start with, let's start with the song. You know the song actually deserves doing a whole show on this and I will I think probably we'll see maybe maybe this weekend I'll do a whole show on this because and it's not really the song it's it's the whole phenomena that the song represents which I think is worth is worth talking about and and reflecting on and it requires it requires a lot more than just just what we the time we have for the newsy stuff but I wanted to at least cover it in terms of news and I think part of what I'll do when I talk about the song as a whole as a whole show is talk about the reactions to song I mean I mean this is now this is now being defined by Matt Walsh as the protest song of our generation this is you know Oliver Anthony is now the Bob Dylan and the Joan Baez of 2010 this is this is the the defining song of our generation and Matt Walsh will know because he has so much in common with Oliver Anthony I mean their lives are just just parallel so much I mean they're just so similar I mean I'm sure Matt Walsh's complaints about the world are just exactly the same as as Oliver Anthony's Oliver Anthony is the is the songwriter and singer of of the song which man which man north of Richmond yeah so we're gonna we're gonna talk about we'll talk a little bit about the responses but we should devote a lot more time to that anyway this song came out I think it was six days ago was loaded up online it is being watched on YouTube over 12 million times which is a lot it is the number one country music song in the country it is become a big hit among a right wing commentator conservative commentators this as you heard Matt Walsh considers this the the modern the anthem the the protest song of of this generation yeah this is this is every way I listened to the song you guys should it's not particularly good as a song and it's certainly not getting all this attention because of its qualities as a song Bob Dylan does not have anything to worry about in terms of either the poetry of the lyrics or the ability of or the melody or the ability of the singer I will give credit to Oliver Anthony you know it's a song fill of emotion so there's anger there's real anger in the song and I think that resonates with people so it's there's a certain sense in which it's authentic but it's not good from musical perspective even for country right I can I can enjoy a country song and country songs office often have you know very catchy and and fun and you know pretty melodic lines this one just doesn't it's just it's not a particularly good song it's not particularly good music there's no accident that Oliver Anthony has not been known not be known in the past for his music let's get to the lyrics though because I think it's a lyrics that resonate with people and the lyrics associated with anger you know this is a song about the alienation of American working class this is a song about the alienation of the people who are dying deaths of despair this is a song about the working class not making enough money this is a song about exploitation about about the working class being exploited I mean if you had if you had shown these lyrics to somebody 10 years ago if you'd shown these lyrics to somebody 20 years ago they would have said yeah this is this is a this is a leftist socialist song that you know Woody Guthrie could have gotten behind there's nothing nothing that would have suggested to anybody 20 years ago that this song was right wing and and this song is I think more than anything of reflection of where the right is today and and the the the tragedy of the fact that there is nobody nobody out there that actually represents individualism freedom free market it's capitalism all those boring terms that nobody finds interesting anymore that the right is complete the right today has flipped you've got you know again this could be sung by Woody Guthrie it could be saw in the 60s 70s 80s 90s it doesn't really matter it's it could be sung by somebody in the 1850s it could have been sung by Dickens or Karl Marx in the 1850s there's really nothing here that's right wing except you know some complaining about welfare but you know not in any kind of really serious way there's some complaints about well for there's some complaint about taxes but no complaint about taxes as they've applied as they've applied for to rich people it's just taxes on the on the working class it's a complaint you know there's there's a little bit of a complaint maybe about inflation dollar ain't shit you know that maybe that's the complaint about inflation but really you know there's a hint at pedophilia which is like the kind of the right wing thing these days but I mean thing to complain about but really this is just a song that is of the left I'm gonna I'm gonna read it to you I'm not gonna sing it to you I'm gonna read it I've been selling my soul working all day overtime hours for bullshit pay all right yeah working all day overtime hours for bullshit pay a pay in manufacturing which is what this is relating to steadily up pretty much if I ever you know I looked at some graphs for United States manufacturing jobs 26 bucks and 47 cents on average as of July 2023 that is significantly above 2016 which was a 20 bucks or 2002 when it was at 15 bucks or 1960 when it was I don't know three four bucks something like that an hour for manufacturing jobs so manufacturing jobs have increased they've never paid phenomenally well the reality is the the value added of manufacturing job in the United States is very limited and and the consequence of that is that oh god why is this not doing that you know these jobs are done cheaper and as well in other countries in many cases these jobs are done better by robots machines a big chunk of the more productive parts of these jobs are done today by by computers and yeah in spite of that wages are steadily rising the number of people working at these jobs has declined from its peak the peak was in 1979 19,500,000 19 and a half million people were working in manufacturing jobs in 1979 today it's about 13 million so they've declined from 19 and a half to 13 million but still 13 million Americans working these kind of jobs were they were they are they poorer today than they were in 1979 probably not purchasing power quality of life standard of living might have have increased dramatically might have increased dramatically gives again but has increased you know 1979 wages I'm just looking at this graph probably about seven and a half bucks an hour today it's 26 and a half that seems to have outpaced inflation from 1979 to today I'd have to run the numbers wait a second I wonder if this is this is already inflation adjusted anyway it's um no these are not inflation adjusted so uh if you're looking inflation adjusted they're making more money so yeah you know manufacturing jobs have always been tough they're hard they're grueling you don't make a fortune you're certainly not going to become rich working as a manufacturing laborer you're going to be middle-class you're going to be maybe lower middle class depending on that's an average wage people in in managerial jobs make a lot more than that within manufacturing and people just starting up make a quite a bit less than that but so the average is 26 with with a little bit of tenure and stuff maybe you're making 30 35 and so people have been complaining about these jobs forever so I sit out here and waste my life away drag back home and draw my troubles away now so he's bitching complaining about his life and a lot of people are complaining about their lives but who's the responsibility is it his life um why is he wasting his life away why is he sitting out here why isn't he pursuing something better I mean this is the this is where the left and right completely fail right they completely fail why doesn't anybody care about personal responsibility why doesn't anybody challenge these people to do better I mean I think that's the cause of death to despair is they're not challenged they're not taking responsibility for their own lives that they're just okay this is it this is manufacturing job 26 bucks an hour this is what I'm going to do I work I waste my life I know I'm wasting my life I do nothing about it I don't have the balls I don't have the guts I don't have the ability I don't know I think it's the guts and the balls I drag back home draw my troubles away yeah alcohol drugs whatever it's a damn shame what the world's got what the world's gotten to for people like me and people like you wish I could just wake up and it's not be true but it is oh it is was the world for people like how many different 30 years ago 40 years ago 50 years ago in rural Virginia wherever he's from was it really that different now I think it was in the sense that there was a lot less envy in American society there was a lot less looking at what other people have those people north of Richmond and by the way you know north of Richmond so that's all of northern Virginia it's it's wealthy people so it's a lot of less envy a lot more satisfaction what people had a lot more taking responsibility for your own life and and trying to do something with whatever you had there was a lot more about building families and building communities and and building a life today there's a lot of bitching complaining moaning and comparing ourselves to people north of Richmond and not matching up living in the new world with an old soul is it a new world really is in that sense at a new world these Richmond north of Richmond Lord knows they all just want to have total control want to know what you think want to know what you do and they don't think you know but I know that you do because you're dull ain't shit and it's taxed to no end because a rich man north of Richmond so yeah taxes are too high way too high including on these working people who uh you know he would pay probably about 20 to 25 percent of his tax of his income in taxes way too much he probably doesn't have a lot of the deductions a lot of stuff to deduct but remember that out of that 24 25 a big chunk of that right a big chunk of that what is it probably over 10 percent so almost half is so security medicare is anybody out there in the heartland or any of the manufacturing workers want to give up their medicare and social security probably not and they're going to use much more medicare than they put in they'll get their social security back if it doesn't system doesn't go bust they'll get it but their medicare they're going to use a lot more than they put in and they want medicare because that's what i'll pay for the healthcare after they reach 65 are they really willing to give that up is that what the song is about i want to privatize healthcare i want to privatize medicare i want to privatize