 are required at all times while in the County building fitted securely over your nose and mouth. Please keep your face covering on while addressing the board at the microphone. And if the room reaches capacity, we do have overflow seating down in the community room. Thank you. I will now call the August 18th, 2020, regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors to order. Will the clerk please call the roll. Supervisor Leopold. Friend. Supervisor Friend. Coonerty. Here. Oh, okay, friend is here. Coonerty. Here. McPherson. Here. Chairman Caput. Here. If we could have a moment of silence and the pledge and also prayer and the pledge of allegiance, please join me. The allegiance to 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. Mr. Palacios, do we have any revisions or late additions to the agenda? Chair Caput, we do on the regular agenda item number eight, staff request this item be considered after item nine. There's additional materials, revised attachment A, packet pages 34, 37, 38, 40 and 41. There's also attachment B, packet pages 56, 59, 60, 62 and 64. On the consent agenda, item number 25, there's additional materials. There's revised attachment A, packet pages 266 through 268. There's also a revised memo, packet page 263. Item number 46, there's additional materials. Revised attachment A, packet page 501. And on item 49, there's additional materials, revised attachment A, replacement package page 514. That concludes all the changes and corrections to today's agenda. Thank you. Do any board members wish to pull any consent item from the regular agenda? Supervisor Friend, is he online now? Yeah, nothing at all. Okay, we got him, okay. Okay, public comment, this is an opportunity for members of the public to address the board regarding topics on today's agenda, consent items, closed session agenda, and on topics that are not on the agenda, but are within our jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors. Also, if you cannot stay later to speak on the regular agenda item, you may address those items at this time, but you can only speak once on any topic. How many people are gonna speak on the public comment? Okay, if we can, maybe the first three or four will go for three minutes, and then everybody after that, two minutes, for the ones who wanna speak a little bit longer, come on up. We have a lot on the agenda today, we're gonna go morning and also into the afternoon, so thank you, authority. Just have a question for clarification on process. My name is Jorge Savala, leader with COPA, Holy Cross Parish. Is it appropriate to speak on item number seven during this time? Okay, great, so I and two other leaders would like to speak on that. So my name is Jorge Savala, leader with Holy Cross Parish and COPA, and volunteer manager of the Holy Cross Food Pantry. The Food Pantry has seen a 10-fold increase of parishioners and community members in needing support when a shelter in place or to close businesses. Our families work in hospitality, landscaping, restaurants, and other jobs that support our tourism industry. Many families have exhausted their life savings, borrowed money from friends, family, and predatory lenders to make rent. Many did not know where to turn for this new emergency, so we organized to bring them out of isolation by connecting them via Zoom meetings. Working with COPA, we are teaching our families to not be victims, but to be engaged as participants in civic life. Today, you will hear from two of them. COPA urges you, your passage of the county wide moratorium eviction through September 30th and longer. Our families abided by the government called a shelter in place to reduce the spread of COVID-19, bearing the consequences of lost income and lost jobs, only now to be faced with losing their homes. The inability to pay rent is not their fault. Government needs to reciprocate and come up with solutions to keep our families housed. COPA thanks you for your support of the $1 million of rental assistance allocation in the budget before you this afternoon. The moratorium will protect tenants from being evicted and the $1 million will provide their landlords with funds to make up for missed rental payments. COPA would like to collaborate with your staff, Julie Conway, to effectively reach the families most in need of rental assistance in a culturally competent way. In July, we helped the city of San Cruz obtain 38 applications for their emergency rental assistance program. Given the high level of fear and cultural barriers, COPA can be a trusted partner for the county and bridge to critical support services. In addition, we request that these funds be made available to undocumented workers, many who are essential workers in our fields, and yet they are denied of essential services. COPA has a third request. We asked that the county, we asked the county to develop a 12 month plan to repay rent so that tenants can get back to work and pay their landlords. We are aware that LA County and Santa Clara County have repayment plans and that lawsuits are pending. We cannot wait and see what happens at the state level or in the courts. So we ask, can we work together to come up with solutions for tenants and landlords to avoid evictions and sustained landlords? We look forward to working with landlords with you and your staff in the community to develop creative options for rental payback programs before the end of September 30th moratorium. Thank you. Chair, I just wanna remind everyone that you should wear your mask over your nose as well. Gary Richard Arnold has had an old article here called Soviet Active Measures and it mentions Leon Panetta and the local ACLU receiving lots of funds from them. My glasses are fogging up, makes a little bit hard here. I think something very illegal has happened here that all the policies are being set by an unheard of billionaire that's paying for Margaret LaPause and I have a picture here of our County Administrative Officer standing alongside Mrs. True. They're being paid by a foundation. That foundation has also honored the Soviet agent whose plaque is out on the doorsteps here. Margaret LaPause is supposed to be in charge of all policies. She's also a member or director or something in the Aspen Institute. They also mentioned Harvin Cleland and Soviet Active Measures here as being involved in the Sierra Club. We also find that hasn't been told by Sheriff Hart or the police chiefs that a recent magazine came out and identified the people that were very dangerous that are poking out the