard would change, we would highlight that piece. I just wanted to say that these are not documents that are going through big rounds of changes as you're reviewing them, just so you know. To help with that, my recommendation to staff would be that when you do provide us with kind of the final version that you use a double strikeout underlying version so that we can choose to start reading it now and that we would know come the version you ultimately provide us, what changes are based on our own comments so that we can, this provides us the longest timeline in advance so that if we choose to read the code now we can and then when you do provide us the ultimate version that we know that by using the strikeout, the double strikeout underlying version, we would know that these are changes since then. So if your staff is amenable to that, I would do my recommendation. It would make it easier for me in reading the code because like for example, that's a good idea. The odds item, I actually found it difficult to read because they had like glue and red changes in the staff item and I was like, well, are these all changes? But if they just use this double strikeout underlying version it would have been helpful for me. Can I just chime in for a second? This is riveting conversation and definitely something that I spent a lot of time doing is pouring over the code. So, you know, the only changes that are gonna happen are gonna come from my office at this point. Stephanie and her team have handed them off to me to review and creating a brand new version that is a clean version that incorporates the changes that you have made, I think would be, it's doable given that it's probably not gonna be a lot, right? And I mean, the changes that you're going to propose are gonna be probably not that lengthy, I would imagine, right? So I think we could provide copies of a new strike through underline with just those specific sections, right?  It's very, very long. This is just an incredible lift for all of you, for staff, for everybody. And I just wanna be cognizant of creating new versions of things that, so just that you know that, you know, it would just be those sections that you touch. And, but I think if we're going to be kind of editing the code and as I think is your duties, right? As commissioners is to go through and propose edits and suggestions, then yeah, another study session makes a lot of sense, but it's something that I would urge you to begin now, just if you haven't already is looking, it's very dense, it's very long, tedious work. And so if somebody has been doing it for weeks, it's just, I don't know how much time you're gonna have to really go through each and every page, but yeah, it's like Stephanie said, we're not gonna be making substantive changes. So what exists now online is pretty much what it's going to look like. And those substantive changes that are going to be, that are going to be incorporated are gonna come from this body. And what about the using the double underlying suggestion? I think that's a good idea and doable. Yeah. Sorry, commissioner Shepard, yeah, the double underlying meeting, the changes that you all have made, is that what you're suggesting? Is that what that? Well, we haven't made any changes, so we're just giving general feedback. So any changes will be staff's iterative changes from what's already posted online right now. We would make any changes until August 24, buddy. Yeah, so I guess what I'm asking is, commissioner Shepard's suggestion that there'd be double underlying. So what are we talking about when we say double underlying? Well, Stephanie, why don't you explain again? I don't want to speak to Allison, but I think what we were trying to do is to highlight changes that have been made since the version you've already looked at. Like whether that's double underlying or highlighting or however that happens. But so it's real clear to you what has changed since the version that was prepared. I think that was the concept. Well, when I look at legal contracts in my business, that's where the double underlying shows you what's been changed since the last version. I think that'll work. So I think that the concept was we should all get going on digging into the code now, but that after the conclusion of our study sessions, staff will be working diligently to make any additional modifications to the code. And once as soon as that's complete, they're gonna make that available to us in a double strikeout version in paper prior to the August 24th meeting. Does that represent what we all discussed? Yeah, and if I can clarify just for a second, what you're saying is that after the study sessions and staff will then take whatever conversation. So I haven't heard anything yet that was kind of a proposed change, right? So I haven't heard anything at this point. I just said that because staff indicated that they would be making changes to what's already posted online. If that's not gonna happen, then we can get a printed version of the code right now. But I think what Allison and I were trying to avoid was getting a printed version of the code now and pouring through it, but then what actually is in our on our agenda packet for the 24th is something different because staff is still iterating on the code. Staff's not iterating. Staff is making corrections and would be addressing the commission's comments. Daniel may iterate. It would just be my iterations, but it won't be substantive. If I have any, if I come across anything that needs substantive change, I will bring it to the commission and you will know about it. Well, let me do the base. If you don't mind an example of what you were saying for example, next session on the 13th, we're gonna talk about one of my, we're gonna talk about fences and we're gonna talk about large animal regulations. So I'm our general regulations code. I've met with the 4-H people. I've met with the horsemen and I've met with groups and showed them the proposed changes to the code and they had suggestions that I think I would like to bring back. So I will be making specific suggestions in this. I feel like I just expressed my reaction to thoughts on the code, but on what we were looking at in this, because we haven't been looking at code. So I still think that that could be a double strikeup version is what I was talking about after the 13th. So based on Daniel's comments, it sounds like they're not going to be changes by staff at this time. They're simply going to be, what I'm gonna call small edit and that the majority of the code is not, is going to stay the same. And then, Daniel, based on what you've said originally, it almost sounds like you would recommend the code be printed now and that you could bring us a small packet of page. Yeah, I don't know what to call it. I'd like of the places where the change occurred and that would be, at least what it sounded like from you when you decided to weigh in here and that your recommendation was that the code be printed now and that you would be willing to provide us with, with the same way when we make changes even on one of our earlier items, when we make changes to these larger portions of code, we don't actually bring back the big code, we just bring like the little pieces where the changes are made. And it sounds like if I was hearing you correctly, it sounded like that was almost your recommendation, which is have staff print the code now and you, since you would be the one making the changes, would bring us back the locations where those changes occurred. Did I, did I understand you? Yeah, I think that could work. I wouldn't, I'm not advocating for printing out any pages just because that's not what I can, I won't recommend printing out all those. Yeah, yeah, so, but if you so desired to have a hard copy of this text, then yes, now would be a good time to do it and to make your notations on the text.  