committee meeting about over twentieth two thousand and sixteen please come to order is nine o five my name is don couch i'm the chair of the committee and before we go any further i asked people to set their phones on silent mode or turn them off it i know it started with good morning good morning you keep changing your positions from the public works department we will have grown to dag on diet and from the department of management we will have david chang we have deputy corp counsel michael hopper good morning and staff legislative attorney greg garneau good morning good morning chair and committee secretary probably motorcade district office we have el al con and the lanai district office is closed today members we have two items on the agenda today as p c twenty eight which is a mending the comprehensive zoning ordinance to establish affordable access for a while and says it permitted use in the residential zoning districts and p c thirty seven to increasing him a tory of available housing and before we get going we'll start public testimony for individuals testifying in the chamber please sign up at the desk in the back if testifying from a remote testimony site please sign up with district office staff testimony will be limited to the items listed on the agenda today the two that i just listed and you'll have three minutes to do your testimony and with a minute to conclude according to the council rules what with the way we're going to  lighting system is the first three minutes the light will be green and then it will be yellow for one minute and when it turns red please conclude your remarks and when you come up please identify yourself and the name of any organization you may be representing all right members we have two people signed up in the chambers to testify first up is stan franco followed by cassandra  bill and we are supporting that testimony so thank you for doing this and it will help our inventory of affordable homes on the thirty seven two  sent out early this morning to don our comments sorry so late i don't know what has gotten those comments and i want to go to some of the comments and if you have any questions this is  so we want the communities to look at this before we do any kind of comprehend comprehensive rezoning number five identity and then a fire under developed properties we agree with that will like the lands to be we don't want the land just to be multifamily rentals we believe in mix housing units because we don't want to prevent we want to prevent ghettos of only in low income housing on the recommend the referrals number one bar times county development we agree that the county my we should help with infrastructure costs but where would the money come from  we may want to consider a mechanism where the buyers of the lots in the subdivision pay back over time the county for the improvements are numbered to third party in one county chief to coordinate construction of affordable housing we ordinance only related to an affordable fifty percent fordable housing projects in other words something like a two a one each law for the county of maui and a number six propose amendment to the only county code we agree with caution because we don't know how this additional monies will be use we would be in favor of the additional two percent be slated for the purchase of land to build affordable homes we think that then is one of the real big issues that we need to overcome if we are going to build the homes that our people need thank you thank you mr franco members any questions to the test  correct this number to well the way it's written it says that to give immediate weight to the choices and policies made in the comedy island plan that's fine but i think what that island plan has vetted in the communities and that's why we need community plans because our community and communities have to look at it before we make any decisions to do any kind of comprehensive comprehensive rezoning you know and i agree with that  question i would have for you is if we change that comprehensive zoning to be done after the community plans are done would you support that yes i think we should make it easier for people to ok deval how about at the plan we say this is where we're going to do urban growth boundaries so this is where we're going to do urban growth so automatically comprehensive to comprehensively do a district boundary members say this is where we want urban  change it to urban right away i'm not sure how to answer the question ok no when i was under the jeep back we had certain proposals and it was changed along the way so you know i have support all efforts to increase inventory of affordable housing in maui county we were created to support secure and preserve a permanent supply of affordable housing alternatives for low and moderate income households and mell county therefore we strongly encourage affordable housing in perpetuity we appreciate the department the maui county planning committee and its for their willingness to think outside the box while identifying housing solutions barriers to increase housing and what steps the county could take to facilitate the development of housing we look forward to learning more about the prior ties list of findings and recommendations the chair cochrane in her october sixth transmetal we are especially heartened that these recommendations will be referred out to the appropriate committees and departments to eventually be implemented with the goal of increasing the inventory of housing in maui county no holly o'malley strongly believes that affordable housing in perpetuity can be a vital part of our housing strategy we want to be an active contributing member of maui county's affordable housing solutions and look forward to continuing opportunities to partner with you to provide more affordable housing in perpetuity for income qualified families e attendance of mr grossman morning sir thank you don mocha district office brain fart ok thank you ladies members seeing that there is nobody else in the chambers that is one of the testify because there's members first up on the list it is p c twenty eight amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance to establish affordable accessory dwellings as a permitted use in the residential as zoning districts you have before you a proposed bill to establish affordable accessory dwellings as a permitted use in the residential districts in addition to the version of the bill referred to in the planning commission to the planning questions by the council the department of planning prepared a separate proposed bill on the same s the request of the office of the mare on your tablet you will find the proposed bill transmitted by my correspondence dated june twenty third two thousand and sixteen is called proposed bill from council committee from committee chair couch six twenty three twenty sixteen so if you take a look at that on the granite because that's when to look at that bill you'll also find the department's version in the planning director's correspondence dated january eighth twenty sixteen and both versions of the proposal were reviewed by the planning commission planning has summarized their comments on a chart comparing the differences between the two bills the chart is located on the fourth page of the document labeled correspondence from planning dated one eight twenty sixteen so i want to grab that one and this is just an editorial note this is one of the reasons why the internal workings of granite this isn't all that good because we have to go back and forth between two documents and it's going to be cum all right members i'd like to work through the chart on that document from the department of planning the fourth page and then go and want to get your recommendations for getting these bills all set but before we go let's start with the department to see if they have any questions or comments any further questions or comments chairman first off on you referring to the the letter i have is from december first twenty fifteen that's the transmetal to correct it's attached to a letter dated january december first memo to the planning commissions ok comparing the different things ok so we have to as you said we have two bills the first one is resolution fifteen dash  one one two authored by mr carroll that would allow units on lots accessory units on lots less than seventy five hundred square feet down to five thousand square feet and it gives some sizes of units that we could have where generally in support of the bill the the primary issue is going to be in for cement i'm not and i should say in terms of the affordability requirements and the and or you know the person being a relative so you know that and forstmann falls to the planning department we perceive some difficulty with doing that and we can talk about that a little bit later if you want and of course the mayor's proposal really what i would do is the primary thing it would do would be allow ohana as to ohana on lot larger than twelve thousand square feet and that would include the rural districts  and here we have a fairly significant amount of rural within the county the we also propose some modifications to the existing accessory  so the bill in resolution fifteen deshawn one two is that that's the other document i believe  then the bill the marriage proposal is is on exhibit eleven of the same document where this chart is so we're going to have to go back and forth between all of these documents and i actually