Alright, good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us for today's planning commission meeting. Today's date is September 21st, 2022, and then time is 931 am. Today's meeting is completely remote via zoom. There are a couple of different ways to participate in today's meeting. If your computer is equipped with a microphone, it is recommended that you participate via the planning commission zoom meeting link, which is posted on the planning department's home page at sccoplanning.com. Alternatively, if your computer is not equipped with a microphone, you may provide comment by telephone, and the phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The collaboration code is 814-8152-8029. And again, this information is posted on the planning department public hearing page. So during key points in today's meeting, time will be provided for members of the public to provide their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either remotely raise your hand by selecting the hand icon on the zoom link, or if calling in by telephone by remotely raising your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. I will call on participants by either your name or the last four digits of your telephone number. If you're participating via the zoom link, when I call on you to speak, you'll see a pop up on your screen that says unmute. Please accept the pop up state your name for the record and provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone, you must unmute yourself by pressing star six on your phone. And if at any time you have difficulty connecting to today's meeting, be it the link or by calling in, I will be checking my email periodically, which is Jocelyn at Santa Cruz County dot us, and I will pause the meeting to make sure we connect you if you email me. All right, it appears we're situated. I will now turn the meeting over to the planning commission chair. Tim Gordon. Good morning, Tim. Good morning, Mr. Drake. Thank you so much for the intro and thanks for everyone for meeting us on this special time that we didn't have as our typical planning commission days so we appreciate everyone being here. Let's go ahead and call the meeting to order. And Mr. Drake, can we please have a roll call. Sure. Commissioner Dan. Here. Mr. Violante. Yeah. Commissioner shepherd. Here. Commissioner lasin be here and chair Gordon here. Thank you. Do you have any additions or corrections to the agenda today? No, not today. Okay. Moving on to item three declaration of expert take communications. Are there any commissioners that have anything to declare today? Okay. Hearing none, we can move on from item three and on to agenda item number four, oral communications. This is the time of hearing where members of the public have the opportunity to speak on things that are not on the agenda today. Mr. Drake, can you please see if we have anyone that would like to speak at this time. Yes, and two minutes will be provided for any speakers who wish to provide comment on anything not on the agenda today which is the sustainability update. If you raise your hand if you're calling in it is star nine. And I see one hand raised by Deborah still. Good morning Deborah please restate your name for the record you have two minutes. Good morning. Hi. Hello would you please state your name for the record. Yeah Jerry still. Okay. Yeah, I'm Jerry still and I'm with I'm here as a representative of say pleasure point. Patty Brady isn't able to be here today. She is a great voice of our group. I may not match your eloquence but I will strive for a brief. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Still if I could interrupt for one quick second. Time back if I'm if I made a mistake here I just want to make sure that this is not about the sustainability plan and if the remarks are about sustainability plan we will have that time in just a moment. Oh, I see. Okay, I'll wait. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. We'll get right back to you. Okay. Thanks. I'm going to go back to the public who wish to provide comment on any other topic other than the sustainability update. And so please raise your hand now. I'm seeing a hand raised by a caller to 915. Good morning. Please say your name for the record. So there you go. There we are. This is back in Stein Brunner. Can you hear me. Yes, good morning Becky. Good morning. And I'm very grateful for these two meetings that are coming along today and next Wednesday. I wanted to bring to your commission's attention the action yesterday at the county board of supervisors meeting regarding the tiny homes ordinance. I think it may be coming back to you. They discussed your their very thoughtful recommendations and I want to thank you for that. There are a number of changes, quite significant changes that were proposed. So I urge you to look into that if you've not already done so. And also the local coastal plan action with the coastal commission, the amendments were discussed. And unfortunately that is at the 11th hour and will likely be denied. But I do believe that the board voted to send it. The amendments to the coastal commission anyway, even though the commission has said they will deny them. I want to thank you for your public service. I really do. And I wish I appreciate that your thoughtful, thorough work and forgiving the public this extra time to review this very significant document before you today. Thank you. Thank you, Becky. All right. Are there any other members of the public who should speak at this time if so please raise your hand by pressing star nine or raising your hand on the zoom icon, not seeing any chairs I'll turn it back over to you. Okay, thank you then we can close the public comment and oral communications part of this hearing and move on. So the agenda is the consent agenda, and we have AB 361 resolution again today. And any commissioners, like any discussion or or emotion on this item. I'll move approval. Thank you commissioner Dan. I'll second it but since we second it I've heard discussion I don't believe we need to adopt this since it's I believe we only have to do it every 30 days. I think it was for consideration for the next meeting this break. I think that we did it last time. You did. Yeah, so we don't need it on every agenda. No, I second it but for next meeting we have one next week. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry who made the motion on that one. Commissioner Dan. Thank you. Okay, so since we have it and we have a motion to second let's go ahead and vote and it'll save us another 30 days. Okay. Our mystery. Can we please have a roll call vote. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Commissioner lasenby. Yes. Commissioner Gordon. I mean chair Gordon. Yes. Commissioner Vialante. Yes. Commissioner. Commissioner Dan. Yes. All right, thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, the consent agenda item passes and we can move on to the item number six approval of minutes. And. I believe that our minutes do say this is the approval of minutes from the August 24th planning commission. Or our agenda, excuse me. But I just want to clarify that we are actually approving the agenda from September 14th. Okay. I think we might be looking at the. September 14th agenda. Okay. If. But I can double check that afterwards and just clarify and make sure that it's for September 14th. Okay, great. Well, just to be clear, we are approving or looking at the. The minutes from September 14th hearing and what any commissioners like. Yeah, I just looked them up and it does say September 14th. I'm sorry. The delay. So yeah, I did check them and read through them thoroughly. And so I will move approval. And I will second that license. Okay. Thank you. Motion in a second. And any discussion prior to a vote. Okay. The street. Can we please have a roll call vote. Okay. Yes. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Shepard. Yes. Okay. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Villalente. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yeah. And chair Gordon. Yes. Thank you. That passes and we can move on. I just want to be clear that what I was looking at is today's agenda that's. And maybe I have. And not an updated agenda, but it does say August 24th on the agenda. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Jocelyn Jocelyn sent us all the minutes. I think that was Monday. I can't remember what day. Yesterday. And then attachment yesterday.  It has. Right. And. Yeah. I'm on the online agenda. And it does say September 14th as well. So I. Maybe I'm. Something different. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm on the one that I was sent, but I haven't gone through the planning department and gender to get to there. So any case. We're all good. Sounds like. We got a lot of emails. So. Yeah. Right. And it's not as properly. So that's important as well. So it is there. Correct. Great. Thank you. Okay. So. On to the item number seven, we're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the resolution to the sustainability policy. Few things want to chat through here before we really dive in. I just a little housekeeping thing. So I think we're going to stick. With our same break schedule that we had. Last week, if necessary, you know, I'm not sure exactly how long I'm going to go today, but we had. Breaks at 11. Lunch. 30 minute lunch. Around 1230. So if you get into those. Not long one day, we'll, we'll try to break it those times. We are going to have. The process today will, there will not be a presentation. However, we can have another introduction. If that's possible. And then also we will open for public comment. After that introduction. And once we get to the public comment, I want to talk a little bit about how that'll go. But I'd like to open up to you. Ms. Hansen start. Thank you, chair. Good morning. Commissioners. Stephanie Hansen assistant director. For the new CDI department. Maybe not so new now. But. Thank you for. Having us back where we are. As the chairs that said, we are not doing a. Staff presentation. We would refer people back to. The August 24th meeting when the staff presentation was given. And as well as the packet material that is linked on the website. For actually the last three meetings have those materials. There were some additional. Correction pages that have been given. To the planning commission. There was also. An overall motion that was crafted in the. August 24th. Meeting agenda. So. I think. After we hear additional amending motions. From the staff. And after we hear additional amending motions. From the commissioners will probably circle back for an overall motion on anything that wasn't amended. And the recommendations to the board of supervisors. To certify the secret document and. And the other things that are included in that motion. And the commissioners. I just want to make sure that we do do that. We appreciate all the hard work that the commissioners have been doing to review these documents. We recognize it's a. Massive project for. All of us. And the team is here to help. Answer any questions that the commissioner may. Commissioners may have, although I think we're. Here to help. So. Thank you chair. And I will pass it back over to you. If you want to open public comment first or. The commission discuss how you want to handle. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. You know, I think it. Would it be appropriate to. Get through the public comment and allow people opportunity to, you know, hear from the last hearing or any new items. I just do want to. Make a note to everyone that is listening from the public that if you've written a letter, we've received it and, you know, read through it and that. Is all information that we've, you know, likely received. And so. If there's other comments that you'd like to bring up or new items, I think that would be most appropriate. If it's a kind of maybe repeat from the last few hearings, I would state that, you know, we've, we've heard. And so. With that, let's do, let's open the public comment at this time. And then we'll come back to the commission. To ask any further questions and discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair Gordon. Just one, one thing to that. Very introduction. And that is just to say for the public's. Benefit that this is not the last stop on this train. And that these are recommendations that will then go on to the board of supervisors. So any member of the public who is here listening. To just know that. The planning commission is making recommendations to the final board of supervisors. And then at the conclusion of today's meeting, maybe staff could talk about that timeline for the public's benefit. Happy to do that. Thank you for that addition. Yes. Great addition. Thank you. All right. So I will. Move over and see who we've got from the public. So this time that we'll have three minutes. I'll go through the meeting. I'll go to the meeting. And I'll be on the clock for each speaker and I see hand raised by Michael Metera. Good morning, Michael. Will you please restate your name for the record? Hello, everybody. My name is Michael. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning. Yes. So I grew up on 26th avenue. And when I was a kid, my dad worked as a lab technician at UCSC. and pay the mortgage. That is not a dream that is available to people in this area anymore. And the reason is housing. The median house price is well over a million dollars in this neighborhood where I still live. If we don't, so I really support the rezoning of Portola in the construction of higher density housing here. Because if we don't lower the price or if we don't build affordable housing in this neighborhood, the median house price will go up and up and this will become a soulless enclave of millionaires and billionaires. Who is going to buy a secondhand wetsuit from the carters if you have to be a millionaire to live here? No one. None of the businesses that we cherish will survive if this is just a playground for the fabulously wealthy. