Thank you. See Commissioner Vialante. She gave away. All right. Commissioner lasin be. Yes. Oh, I didn't. Yes, I saw the wave. I was worried you didn't hear me when I said here also. Commissioner shepherd. I'm here. Thanks and chair Gordon. Here. All right. Okay, now we can continue on return for. For the. Question and answer period. There we go. So commissioner's lasin being shepherd. I believe you're the last two and did either one of you want to start with some questions for. Staff. Well, I just have one question. I think everybody's covered everything else. But this has to do with pleasure point. And I was, I was listening to Patricia Brady who gave testimony this morning. About the pleasure points guidelines that they developed in 2018. These were guidelines for building development. Which limited it to 30 units per acre. Plus a density bonus. And now am I correct that our current requirement for. Density is 45 to 60 units. Per acre. The proposed density for residential flex is 22 to 45 units per acre. And I see any on maybe she could address the 30 unit max site. I'm not sure I'm aware of that. Yes, there was no. Density maximum provided it in the pleasure point. Guiding design principles. The division called for, you know, supporting workforce housing within the quarter, which is the. 26th Avenue to 41st Avenue. And that's a long portola. But so, you know, it is to our mind it's consistent with the vision of providing workforce housing, but there was no, there's no maximum density specified in that, in that study. Okay, so if I were a developer, and I wanted to build a multifamily building. I wouldn't be approved if I said I just wanted to build 30 units per acre. Right. You would be within the range allowed in the new residential flex if that was your zoning. Okay, but if I was commercial, is it 45 to 60. I'm sorry say that again. In commercial. Is it 45 to 60 commercial. commercial allows up to 75% of the floor area to be residential as currently drafted. And, and that's allowed at the residential flex zoning. Okay, but the density range 22 to 45. And that's just why I thought I put that down for residential sorry. I would get approval to build a development in pleasure point is that correct. You, well, you, you would need to be consistent with the zoning on the property and then yes, you could get a permit. Right. Okay. Thank you. That answers that. I have one comment, going back to highway one and the absence of trees along highway one there. In Watsonville we have a Watsonville wetlands watch, and they have a whole forest of trees, and they're giving them away, and they're coming out and planting them. And they're going to plant them in my front yard, well, one in my front yard. And I could check with them and see if they were help out in reforesting highway one in that section. That's just that would be, that would be, that would be lovely would certainly take some coordinate coordination with Caltrans largely we're talking about their right of way. Right. Okay. Thank you. And that's, that's it for me. Okay, well, I'm ready to go. Yes, please. Commissioner shepherd. Thank you. So first of all, let me ask a follow up question about the same pleasure point design guidelines. I thought that had been adopted to by the supervisor so wouldn't that govern the density to some extent. The pleasure point design district because we've always deferred to it and other role changes. The pleasure point corridor vision and guiding principles were accepted by the board in 2018 as a study. The direction was to analyze to analyze. Analyze impacts within the EIR and to include provisions in the sustainability update, which largely is what has is happening here there are a couple policies and couple implementation strategies that refer to the vision and to the Portola drive streetscape concepts. And then pieces of the design guidelines that are relevant for the commercial corridor are actually included as an appendix be in the proposed county design guidelines so they didn't adopt that plan. But it got it, you know, pieces of it got roped into the sustainability update for implementation. Okay, well my questions. Basically, could you go over briefly where we have ended up on the conversion of that way. I know you removed the good deal of the language about products specific about projects in general, but where exactly are we ending up. Yeah, maybe you could help with this one. Yeah, maybe you can just read the final paragraph because I had the original and I had what you said you were going to do, but I just want it and you said that you were still working on it. So we're, we're we ended up. Certainly let me. I know we've had several replacement pages so I believe that is in one of our replacement page. And the other thing, while she's looking for that just to keep things moving along my other question is, there was a question that referred to a table of specific measures for the VMT mitigation measures on a table but I never learned what you were going to suggest. In terms of policy, but I never did find them on the table there wasn't anything there. Do you know what I'm talking about my being too vague. The mitigation measures for traffic per VMT. Yeah, you referred to a table I went to the table but I'm sitting but one thing at a time sorry. Oh, no that's okay. Yeah, I somehow had that up on my screen and it disappeared so I need to pull it back up again so just bear with me. Okay, so this was provided in the replacement pages the general plan replacement pages that were provided for the August 24 hearing. And this is on page. Five dash 34 of the general plan, and this is policy. Let's see. Well, can you send that page to me. I'm sure but I probably the rest of the commission would like to hear it too so I'll read it and then I can certainly forward it. Okay, this is policy AR, ARC 1.3.1. And there was language previously regarding conversion of agricultural land, and there was a provision that allowed for conversion of CA land to accommodate a public quasi public use. And that was deleted from the general plan so that, and this was in response to concerns from your commission as well as the postal commission. So that was deleted from the general plan that was a provision provision that had been added that was new language so that's no longer included in the general plan language. Let's move back to what it said originally. Yeah, so basically there is an existing provision that allows conversion of ag land only when it's been determined that the agricultural land is no longer viable so that that is still a policy in the code in the general plan that provides a process for converting ag land. So there's no change. So regarding right so that that sort of new language that have been added about allowing conversion of ag land for a public civil use is no longer in the general plan as it's proposed. Okay, and then my next question is, why is, why was the thinking to unfold all trail planning into the parks program. The other counties that I'm familiar with involve conceive of trails. In other words, the way people can get around by bike by foot by horse, by bicycle, whatever, as an important part of circulation and accessibility and mobility. We have a lot of, we still have a lot of like worries that are now being mitigated and restored. In my district, there's currently two vacant quarries with future land uses. And the plan has always been that at that time whether they end up being residential parks or public or whatever that there would be trail plans for them. And there's also long been the idea that people should be able to get around by using trail access and so I have always thought that when there's a big development plan. People, there is a trail access plan. Sorry, I need to turn that off. And it was in it was in the circulation. It was moved from circulation to parks. That's a fairly big step. It just goes to show that we don't have trails plan most other counties in the Bay Area have extensive ones. And you just tell me your thinking. Yeah, so I believe we talked about this at a couple meetings ago. And this was done in coordination with the parks department who actually manages the trails planning process. They felt it would be better to have policies related to trails specifically within the park section of the parks and public facilities element. There are still some references in the general plan in chapter five to trails. And it doesn't preclude us planning for asking for trail development in the process of approving a discretionary approval of a or as a mitigation for a development. That's really what I want to know. For example, the quarries are hundreds, several hundred and three or 400 acres in 20 years that will be available for development. The plan is already always to have trail easements. And as you know, the county holds trail easements for the public. And as you know, the public is very interested in circulating around on on trail. What I'm saying is the parks department will continue to deal with trail development in the parks, but outside the parks to connect communities that would be an issue that would be something in the planning department still trail dedications for example. It would be a combination of parks public works and planning, working on facilitating a new trail development. And I think be more specific. There's two quarries. That's my example, they're not going to be parks. So why would park would parks wasn't involved because it wasn't going to be a park. If they were on if the trail ends up being through or on a public right of way or something that would be considered like a protected bike lane and protected paths and that would be under the supervision of public works and planning. Yes, and that's specifically. These are blank canvases we have for empty quarries all of which are under getting, you know, getting revegetated and so on. They're, they're not parks and at some point we'll be developing them. And I wanted to make sure there's a lot of people in their communities to that people can still cross that part of the planning would involve public access in the form of trails. So trails don't necessarily mean park trails. That's my point right in the in the access and circulation or access mobility element we refer to those as often as class four facilities or protected facilities where people can walk and bike off of the street. So they're not sidewalks, we don't use the term trails as much. But that kind of facility would be in line with the ATP the active transportation plan, as well as the team mitigation for development. Okay, then my other question specifically is, we talked about, let's see, strategies and our 3.3 and 3.3k were added about establishing a mitigation bank to offset perperian corridors. Yes, enough of a reference. I thought that mitigation banks were being looked at a little more carefully, because they have so far in created by private trusts or nonprofits that are set up and there's some question about how effective they are in being administered. So this policy was actually requested or implementation strategy was suggested by the water shed folks at the city of Santa Cruz. I don't have any reference to mitigation banks in the general plan at all really. We thought it was a good, a good suggestion to allow for that possibility. If it comes up. However, it's not, it is, you know, not the only way to mitigate and every development will have to mitigate their impacts to wetlands and other riparian areas. Okay, because there's been a lot of concern on the, on the, you know, in the special district of which is part of the fifth district with the San Park when we have mitigation banks as a question of, are they being kept up. Yeah, their challenges. So there was no monitoring of what's going on there and stuff. So, you know, are they, is it really, it's a great concept. Does it really work. I just wanted to say don't hate to see the county saying oh, not a problem we'll have a mitigation bank and get set up and no one ever really sees what's going on there. I agree. There's been issues with some mitigation banks they need to be set up correctly they need to have an agency that monitors them and, you know, I think that those concerns, it's still a very valid measure because it's often not disagreeing with them just aware that it would have to be more elaborately set up your correctly set up. Thank you. The other big one is I am still quite a little not quite getting what, what changes the changes proposed what the planning commission hears and doesn't hear. I think the planning commission is a really vital thing for the community because it's the only place that we have people who don't work for the planning department are not part of the infrastructure. I'm kind of looking at what's going on and it's a great place for the public to have an opportunity to weigh in. And sometimes as we all know, the public doesn't get involved until there is a planning commission hearing. So, I am not quite clear when it sounds like, aside from senior housing, you know, non housing projects won't be heard anymore by the planning commission so my question is, we have heard across proposals for libraries systems, animal shelters, parks, I do not want to be clear if I'm really understanding what are you limit, what are the significant changes to what you are proposing for planning commission overview. It seems like it's a lot. And I would like to hear your rationale because I don't see any reason to cut down the role of the planning commission frankly. I believe everything much more to the, you could say well, it's okay because anybody can appeal the zoning administrator, but that's a tremendous burden of cost and organization for the average citizen and I don't see why I would like to understand better why you're proposing to reduce the role of the planning commission significantly. Well, I'll just start off by saying that unless I'm not understanding it right, which there's no intent, there's no intent to reduce the role of the planning commission significantly. There, there was it in the code modernization project. There's really a, there's a lot of smaller types of uses that don't have impacts that require public hearings and so a review of all of the kind of level of use permits was done across, across the board to help to streamline development where where that's appropriate and to keep higher level, you know, projects that kind of challenge our policies and keep that kind of thing at the planning commission, as well as legislative matters. So, so, so it's about right sizing the process for the type of development. And I see Daisy so I know she's got a lot of good things to say on this and I'll, I'll turn it over to her. Sure. Yeah, thanks, Stephanie. Yeah, so one issue that we've noticed in relation to what the planning commission currently reviews is that it's, it's pretty different from other jurisdictions of this size. So actually we did take a look at Monterey County, as well as Marin County and Sonoma County, which are all similar to Santa Cruz County in certain ways. And for all of those counties, the planning commission only reviews policy matters, appeals and projects that have significant impacts of some kind or or set some kind of new precedent for like a new type of project or a new issue that is being dealt with. And that's different from the plan from Santa Cruz County where currently the planning commission is the standard, you know, reviewer for many types of projects including you know, projects that meet all of the county's objective standards aren't different from other, you know, projects that we've that you've seen before. So, one of the ideas here is to make sure that your commission is really getting the chance to focus on policy matters and more big picture decision making. And that smaller projects or projects that don't have impacts or aren't setting