social security no we know that that's not what it's about yeah they're complaining about the people of north wanting total control good reason to do that they do want total control i would say the powerful men north of richmond want total control they want to know what you think they want to control you left or right they want into your life they want into your mind they want into education they want control over who you are so it's a protest song about people who are too powerful and want to control us too much you right i wish politicians will look out for the miners and not just miners on an island somewhere that's reference to epstein right actually miners if you look at wages for coal miners this is not far from coal mining territory significantly higher than manufacturing they get a premium because of the risk they take so it's about 20 percent higher than it is for miners now it is true that those jobs are going away because of the whole climate change green energy stuff so yeah in that sense politicians are not looking out for the miners lord we got folks in the street ain't got nothing to eat and the obese milking welfare i mean unfortunately uh yeah some obese are probably milking welfare but obesity is a massive problem in the united states it you know when you can talk about why it's a problem maybe i go back to the issue of personal responsibility uh where is that um so he's complaining about obesity in america as everybody should it's terrible he says well god if you're five foot three and you're 300 pounds taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds uh the empirical evidence about how much food stamps are being used you know to to to make obesity worse not really there but yeah i mean i'm against welfare i'm against food stamps and but you know but who's the problem right we've got a lot of people with obesity and and it goes to the same thing right it goes to the same problem is the problem the wages is that why they were obese is the problem welfare is that why they were obese in a sense yes because welfare sends everybody a signal don't take care of yourself don't think for yourself don't worry about yourself obesity might also be part of the epidemic of death of despair obesity might be part of the alienation and the and the depression and the suicide and just and the alcoholism just the fact that so many people out there feel so you know so uh just depressed about the world as this song reflects but again what's the cause is it is it really rich men north of richman they're causing all this young men are putting themselves six feet in the ground because all this damn country does is keep on kicking them around a young man being kicked around i mean lord it's a damn shame what the world's gotten to for people like me and people like you wish i could just wake up and it'd not be true and then you know the last the last line is i mean selling my soul working all day overtime hours for bullshit pay same way it opened i mean this is a song of frustration this is a song of angst this is a song of anger um embraced by people who met Welsh who i don't know if he's ever worked in a factory in his life i don't know if he knows what a factory looks like i don't know maybe maybe he has maybe i'm not being fair um picked up by by by intellectuals who have a strong incentive strong incentive to promote this kind of angst to fuel it to fire it up to use it for their own political means i suspect matt walsh belongs more to the rich man north of Richmond than he does to the rule of virginian that uh you know works in a manufacturing job that this uh that this song represents uh just like this angst was picked up by the left in the 1960s and 70s this kind of angst and angst and frustration and angers picked up by the right today they're no solutions they're no answers all these populist right wing or left wing all they want to do is use this to enhance their power all they want to do is tap into this how many how many people who listen to the song and who support the song and have embraced the song how many of those people are middle-class kids how many of those people wouldn't know what this kind of angst looks like how many of those people are much more interested in the politics of this than interested in actually resolving the problem of deaths of despair of youth suicide of people really struggling out there all right anyway that that's the song you know there's a lot more to talk about this you know the whole attitude that exists out there in the country um nathaniel brandon wrote a really a really good essay um years ago in the 1960s for iron rand on um i think it's in capitalism not an ideal on alienation and i think it's so fits our time it's so fits our time in terms of in terms of the way people feel it's not about what existentially is out there it's not about how much money they make it's not about the quality of life of standard of living it's not about any of that it's about how they feel about their life it's about how they relate to their own life it's it's our educational system is so corrupted them is that they can't relate to their own life they feel impotent in the face of the world before them they feel that they cannot take control of their own life and the question is why do they feel that and I think it has to do with the philosophy and the culture of the education and the culture and everything else


So, I want to talk about a moment of the debate that really stood out to me. Elizabeth Warren essentially called out the Democrats who were doing these high dollar fundraisers with elites, and this led to an exchange between her and Pete Buttigieg, and he effectively made a pro-corruption argument and tried to pass off, you know, any individual who calls out these types of fundraisers as just having a purity test.  Nonetheless, I want to watch and then I'm going to try to gauge who I think was more persuasive to the average viewer who isn't necessarily following this election as closely as you or I. This is our chance. This is our only chance to defeat Donald Trump, and we shouldn't try to do it with one hand tied behind our back. The way we're going to win is to bring everybody to our side in this fight. If that means that you're a grad student digging deep to go online to PeteForAmerica.com and chip in 10 bucks, that's great. And if you can drop $1,000 without blinking, that's great too. We need everybody's help in this fight. I'm not going to turn away anyone who wants to help us defeat Donald Trump.  Think about who comes to that. He had promised that every fundraiser he would do would be open door, but this one was closed door. We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoke filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States. Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States. Mr. Mayor, your response. You know, according to Forrest Magazine, I am literally the only person on this stage who's not a millionaire or a billionaire. So if this is important, this is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass. If I pledged never to be in the company of a progressive Democratic donor, I couldn't be up here. Senator, your net worth is 100 times mine. Now supposing that you went home feeling the holiday spirit, I know this isn't likely, but stay with me, and decided to go on to PeteForAmerica.com and give the maximum allowable by law $2,800. Would that pollute my campaign because it came from a wealthy person? No, I would be glad to have that support. We need the support from everybody who is committed to helping us defeat Donald Trump. We would like to bring in everyone, but obviously, Senator Warren, like to give you a chance to respond. I do not sell access to my time. I don't do call time with millionaires and billionaires. Sorry, as of when, Senator? I don't meet behind closed doors with big dollar donors. And look, I've taken one that ought to be an easy step for everyone here. I've said to anyone who wants to donate to me, if you want to donate to me, that's fine. But don't come around later expecting to be named ambassador, because that's what goes on in these high dollar fundraisers. I said, no, and I asked everybody on this stage to join me. This ought to be an easy step. And here's the problem. If you can't stand up and take the steps that are relatively easy, can't stand up to the wealthy and well connected when it's relatively easy when you're a candidate, then how can the American people believe you're going to stand up to the wealthy and well connected when you're president and it's really hard? Judy. Senator, I've got to respond. Mr. Mayor, if you can't say no to a donor, then you have no business running for office in the first place. But also, Senator, your presidential campaign right now, as we speak, is funded in part by money you transferred having raised it at those exact same big ticket fundraisers you now denounce. Did it corrupt you, Senator? Of course not. So to denounce the same kind of fundraising guidelines that President Obama went by, that Speaker Pelosi goes by, that you yourself went by until not long ago in order to build the Democratic Party and build a campaign ready for the fight of our lives, these purity tests shrink the stakes of the most important election. Judy. We'd like to bring the other one in. So in case you missed it, Mayor Pete just claimed that being against corruption is tantamount to having a purity test. He is shameless. I mean, you've got to hand it to him, honestly, because it's really gutsy to do something like that, to be that brazen, to where you are explaining away your corruption, your buddy-buddy relationships with billionaires as having a purity test. Now, ultimately, I do believe that Elizabeth Warren got the better of that exchange, even though he did get in a really strong dig, because right after that moment happened, guess what started trending? Wine Cave. And along with that trend came pictures of Pete Buttigieg sitting underneath a crystal chandelier, and it was exactly as Elizabeth Warren described it. You know, there were elites in this closed-door fundraiser, and they were all getting buddy-buddy, and it's just, it's disgusting. This represents everything that is wrong with politics right now, and why our system is so dysfunctional, because these politicians are that cozy with elites. So walking through their arguments, Elizabeth Warren made, I think, a really powerful point.  Think about who comes to that. Exactly. That is a really powerful point, because we keep electing politicians, and they always promise change, but yet they get an office, and then we feel dissatisfied and disenfranchised, and we feel even more demoralized with every single election. Why is that?  