 We'll now call to order the regular meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. It is Tuesday, September 20th at 9 a.m. 2022. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Supervisor Friend. Here. Coonerty. Oh, so here. Thank you. Caput. Here. McPherson. Here. And Koenig. Here. Thank you, Chair. You have a quorum. Thank you. We'll now have a moment of silence and a Pledge of Allegiance. Do you remember the board that wishes to dedicate this moment to anyone? Supervisor Caput. You bet. For the moment of silence, David Trevino, a friend I've had since we were 10 years old. He passed away about a week ago and he was a Vietnam veteran and counselor at Cabrio College for quite a few years. So, anyway, I just want to recognize his passing. Thank you. Anyone else? We'll hold Mr. Trevino in our hearts. I believe in the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. CEO Palacios, do we have any additions or deletions to the regular or consent agenda today? Yes, we do. On the regular agenda, item number nine, packet page 111 is replaced to read recommended actions, consider directing staff to either send a letter to the California Coastal Commission regarding Santa Cruz County local coastal program amendment, number LCP-3 SCO-20-0066-2, coastal hazards update, withdrawing the amendments or maintain the status quo and allow the Coastal Commission to act on the amendments. There are also additional materials on this item, attachment C, insert after packet page 119, coastal commissions letter to Board of Supervisors Coastal Hazards LCP amendment. On the consent agenda, item number 31 packet pages 111 and 359, formal title and recommended action, number two should read, adopt resolution accepting unanticipated revenue of $10,660,000 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Project Home Key Park, Haven Plaza, authorize the execution of a county project agreement with 2838 Park Avenue LP, a boat services and FBI property management, direct the human services department to return on or before November 15th, 2022 to ratify the agreements, take related actions as recommended by the Director of Human Services. On item number 37, staff requests that this item be deleted, remove packet pages 659 through 669. On item number 41, packet pages 695 to 700 replaced with attachment A. On item number 42, packet page 703 replaced, recommended action number two should read, adopt resolution accepting unanticipated revenue in the amount of $16,272 from the developer for installation of the four road bumps. That concludes the corrections to the agenda. Thank you. Would any board member like to remove an item from the consent agenda to the regular agenda? Mr. Chair, I believe that we should remove item 31 in regards to the Park Haven Plaza project. All right, very well, then we'll hear item 31 after item 10 on the regular agenda. Is there any other items board members would like to remove to the regular agenda? All right, seeing none. I'll now take public comment. Any member of the public may address the board for two minutes on any item on the consent or regular agenda. Item should be on issues within the jurisdiction of the board and the board will not respond directly to questions or items raised by members of the public but may follow up after the meeting. Go ahead. Gary, Richard Arnold, chairman, supervisors. This county has gone more and more towards a Soviet state. In fact, Ambag itself is a collection that has a collection of three counties and a number of cities, a dozen or so. And they have contracts with both the United Nations and the World Bank. Also, the president chairman came from a group called Civonomics and this is the city of Santa Cruz, the city of Santa Cruz gave the key to the city to communist Angela Davis in which Neil Coonerty also sponsored as his local bookshop. She ran as vice president for the Communist Party and the president that was running for the Communist Party wrote, I dream of the hour when the last congressman has strangled the death on the guts of the last preacher. It says that Christians love to sing about the blood. Why not give them a little of it? Let the throat of their children drag them over the mourners' pension pulpit and allow them to drown in their own blood and see whether they can join these cameras again. Do you please direct your comments to items within the jurisdiction of the board? The board I'm directed about you and about the foundations, the foundations where you were trained at and the fact that you as a board of supervisors continues to maintain a monument to a communist trader that helped kill Americans in World War I in Vietnam and in Korea. This is just one book of Un-American Activities Committee by the California Democratic Senate of Hughes Activities. There must be at least seven different items in here. He worked with the Industrial Areas Foundation in which joined with Neil Coonerty and our friend friend and the sheriff would not take a report because they made threats against the persons and property of members of the Grange. Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Thank you. Good morning, supervisors. My name is Sarah Eddings and I am a staff long-term care ombudsman with Advocacy Inc. Today I would like to share some statistics with you. During the fiscal year of 2021 to 2022, our office opened 311 cases. These cases involve 562 individual complaints. The complaints consisted of resident abuse, resident neglect, violations of resident rights, lack of quality care, limited access to information, restricted access to visitors, and much more. During the fiscal year 2021 to 2022, our office devoted 1,144 hours to case investigation and complaint resolution. This amounts to 458 hours per hour to and one half staff ombudsman. In addition, our office also performed a variety of activities as mandated by the Older Americans and Older California Act. We devoted 661 hours of other ombudsman services, which included responding to 496 phone calls from individuals and facility staff, conducting 152 unannounced general monitoring visits. These visits hold facilities accountable and they proactively address issues which prevent complaints and regulatory violations. We participated in 10 resident and family council meetings. We witnessed 44 advanced healthcare directive signings, which when an individual resides in a skilled nursing facility, it's required that an ombudsman be present to witness. We conducted two community education sessions and we each completed the required 18 hours of continuing education training. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Thank you, Ms. Eddings. May I please have a seat? Chairman Koenig, good morning supervisors. Steven Matze, long-term care ombudsman, program coordinator for Advocacy Inc. It's a pleasure to see you all again this morning, albeit under bittersweet reasoning. I'd like to quote real quickly just one sentence from the definition of social safety net that was created by the Board of Supervisors with County staff input. Programs that help vulnerable people access sufficient resources to lead a healthy and successful life or prevent the circumstances that put them at risk are part of the social safety net. I read that to you because our agency and our program is in crisis. As because of the defunding through the core process, we are now being prompted to furlough two days per month per ombudsman, which as Sarah had mentioned is two and a half individuals that equates to a loss of over 624 hours per defunded year. Our long-term care residents deserve better. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. And as you heard through the case statistics that Sarah had presented to you, the existence of neglect and abuse is still prevalent within our community. 72% of all COVID related deaths in the County of Santa Cruz were individuals living in long-term care facilities. Our ombudsman have been locked out of those facilities for over a one and a half years. It is now our job to try and clean up what has been left behind. As our world comes to a place where the COVID pandemic is over, we are living it on a daily basis. Our ombudsman, including myself, are entering these facilities fearlessly, masked up, donning proper PPE to ensure our residents have access to ombudsman services. I ask, I request, I beseech, to come to the table with us, to talk about a solution to the funding that we have lost through this latest funding cycle. Thank you so much for your attention. And I did leave some information for you to take a look at. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Matzi. Good morning, my name is James Ewing Whitman. Last Tuesday, a community member was stopped when he was speaking. This subject came up in the city of Santa Cruz, City Council meeting about our First Amendment rights to speak. I believe that it's a federal law that was broken. And I did take some time to do some research on it, but I didn't actually find it. But just to note, the County Attorney Heath can consult with the city attorney, Tony, who actually addressed this. I'm not sure. You guys are, this sure seems like a Warner Brothers cartoon where the sheepdog and the coyote, they check in for work at eight and then they try to kill each other during the day. It's really quite comical. And then at five o'clock, they go out and drink together. So the scripts that are going on here and with what else is going on around the world, it's really just kind of sad to observe. It's unfortunate more community members are not here. I think Kennedy about five weeks before he was assassinated. He said, this mistake does not become an error unless you refuse to correct it. Gee, why was he assassinated? Because he started printing $5 and $10 bills to get rid of the Federal Reserve that has nothing to do with the United States. Anyway, it's good to be here. I was given, I picked up this placard about Planned Parenthood. I think if people really knew what Planned Parenthood was about and did their history about what the Nazis learned from different individuals in the United States. And I'm referring to Margaret Sanger and William Gates the first. The best way to get rid of the people you don't want is to get rid of them before they're born, which is why all the Planned Parenthoods around the United States are in the inner cities. So there's a lot of deception going on. I hope for change, thanks. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. Good morning, County Supervisors. My name is Antonio Rivas. I come before you a concern that I have in regards to not able to fund the Ombudsman Program. It's very important for us, especially our community in the city of Watsonville, that as you well aware, it's important that the Ombudsman has paid and volunteers in order to provide protection for our seniors. It's very important to have that. I hope it is my hope that you as a County Supervisors can be able to find a way to fund such program. It's very important for our community to be able to provide that. It's important to me as our seniors, as you well aware, the seniors are very vulnerable and they need all the support and help in order to engage, especially people with disabilities, recovering from the hospital. They need some support. The Ombudsman is a very good program and it's important that you as County Supervisors come out with some type of funds so you can be able to fund that program. My second concern that I have is the Live Oak Senior Center. You need to take action. You need to do something with the Senior Center in Live Oak. As you well aware, the Live Oak School District has decided to close down the Senior Center by the end of this year. So it's my hope that you as County Supervisors be able to come with a solution in order to help the Senior Center in Live Oak. As you well aware, the lives and the well-being of our seniors really matters. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Really matters. So have your heart and hope you can be able to come up with a solution. Thank you. Thank you. All right, seeing no one else here in chambers. Is there anyone on Zoom or the telephones? Yes, Chair, we do have speakers online. Colin, user one, your microphone is now available. Garrett, your primary responsibility is to provide for the well-being of the community and hearing Antonio Rodriguez and the on-budsman speaker this important responsibility, it's not taking place, but you do have money for other projects like radiating everyone with broadband, 4G, 5G, et cetera, known health hazards. And I'm looking again at the Sunday, September 11th Sentinel titled What's That Giant Orb About Weather Technology and Referring to Ex-Band Radar Facility. And I'll quote again. I looked up a book, A Zapping of America by Paul Brodure, 1977. This is known health hazard. Here's what the cover says. Microwaves are deadly risk and the coverup microwave radiation can blind you, alter your behavior, cause genetic damage, even kill you. The risk have been hidden from you by the Pentagon, the State Department and the electronics industry. Now it's the telecom industry. With this book, the microwave coverup is ended. However, the county is still complicit in covering up the facts of the harm that you are focusing on everyone by these radiation facilities. I recommend this book, The Zapping of America by Paul Brodure. And talks about, this basically refers to expand frequency range and air force bases and performing autopsies on it, radiated mice showing the damage. These radiation emitting facilities by Verizon, et cetera, need to be removed, protect the public. Chuck, your microphone is now available. You hear me? Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Oh, great, thank you. Is now the appropriate time to make comments regarding the tiny house on wheels ordinance or will there be time later in the meeting? We'll be time later in the meeting as well, but you're welcome to make your comments now if you can't stay till then. Great, I'm gonna save my comments until then. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chuck. Caller ending in 8204, your microphone is now available. Hi, my name is Diane Denton and I'm calling in today to comment on the year 2030 growth goal in the unincorporated portions of the county. I live in South County and it's hellacious to get anywhere north before 10 o'clock in the morning and that's not if the weather is not tourist traffic on top of that. I don't think building in South County is the best idea for the situation that our highways are in. If there's ever an emergency situation, even emergency vehicles, it had a hard time getting going north. I think any evacuation that we'd have to do would be hard to do as well. I think until we get our infrastructure organized for some more growth, which it intends to happen yearly, it looks like with that 0.5% increase, I think you should put the reins on it and create a better infrastructure. That probably goes for water too. I mean, unincorporated land is plentiful down here, but it doesn't mean that the infrastructure can handle it. So I would consider not adding any more buildings until housing until we get that squared way. All right, that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you. Caller ending in 2-915, your microphone is now available. Good morning. This is Becky Stein-Bruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to point out there are no instructions on the agenda website for how to raise your hand or unmute. So I request this added, but thank you for putting the access number in. I want to follow up a bit on Marilyn Garrett's comment about this globe on the Sheriff's Department. That's also the County EOC. According to the Sentinel article, that installation weighs a ton, 2,000 pounds. I want to know if the roof was reinforced to support that weight and will support the vibrational effects when the radar starts spinning. Wind generators are not put on top of buildings because it's been shown that the vibration of the spinning rotor causes people inside the building to be very stressed. So I hope that is not the case when this radar becomes operational. I want to comment on item number 19, the digital wallet being provided free, quote, free by Humble, I really oppose this. And I do not think that this serves the public well. I think that we're not being told how our information is going to be used. And in reading the staff report on the update, I don't think that the apartment heads are on board with this either. The staff meetings supposedly happened ongoing to explain how it would benefit them and department heads were supposed to weigh in on how it would help them. And now it's only the CAO that's making the decisions about how this information will be used. I don't think it's going to help anything to do with the public service, quote, customer service. Thank you, Mr. Steinburner. Elizabeth, your microphone is now available. Great, and just a quick question right now is the time to speak on Park Haven Plaza, right? The item has been removed from our regular or consent agenda to our regular agenda and will be heard after item 10. So you can speak then or if you can't stay till then, you're welcome to speak now. But you just can't speak both. I will speak now. Thank you. So let me just, great. So my name is Elizabeth Madrigal speaking on behalf of the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership. We fully support moving forward with accepting the 10.6 million in-state funding for the Project Tomke Park Haven Plaza Development which will provide 36 much needed permanent supportive homes for veterans, transition aged youth, unhoused families with children and an on-site resident manager. This is in line with recommendation three from our COVID-19 Housing Response Position Paper to partner with the state to implement Project Tomke. With 12,000 individuals on the waiting list of the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County, the advancement of this development is crucial. This project would count towards meeting the fifth cycle regional housing need allocation very low income target, which is one of the most typical categorization to build housing in. Thank you all for your leadership and taking advantage of this opportunity that will make a critical impact in increasing Santa Cruz County's stock of very low income housing opportunities. Thank you, Ms. Madrigal. We have no further speakers chair. Thank you. Then I'll bring it back for item six, action on the consent agenda. Does any member of the board wish to speak to any item on the consent agenda? Supervisor McPherson. Sir, thank you. My own, no. Okay, thank you. Couple of items I wanted to address. Number 21, the general fund budget. I noted that the county has been able to once again reach the 10% general fund reserve role, which is fantastic. Due to the revenue outlook, which is signed is a real good sign of our improved fiscal strength. But I'd like to ask the CEO if he could answer quickly to highlight the county's efforts to rebuild our reserves, which I fully support, including those designated for property and liability, which is a concern. I think we're not at the goal we need to be in those areas, but just how does that balance, sir? Yes, thank you, Supervisor McPherson. We have tried to do two things in the budget, final actions. One is to bring our reserves back up to the 10%, which we actually did in our budget this year. And so thankfully due to the economy doing fairly well, we were able to restore our 10% reserves to where they were before the pandemic required us to use some of those funds to get through that very difficult first year. In this year, we also are recommending that the board use a small surplus to restore funding in the property and liability fund. That fund has been hit over the number of years with settlements as all the governments have been hit with these kinds of settlements and is below the recommended levels. And so we're recommending that the board, according to your prior action, actually you had already directed us to do this. And we're just following through with that is to restore that property and liability reserve fund. So anyway, our general reserves are now up to the policy with 10% and our property and liability fund will be on the way to getting towards the recommended amount. Okay. All right, thank you. On item number 23, I wanna thank the ISC staff for continuing its work on an updated broadband plan, locating priority sites to place connectivity and infrastructure that fills the gaps is in the network is really, really important and continuing to seek the funding. I would like to add additional direction to that. If I may, I'd like to give an additional direction for the chair to write a letter of support on behalf of the board for Crucio's NTIA middle mile grant under the federal infrastructure investment and jobs act middle mile program. I think it's essential for us to have that kind of a network especially in some of the rural areas including the fifth district. On item number 39, I think it's worth commenting. I recently toured the Monterey Regional Waste Trent management district in Marina, the facility with the County CDI director, Matt Machado and assistant public works director, Kent Elder. I think it's worth noting that this facility diverts an impressive 75% of the wasted handles including recycled materials and that's compared to the statewide diversion rate of 42%. So once again, Santa Cruz County and the Monterey Bay region is above and beyond and ahead of most of the rest of the state. The district did indicate its interest in broadening its scope partnership with the county to help us achieve the zero waste goals especially diverting our organic waste as mandated by state law. I just look forward to the report and seeing what future of zero waste looks like for this county and this whole region. And I wanna congratulate the people of Santa Cruz County and this region for doing what's before us and getting ahead of the curve through ahead of most of the state. In fact, very impressive and it might be worth having a brief presentation from the Monterey Peninsula Waste District for two before the County Board of Supervisors, I think. On number 43, the request for a proposal of the ADU incentives program. It's exciting to see this incentives program move forward. I think building ADUs and junior ADUs as well as tiny homes, which we will be discussing on the regular agenda today are the best opportunities to increasing housing in my fifth district as well as throughout the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County by providing this outreach about our ADU program by technically assisting the core group of property owners through this process. I think we will gain a better understanding of the barriers faced to building and also ways to improve our permitting process. And I really congratulate this incentive program, those who put it together. