 Okay. It's about the budget. And then we come back in the summer to get the contracts approved because after the board approval, we have to execute all the contracts and bring them back to you. And then I do wanna end with, as a new-ish director, I've been here two years. I know this program is a program of great importance to this community and it has involved some controversy. This is the second ever procurement. And even as Kimberly and I have been going through this process, we're accumulating a list of lessons learned already. And I think there should be some formal opportunities to engage your board. We're gonna have two new board members next year and the stakeholders. We've built some good communication with our community partners. And I think we should look together after this procurement is done about whether or not we wanna make further adjustments before we come back with a third round of procurement. So that ends the formal presentation and Kimberly and I are here to answer any questions. Thank you, Director Morris and Assistant Director Peterson. Are there questions from members of the board? Mr. Chair, I do have some questions. That's okay. Yes, Supervisor Friend. Well, first, a deep appreciation for Mr. Morrison as Peterson on all of your work. I actually think why no, actually, that this process is significantly better than it had been historically. And I appreciate that it's an iterative process and look forward to the adjustments that you're gonna recommend or at least bring up come the fall. When the board, not all the current members were on the board at the time, when the board made the switch to the core process, we acknowledged that it was a work in progress. During the course of the core process, we've made adjustments. It's completely reasonable that we continue to make those adjustments in order to ensure that those that rely on the safety net programs and contracts are being served the best. And as a result of that, it actually gets me to pivot to this discussion about the AAA that you bring up. I have pretty grave concerns about us, this board funding something other than what would be done through the other process. I think that we shouldn't be out on an island funding something that doesn't have a collective impact. I recognize the timing is what the timing is, but it's within this board's purview and responsibility to ensure that this investment, which is pretty significant. I think if you could correct me if I'm wrong on this, Mr. Morris, if my math is right, it's up to about a $595,000, I believe, dollar allocations, what we provide in that category. We have two contracts in core right now. One is $500,000, and that is to the current meals on wheels provider for the AAA community bridges. And we also have a $95,000 contract with Gray Bears. That's a combination of some home delivered meals for seniors and a grocery bag program for seniors. So basically two senior nutrition contracts, which $595, so $595 of the core funds. Great. I mean, look, and I remember five years back when there was that from the Dias recommendation to increase the funding, obviously these are doing very important things. But the idea of it though, was that we were augmenting and supporting funding of something else that was already the decision of the AAA. And so the idea that we would be out on an island here on our own funding, I think is problematic. I think that this board should consider and when it comes time to emotion, I'd be happy to provide that language that recognizing that these senior nutrition programs, whatever may be funded through their process, meaning the local area agency on aging or the AAA, that that's something that we actually carve out to ensure that we're enhancing and augmenting it as opposed to funding programs that wouldn't have that same collective impact. As we all agree, the current programs don't quite have the funding that they need. The idea of us taking out $500, $595,000 from that that could be funded to somebody else, I think would be a big mistake. And so I would be, when it comes time for emotion, I think that I think that's really important direction that this board give that we have that alignment. It just happens to be at this time that there's a timing difference due to RFPs, COVID and a number of other things. But I think that we can fix that with some language here. I appreciate again, the work of both of you and look forward to the continued discussion of my colleagues on this item. But that's right. I think that there needs to be an adjustment to the recommended actions and specifically around that. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Chair Advisor McPherson. Yeah, I generally agree with what Supervisor Friend is proposing. Welcome, Ms. Peterson. You're coming right at the end, so here it is. And we acknowledge that this could have been done sooner, I know, but with COVID taking so much of the bandwidth that we had the last two years, it wasn't really possible. And the complexity of all this hasn't changed because there's so much, so many applications, three or four times as much, what, 16 and a half million. You have five and almost six million to allocate. That hasn't changed since pre-core and today. So we're working with a different situation, but I do think that that's the way we should go to have a collective impact on our goals for this core model. And I am fully supportive of the core model that we established a couple of years ago. I think it is giving better services to more people and it has more direction than we had before. So that's my general comments, but I'll be glad to hear from the public as well. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Supervisor Caput. Okay, thank you. Randy and Kimberly, thank you very much. You put a lot of thought into this. I think you put your hearts into it also. You realize and we realize how much the non-profits actually help out the government and save the government money, even though we're giving them some money, they're saving us a lot in the long run. So anyway, I think you've looked at this and I think I'm gonna go along with it. So thank you very much. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. I just wanted to, Supervisor Kennedy, yes. Mr. Chair, real briefly. Please. First of all, I wanna say, as Supervisor Friend noted, this has been a long process and I appreciate the staff's work in really engaging with the community, engaging with providers and figuring out the best way to move forward. This seems to be a major step forward with these panel of experts starting essentially from scratch and then developing proposals. I agree with Supervisor Friend's approach around making sure we're in alignment with other funders so that we get the maximum impact, especially in the area of senior food programs. But I just wanna take a moment to appreciate because I know that this summary at the end here is the product of literally thousands of hours of meetings and development of processes that will hopefully benefit the community in a way that we will, every one of these dollars in the most targeted effective way possible. I didn't get that. Could you try again? We can still hear you. So it's most targeted in the, that these dollars are gonna be spent the most targeted, effective way possible. And remembering also that this is a, only a small portion of our overall budget and overall community programs funding that we do. So we need to make sure that this fills gaps and leverages dollars in ways that some of our more traditional federal and state FEMP formula-based funding does not. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. I just wanna really concur with Supervisor Friend's comments that we want to align our funding of senior nutrition services with those of AAA and if that means making an adjustment to the RFP process to ensure that we can do so, that we should. I also just wanna clarify. So if the meals or senior nutrition services through community bridges, which is the Meals on Wheels program received $500,000 this current fiscal year and our large tier currently caps out at $450,000. Unless, I mean, I'm assuming they didn't apply for the Targetive Impact Award of 795,000. So unless this board makes an adjustment on the specific amount, there could be a 10% funding cut to this program. Is that right? Yes. If I'm following, if either of the current senior nutrition funded programs and core applied to the large tier, they'd be limited based on the RFP structure to a 450,000 application unless they chose to apply to the Targetive Impact, which would be up to 750. So if that is correct, yes. And to what I think your point is, there is, as I understand it, from console with council and general services. This is general fund money. This is not restricted through any federal or state allocation and parameters. This is completely up to your board how to consider directing us to do anything that does not have to be tied to the tiers. Great, thank you. All right, we'll now open it for public comment. Anyone wishes to speak to this item? Please approach the podium. So board supervisors, my name is Enda Brennan and I was actually here to talk on the next item, but I do want to make a very brief comment here. I currently serve as treasurer of Gray Bears and so I am part of this process that you're talking about here. And we look forward to a thorough and complete analysis of our proposal for the senior nutrition services to take over the Meals on Wheels program. And I do think it's wise of you to try and align that so that there are two major funding sources. One is a AAA and one is you guys. And we have brought this issue up with the county. And so I'm hoping that you will make direction that whether we're the ones that receive the contract or not, that's not what I'm here to talk about. But I think it's important that one organization get that in terms of the actual Meals on Wheels component. We have a separate contract that has to do with the Healthy Food program, which you folks are familiar with. But I do think that what you're talking about is a wise move so that we don't end up with one panel saying give the dough to these guys and the other panel saying give the dough to these guys. And then we're not able to accomplish what we're really trying to do, which is to have synergies here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brennan. Good morning still, I'm James. It was just interesting to come back in and listen to what's going on here. I've probably volunteered with food and not bombs 75 times. I've probably volunteered with gray bears, you know, maybe 30 times. So I can make some observations about the quality of the food. There's a presenter, Ice Age farmer about, you know, 15 months ago, he presented that every grain of rice, every coffee bean, every piece of lettuce is gonna be tracked. And that product is graphene oxide. And there are ways that anybody like myself can test food to see if it's actually been weaponized. So since you guys seem to follow the dictates of the leading eugenicist organization in this area, which is the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz, it'll just be interesting to continue to observe the weaponized food. That's all I'll say for now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wettman. Are there any members on Zoom or telephone? Yes, there's one caller. Caller 2915, microphone is available. Good morning, this is Becky Steinbruner from rural Ascot, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I wanna thank Randy Morris, Director Morris for an excellent presentation. It's clear and easy to understand of the public, just listening on the phone, not able to see any of the lines. So thank you. And I really appreciate the fine work that he has done in his two years being here. He really moved quickly as a very new employee in his place and got the great place delivered that offered tremendous help to seniors and to the restaurant owner. So, you know, we've got a gem here on our staff, Mr. Morris is marvelous. I have a question about, I have two questions. Why is it only the city of Santa Cruz that the county is working with on these core investments? These are county-wide benefits that help people in their county-wide, why are not the other cities also helping with this and weighing in at the table? And my second question is, I am also concerned about the relatively low number of small-tier applicants that Mr. Morris referred to, or maybe the lady, I can't remember your name and I'm sorry, but welcome. Is that because they have given up? Is that because of COVID and they just don't have the staff available to put together these complicated reports and applications? What have you learned from your outreach sessions regarding these smaller organizations that may not have the time or the expertise to submit applications for small, relatively small dollar amounts, but that could help them enormously? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Steinberger. There are no other speakers. Well, I hope that we will learn more about why we haven't seen more small-tier applications in some kind of review process. As you suggested later on, once the overall process is done, could you comment briefly, Director Morris, on why other cities are not participating in this process? I'm happy to, with some deference to the board members who were here before you and I, as my predecessor who was director from the board, as I understand, to reach out to all four cities. And I say this as a benign statement because I wasn't here that the smaller cities, Scotts Valley and Capitola are very small dollars they put in community programs. Watsonville has a larger program. I wasn't here to know, but I do wanna respond that they were asked to engage and we asked again this time under board director since I've been here. And I think we should just weave that into the lessons, learns conversation. We've been in a COVID context. I think there's lots of potential reasons. But I think keeping that conversation active about aligning city municipalities general fund and county general fund for community programs is a very good conversation. And, but that is my understanding of the history is that City of Santa Cruz saw the benefit and engaged in the others for whatever their reasons were did not. And for this round, I think COVID was the overlay. Why it's just like a lot to take on to change a process in the middle of the crises we're in. I understood. Thank you. All right, I'll return to the board for action. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have one brief question for County Councilor. Mr. Heath, I just wanna confirm that with the information that I was providing that I would be moving the recommended actions with additional direction or am I modifying one of the current directions with this additional direction? I just wanna make sure I have the language right before I make the motion. You would be adding additional direction. Okay, thank you, County Councilor. And so Mr. Chair, I'll move the recommended actions and I'll also add an additional direction. Request that staff take whatever administrative actions are necessary to allocate up to a maximum of $595,000 from the County's core funding commitment for the upcoming cycle to be provided to a grantee or grantees that receive senior nutrition program grant funding from the local area agency on aging or AAA. I'll second that. I have a motion by a supervisor friend and a second by Supervisor McPherson. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Clerk roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Koenig. Aye. Thank you, motion with additional direction passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Director Morris and Assistant Director Peterson. We'll see you back here on this item on June 28th. We'll now proceed to item 10 to consider and accept and file on the Greenway Initiative and adopt a resolution to place the initiative on the June 7th, 2022 general election ballot and take related actions as recommended by the Deputy CAO, Director of Community Development and Infrastructure and Director Machado. Mr. Chair, unfortunately, before Director Machado speaks, I'd just like to say that I need to recuse myself from this item. I have a personal financial conflict because my principal residence is within 500 feet of the rail line. I'll be recusing from this item. Thank you. Yes, of course. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Director Machado. Good morning, Chair Koenig and Supervisors. Thank you for that introduction. Matt Machado, Deputy CAO and Director of Community Development and Infrastructure. The item before you is our Greenway Initiative Report. As you recall, on February 1, the Board of Supervisors requested a report on the Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative. The report covers the initiative's potential fiscal impact and impact on the County's general plan, land uses, infrastructure funding and a variety of other topics. The report before you today is attached to the agenda item. It is also posted on the County's website. It was posted there on March 2nd, last Wednesday, as well as a press release that was released on the, or issued on the same day. The report is self-explanatory and we do have staff here that were key authors of this report. So we are available to answer any questions that you may have. The recommended action today is to accept and file the report on the Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative and to adopt resolution to place the Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative on the ballot for the next general election on June 7th, 2022, and take related administrative actions. Thank you for your time today. Thank you, Director Machado. Are there questions from members of the board? I'd like to make a couple of comments. I want to thank the staff and the analysis provided by this 11-page report, the Greenway Initiative. It was a big task to undertake in a small amount of just 30 days. And I think the voters have more information now as they read all of your work. And I want to thank each and every one of you that participated in this. I also want to thank the board for unanimously agreeing to have the staff produce this report. Some people would think it didn't cover enough and some will say it's too much information. We know it's a very controversial subject in our community. But it was a strong demonstration, I believe, that this Board of Supervisors believes in providing transparency and more information as part of our collective values. We as a board are obligated to put this on the June ballot, as was mentioned. But I think it's important for our voters and citizens to understand that in doing so, it's not an endorsement one way or the other of the Greenway Initiative. And we are simply saying the voters should weigh in and they should know more. Again, I want to thank you for your input. This was a condensed effort that you'd had and it's really full of some great information. And I think every bit of it is factual and some people, like I said, wanted more. Some people say you did too much. But anyway, thank you for the effort. I think it's really important as people go to the polls in June to decide on this initiative. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Okay. Supervisor Caput. Okay, thank you. Yeah, although I strongly oppose the initiative that they're gonna put on the ballot, they got the signatures. So I strongly believe that we put it on the ballot and either support it after it's gonna be considered in the vote, we either forward or against it. The language, will that be the initiative? Will that be, that will come before the County Council? I'm sorry, could you repeat your question, Supervisor Caput? Could you repeat your question? Yeah. The language, how it's put on the ballot, it'll be reviewed by County Council. And then how much sway do you have on the, the way the language of the initiative is worded? So the ballot question itself is in the resolution that's before your board right now. And that was drafted by my office. My office will also draft an impartial analysis of the measure that will be in the voter guide. There will also be a fiscal analysis drafted by the Auditor Controller, Treasurer Tax Collector that will be in the guide. And the full text of the initiative will also be in the voter guide. Okay. And you've reviewed it or you're going to review it more? Yes, we've reviewed it extensively. All right. Okay, thank you. Yes. There you go. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. I also just want to thank Director Machado for and you and your department for the quick preparation of this report and Supervisor McPherson for requesting it. I think it's a very clear eyed and transparent look at the issue before us. I did have one question. I mean, I think you really do a good job of covering all the different topics, but one of the sections of the report says that a wider trail as described in the initiative may require proportionately greater maintenance due to increased trail area and capacity. However, an interim trail on the railroad track alignment will have less infrastructure, such as retaining walls and bridges. It will likely be less expensive to maintain than a trail next to the railroad track alignment. Has there been any discussions with the RTC about maintenance agreements for a trail of whatever alignment is constructed? There has been some discussions, but not specific to this scope, but there are a number of segments that are near construction or even complete. And so maintenance has been a big topic, but not to the degree that we would know or get into details for the interim trail or the greenway initiative. So not to that level of detail, but certainly that's a hot topic ongoing. Yeah, I agree. I mean, we talk a lot about the cost of one trail version versus the other, but I mean, really maintenance, and we see our issues with maintenance across the county in terms of our road network, which just currently has a failing condition on average, or our parks, where we also have millions of dollars of unfunded maintenance or deferred maintenance. And so really we need to be budgeting in how we're going to maintain this facility once it's constructed. And I'm glad that this report at least touches on that. I also thought that a couple of other mentions of just some of the fiscal impacts were helpful. For example, on page six, the lower interim cost could facilitate the funding and construction of more trail segments in the short term, assuming the corridor can be rail banked. I have a real concern that if we try to build them, if we build the most expensive trail possible that we might not actually make it all the way to Watsonville and provide that access to the slew and the beaches in Watsonville that that community deserves. So I'm glad that the report touches on that. And then also on page seven, at a minimum rail banking, the Santa Cruz branch rail line would defer the cost of maintaining the Santa Cruz branch rail line for freight rail purposes, which is an unfunded burden on the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Again, I've just mentioned maintenance and the costs of maintaining the rail line for freight are upwards of $60 million on the high side. And that's just the beginning. That's not talking about ongoing maintenance. So I think our community is gonna have to have very real consideration of what we can afford and what we can get done. And I'm glad that the report provides some clear information on that. So thank you very much. Members of the public wish to address the board on this topic, please approach the podium. Once again, my name is Enda Brennan. I'm resident of the city of Santa Cruz. My wife and I are strong supporters of Greenway. I do want to thank the staff for providing an excellent report to go along with the recommendation, which you pretty much I believe are going to follow clearly to put this on the ballot, given the number of signatures and the support in the community. I don't disagree that there is, this is a very contentious issue in our county. And I always start any political discussion with respect for people who have disagreements because that's what democracy is all about. It's unfortunate that literally within days of the staff report coming out on this that I've already started to see screeds. There's one particular weekly column that comes out that some of you may be familiar with that has very detailed objection and attacks against this very factual, varied nonpartisan report. So I want to just let the staff know that welcome to the club, unfortunately, even when you try and be straight down the middle and nonpartisan on this, you're going to get attacked. And so as a Greenway supporter, I strongly believe that this is a fair impartial report. And I think you're doing your duty, which is to put it on the ballot and let the people decide. And you've given them now the opportunity to have a very extensive analysis of what this initiative will do. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Brennan. Hello. I'm speaking on behalf of the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network and the UCSC Climate Coalition. My name is Jim Mulheran. I'm 81 years old. We all age and I want to point out the connection between aging and mode choice as point one number one I want to make. As we age, we don't have so much options. So if we replaced the possibility of rail with a Greenway, that eliminates a choice for many, many people, including people like myself. I want to make a number of other points depending upon how much time I have. And then end with a proposal that the supervisors, at least one of you, make a motion to split the item into placing the Greenway item on the ballot and rejecting the report because it's inadequate. Now I'll point out some more of those points. I already point out the inadequacy of mode choice. There are a couple of others. It will do nothing to reduce vehicle miles traveled. It will eliminate the potential for transit center development in many parts of the area. It does nothing to reduce greenhouse gases. And as a member of the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, that's key to us. You have a responsibility to act to reduce greenhouse gases. And if you endorse this proposition, you are failing to live up to that obligation. Thank you very much for your attention, both you and the staff. Thank you, Mr. Mulherran. Good morning, my name is James. I have some comments. If you go to page 69 on the binder for today's rubber stamp proceedings, B, summary of the Greenway general circulation element. Now this makes a reference to going back to 1994. So it's my understanding that the Agenda 21-30-50 was introduced in this county in 1993 and was adopted due to the seeds project in 1997. So it's great. Whatever these gentlemen spent a month on working, but this has all been in the works since 94. You know, degree of scale. You actually do the science. CO2 is a necessary ingredient for all life on planet Earth. So, you know, I wish I could agree with more of what's going on, but CO2 is not causing climate change. Now there's a huge lack of efficiency going on. I'll give you an example of efficiency. I bought a really efficient turbo diesel engine in 2000. 265 horsepower, 550 foot pounds of torque, 1100 pounds. It's actually pretty efficient. I've got things pretty heavy, 450,000 miles later, I still get 16 miles of the gallon. But a couple of years before that, the oldest diesel model, the Opak diesel, there's two pistons in each cylinder. When you go with my engine weighs 1,100 pounds, this one's several percent more efficient. 325 horsepower, 625 foot pounds of torque, 285 pounds. That's what's in these drones that are flying all around. They have a 13 horsepower version of that. That's the size of a grapefruit and two soda cans. It can be working at 13 horsepower and you can have a conversation right next to it. So there's a greed issue going on here. And it's just, I'm glad I have the time to make our observations. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. Are there speakers or members of the public on Zoom or the phone that wished to comment? Yes, there are 11. David Schoenbrunn, your microphone is available. Good morning, Mr. Chair. I'm David Schoenbrunn, President of the Train Riders Association of California and also President of TransDef. I sent the board a letter yesterday identifying inaccuracies in the report written by your staff. I'm here today because my organizations are focused on reducing the climate change impacts of transportation, which is the state's single largest source of GHGs. The most effective action your county can take to reduce its transportation emissions is to implement passenger rail on the Santa Cruz branch line. The report fails to identify how the initiative takes away the county's ability to reduce transportation GHGs. Your county suffers from tremendous congestion on Highway 1. The greenway would do little to improve that situation, whereas commuter rail could make a difference. In addition, your county like the rest of California has a housing shortage. By eliminating rail transit, the greenway would thus interfere with the 21st century strategy for climate sensitive development, which is transit oriented development. I'm here to urge the board to direct its staff to revise the report so voters get an accurate understanding of what the greenway would do to block the county's plans to solve its problems. This is not an accurate assessment of the greenway's impact. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schoenberg. Zoom user, your microphone is available. Please state your name for the record at the beginning of your comment. Yes, good morning. My name is Deb Molina. Good morning, Chair Koenig and supervisors. I wanna urge you and thank you for placing the greenway initiative on the June 7th election ballot. As you know, this is the first time that Santa Cruz County has been given the opportunity to vote on the options for the railway corridor. We have an incredible opportunity to have an environmentally friendly, cost effective, safe, continuous and gorgeous 32 mile trail linking our communities. We can get people out of their cars and reduce greenhouse gases and create new small business opportunities. It's important that Santa Cruz finally get to vote on this issue. And I realize this is a controversial initiative and I'd like to appeal to those folks who are anti greenway to please be respectful and use facts instead of personal attacks as we move towards this election. We can disagree and still be civil. And this is how a democracy works best. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Molina. Matt Farrell, your microphone is available. Good morning, Chair Koenig and members of the board. I'm speaking today on behalf of No Way Greenway. We want to point out key areas of deception in the Greenway measure. It's failure to define the meaning of the term interim. The establishment of an interim trail is not possible without rail banking, which would strand line camps rail on. Rail banking has never been used anywhere in the United States to return rail service after a line has been paved over for a trail. And the overall longterm costs of the Greenway measure are greater than the current approved rail and trail plan because a trail constructed on the rail track alignment would need to be removed. The rail line would need to be reconstructed and a new trail line would need to be built next to the rail line. Finally, the Greenway initiative is a climate cop up because it does nothing to help come back the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it will make things worse by confining commuters to the Highway 1 corridor without any alternatives to sitting in traffic. Greenway initiative is discriminatory. It's effectively transportation redlining since it cuts off a critical transit resource between South and North County. Disproportionately affecting those who are poor. Our campaign has been endorsed by the Sierra Club, the Democratic Party, the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce, the San Lorenzo Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Valley Women's Club of San Lorenzo Valley, the Pavro Cesar Chavez Democratic Club, and the County Democratic Club, the College Democrats, People's Democratic Party, Dr. Henry Democratic Club, Santa Cruz Action Network, and Youth for Climate Justice. Thank you, Mr. Farrell. Caller 2915, your microphone is available. Yes. For the recommendation of one of your speakers, Mr. Mulherin, who requested that your board support putting the initiative on the ballot but reject the report. I think that is reasonable and correct. This should be put on the ballot. They did collect the signatures and to support the citizen's process of initiative that it must go through. However, I appreciate that Supervisor Friend has recused themselves. I strongly feel, Chairman Koenig, that you should either recuse yourself or abstain from voting because you were the executive director of Santa Cruz County Greenway. This will not look good in the public and will erode the public's trust if you vote on this and you could likely be a swing vote. So please, do not vote on this. It is important for transparency and the public trust. I wanna point out that the idea is that this all applies to the 1994 general plan. That is currently under revision with the county's recent release of the draft sustainable Santa Cruz County plan, which will completely change everything. I also wanna point out that ripping out the tracks will cause problems with disturbing highly contaminated soils, railroad bed soils are known to be some of the most contaminated soils historically and that is not addressed in this report. And I do not feel that the report thoroughly analyzes other possibilities for using the track, such as the bus on rail, what Japan is doing and PRT, which many other countries and even in Virginia is happening. Thank you. Kristin Sandel. Kristin Sandel, I'm a San Lorenzo Valley resident. I'd like to say thank you to county staff for preparing this report so quickly. And I'd also like to ask the board request some additional information on the Greenway initiative regarding its effects on the development of identity housing, which would be impacted if the rail corridor remains inactive, except as a trail and as transportation as the Greenway initiative would greatly reduce the future functionality of the rail corridor as a public asset by removing the possibility of public transit by rail in San Cruz County. Also, these requests of the county clerk add some clarifying language about the initiative's impact to the Greenway summary as it will appear in the voter information booklets to allow voters to make a fully informed decision on June 7th. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Sandel. Barry Scott. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Board of Supervisors. I want to echo what the last caller and Becky Steinbrenner said, and I'm going to be requesting that one of the supervisors make a motion to request further study. And we do want to see the measure go to the voters, but to accept the study as it stands with its deficiencies is kind of like sending a signal to, it sends a wrong message. And I know that we're, gosh, that I'm sure the county staff worked really hard. It's a 32 mile long, 300 acre piece of property. 30 days isn't enough. And we just want to see justice done to this. So I think that you all can, you know, can move to put this on the ballot, but please, please make a motion to ask for further study to look at circulation, housing and business. And I want to give one example of where there's a great deficiency, I think. I'm quoting, county staff is not aware of any detailed analysis that assesses how an interim trail in the corridor, as opposed to a combination trail with rail facility would impact the community's ability to retain business and employment should the SCCRTC choose one over the other anytime in the near future. County staff is not aware of any detailed analysis. What about the UCIS? What about the, you know, the Unified Corridor Investment Study? What about the Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis? We have looked at the difference between an interim trail. We have looked at the benefits of rail with trail. And to say that county staff is not aware of any detailed analysis is simply wrong. So please send this to voters, but please, please ask for more study and reject the report or at least accept it conditionally. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Lonnie Faulkner. Thank you, supervisors. I'm speaking on behalf of Equity Transit, which is opposed to the Deceptive Greenway Initiative and supports the No Way Greenway Campaign. Equity Transit supports agenda item 10A, putting the initiative on the ballot with clarifying language indicating that this ballot measure would serve to permanently prevent rail service from being implemented in this county. Equity Transit suggests that agenda item 10B, the Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative Report, be considered for votes separate from 10A as the report was lacking in its accuracy, clarity and depth and 10B should not be approved. A brief report was submitted to you by TransDeaf and Equity Transit found the Greenway Initiative Report insufficient and here are a few issues to consider that were not detailed in the report. The Greenway Initiative would permanently block the only non-highway high capacity transit mode available to Santa Cruz County to reduce automobile congestion. The report did not fully take into consideration actual expenses required to remove the tracks, regret for the proposed asphalt road term to Greenway, lay down miles of asphalt, which on the Greenway website is proposed to be 26 feet wide and then supposedly in the future, tear out this new roadway to implement rail. The report didn't mention attaining funding for future rail would be impossible once language prioritizing rail is removed from the general plan. This would prevent us from getting our tax dollars back participating in our state rail plan and connecting to cities by rail across the state of California. The initiative proposes but cannot guarantee the preservation of rail into rail banking. I'm gonna skip ahead. Reinstallation of rails would likely not be approved by the California Coastal Commission along the delicate coastal and riparian corridor. The Greenway Initiative is not equitable measure and would permanently prevent an important environmentally prudent choice of public transit for many residents, elderly, disabled and others who must or prefer to use public transit but cannot use bicycles or walk distances as a commute option. Thank you very much. Jim McKenzie. Thank you. Good morning, Supervisors. Jim McKenzie, resident of Santa Cruz. The 32 mile Santa Cruz branch rail line corridor and right away was purchased by the County Regional Transportation Commission in 2012 using proposition 115 and other state funds stipulated to use for developing passenger rails. County staffs report on the Greenway Initiative failed to mention the potential fiscal impact of having to return 10 to millions of dollars in funding for the state if the use of the rail corridor is changed from rail with rail to a trail-only Greenway. For this failure alone, I have to reject this report. In the May 15th, 2000 letter to the RTC, the director of the California Transportation Commission states, if the only transportation facility gained through the purchase of this corridor were for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, however worthwhile, the prescribed services of Proposition 116 for passenger rail service would not be missed. And from Caltrans final application approval for purchase of the Santa Cruz branch rail line in January 2011, allocating $14.2 million in Proposition 116 and stiff EPA funds to the RTC, this commission shall be entitled to a then present value refund in the event that recipients or successor public entity failed to seek, failed or seek utilize the project for the intended public passenger rail service unquote. According to an estimated budget for a trail-only scenario intended for the RTC, 2019 noted United's corridor investment study, these funds both other reverse in policy costs to account for escalation in property value, maintenance and improvement costs and staff work required to change the use of right-of-ways with total over $30 million. I ask that the potential fiscal impact of changing planning policy from rail with trails to trail only be included in all ballot materials to start in the Greenway Commission. Thank you, Mr. McKenzie. Call in user one, your microphone is available. I very much appreciate the thought-provoking and informative comments from members of the public and no way Greenway organization, which I never heard of before this call. And I'm thinking we should have this kind of debate and challenge and real debate on all this with, for instance, the vaccines with broadband with cell towers, et cetera, where we're only hearing one sign. So this is very refreshing and I appreciate the comments and I agree with Jim O'Hara and the high Tim and Becky and others who are saying put it on the ballot because it meets the requirement, but reject the report. The problem of toxicity that was brought up was the contaminated soil and I know that they call it treated instead of toxic tracks is a big problem. I also agree that Chair Koenig, it's appropriate for you to recuse yourself as supervisor, friends have done. So I am learning more and more. Thank you everybody so that I could make a wise decision when it comes on the ballot. I'd like to see that on every topic that comes before us. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Jack Brown. Hi, Jack Brown, resident of ATLAS. Thank you, Chair Manu, Koenig. And thank you for putting this initiative on the ballot and for the objective report, as opposed to what some other of the viewers, speakers from No Way Greenway and so forth usual echo chamber have said, 30 days was fine for this report. We've had over 10 years of ownership and billions of dollars in studies to figure out what's going on in this corridor that can easily be summarized for review within 30 days and with them very nicely. Thank you. We've also, I was a volunteer with Yes Greenway and we have 170 other volunteers collected a record number of signatures. It's a very important topic. There's no need to dilute it. Let's get it out to the voters. So we have our first direct vote on the corridor in Santa Cruz County. I also wanted to sort of bring up a kind of interesting, over the last summer, I moved out of the area, the Devin Monteray while we were doing our renovation of our house and went very close to the wreck trail, which is very close to what Greenway would be here in Santa Cruz. And it was just wonderful. I mean, we saw so many people out there. Two million users a year. And in one survey by the county, they had over 70% of monitoring presidents use the wreck trail on a weekly basis, which is really neat. So a couple of the points I wanted to bring up that were kind of misconceptions. Rail banking has been used before and lines have been reactivated. There's been at least a dozen which have come back in one in particular, the Purple Line in Maryland being built out, where an insurance rail was removed and your rail is being put back in. And even in Monteray, we're gonna be seeing that a rail service will at least be going up to the customs plaza. So let's get this on the ballot. Thank you and have a great day. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Tina Andriada. Hi, good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Oh, righty. Please send the initiative to voters, but please also make a motion to reject the flawed report. We know the measure will go to voters and we support that decision, but the problems with the report, which fails to fully address transportation goals, housing and business impacts, and many other considerations. And you should make it clear that the report is unacceptable and should be redone to address the deficiency that clearly exists. That's first. Secondly, we all know Watsonville is defined by the state of California as a disadvantaged community. And I'm very well aware that many people in Watsonville support passenger rail. And I'm sorry I didn't weigh in on item nine. I thought the highlights of the core RFP were incredible and the core definitely kept emphasizing equity central, community connectedness, economic security and mobility. So let's not, let's just move forward. Please correct the deficiencies. And I definitely ain't no support with the no way green light initiative. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Andriana. Jean Brockleback, your microphone is available. Good morning supervisors. I'm a resident of Live Oak. I read the perfectly sufficient report, which your board required as part of the initiative process. The public was well served by this well done analysis. I have been an environmental activist. That means environmentalism isn't very important to me. I've been an environmental activist in Santa Cruz for 40 years. I will be 77 years old next week. Yikes, how did that happen? Anyway, I am now officially an elder. In fact, not only are my husband and I elders and environmentalists, we are also low income residents living in a rent controlled home here in Live Oak. So this plan for Greenway is not, does not exclude elderly people. And in fact, in my case, I was just diagnosed with osteoarthritis in my right hip. So that's gonna cut into my walking a little bit. I'm still supporting the Greenway initiative. I collected signatures for the initiative for a legitimate election process. And I look forward to your vote this morning, board, to place it on the ballot and not to reject the perfectly sufficient staff report that was done for you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Brocklebank. Sally, your microphone is available. Well, that, thank you. Am I, can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay. So I wanted to just say, as many other people have said already that the, that I'm sure that the staff did their best in the short time available to them, but there are clearly deficiencies and omissions in this report. As Mr. Scott pointed out, how can they not be aware of the TCAA or the UCIS and use that information in their report? I don't know, but apparently they didn't have time to read those reports, they're very long. The points about the environmental impacts of tearing things up, rebuilding them, relocating them, those have been made by others and they're very important. The, I think for all these reasons that other people have laid out, that it would be wise for the board to separate the report from the issue of the ballot nature. The report should not be accepted, but of course the ballot nature should go on the ballot and we should have a chance to vote on it in June. I would hope that the ballot summary will clarify that a 32 mile walking and pedestrian trail is being built now. This Greenway initiative will not add anything to that. There's already a trail coming for people who want trails. It only removes the option to add clean light rail to our transit mix and that needs to be clarified in the ballot summary that is being written. And of course, as most of the speakers have said, I look forward to opposing the Greenway initiative because I think we should keep our transit options open. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Arnold. David, your microphone is available. Good afternoon, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, greetings from beautiful Northwest Arkansas, home of the world class Razorback Greenway. Unfortunately, a chunk of it's closed right now on Walmart. It builds their new corporate campus, but it's still pretty great. Happily, all three of my district's candidates for supervisor have come out publicly against the deceptive Greenway measure. As trans deaf and several others have mentioned about the report, there are some aspects that our county staff maybe hasn't until now needed to be fully fluent in. But more importantly, the nine triple one report has is highlights that this is an advisory initiative with very limited legal strength, but some disruption to our current plans. Therefore, the short ballot summary should simply read, a yes vote on measure Greenway advises the county to impede the implementation of public transit on our transit corridor for as long as possible. As to say a yes vote on measure Greenway, it advises the county to impede the implementation of public transit on our corridor for as long as possible. That's an honest statement as of the only thing that the measure might achieve to impede implementation of public transit. So let's put that to the voters. Do you wish to impede public transit implementation? Yes, Greenway vote means impede public transit. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Van Brink. David, date your microphone is available. Thank you, supervisors. I'm a resident of Los Alamos Beach. I've been following this issue for roughly six or seven years and it's, I'm always dismayed to hear the narrative by the train supporters constantly changing from diesel engines to light rail, from petroleum car storage on the, on the corridor to, you know, it just goes on and on. There is no coherence to what they've been saying because all they do is say whatever is politically expedient in that moment. Last month it was the reinstating freight transit at the expense of $65 million and then this, this, or blocking the Greenway initiative. And now this, this month they're in favor of this actually going to the voters. Ultimately this will go to the voters and ultimately I believe this will pass. So thank you staff for, for this, this report. And thank you for finally bringing this to the voters so we can actually get a general consensus of how popular this project is and what the Samcris voters and taxpayers want seen done with the corridor as opposed to special interests and bureaucrats telling them what is done or what is needed with the corridor. We actually have the opportunity to decide. And that's a, that's a profound moment in the history of this issue. So I look forward to voting for this in June and thank you supervisors and staff. Thank you, Mr. Dade. Last call for speakers on this item. Laurence, Kathy, your microphone is available. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you for taking my comments. My name is Laurence, Kathy and I live in Felton. I support putting this initiative on the ballot but I also want to echo everyone else's request that further study be included in the report before approval. The report likes information on the climate impact and equity issues of removing rail as a mode of transportation in our county. The Greenway initiative is entirely dependent on personal transport and that is completely inadequate to face the climate change and equity justice challenges we face today. The transportation sector, as I am sure you all know is the largest polluter. It is responsible for more than 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in our county. We must do our best to figure out solutions that will reduce emissions in really the next 10 years to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. The report doesn't address any direct impact removing rail will have on increasing vehicles, mild travel and greenhouse gas emissions. And on perpetuating highway one, congestion and continued cost expansion. The report doesn't speak about the equity justice issues about residents who may not be able to back or walk distances as a commute option. It does not address the need for the elderly or the disabled who will not be able to partake in the Greenway fast lane but who would benefit most from a passenger rail with level entry boarding to travel these distances. I am with the climate alliance of Santa Cruz County and I thank you very much for listening. Thank you, Ms. Gaffey. There are no other speakers. All right, then we'll return it to the board for action. The motion would be in order. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the comments from everybody but I would just say that we should make a motion to accept the report as the recommended action. I'll second that. All right, we have a motion by Supervisor McPherson and a second by Supervisor Coonerty. Supervisor Koenig, I did wanna mention one thing, correct an earlier statement I made to Supervisor Caput that there is not going to be a fiscal impact statement as part of the voter information guide with this measure. There is fiscal information contained in the report, however. Got it, thank you. So right, a fiscal impact statement will be provided as being prepared by, I understand County Council and the treasurer, sorry. Yeah, and the impartial analysis is gonna be prepared by my office and is gonna be part of the voter information guide but not a fiscal impact statement. A fiscal impact statement is not gonna be part of this, of the analysis of this measure. That won't be submitted by the auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector. It will not be submitted by the auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector as part of this measure. The elections code says that the auditor controller may submit a fiscal impact statement. And as presented with this item, the auditor controller is not being asked to submit a fiscal impact statement. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Yep. All right, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? I'd also just like to add that I think the report is sufficient. It touches on many of the elements that some members of the public seem to have overlooked. For example, on housing, it says that other than some streamlining under state laws, there is no indication that the general plan amendments proposed in the Greenway Initiative would decrease capacity for housing or housing opportunities. That's on page nine. Also, as mentioned by a member of the public, there are instances where rail has returned after an interim period. For example, in Denton, Texas where a rail was ultimately built on top of where a trail had been built. And the report addresses that as well by saying rail banking preserves the integrity of the continuous railroad right away for the future reactivation of freight services and prevents any easements from reverting to the underlying property owner. Our community development infrastructure department, the city of Santa Cruz and the RTC are all doing further research on the environmental impacts of the different rail options. And I believe that really the details of those are beyond the scope of this particular report. And finally, I'll just say it was a campaign promise of mine to give voters a chance to vote on this issue once and for all. I think it's clear just from the public comment today why that's necessary. And I'm glad voters will finally have the opportunity to do so. Burke, please roll call vote, please. Supervisor Coonerty. Aye. Caput. McPherson. Aye. Koenig. Aye. Akeemotion passes four, zero with Supervisor Friend recused. Thank you. All right, the Greenway initiative will be placed on the June 7th ballot and we'll now proceed to item 11. This is a jurisdictional hearing to consider an appeal of application number 201372, an application to construct a new wireless communication facility as outlined in the memorandum of the interim director of planning. And for report, we have Sheila McDaniels, our project planner. Good morning, board supervisors. I believe I need to open the jurisdictional hearing. Okay. Please proceed, Ms. Daniel. As noted, this is a jurisdiction hearing to consider an appeal of the planning commissions January 26th, 2022, action to approve application number 201372, a proposal to construct a new wireless communication facility to replace an existing wireless communication facility on the adjacent parcel to the east, including six 12 foot tall antenna mounts, 12 antennas, and a ground mounted equipment within a platform enclosure. Oh, thank you for that. The project site is located on the south side of the end of 675 Rebecca Drive in Boulder Creek, approximately 200 feet south from the intersection with Santa Cruz Street. The planning commission's action was appealed to the board of supervisors by tunic law firm for David Robinson, the appellant, neighbor of the project site, pursuant to the Santa Cruz County Code, section 1810340, the board must determine whether to accept jurisdiction and schedule a public hearing of the appeal or allow the planning commission determination to stand. The board also has the option of remanding the project back to the planning commission without taking jurisdiction. Thank you for that. The upper photo shows the existing conditions. The appellant's property is located on the right and the applicant's property is located in the wooded area between both residences. At the bottom right is the existing wireless facility located on the appellant's property to be removed due to non viability and technical infeasibility issues highlighted in the PC presentation, including longstanding code violations unrelated to the wireless communication facility. The lower photo also shows the proposed visual simulation highlighting the location of the proposed project. This is a drone photo that was provided by the applicant early on in the process. The project proposes a platform lease area, approximately 290 square feet in area between four to eight feet above existing grade with six 12 foot antennas. Tatched to the platform structure, six AT&T antennas and six T-Mobile antennas, four foot wide stairs are proposed along the west side of the facility. Overall, the height is proposed at a maximum of between 16 and 20 feet consistent with the zone district 28 foot height allowance. The applicant provided landscaping in the revised project plans including arborist recommended trees and shrubs native to this area intended to minimize visual impacts to both surrounding properties including the appellant's property to the east, addressing PC late correspondence that is reiterated in a jurisdiction appeal letter to your board. So for the basis for project approval, the alternative analysis identified the subject property as the only site available to fill the significant gap created by the closure of the non viable and technically infeasible facility on the appellant's property. Visual simulations of the wireless communication facility have been provided showing distant but in perceptible public views from highway nine. And a landscape plan has been provided to minimize visual impacts of the wireless facility to adjoining private properties including the appellant's property in compliance with the wireless regulations to protect public views and minimize visual impacts of property properties. In addition to radio frequency reports were accepted in compliance with the FC wireless emissions standards. Technical reports were submitted and approved by the county regarding subsurface exploration, geotechnical by tower engineering as well as slip slopes to build visibility analysis. The staff report prepared for the planning commission meeting of January 26th provides extensive information and analysis of the project and related site analysis and determinations. Late correspondence provided to the planning commission is attached in your packet as well as project plans, conditions of approval and a web link for the recorded planning commission hearing audio. Grounds for jurisdiction pursuant to county code 1810340 and deciding whether to take jurisdiction of an appeal and grant further review. The board of supervisors must determine that one or more of the following grounds for taking jurisdiction specified in the county code exist. The appellant's alleged that the planning commission staff report did not address potential for sand chills habitat in the sequel exemption determination. Did not demonstrate there are no viable or technically feasible and environmentally equivalent for superior potential alternative sites that the public view impacts are intrusive and private property screening is insufficient. That closure of the existing facility on the appellant's property at 653 Rebecca Drive is not adequately addressed and that there was inadequate noise, lighting and RF emissions mapping and incomplete slope stability visibility analysis. Staff finds no supporting evidence or factual support for an error or abuse of discretion provided that has been provided by the appellant's that the planning commission made it unjustified or inappropriate determination and approving the project that would require your board to take this matter up for further consideration. Furthermore, no evidence was provided to substantiate that any commissioners actions or the planning commission as a whole acting to uphold the zoning administrator's approval of the project was biased in its action on the project and its decision to approve the project the planning commission considered the facts presented at its meeting including the zoning administrator public hearings, project plans, staff reports including findings and conditions of approval, technical studies, staff presentations and testimony by the public and design and engineering professionals. And regarding the CEQA determination the appellants have not provided any evidence to support their assertion that adequate information was not provided in the staff report or public record as it relates to the impact on the environment and its determination of environmental exemption. And then lastly, no new evidence relevant to the decision has been presented by the appellants. Just as your board is aware the jurisdictional process places the burden of proof on the appellant to convince your board that jurisdiction should be taking with respect to one or more of the jurisdictional criteria enumerated in the county code. Based on the appellants letter and administrative record, staff believes that the appellant has not shown that there are grounds to support an appeal hearing before your board. Staff has concluded that the planning commission properly considered the evidentiary testimony and administrative record and the appellant has not shown that there are grounds to support accepting jurisdiction of the appeal and a setting of the appeal hearing. Therefore staff is recommending that your board not take jurisdiction of application 201372. And that concludes my presentation unless you have questions. Thank you, Project Planner McDaniel. Are there questions from members of the board at this time? Seeing none, we'll proceed to the appellant. You'll now have 10 minutes to, if they're present, to make an argument for why the board should take jurisdiction of this case. Good morning supervisors. Thank you for taking the time to address the appeal today. My name is Michael Tunick. I represent the appellant, David Robinson. Ms. McDaniel correctly cited the five different grounds under which the board of supervisors may take jurisdiction of this appeal. We do indeed request that the board take jurisdiction of this appeal. Any of those five grounds is sufficient. I'm going to be focusing on three of them in particular. Number one, error by the zoning administrator and the planning commission. Number two, that the zoning administrator's decisions and the planning commission's decisions were not supported by the facts. And number three, that there was error, which makes the determination unjustified. With regard, if the board of supervisors exercises jurisdiction over this appeal, you can do it in several ways as Ms. McDaniel suggested. One is to conduct a hearing