They keep taking the money, and the money is corrosive. It's corrupting them. That is not going to be conducive to change. Any candidate who is purporting to be any sort of change candidate, albeit, you know, in some type of generational or political way, they're not real if they're taking billionaire money and millionaire money and doing these fundraisers.  Gotcha. Now, first of all, what Mayor Pete doesn't realize is that your net worth certainly matters insofar as, you know, you're going to represent your class, but in these closed door meetings, you're probably assuring all of these billionaires that you are not going to represent your class, the middle class or the upper class, but you will represent their interests. So it doesn't matter to me that you're not a millionaire. What matters to me is that you're going to represent the interests of the working class. And by doing these meetings, well, that kind of tells us everything we need to know about you. It's a gigantic red flag. Now, he basically tried to defend himself aside from saying that, you know, it's a purity test by saying I would not be here on this stage if I didn't talk to these, you know, Democratic Party donors. So in other words, you have to be a millionaire to run for president. Now, while that certainly helps, the implication was that Elizabeth Warren is a millionaire and is therefore self-financing her election like Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, but that's not the case. He kind of implied that, but didn't directly say it. But even at that virtual, if Elizabeth Warren were self-funding a portion of her election, what you said is not true because Bernie Sanders proved in 2015 and 2016 that you don't have to sell out to get elected. You can raise a lot of money by not being corrupt. Bernie Sanders has received more than a million individual contributions. He made history.   What an oversimplification of the entire issue. When people make contributions to your campaign, Pete Buttigieg, especially when they're bundling, a lot of them come from the same industry. And you can't really make this argument because you have no credibility. For example, we'll explain how money has corrupted you. So at the beginning of this campaign, I want to say February, March, you were arguing for Medicare for All. I remember this because I covered it. On the Morning Joe Show, you said that Medicare for All is actually a compromise between the Affordable Care Act and a national health system. So it's not actually radical. You were in favor of it. But after you start taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the health insurance industry, I don't know if this is still true, but at one point, you raised more money than every other Democrat from the health industry and the only person who outraged you was Donald Trump. And then all of a sudden, conspicuously, you are against Medicare for All and you are using a talking point that came from the industry. You're saying, well, you know, we can't do Medicare for All because I support choice. I want you to be able to choose between a public option or private insurance. Now, Wendell Potter, who was an executive at Cigna, but he turned into a whistleblower, just spilled the beans on this. This was an industry talking point that was focus-tested and he helped craft it.  You have been corrupted by big money. So, no, one contribution from an individual like Elizabeth Warren, who doesn't necessarily have any business interests or investments as far as I know, that's not going to corrupt you. What corrupts you is the money that comes from the industry, industry insiders, executives. He knows this.  Now, one thing that I've got to give him credit for is he defended himself by deflecting. Now, he deflected not by saying, you know, this is a purity test. I don't think that that was effective. I think that's going to hurt him, but he deflected by throwing Elizabeth Warren under a bus. She doesn't have the best credibility because as he pointed out correctly so, she did these fundraisers as well. She transferred $10 million from her 2018 Senate campaign to her 2020 presidential campaign. So, she's saying now I'm not doing these fundraisers, although all of the money from your Senate campaign, a lot of that was raised from these fundraisers. So, you have no credibility here. Now, I like that she said I don't sell access. And she added that, you know, if you can't stand up to the wealthy when you're a candidate, how can we expect you to do that when you're president? I agree with that. However, the problem is you are going to be doing these fundraisers if you're the nominee for the DNC. You did these fundraisers in the past. So, how can we be assured that Elizabeth Warren won't be influenced by, you know, the fundraisers that she had and the elites that she got buddy buddy with back in 2018? The answer is we don't know for sure. Now, of course, she's better than pretty much everyone on that stage with the exception of Bernie Sanders. But having said that, the difference between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders is night and day. And ultimately, I think that this exchange, the real winner here is Bernie Sanders. And I think that even though that sounds self-serving, let me explain my position here. So Elizabeth Warren, I think she probably won that exchange between her and Mayor Pete because she got wine caves to trend. That's great. But at the same time, Mayor Pete also kind of exposed a lesser known fact about Elizabeth Warren and what he said was correct. So they both kind of took shots at each other. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is standing in the corner and nobody can attack him. But yet, his opponents are taking each other out on the issue of corruption. Meanwhile, he boasted about, you know, having one million individual contributions, right? Having the most small dollar donors in American history, not taking billionaire money. This was kind of good for Bernie Sanders.  So they both kind of took each other out in a way. But I think this really demonstrates that we need people with credibility who don't just talk the talk, but also walk the walk. And that's why we've got to have Bernie. Now this exchange, I think, was very interesting between Mayor Pete and Elizabeth Warren.  And she did this multiple times. But here's what she said in this instance. Klobuchar had your hand up first. I did not come here to listen to this argument. I came here to make a case for progress and I have never even been to a wine cave. I've never been to the wind cave in South Dakota, which I suggest you go to. So what is making a case for progress about? That is what unites us up here instead of what divides us, which is campaign finance reform. That means passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. It means making the first bill we pass when I am president will be HR1, which is the ethics reform passed in the House, which is currently sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk along with 400 bills. And if you don't think we can get this done, well, we can, but only if we win this election big. Not by arguing with each other, but by finding what unites us and getting this done. Amy, you're missing the point.  The problem is we can't expect that you will do campaign finance reform, because if you participate in that very system that was conducive to your electoral victory, I don't expect you to change that. So no, you can't be corrupt now and then ask for forgiveness later. That's not the way that it works. You're not going to convince anyone. So you jumped in and made that point and you did nothing to help yourself. And it was really, I think, unfair that the moderators didn't allow Elizabeth Warren to defend herself, because she took some shots at Mayor Pete and allowed him to defend himself. But Elizabeth Warren, she couldn't defend herself. And I would have liked to hear an explanation as to why she did decide to transfer that money. I mean, it's not uncommon to transfer money from your Senate campaign to your presidential election. Bernie did this as well. But what it is something that could be problematic is the fact that she's saying, I'm against these fundraisers, but I did them before and I'm against them now, but I'm still benefiting from that money. So I would have liked to hear from her, but instead we got to hear from Amy Klobuchar, who just grandstanded and she did this for the duration of this debate. I mean, again, Obama showed us that you cannot change the system and will not change the system if you benefit from the corruption of that system. Period, end of story. And I love how I forgot to mention this before going to the Amy Klobuchar clip that Mayor Pete, one of the points that he made was that, look, I'm just doing what everyone else did. I don't remember the exact example he used. He said he's following the same guidelines as Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Bad examples, Mayor Pete. Bad examples. Two of the most corrupt Democrats in modern history. Horrible examples. So, you know, Mayor Pete is insufferable. Amy Klobuchar is insufferable. But the real reason why I showed you that clip of Amy Klobuchar is so that way you can see this quick clip of Mayor Pete spilling water. I just, if you couldn't already tell, I can't stand him. I think that he is smarmy. I think he is an opportunist and he's not the real deal. So I'm glad that Elizabeth Warren called him out. I would have liked Bernie to call him out because he wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it were Bernie who called him out, theoretically. Now, another issue with Mayor Pete is, you know, he already anticipated the attacks, right? He said, Elizabeth Warren is worth 100 times my net worth. And why that's a problem is that he knew that this was an issue and it would be an issue. So he had already anticipated the attacks and had some type of scripted response. Now, what that tells me about Pete is not that, you know, he came prepared to the debate. It's not like this situation where Hillary Clinton said, are you accusing me of prepping for the debate, Donald? Like, that's not it. The issue with this is that tells us that he knew it was wrong and he still did it anyway because he had to craft the response because he knew there was a possibility he would be called out. So overall, hopefully this will lead to Mayor Pete's numbers continuing to decline. It should because this level of corruption, it's not going to help you. You're going to lose to Donald Trump because Donald Trump will do the pseudo-populous thing again in the general and you're going to get crushed, Pete. So I'm glad that Elizabeth Warren called him out. She's not necessarily the best messenger, but still nonetheless it needed to be done. Credit words do.