new precedents are, you know, heard at the zoning administrator level and maybe elevated up to the planning commission level if appropriate. And there's certain types of projects that will or certain types of reviews that will still be at the planning commission, you know, for instance, you'll still be looking at reasons, general plan amendments, subdivisions of more than five sites. And certain types of projects. So, for instance, certain types of commercial uses, certain types of agricultural uses, and certain types of, and certain types of uses in residential zones and all of the uses that are for planning commission review as proposed in the sustainability update are those uses that may have some special impacts that need to be looked at more carefully. But it does say on specifically that all non residential projects would be reviewed at the zoning administrator or lower. Now, all non residential projects is a huge category, usually with very significant impacts on their communities. I, well, this isn't a part to rate recommendations, but that's just a blanket change that I don't think is merited with we at this. First of all, a lot of people don't even find out to anything till after the zoning ministry level, and it'll be all in all done by that point. There's often EIRs on many of these projects that people don't even know about till it gets to the planning commission level. I do not think this is a, well, particularly public serving change to the zoning administrator or lower. Also, it's subject to interpretation. I just don't agree with it, but I'll say that later. I just want to hear your logic and I understand that you were looking at a very high level. Okay, and let me just say one thing regarding, I think you were maybe looking at the staff report regarding the, yeah, regarding that statement about the non residential uses. So during the staff presentation on the 24th, I did note that there is an error in that portion of the staff and so there are some uses, non residential uses that will still be seen at the planning commission level and that's borne out in all of the detail in the use charts. And so some examples are medical clinics, auto sales, transit stations, various types of agricultural uses, air strips. So those are sort of examples of the kind of types of projects that are still proposed to be reviewed at the planning commission level just to give you some more nuance there. Once again, can you give me any more detail then about what is included? What about auditoriums, animal parks, recreational vehicle parks? We had something that didn't come to fruition but we were looking at a huge, enormous mountain bike park. It didn't actually come to that but it under my understanding, that was a huge community concern here both Rowan Khan, would that have been heard by the planning commission? You know, it's going to depend on the zone district and you need to look at the use chart for the zone district to determine what level of review would be required. But I don't believe that RV parks are generally opposed for the planning commission level review. No, I'm sorry, that wasn't an RV park. It was proposed a very large mountain biking park in a, it was actually in Mount Herman, it didn't go anywhere so it's few years ago I might as well mention names. They wanted to take most of their life, a good deal of their open space and convert it to a mountain bike park. So if that had been heard? Yeah, well if it wasn't something that would have been heard at the planning commission level to begin with, if it's a controversial project where there's a lot of public input on it, then what might happen is it might be heard at the zoning administrator level and the appealed or the the CDI director or assistant director might make a call to elevate it to the planning commission level to begin with, just due to the controversial nature of the project. Yeah, okay. The only problem I still see with that is, you all know what's going on at the zoning commission, but at the zoning administrator 99.8% of the citizens in the county pay no attention to it. I don't know what exists till they come up against it, but certainly don't follow its agenda. So something could pass that way and they wouldn't know about it. In fact, that's more normal. Well, yeah, so the actually the outreach that occurs for the zoning administrator is very similar to the outreach that occurs for the planning commission there's a postcard notice that goes out to all residents within at least 300 feet of affected properties. In either in either case. So there is a notification to neighbors for zoning administrator here. I understand and you know I get that unfortunately in the rural areas there could be three neighbors within 300 feet, but thousands of people's very much effective so anyway, I just wanted to know. I don't just don't agree with that but that's okay. No, those were my questions. Thank you very much. Okay, that's what I wanted clarification on which I think is the, is the idea here. Yes. Perfect. Thank you appreciate that. All the commissioners. I had two questions that I missed. Maybe it's one. But it's a clarifying one in the pleasure point community design guidelines page B five. There's worse. I put away but that's along the lines of like this, there's a certain high limit, no exceptions, not allowed. And I wanted to understand the intent of that. I assume it means like through a variance or something but I just want to be clear that I don't think we can limit like density bonus and things like that that are state law. And just wanted to clarify the intent of that. And if we understand that language will hold up or if it should be changed in order to accommodate the intent. Could you direct us to the language you're talking about. Sorry, let me. Okay. And the pleasure point community design guidelines so in the general plan or design guidelines and it's appendix B. And then page B. Item F. And it states require buildings in the corridor to respect the existing high limit with no exceptions and minimize the appearance of height through setbacks, upper story, step backs and articulated colleges. And yeah, so my question there limit with respect existing high limit with no exceptions. And then understand if that was. Go ahead any. So, that was part of the. When we went through the process the community was, you know, felt very strongly about sort of limiting the height so so we retain that language. But it does not change the fact that under state law density bonus you can request a, you know, a variation to the development standards or where it would, you know, limit the density proposed. So, so that, that, you know, that does not. A density bonus, you know, if they would qualify for height limit they can still get one under under state law and our density provisions. Okay, thank you.  But the density bonus, you know, the benefit is you're, you're getting the public benefit of affordable housing and that's why you get the bonus height. So, okay, that makes sense. And I appreciate that. No, Commissioner chair or and I do have one more question. Um, about changing the parking regulations to eliminate parking spaces to encourage less parking less spaces for cars and therefore try and have less cars based on the idea that people would bike or take the bus. And you have to help me out here because, you know, we haven't had one for a few years but given climate change will probably have some severe winters to and I just don't see how people are going to walk or bicycle in the middle of winter in the same way they're going to want to use a car or the bus. Unfortunately, the bus system has still a lot of ways to go. For example, they continue, they just just continued some of their service to less selva these stuff like that happens all the time. Um, do you really see that as a viable alternative? Honestly, I just don't understand. You know, I always try to come back to the concept here that the general plan is a 20 year plan. It's meant to lay out a vision. We, we, we understand that there's going to be aspects of these policies that are appropriate when certain conditions are in place and so we hear what the commission is saying regarding that. But without that 20 year vision and laying the policy foundation for taking those steps to make our communities more walkable and to support transit. Um, then we're, we're kind of nowhere in addressing community needs in the future and greenhouse gases in the future and the climate change that the or three folks were talking about this morning. So the policy basis here is really, really important. And I see any ease. So I'll ask her if she has follow up comments. Yeah, I mean, I really appreciate that perspective on the long view here being that it is a 20 year plan. And that in 20 years there's a lot of things that can change it in technology. For example, more and more people are using electric bicycles, which makes it much easier to to ride and get somewhere very quickly. I dropped off for some reason. Did anybody else drop off or just me? Just me. We're, we're all here. Okay, I didn't hear what you just said. Okay, did you ask, or can I ask you, did you hear what Stephanie and said or I didn't I apologize. My connection dropped and then it said connecting and connect it back up. My, my, my biggest statement here is that the general plan is a long term document to 20 year plan. And it presents a vision for our communities does not mean that every aspect and every policy is implementable. At the same time, we do recognize that we need improvements in transit and that all these different components work together to really create those more walkable communities that we need in the future, in order to kind of accommodate housing that we need to accommodate address climate change, help people get around without being clogged up on highway one. So it's important to keep, keep your eye on what the general plan does which sets a policy basis and then I'll let on ace follow up. Well, I'm going to just comment I do think that's useful and very thoughtful but can you put some language in this document that says what you just said because when I have read bits of it to my neighbors and friends. That's the they don't certainly don't get that and obviously I didn't, because they think this is what's going to happen in the next five years, because it reads that way. Okay, maybe is perhaps there's a motion commissioner would like to make to that. And, but I think that it's the documents pretty clear that it's a 20 year plan and vision. Okay. I have a question I realized I forgot as well do you mind if I asked her if you had a second. He said, I'm really sure he said the one. Yeah, thank you. I did only have one after all so please I think it'd be great time to ask any follow up questions that we missed. Thank you I'll be really brief I just want to know if the section of the code is new or not I was a little unclear from the text box. It's in that same section that I last last talked about which is the 1310 689 it's talking about visitors, and it's talking about a calculation that they're talking about it's page four. So it's talking about the guests and it's talking about the ability to consolidate them into a particular part of the year, if they're not if they're not open year round. And I just was unclear from the narrative, whether or not this was already in our code, or if this was a change from our previous code. I'm sorry tell me the subsection again please. Yeah, I apologize let me just pull up. So it's 1310 689 C six. So it's, it's right after that use chart that I was talking to the table with the visitor serving accommodations. It has to do with day use guests and limited visitor accommodation and it's talking about the fact that if a site isn't open year round, they have the right to kind of compress. It's going to take your entire years allocation and kind of compress them into the duration that they're open. And I just was unclear from the narrative that's in the box. If this was a new code, or if it was adjusting, because the narrative makes it just a little unclear. So I don't mind if someone could just clarify for me was this new, or is this just I'll look at the code just to just to make sure that that we get you the right answer or it looks like the teachers here and can provide the answer. Yeah, so I believe this section of the code we can double check on this but I believe the section of the code was taken from the existing calculation from the heat. The parks and recreation district visitor uses a comment visitor accommodations calculation. And so what this does is just kind of move it to this section and we did also simplify it because there were some internal calculations that staff were using to sort of make these determinations as well. So this is kind of moved from the PF district calculations and also somewhat updated to kind of make it a little bit simpler. But this concept is something already in our code, which is if you have a year long allocation, you can compress it into the time that happens. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that clarity. And I had just one more question which is, how does this go to the board. Just my way it came to us in pieces and when. So based on the commission's recommended recommendation and any motions to change, we would provide new versions of the code. The general plan will largely be available the way it is with of course any changes. The code sections are being turned into ordinances, because the supervisors will adopt an ordinance. So we'll have track changes versions for them to show them and the community a little bit more clearly. And then they'll be clean copies of ordinances largely organized by the chapter or title that is being amended. And that way they can adopt ordinances that then go into effect. Thank you. Hey. Any other questions last minute questions, Commissioner Dan or at least me. Okay, so now we get to the tricky part. You got to figure out how to discuss in an organized fashion, go through some hopefully some motions today. One other housekeeping thing I think I missed a break mentioned around 230 today. I think we have a couple of minutes and then hopefully we can get through a lot today and if we don't will at the end discuss potentially continue and if needed. I don't know if we have a hard stop time, discuss that. But I would say, let's keep going along and figure that out later. Any thoughts on discussion, I can tell you what I had planned, however, you know, I would love input, since it's a little bit complicated. And I go, Commissioner Dan, you've got the plan. So what I do is turn off my phone so I'm not distracted. So what I am actually ready to go through is start making motions and what I can do is put up some amendments that Commissioner Vialanti and I worked on and go by each chapter. And then we can go from there. So, so I can do one of two things. I can share my screen, or I can send our first document to Jocelyn who can then put it up on the screen we've written everything out to make it easy for our fellow commissioners to digest. So let me know. I've never shared my screen in a public meeting like this, but I'm happy to give it a try. Is there a, I don't know if there's a problem with that with CTV or what. Oh, Jocelyn, I can't. I'm not sure if you can. I think you could shoot them over to you. You could. I think it might be better to send it over to one of Stephanie staff just so that I can be on here and also not be sharing the screen at the same time. What do you think Stephanie, because I think you guys can share screen since you are panelists right now. Oh, I see. And Rachel doesn't have the little green share screen at the bottom. I do. Okay. Then I would think she could try. So just to be clear, I think we're going to make some, we're going to have discussion on some, some topics. Hopefully, you