I'm going to go ahead and start the webinar. So we will end practice session. I ask everyone to mute their microphones and we'll let attendees in. Thank you. Thanks. All right, good morning. Thank you for joining us for today's planning commission meeting. Today's date is September 14, 2022. And today's meeting is completely remote via zoom. So we have a couple of different ways to participate in today's meeting. If your computer is equipped with a microphone, it is recommended that you participate via the planning commission zoom meeting link, which is posted on the planning department's homepage at sdcoplanning.com. Alternatively, if your computer is not equipped with a microphone, you may provide comment by telephone today to call in please dial one<PHONE_NUMBER>. And when prompted, please enter collaboration code<PHONE_NUMBER>9. This information is also posted on the planning department homepage. So during key points in today's meeting time will be provided for members of the public to provide their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either raise your hand remotely by selecting the hand icon on the zoom link, or if you're calling in by telephone by remotely raising your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. I will call on participants by either your name or the last four digits of your telephone number. If you're participating via the zoom link when I call on you to speak, you'll see a pop up on your screen that says unmute, please accept the pop up, say your name for the record and provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone you must unmute yourself by pressing star six. And I'll remind everybody of these instructions as we move forward. And if at any time a member of the public has difficulty connecting to today's meeting, via the zoom link or by calling in via telephone, please email me at Jocelyn, which is J O C E L Y N dot Drake, dear a K E at Santa Cruz County dot US. I'll be checking my email periodically throughout the meeting and I can take a moment to assist you. All right, it looks like we are situated I see we have our commission with us this morning and when the chair, turn it over to the planning commission chair now, Tim Gordon, good morning Tim. Good morning Jocelyn and everyone thank you for the intro and thanks for everyone for joining us today today is September 14 2022 and we can now start the planning commission hearing for the day and call this meeting to order miss Drake could we please have a roll call. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Here. Commissioner Dan. Here. Commissioner Villalente. Here. Commissioner lasin be here. All right, and chair Gordon here. Thank you. All right, move on to our scheduled items today agenda item number two is additions and corrections to the agenda. Do we have any today, Mr. I know there are none. Okay, great. And then moving on to item number three declaration of ex parte communications do any commissioners have anything to declare today. Okay, I've received a few emails regarding today's sustainability update. And that's that's it for me. So, Okay, moving on to item number four oral communications this is the part of the hearing where members of the public could have the opportunity to speak on things that are not on the agenda today. Thank you. And I would like to speak at this time. Let me check. I see one hand raised. Sorry, my camera. I know what you're seeing right now. Just be really clear. So everyone who's going to raise their hand understands this is for things that are not on the agenda. So this, if you're going to raise your hand about sustainability update. That time will come to speak in a little bit. To speak and I am seeing one hand raised by Michael Lewis and Jean brocklebank. Good morning, please restate your name for the record. Good morning. Can you hear me. Yes, good morning. This is Michael Lewis I'm here with Jean brocklebank. I will be giving my comment and then Jean will follow with her comment for her own time after I'm finished on the same connection. I want to talk to the commission today about the committee, the planning commission agenda. The agenda does not contain instructions for public participation for these remote teleconference meetings on the agenda itself. You'll notice at the top of their agenda in all caps. Please follow the instructions that will be posted on the planning department's web page. And it gives the URL for the planning department webpage. That is not a clickable link. So someone has to know to copy that URL and paste it into their browser in order to get to the planning commission, the planning department web page. But that doesn't do any good anyway because the planning department web page does not have instructions for public participation. For the planning commission meeting. In fact, there is no link on the planning department web page to the planning commission web page. The link that's on the planning department web page. If you know what to click on is to the sustainability update, not to instructions for public participation for general planning commission meetings. And the this new sustainability update update pages are on a new website that is not accessible to people who have older computers with older operating systems. For some reason, it requires the very latest operating system and browsers in order to get to that. But it doesn't help the public at all in getting to these meetings. So what I'm asking you to today is to please direct the planning department staff to include specific instructions for public participation in planning commission meetings on each and each agenda and to add that link to the planning commission web page on to the planning department home page so that we can have full and easy access for all members of the public who wish to take part in planning commission meetings. Thank you. Now Jean Brocklebank will have your own time. Okay, we'll reset the timer for two minutes for Jean. Are you. Time to begin. Sure, go ahead and start. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners planning commissioners two things. First, I want to address presentations in general to the planning commission and ask the commission chair to instruct all participants at all participants at commission meetings, including planning department staff to speak slowly enough so that their words don't fly over the heads of everyone in attendance at this meeting. I had a lot of difficulty at the August 24 meeting in that regard. Secondly, I'd also like to ask, I'd like the planning commission to consider requesting that the county's fish and wildlife commission be given the same opportunity as the planning commission to engage publicly at its own meeting with the planning department on the proposed amendments to chapter five of the general plan before the before the matter goes to the board of supervisors. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jean. Okay, I saw an additional hand raised. So I will call on phone number last four digits 2915. Good morning. Please state your name for the record. You have two minutes. This is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning, Becky. Thank you. Good morning. I had a bit of difficulty finding the link this morning and tuned in just in time to hear the two previous speakers very. Addressing the very issue that I want to say as well, public access is very difficult to find and they're not on the website, not on the agenda. I had to guess how to raise my hand on the telephone for this call this morning and because I attend a lot of zoom meetings, I guess the right number. So it needs to be on the agenda, each and every agenda as I, I really was disappointed that the September 1st inter special meeting was canceled due to technical difficulty.  I think others from the public had as well and it was decided by the commissioners and staff that that would be a workable day. When I was not able to get on to the meeting, it was not starting. I was sending messages to Ms. Hansen to Mr. Lamb to other people. I thought that might be on the call. And curiously, I received an automatic response message from Ms. Hansen that she was out of the office and I, I understand that things come up. I am hoping that that is not why the September 1st meeting was canceled. But I hope that this commission will schedule another meeting. This is all being very rushed in my opinion. The EIR was not given an extension of time as I requested. And I think others did. The, the whole process is being rushed. And, and for what reason, that's my big question. I don't know why is this being rushed. I applied for Fish and Wildlife. I would also like to ask the Water Advisory Commission also weigh in on this, as well as the Housing Advisory Commission. Thank you. Okay. Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak at this time to provide comment on a subject not on the agenda? The sustainability update is what is on the agenda today. So if you wish to speak on that item, we will revisit later in the meeting. Okay. Chair, I'm not seeing additional hands raised. I'll turn it back over to you. And you're muted. Thank you. Great. Thank you for that. Thank you for the public comment. We appreciate that. And, and I would like to remind everyone that this item does go to the Board of Supervisors. And so while, you know, we, we are all, you know, we all wish we could have met on the first unfortunately it didn't happen. But there'll be additional time if, if we, you know, don't get through everything today, we might have another hearing, but we're going to see. However, if that doesn't happen and we do get through everything today, then yeah, just as a reminder, it goes to the Board for more input. Commissioner Chair? Yes. Gordon, I wonder, could staff just fix the agenda links so they work a little better. I think that that's a very frustrating experience for people and it wouldn't take much. I can look into making some changes to the agenda, but actually it's, it's challenging to create links on the agenda, because it would be a URL, it wouldn't be a hot, you know, it wouldn't be an active link. So somebody would be required to cut and paste. I, we haven't been able to troubleshoot that we do have the link that is directly accessible to the meeting posted on the website under planning commission meetings. Why not just add the words cut and paste this link. We could. That's easy enough to do and then it would be clear. We can do that. Instead we just provide the actual email or the web link that actually has the active link so a decision was made in the past that that would be easier for the public to utilize but we can definitely take a look at that. I will look at making some improvements where we can. I understand the concerns. So we want as many people will participate as possible and it's perfectly fine to add a few words to make it clear. I think it would definitely be worth doing so that it's and what about saying you must have operating system whatever, whatever the system is to use this materials because that's a valid point to relate it to the information on the sustainability page and I'll have to check in with the assistant director for policy but I definitely will follow up with with her. Yeah, we want to. More people the better they're involved in this and I think if people have old computers. At least they need to know that they need to go to another computer to access that it is very frustrating to. Address these concerns can be met. I think we ought to. Good morning commissioners, Stephanie Hansen assistant director, CDI. I can help address some of these. We were aware of the issues that Ms. Brocklebank was having. We provided one on one service to her to help her access the materials. We also have provided additional instructions on the project website if your browser is too old here's what you do. So, while I appreciate that it may not be that easy. We have worked hard to address that that issue for all of our people who wish to participate. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Appreciate that. I know it's a challenging topic. And, you know, maybe if there's a way we could just the one thing that I've hear people have challenges with is like remembering how to unmute and I think we see that sometimes in the meeting, maybe that's an easy win to put on the agenda, just throwing it out there as an option. Other than that seems like we covered that topic pretty well. And we can move on to agenda item number five at this time which is the consent agenda item. On this we have the AB through 61 resolution, and we are going to do roll call votes going forward on all consent and scheduled items. And so, and if anyone had any comments, please go ahead. Otherwise we can do a roll call vote on this item. Well, we need a motion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Dan and be a lot they appreciate that. And now we could have a roll call vote mystery. Okay. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner Villalante. Yes. Commissioner Lee's and be. Yes. And chair Gordon. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay. Moving on to agenda item number six. Skiddle item approval of minutes from the August 24th hearing. As we did not have one on September 1st. Do we have any. Okay. I would like to make a motion or discussion on this item. I'll move approval. Thank you. Commissioner Dan. Second. I'll second that. Thank you. Wonderful. Okay. And then we have a motion and a second. Could we please do a vote on this mystery? Mr. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. And chair Gordon. Yes. Thank you. Okay. That motion passes. And we can move on to our next scheduled item, which is continued from September 1st hearing. This is a continued public hearing to consider proposed ordinances and resolutions related to the sustainability policy and regulatory update. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisors. Miss Hansen. Today we've. We are discussed. We are not going to have a presentation. We did that last time. However, maybe there's a little intro we could do and kind of recap and I'll let you take it over. You bet. Thank you, chair Gordon members of the commission. We're happy to be back today. Thank you. Great. Thank you for your time. I appreciate the technical difficulties, not to my vacation schedule. I was here like everybody else was. I'd like to just introduce a team that are with me here today, whom you already know, but I'm just in case anybody. Hasn't been at a previous meeting. With us today is a daisy. Allen. Senior planner, Annie. Natisha Williams, also a senior planner, and Ani Shank, our transportation planner. Also with us today, I believe, is John Ricker in case there are questions about water resources or water utilities in regard to work that he has been doing for the county. The staff report is the August 24th staff report. It is available online on the commission's web page, as well as on the project web page. There's a recording on the planning commission web page for that meeting. If anybody missed it, that has the whole staff presentation. And slides are also available on both of those sites as well as I mentioned the staff reports. So that would be what we're referring to today. Replacement pages have also been provided for the ARC element and sections of the code that were related to those improvements since we provided that last code section. There have been no more replacement pages. So the commission should have them all. The recommended motion is on page two of the 824 staff report. It is item three of the recommended actions. And that recommended motion is for approval of the project and recommending it to the board of supervisors. There were some comments about public input. But before I say that and wanted to say, we understand that the planning commission will have a discussion and we are anticipating amending motions. As we discussed at the 824 meeting, that chair would be leading us through motions in an organized fashion. First, the general plan chapter by chapter, then the codes, then the design guidelines that are proposed and then any comments on the map amendments. When we get to the point where the commission is ready for motions, we'll take a moment to review all that one more time so that it's clear. Excuse me, chair. I just want to, I think that's really helpful, but I just want to say, first of all, we, depending on the questions we ask and the responses back, we may want to go in a different order. And so, but we can discuss that this afternoon. Okay. And then let's see, the last item I just wanted to bring up was a little bit of a recap on the public community meetings and the public input and opportunities for comment on this project. As the commission has noted, there have been many venues and many opportunities and staff really tried to take the need for public comment seriously. The amendments have been available since February, so this is not a short timeline. The EIR was released in April and met all noticing and public comment requirements. There were 10 commission meetings, including four commission meetings at this body as well as six community meetings that were held in the evening during the spring. And the commission already had the first part of the public hearing on 824. We do anticipate pending the commission's recommendation that this item would be continued for approval at the board, hopefully starting in November and into December, so there'd be further opportunities as the chair mentioned. In addition to those opportunities, the project website had many ways and venues for offering public comment, including signing up on the email blast list and filling out the survey, contacting the staff. There's been no lack of opportunities and ways to participate in this project as it's been developed and reviewed. And all of that also went with a social media campaign with ads in the newspaper, Facebook, Twitter, email blasts every week. So we really have made a huge effort at involving the public. So chair, I think that's just all I wanted to say to get us started today. I kind of came in at the last minute of a discussion, but if there is a large amount of public here, we may want to hold public comment before, so we can capture those, but I'll leave that up to you. And thank you, happy to answer any questions. The team is all here also to answer questions as we move through commission comments. Thank you. Chair, can I make a comment quick? It's almost 10 o'clock. We still haven't gotten to public comment on this. We still need to get to commission our questions and then hopefully be able to take action in the afternoon. So I hope now we can expeditiously move on to public comments that we can get to the commissioners role in this. Yeah, absolutely. That's the next part of the hearing here. So we definitely want to do that. I want to have, or talk about a couple of housekeeping things really quickly. We do have some breaks and lunch is scheduled today, a 10 minute break at around 11, and then 12, 30 for a 30 minute lunch break, just so everyone's aware and we'll try to, you know, might stop it a little before after depending on how the conversation is going. But that's that. And with that, I appreciate the introduction Ms. Hansen and we will have public comment this morning and that time would be right now. And then afterwards we will move on to discussion with the commissioners. So with that being said, Ms. Drake, can we please open the public comment part of this hearing? And I would like to mention one additional thing as in regards to public comment, if you spoke last hearing on the 24th and you have a similar comments, I would just remind you that we were all here and we heard those comments and, you know, we'd really appreciate any new information today and, you know, focus on that, we'd appreciate it. And with that, Ms. Drake, do we have any members of the public that like to speak? I'm seeing some hands raised. Chair, would you, how many minutes would you like us to put on the? Yeah, let's see, how many do we have today? I think typically- So far, so far I'm seeing five hands raised. Okay. Why don't we keep it at our standard three minutes so that we avoid any confusion or challenges and- Okay. And then open there, thank you. All right, so I will start with David Reed. And David, you have three minutes. Please restate your name for the record. Good morning. Good morning, commission. My name is Dave Reed. I'm the director of the Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience here at the County of Santa Cruz. I want to acknowledge and commend the hard work that the planning department, now the community development and infrastructure department has taken over the last almost decade in moving this project forward. I was part of the very beginning of these community meetings to discuss this project in 2012 through 2014. And to see it here sitting before the commission for approval is a significant milestone. As part of the Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience, I'm tasked with managing our emergency response and preparedness efforts at the County of Santa Cruz. And one of the things that I want to highlight about what's before you to hopefully recommend and approve to the board for adoption is that the more we can do from a land use and regulatory standpoint to build higher density housing in our urban environment reduces the risk of residents' current and future from seeking cheaper or slightly more affordable housing in our wild and urban interface. So from a sustainability standpoint, but also from a climate change resilience standpoint, the effort that you have undertaken as planning staff and as commissioned before you to make determination today will significantly help current and future residents become more resilient to climate change by not forcing those folks who need or wants to live in our County to live in the wild and urban interface. So I look forward to your conversation today and hopefully recommendation by the commission to approve what is before you to go to the board and I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next I will call on front number 2915. Good morning, please state your name for the record and seeing it's Becky, I just wanted to remind everybody because she brought up a good point that it, you must press star six on your phone to unmute yourself if I call on you and you called in. So good morning again. Please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. This is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yep. Thank you. You should also announce for those of us on telephone you would have to press star nine to raise your hand. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for repeating the instructions. I want to take exception to Mr. Reed's comment that we want to prevent people from feeling like they have to seek what is called cheaper land or housing in the wildlands urban interface. You know, some people just want to live out in the wild. I'm one of them and it is not cheap. And I will tell the commission that yesterday County Board of Supervisors, Mr. Ricker can speak about this perhaps just passed or will pass have a first amended first reading for the new septic regulations. 700 of the people who lost their homes in the CZU fire because of this new regulation will now be required to put in very expensive advanced treatment systems. They cost $50,000 to $80,000. That is something that has to be discussed and examined in this document before you today. Regarding public accessibility, you know, I go to a lot of board of supervisors meetings and when something gets there, it's pretty much a done deal unless there's something so glaring that someone in the community of political or economic importance has brought to the supervisors attention, nothing changes. It's a done deal when it gets to the board of supervisors for the most part. So I want to address that. I attended some of the, as many of the early on community meetings in the spring, they were very poorly attended because nobody knew this was going on. Nobody knew what it was. I would like for the record to have staff read the attendance numbers of each of those public Zoom meetings. There was one in person. It was the first one and it was in Watsonville and, you know, I couldn't be there myself. So it has not been easily available for the members of the public who are not clued in and looking on their phones or computer devices all the time. There is, I had to fight really hard to get a copy of the sustainability plan in the Capitola library. There's still no copy of the draft EIR there, that it isn't there. So it is not accessible to the full public and it is often those members of the public that are not technology savvy, that are the ones that are really weighing in the years of wisdom and their input that are not being able to get in here. I request that there be an in-person and hybrid meeting at least one somewhere in the county before this goes to the Board of Supervisors. All of the board meetings are in the morning, yours are in the morning, the commission meetings are all in the day when people are working. So how... All right. I will call on the next hand, which is raised by Chris Berry. Good morning, Chris, please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning. Thanks for having me and thanks commissioners for holding your hearing today on this important stuff. I just wanted to provide a little bit of background and clarification on the fish and wildlife and water advisory commission involvement in this. First of all, I do want to acknowledge that there has been a ton of public outreach about this process. It's a massive undertaking and it's understandably confusing. Even for practitioners, the process has been a little bit confusing to that point that it's not surprising that the commission roles has been not well understood by the public and frankly, even some of the commissioners. It's sort of unusual in my experience to have ongoing public interpretive events for lack of a better term about the project after the final EIR has been developed. So some of us are a little bit confused about the process but nonetheless, the commissions over the years have been involved in developing a lot of the technical background for the sustainability update and frankly, I was pleased to see much of what the commissions have worked on over the years does show up in the sustainability update whether that's the idea of developing mitigation banks for riparian type projects, CARS protection standards in the county code updates, focus on co-recovery potential for reevaluating protection of significant trees outside of the coastal zone. There is the, I'll use the term footprints. The footprints of the commission involvement are in the sustainability plan and if you follow the long history, you can see that a lot of what we've talked about at the commissions over the years has been included and that's really gratifying. That said, I just wanna offer that the commissions will be happy to be more involved as much as I can speak as an individual commissioner that's obviously not my role to decide that but I know that based at least on the Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting a couple of weeks ago, there is interest and enthusiasm to be more involved if need be, but there's also again, a desire to not be involved late in the game and do so in a way that's not helpful to the process. So I suspect that if the commissions are gonna be further involved, it would be helpful to have planning staff meet with them directly rather than having folks interpreting what's happening with the planning process and help folks understand what the, just sort of the overall process and how the input could be most valuable and be received at the Board of Supervisors in a way that's most constructive. So thank you. Thank you, Chris. All right, next I will call on Kathleen McLaughlin. Good morning, Kathleen. Please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Excuse me. Hi, my name is Kathleen McLaughlin and I am a Climate Policy Associate with the Office of Response Recovery and Resilience in Santa Cruz County, as well as a GIS and planning intern with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments or AMBAG and I'm an Environmental Science Master's student at CSUMB. And as I've been working on the Santa Cruz County Climate Action Adaptation Plan, it is important to me that equity not only be incorporated into climate action planning, but placed at the forefront, especially with regards to land use planning and urban development. The future of affordable and sustainable housing is dense infill in our cities. And I believe that equity needs to be prioritized and woven into our local plans in a way that ensures all voices of our community are heard and that decision making power is given to these vulnerable groups. These groups not only bear the brunt of a changing climate, but are also historically and systemically excluded from the benefits of climate action planning. The sustainability update is the beginning of a positive change in this direction. So I just want to say thank you for your time. And that's all. I don't know, three minutes. All right, thank you, Kathleen. All right, I just, before I call on the next hand raise, I just want to remind folks that to raise your hand if you're calling in, press star nine on your telephone. All right, I will next call on Peter Detliffe with the County of Santa Cruz. Good morning, Peter. Please restate your name for the record. Thanks, Jocelyn. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Good morning. My name is Peter Detliffe. I'm a principal administrative analyst with the County Administrative Office. I'm a Santa Cruz native and I've been working in economic and workforce development for the county for nearly a decade. I too want to commend the work of CDI and the commission on this important issue. After many years of regularly meeting with our small business community and employers, the number one issue, most important factor affecting local business is housing. I've heard time and time again about the difficulty of attracting and retaining staff at all levels due to the affordability and availability of housing. This has dramatically impacted several levels in all business sectors, including hospitality, healthcare, government, agriculture, tech and more. The Santa Cruz County 2022 State of the Workforce Report indicates that 4,600 residents moved away between 2019 and 2021, representing a decline in overall population made up mostly of low and middle income workers, representing teachers and other essential service providers. This report also presents that there was a 5% decline in total workers in the county over the same two year period and that our labor force participation rate declined roughly 9%. These policy updates are critical to opening the door to housing for people and notably employees at all income levels along the transportation quarters and existing neighborhoods. I urge you to support the sustainability plan that was presented, thanks. Thank you, Peter. All right, going back to our participants here, I see a hand raised by Tatiana Brennan, the County of Santa Cruz. Good morning, please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Hello, my name is Tatiana Brennan and I'm a senior administrative analyst in the Office of Response Recovery and Resilience, which is in the County Administrative Office. I am project manager for the County's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and I'd like to highlight the connection between the sustainability update and what we're calling the CAP, which is the acronym for the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. I'd like to highlight the connection between these two. Land use patterns are a significant factor in climate change. And as we look to the future, we must design and plan our neighborhoods to mitigate the impacts of climate change and for them to be more resilient so that we can sustain current and future generations. The CAP data is showing that the majority of our greenhouse gas emissions, 72.3% are coming from transportation alone. A primary strategy for reducing single occupancy travel distances can be achieved by creating more vibrant neighborhoods that co-locate housing, jobs, and recreational and entertainment opportunities. We are seeing a shift as other regional climate action plans move towards 15-minute neighborhoods and the need to change our communities through dense infill in urban areas. I wanna commend the work of the sustainability, the group that has worked on the sustainability plan, the Community Development Infrastructure Department, and we support this sustainability update because it is a tool that will help us achieve the goals outlined in the CAP that support decreased greenhouse gas emissions, which are the primary contributor to climate change. As guardians of our community's future, we feel the proposals before the planning commission in the sustainability update as written offer a positive step forward as we begin to meet the challenges that lie ahead of us. Thank you. Thank you, Tatiana. All right, I am seeing a hand raised by Michael Lewis and Jean Brocklebank. Good morning again, you have three minutes. Good morning, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, this is Jean Brocklebank, four things. I really appreciate the opportunities that were provided by the planning department, as explained by Stephanie. That said, with 1,000 pages to review, finding everything has been impossible for the average resident of Santa Cruz. Even my supervisor was somewhat flummoxed and blown away by it. Second, I have found some good strengthening amendments and seeing good ones left alone. So that is good, I'm glad for that. Third, I want to draw your attention to the final EIR's Appendix B revised draft EIR, Appendix E, Biological Resources, Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species List. Because there are two plant species missing. These two species, Maga Sativa and Dianandra Cranbosa, found historically in our Marine Terrace Coastal Prairies and continuing today with restoration efforts, are both native to Santa Cruz County, with one of them, Dianandra, being endemic. I ask that the FBIR Appendix E be revised once more to make this correction for the record. Last, I draw your attention to County Code Chapter 16.92. It's not part of the sustainability update, but it's titled Environmental Principles and Policies to Guide County Government. It was first codified as the decade of the environment in 1999 and again in 2010. Unfortunately, renewal of Chapter 10.92 was not part of this substantial effort. Maybe someday this will happen because, and listen to this, even though it is never acknowledged, destruction of the natural environment is a major contributor to climate change. Listen to just one of the purposes of Chapter 16.92, to protect biological diversity and human health through protection and restoration of the environment. I'll repeat that, destruction of the natural environment is a major contributor of climate change. This is a little known fact, little acknowledged, and it's true. Every time we cut a tree, every time we pave over the living soil, every time we reduce vegetation for one reason or another, we are contributing to climate change. Thank you very much. Oh, and I'd like to, if I may, I'd like to be able to give my last 15 seconds to Michael Lewis. Okay. Okay, this is Michael Lewis. Thanks for this opportunity to speak and I'm gonna follow up on Gene's comments about the natural world because the natural world is not represented in this process. The habitat and the species in our area are not able to appear before you and defend themselves. There is a considerable amount of change of language in this sustainability update that waters down protection for sensitive habitats and for species, the species who live in them, changing them from active to passive direction and reducing specificity of habitat protection measures. For example, the word in the original language is request, it's been changed to maintain and enhance as feasible, designate has been changed to evaluate, require has been changed to consider, prohibit to limit or restrict, prohibit to maintain regulations and to prevent as much as possible change to support. This language is not a large amendment to the existing language, it is just a change in one or two words that really changes the thrust and the strength of these measures to protect habitat and our endangered species. There are also a couple of places in the language that make statements that are not supported by fact. In fact, there are opinions that have been suggested to add to it, which are not supported and therefore inappropriate. One in particular, the responsible use of herbicides to eradicate invasive non-native plants can be quote an appropriate management action in sensitive habitats. This is an opinion that not supported by fact at all. In fact, use of herbicides is not indicated in sensitive habitats and this should not be included in the updated language for the sustainability update. So I ask you please in reviewing this to pay attention to the language that's been changed on here, not just the entire amendments and make sure that we don't reduce the effectiveness of our county code and our general plan into the future to protect habitat and the species of our area. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. All right, let's see if we have any additional speakers. I'm not seeing any. I just want to give a final reminder. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand on the Zoom app or press star nine on your telephone. I saw one that go up and then go down. Let's see. I'm seeing a hand raised by Alex Barton. Good morning. Please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, this is Alex Barton. I just want to briefly add to my previous written comments I've sent in. I had some original significant concerns about the actual feasibility of building projects and mixed use commercial and multi-family zones given planning's original selection of floor area ratio and some other standards. And I just want to support their revised proposed increases. I think it's a good solution and especially want to support the provision of the special allowances to encourage structured and underground parking. I think it's really important. I would also really want to draw the attention of the commissioners as well as the listeners and the public to the comments from Barry Swenson construction in the staff report. I think it's really important that we take into account their comments as large local developers. We have a lot of experience in building these projects. And I will note that their suggested standards for density and height are to encourage actual feasibility of affordable by design units are really in excess. And sometimes significantly of what's proposed here. So I know there's been a lot of questions and concerns about the RF density, et cetera. But I just want to not only support the proposed density increases on the reasons being proposed, but also really I hope the commissioners will take very seriously the comments from Barry Swenson and just really want to add. I think I know that we talk about infrastructure and the appropriateness of density in certain neighborhoods. And that's a really important consideration. But I think we also need to just take into consideration the value of the very scarce land that we do have and really think about what we can do to really maximize its use when it is developed because it is very scarce. And it is a lot more scarce than anywhere else in this state in many ways. So that's all, thank you. Thank you, Alex. And then finally, I saw a hand raised by Jane Barr. Jane, did you wish to provide testimony this morning? If so, please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. This is Jane Barr, can you hear me? Yes, good morning, Jane. Jane Barr, I'm the resident of Corolatus and associate director of development, real estate development for Eden Housing and affordable housing provider. I want to commend the staff. This is a huge undertaking and it's a lot of work and I understand that. And I want to commend you on working on this for a long time, accepting public comments and making adjustments and changes. And I appreciate that. I would say that I would echo last speaker's comments in regard to land, there's only so much land we have that can be developed. It's extremely important to develop it as densely as we can in areas that are serviced and realize that this plan affects how we can develop going forward for a number of years. I appreciate the changes that have been made so far. I think we can go a little bit further but no plan is perfect. I would say that in regard to the residential use goal BE-2 urban residential designations, it's a little disconcerting to see the units per acre building intensity for the different land use designations be a range that's unusual. Usually if you're looking at urban high and it would be 30, not 11 to 30. So I worry about the interpretation of that in the future. And we should be looking at the maximum units per acre density on all parcels. And then of course with bonus densities those will increase and that's good for housing so many people who want to be housed here who have left who wanted to be housing here and taking care of our homeless. So thank you very much. Thank you, Jane. And I did see another hand go up by Patricia Brady. Good morning, Patricia. Please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Patty Brady, I just like to speak to discussion from the standpoint of pleasure point. I've spoken before, but I want to raise the issue that the residents of pleasure point over 400 unanimously designed with the county and MIT consultants the design guidelines for Portola that were to go from 26 to 40 First Avenue. This plan has been changed while adopted by the supervisors in December 2018. The residents continue to respect the guidelines that were adopted. We urge you to look at the issues of a beach area, a tourist area in comparison to an urban area. Issues on Soquel are not the same as the issues in Portola with the number of tourists and visitors that come into our community. Portola is often already overloaded. We support 30 units per acre plus density bonuses. Residents are not opposed to density, but they are opposed to 45 per acre. Again, I want to say that this was a democratic process that should not be overlooked. Thank you very much for your time and your efforts. Thank you, Patty. All right, next I will call on Susie Merriman. Good morning, Susie. Please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Good morning, thank you. My name is Susie Merriman. I work down here for the city of Watsonville and a lifelong resident of Santa Cruz County. I want to commend staff for your work on the sustainability plan and I have echo a lot of Jane Barr's statement with the recent vote on the rail corridor and knowing that at least from a South County perspective, not only are we dealing with significant housing issues, but we are dealing with significant traffic and ensuring that we have increased density along the corridor and in our urban areas within the county is really vital to getting housing where the jobs are, but also increasing the possibility for future multimodal ridership and that's both buses. If we ever do get that train along the rail corridor, that would be great, but also bicycling and walking and creating that last mile if people do have the option in the future for better multimodal transit opportunities. So I just want to say thank you. The density, let's get it as high as what works for each of the county areas in the urban areas and just thank you for putting this effort together. Ms. Drake, if you're there, you're muted. All right, thank you. My phone is ringing. Next we have Ashley Schweikert. Good morning, Ashley. Will you please say your name for the record? Hi, can you all hear me? Yes, good morning. Good morning. Yes, my name is Ashley Schweikert. I am a senior project manager for mid-pen housing. We submitted a comment letter yesterday evening so it may not have made it into the commissioner's packet. So I just wanted to echo what was stated in that letter. So mid-pen housing, we develop affordable multifamily rental housing in the county and we've been collaborating with the county for over 25 years on the housing needs of individuals and families with very low and extremely low incomes, including our most vulnerable residents, those who are experiencing homelessness and special needs populations. Mid-pen, we are wanting to express our support for the county's sustainability update. We believe that this update to land use and transportation policies does encourage the type of development that can accommodate future population growth in the county as well as improving the environment, the economy and the quality of life for those who live and work in the county. In particular, mid-pen supports the complete neighborhoods framework and specifically the new residential flex zone district which facilitates compact development along corridors. The availability of land zone for compact residential developments will streamline the land use entitlement and pre-construction process for housing developers. Additionally, we support the new design guidelines that focus on the creation of high quality housing within the context of transportation corridors. The ability to build more densely along key transportation corridors is critical for creating financially feasible affordable housing developments by achieving cost efficiencies. Also, it will allow our projects to be better positioned for the award of public financing. So, basically, we would just like to say thank you so much to the staff for all the work you put into the sustainability update. We all know that folks are being priced out of the county and our existing single family housing stock is not suited to meet the needs of a variety of our existing residents including students, young families, seniors and our most vulnerable residents. So, these policy and code updates not only do they meet the new state laws that have come out recently but they also provide an opportunity to greater diversify the housing stock that we have and that will in turn allow our residents to both live and work within the county. So I thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Ashley. All right. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? The sustainability update. I am not seeing any additional hands raised. Chair, I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you so much. And thank you to everyone who showed up to speak. We really appreciate your comments and your input and taking time out of your day to be here with us. So, thank you so much. At this time, we'll close the public comment and bring this back to the commission for discussion. Long-awaited discussion. Chair, can I make a suggestion? Sure, please, Commissioner Dan. So my understanding from the August 24th meeting with that, you know, we had a staff presentation that between the staff presentation and public comment, it was 1.30 and commissioners had questions remaining for staff on the project documents that we were able to ask. So I would suggest that we go commissioner by commissioner so that commissioners can get all of their questions answered and then take the discussion from there if that works. I just want to make sure each commissioner has an opportunity to get their questions answered. Yeah, I agree. I think that's a great idea and way to go. So I appreciate that. And let's start there. Who would you like to start, Commissioner Dan? I can, but I started first last time. So I am open to letting another commissioner go first.  