So today we're going to be cooking, Ember is going to be my assistant and we're going to be cooking my butter pepper mushroom pasta. The things you'll need for this is obviously some pasta. For this I like something like fettuccine, linguine or spaghetti, something long and thin although you know personal preference if you like some other shape for this go ahead and use that. We'll need some peppers. I like using these small sweet peppers, they're red, orange and yellow I especially like the orange and yellow ones but you can use full-size peppers if you want I just prefer these. Of course some mushrooms and some butter so let's go ahead and first things first let's get that's right let's get some water boiling to get our pasta going. Okay here I got two quarts of water getting ready to boil using two quarts of water because I'm cooking about a quarter of a pound of pasta. Most pasta comes in a box of a pound and my personal thoughts is about a quarter a pound per person so if you're cooking for two people half a box one person you know a quarter of a box that's double what the serving size says but who follows serving sizes anyway right so since I'm cooking enough for one person I'm just going to use two of these small peppers and two medium-sized mushrooms. Now I'm not here to give you exact proportions of what to put in I'm more here to show you what I put in and how I cook it the exact proportions will vary on your liking so do play around be creative see what you like so of course to cut the peppers you're gonna want to cut off the tops first we don't care about those nice thing about these small peppers is most the seeds are pretty much right up in the top there there's no really seeds inside the rest and that's one of the benefits of using these small ones over large ones but we're just gonna cut these up I like them relatively small but again cut to your preference if you like bigger pieces cut them larger working in the kitchen is about being creative just like most rest of life you know there's guidelines you follow but you want to be creative you want to do the same thing as everybody else my water just started boiling so I threw my pasta in once that gets going we'll lower that down from a high to a medium high help prevent it from bubbling over now I have my large pan here and I have that heating up on a medium-high heat now and I've got two tablespoons of butter I'm gonna throw that in and let that melt as soon as it does get melted down we're gonna do is we're gonna throw in our chopped mushrooms and peppers now when we're doing this this pan might seem a little big for what we're throwing it in initially but we're at the end we're gonna take our pasta and throw it into the pan as well and that's why I want a little larger of a pan to make room for the pasta so we've got our chopped peppers and mushrooms the butter is sizzling in the pan I'm gonna throw this in and cook it on the high medium heat until the mushrooms start getting saturated and sauteed looking and then we're gonna lower it down to a low heat now you might think this seems like a lot of butter and it is health wise but you got to remember that the butter is our sauce for the pasta so as I said we're gonna let this go until the mushrooms are nice and saturated and sauteed so our mushrooms are looking good nice and sauteed and brown so we're gonna do at this point is we're going to lower the heat down to a low and in just a couple more minutes our pasta should be ready if we've timed everything right just keep checking it and when it seems ready we'll move on if you don't know how to tell when pasta is done you take a little bit out of the pot throw it against the cabinet and if it sticks well then it's done okay our pasta is done boiling so what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna turn that off we still have this pan on low heat and I'm going to just slowly with my spoon here let a little bit of water drain off and start moving the pasta over I'm doing this mainly so I don't have to clean a strainer you can put it right in the pot here we're going to cook it still for a little bit in the pan and that will cook off any excess water that we move over that we don't want so it's not a big deal there's still one piece in there there we go we're gonna move it all around get the butter all over it okay this is where we're gonna add a lot of the flavor I'm gonna use some Italian seasoning I got a big jug of it because I use a lot of that some parmesan cheese and table salt so we're gonna put that in there and again this is to your liking I like a lot of the Italian seasoning so I'm gonna put a decent amount of that in there but we sure to mix us all up good so the butter gets over everything and then sprinkle this stuff on again moving all around butter it all up gonna sprinkle on some Italian seasoning some parmesan cheese and some salt gonna move all this around and we are pretty much done this isn't a meal that really looks great served up I guess you could probably make it look better I'm just gonna throw this in a bowl and eat it but this is my butter pepper mushroom pasta sauce there you go a simple meal that takes about 15 minutes to cook anybody can do it and everybody loves it thank you for helping ember and thank you for watching oh you dropped your noodle now that's sad say bye bye ember now if you don't know how to tell when pasta is done you take it out of the pot throw it against the cabinet and if it sticks if you don't know how to tell them pasta is done what you do is take a little bit out of the pot throw it against the cabinet too much too heavy one piece you take a little bit out of the pot yes and you throw it against your cabinet really thought that was gonna stick that time I know you want some here take it take it you can have that piece so we're gonna let this go as I said until the mushrooms are nice until the mushrooms are nice and so that's it a simple meal that takes about 15 minutes to cook I want to thank ember for helping me


a tiny home or primary dwelling squares with state housing law building code, property tax status, all that. So, right? Yeah, that was a, that really stopped me cold too because it sounds like this is still needing to be looked at to see if we can consider them primary home since the other two jurisdictions, but not. So this is a study session because there still seems to be a lot of stuff we really don't know yet. I would like to understand a little bit on this one about the allowing multiple tiny homes as like a group essentially. So a bed and, or like a bedroom in one and a kitchen in another. As long as if we're tying everything to ADU standards and single family home standards for things like FAR and all that kind of stuff, it would seem like it wouldn't, it would be possible at this point to allow multiple units to multiple tiny homes to combine to a single unit. I just wanna understand if that's something that's, you know, it's mentioned in the second paragraph to push that off to another policy, but it could make a difference now if there's something that we could easily figure out. But I just like to hear your thoughts on that. Sure, yeah. So we did hear from at least one member of the community that one solution they were considering for their family was to instead of building a home on a foundation, have several tiny homes, but have them combine to just serve one family and really be separate structures that function as one house together with one of them having a kitchen, another one being bedrooms, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And that's a really interesting idea. And certainly the commission could consider it. I think from a staff perspective, it could be a potential code enforcement issue if we were to allow that and it might be very easy to modify a tiny home on wheels. For instance, that didn't have a kitchen to then add a kitchen or to then have that become a separate dwelling and then you get into a situation where you've got more density than would otherwise be allowed on the parcel. So I think that's why staff sort of stopped short of recommending that, but it's certainly an interesting idea and it also is a really great way to provide flexibility for property owners, especially those people rebuilding after the fire. Thank you. I definitely understand that it can be challenging. I'd just like to think about both sides here. Anyone could just go build onto their house without a permit or buy a tiny home and just put it in their yard without a permit, right? I mean, that happens. I hate to preclude stuff based on the idea that people might do something wrong as opposed to maybe incentivizing them to do it, right? So for example, if you're gonna use this as a single family home, you might wanna have two bedrooms, right? Which is not gonna be possible in the tiny home of wheels. So, if it's permitted and goes through the process appropriately, you might have the opportunity to allow those without too much challenge and maybe even prevent people from saying, well, I got one, I'm just gonna bring another one in. Just a thought. I would think that it would be good at this point to at least investigate and think about what, think about if it's possible or it would really work and just really think through that because kind of now is the time. That's the only comment that I have on that section. Go ahead, sorry, commissioner. I would just add on to that. If you are gonna study that, then I would also like to know how we would assess those tiny homes.  And that's something critical, I think we need to keep in mind. I agree with that. Okay, development standards? Yeah, let's move on. Does any commissioner wanna take a staff recommendation? I'm fine with the staff recommendation, except I'm a little bit wary of putting, at least starting out, allowing them in driveways. From my experience, that has been the time when I have heard negativity about RVs, tiny homes on wheels. So yeah, that's what I would suggest. I agree 100% with commissioner Dan. I'm very concerned about the driveway issue. And I ask on that one in particular, just thinking through, if you have a larger lot and the house is set really far back, the driveway would potentially be appropriate. But I think what we're all envisioning in our head is driving down a tight live-over seat break, like a neighborhood, and there's just tiny homes in every single driveway. I think that's where it will get really sticky, right? There might be instances where it would be appropriate, but is there a way to really... Well, we could develop different standards. So we could say in the rural service, outside the urban services line, under these circumstances, I think Daisy kind of outlined certain circumstances where it might not cause neighborhood issues. I don't be open to considering that. I think that makes sense. I think the example of a long driveway in a rural area. So I would support an exception for the rural areas. It's broken rural areas. Yeah, yeah, it's a tricky one, you know, it's hard to... It's hard because, you know, you know, Boulder Creek could be the same live-over situation that you described. So... Yeah, the staff could add something related to screening or visibility from a public road or additional distance beyond the front setback distance, you know, there's a variety of kind of things that we could add to the code in addition to just allowing it outside the USL. I think that the front setback part of it is something that we will need to remember in this, because technically, if you're following ADU standards, you're not building within the front yard setback, right?  