yourselves. If you conduct a hearing, the ordinance 18.10.340D enables you to grant de novo review. And that is indeed what we request or the board can refer this back to the planning commission for determination of the errors and the facts. My clients appeal to the board of supervisors, sites sever and separate grounds for the appeal. Any of them merits the board of supervisors exercising jurisdiction over this appeal. I'm going to focus on three of those seven. And that is number one is that amended condition of approval, 3G is improper and inadequate in regard to decommissioning of the wireless communication facility that is currently on my client's property. Mr. Robertson's property. Number two is inadequate noise analysis and lighting analysis in connection with the new WCF application. And number three is what I'm going to spend most of my time on, which is inadequate screening and non-consideration of visual impacts by the applicant and the zoning administrator and the planning commission. With regard to decommissioning of the site, I will refer the board of supervisors to ordinance 13.10.666, which is part of the body of regulations regarding new WCF facilities like this one. And what ordinance 13.10.666 says is that if my client's site is indeed decommissioned in connection with this new WCF being constructed, then number one, my client's WCF must be restored to its preexisting condition. And number two, that the planning department can require a decommissioning or a site restoration agreement, which has not required in this instance. Now, when we were at the zoning administrator level, the zoning administrator adopted a revised condition of approval that did require Crown Castle, the applicant, to restore the site to its original condition as pursuant to the, to my client's leases with Crown Castle. The zoning administrator did not impose the requirements that are under 13.10.666. When we got to the planning commission level, the planning commission injected this revised condition of approval 3G, which removed the lease requirement from the condition of approval. And then similarly to the zoning administrator did not like it should have imposed compliance with 13.10.666 for site restoration and a site restoration agreement. We request that the board of supervisors take jurisdiction of this appeal for purposes of further amending that condition of approval 3G to be compliant with the law and in particular, county ordinance 13.10.666. Next, I will move on to the item of inadequate noise analysis and inadequate lighting analysis. And with regard to noise analysis, ordinance 13.10.663A11 indicates that if a new WCF is within 100 feet of a residence, then the application and its analysis and supporting documentation must include noise attenuation measures that measure decibels both at my client's property line and inside my client's residence. The applicant has not engaged in any of them. It is required but was not done. And the reason it's required is it's demonstrable from the photographs that Ms. McDaniel showed to the board of supervisors that my client's residence is indeed within 100 feet and the noise attenuation requirements should have been imposed under 13.10.663A11. With regard to lighting, there's various lighting requirements under 13.10.663A5 and A7, there has been no lighting analysis here. The county code imposes restrictions on lighting of a facility imposes restrictions with regard to shielding of the illumination from the nearby residences and the county code requires that quote, offsite glare be fully controlled, close quote. There has been no lighting analysis at all to my knowledge in connection with this application. With my time remaining, I will move on to the lack of adequate screening to minimize visual impacts, which is I'm gonna spend significant time going over the color photographs. If I may please turn the board of supervisors' attention to attachment 11G that is in the body of the agenda. If one were to go to the body of the agenda, click on item 3G and then go to the color photos at the very bottom from approximately page 47 onward, those color photos are better than attachment than what's shown in attachments 11 to the staff report. With regard to visual impacts, ordinance 13.660 defines visual impacts, ordinance 13.10.662D says that on-site visual mockups are required to have been in place before the first ever public hearing to consider project approval. The first project approval hearing was the zoning administrator's hearing on November 19th, 2021, but Crown Castle did not install this mockup that is shown in these photos until after the zoning administrator hearing on, and they did it on January 3rd, 2022, that's a violation of ordinance 13.10.662D and merits appeal just on that alone. Then when one goes to the general development requirements, there's lots of criteria regarding minimizing visual impacts. I will turn to some of those specifically in that ordinance it talks about. Ridgeline visual impacts, it talks about in ordinance 13.10.663A1, it talks about minimizing visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible, particularly with regard to surrounding properties and surrounding parcels, and my client is indeed next door, my client shares a boundary line with applicants parcel owned by the Reddingtons here, and now let's please for the supervisor to turn to the various color photographs. The color photographs that started about page 48, if one clicks on attachments 11G in the agenda, first thing is it shows my exhibit one, the color photographs show the existing site which is completely shielded from view, not just from my client's property, but from surrounding properties, exhibits two and exhibit three, and again, I request that you look at the color photos for the significance, it shows the visual impacts from both Ben Lohman and Brookdale at Brookdale Lodge, and those visual impacts do not meet the criteria of County Code 13.10.663, then when one proceeds to exhibits four through eight of those attachments, if one scrolls through that, the towers are super close to my client's property line, very close to my client's house, there is no way that these can be adequately screened from my client's residence or the surrounding properties, and we request that the Board of Supervisors take jurisdiction to require that this facility be moved downhill in a way from those visual impacts. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tuenink. The applicant will now have seven minutes to address the board in response, is the project applicant present. I see that four participants have raised their hand, is the applicant among any of those? Burke? Good morning, my name is Tim Page of Crown Castle. We'd like to defer our time to Joe Parker, and we'll let him go forward. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Page. Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Chairman, going to get members of the Board of Supervisors. Thanks for your time here today. My name is Joe Parker. I have been involved with this project since its inception and regularly support the applicant the last 20 years in the zoning hearings of this type. I'll just briefly note that we did submit correspondence to the Board of Supervisors responding to the allegations set forth in the appeal filed by Mr. Tuenink. I won't take up the time to go through that chapter in verse, but I will respond to his most recent comments and highlight a few other matters for your consideration. As a threshold issue, I think it's pretty clear that we have demonstrated a critical need to relocate this facility, and that's of course based upon the 20 year history of Mr. Robinson's longstanding code enforcement violations which everyone agrees, including staff, has resulted in the prevention of my client's ability to pull billing permits for necessary upgrades to this facility which in trying to provide enhanced coverage or at least sustain the coverage that's being provided to the neighborhood as capacity and speed issues and things of that continue to be impacted by continued use of the public. With regard to that, I also want to point out that this is an important facility in terms of the breadth of coverage that it provides as you can see from the coverage maps that we have provided to staff. You can see the area that's been covered by the existing facility as well as our replacement of that coverage at the relocation facility. And importantly, this site normally serves to provide service to the customers but also provides 911 and E911 services which are available to members of the general public as well as first responders. To that end, I think it's important to note that you had a battalion chief who testified before the zoning administrator's hearing. His comments was that during the last set of fires, the communications that the fire department normally relies on were impacted and he utilized and relied heavily on this tower even driving up to the location of the tower during those fires in order to sustain communications with his personnel. So with the idea that fire season is around the corner, we are very focused on getting this construction underway and completing the construction of that facility so that the possibility of having communication services available to first responders is available. Also point out that the installation which we've been unable to accomplish under Mr. Robinson's tenure as our landlord will also include the installation of AT&T's first net network which is a wireless service that is provided and devoted entirely to first responders. And again, given the location of the facility and the threats of serious disaster for fires and the history associated with that and we think that's an important feature. Of course, the facility itself will also bring house coverage to the neighborhood in the form of the equipment we've been trying to install for years but haven't been unable to do so at the new location that will not be an issue. With respect to the grounds that he has filed for appeal, I'd like to point out a number of issues here which I don't think supports the basis for the procedural submission that he's made. To begin with, the comments about decommissioning the facility, this has already been discussed before the zoning administrator. There's a decommission permit that has to be issued by the county. There will be conditions if the county thinks those are appropriate and more importantly, as Mr. Tunick has noted, the lease itself has its own decommission provisions which are essentially the standard provisions you see in any telecommunications agreement and that requires complete removal of the equipment and restoration of the property to its original condition, less ordinary, wear and tear accepted. So there's really no magic or mystery with respect to the decommissioning of the facility. It has to be subject to a final inspection by the county and of course we have lease obligations that expire exploration on the same topic. So I find his comments in that regard not to be worthy of further consideration by this body since that has already been addressed. With respect to his comments without violations of the code concerning noise attenuation and lighting issues, I'll point out as a threshold issue, this is the first time that we're hearing this from appellant. And unfortunately, at every level of these appeals that we've been dealing with, it seems to be a moving target with Mr. Robinson. We find that new arguments are raised that were not previously raised, being raised in the appeals. We find that there are more for the same arguments that were raised and rejected by prior hearing bodies. And the same is true here. For starters, noise attenuation studies are generally required for generators. We don't have a generator associated with this project and there has been no requirement nor need for us to submit that kind of information. The same is true with regard to lighting. This is an unmanaged facility. The technicians are out there outside of an emergency during regular business hours for normal scheduled work. And of course, if someone had to come out in the evening or after dark, we would be, they would be using their own lighting to get around. So again, this has never been an issue and it's a new issue, which I have not seen raised before and therefore not really relevant here. And the same is true with impact analysis. This has been thoroughly vetted. I note that he has removed the fence that blocks the view and also remind the commission or the board of supervisors that this facility is currently located on this property and it has been since 2009 without any complaints from him. Our submission of photo systems have to do with his request at the appeal to provide landscape and for his side, which we agreed to do and we did that for Mr. Mann and so that was just part of the formal process. So in general, if I just may finish my sentence, I'll submit to you that we've established all the elements in opposition consistent with what you've heard from the staff as well as the underlying body some kind of asset. You undertake the submission and deny the efforts under appeal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parker. The app a lent may now have three minutes to respond if desired, it's not necessary. Thank you, board of supervisors. I've now unmuted and we'll speak briefly with regard to Mr. Parker's comments that these are the first time the noise and lighting issues have been raised. I am certain the noise issue was raised by us in our comments and our writings submitted to the zoning administrator. The noise and lighting issues were also referenced in our appeal to the planning commission. I would just again request that the board of supervisors take a close look at the color photographs that are, you can, it's a clickable item on the agenda, item 11G that will demonstrate that the visual impacts of this proposed WCF are significant from the Ridgeline, are significant from the surrounding properties and are significant in relation to my client's property, the residence of which is less than a hundred feet from this proposed WCF, which does require the noise attenuation studies with regard to average decibels of 60 decibels at the property line and 45 decibels per the county ordinance within my client's residence. None of that, none of those studies have been accomplished and it's regardless of whether there are generators or not that county ordinance requires the noise attenuation studies with at the property line and at my client's residence. Now with regard to generators appellants or the applicants council stated to the planning commission and to the zoning administrator that the plans do not indicate generators. I would ask that if there are no backup generators then how in the world in a power outage is this going to be supplied by power? I, there just simply will have to be generators. There are generators on my client's property or power outages and it's unrealistic to presume that there won't be generators on this property and the noise attenuation studies are indeed required. Again, I request that the Board of Supervisors kindly scroll through the color photos to determine the visual impacts and with those comments I close. Thank you, Mr. Tonink. Do any members of the Board have questions at this time? Yeah. Supervisor Caput. Go ahead, okay, thank you. Okay, I'm trying to get a handle on, if we're voting yes or voting no. We have the Reddingtons, the Robinsons, the Manns, and Crown Castle. Are they all on one side on this issue? Or it's, to me it's very confusing. Who's the appellant and who's the actual, you know. No, no, Supervisor, they're not all, they're not all on one side. So they are not all on one side. Yeah, there are two groups of people that are opposing each other on this. And the one moving that has sold the property will benefit after selling the profit. Money will be sent to wherever he moves. What I'm gonna do is if you have factual