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. All right. Back to the hands raised and I'll just remind everybody if you're calling in to press star nine on your telephone if you would like to remotely raise your hand and I see the caller two nine one five hand raised. I believe that's Becky. Good morning again. Please restate your name for the record. Good morning. This is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning again. Thank you. Once again, thank you for having this additional meeting today. I've read through the proposed changes from your last meeting and I think they are all excellent. Because I am a member of the Lions club, I have become acquainted with a number of low vision and blind people and they have helped literally open my eyes to the access problems they encounter as they try to navigate independently throughout our county. One of the biggest issues is the non standard placement and type of crosswalk signalization and much of it is not audible. So if you're blind, you don't know you pressed the button. You don't know what the crosswalk signal is displaying. The county is doing a good job of trying to upgrade a lot of those intersections. But I see that you have some good comments here on the general plan access and mobility portion. And I would like to have some language in there that all crosswalks are standardized in terms of location and type of equipment and that all of them are audio activated and at an appropriate audio level. When it is near a busy street and the audio is way down low, the people cannot hear it who need it most. So I would like to ask for that. My second point is regarding the singling out the pleasure point area only for the ultra high density. It makes no sense. It should be moved to areas along the rail corridor in my opinion so that future rail public transportation would be accessible and supported by the dense development that will have to come to accommodate the Rena numbers but would better serve the public. Pleasure point is not on a major corridor. In fact, the four lanes that Portola Drive was is now reduced. And I feel that increasing density in that area will not serve the public and will destroy the nature of that neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Becky. Okay. Going back to the list of callers and attendees. Again, if you would like to speak on the sustainability update, please raise your hand by pressing star nine or selecting the hand icon on the zoom app. I see Mr. Still is with us. However, the hand is not raised. Good morning again, Mr. Still, will you please restate your name for the record? Jerry Still. Jerry. Good morning. Hi. Yeah, I'm with the say pleasure point group and and I agree with Becky the last caller. The nine parcels proposed for rezoning along Portola, but they're located between 32nd and 36th, which is only four blocks. And with the flex zoning, it could grow from 45 units per acre to 81 units, which could be 373 units on 4.61 acres. And it's yeah, it's only four blocks. So this is this is not sustainable. Please reconsider the zoning for Portola Drive and save the high density flex zoning for multimodal and active corridor streets, not Main Street. Thank you. Thank you, Jerry. Okay, last call for public comment on the sustainability update. For this meeting. All right, I see hand raised by David Faulkner. Good morning, David. You have three minutes. Will you please restate your name for the record? Yeah, my name is David Faulkner. Good morning. Good morning. I just chimed in and I'm not sure what's up and so far in the meeting, but I just want to address the smaller community community areas. I live in the neighborhood of Zionty in Lompico. And historically, we've had a downtown area, which includes the Zionty market. But the general plan has the area zone as residential. So it's currently it's operating on a use permit from the 1970s. And it's been a community center and corner store since the 1940s. I was hoping the general plan could recognize this area as a commercial zone and change the zoning to commercial and also designated as a RSL rural service line for two properties, one that includes the Zionty market and one that is across the street that used to house the club Zionty, which was also a commercial operation since 1929 up until 1983. I think the general plan kind of ruined the area by forcing everybody to drive five to six miles down to downtown Safeway. And I've been really struggling on the property owner. And I've been really struggling with expanding the market with extra seating and more retail space because the general plan doesn't want to store in the on the parcel. So I'm hoping that this general plan could recognize this area as a viable commercial area that serves very highly densely populated Zionty in Lompico. So I have a minute left, but I'm going to sign off here. Great. Thank you, David. Thank you. All right. Are there any additional members of the public who wish to speak on this item, the sustainability update? Chair, I am not seeing any, so I will turn it back up and just went up. Participant by the name of Oliver. Good morning. Please state your full name for the record. You have three minutes. Good morning. My name is Oliver Carter. I am the owner of Blown Out, Wetsuit Repair, and Surfshack on Portola. I just wanted to chime in. I appreciate what the committee is doing. All in all, I'm for housing in Santa Cruz. It's a very impacted area. And I understand that a lot of people who grew up here, including my wife, I've been here 30 years, you know, we're always seeking housing. But to be honest with you, the rezoning of my parcel is what I have to focus on. And I just want the commission to think about that. I know ultimately it's up to the property owner. But the rezoning of this parcel, you know, will greatly impact my business and and in concerns to Mr. Matera's comment, being able to buy, you know, a second hand wetsuit from us might not be an option for anybody. If this location disappears after 27 years of being a business that gives back to the community and gave back to the community. I hope that the committee takes that into account when making the recommendations. We've been in contact with with Manu and a number of people on his his staff concerning this. I just want to let it be known that, you know, we're fighting for our survival, we feel to an extent. Thank you. Thank you, Oliver. Are there any other members of the public who wish to provide comment at this time? So please raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone or the hand icon on the zoom link. I'm seeing no further hands raised chairs. I will turn it back over to you. Okay, thank you. And thank you to all the callers that spoke up. We really appreciate it. And, you know, for everyone that's chimed in along the way and giving us your feedback, we can't thank you enough for being here. At this time, we can close the public comment portion and bring it back to the commission. And I just wanted to start off with talking about a little bit of recap where we ended last time and where we're headed this time. So we've, you know, kind of officially got through questions and discussion and have been on to motions. Um, last time, correct me if I'm missing something, but we had motions on the built environment under the general plan section under the built environment, active mobility, agriculture, natural resource and conservation parks and rec and public facilities. And I think that that's all we went through last time. So I just wanted to start off by, well, first off, I'd want to see if anyone had any additional questions before we went into motions just to make sure, you know, that if anything came up from the last week that missioners had time. And then I just want to go through the sections one at a time to just verify that we didn't miss any sections that maybe people had a motion on that we that we maybe skipped over just to be really clear there. So I'll just go through them one at a time and then we can say yes, no to comments or motions and then move on. And excuse me, what I'm sorry, I'm unclear what you're proposing to do right now, because my understanding was we concluded our action on the general plan. So from my perspective, though, that action is in the minutes, we just adopted the minutes. And that's now been moved on to the board of supervisors will move on to staff to do what they need to do to incorporate those and then to write their comments and their staff report. And that's headed to the board of supervisors for final determination. And so my understanding of what's in front of us now is the remainder of the package, which is the zoning code. That is correct. To some extent, I don't remember if we went over the intro or made a motion on the intro to the general plan. And then we do need to, you know, I just wanted to make sure that if we went through all of the sections just in order to make sure not anything we've already discussed, but the ones we haven't discussed to make sure if anyone had comments, so we didn't miss them. Thank you. Just for my, so for my clarity, can you identify which sections you feel we did not go over? Yes, the the items that we need to cover today are the general plan introduction. I believe we didn't make a motion on that. So that will need to be included today. The general plan appendices are part of the packet, the design guidelines, and then code sections five, essentially all the code sections, then we have map amendments. Right. Finally, if there's any thing anybody missed or stuff like that. So that's okay. That's fine. If you want to discuss the general plan introduction, that's fine. My understanding was we covered that last time, but that's fine. So yes, the zoning code and the appendices we do need to cover. And that's what I had said. My understanding was where we are today. Yeah, I just my intention is not to reopen anything that we've already adopted and is in the minutes. And so I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Yeah, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we need to go in order of all the things we haven't discussed. Sorry, Chair Gordon. Yes. I need to ask a question of Stephanie at this point. Yeah, I think that'd be great. It's not a substantive question. It's about your organization you're proposing. Stephanie, what part of the code are the issues that I discussed with you in because I'm now on a fairly old laptop without much ability to search anything. So when Tim announces those, I can speak up. Yes, Chair Commissioner Shepard, your interest has been in code sections and we haven't started that work yet. So I believe what Chair Gordon is asking for is anything else on the general plan and the introduction. And we do need a motion on the introduction, the glossary and the appendices to also forward those along to the board. When we get to code sections, would you help me by identifying the code sessions that I have talked to you about? Because I don't have much access to anything. Certainly. Okay, that sounds great. And just trust me on this. Let me get started and it'll come together. Okay, so. Chair Gordon, you said if we had questions, I do have some outstanding questions that never got answered by staff. If now would be the appropriate time to ask them. I would like to follow up. Yes, let's do that. So there were two questions that I asked last time that staff said they were going to get back to me on and I wish just hoping that perhaps they had a chance to look into it. Since they, and they do have to do with the section, the code section that we're going to discuss today. So I'd be just helpful to know for our making, since we are going to discuss that. So there's just two, I promise. You said you guys are going to get back to me on. So if now would be the appropriate time. One was in the, the residential use chart. No, sorry, it was in the commercial use chart. We had to do with the green houses. No, it's the residential use chart having to do with the green houses. It had a reference to a section and Daisy was going to get back to me, I think on whether or not that code section, although it's green houses, it's not any we discovered because Daisy said that it was going to be her that got back to me on whether or not that section was the appropriate reference. I don't know if someone had a chance to look into that or not. We did. I think Annie is here to help us with that question. Perfect. Yes, thank you. I did. I did look at that and the reference should be it currently reads 1310 323 B and it should be 1310 323 C, which references a site and structural dimensions chart, which is essentially the, you know, setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, all the all this development standards that applied to residential zone districts. Can you explain to me how that determines the ability to have a greenhouse? Because if I recall 1310 323 had to do with like a lot side had to do with determining lot size, like so the ability to create a lot and I'm going to have to go back and look. I apologize. It's been a week since we talked about it and it's been even longer since I read it. But can you since I'm happy to go look at 323 C while you start your explanation, but it would be helpful for me if you could explain how that makes sense just because I want to, I want to understand when we're allowing these greenhouses of a thousand feet or more on a parcel because that's a big greenhouse on a residential parcel. I'm trying to understand when we would be allowing that. Yes. So the 1310 32B section that was incorrectly referenced does talk about determining lot size, but 1310 32C is the residential use charts section. So that provides the development standards for both. There's a chart for single family zoning as well for multi-family zoning. So it provides setbacks and lock covers. So for example, the greenhouses would need to comply with with setback limits for residential properties and height limit. So so in other words, they would be subject to all of the site standards that apply to the district. If I recall the reference to this though wasn't, it didn't say that they were subject to that. It said if and I think I apologize I have to get to the section of the thing. So you're saying that they had their subject to those setbacks. That's what that reference is saying there. Yes. Let me pull that up and I can read. I know I have to get there too. I apologize. Okay. No, that's that's fine. Let's see. Agriculture, animal agriculture. Okay. So greenhouse, there's two lines. One greenhouse is 1000 square feet and then the second line is greenhouse is larger than 1000 square feet. And then it says subject to development standards in 1310 323B and it should be changed to subject to development standards in 1310 323C which which there's you know that section includes the two uses the two development site standards charts one for the single family zoning and one for multifamily zoning. Okay. And so that's what they're sorry I just got that myself. So that's what it's saying that it's these it's these setbacks that are now. Okay. That's right. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I just think it's important when we're talking about putting these really large structures on residential parcels that I understand what what we're doing. Okay. So so obviously that that would and I don't know that we're going to need a direction but that would need to be changed. Okay. And then my other question. Thank you Annie. I really appreciate that. My other question had to do with the it's in 1310 343-1 it was the industrial site and structural dimension chart. It had to do with the height of structures. When we looked over it didn't look like there was any height limit when not on our or a district. Is this for bringing those for people? Yes. This rings a bell. We did have a look at that in the past couple of days. We think we think there's an error. There are just some left over text and so in the M2 zone for the maximum building height it should read the same as the M1 and M3. So just three stories with 40 feet and then delete if within 200 feet of an R or a district. So they're all the same. That way the 40 feet applies across the board. And we will we're intending to make this correction as it goes to to the board. So we've caught that. Thank you very much for that. Perfect. I just like I said I think it's important when we're talking about these types of things. So I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the follow-up. I think and thank you for indulging me on these two issues. Of course. Thank you. And any other questions from commissioners at this time to before we move on to each section? No. I just want to thank staff for answering my questions that I had during the week and the work that you put into providing some really helpful responses. Thank you. Well I had one. One of the questions I asked and I did hear from back from Stefan in a very timely fashion but I wanted to make sure the other board members know I asked how much it costs how much she estimates it costs to appeal a zoning administrator appeal approval or denial to the planning commission and it's basically and Stephanie correct me if I don't get this right because I don't have it in front of me. It's basically timed on at an hourly rate which is $199 an hour. She and her email estimated a ballpark figure of 10 hours minimum. So that's costing someone who wants to appeal a CA decision at least $2,000. So we all know what we're talking about here. And up from there. In other words at least 10 hours and equities of maybe 15 or 20 so it's really significantly expensive to do so. Thank you. I just wanted