So if Commissioner Shepard wants to go first, I think that would be fair. Oh, in fact, I would prefer not to because I think that you, I would like to hear what the others have to say because I have discovered that sometimes you eliminate stuff that was at my concern very handily and with great care. So. OK, well, I don't want, so I'm open. Since I went first last time, I don't keep going first. But yeah, no problem. Commissioner Mielsen, or Commissioner Lazenby, if you'd like, go ahead or I can start as well. Well, I would appreciate it, Chair, if you would kick this off. OK, wonderful. I can do that. Great. So, you know, there's obviously a lot of ground to cover here. I think that there's since the last time we had a discussion on this topic, which was now maybe a month or so ago, you know, we've had the presentation from the last hearing that really clarified a lot of things and brought in all the adjustments that we had requested on the way. So I just want to say as a general note, I really appreciate all the changes and how much, you know, staff heard what we said along the way and has really tried to incorporate that and know it's challenging and going back through and listening to all of the previous hearings, you know, keeping track of our ramblings. It's not easy, so we really appreciate that. So I think there's a lot that I could talk about, but I don't really want to focus on if it seemed like something that was maybe we're all agreed on or appropriate at the time and, you know, it was a change that was made that we don't probably need to discuss. I'll probably just, you know, I have a shorter list today, but just wanted to recognize that there were a lot of changes that I just wanted to say thank you for. That being said, a couple, do have a couple of questions and it's hard to keep questions completely separate from comment, but I'll try. One thing, I guess I'll just kind of start at the top of my list here, the FAR change. The adjustment to one and a half and then also the, the ability to have the parking, excuse me, the parking underneath the ODM style FAR adjustment. I really appreciated that. I did have a question as it relates to commercial requirement. So this is a little bit tricky to talk through, but bear with me. So what we had before was, or we have currently shown is a 25% commercial requirement on mixed use projects, leaving 75% for residential. As we heard from Barry Swenson's statement in the report, they would prefer to see closer to 10%, which I can understand, especially in today's market. And so when we adjusted the FAR, we essentially said that the same size parcel can now have a larger building by the way it's counted for square footage, right? So here's an example, say we had a 20,000 square foot lot at a 1.0 FAR, that means you had, excuse me, 20,000 square foot of a building size. Break that down to commercial, 25% is 5,000 square feet of commercial. Now we've said, okay, that FAR is a little higher because we want to encourage less parking lot style, design bigger buildings towards the front of the projects, that kind of thing like we talked about. And so now we're allowing, that same lot would have say 30,000 square foot of FAR. And which means that now our commercial requirement has gone up to 7,500 square feet. What we didn't really get is like more land space in that. So where we had 5,000 before was probably appropriate for a 25,000 or 20,000 square foot lot. Now we've got a larger commercial requirement, meaning that you're probably going to the second story with commercial space. So what this kind of relates to is, sorry, let me go in through the next step there. So my suggestion would be that, I appreciated that we upped that FAR, but with the relationship to the commercial size, I would request that we reduce that commercial requirement to 15%. So say that we had the same size lot, the higher FAR, 15% would be really close to what the commercial requirement would have been under the older FAR. So it's a little complicated to say all that out loud. Hopefully that people are following. So that would be my question is if that's possible. And just a couple of other notes on what that commercial requirement does do in today's market is, it really does make the rents higher because commercial spaces are really hard to fill these days or coming in at such a discount. And so when you're going to build a new building, if you're required to do a higher commercial component, what that really translates to is higher rents because that commercial space is such a discount in today's market. And so that being said, I think there's a lot of reasons to reduce that commercial space down to 15%. Like I mentioned, it still gets us like really close to what we had originally anticipated for our new commercial spaces with the zoning that was in place. So yeah, my question is, is that possible? Is that something that we could adjust? Thank you, Chair. Yes, it is possible. The, you might, I appreciate the thought process there because you might have picked up and kind of an unintended consequence of making that change. We don't wanna get rid of commercial altogether, obviously. We're trying to have more integrated neighborhoods so that people have services near them. But how much commercial to be available in our commercial zones is something that could largely be tweaked by the commission. It's not, there's no real magic formula. 75% residential to 25% commercials is something that we have seen. I think it's consistent with some state laws. On the other hand, it's possible, state law may change again to allow fully residential projects in our commercial zone. So I think if the commission's interested in tweaking that, that's definitely a possibility. Okay, great. Thank you so much and I appreciate that. Okay, next question that I have is on page 68 of the planning package. I just wanna get a little procedural question commissioner. Yeah. Sorry, Chair Gordon, so a lot of, if we're gonna go through and we all have suggestions that are ours, and are we gonna, are we, do you think we are all going to want to vote separately so we get the drift of the whole commission? Cause like you may really like what you're suggesting or I may really like the direction I think is appropriate, but I have no idea if the other members do too. So I'm not so sure that anything we suggest is the will of the commission or is it, but I don't think so. So that's different than making most, where are we and how we go forward with our suggestions? And I don't feel like if I say something to Stephanie, she says, well, we could consider that, that that's the will of the planning commission anymore than if you or Stephanie or Rachel does it. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I just, I agree with Commissioner Shepard that I had, I appreciate Chair Gordon's sharing his thoughts. I think it's valuable, but I had thought that this time was for us to get our clarifying questions answered, pardon me. And that later this afternoon, we were gonna do more of what kind of, what Chair Gordon did now, which is kind of make a recommendation almost. So if there are clarifying questions that you need answered in order to perhaps formulate a recommendation, then that's what I had thought this time was for. So I like, I know I have some questions that depending on how staff answer my question, I may or may not be making recommendation, but I agree with Commissioner Shepard that I thought this time was more question based versus the things I would like to see and sharing those. Cause I think if we get that way, because that way are the answers from staff are gonna be more like short, either short explanations of why a code is wasn't recommended, or if it's a kind of even yes or no, will allow us to later than kind of have more discussion about whether or not we support the recommendation. That was my understanding. I don't know, I understand what you're saying, but what I was suggesting is, if one of us wants to change, whether it's now or later, that doesn't represent the force of the commission. And if we're gonna make proposals for changes, I think we all, there ought to be votes on them, that's all. They don't have to be consensus, but I think Stephanie will want to know how many of us supported a change or not, that's all. Yeah, so just to be really clear, this is, yes, let's do it that way. We're going through questions right now. Sometimes a question just needs a little explanation. It's hard to, sometimes without the background information, have a really good response in my opinion. So that's where I was providing that. However, it is kind of blends into discussion and opinion, and we can try and limit that at this point. The changes aren't gonna happen until we all vote, right? And so that is something that I would suggest later when we get to the time to discuss emotions. And so we would make an emotion with an amendment, let's say, like for example, to reduce that to a 15% commercial requirement. And that's how we would make changes from here on. The planning department is not going to take our discussion today and bring it back with adjustments. We're gonna make adjustments with motions. Is that all clear, Commissioner Shepard? Is that me? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, okay, great, wonderful. Okay, so continuing on with my questions here, page 68 from the planning packet that we have shows notes from a board hearing that happened in 2015. And this was the last hearing on the sustainability update from long ago. And there are on this page, recommendations for higher FARs, building heights and stories for multifamily in particular, which some of them changed and some didn't. So anyway, my question was, were these recommendations from the board that the planning department went back to study or how does this relate to what we have seen today because they are a little bit different? Thank you, exhibit E of the staff report on page 68 is where the chair is referring. And this, when the sustainability update first was getting started after adoption of the sustainable, or after acceptance, excuse me, of the sustainable Santa Cruz County plan, staff did go to the board to kind of get direction. And this was a summary, an early summary provided to the board. We want to, you know, we want the public and the commission to be aware of what the board saw. But a lot of staff work went into refining the FAR standards, the floor area ratio standards and others, and other standards such as density to create kind of a calibrated formula where the higher density you go, the standards are reflecting changes that can get to those higher densities. And so for a floor area ratio, that became more of a variegated approach depending going from low density to high density. So there were adjustments made. And, you know, the other big one there is a, I thought it actually it's not here, but in the original sustainability plan, sustainable Santa Cruz County plan, the densities discussed for our F460 units per acre adjustments were made there as well, because we want to continue to really encourage the density bonus programs so that we're providing affordable units in our projects. So adjustments were made in consideration of meeting policy goals. Okay, understood. Thank you. I appreciate that. I answered one other question that I had about the density. And just another, you know, was that again, why are, why 45 and not 60? And that I understand that. So now with the density bonus, you're encouraging more affordable housing. I appreciate that. And did you feel like at any point, you know, you know, 60 was there before, I'm not sure what the lower end would be, but you know, what's there, you know, 50 units an acre, like why not, why 45? Is there a magic number there? There is not necessarily a magic number for this community. It's striking a balance in between kind of lower density and higher density and what the community can, can accommodate. So it's a balancing act. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. I have a couple of questions here on just some specific code stuff. There, the code section is 1310334 one D4 a, but I'll kind of highlight what it states. It says minimum street facing setbacks must allow 10 foot sidewalk along commercial corridor and six foot along streets. And then the key thing here is taken from private property area, if necessary. I just wanted to, this is probably a dumb question, but is that, can we do that? Is that legal? You can, you can force, essentially force people to make a public right of way on their, on their space. Yes, it's the commission is probably well aware. Our rights of way are pretty constrained in this county. And if we want to accommodate all modes of transportation, there may be areas where we need to accept a dedication from a private developer in order to make those facilities happen, as well as, you know, required open space, which could be in the front and public space and interact with public spaces. And there, there are times when even just to accommodate vehicles, we have to have a dedication. So yes, it's legal. Great. Okay, perfect. Thank you for clearing that up for me. In the built environment. Most of us really said built environment, I suppose. But I'd wonder if there's an opportunity to encourage. Developments to be built at the upper end of the density range, as opposed to within the density range. This is something that a member of the public also brought up. The large range can cause confusion. And if we really want people building at that upper end, but I've seen in what's true in the city of Santa Cruz. Is that, you know, the requirement is that. You build towards the upper end. And if you don't, then they'll likely be denied. So my question is, is that something that's we could add or has been considered. For the county.  To help with this question if she's available. Sure. No problem. Hi commissioners. I was just taking a look at the draft general plan built environment element. Policy BE 2.1.9, which is development below the minimum density. So we do have a policy that development cannot be approved on sites within the US L RSL below the designated density range. So that is, that is in there. I was just seeing, I just wanted to take a look at the notes of how that was notified. Yeah. So that's similar, but stronger language than one was in the 1994 current general plan. And then there's also an existing housing element policy. So the housing element is chapter four of the general plan, which is not being amended as part of this project. Policy 2.2 and the housing element. It's the times you cannot meet the minimum density in the rural areas. But I believe the housing element also includes a policy. I'll take a look at it and get back to you, but I believe the housing element also includes a policy regarding building close to the maximum density. So let me take a look at that. It'll just take me a couple of minutes, but certainly additional language along those lines could be added in the general planner code. Thank you, Daisy. Appreciate that. Okay. Going through a lot of the documents. I've probably wrote this down somewhere. Might have misplaced it and just looking for a little clarification. Are we are duplexes in town homes? Will they be allowed in the art districts? And I apologize. I know I've asked this before, but I just couldn't place it again. Yes. It's in the code. Okay. That one is going to happen. And is that in all like our one zones or residential zones? I guess as they are now. Daisy. Can you remind us? Sure. Yes. Duplexes in town homes are not precluded in the rural residential districts. We actually for the planning commission hearing, we did make a slight update to the draft. Built environment chapter to clarify that it's not only single family homes. That are allowed in the rural residential designations. And that the housing allowed in those designations is really, it's based on the, you know, the density. Requirements. Okay. So this will, they would also apply to. One zone as well as the rural residential. Correct. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I think this is my last question here. Excuse me. I have one of the other sections, but last one for this section. Code 1310 510 D3. This is a code that discusses the next heights. What's allowed above a building height. Like mechanical equipment. On ours, things like that. There is sometimes this limiting for larger. Developments and I see it in many jurisdictions, but in the case of trying to provide open space on rooftop. And so, you know, I was wondering if there was any thought, or if this is kind of a new question. To. Allowing an exception for code heights. For height limit for roof access only. So like an elevator or stair core or tower. To be within that top or above the height limit so that you could have a roof deck. For open space.  So it makes sense. This might be a new one. So. I'm not sure if, you know, was ever thought about or not. And it's not, you know, we can bring it back later for discussion topic. Yeah. I mean, it's not, there are exceptions for roof equipment, certainly within the existing code. But. Using rooftops for. And requiring additional. Or meeting extra hype for decks was not something really considered, but for a lot of these types of questions, if you are seeking a density bonus, you can have concessions and waivers from the code that would, would allow for that kind of a thing. Daisy or Annie has anything to add to that. Please feel free. Any Murphy here. I just wanted to add that I know sometimes. Rooftop decks can be controversial in neighborhoods. So we might want to look at that more closely too before we, if we made any modifications. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. I appreciate that. And chair Gordon. I did just look at the housing element. And actually I was citing the correct policy policy 2.2 and housing element. Okay. So the first portion of that policy states continue to discourage development below the minimum density that is specified for each of the general plan land use designations. And then the second portion of the policy is recognizing that in the rural areas, some cases it may be undesirable or infeasible to meet the minimum density. So that's where that policy language currently exists in the general plan. Okay. Awesome. Thank you for that. Okay. As it relates to access and mobility. Question that's come up is, you know, we have this future potential rail. You know, is there any thought about. Density along that or what might happen. I don't believe that it would, you know, make any adjustments for today, but I was just interested. And I think that the, the general plan between the built environment element and the access and mobility element definitely encourages our residential densities along corridors. And that would include the rail corridor. And so one thing that will happen is as, as the commission should be aware now is that next year, we're going to have to look at ways to accommodate our new rena numbers. And rezoning in the rail corridor area is certainly something that will, that will look more strongly at as a part of that project. But, but I would say that is included. And I see Anise's face with us today. I don't know if you wanted to add any, anything to that. No, I think that's a really good summary. We did consider when we were doing the modeling. We did consider, you know, more growth around those areas, but you know, that's really a rough consideration because it's, it's done at the larger scale than parcels or even sometimes census blocks. So, but as Stephanie said, until there's an actual rezoning, you know, we're not considering exact locations for growth. Okay. Great. Thank you. Last question I have and right in time for break here. Do you, one thing that was mentioned in chapter seven parks and rec section was there's work with Cal trans to plant more trees along. Highway one. So my question was, are we, would it be considered a scenic highway again? Or is that still going away?  Right. That, that's an addition based on the commission's discussion that, you know, we're changing the locally, the local designation for a part of highway one that has been highly urbanized and tree covers been lost. So the commission thought that it was appropriate to. Recognize that we don't have to just. Accept that the restoration would be appropriate. So that policies added to the drafts in order to address that, that comment. Okay. And so if, but sorry, so maybe I misunderstood this, but so then it's, we're still losing that scenic highway. Status for now. Yeah. Yeah. You know, part of what. Part of what goes on with that scenic highways, you know, you're really trying to cut down on visibility of new development. And it's hard to meet those policies. If you're trying to create an urbanized area that might have greater heights. And so those that, that kind of change in that designation. And again, it's not a state scenic highway. It's just a local designation in our general plan. That supports the development in our urban areas around our, our corridors as well. Got it. Okay. Understood. Thank you. That was all of my questions for now. So I appreciate it. We did have kind of a scheduled break right now, 10 minutes. And I want to respect that. And then reminder, we have a 1230 lunch. So why don't we take that quick recess? Be back at, you know, right about 11. 11. Try to keep it quick. Move right along. Okay. We'll see you at 11 11. Thank you. Thank you. 11 11. Welcome everybody back. Like to make sure that Ms. Drake is here. Chair, I know Ms. Drake was having some computer issues and is switching over her computer. So it might be just another second. Sure. No problem. There she is. Thank you. This work. Okay. Let's. Can you hear me? We can. Can you hear us? Yes. My connection is a little slow. So I think I might reconnect, but we'll get us going here and I'll do that and I'll come back in. Should we take a quick roll call? Please. Commissioner Shepherd, are you back with us? Commissioner Shepherd, are you there? Commissioner Shepherd, if you're there. Yes, I am. There we go. Commissioner Dan. Here. Mr. Vialante. Here. Commissioner Lazenby. Here. And Chair Gordon. Here. Thank you. Great. Now we let's continue with questions from the patient. And who would like to go next? I'm sure. I'd be happy to go next. Wonderful. Thank you. Commissioner Vialante. For staff. My questions. I think I'll take them in order. Going through the general plan. And then moving on to the code just so you can follow. Kind of the direction I'm going through them. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I think the first thing I'll ask is that in, in, I'm in the built environment. So. For my commissioners, it's page two dash three six. And it's the one that chair Gordon actually asked about, which was the. Development below the minimum density. And I just had a question in there. It talked about a government code that allowed. It said accept for and then mentioned the government code. And I was just wondering. If this, how this would deal with. Rebuilds. So if there was. Fire. Like a home fire or if there was a earthquake and these kind of catastrophes or something about how would it deal with. That fall into that. And government code because I'm just curious about those types of situations. Yes. I believe that it, that it would. If we can get clarity for me, that would, that's just an important component. I want to make sure we're not precluding people from rebuilding. We've seen trees falls on homes. We've obviously with CZ view, we now know a very specific cause. And they just would. I want to make sure that we. Don't preclude people from rebuilding if they suffer from things we none of us wanted to experience. We appreciate that there shouldn't be anything in these policies that preclude rebuilding. The challenges are otherwise, as you know, septic fire, et cetera. Exactly. Thank you. I appreciate that. The other one is that just, it was a small change. And I just, it's a clarity because I want to make sure that I'm understanding the codes. Appropriately. I'm page two dash nine zero. The language has been changed. And I believe I just want to get there myself. I apologize. It's navigating it with you. I believe that the code now. It talks about. When we're redoing for vacate. Visitor serving accommodations. And I believe that the language is no longer necessary. That has been added in. So it talks about when market analysis of land. Demonstrate that the existing priority use. Or use designation is no longer feasible. And I think now that we've said that this can only happen on visitor serving accommodation. That the language of existing use or priority use designation is no longer necessary. But I want to make sure that I'm understanding this piece of. Of the code correctly, because I think it's just. We're saying only on visitor serving accommodation. I want to make sure that I'm right. But I'm reading it correctly that it is only on visitor serving accommodation where we're saying this. This can you. Can you tell us what are you in the policy or the code? I mean, I'm only doing the general plan for now. Right. Can you tell me which policy? It's on page two, 92 dash nine. And let me just get there myself. So I can read what I'm doing. So I don't think I'm in. So it's, it's. And then it gets to the bottom of it. So it's part of the whole thing though. So it's talking about. Consider allowing the conversion of visitor serving. Commercial land uses to a lower priority land use when. And then it gets into. I'm on page two, 92 dash nine. And let me just get there myself. So I can read what I'm doing. So I don't think I'm in. So it's, it's. Five. One. Three. Okay. Thank you. And then it gets to the bottom of it. So it's part of the whole thing though. So it's all about these, these possibilities. And then it says when the proposed conversion is not. And then the very last one. I think it's, I think. I have the right one. So it's the first bullet point. I have like notes of piece of the language that I confused about. Um, I'll say, while we're trying to figure it out, this, this language, um, has been amended based on, you know, it looks like maybe you guys next to my confusion, actually, even in the most recent version. Oh, great. Nope. Nope. Nope. Okay. Um, yeah, so it says that the proposed conversion will not adversely affect the ability of the county to provide appropriate locations or adequate amounts and or types of visitor serving land uses, which is right. This is as demonstrated by remaining. So maybe you guys didn't get fix it. So that's just, that was the one that I think maybe you did fix it. So that's great. We've been discussing this with the coastal commission staff a little bit. It's a little odd to have conversion policies in there so that language has been adjusted to try to make sure conversions don't take place inappropriately. And that was my concern. And so I was just, I was trying to make sure I understood the language. Okay, so going to the next chapter, which is access and mobility. They, it's am two dot three dot six. So it talks about delivery and services and it talks about the support delivery services by creating curb loading and short term parking zones as they have increased access to goods and services for the mobility impaired. And I just, I was hoping maybe you could tell me the goal of this one because I have some reservations about us using the words mobility impaired. So I wasn't sure maybe you could talk about is this a standard terminology because there are people who suffer from other disabilities that aren't necessary mobility impaired like chronic fatigue syndrome, oxygen shortages that still need these type of service like they still need access. And so I just wasn't sure if maybe you could explain to me the goal of this particular one I like the concept, but the language choice if you could explain this is like a standard phrase that you use in transportation. Yes, and it could definitely be changed to be more inclusive. The comment came from a commission that is a little bit more focused on people with hearing and vision disabilities but the comment came with regard to people who have mobility issues so certainly can look at making that language more inclusive. Okay, thank you I appreciate that. And then, I think that's the last question on that particular chapter from the general plan. The next chapter, I apologize I have a lot of questions so I'm trying to get through them quickly from my colleagues and you as well. And the next chapter is chapter five the agricultural natural resources chapter. I had questions having to do with the a zone a lot. And just want to get there so I can see what I'm talking about so on page five dash three five. So it's like it's arc 1.4. So it's talking about the 200 foot setbacks, unless an exception is approved. But the change has the vibe noted here is that we're only allowing exception. We're changing the way we're doing buffers and setbacks. And it says my notes say that we're saying one allowing setbacks and residential uses. And as I wanted to talk that you could explain to me why the changes were made in this particular section that would be helpful for me. Yes, thank you Commissioner Vialante the. It's not actually a change it was just intended to clarify our current ag buffer setback requirements so. So there's not any changes. They're still required to provide the 200 foot buffer setback for any habitable uses that are adjacent to a CA parcel or I preserve parcel. Yeah, I appreciate that any. And then my next questions I have any I may have the more questions questions for you than anybody for giving my district. My next one is on page five dash four four. I have a section, I don't have a policy right in between me if you may be interested in general questions, let me find out why. I think I just my general I think I just had general concern about this one which was was art 1.6.1. I just I had concerns about the fact that we were kind of expanding commercial activity on. I think I was just kind of wondering the logic premise because I have felt historically that there's been a distinction between CA's and parcels which are commercially designated and a zone parcels parcels which have a place, but that we kind of distinguish that they weren't commercially. That wasn't the primary thing and so could you maybe explain to me some of the what happened how we end up like this particular piece. Is this about changing what were specific cause could be on a parcel side. Yes, that's exactly right that there has been an expansion of allowing commercial activity on a zone parcels. And yes so. So partly what this policy does is align it better with what's already in the code like when you when you look at the use chart. Generally uses that are allowed in CA are also allowed on a so part of it is, is being more flexible what's in the code. But the changes also. As discussed at previous meetings. We are expanding sort of ag support uses that would be allowed, such as agricultural services establishments. So those those same type of agricultural support uses that are proposed for CA would also be allowed on a. So, so that does reflect that change as well and as I mentioned there is also to provide the, the areas for agricultural support that are needed by the, you know, commercial agriculture. Just to add a lot of the ag changes. There were a lot of community meetings back in 2015 and a lot of changes that are proposed are meant to provide more modernization and support for existing agricultural uses that are economically feasible and and accommodate, you know, uses that are a little bit more flexible but appropriate. Yeah and then adding to what Stephanie says these also would be discretionary uses so they require discretionary view and opportunities for public input and that sort of thing as well for the ag support uses. I'm sorry I was looking by next one. Next page so I can know what I'm talking about in advance it's opening my mouth. So, on page five dash. My memory of the hearing is that we wanted to deny it once and for all. Commissioner shepherd, you're not muted. Oh sorry. Thank you. So, on page five dash five on page five dash five three on C, it's C three. It talks about areas adjacent to essential habitats of rare endangered vet and species as defined in and then it says I'm confused about what it's referencing. I think it's probably just an error of all the revisions. But as a result, I wasn't sure what it was trying to reference. And that made it hard for me to know whether or not I agreed. So I think if you don't mind taking a peek at that and then me coming back to us by the afternoon session, it would just be helpful for me because it says as defined in. I don't know if it's going through either F below for trying to say for their F below. But we we struck F. So if you don't mind taking a peek at that little section. Thank you. Yes, it looks like there may know that I'm looking at it looks like there may have been a numbering error that happened at some point so I will I will look at that and I can get back to in the afternoon. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then I have a question that I think was probably not agriculturally related. It's, it's, it's about the when to commit director and chair Gordon's question when we talk about replanting of trees it actually references Ocean Avenue I'm not sure if they meant Ocean Street. Because I want to make sure that we are speaking about the right location, just so I know where we're referencing again I know that's on the ag question but that's in the section it's on page one dash. It's arc 5.2 be just want to make sure that gets fixed because I think it's important to know where we're talking about replanting trees. Thank you. Okay, so chapter seven parks and open space. Yes, okay so parks and open space age 7.103. I apologize like 100 different documents, I don't know what I'm talking about. Didn't reference, but I was referencing here so it's taking a run off. Yes, so the reason I didn't read it so it's in pf 4.4.1. And it says require run off levels to be maintained at pre development rates for minimum design storm. And I didn't know, or a minimum design storm and I don't know. I don't know what they're talking about. I think perhaps either there's some words missing. Yeah, maybe I can help a little bit with this or an ace. Do you want to do do you want to. I'm still trying to get there myself on a computer. Yeah, so yes page one, it's seven dash 103 and again I apologize, but I didn't work for myself for the actual policy number it's ppf 4.4.1. So generally the, you know that county design criteria are the public work standards for roads and stormwater and the driveways they cover kind of, you know, variety of situations that would affect the right of way or, or stormwater in this case.  And there are different levels that you can that you would consider it at one is how much water is flowing at in 100 year storm let's say or the 10 year storm and now I see Matt Machado probably is a much better answer It's just an activity is for a minimum design storm. And I don't, I usually have heard like hundred year storms or the minimum designed store I don't know minimum design storm Matt. So, so our standard is a 25 year storm event so that's, that's our, that's our design standard is 25 year. I do see Rachel Fatui on the, on the attendee list here if she wants to elaborate but 25 years storm is our standard to answer your question. So we just consider a minimum, just the language minimum design storm is that what we call it. Yeah, I believe it is. Yes. Thank you. That's, that's the, thank you. The language seem to awkward, this despite all my years dealing with water runner. So, thank you. Okay. That's just what we call it. That's that's the clarifying piece I thank you. That's my last one for that. I, I need to, I'm going to stay my next question is also for you. In appendix I, I, I, in the TDM. One of the recommended mitigation pieces. Am I understanding correctly that staff are saying that a way to meet TDM is to reduce the number of parking spots offered in my understanding that correctly am I reading appendix I correctly. Yes, so this would have to be all of these measures would have to be compliant with our current code, which is stated at the beginning of the appendix. There are some ways to reduce parking in within the codes such as you can provide more bicycle parking spaces up to a maximum you can't do that for all parking space all vehicle parking spaces. There's also a reduction that I believe we spoke about the last meeting, based on comments from the board of supervisors, allowing for parking reductions if other criteria are met, such as providing bus passes. So, yes, it is a TDM measure and it would have to comply with allowances in the code. And more broadly to answer the question, yes, controlling the amount of parking is a considerable TDM measure for starting to control how many cars are on the roadway. And how much VMT we're producing and thereby how much greenhouse gases were producing so yes it's a recognized control measure for that. And then I guess I have a question, kind of on the equity component I I understand is still on TDM and it's still on the next I word and Stephanie is I struggle a bit with unbundled parking from an equity component. I understand that there is argument on it reflecting the true cost of parking by unbundling it but I'm wondering if one of you can speak to the equity component that it presents. You know, there's a, there's a parking spot for example, in San Francisco right now that's for sale for $90,000. And the truth is when we unbundled parking, we are essentially making parking something available only for those who can afford it and it kind of becomes in the leadest and a privileged component of life. And I, and I just, I, if you could, because I read, I went and I did some research I read about unbundled parking and how it does disassociate the cost but I still struggle a bit on the on the equity component so if you, and none of the research I read really can't really address that component and since we're trying to have a lens of equity. Is this something we also contemplated. And could you speak to that on how we don't end up creating cars as something when the privileged have access to or is it just we're saying that in order to achieve a reduction. It's. Yeah, so I can understand that perspective. Typically, what people don't realize is that the cost of providing parking is actually pretty high. So the idea is when developer project development unbundles it, they can actually reduce the cost of the housing. We, we are a very different place in San Francisco, where the cost of parking is valued at a much higher rate because of the density levels that are there. So I don't, you know, I hope that we won't see see that kind of parking cost. And in other metropolitan areas, the cost when it's unbundled doesn't prohibit a person from affording the at least my own anecdotal personal experience, affording the parking. The other thing is that this is tied to, again, that piece of code that was requested by the board of supervisors where we do unbundle parking for certain projects that provide bus passes, as well as other incentives. So it's, it's something that's going to be tapped in well could theoretically be tapped into in the code. And therefore, we'd like to offer it as a TD a measure as well since it does encourage people to do things like scooter bike or walk. Commissioner, I would just offer up the kind of the opposite perspective of keeping it bundled may force folks to essentially pay for parking because it gets roped into rents right when they don't need it. So I think that there's two perspectives to two sides of the coin there. I don't know what you mean by bundled.  So you're paying 1500 2000 $3,000 for your rental, and you're paying 100 $200 for your parking spot independently. I can just ask one other quick clarification about what you are talking about Allison. I think in one of our hearings you explained that this dependent and having the transit system operated a certain defined level which ours doesn't. I reminded of this because in San Francisco the muni is really good and stops everywhere that that's far from the case and you mentioned in one of our hearings that our transit system right now the bus doesn't really qualify for that kind of comprehensive transit system because it doesn't. No, so actually they we could choose to implement this without having a high level of transit, which is one of my concerns is that in places where unbundled parking is often popular like San Francisco and Seattle. It's because they it's places where they do have transit systems that can support not having a vehicle and while we're heading in that direction it is one of my concerns, but I share your concern I think it's a serious concern. But I appreciate Miss Hansen and the sharing with me some of the reasons that unbundled parking is beneficial and and the equity argument for unbundled so I appreciate you answering my question. So, I think that I have just I apologize. I have a lot of questions that are helping decide about some of my directions this afternoon. One of my all the rest of my questions are all in the actual code itself. So they're kind of everybody all over the place depending on where we are in the code. So I'll just go through them. It's I start in the ag use chart and let me just get there it's 1310 312-1 it's the ag use chart. I need to. My note says that we're allowing the processing we're allowing ag processing of 60,000 square feet on a zone parcels but we're not on CA zone parcels. I'm any of my rate on that. According to the use chart. Let me just get there for a moment. Trust me. My question is taking twice as long because I have to do the same when I'm looking. So I'm sorry you're asking ag processing facilities. When I when I'm looking at the code, it looks like we are with the CUP mind you but still, we're saying ag processing facilities. We're saying we are allowing them on a zone parcels but not on CA zone parcels and my understanding that correctly according to the. Ag use chart. And that's 1310 312-1 if any of my fellow commissioners like to know what I'm looking at. Okay yeah I see that I see the confusion because it looks like in the draft, the strike through language did not appear correctly so what it's actually saying is on. So we have the you know the development area cap with the intention to protect the agricultural resource soil so when CA ag processing facilities allowed up to 60,000 square feet and that's the maximum size on CA on a. There could be an application for larger than 60,000 square feet so that's where the na would be if it's larger than 60,000 square feet and that that again would be subject to discretionary review and and findings and that sort of thing but. So I am understanding it correctly. Yeah, that that's that size level yes.  Why are we allowing such a large processing facility on an a zone parcel that we wouldn't allow on a CA zone parcel when a is supposed to have these what I consider less intense uses on an a zone parcel why are we even contemplating them on an a zone parcel will be. I mean I understand we're protecting we weren't we're trying to protect type one type three you know this primary uses on the CA zone parcel but I have to admit I was surprised to see that we're allowing these even even with the greater. Why are we even contemplating these greater intensification of uses on an a zone parcel when we're not contemplating it even on an CA zone parcel. Well the intention is to be able to provide. Necessary act support. Well still protecting ag resource land so there aren't, there aren't. Many opportunities for our land available for those types of uses so so a zone parcels. See, it would be seems the most appropriate again considering all the findings that we made and public input so. And with with ag resource oils that the criteria come into play regarding conversion of ag land and loss of ag land so so there are more limitations in some cases for CA. Okay. Okay, thank you I appreciate that. Okay. Okay. Okay. So the next question is in 1310 323 be told you any I told you all my questions following your camp. 323. It has to do with greenhouses. No it's anything is I'm still in the use chart I apologize I'm still in the use chart. It references 1310.323 be and I didn't understand what 1310. That's what it was okay the use chart under greenhouses references 1310 323 be and I don't understand with 1310 323 be I don't understand how they're connected and because they're dependent on each other. I'm, I'm confused, and you could clarify because 1310 323 be has to do with the creek that the title is literally site area for the creation of new sites, and then you get down. So I'm I didn't understand the connection, because greenhouses are obviously a very big deal. And we're talking about greenhouses both 1000s per feet or less and larger if the references in both sections under greenhouses in that use chart. So I remember what I was referencing in my notes. Okay, so in greenhouses in that same 1310.323 in that in that in that use chart, maybe I'm in residential. Nice which, maybe I'm in the res chart, hold on. I'm in residential chart. I'm in any I'm not in your section anymore. I'm in the residential use chart now. Okay, not your problem. 