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Other comments or questions from board members? And Mr. Charles speak on a couple of items briefly. Thank you for the opportunity. Just on item 19, an appreciation for ISD and other County staff, including the CAO's office that's been working on the side of my recognize it. The timeline has slipped for a few months on the digital wallet project, but we are one of the first in the United States to be exploring a pilot like this. And I think some of the opportunities in particular for serving some of our disadvantaged community members that are much more likely to be using and interacting with services this way than not in a new way. And I recognize that sometimes there can be some recalcitrants associated with any sort of technological change. One of the points of exploring a pilot is to see whether or not this works in the local government sphere. And if it does, then that's great because we should provide every opportunity for equity and access we can. And if it doesn't, that's why we take a chance and do these kinds of situations in regards to the donation from the company. I mean, the idea is that they're building an infrastructure that will be handed over to the county to be able to do and basically an open source sense so that it'll really be managed by the county on the backend status moving forward. But this really isn't from at least for most of us, that bleeding edge, I mean, most of us use a technology that has a wallet feature within our phones and such to engage with the broader world. And so I think that people should have an opportunity to be able to engage in the government the same way. In regards to follow up on Supervisor McPherson's comments on the broadband master plan, I appreciate the board's supportive of this. This is the follow up to an item that I brought forward sometime back in regards to expansion of broadband access. And our new ISD director's really been just a true champion and leader on this issue. I think having this master plan updated, I mean, may recollect that it was an item I brought forward to the board back in 2017 to have the initial one done, really does set us up for state and federal funding moving forward. Not only does it identify the gaps, I mean, quite frankly, I think a lot of us know where those gaps are, but having an actual document that outlines it is going to set us up for state and federal funding in a way that we really wouldn't be otherwise. And there's a lot of state and federal funding available right now for these expansions. And if the pandemic taught us, I mean, it just definitely taught us a lot of things but it really highlighted the lack of access for a lot of people within, not even that world of areas within our community and so the ability to expand access to them through this federal funding would be very important. Lastly, there's an item on here for Speed Bumps on item 42 for Palmer. And these neighbors have been just absolutely wonderful during this entire process, advocating for improvements for safety on their road, working with Mr. Chen at a public works who's also been outstanding in this whole process. And I just really appreciate the board support on this item because it'll bring some real speed mitigations into that neighborhood that they've been requesting for a long time and they are working, they raised a lot of money in order to help fund it as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Supervisor Kennedy. Sure, thank you, Mr. Chair. Couple items that have already been mentioned but maybe worth mentioning again are the expansion of broadband access. This is an exciting opportunity to provide economic opportunity and information to parts of our county that are underserved right now. The RFP to go out for an ADU, to promote ADUs, I think is an important aspect to expanding our housing stock and more affordable options as well as allowing people who have downsized in their homes but are looking for a revenue stream as they age. I think this is a great opportunity for that. And finally, there are significant investments in kids' mental health and families and through several different measures and those investments are providing an important safety net as we face the mental health challenges that we're seeing in all aspects of life but especially among kids these days. Thank you, Supervisor Kennedy. All right, seeing no further comments or questions, is there a motion on the consent agenda? Mr. Chair, I'll move the consent agenda with the additional direction from Supervisor McPherson on item 24 that the Chair write that letter of support for Cruzio's application. Second. I have a motion by Supervisor Friend and a second by Supervisor McPherson to adopt the consent agenda with additional direction on item 24. Of course, with the exception of item 31 which has been removed to our regular agenda. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk will call vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Caput. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Consent agenda passes unanimously as amended. Thank you. We'll now proceed with our regular agenda and item seven, a public hearing to consider report on the year 2023 growth goal, adopt a resolution establishing a growth rate of 0.5% for year 2023 in the unincorporated portion of the county and authorized planning staff to file the CEQA notice of exemption as outlined in the memorandum to deputy county administrative officer and director of community development and infrastructure. And for a report on this item, we have with us, Natisha Williams, planner four and Stephanie Hansen is also our assistant planning director is available for questions as well. Good morning, Supervisors. Before I begin, I just wanna make sure you can all hear me clearly through the mask. Yep. Yes. Okay, great. Okay. So my name is Natisha Williams. I'm a senior planner for the community development and infrastructure department. And today I'm here to talk about the year 2023 growth goal. The county's growth management system was instituted in 1979, following the adoption of measure J to address the resource and public services impacts of population growth in Santa Cruz County. As part of the growth management system, each year the county is required to set an annual growth goal for the upcoming year that represents a fair share of the state's growth. The 2023 growth goal report is before you today for consideration. This report examines various factors used in establishing the year 2023 growth goal for the unincorporated area and includes analysis of population growth trends, resource constraints, the status of this year's market rate, residential building permit allocations, the county's housing needs, including progress towards meeting the county's required regional housing needs allocation or RENA. A review of demolition permits and density bonus projects approved in the past year, as well as the ADU annual report. This year's report also includes a discussion on the current pipeline of subsidized affordable housing projects, as well as the continued impacts of recent state laws on the county's growth management system. As noted in the growth goal report, the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County had an estimated negative 3.2% growth last year. All jurisdictions except for the city of Santa Cruz also saw around a negative population decline of about 3%. And start contrast to the year before when populations were up by about 1% or more everywhere in the county, except for the city of Santa Cruz, which saw a population decrease of about 11%. These big population shifts that we've seen in recent years are closely tied to the COVID-19 pandemic and the state home orders, particularly in regards to the student population of UC Santa Cruz. And the county as a whole has generally seen declining populations the last couple of years, with a 0% growth in 2021. The state population has similarly decreased by negative 0.3% in 2021. Population estimates for the unincorporated area and cities are determined by the Department of Finance using the housing unit method, which means that the number of new units constructed each year plays a really large part in determining the annual population estimates that you see in this report. The DOF also notes that the state's recent negative growth rates is the result of a few major factors, including the continuing decline in natural increase as baby boomers age, and that's births minus deaths. Continuing declines in foreign immigration, which has been accelerated by recent federal policy and delays in a process, increased deaths associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and increase in domestic out migration. So since the mid 20th century, population has steadily grown in the state of California and the county as a whole, while population growth in the unincorporated area has seen a slightly different trajectory. As shown in figure A, the unincorporated areas population grew rapidly in the 19... You know what? That's the one I'm trying to look at, okay. Rewrapedly in the 1960s and 70s, surpassing growth rates in the state and county as a whole. But growth rates declined in the following decades and population actually decreased in our area between 2000 and the 2010 census years. Despite recent declines in the year to year population estimates reported by the DOF, 2020 census data shows that overall, the unincorporated areas population is actually on the rise, with an average annual 0.2% growth over the last decade, which is a total of about 2,400 people since 2010. The growth goal report also summarizes the current status of the 2022 residential building permit allocations. This year, 26 allocations have been granted as of July 1st. And if this demand continues at the current rate, 52 allocations will be granted by the end of the year. This is higher than last year when only 21 building permit allocations had been granted by July 1st, 2021. But demand for allocations remains low to previous decades and staff anticipates that there will be more than enough permits available for the remainder of this year. And although allocations continue to remain low, a number of major residential projects are currently in construction. This includes the Habitat for Humanity Project on Harper Street, the Midpen Housing Project on Capitola Road and the Pippin Orchards II Project in South County, which are all affordable housing projects and exempt from the Measure J allocation system. There's also been the Soquel Town Homes Density Bonus Project that's in construction this year. And all of these projects are reflected in table 10 of the report, which shows that 219 housing units were issued building permits as of July 1st of this year. And that includes 125 affordable units. The Pipeline of County projects also includes applications for three new density bonus project applications submitted this year and three density projects currently in preliminary review. In order to support affordable housing goals, the County continues to exempt affordable housing units and accessory dwelling units from the need to obtain permit allocations under the County's Growth Management Regulations. In accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, known as Senate Bill 330, the County will continue to not enforce Measure J growth goal limit on residential allocations within affected County areas while the statute is in place. In Santa Cruz County, the affected areas include census designated places. Those are shown in blue here on the map and they include Live Oak, Paso Tiempo Paradise Park and Amesti. But all other aspects of the Measure J ordinance unrelated to limiting building permit population, such as the County's affordable housing requirements are not impacted by this bill and staff will continue to track Measure J allocations in these areas for reporting purposes only. In addition, all residential units impacted by the CZU August Lightning complex fires will continue to be exempt from the Measure J residential permit allocation system. So based on this analysis, as detailed in the report, staff recommends that the growth goal be set at 0.5% for calendar year 2023. In past years, the County's growth goal has been generally consistent with the state of California's rate, but as noted earlier, there were a number of anomalies in the state's growth rate that contributed to the population decline. Moreover, census data indicates that population in the County has actually grown over the past decade and ambag projections show this state increase is likely to continue. In addition, the number of housing projects currently in the County's permitting pipeline, as well as the elevated permit activity we've seen in recent years point to a potential increase in demand for market rate permits that may continue through next year. And it's also important to consider that state legislation continues to refine state housing and ADU laws and pass additional bills aimed at streamlining housing permits and increasing infill development, such as Senate Bill 9, which allows up to four units to be built on existing single family lots. So in light of all this, we're recommending a 0.5% growth rate for calendar year 2023. This growth rate would result in an allocation of 256 market rate residential building permits available for the year 2023. Allocations will be distributed between the urban and rural areas of the County at a 75% to 25% ratio in order to recognize the greater potential for infill development in the urban areas. And the growth goal also recommends, as in previous years, that the unused market rate allocations from last year be carried over to 2023, sorry, from this year, 2022. Be carried to 2023, which is in accordance with policy 3.2 of the general plan housing element. So this would result in a projected total of 334 market rate residential building permit allocations available for next year. Staff has found that establishment of the 2023 growth goal is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act and a notice of exemption has been prepared. Staff therefore recommends that the Board of Supervisors conduct a public hearing to consider the report on the year 2023 growth goal, adopt the attached resolution establishing a year 2023 growth goal of 0.5% for the unincorporated portion of the County and authorize the filing of the CEQA notice of exemption with the clerk of the board. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Williams. There are comments or questions from members of the board. Mr. Chair, I just thank you for bringing this report to us. It really addresses some of the key challenges we're facing in this County in terms of housing supply availability and affordability. The state sets targets that we know we're not likely to meet overall in this community in terms of housing development. When you consider our land use and environmental constraints as well as the water and transportation limitations that we have in Santa Cruz County. Hopefully we're going to be seeing a more greater development here, especially with an increase in the welcome trend of affordable housing development in 2023 and beyond. There's a real push for more housing but we have serious limitations in this County that most other counties do not have. And I am sure the state recognizes that and I hope they do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. The comments or questions? A question for County Council, actually. The ordinance says that the growth goals shall be sort of basically our fair share of the statewide growth rate. I mean, that seems pretty open to interpretation, right? I mean, some might say the fair share is exactly the same as what the statewide growth rate is. I mean, it seems though that with our rena allocation not only the last cycle, but this upcoming cycle was determined fair is really moving more to a definition related to equity that we have underbuilt for many years as the graph demonstrated and so therefore we should actually be building above what the state average is today. I mean, is fair share as open to interpretation as I think it is or is there? I agree with you that it's that that phrase is open to interpretation and that basically the growth goal is something that's aspirational in nature and it's highly, what happens here in the way of building is highly controlled both by the market and by what our rena allocation ends up being by the state. So the state still does control a lot around what we're planning for. Right, yeah. So I mean, I see we're basically not enforcing the measure J growth goal within those specific areas you mentioned, LIVO cuts out of Watsonville, Pasa Champo because of the housing crisis act of 2019. But if we, I mean, actually denied a permit in another area because we were out of permits set by the growth goal. I mean, when that couldn't have been conflict with our rena goals and for, as I'm reading it we'd have to set the growth goal to be at least 1% in order just to make up the remaining 570 units that we need over next year to meet our rena goals. Right, so just to be clear that this rena cycle that we're in, you're right that it does have 570 more units allocated to us but that is, it's only 266 market rate units. So any affordable units included in that would not be subject to the measure J growth limit. So that's why we set the growth goal where it is to make sure we accommodate for that. And Chair Koenig, if I may, Stephanie Hansen, Assistant Director, CDI. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it these are relatively low growth rates. And so the important part from our standpoint is that we continue to support housing. We don't allow the growth goal to enforce a unnecessary restriction on how much we're building. So we really assess the growth goal every year for being our fair share. Yes, but also for what we really think it's possible to build based on the trends that we're seeing. Sometimes they do think that they're in conflict too. So we don't disagree with you. It's a little bit of a balancing act but it's really important that we try to meet all of our goals and comply with measure J2. I'm happy to answer any other questions. And yes, the rena is going to be a challenge and we'll be back on that for sure. All right, yes, thank you, Ms. Hansen. I mean, I agree, it seems like this goal is realistic fortunately or unfortunately, I mean, in the middle of a housing crisis and I think this is actually the lowest growth goal we've ever set. So that's a bit strange if you just think about it at surface level. I'd also submit that there's some language in the ordinance that was passed by voters that says basically we can't offer sufficient public services to meet the growth of more residents but there's also something of the opposite going on here where we, because we haven't grown, we can't offer sufficient public services and we see that in terms of our limitations on our ability to hire, whether it's new police officers or teachers or any of the numerous county health positions that are open. So I would submit that it does go both ways that we need to build the housing to provide the services in addition to having the services to provide the housing. You know, thank you for the report. It is one of the most comprehensive reports on housing that we get every year and I appreciate that. It was encouraging to see that we have built or at least issued permits for the most affordable housing units since I think it was 2005. So we're getting back to the levels that we need to see. One question was, what led to all the additional ADU permits that we issued in 2021? It seemed like a banner year, almost twice what we issued in any other year. Sorry, what was your question? We had I think like 63 permits issued for ADUs in 2021. Is there anything we can attribute that to specifically or is it just people are at home with COVID and nothing going on, nothing else to do? Yeah, I mean, I don't know if I can exactly say my prediction based on kind of looking at these trends in the last couple of years is we kind of saw a slowdown at the beginning of the pandemic. So it might be that people are coming back and reaching out and when they had previously stayed home. Okay, so just catching up with demand. All right, the provisor Caput. You bet. Thank you for the report. Actually, the term fair share is actually statewide that you compare the county with the mandate, I guess state mandate. The same is true for the whole county. If we have five districts and only one or two are building all of the homes, as far as the state's concern, we meet the mandate. But what I'm getting at is fair share for the whole county. And we've seen more of that in the last few years, which is good. But I guess the point I'm making is, if all of the, let's say 300 plus homes that are built, if they were all to take place in two districts, that means that in order to meet the mandate, two districts are carrying the weight, the load for the rest of the county. So I guess what I'm getting, it would be very important that all five districts have about, each one has 20% of the allocated mandate from the state. So do we have the figures of each district? How many homes they're actually building? I don't have those in front of me right now, but I can get you those numbers if you're interested. It's pretty easy to see. Some districts haven't added much at all. And I know two or three have added almost all of them. I will say that Measure J does, it sets, established the, you know, the USL, the urban services line. And so we are mandated by Measure J and also by our housing element to direct development towards the urban services line within that area. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. I certainly appreciate the sentiment of allocating the units equally between the districts. Although I think if you look at the, at least at the density bonus information, affordable density bonus information included in this item, you'll see, I mean, I think every single one of those projects was in the first district. So, you know, and I think that's understandable given that a large part of the area that's both unincorporated and within the urban services line is in either the first or the second. I don't think that, you know, that 20%, as you say, would be appropriate necessarily on the North Coast outside of the urban services line, but within the third district. Or, you know, of course, we wouldn't wanna build on that. Actually, if you look at district four, we have the smallest unincorporated area of each district. So, because the population is centered around Watsonville, we have a smaller area than some of the other areas. All right, thank you. There's no other comments from board members. We'll open it for public comment. Seeing none here in chambers, is there anyone online? Yes, Chair, we do have speakers online. Call-in user one, your microphone is now available. And we are affordable for homes. We have more and more homeless people. And as you build out the infrastructure, you're building out all this broadband that several of the supervisors are pushing. And I see on the consent agenda here, and that was a consent agenda item 24, states consent items include routine business that does not call for discussion. What it should say, it's only the elite board of supervisors may discuss these items, but the public is excluded from discussing them. What's wrong? I wanna refer people and I raise the question of conflict of interest of certain board members with this wireless microwave broadband. Ms. Garrett, we're discussing the growth goal, not wireless broadband. Yeah, frequently asked questions. I'm referring to cellphonetaskforce.org. Info at cellphonetaskforce.org. Ms. Garrett, please direct your comments. Excuse me, let me, I'm an 80 years old and I would like to comment. What is wireless technology? Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Very good, this year. The question. Caller ending in 2915, your microphone is now available. Thank you, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Thank you. I would like to comment that the growth goal for the county in 2020 and 2021 was actually lower than 0.5%. It was 0.25% to recognize the real conditions and especially the limitations of infrastructure in our county. So this is not the lowest and I request that it be reduced to 0.25% to again reflect the limitations of infrastructure to serve these people. I went to a conference of MBEP. You had a speaker from there earlier and at the time Senator Wiener was talking about how we need to build, build, build. There were people from the Salinas Valley saying, yeah, well, we can't because we've got, we don't have the water, we don't have the infrastructure. His reply was, well, if you build, build, build and things get miserable enough for the people they will agree to pass a tax to help you get the money to make the improvements. And that's what I worry about here. Therefore, I believe this is not CEQA exempt. You have raised the growth goal from last year and the previous year. There needs to be CEQA analysis of the impacts of that on water, infrastructure and energy. I think that this county should increase the Measure J requirement to be more in line with the city of Watsonville's 20% affordable requirements and to increase the allocation to very low and low income people. Saying it's affordable is one thing but when it's for moderate income, that is a lot of money if you look at the median income in this county and those who are very poor are not being served. I also think we should include rental units. That was omitted from the county's Measure J work. By the housing. Orchard House, your microphone is now available. Good morning everybody, can you hear me? Yes. Outstanding, thank you for your time. I found that presentation very interesting, especially our increase and decrease in population over the last decades and what's not being addressed in that that I think we should take notice is the age of which our population is increasing and growing. I have a friend of mine who's a senior administrator for Harrow Valley Unified School District, which is our largest district. And he tells me that our enrollment over the last five years or so was decreased by about 10 to 15%. And if that trend continues, we're going to see schools starting to be forced to be closed down and such. In fact, we're already seeing that good shepherd closed. As we talk about the housing that we need, I would like to urge the board and planning department to consider that we need housing that's also specific for this generation that is really being hit hardest by this, our school teachers and our people starting out in careers. They are completely priced out right now and we're losing population in that critical segment that provides services for all of us. I hope you guys consider that and we move forward in increasing the number of ADUs and tiny homes and starter homes like that that can be afforded. And also that this new development not be done just by big affordable housing developers that you allow us in the community to actually take part in this because we can build it more affordable than anybody else. Thank you. Thank you. We have no further speakers online, Chair. All right, we have a speaker here in chambers. Good morning again, my name is James Ewing Whitman. I must admit I'm going to need to look up what measure J is, defines in 1979. Wonder what other rules, regulations, laws or agendas really clearly spelled out then that are happening now. Yeah, you know, with the growth of building and stuff in the population, who knows what's going to happen but to go back to a statistic that was expressed during public comments as far as the people who actually died from COVID, that was 73%. But the really reason why I'm standing up here is I made a note of federal law being broken by somebody stopping someone else from speaking. So I guess I got to take the time to find out what that federal law is. So that stops happening because Marilyn Garrett was connecting some dots that would take quite a bit of time to really connect and make the connections but they are real and they are accurate. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. All right, seeing no other member who wishes to address us on this item, I'll return to the board for action. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I move the recommended action. Second. Motion by Supervisor McPherson, second by Supervisor Friend to adopt the recommended action. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk will call the vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Williams. We will now proceed to item eight, a public hearing to consider and concept ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz amending Santa Cruz County Code chapter 13.10 to add provisions regarding tiny homes on wheels, adopt resolution affirming amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Schedule the ordinance for final adoption on October 18th, 2022. Take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the Deputy County Administrative Officer and Director of Community Development and Infrastructure. And for a report on this item, we have resource planner, David Carlson. Carlson, take it away. Thank you, Chair. Okay, got the technology figured out. So this project is about allowing for the first time the use of tiny homes on wheels as an additional housing choice in the county to address the county's housing needs. The presentation will describe what a tiny home is, summarize the planning process and the approach to creating the ordinance, describe the ordinance and some details about the ordinance and then finally provide a staff recommendation. A tiny home on wheels is a specific type of non-motorized recreational vehicle called a park trailer and it's defined in California Health and Safety Code 18009.3. It's a house on a trailer, no larger than 400 gross square feet and no wider than 14 feet. And it's built upon a single chassis trailer. Generally they are designed to look like a tiny house using various design and material options. They are registered as a park trailer with the DMV and they can be towed on public roads with a special permit from the DMV. They can be purchased from a certified manufacturer that has constructed the tiny home on wheels according to an established national standard for park trailers or they could be constructed by an owner builder on site under the supervision of a qualified inspection agency. The tiny home on wheels would come with a certification documenting the tiny home on wheels meets the accepted standard for park trailers. For this type of structure, the local building inspector would be verifying the unit has the third party certification and would only be inspecting the onsite installation according to the approved site plan and connection to utilities. So staff was previously directed by the board of supervisors to pursue this project. My colleague Daisy Allen conducted a large amount of outreach in the form of community meetings, surveys and research as preparation for development of the proposed regulations. The planning commission and the housing advisory commission have provided input and direction at previous meetings culminating in the planning commission's recommendation that the board of supervisors adopt the proposed ordinance presented today. The planning commission recommended the ordinance be limited at this time to allow a tiny home on wheels to function as a new construction ADU anywhere an ADU is allowed. In developing the ordinance, staff tried to maintain the simplest approach possible and construct a proposed ordinance that does not repeat existing requirements that apply to ADUs. The ordinance just addresses the unique aspects of tiny houses and incorporates all other existing requirements by reference. The regulations in the proposed ordinance would not change anything with respect to requirements of fire agencies, water supply, sewage disposal requirements and environmental resources and constraints that may affect a property. Other considerations include that tiny homes on wheels because they are registered with the DMV are not assessed for the purpose of property taxation. However, improvements to the property such as the infrastructure associated with the tiny home on wheels may be accessible for the purposes of property tax. Tiny homes on wheels can count towards the county's regional housing needs or allocation or arena under certain circumstances, which staff believes is the case under the proposed ordinance provisions. The proposed ordinance would allow a tiny home on wheels to function as the otherwise allowed new construction ADU on a property such that the total number of units does not exceed what is currently allowed on the property. Most jurisdictions in the state that have similar ordinances have taken this route. Normally the property would already be developed with a single family dwelling and may even have a junior ADU. And this would allow a maximum 400 square foot, 14 foot tall, tiny home to function as the new construction ADU. It also should be noted that the proposed ordinance would have potential benefits for those that lost their homes in the CZU fire in that the ADU regulations allow the construction of an ADU prior to the primary dwelling in the case of rebuilding after a disaster. The location of the primary dwelling must be shown on the site plans for the ADU permit, but there's no requirement or timeline for actually building the primary unit. This provision is already in the ADU regulations and it can be utilized now to build an ADU on a conventional foundation. And this ordinance would allow that ADU to be a tiny home on wheels. Regarding location on the parcel in general, the tiny home could be located anywhere that an ADU could be located under existing regulations. A parking pad would have to be provided for the tiny home in a location that would allow the tiny home to be safely moved onto or off the property. And the parking pad cannot be located in the existing driveway. Hook up to utilities would have to meet current plumbing and electrical code standards. And there are provisions for the use of solar power and restrictions on the use of generators. The ordinance contains some design and materials standards that are intended to mimic a normal house and references the fire safety standards in the case of a tiny home on wheels located in the wildland urban interface area. Per the planning commission direction, the permit would be subject to renewal every three years or when the tiny home on wheels is conveyed to a new owner or when the tiny home on wheels is removed from the property, whichever occurs first. The permit process would be similar to the normal permit process for an ADU, except the plan check would involve verifying the unit meets the ANC A119.5 standard for park model RVs and has valid DMV registration for towing onto the property. So the staff recommendation is that the Board of Supervisors conduct a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the county code and local coastal program that provide regulations related to tiny homes on wheels to adopt the attached resolution, finding the proposed amendments are consistent with the general plan and local coastal program and exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and directing staff to file the CEQA notice of exemption and submit the local coastal program amendments to the California Coastal Commission for certification. Approving concept and ordinance amending County Code chapter 1310 to add provisions regarding tiny homes on wheels, schedule the ordinance for second reading and final adoption on October 18th, 2022 and direct staff to implement the amendments outside the coastal zone on 31st day after final adoption and upon inside the coastal zone upon final certification by the Coastal Commission. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for comments or questions. Thank you, Mr. Carlson. Are there comments or questions from members of the Board? Yes, Mr. Chair, I do have some of that's appropriate now. Go ahead. All right, thank you, Mr. Carlson for your presentation. I am supportive in general, the concept of what's being presented today. I do have some clarifying questions and I think some modifications to the ordinance that need to be made and then one just sort of broader issue regarding on the assessment side. My first question just deals with and I'd listened to the Planning Commission discussion. I didn't see anywhere within the ordinance that it was explicit that although this appeared to be the desire of the Planning Commission, and I believe when the Board had our initial discussions about the process here that the tiny homes on wheels would be limited to one per property. Is there something that I've missed within the ordinance that outlines that directive or comment? I think just by operation of how the ordinance is set up, that is going to be the case in allowing them as just the, in place of the new construction ADU, our current ADU regulations only allow one ADU per property, along with a junior ADU, which is part of the, would be part of the existing single-family dwelling. So this ordinance would not increase the allowed density on a property above and beyond what's currently allowed in state and local law. So that would be in the typical case with a single-family residence, three units, the single-family residence, the main unit, potential junior ADU, and then the potential new construction ADU. Okay, well, if the Board is in agreement with some of the other cleanup language or suggestions that I have, and it's possible, we'll just make that more explicit on a first read coming forward because I think that sometimes it's, or I think most of the time it's best to just have something explicitly laid out in the ordinance so there isn't really any question of interpretation on that. In section E1, there is a discussion about solar and in particular about the generators, as you had mentioned, generator can't be a primary source of power within the urban and rural. I do have a concern though, that it seems to allow it as a primary source outside of that. I do know that in my district, we've received, well, first off, the Board with some of the, as you know, because your department brought it forward, we've made generator adjustments to try and get away from generators as any sort of primary power source for environmental and noise reasons. There are situations outside of the rural services line where property lines are actually, the habitable structures are really adjacent to, quite frankly, another habitable structure, even though they may be on relatively large acreage. Those have been conflict points that your code compliance has had to deal with when generators have run in some cases for literally months at a time as a primary power source. So am I correct in reading that under the current ordinance as proposed, if it was outside of the rural services line, a generator could be used as a primary power source or as the language may be just in artful in a way where I'm misinterpreting that and we need to clarify that that it can't. I think it's the latter. Maybe the language is in artful. But it does say that outside of the urban and rural services line a tiny home on wheels may include provisions for connection to a generator. And then it goes on to say that that generator, that standby emergency generator needs to comply with the provisions of 1315 noise planning, which only allows a generator to be used and an on an emergency standby basis in a single family zone. So I think it could probably be written. I think you're correct. I think it probably could be written clear, but that's the intent. Okay. And the reason I ask is because we specify within the urban and rural services line that it shall not rely on as a primary source. And then we differentiate outside of that without that same language, right? I think that period it shouldn't be a primary source. And then we need to have some sort of clarity of defining what an emergency is within the noise. I mean, if it isn't immediately defined within the noise planning, because we've had challenges within the rural areas of people claiming that these generators were needed under that construct that made enforcement difficult. I mean, realistically we're not looking for 128 DB situation within a couple, you know, 100 feet of somebody's home to be running 24 seven even under an emergency basis, what somebody's defining as an emergency basis. So I do believe that we just need some clarifying language and cleanup language in regards to that to just have it comport to other elements of the code and also to harmonize within it. So I appreciate that clarity, but if I read it the way I read it, then I imagine that it could be interpreted differently by others as well. The third and final issue I just had on the ordinance current language is in regards to H2, and you had mentioned this, this is just about the renewal, the three year renewal. There's sort of some conflicting language between two and three that I know you can just be cleaned up, which is that when a permit shall expire, but then on number two, and then on number three, it says that it shall be subject to renewal every three years, but then mentions or when it's conveyed, but above it, it says that if it's conveyed, then in essence there's no permit anymore and you need a new permit. So there's conflicting language there that I think just needs to be cleaned up, which is we can model this after the, as you had mentioned, the vacation rental or hosted rental, which is very clear that just as it shall expire on the first business day on or after the date, three years of the date of approval, it doesn't convey period, and if it gets moved, et cetera. And so I just think that on two and three, that language also needs to be cleaned up. My last point is actually a much broader point and this is on the policy side, which is in regards to the fact that it doesn't qualify for a property tax assessment. And I completely understand why. I do have a question though, whether we've run any sort of analysis about what the impacts would be to services in regards to this. In particular, if people are electing to do it, which is actually I believe one of the intentions here, in essence to replace, to be a less expensive and easier to do ADU element. ADUs, as you know, allowed to reassessments of the property, so the county is receiving funds associated with it for essential public services. In this case, we would be receiving nothing from what I can gather. So has your staff done an analysis about what those impacts would be? If so, is that baked into what you would interpret? The permit cost to be or just help me understand how the county would receive fees for what services would be required with a proliferation or expansion of this? We have had some discussions with the assessor's office, although we haven't done a quantitative analysis of what this would mean. I think one of the reasons that the planning commission did not want to allow these as primary units, it would set up this pretty stark fairness issue where you might have neighboring properties, one paying property tax on a single-fingered property and the other one next to it with a tiny home as a main unit, not paying property tax on that unit. So I think that was one of the reasons the planning commission didn't want to go for them as primary units. As it was seen, I think with allowing them as new construction aid to use as less of an issue because there's already been property taxes paid on the property with the main unit. What we've heard from the assessor is that the infrastructure associated with the tiny home on wheels would be subject to property taxation. So the parking pad and the connection to utilities, any other permanent improvements to real property that are made to support the tiny home on wheels. And then the amount of property tax that would be sort of foregone, or not foregone, I guess, but not collected because they're registered with the DMV, they're not assessed as real property is not seen as really significant or substantial enough to, that's about all the information I have from the assessor. But again, there was no quantitative analysis, but there wasn't that major concern that it was going to amount to a big hole in the property tax collection. So thank you, Mr. Carlson. I wasn't advocating on the primary component. I agree with the planning commission's assessment of that. I will challenge the assessment, just for that interpretation on the assessor, because what we don't know is a counterfactual of how many of these would be replacing a pure ADU that would be built that would trigger a reassessment of a property that would unquestionably lead to an increase in property taxes and therefore funding for the county to provide for those services. So we don't know what the replacement element will be. And part of this from a policy perspective is ensuring that we actually allow this as a less expensive option to do exactly that. But then I think that we shall have or should have a quantitative analysis done. So we have an understanding of what the fees would be based on the impacts and that the board, if we're already cleaning up the other language, we would have some sense of what that is when it comes back so that we can have it all built into a first read in October to just know what those fees are. I think it's important, to me it's important that, I mean, look, every single one of the supervisors and all the county staff, or should say county leadership talks about how low are local properties, the 13 cents on the dollar that we recover as it is, the lack of services. I mean, I'm supervisor McPherson's newsletter list and I see that he talks about it repeatedly and yet here we would be proactively bringing something forward that could legitimately have an impact on services with no money coming into the counties. I think that we should have some analysis done that comes back to the county that actually, I mean, it has to be reasonable and defensible and it's a cost recovery, et cetera. I mean, that is the intention here but there needs to be something. And so I would believe that when it comes time for when we consider a motion on some of this cleanup language that I think that there's agreement that that cleanup language could occur, we should also have an analysis come back. I mean, both the planning commission discussed it extensively, a concern about the non-property tax element. And I think that we should find a way to also make sure that there's a recovery in costs here and that we can look at what exactly that is. But I do sort of just question whether it'd be de minimis or not because we actually don't know how many will be replacing future, what could have been future ADU construction? We don't know how many will end up in our county. And so we actually really don't know how much we would lose as a result until we can quantify what the impacts would be on an individual basis to create a reasonable fee structure. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you as always, Mr. Carlson for your outstanding presentations and reports. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Thank you. Supervisor McPherson. Yeah, good points. Thank you, Chair Koenig for bringing this originally with my office to be discussed. And thank you to the planning department and the residents who have been included in this and the planning commission for its lengthy discussion and the Housing Advisory Commission as well. We've seen tiny homes specifically permitted housing product and other communities and considering how challenging it is to build here. We thought it would provide a better option in terms of affordability, but also in reducing the environmental footprint. That became more important than ever in the CZU fire and the aftermath and it would be good to have in place something like this if God forbid we have another disaster. We need options for people to be rehoused on their properties faster and more affordably than is the case today. And I think everybody agrees with that in general. As we have learned, this building is difficult though here because of circumstances that have been difficult because of the cost of construction, the geological and other constraints that we have, especially in my San Lorenzo Valley. Our County has invested a lot of time in incentivizing and reducing barriers for ADU construction over the years. And this addition of permitted tiny homes is really key in keeping with that. However, I'd like to see us remove the proposed restriction to permit tiny homes on wheels only as accessory units. I think we need to see these as primary residences as well as accessory units. I think we can include other modifications in order to really give property owners and tiny home owners the flexibility and predictability that meets their needs. Supervisor Friend did mention some possible amendments. I think this will probably come back to us but I would like to have us to consider three in particular to allow the tiny homes on wheels as a primary dwelling and as ADUs built before the primary dwelling in non-disaster areas. Secondly, only require permits for tiny homes on wheels upon installation removal, this three-year thing. Let's just make it as simple and straightforward as possible for building and then the removal it's in and it's out and just have the two permits required for just those two instances. And then simplify our regulations to reference applicable state and federal codes for recreational vehicles and mobile homes when it comes to parking pads, the size, the utilities and other mechanical aspects. Those are three actions, amendments that I would prefer to have included in this. I really do appreciate the time and effort everybody has put into this to make it fit and make it possible for as many Santa Cruz County residents as possible under the circumstances we're facing especially after the CZU fire. Thank you Supervisor McPherson. Other comments or questions from board members? Yeah. Supervisor Caput. You bet. Thank you for the report. And everything looks kind of nice or most everything when they're brand new. And then after sometimes like a mobile home or an RV or whatever, they can age very quickly and not look very, you know, very good. What's, can they add a deck later and then an awning? What keeps it from, you've seen mobile homes where they add a deck and pretty soon they have, you know, what makes it just a tiny home and not anything else? I think primarily the ability to move it on and off the property and where it's parked to make that possible. Once you start constructing improvements around it to make it permanent, it becomes something else other than a tiny home on wheels that's movable. Sure. And what if I had one and I decided to leave my truck or car that was pulling it, it's on wheels. You have to remove the car or the truck, it just can't stay there also, right? Well, the vehicle that's used to tow it may or may not be your personal vehicle. To tow these units requires a large pickup truck with large towing capacity. If that's your primary vehicle, you would be parking it on site in an otherwise required parking space. But the truck can be actually attached the whole time? Just... Yes, theoretically, sure. Okay, but if it's leaking oil or, you know, how the environmental stuff, cars do drip oil, cars do gas or whatever can drip. So I know in South County every now and then you get complaints of abandoned cars and backyards. And after a while, they start to look like junkyards. Anyway, I guess, how do we prevent that, I guess? I think that's a whole different can of worms. This ordinance is not addressing abandoned vehicles. Sure, okay. And then as far as like anything else, let's say I have a home, the tiny home can be like an ADU, right? Okay. So let's say I have a driveway where my regular home is. Can this tiny home be right next to my home? No. The driveway, no. That was something that the Planning Commission discussed and they specifically asked us to include a provision that would prevent the tiny home on wheels to be in the driveway of the main house. Okay. They didn't want that. And then as an RV, kind of like a tiny home? No, that's a different category of recreational vehicles. The tiny home on wheels has to be built. It's defined in state law and also state law requires it to meet that particular ANSI A119.5 standard for Park Model RVs. And it's a standard that includes construction requirements, fire and life safety requirements. And they are based on the pictures that you saw, that's typically what they look like. They're a different category of unit compared to your typical travel trailer. You might see someone taking on vacation. It's not that. And I know if they're registered with DMV, they pay the, they don't pay a property tax, right? They pay a DMV. Well, they pay a registration fee to the DMV. Which is really a very cheap compared to property tax. I have not done that comparison actually. So I'll comment on that. It's quite a bit cheaper. Go ahead. That's all right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Supervisor Caput. Supervisor Kennedy. Yeah. First of all, I just want to say, I appreciate the very good staff work and the outreach and the really practical approach to this new opportunity. I appreciate, Supervisor Friends, clarifications that I support just being clear so that there isn't, we avoid future misunderstandings. On the property tax issue, I understand the dilemma we're in. I could support a fee so that we have equitable, we aren't treating people who build ADUs less equitably than people who are going for tiny homes. But I think that fee has to be low enough that we don't have people just opting to not enter our system at all, right? Which I think, given around the county and the amount of illegal units that we see, it's much better to have an easy system that people can come into compliance than an expensive system where we've created incentives for people just to do it without permits. And given the nature of this product, this would be easier to do than an ADU and a permanent building for point of sale on real estate issues and beyond. So I think we already have made it easier to allow tiny homes in the fire rebuild area. So those regulations currently exist, but given future disasters, I understand what Supervisor McPherson is advocating for, for future natural disaster victims who are looking to find a middle way to rebuild. Anyway, that's my thoughts. And I look forward to hearing my colleagues' amendments or changes. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. I'll also start by thanking staff. Thank you, Mr. Carlson and of course Ms. Allen for their extensive work on this. It really went above and beyond over the last year and a half from when we first received board direction on it. And it's great to see all the work that's gone into it, including all the public outreach and many meetings both at the Housing Advisory Committee and Planning Commission. I would echo Supervisor Coonerty's sentiments that I think that the biggest issue we potentially face here is an ordinance that is too restrictive and just incentivizes people to operate outside the limits of the law. I mean, we're talking about essentially mobile vehicles here and so it'll be that much harder to pin down when it comes to regulating them. We have seen ordinances go into effect throughout California and whether it's the County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose, Humboldt, City of San Diego, Oakland, City of Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo County in relation to tiny homes on wheels. We're actually seeing a surprisingly low number of permits applied for in all of those jurisdictions. So I think that that really demonstrates again that the biggest risk we face here is being too restrictive and just having people not comply and really having no idea of how many of these units are actually going in around the county and of course not being able to get the benefit of counting them towards our arena numbers. I think some of the things that the proposed ordinance does well is to really lean on the ADU ordinance, not try to rewrite everything and in many ways just say that tiny homes on wheels do count as ADUs and the relevant laws apply. I think that actually we could probably go a little bit further with that kind of philosophy in the ordinance. Supervisor McPherson alluded to it but the California Code of Regulations does have a number of sections that apply to recreational vehicles which as you said, tiny homes on wheels actually are considered a class of. And I think it's also worth noting that state code says that a manufactured home, mobile home, recreational vehicle, commercial coach or special purpose commercial coach which meets the standards prescribed by this chapter and the regulations adopted pursuant here too shall not be required to comply with any local ordinances or regulations prescribing requirements in conflict with the standards prescribed in this chapter that's Health and Safety Code 18030.5. So I think that's just demonstrates why it would be helpful to reference state code in sections particularly related to the utilities and the parking pad instead of trying to create new requirements which we could actually be in conflict with state code there. A couple of questions, I guess I'll start by saying that I do think that we should allow tiny homes on wheels as primary dwelling units as well. I understand the concern about cannibalizing a larger investment into property in the county and that resulting lower overall property taxes but I think that we'll also see properties that maybe would not have any legal use or development otherwise actually be able to take advantage of this option. So we'll see some increased assessments for some utilization that we might not have otherwise seen if we do allow tiny homes on wheels not only as ADUs but also primary dwelling units. I mean, and of course there are economic considerations here too, I mean it might be just easier if you're gonna go through all the steps of buying a piece of property and getting financing to actually build a permanent structure that's fixed and not mobile just because the bank will give you a better interest rate on that but I don't see any reason to explicitly disallow it. I think it just creates more options and for that reason, I don't see a reason or a need to explicitly say that we only should have one tiny home on wheel per property. I mean, within the current definitions of the ordinance we're saying it's an ADU we can only have one new construction ADU so it's satisfied there. If we choose to allow them as primary dwellings either now or sometime in the future we don't need to rewrite that section and it just gives us more flexibility as this code continues to evolve. One concern I guess with the making tiny houses on wheels that's just the same as ADUs and all ADU standards apply is I mean, I assume that this would mean that the objective design standards that we've passed would also apply to tiny homes on wheels. Yes, that's correct. Right, and so if I could just remind us of the six objective design standards of which three must be met. It's roof pitch must match the dominant roof pitch the primary dwelling roof material must match the primary dwelling primary siding material and our color matching primary dwelling window and trim matching primary dwelling porch bay window or other facade articulation to break up flat ball planes and fencing or landscaping to buffer the view of the ADU from road or other public area. I mean, it might not be the hardest thing to paint the trim or the side of the new tiny house on wheels before it moves on to the property but I see those as being potentially limiting if they're owned by two different people. So I think it's doable, but I don't know that it's, it seems superfluous to me. I assume also that ministerial permit processing would apply for tiny homes on wheels. So it'd be 60 days of receipt. What that would be? It would be, yes, that's in the ADU regs, yeah. Okay, great. So am I reading this correctly that the tiny house on wheels would need to have its own separate sewage disposal facility? I mean, could it connect to an existing septic system on site or does it have to buy this definition? Yeah, it would require that existing septic system to be verified as having the capacity for that unit. To serve that unit. Okay. If it did, then you would just extend a line over to the parking pad for the ADU so it could be connected. Great, okay, and make sure it has the capacity, got it. I was curious why slide outs are being, you know, forbidden. Was there any discussion of the Planning Commission about that? There wasn't, it's something that is common to many of the ordinances around the state. And I think it's just getting away from that appearance of something different from a tiny house. The goal is to maintain the appearance of a tiny house and not a recreational vehicle, which those are common with recreational vehicles. And I think that's the extent of it. Okay. Seems, you know, again, just sort of limiting, unnecessarily limiting some of the design aspects here, in my opinion. Also, do I understand correctly that bathroom fans on roofs would be disallowed with this? The way this is written now, it says there's no mechanical features allowed on roofs. That was a subject of much discussion at the Planning Commission. And actually, and I think in the staff report, that is mentioned that the Planning Commission was amenable to putting forward one commissioner's desire that we allow mechanical things on the roof, such as a bathroom fan, is what he cited. I think that could be distinguished from like our large air conditioning unit. That was, you might see the need for a small, simple bathroom fan on the roof. Yeah, I think there's a question of degree here. I mean, obviously we don't want tons of mechanical equipment on the roof, but I mean, if someone is moving a tiny home on wheels onto a spot that they're renting from another property owner, and everything's good to go. They've checked all the boxes and oh shoot, I have a bathroom fan on my roof. I mean, now what, they're either probably just not going to finish the registration process and continue to move it in illegally. So it just seems like a requirement that, I think that there's, we should allow bathroom fans on roofs basically, maybe if not full air conditioning units. And finally, I would take issue with the needing to repeatedly register these things every three years. You know, I think there's no specific requirements for counting these towards Rena, right? I mean, as long as we're generally keeping track of them, we could count a tiny home on wheels towards our Rena numbers. The page CD expressed the three requirements to be able to count them as Rena that we issue a permit, that they be connected to utilities and that we monitor them. And so requiring a permit term or renewal satisfies that monitoring requirement, but certainly the monitoring could be done in a different way or less onerous way. I mean, certainly we could figure something out. I guess if we were required a permit on relocation or move out, so to speak of a tiny home on wheels, would that be considered monitoring? I mean, we know if it comes and we know if it goes, right? Yeah, that could be considered monitoring. We are gonna be doing our annual general plan and annual progress reports for Rena every year to the board. And those will indicate the number of ADUs constructed, how many of those were tiny homes on wheels. So we'll be keeping track of the numbers as far as moving on and off the property. That's something that would require more intensive monitoring, like a site visitor or self-certification or something like that to actually verify whether it's there or not, or maybe even having the property owner or the unit owner submit a picture or something like that. Yeah, my interest is just having this be as lightweight as possible, not only for the actual owner of the tiny home on wheels or the property owner, but also for county staff. I mean, to supervisor Caput's earlier point about unmanaged property, we have plenty of those where people are collecting garbage or actually creating a public health and safety hazard and we barely have enough code compliant staff to take care of those properties. I mean, do we really wanna add additional burden on county staff to have to re-register these things every three years? And if someone falls out of compliance, I mean, to what extent are we gonna go to ensure that they submit a new permit? And again, I just think it's one more thing that we could get hung up on and that people would just not do. So the planning commission did ask for a report back on this to them, you don't see that on the ordinance, but we would be, we've noted that and we will be reporting back to the planning commission after the standard was set at 25, after 25 permits are issued for these units. So that's built in, that's another form of monitoring. Okay, yeah, thank you. I mean, I would second Supervisor McPherson's suggestion that we just require it on move in and move out and leave it at that. Those are my questions and comments. There's no other Supervisor Friend. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just these conversations that brought up some new questions that I think need clarifying. One of the things that's really important about this is that these be counted toward Rena. There was an initial question of whether they did. Now there's no question that they do, but I just want to be sure that if we start messing with the current permit requirement that these are going to be captured in a way that works for the county and from a Rena perspective. I mean, I think that's the real point of the three year. And by the way, the hack, if I recollect correctly, actually had a five year renewal because they lined it up with the vacation rental and then the planning commission had that as a three year. I mean, I don't really think that a permit renewal is that much of a burden. And we require it on almost everything else we do. But I definitely would be concerned about altering it for a move in, move out only if it means that we would have any sort of issue on the Rena side when we already recognize that we're going to struggle with that. So Mr. Carlson, I heard what you just said on HCD, but I just want an absolutely clear and definitive answer as to whether or not a modification of what's currently proposed, meaning a renewal element would still that we wouldn't have any issue meeting the Rena requirements as a result of it. No, I believe we wouldn't, because there's no other, I don't believe there's other similar provisions and other jurisdictions ordinances in terms of a permit renewal. HCD actually has issued letters supporting jurisdictions, allowing tiny homes on wheels to function as ADUs. And so as long as we have those three components, the permit requirement connection utilities and some sort of monitoring, I think we're good. Okay, well the monitoring is what I'm asking right now, right? So we were using the renewal as a monitoring function. And so I'm just trying to clarify how that element will happen. I'm not opposed to what Supervisor McPherson's brought up as far as having it on move in, move out. And I just wanna make sure that seven years from now some future board doesn't, I mean, I do think that there's a, I mean, we can be realistic about self-certification and these kinds of things and how that actually plays out. And so I just wanna make sure, I mean, how would the monitoring actually happen if we're not having a renewal process? Well, we'd have to figure that out. It could be either, for example, as we prepare our annual progress report for HCD every year, we will be counting the number of permits that have been issued for ADUs, including tiny homes on wheels. And at that time, we could attempt to contact the owners or even make a site visit. I think initially, I don't think there's gonna be, as we've experienced in other jurisdictions, there are not gonna be a huge number of these. And so maybe initially that the staff resource which is required to do the monitoring might not be as onerous as you might think. I mean, we could certainly rethink that if we start to see a large number of these. But so that's one method we could do it as part of just preparation of the annual progress report each year. We could either make a site visit, we could ask the owners to send in a picture. Those are the two ways I can think of off the top of my head that we could do it. There actually has to be eyes on it, to make sure it's there or not, or maybe just a submittal by the owner, saying, hey, yeah, it's still here. Thank you very much. Well, I mean, I ask because of one of the concerns is staff workload on this. I mean, having a formal process where somebody renews a permit in three or five years seems to be a lot cleaner than us having to proactively reach out to people. And by definition, since these are mobile, the ability to game something on mobile of, oh, yeah, here's a photo of it not being here, here's a photo of it being here, is a little bit different than if it's a fixed structure. I mean, we could also be honest about that. But I'm hearing assurance from you. I'm actually not 100% comfortable with the assurance I'm getting, but I'm hearing assurance from you that this will meet the rena numbers and it's not gonna be a major burden. I was prepared to support the current structure of the three year, I can support based on your assurances and my sort of guarded agreement with it of what Supervisor McPherson's saying. On the other elements, I do think that we need to maintain, I mean, I don't see anything wrong with explicitly calling out one unit. I do have a, on the other elements that Supervisor McPherson had brought up in regards to the disaster. We already allowed as Supervisor Coonerty mentioned. So just Supervisor McPherson, just so I'm clear, are you just trying to get some language in there from a primary unit for future disasters? I just wanna make sure that we're clear on, okay, so what's currently allowed for CZE or you're just trying to codify for future component. Okay. And so the last question on Chair Koenig's element of making it a primary, how does that impact all the other elements that we've been discussing? Obviously they can't be counted on a property tax basis and there's a desire to keep the overall fees low, but what else does it impact if we allow it as a primary residence? It really wouldn't have make that much of a difference because the requirements to obtain a building permit for an ADU are very similar, almost identical. Well, there's some differences in terms of fees and application processing timelines and that sort of thing. But the basic information that we need in the plan checks that we do for either an ADU or a single family dwelling are the same. They're single family dwellings and we have the same fire department access requirements, resource similar, environmental health requirements, resources and constraints requirements. We wouldn't allow an ADU to be placed really anywhere different from where we would allow a main unit single family dwelling to be placed in terms of environmental resources, fire department access and other health and safety considerations. So it would be a very similar ordinance. In fact, we offered three options to the planning commission. First, the option of main unit, junior ADU, ADU, junior ADU, ADU as a second option and then just ADU as the third option and each of those ordinances were not that different. The underlying strike through versions of them were minimal, minimally different. All right, well, I mean, I suppose that I could be supportive of that change as long as there's a realistic fee structure that comes back because I just think that, I just think that we are actually changing incentives of what people could do. I mean, I heard what supervisor or excuse me, Chair Koenig said about other jurisdictions in the state haven't seen that many, but we're also creating an ordinance that isn't modeled after those ordinances per se. And I don't know what we're gonna do in our area or how people respond to it. I am supportive of making sure that design guidelines stay in place. I mean, the end of the day, we also still need to make sure that these are continued to be supported throughout the community. And I think that one of the things that could actually very quickly change that as if we didn't have the design elements and these were proliferating without those kinds of things. In regards to the mechanical element, I think as long as we have language that comes back that just talks about minor mechanical and there isn't really a height shift or change, I agree with Supervisor Koenig that some sort of allowance, but as long as that allowance is defined and therefore can't be problematic, would be fine as part of our changes. Thank you, Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. There are no other comments or questions from board members. I will now officially open the public hearing. Any member of the public wishes to address us on this item? Please approach the podium. Good morning, my name is Serena Wagner. I'm a real estate agent here in Santa Cruz County. So I'm trying to get my head around the new SB9 law for all of my clients and how this tiny home would come into play. One thing I really wanna advocate for a 70-year-old friend of mine who wants to stay living in her home and still be able to have a caretaker on her property. So I think when we come down to our finalization, I really hope you keep that in mind that the elderly people would love to stay in their homes. And she specifically has tried to build an ADU before and it just was too cost prohibitant. I don't understand the why we're gonna keep the wheels on the tiny homes. I feel like it should be, the wheels should be taken off and they should be required to put them on some kind of eight-point perimeter, the same we do as mobile homes. It just seems like with the new SB9 law, you're gonna have the ability to have four homes on one single family lot. You could literally have the primary residents that already exist and three tiny homes. If they're all on wheels, I don't know. I think things could get a little sketchy. I think they should be a requirement to take them off the wheels. It also allows them to have more lending ability and more ability to gain income and more taxes that you could collect. And I don't think that would be prohibiting as long as we put some things in clay where an elderly person's maybe their fees get waived, they have a more streamlined process. But anyhow, lots to consider here. Thank you. All right, seeing no one else here in chambers that wishes to address us, is there anyone online? Yes, Chair, we do have speakers online. Patty, your microphone is now available. Hello, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. So I currently live in a tiny home. It's 300 square feet, and I have to keep it kind of under cover. And I would be so grateful to be able to buy a piece of property and move my tiny home and get a building permit and install utilities and live legally and in compliance with all the laws and not have the risk of my neighbors outing me. I don't make a lot of money. I do live and work in the county and I need to be able to keep my mortgage of land plus improvements reasonable enough that I can afford to stay here. So I would very much appreciate being able to have my tiny home as my primary dwelling unit. And I'd be perfectly happy to pay taxes and or fees to account for county services so that I could legally live in it. I have another sort of, let's call it a tiny home on wheels. It's actually more like a shed, but it matches aesthetically and I keep my laundry and other storage in that unit, but I could convert it to another dwelling unit. And that would help me get by with a little rental income. So I would love to be able to live in my tiny home and eventually rent out my other tiny home on a piece of property that I own and can legally reside in in the county. So I greatly appreciate all of you guys considering this issue and I agree with the comments from Supervisor McPherson and Koenig on primary. And the other thing is I do have a vent for my hot water heater that extends a few inches above my roof. So I think the mechanical issue is important. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Patty. Chuck, your microphone is now available. Great, thank you. I'd like to thank the board for the work that they've done to date on the tiny home ordinance and the ordinance as written, especially choosing the more restrictive option number three for a configuration on the lot, basically allows for one thing and that enables owners to install relatively small tiny home on wheels on their property for the cost of $7,500,000 instead of having to build a stick-built ADU for costs of $400,000. That's basically the one thing that it does allow. And while I think that's a good step forward, I think there is a question that in itself, by itself, is that really enough to increase county housing in a significant amount? So to that end, I'd like to ask that the board consider adding a provision to the ordinance and that provision would significantly increase tiny housing. It does not conflict with state law with regards to junior ADUs. It's consistent with the current ADU regulations for maximum size of ADUs and it's quick and easy to implement. And that provision and sentence is the following. It says that provided that the county's requirements are met, a tiny home shall be allowed on a property with an existing ADU and foundation to the extent that the combined square footage of the ADU and the tiny home on wheels does not exceed the county's 1,000 square foot maximum for ADUs. There are many people that have 650 square foot ADUs and they're not building or increasing those to the 1,000 square foot maximum because it's too expensive. It's you have to do the foundations and all that type of thing. That's low hanging fruit for increasing housing. Bedrooms and bathrooms could be added to that. And it can be done cheaply with the tiny home on wheels. So I'm asking that they be allowed to do that and have a tiny home on wheels also in addition to the ADU to the extent it doesn't exceed the county's 1,000 square foot maximum. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chuck. Orchard House, your microphone is now available. Hello, I have experienced building similar structures here and I may go a few seconds over and I hope you indulge me. There's some issues that are coming up that's gonna make it. So we're gonna go through a lot of trouble making this legislation and very few people are gonna build. The problem that we're having is that we are having a temporary structure, which means it can be wheeled out at any moment. And yet we are requiring permanent infrastructure. For anybody who's ever done any sort of building, you'll understand that infrastructure is the most expensive part. For example, the septic laws you guys passed just a couple of weeks ago, if you have to put in an advanced septic system because of one of these, you're looking at $50, $60, $70,000. In addition, you have permit fees, hookup electrical, hookup water. You're looking at $120,000 worth of fees just so you can put a $30,000 tiny house on your house. Those numbers don't add up and people aren't gonna build them. To the point that we need this as a emergency use. If you require $120,000 worth of infrastructure, you can't just snap your finger and go ahead and do that. That takes months or years to actually get done. So we need to consider ways that we can allow these units to be all inclusive in their own. And for example, other cities have done that. Up in Portland, you can have a compost toilet in your tiny home. You can have incinerating toilets as such. So if we limit that, then very few of these can be built. Also, we're not taking into consideration the size of the lot. If you already have an ADU, you can't have a tiny house on there. Regardless of the size of your lot, again, that doesn't make sense. When it comes to taxes, people don't care if it's property taxes, not because you're gonna have to pay sales tax on this. Sales tax is huge. You're gonna have to pay all that upfront. And as far as the five year permit, again, you're asking for permanent infrastructure of that investment. And I'm gonna have to come back every few years to retest that. That has the potential for a homeowner to take a massive loss if there's any sort of rule changes from here to there. So thank you. Claudia, your microphone is now available. Oh, hi, thank you. Thanks for the previous speaker. I have been looking at tiny homes for quite some time as an elder. It's a route to affordable housing for me. I've been looking for affordable housing in Santa Cruz for the past few years and haven't been able to find anything. The thing that concerned me about the presentation, I think the previous speaker hit on some of them, but I was especially struck by the six design elements being applied to tiny houses. And if, you know, first of all, I thank you for trying to move this forward. It's very complicated, I know that. But like having a pitch of the roof have to match the house, the paint match the house. I mean, typically people like me who are actually, who would be, you know, putting a tiny house onto someone's property would be purchasing an already designed tiny house. And it's not gonna match the pitch of the roof of the building where it's going to be placed. So I do think that that's just one example out of your six design elements that I think will make it very hard and basically impossible. It will eliminate so many of the tiny house designs that are purchasable, like by escape, for example, who does very affordable tiny houses. So those are some of my concerns coming from the position of someone who would like to purchase one and live in it and, you know, allow it to be all inclusive so that the person whose property I'm putting it on doesn't have to do all of this infrastructure. It just makes it impossible. Thank you. Thanks for your help. Thank you, Claudia. Jeffrey, your microphone is now available. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Okay, a couple of things. One is that during these study sessions before the planning commission, the commission expressed the desire to get some experience with this ordinance once it went into effect and then have the ordinance come back to them for review of any problems. I don't see anything in the ordinance that does that. There was discussion earlier that they'll get it after 25 permits are issued. However, if there are indeed problems, there could be many more permits issued before the planning commission can respond and the Board of Supervisors can respond. So what I suggest is issue a certain number of permits, then stop, then allow the planning commission time to review the results, come back to the Board, recommend appropriate refinements to the ordinance if there are any. Now, specific weaknesses in the ordinance are the design elements F, F1 and F2. My concern there is that someone could game the system. They could take an ordinary park trailer that looks nothing like a house, put a roof shingle from Home Depot on top and then put a strip of wood across one of the windows and say, now they've got roofing material on exterior trim and now it's a tiny home, but it's not. So anyway, this does need to come back to the planning commission after the, let's say the 25 permits are issued for review. Thank you. Thank you, Jeffrey. Caller ending in 2915, your microphone is now available. Hello, this is Becky Steinbruner. I have a number of concerns, some of which have been addressed. I wanna thank the speaker for bringing up the SB9 issue that four of these could actually go in on a single family recent lot and how will that be accommodated? I would like staff to please give us a cost of permitting process comparison between ADU and the tiny home permitting process. So we all have a clear idea of what are the cost differences for the permitting. I would like to know if these tiny homes will be required to be sprinkled as would an ADU. That's an important consideration in the rural. And I also wonder about any seismic stability requirements especially in the mountainous areas. I have concerned that these could be counted to accommodate the Rena numbers. How will those numbers be adjusted if the tiny homes move out of the county? Soquel Creek Water District does not allow an ADU to be piggybacked onto the main service connection. They require a separate metered connection. That's up to $50,000. So that needs to be considered. And as the gentleman pointed out, the lamp that you recently heard is silent on alternative systems such as composting and incinerating toilets. And you need to consider that for these in the rural areas. And also if you would allow Holloway instead to be used. Finally, would a number of these constitute a mobile home park? And if so, would the residents have protection of the mobile home residency law for any complaints or problems that they might have with their landlord? Thank you very much. Thank you, Steinbrenner. Chen, your microphone is now available. Okay, thank you very much. I just want to start off by thanking the staff, the board and the commissioners for all the hard work that's gone over the last couple of years on this. And I agree with supervisors, Koenig and McPherson on most of the points that they brought up. There's just two or three other points that I would like to address. One is section 2A, which is called access. And it says that all tiny homes on wheels must be towable onto the property. I think this is impractical and it would work if all homes in the county had a alley behind the house that they could use to tow onto the property or if all homes had a 14 foot setback so that there was room alongside every home to tow it on the property. Unfortunately, most homes are set back from their property only a few feet and or are located in the hills. And in those cases, cranes are used to place the tiny home on wheels behind the house. They're not towed onto the property, which also makes it more difficult to remove them, which should help with counting the arena numbers. So that section 2A should probably be removed from the ordinance, there's nothing like that on any of the ordinances in anywhere else in California that requires towing onto the property. The second thing I wanted to mention is allowing tiny homes on wheels as JADUs. This would allow them to be used on a property where there is already a primary home and access and an ADU that the tiny home on wheels could count as the JADU. And then the last thing I just like to reiterate some of the design standards are unnecessary. For example, tiny homes on wheels are often built with flat roofs and requiring a pitched roof seems like an unnecessary design standard. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jen. Calling user one, your microphone is now available. I wanna thank the previous speakers for their comments and the questions raised about the various problems and implications of the tiny homes. I think this item needs to come back to the board and all of the insightful comments and questions that were put forth by members of the public need to be addressed. I've certainly learned a lot listening to the various speakers. I also know it says here that these amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. And it seems like so often items on the agenda say, it's secret and notice of exemption like the growth goal, like the tiny homes and every cell tower that has come in that definitely has environmental impacts. So I question whether this is appropriate to have an exemption. So those are my comments. I think this does need to come back for further discussion to the board. And I think there should be three minutes comments like we had before. The board keeps curtailing and censoring members of the public not what should be happening. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Jeff, your microphone is now available. Hello, my name is Jeff Reidenauer. I am resident for the last five years of Santa Cruz County and recently I'm a tiny house owner and I just wanted to speak in support. I'm really grateful that you guys are doing this and wanted to speak in support of making it less restrictive, especially towards. I really look forward to the time that I can become a property owner and a taxpayer of the county and in ordinance like this, especially if it allows for primary dwelling units or tiny houses on wheels would I think would make that possible or otherwise. Okay, so that's all thank you very much. Thank you, Jeff. We have no further speakers for this item, Chair. All right, then I'll return it to the board for deliberation and action. All right, Mr. Chair, I'm gonna try but please feel free to say if I didn't quite pull it off, I'm gonna try and come up with a compromise motion here and we can see if this meets the needs. I mean, the first thing is to move that this item comes back on October 18th with some of the following modifications that we add a defined minor mechanical feature allowance that we limit the number of tiny homes on wheels of the property to one that we clarify the generator language in E1 that including outside the rural services line that we allow as a primary residence in the disaster areas per Supervisor McPherson's comment that we come back with a fee structure that incorporates the true cost so we can actually review a structure and I think that this I'm still uncomfortable about just the in and out on the renewal so excuse me on the permit. So I'd like to do what the hack said and just have a five year permit process with all the same renewal language requirements i.e. when it gets pulled off or if a transfer zone or ship but it would be five years opposed to three year which the planning commission said. And Supervisor McPherson, you had one other element that I forgot that if you wouldn't mind saying again would be helpful. But that's my motion but I wanted to add another element that you had but I actually forgot what it was. It's all right, I understood. I don't know if that was to allow tiny homes as primary dwellings and as ADUs built before the primary dwelling in non-disaster areas. Oh, in non-disaster areas. I thought that you were stating that this would specifically that's why I'd ask that clarifying question. I think it addresses the future well, we can get right at it. What we're trying to do is build us the housing units get people back into housing as quickly as possible and should something happen again they would have an avenue to go to under this ordinance. Right, but you're saying in non-disaster areas I thought that you would say that this would apply for all disaster areas moving, you know any because a non-disaster area would be everywhere right now where there isn't a disaster. So it just would be making a statement that these could be primary residents period, correct? In essence, yes. Okay, so then how does that benefit just so I understand specifically the disaster component of it? Well, I just think it clarifies the situation that this would be in place and people could have access to everything that's in the ordinance immediately. I just don't think, I think it provides more flexibility under the circumstances that we've just experienced. Okay, well, I guess I'll be, I mean I'm open to the idea that, you know, I mean, look, what you're just saying is period would be a primary residence. I don't think it has anything to do with the disaster or not. And so you're basically extending the allowances that are currently allowed for CZU for everybody irrespective, everywhere, every zone, every area, irrespective of whether or not there's a disaster involved. So this just becomes a permanent, could be used as a, excuse me, not permanent but primary residents, correct? Correct. Okay, based on Mr. Carlson's comments and Mr. Carlson, you said that you don't see that this being really fundamentally different than if we're considering it in ADU and how we would go through the process on that. So you don't see that as really a substantive change. Is that correct? That's correct, yes. Okay. Then Supervisor McPherson, then that was the last point and I apologize that I've misinterpreted. No, that's fine. Thanks. You're welcome to get on that. So to, if I, go ahead. You had made your recommendations. I had said the requirement permits just an installation and removal and you want it to be five years. That's where we have a difference. Right, yeah. So the current language is three years, the hack had recommended five and I still just have a concern. And Mr. Carlson, this isn't a question your earnestness. I just, I find that the likelihood of proactive work on behalf of the planning department to actually do what you're saying is unlikely, just based on staffing elements. And so having something formal in a five year, I think would ensure that this would be done and that the arena component would be easy on the monitoring side. So that's why I'm saying going from three to five years which the hack had recommended and just keeping it at that. Yeah, I heard to do it just, so to just ease the time factor for the planning department, but I could be acceptable to that the five years. So only required the permits for the tiny house on wheels every five years, at least in every five years. Right, I mean, unless they, there's a transfer of ownership. Yeah, yeah. I mean, all the other provisions would still, you would be trading three for five in the proposed ordinance on top of the other things that you had recommended that I had added in. So one for property, the generator language, adding the mechanical features, allowing it as a primary. Yeah. Residences you had said and then a fee structure that comes back can incorporate the true cost just so we can actually have, especially if we're going to be having this as a primary, I think it's very important that we actually have something clarifying on what the fees will be. I could go along with the five years and I hope my colleague, the supervisor, Chair Koenig would do the same, but that would be fine with me. Okay, so that's my motion. Okay. And then there's, to simplify the regulations, applicable to state and federal codes for mobile homes as it relates when it comes to parking pads and the size. I think there's some codes there that need to be applied. So from my understanding of it and the reading of it. On the size of a parking pad? Yeah. Are there federal codes too that are different from the state? Well, I'm not aware of any that would apply in this circumstance, but I am not entirely familiar with all of the regulations that apply to mobile home parks, which you could be referring to, maybe regulations that apply in mobile home parks, which this would be different. So we're not, again, I'm not aware of any regulation that would limit us in the size of the parking pad. I'd like to include it. And if you don't think it's gonna make that much of a difference or if any difference at all, I just, I'm concerned that it may. Do you want to limit the size of the parking pad or? I think there's a difference in some of the limitations on the parking pad in federal and state. Supervisor McPherson, possibly what we could do is we could have that as part of the research that comes back on the 18, if there are any differences and we're out of compliance with the other state or federal code that that be drafted into the proposal. That's perfect. Okay. All right. So I apologize to the clerk desperately here because I recognize that this motion is probably making no sense at all. So let me, let me re clarify that this would come back that I've moved that this comes back on for a first street on October 18th that we limit the number of tiny homes. We explicitly state that that we limit the number of tiny homes on wheels, the property over to one, that we add the defined minor mechanical feature for like the bathroom fan discussion we had. We have clarifying language under E1 for the generators so that that is clear that we have a five year renewal just changing the three to five with all the other language saying the same that we allows a primary residence that we confirm that it's conformance with any other state and federal laws in regards to the pads and that we have it come back with a fee structure that incorporates the cost, that's a true cost. Thank you, Supervisor. I have all of those details. Thank you, so that's a motion. I'll second that if Supervisor McPherson. That's fine. It hasn't already. All right, we have a motion by Supervisor Friend and second by Supervisor Coonerty. Any further discussion? I mean, I'll add, I think that I can live with everything in the motion as it stands. I mean, I understand wanting to have some regular process to check up on these. And so I think as long as it's very lightweight that the five year permit renewal could work. I mean, if it's something like sending a picture of it and confirming that it's still there and that could also be an opportunity to people to realize that it has in fact moved on and it needs to let the county know. The one issue I do have with the motion is the limit to one. And the reason being if we're allowing it as a primary dwelling, which I think is a great thing we heard from members of the public that they want to do that, but if it's limited to one then you couldn't have a tiny house on wheels as a primary dwelling and as an ADU. There would be a six percent disallowance of that. So that would be the one area I think that mean for talking about 400 square feet, someone wants to use it first as a primary dwelling and then maybe they put in a down the road an additional one as an ADU. That would, it starts to effectively look like either a place where someone could live with their children or with an elder or just as a more practical housing solution to have that ability to grow another 400 square feet. So that'd be my only issue with the motion on the table. All right. Can I ask him? Yes, out there, Mr. Carlson. I'm wondering if the maker of the motion then that limit to be one ADU so that if they're allowed as the primary unit, you're allowed to have one ADU on top of that. And the other consideration I'll mention about that is if someone chooses to go with development of the property with a tiny home on wheels as the primary unit and maybe as the ADU, it kind of precludes ever being able to do a junior ADU because a junior AD, you can't modify a tiny home on wheels to incorporate a junior ADU. But that's a choice that people can make. Right. Well, just to be clear, I mean, what I was saying was just I wanted something explicit that there was only one tiny home on wheels allowed on the property were limited to one. And so I don't know how it would be in effect by changing that to a primary residence, but that's what I'm trying to clarify that there wouldn't be, well, two, for example, there wouldn't be, I mean, we're just trying to be very specific that that because the code, well, I understand programmatically but doesn't explicitly say that they're currently limited to one, I'm just trying to explicitly say, and actually I'm sort of since we've had this concern in regards also to the property tax, I mean, you're, what we're trying to not do here is, I mean, I believe that it just shouldn't be like a pure replacement moving forward of multiple in exchange for what an ADU would normally provide for the county. So I'm so comfortable with just having it be enumerated as one. I do think that over the course of time, I mean, this is gonna come back to the planning commission, it should come back to us that I think that we should get, as you had said as part of these yearly reports. So I think that this gets us going. And if we determine that us or our future board determines that there needs to be a modification of that element, I think that that's a reasonable thing to do. I would rather have a policy that adds in this concern now and if the concern is found to be actually overly restrictive or unnecessary, then that's something that can be part of the review in a year or whenever, whatever triggers the review to come back to us. I understand that you're doing the planning commission at 25 but if you wanna have a time certain on that, it doesn't need to be part of this motion because I think it's ancillary to the ordinance but I'm still gonna stick to the way the motion is currently presented. Could I just answer Carl's one more thing? I don't mean to create any conflict here. I'm just kind of thinking aloud that we are, if we're gonna allow them as a primary unit, I think under state law we are required to allow an ADU as well. So this issue between allowing them as a primary unit and limiting to one could create some conflict. I just wanted to point that out for sake of discussion. But we're limiting the tiny homes on wheels to one, right? So you would have a tiny home on wheel but you were saying you could still allow an ADU on the same parcel, right? That is absolutely true, Supervisor Friend. Yeah, so you could do it that way. I don't see how that's different from the language I've been talking about for the last 15 minutes. So I mean, we're talking about limiting the tiny home on wheels to one on the parcel explicitly stating that. And I apologize, I mean, maybe I was- That makes total sense, yeah. Thank you for that clarification. That totally makes sense in that way. I was understanding it a little bit differently, sorry. Okay, I'm just curious Supervisor Friend if you could explain why you're explicitly against the situation where someone had a tiny home on wheels as a primary dwelling and then in the future decided to have a tiny home on wheels as an ADU as well. What do you see with that? Yeah, I mean, I think that that is actually a larger issue for community discussion of whether you would want two, three, five tiny homes on. I mean, I'm not saying five, but I mean, these are meant to be quite frankly, these are on wheels, I mean, they're meant to be temporary functionally structures with some quasi permanent utilities built into it. I think that an ADU is a very specific permanent structure with a much more rigorous design set of standards and expectations. I think that if there was a proliferation of tiny homes on wheels of against people's personal lines, I think that there would be a significant pushback. So I'm just saying that having more than one would probably be problematic, not just from the lack of property tax, which is a reasonable discussion about it because you're actually incenting the removal. I would say you're incenting it over an ADU. But I do think that because of the temporary nature of what they are, I think that there would be a greater issue and especially in smaller urban service lines areas about a proliferation of them meaning multiple on a property than you would have versus one in an ADU, which is also like a garage conversion for that amount. I mean, a lot of the ADUs are actually within the existing structure, not a lot of them are even ancillary buildings. And this is by definition two ancillary buildings that are being put outside that have a very temporary sort of sense to them in respects. And I've seen the design and I understand that they're nicer than just like what a pure RV or what supervisor Caput was expressing concerns for, but that's what my concern would be is what it would lead to from a community concern moving forward. Okay, thank you for the clarification. I mean, I don't particularly agree with that portion, but I think that the rest of the proposal gets us most of the way there, as you said, and is a good starting point. So I'm willing to support the motion. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Item passes unanimously as amended. Great, thank you everyone for the robust discussion and for all the community members that called in I'll officially end the public hearing. All right, we'll now proceed with item nine to consider directing staff to either send a letter to the Coastal, California Coastal Commission regarding Santa Cruz County local coastal program, LCP amendment number LCP3 SEO-20-006-6-2, coastal hazards update, withdrawing the amendments or maintain the status quo and allow the Coastal Commission to act on the amendments as outlined in the memorandum with the deputy county administrative officer, director of community development and infrastructure. And for report on this item, we have our director of community development infrastructure, Matt Machado, as well as David Carlson, our resource planner. Thank you, good morning chair and supervisors. My name is Matt Machado, I'm the director of community development infrastructure. Thank you for the introduction. I'm gonna kick this off and then turn it to David. Today's board item, the subject of it is an LCP amendment that your board took action on about two years ago. At the time it was a difficult decision because it adds additional challenges to those in our community who reside on our coastal bluffs and beaches. Fast forward to today and we now have comments from coastal staff who do not support our LCP amendment. And in fact, are asking us to withdraw our application to enable further negotiations of this amendment. This is where it becomes very difficult. Further negotiations will certainly add more challenges to develop and redevelop our coastal bluffs and beaches, which will be in conflict with our parcel owners on our bluffs and beaches. But choosing to not withdraw our application puts us in direct conflict with coastal staff and coastal commission, forcing them to take action could likely result in a denial of our application. So like I said, it's a very difficult situation. We're in difficult decision we have before you today. For the past few weeks, our staff has worked diligently to pull this item and presentation together. My regret is that we don't have more time to discuss and prepare for this challenge and that we weren't more proactive with the pending deadline for coastal commission to take action on our LCP amendment. With that, I do wanna turn the microphone over to David Carlson, who will provide a presentation and will provide more detail to this topic. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Matt for that introduction. So the presentation will focus on the coastal commission comments on the county's local coastal program amendment regarding coastal hazards and how we can move the project forward. The presentation will review a brief history and timeline of the project, summarize the major issues and provide a staff recommendation. In late June, early July of this year, the local coastal commission office informed the county, they would recommend the coastal commission deny the local coastal program amendment and recommended the county withdraw the amendments. If the county doesn't withdraw the amendments, the staff recommendation for denial would go on the commission's October 12th through 14th agenda for action prior to the October 21st, 2022 deadline for the commission to take action. The coastal commission staff has communicated a variety of issues with the current LCP amendment, but this slide illustrates the overarching difference between the county's current amendments and coastal commission expressed policy. The primary difference involves shoreline protection structures or armoring. County policy is consistent with the coastal act in that only existing structures may qualify for shoreline armoring. However, the definition of existing development or an existing house is where the policies diverge. The county has always defined existing development as whatever is legally existing on the property when an application is submitted. The coastal act doesn't define an existing structure, but the coastal commission's interpretation is that structure is built after the enactment of the coastal act on January 1st, 1977, or older structures that have been redeveloped since enactment of the coastal act are no longer existing structures and are not entitled to any form of shoreline armoring, whether the armoring is existing or proposed. In this context, the definition of redevelopment becomes really important, and this is another area where policies diverge. The combined policy differences have significant implications for properties on coastal bluffs regarding the ability to redevelop and the ability to rely on or construct shoreline armoring. This map shows the approximately 192 coastal bluff properties in red, where the effect of the coastal commission's policy approach would be felt most acutely. Coastal bluffs in this area are subject to direct wave attack and shoreline armoring is common. The same policies would apply in the orange zone, but the impact on coastal bluff properties would be generally less severe because of the different dynamics on that part of the coastline. This slide is also meant to illustrate that overall, compared to the many tens of thousands of developable properties in the county, these numbers represent a small fraction in a hazardous location that will only become more hazardous in the future as coastal erosion continues and sea level rises. And the coastal commission's policy approach is not just about development in a hazardous location. The aversion to new shoreline armoring and reliance on existing armoring is based on the established geologic principle that shoreline armoring contributes to the loss of public beaches of all sizes. This is the classic and extreme before and after shot of loss of beach to the shoreline armoring and recovery of the beach after the armoring is removed. This is not meant to advocate for removal of structures as part of the LCP amendment. It's just a dramatic illustration of the inevitable problem with shoreline armoring on an eroding coastline. The county's proposed LCP amendment includes maintaining existing policies regarding existing development and its relation to shoreline armoring. And it includes a suite of additional policies we called a hybrid approach. This includes reevaluation and maintenance of existing shoreline armoring to reduce impacts on coastal resources. An example of this is removing riprap boulders from the beach and restacking them. It includes a mitigation fee program, a requirement that property owners accept the risks and assume liability related to building on an eroding coastline. And it includes the shoreline protection exception area allowing shoreline armoring along the opal cliff bluffs continuing the pattern established by the successful county projects at Pleasure Point and the Hook. However, this approach has been overshadowed by the major policy differences on existing development and shoreline armoring. During the local approval process in 2020, both the commission staff did submit letters to both the county planning commission and the Board of Supervisors explaining their opposition to our proposed amendments and their position regarding existing development and shoreline armoring. And their position hasn't changed. However, county planning department leadership at the time believed that our hybrid approach wasn't a reasonable compromise and as such had a chance of succeeding at the coastal commission level. The commission in their adopted sea level rise policy guidance document discussed such a hybrid approach and the county took that seriously. However, the commission has consistently maintained their position that these major policy considerations are non-negotiable. Their position is borne out by numerous actions on similar LCP amendments brought forward by other local coastal jurisdictions and in meetings with a local government working group. If the board chooses to withdraw, county staff is committed to pursuing the clearest and quickest route to an LCP amendment that can be certified by the coastal commission. There are areas where additional work with commission staff may lead to compromise and consensus. The issues and stakeholders are well-known and a staff negotiation on the issues seems like an appropriate course of action at this point to see how we can move forward. A renewed local process on a revised LCP amendment would involve meetings with stakeholders, additional public hearings at the planning commission and board of supervisors before a public hearing at the coastal commission to certify a revised LCP amendment. And the goal would be to get this done in 2023 to coincide with the update of the housing element because the two are related in terms of required timelines and updates. So withdrawal of the current LCP amendment appears to be the only viable path forward at this point. The LCP amendment includes some innovative approaches to maintaining coastal access while retaining the ability for bluff top homeowners to continue to protect their structures and public infrastructure from erosion and retaining these approaches in our LCP amendment is a goal. Staff is concerned that going to the coastal commission with current plan and a staff report recommending denial may force the commission to make a preliminary determination regarding some of these key features such as the shoreline protection exception area based on the current context. And this may preclude our ability to effectively incorporate them into a future proposal. And so staff is recommending that your board consider directing staff to send a letter to the coastal commission withdrawing the amendments or maintain the status quo and allow the coastal commission to act on the amendments. And that concludes my staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Carlson and Director Machado. Are there questions or comments from members of the board? Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I may. I have a friend, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Carlson. And thank you, Director Machado for your introductory comments. I mean, it's probably not a surprise. I'm disappointed that this item's before us at all at this late of an hour when a few years ago the board provided direction to send this to the commission and now is being presented with really kind of a Hobson's choices to what we can do here. I'll say too that at the time of approval a few years ago, I'd made a comment in even making the motion that the Coastal Commission has been very consistent and very clear as Mr. Carlson said that they did not support what the board was proposing to send to them, but that what we needed was to have a decision made on our end in order to open up that dialogue and in particular actually have the commission take action with some sort of guidance that could be very clear to community members and county staff as to what the parameters that would be accepted from the Coastal Commission would be because this has been really done at a staff level both at the county and at the Coastal Commission staff. I think everybody's working in good faith, but there isn't really a sense of, I mean, other than us, since we actually cast a vote as electives, there isn't really a sense of what the commission itself thinks just what the actual staff thinks. And so I'm not really supportive of the withdrawal because I feel like at some point we need clarity in order to have that. I mean, if it's denied, it's denied. I don't disagree that the commission staff is gonna recommend denial in the strongest way. They've been very consistent that way. I'm not delusional about that. I do think that we need to have that clarity though from commission members to have an understanding as to what it is that they're looking for because I mean, look, we received some letters of support for withdrawal from some community members of my district that believe that a withdrawal means that we're gonna end up with a more permissive document or property owners. And I think that that is a very unlikely outcome of this. I think that the reason that Coastal Commission staff is recommending denials, they think that what we're doing is not in conformance with the Coastal Act already and what we're proposing that is too permissive to property owners. So I don't really believe that engaging an additional discussion is going to do something that really brings along some of the concerned property owners in the first and second districts toward this, but we would have that we'd actually know for a fact if this actually went to the commission for a vote. So again, I feel like there was a lot of time that this could have been brought back to the board for a discussion. So to have it be where it's literally a couple days before when staff reports are due to the Coastal Commission for them to make their findings is, I mean, at best unfortunate, but I mean, I really think it forces the board into a decision we shouldn't be forced to make in this kind of level. There was two years of opportunity for discussion those discussions really didn't happen and that's what I'm really disappointed about. But also this board did provide direction to actually send it to the commission for a vote and now it appears that that's really not was being recommended. And so I just think that this is gonna leave us in that purgatory of not really knowing what it is the commission members themselves think instead we just have what County staff and Coastal staff again, operating a good faith. I have no question on either side of that but there isn't that clarity. And so that's why it's difficult for me to support that initial staff recommendation but thank you Mr. Chair for me expressing those thoughts. And you Supervisor Friend. I'll jump in here and say I agree with Supervisor Friend that it's been portrayed like this is a negotiation but it's not a negotiation on one side that tells exactly how it's going to be. And we're supposed to come into compliance when we pass these regulations a couple of years ago. I think we all remember that we were hammered by coastal property owners that this was far too restrictive and totally unacceptable what we're doing. And now we're sending it to the Coastal Commission the Coastal Commission says it's not restricted enough. So I believe we should send this to the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Commission should hear from property owners and there should be a more transparent direct negotiation around this issue. It doesn't feel like it's a good use of our time to continue to be pilloried by both sides essentially. And when we don't really have seemingly the authority to find compromise or find middle ground. And then the final thing I'll say as I said this couple of years ago but this is our strategic plan and our county values center around equity and we've spent an enormous amount of staff time on very expensive coastal properties issues and that comes at a cost of less time to other housing projects in our districts. And so spending more time going back and forth between these two sides doesn't strike me as a particularly good use of time. And I'd rather the Coastal Commission directly outline what can she done and then we can go from there. Yeah, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Kennedy, Supervisor McPherson. I agree with that. It's the ninth inning or the fourth quarter the two minute warning or whatever season you're in but it's not a good one for property owners along the coastline in Santa Cruz County. And I really appreciate the planning staff's effort and the time it's put into the last two years to attempt to reach an agreement with the Coastal Commission but despite the good efforts, the commission has yet to show any flexibility and that we need regarding the options that could be available to property owners. And I'm open to supporting the staff recommendation to withdraw the local coastal plan amendments and we hope that our county staff can continue to their dialogue with the commission staff and the property owners but times getting short that's for sure that's unfortunate. I wish the Coastal Commission would have gotten on this or responded in kind kindly earlier than this. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Yeah, I mean, certainly this will impact my district incredibly most of the red and all the red properties shown on that map are in the first district. It's, you know, I can see the rationale and the staff recommendation to withdraw and try to negotiate. I mean, although it seems as it's been said that we haven't accomplished that over the last two years and I just, I don't see how we can get into a fundamentally different form of discussion one way or another. I mean, I guess a couple of questions. Is there any way we can get a commitment to actually like reach some kind of resolution earlier in the year? I mean, like February or March timeframe, not, you know, how do we avoid getting into if we did withdraw or if it's heard is rejected and then we have to put together a new application? I mean, how do we ensure that we get there by the end of next year when we need a certified safety element for our housing element? Well, as I mentioned in the presentation, we are definitely committed to that timeframe because it does potentially impact our housing element. So 2023 is the timeframe for getting this done. So I can assure you that the staff is committed to coming back with something as soon as possible based on our discussions with the Coastal Commission staff. They've outlined, you know, they've given us a draft outline is attached to that letter of what they think our policy should include and we would use that as a basis for constructing something that we think will work for us. Is there any difference in terms of application fees? I mean, if we would draw, was there an application fee to submit this in the first place and are we gonna have to pay an application fee to? No, there's no application fees. I mean, it's tough. I feel like I could kind of go either way. I mean, one way or another, we've got to sit down and discuss these items with Coastal staff and I certainly see Supervisor Friend's argument to be nice to at least daylight what the actual commissioners themselves are thinking about these issues rather than, you know, just keep it behind closed doors on, you know, on the other hand, it's nice to be able to still keep some of the options in play, so to speak. Although I don't know what actually, what could happen to actually change Coastal staff's opinion on those different items. So there's no further comments or questions. Let's open it for public comment. Seeing no one here in board chambers, is there anyone online? Yes, Chair, we do have speakers online. Brian, your microphone is now available. Yes, hi, this is Brian, people with trail now. You know, first of all, I suggest that you give this presentation to the Regional Transportation Commission who believes that they can spend, build a billion dollar train along the Coastal bluff and actually are moving forward and many of the commissioners on supervisors are favoring that and so I'm very surprised by Supervisor Unity's comment that, you know, they, you know, basically he's not really truly addressing reality when it comes to investing in the Coastal court or investing in the Coastal bluff. For our community to believe that we're gonna spend, invest in a train along the Coastal bluff is exactly the reason why the California Coastal Commission is pushing back on y'all because you're not realistic and you need to be more realistic. And it really hurts our community because we miss out on opportunities. Look at Monterey County, they just received $25 million grant for a busway that goes from Marina to San City. In the meanwhile, we're spending millions for a temporary armory up by Davenport, a temporary seawall. So that kind of leadership, you can't go off and say, well, we don't know what to do. No, you know what to do. And unfortunately you're unwilling to direct the community in the right direction. You can't go and we need you to direct the community and be realistic and meet the requirements of the California transportation or Coastal Commission on what you can do on investing on that Coastal bluff. So please pull back on your request with the Coastal Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Papples. Laura, your microphone is now available. Hi, good morning. I'm Laura Walsh with Surf Riders Santa Cruz County Chapter, speaking on behalf of our thousands of members who use the beach here in Santa Cruz. The county's LCP update for sea level rise really currently puts pleasure point in grave danger. This is one of California's most iconic surf breaks and a shoreline protection exception area. A long pleasure point in Opal Cliffs will protect the homes in the area but harm the public space that everyone enjoys. Going forward with the LCP as is will protect private property along Opal Cliffs and sacrifice the beaches and waves from rising seas over the coming decades. Beaches here are naturally narrow and if we armor the coast there, sea level rise will eventually meet the sea walls, start causing backwash and then permanent high tide conditions in the surf in coming decades will make this area inaccessible. And the waves won't be reliable because of refraction which we're all already seeing. So we do really hope this board reconsider this plan and comes up with policies that don't negotiate away the natural coastal processes and recreational resources that everybody benefits from. This is the bedrock of state law and we're not trying to negotiate away from it. Sir Frider wants to be here to say that the beach belongs to all Californians and not just those lucky enough to own bluff top homes in this beautiful area. We object to the shoreline protection exception area, the definition of existing development and redevelopment, setback calculations and several problematic policies that put public resources in jeopardy. And we've detailed this in a series of letters submitted on September 17th of this year, April 15th, 2021 and September 9th of 2020. Thanks so much. Thank you, Ms. Walsh. Caller ending in 2915, your microphone is now available. Hello, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. I have submitted this in the online comment that the summary of the LCP amendment issues and the withdrawal letter to the Coastal Commission, links on your website are broken. I'm not able to read them at all. So I hope that that will be repaired very quickly. I have to wonder about this process. How did this fall between the cracks and what can we do to improve our planning department review process so that this does not happen again? The September 9th, 2020 letter from the Coastal Commission clearly outlined what they wanted the county to submit in place of the amendments proposed, 13 pages, a very clearly worded recommendation suggested by the Coastal Commission. How did that not come back to the planning commission? How did that not come to the Board of Supervisors? Where did it fall apart? And I recognize that that was all during COVID and a lot of things were upside down, but this is a very important issue as we're seeing. And now I read that it hinges on being able to get $500 million worth of money from the Coastal Conservancy. So what can we do to make this better? I don't know if withdrawing is the best or if it would buy us more time to try to negotiate with the plant of the Coastal Commission and get something that will help us get an approved housing element by our deadline. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Steinbrenner. Jeffrey, your microphone's now available. And Jeffrey, your microphone's available. I do show that you're unmuted. It appears you're having difficulties with the speaker. We'll come back to this individual later. Mandy, your microphone is now available. Hi, Mandy Sackett with the Surfrider Foundation. Hello, Chair Koenig and Supervisors. If the county moves forward with the Coastal Hazard Update policies, including the shoreline protection exception area along Pleasure Point and Opal Cliffs and the incorrect definition of existing development and other policies that we detailed in our letter, which is in your agenda packet from our legal director. If it does move forward, our beaches and waves will not stand a chance. The waves along Pleasure Point are worth doing everything we possibly can to ensure they're protected. This is one key location where seawall exceptions should never be granted. The California Coastal Act was designed five decades ago to protect our public resources along the coast. And it does this by grandfathering in existing pre-coastal act development to stay put, rely on seawalls if needed until the end of its useful life. But it also necessitates that we ultimately change our pattern of development so that new development and major remodels can no longer be right up against the bluff edge or shore. And it does that by establishing setbacks, ensuring new development does not rely on seawalls. Santa Cruz cannot have an exception. That is the bedrock of our law. The County shoreline protection exception area would essentially lock in this pattern of development for the next century, excuse me. This is not only illegal, it's also unconscionable. We agree with Coastal Commission staff in the county that the county's plan is inconsistent with the law. Sir Fryder and Coastal Commission staff have been saying this all along. We have submitted three letters. We hope you'll work to update the policies to protect our public resources, not just private property, and that you'll do everything you can to save our beaches and waves. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Saga. Carol, your microphone is now available. Hi, this is Carol Turley. It's my understanding that if the commission looks at this application, they can make modifications to it and approve it in their state. And if the Board of Supervisors doesn't deny that those changes within a short period of time, that it becomes our new local coastal program, that's concerning to me because some of the things that have been talked about earlier in this meeting that are problematic will be forced upon us. I believe if you don't pull the application, we could be stuck with those draconian Coastal Commission measures. I urge you to withdraw the application as many other counties and cities have done so far. Thank you. Colin, user one, your microphone is now available. Marilyn Garrett, I keep wanting to hear more of the speakers because I keep learning more about what's going on. We definitely should be protecting public resources and not putting them in jeopardy to the interest of the priority of private interests. This is under the title Coastal Hazards Update. There are many coastal hazards here. One of the ones I see also is fire and fire prone PG&E, so-called smart meters that are mounted on utility poles going up the coast, Highway 1. There've been many fires associated with these meters and towers. The board has been provided photos and information on this. I also consider this cell tower, 4G, 5G continuous coastal radiation on these utility poles by Verizon, 4G, 5G hazard to all life, including the coastal birds and bees, serious fire problems and environmental threats by these radiation emitting towers. Additionally, I just heard last week that trees were pretty much clear cut off of Highway 1 by Fogline Farm under the power lines. I think we need to be saving the trees and preventing fires and not clear cutting. Are you aware of that that's evidently happening? Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Sean, your microphone's now available. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. All right, thank you, honorable supervisors. My name is Sean Burns. I am born raised in Santa Cruz and a longtime avid surfer and frequent visitor, pleasure point, the hook and private surf breaks. Here, on behalf of Save the Waves Coalition, a local non-profit organization in Santa Cruz dedicated to protecting surf ecosystems around the globe and more specifically here at the Santa Cruz World Service. The Opalcliffe area is part of the Santa Cruz World Surfer Reserve, which was designated over 10 years ago by the Save the Waves Coalition. While this World Surfer Reserve does not currently have any legal designation or protection, it is a commitment of the community of Santa Cruz, led by a local stewardship council, which includes surfers, scientists, policymakers, as well as all the people who enjoy the incredible coastline of Santa Cruz to protect our coastal resources from threats that impact the waves and the environment. Save the Waves Coalition and the World Surfer Reserve is concerned about the Santa Cruz local, County local coastal program amendment as it lacks any increased protection for the surf breaks while allowing for increased and or expanded duration of existing shoreline arm range. Increased extents and life spans of coastal arm ring structures, cause significant alterations to the coastline and have the potential to negatively impact the coastal process, assets, access and surf breaks. Save the Waves believes along with the Santa Cruz World Surfer Reserve that more community engagement is necessary for bringing out of nine to the Coastal Commission and more attention and discussion must be given to the relevant impacts on coastal resources and surf breaks. Save the Waves and World Surfer Reserve can offer a relevant outreach platform for discussing this important LCP amendment with the local community and ensuring that solutions to coastal erosion consider the relevant impacts of surf breaks and coastal amenities of the Santa Cruz World Surfer Reserve. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burns. Chair, if you don't mind, we'll circle around to the caller that was having difficulties earlier, Jeffrey R. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. Chair, the caller has not raised their hand. I believe they do not wish to speak at this time. All right, then I'll turn it to the board for deliberation and action. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I agreed with your assessment that about going either way. I mean, the reason I feel the way I do is just to provide some sort of finality, but for the people that are asking to withdraw it, it's not that that is an avowal approach and I agree with that staff as wants to work in good faith with the Coastal Commission. I mean, in regards to Ms. Shirley's comments, there is no desire and it's been made clear by the Coastal Commission their letters. They're not gonna propose any modifications at a Coastal Commission meeting because they feel that what we brought forward is in violation of the Coastal Act and so there isn't really a modifiable document, but again, without hearing the actual commissioners themselves. But I also understand what Supervisor McPherson's saying about an opportunity for a reset wasn't said exactly that way. So I'm not adamantly opposed to the idea of withdrawal. I just don't think that anything's gonna subsequently change and I think that when you have environmental organizations and property rights organizations coming forward asking you to withdraw because they both think that they're gonna get greater elements of what they're asking for than you recognize that no one really knows what's about to come down the pike. And so I think what's gonna come down the pike is not something that, I mean, well, I don't know. But I'm open for continued discussion on this and I would, like I said, I'm gonna support sending it to the commission, but I understand there's a board majority that wants to withdraw. I mean, it's not like I'm not married to what I'm saying. I just think from a strategic standpoint, it makes the most sense to have the commission actually go on the record with where they stand on something. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I'll make the same comment and argue that it actually would be much more efficient for the Coastal Commission to make clear its position and move forward rather than people have a perception that the county has a lot of leeway in this and can meet the needs of the opposing sides in this. It's ultimately not our decision and people are coming to our meetings wanting us to weigh in and it'd be much better for that to happen in a public, transparent way than us doing shuttle negotiations back and forth when we don't really have the authority to set policy in this area. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. I mean, I guess I would ask staff, is there anything that would be, is there anything either happening out there in the general debate? I mean, whether it's a lawsuit or the status of other LCPs submitted by other areas that would fundamentally change this conversation anyway over the next 12 months. And are we really in a, from your perspective, better or worse situation with drawing versus essentially having a rejection on our hands? Well, I think the message that we're trying to convey from the staff's perspective is remaining in a positive position on this with the Coastal Commission staff and not wanting to see that become negative with a Coastal Commission action that denies it. I mean, that's kind of the basis for our recommendation. I'm not aware of really any significant activity or progress on these basic issues with regard to other local jurisdictions that have withdrawn their applications. Regarding lawsuits, I am aware that there is a lawsuit pending right now on this definition of existing development as the subject, but I mean, I'm no expert. It's at the trial level now. So for the time to resolve that is probably significant longer than a year, I would say in my experience, that sort of a thing. So I don't think we're gonna see any kind of, of significant movement in the positions of either side and over the next year. Yeah. So particularly the Coastal Commission, I mean, they've been very clear on this and it's immovable on these basic policy issues. Okay. Thank you. To the President MacPherson. I don't know that I don't think Supervisor Coonerty's second is axed motion. I'll do that. I'm just... I didn't make a motion actually. Sorry. Sorry. I was the one that can... Well, let me just ask a question then before that. I'm just a little concerned that Coastal could require something more restrictive. That's, you know, I don't know how they might get in their discussion, but I think that there are some areas where we can negotiate. I'll just give you one example of the definition of redevelopment. Having to prove all of the work that's been done on a house going back to 1977 is not possible in this county. We don't have the records to do that accurately and fairly. So we need to come to some other... We need to talk about that. I mean, we can't agree to something that's basically impossible for us to do. So there's just one example where we think we can negotiate with the Coastal Commission staff to come up with something that might be workable for us based on our records. Thank you. I mean, so go ahead. Let's see if I was a candidate. Yeah, so, I mean, I'll just, for the sake of moving things along here, I'll move that we send our application to the Coastal Commission. And I'll second. And as I said, I can see either argument. And so the board majority wants to go the other way and withdraw the application and understanding this timeline in order, in the idea of maintaining relationships with Coastal, I actually completely can see that component. I think we just will have that lack of information about what the actual commission members themselves think. But, you know, this is really just a judgment call. And I don't think there's actually a right answer, quite frankly, but that's why I'm seconding this motion. But I can understand why somebody would support the general staff recommendation. All right, so we have a motion by Supervisor Coonerty, a second by Supervisor Friend. Any further discussion? Or are there any, I mean, just to declare it, then there's no additional motions, right? There's no substitute motions. No. No. Okay. All right, seeing none. Clerk will call the vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Coonerty. All right, thank you everyone. We'll now proceed with Item 10. We'll consider approval and concept of an ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 8.43 of the Santa Cruz County Code related to tenant protections against retaliation and harassment. Schedule second reading and final adoption of the ordinance on October 18, 2022 and direct the county communications manager press release and a tenant rights flyer in English and Spanish to distribute via the county's media and community facing channels of communication is outlined in the memorandum of Supervisor Koenig and Supervisor Caput. I don't believe we have any staff presentation on this. And I'll just say, of course we had a robust discussion on this item at our last meeting. The ordinance that's being brought back to us, I think reflects the concerns of both the tenant community as well as the real estate community. And I think that is a fair compromise. For the more, I think that the tenants rights flyer will make sure the county does our part as far as making sure everyone understands the law and their ability to use it on either side. Is there any comments or questions from board members? Yeah, Mr. Chair, I thank you and Supervisor Caput for bringing this, I think the biggest immediate thing we can do about our homeless housing crisis is not to let more people get, become homeless. And I think this is, we need to support both the tenants and property owners and keeping folks in their units to the greatest extent possible. And I think this is a step toward that end. So congratulations. I think this is a good move. I'll move, make the motion that we accept the recommended, recommended actions. If you just hold on a minute, thank you for your comments. I wanna make sure we take public comment before, before our motion. Any other comments or questions from board members? Seeing none. Is there anyone from public that was just to address us on this item? There's no one here in chambers. Is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair. We do have a speaker online. Barbara, your microphone is now available. Yes, thank you. Barbara Meister, a leader at Holy Cross Catholic Church and COPA. And I wanna thank Supervisor Koenig for taking the lead to really refresh the county ordinance to protect tenants from harassment and retaliation. COPA's heard hundreds of stories of the pressures that renters are facing and this ordinance is a very important first step. And again, I thank you all to Senator McPherson's point that I was surprised to read in the Sentinel the county's homeless count and comprehensive survey report data. It really underscores the need for greater efforts to keep our tenants housed. The survey found that the leading cause of homelessness was eviction. 39% of those survey had previously been housed and were evicted. And so COPA would like to continue to strategizing with you about additional steps we can take to prevent evictions from happening in the first place and keep families in their homes. And last week, yes, we had a robust conversation and you heard stories from COPA leaders about the high degree of fear that tenants have toward their landlords so much so that they tolerate mistreatment and often are afraid to stand up and assert their rights. So this proposal for a strong communications plan is necessary to both inform tenants about their rights but also to educate landlords, to uphold the law. For example, it is unlawful to discriminate against section eight vouchers. Elizabeth Cruz was planning to be here with us to testify and share how when she looked for places, it was always, there were tons of ads saying section eight, need not apply. Well, that is not a law. So this idea of a robust communication would really be useful. And I encourage you to county staff to convene a meeting of the community-based organizations that are involved in eviction prevention and also who are providing rental assistance to co-design this communication plan of materials so that the information's accurate and relevant and clearly communicated in technology or terminology that any tenant can understand. And also to be sure that people know where to go for assistance. Again, COPA appreciates your leadership. We stand ready to continue to strategize on more solutions. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Meister. Caller ending in 1705, your microphone is now available. Hello, board, can you hear me? Yes. Great, this is Eric Robert. Thank you for taking my comments. I wanted to thank chair Koenig and the rest of the board for listening to my concerns last week and taking out that section D that we had concerns about. And I fully support the item as you've modified it. I think that I agree it's important to protect vulnerable tenants from abusive behavior, although I don't believe it happens that frequently. Even one incident of such abuse is reprehensible and we should do everything we can to prevent it. Also, I did submit a letter expressing my thanks and support and it doesn't seem to have gotten onto the packet I submitted in time and I am certain that many others did. So I don't know what happened with those letters, but I did confirm with the clerk's office yesterday that they were received. So whatever SNF who happened, if that could, those could get into the record because I do want to express my support for the board for taking this action and for hearing our concerns. So thank you very much once again. Thank you. Caller 2915, your microphone is now available. Rebecca Steinbruner, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I also support protecting the vulnerable people who are renting their housing. I also want to respect the rights of the landlords when there really truly is a problem with a tenant. I have friends who have themselves self evicted from housing complexes because there are tenants in them that are dangerous and the landlord has no ability to address them getting out. So what can we do to also protect the landlord's ability and thereby the safety and wellbeing of others who are renting when there are these problem tenants, drug dealing, domestic violence, prostitution, it is all happening and a lot of it in some of the affordable housing complexes that I'm aware of in Live Oak. So I would like to have somewhere that landlords have the ability to appeal any decision and how will this new ordinance be enforced and monitored for its effectiveness. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Steinbruner. We have no further speakers for this item, Chair. Great, then I'll return to the board for action and deliberation. We've got a motion from Supervisor McPherson. And Mr. Chair, I'll second it. And let me also just assure the previous caller that we did receive those letters. They actually were submitted to us through from the Board of Supervisors. So I don't, they may not have made it in the packet but we definitely did receive that packet of support letters. So I wanted him to be assured of that. Great, thank you. Motion by Supervisor McPherson, second by Supervisor Friend. Any further discussion? Seeing none. We'll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. And Koenig? Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you. Then we'll now move to item 31, which was removed from the consent agenda to the regular agenda, which is to adopt resolution accepting unanticipated revenue of 10,660,000 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Project Home Key, Park Cave and Plaza, authorize the execution of a county product agreement with 2838 Park Avenue LP about services and FBI property management, direct the Human Services Department to return on our before November 15th, 2022, to ratify the agreements and take related actions recommended by the Director of Human Services. And for a report on this item, we have our Director of Housing for Health, Dr. Ratner. Hi, thank you for considering this item and happy to answer any questions that the board may have regarding the proposed actions. This is a follow up to the presentation our department gave to the board in our Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz update, our six month update. And during that presentation, we mentioned we had submitted four applications for Home Key Awards and received notification that two of the projects had received an announcement from HCD that they were awarded funds. This is one of those two projects. The other project is the Veterans Village Project in Bend, Lomond. And both these projects happen to be in unincorporated areas of the county and the securing of these funds helps the board and the community achieve one of our stated goals, which is to increase the number of supportive housing and housing projects in unincorporated areas of the county. The particular project that's before you was originally presented back in January with a request to apply for funding for the project and the state announced that the project received a funding award in June. And we've finally gotten documentation back from the state around the standard agreement and the dollar amount. So the actions before you today are to allow us as staff to work with the state as in development department folks and execute the agreement and bring the funds in to support the projects. Just a quick overview of the project and then I'm happy to answer questions. It's a 36 unit development that's gonna be built with modular construction. The address of the project is 2838 Park Avenue, very close to Cabrillo. And it's a novel project for creating more permits for housing in that it's modular construction and the proximity to the community college is unique statewide. There are three primary target populations that we're gonna be serving there. One is veterans experiencing homelessness and at our last update, we shared with the board that there's some concerning data that the number of veterans in the county experiencing homelessness has gone up. So 17 units in the project will be for veterans, 14 for youth who've been in the foster care system, either homeless or at risk of homelessness and four for families, plus one residential manager unit. The housing authority of the county supports the project as an invested supportive rental subsidies to link with the building. And the approval of the board for the project will help it to move forward. Overall, the development's estimated to cost around 20 million. So the award that we're getting from Home Key is a piece of the puzzle. There's some private financing that's also helping get the project up and running. And with Home Key, we anticipate that the project should be completed within a 12 month period. That's one of the standards of the Home Key effort. And it will have a significant impact in our community. It will help us meet our arena goals to increase housing for households with extremely low incomes. It will help us with our housing for healthy Santa Cruz goals around creating more building base permanent supportive housing. And also as I mentioned, our policy goal of creating more affordable and permanent short-term supportive housing for folks at risk of or experiencing homelessness in the unincorporated areas. And happy to answer any more questions that board members have. Thank you, Dr. Ratner. Supervisor Friend, you wanted to pull this item. So I'll hand it to you first if you have further comments or questions. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just felt that this is an item that's clearly of broad community interest. And so I just didn't really believe that it belonged our consent. And so I appreciated this overview from Dr. Ratner as well as a little bit of the timeline. Dr. Ratner, if the board pulled the item of the funding element of the item today, when, if it's from today, if it has to be completed within 12 months, when would people start to see action actually on the site? I mean, when would construction begin? What would site clearing or preparation begin? How would information be communicated to the community about the process of that? For example, just so I can also see how communication would go moving forward. Yeah, good question. So if the board approves the action item today, we'll go through a process of securing funds from the state. And because there's some work done, some necessary work on the property around leveling, we're entering in the rainy season. So depends on the timing of the funding announcements and other things, but we'd wanna try to get work done as soon as possible, ideally in the next few weeks, just some basic grading of the property. In terms of communication, the development partner in open development has created a website for the project and we're gonna encourage them to keep the community up-to-date and we'd work with your office and others to make sure we're letting members of the public know when various elements to construction are gonna start. And then we also in our office have a newsletter that we send out with about 900 subscribers to let people know what's happening with some of the work of the Housing for Health Office. And if you have any suggestions on other means that you'd like us to take to spread the word, I'm happy to pass it on to the developer and make sure communication goes out about what's happening when. So about a month, I would say. Okay, about a month. Yeah, to me that the proactive communication is key. And so I think to the degree that people can passively receive information from directly from the developer should the board move forward is very important. I also think that we as a county should also, there's nothing wrong with over communication in regards to all these projects. There have been high profile and there have been a lot of questions as well as support too. There's a lot of analytic questions regarding the projects. And I think it would move us to ensure that we continue to communicate a lot moving forward. But thank you, Chair, for letting me pull the item. I just wanted to make sure the community had an opportunity to ask those questions and also express their thoughts on it. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. I have to know other comments or questions from board members. I'll open it for public comment. Seeing no one here in chambers which is to comment on the item. Is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair. We do have speakers on Zoom. Caller ending in 2-915. Your microphone is now available. So this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I want to thank Supervisor Friend for pulling this from the consent agenda. That's really good because this does really merit better public discussion as we're having now. And I want to thank Dr. Ratner for his information. I would like to point out that I have not yet seen the water demand offsets provided by Soquel Creek Water District. That whole water permitting issue, I've not seen that on the Soquel Creek Water District agenda since it first came to them nearly a year ago. And their comment was, what is this that these units are so small? Each unit will have to have its own submeter and the water demand will have to be offset either monetarily or with actual water conservation projects. So I'm wondering how this project will comply with the water demand offset requirement for hookup with Soquel Creek Water District. It's a huge issue in the Mid County. I also want to know, I'm hearing there will be grading done now during the rainy season. What protections will be offered? I assume there will be for the riparian area for erosion. But also how many trees are going to be removed? Next door in an unrelated project, a number of very large trees eucalyptus were removed. What will this lot look like in terms of tree removal? And that mostly completes my comment. I do and seconding Supervisor Friend's request that local residents who have participated in these public discussions be kept apprised of the project's progress. So they're not caught off guard. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Steinbrenner. We have no further speakers for this item, Chair. I do think we have someone here in chambers who should speak. Good afternoon, Morta Supervisors. Thank you so much for having me here. My name is Iman Novin. The applicant president of Novin Development wanted to address some of the comments I heard today in terms of community outreach. We've held a large community meeting at Cabrillo College. We've also met with residents on at least two occasions to discuss the project and are continuing to field questions. We have an FAQ section of our website and a communications manager who is available to address questions that have come up. You know, I think important to note that the Veterans Village Project, which is the second project that was also awarded Home Key Funding, was approved on consent. You know, this project is located in a very amenity-rich area. Residents will benefit from all of the services available to veterans and families at Cabrillo College. I've had the pleasure of growing up in Santa Cruz and I went to Harbor High School and it's just an honor to be able to come back to the community I grew up in and give back and build permanent supportive housing. And so I really appreciate your consideration and myself and my father, Abe Novin, are here to answer any additional questions you may have for the applicant. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Novin. By seeing no one else from the public who should address us on this item, I'll return to the board for deliberation and action. Mr. Chair, we did receive a lot of letters so I'm a little bit surprised that people didn't come to speak today, but I do recognize the importance of this and I really appreciate the work of Dr. Ratner. And also let me say also really appreciate your work, Mr. Chair, on doing community outreach on this item as well because it straddles the two districts, even though I know it sits in yours, you really have taken on a lion's share of the outreach and I want to compliment you on the work you've done on that. So I'll move the recommended actions. Second. All right, motion by Supervisor Friend, second by Supervisor Coonerty. Any further discussion? I'll just add, you know, first of all, thank you for the recognition, Supervisor Friend, and then the explanation. Dr. Ratner about the project, I mean, I certainly understand all the concerns that we've heard from community members in the area. I think that's natural enough given that, first of all, anytime there's a product of any kind, we tend to hear from people that say there's a port of housing community, but just not next door. So I think that it's a natural human reaction and especially on a situation or a topic as sensitive as homelessness. And I know I frequently find myself frustrated by homelessness in our community and the fact that we can't do more. But I do think that this is what the solution looks like. I mean, 36 new units of permanent housing, targeted to groups that we are already focusing on children, youth, families, vets. And by doubling down, we have a real chance of making a even greater difference built with fast state-of-the-art modular construction. We're gonna get these units really as fast as possible and bringing in state resources that would not otherwise be available in our community. I mean, $10.6 million is a significant amount. And again, thanks to staff for putting into this application together quickly and for deep Mr. Novin and his firm for bringing it forward as an option. So with that, I'm happy to support the recommendation. If there's no further discussion, then we'll call the police. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. And Koenig. Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you. And again, of our regular agenda, the board will now move into closed session. Is there any reportable actions from closed session? No. Great. In the next regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors will be October 18th at 9 a.m. And we'll now move to closed session. It is 12.40 right now. So we'll convene at 12.55.