►
From YouTube: Gov Hol CC 20210622 Special
Description
Hollister City Council Special Meeting June 22, 2021
C
E
Council
member
perez
here
council
member
burns
here
vice
mayor
resundus
here,
mayor
velasquez
city
manager,
miller
here,
police
chief
reynolds.
So
here
the
agenda
for
the
city
of
hollister
city
council,
special
meeting
of
june
22
2021
was
posted
on
the
bulletin
board
on
june
16
2021
at
3
45
pm
per
government
code,
section
54956.
F
A1.
Thank
you,
mr
mayor
members
of
the
city
council
good
evening.
Abraham
prado
development
services,
department,
planning
manager
and
interim
director
this
evening
is
a
really
special
meeting,
not
not
only
because
it's
a
special
city
council
meeting
it's
a
long
time
in
the
making
in
regards
to
recommending
policy
recommendations
to
the
city
council.
A
little
bit
of
background
february
of
2020,
the
city
council
adopted
the
a
a
proposal.
F
F
We
actually
had
one
particular
workshop,
all
in
spanish
in
may,
and
we
had
over
40
people
in
the
count
of
attendance
virtually
which
was
amazing.
It
was
great,
and
so
I
do
want
to
say
that
the
seven
workshops,
the
a
general
plan
advisory
committee
meetings
and
the
planning
commission
meetings
that
we've
had
thus
far
are
all
in
our
website.
F
We
are
very
grateful
with
with
him
and
we
are-
and
so
with
that
and
just
want
to
say
anybody
all-
that
information
is
available
for
any
member
of
the
public
for
the
council,
it's
all
under
hofstra2040.org,
under
the
public
engagement
icon,
and
with
that
we
would
like
to
present
to
you
this
evening.
Please
works
and
we
have
david
earley
and
we
have
kerry
stone.
Who
will
be
providing
a
presentation
regarding
the
policy
recommendations
this
evening.
That
being
said,
david.
G
Thank
you
very
much
for
having
me
this
evening.
Again,
I'm
david
earley
with
place
works,
and
I
will
be
making
a
presentation
this
evening.
I
think
you
all
and
your
staff
have
the
ability
to
show
that
presentation
for
us,
so
I'll
wait
for
that
to
come
up
and
while
I'm
waiting,
let
me
just
explain
that
we
are
here
this
evening
to
give
you
an
overview
of
the
work.
That's
been
done
by
the
general
plan
advisory
committee,
which
abraham
just
explained
to
you
and
we're
going
to
be
focusing
in
on
two
items
this
evening.
G
One
is
the
draft
vision
and
values,
and
I
will
take
that
next
slide.
That's
great
we're
going
to
be.
I
I'm
going
to
give
you
a
brief
overview
of
some
work,
we're
actually
doing
on
the
zoning
and
a
brief
overview
of
the
general
plan
update
overall
and
then
we're
going
to
be
focusing
on
the
two
items
that
are
the
third
and
fourth
items
on
this
slide:
the
general
plan,
vision
and
values
and
the
gpac's
recommendations
regarding
policies.
So
those
those
last
two
items
will
take
the
majority
of
the
evening.
G
F
No,
that's
that's
perfect
david!
Thank
you
for
that
and
that
yeah.
That
was
a
request
that
we've
been
talking
with
with
the
city
council
in
the
past,
and
thank
you
for
helping
us
and
the
preparation
of
that
adoption,
or
that
that
entertainment
district
to
bring
before
the
council
for
consideration
and
adoption
in
the
fall.
G
C
Thank
you.
No,
I
I
think
it
is
important
that
the
other
two
council
members
that
were
not
involved
in
the
gpac
meetings
understand
or
have
participation
in
the
conversation
about
an
entertainment
zone
in
our
downtown
area,
because
I
think
it
is
going
to
play
a
very
important
role
to
the
future
of
the
restaurants
and
other
businesses
in
downtown.
So
if
they
have
any
questions,
I'd
I'd
like
to
hear
what
questions
they
may
have
and
then
we
can
have
a
brief
discussion
about
the
the
concept
of
the
entertainment
zone.
D
C
H
C
Yeah
something
comes
to
mind:
please
bring
it
up
and
again,
I
think
the
in
the
future.
The
downtown
entertainment
zone
is
really
what's
gonna,
encourage
more
restaurants
to
open
in
our
downtown,
which
would
lead
to
more
of
our
own
public
staying
here
in
our
own
community
to
enjoy
dining
and
entertainment.
So
it's
it's
exciting
we're
getting
there.
G
Great
all
right
well,
thank
you
very
much
for
that,
and
we
will
be
continuing
to
work
with
your
staff
on
this
and
try
and
make
sure
that
it
reflects
some
of
the
discussions
that
have
already
occurred,
I'll
go
on
then,
if
I
could
have
the
next
slide,
so
I'm
gonna
jump
in
now
and
talk
about
the
general
plan.
Overall,
I've
got
something
on
the
order
I
think
of
eight
or
ten
slides
here.
I'm
going
to
then
present
that
and
then
stop
for
any
questions
you
may
have.
G
But
this
first
part
is
not
an
action
or
direction
item.
It's
really
just
to
make
sure
that
we
all
have
the
same
background
about
the
general
plan.
You
may
all
be
completely
familiar
with
this
and
and
have
no
questions
and
that'll
be
fine
too,
and
then
we'll
go
into
the
two
reporting
pieces
where
we
do
want
to
confirm
our
overall
direction.
So
here
in
terms
of
the
general
plan,
what
is
a
general
plan?
G
I
think
you
probably
do
all
know
that
the
general
plan
is
one
of
the
only
actually
required
planning
documents
for
local
jurisdictions
in
the
state
of
california
and
by
state
law.
Every
city
and
every
county
has
to
have
a
general
plan,
and
it's
what
the
courts
have
called
the
blueprint
for
growth
and
development
they've
also
referred
to
it
as
the
constitution
for
development
in
a
given
jurisdiction.
G
G
G
There's
a
land
use
and
community
design
element,
land
use
being
one
of
the
requirements,
a
required
circulation
element,
a
housing
element,
a
natural
resources
and
conservation
element
in
the
law
that
one's
referred
to
as
the
conservation
element,
there's
an
open
space
element
which,
in
your
case
is
called
open
space
and
agriculture
and
there's
one
element
that
is
called
health
and
safety
in
your
element
and
that
combines
legally
mandated
elements
about
safety
and
another
one
about
noise.
So
those
are
those
six
chapters
make
up
the
seven
elements
that
are
required
under
state
law.
G
This
is
a
new
requirement
under
state
law,
but
it's
only
required
in
certain
cities
that
meet
certain
thresholds.
Hollister
doesn't
actually
meet
that
legal
threshold,
but
I
think
it's
clear
that
environmental
justice
is
critical
to
many
people
in
hollister
and
for
that
reason
we've
been
asked
to
include
an
environmental
justice
element
as
well,
so
we're
going
to
be
adding
those
three
new
elements,
as
well
as
updating
the
existing
seven
elements
to
create
an
updated
general
plan.
I
do
want
to
say
here
before
I
go
on
that.
G
I
I
believe
that
your
existing
general
plan,
which
was
prepared
by
another
company,
was
a
ver,
is
and
was
a
very
good
document.
It's
very
comprehensive:
it
has
a
lot
of
great
information
in
it.
It
does
not
require
a
thorough
overhaul.
It
doesn't
require
us
to
throw
it
out
and
start
over
by
any
means.
You've
got
a
really
good
document
in
place,
but
we
will
be
making
both
legally
mandated
changes
as
well
as
updating
it
to
reflect
existing
conditions
within
the
city.
G
Next
slide,
we've
identified
a
series
of
seven
goals
for
this
general
plan.
Update
process,
first
and
foremost,
as
abraham
already
mentioned,
is
to
engage
a
broad
spectrum
of
the
community.
That,
of
course,
has
been
a
challenge
with
covid
going
on,
but
I
think,
as
abraham
done
has
said,
that
we've
done
a
very
good
job
of
that.
G
We've
also
had
a
goal
to
establish
the
community's
vision
for
hollister
in
2040
you'll
be
hearing
about
that
more
tonight,
and
then
within
that
vision,
we've
also
heard
that
you
want
to
maintain
hollister's
small
town
agricultural
character
that
you
want
to
match,
manage
growth
consistent
with
the
city's
overall
goals.
You
want
to
ensure
high
quality
development
support
economic
development
and,
of
course,
you
also
want
to
respond
to
state
mandates
and
general
plan
guidelines,
particularly
those
that
have
arisen
since
the
adoption
in
2005.
G
So
the
project
actually
has
several
components
that
go
beyond
just
the
general
plan
update
but
which
are
all
related
to
the
general
plan
update
we're
updating
the
general
plan
itself,
we're
also
working
with
our
traffic
engineers
and
as
well
as
city
staff,
to
implement
a
state
law
called
senate
bill.
743.
G
Many
of
you
are
probably
familiar
with
it.
It
has
required
that
all
environmental
review
projects
stop
using
level
of
service
or
other
delay-based
measurements
when
they
go
to
measure
traffic
and
instead
to
look
at
vehicle
miles,
travel
and
that's
a
very
complicated
technical
issue.
But
we've
got
experts
with
kimberly
horn
on
board
to
work
on
that.
Frederick
venter
from
kinley
horn
is
here
tonight.
We're
not
going
to
be
speaking
about
that
tonight,
but
that
sp
743
implementation
for
vehicle
miles.
Traveled
measurement
is
a
very
important
part
of
the
process
as
well.
G
We're
also
preparing
a
climate
action
plan
which
will
address
climate
change
and
reductions
in
greenhouse
gases
and
how
the
city
will
respond
to
issues
of
climate
and
resiliency,
we're
preparing
a
hazard
mitigation
plan
to
look
at
issues
like
flooding
and
earthquakes
and
wildfires,
and
we
will
be
preparing
an
environmental
impact
report
as
managed
by
state
law
that
covers
all
of
those
items.
The
general
plan
update
the
sb
743
implementation,
the
claimant
action
plan
and
the
hazard
mitigation
plan.
G
All
of
those
will
be
covered
in
a
single
eir,
and
then
we
will
also
be
preparing
what's
called
a
municipal
service
review,
which
is
a
document
required
by
the
local
area
formation,
a
local
agency
formation,
commission
or
lafco,
and
the
lafco
uses
that
to
consider
future
annexations
to
the
city.
So
once
we
have
a
sense
of
what
annexations
the
city
wants
to
make
we'll
be
doing
a
municipal
service
review
to
cover
those
annexations
so
that
lafco
can
act
on
them
in
the
future.
G
G
So
that's
an
area
that
the
city
has
in
the
past
considered
providing
urban
services,
even
though
it's
larger
than
the
sphere
and
then
even
larger
than
that
we
have
what
we
call
the
planning
area,
which
is
the
purple
dashed
line
that
you
see
surrounding
the
largest
area.
Here.
That's
an
area,
that's
called
out
in-state
law
as
one
that
the
city
should
shouldn't
establish
and
it's
the
area
where
the
cities
in
the
city's
own
judgment
that
planning
projects
that
occur
in
that
area
might
have
an
effect
on
the
city.
G
So
that's
not
an
area
that
the
city
would
annex.
It's
sort
of
by
definition,
wants
to
be
larger
than
that.
It's
a
statement
that,
if
projects
even
were
to
occur
under
county
auspices
in
this
area,
that
the
city
recognizes
them
as
having
a
potential
effect
on
the
city
and
therefore
might
comment
on
them
or
might
be
concerned
about
thinking
about
planning
in
this
area,
even
though
the
city
may
never
develop
in
it
as
itself.
G
So
that's
that
purple
area
and
that's
our
larger
planning
area
for
this
general
plan
update
next
slide
and
abraham
already
mentioned
that
we've
had
quite
a
number
of
opportunities
for
public
involvement
in
this
process
and
we're
a
little
over
half
done
now
and
there
have
been
a
lot
of
meetings
and
workshops.
We
had
scheduled
a
total
of
eight
workshops
and
other
events
we've
held
most
of
those
now
remotely,
but
we
will
be
holding
a
few
more
in
person.
We've
had
robust
online
activities
through
our
website.
G
G
Next
slide.
We
do
also
have
a
very
robust
website
that
I
think
all
of
you
are
familiar
with.
It
is
at
hollister2040
hollister2040.org,
I'm
sure
you've
been
there
and
seen
all
the
information
there
and
you
can
be
checking
it
regularly
to
get
input
to
get
updates
about
the
process,
as
abraham
already
mentioned.