1310 322 dash one the residential use chart references this section. And I don't understand how they're connected. So I don't know who wrote the residential use chart. But I'm confused. And I don't know what to do with this section because it has to do with greenhouses that are 1000s per feet or less and 1000s per feet or larger. It references this thing and I don't because they're principally permitted. And then, and then they also require MUPs which doesn't require notification of their neighbors and I want to understand. It's clearly dependent on this section and I don't understand how they're connected and so I can't make a determination whether or not I'm okay with it until I understand it. So I don't know if somebody can look at that and they get back to me. And when we have these references that they Yes, we want them to be helpful and I don't know if Daisy's on and has a ready answer but we might. If not, then we'll return this afternoon. Yeah, I can take a look and give you a more complete answer but just looking in the sort of text box explanation. That comes before the residential use chart. What we state there is the reasoning for adding that reference was to clarify that greenhouses are not subject to the accessory structures standards. But which are in 1310 611, but I will go ahead and check the reference of 1310 323 B and see whether that's a typo or not. Okay, thank you. The next one I have questions on this 1310 323. Oh, I'm still in. Okay, I think I might be in that same section 1310 323 B. Hi. So that's still sounds like that's still Daisy. It references In the zone districts listed in subsections a and then it says a through D of the section. But I don't, I don't know if they're talking. I don't know what they're talking about any I don't, and I'm sorry, this is Daisy Daisy I don't know what you're trying to tell me is happening here. So I'm in 1310 323 the development standard standards residential districts. The last one so Yep, I got it. So Commissioner Vellante, it looks like that's a typo and what it should say is in the zone districts listed in subsections one a through D. So capital A should be changed to a one. So one and then it should be lowercase a. Correct. I will need to go take a peek at that. Now that I know that thank you I appreciate the clarification. Yep, and we'll make a note of that as well. So I'm just making notes to myself so I can go back and look. Okay, this one is really important to me to 1310 332 B2. It has to do with. When we read it again. It's 1310 332 and B to the commercial standard. So what it has to do is a change of use. So it's when you have to like to find it by note I noted that first year is when you do or do not essentially have to seek approval for change of use. So if you are. You don't do an intensification of use. You don't necessarily have to go back out for an MEP or an MEP. That's what this piece of the code references but the language is important to have in front of me because it's I I that's really important to me and I can. The new use will not result in an intensification of use. And because it lists some circumstances that must be met in order for this to be true. I'm looking at B2. The change of use of an existing legal structure in a commercial zone district. Okay. And it says the change of use and existing legal structure may be approved with a zoning clearance, which is what I said that you don't have to go back out. If the following criteria are met. And it says the new use is allowed in the zone district. The new use will not result in an intensification of use. And and this is the one I'm hoping they see maybe can speak to which is, there's a use permit or master use permit for the existing use and or the new use is specified in a new in the parcel in a town or village specific plan. So you can speak to how often you think this happens because in some ways it feels very much like a loophole.  You can only require a higher level of noticing. And so I'm hoping you can explain to me kind of how often you think this is met. So you can tell explain to me how this circumstance. The circumstance where you would not need a use permit or where you would change of use. Correct. Um, yeah, so some feedback that staff has gotten over the years and also from the economic mentality study process has been that one kind of barrier in the community for businesses is this use permit requirement being rather onerous the current commercial use permit requirement. Um, so the change that we're making here is to still require use permits but only in situations where there's no intensification of use and the use is allowed and also there's already an existing use permit. So I don't know if I would classify it as a loophole necessarily on its providing clarification on situations where it would be appropriate to to get a use permit with with parameters and what could be allowed on the property and the the intensification of use just to provide that information that is defined in the code that's in 13 10 700 so it's not a it's not squishy it is it is defined for commercial it's 10% or 100. Yeah, 10% right. I'm familiar. I guess my concern is that so if you had someone who like let's say they have a use permit for something that on the front end will require an AUP they could change their use to something that would normally require a use permit to be as long as there was an intensification of use and so and so that's when you buy a loophole. And so that's because the neighbors would not be given the right to be notified that something was changing. And so this is where to me I assumed in this environment that you've been talking to me is that perhaps, and maybe I'm wrong and it sounds like perhaps it was I was hoping that maybe you were going to explain to me that I the I was written in a way to limit how often this would happen because when I read it I said okay well there's a use permit or master use permit. And or there's this new use permit and specified in these town and asked insight specific plans that you are going to tell me that no this will happen not very frequently, unless they were part of a village plan. You know they were part of the sea the sea cliff village master plan unless they're part of, but it sounds like what you're telling me is no it's just strictly designed to streamline it my understanding that correctly. Um, well it's yeah so it's designed to yes streamline the process in terms of reducing the number of commercial use permit applications that that are required. But while still keeping in some parameters here but you are correct that there could be a situation where there's a use that in the use chart requires a higher use permit level and I don't see where in subsection three. That would necessarily require review for a new use permit, as long as there wasn't an intensification of use. So that is something that you know the Commission may want to consider making adjustments. Yeah, thank you I appreciate that just this one I mean I think of like the conflict areas and someone being like oh well we thought it was just going to be a small something and then the change so I appreciate that clarity. The next one is in the commercial use chart. There are three categories. Bars and nightclubs, pasting rooms and liquor stores that were all allowed in the PA zone district, as long as they were ancillary and I for the life of me could not think of when any of those uses would be ancillary to professional and admin. Can you give me an example of when that would be appropriate like ancillary because if it can't I kind of. Yeah, could you just give me an example of where we we staff and visions that being possible. Sure. So the so so what you're referring to is the use has a little like super script of a next to the permit. And the way we define that at the top of the uses chart is the use must be ancillary or complimentary to another allowed use a primary allowed use must first be in place or must be proposed concurrently on a site to allow an ancillary or complimentary use. The idea with the PA district, which is the office professional administrative district is that the primary, you know appropriate uses in that district, our office uses. However, one thing that we're trying to achieve with the sustainability update is to allow for more walkability. And part of that is allowing for workers to be able to walk to access restaurants for instance, during the workday and those kinds of uses so entertainment and sort of dining uses. Maybe appropriate in the PA district, but certainly the primary use on those on those parcels should still be the office uses. I would say, is this a recognition of how stressful it is to work inside the office now. Yeah, I have to admit I, I, I, I easy I 100% support the direction that the staff is going and creating these integrated workplaces, but I do struggle to see how bars and night clubs are needed in a walkable community when we're talking PA. So I, I might just ask that this afternoon. But I appreciate you being handed about how we got there because I completely understand how you got there just I was like night clubs bars interesting way to get people come into the office. Thanks happy hour very easy on Friday after this. Okay. My next question had to do with table 13 times 331333 dash one which was commercial site instructional dimensions chart. I put a minimum height of 15 feet. And I was just wondering about how we ended up with that because I, I think of like the written house building downtown some of the commercial structures on like say Scottsville I drive that are empty and how expensive the TIs are on these and I support 15 feet being an option that I just wondered on the logic of minimum versus maximum. And why we're searching for such conformity of a minimum. And I can sort of kick us off and answering that. So, the 15 foot minimum height is for the first story floor to ceiling height in the C three workplace flex zone district, which is a new zone district. And the kind of core purpose of that district is to provide for flexible space that can be easily converted between light industrial and other types of commercial uses. And so for that district, in particular, the ceiling height of at least 15 feet is useful to make sure that that those buildings are able to be converted in that way. In the future. And I believe that the, the research that was done related to that building height actually went into the sustainable Santa Cruz County plan that was completed in 2014. I guess I'm so struggling, they need to understand. I don't really, it sounds like that research went to just to justify allowing 15 feet but I'm still struggling to understand why it's a minimum. Well, it's allowed currently there's no, there's no minimum or maximum on ground, you know, ground to ceiling height for any of our commercial districts currently. And setting a minimum requires that you have a taller first, first floor on these buildings that can accommodate light industrial uses more easily. So the research so that by allowing 15 feet you accommodate greater uses did it did it did it speak at all about displacing any of these smaller uses. And because I think I'm, I think of some of our, our current kind of small amount of mom and pop shops that we don't want to displace by allowing some of these and I just, I, that's my best race people at the TI costs and we do lose businesses and people want to move into a smaller space and I want to make sure that we're not creating an economic obstacle of allowing small retail to go into these spaces and so I wasn't sure about that so I'm it's good to hear that we already allow 15 feet but I'm just the idea of creating a minimum. I like it's good to hear that it creates opportunity. I just, it's, I'm okay. I just add that the, the maximum building height in that district is 50 feet as well which sort of accommodates that first floor height is as well. Next question I had was in 1310343, which I think is ag again. The question has a and RA listed. Let me see what I'm talking about. Thank you to the Commission and staff for bearing with me on my 300 questions. And for me knowing what I want to clarifying for myself. My direction, my ideas this afternoon. 1310343 is industrial. Yeah, but I, my question says what is the maximum building height if not within 200 feet of bar or, or a districts, as a read as a read none appears is what I wrote as my question. So, it, although it's the commercial use, my question has to do with. I see, yeah, with referencing to these. These are or a district. So is there a height limit. Right, so. Well, the provision is meant to kind of control the massing if you're near residential areas. And, you know, the R or a district that might also, you know, that accommodate residential uses so it's meant to kind of control them impacts when you have zoning districts that have very different functions and are immediately adjacent to one another. So, but I guess my question though, Stephanie is it in the M2 district. It just says it says three stories 40 feet if within 200 feet of our of our or a district so do we not have a maximum height. Oh, I see what you're saying. So in M2. Do we not do we not have an maximum height. If it's not within the 200 feet of our or a district of our districts. So in the middle of the chart on, there's a there's on my different. It's page 19. It is. Even on the online version. In the middle of the chart. Yes. I see where you're at. Yeah. And so there's just, there's no, this is three stories 48 if within like, so if you're not within 200 feet of a residential or an A zone parcel, and maybe there are no M2 parcels that aren't within that, but I assume there are. And so I'm going to be referenced this, like we list zero maximum height, and I feel like we do we need to give direction to provide a maximum height if you are in all of those situations. But let us look at that a little bit more closely and get back to you this afternoon. I am if you can't tell I'm one of the people who read all of them. I'm glad it's good and see 100 questions. The next one says 13 10 616. Okay, I think I might have fixed that already. Okay, I have a question about it's about the definitions but it's also about, I'll ask it now but it's really in the definition so there's inconsistency. So produce stands. There's inconsistency in the definition in 13 10 700 and what is defined in 13 10 640 on whether or not processed goods are allowed. If you read one, it says that no process goods are allowed and one the other one it says like 15%. And because of inconsistency, I'm not sure which direction staff actually intended. And therefore I don't clearly a correction needs to happen and I don't know which I don't know which you intended so I don't know which way to go in terms of my recommendation. Thank you. I, I heard the question. Let me, can I look at that and get back to you up to the lunch break. Absolutely. Yeah, I know so because because I'm a little unclear because there's the temporary and then there's the produce stands and produce markets. And they, they don't dive. And therefore, I would like to make some comments and recommendations on that section this afternoon and so it'd be helpful to me to know what staff had wanted so I can know how to respond. Yeah, okay, I think this is my last comment 13 10 689 dash to commercial VA maximum densities outside the USL. It's talking about the fact that you can, can you go over the numbers in this chart for me, it's the chart so it's table 13 10 689 dash to the visitor serving combination maximum densities outside the USL. I was just hoping you go over the numbers in the chart, because I read it and I kind of get to like 200 overnight guests, when I look at this, and then I, I, I would just, someone could go over the numbers and that would be helpful. Daisy and Natisha. Yeah, I can, I can get a start and maybe Natisha can help me. I know we both worked on this section. So I'm looking at the table 13 10 689 dash to the density. So there's no maximum density on hotels and motels, except in the TP or parks districts, where we allow 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit. And the rural matrix unit. You know that's that's calculated based on doing the rural, the rural density matrix. And then for bed and breakfast and ends we allow 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit up to 20 VA units total. But Daisy can I ask a question just interrupting you so it says 29 overnight guests per. And this is when I get to the 200 because it's 20 guests per unit up to 20 units. And so that's 200 guests crack. Well, so that's that's that's why I wanted you to go over with me or the whole am I understanding this correctly that you can get to get 10 guests per unit up to 20 units. Or and I'm understanding for the bed and breakfast and then for the rural matrix obviously there's a different calculation. Sure, so, so believe it or not, we're working on making this section simpler than it currently is. But the, the rural matrix units and the VA units are two different things. So the rural rural matrix units are calculated using the rural density matrix. So for most properties it's just, you know, one or two or three. Unless you have a really large property, and then you may you may have more. And a total of 20 units would 20 visitor accommodation units would be allowed and visitor accommodation units are defined within this code section and in 13 10 700, which means a room cabin or sweet. And so I'm not sure. So 20 would be the maximum not 200. But it's it's more than number of guests because I mean that's the number of guests. I think that's what I'm trying to understand. So it's it's like, it's 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit and that's the part where I'm trying to understand the language. So it is it is it 10 guests per unit. And then, and that's where I'm trying to understand this chart to so that I can understand what's being recommended here. Because because the way I read it and this is it and then so I really want you to talk with them I'm understanding it correctly is it's 10 guests per unit whether or not that's a VA unit or if it's a rural matrix unit. So I'm going to understand because we're talking about allowing in these in a variety of increased spaces we're starting talking about allowing these spaces we're talking and we're talking about expanding this and we're talking about these allowing us an hour and hour and hour and I really want to make sure I understand how many people are we talking about allowing on these parcels and so that's where I apologize when struggling to understand the numbers. Yeah, so so it'd be 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit and that would it would really depend on the size of the property, how many matrix units, you know, you would, you would have on that property. And that would, you know, that would determine your number of guests. And then those guests could fit into a maximum of 20 visitor accommodation unit so it's sort of two different controls on maximum density for bed and breakfast in outside the US L RSL and that one you know it's a little bit more. It's a little bit of a hybrid for that particular one. Because within the US L RSL there's a max of 20 VA units for bed and breakfast ends. In most zone districts and then outside the US L RSL the maximum density is for the most part driven by the rural mate rural density matrix. So that density calculation for Ben breakfast ends outside the US L RSL takes into account both of those controls on density. Left off understanding your response could you simplify what you're saying a little bit so if you so I understand what you both are discussing. You could have a bread and breakfast and you could have 20 cabins in each cabin could be big enough to hold 10 people, but it would be subject to the rural matrix code which has to do with the ability to land to support it in terms of services and capacity. My understanding right. Well, if I understand Daisy correctly and they tell me if I get this correctly but it's more that you can have 10 overnight guests per time multiplied by each by the matrix for a total of up to 10 units is that correct. So it's 10 overnight guests per rural matrix unit so let's say a typical you know rural property might have two or three matrix units. So let's say it has three three matrix units you go through the whole rural density matrix calculation process that's in section 1314 of the code. And you are allowed to have 30 guests based on that those 30 guests can be accommodated with a maximum of 20 cabins or rooms or whatever kind of accommodations you're providing where the 20 maximum cabins or rooms really comes into play as if you have a very large rural parcel. That has a large number of rural density units. Then the 20 maximum cabins or or rooms would be the control that on density. That would be more important than the total number of guests. What's a rural density unit. So section 1314 of our code is called the rural density matrix and that is how density is calculated in the rural area. No changes are proposed to that calculation method as part of this project. Okay. I think I better understand that easy. It's worded just oddly. I mean it's basically you get up to 20 VA units and you can total period within those 20 units you can put 10 overnight guests per the rural. Exactly. The way it's worded I was it was a bit confusing. So okay I better understand now. Yeah, I better understand this map I still have. I still have some concerns, which I'll get into with the rest of the commissioners this afternoon a bit about the commercialization of some of our rural parcels, which doesn't really just have to do with this as to some of the other other code. But I appreciate you kind of walking me through that that was, like I said it was worded is worded in a way that it was a bit confusing. Understood. I think that would be up to 20 units and then explain how I do the fit within them. Because. Okay, I appreciate that. I think, I think that's all my questions I apologize I appreciate everyone's been talking to me through all of my questions. Commissioner be on a I thought I could respond now to your question about protest stands before the afternoon. So I did look at it and it should be the intention was to, as it's worded in 1613 10640 up to 15%, maybe use for the sales or process produced by the stand operator so the intent really is to support you know especially like small farms and support agritourism where they may need a sort of diversity of farm products to be able to maintain viability so that was kind of the intention of it. So we are allowing process goods on both types of both produce stands and produce markets. It's right but it's only on temporary produce stands that we're limiting it to non process goods and like this is strictly out of memory but is that correct. Yes, right and then for the for the produce stands there is that caveat that it's produced on site produced by the stand operator right so it's in other words not like selling corn chips or something it's like jams or you know fruit juice or that sort of thing. Thank you I appreciate that clarity chair Gordon I am finally done. This is what we had this meeting for so. Thank you a lot of good questions and clarifications there. So we do have a scheduled lunch right around 1230s about 10 minutes from now so I don't know if there's another commissioner that has about 10 minutes for the questions or wants to start and then we can come back to them after I think I only have about 10 minutes worth of questions but I want to really thank Commissioner Villalanti for her detailed questions and actually got rid of a couple of my questions. So I'll try to go quick. The first question I have is in the zoning code chapter 1310 311 agricultural districts, and on page six. I'm going off of the online version. Is there a definition is talking about agritourism. Is there a definition for agritourism, like what all of the uses that we're lumping into that term. See I, I don't let me look at the definitions quickly I don't I don't recall the top of my head if that's there. There is in 700 agritourism and education visitor oriented services events. Give me the page number. Yes, where I can find it so I can look at it at the break. You bet. So it's 1310 700 on page five. I'm sorry, I just look forward to. Okay, well I will take a look at that myself. Okay, good. Thank you. And then the next question I have also has. So now I'm in residential districts. Page eight of 1310 321 and I apologize if my page numbers are off. But this is about bed and breakfasts. And it looks like the proposal is to allow a BNB with 12 or fewer rooms with an AUP. And then my question is, so vacation rentals for a new vacation rental, we're requiring a public hearing still, which I think is a good idea, having gone through that process. But so you this would be like having a vacation rental with up to 24 people with no public hearing but vacation rentals of, you know, maybe just a free veteran vacation rental needs a public hearing. Was this purposeful to like, let BNBs go without a public hearing or was this something that maybe we should take a second look at. I would say was it's purposeful BNBs are allowed in the code now. And we, I think the big change was that we went up to 12 rooms instead of I believe the current code is five. And so it was recognition that Ben, Ben breakfast, you know, exist in our community and have a place in our community and we want to, you know, be able to support support those those those are separate from vacation rentals. Obviously, it's a more of a facility than renting out your house or a hosted rental. Right. So I guess I would think like, I guess. So, but vacation rentals are getting a public hearing of BNB that could have up to 24 guests, no public hearing. Because I'm just trying to square that. Like, why would one need to be here and the other one doesn't. I, I see, I see your point. I don't, I don't think there was an intentional discrepancy, obviously there, but if you do think that a higher level of review is necessary that that might be a tweak. Okay, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something, something I'm missing here. Okay. Thank you. The next set of questions are all having to do with chapter 18. The first one is the definition of variance on page 10. I didn't see was the old was there an old definition of variance that this is replacing that I just missed seeing the cross out. I'm not sure. Well, maybe we can look at these during the break and kind of get back to you. Okay. Yeah, that would be good because I just kind of the way that the various definition reads now. It seems to be a little bit different than what we've used in the past, which was, you know, variances would would not, you know, confirm a benefit on a property owner not provided to neighboring property properties which is maybe in state law so I just wanted to see how it was changed from the way we previously looked at a variance. And then on page 31, see discretionary permit approvals with public hearings. This was read to me a little confusing. And I think that it didn't acknowledge that from my understanding, if a project is in the coastal zone. It can be a field directly to the coastal commission. I think that it might be worth noting that and just read a little confusing to me so that I wouldn't necessarily know that that would be the case if that wasn't wasn't in there. Sorry, I'm going really fast because I want to finish before I got three minutes. The next question I had is on page 38. It's 181014 and has to do a general plan plan conformity. So in this section consistent was replaced with insubstantial conformance. But then at the end of this section consistent with is defined. And I'm just wondering why not just what was the thinking behind replacing consistent with substantial conformance. They have a different meaning and it seems like. Anyway, yeah, you could explain that the thinking behind replacing that consistent with substantial conformance. It's probably just meant to consistent is a pretty broad term and can be really subjective. And so I think this is this change in wording is meant to provide a little bit more detail as to kind of what we're talking about and drive that point a little bit better than just to say consistent. So if you're Jenny, you know, if you're, if you're mostly meeting the general plan requirements, then that's what we're saying. That's interesting because the way I read it I thought that consistent means you have to be consistent with the general plan but insubstantial conformance means you have to be just like you said, in general conforming so I'm trying to read it the opposite way that you just explained, which shows a difficult it is when we always do. I'll ask any do you have an, do you, the section I'll be super honest with you is written a very long time ago, we obviously looked it over for consistency with the other things that are conformance with the other things that we've done. It wasn't around for the initial thinking it through and so just ask any of, if she might have any better idea than me. This is 1810 140. Yeah, I, I know that the previous planning director was in favor of this language as opposed to consistent with. And I mean, I, I think that her understanding of the term sort of agrees with Commissioner Dan's understanding is sort of sort of more generally informs rather than absolutely consistent with so that that's good enough I mean, I'll sit on that one. And then I am completely sympathetic to we did this a long time ago and I forgot because I feel that way about so many sections of this. I'm like, Commissioner Vialante what was it what did I mean here. Okay, actually that was it. That was it for questions so I made it. I can just note, John record, just wanted to let the Commission know that he's available for any questions regarding water and sewer service or other related questions will be available until 230 today for questions and then he'll need to leave so Can I ask my own question then that I realize I didn't ask I'm so sorry to the Commission can ask one real quick. So in, in the, in the parks and rec open space, there's a can, there's a PPF board one K it says continue monitoring seawater intrusion in the Pajaro Valley so called area and along the north coast. I was just a little confused because the Pajaro Valley is not one of our planning areas, and the seawater intrusion is reserved in the mid county basin area which is like the San Andreas and the Selva planning area and I just wasn't sure what area was meant there and I was assured. If someone can, if maybe John can mention what was meant by that particular part of the general plan because I didn't. That's not the area I would have described it as maybe it's just, I don't know the so called area means. I don't think that policy changed I'm not aware of writing any new policies about that any was that the same as it's been in the general plan. I would need to look. I'm not sure if that's unless any of my other. Our other team members have insights on the policy but I would need to check and see if that was a change or not. That's fine. It seems like it's referring to the groundwater areas as opposed to the planning areas. Pajaro Valley mid county and also north coast all all places where we have seen some evidence of seawater intrusion. Okay, it describes it as the so called area. Okay, maybe we could look at the wording. Yeah, I mean we could change that to mid county then it would be consistent with the mid county groundwater basin. And can you read me the name, the number of that policy again. Yeah, ppf or got one K has a lcp next to it. Yeah. I wanted to mention that Rachel fatui has also been promoted and there was a question earlier that Matt Machado thought Rachel might want to weigh in on I don't know if the commissions still wanted to hear from Rachel but she's with us as well. I think it was, I think it was Rachel we were talking about the minimum design storm, or the, I think it was minimum use the word and I responded that we use the 25 year storm event, and there needed to be clarification to reference minimum design storm standards. Is it the 25 year was I correct or am I wrong. So the minimum required for a pie is always typically 10 years. That's when it's more restricted than we require five years. But the typical most most locations we require 10 years from within the pie. And we allow the county design here allows some flow to go in the street if it doesn't do I mean if it is contained within the traffic lane. So we allow safe conveyance within the road or other adjacent to the road conveyances up to 25 years from this is county wide and then we have larger watershed it can go to 100 years from the minimum. Yes, as Matt said is 25 years from and that 25 years from can be conveyed in the fight as well as safety. And that's for flood control when we talk about minimum storm that there are issues if it's mitigations then we go for smaller storms that's different than conveyance. Thank you. I'm sorry I didn't hear the question one Allison I was away from my desk and I came back and Matt was talking. Okay, so I didn't hear your question Allison but I'm just warming up one month with Matt said. I appreciate it it just is broadly worded so I appreciate that fine. Great. All right. Well thank you everyone. We'll go ahead and take a 30 minute lunch break at this time and come back at 105 and keep going with our questions. So thank you so much and we'll see you all in a little bit. Thanks. Great.