eyes and burning the cars and so forth. And they mentioned in here the group individuals of the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Communist Party USA and California Forward. It turns out that California Forward was co-founded by Leon Panetta. Now this is a Panetta machine around here and a few people don't understand that you better well. In fact, it was Mr. the County Administrative Officer that put in the Stalinist Rosenberg laws. He kept no minutes of meetings. He had no attendance records. This is outrageous. He has since pulled himself off the community foundation that appointed this person who is in charge of all medical matters. All you have to do is go on East Cliff Drive and see a big sign, Black Lives Matter. And both founders of Black Lives Matter said they're trained activists and train Marxists and speak about COPPA. COPPA together with John Leopold and Zach Friend attacked or threatened the granges with both physical harm and physical harm to their buildings. Nothing has been done about that. But COPPA, who you just saw here that you gave a million dollars to is run by the Industrial Areas Foundation. Marshall Field, who was a damn communist who went to the Soviet Union and run by Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. It tells how to kill your cops. You're against the peace and quiet and security of this county, and you're guilty as hell. And you need to get rid of that county administrative officer that's running everything. You aren't running the damn thing. You're following Leon Panetta, who is nothing more than a communist Chinese collaborator. Thanks, thanks, Kara. Okay. Well, good morning. So I have good news for y'all. It appears that according to our laws of our state, we can drop this whole emergency crap that we got going on here and go back to normal. According to the California Emergency Services Act, section 8558B, a state of emergency can only be called if the threat overwhelms the current resources of the state. Furthermore, the state of emergency has to be terminated at the earliest possible date. Section 8558B, state of emergency means that the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by such conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease. The governor's warning of a California Emergency Services Act for California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, earthquake or volcanic prediction or an earthquake or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy or conditions caused by a state of war emergency, which by the reason of their magnitude are or are likely to go beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single county, city and county or city and require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat. Thus, a state of emergency related to public health can only be declared if the threat overwhelms the response capabilities of California's healthcare practitioners. Thousands of healthcare workers are being furloughed in California, so there is zero evidence of grounds for this state of emergency based on public health. There is no threat that overwhelms the current resources of the state since the COVID related deaths, including the inflated numbers, are fewer than the average seasonal flu. Therefore, COVID-19 cannot lawfully be classified as an epidemic. An epidemic is when there are disproportionately large numbers experiencing an outbreak of a disease. There is no evidence of this in California. Therefore, the basis for the state of emergency is invalid and unlawful. As we've clearly seen here in California with the virus fatalities, they're approximately one third of the typical fatalities for regular seasonal flu. Therefore, our state resources are not overwhelmed. Therefore, the state of emergency should have been terminated according to California law, which states at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. Therefore, there are no legal grounds for an additional extension or a new state of emergency to be declared. Thus, according to the current state of emergency, or thus the current state of emergency in California is invalid and unlawful. So let's end it, woo! I'll be translating for him. He just requested a little bit of time. So, my nombre es Luis Janos y estoy aquí representando Copa, leader. Y soy una de las personas que ha sido víctima por el COVID-19 que ha perdido su trabajo. Sí. So my name is Luis Janos. I'm a leader with Copa, Holy Cross, and I'm one of those people that's been victim to the situation and has lost my job as well. Desde que empezó el, antes del COVID-19, mi esposa la operaron, le abrieron su cabeza. Y a las dos semanas, me tuve un email de mi patrón que perdía el trabajo por el COVID-19. Y hasta la fecha, mi esposa se sigue recuperando. So before COVID took place, my wife sustained an accident and had a surgery in her head. And two weeks after that, I was notified by my employer that my job was ending. El cual ha sido muy difícil para pagar la renta. Debo dinero a familias conocidos. El cual les ha sido mucho estrés. Al cual busqué ayuda con Copa y estamos trabajando. Soy usted representando otras personas que están en la misma situación buscando ayuda de cómo pueden extender, de cómo nosotros podemos pagar la renta con más tiempo y no nos desalojen. So I have been without work for quite some time and I'm working to get connected and to connect with other families because it's just not just me, but I represent many families that are afraid of being homeless and being victims of eviction. Durante todo este tiempo es mucho estrés y estamos buscando ayuda que el gobierno nos apoye y nos ayude a solucionar esto. And so during this time, we've experienced a lot of stress and so we look to the help from the government here to help find a solution to this matter. So creo que estoy en un lugar donde hay representantes de la ciudad donde se ha dado un millón de dólares para ayudar a personas, pero también hay otras necesidades que se pueden ayudar. So there's a, I'm here before you as living in a city and I know that there's representatives of the city and I thank you for helping with the million dollars because there are a lot of different, a lot of families are in need. So yo espero que ustedes tomen conciencia de lo que está pasando en la comunidad también. And so I expect that you all will have a conscience and just get connected to what's going on with the community. Y ese es mi experiencia o testimonio que estoy viendo junto con mi esposa durante esta pandemia. And so that's my experience