to hear that. Thank you Commissioner Shepherd. Thank you that's helpful. Commissioner Lazenby did you have anything? I just wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity. Thank you chair not at this time. Okay. Thanks. And Commissioner Dan. Good. Okay. I am also good to go. No further questions. Great. So we can just march through the list of items that we didn't talk about so that I know and we're all on the same page as to what would be kind of like a batch motion at the end. So I'm just going to go through all those sections really quickly. General plan introduction. Did anyone have any changes or plans for changes to a motion on that? No, but since we're talking about it I will just say that I really appreciate the introduction and I think it gives a great overview of the county. So good job. Okay. Then the next one is we that would then cover all the general plan. Then we have general plan appendices. There's a number of them. Were there any adjustments that commissioners were going to want to see on the appendices? Yes chair. I think that there are two different spots where I'd like to have a discussion about the appendices both in appendix J and then appendix I don't know if you want to take them as one motion. One is just kind of a general comment actually that I want to I think it's a we could discuss now or later but I think appendix I is the it's the TDM plans and I think it's worth discussing that one first actually but I don't know if other commissioners have things that we could take them together we want to take them one at a time. If I make a suggestion because a commissioner Villalonti and I worked on this together and we I think I think it's be helpful to discuss them and have questions now but the way we batched the suggested modification for that one in particular is in a is an emotion with some other items so it would make it easier for us if we could then just discuss that. Well I mean we'll propose those changes in emotion so I would prefer not to take them separately right now but we have them embedded in another document where we can see those reflected but if you want to have a discussion about it now that that doesn't mess up my plan yeah my process I should say yeah just to make sure this is all super you know clear and we've gone through this I haven't missed anything I do want to make sure that if this is anticipated to be in a motion separately that we're really clear about that and then I I think it would be helpful to have discussion on this item if it's in a separate motion so we can just march down the list that'll help my brain keep organizing yeah no I totally understand everybody's brain is organized in a different way and so I totally get that and then I'll just add that you know anything that is like a remainder dangling out there at the end of the day and you know Stephanie brought up a really important one that we have to make a determination on the sequel document that that could be also in a separate motion so I'm going to rely on staff to kind of make sure that we're not leaving anything we're not leaving anything out and that at the end of you know whatever Commissioner Vialanti and I propose that if we miss some things that you would let us know so that we can make the appropriate motions to follow the letter of the law and carry out our duty thank you we're happy to help with that great uh Commissioner Vialanti do you want to jump in on those yeah so in particular in appendix I with the TDM plans I think it was this isn't new to the commission that I have concerns and Commissioner Dan and I discussed them so I suppose I think I should use the we that um that about using the reduction of parking spaces as a TDM strategy and um to be one of the things I would like to discuss is although being comfortable with the unbundling of parking spaces as a strategy um that we only do it in for larger developments than is currently um being proposed so not not pretend but for possibly 25 or more and when they are offering um bus passes so those are the kinds of things I would like to see considered by the commission as alternatives to what's currently being proposed um and so those are the types of things that I would like to discuss as being forward and would we get to the point where you see exactly what it is that's being proposed I think that you know we can kind of get into more detail about what it is and why we came up with the proposal that we did or you did Tim thank you um which section do you plan on discussing that with because I might yeah I understand so we have a section on the zoning code that has a number of items in it and then we as going through the documents we realize there are all these other kind of like random issues and so we made a general document and the general document has the items that Commissioner Villalanti just articulated and then it also has um you know maybe a handful of modifications to Chapter 1810 which is the procedures so what I was thinking maybe we could do once we're you know done with the general plan and then any questions or discussion that you want to have um in general then we can put up what our proposed modifications are to the zoning code go through those in detail um and then take action on that and then we can put up the general directions that cover the appendices and Chapter 1810 okay so then after that whatever anybody else you know wants to do obviously we should consider that as well right okay so let's do that let's so we'll push the unless other commissioners had specific discussions on the appendices we'll push it to Title 18 and or kind of general all over things that are kind of hard to qualify and put a certain section it was like the like document we created for like I don't know where this should go yeah it's also intertwined I feel like you know some of them are hard to even pin into a single category might be multiple so exactly okay well that sounds great did uh Commissioner Layson be your shepherd have any other comments on that are we okay moving with that direction yes I'm I'm okay with that it that makes more sense I think great okay so then just marching down the list we had design guidelines just kind of the next thing and um were there any adjustments that commissioners had planned on on making for this section sounds like no okay great so that will include in kind of a batch at the end and then next section is Title 5 uh onto the county code portion Title 5 was the first one any adjustments or discussion there um why don't you name the code sections as you go through absolutely I can do that excuse me I miss spoke there's Title 5 through 12 are kind of included and then just again following the layout that's on the website and so there's Title 5 through 12 which is trip reduction building regulations and solar access protection in those sections I don't trust this laptop to go back and forth between the internet so I'm using my printed out believe it or not copy it so you have to give me a little time mostly for those sections there's a bunch of crossouts okay um yeah and then you know commissioners shepherded I think you know if there's stuff that we move past obviously and want to come back to it at the end there's we'll have this kind of like catch all motion so I definitely want to make sure we're all on the same page with that um do you all have the codes up on your computers then while we're doing this I do I also have the printed code in front of me I have both I'm with him yes I have the code sections that are relevant and I'm glad that I just want to make the looks like commissioners are using the printed code so thank you so much staff for doing that that was that was a heavy left so so this is we are going down through the tabs on the printed code that are title 5 and title 12 correct in this chapter is trip reduction 5.52 uh building regulations which is 12.01 and solar access protection which is 12.28 thank you okay um well let's move if there's not a lot any discussion on those we can move on and then commissioner shepherd if you find something or need to jump back let's do that we're not closing it out I'm just trying to go in order so I'll make a note that might want to follow up with you on that one okay you're good okay that was five through 12 okay onto the probably the bulkiest one here title 13 in chapter 13.10 so um commissioner shepherd this is you know there's a lot of things that I I mean there's probably 20 sections in this but um it's generally you know zoning regulations uh ordinance and permanent administration uh the districts and the uses um so I I'm sure vlonti and I do have some proposed changes and if it works to use the same process we did last time which I realize is not ideal because we're not in person but um so if I could share my screen and then commissioner vlonti could send the document to miss drake and she could send it to commissioners so commissioners could also have it um that's that's what I'll do if that's agreeable to everyone does that work okay yes let's not change it now we got it okay I appreciate that okay here we go okay can everybody see what I see yes my screen okay thank you and then I'll wait a second to make sure that that can get sent to everyone so um in the meantime I'll um make the motion to uh for the staff recommended changes in chapter 13.10 with the following additions so that's a motion wait what's the motion the motion is to uh adopt the staff recommended changes for chapter 13.10 with the uh with the added additions that are presented in this document that's now being shared on my screen and that will be emailed to you right now and then if I get a second I will go through each section and explain the context and the intent like we did last week. I'll second that. Well um I probably you know I was as you know from earlier sessions I wanted to change the language in a very specific section animal regulations and did I do that then separately well why don't we do this so I actually um yeah I understand you know you probably are the most equipped to let me just start over um we can do it a number of ways we can take that separately or if you have some specific language additions you can make a friendly amendment and we can you know either accept that or not accept that um however it works for you I would be uh glad to make a friendly amendment Stephanie where is the part about the planning commission responsibilities in this section when we go through it Renee we'll get to the section that deals with animals later no I there's animals and then there's what goes to the planning commission that I want to address specifically right we um we have that in here as well and um but if you we you know when we get to that section we can discuss all right just as long as I know what's going on definitely and I've now noted you have um you want to make some changes to the animal keeping regs and um so we will make sure to to discuss that and and entertain any amendments you might want to make on this and the other point was about um mitigations being recommended or necessary I don't I well let's just go through it go ahead okay sounds good okay um let me minimize my screen here okay um so we are trying to go in order well um of 1310 but I apologize if things are tiny bit out of order we really tried to put all the code sections in in order um so the first recommended change is um about intensification of use and for non-residential uses and so the original language here um had kind of uh one either one or the other or I'm sorry excuse me it had a that um that it's you had to achieve a metric of both a 10 increase and uh 110 daily vehicle trips and we um are saying um that it could be one or the other that um changes the definition of intensification of use and so we reworded this um section reflect that would you scroll down so I can see the rest of this yes this this the what I just explained is is just here 1310 260 b1 intensification of use what why are you suggesting that commissioner well um and commissure Villalanti should feel free to weigh in as well but so this was basically when you change a use so basically what the code is doing and this is a section where the code is actually going from what exists now and making a substantial change um to make it easier for businesses to change their use without um having to go through a cumbersome public hearing process and I support that um but I so but I think that we need to still be mindful that some uses do have a lot of impact so say for instance if you're going from an office to a dance studio um you know that could have a lot of parking and traffic impacts and that those should have an opportunity to be mitigated I don't know if commissure Villalanti wants to add anything else yeah that's exactly right so last time Tim we discussed this um that the standard through which if you have a one of the things we did in the the general plan is we said that if you have a use permit it's a ministerial process in order to change the what the business in there as long as they're consistent with the use the zoning and but as long as it's not an intensification of use and so we think the standard under which you should have that lower level of review just needs to be um we want to ensure that it it's appropriate like Rachel said we want to make sure businesses can change hands but we want we think that the standard under which justification of use it needs to be appropriate so that um if there is a intensification of use uh people are just notified it changes when they're notified of a change of business so it's consistent with the action we took last time essentially in the just to you know be transparent the um significant change here is we crossed out both thank you for that yeah no problem and then so moving on this is um on page two of thirteen ten three eleven be on agricultural districts and the direction here is to retain the original language and of commissure violence d wants to talk about this one okay so historically there's been kind of this distinction between commercial agricultural properties and agricultural properties and we felt that the striking of some of this language got rid of the distinction between commercial agricultural properties that were um commercial in nature and agricultural properties that are supposed to be primarily this was to have the agricultural knot in kind of the same scale and so we just restored some of the language here um that it's on small amounts um and that it's um so that's that's what we did it's kind of keep to maintain that distinction we felt like some of the choices to strike were just we wanted to keep that distinction between a and c in pencil are any questions on this one i'll move on and then this second one is also staying with ag districts and this is regarding agritourism and so the code is um doing a lot of great things to promote agritourism um which definitely think is a good idea um so this added language uh has to do with events on a zone parcels that um want to have events and one of the things that um i've learned on this commission is that events uh in rural areas are highly controversial and of all of the issues that have probably come before us i'd say probably the most difficult and controversial have been having events in in rural areas that um are adjacent to residential districts so this is really just to kind of like put up a guardrail here um so for if you have an a district and you want to have some events um that if but if you're in 200 feet of a neighboring residence or adjacent to an r zone where the residents that then you'd have to go out and get a public a c up which would be a public hearing um at the za and that and the distinction here is that is for events exceeding 12 per year so if you're an a zone and you want to have 12 events per year with no amplified music no problem you don't need a c up but with