It's usually about 20 feet.  So maybe that problem is actually already solved without having to do a ton more work potentially. Still something to think about. I had a couple of questions in this section regarding parking and then just a note on setbacks and stuff. One thing in particular on setbacks and just this whole process in general that the community might benefit from hearing is that a lot of regulations are not set up to be restrictive necessarily on housing and new homes. A lot of the like a setback for example is primarily there to prevent spread of fire from one building to another. Like where someone may think I can just park this smaller unit, I should just be able to park it wherever I want. It does really pose a risk for the community in general. Another one is like we mentioned fire access roads. If you don't have access to a site or the fire department doesn't, right? They're gonna come save you in an emergency. But it's really hard for them to get there. Causes a lot of problems. So I just want everyone in the public that's still on to just to remember that there's a lot of these regulations that are set up for public safety and some that wouldn't be like maybe as good of an idea to remove. So I'd be in favor of keeping the setbacks and based on what the ADU standards are right now. I think that that does make sense. And just a note there. Then I guess my question on parking this came up a little bit earlier but I don't know that it will be really easily solved. We can allow conversion ADUs, excuse me, do not require parking. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. But tiny homes on wheels would be, they would be like detached ADUs. But we do not require parking for detached ADUs in some areas, for instance, or near to transit stops. So you might not require parking for it. That'll be based on the ADU standards. But then replacement parking is so you can convert a garage and you don't have to create replacement parking, right? But this would be separate. This would be like a new structure separate ADU regulations. Right, I would be like a new detached ADU. Well, I think we have to consider parking. Maybe you want to consider differently for within the urban service lines outside of the coastal zone because in rural area they're going to have a car. There's no other way to get around really. I mean, there's bus routes but they don't go in very remote places. And I think you'll need to work on these regulations about parking in driveways which you're gonna have to build a case for me. I just, it's kind of vague what, I mean, that's gonna be take some time and effort on your part to say, well, you can have it in a driveway as long as it doesn't block the main hub. And that's a little subjective. And also there's so many homes with cul-de-sacs. I think that is a neighborhood issue too and then there's a capacity issue. And then how many people have in nice weather people are gonna be outside. So there's a lot of issues around that. I'm interested to see what you've come up with. I really don't know what would work and it may be different for urban or rural or coastal zone. I mean, the one time I brought it up along road with many homes in a cul-de-sac, they all blanched. So it'll have to be thought through carefully. Agreed. There's one last question I had. Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no, go for it. There's a note in some of the comments from the, I assume it's the public hearings or the community meetings rather. The fire department was mentioning that, and this is typical on ADUs, garage conversions and such that you need to be able to see the unit. You need to know it's there. You gotta be able to see the address number of that kind of issue. So I just wanted to understand if there is an option or something that you could research where if we're putting a tiny home, it's a lot smaller. It's gonna be a little bit more challenging to be visible from the street because there's another option where there's a poster of something at the front of the lot that would convey to the fire department that there's a unit back there in case of an emergency but maybe not necessarily require the address to be visible. Maybe there's some middle ground that, because I think that could be a challenging inclusion to a lot of that. Well, I would say that the fire officials need to sign off on this ordinance and they need to weigh in on any issues that concern access or visibility for sure. Yeah, and I would just add that we are coordinating with fire district staff as we're working on this and they did attend the community meetings. And in terms of addressing my understanding is the comment from the fire district staff was that the address would need to be visible not necessarily the tiny home itself. So perhaps that could be on a post or not on the home itself. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly but we can definitely get more clarity and specificity on that from fire district staff. Yeah, I think there's a picture on page 133 which I think is from a builder of the tiny homes that you put in there but it's very romantic. It shows a really cute little tiny homes tucked right into the trees. And there's a tree like two or three. There's a bunch of trees. It's in the middle of the forest and I need to see what I would want to see what the fire district thinks of that concept. That's why I'm concerned about setbacks. So I want to make sure these are really safe for people. Any other comments on that section? Well, I think that was the show was or we're an up to ownership now. No, we're at home design. Home design. On this one, I'm fine with this, what the staff recommend. Same on that. I don't have anything there. Of course I have some thoughts trying to keep it quick. So I think that there's a couple of things that I think are a little bit of a challenge just because of construction types these days. Like mechanical equipment not being on the exterior can be a challenge for heating, especially for water and air. Those units will typically have an exterior mounted structure. And I think that there are a lot of pictures where it was like, where it was visible but it wasn't look terrible. So I don't know that that would be a really good one to force on people because it can create and actually have more cost prohibitive approach to construction of these and take some square footage that would otherwise be living space. I would agree with you, but if we're gonna allow people to put them in driveways then these issues become a matter of community concern. So you've got two things playing off each other. We're gonna have to think through that in the process. Maybe there's a way to put them, one of the pictures had it kind of like tucked away or on the roof where it's maybe not as visible or something like that. But if you, so if you do a mini split unit for heating, you gotta have a unit outside to heat that space. So that's like, that would preclude a lot of like current technology, which is all really moving that direction, especially like solar panel and that kind of stuff. Electric system would primarily use a mini split, which would need it next to your unit. So I don't think we can preclude it, but maybe there's a way to shield it. How about some language that needs to be screened? Yeah, thank you. And staff can also check in with staff from some of the other jurisdictions to understand a little bit more about how that aspect of these other ordinances is going in implementation because it has been incorporated in every ordinance that we've seen, but I don't know exactly how staff at those jurisdictions have interpreted different mechanical systems. The only other one that I wasn't really like super keen on is requiring exterior trim on windows. If you did like a metal panel siding, which we've seen like some cool, modern like need look in tiny homes, they don't always have trim. I think the idea is to make it look more like a house and less like a vehicle, right? Yes. So I don't think that I would be in favor of removing that because I don't think that's the one thing that's going to change it. And it kind of precludes that. We could say exterior trim or other design features to mimic when like, you know, right, something like that to get out of doing your, what's your turn? Yeah. All right, that's it for me on that one. Thank you. Anyone else on that topic? Okay. Let's see, where are we at? I think we're on the fun one utilities. Yeah, that's a good one. Well, I think we need a lot more study in this area. It's a, and there again, things might be different for definitely would be different. Coastal, urban, rural. I want to know more about backup systems, what's available, and so on. You know, I looked up what tiny homes cost to buy and it's anywhere from like 30,000 up. So say 30 to 60, and you can easily have a $100,000 one if you want to super deluxe, but got to see what the backup systems are going to add and what the requirements are. And that's where the difference, these are permit going to be permanent at home. So really got to look very carefully into water needs beside compost and toilets. What about the gray water system for bath water, kitchen water? I mean, that all needs to be figured out and we haven't looked at that. So I want to know about septic systems, gray water systems, water accessibility, the requirements for backup. And I'm sure that that can be different between rural and urban areas, for example. And I was more specific earlier, well, they need a will serve letter, do they need to, you know, what will they need to do this? So I think we need more information there. Yeah, thank you. And staff definitely needs to do more work on this, agreed. And in terms of the backup systems in the rural area, it's really going