know, So what I'm going to do right now is I'm going to. So does everybody see my screen here. Yeah. Okay, so make a motion. So the motion is to move for the built environment general plan to move the staff recommendation with the following changes. Are you making a motion right now or are you making a motion right now. And if it gets a second, we can discuss. Rachel, what are we looking at? We're looking at some suggested amendments to the staff recommendation that if I get a second to the motion we can discuss. I will. Are the underlines what you're suggesting. I'll explain everything once I get a second. Oh, I'll second it. So what, what we've done here is we've just taken the built environment chapter. And then we are accepting all the staff recommendations with the following amendments and the following pages and go over those amendments. And what they are. So what I can do is go through them one by one and explain and then if other commissioners would like to. Add to this. Myself and the second can accept or not accept. Second, I didn't hear that. Okay, thank you. And then, you know, we can't. Yeah, okay. So we're going to go through them. So, yeah. Yeah. So this first paragraph is just saying that if these are passed by the planning commission for a recommendation to the board that any changes should be incorporated directly into the general planner zoning code. Or other draft documents prior to the issuance of the board agenda, just so that they're incorporated actually into the plan. So the first one is. Well, I don't know if you guys just want to read. I don't, I don't like reading things when people can just read them themselves. And if you just have questions, we can ask, we can answer any questions. But this one. A little tricky when we have people that maybe don't have video, just my only comment, you know, maybe public that doesn't have video. I don't want to see what we're doing. So someone might have to read it at some point. Well, I don't know that we need she, I would argue, I would suggest if the chair is open to it that perhaps in a scan to give a commissioner Dan to give a summary of what it's about if you want her to give a verbal presentation. I agree that I think reading it could be confusing in general since they're strike out and underlying. But if chair Gordon would like there to be some sort of verbal explanation, I would argue that I would suggest that the summary might be better than. Yeah, I'd appreciate it. However, you know, because I'm not sure if these things you've already talked about in your questions or what they are. So, you know, I have talked about and some I haven't this one's just a real general. As you can see, it's just adding some specific language about water supply during drought years, some added detail about what road capacity means. The next one is striking the word prime so that agricultural land stands on its own. And then the third part of that policy is just adding, adding some specific language. So adding specificity here. The next policy is about growth rate and this just instead of using the word encourage replaces encourage with require. Since it's, it's in my view or view it's more objective way, and this just specifies that we're talking about urban development to be located within the USL and RSL so that it just doesn't say development in general. The next policy again replaces encourage with require and specifies we're talking about urban residential commercial and industrial development. The next policy is just specifying that with regard to annexation we're talking about non agriculturally designated land. So it's just adding some greater specificity to protect ag land. The next policy. I apologize. I have to think a little bit because I have to remember what I'm was talking about here. So this one we were saying that you have to have the infrastructure for for developments for transportation. I'm not mistaken. That's right. Thank you, Alison. Yeah, I really appreciate all the greater specificity. I think that's what was needed. So, go on. Thank you. Yeah. And I want to be clear. This was both Mr. Villalante and I worked on these together. Okay. And so again it's instead of evaluate the adequacy were saying require adequate infrastructure and adding in some language about protecting adjacent neighborhoods. The next section is just adding instead of replacing the word consider with facilitates so we facilitate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. And this policy as you can see is adding in specificity specificity for the uses as far as urban ag. The next policy is about Cabrillo College and UCSC long range planning planning efforts and so we added a sentence about the community protecting the community's housing stock there. So now moving on to residential land use. So this is about making sure that we include in our cognizant of including density bonuses. Since that's such a big part of our development these days. Can I ask a question on this one. Sure. Is there a wide urban and residential land use techniques designation that a range of building intensities inclusive of any density bonus increases. So is this suggesting a change to the densities that are proposed. No, I think that it's just suggesting that we take into account. Bonus. When we're looking at the, how many units are allowed that we make sure we also say okay and that's also inclusive of what's allowed with a density bonus. So that's transparent to folks that we know actually how many units are actually going to go into an area. That creates transparency. Okay, so I guess my just a really drill down, because you've made a motion on these and I want to make sure I understand them really well. Um, chair just to sorry to add one thing that we might have a concern with this density bonuses state law. So if you, if we try to limit it to any density range. We could, we could come up against state law and state law would override so I don't want to discuss this more. That's not what this is doing though, in my opinion. So I do understand that and I know that density bonuses are allowed by state law that I, that's, I don't think that we're trying to limit that or try to get around that it's more about making sure that we are inclusive of the density bonuses. When we're contemplating development on a parcel that's going to use a density bonus. So, let me give a quick example of why I feel like this is going to cause confusion. Use a density bonus to get three stories extra in height and 80% moderate income and 20% moderate income and it creates a form based density. That is one option with the state density bonus, which is exclusive of any density. So, my question is, how does this relate when state bills actually can in fact eliminate density. Are we, are we kind of muddy in the water there. I just want to be really clear I'm not really sure I understand the intent of what you're going for so it's hard to Well, I guess you could look at it the other way to you're saying that we have the RF district that is 40 units an acre. It's actually more than 40 units. Use a density bonus right so it's actually not transparent to say that our is 40 units an acre because is it in fact the density bonus. It's going to be a lot more dense. And so what I'm saying here is that we're saying is that We should just be transparent about what the actual density is. I'm not opposed to the RF district you'll see when we get to the zoning code, not making any I'm very supportive the RF just but but I think that we have to be transparent about when we say the RF district is 40 units an acre it's actually not 40 units an acre actually more dense than that. Could you simply leave it at its is and add language or another category with density bonus and show that additionally So you've got both things available once people can see what it is and if they take a density bonus what they'll get. I think that's what you want to show We may be able to specify that density bonuses may increase the rain from from what's given in the range because of the density bonus program. Yeah, Stephanie I guess my question to you. I mean here listening to chair Gordon and and and obviously having worked on these is, I guess I'm struggling and perhaps you could explain to me how using the word inclusive would be seen as bumping up against state regulations and if there is a recommended language change I'd be curious to hear it because I don't see this being as exclusive to something and I agree with Christopher Shepard that By including more information seems better. I mean that seems that seems obviously you've heard that that was the objective of this language is to be more transparent and if you have a thought on how now that you know the objective is obviously to be more transparent not to be exclusive if you have a small language change. Obviously we're going to I'd like to let Commissioner again continue through these so we can hear all of them. Maybe you could think on if there's a small language change that you would recommend because I see this as the objective obviously being transparency to the public. It's not meant to limit the densities in any way shape or form. So maybe you could think on that and if you have known the objective because I don't see this is precluding anything but if you feel it precludes something I'd be curious to hear from you working in Council on why it does that so we can go on in the meantime and maybe you can come back to us before we actually go. I think we should address Commissioner Corb Warden's concern if we show both what it is and what it will be with density that meets his you know what he brought up. I agree and I don't think this precludes that from happening but I want to be cognizant of the fact that staff is here because they're experts, and I want to let them think on it before we go in case, like I said it Council or staff as a recommendation. I'd like to let Commissioner Dan continue. Yes, we can keep going, but if by the time we vote Miss Hansen or Council has recommended language changes I'd like to hear them so I'd like to let Commissioner Dan continue. Yeah, we're open to that and you know I can change the language directly into the document too so it's clear. And yeah we're open to that. So moving on residential public land uses on commercial property. Can you go up one I think we skipped. Oh did I skip this one I'm sorry. This also is about infrastructure requirements, which we've had issues with various districts. So, this is just adding hand available at the time of occupancy, which is just adding specificity. So this next one. Do you want to do you want to talk about this one. Sure so this has to do I think it speaks to what Commissioner Gordon was speaking earlier, but also preserving and Miss Hansen spoke to afterwards was we want to preserve commercial space in the county and so we don't we want to ensure that we're not ending up with single story residential developments. 75% of the structure I know that it requires them to either put the parking underground but we would like to see this be only in multi story developments that we still preserve commercial to be forward facing to the public. And so we'd like to see it where we only have this available when we have multi story developments where you're having residential above commercials that we're still preserving a front facing commercial area. And the next one is about permanent room housing and so it's just adding some specific language about making sure that there's inclusionary housing requirements apply to those when when applicable. The next one is about drive thruers and so this is actually a substantial change from what was which didn't allow drive thruers and so what we're doing is just adding unlimited to kind of pay respects to the fact that this is a major change and actually I think it was a very, very good policy not to just allow a gazillion drive thruers. But still allowing them now. You got the one right above I apologize. The. Sure. You add add inclusion. There's to me at the end with an approved use permit and inclusionary housing requirements. So what is that. That means like, if the permanent room housing project is large enough to require inclusionary housing requirements, then they should have to do that. Okay. And they're going to be affordable by design anyway, but I don't know how many projects we're going to get for PRH. Thank you. The next one. The next one is just adding language to take into account scale and size of the distinct neighborhood for new development and then added some language about shading adjacent properties. When setbacks and landscaping. The next one is replacing possible with required with regard to using. Using objective standards. Sorry, you got to go back one more going pretty quick and it's hard to read through all this while you're talking so. I'm just one mind you here. So you've added development towards the end of this. This is neighborhood scale, sizing contact. Essentially new development, skipping down should provide appropriate building massing so as not to overwhelm or primarily shade adjacent properties, including appropriate setbacks. And adequate and maintained landscape buffering to reduce perception of height. So you've added the underlying part there right on. The underlying is what we've added. Yes. So, so as not to overwhelm or primarily what is primarily shade adjacent. Yeah, thank you for that struggled with which were to use there. The thought process there was to try to use a word to indicate that the objective here is to new development. Obviously is going to have an impact on their neighbors, but we don't want the new development to completely shade adjacent properties or over. You know shade and neighbor so much that you know, it's causing an impact that could otherwise be avoided with a different design. Okay, and then of including appropriate setbacks and adequate maintained landscape. You're just saying meet the setbacks and the landscape requirements essentially essentially yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And so the last two are about disadvantage communities and the addition here is including a phrase to include the loss of open space or access to parkland and community gardens and make sure that those communities are protected with their open space. Leave it up there for a second. And then the next one is also about disadvantaged communities and is similar and includes development and I added we added including the addition of parks and open space in these disadvantaged communities and include in addition to the other things listed. And then the last two items. Is about services for fringe and island communities. And so yes instead of support. We are suggesting that the wording be evaluate where appropriate. And then we specify non agricultural land with regard to annexations. So I think it's just emphasizing what the intent already is with this policy and being more specific. And then the last item is that when the sustainability plan comes before the board that we would suggest adding a policy to encourage that surface parking lots and commercial developments be covered with solar. So that's that and then. So the way we're kind of thinking is there is other commissioners that have other items that fall under the general plan built environment that they could offer them or we could just take this separately take a vote on it and then other commissioners could make their own motions on the built environment. I think, well, it's a good question. We have a motion and a second. How many other any other commissioners want to make any adjustments or additions to the built environment. I have two things. Okay. Why don't you go ahead and then we'll see myself in the second or agree. Great. So the commercial mixed use requirement, which I mentioned or had a question about at the start, reducing to 15% instead of 25. Because our buildings got bigger. Essentially we've, we have, we have created more commercial space than what we originally anticipated and recognizing that commercial space adds cost to rents the same way that parking does reducing commercial space only reduces cost of France and, you know, to that effect and try to see if we could reduce it to 15%. And like I said, based on the current FARs that is equivalent to or really closely equivalent to what was in the original plan before the FARs were changed so it's no loss of commercial space. It's just a reorganization of the percentages. So if you're making an amendment to this, what would the language be. Yeah residential square footage right certain in the middle residential square footage, including common areas within residential portions of a structure. Excuse me. May account for up to 85% of building square footage. Instead of 70. Like, that's the same. I once again, here, Gordon, didn't really understand you because I'm not in the business and you are. Why does this really result in no change. Okay, great question. So building square footages in our code that we have here are based on land area, and then an FAR application. Floor area ratio that FAR was at 1.0. So essentially it said that if you had a 20,000 square foot lot, for example, you could have 20,000 square feet of building floor area. Follow me there so far. Yep. Okay, so we've changed that to say in mixed use projects that now we're allowing a 1.5 FAR that means that where you used to have 20,000 square foot building now you're allowed. 