think that if you guys need to get them printed out maybe we should do a quick recess and get you guys to print out your copies because we going to have to go back and forth between these documents is that something you guys want to do yes ok hate to waste the paper but i think we're going to need to do that in this case so we'll do a short recess of the call of the chair so we can get these documents printed c meeting of october twentieth two thousand and sixteen please come back to order members while we're waiting for the print out there were there are some discussions we can have so i'm just going to make some comments a little bit you know the intent of the bills is to allow owners who have homes to especially smaller lots seventy fifty five thousand to seventy five hundred square feet to build an ohana unit for affordable purposes only and there has some concerns about the enforcement of that we can discuss that when he gets out there obviously we all know with the tig and everything that there is a dire need of affordable housing this is another way that we can city san antonio seattle minneapolis vancouver or austin santa cruz in san francisco have adjusted their land use partners to accommodate more affordable housing we've had on us for a while so that's nothing new to us  some interesting points of fact san antonio states in their municipal code that accessory drawings have become an important method to permit families to remain in their homes while the set at the same time providing affordable housing for the elderly single person households students and other needy populations that sounds just like us but they've actually have that in their code seattle has a guide to building a backyard cottage notes that backyard cottages can create attractive and affordable rental opportunities for seattle residents i think this is something that we can do and get done with the assistance of the department and then we also for more rentals to get built that the county doesn't have to build that nonprofit doesn't have to build that somebody who has the opportunity to do that to build that those are some of my opening remarks on both sides next is ordinates labeled exhibit one down below that is mr carroll the bill i believe ok and then the mares bill is exhibit eleven it's labeled exhibit eleven three documents so we were referred to basically the exhibit one bill is are as are based on and we can add some of the mayor stuff in the end and the do the planning commissions and they made their comments and then this is where greg yes the council member going to answer your question what we just yes sir for we begin just for my understanding so the range that we're talking about is between five thousand and seven thousand five hundred square feet yes so anything more than seven thousand five hundred or less than five thousand is not applicable to this or to this or does there are current code exists that says if you have seventy five hundred square feet or more you can have an accessible and accessory dwelling that doesn't have to be affordable this bill says anything from if you want to add a pro five thousand to the seventy five hundred it's got to be affordable  ordinances that apply to the seven more than seven thousand five hundred because those ordinance is could change one day on the range itself so then you would have to come back  grossman the new lot sizes are from five thousand to seventy four ninety nine square feet current code only says anything seventy five hundred square feet or more is when you can have an accessory  in the mail marriage proposal it's the point is moot in this instance for the new new lot sizes so we don't have to worry about that the size of the excess in the mr carroll's original proposal for if the size of the drawing can be no more than four hundred square feet on lots between five thousand and fifty nine ninety nine square feet and then four hundred fifty square feet on lots between six thousand and seventy four ninety nine square feet so that limits the size now i have you know it may be a  situation i'm in planning maybe you can help me out in this i'm fine with all of this the only issue is generally on a five thousand square foot high lot the house is built right in the middle so to put a nother detached unit you probably won't be able to sew just the lot just sticks of that will force it to be an attached ohana which can happen right i mean with this it can be attached on as long as it's not there's no internal connection between the house and the accessory drawings that correct correct ok so that makes sense it's a there i've seen many places that haven't attached ohana and you can't have an internal connection between the house and the and the ohana and the reason for that generally is that means if you have that connection then that big means it's a single unit and therefore you'll have two kitchens and you can't have two kitchens one meeting i can't remember which and there was a testifier who does mortgages and said that there's a national you know to give out of a mortgage for a single family dwelling there's a national definition that says you can only have one kitchen documentation of that we asked for it i'm not sure if it got received because that's not an item that we have a dead isn't on the agenda right now i can look it up and see if we've got the i would like us to look into that because you know we all know that it's happening yes well i mean let's not lie about what's happening we know there are these sinking kitchens everywhere i think we have to deal with it and if it's a mortgage problem check out aware of it has asked for that ok you know we had that discussion on the wet bar thing and we're going to open up a new item for two kitchens yes mispricing i have another question and i don't know if i can ask it now but it's not on kitchens but it's about this table where we have the size of the lovable accessory dwelling how did we come up with these that's a good question there is yet another item in our committee we're waiting for some correspondence from the department it's called we ramping the whole residential code this is part of the residential code and that's been around for a long time i don't know probably when mr spence was actually an employee of the planning department i mean a planner instead of the the director that probably came around or even before that the history on that why that those numbers are there that way i i honestly don't know where these numbers come from it makes intuitive sense that if you don't want to crowd the lot too much so if you have between seventy five hundred and ten thousand square feet you don't want to put another thousand square foot building on that property it's going to you're going to have almost no room to bre but beyond that i can't give you the rationale or we can certainly do the research and find out where that those sizes come from let me tell you what i'm asking because i make full disclosure lot is a quarter of an acre with a permitted access at the time we built it we've both a workshop it is about forty square feet bigger than the eight hundred square feet and we wanted to turn it into a and we couldn't get it because they said it's too big but it was permitted it was build there it's been there for forty years well we want to do is not going to change that footprint it's not going to affect our neighborhood in any way it's there it's been there for forty some years but it can be done and we could build an affordable unit very quickly because it's already there so i think we need to look at some of these things and do they make sense  ok yeah i understand and mr spence and you know this was going to come up when we did the residential stuff you know when you get down to eighty seven thousand square feet that's  bigger lie and to only have a thousand square feet of a accessory drawing is kind of small yeah i think i understand what you know what the problem will intent was and we're having some issues now i mean that can be resolved by maybe changing those numbers fortunately in this bill we have the ability to change those numbers but we did we'd have to do some really good discussion with that and i don't know if that would kick it back to planning commissions i'd rather stick with the if accessory drawings in the smaller lots at this point and then if we get some oh you know some decision from corporate counsel whether or not this has to go back and we can also ask mr spence to comment on potentially raising those sizes of the accessory ten years i have exactly less than two months of work here and i don't think it's a good idea that we keep on saying leader and later in the day we need to deal with something well that's why i want to get the affordable accessory drawings out this other thing is a new required request and the new request that hasn't been you know even discussed with the department or anything like that we certainly have the ability to do that but we don't want to just go change code where we don't know what the ramifications are i want to stick with the affordable accessory dwellings at this point and we have another item in committee that that can mix address  your house that is in the excess of that thousand square feet that's something completely new and a kind of reflects some of the things that we see happening out in the things i think that you know they're tigmanshu and we know that we have to do something right and we have to do something that can happen very