to be coordination with environmental health staff and fully understanding the state law requirements and our local code, where our local code can allow legally and incorporating that into the code so we can work closely with Marilyn Underwood and her staff there at environmental, you know. Fire safe, landscaping, all the other things that, I guess they're called sitcoms have to think about how do they apply to these? I don't really think we want to see that cute little home nestled in the redwoods. That really wouldn't work. As much as it's cute, but that's a camping situation, not a permanent home. Anyway, I think that needs some more work and you're good at that. I agree with that. I also want, would like a little bit more information of how what the mechanisms are and how what the aesthetics would be of the hookups themselves. Imagine there's going to be hoses and pipe or pipes, maybe I'm not familiar with what's usually the materials used to hook up to a water system in a single family home or whether the sewer piping. So what that looks like, how it's just going to go along the backyard and has to be buried or so that would be helpful for me. There's two other things. I'm sorry, one more thing. If you have an off grid electric system, there's still permits involved there. Would these be subject to those? They're setbacks for permanent generators. In other words, what part, what kinds of things will be in place to ensure health and safety, that's all. Because we want these to really be permanently there, not just glorified RVs. Yeah, that's why I was going to mention too is, you know, California building codes, like really leaning, everywhere is leaning towards all electric units, right? And so, I think kind of goes to the last statement, but we should definitely allow solar on top of the tiny home, in my opinion, that way, you know, if they didn't have to have a whole grid somewhere, the tiny homes oftentimes able to be run just on the solar that it would have on its own roof. I think that would be really beneficial. I'm concerned about generators, you know, so oftentimes if you've been to an RV park or anything, you know, I've been camping in RVs next to you and they may have solar or may not, but then we'll kick on that generator for a few hours every day to power the batteries that run the tiny home. In an off grid situation, that can be challenging, especially say we're in town where generators aren't as common, you know, in rural areas, power goes out, people kick on generators, makes sense. If that's, you know, if someone, if there's like a row of tiny homes in everyone's backyards, they kick on those generators at seven in the morning, might be a challenge. So maybe we just restrict generators completely. It's all electric, I'm not sure. If it's all electric and we don't have generators, then they're all going to have to spend a lot of $1,000 to get the battery storage because that technology is just still emerging. But anyway, this all needs to be looked at for sure. Yes, a row of tiny homes, each with their own generator, then you'd have really, it would be deafening. Big problems, yeah. And that's another thing about putting them, you know, you'd have to hook up to a house's power system. So would you allow a generator for the tiny home and the house whose driveway it sits on and what would that do to the neighbor's noise level?  And the generator is necessary to power batteries if you don't have solar in these kinds of scenarios, at least in my experience. And so the batteries are expensive, but it's already part of the equation. The generator is additional on top of it to power those batteries in case you don't have shore power or solar to make up for it. So if we're saying that you have to have electric service in any way, the only time you should really, which is like the shore power, the only time you should really need a generator is if you don't have access to shore power because it went out or you're on the woods or something like that. And so I think it could be restricted without adding cost. However, you know, I'm not an expert at this. So yeah, Daisy, maybe you can continue thinking about it. Sure, yeah. And I would say I'm not an expert in this particular subject either. I will just add that we did hear feedback from the community that they were concerned about allowing generators as part of this ordinance and that there was more interest in just allowing for 100% renewable off-grid electric systems. So that's the feedback we've received from the community so far on that topic. It's gonna be hard to enforce. Yeah. Last question is joint or separate meters. You know, are you allowed to have a joint meter for multiple units on, you know, if you have a single family home in the ADU and the JADU, can they all plug into one power source, one meter? Are you required to have separate meters? I believe we usually require separate meters for ADUs, but perhaps not for JADUs, but I'm not 100% sure about that. But we can look into that and get that clarity to you when we come back and provide a recommendation for tiny homes as well. I think good fences make good neighbors and so the separate meters. Okay, let's move on. It's ownership, I think. I'd like to jump in on this one. I definitely support no short-term rentals, not allowing them. And in terms of ownership in occupancy, I think it depends on the discussion with the assessor's office. It seems like at that point, we'll be able to make a better decision. Well, I think if we have a lot of tiny homes, then yes, I agree with a couple of people who spoke up. We have to figure out what the mechanism for them to pay their requisite part, a little bit much smaller of maintaining roads, schools, parks, et cetera, et cetera. I don't think the community's gonna support it otherwise. And I would be very much against short-term rentals. I'm not sure any of us is for that. Yes, no, I agree with both Commissioner Shaper Freitas and Commissioner Shepard. Any other comments on that or on the permitting? As far as permitting, right in the first paragraph, it says, in Placer County or Placer County, where there's a high fire risk, many members raise concerns that tiny units should be held to the fire safety standards and stick built homes, which lets staff to add a standard for fire suppression construction in high fire hazard areas. I'd like, seems like a good idea to me. I wanted what the other commissioners thought, because we certainly are in a high fire hazard area. Again, this is another example where rural concerns may differ from urban concerns. So for the rural areas, this is an issue. Yeah, I mean, I think that I agree how the staff recommendation words that, I'm good with that, that they're gonna require, suggestion was to require different standards if it's in a high extra fire hazard zone. I'd agree with that. And I think, you know, that's the wooey, the wildland urban interface comes in town, like quite a ways, and that really, you know, is often overlooked at planning stage and really kicks in a building department where you're trying to go, but siding on your building and you have to use something that's fire rated. So I think it'd be really important to clarify that, which is you know, done here. I think it's important to clarify what materials are gonna be allowed at an early stage so that there's no confusion and someone doesn't just go build one of these things, singing, it's gonna work. And then it turns out they couldn't use cedar siding. That's not treated. They have to use hardy point, you know what I mean? Let's see if I can get a couple of things here. This is where we kind of talked about the permitting renewals every five years. Am I right on that? Is that something that we wanna address as five years seem appropriate? Is there someone mentioned maybe a little bit sooner in my mind? I thought it'd be a little bit sooner if I was just kind of guessing at least on a first round to just... Yeah, I agree. It might be good to have it be a shorter interval at least to start. Once we've got everything running like syrup, then we can make it longer term. So I would say two or three years for the first 10 years or five years and then see how it works out. I don't know what other commissioners think. It seems like we have to refine it. Just like the cannabis ordinance seems to come back frequently because it needs adjustment. That was a big change. This may just need a reality check more frequently at first. Hell, we review the quarries every 10 years. So, you know, I would be first. I'll just name a number three for the first 10 years. Mr. Lays, indeed, if you would want to speak up. Yes, I was struck by this provision because if you require that this tiny home or tiny home on wheels or foundation be inspected for mostly maintenance upkeep is my understanding. But what are they doing about the primary residence? We don't have any requirements that you have to come out and check that eyesore. If it is. Yeah, that's correct. You know, we only would come out to a primary residence to address a public nuisance issue if we got a code complaint from a neighbor. So you were other jurisdictions have varying amounts of time between inspections. What did you find out? You know, I didn't see this in other jurisdiction ordinances. Actually, this idea of concern about maintenance and upkeep of the tiny home on wheels and a permit renewal requirement really came from the community meetings that we held. So it would be something that we would be putting into our ordinance that would be a little bit different from what I've seen in other jurisdictions. I'm gonna see it as an opportunity to learn as much as to check in, you know, it's good to get out and say, hey, how's it been going? As the septic challenge that whatever, however that turned out like, is that working for you? Is it not? Can we adjust? Like it's a good way to get some feedback as well as just, you know, this is a new building type that, you know, could potentially be easily, I mean, modified, which is like anything else. It just feels because like it's new, we might wanna check in on it. Yeah, there may be new technology we want to include based on what we find out. I think, I agree, it would be good for information. Gathering and modification is necessary. Do we have a rental, like inspection? I know the city does, I don't know. No, the county doesn't have that. So it's true that someone would have to pay for it. Yeah, that was my question too, is it gonna cost money to the homeowner for this check-in? Probably, I believe so, permit renewal usually does. And I just think to look at it, at least maybe Daisy can just look at it and figure out what it would include. Could it be