that I'm living with my wife during this pandemic. So muchas gracias por escucharme. And thank you for giving me the time to listen to me. Thank you. Thank you, muchas gracias. Co-Britain, Madsen-Britain Architects. The environmental planning is misinforming this board and the public. For example, Ms. Burke claims that county code is more conservative than the building code regarding floodplain. Building code is updated every three years by experts. County code regarding floodplains, no substantive update in 30 years. We work in many different communities and have done many floodplain projects. They generally run very smoothly in other communities. The reason being is they follow building code and there is no environmental planning department that starts to tell you something. I'm working on a project now where it's cost our clients tens of thousands of dollars because of environmental planning, months of time and four different sets of corrections that conflict with each other and change each time. This is expensive for the whole community. We have people who want work, but the people that are being harmed most by environmental planning are those that can least afford it. Thank you. Chair Caput, if I could remind everyone in the room to please have your mask cover your mouth and your nose. If we continue to not have compliance with that, we are not going to be able to continue having people in the chambers. Cannot expose my staff to this danger. Could you please cover your nose? It hurts everyone. Mask diseases are on the rise. Thank you. You know it. Harmful, harmful, horrible things. Thank you. Go ahead. All right. Thank you. Well, thank you supervisors. My name is Nettie and I'm also a leader and an organizer with COPA. I'm a recent graduate of UCLA where I studied political science. When I came back home, I found that this pandemic left my community with a great need for help with rental assistance and help paying back and landlords who also needed help because they have bills to pay as well. With COPA, I've been organizing virtual house meetings with supervisors like yourselves, council members with landlords as well so we can all work together to find what brings us together, not what brings us apart. We thank you for extending them, for hoping to extend the moratorium till September 30th. And also thank you for your support and hopefully providing the 1 million in rental assistance. Just so I'm clear, just to be clear, we don't have 1 million dollars. The county has 1 million dollars. We just wanna help people. We wanna help landlords. We wanna help each other, help families so we can all pay back rental assistance. We don't lose our homes and landlords have their income. I used to work in the restaurant industry where I don't have the luxury of having like jobs remotely and many of them had to go work into a restaurant because they could not afford to pay their rent. Exposing themselves to the virus, the family and the rest of our community elsewhere. But we have bills to pay. All of us have bills to pay. We want to continue to work with you guys and to help us in providing assistance for all our families in the county. Thank you so much for your time. We look forward to working with you guys in the future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning, Dr. Gale Newell speaking as health officer and as a community member. You've heard a lot from me about COVID-19 over the past six months and indeed COVID is the worst public health crisis in a generation. But there is a second pandemic impacting our county now. A pandemic that has ravaged our country for centuries, racism. There is no doubt about it. Racism is a public health crisis. Racism affects where people live, where they go to school, the quality of the air they breathe, their income and wealth, their personal safety, their access to food and healthcare and more. Racism actually hurts people. It kills people. Black women are nearly four times as likely to die of pregnancy related causes than white women. Black people are more likely than white people to experience high blood pressure, diabetes and stroke. And they're more likely to die at early ages of all causes. Black and brown patients experience worse health outcomes than their white counterparts in nearly every category, even as they move up the socioeconomic ladder. It is no coincidence that communities of color have been harder hit by COVID in case rates, hospitalizations and deaths. COVID has revealed stark inequities in our society. Inequities that have existed since the founding of this country but have been laid bare in recent months. This is the time of reckoning. Passing the resolution today, declaring racism as a public health crisis is a first step, but it is not enough. Moving forward, we must develop a clear plan of action backed by funding to support that plan. The government alliance on race and equity, GAIR, is one resource we could utilize. GAIR has seen success with advancing racial equity and government transformation with the following six strategies. User racial equity framework, build organizational capacity, implement racial equity tools, be data driven, partner with other institutions and communities and communicate and act with urgency. This is an urgent matter. It will be hard work to begin to unravel centuries of racism. This resolution is the first step of a long journey toward becoming anti-racist. Count me in as we travel that road together. Thank you. Thank you. My name is James Ewing Whitman. I'm glad still to be able to talk in front of all of you. Let's see, I can't talk about number nine vacation rentals. I can't talk about number eight local coastal program implementing ordinances. I can't talk about the B3 restriction on labor day. I may not talk about number 12, Dan Brothman. And I can't talk about the moratorium number seven on residential and commercial evictions. So I was awake or awakened on Saturday night to several things I had never experienced in my life before. I have spent over a year of my life backpacking in the high Sierras over 7,000 feet. I have spent hundreds of other days all over the world. And I've experienced at least a thousand thunder and lightning storms. But Saturday night, I experienced something I'd never seen before. I experienced horizontal lightning. And I experienced strikes that were close enough to me that I could count and I couldn't hear that thunder. Now I could go into detail about why that is and what caused it, but there's really no point. But I am probably going to speak on other subjects. So I guess I'm just glad that we can all stand here and talk. I know that we're not all going to be in agreement. I'm kind of used to that even in the circles that I do spend time in where I'd like to be in more agreement. So I'll speak further later. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Hi, Becky. Good morning. Thank you. Becky Steinbruner is in a rural Aptos. I want to protest this mask. It's very hard for me to breathe under stressful conditions and it actually harms my health. Your officer here and Mr. Heath directed him to insist that I do so even though I have a note from my doctor saying I should be wearing this for my health instead. So I protested. This is very hard. It's hard to breathe. I want to just speak on consent agenda item 55. I am really happy to see that the county is moving forward to do some underground utility installation in the county, especially for the purpose of improving fire, sorry, improving fire safety in the rural areas. This will go a long way to helping that and also reducing the need for down, firewire response and power outages in the county. I'm a little baffled though about what a utility district is. And it looks like the Public Works Department will be coming back to you in November with this, but $17 and a half million from PG&E as a work credit is I don't understand this. So I have communicated with Mr. Matt Machado. He's been very responsive, but I just don't understand this. I do support it though, and I'm very glad to see it's happening out in the rural areas where it's truly needed for fire protection. In that line, I want to thank you Supervisor Leopold for having the Telletown Hall meeting and Supervisor McPherson too with Assemblyman Mark Stone and State Commissioner Ricardo Laura. I was not able to hear the whole part. I tuned in at the usual time, six o'clock, but I did hear that there are pieces of legislation that are greatly needed to address the critical and mounting insurance cancellation notices to people in the rural areas. So I want to urge you to follow Commissioner Laura's advice about helping people. I'm not seeing a lot of that at the state level. In fact, there are two bills coming through now that would actually favor the insurance companies, SB 292. And I believe it's AB 2671. It may be 2761, I get, I'm not sure. But that would actually harm people's ability to have transparency with their policies and for the insurance companies to have to justify huge rate increases and cancellations. Finally, I'd like to speak to what a speaker said earlier about the lack of environmental planning in researching the county's website. The last time shown on the planning department's website, there was a public hearing for environmental planning was in 2014. It's very difficult for citizens to follow these actions and I'd like you to look into it. Thank you. Well, thank you for muting me. You're very considerate. Hi, I'm Judy Rosella Myers and I am a member of this community for many years since the mid-70s. And it's really interesting to see Santa Cruz County and city both who I always felt were on the leading edge of trying to solve problems in a different way. And I'm here to actually address the issue of number 10 about restricting the beaches for Labor Day. And I go to the beach all the time and find it very encouraging that I see people a lot out exercising and in the water and getting fresh air. And most of the time people are enjoying themselves a lot of positive energy in that environment. And I'm hoping of all hopes that if you wanna keep people away, maybe close Highway 17, but don't close the beach to the people that live here who moved here to enjoy this environment and to actually have a positive, hopeful set of circumstances where they can enjoy their friends and have a lot of fresh air and exercise in such a great, healthy set of circumstances, please, please do not close the beach ever again. I really would appreciate that. I appreciate all of you for trying to look out for all of our wellbeing and for actually standing up for us and our individual rights as citizens of Santa Cruz County. We live here because of some of the great decisions that you have made in the past. Please, please try and take us all into account. Thank you. You're welcome. Hi, Mary Lou Sams Wiley. I live out on Offer Traming. And I understand a few weeks ago you voted out the county's road clearing of the weeds and the trees that are overgrowing and crouching into the public right away. I almost took out a pedestrian that popped out behind overgrown acacia trees and such because it's a blind corner. I'm hoping that you've instituted another company to take this over to clear out the weeds, to cut back the trees and such because it is a major fire hazard for people to come in and twits that don't know will park on the dry weeds and their hot manifold will start the weeds on fire and then we have another major fire on hands. Also I'd like to request that you take away the tree removal permit fees and all that boondoggle that goes with it to remove the ukes and other hazardous fire trees along property lines and such because I don't know how it's gonna be an effective change to stop this and are you also gonna send out a notice to all the homeowners that they are now responsible to take off all the weeds along the county roads. Someone has to take care of this because we know what happens when Caltrans didn't clear off the weeds off the highway one by Traving Road when the person with the bad supposed catalytic converter started the fire. This is what happens when people don't take care of business and I've had to call Caltrans many times and my neighbors and we finally got someone to clear off the weeds along that portion of the freeway but it takes a lot and all that takes is preventative maintenance to prevent all of this. Appreciate it, thank you. Thank you. Hi, Thomas Conway. These lockdown measures are unnecessarily restrictive and not based on science. I have with me a white paper on the efficacy and safety review decades of studies on hydroxychloroquine and how it's been used to treat coronaviruses since the pandemic came out. It's been disparaged attached to the Trump brand predictably unfortunately to completely wipe it from the options of what we have to treat it. We were being held in lockdown until an experimental vaccine that has failed animal trials comes out to alter our DNA. I do not accept this and there's no meaningful way for me to speak to anyone on this