quickly correct because we don't have time to sit here talking about this we need to pass it so things can happen people need says so i can support this and i supported with reservations and the reason i supported would visit basins is i have concerns about too much density i saw a neighborhood that i bought in to change from a very lovely neighborhood into it's crazy now but that's just a natural result of the whole population has grown there isn't the whole lot of options so people just build them put stuff where they have to my real concern with a little bit is this idea of it having to be a relative because i can go up and down the streets and i know and i cannot find relatives  also is there a problem if mr coach's son lives in my accessory what's the problem you know i'm providing our own house for him and that to be the restrictions in this bill or if it could be any price if it's a family member if it's not a family member then house be affordable but you can't begin to nobody's going to be knocking on the door to see who's in the bed it's like you know it's we've done this before and i have done this with the b and b and t v are things we can make all the laws we won but it's having the people wouldn't have the time and ability to go knocking on everybody's door you can't do it so i'm not into  i'm looking at issue where a person wants to enclose their lower level and create a heart of sorts but it's not good so it was part of the still the original footprint of the main home it's not changing that whatsoever but it's the square footage of that area down below that exceeds the number here and so cannot be permitted to do you know to me that's one of those things where it's not affecting the the you are you know the yard the setbacks whatever because it's already built underneath the existing footprint so how is something like that addressed here if at all i can comment and so can you mr spence go ahead ok the title of the section of of timing team is accessory dwellings they're supposed to be you're supposed to have this i do know about this ordinance this part of the code you have your regular house your primary house these are accessory to the section of code covers qualities that are accessory to the main house so it really was originated with the idea of living in them so you have your your parents or your grandparents or whatever living in this house and of course it is morphed over the decade into a huge part of our affordable housing stock or in some cases not so affordable but  it was the intent back when where they come up with these numbers i don't know but the intent was that you know your parents or your your son or your cousins or whatever don't need a huge amount of space to live in if if you start talking about duplicating the size of a of a house on the bottom floor and you're talking about a duplex doing and members keep in mind that this is residential district which is single family dwellings right if they want to if we wanted to homes full size homes on a lot then that would be square feet six hundred square foot is allowed so is that actually six hundred two six nine nine square foot or just street six hundred minutes true picture jumps over to seven hundred so you you know we're going five thousand to six to sixty five hundred a blank and then jump into seventy five hundred or more that's what i'm just looking at those square footage numbers two were seen i don't know very restrictive but anyhow and then jumping into this question in regards to this segment this five thousand square foot lot and you're going to add on another the will mean is there going to be enough you know roof infrastructures such as septic leach fields and then water pressure i've seen a major draw down on pressure in these subdivisions that have multiple multiples and legal or not legal whatever there's people built in living in all these units a button down the street and i'll tell you what water pressure is does the mall and that's just an everyday occurrence not so infrastructure wise many in mark or were so small they were they existed pre department of health standards pretty much all your smaller lot you're going to be connected to sewer  look and see ok how many fixtures what are the conditions there that kind of stuff the planning department is going to you're required to have an additional parking stall for your ohana in the mayor's case we would actually have to if you're going to have a second on that so we're going to be reviewing all those things we have to make sure that setbacks and all that stuff  here public works is going to make sure it meets all of their codes in an un seward area it would be sent around to like i said to department of health make sure there is if it's not on the sewer proper property they would make sure the septic system has capacity so there's a lot of review that goes into this is not automatic that you want to add on ohana you can do it you have to have room on your property to accomplish all these things and it's on a case by case basis ok no i mean i just thought it's the thought of adding adding and then not expanding infrastructure uncertain residential areas rebuilt it was collectively this is the output input whatever to our water sewer and things of that nature but then now we're adding on to that original footprint so to speak and can it all handle and reality out there that a lot of places of already been converted are added to it and everything we see the effects on infrastructure there isn't enough parking you're mentioning the water pressure  you know that's that's a consideration when we're we're talking about adding additional units ok but we will the different county and state agencies who review building permits will take all walkways patios one eyes or similar structure so not exceed the following respective kamila to total areas and it says up to nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine square feet  maximum of walkways patios cetera cannot be more than a cumulative five hundred square feet does that mean that that combined with the be allowed a maximum covered floor area is now doubled that would be correct ok where is yeah i'm i'm sorry we do not have anything right now honor code to cover and no pun intended to address covered lanai is so this would be in addition ok and so is it your consideration that that the planning commissions have gone along with the proposal that you can have five hundred square feet of interior space and five hundred square feet of covered walkways patios etc we've essentially doubled the size of the unit and we've doubled the size of the unit and indeed all the other categories as well so that now instead of a thousand square foot structure and something to acres or larger it's actually now a two thousand square foot parcel of this square foot structure and i think we all know that once the once the authorities leave if you've got an extra thousand square feet of covered space it's probably i mean closed and dealt with however they want to but i think what the point missed by service suggesting is why or why are we why are we limiting the numbers i thought i'd agree with the expansion of the numbers but if that's already been cleared i'm kind of wondering why we don't just say either or can you can you can get up to two thousand either covered or you know covered in clothes or just a combination of covered and covered open and close to what i guess if it's my property and i want to build something that's twelve hundred square feet for my family because that's what works for my to allow my kids to move in with their kids why should we be saying well sorry you can't do that you can build a thousand square foot park house but you can't build twelve hundred using this example we're we've now gone from a thousand in two thousand which i think is great but i don't really understand why we feel we have to be in the business of saying if it's your property it's still our decision so maybe you can help us decks provision is meant to address some of the quite honestly some of the abuses that we see and my apologies to anybody from l who is watching it on t v but it goes back to everybody's poster child of you have two acre lot with an expansive house w several million dollars and then you have the the workers to whiling that is a thousand square feet of enclosed space plus they add on a two thousand square foot long i that is you know has a cover on it so you you're effectively turning that thousand square feet into you know like three thousand square feet or you have the exterior bathroom with that surrounded by lava rock walls and they're beautiful and ornate everything that you hear thousand square foot house is no longer a thousand square feet it's has morphed into something else with the infinity pool etc etc so this is part of what this is for is to address that we're not we're saying we're not telling people you can't do this but we're saying ok you can do it with some limitation to try to accommodate a you know a certain being able to do something with your property but not to an extreme where it becomes quite honestly absurd that this is a what this made what from a philosophical standpoint why is it that we feel comfortable sending limitations as to what she can build for her family ok well the origins of this but right now what we have is a what they refer to as a euclidean code that dictates a lot sizes uses heights setbacks all that and the origins of that are to be able to separate different