a check-off? Could it be a form? Could it be a questionnaire that really we really want you to complete is if there's any complaints from the neighborhood. Every time we've done a new ordinance with a substantial new cast, we've certainly allowed for feedback. I think it's at least initially for some years, I think it'd be good. Can we figure out a low cost way, not cost the homeowner an arm and a leg? Separate topic on this one is fees. What do we expect there to be fees like there would be on a single family home? This might need further thought. School fees, all that stuff. How does that plan? Well, that comes back to the taxing issue. And these units probably have to pay their way for the community. But I think that, so one of the things I was thinking about is if that's not possible for whatever reason, the assessor comes back and says, no, until the state changes their laws, we can't do anything then. I think if that's the case, that's a conversation that you have with the assessor, then you might wanna come back to us with some other ideas that would have some sort of fee associated to fund those services. Yeah, and then just in regards to fees, sort of generally, we would assess a fee or we would charge a fee for the permit process and a ministerial permit process that I laid out. But that would certainly be different from our usual building permit fee. And staff can kind of think more about how that might be structured and come back to the commission with those thoughts. This is a suggestion, I guess, if it's like an ADU under 640 square feet, I think the fees are reduced, right? So if we're following ADU standards, that might be something to consider. But then if you're using it as a single family home and you group together four of these, and that's, if that becomes something that's allowed, that would be different scenario, right? Or live like a single family home. I think grouping them, one's a kitchen, one's a bedroom and so on. That has so many issues around it. Maybe that can be something to look at in this further study of larger groups. I would not, that doesn't appeal to me in this first round. Too complicated, too many things can go wrong. Let's put that one off.  I think it's not, probably wouldn't be a very common situation either because you would need a vacant parcel, right? Probably would be in a rural area, right? Kind of like a gypsy caravan situation. I guess, I don't know. This is a heavy lift for staff and I guess I wanna also be mindful of what we're asking staff. And I want to do this in a timely manner in even a quicker path or in a certain area. So I guess I don't want, I wouldn't want staff to get bogged down studying something that's more complex than this already is. But I mean, I'm open to it. I just feel like it needs a little bit more flushing out. So I wanted to hold this up. Yeah, I propose that we add that concept will be a tiny home village concept, which will be studied separately. I agree that if it definitely, if it's something that's gonna bog it down right now, I don't think that it's more important to get this thing done. I just wanna know when it would be coming back. Commissioner Lazenbeek, go ahead. If you had three or four of these units that are minimum of 150 square feet, wouldn't you far exceed the 400 square feet of a tiny home? Well, here they're all, that's a good question. I mean, I think like this is, that's exactly a reason why it would bring up a whole host of other issues that are separate from what we're looking at right now, just an individual tiny home. So, I mean, I guess that's kind of more reason to do it separately in a way. So, I think our direction is to consider that separately. Right. So, let's see. I have to go real soon. So, where are we now, Tim? Well, we're on regulations still. I think the last thing that just, I know we've talked about, but I just wanna clarify that whatever the process is going to be to get these permitted should be really clear for the community. Sometimes that's hard to do as we kind of noted, maybe in the last agenda item that the community needs a better way to find this than to look up code. That's not always the easiest path. So, some sort of visual, here's what you can do would be. Well, I think the county's done a really good job on promoting information to AUDs. Yes. So, if we did something similar, that would be, that's a good program. ADUs, I said it separately. Yeah. All right. If anyone had anything else on that, oh, I'm sorry, I was on permitting. Now we're on the structure of regulations, I suppose. So, if it's appropriate now, maybe I can throw out what I was thinking about with the burn area and see what staff thinks.  But that's a temporary permit. So, I guess the distinction here is that that might not be good enough for some people and they want something more permanent from what I've heard. So, if that's the case, then would it be possible to separate out the burn area and try to do an expedited process to allow for tiny homes on wheels in the burn area? And then kind of, you know, like, I don't know, I was gonna ask how quickly that could be effectuated, even if it has to be separated out from all the other areas.  I would like to try to get something as quickly as possible. I think we should just basically direct staff to, I would agree to do it in that, to look at the development of an ordinance in that order, the burn area first. But, you know, some of these questions, that still need to be solved are pertinent to the burn area, like about utilities. There's no way around that that's gonna take a little while. Would it be appropriate? I agree with both of those things. It becomes challenging because that's like the biggest pick up for the burn areas, right, is the utilities and the septic. What is the ordinance right now allows this temporarily, right? I'm on full agreement to push it forward as fast as possible. I'm just kind of thinking through it here out loud that that was a three-year term, is that? Right, yeah. And it's renewable, right? Is it renewable? I think Paya may be able to weigh in on that. Okay. Yeah, happy to help on the burn area questions. They are for an initial period of three years and explicitly it's stated that they can be renewed in intervals of one year. The thing to remember, I think when we think about doing permanent temporary homes on wheels in the burn area is that what we've been doing so far is predicated on there being temporary. So, and it also assumes that there was a legal dwelling on the parcel. So if you're in the burn area, but you're not a burn victim and you had a vacant parcel, for example, this was not an opportunity to bring on a temporary home on wheels. So what that was doing was creating a path for people to get situated post-disaster. And then for anything permanent, it would be pending an ordinance like the one you are shaping today. So I wonder if really the question that's being brought up by Commissioner Dan is that we need an expanded piece of emergency response in the CZU area, which is allowing permanent temporary homes on wheels with a different level of regulation or with accommodation because it's the burn area. And so we have up until now drawn a line or a distinction between temporary and permanent because we have not required some of these issues to be solved for the temporary ones. So for example, there's a way to not do a geologic report. If one would normally be required for the setting in which you wanna put a temporary home, because it's temporary, there's a way not to deal with that. We do not require a fire clearance in order to do a temporary home on wheels. If you're rebuilding your permanent house, the fire agency needs to weigh in and say the access is adequate, but we don't require that for a temporary situation. So we'd have to kind of grapple, I think, with the issues anyway to extend that to permanent unless we just want it to be part of an emergency response that you get to do something permanent. And I think the board would have to take that decision and maybe we could do it as an urgency ordinance, but it's a whole different path, I think. So I guess I have a follow-up then.   You can't, and so maybe, but what I was thinking of might be more difficult, actually. The temporary permit sounds a lot simpler than even the simplest version of what we're considering here. So it might not even be helpful. Yeah, I think the temporary program kind of solves the need. It's just that people need to know they can do it. And I think somebody, one of the commissioners stated this, and I think it's right. Even though you can do temporary and there is all kinds of accommodation within that, people still have to show that they have septic and water. And I think that people who've had a hard time getting a temporary permit are the ones who did not have legal structures to begin with. So we have issued a bunch of these temporary ones and we'll keep doing it. And it is easier than anything you're contemplating. Okay, well, then maybe what I was thinking of is not necessary then. But your concept is heard loud and clear, which is how can we focus this in a manner that helps the burn people? Okay, I'm good with that too. Yeah, thank you, Paya. Certainly. So maybe our direction is not necessarily to bifurcate it, unless for some reason that became more optimal for the CZU victims. I think you know what, I'm sorry. Yeah, no, I think Piaz, now that she's explained the temporary program, it sounds like staff has already moved to do the best job they can. I'm glad of that. And yes, the problems of dealing with people who didn't have illegal dwelling before that's a separate issue. And I don't wanna get into that here at this stage. But just to point out that that is a way in which the ordinance you're working on today will help burn area of people is those that did not have permitted dwellings can now come in for a permitted tiny home on wheels. So it does create a new option for those folks. And the reality is those areas are probably the hardest to get through anyway. So separating them out is not gonna really benefit much. Okay, that makes sense. Bye. One note I might just add on bifurcation is what staff had been recommending in their staff report was to bifurcate the adoption of the ordinance inside and outside the coastal zone. And staff would probably still recommend that just based on the fact that inside the coastal zone we require coastal commission certification of ordinances and sometimes that can take a long time. Whereas outside the coastal zone the ordinance becomes in effect after the board approves it. So that might be something that the commission may want to consider allowing as it would also benefit people in