because I continually ignored my efforts to try to reach out to the county. At this time I've emailed all of you guys and I've emailed all the health supervisors so you can't ignore me now. And there's just too much data to deny this. There's been so much fake science coming out, fake studies coming out showing that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work but there's just too much evidence now to deny this and anything denying that hydroxychloroquine with zinc, that's the most important thing, because that is what heals your immune system. You can use CoQ10 instead of hydroxychloroquine because all you need is something to shuttle zinc into the cells. This is based on science. And what's happening is that we're having a pharmaceutical takeover of our public health policy and vaccine manufacturers are telling us what to do. They're keeping us in unnecessary lockdowns using masks that don't work. Okay, I've emailed you reviews of peer reviewed studies showing that not even N95 masks prevent against viral respiratory infections. And I have a quote from the New England Journal of Medicine. Can I say that real quick? So the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said, it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. I emailed you that as well so you can check that out. Thank you. Thank you. Bye Marilyn. Thank you for that last comment. Yes, we have a pharmaceutical takeover of our public health policy. Who benefits from what's going on? And the pharmaceutical industry is a big one. Disinfectance is another one. Google, Zoom, billionaires are all profiting from all this. I wanna recommend that you see a couple of videos to elaborate on what Tom Conway said. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a group called Children's Health Defense and he was interviewed by Senator Ron Paul who himself is a medical doctor. And he was talking about all the damage from the policies of restriction that are taking place and he gave figures like for each percentage of an employment there are thousands more deaths, their deaths from loneliness, poverty, domestic abuse, all of which have been dramatically increased with this. If there were really a priority on public health and well-being, such policies that take the support system out from under people and cause starvation destruction of livelihoods that wouldn't take place when it's there ever been a real priority on public health and safety. The wireless microwaves that we're getting exposed to all the time, pesticides, just try to see. Are we have, are you do cut it to two minutes or three? I thought we had three minutes. That's not real quick, Ellen. Vote no on 10 and I would urge you have item 10 moved up or at a scheduled time. Last time many people were here to speak and left early and they couldn't talk on the mask issue. It didn't come on till way afternoon. You supervisor Caput have always listened to people. That's part of how you won your election is going door to door, seeing what the community wanted and listening carefully and trying to do what you could to help people listen to what people are saying this morning on number 10, et cetera. And I wanna pass around a picture of a little girl at the beach with the pale of Sam. She's adorable. If we had this picture today, it would be a mask child. The beaches are public and they belong to the public and this is what we should see. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm Monica McGuire, still a health coach, still bringing you everything I can about health, still offering my medical doctor husband and all the other complimentary and alternative care practitioners in this county who would gladly join a health expert panel in order to help you actually account for the truth of what is in this county of why we have low numbers of the care that people take in this county for their immune systems and how all of the mask wearing signs are harming people now in greater and greater numbers. If you read at all, you'll see periodontal disease is now on the rise. That's a very serious gum disease that creates bad breath and people are kind of laughing and saying, oh, it's mask mouth. Oh, too bad, they're getting bad breath. No, periodontal disease is a serious problem for anyone who's never worn a mask on a regular basis before to take a look if their breath starts to get bad, if anything starts to be strange, all the people getting acne under their masks in other places that are talking about it, if that's not happening in enough numbers here, people could just hopefully speak up and bring about this vital health information that somehow or another, you all continue to ignore just like you ignore the fantastic suggestions and offers of assistance from everyone in this county. I'm so continually bothered by the lack of inclusion. Where are you doing your reach out to find out what we need and want so that you actually represent us? I hear these town hall meetings on the phone and I'm grateful you're doing something, but where are the question and answer sessions so that people stop feeling that they have to decide about this on their own? That makes no sense. Average people, I'm a 20 year health coach. I don't have enough scientific background to explain this really well to people. Anyone thinking would ask more of you to do that job of bringing us together with experts we can talk to, but you haven't given us all the impression that we can do that request of you. Please do that part of your job now. Thank you for listening. Especially Mr. County. Good to see you. Okay. Chair. Yes. Director Mimi Hall is on teams and would like to have make a comment now for during public comment. Mimi, now would be your time. All right, thank you very much. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, we can. Yes, we can. As health officer Dr. Gail Newell so eloquently put it, racism is a significant driver of the social determinants of health and the barrier to health equity and it's definitely a public health crisis. Continued exposure to discrimination and violence create toxic stress for our black communities and it has impacted generations of children and families. We know it has lasting effects on health, development, wellbeing and opportunity and this is evidenced by landmark study on adverse childhood experiences, also known as ACEs. Structural racism creates institutions including those within government that perpetuate these inequities through implicitly racist policies and practices. It's imperative that we recognize that systemic racism not only exists but that it continues to impact the daily lives of black Americans as well as communities of color. I agree with Dr. Newell that today's resolution is not enough but I thank the board for taking the first step and stand with the health services agency in full support through a commitment to a transformation of our policies, practices, programs and services with Dr. Newell's support as well. I'd also like to acknowledge the Public Health Division successful application and award for the ACEs aware initiative grant. Adverse childhood experiences are linked with the four health outcomes and this effort, a partnership with the Health Improvement Partnership Council, first five and the Human Services Department recognizes disparities, it values equity, collaboration and community resiliency. It's also a vital part of our MediCal programs response to the COVID-19 emergency. It will help us reach MediCal providers who serve diverse and often at risk populations throughout Santa Cruz County. In the words of California Surgeon General, Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, this work is critical now more than ever given the stress so many Californians are experiencing as a result of COVID-19 and the role of racial injustice as a risk factor for toxic stress. A trauma informed healthcare workforce is vital for helping our state heal. And so please that the board has taken the action that is before you today and appreciate your support. Thank you. Thank you. There's nobody in the community room, but we do have a number of web comments that I will give each web comment two minutes to talk or for me to read it. The first comment is from Satay Orion. I have been feeling confused by the data reported on the COVID-19.ca.gov state website, which lists hospitalization data by county. I saw that these numbers combined suspected and positive COVID hospitalizations without giving any further information. I was happy to discover this additional information on another website, which includes the breakdown of suspected and positive hospitalizations. What I discovered was of the 22 listed hospitalizations, only 10 of these were confirmed COVID positive. This seems to be a serious inflation of data. No definition of the word suspected is given. I did find additional very troubling information on the CDC website, which gives all the possible situations where a hospitalized person may be classified as COVID suspected, which includes any acute respiratory illness and contact with a probably are confirmed COVID case within the past 14 days. Any non-confirmed COVID cases should never be included in this data. Please share this information with the community on the County COVID informational website. I have also, I also continue to be confused by the lack of information given about the two most recent deaths attributed to COVID. In the past, information was immediately shared. I have requested this information from the coroner's office, which I understand is public record. I am wondering why this information is not being shared with the public, despite immediately reporting two additional deaths. I continue to ask the questions, which are never answered. Where is the evidence? Where is the emergency? When I look around, I see no emergency except for devastation that is happening to our community as more and more businesses are forced to close. As more and more people are out of work, you are personally liable for what is happening. I hope you continue to remember that person had one more comment, but she's ran out of time. So the next web comment comes from Anita Salem. Thank you. This is regards to the resolution of ending, or demanding that racism is a public health crisis. Thank you, County Council for recognizing the tight linkage between racism and public health. As a longtime County resident, I fully support efforts to correct this at an institutional level. My support includes a willingness to increase my tax burden to support equitable treatment for all of our citizens. Thank you for your initiative. The next comment comes from Nico Delios. I have supported the declaration of racism as public health crisis. The impacts of racism are deadly and our service providers need to recognize their own biases and racism before they can dismantle it. Service providers are in place to provide equitable and safe services to our diverse communities. Next comment comes from Tara Gusta. I support the Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz County to pass the resolution declaring racism as a public health crisis. Next comment comes from Janice Vakaro. The vision of Santa Cruz County Health Service Agency states that Santa Cruz County is a healthy, safe and thriving community for all. It's mission to promote and ensure a healthy community and environment by providing education, outreach and comprehensive health services is an inclusive and accessible manner. Because we know racism to be a social determinant of health and studies link racism to adverse health outcomes, it is insincere to continue to promote the vision and mission without acknowledging and addressing the impact of that systematic racism has on the health and quality of life for the BIPOC community. On behalf of the NAACP, Santa Cruz County branch and the black community at large, we call you to declare racism as a public health crisis as a means to dismantle systematic racism in our county. The next comment comes from Debbie King. Also in regards to the racism resolution, I hold heartedly support the resolution. Thank you for making our county a health and safe place for all humans. And I believe as I was reading one more came in, hold on please. And that is it, thank you. Thank you. Action on the, we have no more comments, right? Action on the consent agenda. Do board members have comments or additional direction for the consent agenda? Supervisor Leopold. Thank you, chair and good morning. I appreciate all the comments that were made during oral communication. And I have a couple of comments to make about items on the board as well as some, at least one additional direction. First of all, I'd just like to acknowledge on item 20, the report about the inspiring community donations in support of the county's COVID-19 response. I know the two volunteers that have been working on this, David Harnish and Sanjay Kondawal, the efforts to engage the community, to provide funds, to create masks, to help out the county during our great time of need is a great example of a community