uses from each other and to create somewhat uniform areas of development so when you move into a single family neighborhood you know what you can expect so when there are buy in all of our districts there are limitations on sizes and heights and all those things if we don't have those things here you're losing that aspect of you know what you're expecting within a certain area within a single family district we have the whole argument  if we if we're going to say who are we to say what so many can can do with their lot or what they can or cannot build with their for their family you know we start getting into uses that's the whole argument where short term rental homes or i don't like not knowing who my neighbor is if we if we get into sizes of homes and setbacks and stuff you know can we not anticipate what i'm going to go in next door to me is it going to be are they going to have two large homes on that lot or is it just going to be one or so there's there's there's something of an anticipation in zoning that this is what an area is for and this is how it will be developed out right but i would assume that those those decisions are based on the scale of the neighborhood and based on availability of infrastructure but there is a point at which but in this bice's case where she has the whatever so you know it's forty to forty square feet worth arguing over i mean what's the difference between a thousand and twelve hundred square feet and i would i i agree with you i mean what's the difference going to be with forty square feet of nothing but if ok so forty square feet is ok should sixty one hundred two hundred three hundred square  you know the should there be a line drawn somewhere or shouldn't there be that's part of this discussion and i promise if it doesn't pass out today  will do the research and we'll find out where these numbers come from where these sizes come from and if they just come from somebody point them out of the air you know and we're happy to to say that as well but regardless  passes or not if we get it before first reading that would be nice ok yeah i want to do that we're happy to report on that as well before you recognize miss pipes one of the other things that i seem to recall is that  if you add say another one hundred square foot that that's another bedroom so that adds more people there which means more car or more use of the interest no water in that it's the whole part of the limitation as well i mean the bigger you get the more people can be in there and the more people can be in there is it now multi family home and situation or you know it's that that's part of the thing you know mr cochran brought up the whole infrastructure and that's what's happening in some of the areas both in her district and mine is that they're doing that anyway and the water pressure goes down and then we get the complaints for that or the certainly as you can in all of our districts and there's the the excess parking all over the place because there are so many cars because there are so many people in the homes so i think that's one of the other reasons i recall that they you know i don't have either the time with the money to have somebody do it for me to deal with that and i don't know why it has to be that way i think that we ought to be given the department some discretion that's why we have a director and he can take a look at real and this is ridiculous and i'm willing to give him that authority i think it would save everybody a lot of time and grief and money gate members but let's move on this will we can come but let's try and get through this and then if we want to come back to the lot sizes or figure out wording to give the director a little bit more discretion we can do that so are there any other concerns as far as certainly in the resident fifteen one to the four hundred square feet on lots between five thousand five ninety nine and four fifty square feet a lot between six thousand and seventy four ninety nine housing human concerns does that kind of thing already with section eight and apparently if i understand your comments and i'm going to ask the director about that after this if she can't come down otherwise you're going to get more people saying oh it's specially in the times like now where there aren't that many rentals that i can get another extra thousand dollars for my of my unit that i going to put on there so why give someone monitor is the key that it really becomes a staffing issue as to the implementation and force meant and she also said that they can attend a later meeting of the planning committee if we'd like them to and discuss further ok all right so any other comments on that members i think portability requirement at this point is doable heads up and forefront they are unfamiliar and i am unfamiliar with what happens with department of housing and so what if they find that they're charging somebody even more to get a section a thing or they get a they they build a sohan they record something against the deed that says this will be recorded in perpetuity or it will be rented out only to a family member and we see example after example of people who violate those kinds of things i mean that's what we deal with with zoning codes every single day so i'm not familiar with whatever enforcement authority the department of housing and human concerns has so we are very concerned it falls to us and  so how are we going to prove that this person is a family member i know that when we go out in force sometimes on vacation rentals we will have an asian couple staying and somebody is how it goes oh yeah i'm a mr smith's cousin you know and it's so obviously not true but how do we prove that someone where english is obviously a second language you know it just is it's not unusual or you know i had a i don't know they're very concerned how we're going to approve these things we're going to start requesting copies of lease agreements you know to prove that it's an affordable rate you know produce your papers and that's it's we're getting into more than just zoning issues we're getting into people's finances and relatives and that's very uncomfortable for us i'm just going to tell you flat out we're not comfortable doing this so the question i would mr chair the potential problem is this is part of the zoning ordinance and the charter says that the player wrecker and forces the zoning ordinance if there was a consideration of putting this under maybe two point nine six or something like that maybe that could be changed  of course i would need to get the comments of the apartment of housing and human concerns as to whether or not they believe they could enforce these restrictions how similar they are to anything that they currently enforce and what the penalties would be perhaps be difficult after after the fact so that's another issue with enforcement potentially but the the the enforcement question in general that the problem would be that this is under title eighteen create a whole storm here of picking on folks and taking away their rights and government interfering and so i just want us to be aware of that i understand that our our intent is very  but will it work comments from the members to be you know i mean this is why departments get paid the big bucks we don't to do that not so fine enforcement and yet monitoring and trying to figure out yeah this is a big can of worms in a sense because we are existing things going on that are being enforced so no there's no simple answer to all of it but i think start somewhere capping this you know containing this affordability somehow for the people and yeah there's no quick answer here but that sure but again i think we have to start somewhere so i as much as we all never ever ever like putting things out there that really has questions about enforceability we do  hope for the best and trying guide and create you know ordinances laws codes or whatever it is to make it happen it's the boots on the ground and the people in the seats that can get all that info in order to enforce and make it work educate education of community also we want feedback definitely but also people who are doing the right thing also want to make sure the others are following suit and not doing something illegal but then not being called on it and being reprimanded for it so all of those factors come into play here and you know again i don't think there's a quick fix but i like the idea  somebody who is not a relative and then if it's somebody who's not a relative it must be low income or affordable ok so and i understand mr spence is concerned and  maybe moving portions of that to two point nine six will help for the you know since they're doing it already in other portions of two point nine six maybe that will  work the concern is a little bit ok if it's not family that is affordable but there's a there's a an agreement that goes with the land but does the agreement for both before double or family or i'm not quite sure how that would work and it can be done and i mean the lawyers can figure out ok you're either family or affordable you agree to that and i think that can work yet as far as enforcement i think you know we'll see how a change in the housing human concerns deals with enforcing that yes mr carroll if you choose enforcement only thing less than seventy five hundred square feet were making us a special exception for affordable or family people anything over seventy five hundred square feet it's open to anybody for the second in this case