30,000 square feet on that same lot. So the square footage got a little bit bigger. The density didn't get bigger just the square footage. And that wasn't an effort to allow more underground parking and things like that that we discussed and remove maybe FAR as a boundary and make it more of a help to a project. So, in that same scenario, you would take that maximum FAR let's say you're building out the max that you could on a building so now instead of my building being 20,000 square feet is 30,000 square feet. But because the commercial square footage is a percentage of the total building. So that 25% commercial requirement on the 20,000. Now I have a 25% commercial requirement on 30,000. Does that make sense. Okay, so when you run those numbers side by side, essentially we've got the FAR to make that space is a little bit better and easier to build and that kind of stuff. But we've in in, you know, maybe accidentally now up to the commercial requirement as well without Ms. Hansen put it much better than I just did not it wasn't an accident. We've now we've had 25% of the 30,000 instead of 25% of the 20,000. And so what I'm saying is that if you reduced that number to a 15% commercial requirement. It gets you the same square footage are really close as far as round numbers go to what the original 20,000 square foot building would have had. Yeah, but is built and you're looking at it whether 20 or 30,000 square feet. This just means that it'll be mostly largely residential and just a few little stores in the first story right. Well it's still, it's still be a, like a pretty high, like a 30,000 square foot building that would have minimum requirement of 4500 square feet. Before it would have been about 5000.  So, you know, if we wanted to say 16.5%, that would be exactly the same. But it's also worth noting that about 30,000 square foot building you're only ending up with 4500 square feet of commercial. Thank you very much. I don't know if I can support that you want to cut the baby in half. I hear you a bit let's think about what that is per floor right. So let's see. I'm not going to do simple math very well right now. What's 30,000 divided by 47500 square feet per floor. So that means 5000 of your ground floor is commercial 2500 and believe me we just like, you know, designing commercial spaces and multi story buildings. There's other things that you need on ground floor, which are circulation, trash enclosures electric rooms, spaces, you know there's all kinds of things so leaving 2500 square foot on the ground floor, and the rest commercial is really the same ratio as what it was before. Does that make sense. It's actually, it allows. Yeah, it used to be where you'd have the entire first floor as commercial and if you couldn't fit all the commercial you'd have to go second floor commercial so in most of the designs. Right now what we have is first and some of second floor as commercial space is what we're going to require. That's what it comes down to. Okay, I have a question. We have to add in here somewhere that this applies only to the 1.5 RAF. This in the mixed use right residential uses and commercial designation so this is really talking about the mixed use spaces that are already 1.5. So there's no already built. No, no, no that are already planned to be 1.5 the code we've adjusted 1.5 and that all of the projects or parcels in this paragraph are at a 1.5 FAR. Okay. Yeah, so in the short answers, it's already. It does refer to that already. Rachel as the maker of the motion. Yeah, I mean, I guess, Alison, I'm curious what you think about this one. I mean, I, I, I hear what Tim saying and he obviously has a lot of experience in the building for all time. It makes me a bit nervous, given, given the lack of commercial space in the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. And the direction we're going and trying to encourage these mixed use developments so that people can live and shop where they are. Because we're trying to build these types of places where people can experience commercial. And a variety of ways where they are so it's so it does make me a bit nervous. What about 20%. Yeah, I'd say anything is better and like we heard from Barry Swenson, who is also, you know, this is what they do. They said 10. So, you know, I hear that and I'd be happy to at least get 20 but if we wanted to make it the same as what it was originally planned 16 and a half is where it is. You know, which is like, that's not a commercial reduction by any means to what was already anticipated. So it's not reducing commercial square footage. We also, I don't know. 16 and a half percent. Well, it's up to the motion maker. I could maybe support 20%, but I don't think I would support. Well, increasing this to 80% of residential. They wouldn't that increase the cost of the building and increase rates, rents. You said commercial is doesn't draw as much in rental as residential. So if we had 80% of the building, or I'm sorry, 85% of the building in residential wouldn't that increase the cost and therefore the rents. That's a good question. It's possible, but the reality is, it ran some numbers on on this and did a few specific test cases. And the way it was before the average unit size would be somewhere around 500. And so, you know, well, that's good. That's also really small. So we're not allowing which we do need two bedrooms, one bedrooms, you know, that's more of a studio. So, you know, the, what the FAR change was the ability to have units that average closer to 700 square feet, which is more typical to allow for more size units. That makes sense. So even though the building might be bigger, it just means that you can actually have like two bedroom units now, where before it would be challenging. So let me just kind of bring us back to the 75% is what staff is record the language that is recommending. And then this, the language that staff is recommending represents a huge departure from where the code currently is which I think is like 40% something So, so letting 75% of a building in a commercially zoned area already is a huge change from where we are. So I just wanted to contextualize this a little bit right now residential is the name of the game right now and in the world and the development world so yes like there is a need a desire to have as large a percentage as possible residential. But we should just, I just have to keep bringing us back to these are commercial zones. And so we do need to retain some commercial use so that we actually have a neighborhood when we're creating 15 minute neighborhoods we actually want a neighborhood for people to walk in, whether it's 75 or 80 fine. I think once you start getting up to 85, then you kind of it's like, Well, what, why is this even zoned commercial anymore, if it's like, you know, over, you know, 85% residential are really in a commercial zone So, you know, I'm squishy enough to go up to like 80 I guess but I also, you know, would want to hear from Commissioner be allowed to. Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Dan that it makes me nervous because we have we do have to recognize that these are commercially zoned properties. And that while I am very in favor of us building housing and if we do not have places for equal to work, if we do have places for the shop, we end up with a community that can use whether or not that's to drive 10 minutes to work or if that's driving 15 minutes to the nearest grocery store which happens even in my district. And that's not what we want to see happen on a regular basis and so I have to admit that it does make me nervous to go. I agree with Commissioner Dan I would not be comfortable going 80, 80, but based on staff recommendation, I almost have to have been a I have to admit I'm hesitant to even move from the 75 I know this is a 20 year 20 year plan. But I, I, these are commercialized owned properties. And I think I think I, I actually should share garden I absolutely respect what you do and the work you do but I, I almost feel comfortable just keeping the number because and if the board decides to change it then they can and maybe we could, you know, the staff generally is honest when we, we have different, you know, opinion but I, yeah, I definitely wouldn't go below 80 and I almost feel comfortable keeping where we're at. These are commercialized owned properties. Well I would support whatever mission or Dan and the Olenti want to do with this though that logic that you have just explained Allison is quite convincing to me. I appreciate the, the listening and understanding, you know, I think 20% would be or 80% residential we put it that way would be probably the highest that would make sense for any building just if you think through the numbers just really basically a quarter of the building as residential means that the, or as commercial means the entire first floor is commercial and just about only these two things. Circulation and elevator course those in your description are residential. And so if you don't even have space for those that doesn't make sense so I appreciate the 20% or 80% and I feel like that would be like the minimum to actually make a building even available. Otherwise you're going to see people use the density bonus waiver on this every single time. And you'll get very little commercial and so I think going to 20 I appreciate that and I think that would be a good minimum. I guess my expectation chair Gordon is that the first floor should be commercial, like I, but to me I don't want to see residential on the first floor I want to see. I'm not saying residential first floor I'm saying you do have residential uses that must be on the first. Access to the stories above elevators all those kind of things that are not commercially use and so just if you do the basic math that is not going to fit on any building the 25% in a mixed use song. So I appreciate that. Unless the front for unless the story the primary build the building that a street facing is commercial and there's a building in the back that is multi story, and that's residential which is also possible here. There have to be one single structure in the staff report they showed us examples where there are two buildings that meet this example, and not just one, and they can still meet this and that could meet the definition of multi story developments that were the back building is two three stories high only residential and the front building is commercial. Not all of these buildings will be not all these parcels, pardon me, will be stacked in order to meet this 75%. But I hear what you're saying if they are a single building meeting the definition, then then you have first floor needs that are residential but that that's not the only time where this could be possible. You got it. Thank you, I appreciate that. So, yeah, 80% would would make it possible and I feel like if that's, you know, works for everyone that's that that helps a lot. Well, I'm okay with that. I don't know though where Renee and Allison, where you two are, I thought this far as that's as far as I could go in a commercial zone, I think, Renee you're the seconder. I said that I would go with whatever the two of you. And if we could let the board decide and register the fact that we had a lot of debate about it. Okay, why don't we do that so let's leave it as is but let's make a notation staff could could make a notation to put into the staff report that there was a lot of discussion about what percentage of residential work footage should be allowed in the seas owned neighborhoods. Well, can we ask miss Hansen what do you think. Actually Rachel gets to decide if she accepts the. If he has a friendly amendment as a maker of the motion, Rachel has the right to not accept your friendly amendment. I don't have to all agree. I understand that but I would like to hear. Miss Hansen if you had any thought. Yeah this is staff 75% is would stop foot forward so maybe it is helpful to care. Yeah, yep, I appreciate that. We, we think that raising is really appropriate to raise a percentage allowed in residential in this climate that we're in we desperately need housing. There's developments that have to have too much commercial aren't penciling. We're seeing density bonuses that are constantly asking for a reduction because they can't get tenants in the world is just changed considerably so I, I think 75 is okay I think raising it would, would be helpful in in that manner. I just like to register that it's a little unclear what happens when you have a horizontal development. If we add in this multifamily development language so what if you had, you know commercial along the frontage and then residential and back with this no longer apply just unclear to us. You mean it's been a multi story development. Yeah. So that was to make sure that there was some commercial retained. I believe. Right and so the way it's crafted now that commercial would. Apply whether it's multi story or a horizontal development of course we prefer to have multi story, but we certainly could see redevelopment of the site let's say an old mall or something in which it, it made sense to be more of a horizontal divisions we wouldn't want to lose that cap. In those types of developments as well. So how would you suggest, how would you suggest changing the language to meet that concern. I'm removing the underscored language. The language we added, which the purpose was so that if we did have a one story building, there would still be some, some commercial. It's a mandate multi story story. Stephanie does it it just says in multi story. It just leaves it unclear what happens if you don't have a multi story development. What could you add some language that would satisfy you for clarity, maybe a few more words. Wouldn't removing what was written there already. That would make it clear. Yes. Okay, let's move along somebody. Okay. So, if there aren't any more questions. Well, I have another addition or a suggestion and to finalize the thought so are you saying you will not accept the amendment to make that 80%. Well I think where we landed was instead we would indicate asking staff to indicate in the staff report that there was a lot of discussion on this. I mean, this was that's not so the interesting thing about that section was the debate is not about any language. We