It
has
all
of
the
background
documents
on
it.
It
has
records
of
all
of
the
meetings
it
has
videos
of
the
meetings,
particularly
as
they've,
occurred
on
zoom,
and
it
has
all
the
background
reports
and
documents
as
well.
G
G
So
here's
our
schedule
and
process
we
are
now
at
the
point
of
have
been
very
close
to
completing
the
top
three
of
these
items.
Tonight's
meeting
represents
the
end
of
these
three
items
in
which
we've
documented
baseline
conditions
and
future
trends
drafted
a
vision
and
dr
gone
through
a
series
of
policy
assessments
and
design
alternatives.
We
plan
to
have
you
review
those
this
evening
and
really
our
goal
this
evening
is
to
make
sure
that
all
four
of
you
believe
that
we
are
on
the
right
track.
G
G
We
are
going
to
be
drafting
the
general
plan
itself,
as
well
as
the
other
work
products
I
mentioned,
as
well
as
the
environmental
impact
report,
and
we
anticipate
that
all
three
of
those
all
all
those
documents
will
be
available
in
fall
of
2021
so
for
public
review.
The
public
review
process
will
then
begin
in
the
fall
and
will
actually
last
about
nine
months
all
the
way
into
next
summer,
and
we
anticipate
adoption
of
the
general
plan
and
the
other
documents
after
extensive
public
review
sometime
next
summer
of
2022..
G
I
did
want
to
mention
just
briefly
the
gpac,
I'm
sure
you're
all
very
familiar
with
it,
but
that
could
that
committee
does
have
seven
members
with
two
main
functions
both
of
equal
importance,
one
to
review
and
make
recommendations
to
the
planning.
Commission.
Council
on
the
work
products
that
form
the
content
of
the
general
plan
update,
we've
had
great
input
from
your
two
council
members
from
the
two
planning
commissioners
and
now
the
three
members
of
the
public
who
are
on
the
gpac
and
they
really
have
given
us
great
guidance
on
those
work.
G
Okay,
so
that's
the
end
of
my
presentation,
part
one.
I
do
want
to
stop
here
and
just
ask
if
there's
any
information
or
questions
that
council
members
have
and
from
here
I
am
going
to
go
forward
and
talk
about
first,
the
draft
vision
statement
and
then
I'm
getting
your
guidance
on
that
and
then
we'll
go
into
the
even
bigger
bulk
of
the
work
on
the
policy
issues.
G
G
So
what
is
the
vision
statement?
Well,
it's
a
statement.
That's
intended
to
describe
the
future
of
hollister
as
you,
you
and
the
community
as
a
whole
would
like
hollister
to
be
in
2040.,
and
I
mentioned
already
that
your
current
general
plan
is
really
a
great
document.
It
has
pretty
much
everything
a
general
plan
should
have,
but
one
thing
that
it
doesn't
have
and
it's
not
required
by
law,
but
it's
something
that
I
at
least
as
a
general
plan
practitioner
feel,
is
really
important
to
have.
G
It
doesn't
have
a
single
statement
about
what
hollister
is
hoping
that
it
will
be
under
that
general
plan.
One
can
sort
of
feel
it
out
from
reading
the
contents
of
the
general
plan,
but
the
general
plan,
of
course,
is
a
very
lengthy
document
with
a
lot
of
policies
in
it,
and
it
can
be
hard,
I
think,
for
lay
people
in
particular
to
look
at
the
general
plan
and
it's
you
know
an
inch
thick
document
and
really
understand
exactly
what
the
city
is
hoping
for.
So
we're.
G
What
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
to
create
a
one
to
two
page
statement
that
sets
the
overall
tone
of
what
the
city
is
trying
to
be
through
this
entire
general
plan.
So
this
vision
statement
expresses
shared
community
values.
It
relates
to
all
the
topics
that
are
covered
in
the
general
plan
and
it
guides
the
preparation
of
the
general
plan,
goals
and
policies,
and
you
can
see
in
this
diagram
that
in
that
sense
the
vision
statement
sits
at
the
very
top.
G
The
goals
flow
from
that
vision
statement
and
then
individual
policies
and
actions
flow
from
the
goals
so
I'll
give
an
example
of
that
in
the
next
slide,
and
so
here's
an
example
that
the
vision
statement-
and,
in
fact
it
does
have
a
statement
very
much
like
this.
It
could
have
a
statement
in
it
that
says
something
like
residents
can
both
live
and
work
in
hollister.
G
So
that
would
be
a
sentence
within
the
vision
statement
within
that,
then
from
that
might
be
a
goal
articulated
in
the
general
plan,
which
is
the
desired
outcome
of
increasing
local
jobs.
So
that
would
be
articulated
as
a
goal
in
the
goal
section
of
the
general
plan,
and
then
you
might
have
both
policies
and
actions
to
support
that
goal.
A
policy,
for
example,
might
be
to
designate
new
land
use
designations
for
community
commercial
uses
at
the
airport.
G
G
Next
slide,
so
to
put
together
the
vision
statement,
we
did
that
over
the
course
of
the
middle
of
2020.
We
held
a
series
of
workshops
in
late
june
and
early
july
of
last
year,
all
online
due
to
the
pandemic.
We
also
had
online
engagement
tools
that
were
available
for
most
of
the
months
of
june
and
july,
and
then
we
drafted
the
g,
the
draft
vision
statement.
G
We
brought
it
to
the
gpac
on
october
6th
and
then
we
did
all
the
work
on
the
policies
through
the
fall
and
the
and
the
spring
of
this
year
did
that
through
the
gpac,
and
we
brought
both
those
documents,
including
the
vision
statement
to
the
planning
commission
on
may
24th,
and
the
planning
commission
then
made
a
few
changes
and
passed
it
on
as
well.
So
that's
the
the
process
that
we've
had
to
develop
this
vision
statement
next
slide
and
the
vision
statement
consists
of
two
main
parts.
G
First,
we
have
a
series
of
values
and
there
are
four
of
those
that,
through
our
work
with
the
community,
it
became
very
clear
that
community
members
really
value
these
four
principles
overall
in
planning
for
the
city
of
hollister.
The
first
of
those
is
equity,
ensuring
that
everyone
is
treated
fairly
and
that
there's
equal
access
to
city
services
and
infrastructure
number
two
is
diversity
that
people
in
hollister
really
respect
the
diverse
cultural,
religious
and
political
backgrounds
within
the
city
and
welcome
and
support
people
of
all
ages,
incomes
and
abilities.
G
So
those
are
the
four
values
that
would
be
included
in
this
vision
statement,
assuming
it's
adopted
with
the
general
plan
and
then,
if
we
can
have
the
next
slide,
we
have
the
actual
written
vision
statement
as
well,
and
this
is
it
it's
an
entirety.
I'm
not
going
to
read
it,
but
you
can
see
from
here
that
it's
it's
actually
relatively
brief.
G
It
goes
on
to
say
that
hollister
wants
to
be
known
as
an
innovation
hub
attracting
businesses
to
the
downtown,
the
industrial
part
in
the
airport
and
providing
lots
of
opportunities
for
high
quality
jobs,
meaning
that
in
the
future,
residents
can
work
local
locally
without
needing
to
spend
a
great
amount
of
time
on,
commute
and
commuting.
The
vision
goes
on
to
talk
about
transportation,
not
only
by
car,
but
also
by
bus,
bicycle
and
on
foot
that
neighborhood
schools,
shops,
jobs,
healthcare
and
other
services
are
all
accessible
by
bikeways
walkways
bus
and
rail
lines.
G
Then
it
talks
about
community
life
and
particularly
the
downtown
public
spaces
and
self-expression
connection
and
well-being.
It
talks
about
public
art
and
it
talks
about
focusing
new
development
in
urban
areas
and
adjacent
to
existing
development,
enhancing
connectedness,
retaining
the
agricultural
areas
around
the
city
and
working
with
the
county
to
and
other
local
agencies
to
ensure
that
growth
is
well
planned,
sustainable
and
provided
with
needed
services
and
resources.
G
Next
slide.
Yes,
so
that's
the
last
slide.
Maybe
we
can
go
back
one
just
to
leave
this
up
on
the
screen
and
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
the
mayor
and
council,
and
what
we're
looking
for
here
this
evening
is
to
confirm
that
we're
headed
here
in
the
right
direction,
with
these
four
values
and
this
vision
statement
to
see
if
you
want
to
make
any
changes
to
it
at
this
time
or
if
you
want
to
direct
us
to
continue
to
move
forward
with
this
vision,
as
it's
articulated
here.
G
G
C
Rail
line
yeah.
We
did
a
study
recently
at
through
cog
to
identify
the
the
viability
of
a
rail
line,
and
that
came
back
saying
it
would
cost
us
about
a
hundred
million
dollars
to
do
that.
Rail
line
community
and
the
there's
a
lot
of
interest
from
the
community
to
use
that
line,
but
still
not
enough
to
fully
support
it
financially.
C
But
that
at
this
point
this
is
a
starting
point
where
we
can
move
forward
seeking
grants
to
start
planning
for
the
rail
line
and
getting
the
rail
line
built.
So
that's
going
to
be
a
part
of
highway,
25,
widening
and
rail,
giving
our
residents
an
opportunity
to
use
either
the
newer
highway
or
rail.
That's.
C
G
C
I
D
H
Thank
you
mayor.
I
as
well
supported
100.
I
was
curious.
However,
I
don't
see
and
I've
read
it
at
least
two
or
three
times
and
it
may
be
in
there,
and
I
may
just
be
missing
it,
but
I
don't
see
where
there's
a
discussion
about
a
safe
community
and
a
commitment
to
our
community's
safety,
whether
it
be
while
traveling
or
well
enjoying
the
amenities
or
their
home
life.
G
That's
a
great
comment:
I
think
it's
true
councilmember
that
it's
not
in
there.
As
I
already
mentioned,
there
is
a
required
safety
element,
we're
also
doing
a
hazard
mitigation
plan,
and
so
we
certainly
are
covering
safety.
But
I
think
it's
an
excellent
observation
and
with
the
council's
direction
we
can
add
that
and
bring
it
back
to
when
we
bring
back
the
entire
general
plan,
we'll
make
sure
that
we've
added,
probably
just
a
sentence
that
does
talk
about
safety
as
well.
H
C
G
G
But
if
you
have
any
questions-
or
you
want
to
make
sure
you
have
all
of
them-
we
can
do
that
also,
but
I
did
want
to
mention
that
they
are
available
to
you
so
to
put
together
these
policy
options,
we
held
a
series
of
community
workshops
again
virtually
in
both
march
and
may
to
in
english
in
march,
and
a
third
one
in
spanish.
That
was
very
well
attended
to
talk
about
policy
issues
in
the
general
plan.
G
So
I
want
to
assure
you,
although
you're
only
having
this
one
meeting
this
evening,
the
gpac
has
vetted
all
of
these
items
in
great
detail
and
they've
already
been
brought
forward
to
the
planning
commission
at
a
study
session
which,
as
I
already
mentioned,
was
held
on
may
24th
next
slide
and
we
covered
a
total
of
24
different
policy
topics.
You
see
them
all
listed
here.
G
I
won't
read
them
all
individually,
but
you
can
see
it's
a
very
broad
list
of
things,
and
this
is
a
list
that
was
developed
through
previous
work
with
the
community
and
with
the
gpac,
where
really
anything
that
community
members
and
gpec
members
felt
was
important
to
talk
about.
We
did
go
ahead
and
talk
about
those
all
those
things
and
you'll
notice
on
here.
One
item
number
12
is
crossed
out.
G
In
addition
to
that,
you'll
notice.
Eight
items
on
this
list
that
are
in
orange
and
those
are
the
ones
that
receive
by
far
the
most
attention
from
the
public,
from
the
gpac
and
from
the
planning
commission,
and
those
are
the
ones
we'll
be
focusing
on
this
evening
and
the
other
15
items
numbered
one.
All
the
way
through
24
are
ones
that
were
very
closely
considered
by
the
by
the
gpac
and
by
the
public.
G
We
had
some
very
robust
discussions
about
them,
but
in
the
end
we
believe,
I
believe
at
least-
and
I
think
staff
concert
concurs,
that
the
work
that's
been
done
is
quite
sound
and
doesn't
necessarily
need
your
review
this
evening.
But
after
you
look
at
the
first
eight
items
that
we're
recommending
for
your
consideration.
G
You
are
certainly
welcome
to
open
up
any
of
those
other
items
and
we're
happy
to
talk
about
them.
I
have
slides
to
go
over
them.