if the if we go with the marriage thing to the second excess redrawing so open to anybody and that you know both of those are important to note that it will be adding more places for people to live and getting in getting more and more people able to live somewhere as opposed to all bunched up you know in in a single unit so white i think the the reality is we're kidding ourselves to say that we're going to have some hints and for first of all look around convolute look around a lot of neighborhoods there's there's lots going on that we've not been able to enforce in twenty or thirty years we're expecting too much of the department so to put this affordability in i think is  we had a discussion yesterday were talked to talked about the fact that we shouldn't pass laws that are on and forcible well i think this falls into that category so i don't think we should kid ourselves i think the mayor's version takes out the affordability and allows it you know changes the wording up to ninety nine and that adds a second well i'm not so sure about the second well i mean but i just i think by putting the affordability thing it sounds good it plays well but realistically it's it's a boondoggle something we're not going to be able to do so we're going to have to staff up either planning people all upset because they've they're just doing what everyone else has been allowed to do for years and years and years i think missed bice's got a really solid point so the question i would have then and move to before i recognize mr carroll is there's two issues here one there is do we allow for ohana units less than seventy five hundred square feet do we want to do that if we say yes we want to do that then the next question is is it open to whatever whoever can do it or do we want to restrict it to families and affordability so those are the two the two difference between affordable housing projects or buildings that we're involved in doing and we call them affordable we give them all kinds of bricks and we get into it because we're helping with the building or the funding or whatever in this case we talk about a private unit did an owner is going to build what about since we were read about enforcement my mind is more like here while we talk about all this some kind of maybe a tax incentive to a landlord who can come and say i built this and it's affordable and i have documentation that i'm renting it out and so give me some kind of a tax break on this that you could easily verify based on mental receipt or whatever but this other thing i think we creating a nightmare and i agree with potential tax incentives the the  big issue there is there are a lot of the senators when you're when you're already have the homeowners rate and homeowners exemptions you're not paying much taxes at all you paying enough that even fifty bucks it make a difference one hun am going to be paying on my home and i live in it compared to now that i don't live in it and i have to pay full for the full freight it's a big difference ok i have i have such a crack staff here so i have a list and maybe i'll make a copy of this and send it out to everybody but here's a recent rentals on craigslist we have a studio that's twenty five hundred square feet tall hundred dollars in dollars rental these are all on craig's list get killed one bedroom in central key hey five hundred square feet twenty two hundred dollars can you back up to the first one we kind of got hundred fifty dollars oh ok thank you five hundred square feet at twenty two hundred dollars and these are all you know maybe some of them are even legal so if we don't have some sort of affordability requirement that we could actually say hey you know even if somebody you know says i want to do it and somebody complains is to start the in the enforcement issue i understand why how it's going to be difficult to do but you can see already that these small units are just going astronomical rates and if we don't have some kind of restriction we will just be opening up to this some more you know i don't know i'll pass this out i appreciate my staff getting this for us it's just that we really have to think about the affordable and i understand the enforcement capability and usually the reason we haven't for spent issues provisions is because ten to fifteen percent of the people aren't going to follow the forgot what i was in to say you know i i know it was that the key to affordability is supply and the reason we have such high rental rates that because we don't have any rental because we're not building houses of any kind this is just one piece of the puzzle the challenge that i have is that we place so many restrictions on things at every level that were stymied for moving anything at anything forward and we're not going to we're not going to approach affordable rentals we're not going to approach affordable purchases until we increase supply to the level necessary to bring the prices down and that's one of the reasons why i'm you know i'm concerned about the workforce housing law because something done b work it doesn't provide greater you know greater numbers of housing and lower prices and i believe any more than thirteen out of the eighteen unisa pallies in which they study the result so we need to focus on making it easier for people to do whatever they feel is appropriate for their families we need to make it easier to move through the process and my sense is that if we've started messing with this try to force the affordability on it we're going to end up with less people doing it and we're going to end up with a continuing u of rental rates because we're not addressing the supply but mr spence chairman i just i just have two other comments and then i understand the the committee is going to vote who had photos and that's fine i feel the need one two comments one i agree with mr white if you have that's a basic macro economics supply and demand it's taught across the country as a basic principle that if you have only one of one thing and twenty people want it it's going to be very expensive we don't have a supply that's the reason why prices are so high passing a bill that will allow additional units in any form and it's going to increase supply ok i talk to most of you or get e mails from constituents that are see seed to you were guarding enforcement and most of those e mails are sand how dare the planning department do this how dare you know what if by what authority are they doing this aren't they being too strict on me of course the other side is that you know they don't do enough  but you know you get complaints about how we enforce things and when we start reaching into how dare the planning department ask if this is my relative and provide me with proof of this relationship or proof of that this is being rented at an affordable rate i mean you will receive those e mails maybe not certainly as units are built but maybe future council members but i really want this as research is done ten years from now and they look back on this and they go while the planning director warned everybody   thank you mr spence and thank you mr white so members let us see if we can get the rest of the bill will come back to the affordability so we can do it on the rest of so the next one that isn't as well i don't think is going to be controversial is the second accessory drawling over twelve thousand square feet you know it's kind of combined with either do we allow a second accessory drawing or do we make the sizes bigger or do we do a little bit of both i'm not sure so any thoughts and comments on that one since we moved past the five thousand are we going with the mayor's proposal to to increase to say up to nine thousand and nine nine nine which portion where you're looking  at on the mayor's proposed bill ok instead of oh i see what you're saying is sort of saying from five thousand to seven four nine nine we're allowing more and you're saying the mare and then we also cut the you know you get four hundred square feet and forty five four hundred fifty square feet below the seventy five hundred so i would like to keep it where it where it's five thousand to seventy five ninety nine to have the smaller units just you know if we expand to the borders of the property i don't know but it's up to the will of the committee i guess but the difference is one hundred square feet yeah that's a room on on a wahoo that's on it twenty five hundred twenty six hundred square foot lot and it's worth eight hundred something thousand dollars so that's where we're headed as i say you know if the supply doesn't keep up with the demand that's where we're headed and i know you know what the how the rent would be on his house you know thankfully he got it a lot smaller amount than that but that's what it's worth now in so you know supply unfortunately is the key and we're not we're not good at supply so are you i'm  changes because i think it allows for some some some expansion of the size of the units and i think that's you know and of course i'm hoping that the the department between planning and public works will make sure that they're allowing as we've had the discussion there are certain neighborhoods where it shouldn't be allowed because of infrastructure because of parking you know street with and so forth so i'm assuming that the departments are going to be able to say no in certain areas that they don't feel are compatible i'm not i'm not sure about that either so you're saying even below five thousand square feet then