the change here that um we're recommending is that if you want to exceed 12 events per year which is substantial that you should you need to go out and get a public hearing or of any size that's using amplified music and the amplified music is because in my experience that's the kicker for the neighbors is that um and so what i've found is that public hearings can actually be really helpful and mitigating um some of those impacts while still allowing um the events um in the rural areas i would just like to add that in my experience i totally agree with rachel in its my experience when you have a public hearing i've seen i've seen things work out so that the event goes on with the neighborhood going for it once they know what's going on and make some suggestions so it ends up making much better resolution yeah thank you for that addition that's i agree that is there any questions on that one okay moving on so these are some okay so this is now moving on to residential districts we're on 13 10 3 22 the residential use chart and so this came up um when we were talking about the general plan two or maybe this was a question i had um last week about bed and breakfast um with over fewer rooms um having an an a up which means public noticing but no public hearing and so we're suggesting to to replace a up with c up to make it consistent with the requirements for vacation rentals so it just didn't make sense to me that you could have a bed and breakfast with up to 24 guests with an a up when you know you're a big you have a vacation rental application that has five bedrooms with that would be fewer guests than the b and b you would have to get a public hearing so um i just am suggesting this change to make that consistent since are there any questions on that one um speak up because i actually minimized my um screen so i can't see anybody right now so if you do have a question i'm relying on people just to speak up that's good thank you commissioner just to um point of clarification for us so we make sure we have it right you're talking across the board in all zones is that correct we're in the residential use in the residential use chart we're currently in the residential use chart you can see that that in the motion or in the residential use chart yes well i can only see what's on there but um for all zoning districts that are included in that chart you're requesting the shifts i would i just want to say i i i agree for the same reason before usually if there's people are interested go to a hearing they can often work things out very conveniently and it saves a whole lot of neighborhood misery when it just happens and i think actually this saves huh rather than doing it ministerially i actually agree with that comment that renais shepherd made um and so yeah and you know and like i said i i believe if like you have a a five bedroom vacation rental on doesn't matter the zone district that you know you would have to get a public hearing um so so it's it is just to out of fairness really um to the vacation rentals okay so the next one is um recreation events and community facilities of page nine of that code section uh if uh commissioner vilon team wants to address this one so it's restoring language it was in the original code um and it's it to us it doesn't make sense that you would allow like commercial we're not really sure why this language was struck we wouldn't want to allow commercial um or public spaces that seems like a larger impact than we would want um in residential zone facilities that we would in residential parcel we wouldn't want them to be commercial use so we restored language that was struck from the previous code just great restoring the language of private and non-commercial we're fine obviously with open spaces being used uh on residential parcels but we don't believe that they should be commercial and meet chart so we're just restoring language that had been struck okay and then moving on on the next page covers wineries um and we are um well i'll let our commercial reality speak to this one that's what's up on our that's what's our screen now right yeah wineries and so we'll get to wineries a lot more later in the code um because this is just the use chart there's later obviously big discussion about events and things like that but um the we we felt that these wineries and the impact they can have because they can have these um wine tasting they can have these events that they're much they're essentially commercial uses on residential parcel and something that we as a community should be have a higher level of scrutiny we want to preserve uh residential uses especially in our rural areas um we in our general plan decided that parcels outside the urban and rural services line will no longer have our one zoning so we think it's important that we preserve the residential nature of these communities i mean we had um we don't want to see them turned into um high-trafficked um commercial areas and so we think that although we believe that they should be able to exist uh similar to things like um Richard Dan was talking about on these events with um amplified music they should just have a higher level of public hearing before they proceed and so that's why we suggested these changes for these wineries and and i want to say at the higher level we usually have been able to work out something that most parties reluctantly agree to but nonetheless so that often what the wineries want want the neighbors want can be adjudicated at a hearing otherwise uh there's an awful lot of work for the sheriff that doesn't need to happen thank you and just to make sure um for the public as well c up stand for conditional use permit and if it's not noted as such it staff has indicated that would be a zoning administrator hearing and we're suggesting wineries in the medium level um be a planning commission hearing and i think that partly what commissioner shepherd said um that's the word is reflected in this recommendation because it will just save time in the end and and frankly permit and appeal fees as well which can be substantial well i just had one more comment i know staff feels that a lot of the simplification that they're looking for and having lesser levels of hearings is because they part of the goal of this is if it's allowed in the code then there's not as much need to look very carefully at it or or that doesn't need a high level of scrutiny i do not myself share that opinion because the and this is a good example it's allowed but it needs conditions for the neighborhoods it's in to make it work successfully and i think the sometimes the almost always the higher level of hearing airs all the issues and the parties we the the zoning administrator or the planning commission can come up with some conditions that well everybody not might not like they can live with and the project actually can proceed whereas if you just permit it and then all hell breaks loose you really have a whole lot more staff time and actually you know share of time to contend with so because people don't know what's happening and they feel like it just happened and they were not consulted well when in fact if there's a hearing you can then issues can be adjudicated and resolved so i i think the higher level hearing actually results in simplification curiously enough rather than not requiring hearings on or conditional use permits on on a whole lot of areas in this document i don't agree with making things at a lower level on that and that's why okay thanks thank you commissioner shepherd okay um unless there's any other questions on on that i'll move on to the next item which is page 27 1310 323-2 multi-family residential standards and concerning maximum building height and this addition is asking to restore the 28 foot maximum building height outside of the urban services line the usl for the zone districts reflected on the page rm 1.5 to rm 2.5 rm 3 and rm 4 i believe actually you know i think that's the type of what you'd say rm 3 2 rm dash i think that's a mistake on my part there okay i'd say rm 3 2 rm dash 4 right there i'm just looking at the chart apologize no that's okay i can i can fix it yeah okay i just want to be clear for the commission in the public so i'll correct it sorry there any questions on that nope um so the next item um i'll scroll down and i'm sure veal on t you can make that change yeah thank you um okay the next one is um regarding open space requirements for rm and rf and rf is the new residential flex zone district which is a new zone district that is going to provide um a higher density by please 40 units per acre um the rm district is uh district we currently have and so this was an area where staff was proposing to make what i saw was a significant change to the open space requirements for these two zone districts um i feel very strongly that requiring some open space private open space for high density development is is very desirable and makes for better designs in the end as well this is kind of a hybrid um i the rm requirement for open space was um reduced and so i'm not restoring i'm not suggesting that we restore that but instead take what the new proposal for rm is which is quite a bit smaller amount of open space and then applying that for rm and then applying that also to rf so that they um have the same open space requirements and i just think as we build higher densities that it becomes even more um important to make sure that we provide um a little bit of open space for the folks um that are going to be living in them so are there any questions about that i just want to comment that i've seen good designers over and over again able to accommodate open space in just this way so i certainly support this i don't think the open space should be the corridors inside the buildings and i was actually told by um the developer that um actually this is what the market demands anyway and so uh so for market rate development basically the point was for market rate development you're going to get private um open space anyway because that's what the renters or the buyers of the condo um desire so a lot of this also is for um the um the affordable housing projects as well and and then i was pleased to see that when staff interviewed midpen that they didn't have any issues with um the current um standards which are greater than what i'm even proposing here so yeah go ahead start him uh just um so are you i'm not clear on the language that you're proposing here are you saying that you need 60 feet of private open space per unit plus common open space yeah so that's the requirement for the rm district and so yeah i so yeah we're suggesting that um that that requirement be for both rm and rf so practically just like understanding how that gets applied you're stating that you want like private balconies on apartment complexes for every unit right so like for example you know are you familiar with the nanda downtown santa cruz that's the apartment complex that is on the corner of pacific and water okay single one of those units has a private balcony plus they have some common space inside yeah okay that's great um i just was you know thinking about the application of this and it's definitely possible but when you get to like lotline to lotline and i just do want to comment that when you have required private open space essentially in the form of a patio or a deck that i've seen a lot of challenges with neighbors because they don't want people in a more sort of building looking down into their parcel and that would be unavoidable in a high density area like this so sometimes there's options around private open space that is in other areas and doesn't necessarily need to be patios attached to units and i just wanted to comment that i understand the intent but i've also seen it become problematic with neighbors for viewsheds and private private views essentially so well i actually think you bring up an excellent point and i could see that that happening for sure and it's so it's like it's a delicate balance um so but if it was private the other thing i'm understanding you correctly you said the other ways it could be achieved what i thought i heard you articulate wouldn't be private open space though that would be open space it's not private but it would be common open space yeah i guess that's yeah yeah sometime yeah essentially there's i would say that i understand probably the intent of why this is mostly common open space and clearly i probably missed that that um i think it used to be that it was a certain amount required per unit but that it could be common or open or private and i don't have that the code open right now but um and i thought that that helped solve it but maybe there's a way to incorporate private open space where feasible as you know not to you know intrude on neighbor neighboring properties or something you know well yeah i yeah go ahead that was it yeah i'm so so two things one i think that one it's just desirable that if we're going to build a high density housing that we build quality units that provide a small modicum of private open space which makes a massive difference for the people that live there and then two my my hope and i believe is the intense the cdi department is that where these high density developments would occur would mostly be in in places where it's appropriate to build these high density housing so like some of the opportunity sites in live oak that probably are going to be right for redevelopment in the next you know 10 years like east cliff village and places like that so not to say that the don't have neighbors they do i know that like the eight three one water project had as neighbors you know to the back of it that are impacted and so it is like like i get it like there is going to be impacts on the neighbors so this is one of those things where it's like a balancing act of this commission yes do we um we need the housing so i support the high density housing and the changes that we're we're making but yeah i agreed to him that it's going to have an impact to the houses if they're single family houses adjacent to the high density housing yeah it's it's going to um it's going to impact those neighbors for sure um but i don't feel that i want to um you know take away an amenity that the folks living in those buildings should also have so but i so i guess like that does you know but i do believe that we have really smart designers and very talented designers who and um you know make magic with their designs that's my hope uh chair gordon uh yes miss murphy um can i ask a clarification question on the on the amendment um so currently for res flex um yep the standard is minimum and we creased it from 10 to 15 percent in response to earlier comments to you know try and provide can you wait the what do you the residential flex is a news zone district so what do you mean the current oh so so previously we had proposed 10 percent and then we did increase it to 15 after our discussions and we did additional analysis um okay but my question is um currently it reads minimum 50 percent of gross site area common and or private so right now the 15 percent is intended to provide flexibility of either you know the the choice depending on the property whether it would be common or private or a combination so so in your proposed change is the intention to keep that flexibility and then also require a minimum of 60 um square foot per unit private open space if i'm understanding you correctly yes okay thank you yes okay i'm moving on this next section page now we're on 1310 323 f2 on page 36 um this is just a clarifying addition that i believe that the intention of this section is is for 100 affordable housing units but um we just added that just for clarity sake and then here is where i think there'll be a lot of interest potentially um page 38 of this section i believe we're still in this