I
won't
be
showing
the
slides
tonight
other
than
about
these
first
eight
items
that
you
see
in
orange,
but
any
other
items
that
you
would
like
to
ask
about
we're
happy
to
talk
about
as
well.
G
So
we
have
the
full
range
here
for
your
discussion,
but
tonight
I'm
going
to
be
talking
about
new
school
funding,
farmland,
mitigation,
sensitive
habitats,
level
of
service
growth
management,
special
planning
areas,
residential
land
use,
designations
and
inclusionary
zoning.
And
when
we're
open
to
any
other
discussion,
you
might
want
to
have
on
the
other
15
items
next
slide.
G
A
new
high
school
might
cost
anywhere
from
40
to
60
million
dollars
to
construct
so
there's
quite
a
shortfall
that
comes
from
those
school
fees
that
are
limited
by
state
law.
So,
therefore,
additional
school
funding
needs
to
be
generated
through
some
sort
of
incentive
or
bond
measure.
So
we've
worked
on
this
particular
item.
Quite
a
bit,
we've
discussed
it
with
the
school
district.
We've
heard
in
significant
comment
from
other
interested
parties
as
well,
and
we
have
put
together
some
language
for
your
consideration.
G
We
can
have
the
next
slide.
The
gpac
did
consider
two,
the
two
options
and
and
the
the
planning
commission
passed
those
on
and
we've
made
some
changes
to.
The
second
one
as
well.
So
first
is
to
grant
additional
density,
flexible
setbacks,
building
heights
and
or
reduced
parking
requirements
for
any
projects
that
voluntarily
provide
additional
school
funding
beyond.
G
It's
very
important
to
note
that
this
does
not
require
development
developers
to
pay
a
fee.
This
just
says
that
the
development
community,
working
with
the
city
in
suggesting
an
annexation
or
redesignation
of
land
needs
to
ensure
that
there
is
adequate
funding
available
for
all
needed
facilities
and
then
that
it's
up,
then
to
the
proponents
of
that
annexation
or
new
land
use
to
voluntarily
figure
out
exactly
how
that
should
occur.
G
The
next
item
is
farmland
mitigation.
The
agricultural
mitigation
strategy
is
required
under
the
california
environmental
quality
act.
The
city
does
already
often
require
agricultural
mitigation
for
development
through
its
eirs,
but
there's
not
a
requirement
within
the
general
plan
to
do
that
today.
G
Typically,
other
cities
have
mitigation
requirements
at
a
one
to
one
or
two
to
one
ratio.
What
we
mean
by
that
is
that
if
one
acre
of
agricultural
land
is
developed,
then
either
one
or
two
acres
of
other
agricultural
land
are
set
aside
through
or
other
contractual
arrangements
to
ensure
that
they
continue
to
work
as
agricultural
and
in
the
future.
G
With
that
in
mind,
the
gpa
passed
on
three
recommendations
and,
based
on
that
discussion,
we
had
about
farmland
mitigation.
We
also
developed
a
fourth
item.
That's
before
you
this
evening.
First
is
to
require
a
two
to
one
ratio
of
agricultural
and
preservation
for
each
acre
of
farmland
being
converted
to
establish
the
city
as
the
agriculture
enforcement
mitigation,
agricultural
mitigation
enforcement
agency
and
assigning
management
responsibilities
to
a
conservation
organization
who
would
manage
the
easements
or
development
rights
that
are
collected
under
this.
G
This
arrangement
number
three
is
to
require
agricultural
mitigation
for
all
lands
classified
as
prime,
unique
or
farmland
of
statewide
importance
and
then
fourth,
the
new
one
is
to
also
develop
a
policy
regarding
agricultural
buffers
in
areas
that
are
projected
to
become
the
interface
between
urban
and
agricultural
uses,
so
that
there
are
buffering
uses
between
ag
and
urban
uses
surrounding
the
city.
So
these
are
the
four
recommendations
regarding
farmland
mitigation
next
slide
for
the
four,
the
third
item,
which
are
sensitive
habitats
in
this
map.
G
We've
developed
two
policies:
the
first
to
require
a
qualified
biologist
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
protective
biological
resources
on
proposed
project
sites
and
then
to
avoid
development
in
areas
with
high
quality
habitat,
which
is
defined
as
areas
with
known
species
occupants,
the
presence
of
breeding
habitat,
a
large
area
of
suitable
habitat
and
the
absence
of
nearby
development.
So
those
would
be
the
requirements
to
make
sure
that
we
do
preserve
those
habitats
that
truly
are
sensitive
and
critical
to
those
two
species,
the
tiger
salamander
and
the
red
lincoln
fraud
next
slide.
G
The
fourth
item
is
level
of
service,
and
I
mentioned
already
that
state
law
now
precludes
you
from
using
level
of
service
as
a
metric
in
your
environmental
impact
reports.
But
level
of
service
as
a
major
of
congestion
remains
very
important
to
members
of
the
public
throughout
the
community.
People
want
to
know
that
they
will
be
able
to
drive
around
the
community
and
drive
in
and
out
of
the
community
and
not
run
into
significant
delays
to
the
extent
possible.
G
G
It's
particularly
complicated
and
difficult
to
maintain
a
high
level
of
service
such
as
see
in
an
area
like
the
downtown,
where
you
actually
want
lots
of
people
to
be
in
the
area
and
because
there's
lots
of
people
in
the
area
they
they
they're
there
with
their
cars,
and
there
may
be
a
little
congestion
and
it's
actually
almost
a
good
thing
to
have
congestion
in
a
place
like
a
downtown,
because
you
want
people
being
there.
You
want
people
coming
in
finding
a
place
to
park,
walking
around
and
enjoying
the
downtown.
G
So
that's
one
recommendation
is
to
to
keep
the
level
of
service
standard
except
not
in
the
downtown
area,
and
then,
if
we
could
have
the
next
slide.
The
gpac
and
planning
commission
did
also
recommend
that
the
industrial
area
have
a
level
of
service
of
d
as
well,
and
that's
the
area
that's
outlined
in
red
on
the
map
that
you
see
before
you.
G
We
looked
at
three
different
development
scenarios.
One
of
those
is
a
what
we
call
a
baseline
scenario,
which
is
comes
from
the
association
of
monterey
bay
area,
governments
or
hamburg.
They
project
about
2000
units
through
the
year
2040,
and
if
you
assume
that
that
development
would
occur
in
those
high
density
and
mixed
use
areas,
you
do
have
capacity
to
accommodate
those
2000
units.
Now
those
would
not
be
single
family
homes,
they
would
be
primarily
higher
density
units,
but
you
could
accommodate
them.
G
If,
however,
you
go
to
a
moderate
development
scenario
or
even
a
more
robust
development
scenario,
and
these
reflect
the
pace
of
development
over
the
previous
recent
years,
you
may
need
additional
acreage,
depending
on
the
development
intensity,
a
moderate
scenario
of
about
4
800
units.
I
might
need
up
to
220
acres
to
accommodate
it,
and
this
robust
development
scenario
which
just
tracks
is,
is
the
same
rate
of
development
as
just
in
the
last
few
years,
when
growth
has,
of
course,
been
quite
broke.
G
G
We
had
extensive
discussions
about
that
with
the
county
and
with
the
local
agency
formation
commission
and
realized
that
government
code
section
56133
as
referenced
here,
actually
stipulates
that
there
are
limitations
on
the
extension
of
sewer
service
out
to
areas
beyond
the
city
limits
service
is
primarily
only
to
be
provided
in
the
soi,
the
sphere
of
influence
and
only
then,
where
annexation
is
expected.
If
the
city
does
not
expect
to
annex
the
property,
it's
not
appropriate
or
legal
to
extend
sewer
service
to
it
and
outside
of
the
soi.
G
There
are
existing
agreements
among
the
city,
the
county,
the
county,
water
district
and
the
sunny
slope
district.
That
suggests
that
the
city
would
provide
sewer
service
in
those
areas
and
those
could
be
a
violation
of
state
law.
So,
with
all
that
background,
let
me
just
talk
about
what
the
the
gpac
and
ultimately,
the
planning
commission
move
forward.
We
can
have
the
next
slide.
G
The
gpac
did
recommend
very
modest
changes
to
the
sphere
of
influence,
and
this
is
particularly
an
addition
in
the
southern
area
near
union
road.
It's
an
addition
of
about
190
acres
and
that's
enough
to
accommodate,
and
then
some
moderate
addition
on
the
north
side
as
well,
this
enough
to
accommodate
that
the
the
moderate
growth
scenario
or
projection
and
to
do
so,
particularly
with
a
strong
reliance
on
multi-family,
mixed
and
mixed
use
projects.
J
G
Should
be
general
plan
policy
that
requires
that
wastewater
service
and
other
services
only
be
extended
to
lands
within
city
limits
or
areas
of
the
sphere
that
are
anticipated
to
be
annexed
by
the
city,
consistent
with
government
code
56133b,
and
also
to
not
renew
the
existing
mou
with
the
with
the
county,
the
the
two
districts
once
that
mou
expires,
which
does
happen
in
the
summer
of
this
year
because
of
concerns
about
its
legal
validity.
So
those
are
the
three
recommendations
in
this
regard
from
the
gpac
next
slide.
G
Right
along
buena
vista
road
with
additional
commercial
and
mixed
use,
uses
and
residential
uses
along
highway,
25,
I'm
going
north
out
of
town
and
then
also
an
extension
of
buena
vista
road
itself,
extending
buena
vista
road,
all
the
way
out
to
highway
156,
and
you
see
that
with
a
little
call
out
and
a
gray
line
in
the
lower
hand
corner
of
the
map.
So
those
are
the
projected
suggested
recommendations
for
land
use
designations
in
that
buena
vista
corridor
area.
G
Next
slide
in
the
meridian
road
area,
the
gpac
recommended
actually
trying
to
maintain
that
area,
largely
with
its
current
character,
which
means
redesignating
some
lands
that
are
currently
designated
for
suburban
development
or
urbanization,
and
changing
those
back
to
what's
called
residential
rural
in
your
general
plan,
so
that
those
can
maintain
the
relatively
large
lot
sizes
that
exist
there
today.
At
the
same
time,
a
meridian
street
would
be
extended
to
go
all
the
way
out
to
fairview.
G
That
does
include
requiring
the
creation
of
a
specific
plan
for
the
entire
development
portion
of
this
area,
establishing
a
policy
to
preserve
some
of
the
visual
elements
of
existing
orchards
in
the
area,
but
to
look
for
development
north
of
union,
road
and
east
of
southside
road.
The
area
south
of
union
and
west
of
southside
would
be
maintained
for
agriculture.
G
So
those
are
three
recommendations
for
those
three
special
study
areas
and
I'll
go
on
now
to
our
last
several
items,
the
next
one,
if
we
could
have
the
next
slide,
is
high
density
residential
development.
Your
existing
general
plan
has
a
single
high
density,
residential
designation
that
actually
spans
quite
a
breath
from
12
to
35
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
what's
been
happening
within
that
designation.
G
Is
the
developers
have
been
generally
developing
at
the
very
low
end
of
that
scale,
which
does
not
necessarily
create
apartments
or
townhouses
and
doesn't
always
fit
the
letter
of
the
law
from
the
state
in
terms
of
accommodating
your
need
for
more
affordable
housing?
The
state
designates
that
20
dwelling
units
per
acre
is
a
minimum
to
meet
what's
considered
the
default
density
for
affordable
units,
and
we
are
recommending
that
you
have
at
least
65
acres
with
the
minimum
designation
of
20
dwelling
units
per
acre
to
make
sure
that
you
do
cover
that
state
mandate.
G
So
what
we're
suggesting
is
that
at
least
65
acres
be
designated
with
the
new
general
plan
designation
that
will
go
from
20
to
35
dwelling
units
per
acre
with
12
to
20
units
per
acre
allowed
on
the
remaining
high-density
residential
sites
within
the
city.
So
if
we
take,
there
are
some
other
issues
as
well.
Let's
go
on
to
the
next
slide.
G
This
map
shows
the
areas
that
the
gpac
recommended
and
the
planning
commission
concurred
should
have
that
higher
designation,
starting
at
20
dwelling
units
per
acre.
You
can
see
them
in
the
dark
red
on
this
map
and
you
can
see
that
they
are
dispersed
throughout
the
city,
which
was
very
important
to
the
gpac
to
make
sure
that
those
new
housing
sites
are
not
all
in
just
one
neighborhood,
but
they
actually
are
throughout
various
locations
of
the
city.