the majority of the CZU burn area. I think we all agreed with you on that. But again, I think the ordinance itself needs to have provisions for rural and urban areas as appropriate, not just one ordinance for outside the coastal zone. Read. Moving on from that point then it seems like we're all in agreement on that. I wanted to just wanna ask one follow-up question on the timing section. We mentioned that we would potentially check in with people that have built these within three years, let's say, is there a separate timing code adjustment period that we're gonna look at? Like come back to this code within two years to make sure that it's working. Or is that kind of, are those two hand-in-hand? I would think that we should pose that back to staff the next time we look at this, see what they can check with any other jurisdictions doing it, if not, they can discuss what makes the most sense from, we've told them why we would wanna check back in and let them develop that and come back to us with it. Any other comments, questions, thoughts? Good job here. Exciting. I'd like to have something, please. Chair, I just wanted to get clarification from staff on what their approach is going to be to coastal zone areas and are they planning to meet with coastal commission staff as many of you know I represent? Neighborhoods such as Rio de Omar and C-Cliff that are heavily impacted by tourists and parking and narrow streets and I wanna make sure that we have protections for those areas. So my question is, are you planning to develop this further and talk to coastal staff? Yes, yeah, so on this particular topic we haven't coordinated much with coastal staff yet, although they are aware that we're starting development of this ordinance and that will be on the list as we move forward to coordinate closely with coastal staff. The one difference that I know that we are considering for some coastal zone areas would be parking and what staff was proposing is that we would have the same requirements that we have for ADUs which is special parking requirements in the Live Oak, C-Cliff, Aptos, La Selva Beach and Davenport designated areas. So that would be the path we would probably start on with conversation with coastal and go from there. Okay, so I'll wait to hear more. Yeah, and then there's also the question of how the coastal development permits would work and it's a little bit different because these are our buildings. So we'd have to kind of work that out as well with coastal staff. And I just wanted to chime in with everybody else that it was an excellent presentation and all of your hours of work on this clearly showed through. So thank you for your patience in doing this. Yeah, and I want to say thank you for taking the considerable effort to find out what other communities are doing. Who often we act like we exist and there's nobody else. This was really helpful. And I think learning with other counties and areas have done is actually informative.  And so the parking issues are gonna be important to look at for the whole ordinance. That's gonna be a consideration. So anyway, I thought it was a very good effort. It was really good to see what other people are doing. Because we're not inventing the wheel, although it feels like it. Yeah, I also wanted to comment that the public outreach was really well done and I thought that was an important part. And it was, I know it pushed our timeline out a little bit but it's good to get people a little bit more involved before it came to us so that they could get their questions answered. And I thought that was really helpful for this in particular meeting. Yeah, I think the outreach was excellent but I think as we move along, we have to make an effort to draw in more of the community than advocates. And more of the community needs to be accepting of this and needs to know what's planned. Specifically those in the CZU fire areas, it'd be, I'm assuming that most of them were probably on these meetings or calls or, you know, but it'd be really important, I think, if possible to reach out to anyone who does have a permit for a temporary structure and just make sure they have this information, it will, you know, and anyone who's applying, you know, if they can use an RV today that they can't when this gets approved, we just gotta, you know, it'd be beneficial to let them know as soon as possible so they don't, you know, so they know a text back. Okay, so I think we have a lot of, we've created a lot of recommendations. I believe we need to vote on those recommendations correct? This is just a study session. Yeah, so no vote. Yeah, we're done, good, I like it. And I'd like to suggest we have another study session as you move this along. We'll continue to be interactive with staff.  I apologize, go ahead, you're about to. I was just gonna say staff's recommendation was to bring back a draft ordinance next. And that is the direction from the Board of Supervisors from March of 2021. So I just wanna kind of keep that in mind that, you know, it's rare that we would have two study sessions for a project that's not, you know, larger. So if the commission would like to hold more than one study session, we can certainly discuss that. That would be a little bit out of the ordinary. This isn't out of the ordinary ordinance. Well, why don't we do this? Why don't we see what comes back in the ordinance? And then we have oftentimes when we've had a draft ordinance taken more than one meeting to get that right. So we can almost treat the meeting where we see the draft ordinance in front of us as a study session, if necessary. For me, it'd be helpful to see what's being proposed in black and white. Ordinance is where the rubber meets the road. And so otherwise it's just kind of all talk and in concept. So I actually think it would be helpful to have something proposed that we could then, you know, discuss and change and whatnot. You agree with that? Well, you know, it's really what, doesn't matter what it's called. I just think we need to have plenty of time to interact with this. Definitely. Hey, about then we can close item number eight, officially. Thank you, Daisy. Thank you so much. Great job, Daisy. Yeah. All right. Agenda item number nine, planning directors to report. Do we have anything to report today? It's still with us. Yeah, I'll be super brief. First thing is thank you for recognizing Daisy and staff's work on this. She's super detailed and really great with the public. So I'm glad that you all see that. Brief update, the schedule is starting to firm up for bringing the sustainability update, general plan update package forward. And we do expect to release that at the end of this month. And you have one more meeting before that on 223. So we can discuss the details of the schedule with you at that time. And that concludes my report. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Okay. Item 10, report on upcoming meeting dates and agendas. Yes. We, so the next regularly scheduled meeting date is February 23rd. And we have one item on the agenda so far, which is going to be an appeal of a project that was approved by the zoning administrator on Bonnie street. And then the next meeting after that is March 9th. And we do so far have one item tentatively scheduled for that meeting date, which is the wireless ordinance amendments. And I don't know beyond then. So definitely meeting the next two meeting dates. And that's all I have. Great. Thank you. I want to apologize. I didn't give anyone time to discuss item nine with the planning director's report. And I know that was probably a little bit of a complicated item. So I want to give that opportunity to anyone having further questions for Payak. I'd like to request when we're, when we met in person, we usually took the lunch break if things were going to go on. And on the other hand, when we're all at home, maybe it's not critical, but I'd like to suggest that if we discuss it, you know, and then we can have a consensus one way or the other. As we are asking staff to go through the lunch here, et cetera, et cetera. I just want to bring that up. So, you know, if we're in a hearing, we've got a big agenda, either we take a lunch break or we don't, but let's discuss it each time instead of just going on if that's okay. That's great. What's kind of a typical process there so I can know for the next? I think when it looked like it was coming up that we were definitely not done, either staff or the chair could say, well, can everybody stay through this or do we prefer to take an hour lunch break and come back and then everyone would say what was best for them. I'm glad you brought that up, Renee. And actually, Tim, I can email you, Judy and I, when she was the chair, we had an agreement to check in with each other. We had a certain point in time and I think it was at 1130. We took a 10-minute break around then for this meeting so it kind of threw us off on the lunch break a little bit. But I will check in with you, Tim, about that and we can develop a little bit more of a protocol. We do, we should be taking a lunch break also for the purpose of allowing CTV staff to take a break because they have to be with us throughout the meeting if we don't take a break as well. So thank you, Renee, for that. And I will follow up with you. Sorry, Chair Gordon, after the meeting and we can make it more of a protocol. Yeah, we usually would check in. I mean, sometimes we take a half an hour lunch break but at least we can talk about it. And then we usually took a 10-minute break during the morning session and I think we should resume doing that. It's always a good idea just because we're home. I don't think that changes things. I need to get up and put my mind just, especially with weighty issues and I'm thinking of staff too. This is a long time to be a full alert. Okay. Yeah, that's good. There's no other thoughts on those two items. The last item of the agenda, County Councils report. Mr. Chair, that's one. Yes, just nothing to report. Thank you all for the spirit of discussion. I learned a lot and I will be in touch with staff about this draft ordinance and it's great to be back with you all. Good job, Tim. Welcome back. Thank you. I was just gonna say this issue of breaks and lunch just didn't matter for the longest time because we didn't, we always finished at noon. It's not, because we're changing chairs. I just, it's just starting to come up. That's all. Okay. I think there was only one time last year where we went past. Yeah. Yeah. Appreciate that. Hey, great. Well, we're there. We made it. Thank you everyone. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for today, so. Thank you to everyone. Have a good day. Thanks, Justlyn. Bye. Bye.