changed this was about language that is staff. So, I guess I would leave it up to staff to defend their own language there. I'm not think I'm not going to change the 75%. But if staff wants to, when this goes in front of the board, if staff is convinced by your arguments, Tim, and they want to recommend a change to that percentage, they should do that. Because I just feel like that's not my language that was staff's language. So, yeah, you're asking me to approve a bunch of language that you've added without having it. I haven't even had a chance to review it, or read through it. Doing that right I mean that's the whole purpose and I do appreciate that we should, you know, ask staff to double check and see if 80% makes it sound like from his hands and like that's totally cool. She understands the challenge. So, you know, 75% if now staff is saying actually they, they think it should be 80. So, good question. I'm the, the floor area or excuse me the recommendation from the board when this went back in 2015 was to remove the limit, the maximum limit limit. That's what it says on page 68. Because I think at that time it was 40. No, 50 it says remove the maximum limit of 50%. So I guess my point is like, everyone's trying to do their best here that doesn't mean that without a lot of input and thinking through it and which is why we are here. Help them and which is why you wrote this entire document is to help provide the feedback that you felt was important and that's the one of two things that I feel like is important in this section. Okay, you're wearing me down. I'm fine with 80% if commissioner shepherd is. Renee. Yes, I will support that and let's move on and get through the rest. Okay, let me make this change here to say 80. Thank you. I think I do think we should. But I would like what you suggested before I'd like to suggest that we, that staff put in the report to the board that there was quite a bit of discussion around this and further a careful look at it would be something the board ought to do. At least that we had considerable discussion over this percentage agreed and staff is new information that would change their recommendation further than they should. Yeah, so for the board. Yeah, and staff thinks it's good or bad this where we're ending up and please express yourself. And then I also just want to say like doing this remotely is not ideal like if we were in the board chambers where we used to have our meetings, I would pass out a hard copied everybody's everybody could have it themselves. And so I just want to acknowledge that this is very difficult the way we're doing this now and so and I apologize for that. I've been through it. The last question I appreciate that I appreciate you listening and and that amendment miss Hanson mentioned and I tend to agree that adding the in store in multi story developments. It creates a gray area or non multi story developments and so I feel like if you want to add that you should also clarify what happens on non multi story. Because if it was me coming to you as a developer saying I'm stuck to only these objective standards. It says if I don't do, if I do a one story building, I have no requirement. So you want to just add in multi story and horizontal developments. Well that would, I would say if you and I don't quite understand the intent and so I'm just offering my opinion based on what I'm reading here is black and white. And I hope you understand that, but if it would seem to make more sense that if you deleted what you added that it was still accomplished what you want but I'm not sure because I'm not quite getting what you're trying to accomplish with that addition. I think what we were trying to accomplish since I was part of this conversation I know not the maker of the motion was essentially they were trying to maintain ground floor and accessible commercial. And so we only wanted to provide the option of doing this type of now 85% residential when they're doing. What did I say, 85% residential when they're creating a density. Even if it meant, like I said, if you had a single story in the front and then multi story in the back it would still be a multi story development that's why we didn't say will be very structure. So that's where the language kind of was coming from. Can you clarify it slightly. So I don't know if we would want to say in multi story developments or redevelopment projects. But that was the intent was that we didn't want people to create these, these properties where they were kind of creating single story covering a lot in a way that we didn't, we want to have commercial funding and not and we'd rather have people create higher density. What about what about just saying up to 80% of building square footage in both multi story or horizontal developments. So that's precluded what I was talking about, which is someone coming in and building a single story development, we're okay with redevelopment of a single story property but we wouldn't want someone to develop a single story property when they could go higher density and build. If you're going to go for this 80% housing, it should be. They have the capability of building more housing should they go vertical. And instead of doing this kind of covering the lot. So just note that there are policies that specify that ground floor, you know commercial should be on the ground floor so it's accessible to the, to the public so there are other policies that cover that concept and the code as well. Well, at 80% we have 24,000 square feet for residential and 6000 for commercial. Can we do that in a multi story building. Yes. Okay. You could, you could not with the current. Well, I mean, I think we were trying to do just so I'm repeating this so I make sure I understand it. You're trying to prevent someone from building a one story commercial space where there's an opportunity for a three or four story density bonus mixed use project. Okay. Is that what you're getting at. Right. But if you limited the ground floor to 6000 square feet is going to be difficult to put those other stories on. That's, it would have to have residential and the ground floor as well. Oh, I hear what you're saying. That's a residential use could be not probably not a residence, like, you know, it's like mailroom package delivery. Okay, room like those kind of things take a lot of lobby, and they have to be on the ground floor. Yeah, lobby. Perfect. Okay. And so that's this is getting a little contorted. Can we so Allison, I think you had some language maybe to specify to kind of what the thinking was here and I think that was that in multi story developments or redevelopments. And I might just answer and I would not fix what you're talking about, which is if we just said or redevelopment projects, I might fix what you're talking about. It will help. Yes, but you could still have developments that prefer to have their commercial in the front and residential in the back. It's not unusual at all to have some sort of division between your commercial and residential uses and want to protect the impacts to residential. So there's, you know, encouraging mixed use and allowing them to figure out what works well for that particular site and that particular neighborhood. You know, make some sense from a policy perspective.  I think I did a, which was to remove the underlined language. I think if that's the only solution this handsome can come up with it seems unnecessarily. If that's fine, if that's the only way she can talk with I think that that's. I totally understand that people can do that with a commercial in the front and the housing in the back I just believe that if they're going to do that that we might as well encourage them to do multi story development in the back is my point, which is what this language is designed to do.  I have to be one heck of a large person when you can meet 80% of your residential if they're putting residential in the back without going up to movies, story development. And the sentence in my mind, which is why the language seems fine to me but if this isn't truly released it's not possible then we can strike the language. I want to ask a clarifying question that might answer the problem. If you go for mixed use development, which is not required, but possible. Are you not required to meet the densities of the general plan. You are correct. You would develop at the residential flex range. And just thinking through that, you know, you have to add 30 to 45 units per acre, and it doesn't really, in my opinion, from what I've seen and this is up for debate obviously. It doesn't matter if you have a small parcel or a large parcel, it's going to be really hard to fit those number of units and 20% commercial without having a multi story somewhere. So Tim, you're saying that the practical reality is favors what Allison is concerned about. That's what you're saying. Yeah, that's what I'm getting. I think that adding this language can is a little redundant. However, it doesn't preclude the fact that someone could and correct me if I'm wrong here. Someone could buy a commercial property, build a new one story strip mall. Is that possible. Yes. But that's within our code. So it doesn't really matter. You know, let's just strike the language and move on you guys. I mean, I think that my language is fine. Like, to chair Gordon's point, I think you won't find many where this language isn't just come isn't just true. Which is why I think the language is fine. But if their solution is that they just don't want the language that I think it's fine to just strike it. So I struck what was in addition and underlined. What is the new addition based on the discussion here. And I agree as the second as long as we have one of once again mentioned that staff should let the board know that we had a lot of discussion over the building square footage. We will do that. All right. Any other questions. I have, I have one question that's the last sentence that says a higher percentage of residential square footage is allowed only via a waiver or concession associated with a density bonus. If it was 75% this applied to that, but we've changed it to 80%. So how do we square it with the last sentence. Well they are going for a density bonus they can ask for concession. Correct. Yeah, but it was, it was 75 right. Yeah, that's a fair point. With the density bonus, you could eliminate 99% of it. You know, but we don't want that. Right. We want people to make commercial. So if we give a percentage that works for them. We have a much higher chance of people actually building the commercial space and not just saying, you know what rule doesn't work. See, I'm not going to do it. Yeah, good point. Okay. Your point is nice indeed. You don't want that sentence to exist. Are you just asking how it works. I think she's satisfied now. Perfect. I'm, I'm, I'm okay with it. Okay. Any other questions on, on this or. Yeah, I had one on the on section. I'm not sure if you've highlighted or made adjustments to this section. But it's B E 2.1.8. And we just continue on with this document. Well, it's in this. Oh, that's what I'm asking. I'm asking. So I don't. So I didn't, we didn't make any modifications to that policy. Did you say 2.1.8? Correct. Well, I have to bring up my photo. Well, I can't cause I'm sharing my screen. So I can't bring up. So can you read what that policy is? Cause I only have one screen. So I can't bring up another screen. And I only have one. Two. Couldn't we just go through. Yes. Document. We aren't through with it yet. And then go on from there. Actually, just because we are remote, that might be an easier way to do it. So can we vote on this? And then Tim, if you have a modification. Let's take a look at that separately. And then you can share your screen and. And make a suggestion just. I don't know. It's, it's good. I've never done. Yeah. Well, I hear that. It might. Let me just ask. The question to see what you guys think about this. Cause this is the section that's about our requirement for people meeting the general plan densities. And the request was that we, you know, try to get people to be towards the upper end. And that's what's true in the city of Santa Cruz. And I feel like it's beneficial. To be there for us as a community to provide more density of housing and. And to, you know, align with the city where possible, which, you know, it makes sense. So any case. People would support adjusting it to say something along the lines of ensure developments. Are in the upper end of the density range as provided by the general. Stephanie, can you clarify? Because when I read 2.1.8, it has to do with adequacy of infrastructure. And I want to make sure that we're all talking about the same. I need to see it in front of me. You guys are saying, let's do this and this and this. I don't even see the language. I apologize. I wrote the wrong one down. I think maybe it's a different policy number. Okay. Great. Cause I just, I like I read and I'm reading 2.1.8. And it has to do with adequacy of roads, sewers, water, service, restrictions. I would not want to change needing to have stated is we stated earlier in this document that. I would not want to change needing to have stated is we stated earlier in this document that. Adequacy of. Infrastructure services need to be there. So no, I wouldn't. I would not off the cops. Say I support saying that. No commissioner shepherd. That's a different topic. I apologize. That. I wrote down the wrong reference. And I need to. What about if I call the question on where we are now and get it voted on. What's that? And I call the question on the sections we've gone over and let's get a vote on what we've done so far. It just seems like we're going to make another vote on the exact same topic. Why don't we just finish the topic and be done with the topic. Is that topic already been covered in the few pages we've gone over? It's not something that commissioner Dan and be a long day have brought up, but it is something in this in which we had discussed previously doing this section by section. And we are in the general plan. Built environment chapter two right now. So if we want to have multiple motions on. Built environment. Or one additional item we can, however, I feel like that is a bigger misuse of time. Does that make sense? I understand everything that we've discussed and I'd like to vote on it. Okay. So right now we'll just take your item separately. So I'm going to go ahead and vote on it. So there's a motion and a second. Okay. Let's so to be really clear just for the record, we are voting on the amendments to chapter two built environment. As. Proposed and motion created by commissioner Dan and seconded by commissioner shepherd based on the PDF. Shown here. Which I will send to staff. After both taken. Have a roll call vote on this. Please. I'd appreciate that. Okay. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, yes.喔. Yes. Chairman and. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Chair cordon. I'll get a clean now. I really want to say yes, but honestly, I need the time to review. I, you know, I have a hard time making general plan amendments without fully understanding exactly what it was.  Do you want to bring up the policy and share your screen so we can all take a look at the policy that you wanted to suggest a modification to? Yes, thank you. Give me one second here to find the method. If it's policy 2.1.9 development below the minimum density. Thank you. That was one. Okay, let me share that really quick. Hey, can you see my screen here? I can't. Oh, yeah. Oops, sorry. Now? Yes. Okay. This is the section right here that we're talking about. 