section and this is about noticing in this uh excuse me i'm sorry i got confused we are now on 1310 323 f6a um i'm sure Vilante do you want to speak to this one yeah so we're just simply restoring um the notification when heights are if i'm if i'm checking to make sure i have the right section we're simply restoring the fact that there's notification when heights um go above certain levels so um and sure Dan please tell me if i'm incorrect about this but i were just saying that when initial heights are allowed that they're they're subject to this notification if they go above certain height limits so that's what this section is doing it's simply restoring the language that was struck by staff so that there is notification for their neighbors if they go above the allowed height questions on that one just one question um so an a up means an administrative use permit um discretionary permit with public notice what what is the public notice and the m up means no public notice so if anyone's following us but what is the notice on an administrative an a up well currently and um stay tuned but um currently it's um i'm not mistaken it's uh 300 feet of the proposed um project staff please correct me if i'm wrong but we are later um in our next document we're going to be making some suggested changes to noticing as well okay but just just so i know um i'm putting in my brain for the rest of this an a be an administrative administrative use permit is a discretionary permit with public notice what is the public notice i guess that's a staff question is it people within 300 feet 500 feet is it mailed how do how are at present there's no that's what i was asking at present they mail and stop this is confirm the regional commissioner dan and i cracked they mail residents within 300 feet according to the current code that's it that's correct and if you don't hit a certain minimum number of parcels you actually expand it to to hit that minimum number of parcels so they are they are mailed notices is it also posted um um you know a lamppost or i mean the way often notices of development are physically posted jocelyn can you just correct me if i'm wrong i'm not looking at chapter 1810 but i believe they are posted on site and hearings are published in the newspaper um yes for i'm not sure with uh with the code amendments how um the levels are are reorganized but yes for an administrative permit um level four currently we post a notice on the site and do the mailed noticing for the zoning administrator level hearings and above we do a big um on site sign i wasn't asking about the higher levels i was asking specifically about a up so is an a up um Stephanie and annie a level three or level four administrative four it's a four okay so for four it would be the mailed noticing and the yellow placard that is posted on site and then we also post on our website okay so we are changing everyone knows what a level three four five six seven mean we are adopting this new terminology and is eventually there won't will there not be published level three four five will they only say m up or a up with and will it have a statement of what that means someplace it's just hard to make this transition or or is that an internal m up is that for internal use no it's it's it would be in the code and um title 18 speaks to procedures well i'd like to suggest that every table um in the header of every table you you have enough room you once again define any acronyms more frequently because they're they're typically defined okay good we are you are just going yeah i think so okay yeah i even think um that in chapter 18 even under the amended section it says a up formally level four i think i'm i mean there's a there's a crosswalk table that's great yes i understand um can you refer me to that page because saying a level four for someone who has no idea what either mean that does not very helpful sure so actually um we actually are gonna we have a those are actually some sections where we're gonna get into the weeds on in our second part two of this i just like to once again remind staff internal use you understand these changes immediately and you use them fluently but as a planning commissioner i'm always referring people to sections of the code or suggesting they go down and people don't know what three four five six means is and now we're changing again so just saying a up equals level four is not helpful to anyone who's not part of the planning department like you gotta say you gotta say what it means that's all often part of the purpose of this is to align our permit structure with how other communities do it so it'll be a little bit actually easier for people to understand a conditional use permit um rather than a level six or seven um that has you know there's a little mysterious so the the intent is the the opposite it should be clear to people i don't mean that using initials or letters instead of numbers isn't fine if you feel and that's a good rationale but don't assume that if someone moves here from wisconsin or santa claire for that the aup is a transparent term it's still a planning jargon and it doesn't hurt to say what it means often commissioner shepherd just to answer your question page nine since you have the physical printout of title 18 there is the uh crosswalk of what level four and the aup and the sup uh so you can just have it in front of you we'll continue to try to explain it when we use it but just well i have printed out a page mean so i've got that tape to my desk so i'm using that is that what you're referring to no it has a i think i did both work probably it has the tape it has the level one level four level etc and then what that means in terms of the aup c up is it ministerial is it discretionary i won't waste their time i wasn't i'm i guess i'm just trying to point out that you really you know making the successful for the average citizen is important that's all and letters or numbers aren't helpful so having yeah right i've repeating myself go on thank you now i think you're making some good points to the average citizen trying to figure out what's going on across the street you're making really good points i think that um stephanie is correct that for the development community this will make more sense for them so i think both both are true in this instance and so moving on to the next part oh sorry sorry yes yes i was um i am a little confused about the height when it goes over 28 feet up to 35 feet it's m up then when it goes over 35 feet it goes back to a up is there a typographical error or am i just not understanding that no that's a good catch go ahead else i'm sorry no so the m up is a lower level of review than an a up so when you're on a larger parcel it starts at m up because the parcel is so large okay and then it goes to an a up versus on a smaller parcel it has it starts at a higher level of review because the parcel is smaller if you're right we could we could have a smaller level of review on smaller parcels but no the idea is that you don't need that higher level of review um you start higher for the smaller parcels versus we in that tinier window from 28 okay because the parcel is larger the review is smaller it's because thank you so big another question on this one so um you know these i believe that these height limits were probably based on the old height limits but those have changed so it's this i'm just confused to where this would apply because um and if it would need to say or instead of the specific height listed what the planning department said was um uh any increase over permitted building height because building heights vary from zone to zone in the residential district um so this could require an a up for a standard project technically as written even if it meets the limit it's a good catch tim because you're right the narrative does say um over the permitted height but then you're right so um there are certain districts you are correct um where we where we could now increase it to higher so i because it does say because if you read six just standard six it just says structural exceeding zoning district height so yeah i suppose it's um and i think that is you're you're right i have to look at that the the res use chart to figure out could i say i mean it seems like the intent was projects two and a half on let's just work in our way from the top down projects to under two and a half acres would be anything over the permitted height and then the two and a half and larger would be anything permitted height plus five feet and then anything or excuse me seven feet simple math not my forte um and then anything seven like permitted height seven plus seven feet or greater would be the third category for the aap yeah that's i think you're correct thank you for catching that we were like i said we just restored we were restoring the language in order to do a beer crack that we should amend our emotion to language there so um to include instead of saying over 28 feet it should be over um zoning district height limits and then so we should we should make that change rachel if you're okay with that yeah yeah definitely um do you want to yeah i can go in and do are we is that a technical friendly amendment is that what do we need to rephrase how we offer that change or okay on it yeah i mean i think we we both think that was good catch thank you the we can just like i guess this is one benefit of doing this remotely we can quantify the document in real time that's up to seven feet yeah up to yeah additional i think maybe maybe a good way of saying that yeah i don't want to seven feet i wanted to suggest that we're saying they can be seven feet you can have a seven foot tall building or you need an m up that's that look good to everybody there's only just right person right because it's over that yeah thanks yeah could you retain the feet in the last bottom category great um i had one other request for an addition at this section something that i've talked about and asked about but um you know i haven't got we haven't all discussed it as a group really and it's the idea that um within the urban services line in particular where we have rm high density rm zones especially which occurs along the corridors that we could allow the far exemption for parking underneath a structure as is currently in the rf but adding it to the rm densities that are the high densities inside the urban services line which again is like that corridors and that's typically our i think correct me from r and one uh or one and a half whatever our lowest one is through rm four and so anyway that's a long way to say would you guys accept an amendment to include the far uh just or um not parents i think you got my point and i can read it word for word here better um tim can you go ahead else is it tim can you tell me where in the code you wanted to insert this so i can yeah context from i can write it it doesn't i'm not i'm not exactly sure which part of uh code section 310 1310 323 because it doesn't really have a space there was in the rf district there was like an added um uh section for it and so it's not it would be in addition in the you know in a place that is appropriate does that make sense it doesn't i vaguely i vaguely recall what you're talking about i have no recollection where that is but basically what you're saying is there's some you would like what is being proposed for rf to apply to rm correct at least the high density rm which i think is technically the rm 1.5 through 4 which right yeah occurs on on the um yeah like in concept that's i'm i think that's a good idea uh if but if we could find exactly where that is so we can sorry go ahead so i can understand him i think maybe what you're talking about is maybe in the multi-family residential site and structure to mention start which is that 1310 323-2 you're talking about this f a the the f a r the max f a r in rf um is 1.1 when it's less than 30 um or something i'm trying to look at the language and then and it's 1.5 when it's greater and then versus in rms it varies from 0.5 to 0.7 and you're wanting to amend that am i understanding you correctly i don't think i'm trying to understand yeah no problem so i think technically we don't need to amend those i mean i don't think we have to amend those f a rs i would just add at the side on the chart i'm looking at the new packet here to see exactly where that is but um chair if i might on page 39 there's a f a r parking exemption highlighted in yellow um which incorporates 75 percent of spaces and underground garages and podium parking um are not subject to the maximum far so this applies to the residential flux and we could add in those zone districts there that you specified thank you yeah so that if unlike the packet that we have it's the last page of the first packet page 160 um the highlighted section is the code section and i guess we could just as you're saying stephanie adjust that code section to say f a r parking exemption residential flux and high density um multifamily zones um yeah well well i think we're well we're better off kind of specifying the particular zones as you mentioned before just to be consistent yes this is code section 13 10 3 2 3 i'm sorry there's so many it's crossouts i'm hard to keep in track of which ones where three three yeah it's hard you guys um yes f eight f eight thank you okay so let me let me see if i can summarize this so we're trying to say that if they incorporate at least because stephanie you're talking about the part that says residential flex projects that work really 75 percent of parking spaces for underground garages movie that's what we're talking about yeah yes the guys yeah i know that we're all looking at the same page they're laughing and stephanie am i correct in the in the assumption that we kind of consider high density multifamily as kind of up to the rm4 stacy available or any i can't remember exactly how they're broken up i had noticed that in some material somewhere in all of this um and that as it had been noted that way in another section and so that was my assumption and so that's what i was going with but yeah uh yeah i'm just taking a look through the um residential development standards to see if that is defined um i can also i would yeah i think it's better to probably list the exact zone districts yeah um we do in the in the development standards chart group our group group the those rm standards together uh for those districts um rm 1.5 to rm 2.5 and rm 3 to rm 4 um but it doesn't stay in the in the dimensions chart that those are particularly you know where the where the uh break is for high density okay that makes sense for process wise that change seems good to me and i'm okay with it uh commissure of volunteers can you just tell me again what it means so you want to exempt f8 you want to allow them not to have maximum f they are when what happened the sorry end of the end i'm sorry yeah sure no problem and to um it's essentially when you have this when this code applies here when you do these things incorporate at least 75 of parking spaces with underground garages multi-story above ground garages or podium parking located on or off site and those are not subject to maximum fr this is in the uh adjustments that were provided to us last time in code section 1310 323 f8 on page 160 of per handle so i and we want to do this for rm zone parcels correct i that that seems okay um not all rm the highest the two highest groupings of rm right about 1.5 to 2.5 and then three to four in the u within the usl within the usl correct the only part that makes me a little hesitant is this the offset site parking because when we do rf we're talking about having some peripheral insight where they may have like shuttle parking or something at an alternative site when you're talking strictly residential i can't envision i don't i don't know what off site parking would look