I would be okay with that. That's what I meant. Yeah, but the printing just, I don't know how much time will be needed. Stephanie, you mentioned a couple of weeks to get that underway, correct? We're talking about just the strike-through version of the code. Yeah. Yeah. Not the general plan. Yeah, just the code. We're all interested in the code. I mean, probably about a week once I order it up. And I don't know if this is possible either, but if it could be tabbed by like, section would be extremely helpful, but now I'm just- It might be another week. Okay. Well, I really appreciate it. I know it's a big ask, but I just don't see any way for me, at least around it, I was gonna either print it myself but you know- Yeah, it's only once every 20 years. Yeah, more than that actually. It's been quite nice since 1994, right? Yeah, and this is our biggest responsibility. We wanna do, I think we really all want to do it right. My recommendation on that is to not wait another 20 years and to do it in smaller iterations over time. And when something comes back to fix it, I just have to say that this isn't gonna be perfect. I wanna temper your expectations that this process isn't gonna be perfect. The code is not gonna be perfect and all of our wishes and wants of sustainability are not gonna be perfect, but that shouldn't hold us back from actually passing something forward to the board. So I don't want you to rush, but I want you to understand that this isn't the end and that we're diligently going through this material and it's a lot and we shouldn't have to ask you to do this again for another 20 years, but at the same time, smaller chunks next time, I hope. But yeah, there's gonna be some pains in here, I think, just hearing the parking pieces, but yeah, I think you'll understand that piece, yeah. Well, thank you so much. And so let's conclude this item and then move on to our last three kind of cleanup items. Is there a planning director's report? And if you don't mind before you go on, I'm sorry, I left two things out of my comments. There were a lot of feedback about why don't we consider Dutch intersections for our meeting? Could you tell me what a Dutch intersection is? Because a lot of people talked about it for the next meeting and then one suggestion I thought was a good idea to consider is tree removal permits or trees over a certain size. At least we've never had that in our court, a lot of other places do. I'd like to get some feedback on that, looking at what people suggested. A lot of people think we have a tree removal process, but we don't and maybe we should for large heritage trees. Oh, sorry, that was just a little small items from going back to big thing. And then I had one overall comment. I understand that the part of the issue has become in since the last 20 years, the last five years or the last 10 years is a lot of the general plan is just getting the county in accordance with state laws and changes in policy. But it feels more and more that the state's running the show and the county just figures out how to accord itself to the state. I'm hoping that when we finish this document, we'll have some vision about Santa Cruz County and what we want to be here, even though we are so much more directed and controlled by state policies. I want this to be a Santa Cruz document. I don't feel that coming out of any of the language. It's more like, well, we have to be in accordance with the state here and the state there and the bigger issues, but what is it that makes this place unique? And it's the reason everybody lives there. There's a vision statement in the introduction of the general plan. Maybe I just haven't seen it. Yeah, yeah, that was built from and very closely resembles what was in the sustainable Santa Cruz plan. Thank you. You're welcome. I need you to go look at it. It is just really difficult to access this all. And I can only spend so many hours in front of the computer. So I think having to think to carry around physically, because I'll carry this around with me and look at it whenever I can. Thanks, Renee. For them, we got to move along here. So let's wrap this up and move along. So is there plenty of director's report? There's no report today. As the report on upcoming meeting states and agendas, you kind of gave us an overview already of the life. I, yes, I can do that. The next agenda is on July 13th and we have a project that I shall actually be bringing for a minor land division that is on center street in Soquel. And there's also an appeal of a cannabis item that will be coming to the commission. And then of course we do have a study session. Right now we don't have anything on the agenda for July 27th. Other than I think there was a potential that we were going to have a further study session, which I'm not quite sure whether we have landed on whether that's going to happen yet. But there's no other scheduled items at this time. Is that cannabis item, the one that's returning to us about up in my district? Yes, who's on the old Mount Road? Okay. Okay, thank you, Lizanne. Ms. Chair, yes. It would now be an appropriate time to ask that we have the discussion about the minutes come back on the agenda. I just want to make sure that gets captured as well. Oh, you're jumping the gun there, Chair. I mean, Commissioner Villalante, I'm going to address that in just a moment. Okay, perfect. We're discussing upcoming agenda items. Thank you. Yeah, are we ready for my report? We are ready. Well, I am happy to report that I consulted my Sturgis. You can't really see it very well. Standard code parliamentary procedure doesn't, sorry for the filter. Anyway, so the planning commission is under the Sturgis rules of parliamentary procedure. And I will read from the approval of the minutes and you'll be happy to note that no motion is even necessary to approve minutes. So you, the board can entertain minutes. So if there are no corrections after, or after all corrections have been made, the presenting officers should state, quote, if there are no corre