G
Inclusionary
housing
policy
is
one
that
requires
a
percentage
of
any
new
market
rate
housing
projects
to
be
reserved
for
lower
or
moderate
income
households.
This
increases
housing,
affordability,
it
reduces
housing,
segregation
and
it
supports
state
mandated
housing
targets.
It
can,
of
course,
impact
project
feasibility,
because
the
cost
for
those
subsidized
units
needs
generally
is
spread
to
on
the
the
other
units
within
the
within
a
development
project.
G
Your
municipal
code
already
requires
inclusionary
hosing
for
conversions
of
multi-family
rental
units,
but
it
does
not
have
what
you
do
not
currently
have
an
inclusionary
program
for
any
new
construction.
So
we
talked
about
that
extensively
with
the
gpac.
This
was
reviewed
by
the
planning
commission.
If
we
could
have
the
next
slide,
the
gpac
recommended
that
there
be
a
pro
that
you
we
do
create
an
inclusionary
requirement
that
would
require
20
of
units
in
any
given
project
to
be
affordable
for
moderate
low
and
very
low
incomes.
G
For
that
reason,
you
would
need
to
do
a
feasibility
study
as
well
and
ensure
that
you
do
find
that
it's
economically
feasible
to
require
that
level
of
additional
inclusionary
units.
The
gpac
went
on
to
say
that
they
did
not
want
to
allow
alternative
compliance
that
would
apply
to
for
sale
projects.
Only
state
law
does
require
an
inlu
option
for
rental
housing,
inclusionary
programs,
and
this
would
be.
G
Any
project
over
40
units
would
be
required
to
have
at
least
10
percent
of
its
units
as
multi-family
projects
within
the
subdivision
next
slide,
and
so
that
concludes
my
presentation.
As
I
said
at
the
beginning,
I
have
gone
through
the
eight
items
here
that
are
in
orange
on
this
slide
and
I
am
available
to
present
and
answer
questions
about
any
of
the
other
items
that
are
on
this
list
and
what
I
would
suggest
right
now
is,
mr
mayor,
that
we
take
any
clarifying
questions
from
the
council.
G
G
Yeah,
that's
a
great
question
and
the
very
short
answer
is
no.
We
did
not
discuss
that
and
I'll
tell
you
the
major
reason
being
that
the
city
has
very
little
oversight
over
exactly
where
schools
are
located.
Generally
speaking,
school
districts
acquire
property
either
through
a
purchase
or
often
through
a
donation
of
land
or
land
sold
at
a
at
a
very
strong
discount.
G
A
developer
might
dedicate
such
land
in
order
to
make
sure
that
there
are
adequate
schools
near
or
within
the
projects
that
they're,
proposing
or
hoping
to
build,
and
the
city
can't
really
tell
the
school
district
where
to
build
those
schools.
So
while
we
could
certainly
at
your
direction,
we
could
try
and
put
in
some
general
guidance
into
the
general
plan
about
school
locations.
It
really
is
an
issue,
that's
strictly
up
to
the
school
districts,
to
make
decisions
about
where
they
place
their
schools.
G
I
will
point
out
that
that
the
construction
of
a
new
school
is
a
project
under
sequa,
so
it
does
have
to
be
reviewed
through
either
a
negative
declaration
or
a
full
environmental
impact
report.
And
that
would
be
a
time
that
any
conflicts
with
agricultural
operations,
and
particularly
with
aerial
spraying,
would
would
be
considered.
H
Thank
you.
With
regard
to
the
level
of
service,
I
noted
the
the
roadways
that
were
discussed
and
I'm
wondering
if,
if
it
would
be
wise
to
factor
in
in
the
future
growth
a
conversation
about
the
level
of
services
that
relates
to
fairview
as
well
as
union
avenue,
because
fairview
is
becoming
quite
a
busy
road
and
my
anticipation
is
it's
only
going
to
continue
to
become
busier
as
we
continue
to
build
out.
G
That's
a
great
question:
I
I
am
fortunate
that
we
have
frederick
venter
here
from
kimberly
horn
who's,
our
traffic
engineer,
and
maybe
he
can
be
recognized.
If
that's
the
word
and
allowed
to
speak
on
this
subject,
I
think
the
question
you're
asking
is
whether
it's
realistic
to
assume
that
fairview
and
union
would
continue
to
meet
level
of
service
c
or
whether
they
also
need
an
alternative
standard,
frederick,
correct.
You
want
to
unmute
yourself
and
speak
to
that.
K
Thank
you.
Can
everybody
hear
me?
Yes,
yep,
so
so?
Union
road
and
failure
are
definitely
arterial
street
service
city
and
a
bigger
picture
right
getting
in
and
out
of
the
city
and
getting
around.
So
you
know
as
we
develop
the
future
general
plan,
roadway
and
circulation
system.
You
know
we
we
have,
through
the
level
of
service
recommendations,
made
the
finding
that
we
should
maintain
some
levels
of
service
on
certain
industries,
and
we
will
surely
endeavor
in
maintaining
levels
of
service
on
these
arterials.
G
K
That's
correct,
yeah,
and
if,
if
we
do
get
to
a
point
where
level
of
service
is
not
feasible,
we
will
report
back
right
and
then
maybe
we
can.
You
know
if
it
needs
to
be.
We
get
to
a
point
where
the
intersection
could
potentially
get
so
big
that
maintaining
a
level
of
service
here
is
just
not
feasible
anymore
right,
but
we
will
report
back
on
that.
H
Thank
you
with
with
regards
to
the
ex
the
conversation
on
housing
was.
Was
it
taken
into
account
in
consideration
the
accessory
dwelling
units
as
we
build
out?
I
know
that
in
some
instances
there
have
been
in-law
quarters
that
have
been
built
in
the
recent
past
20
years
over
near
what
was
our
target
store
and
our
kind
of
in
that
area,
targeting
walmart
and
and
again
was
that
was
that
taken
into
account
in
consideration.
I
know
that
there's
already
a
lot
of
provisions
that
allow
for
it.
K
K
It's
usually
based
on
densities
and
densities,
will
be
confirmed
or
basically
translated
into
number
of
units,
and
the
units
is
what
we'll
use
in
the
individual
generation
to
then
assess
the
traffic
that
will
go
on
to
the
network.
So
david.
Is
that
correct
from
my
side?
Yeah?
Yes,
that's
absolutely.
G
H
Thank
you
and
I
guess
my
final
question
may
in
fact
actually
be
for
the
city
manager
and-
and
I
heard
you
say
that
the
recommendation
is
that
we
do
not
renew
a
an
mou
that
is
currently
in
place
and
and
it's
going
to
expire
in
some
time
this
summer,
and
so
my
have,
we
already
notified
those
folks
or
have
we.
I
presume
that
this
isn't
the
first
time
they're
going
to
be
hearing
about
this
and
and
are
there
any
sounds
like
there's
a
sound
rationale
not
to,
but
are
there
any
consequences?
B
H
I
G
I
G
G
I've
worked
on
them
extensively
in
butte
county
and
in
chico,
in
davis
and
yolo
county
in
tracy
in
san
joaquin
county,
and
what
you
find
is
that
that
there's
the
issue
that
you
just
mentioned,
council
member,
which
is
that
if
you
establish
a
buffer
and
then
there's
pressure
for
development
on
the
outside
of
the
buffer,
then
you
have,
you
may
need
another
buffer
and
you
may
end
up
with
a
buffer
that
doesn't
have
much
utility
to
it.
If
it's
then
between
two
urbanized
areas.
G
So
that's
one
issue
and
also
there's
a
question
of
what
do
you
actually
do
in
that
buffer?
You
presumably
the
whole
point.
Is
it
doesn't
have
agriculture,
it
doesn't
have
urban
uses
and
presumably
it
doesn't
have
agricultural
uses
either
because
you're
trying
to
buffer
them
from
each
other,
and
so
it
can
be
complicated
to
think
about
about
what
can
you
actually
do
there?
G
Some
good
solutions
to
all
that
number
one
are
that
you
really
do
want
to
make
a
commitment
to
thinking
of
a
certain
area,
as
the
edge
of
your
ultimate
urbanization
and
the
the
the
existence
of
the
buffer
itself
really
makes
a
difference
there.
Other
things
that
can
make
a
difference
are
acquiring
the
development
rights
using
your
agricultural
mitigation
fees
for
the
agricultural
land,
immediately
adjacent
to
the
buffer
area,
so
that
that
land
is
preserved
as
agricultural
in
perpetuity
and
some
communities
also
consider
an
urban
limit
line
or
an
urban
growth
boundary.
G
Sometimes
that's
adopted
by
the
council,
sometimes
adopted
by
a
vote
of
the
people
that
designates
a
certain
area
beyond
which
the
city
will
not
annex
or
develop.
In
your
case,
it's
also
further
complicated
by
the
fact
that
san
benito
county
has
a
long
history
of
urban
development.
For
example,
butte,
county
and
yolo
county
are
two
where
the
counties
don't
really
allow
any
significant
urbanization
near
the
city
boundaries,
and
so
in
those
cases,
if
the
cities
don't
develop,
then
no
one
does.
G
In
your
case,
it
could
be
that,
although
you
would
limit
development
and
you
would
have
a
buffer-
it's
conceivable-
that
the
county
might
do
development
beyond
that
buffer.
So
that's
the
question
of
city.
County
coordination
becomes
very
important
as
well.
So
I
would
encourage
that
you
to
direct
answer
your
question.
I
Thank
you,
I
think
that's
important
and
I'm
hoping
that
we
can
prioritize
that
because
I
just
feel
like.
If
we
don't
address
this
now,
then
it
could
be
a
huge
problem.
It
doesn't
seem
like
it's
clearly
defined
and
I
think
we
need
to
essentially
like
lock
it
in
and
ensure
that
we
protect
those
buffer
areas
right.
G
If
we
can,
if
I
may,
I
would
say
that
that's
probably
too
big
a
lift
if
you
will
for
to
to
set
one
through
this
general
plan
process,
but
with
your
direction.
We
could
have
an
action
in
the
general
plan
that,
oh
once,
the
general
plan
is
adopted
over
the
next
few
years.
The
city
might
have
a
project
to
try
and
establish
a
consensus.
Urban
growth
boundary
for
the
city.
I
G
Yeah,
I
that's
a
great
question
also.
I
I
I'm
not
sure
that
there's
language
that
we
would
put
in
if
you
can
go.
Let
me
think
if
we
go
forward,
I
think
about
two
slides
just
to
have
that
language
up
there
who's
ever
running
the
slides.
Can
you
move
forward
first
one
and
make
sure
we're
going
in
the
right
direction?
G
So
presumably
a
qualified
biologist
doesn't
do
those
things,
it's
very
difficult
to
completely
guard
against
them.
Just
you
know
it's
like
an
accountant
if
an
accountant,
embezzles
money,
what
do
you
do?
The
one
thing
that
you
can
do
is
ensure
that
any
work
by
your
qualified
biologist
is
also
peer,
reviewed
by
another
biologist
to
ensure
that
they
have
the
same
findings
and
that
they
believe
that
this
is
both
a
qualified
individual
and
that
that
that
person's
findings
are
substantiated.
G
G
B
D
G
I
can
I
can
speak
to
that
and
steph
may
want
to
as
well.
I
want
to
be
clear:
it's
not
about
annexing.
We
could
go
forward
a
few
slides
and
we'll
put
the
language
up
there,
which
may
help
to
track
this.
Let's
go
forward
I'll.
Tell
you
when
to
stop
it's
that
was
too
far.
Sorry
sorry
go
back
about
three
backwards
here.
G
This
one
there
we
go
so
what
we're
referring
to
here
is
government
code,
section
56133,
which
is
within
the
laws
that
are
about
annexations,
but
within
those
laws
about
annexations
are.
Is
this
one
government
code
section
that
talks
about
extension
of
services
without
annexation
and
what
the
law
says
is
that
cities
that
provide
services
may
only
provide
services
outside
their
city
limits
under
two
circumstances?
G
The
first
of
those
circum-
and
this
is
where
there
has
perhaps
been
some
service
provision
that
should
not
have
occurred
in
the
past
number.
One
is
that
if
you're
inside
outside
the
city
limit,
but
inside
the
sphere
of
influence,
you
can
only
provide
services
in
areas
where
you
expect
to
annex
in
the
future.
The
term
expect
is
not
defined.
G
The
term
future
is
not
defined,
but
you
you
should
be
making
a
finding
to
provide
service
outside
the
city
limits,
but
inside
the
sphere
you
should
be
making
a
finding
that
future
annexation
is
expected,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
was
always
the
case,
because
in
fact
these
development
projects
occurred
under
county
auspices
and
have
remained
under
county
auspices,
and
I
don't
think
that
there
was
discussion
about
the
city
annexing
them
in
the
future.