essentially the mayor's proposal says below five thousand square feet so you can have a what i'd like about the mayors thing is the  i'm fine with again whichever way the committee wants to go i mean if you want to go mr spence any concerns with the up to seventy five seventy four ninety nine where abs are ninety nine nine nine is the song it's on the mare's proposal page three it says it replaces seventy five thousand watt areas seventy five thousand just a straight five hundred square feet rather than the four hundred and four fifty but you keep keep in mind that this says anything up to ten thousand square feet so if it's two thousand square foot for the lot that allows for a five hundred square foot if it would fit yeah that's the thing is it would still have to fit and you have any concerns with that if you don't have concerns i'm fine with changing to up to it's  it's a lot easier to just say you know five hundred square feet for lots up to ten thousand square feet ok i don't the been able to deny a building permit based on infrastructure if it's based on a regulation that's the easiest to say you don't need set back you don't have room you don't have a space for a parking stall that's that's pretty easy to say wow this neighborhood is already really overtaxed and everything so i'm going to deny your building permit that's hard to do and that's where challenges come from i don't think i have that kind of discretion or the the roads too narrow i mean i know the council members have been on site visits to properties where the you've seen really narrow roads i don't know how we would deny just based on administrative staffs knowledge of an area that i can't handle anymore it would be nice if we had just you know if it's laid out in the law this is what's allowed this is recommendations those have to go back to the planning commission for review which i think you know there well there's nothing there's nothing in any of our ordinances that would trigger going back to the planning commission  it's anything that you allow under the zoning codes you know that's what they can do when we have certain restrictions like having parking is the easy one you're not going to be able to build a unit one of these units unless you can demonstrate that there is a there's enough room on the property for a parking stall please just know  that you can see it on page five of customer carol's bill in case you weren't already aware of this or discussing it there are several sections that deal with the requirements including public facilities required so disposal systematically see the sea of water supply fire protection and street adequacy so those are all in there for generally the department of public works to to look at or environmental management to verify in each case where there is a you know how to u so that's just for information that's the current standard that we have now that i don't think other than some formatting changes that there's proposals to change those substantially just want to note that for the committee and those are those i've previously said we can face a denial on inadequate fire protection you know those kinds of things you know adequacy of sewer we can we can deny based on those things but not just my observation that it's too crowded so i would say though  this bill and even the the mayor's bill it would help rectify some of the conversions that we've seen or additional you know it would it would help legitimize some of the still have to come in for after the fact building permits and stuff but there are there will be a number of cases where it will these will legitimize what people have constructed without permits so to nine nine nine for a night ok so we're changing the seventy five hundred to say up to and that what that differs from mr carroll's bill in that mr carroll had a floor of five thousand square feet fits it doesn't it can be less than five thousand square feet hundred or four hundred fifty square foot maximums ok we still have to think about the second dwelling on something over twelve thousand square feet any as well again there would be the ability to granting the ability to build a second ohana on lots of twelve thousand square feet or more that would it would certainly open up opportunities to build more units so that's a positive thing we still have the same limitations as far as you know is there a parking stall inside as a connected to sewer or  is there room to increase the septic system you know you still limited by setbacks at cetera the so those are those are going to be limitations on people this would not touch the ag district and that because all the homes in the ag district are technically farm dwellings they're not accessory dwellings or single i mean they are single family residences but they they are according to our code their farm dwellings so that's a little bit different but it would include the rural district so right now like you have a quite a bit of rural up in  and your lot is so arranged you could build a as you know a second ohana on those so i think that's the goal is to increase the number of units and i think this would do it more than more than one hundred twelve thousand square feet correct in one thousand three five right there in the rural district those at the second dwelling is considered an accessory dwelling this this one thousand three five covers up to the world district but does not cover the ag district ok ok that's fine mr white that is this question generates another another inconsistency because on lots of you know we're talking about adding a second while in on anything over twelve thousand  we've got an lots from ten thousand that almost twenty two thousand square feet you can have one house at six hundred square feet but if you have a twelve thousand  feet i'm not sure twelve thousand is the right number maybe something a little bit larger said any suggestions are you comfortable with twelve or should that be i don't  in intuitive seems to be my word of the day intuitively i agree with you that a larger lot would be able to i think of the half acre lots we have in moscow while and i see so many of those have lots of room on  them that they could accommodate a second ohana pretty easily but just for members clarification half an acre is about twenty three thousand square feet right twenty two known as forty forty three thousand and sixty is if there is an acre so half of that is so this twenty one is close twenty one is closed yet so i think twelve thousand would be a little tight but i also look at some of the issues like around mr guzman's district where you have multiple units already constructed that would help resolve and some of the units that have been built with without permits it would actually allow people to  expand what they if if they are ready haven't built out it would allow them to expand what they have and i know who is very tight as far as unit counts i don't remember seeing too many  i'm fine with moving that to fifteen thousand because that's actually three thousand square feet which you can get some good set backs and what i would say are you are you ok with that i'm ok with that and i'm looking at it and there just aren't that many lot with more than twelve thousand square feet most of them ironically like schools are zoned single family residential so we looked at residential use on lot larger than twelve thousand square feet there just aren't that many and there's a few on the sand hills and a couple on cesspool so that would adding a unit in that area would trigger improving that lot from pool to septic system i don't know if a lot of those lots have that kind of room then if that's the committee's pleasure near ok with that members you know there is this just the mayor mayor's proposal the twelve yes yes came from him your department actually we work with the mayor on this and the thought was that twelve thousand would be large enough you could add an additional hon and an as stated it several times it's going to be on a case by case basis do they have the room the way that you know as if i assume a lot of these lots already have one access dwelling on on them is that lot situated is it a range that there is even room for a second one i don't know  we'll see how that goes i think i think there would be enough limitations on twelve i don't think you would the way that the law through already built out i don't think you're going to see a slew of properties of around twelve thousand square feet coming in for a second on those i think it would be more the fifteen or half acre i think that's where you would see the most who agrees what's the pleasure of the committee twelve or fifteen up to you fifteen we have a fifteen do here twenty fifteen if i thought ok let's go to fifteen thousand square feet right i don't think anybody will have any issue with the next one it's restricting access are you drawing to long term rental occupancy only in mr carroll's abil restricts the new affordable access redrawing but does not limit existing this is not limited existing he said accessory drawling so in his case if you do this affordable we have to discuss that there but allowing for smaller than seventy five hundred square foot to have accessory dwellings and in there it limits restricts his bill restriction to affordability so you t it doesn't affect existing but there aren't supposed to be an existing on the other seventy five hundred square feet but there are existing above seventy five right ok and the mare's proposal