2.1.9 development below the minimum density. A development cannot be approved on sites within the USLR cell, a density below the designated density range, except for written findings required by California government code section 655.89 have been made, which we talked about earlier. The adjustment that I would like to see here, and I just want to get feedback to see if I would even get a second on this before I make a motion is that this says that I would like this to say that we encourage or require if possible densities to be in the upper range of the general plan density. What I don't understand is, if you want to require them to be up in the range, then why would we have a lower range? Sometimes you can't, that's a good question. And let me caveat with, there's still the accept where written findings and certain densities can't fit on certain sites. They have a site that's got a lot of trees or on a slope or something like that. You're not gonna, there's a chance you might not fit all of those units. So there's still opportunities where it may not work, but encourage at least would be something that would help people know that we're serious about making sure they're going towards the upper end of the density, not creating bare minimum. Is bare minimum? Encourage is a much different concept than mandate. Yes, absolutely, that makes sense. So you want it to be mandated, I wouldn't support that. Encourage, that's a recommendation, but it's not the rule. So I could not support mandate. There's too many exceptions. This county is just not like flat. And we're not in Ohio where you could mandate anything, but here, everything is so determined by a patchwork of septic system, water systems, terrain, any number of factors. I don't see mandating that. I understand that. How about an encourage? People go for an encourage? I personally support what it says. I'm not in, I don't want to really modify it. I understand your concerns and your interests, but I think that's, I think the whole way we're planning, we're changing all these codes and the language and the general plan makes it pretty clear what we're encouraging. I see no, there's no two ways about that. So I'm satisfied with what it is. So we're- Did you have something to add to that? Yes, I did just want to point out in 2.1.8, it does say where adequate public services exist, development at the highest high end of the density range allowed by the land use as a nation is preferred and encouraged in order to maximize the utility of scarce land resources served by public infrastructure. Well, that's clear. I mean, I think that's a clear directive. Don't you agree? Chair or Tim? Tim, does that meet here? What's that, Commissioner Vaughan? I said, Tim, does that meet your language that it's in 2.1.8, even if it's not in 2.1.9? I'm just reading it. I apologize. Stephanie, did you have a chance to look at my question about 2.1.9? Yeah, we did look at the, that section of the government code, hang on one second, and it's findings for approval development under the Housing Accountability Act. And it basically has the findings that you make if it development is consistent with the general plan. And it kind of stops us from disapproving developments that kind of meet our standards and general plan. Or, but you could do that if there was an adverse impact on the environment. It's that kind of language. It wouldn't have a bearing in rebuilding in the fire zone. Well, my question was just about the fire zone.  If the CZ fire, my question had to do with any sort of catastrophe. I mean, we unfortunately live in an area right with disasters of floods, rides, earthquakes. And I just wanted to ensure that if someone lived, I mean, we're obviously changing our densities to be much more intense. And I don't want to see someone whose home gets destroyed from a fallen tree from a cracked foundation from an earthquake who suddenly finds themselves living on a, perhaps in a single home on RM's own parcel who's told that they have to build four units. And that's why, because our general plans as you shall not build below the density. It says, except we're written findings of that code have been made. And so I want to ensure that that's, do we need to be more explicit about the fact that, I mean, does that fit within that government code or do we need to be more explicit about the fact that we allow for rebuilding to be built below that density? If that's, I don't think the government code limits it one way or the other. But I think the intent, if you have a development in the urban area that has services that the intent so far has been your meeting that those density requirements, even if you're rebuilding after, say, I don't know a tree. Okay, I don't want to interrupt Tim. I was just hoping to get an answer. I'll let Tim talk about whether or not the language in 2.18 met his desires for 2.19. But I would actually like to hear from the rest of the commission about their thoughts, given what you just said, because I would be surprised to hear if the commission agreed with staffs not moving to let people rebuild them after something unless they met the correct densities. But anyway, I don't want to deter Tim. I was just hoping he was reading, so I figured I might as well ask my questions. I don't mind at all. That's good news of time there. So sitting near watching me read very slowly is not a great use of time. That didn't answer my question. I think I'm fine with that. And I appreciate that getting pointed out. Must have missed it. So it does say what I was hoping to say, at least encourage higher density where a brand were possible. So I appreciate that. And I would just thank you, Tim. I'm glad and thank you, Annie, for finding that for Tim, so that it's already in there. I'm curious to hear from my fellow commissioners. I hope we were done with both environment. But for me, this idea that the general plan says it cannot be approved on sites within the USL and RSL, identities below the designated density range is a bit of a concern for me. That there isn't an exception for people who experience unexpected disasters. We unfortunately know we live in an area that is prone to these. And I, the USL incorporates areas like West Elba Beach, probably the RSL incorporates areas like West Elba Beach in parts of areas that consider themselves towns. And I think people would be surprised, obviously, people, a lot of people live in the USL, including places near, say, the harbor, which is prone to even tsunami damage. And I just, I wouldn't want people to suddenly find themselves, when they're willingly in choosing to build at a higher density, like I said earlier, I'm very in favor of more housing and those building to these higher densities. But when people are experiencing the trauma of disaster, it's hard enough to build often the single family dwelling that they lost. And I wouldn't want them to unexpectedly find themselves with the expectation that they're building four or more units, which is the low end to Tim's point of these densities. And I think I would be supportive of us putting some sort of language in there that said something along the lines with the exception of rebuild after, either something like disaster or unexpected loss of property or something like that. I don't know exactly what the language would be, but perhaps we could even give a general direction about specific language to staff. I don't know how the rest of the commission feels. I agree with that. How about I'll move that in this section, is it 1.1.9? 2.1. 2.1.9 that when this item comes before the Board of Supervisors that staff add language to this section to provide an exemption for people rebuilding after a natural disaster. So that's a motion. I would strongly agree on that. If we have a second before we. I'll second that. Sounds like we have two. We'll take Commissioner Villalantes this time. Sorry, Commissioner Shepherd. You got the last one. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we please have a roll call vote on this mystery? Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner Villalante. Yes. Commissioner Lazenby. Yes. Commissioner Shepherd. Yes. And Chair Gordon. Yes. Okay. Question passes. Okay, I'm going to pause us for now. We're at a good stopping point. We have a break due about 30 minutes ago. So we're going to take a quick, let's make it 12 minute break and be back at 3.15. Okay. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you, everyone. See you in a minute. Okay. 10. All right, about that. Trying to catch up with the breaks. Let's continue. And go with the roll call again to make sure we're all here, please, Ms. Drake. Okay. Commissioner Shepherd. I am here, thank you. All right, Commissioner Dan. Here. Commissioner Villalante. Here. Commissioner Lazenby. Here. And Chair Gordon. Here. All right. I'd like to talk about a quick housekeeping thing just to make sure we're all on the same page. I do have a hard stop today at five. And so I'm not sure everyone else's schedules are looking, but based on the rate and who not knowing what everyone else is going to have, there's a chance we might not get all the way done. So just want people to be thinking about that. And if we want to either stop 15 minutes, maybe a little bit more than 15 minutes beforehand to chat about next meetings and get through the rest of the agenda. I'd appreciate that. So we got maybe an hour 20 left to talk about the items. Well, I'll try to go quickly. So let me share my screen again. I want to move on to access to mobility. And there are fewer recommended changes here. So again, I'll make the motion, ask for a second and then we can discuss. Okay, thanks, Alison. So the motion is to move the staff recommended changes with the following, I'm sorry, to move the staff with the following changes that are in this Google doc here. I'll second that. And then I was thinking on the break, Chair Gordon's comments about not being able to see this. And I was wondering if the commission would like us to also, and Ms. Drake tell us if we're allowed to do this, I believe we are to email the, when we make the motion, not in advance, obviously, to email them out to the commission. So they at least have them in front of them. It was the closest thing I could think to replicating being able to hand out our motion. I don't know if the council needs to weigh in on our ability to do that. But now that it's been motioned and seconded, I believe we can then email this out to the commission. So they have it in front of them. So they can read along. Are you talking about as we consider it? Cause we've all got it up on our screens and not quite understand. Yes, you do. But I know Chair Gordon was saying that he wasn't able to read it at the pace he wanted. And so during the break, I was considering a way to address that. You'd have it in front of you as we considered it.  And so I was just asking the, if that was allowed and I'm trying to replicate as best as possible. Everybody's the ability to hand out emotion physically, we are remote and accommodate different people's need. And so I just wanted to ask. That seems reasonable to me since like I was mentioned earlier if we're in the chamber as we'd be handing this out. Justin is in the background here. I don't know if he has any comments on that. But yeah, I think that that makes sense to me. Okay. I will. Good idea. As long as Justin is not objecting, I will only do it after there's a motion in a second so that we're not violating any Brown Act. I'm sorry, what was the question exactly? So Justin, Rachel and I obviously we've spent some time for Brown Act buddies prepping these motions. So after there's a motion in a second, I was asking if I could send out this document that Rachel's sharing on the screen to the commission so that they could consider it as we go through it. If there's any problem with that, because normally if we were in the chambers, we'd be handing out a physical copy to our colleagues. I assume there's not a problem, but I wanted to double check. It doesn't sound like there's a problem to me considering that it's something that's being discussed and it's just essentially a parallel of what would happen. Were we meeting in person? Perfect, I just wanted to double check. I apologize for the delay of the discussion. I just wanted to thank you. Alison, do you want to email it to Jocelyn and then she can send it to the commissioners and whoever else staff and all that. Perfect, Jocelyn, is that okay with you, Ms. Drake? Yes. Perfect, I'll send it to you. I'll send it your way. And then knowing that as was with the other document, there may be modifications. So the final draft, if there's changes, obviously I'll send a final copy of what the planning commission passed to Jocelyn. Just in case, just so like, obviously what we're sending might change depending on the discussion. Okay. I have a question just about process here. We had talked about doing this in more of a fashion of questions than discussions and emotions. And what we've done is skip the discussion partner. And so now we have to do it in a way where there's a motion that's been made as opposed to having the time to understand what you're even talking about. And so I know everyone's trying to push this along and move quicker, but the fact that I'm 30 right now, 320, I have my doubts we'll get through this anyway today. So anyway, my question is, would it be a better process to do the discussion about these topics as opposed to emotion? Well, I think that sometimes emotion can actually generate the discussion. And what I found with items that are really complicated like this is that if you just talk in generalities, you don't actually get to emotion. That's why somebody's unmuted and it's distracting. So that's why I spent considerable time going through the documents and analyzing them and picking out just a few things in the grand scheme of things. It's a very small number of changes. So the way I thought about it is if we just talk, we're just gonna talk and talk and talk and we'll never get through anything. And so the putting forward emotion isn't trying to stifle discussion. It's actually trying to provide an actionable venue in order to have discussion that results in action. So I would support that. Let's just move through this for the rest of the afternoon. We're making some progress here. Let's keep going. I don't wanna have a long talk about what we can talk about. You know, let's just go. Yeah, I mean, I figures we've had six months of study sessions and talking. So now I'm just right to make, to take action. So, okay. So this is on access and mobility. So the first substantive item is about open streets, low streets, and this is just language to indicate that this like has been done in the city of Santa Cruz would be on a temporary basis. The next item is just adding, changing some language to highlight. It's to say prioritizing safety instead of saying prioritizing just bike. So we're prioritizing all pedestrian access is what we were going for for this one. Sorry, Rachel, just, no, no, please. I appreciate that. I just couldn't find my toolbar here. Great, I had a question on that. Why would a plan, what does it mean? This is just probably for staff. Why does that plan have to be coordinated with parks to incorporate greenways? I don't understand. So you mean you, so you have bike paths through parks connect up with safe streets? I don't quite understand that. Yeah, we didn't mess around with that language. So that's what staff is recommending that active transportation plan coordinate with parks. And I think that since we actually approved the ATP that that's kind of just standard. But that's something that staff can address at the end of the discussion if that's something you want to know more about. Okay. The next item is changing out one word stripe to prioritize and taking out strictly since that's subjective. The next section is eliminating the word encourage and then instead putting in the word require as a condition of approval improvements at access points. The stop then is an issue. The next item is just putting