So
you
would
need
to
find
that
once
the
once
the
county
does
that
development
that
you
are
planning
to
annex
it.
G
That
would
be
the
condition
under
the
law
for
extension
of
services
inside
the
sphere
outside
the
sphere.
It's
an
even
more
restrictive
situation,
which
is
that
you
are
not
allowed
to
extend
services
like
sewer
outside
of
the
sphere
unless
you
are
addressing
an
immediate
or
pending
health
and
safety
threat.
So
an
example
of
that
which
I
think
you're
all
familiar
with,
is
that
the
city
of
san
juan
bautista,
which
is
a
separate,
incorporated
city.
Obviously
outside
your
own
sphere,
they
have
a
documented,
immediate
public
health
and
safety
threat.
G
That's
been
pointed
out
by
state
and
federal
regulators.
The
city
of
san
juan
does
have
to
do
something
to
address
that
issue,
and
the
city
of
hollister
has
said
that
it's
going
to
consider
extending
sewer
service
to
that
city
to
address
that
threat
and
that's
different,
though
from
a
piece
of
agricultural
land.
That's
somewhat
close
to
the
city
of
hollister,
which
obviously
does
not
have
to
be
developed,
there's
not
a
threat
created
by
the
agricultural
use
of
that
land.
G
If
it
were
to
stay
undeveloped,
there
would
be
no
issue
and
the
city
has
extended
sewer
service.
Nonetheless,
to
some
of
those
parcels
outside
of
the
city
limits
where
county
development
was
proposed
and
again,
it's
not
completely
clear
whether
that
extension
of
services
was
with
in
accordance
with
government
code,
section
56133
there
have
been
no.
I
want
to
state
clearly
because
it
sounds
like
there
was
confusion.
G
There
have
been
no
annexations
that
we
believe
were
in
violation
of
law
and
in
fact,
if
any
of
those
lands,
whether
inside
or
outside
the
soi,
if
they
had
been
annexed
before
providing
service,
that
would
have
addressed
the
problem,
and
that
would
be
a
different
way
to
address
this
issue.
Rather
than
deciding
not
to
extend
service
out
to
those
areas,
you
could
decide
to
incorporate
those
areas
and
then
you
would
be
able
to
extend
services
to
them.
D
D
C
G
D
F
Development
and
so
forth-
yes,
yes,
so
that
that
would
also
be
a
part
of
housing
element
as
well,
where
we
can
eventually
come
this
the
housing
element.
Currently
we
have
a
certified
housing
element
within
within
our
general
plan.
So
therefore,
it
is
not
being
considered
with
this
general
plan
update,
but
that
is
also
going
to
be
coming
up
for
discussion
of
very
shortly,
where
we
will
start
our
update
of
our
housing
element
and
we
can
certainly
implement
requirements
for
solar
and
energy
alternatives
for
that.
G
F
C
C
This
was
discovered
about
three
three
years
ago,
four
years
ago,
when
there
was
a
proposed
development
in
the
county,
and
the
question
was
for
the
city
to
provide
sewer.
I'd
pointed
out
it's
not
in
the
city,
it's
so
far
away
from
the
city
that
it
would
be
a
big
mistake,
and
after
some
research
was
done,
it
was
noted
that
it
would
basically
be
a
violation
of
the
law
to
provide
services
to
that
area.
C
Unfortunately,
it
was
passed
anyways,
and
this
is
kind
of
one
of
the
conversations
about
why
it's
so
important
to
do
this
updated
document
and
be
very
clear
about
it,
because
what
was
used
was
basically
a
loophole
to
get
around
the
law,
and
but
it
was
very
clear
to
everybody
that
if
somebody
challenged
it,
it
would
fail
and
it
would
be
ruled
against
them.
So
it's.
This
is
why
this
is
so
important.
C
So
we
don't
have
those
issues
happen
to
us
again
in
the
future
of
our
community,
because
it
really
does
have
a
negative
impact
to
us.
I
have
a
few
questions.
You
can
help
help
me
with
the
conversation
about
the
schools,
the
fees
we
had,
two
options
that
we
talked
about,
and
I
know
when
we
had
these
conversations.
G
G
G
Too
far
that
one
you'll
see
number
two
says
require
the
preference
of
a
specific
plan
financing
plan.
Just
recently
we
had
a
development
agreement
and
it
could
certainly
include
or
establishment
of
a
cfd,
a
community
facilities,
district
or
other
similar
document
as
a
precondition
for
annexation
or
redesignation.
So
this
would
be
where
a
cfd
would
fit.
I
would
characterize
it
as
an
other
similar
document,
but
I
think
it
would
be
fine
to
add
here
a
cfd
as
another,
clearly
articulated
option
as
one
of
the
ways
that
that
these
issues
could
be
addressed.
C
Thank
you.
I
think
this
is
probably
one
of
the
biggest
items
we
have
next
to
the
the
road
issue.
Our
schools
are
being
impacted.
I
I
was
lucky
enough
to
go
to
the
ribbon
cutting
today
at
one
of
the
new
schools,
but
I
can
I
want
to
give
everybody
an
update
on
these
numbers,
because
I
heard
you
mentioned
the
cost
of
school.
This
is
a
k-8
and
that
school
is
about
50
million
dollars
and
the
amount
of
money
collected
from
impact
fees
was
about
13
million.
C
So
it's
very
important
that
we
get
the
answer
to
this,
and
hopefully
we
can
work
with
the
developers
to
understand
the
need
for
the
cfd.
The
other
question
I
had
for
you
when
we
talked
about
multi-family
with
the
single-family
homes,
the
the
conversation
was
with
every
40
units
to
have
about
10
percent
multi-family.
C
I
I
I
obviously
probably
am
wrong
on
this,
but
I
thought
that
number
that
recommendation
was
higher
and
is
that
something
we
could
still
raise
up
to
maybe
25
to
30
percent
multi-family
within
a
with
mixed
in
with
the
single
family,
or
is
that?
How
would
that
work?
Is
there
requirements
that
we
can
do
that
or
can't
do
that?
G
G
Yes,
our
understanding
was
that
the
gpac
had
made
this
requirement
at
ten
percent,
and-
and
this
is
not-
although
it's
included
in
the
inclusionary
section-
it's
not
strictly
about
inclusionary,
because
it's
these
are
just
the
unit
type
which
the
the
gpac
recommended
that
there
be
a
multi-family
component
in
all
projects
and
that
there
be
no
100
single-family
projects.
It's
our
understanding
or
it
was
my
understanding
and
kerry
stone
who's
on
the
meeting
tonight.
Also
she
took
careful
notes
and
reviewed
the
minutes
as
needed.
G
I'm
pretty
sure
that
it
was
10
that
the
g
pack
suggested,
but
the
reason
we're
here
tonight
is
ultimately
to
get
the
direction
from
the
council
and
if
you
were
to
direct
tonight
that
that
number
should
not
be
10
that
it
should
be
15
20,
25
whatever.
We
would
certainly
change
that.
I
I
would
mention
that
that
on
by
itself,
even
at
10,
it's
a
pretty
unusual
requirement.
I'm
not
sure
I
know
of
any
city
in
the
state
that
has
a
similar
requirement
it.
G
There
is
right
now
suddenly,
over
the
last
six
months,
there's
been
a
lot
of
traction
to
no
longer
have
single-family
zoning
in
our
communities
and
to
allow
multi-family
within
the
context
of
single-family
homes.
That
is
an
idea,
that's
gaining
a
lot
of
traction,
but
there's
not
really
been
an
idea
to
prohibit
100
single-family.
G
B
C
H
Thank
you
yes
mayor.
I
have
one
follow-up
question
that
may
actually
fall
in
line
with
what
we're
talking
about.
Sir,
in
your
presentation,
you
talked
about
affordable
housing
requirements
at
15
with
an
opportunity
or
a
recommendation
to
increase
it
to
20.
That
would
require
or
invoke
a
state
review.
Can
you
speak
more
in
regards
to
that,
and,
and
and
I
don't
know
if
you
can
frame
it
from
our
local
or
regional
area
of
other
jurisdictions
that
are
done
similar
or
like
requirements.
G
Yeah,
I
think
I
might
be
able
to,
but
I'm
gonna
actually
call
on
terry
in
a
few
moments,
so
carrie
just
to
warn
you.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
look
on
your
background
information
and
see
what
some
of
the
other
local
cities
have
done.
I
know
we
assembled
that
information
and,
while
kerry
is
looking
for
that,
let
me
say
that
that
the
law
on
this
I
this
is
a
pretty
obscure
law
and
I'm
honestly
not
sure
I'm
100
conversant
with
it.
G
The
law
says
either
or
both
that
the
law,
the
law
stems
from
a
court
case
that
surrounded
an
inclusionary
program
for
rental
housing.
Only
and
a
court
ruled
some
years
ago
that
it
was
illegal
to
have
an
inclusionary
program
for
rental
housing.
The
legislature
and
governor
thought
that
that
was
wrong,
and
so
they
they
overruled
the
court.
G
If
you
will
by
particularly
passing
a
law-
and
they
said
if
it's
illegal
today
we're
going
to
make
it
legal,
they
said
we
really
want
to
enable
local
communities
to
have
inclusionary
programs
on
rental
housing,
but
because
the
court
case
only
concerned
rental
housing.
The
new
law
only
concerns
rental
housing.
Also
and
what
the
law
says
is
that
for
rental
housing
projects,
at
least
if
they
go
above
a
15
discretionary,
a
15
inclusionary
requirement,
then
that
that
requirement
has
to
be
scrutinized
through
a
feasibility
study
and
is
subject
to
approval
by
the
hcd.
G
My
understanding
is
that
in
some
cases,
hcd
has
then
taken
the
ability
to
look
at
the
rental
program
and
has
also
done
an
analysis
of
an
inclusionary
program
for
for
sale
units.
Although
my
understanding
of
the
law
is
that
the
law
is
particularly
relevant
to
the
the
rental
housing
units.
So
it's
certainly
the
case.
G
If
you
have
a
rental
program
at
all,
hcd
will
review
it,
and
it's
also
the
case
that
if
your
rental
program
is
over
15,
you
have
to
justify
it
through
a
feasibility
study,
and
I
would
suggest
that,
if
you're
going
to
do
a
feasibility
study
anyway,
you
should
go
ahead
and
cover
the
for
sale
side
of
the
program
and
make
sure
that
it's
feasible
as
well.
So
that's
the
half
first
half
of
your
question
and
carrie.
G
L
Sure
so
monterey
county
requires
20
percent.
Morgan
hill
has
a
15
requirement.
The
city
of
salinas
has
a
15,
well
it
actually
fifteen
to
twenty
percent
for
for
sale
projects.
It
depends
on
the
affordability
level
and
for
rental
projects.
Twelve
to
twenty
percent,
depending
on
affordability
levels
and
the
city
of
san
jose.
Has
a
fifteen
percent
requirement.
M
Okay
yeah,
my
name
is
joe
tenacio.
Just
a
couple
comments
on
the
shoot:
what's
this
section
farm
farmland
mitigation
just
be
careful
when
you're
using
conservation
organizations
for
management
responsibilities,
I
think
you
need
to
do
something
better
than
that
organizations.
You
talk
to
need
to
have
people
that
are
in
production,
agriculture
that
know
what's
going
on
and
how
it's
going
these
days
and
on
the
union.
Road
area
of
I
can't
say
that
I'm
in
favor
of
that
agricultural
zoning
there,
prime
farmland,
unique
farmland
and
farmland
a
statewide
importance.
M
M
M
Municipal
service
area,
that's,
okay!
I
think
you
guys,
in
reference
to
mr
burns's
questions
about
buffers,
I
can
speak
firsthand
to
that.
Buffers
in
agriculture
can
vary,
especially
if
you're
in
the
row
crop
business
from
30
feet
to
400
feet
and
it's
all
based
on
food
safety,
and
you
even
have
safety
with
orchards.
Now
that's
run
by
the
usda.
M
Most
of
the
places
you
guys
are
looking
at
preserving
agriculture
around
hollister.
If
you
have
a
road
like,
I
saw
one
of
the
projections
for
the
buena
vista
area
would
have
a
road
between
the
agriculture
and
the
residential
that
helps.
But
it's
a
tough
situation,
schools.
We
are
very
heavily
mandated
already,
mr
burns
and
how
that
goes.