like um they're just not being creative enough um i don't that's fair yeah so what if we like added uh you know this would be an addition then say code section f9 and it could say f-air parking exemption for um rm 1.5 through rm 4 and then it would say everything and then leave out the or off site part of it so i could i could read that as a whole for everyone is outward staffed is that is there a there might just be not creative enough i mean please tell me i i want i want to know what that might look like i'm happy to we can leave it in too if it's if it's something reasonable that we think that may come i just don't want to i want to ensure that there's enough parking and we're not creating unintended um excess car trips by allowing this off site parking i don't know what that looks like i can just chime in i do know one project which is still sort of being worked through but the um the former lumber site on portola drive there they they purchased a lot across the street to provide additional parking for their um multifamily project their mixed use project and that's my concern is that's mixed use and that's strictly residential um so when we talk about um maybe strictly residential um but again i don't want to be close minded to this idea that i'm just not obviously they're just across the street that would work they're meant you know there are if you're going to locate your parking off site you kind of need to prove that it that it works and study it um so they're you know there are going to be times when when um multifamily developments may need to be as creative as mixed use developments maybe there's a church next door for instance where they could locate parking but um you know that where peak hours are different from um the the use that's on that site so provides a little bit of flexibility um and and the requirements are in the uh chapter 13 16 for shared parking agreements okay that's great i really appreciate when when stock can help me think of things that i just didn't immediately i just like i said i don't want to create additional car trips that's what we think that it's possible to have that kind of shared parking and then i'm really comfortable we can leave it in um as long as stock thinks um there'll be enough scrutiny uh on those types of shared parking agreement so and yeah we can just we can do the easy easy fix and just add it into eight there so procedurally i would like to embed that in this document since um staff is um um hosting them to make them available so it would be helpful i think if we could add language yeah thank you allison there you go okay so do you want me to try to to sum it up here and you can type it or do you have it um yeah let's we can watch her type so when she gets oh yeah right can staff tell me it was 13 hf8 i think i got the numbers right thank you f eight and then here is the code section and so oops type the eight twice um essential flex projects and r r m i got the number right yep actually use chart okay so we want one point do you want anything less than a 1.5 right no yeah to r m 2.5 and i'll fix the spacing here in a minute r m dash 3 2 r m dash 4 within the usl stop tell me if this works though because i want to make sure i need to make sure that this part is within the usl how can i help staff make sure that part is only in the usl typically r m is something would be in the usl or uh maybe the r s l there's not a rural density they're definitely parcels that meet this definition inside the r s l within i know within our district the second district so how can i ensure that it's only within the usl for for these zonings in terms of the language we put in here there is you don't want it in the r s l as well to have that flexibility inside within the usl i didn't know you know if the other commissioners would want that or not and so that's why i started there but if it applied everywhere it would make sense to me because the location of these are in mostly in the corridors and high density areas and so that's you know how i'll leave it to commissioner dan and be a lot bigger i mean i guess in the third district the only r s l we have is in datumcourt and so i you know and the only area where i could ever see this as being applicable would be if the cement plant was ever redeveloped um which could happen in our lifetime it would probably benefit from this also so i could you're right if it was but i'm not sure that it would be appropriate in new town or old town um it i agree though if the cement plant was redeveloped it possibly could be very appropriate for the for an eventual project there so um yeah it's a tough one i so in our district we have parcels in the r s l that meet this definition in areas that i don't know that this would be appropriate um smaller communities like with all of each that are on on septic um that are um traditionally kind of single family homes and while obviously would they got redeveloped the high density would be appropriate i don't know that um having news well i can say it's not particularly appropriate for the rural area of san lorenzo valley because we don't have any sewer systems and we have a very limited water capacity i think we might want to stick with the url um we i'm fine with that i think we should don't totally stick with the urban services area because we would be a big step to make a change that has so many implications of our infrastructure that we that change from one part of the unincorporated area from the other so i don't think it's appropriate and i wouldn't vote for it okay that's fine though um i was and i'm fine i can go with with that um the one thing i'm going to suggest is we could say within the rsl where there is sewer and water service that's that's that is extremely ambiguous well so that would cover uh the c max reuse plant because they have sewer and water and why don't you just why don't you just i'm fine usl is fine and i was just trying to think of ways we can right other area i think a project the size of something for semex would involve probably a general plan change or considerable rezoning anyway it could be addressed site specific i wouldn't support that general change so i think you're right you're right commissioner shepherd that would have to occur so you're right i also want to just comment that this doesn't i mean not that i'm trying to change it in his minor opinion but it just as a general note um this doesn't change densities by any means or anything like that's really just like how you park your building mostly than anything and so but i appreciate that i appreciate the additions um okay so you are changing it to be re read for urban services right yeah yeah thank you uh i'm gonna show you a little deeper adding that in there okay great um thank you for that okay sorry move on unless you had other stuff on that one i just see um annie murphy's ann daisy ellen's hand up and they might want to potentially add something although we might have decided so i just want to give that opportunity since they both have their hands raised um i yeah i just had a suggestion um that would for the wording of this sentence you could start the sentence by saying within the usl so that it would read within the usl comma residential flex and then on to the rm districts and that would be very clear that it would only apply within the usl overall but the way you've written it i think would um technically work also dc i was going to do that but i would the residential flex but i guess we only have residential flex inside the usl so it doesn't matter okay yeah i see your point and uh chair gordon i just had a yeah i was thinking a little more about high density that the rm4 is 11 units per acre so just as an idea maybe consider rm 1.5 to rm3 just because when you you know if you have that exemption for units that already are you know 4 000s worth of lots it can to sort of in some sense encourage larger units with with garages so so it might sort of promote larger sort of more luxury type units potentially so that was just a thought i just wanted to share appreciate that um totally understand i think that for me the reason i wanted to include the rm4 is because i think that there's a lot along the corridor especially like on sokel drive which is rm4 and that's like the densest it gets on the corridors and some of those lots are really small and you know i've done a lot of case studies and have projects there where it becomes really tricky to fit it all without the ability to park under the building and so i appreciate that um inside i have also just you know like to leave it if possible if that works still for the other commissioners thank you thank you any address i want to understand your concern that you're concerned that by leaving rm in that we're going to end up with luxury units well i mean i think chair gordon makes a good point about a smaller lot where it may be very constrained i was thinking more in terms of maybe a larger new development where it's rm4 and so you know it's already a fairly generous you know um size area per unit so it could potentially allow for you know 2000 square foot unit without with the parking garage so um so that was sort of my point but i do understand chair gordon's point about smaller more constrained sites where it may be challenging to park those so yeah i think a lot of those two on the um along those quarters is kind of if you've you know when you kind of look at the zoning map a lot of those larger parcels are actually split so they have a dual overlay zone of like an rm4 and an rm6 and so you know as it kind of like steps back away so my thought was that if we're not including rm6 and those have that dual overlay where it could be you know a little bit it will be a little bit less dense it wouldn't apply there because they have both zones does that make sense so this really only applies to like lots that are really like on those corridors um smaller lots on those corridors that was my intent and kind of thought process of why this would work that makes sense to me and i mean i think that you know when this project is concluded staff is going to be embarking on the next massive project which would be um to rezone um parcels to satisfy our arena allocation so i think we'll have to stay tuned so go ahead sorry did somebody start to talk okay sorry okay so um are we done with this section i think so um um i hate to we're on a roll but i know we kind of had an 11 break and i could use a quick break okay and then come back to the 1310 331 right after um i'm just wondering before we do that how long the 1310 331 might be just because we're getting really close to the lunch break time i'm wondering if we should break for lunch now or if that's going to be a short section i mean i think that we're probably halfway through this document okay so maybe we should break for lunch early i don't i'm for that i don't whatever everybody wants to do fine with me this is a good stopping time i would be providing for lunch early yeah i'm fine with that i want to be conscious of ctb and the schedules that we need to keep so we're we're in the right time refrain for lunch for them and everything also correct and say we're halfway through the document the jocelyn your question of how long 1310 331 is that's not a particularly long portion of the document so it's up to you if you think like we could i'm well if we it's up to it's up to you guys if you think we could get through it in like a half an hour i mean if we take a break now and come back and do that in a half an hour we could take a a lunch break after rachel you also have the second just that section in front of you i'm just looking yeah i'm i'm fine taking lunch now taking a break now tim indicates you know we should all take we should take a break we haven't taken a break yet so okay right he's like i don't break just to be honest so okay um i could i think five minutes and then you can come back and do lunch later or just hit lunch right now and be done and then truck on through let's take a break so then we can play to other actions we all need a break so it sounds good we'll take a 10 minute break how does or how about 11 minutes tim and come back at 11 45 perfect okay thank you so much great so looks like we have all of the commission back with us chair great thank you so much um and let's uh resume we were going through motion for 1310 yeah let me share my screen again and again i in order to be able to see i have to completely minimize everything so i i can't see anybody so it's kind of a bizarre way of communicating to communicate to us i apologize if i talk over somebody unintentionally it's just because i can't see anything okay so we can move on okay so this next section um um i was on commercial districts so we're on chapter 1310 331336 and article three commercial districts so there was a well it's up here a part of the code that eliminated a section about energy efficient energy use and in commercial districts and so we're just suggesting that that be retained are there any questions on that one pretty uncontroversial so i'll just move along so the next section is about change of views and i'm sure if you want to do you want to talk about this one yeah so this is something we talked about at our last uh hearing uh last week and it has to do with the idea that if uh we and i dark actually a little bit this morning which is when there's a change of use it allows staff to approve it with the ministerial approval which is good because it streamlines that process but we wanted to ensure that they that if because some of those means that it would have been required of public hearing or public notification that that was only allowed um that that ministerial approval doesn't sorry he's got really loud in my ear um but that doesn't usurp kind of the process of public hearings and public notification so they're only allowed to do this ministerial approval had the original the new use um not required that a lot higher level of of public hearing or public notification than the existing use so it's kind of closing what we see as a loophole to the ministerial process we don't want someone that that used to have a required of from a hearing not not go through it because of a previous permit well i i think that sounds good commissioner vialante but i i wanted to explore this one a little bit so i had a question when the kmart then was converted to a home depot truly not a change of views but it brought up because the home depot was obviously going to be very popular we did have a general uh planning commission hearing to discuss the traffic and as a result of that hearing um there was a lot of community involvement and as you know there are our new turn lanes and new traffic signals that everyone it really wasn't much argument about it from anybody but i wonder if under this system that would even happen because the zoning use didn't change it was you know kmart home depot there wasn't that much of a difference they didn't remodel it greatly but clearly they were going to have because of what they do and who they are a lot more traffic so a lot of people came to hearing and i think the traffic improvements that we did were what we could do but i thought a planning commission hearing was very useful now isn't my understanding that this would say that wouldn't involve any hearing so a building a commercial use could become anything else it wanted to or maybe i'm not understanding it could staff give me some feedback or would that have counted as an intensification of use and let's use that as an example how would you have judged whether home depot was going to be an intensive occasion of use from kmart and what hearing would that have mandated if you decide it was or wasn't uh thank you chair gordon i wasn't around for that particular item um well it's a while ago now but it's a good yeah yeah um um gosh i think i think actually