says yes it restricted to long term only to those units that have received it cept for those that have already received a steerage and b and b so no new ones can be used any concerned with excess read welling's and because i don't know how many b and b s that would affect and be say if there are any existing and already have their permits are they allowed to continue to renew their permits or to have their permits  approved by the department when they come up for renewal or are they going to have to come into compliance with with the current law and no longer be able to use their accessory dwelling units for you know i don't see where does that it has that restriction out is the issue that if you do your second one you can also have that or no second accessory do i don't know what the intent was i wasn't at the commission meeting but that might be something for the department to clarify yet so i mean so right now you people hitting any excess read whiling for short term rental right or b and b which we currently allow yet which is currently with our med right so that's that would that would change that which the committee can but i don't know if the intent was to limit it to the new dwellings that would be allowed or just to say this is prohibited for any accessory drawings because that would that would change things for at least for a new permit ts and potentially for current permit ts if at the time of renewal they would have to come into compliance with the new code so this all should be considered i think by that meeting the department member's i'm fine with saying in the marriage proposal page three the no second accessory drawing shall be used for took three years to do i get my sense is that if if we are allowing new buildings then that should you know we should not allow i'd like the mayor's word in and leave it that way except for people that have existing permits are ok they're grandfather so when they come in for renewal they they can continue to go oh ok so long as they can come in for a new that's fine is the but is the language again this is this is the whole focus of this is to provide affordable housing right not affordable correct short term rentals correct i'm fine banning any short term rentals but allowing those of already gotten permit to continue their operations even if it's under the cap that's that we  have we're doing something to increase affordable housing that's true we're not doing something to increase that is correct rentals for visitors right for that though that from saying that's why the second that's that's the one that we're allowing a second a second accessory drawing so if we prohibit that from being used as a short term rental period number this is this is not just the second this is any accessory dwellings correct elite is not responding to just this second one of the four fifteen thousand square foot lots and over right i understand that this is applied to any of the new structures i would think yes it applies to any structures and so you're saying so so what i what i'm suggesting is the wording is fine as it is but just put in something that if there is a an existing short term rental permit for such an accessory dwelling on a property with such an excess redrawing it's grandfather it still seems to there's contradictory language and one hundred sixty four and sixty five you know we would have to switch that out but we would also want to be clear that the people who have applications currently in the process whether they are whether they would be prohibited or there their applications are grandfathered in and as a part of that i think that's fair held you need to tweak this a bit i think because by itself that section is a little odd because it's just going to be in the code as has already been lawfully established but this is going to be when you read the code it will just be along with the rest of the code which have been adopted at different points in time so only when the ordinance comes in that does the amendment you would add in a section that says the sword in shall take effect upon its approval that shall apply  l not apply basically to short term mental homes that have or have hermit's as of the effective date or that have i don't know applications that are deemed complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance and so then you're only covering these amendments and not the whole code section there's a way to go through that if that's the intent of the of the committee but now keep in mind you will be changing the who can the excess read welling allowance for bed and breakfast homes in short term mental homes and to what extent that that will you know be significant the department i think would want to take a look at that and be clear it's not going to run with the land you know that other permit does not run with the land so if somebody were to sell it and it had an accessory drawing that was permitted is a short term rental the next person could not get that permit for the short term that accessory i guess because we're working off a lot of proposals here and you got here when p j every compilation of proposals are going on and so i mean because there are parts of mr carroll's says you know thus far whatever incorporated will roll into the land so if those kind of things are in here that's why i just question that that would be that's the sticking point is the affordability that runs for mr carroll's one news the affordability portion that runs with the way that if it's affordable it's in mr keros you would not be able to do it as a short term mental period in the story because it's the affordable portion right so we're jumping off of that now and ditto we haven't seen we haven't determined the whole affordable there's there's a huge disconnect we're yeah it's totally disconnected in my brain because we are go department and you know saying no short term rentals but again no affordable so what does that leave that leaves extra inventory and building out of these properties with the wellings that ok not short term but also not affordable right so what does that make it market right so i'm not so right mike ha this that's where the suspense of this entire discussion i thought was all about creating more affordable inventory right will take thing i mean you know hoping this is going to be some type of maneuver to help assist our let's increase inventory for affordable and now it's like all top there and well that's where we have our being stomped on right now we have three member two members that are not do we have three members so far that have said we wanted to do the affordable we have a department that says it's going to be very difficult to force so that's why we're coming back to the affordable i agree with you this is supposed to be for affordable units that's the whole reason this from the tig so let's get the rest of it down and  get back to figuring out how we can do the affordability because three of us at least want to do the affordability and the other two we haven't heard from the other one but the other two are concerned here and now we're trying to just put some kind of dent in this housing crisis affordability crisis and we're getting the same count in force kind of force so we better not even talk about it no we're not saying that we're saying we're going to talk about it at the end of this meeting that's what we're trying to say we will get through the rest of this and discuss the affordability we've talked about for the last hour almost and we're going to have to talk about it some more because there are a group of us that want it to stay in and we have to figure out how to make it stay in so the zoning districts essentially the mare's one allows it and everything up to rural where mr carroll's his own residential only i'm from generally  lots i'm fine though it includes an interim so even though it's interim any concerns with that concern mr carroll ok all right and last but the cover decks last but not least covered deck area can you explain that one more time mr spence again it is the purpose of this section is that people are doing this anyway but it's there are no limitations on it right now so you could have your thousand square foot house and you can have a three thousand square foot deck and that's not considered enclosed area and that sort of ridiculous or you know be just an abuse of whatever's going on so members any concerns with that ok without objection will leave that in thank you and that that will help us a lot and review building permits and now this brings us back to the affordability requirement as i mentioned there are three of us that have expressed strong desire to keep that in two that have some concerns with the enforceability and we haven't heard from the only other one let's he as mr carroll has it the department has concerns as to who's going to enforce and how how they're going to enforce it and two or other members or so they're agreeing with the department and that what the chair would like to recommend this one is to have our staff mr garneau work with planning and h h c housing and human concerns to come up with the language that and course council of course come up with the language that we can do the affordable agreement because i'm of the the mind that most people are going to follow that they're not going to go against it so we can figure out a way to enforce on the other people that aren't if we can figure out a way to enforce on the other people that aren't there we can put the