M
M
Goes
along
with
the
sewer
and
what
were
you
talking
about
on
the
legal
or
illegal,
and
I
don't
know
why
it's
not
addressed,
or
maybe
it
isn't.
Something
else
is
the
water
issue
for
the
county
and
with
everything
going
on
in
the
state
and
the
sigma.
I
don't
see
anything
related
to
sigma
in
here
and
the
city's
participation
mentioned
or
helped
in
the
sigma
issue
with
the
groundwater
sustainability
act
and
if
you
got
any
questions,
feel
free
to
contact
me
outside
of
the
meeting.
E
A
A
A
Our
objection
and
opposition
includes
the
policy
language
contained
in
the
first
bullet
point
of
the
proposed
policy
that
speaks
to
additional
density,
setbacks,
building
heights
and
reduced
parking
state
law.
Sb50
has
preempted
and
prohibits
local
governments
from
denying
or
withholding
the
approval
of
housing
projects
based
on
a
refusal
to
provide
school
facility
mitigation
measures.
Beyond
that
expressly
authorized
and
limited
by
state
statute.
A
Again
I
have
relevant
quimbiak
statutes
contained
in
my
letter,
for
you
to
review
in
closing.
Bia
recommends
that
the
only
language
that
should
be
included
in
the
new
school
funding
policy,
section
as
it
relates
to
new
housing
development,
is
an
acknowledgement
that
sb
50
preempts
the
field
of
new
school
facility
construction
funding.
A
N
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
district
to
voice
its
support
for
the
gpac
recommendations
for
new
school
funding
that
are
described
in
the
policy
options.
Memo
prepared
by
place,
works
and
also
discussed
tonight
as
part
of
the
place
works
report
on
several
prior
occasions
and
again
by
letter
dated
today
from
mr
sean
tenenbaum,
the
superintendent
of
the
high
school
district,
the
high
school
district
has
described
to
the
city
the
critical
space
and
capacity
shortage
it's
experiencing
at
the
high
school,
with
just
under
3
500,
students
expected
to
enroll
in
the
fall.
N
The
school
is
officially
now
over
capacity
and
unless
we're
going
to
start
taking
away
parking
or
athletic
field
space,
there's
no
space
even
for
portable
classrooms.
We
understand
believe
the
city's
been
made
aware
of
how
serious
the
problems
are.
We
won't
use
further
time
here
tonight
to
characterize
the
problem.
N
The
district
certainly
appreciates
the
city's
continued
advocacy
to
ensure
that
school
facility
development
keeps
pace
with
construction
in
hollister.
At
this
point,
we
see
no
reason
why
the
city
should
not
continue
to
include
the
gpac
recommendations
in
the
draft
general
plan
and
eir
and
appreciate
your
consideration
of
these
important
measures
tonight.
Thank
you.
O
Good
evening,
everyone,
my
name,
is
mark
oganowski,
I'm
a
biologist
with
the
u.s
fish
and
wildlife
service.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I'd
like
to
direct
some
comments
to
the
proposed
sensitive
habitats
policies,
which
would
provide
additional
protections
for
california,
tiger
salamander
and
california,
red
light,
frog,
critical
habitat
and
the
relationship
of
those
proposed
policies
to
the
letter.
The
comment
letter
that
we
submitted
at
the
end
of
april,
which
was
referenced
in
the
place,
works
policy
options
menu.
O
Jurisdictions
such
as
the
city
of
hollister,
are
really
fundamental
partners
in
us
achieving
our
mission.
So
it's
much
appreciated
that
this
is
even
being
considered
regarding
the
policies
themselves.
The
first
of
the
two,
the
one
requiring
a
qualified
biologist
to
conduct
an
asset,
habitat
assessment-
that's
one!
We
would
pretty
fully
support.
No
real
comment
on
that.
The
second
one
which
begins
avoid
development
in
areas
with
high
quality
habitat.
O
The
main
comment
I
want
to
make
sure
is:
that
was
definitely
one
of
the
possible
policy
recommendations
put
forward
in
our
letter.
I
think
our
intention
in
that
comment
letter
which
maybe
didn't
come
through
as
clearly
as
we
could
have
had
it,
was
to
offer
several
options
to
the
for
the
city
to
consider.
O
For
example,
another
alternative
that
we
put
out
was,
rather
than
preventing
development,
to
allow
development
to
proceed
but
to
require
mitigation
off-site
and
to
base
the
extent
or
the
amount
of
mitigation,
through
example,
a
mitigation
ratio
to
base
that
on
the
assessed
quality
of
the
habitat
for
eat
for
each
species
on
the
project
site.
So
that
was,
you
know,
put
forward
as
another
option
that
you
could
consider.
O
You
might
even
consider
a
scenario
whereby
you
offered
a
project
developer.
An
alternative,
on
the
one
hand,
avoid
the
most
sensitive
areas
of
habitat
within
your
parcel
and
restrict
the
extent
of
your
development
footprint
versus
allow
complete
development
and
then
gauge
the
off-site
mitigation
on
the
assessed
habitat
quality
biobiologists.
So
my
main
point
is
just
that
that
you're
all
clear
that
that
we
provided
a
number
of
alternatives
for
you
to
consider
and
I'm
happy
to
provide
more
comment
on
those
as
desired.
O
The
last
couple
quick
points
I
want
to
make
is:
I
would
strongly
urge
the
city
to
consult
with
san
diego
county,
given
that
some
of
these
areas
are
unincorporated
lands
at
the
moment
and
also
with
the
california
department
of
fish
and
wildlife,
who
also
has
oversight
for
the
california
tiger
salamander
under
this
state
endangered
species
act
and
they
have
their
own
mitigation
requirements
happy
to
take
any
questions
or
assist
offline
down.
The
road.
Thank.
J
J
J
J
J
J
G
G
C
I
It's
critical
we're
way
behind
and
it's
been
expressed
to
us
from
the
county
board
of
education,
hollister,
school
district
and
the
high
school.
So
thank
you
to
the
high
school
for
showing
up
today,
but
this
is
something
that
I
think
that
is
pretty
vital.
We
need
to
address
so
if
we
can
include
a
number
three
that
would
really
just
solidify
that
the
schools
are
protected
and
that
their
interests
are
being
met.
I
would
really
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
D
H
G
I
would,
I
would
just
encourage
you,
maybe
to
ask
us
to
look
at
that
third
item,
but
I
these
are
very
complicated
legal
issues
and
we
certainly
don't
want
to
exceed
what
state
law
would
provide
for,
and
I
I
would
in
that
vein.
I
would
point
out
that
this
number
two
applies
for
discretionary
actions
like
annexation
and
redesignation
and
there's
in
fact
there
there's
no
way
you
can
be
forced
to
go
into
a
discretionary
action
like
that.
You
don't
have
to
annex
the
land.
G
You
don't
have
to
redesignate
land
for
new
urban
use,
so
I'm
not
sure
that
there
really
is
a
number
three
where,
if
you
failed
to
come
to
an
agreement
that
you
would
put
a
cfd
in
place,
I
think
if
they
failed
to
cut.
If
you
failed
to
come
to
an
agreement,
you
would
simply
not
annex
or
you
would
not
redesignate
the
land
with
that
said,
I
certainly
understand
what
several
council
members
have
said
that
you
really
what
you
want.
What
I
would
call
a
belt
and
suspenders
approach
here.
G
You
want
to
really
underscore
that
the
city
strongly.
I
see
the
council
member
is
wearing
a
belt
and
suspenders,
so
you
I'm
hearing
that
all
of
you
really
want
to
underscore
the
fact
that
you
are
strongly
supportive
of
ensuring
that
that
all
public
facilities,
including
public
schools,
are
adequately
funded
and
that
the
city
does
not
want
to
engage
in
additional
discretionary
development
that
would
endanger
the
adequacy
of
facilities
and-
and
I
think
we
all
know
that-
there's
no
legal
mandate
that
the
city
would
engage
in
those
discretionary
developments.
G
C
Thank
you
and
I
reading
through
item
number
two,
I'm
I'm
in
agreement
with
you.
I
think
it's
it's
pretty
clear
that
the
the
precondition
could
be
for
the
annexation,
some
sort
of
agreement,
and
I
I
think
it's
one
of
the
things
we
needed
to
think
about
in
the
past.
But
it's
I'm
pleased
to
see
this
now.
C
Unfortunately,
too
many
times
it's
been
they've
been
approved
with
we'll
worry
about
it
later,
but
I
want
to
be
clear-
and
I
think
this
does
make
that
clear-
that
we're
the
city
we're
going
to
look
into
making
sure
our
schools
are
covered
first.
So
but
mr
resendez
we'll
bring
it
back
to
you
one
more
time.
C
I
G
That's
on
site,
but
simultaneously
has,
if
you
will
the
downside
of
allowing
the
development
to
proceed
in
the
areas
that
that
are
in
question,
and
I
think
at
least
for
the
gpac.
One
of
the
issues
was
that
they
really
wanted
to
try
and
minimize
the
the
potential
for
development
in
the
areas
that
have
habitat.
G
If
it's
good
enough
quality
that
a
biologist
has
found
it
to
be
high
quality
habitat,
then
it
should
be
avoided
and-
and
mr
oganowski
certainly
I
think
legally
is
correct-
that
it
is
another
option
to
allow
limited
development
in
those
areas
and
mitigate
them
offsite.
But
I
believe
the
gpac
did
consider
that
option.
I'm
not
sure
mr
ogbanovsky
understood
that,
but
the
gpac
did
consider
that
option
and
decided
that
the
gpac
at
least
wanted
the
mitigation
to
occur
on
site
without
a
loss
of
of
even
you
know,
call
it
call
it.
G
You
know
high
level
habitat
instead
of
preserving
highest
quality,
habitat
elsewhere.
This
is
a
policy
option
whether
to
whether
to
allow
that
second
option
or
not-
and
I
I
I
but
I
guess
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
it's
not
it
would
not
be
that
you
would
be
doing
more.
It
would
that
you'd
be
creating
two
or
more
alternative
pathways,
and
I
think
the
gpac
felt
like
only
this
one
pathway
was
the
one
that
was
appropriate
for
hollister.
C
And
I
I
think
you
covered
that
well
and
I
would
agree,
I
think
the
issue
here
would
be.
We
would
be
moving
it
to
another
location,
which
means
we
would
be
losing
it
here
where
we
can
enjoy
the
habitat.
So
I
I
would.
I
would
rather
stick
with
what
we
came
up
with
originally
anything
else
from
the
council.
Members
remember.
C
G
Right
and
this
one
actually,
there
are
two
slides.
So
this
is
the
slide
about
the
downtown
and
then
the
next
slide
is
about
the
industrial
area.
I
think
it's
probably
more
instructive
to
look
at
the
previous
slide.
You
could
leave
it
up
on
the
screen,
but
just
be
aware
that
there
is
the
industrial
area
as
well.
G
So
that
would
be
two
more,
I
believe,
two
more
slides
here
we
go.
This
is
the
correct
slide.
So
here
we
have
a
couple
of
additional
annexation
areas
or
soi
areas
on
the
north-south
side
of
town
and
then
a
policy
that
require
wastewater
treatment,
services
to
be
extended
only
in
accordance
with
government
code,
section
56133,
and
then
a
policy
statement
that
the
existing
mou
would
not
be
renewed.
I
H
B
C
The
issues
that
were
with
this
agreement
were
the
the
thought
that
the
city
would
automatically
provide
sewer
to
any
development
that
the
county
that
sunny
slope
water
was
providing
water
to.
That
was
the
agreement.
This
is
when
we
found
out
it
doesn't
work
that
way.
That's
not
the
legal
way
of
doing
these
things.
That's
what
that
agreement.
That
discussion
is
about.
Am
I
correct,
mr
city
manager,
you're.
B
C
I
think
we
have
the
mou
to
have
you
know
where
we
can
share
resources
as
sunday
slope
serves
most
of
the
east
side
of
the
city
and
we
work
together
on
some
of
those
items
and
as
we
work
together
on
the
water
treatment
plant
with
the
san
benito
county
water
also,
so
I
think
those
some
of
those
mou's
are
about
sharing
resources,
but
as
far
as
the
portion
of
automatically
receiving
sewer
service,
because
one
of
the
other
other
agencies
is
providing
water.
That's
really
the
issue
of
the
renewal
of
the
mou
yeah
correct.
B
It's,
like
mr
hurley
said
a
development
part
of
the
thought
process
was
when
a
development
went
in.
We
did
not
want
them
to
start
using
septic
tanks,
but,
as
mr
early
said
that
that
development,
you
know
currently
doesn't
have
septic
tanks
that
we're
not
trying
to
remove
those.