in as required by law with regard to applying the objective criteria since there are state laws that speak to this. And then yes, this the next section is about protecting biological and visible and environmental resources and just strengthening the language a little bit there. And then the next one is putting in some specific language here that indicates what we're talking about is achieving a minimum level of service. And so adding the word minimum there. And then the last item is direction to staff that when this plan comes back before the board that staff add a policy stating the requirement that the integration of a micromobility will not obstruct pedestrian access. And I think that that's it for this one. Yeah. Can you go up to the top one again? Absolutely. Yeah. Open streets solicitors consider limiting through vehicle traffic on select local roadways on a temporary basis and opening the streets to bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Doesn't this change the complete intent of this section? Well, I'm actually not sure because my thinking was it could not have been the intent of staff to completely close off the street. I don't know that that's happened anywhere else in the county and certainly it was quite disastrous when the city did it even on a temporary basis and they completely taken that off the table now. So honestly, with this one, I think that we were just kind of specifying what we thought was the intent of staff, but it's also what we think is reasonable. Because even in San Francisco when they do close some streets, it's usually on weekends or designated time and everybody looks forward to it. I wouldn't, that's maybe staff can respond but I think that makes sense on a temporary basis. Sorry. I would say so. On closed streets though, saying limiting through traffic essentially creating is the idea that we would wanna create roadways for more bicycle and pedestrian traffic. And it's just saying like, this is the direction that we as a community wanna go. Limiting through vehicle traffic on select roadways. Right, I'll just say that when this happened in the city of Santa Cruz, it was disastrous and they actually rejected grant funding to continue the program because it was so unpopular. And it just, I mean, so I actually don't support the policy unless there's this added language that indicates that it's temporary. And this isn't to say that we don't want bicycle and pedestrian traffic, it's just that I think we have to be practical about where and where I am very familiar where this program was implemented. It didn't work. I don't know the program that you're referring to. So it can't comment, but I know in other cities, it's common practice to temporarily close on maybe twice a month, some streets and people like it a lot on that basis. But I don't think you mean that.  I thought the idea was to close some particularly, the scenic streets and let people have bicycling or walking on them once or twice a month in the summer or something like that. Or could staff comment on what they had in mind? Thank you. You know, there are certainly cases where, I can think in kind of downtowns where you wanna promote closed streets on a more permanent basis for kind of open space and greenways or farmer's markets. So I think staff's intent was to be a little bit more open, but, you know, I don't think we're running into any kind of conflict or legal issue if you make this change. Yeah, I personally think just like going in, if that's okay. I actually found this one without the inclusion of temporary basis to almost be in conflict with one or the other pieces of the general plan where it actually said in AM 1.1D where it actually said in reference to discouraging cul-de-sacs, which essentially was suggesting that we want to encourage kind of through traffic in our street designs. So I thought that I agreed with Commissioner Dan that this idea of allowing it on a temporary basis because in other places of the plan we actually do talk about making an effort to, you know, striping or pedestrian access and bicycle access and encouraging this kind of more pedestrian and bike friendly, but the idea of not having through vehicular traffic is something that we explicitly call out in the general plan of wanting to prevent versus but on a temporary basis, like Ms. Hanson said, for performance markets, for events, obviously we do want to have that, but not on the ongoing basis. So I agreed with her, especially given how you do remember open city of Tanaker's got the grant to do open streets. It was a very contentious thing. It happened in the community. People were fighting over where the signs were placed. And so I think that no language of a temporary basis makes sense based on not only some of the experiences in the city, but also, like I said, some of the other language in the general plan. Well, if I could make one more comment on page 49 what we're looking at now on streets, the second sentence on streets that prioritize bicycles limit on street parking. Is that really a good idea? Oh boy. Is that staff's language? I would have to respond to that. So the question that Commissioner Shepard is asking is it wise to limit on street parking? Well, we're already limiting parking quite a bit now. And I think people will continue to park on street whenever they can. And they're going to ignore the bike lanes. I don't really know if that's enforceable or practical.  When you want to do this in a safe fashion, so you don't want to conflict, right? With your protected bike lanes and parking spaces. So I think that's what this was, that language was trying to get at. And I think when I read this policy, like that when they say streets that prioritize bicyclists, so in my mind, this would be those, I think I'm losing my vocabulary, but streets that are ones that people use a lot and there's a name for it, would that have already bike lanes there and you want to minimize parking and maybe to make a bike lane bigger to minimize conflicts, people opening their doors and dooring a cyclist. And so I'm okay with the staff's language, but I understand the question. I think we are limiting the amount of parking spaces and new development. And then we say and bicycle and there, and then say this street is reserved for the bicyclists. I just don't think it's enforceable because people are going to be forced to park on street. Oh, go ahead on A.S. David, you're there. Yeah, hi, thank you. So the intent was to specify that where we are providing parking limitations for on streets, not off street, but on street parking limitations that we actually enforce those. There's a lot of safety issues with both bicyclists and pedestrians when they're not enforced, including dooring, which is a really big one where a door opens because somebody parked halfway in the bike lane or parked in a place where they weren't supposed to, parked in a bike lane that was intended to not have on street parking. So the intent of this policy is not to necessarily specify that there would be more limitations on existing roadways where there are existing bike lanes, but that we should enforce those limitations that we do have. The second sentence is getting at places where we do wanna prioritize bicyclists and limit on street parking, where we need a bike lane to connect to others for connectivity. And that's the link is that last sentence to provide opportunities for filling a gap. So I hope that all made sense there, but it's really not to create a community where there is no on street parking. It's just to say that where we want to enforce limitations on on street parking or where we have existing limitations that we should make sure that they don't conflict with our bicycle facilities. And then if I could just quickly address three dash 34, that page, I think a temporary basis on a temporary basis would not conflict with staff's intent on that policy. Thank you, Anais, appreciate that. Any other questions? Yeah, while we have you and maybe Anais, you could hang out for a little bit. I just wanna go through these line by line so I understand them. So you're taking away in second section for protected bike lanes and paths and just changing it to for safety. So this is saying we are not necessarily prioritizing protected bike lanes and paths anymore. We're just prioritizing safety. That could be vehicular safety. I mean, my question is would it make sense to just leave what's there and add for safety? I don't understand why you're deleting because that seems to remove the intent of it. And maybe Anais, you could tell me if I'm interpreting that differently than how you would. So I think the concern was that it didn't, it looked like it was just addressing bicyclists. Yeah, we wanted to include safety for pedestrians as well. So one way you could address that is add the word multimodal in front of safety or you could clarify for safety of bicyclists and pedestrians? Yes, I think that part of it also is it said bike lanes and so we wanted to change the lane into a person. So yeah, I think that Commissioner Villalanti, does that, is that where I'm at? You? Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate Anais coming up with that language because yes, the idea was that we didn't, we didn't, yeah, we wanted the multimodal or a bike for the second option of, I agree with Commissioner Dan, my brain is stopping working. I think early in that sentence, it identifies bicyclists and pedestrians and that's good. And then I think the protected bike lane is too restrictive because sometimes you can't get a protected lane, but you can get an improved bike lane or improved path or improved sidewalk. So I don't think you have to add for a bicycle, I think just for safety, because earlier in the sentence you already said it was for bicyclists and pedestrians. And that's what we felt, thank you, Matt. We just felt like safety was encompassing. So thank you. It looks like a good edit to me. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you. No, that's great to understand that. Can we just keep walking down the list a little bit? Sure. Next one, please. To 4.1 point, just the one at the bottom of the page I think as well. Oh, okay. Yes. Require as a condition of approval improvements and major access points that provide services to the public, such as path improvements or maintenance, recycling garbage collection, vehicle and bicycle parking, beach shuttles, et cetera, or signs. So encourage, it was encourage provision of and or require as a condition of approval. So this is saying you want all new developments to be required to do some form of improvement at a major access point. Which is the case now. So this doesn't change anything except replaces the subjective word with the objective word. You're saying that this is the case in other code sections somewhere that it's zero? This is the case in my experience with any major development project. We require some sort of improvement, whether it's a single family home development that doesn't have a curb. We have required curbs, if it's the Aptos village plan we require all sorts of staff. So it's, I don't see it as a substantive departure from what is currently the practice now. Maybe. I'm not just saying encourage and require. That's what it said before. No, it said require. Yeah, I'm not, I don't understand the difference between provision of and or require. Why do I seem like it was a little, I wanted to provide a little bit more direct wording. I would say that, and Matt would know this better than anyone, but it's not always required. Sometimes you might be asked to, there's certain things that you do like curb strip, right? And you, if you're redoing the sidewalk, that makes sense. And that could be one of the things that you're required to do. But then like, upgrading a light or something or something a crosswalk or, it might, for example, be in the counting's plan to do something down the road and it wouldn't make sense or help to do it now. So I don't know, Matt, what do you think? Is this require gonna cause us problems? I mean, the old language actually has already had the word require. So I mean, the encourage, provision of and or require seems like the require is already in there. I don't know, the old language seems pretty encompassing, but if you just go with just require and if the improvement's already there, then it's a moot point. Well, it's okay. So Mr. Machado, are you saying that you would hear on your experience that the language of encourage provision of and or require is preferred or are you saying the require is better language just so we can come? Yeah, I would lean towards the original language where you've got encourage and or require. I mean, that covers both bases really well, actually. I think the concern was that it wasn't strong enough. Can I say something, which is just that sometimes we do have smaller developments that may not be subject to the same requirements as larger developments. I think the words provision of is probably extraneous, but allowing for encourage where some of these improvements may not be appropriate or may not be having access to the development gives us more flexibility there. And A's could ask a follow up to that and just as a real world example of where this could be a challenge if someone was going to create a new single family home or replace one that was already there or they didn't have to do any street work, just a single family home, we wouldn't really wanna force them to pay for expensive things like traffic lights and crosswalks and things like that, which wouldn't be typical. In that scenario, this code would now say that that single family home person would have to do something. And that's what we're saying. We should, the old language made it so we didn't have to enforce that on every single person. Am I understanding that? Right. So there are some laws that prohibit us from requiring certain improvements of smaller developments, but we don't want the policy in the general plan to be in conflict with those laws. I don't understand exactly because over and over and over again on the planning commission, when people have wanted to say develop a parcel with two that has single home into two or three homes and use a lot to more advantageous residential development, we certainly have always said that they needed to build curb and sidewalk because we wanted to get curb and sidewalk. Does this change that? No, this is talking about major access points and larger improvements. So why would just plain require? It seems like this, I agree. I think the language is called for. I don't quite understand what you're suggesting. So how about I can change it to require and or encourage, which is almost exactly what was there. Is that satisfied everyone? I was gonna suggest require when appropriate, but then maybe that's still subjective as well. How about require when appropriate? I like that. Mr. Rashada, what is best for your department? I mean, your department is in charge of these major access points. I wanna, I think the intent is that it's not, so it's not optional when these required, when these access points need improvement. What language is best for your department? Is it require when appropriate? Is it require? And or encourage. And or encourage, what language is best? Actually require when appropriate makes a lot of sense. Let's do that. Good. Thank you. That also allows staff to consider kind of proportionality and nexus and all those other good things that keep us consistent with state law. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, do you wanna go on to do? Yeah. I mean, you wanted to go by these line by line. Yeah. All right. Neighborhood, apply consistent and objective criteria as required by law in the review of discretionary development applications that is based on existing code plan policies throughout interdepartmental working group. That's the idea. You have any questions about that? I don't think that that makes a substantive change because whether we write it or not, it's still whatever law requires. I think that's fine. Thank you. Environmental alignment account with the constraints that affect the project's corridor to minimize impacts to physical environmental conditions located in design public and private roads to avoid or minimize if necessary, impacts to significant biological visual and other environmental resources. That's not, that's the first thing. Any questions on that one? So we're just saying instead of minimizing, actually avoid or minimize if necessary. I think that's all, it's pretty much the same thing, right? What's the reasoning for, is there a thing to add? I mean, just not to like go into the weeds, but it's just to strengthen the policy. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. I was interested about this next one. It's you're saying to make it minimum level of service of D and I don't know this section as well as you. It seems I was not, or maybe didn't just think about it in that way, but is this is already what we're proposing? It's just really clarifying in this section that you need to meet that minimum level. It seemed odd that if you read it without the word minimum, it says required development projects to provide multi-modal roadway improvements necessary to achieve a level of service of D. You can do that, yeah. I think the goal in our general plan is to, I think we'd all would like our roadways to have a higher level of service, right? Which is why we inserted the word minimum. We'd like a level of service to be C or B or A, right? That clarifies the intent. So I think staff just missed a word, quite frankly. And if not, we sure would like to insert it. Wonderful. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then did we talk about the last sentence there? Sure. Or did we already? Sorry. No. The sustainability plan comes for the Board of Supervisors out of policy stating requirement that integration of micro-mobility shall not obstruct pedestrian access. So micro-mobility, when you read it in the general plan, included everything from electric scooters to bikes. And one of the biggest problems with micro-mobility is that they conflict with pedestrian access. So as they got rolled out to the community, don't want to name any names, there are some companies that were not responsible in their rollout. And we found as a community that many of their equipment pieces were just left on sidewalks. And I think that the county probably would like to state as a goal that we don't want micro-mobility to conflict with pedestrian access. So I think it's reasonable that we encourage the Board to integrate a policy objective that micro-mobility shall not obstruct pedestrian access. So that means bikes shouldn't be left on sidewalks because people who use the sidewalks and other types of pedestrian access with strollers, with walkers, shouldn't be obstructed as micro-mobility becomes more common. Got it, thank you. Really great explanation, I appreciate that. All right, any other questions? I would suggest we take a vote and move on to the next one. Yeah, I think I'm good. Can you do me one favor? Sorry, can you scroll to the top one again? Sure, Dan, you should also have these in your email as well. I mean, just see what we're happy to scroll. OK, all right. As part of the conversation at the beginning, I mean, we're happy to have them on the screen as we discuss them to the public who's online. But you should also just so you know, I asked Jocelyn. They came from Jocelyn so that I was not emailing the PC. So that. Rachel, can you make the provision change in the page 57, 4.1.12 that you make? Can you make that in red so it's consistent? OK, yeah, that's my problem. Things are in red. Some things are in black. But what's underlined is an addition. Yeah, anything else. Everything else is in red, so. I know. Tim, did you have a question about something still? No, that was it. Thank you. I just wanted to refresh one of the things we already read. So I think I'm good. And so does anyone else have any other questions or suggestions for amendments? I don't. All right, let's vote. Great. Miss. Great. I can't see you, but I assume you're here. Can we do a roll call vote? I am. Right. Commissioner Lazenby. Yes. Commissioner Villalante. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner Shepard. And chair Gordon. Yes. All right. Motion passes. Thank you. I actually think there's a chance at least I can get through what I want to get through. We have a little more than an hour. So I'd like to move on to the ARC, the ag resources and conservation. I mean, the steps with me. Sorry. Well, the which? One second. I'm going to move on to the general plan. Agricultural policies. I can find them. Here we go. That would include sections. Numbers what? It's a general plan. OK, I got it. So I'll move the staff recommended. The staff recommendation with the following changes in this Google Doc that's now shared up on my screen. Oops, I think I was. I'm sorry. You all not hear me say chapter five, too. Oh, yeah. Now I didn't hear anything. End of day. Seconded and sacrifice. OK. And then can you send it out to Jocelyn? She can share it. I sent it to Jocelyn and she will probably be sending it out. OK, so all right. So the first change that we're proposing is personal access through ag lands. And this is just calling out that sometimes we need to access public land through ag land in various select circumstances. And so I'm just adding some language here to acknowledge that so that so that it's in our general plan that sometimes that occurs. We have a specific situation in the North Coast where this is the case. The next section is about utility district expansion, which in the study session we had long discussions about. And I really want to appreciate staff's attention to this particular issue. And so the language that's added in one and in two, really just to emphasize and to make more specific what I believe the intention is these policies, which is to provide service but only to existing development. And so the language is designed to reflect that. And then we can we'll go back and discuss these in more detail as you guys have questions. But so going on sewer and water lines in the Coastal Zone, again, is the same language that were in the first two policies about this issue. So it's just the same language here. And this section is about agricultural buffers. And added section here is highlighting a section that refers back to any changes in the buffer going through APAC. So this was a confusing one to me because I have to go and figure out what 1.4.2 said and all that. So it's just adding language there to highlight that. So the next one, OK, the next one, I'm asking that actually we keep the current language, the old language, the current language in the general plan, except for change in the second to last sentence noted below and underline. Yes. OK, I hope that makes sense. And that's it. That's it. OK, that's for that one. Wow, OK. So I'll go back to the top and then we can discuss and take amendments if necessary. Tim, I think you're muted. Thanks. I just make a joke anyway. I was saying that it feels like it takes so much longer to write all these up.  And then it's only like a couple items section. But it's all so much reading to get there, OK. Rachel, I think one of them got dropped off. Oh, really? Uh-oh. That did seem a little like I was missing something. It's just the one that this it's one something Tim cares about too, which is the scenic designation. Oh, yeah. That should that should be on there. Sorry, Tim. No, I don't. I want to make sure it gets added because I think it's something a lot of we've discussed a lot. Am I right? Am I right? That should be on this one, right? That's this chapter. Staff, am I right for the designation of the scenic quarter is in this chapter? Yes. OK, I'm going to add it to the document while Tim asks. Yeah. Also going to need a new motion. We'll probably need to turn them in a minute. But give me a sec while I get the language. I may have missed this. Did we have a we have a motion? Did we have a second on this? Yeah, Alison. So I personally am not in favor of forcing the scenic highway if it's not appropriate. So, you know, we've heard that staff says that that's not what we have anymore. And I it makes sense to me to to eliminate that until at what point we do have one again. But so but for the rest of these, see, I didn't have any questions on the first one. All right, let me scroll. Can you scroll back to the top? Yes, I'm so sorry. Yeah, this is the top. Renee, did you have any questions on the first one? I didn't want to jump past it without giving everyone an opportunity. So this is pretty much all about the coastal zone, right? Yeah. OK. Then I think that I would support these things in your district, because I think you have sort of done them carefully. And I think these are appropriate changes. Yes. Tim, did you have any questions on what's up in this Google dot? You added that. Well, I guess on the first one, you added and access to public lands. What's the can you give me a little insight? Sure. So we have a national monument up on the north coast and one of the access points you will need to cross Agland. And so it's just basically making sure that that's called out specifically. OK. It's a rare circumstance, but we have so many state parks and now the Alam land that's buffered by Agland that I didn't want the policy to prohibit accessing public land just because they need to access it through an Ag parcel. Got it. OK. Thank you. That makes sense. Second one. I think that makes sense. This policy for the second one about county sewer district boundaries, utility district expansion, I appreciate the addition. I don't have any problems with it. I don't know if there's like plans or something that we're kind of doing. But no, it's just an added layer of protection. And these were policies that coastal staff also was concerned about as well. I think the adequate, the addition of more explicit language is well-merited. So I would normally support it because you never know what's going to be proposed. And we really need to protect that farming land for the next 20 years. That was the intent. So I'll move. I'm sorry, Rachel. Can I clarify? So 1.1.13, there's additional language in that policy now. Are you proposing that language be removed? When was it last updated? So let's see. In the staff report that was 8.24, staff report? I believe, yes. If it's the language from that, I think that I liked that language. And I like this language more, I guess, I would say. But I feel like I liked where you're going. And then I just went. So essentially, I think all that language then is underlined because it reads differently than what's in the policy now. OK. I'll just take a toggle back and look at it. But I think it's getting at the same intent. So I don't. There is additional language regarding what in sewer lines located below the fillable soil depths, but I think that's addressed elsewhere. Sufficient construction buffers from pipelines to ensure public health and safety. So I think it is getting at the overall same intent. And there might be some additional language in the policy that's intended to be protective of ag land. I would be happy to add to the motion where staff can add additional language to further strengthen the policies to protect ag land from development would be welcome. OK. I would definitely support that. Rachel, I don't know if you can scroll down to the bottom if you can see that I added the language back to the proper document. Hopefully people can see. Oh, good. You have to accept it. But I put it in the Parks and Rec document. So you're going to have to go accept that I deleted it out of there. But so what we added back in is we actually added how it was designation from the same material county down to Monterey and you're going to have to accept my friendly amendment that we put this back in. And then there was another. And I apologize. The document I sent out to everyone did not include this. And then on page 122, we just added a direction that the sentence needs to be reworked because it's the standards for considering timber harvest plants that says we're applicable do not support and or recommend denial of a timber harvest plant based upon its potential for cumulative adverse impacts to water quality, traffic, wildfire, and other affected sources. And I think that sentence could be interpreted that the way you are assessing these plans, cumulative impacts are not considered. And I think staff, I do believe staff wants them taken into consideration. And if they don't, I think we believe they should be. And so we added a direction that the sentence should be reworked to be clear. In fact, I had some people read the sentence not telling them my own personal views. And they're like, no, no, they agree that the sentence was recommending not taking cumulative impacts into account. And I don't think that that's what the counting would like to have happen. So those are the two things that are also in this section that we have intended to include. So if the maker of the motion is amenable, I believe even as the second or I can add a family amendment. Yes. Yes, I am. Thank you. Chair and commissioners, can I ask a question, please? On that sewer districting discussion just a second ago, did that was that in the coastal zone only or is that countywide? My intention was in the coastal zone. I think the general plan only deals with it in the coastal zone, but staff can probably speak better to it. It's been a long time since I've had much information. Knowing that the coastal zone goes up to the summit and a lot of our northern part of the county will be. And I just don't know if it overlaps with our CSA 7 SLV expansion discussions trying to fix some of the septic problems. I don't know if there's a conflict there. I just don't have it in front of me. But maybe maybe one of you know, unless we can scroll up to look, I apologize for taking this back. No, no, no, that's fine. This this policy and I'm sorry. I just about your earlier point to Rachel, I see you're now only addressing one and two. And I was looking at the language at the beginning of the policies. I think your intent is to keep the language as written plus, but change visions one and two. Correct. OK, got it. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. OK. And so this policy applies countywide and it talks about type one and three agricultural CA land. So I don't I'd have to look and see whether there was any CA land in in the areas that you were referencing, Matt, in terms of whether I don't think it is. But well, I don't know. It could be. I there's you know, there's like seven neighborhoods up in SLV from, you know, all the way up through that Boulder Creek Air, including the downtown that desperately needs sanitation services because their septics are failing. And you know, we're working hard to develop that plan. But I wouldn't want new language here to limit a site. Maybe we should either. But this is just dealing with CA. Yeah, we can. We can check that and verify that there's no CA land. That's in district. Can you say again, which District five, District five? Yeah, Boulder Creek, they have some issues up there. So I will add to my motion of the seconder is amenable to it that county staff take a look at those areas outlined by this DDI director to ensure that this would not prohibit the county from providing a utility district expansion to residences that currently are in need of that. Thank you. I doubt it's CA as well. But I just wanted out of caution. Thank you. I definitely don't want that on my conscience. I'm amenable to that. But I also don't. I don't just a mad que