enforcement provisions in if i can get a commitment from mr garneau and the departments to work on that rather quickly to see if we can do it we do it in two ninety six now so maybe we have to change a little bit of two ninety six ninety six we're generally dealing with development and so you've got all the units all in one place this is not such an animal we've got units that are potentially all over the county spread out all over the place in people's backyards i'm just i'm just looking at it from a realistic standpoint it's going to be almost impossible i would love to have something in there if i felt it was a forcible my concern is that i don't think it's an forcible and the more we put qualifiers on this it's like you know we have issues with getting affordable housing developments build because they don't pencil out well i don't know what the impact of imposing affordability on these units might be if it main means that they don't pencil out they don't get built what have we solved and my focus is on increasing supply and if we can do that and do the affordability requirement great but i'm i'm concerned that therefore ability i don't know does anybody know what what rent would be allowed to be charged if it's within the scope of what's allowed now we don't have those numbers we can certainly get those i think does well that would help as well because it if they're if they're half or two thirds of what this be currently being charged something that they can't recover right there rent we in the rent they can be going to end up having the same challenge we have currently with affordable housing is not being built because they don't pencil out  understand one that's been sitting idle has gotten a green light for water his water issues to go ahead with his affordable units and then north by a couple of the new ownership has taken the lead to want to do affordable rentals so i see a lot of headway moving in that direction currently use and for this one you know i just can't help but reflect back on every time we sit here and we think we we get new legislation out new and we always have the and it's and it's understandable the concerns how are we going to force this are we going to need more more people to do this we're already strapped for you know resources in our departments or we're going to need more money or we're going to you know and all that stuff is fine let's cross that bridge when we get to it and figure it out but i think something needs to be on the books that is heading in that direction that we all want to see in this community wants to see and it's affordable inventory and so if something like this can help assist us in that great and we tweak and change things all the time in order to fit the climate of the date you know and the needs of the day so i just really want to see this move and i'm not sure if a department h even go down that road to even start looking into it at all or was just hoping that they'd see it's hard we don't want to do it we can't do it and please don't put it in here i think of some of the some of the again from the zoning and enforcement division they recommend that we don't do a rent control ordinance through this mechanism if we're going to do that we should do it through something separate so  as far as what are the affordable ranges i have no idea truly less than what has been handed out right now and again i share council chair wh it's concerns that you know if you if you take out a second mortgage the cost two thousand dollars a month and all you can get is eight hundred dollars a month rent on  that doesn't that's not going to pencil out there's not done there's no reason to even build an additional unit so for those break points are and i'm pulling numbers out of the air i don't really know but the point is that it needs to pencil out for a property owner in order to build a unit right so that you know we just had a rally last weekend they showed one of these tiny home units and sounds very affordable to build would those be considered addition accessory to a lien on a property like this yes they would and everything we've been talking about up till now is the maximum square footage of a unit we have not talked about there there's essentially no minimum so we've had this discussion with public works and the minimum would be like according to some health and safety issues you need so much square footage for about through mn so much for the kitchen and so much for different uses it  as i recall it's like two hundred fifty or three hundred square feet is like a minimum yeah and mr couch is there too in this is quite a very very  good looking unit but i have actually have some prices on affordable rental bad lines that we have received we have and this is during the take you know so fifteen hundred for the one bedroom eighteen two bedroom twenty one hundred three bedroom twenty three hundred for a four bedroom so that would be the hood affordable rental i guess type guidelines currently that seems a bit close to for one but and there's at this fifteen that they're going to go as high as fifteen yes some of these already are in that general vicinity so it's not that much different so it is feasible i think it would be feasible to build one i mean and it's close to the market now and interesting and sorry and then again i mean we're talking about families for families right we the people have the lands that perhaps got handed down through generations and you know grandparents are mom and dad spent their whole life to afford this land built the home now they want to add perhaps kids in the that you have grandchildren move into the mean home mom whoever you know lives in the edition  think the the results of this meeting are that we're good with the second unit we're good with going down below seventy five hundred square feet the issue if we can work out with the two departments and corporation council and our staff we can work out some way of enforcing the affordability and i know that city and county has some afford ability record restrictions in their accessory drawing units as well as other municipalities so we can look and see how they do it and i will say you know this is  number one on our list on the ticket list and i think it's important that we get this so where the partners are all comfortable with the restrictions if any and the enforceability and at least come up with something to present to this committee to say ok here's what we can what we all have agreed on and here's where we don't agree but here's what we can do to fix what we don't agree and i think the very next meeting will do that hopefully we can get that done before with our next meeting we have a special meeting right we have a special i mean chair on the twenty seventh that might be a little ambitious but then our next to the twenty fifth or to twenty seventh twenty seventh that's good and then we can do that we'll put that on that and then the third will come back with hopefully a revised bill for some of us hopefully with affordability that other people can live with and maybe get that passed out in november it would be nice to get that done at this term  if we get out november we might be able to get i know missed by so won't be able to voted on the second and final reading but if we if we get out on the november third meeting we should be able to pass it this term and that would be very nice to do that members if you're ok with that and if staff is aware of what we need to what we can combine what we all agreed to and then look at the at the original ordinance and see what how do you square footage as came to be and maybe come up with some alternatives and then we might be able to change those at the same time to to kill two birds with one stone sure but i would think that it didn't it would need to go back to the planning commission i would if we change those numbers  couey county doing a really great job on their rental inventory right now we have a whole article or talk on that during the take in distress we had something about  numbers in the other comments on that ok then without objection will be for this item ok so that i am is deferred now the question i have is we've got about twenty minutes left that's not enough to even start a discussion i would think the degree port the one issue was going to be the one stop shop is how we're going to be for that we were going to have housing and public works and management were going to come up down by the time they get down here is going to be quite a tale and we can talk talk about fifteen minutes or do you want to just d next meeting of the twenty seventh yeah i think will differ so without objection will do for both items and then with that i'll just commit to you that we work with staff to and the departments to come up with some language that will be acceptable to at least a majority of them so we can at least pass this out with some affordability requirement will come up with some language and we can discuss on the november third meeting hopefully everybody will be here if that's a regularly scheduled meeting all right with that members so i want to thank you for a very good lively discussion and we still want to make it affordable as much as possible the chairs anyway want to do that department thank you for coming up with with what you were able to come up with and we'll come up with a new ordinance for everybody to look  hopefully before so we can discuss it rigorously on the floor with that members of this meeting is a jerk