So
what
we're
trying
to
remove
is
the
cur
current
houses
that
have
separate
septic
so
that
that
part
is
probably
what
we're
going
to
negotiate.
Yes,
great.
G
Thank
you
I
might
add
here.
If
I
could
interject
number
three
on
this
list,
I
think
is
unlikely
to
need
to
appear
in
the
general
plan
itself,
because
you
know,
as
the
city
manager
said,
he
expects
to
be
able
to
report
to
you
about
this
as
early
as
next
week,
we're
going
to
be
bringing
the
general
plan
back
to
you
in
the
fall
for
your
action
in
summer
of
2022..
G
I
think
by
that
time,
whether
you
do
not
renew
the
mou
or
whether
you
have
a
new
mou,
those
issues
will
be
long
since
settled,
and
so
number
three
is
really
here
just
to
point
out
that
it's
something
that
the
cheap
and
planning
commission
did
speak
about.
Your
city
manager
is
working
on
it
there's
a
slim
chance.
It
will
need
to
be
in
the
general
plan
and
we'll
put
it
in
if
necessary,
but
my
hunch
is
that
it
will
have
been
eclipsed
by
the
time
we
get
a
general
plan
team.
G
Yeah,
so
here
we
have,
we
have
these
three
maps
buena
vistas,
this
one,
maybe
just
go
on
one
more.
This
is
the
meridian
street
area
and
then
finally,
the
union
road
area.
If
I
guess
mr
mayor,
I
would
ask
if
there
are
comments
about
any
of
these
and
we
can
direct
the
slides
be
shown
for
whichever
one
folks
want
to
talk.
G
Right
and
I
can
speak
to
that
and
council
member,
obviously
you're
a
member
of
the
gpac,
and
I
don't
mind
if
you
do
either,
but
it
this
was
one
of
our
most
extensive
discussions.
The
gpec
title
had
a
lot
of
extensive
discussions
very
thoughtful
and
intelligent,
but
this
was
among
those
many
in-depth
discussions.
D
G
Right,
and
so
this
would
be
the
place-
oh
no,
we're
still
not
there
sorry.
So
this
one
is
just
about
this
new
residential
designation
to
have
a
minimum
of
20
dwelling
units
per
acre.
It
would
be
in
a
limited
area,
unlimited
sites
scattered
throughout
the
city
that
you
see
on
this
map
and
then
also
increasing
the
maximum
densities
in
both
the
high
density
designation
and
the
downtown
designation
to
allow
for
higher
densities
of
apartments
and
other
kinds
of
multi-family
units
in
those
areas.
I
G
G
D
G
G
We
have
heard
from
planning
commissioners
in
particular
commissioner,
hugh
boy
who,
as
I
think
you
all
know,
is
an
architect
practicing
in
the
city,
and
he
has
said
that
some
of
the
zoning
regulations
in
the
downtown,
if
left
in
place,
would
prohibit
achieving
these
kinds
of
densities,
and
you
will
need
to
look
at
those
in
your
zoning.
But
we
haven't
started
to
study
that
yet.
C
I
could
say
from
some
experiences
I've
seen
on
these
types
of
development:
they
usually
their
units
range
from
about
600
square
feet
to
about
300
square
feet,
to
cover
from
studio
to
two
to
three
bedroom
units
and
it's
kind
of
a
mix
to
get
the
total
units
all
right.
Mr
burns,
do
you
have
any
comments
on
this
side.
H
I
do
mayor.
Thank
you.
I
do
have
some
concerns
about
the
significant
increase
in
the
density,
and
I
was
wondering
if
there
is
research
or
evidence
that
would
suggest
how
it
may
impact
the
surrounding
neighborhood
or
neighborhoods.
You
know
I
mean
we
saw
as
the
city
of
hofstra
built
out
where
the
cannery
was
built
and
how
that
built
out
and
that
created
some
challenges.
Of
course,
and
the
canary
is
a
good
partner
and
has
worked
well
with
the
city
recently
and
and
in
the
past
as
well.
H
I
believe,
but
I
I
would
like
to
hear
more
comments
from
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
to
see
how
that
could
impact,
because
I
see
that
this
is
this
has
a
the
potential
to
be
a
much
change
thing
significantly
and
I'm
and
I'm
more
of
a
visual
person.
So
I
need
to
see
more
to
understand
this
better.
But
perhaps
during
another
conversation
or
at
a
future
presentation,
I'd
also
be
curious
to
see
what
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
the
community
has
expressed
during
the
during
the
presentations
that
were
made.
G
Maybe
what
I
can
suggest
here
is
that
you
direct
us
to
just
provide
some
additional
detail
as
we
move
forward
into
the
general
plan.
It
may
be
that
we
want
to
limit
this
to
san
benito
street
itself
and
the
block's
immediately
adjacent
to
it
and
that
in
the
rest
of
the
downtown,
we
have
a
slightly
lower
number
and
I
we
can
certainly
bring
you
some
examples.
Visual
examples
of
what
these
kinds
of
buildings
look
like,
as
well
as
some
calculations
of
the
densities
that
already
exist
in
some
of
the
historic
buildings
in
hollister.
B
I
G
I
G
And
I
let
me
say,
since
I'm
sure,
I'm
sure
we'll
bring
you
numbers
that
are
somewhat
lower
than
these.
I
think
very
few
cities
have
been
as
progressive
if
you
will
on
this
subject,
particularly
in
your
own
local
area.
So
we
may
want
to
show
you
examples
from
places
like
places
more
in
the
bay
area
itself,
where
some
of
the
there
are
some
historic
downtowns,
but
where
there
are
somewhat
higher
numbers.
C
D
My
biggest
concern
would
be
it's
going
to
be
interesting,
but
it
is
a
concern,
the
the
parking
it's
like.
It's
that's,
that's
going
to
be
a
huge
task
and
I'm
sure
that
our
staff
is
going
to
be
able
to
overcome
that
but
yeah,
because
we
that
is
an
issue
of
parking
downtown.
We
already
have
that
issue
and
we
have.
I
don't
even
know
how
many
apartments
we
have
downtown,
but
abraham.
F
Yeah,
no
thank
you
councilmember
press.
That
definitely
is
is
one
issue.
One
one
thing
it
one
thing
that
helps
us
at
this
time
is
that
a
big
portion
of
our
downtown
is
with
an
existing
parking
assessment
district,
but
we
definitely
need
to
look
into
that
and
see.
We
have
about
11
different
parking
stations
throughout
the
downtown
that
address
that
address
that
are
basically
where
units
are
able
to
use
those
parking
lots
and
in
regards
to
the
density
aspect
of
it.
B
F
Restaurant
on
the
bottom
and
then
there's
three
stories
on
on
top
right
now
with
our
current
density,
because
it's
approximately
four
thousand
square
feet.
A
current
density
are
the
highest
number
of
units
that
that
can
go
there.
Four
000.
If
you
divide
that
into
43
43
560,
which
is
an
acre,
it
gives
you
0.09
at
40
acres,
a
maximum
of
units
that
can
go.
F
There
is
four
and
so,
and
so
really
at
three
stories
in
talking
with
them,
they're
actually
interested
in
doing
12
units
and
if
we
raise
it
up
to
125
000
units
per
acre.
That
would
get
them
at
about
that
that
range.
So
so
really,
a
lot
of
these
lots
are
not
that
big,
and
so
in
this
particular
case
a
4
000
square
foot
lot
can
potentially
have
about
12
units
within
that
within
that
lot
itself
and
can
provide
for
that
density.
So.
F
D
I
just
think
of
because
in
my
neighborhood
it's
like
one
house,
everyone
has
the
you
know
the
unspoken
road
you
park
in
front
of
your
own
house
and
then
you
can
your
kid
gets
a
license.
Then
now
you
got
three
cars,
then
your
other
kid
gets
a
license.
Now
you
got
four
cars,
yes,
and
so
it's
like
you
start
off
with
12
cars,
and
then
you
get
a
kid
now
you
got
13
and
someone
else
gets
a
kid.
You'd
say.
G
I
think
if
I
could
interject
here,
I
do
think
it's
important
that
the
council
and
members
of
the
public
understand
that
these
types
of
units
are
very
different
from
the
single
family
homes
that
are
built
in
most
of
hollister
and
they're
different
in
size
and
configuration
and
honestly
also
the
family
types
that
they
attract.
So
hollister
today
has
been
building.
G
They
would
be
small
units
sure
that
they
might
be
lived
in
by
those
kids
when
the
kids
turn
18
or
20
or
22,
and
want
to
get
out
of
their
parents
house,
and
they
need
an
affordable
place
to
live
by
themselves
as
they
establish
themselves
in
the
world.
Maybe
a
couple
would
live
there,
but
even
you
know,
maybe
they
would
have
an
infant,
but
later
once
they
had
once
that
infant
grows
up,
they
would
probably
choose
to
move
to
a
single
family
home
elsewhere
in
hollister.
But
in
the
interim.
G
What
we're
providing
here
is
the
unit
type
that's
available
for
one
individual
or
two
individuals.
Some
may
be
older.
They
may
not
have
cars
because
they're
old
enough
that
they
that
they
don't
actually
drive
much
anymore.
They
may
elect
to
not
need
a
car
because
they
walk
around
in
downtown
hollister
and
can
meet
most
of
their
needs,
then,
and
as
as
abraham
said,
they
may
park
a
car
in
a
public
parking
structure,
a
block
or
so
away
from
their
home.
Those
are
very
different
lifestyle
choices.
B
C
Okay,
thank
you
yeah
most
of
these
would
be
newer
buildings
and
those
buildings
usually
are
designed
with
parking.
Underneath
is
very
important
and
I
think
that's
a
well-planned
building
is
going
to
accommodate
their
tenants
and
usually
they're
limited
to
the
number
of
spaces.
Their
homeowners
association
make
sure
they're
not
parking
around
the
neighborhood
and
mr
early.
This
also
helps
us
with
our
numbers
to
meet
the
state
requirements.
Correct.
G
It's
a
two-fold
question
number
one
is
the
absolute
number
of
units
that
you
can
accommodate.
That
number
overall
is
actually
already
been
relatively
good,
but
it
is
important
to
consider
it
and
then
the
other
thing
it
does
that
that
this
really
addresses
is
that
the
state,
no
matter
how
high
your
total
numbers
are.
The
state
presumes
that
you
may
not
have
true
affordability
if
the
units
are
built
at
less
than
20
units
per
acre.
D
C
G
Last
item
and
it's
the
one
council
number
zendesk
that
comes
up
where
you
were
talking
about.
We
can
go
one
more
slide
for
the
policy
suggestions,
so
what
this
one
says
is:
first
off
that
the
the
gpac
has
recommended
a
20
of
inclusionary
requirements,
split
among
moderate
low
and
very
low
incomes
with
the
details
to
be
worked
out
through
a
future
ordinance.
C
This
is
the
item
I
was
pointing
out.
I
think,
as
we've
seen
in
our
community,
we've
seen
single-family
neighborhoods
many
many
of
them,
and
the
issue
we
have
here
is
making
sure
our
own
residents
can
afford
a
a
unit
and
usually
that's
more
of
a
multi-family
type
of
a
building.
It's
more
affordable
and,
more
often
than
not,
that's
probably
going
to
be
purchased
by
somebody
here
locally,
rather
than
commuting
from
the
bay
area
down
to
buy
a
multi-family
they're
here
to
buy
the
single
families.
C
I
think
this
is
a
good
way
to
create
a
better
mix
in
our
neighborhoods,
so
our
own
residents
can
have
the
opportunity
to
buy
these
units,
and
I
I
think
I
would
like
to
see
that
number
increase
up
to
at
a
minimum
20,
but
I
would
say
about
25
percent
to
create
more
of
a
a
mixed
neighborhood.
So
it's
a
single-family
homeowner
gets
to
know
the
homeowner
in
the
multi-family
unit
and
they're
all
equal
and
that's
how
we
should
be
building
communities
within
our
communities.
That
would
be
my
recommendation.
I
Thank
you,
mr
maron,
and
I
agree
and
I'll
definitely
support
that
number
25
for
the
multi-family.
It's
something
that
our
community
is
severely
lacking
and
we've
been
behind
in
for
quite
a
while.
So
it's
I'm
glad
to
see
that
I
know
it's
something
new
for
us
and
it's
probably
a
little
bit
unheard
of,
but
it's
something!
That's
that's
in
dire
need
here
and
then
just
so.