i'm gonna ask if daisy is around for this for this one and and annie and what there is in the code that would have suggested anything beyond kind of the zoning clearance for such an action and my question is why did it come before the planning commission during the current code was that director thought it should or was it in the code that it had to i don't quite understand the extent of this change but i want to be pretty careful about it for example okay yes okay yeah so the um the existing commercial change of use requirements are more strict so um what we're proposing here is uh would allow for some commercial changes of use with just a zoning clearance in the case of the project that you're bringing up where it's the similar use type and there's no major you know site development permit needed i think the factor would be whether or not there was an intensification of use that would determine whether or not that change that change of use could be allowed with just zoning clearance or whether a use permit would be required if there was a use permit required it would be a conditional use permit right uh yes i'm just opening up that code section to make sure i get it right and under the proposed changes that would only go to the zoning administrator right that's correct well just it just um uh commissioner shepherd if i might i think that you have you have some motions that you were considering that might address yes i am later suggest that we not change those hearing levels but i didn't know how it would apply to this part of the code um i that was a good example so i'm picking it out but an intensification of use is a subjective thing there was really no way do the other commissioners see what i'm saying is this really a good idea i mean that was that was a legal change and really no one was opposing it and we're just going to say what changes is this going to make that we should consider for the this being a you know 41st avenue already being a very complicated intersection with a lot of traffic the city of capitola was invited at the hearing we came up with the traffic mitigations that were actually built um and i don't know under this let's just the way we are changing the code of any of that would have happened and it would have been pretty much an idea can i um say something i think that um so first of all there there there is an objective standard for the definition of intensification of use and actually in this document treasurer violonty and i are proposing to strengthen that so i think it's possible that given the change that we're proposing to make in this document that the k mark to the home depot if it was determined that it would have increased um that it's possible that i would have met that definition or even the current one that's in the the code right now so it's possible that that's why it came before us and i completely forgot about that project and now i remember it so thank you for jogging my memory so i i think that it probably like if it happened today and if this change is accepted um in what we're proposing that it's possible that it would come before at least uh get a public hearing i commissioner shepherd i would just say that we share your concerns about exactly that type of project but something which is we are what the changes that commissioner dan and i are proposing strengthen the likelihood of things like that coming before the public and before administrative bodies and pardon me administrative bodies instead of just being a ministerial decision and so we did strengthen the definition of intensification of use because what's that staff was proposing said that as long as the use was the same and there was an existing use permit it would not require be required to come before the zoning administrator would not come before the planning commissioner and by inserting the language here we are increasing the likelihood that that happens both if it's a change of use that needed a high level public hearing in addition to the fact that previously in this document as commissioner Dan said we strengthened the intensification of use meaning that if there were a higher number of partrips or the 10 increase um so that both both of those standards could trigger a higher level of review versus staff's proposed language had said and so we agree with your concerns but we so we if there are things you we're hoping to to not allow things like that to to go okay um thank you for that i will just be patient as we go through this but i think the part that i continue to have issues with and wanted will suggest language a little later on is i think i do not think a lot of these involve should be za i think they should be continue to be planning commission for conditional use permits and i'm not exactly sure what i'll make that suggestion but it involves this is an example of why i think that and it's based on my experience of seeing projects come across over and over again and i where i don't think just a za hearing is is sufficient or comes up with the best results because i see them always appeal because they get appealed to the planning commission but now that's going to be two to four thousand dollars and i think they should stay at the same level they were but i'll wait to make that suggestion a little later um if i may i just wanted to clarify regarding the change of use in the proposed code section so if if a project if a proposed change of use did not meet these criteria then it wouldn't automatically get a conditional use permit it would go to whatever the permit level that is reflected in the commercial uses chart which may may be anything ranging from a minor use permit up to a conditional use permit i say that again i really didn't understand you sure um so you asked earlier whether if so if a project did not meet these criteria for a zoning clearance whether they would automatically get a conditional use permit wait a minute stop there the first part of what you said if a project did not meet the criteria that are on the screen regarding change of use in an existing legal structure in a commercial zone district in other words if it would result in an intensification of use yeah or you know met one of the other criteria here for instance if there's not currently a use permit on the site um or um the the use would have required a higher level of public notice for instance than the existing use and if you know any one of those criteria were not met then the use permit level that would be required would be indicated in the use chart the commercial use chart and what page is that um that is section 1310 332 um immediately following the change of the change of use uh text i'm sorry i can't i can't hear you it's on page 11 is the beginning of the commercial use 10 technically because but really the the use is on page 11 of the it's the commercial use chart so that shows the level of review for each zone district Rene we can't hear you well i'm sorry yeah looking can you hear me now yes so looking at that chart on page 11 for use permit required by zone there is nothing on it that would involve planning commission hearings at all they're all either um discretionary permit with public notice which is an administrative use permit which means there's public notice but that's all and a c up being um the zea hearing so the project that i was talking about would not have had a planning commission hearing agree well i guess i'm just yeah just to clarify there are um c up planning commission level reviews in the commercial districts for certain use types i guess they weren't um so the various cannabis uses um automobile sales are rental in c2 for instance so there's various uh various ones but i uh there is not a c up pc for uh retail okay well that's the answer i was getting let me give you let me ask you another one this did not happen since target found a better space that everyone is very pleased with but they a few years ago were proposing to be able to i think it was a 90 000 square foot 60 or 90 000 a big store next to the hotel um in scott's valley that's just off the freeway it's i think it is zone commercial it's been vacant for a long it's never had anything on it but i think it is zone commercial would that have had and that was going to be a huge change for that whole community because aside from the hotel it's all residential and would have been obviously huge changes to circulation and traffic and a whole lot of other stuff so would that have had a planning commission would that have had a planning commission hearing it certainly was an intensification of use so the idea that that big a project with that much community impact could go ahead without any public input is difficult for me to imagine so what if you i unfortunately don't know what the zoning is but i'm pretty sure it's let's assume it's commercial on i'm pretty sure it is actually it sounds or any like you sorry christian shepherd that you when we were the next section we're going to discuss is this zone chart it sounds like you would like to see since you it sounds like you particularly have interest when it's going to be a retail community um page 16 if you're in the print version um and it sounds like it sounds like you have a you might want to see some increased level of review for these retail community it's it's called retail dash community which is department slash big box stores home garden nursery auto supplies office and technology products is it is it specific to that that you would like to see an increased level of review because i think we with the commission could discuss um that being incorporated into the motion or is it in general overall for all commercial um uses that you would like to see uh increased level of planning commission or zoning administrator uh hearings just so i understand um i came at this by basically going by the years i've sat in the kind of commission of what kinds of intensification of use in commercial zones have had beneficial public meetings or a lot or a tremendous amount of community involvement or effects so yes that was what i've given you two examples i note on page 15 there's um an m up level for um a no public notice for research and development laboratories it goes back a ways but we were we were once the home of a very big bud plasma laboratory that involved on the north coast large herds of goats and they took the plasma from their blood and turned it into something else and that was a hugely controversial one because they wanted to expand hugely and there was a lot of public involvement that happened today um they would fail through and so yes i'm there are there are many examples here in the code which i think in my experience have always involved in community and i do not think the outcomes were poor through having a public hearing in the end there's you try to reach a consensus of what will really work but there were always lots of concerns of the large surrounding surrounding community and i think that by having a higher level of public hearing you're actually avoiding lawsuits or stalling the project sometime because you can work things out so yes on this use chart i would say that i want to make a motion that the current levels of review where the planning commission has been involved not be changed i don't see downgrading them i fundamentally disagree that if it's allowed in the code it should automatically get an m up with no public notice or or even an a up i think zoning administrator hearings and planning commission hearings have have on the whole been very successful in meeting neighborhood and community more than anyone say neighborhood but community concerns on project non-residential projects of any size could i just add something to this conversation in addition to the uses chart for new site development you would also need to look at the site development permit chart in in chapter 1311 so in that chart any new construction non-residential new construction larger than 5 000 square feet requires a conditional site development permit which means public hearing before the zoning administrator so so for for essentially any construction that's commercial larger than 5 000 square feet it would receive a public hearing with public notice and then that doesn't kind of mean what i just said so i i so um we are going to touch these issues that um you're discussing and i don't think i mean everybody sees what we're proposing now um i don't know that if it will go as far as you want but why don't we get into that discussion um further once we've gotten through this if that's all right that's fine i i can i can come up with an example of logic for each of what i what i proposing based on my actual experience of what hearings have been useful and and and move that move projects along rather than slowing them down and while i understand staff's intention and the need to simplify things i think this is a mistake and there'll be more lawsuits and other and people will not be informed and issues will not be looked at plain and simple because the community brings up the issues that staff may or may not be aware of or see um if i could interject real quick commissioner lasin beast had her hand up and then so i want to give her an opportunity i'm i'm through and i am content go through a once by one but the ability to go through every single youth chart in this whole thing i my proposal is just going to be not to change what comes to the planning what has in the past come to the planning commission if we need to go through every single use that's going to be complicated but i think big projects need scrutiny by the community at large and i think that it's just wrong to make it only on appeal which has cost thousands of dollars and actually obviates against anybody who doesn't have the means which i don't think any of us want to uh you know contemplate and i don't but i think that's essentially what we're doing okay you can have a voice as long as you have plenty of money to spend commissioner shepard if if i may i believe that um you have a list of the types of projects that you're particularly interested in going to the planning commission so maybe um at the end when commissioners um dan and vila want to get through their document then you can bring those up and we can circle back um if that would be amenable yes that's fine but i i i think right because we we weren't to get a specific list here i think they're going to address some of this let's see let's go on and i don't rune we can't hear you i think she's deferring to the commissioner lasin b okay taken thank you thank you i i too was concerned about the wording of this of a lower level of public notice but then i read again that number a or letter a a change of use in existing legal structure may be approved with a with a zoning clearance if all of the following criteria are met so we don't just take one by one is this correct that it's supposed to rely on our having all having met all of the criteria yes that's correct thank you wonderful seems like it seems like the criteria would be kind of a guardrail well i would suggest that the new use have the have required an equal not lower level of public notice i don't it says both it says equal or lower level of notice so you have to meet the standard that the the use the use cannot have required a higher level of approval and and not have it so if it if it required higher level review it must go back for that higher level of review if required so that's that's that's that's what you mean here that's what it says there that's correct that's what will happen unless staff it does it not worded that way it's intended that way it says it's sort of a negative statement for you're saying the new use would have required an equal or lower level of public notice for hearing then the existing use correct so what you're saying that means is it needs to be heard at the same level as the existing