questions, I'm gonna ask staff to respond to your factual questions regarding the application. But if you have legal questions around what it is that we're doing here today, I can respond to those questions. And then the Planning Commission, they're appealing, they're asking us to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. They're asking you to overturn, in some respect, the Planning Commission's decision to grant the application. And so they're asking you to either hold a substantive hearing yourself or return the item back to the Planning Commission for a further hearing. So that's what we're doing here in this proceeding. Well, if we voted yes, we'd be voting no on the recommendation of the Planning Department. No, because I believe the staff recommendation, the staff recommendation is for you to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. So if you vote yes, you would be voting to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. To uphold it? Yes, if you- The Planning Commission's okay. And then the other is the old, they used the wording here, wireless communication facility. Is that because it's more than one tower? It's like gonna be 12 towers. Or no, it's, yeah, towers, sure. My understanding is there's not gonna be 12 towers. There's gonna be one facility with 12 antennas on it, but I would again defer to staff for the specifics on it. Okay. And the current one that is on the site is how many towers is that one? I believe it's also one facility with fewer antennae, but Ms. McDaniel can correct me if I'm wrong about that. Okay, and then the other would be also real quick. Yeah, so if you wanna look at the existing conditions and proposed project, the appellant is Robinson and they're located on your right, on the lower photo and the upper photo. And the existing wireless communication facility that's proposed to be removed is at the bottom right. And that contains the existing AT&T and T-Mobile antennas at that location. I believe there's six, but they're stacked. And then you can see the proposed wireless communication facility on the Reddington property. You are questioning who's who. And then the property further to your left is the man property that was an original appellant, but that appeal was resolved at the planning commission. And that no further appeal went forward on that behalf of the mans. Does that address your question? So the facility is a platform facility with six antenna mounts, 12 antennas, they're stacked by in twos, 12 feet in height, six for each carrier attached to the platform enclosure. The facility itself is 16 to 20 feet, maximum height from grade to the top of antennas. And the current facility, that will be working also when the new one, if the new one were to, you know. So as required by the ordinance, that facility will be closed. And as required by the code, it will be restored, removed. So there's a process by which that occurs. So in order for the applicant to, they have to construct their equipment so they can maintain existing wireless coverage, move all the antennas, AT&T and T-Mobile will be moving their antennas to the new facility. And after that point, then power will be shut down by the building official to the existing facility. And as conditioned, the project will be removed from the site and the site restored. And your board should be aware that the appellants property, they have an application approved for that facility and there's a condition to require site restoration and the planning commission deferred to that requirement in their conditions of approval on this project. So that is consistent with the wireless code to require removal and site restoration consistent with the use approval provided to that facility. And they were silent on any lease arrangements between the carriers and the Robinson. So that's a private matter with regard to how that's executed between the leaseholder and the property owner. But insofar as the use approval, they're subject to those conditions of approval. And that will be reviewed prior to closure and restoration. And then lastly, the one that would be financially benefiting is the one that sold the property and it's moving out or would it be the new owner? So what it gets confusing here is that you're looking at the photo again, if you go all the way to the left, that's the man property that was prior owned by the Reddingtons. The Reddingtons also own the subject property where the wires facility is being located. They sold their house to the mans. And then in that, but however, they did disclose to the mans that the facility was proposed on their remaining property before they made their application. So that was all very made very well aware to the purchase for that purchaser. Does that make it clear? So they own both those properties and sold the house to the new owner and then since retain ownership of the WCF facility site. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. I'll welcome the other supervisors input, but I just think the planning commission has properly considered the evidentiary testimony. And I didn't see anything in the material that leads me to believe that we should take jurisdiction. So I don't think we should take jurisdiction, but I'll wait for comments to the rest of the board. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Any other questions from the board at this time? Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions, but just as a reminder, as was evidenced by Ms. McDaniel and others, I mean, there's very specific criteria by which the board should take jurisdiction. That's what we're actually here to consider today is whether each of the, any of those five criteria were actually met. And my opinion, I agree with Supervisor McPherson that none of the criteria were meant to justify taking jurisdiction or even remanding down to the planning commission for reconsideration. I think that there was no unfair and transparent hearing there. I think that they considered all the information and made their finding. So I wouldn't be supportive of the board overruling the planning commission or taking jurisdiction today. And I just remind Supervisor Caput that that's ultimately what the board is here to make that consideration of as one of those five criteria. And I don't think that that threshold has been met. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. All right, are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this item? Seeing none in the chamber. Is there anyone online? Joe Parker, your microphone is available. She go first. Well, we'll come back to you. That's fine. Joe Parker. Yes, thank you. Unless the Board of Supervisors has further questions, I don't have anything else to offer. Mr. Cheney did make a few extra statements if you'd like me to address them like can, but it appears that we're in agreement with respect to the findings and a lack of basis for the procedural portion at this stage. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Colin, user two, your microphone is available. As a reminder to star 610, meet yourself. Well, I hear it. I'm very familiar with Crown Council that on behalf of Verizon put 13 self-fights on utility poles in Aptos, Greenville Bar, Dave Alley, McDonald, without, you know, approval of the residents. Anything this Board sees on wireless facilities, you approve. I've seen it over the years. You continue it with 5G, and most important thing here, talk about code enforcement violations. I can list a lot by Crown Council, but not time. Most important thing is danger radiation. These are property devaluating and cancer causing surveillance, 4G, 5G, microwave, cell tower deployment is next to everybody's home. I thought the appellants laid out valid reasons you should take jurisdiction. And this is unlimited what's going on. And of course the birds and the bees and the neighbors can't appeal. It's just imposed death technology of microwave radiation causing increased cancer incidents, sleeping disorders, depressing tendencies, chronic fatigue, headaches, cardiovascular problems, memory loss, the list goes on and on. You do not address the crucial impact, saying that SEPA exemption is dishonest and accurate. What we need is landmark. Call an user 2915 or microphone is available. Yes. It's a very interesting case. And I request that the board does take jurisdiction and review this as a de novo application. And here are the reasons. The primary objection as I see it in the material that the appellant has is visual obstruction. There is no requirement being put on the applicant to put any kind of camouflage on these elements. These 12 foot high elements that in looking at some of the documentation will be directly visible from the appellant's house. This creates an effect if there is no camouflage of public nuisance. And that is spelled out clearly in California civil code 3479. It impairs the use of the enjoyment of the use of their property. You should look at that. Why is there no requirement for camouflage that is put on almost all of the monopines that are being put out in the county? And if this will affect the property value to have their view shed impaired. I also take objection to that there is no backup power. It is a requirement of the telecom industry to provide 72 hours of backup power for emergencies. So to hear that there is none is a violation of the California public utilities requirements that this be there. So that leads me to my final concern about fire danger. How will the crews access the maintenance of this facility? How would the fire engine approach it if there were a fire advancing up the bridge? And there will in the future. Thank you, Ms. Steinbrenner. It's required by the PUC to be fueled. Thank you. There are no other speakers to this item. Hi, my name is James Ewing Whitman. I just wanted to witness firsthand how proceedings like this would go forward. Nothing has really surprised me. So I'm gonna kind of add some information that Marilyn Garrett didn't add. I'm sure she would have liked to have. You can just do their own research for yourself. I mean, the greatest weapons for militaries to silently control their enemies are frequency weapons. So after it was decided that Germany was gonna lose during World War II, some of the Nazis were hung and tried but about 3,200 were distributed equally between Russia and the United States. Our Hermann G. Schwarm in 1952 established a frequency effects only based on thermal in 1952 based on a factor of 10 million. When biologically it affects bacteria at a reading of six and human sperm at a reading of six. So that's kind of challenging. That hasn't changed since 1952. The reason these citizens can't complain about how these are actual weapons that are affecting their health is because, let's see, which pedophile was president in 96? Yeah, FCC 704. Only complaint that you can have is, by the way, it looks. And furthermore, it's 2008, who was that president? I said it never appointed lobbyist but he appointed Mr. Tom Wheeler who had worked with the wireless communications for over 12 years. And everything going on right now, the best hardwired connections until it becomes wireless. And so none of them, I'm gonna change the subject back to the students. What they're not talking about are the weapons routers that are in every classroom. If any parent was really informed, they wouldn't have their kid in a public school. So it's just par for the course. I wish things were different but I was glad to witness that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. We have one more public speaker online. David Robinson, your microphone is available. This is last call for speakers via Zoom. Yes, I just like to say that the county has not come out to my property to ever do an invisible inspection. They went to my neighbor's property, looked at his point of view and we requested this in previous hearings. They've never looked at what a horrible obstruction to my view this thing is. And all we're asking for is to move that tower over to the middle of the property instead of having it right against my property line where I have to look through it all the time. If you were standing here, you'd see it look like someone just put up a billboard right next to my property. And I would have to contend because of the relationship with Crown Castle that they're doing this completely to be vindictive. It didn't need to be there. I do not want them on my property. They cause an enormous amount of erosion on my property which AT&T started to repair. They stopped AT&T from repairing it. Now of course it's gonna end up being a huge legal battle to get my property restored and get rid of the problems that I've been fighting for years. The reason that I have violations on my property is they kept saying, oh yeah, we're gonna do that. We're gonna get started on that. And that would come another winter and I'd have to put in an ad hoc repair to keep my property from getting worse. It is enormous damage to my property because the way they installed four conduits to go out to the cell sites from the equipment, a building that's on the back of my property. And those conduits now are sticking out the side of the hill that were originally inside of at least eight foot of hill. They've never maintained the property. They won't maintain this next property. They need to be held to account to be a good citizen in some way. So that's all I can say is take a look at those photos. Would you wanna look at that out your window all the time? Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I'll now return to the board for action. I move that we do not take jurisdiction. I'll second. Supervisor McPherson, just confirming that you're moving the recommended actions. Correct. All right, I'll second. All right, we have a motion by Supervisor McPherson and a second by Supervisor Friend. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Koenig. Aye. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. The board has declined to take jurisdiction of this case and I will close the jurisdictional hearing. That brings us to the end of our regular agenda for the morning session. The board will now go into closed session. County Council, is there any reportable action that will emerge from closed session? Not today. All right, thank you. We will resume our public portion of this meeting at 1.30 p.m. today for the Employee Recognition Awards. Thank you, and we'll see you at 1.30. Do you want us to come in there or do you care? All right, we will now resume the regular meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. It's 1.31 p.m. and we will begin with item 12, a presentation of the 2021 Employee Recognition Awards as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. CAO Palacios, would like to say a few words. Thank you very much, Chair Koenig and members of the board. This is the 2021 Employee Recognition Awards. This program is a special effort that the Board of Supervisors established to recognize and show appreciation to employees for their outstanding accomplishments while working with the county. And I want to say how excited I am to see all of the employees here in person. It just so happens that this is actually, this week is the two-year anniversary of our first case of COVID in our county. And it shows that we've come through the pandemic and we're finally able to gather again in person. And it's so good to see all of you in person. And I'll also let you know that with the first time in two years, we've had our whole board here in person. And that's because they recognize how important this is to be here. And thank goodness that the pandemic has reached a point where it's safe to gather again. So we really do appreciate that this moment is here. The board will be recognizing employees based on these awards which were generally awarded for three categories. One is that the employees solved an extraordinary problem or they saw an opportunity for improvement or they made an outstanding effort and service in the past year. Each member of the board will present awards in one of five categories. And this year we are not doing the Gold, Silver and Bronze awards. We're just gonna be given by categories. Board members will come down and stand by the microphone as employees hear their name or the name of their team announced. They should come up to the front and join the supervisor. And then at the conclusion of the awards event today, a reception will be held in the hall adjacent to the board chambers. Everyone is invited to stay through the entirety of the presentation and join us for the reception afterwards. With that, I'll go ahead and present Supervisor Coonerty who will be presenting our first awards in the category of general government. Hello everybody, so nice to see your faces. And it's so nice to be here to celebrate you after a couple of grueling years of really dedicated public service when it was needed most for our community. Our first general government category winner is Matt Price. And I gotta say, Matt, every year we get these employee awards. My staff was so excited to have Matt get the award because we've worked with him so closely on any number of issues from cannabis and integrating zone haven to redistricting maps. He's incredibly accessible. He's ready to go, ready to get the information out to not only us, but to the entire community when we need it the most and when maps are central to policymaking, Matt's been there for us. We wanna really appreciate his work for the county where all these years. Next I'm gonna ask Sharonda Cannon and Michelle Moore to come up. Hello, you all can stand right here. So the next award in general government is to the personnel public defender team comprised of associate personnel analyst, Michelle Moore, assistant personnel analyst, Sharonda Cannon. In 2020, the board approved the creation of a new public defender department to provide the indigent defense services and the personnel team was responsible for overseeing the classification of 10 new positions for recruitment of county's first public defender, recruitment of attorneys and investigators and the hiring of staff at all levels. Sharonda and Michelle provided additional support and created in the department's new organization structure, ensuring civil service rules are worked here too, providing overall guidance and creation of this new office. Because of their hard work and perseverance, the county's been able to move forward the establishment of this new department and we wanna thank you both for your perseverance and dedication to this project. In the last category of general government, it's Scott Weldon. We have Scott here. All right, that's all right. We'll still talk about him, whether it's here or not. As a personnel technician for the human services department, Scott's regular duties involve managing evaluations, recruitments and separation of leaves for over 500 employees. In 2021, Scott not only handled his regular responsibilities, he's also involved in the hiring, promoting and separating of over 700 people. During this time, Scott was helpful, reliable and effectively collaborated with multiple partners in order to achieve this feat, which has been a tremendous benefit to HSD's fiscal payroll. Scott was instrumental in processing hundreds of personnel transactions in order to staff the COVID-19 homeless shelters. He also supported and provided resources for employees who are going through their own struggles with COVID-19. For these reasons, we wanna thank and honor Scott for his hard work and contributions. Supervisor Koenig will be presenting the awards in the health services category. Thank you. It's also a pleasure to present the awards in this category. My wife is a nurse practitioner, so I know firsthand how much all of you in health services, how hard do you have to work day to day? And let's get to it. Our first award goes to Walter Espinoza. Walter, are you there? Come on up. Walter Espinoza is the clinic manager for the Watsonville Health Center, which serves the most ill and at-risk residents of Watsonville. During the constant challenges and safety concerns over the last two years, Walter successfully led his team in adapting to rapidly changing infection precautions so as to not compromise the safety of the staff, and yet still serve a community that was being heavily impacted by COVID-19. Walter worked heroically to coordinate resources for the Watsonville Health Center's mass vaccination program and found solutions to get the job done despite enormous obstacles, whether it be organizing, finding volunteers, or logistical planning. Walter is 100% committed to the Watsonville Health Center and goes above and beyond to ensure that patients get the quality care they need and deserve. Walter's kindness and professionalism make him one of the best assets of the Watsonville Health Center and he inspires staff every day with a vision for a county clinic that truly serves the Watsonville community. Thank you, Walter, for your dedication and commitment to protecting the health of our community. Our next award goes to Michael O'Connor. Michael O'Connor is a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner at the Health Services Agency. Michael provides consistent psychiatric services at the Homeless Persons Health Project and has always been an important goal of the Health Services Agency. When Michael was hired in the Integrated Behavioral Health Program, he proactively voiced interest in the Homeless Persons Health Project and asked for as many hours as possible at that location. Because of this push to expand focus services at the Homeless Persons Health Project, the county has significantly expanded psychiatric services for this marginalized and disenfranchised population from one to three days a week. Michael's uncanny flexibility and can-do attitude has allowed him to see many walk-in behavioral health patients in addition to having a busy clinical schedule of his own. Michael also participates in the Street Medicine Outreach Program where he's able to prescribe protective medications for people with substance use disorders and psychotropic medications for those with incapacitating mental illness. Driven by a genuine love for the work and clients he serves, one of Michael's priorities is reconnecting behavioral health patients who have become lost to follow-up with county services and support. Michael has gone above and beyond by expanding capacity and services to those most in need in our community and we are so grateful for his dedication to this cause. Thank you. I think it's going to take a lot of work. Yeah, I think it's going to take a lot of work. And finally, we have a tie for the last award, which goes to the Homeless Persons Health Project and the Microbiology Lab Team. So, yeah, the honor is being shared and I want to first start with a presentation of the award to the Homeless Persons Health Project. If all the members of the mobile medical team could come up here and join me. Come on up. So, I'll just read all the members of your team. Victor Yanez, Rayann Jimenez, Mirabel Gomez, Benjamin Rumston Stein, Lily Pham, Suzanne Sampson, and Marie Del Rosario. Hi, Dr. Zart. Now I'm going to get you to read a little bit about your great work. The Homeless Persons Health Project created the mobile medical team with the goal of bringing medical services, compassionate support, and coordinate care to members of our community that are experiencing homelessness. This team provides food, water, wound care, basic blood work, vaccines, SDI testing, education, and connects people to clinical care, benefit services, medication assisted treatment services, and integrated behavioral health services. The mobile medical team builds relationships with people in an extraordinary way, knowing the names of most every person to whom they give care and show up without judgment, working every day to assure that each individual gets the care, attention, and trauma-informed services they need. One of the team members, Suzanne Sampson, recently exemplified the critical medical support that the mobile medical team provides when they were able to resuscitate an individual by administering CPR and seven doses of Narcan. These dedicated team members work amongst the most vulnerable people in our community, and they do so with passion, dedication, and a commitment to upholding the dignity of everyone they serve. Thanks to all of you for your tireless commitment to serving and supporting our community members. And the last but not least, we have the Health Services Agency Microbiology Lab Team. Come on up here. We have Jared Murai and Diane DeMessage. Glad to hear it. The last, so with the start of the pandemic, Jared Murai quickly took the lead to advocate testing for COVID-19 at the Health Services Agency Lab, which led to a greater capacity for testing in our county. It was Jared's endless advocacy that kept his peers and community informed and safe from potential outbreaks. The Microbiology Lab Team went above and beyond by developing workflows for testing and purchasing equipment, and they were also the first team in the county to test first responders. Together, Diane and Jared worked long hours, including weekends to get testing kits and test results to our community partners. And while other facilities had to turn around time of weeks, the Microbiology Lab Team was able to produce test results in just 12 hours. They developed a process to quickly identify outbreaks, and it was this efficiency that allowed for rapid isolation and containment, saving countless lives. Jared and Diane also coordinated with the Homeless Persons Health Project to test patients experiencing homelessness, responded to outbreaks at shelters and collaborated with the Public Health Department to perform testing at elder care facilities, which housed some of our community's most vulnerable residents. Jared and Diane, their impact on our community cannot be overstated. We want to extend our sincere gratitude for your enormous efforts to safeguard our community from COVID-19. Okay, and now I'll hand it over to Supervisor Caput, who will be presenting awards for the category of Human Services. Well, it's good to see everybody in person, right? That would be wonderful. This award, the first award is for Erica Schwanbeck, and hi, Erica. And Human Services, for your role as a senior departmental administrative analyst, Erica's dedicated and meticulous work has directly impacted each division within the Human Services Department, as well as many community partners whose services are safety nets for our community. When the COVID-19 pandemic, we all know about that, right, contributed to staffing challenges, Erica stepped in to ensure that the Human Services Department's contracts were executed and managed timely and efficiently while continuing to collaborate with various stakeholders throughout the contract administration process. In addition to our exemplary work with managing departmental contracts, you went above and beyond in all areas of your work last year, providing training to new staff in your unit, communicating clearly and effectively with vendors and employees, and did all of this with a consistently positive and cheerful demeanor that inspired trust and confidence. Thank you for all of your hard work this year. I am pleased to present you with the Employee Recognition Award in the Human Services category. The next award is for Juan Magana. Is Juan here? Any relation to the Maganas in Watsonville, California? That's right, that's the problem. There you go. Yeah, I know some of them. One of them plays football and the football team at Watsonville High. Oh, no, same thing. It was a big family. Yeah, a big family. Okay. The Senior Human Service Analyst, Juan Magana, in Homes Support Services Public Authority is responsible for managing the enrollment of all in Homes Support Services, which is typically done through in-person orientation and enrollment appointments. That was tough to do with the pandemic and everything, right? Last year, Juan worked closely with SEIU 2015 to create a hybrid registration model for providers that allowed for all enrollment steps to be completed online and by phone. This change not only kept providers and staff safe, but also expedited the enrollment timeline. Thanks to this new model, IHSS Public Authority was able to prevent an interruption of services to elderly and disabled community members who rely on caregivers to retain their independence and remain in their homes. This innovative idea has truly made a difference in the lives of all of IHSS providers and clients, and I'm pleased to present one with an employee recognition award in the human services category. Yes, I'll be stellar and I'll go ahead and I actually wrote something, so I'll go ahead and read it. So thank you very much for this recognition. I'm truly humbled and honored to be recognized by the board and the CAO. I would like to thank the selection committee as I'm sure there were many candidates within the Human Services Department, worthy of recognition. I of course want to thank our division director, Alicia Morales, and I'm my program manager, Jessica Kirxima for their unparalleled leadership and support. I want to thank my friends, my family, my professional colleagues that are always there to encourage and to inspire me to do the very best. And last but not least, I want to thank the entire public authority team, some of which are right in front of me and they're making me nervous as heck, and others are watching via Zoom. This recognition could not have happened without all of the work that they do, so thanks for them. I do have to put a plug in for public authority and all the work that we do because it's near and dear to my heart. Public authority is tasked with helping individuals at risk of out of home placement remain safely in their home. And we do this by working diligently to find qualified caregivers and we do have a huge shortage of care providers in our county, not necessarily our county, our state, but it's actually a system-wide issue. So if anybody is interested in doing some good deeds and providing some valuable services to individuals in need of caregivers, call the public authority at 454-4036. Our website at sennacuesinhomecare.org and we will guide you through the process. Thank you. Oh, referral maker developer team. I like teams, so this will be a team award and it's kind of like the Board of Supervisors. We're a team, right? We always support each other. We always get along and we can try to do everything. Okay, Carol Lavea. Lavea? That's correct and I pronounce it correctly. Okay. Or Liva? Lavea. Lavea. Okay. And Gretchen Bronstein? That's you. Okay, and is Sean Kelly? Okay. In 2021, this team of app developers created a new tool called referral maker that has streamlined the process for referring customers to services offered through partner agencies such as employment resources, domestic abuse support, legal aid, childcare, as well as many other assistant programs. They were all greatly affected by COVID and everything that was going on to do all that, it's really very difficult. Thank you. The referral maker tool has saved many hours of staff time and has eliminated the manual work of completing the referral form and sending it to partner agencies, thereby expediting the referral process so that customers can be connected to services when they need them the most. When this tool is used by staff and partner agencies, the real benefits are passed down to the customers that rely on these services. And it is because of this innovative idea that this team is being honored today. I want to recognize and extend my thank you to referral makers team members for this problem solving tool. And I'm pleased to present them with a employee recognition award in the human services category. I just want to thank some other people that are in the kind of behind the scenes getting all our data, VanVoo and to think and there are also a great help for this project. Thanks. You're welcome. We'll have a supervisor friend give the next awards. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm excited to do the Justice Category Awards today. You know, over the last few years, I'll say it's been particularly challenging for our justice partners, not just locally but throughout the country. And I think that you'll hear today with the people that we're recognizing that our region is really blessed to have some of the best justice partners in the United States unquestionably. And we're going to lead this off to prove it with the Juvenile Probation Placement Unit. We're looking at Angela Vasquez, Javier Diaz, Baisheng Cha and Peter John Grassi come join me. That'd be great. Congratulations. Yeah. Hey, it's always interesting to decide which sides I'm going to get flanked on, but... All right, yeah, that's good. All right, the first award in the Justice Category is being given to the Juvenile Probation Placement Unit, and during the past year, the Juvenile Probation Placement Unit worked tirelessly to find ways to support justice-involved youth and their families who were experiencing challenges previously not seen by staff, such as severe social isolation, financial difficulties, food insecurities and the general unknown of what was coming next. To ensure that youth and families were receiving the highest level of services during the last year, the staff here committed to focusing on four areas, increasing youth and family involvement in child and family team meetings, developing a referral process for youth committed to a secure youth track facility program that would ensure family participation in regular visitation, which connects youth and families. Increasing collaboration with community partners, including the reentry navigators who are part of the stable transitions after reentry grant, and ensuring regular in-person visitation to their assigned youth who are participating in short-term residential therapeutic programs throughout the state. Because of the efforts of this team right here, our county's youth and families were supported during an incredibly challenging year. I'm absolutely proud to present all of you with this Employer Recognition Award to the Juvenile Probation Placement Unit. Well, I wanna thank everybody. This is a great recognition, not only for the unit that we represent, but our department in general. And as was touched on throughout the President does feature today, we are just one part of a much larger system. And we're just doing everything we can every day to strive to improve that system and make sure it benefits everybody connected to it. So I just wanna thank everybody here and thank everybody who isn't here for your contributions and your involvement in helping everybody in our community, particularly our youth. Thank you. Now we need to recognize the lifeblood of any law enforcement agency, and that's the Records Team. So if we could bring up the Sheriff's Department Records Team, please. We've got Maggie Brophy, Erica Parmona, Colleen Dobbs, Katherine Gross, Jennifer Lloyd, Joy Magi, Andrea Marie Rodriguez Rocha, Polly Schulte-Elser, and Lisa Van Dean. Or about a half of those people right here. The second award in the justice category is being given to the Sheriff's Department Records Team. As a custodian of records for the Sheriff's Department, the Records Team is responsible for the maintenance of all records generated by the Sheriff's Department, as well as managing all warrant and restraining order records for the entire Santa Cruz County law enforcement family. The Records Team is also responsible for ensuring DOJ compliance with how law enforcement records are kept reported and released, including processing and preparing arrest cases for the DA's office. The Santa Cruz County deputies rely on timely and accurate information from records in order to make life and death decisions that are required to ensure public safety. The Records Team strives to maintain the highest standards of professional ethics and personal integrity, and their role in supporting the Sheriff's Office is invaluable. So I'm happy to present this Employee Recognition Award to the Sheriff's Office Department Records Team and thank them for all you do to support law enforcement in our community. Congratulations. Y'all know I'll run to the microphone at once. Yeah. Records is always behind the scenes. Yeah, this next one is a very important and powerful one, which is the Trunk Retreat Community Event Team. But before we start, I wanna acknowledge somebody who's not with us today who had an absolutely essential role within the Trunk Retreat Community Event, which my son went to is one of the most beautiful events I've actually seen in South County. And that's Heather Abbott who left us way too soon. And I wanna make sure that we acknowledge that not just her for this individual role, but for her entire life and commitment to this county, I just wanna please give her an acknowledgement for that. So if we could have Gina Castaneda, Linda Perez, Joe Hernandez, Laura Espanola, Kimmy Miller, and Mary Lou Martinez come up. So on Friday, October 29th, employees from the Santa Cruz County Probation Department and the DA's office hosted a large scale Trunk Retreat Event at the Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds that would allow children and community groups the opportunity to interact and celebrate Halloween in a fun and COVID safe manner. This interdepartmental team worked hard behind the scenes to make the event a success and were able to get 36 organizations including nonprofits, businesses, community groups and a number of government agencies to commit to participating in the event. As a matter of fact, actually, we're still using the kids' toothpaste because we got about 7,000 tubes of it that were handed out that day. Each participating organization decorated the trunk of a vehicle and handed out candy to the children and community members as they drove by and due to the hard work of this team, the event was a complete success. It says here several hundred pounds of candy were given out. I think that's a way underestimate because I think there were 700 pounds in my trunk alone and the Watsonville community was able to come together to enjoy a festive Halloween experience. So let me present this team with this Employee Recognition Award and a great thanks to all of you in the honor of Heather as well for all that you do for our community. I just want to say that we saw a need in South County and throughout the county with a lot of our youth and families that were very, very isolated during a time when a lot of them felt really alone and depressed and coming together with the DA's office and several other volunteers and people that aren't here to really just address the need and give the youth and families an opportunity to do something that was fun in a time that they felt very, very isolated. So I want to thank my colleagues and everybody that came together and our departments and several other people that aren't here, we were able to pull it together and really just wanted to meet the youth and family where they're at. So thank you to the people that are up here and people that weren't able to be here today, including Heather and thank you for all your support. I did just want to say a few words that we are definitely appreciative of the partnership that we have with probation, but also looking at partnerships within the county as well so that we can further serve our community. I think there's a huge need that we're missing and collaboratively, I think we can make a difference within our community. Having conversations are great, but actions speak louder than words. So we're looking forward to having those partnerships that we go forward. Thank you. Next up, we have Supervisor McPherson representing awards in the category of land use and regulatory. Thank you. And I'd like to just take a couple of extra moments and I know my colleagues are gonna say, oh, there it goes again. McPherson gets a mic and he wants to say something a little extra, but I do want to acknowledge that more than 2,283 county employees for their hard work and support of the community of what they've gone through and what we're recognizing today during the dual emergencies of the pandemic and the CCU fire, they're all great and much appreciated as we continually stayed here before the County Board of Supervisors and what you do weekend, week out, but you're the cream of the crop and duly recognized today. So thank you. And I also want to thank our CAO, Carlos Palos-Jose and the Board for his criteria that we established to decide this year's employee awards to solve the extraordinary problem that we've had to find the opportunity to improve the county services which you've done and to implement the innovative ideas which we are hearing about. These awards really recognize creative thinking and real teamwork, which is what we need more than ever today. We need to work together and you've done that in spades. The Board is proud of the progress we've made to improve the county services and I look forward to more innovative approaches in the year to come. So thank you each and every one of you and to all of your colleagues as well. In the land, I have distinction of introducing the award to the land use and regulatory category. We have Jeff Nolan and Jessica Degrassi. There you go, Jeff. How you doing? Jessica, it couldn't be. Hey, Eric, you found it there. I'll go, okay, it's okay. Another, we've heard about that today. The first employee recognition award that would be given out to the land use team and regulatory team is to Jeff and Jessica. And in the aftermath of the CZU Lightning Complex fire, the recovery geologic training performed the site assessments of every property lost in this structure and there were more than 900 or almost 1,000 of them. And working long hours, assessing the threats of debris flow and other geologic concerns. In the months since the initial assessment, the team has worked with outside consultants to refine the debris flow mapping. And if you've ever seen some of those videos of the debris flow and what it can do, it is awesome. We didn't experience it, but it was, but they've conducted more focused geologic assessments and responded to the board's directions to revise code process to facilitate rebuilding the burn area and did it all on top of their normal workloads. The CZU recovery geologic team has gone above and beyond all expectations in doing everything that they can to help community members. We lost their homes to get in place where they can safely rebuild. And for these reasons, this team is deserving of our thanks and praise. And I'm pleased to present this recognition award to Jeff and for Jessica as well. Would you like to say a few words, Jeff? Two. Thanks for the award, but I really wanted to make sure that everybody appreciates that everybody in the planning department really extended themselves after the fire. It was a really tough year and it has been. We're not done yet. And lots and lots of people have put in extra time. Thank you. This next award is to a team. The Planning Department Appointment Scheduler. I'm in RFI. Maybe they're out there to go. Come on in, I'm Nada Algarib. Evan Dittmars, Elizabeth Hayward, and Ed Olson, Jocelyn Drake, and Yan Zhang. They're not able to be here. Okay. This land use and regulatory category has been given to the Planning Department Scheduling Team who I've just mentioned. And prior to the pandemic, the Planning Department always had a queue of people waiting in the lobby for appointments to discuss various building, zoning, and planning topics. But once the pandemic hit, the model of customer service was no longer feasible. The Appointment Scheduler team and the Information Services Department teamed up to address this issue and through combining the original counter-management system with a new Appointment Scheduler program, the public was able to go online and schedule appointments for in-person phone meetings. Since the Appointment Scheduler's launch in September 13th, 2021, there have been 657 completed appointments with an average total of over 20 appointments per day for the last eight weeks. This new system has been a huge success for the Planning Department during an especially critical time for our community when so many people are trying to move forward with rebuilding their homes following the CZU Lightning Complex fire. And I wanna thank you. Much of this was in my district and the fifth district as well as in Supervisor Coonerty's Thursday district by and large. And it gives me great pleasure to present them with this Employee Recognition Award and congratulations to a great team effort. I don't know if one of you would like to speak. No, you don't. There we go, yes, yes, come on. It's Bruce. Well, I would just like to say that I'm in really was our team leader on accomplishing this task and we couldn't have done it without I'm in and the ISD support staff. And so I just wanted just to give an extra shout out to I'm in today and also just say thank you to the public who have been patient with us in making this transition to the Appointment Scheduler. Thank you. Finally, the next award goes to the South County Service Center Acquisition Team, Kimberly Finley, Douglas Dubois, Nicole Steele. This last award that is being presented in the category of land use and regulatory for the South County Service Center Acquisition Team. Immediately following the approval of the long range facilities plan, the Department of Public Works formed the South County Service Center Acquisition Team which quickly got into work researching potential locations to consolidate the leases in South County into one large county owned campus. After the initial property site search, the team identified the property located at 500 West Ridge Drive in Watsonville and began the appraisal and negotiation process that resulted in the board's approval of the purchase and sale agreement on June 8th, 2021 with the sale price significantly lower than the original asking price. The acquisition of this property required a numeral physical and feasibility studies as well as programming means with all of the departments that would be relocated in the new facility. And the acquisition team was able to complete all of this work on time and on budget, closing escrow only four months after the initial board's approval. The consolidation of public services at 500 West Ridge campus reflects the county's commitment to health safety and the wellbeing of our South County residents. We are grateful for the hard work and dedication of the acquisition team for helping to make this a reality. And I'm pleased to present this award. This is gonna have a huge impact in serving the county employees in the South County. They don't have to make that horrific highway one drive every morning and evening. I hope this is gonna help and I know it will. So congratulations to you all. And would you, who would like to say something and all of you can? I would. There you go. Come on in. We would like to thank the board for this honor and award. We would like to thank Director Machado and Director Kerry for their leadership and guidance. It's only through their support that we were able to accomplish this goal. I am proud and honored to be a part of this project, which will bring much needed services to South County. Thank you. All right, congratulations again to all the award winners. I just wanna reiterate that in a time where it seems that controversy and conflict so often drive our news cycle, it's such a pleasure to be here today just to celebrate the hard work, new ideas and dedication that all County workers bring to their positions every day throughout the year. I hope you'll now join the award winners for a reception in the hallway. And that concludes our regular meeting. The Board of Supervisors will meet next on March 22nd, Tuesday, meeting adjourned.