I
The
other
council
members
know
as
far
as
the
inclusionary
housing
number
I
wanted
a
higher
number,
but
the
the
majority
of
the
gpac
wanted
to
settle
with
20.
So
this
was
also
a
very
lengthy
discussion
as
well
a
very
robust
discussion,
so
I
definitely
support
what
the
gpa
came
up
with,
which
is
20
for
inclusionary
housing.
Thank
you.
D
H
G
I
I
it's,
I
think,
the
best
thing
to
do
with
that.
I
appreciate
the
question
is
to
write
it
in
such
a
way
that
we
will
say
to
develop
an
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
with
a
target
of
approximately
20
percent
and
with
consideration
for
both
the
feasibility,
which
could
actually
lower
the
number
and
with
consideration
for
the
need
which
could
raise
the
number
and
then
whatever
ordinance
you
do
come
up
with,
would
be
consistent
with
the
general
plan
policy,
and
you
could
then
go
ahead
and
adopt
it
without
a
general
plan
amendment.
So.
G
C
H
G
H
My
specific
concern
is
really-
and
I
don't
know
that
I'm
prepared
to
have
an
in-depth
conversation
this
evening,
but
about
the
economic
development
and
I'm
really
kind
of
concerned,
and
I
thought
the
report
was
was
well
written
and
very
clear
as
it
related
to
our
retail
leakage
and
job
creation.
I
think
those
are
critical
items
as
well,
but
as
long
as
we
can
reserve
the
right
to
have
an
in-depth
conversation
about
those
at
a
later
date,.
G
Yeah,
let
me
let
me
clarify
that,
because
absolutely
you
have
the
the
right
and
even
the
duty
to
have
every
in-depth
conversation
you
feel
you
need
to
have
before
you
go
and
adopt
this
general
plan,
and
that
will
be
happening
over
the
next
several
months
and
actually
a
full
year.
That
said-
and
I
know
it's
late
now,
perhaps
you
would
want
to
talk
about
this
at
a
subsequent
council
meeting
and
agendize
it
for
another
discussion.
G
If,
if
any
of
you
has
looked
at
those
policies
that
we've
put
before
you
to
date
and
you
feel
like
they're
incomplete
or
that
you
really
want
additional
items
added,
we
would
appreciate
hearing
about
that
sooner
rather
than
later.
What
we
don't
want
to
do
is
bring
a
fully
complete
general
plan
back
to
you
and
then
have
you
all
say.
G
You
know
this
really
is
not
nearly
as
comprehensive
as
we
wanted,
or
it
needs
to
have
a
different
policy
direction
regarding
economic
development,
and
we
need
you
to
go
back
and
and
do
more
we're
not
ready
to
adopt
it.
Yet
I
mean
we
have
a
year
now
to
get
everything
in
order,
so
I
would
encourage
you
all
to
it
doesn't
have
to
be
tonight
but
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
documents.
G
But
again
I
want
to
try
and
make
sure
that
that
happens
now
now-ish
over
the
next
say
three
to
five
months
and
that
it's
not
something
that
in
a
year
you
come
back
and
say
really.
We
have
to
look
at
this
in
a
whole
new
way
and
and
then
then
you
you've
kind
of
squandered
this
time
that
we
could
have
used
right
now.
H
Mayor
velasquez,
I'm
wondering
if
it
wouldn't
make
sense
to
maybe
schedule
a
follow-up
meeting
to
this
one,
maybe
in
late
august
or
even
in
september,
to
really
take
these
items.
I
think
it
was
very
helpful
as
a
layperson
to
better
understand
not
only
the
process
but
where
we're
headed
as
a
community
and
again
I
like
the
idea
of
having
the
opportunity
for
public
comment
along
the
way,
and
I
know
that
that
happens
during
the
meetings
as
well.
C
Absolutely
if
you
want
to
come
back
and
have
these
discussions,
we
can
bring
them
back.
I
would
recommend
if
you
hadn't
had
a
chance
to
do
this
yet
to
go
back
and
watch
some
of
the
videos
on
some
of
these
discussions
really
help
give
you
more
information
on
what
the
thought
process
was
and
some
of
the
input
from
the
public
which
would
help
us
when
we
do
meet
for
the
items
you're
you're
you'd
like
to
bring
back.
G
C
G
If
I
could,
maybe
I
can
add
also
that
I
think
all
of
these
other
15
items,
I
I'm
trying
to
think
of
the
right
words
to
use
there
they're
more
fundamental
policy
statements
that
I
think
are
good
planning
sense
and
they
don't
have
as
much
of
a
of
a
of
a
potentially
controversial
edge
to
them
there.
They
are
kind
of
good
government
approaches
to
doing
the
things
that
seem
like
they
make
sense
in
order
to
try
and
create
additional
jobs
or
enhance
the
tourism
industry.
G
G
H
I
personally
think
that
be
very
helpful,
recognizing
that
council,
member
perez
and
myself
are
new
to
the
council
and
and
we're
not
part
of
the
formal
process
and-
and
these
are
critical
decisions
that
we're
going
to
embark
upon
in
the
next
year
that
are
going
to
define
how
our
city
continues
to
grow
and
build
out
and
and
and
you
know,
prosper
and
so
for
me,
I
think
that'd
be
very
helpful.
I
agree.
C
I'm
mr
burns,
I
I
agree
with
you.
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
most
critical
documents
we
put
together
as
a
community,
something
we
push
for
years
and
years
to
try
to
get
it.
To
this
point,
the
more
conversation
we
have
from
this,
the
more
input,
the
better
the
plan
is
so,
but
I
would
again
I'd
step
back
and
say:
please
take
a
look
at
the
videos
for
each
of
these
meetings
get
a
lot
of
information
and
then
we
can
bring
it
back
to
have
more
conversations
on
the
other
items.
H
You
know
perhaps
mayor
maybe
even
well,
I
I
was
going
to
say
kick
it
down
the
road
until
sometime
in
november,
when
we
have
a
fifth
council
member,
because
they're
going
to
come
in
in
all
likelihood,
you
know
behind
the
curve
on
this,
but
I
also
heard
our
presenters
request
that
we
don't
you
know,
come
back
at
the
23rd
hour
on
this.
So
so
I
don't
know,
I'm
open
to
a
a
time
and
a
place
to
to
discuss
the
other
15
items
that
works
mutually
well
and
and
so
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
C
Yeah
just
to
go
back
on
that,
I
think
it's
as
their
point
out,
there's
still
a
lot
of
work
to
do.
But
what
is
really
important
is
we
get
this
document
done,
because
every
day
we
lose
we're
losing
as
a
community?
A
lot
of
these
things
are,
I
think
we
can
all
say
well
yeah.
We
should
have
done
that,
but
unfortunately
it
wasn't
being
done
and
until
we
can
get
into
a
document
and
agree
on
something
we're
losing,
and
our
schools
are
a
very
good
sign
of
that.
C
G
And
I
I
would
point
out
again
this
would
be
through
staff,
but
I
I
think
we
can
work
with
staff
to
determine
the
best
timing
for
a
briefing
like
that
in
public
and
a
public
briefing
is
obviously
very
important,
and
that
said,
if,
if
one
or
two
council
members
would
like
a
briefing,
obviously
we
wouldn't
have
a
serial
meeting
or
anything
like
that.
But
we
could
do
a
one-on-one
briefing
with
the
new
council
member
to
go
over
some
of
these
items,
if
that's
appropriate.
So
there's
there's
a
couple
different
ways
to
do
that.
D
C
D
C
C
Even
those
that
had
doubts
about
the
fairness
of
this
process
quickly
learned
that
we
are
one
community
trying
to
work
together
and
it's
it's
an
amazing
thing.
What
happens
when
people
take
the
time
to
just
listen
to
each
other
and
work
together
and
build
a
plan
that
benefits
the
community?
I
just
I
really
can't
say
thank
you
enough.
C
I
found
this
experience
to
be
really
something
that
probably
one
of
the
most
rewarding
experiences
I've
had
being
on
this
council,
and
I
just
knowing
that
the
difference
we're
going
to
make
for
our
community
for
the
next
20
years
plus
by
charting
this
path,
is
something
we
can
all
be
proud
of,
and
I
I
really
again
just
want
to
thank
you,
mr
recenter.
Anybody
else
want
to
say
anything.
I
I
It
was
severely
outdated
and
it
just
didn't
fit
the
needs
of
the
community
that
we
were
elected
to
represent,
and
I
think
that
some
of
the
new
council
members
can
can
say
that
we
just
came
into
office
in
a
different
time
and
it's
time
for
us
to
update
we're
severely
behind
in
our
affordable
housing.
Our
multi-family
we're
com,
we're
overloaded
with
single
family
homes,
and
it's
just
this
just
that
was
the
case
then,
but
we're
living
in
a
different
time.
I'm
so
grateful
to
the
gpac
to
our
staff
to
the
consultants.
I
I
honestly
think
that
everything
that's
come
out
of
the
gpac
is
very
representative
of
the
interest
and
the
needs
and
wants
of
the
community
that
I
heard
when
I
was
running
for
office
and
I
feel
like
I've,
I'm
being
not
only
on
the
council
but
serving
in
the
gpac,
I'm
learning
and
I'm
able
to
accomplish
what
the
community
and
what
the
constituents
would
want.
We're
not
going
to
see
these
results
overnight.
It's
going
to
take
time.
I
We
didn't
get
into
the
situation
we're
in
overnight,
but
I
have
faith
in
our
current
council
and
our
staff
that
we
are
going
to
do
what's
asked
of
us
and
we're
going
to
produce
a
beautiful
community
here.
So
again,
I'm
grateful
to
everybody.
That's
worked
on
it
and
I'm
extremely
humbled
to
be
able
to
serve
and
to
be
a
part
of
this
process.
Thank
you.
D
Member
press
yeah-
this
is
a
which
is
a
this-
is
very
important.
This
is
really
important,
and
I
just
kind
of
I
wanted
to
thank
you
again
for
you,
you
and
the
staff
and
all
the
committees,
but
the
it's.
It's
been
quite
a
quite
a
a
ride.
Our
first,
our
first
meeting
was
a
nice
special
meeting
for
emergency
meeting
for
the
masks
and
leading
up
to
today.
It's
like
this
has
been
quite
a
ride
and
I
can
get
off
anytime
now.
D
H
H
I
also
like
the
vision
statement
very
much,
but
I
also
want
to
caution
people
that
it's
a
vision,
it's
not
a
reality
yet,
and
so
I
look
forward
to
once
it's
approved
and
taking
whatever
the
next
steps
are
to
move
forward
to
do
all
the
things
that
the
vision
statement
proposes
to
do,
and-
and
I
can't
wait
to
see
what
an
operational
organizational
plan
will
be
to
implement
these
different
elements
as
we
move
forward,
and
so
with
that
I'd
like
to
thank
everybody
for
their
involvement.
Thank
you.
D
C
Your
staff
with
place
work
staff
just
it
was
exciting
to
watch
all
of
you
be
so
excited,
and
I
really
mean
that
it's
I
saw
that
with
the
staff
from
place,
work
and
their
knowledge,
and
but
watching
our
own
staff
be
excited
about
the
project
and
be
so
proud
of
it.
I
just
can't
say
enough,
but
thank
you.
F
Thank
you,
mr
mayor.
Thank
you,
council
could
not
do
it
without
our
wonderful
staff,
as
you
mentioned,
eva
kelly,
amber
cameron
adeli
perez
great
great
to
work
with
so
far,
and
I
am
so
happy
that
I
I
was
with
high
hopes
that
didn't
expect
anything
less
for
tonight's
meeting.
I
I
was
very
optimistic
and
I
think
it's
going
on
on
the
right
path,
so
thank
you
all
so
much
for
all
of
your
hard
work
and
dedication
to
this.
Thank
you.
G
I
just
want
to
echo
what
everyone
has
said
and
let
you
know
how
much
we
enjoy
working
with
you
with
the
council,
with
the
planning
commission,
the
gpac,
and
particularly
with
your
staff.
Abraham
is
leading
a
really
exceptional
team
there
and
they
are
a
joy
to
work
with
very
responsive
and
allow
us
to
do
our
best
work,
and
I
want
to
also
recognize
carrie
stone
who's
been
on
the
call
and
did
speak
a
couple
times
this
evening.
G
She's
done
a
great
job
as
the
project
manager
and
our
other
staff
members
at
place
works
have
done
an
excellent
job
too,
but
but
really
it's.
I
don't
think
any
of
this
could
happen
without
the
leadership
of
the
council,
and
I
really
appreciate
all
of
the
the
efforts
that
all
of
you
are
making
to
make
this
a
reality.