use was heard it cannot be approved through this process that staff is proposing unless that's true is is what they said why not say what you just told me instead of what it says because it does so it says so because you have to read a what a is saying it must meet these standards so i through four the one through four is saying you have to meet these standards in order for a to happen we added a standard yeah okay i i'm not going to hold things up i'm not clear but i trust you so okay i said go ahead i don't i think you had if you have to explain what your sentence mean i'd rather you straighted the sentence in a clearer way but if it's clear to everybody but me then let's go out uh uh chair cordon are there any other hands up i don't think so and i uh i think we should be good to move on okay um the next item is page 13 um use permit required by zone chart this was just a change to four restaurants greater than 12 seats to um require an a up for all commercial districts and this was um just to provide at least some noticing um when a restaurant is going in restaurants um tend to have a lot of neighborhood impacts and um so it's just making that small change uh the next items are oh sorry go ahead yeah what does make an aiming i'm sorry oh so that's the next section so i um i thought if there are no questions on the restaurants we can we'll move on to the next table well are you on are you on what i'm paying for restaurants greater than 12 seats and a up is required for all commercial districts that's a proposed addition oh well okay i certainly agree with that that's what you just yes so for no questions on that modification then we can move on to table 13 3 3 2 the commercial uses chart and this is to make consistent with um what we did in the general plan last week which is um removing um bars nightclubs tasting rooms from the pa district this is table 13 10 3 3 2 that's fine yes and let me scroll down as much as i can to there we go a commissioner shepherd na means that it's not allowed in that district i don't know if that's specifically for the na we literally means that yeah i'm not allowed so you know so you're right now says bar night club remove from pa make not allowed so you want it to say not what do you mean so we right now according to the staff's proposed use chart if you look in the either printed or online version um it's they're allowing it in the zone district when ancillary and we're proposing that they just not be allowed in that zone district so we don't feel that bar the nightclubs are ever appropriate in the professional administrative zone district um we we we when we at when i asked staff last week to give examples of when they thought a nightclub would be appropriate in a pa district i felt that they struggled a little bit to answer the question and i didn't feel that it that it met what we're really trying to achieve even though we are trying to create um walkable um administrative and professional communities where people can perhaps shop where they work i don't know that bar nightclub is really what i'm looking for in a professional administrative zone district and so bars and nightclubs um we feel that there's not it is similar to the fact that we don't allow i'm looking at the use chart here we don't allow it looks like dance studios and visitor serving accommodations if you look at the use chart it has na for that as well so they're they're it's not uncommon that we have some uses that are just not allowed in certain zones so we just wouldn't be allowing bars and nightclubs in the professional administrative zones nor would we be allowing liquor stores and tasting rooms well but on uh as far as tasting rooms there are tasting rooms in the whole area around swift street is that's commercial i don't see that that's so that's that's commercial that's not professional administrative so professional administrative is designed to be offices um often like we go doctor's offices uh yeah so realtors lawyers um things like that are often in the professional administrative zone district so you can have a coffee shop in other words you don't want anywhere that alcohol is sir that that isn't the intent if that's not the it's more that i don't see a way i don't see how a tasting room or a nightclub is appropriate in a professional zoned district but could you have a coffee shop i can look to see the zoning for that but i can look staff you know the answer i i have that page open um so for eating and drinking um there is a separate entry for dining establishment indoor um and it let's see um it would be allowed in pa so if you have a big office complex you can have a Starbucks or a restaurant well correct you can also have like neighborhood retail um you can have lots of things according to this huge start um just maybe not nightclubs i i certainly agree with you about i wonder what judy and tim think i i can't see a bar nightclub and i don't see why he couldn't have a place to get a beer or a glass of wine what are the others think commissioner lasin b did you want to try them in first well i was um i was thinking about the ancillary um businesses that we had said would be okay in agricultural areas and i think one of the things that was allowed was a bar or it was in a liquor store it seems that what does that have to do with professional offices agriculture is a farm well but one of the ancillary um allowed was a medical facility or a sales store of something kind and then it had added a another business could be a bar or a liquor store i can't remember which and therefore an agriculture commissioner lasin b well but the the fact that they had a semi professional um establishment that was allowed and then also a bar or liquor store so it's somewhat similar to this right i'm sorry i'm struggling to find that that we allowed bars and liquor stores i know we allowed wineries and breweries in agriculture but any do we allow bars on agriculture no no that's correct we would allow wineries and breweries but not bars or liquor stores on agriculture's own parcel i i i don't know i don't know if i would agree and i maybe we don't need to spend too much time in this but i'd like to hear from tim if you're in a big you know area where there's hospitals and offices and so on i don't see anything wrong with a place to get a beer or a glass of wine so i don't i i don't see why that's na maybe not a bar or nightclub but a tasting room or a brewery tasting room i think that's fine we have so it seems like there's a so there's a separate youth category for bar nightclub and that's suggesting to be eliminated then there's another use category that includes brewery brew pub winery and distillery and and we're not saying that that would be eliminated but what a subsection to that is tasting room and that's what you would want taken away and that one in particular i also don't feel like i understand the intent tasting rooms are in my you know opinion fairly modest they're not as much it's not like going to a nightclub right it's a little bit more user friendly a little more appropriate for that kind of for like a mixed use area um so i think brewery is still being allowed brew pub winery distilleries great and you know i'm fine with the removal of a technical bar i understand the intent like you know i have an office and if there's a bar next to me which i've had before it becomes a little challenging at certain times but it's also one of those things where the hours are different you know you're not typically in the office when the bar is really going strong but you never know i work a lot of late hours so maybe it's just me that noticed it more than others but um so anyway i would be i'm kind of impartial i would say if anything adding the tasting room back in would could be beneficial for the community the bar nightclub um yeah i understand that intent and i and since there's still an allowance for brewery and brew pub and winery and distillery i feel like that would kind of solve those things that that a pretty clear as my answer commissioner shepherd i guess what i'm asking is where the makers of the motion consider leaving the tasting room option and i'm definitely room i agree of the bar nightclub and i in the you know in the soquel area where it's all going to be offices and professional i i could see a tasting room we could put the i mean i got my ratio on commissioner dan i don't know how you feel we could we could be open to putting the tasting room back in my my concern is it said it had to be ancillary and i they didn't i don't know how it could be ancillary to um since there's not allowed to be that thing but i we can put it back in uncomfortable with that yeah i'm i'm i'm fine with that okay i'll i'll just i'll just strike this strike that yeah on well um on this page in the c1 zone changed the a up for a big box store there was my target example so we're gonna and here it is which one are you on commissioner shepherd i'm on the on page 15 retail is on this what's on our screen change they're a rachel and alson are suggesting that in c1 jones changed for a big box store and or or department store such as they are anymore would change um to a up which is and it's administrative permit with public notice i think a big box store is also is always a big community issue and there's my target example on my home depot examples were directed to that i don't i think there ought to be public hearings when you've got a something that's above a certain square footage how does anybody else feel i mean i think that there's other triggers in the code that can always bump things up to a different level of review if i'm not mistaken staff should weigh in so i mean this is why this is so complicated because um you know i agree with you from commissioner shepherd um you know with your general comments about how helpful public hearings and planning commission hearings can be to both come to resolutions provide mitigations and then also frankly to save time in the long run for a lot of projects um so you know i do overarchingly agree with everything you're saying about that what makes this complicated is that there's so many other factors that are involved in determining what level of review something gets um so i don't know if maybe staff wants to talk about that or tell me i'm wrong that would be helpful i'm specifically talking in this on page 15 retail use chart i think i'm gonna i don't think we're gonna get any more department stores in our lifetimes but big box stores for sure i'm not worried about home and gardens industry auto supplies office and technology products but i think big box stores are always big and always have community impacts and need a higher level review so i would have i i don't know i'm not as good as you are rachel and alson i don't i i think that ought to stay at a higher level that yeah that's that one does should not just have an administrative uh hearing just because it affects all community out people with 300 feet if i could help maybe commissioner shepherd sum that up so you the a up is is being proposed as discretionary permit with public notice and it sounds like what you're trying to what you would prefer to see is a c up which is discretionary permit with public notice and public hearing right specifically for big box stores and department stores if if i might i think um commissioners shepherd wanted to see a c up dash pc so it went to the planning commission um and uh was suggesting a square footage amount so might be retail stores over 50 000 square feet for instance have a c up at the pc is that correct well you know we're picking in yes i'm not sure what the minimum square footage is because i don't really know how big home depot was or the proposed target would be so um targets are also also also um they tend to be 60 000 to 130 000 right and 50 000 yes they have big impacts and deserve the full on public that doesn't mean that people don't want them and they'll pass but it needs to be looked at carefully and i gave you my examples of why i think so and so yes i would propose that department and big box stores over 50 000 square feet the subject in which i guess are covered in this particular chart would have um a what are you dash pc hearing level commissioner violante is 50 50 000 oh it's five zero thank you i was i was going to ask for clarification i was just trying to type so i caught it in so thank you thank you yes i think a really small yeah i think i'm fine with go ahead judy i'm sorry i have a question about when you use the term big box store do you have a certain square footage that that relates to when you call it a big box store this is calling it projects over 50 000 square feet well you know that is there is no definition of a big box store except such as okay yeah this is why i think commissioner shepherd thought a numerical want defiable threshold was appropriate well i just thought maybe somewhere there was a list of things you know if you say a funeral home and that would be an average would be that and then big box store would be something else but i guess i'm i guess there is nothing like that so i'm fine by using this language you're kind of creating that distinction by saying these larger projects have this higher level overview okay thank you i'm fine with this change okay can we consider that a friendly amendment and then and i can accept absolutely okay i'm moving down the list are there any other comments questions suggestions well um this page unfortunately in my code it's not in there so page 17 conference facility auditorium event hall needs to be ancillary and the va and ct zone districts meaning mission shepherd the page numbers may just not match when i did this the printed numbers and the online numbers for page numbers don't line up because of the edits so you might just have to be a little bit off on the page numbers i apologize um so you should be able to find at least if i bought i hope you have the page somewhere but but i just want you to know the numbers the numbers might just not match for you this page 18 of the printed yeah i had to go through them and change them so i apologize but yeah all right that's fine i'm just saying for commissioner shepherd if you have the printed big binder of the code it's page 18 it skips from 13.10 341 to 346 and then it skips to it's the same use chart we were just looking at it's just like the next page so we're in 13.10 331-336 at the top of the page is what it says and that's that we're in the teens of that chart okay well i don't want to hold everybody up but could you just explain what um what means needs to be ancillary what does ancillary mean again and what's the v can you just say what that means needs to be ancillary and va and ct zone districts so you can't just put up a conference an auditorium hall in the visitor serving zone districts it would have to be ancillary to a visitor survey or some other use so it's just it's just it's a minor change i'm not saying it's not it's just that i don't i don't work in planning and i don't always understand what seems so obvious to you i think you've just explained in other words what you're saying needs to be ancillary which means that in addition to i mean what do you mean in other words you can't you can't develop it just on its own like if you have a parcel owned for visitor serving like a hotel or something you can't just put an auditorium there or like a dance hall there without the visitor serving okay so you have to be a visitor serving uh zoning in order to build an auditorium or event hall in those two zone districts okay well what about if you have a restaurant and you want to add an auditorium and have concerts or you want to provide a music space is that what we're dressing here or not like for example in felton we have a restaurant that is next door it's a felton music hall that has a big public space where they have musicians they woul