coming together to help each other out. And I just want to express the hard work of everyone who was involved with this, our EOC and all the volunteers who helped make it happen. On item number 25, which was so eloquently discussed by both our health officer and our health services agency director, I'm not sure that I could put a, to say it more eloquently than they did. I think that we sometimes think that we're immune from racism here in Santa Cruz. We vote progressively, we think progressively, but we know very clearly that racism is still a part of our community. The effects of racism on communities of colors, Black, Indigenous, people of color is real. We have seen it during the COVID-19 crisis, but there is a host of other health statistics that make that case very clearly. And acknowledging this as a public health crisis that we could change the lives of people by changing some of the way in which we do programming is also very clear to me. Declaring a public health crisis to me is only the first step that we need to take to address systematic racism in Santa Cruz County. We need to think about using our platform here as a board of supervisors, our commissions, and the work of all of our agencies in this institution to look closely at ways in which implicit bias might be affecting their decisions to think about the programming that we offer to ensure that we're reaching out to the diverse parts of our community. The resolution directs our institution to look both inward, to look at those issues of bias, and also outward in terms of its programs and offerings. Today we are taking a first step. It's not the last step, but it's an important step. And I wanna thank our health services agency for being leaders and always looking at the issues of equity for strongly supporting this resolution. I wanna thank my colleague, Supervisor Coonerty for co-sponsoring this with me. And I wanna add one additional direction to direct the health services agency and the human services department to join the government alliance on race and equity on behalf of the County of Santa Cruz. There are just a couple others that I wanna comment on. On item number 39, I appreciate the work of our planning department to use our 2016 home grant to increase tenant-based rental assistance. As we've heard clearly this morning that there is an incredible need out in our community, especially at this time. On item number 51, I'd like to thank the public works department for their work on the emergency repairs on Soquel San Jose Road. On item number 53, accepting the subdivision map for the Habitat for Humanity project. This project was started many years ago. And the fact that we're at this point is exciting to see this project move forward. Lastly, I wanna acknowledge the leadership of the public works department on item number 55. The idea of changing the way in which we think about using our rule 20A projects to me is really important and marks a big shift in how we look at the needs of our county. During the many decades, we've been using it for beautification projects to improve sight lines. But now recognizing the danger through climate change and the lack of investment in resources from PG&E, that the danger that our mountain communities feel, it seems like important time to make these changes, dissolving one district and creating new districts in different parts of the county so we can underground utilities, improve reliability and increase safety. I don't think that would have happened without Director Machado's leadership on that and thoughtfulness about how to put it together. It took him and his staff several months to make it happen with PG&E and I'm glad we're taking this step today. It will really help in our community. So thank you. Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Chair. And also thank you to Supervisor Leopold for your comments on item 25. I'm in complete agreement on that. I also wanted to thank county staff for their work on item 33 in regards to the active transportation program and a grant application to try and improve bike and pedestrian safety in the South County in particular Watsonville, which as Supervisor Caput knows has really experienced a lot of issues in regards to both pedestrian and bike safety in that area in some time. So I appreciate health's lead on that. I also wanted to do something that isn't on the agenda, but I just wanted to acknowledge it today. It is the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment. And I think it goes in hand in hand and some of the comments on item 25. And it's just an important thing to remember that we have a long way to go. It's been a hundred years since women were officially given the right to vote. But as with item 25, we have a long way to go until we see true equity. Thank you, Chair. Supervisor Coonerty. Hi, thank you, Mr. Chair. Like Supervisor Friend, I want to take this moment and recognize the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment. It's important to remember during this time when democracy is being threatened by the, at the federal level and local levels of government that democracy always comes at it with struggle and effort and mobilization and by people demanding their right to vote. And a hundred years ago today, women got their right to vote on a passage, slim passage by the Tennessee legislature of the 19th Amendment. A lot of items to comment on, but I'll be quick. Item number 20, which is the donated PPE. It's just so heartening to see so many small businesses and individuals and big businesses and nonprofits who came together to get the equipment necessary to protect our health workers and frontline workers. And I want to thank everyone in the community who stepped up. Item number 25, I want to thank John Leopold for bringing this forward. I think it's, as everyone mentioned, it's a first step when it's important context and effort that we need to make to undo the legacy of racism in this country. On item number 30, Jasmine and Hera's appointment to the Justice and Gender Task Force. Just want to take a moment and recognize Jasmine. We went to high school together and she's been an amazing county employee and community member. And we're lucky that she's willing to serve on the Justice and Gender Task Force. Item number 32, which was mentioned by Mimi Hall, the ACEs effort, and this is an important way to really recognize and help children have an equal opportunity in life and recognize the barriers that they face starting out and really targeting services to help them. And I want to appreciate both our county and first five for bringing that forward. Item number 37, which is a delay the potential children's mental health facility or crisis response center next to our current facility. I understand these are tough budget times. This is a, but this is a really important community need. And I hope that as things stabilize in the years to come, we can make this a real priority to serve what is just a tremendous unmet need in our community. Item number 39, which is rental assistance to families in transition. I'm happy that in addition to the rental assistance and utility assistance we're doing today that we've found this funding for the families that are with families in transition, which is just an amazing program that helps stabilize families when in crisis and to have this additional rental assistance for them is just important in these challenging times. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Supervisor McRusen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues, especially on items 25 as it relates to the 19th amendment that we're celebrating today. I want to also repeat my thanks to item number 20 to all the community members and organizations who have donated to this effort since the pandemic response began. It really is another demonstration of how our community comes together in times of crisis. And I can't help but also specify how important it has been for our members of our county staff and our county family who have put together extra hours to see this come to fruition and to help so many people in need. On items 21 and 20 or 21 and 48 related to the Felton Discovery Park and Branch Library. I want to thank members of the community who fought so hard for both the library and the park to be built in Felton. One of its kind in the United States, there are more coming, I know, but I want to especially recognize the value and evidence of the Felton Library friends who kept alive this branch, the library branch, which was closing at one time for their significant financial investment as well as a time investment to make these, both the park and the library become a reality. Our library, the public works departments and parks departments sort of be commended for helping in this effort. It has taken a long time and while we were able to celebrate the opening of the library some time ago, a couple of months, so several months ago now, we will have to officially wait to celebrate the parks opening, which who knows when we can do that with certainty, but the park is open to the public and so enjoy it to the best of your ability and it is a tremendous gem for the Santa Rosa Valley and the Felton community in particular. On item number 28, regarding Senate Bill 1410 by Senator Anacobieiro of Salinas regarding evictions and repayment plan. I want to thank Supervisor Leopold for signing onto this request with me for support. We really do need a statewide plan to address the needs of tenant and property owners alike. We have done some actions ourselves, but based on the sharp increase of people seeking jobless benefits and other financial support in Santa Cruz County and throughout the state, this is an effort to prevent homelessness through a voluntary agreement. And I want to stress voluntary agreement between tenants and landlords to repay back rent to the state and make the landlords hold at the same time. I want to thank Senator Acobieiro for bringing this forward with her colleagues in the legislature in Sacramento. And I hope that it's going to pass before the August 31st deadline, which is quickly approaching. On item number 38, the Santa Margarita Groundwater Management Agency. I just want to say that along with my fellow Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency board member, Supervisor Leopold, how important it is that the county has a seat at the table as we plan for the future sustainability of the Santa Margarita Basin, which is principally in the San Lorenzo Valley. The staff and consultants and board members are doing a great job to stay on top of the process. Despite meeting these new meeting protocols, it'll be well worth the effort when we complete the plan on time to the state in the early 2022. This is a complicated issue. And I just encourage any members of the public they can find out more about this by going to smgwa.org. And finally, not on the agenda, fire season is here and it's becoming a sad reality in our community. I especially want to thank the fire teams that are doing what they can to do their most and best. And they do an excellent job at it in a crisis situation. There's an issue with water up in the Davenport area in particular with a fire hydrant. But my understanding is that they can correct that so that the people of Davenport will not be left without water. But thank you to the fire teams throughout our county and throughout the state of California. Here we go again, it's a scary situation. But thank you to the fire teams that we have here and throughout California. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome. And I'll just comment on item number 30. I want to welcome Yasmin Nahara to the commission on justice and gender as an at large representative of the Latino community. Thank you, Yasmin. And if we have a motion or yes. I would move the amended consent agenda. Do we have a second or? Supervisor Friend, I believe seconded. Yes. Okay, roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. We'll now move to the regular agenda starting with item number seven, consider adoption of urgency ordinance amending Santa Cruz County code chapter 8.48 to place a new temporary moratorium on residential and commercial evictions arising from substantial income loss and out of pocket medical expenses related to the COVID-19 pandemic through September 30th, 2020 as outlined in the memorandum of supervisor Leopold and supervisor McPherson. Okay. Well, chair, I'll just introduce this and my colleague might have some remarks as well. Our board moved early in March to impose a eviction moratorium recognizing the loss of income and jobs for so many people here in Santa Cruz. I believe that the week that we took that first action there were 8,000 new requests for unemployment in Santa Cruz County, whereas just a month before it was only 150. And so at that time we set a sunset date of May 31st because we didn't know what was gonna happen after our action, the state judicial council took action to impose a statewide eviction moratorium. They made a decision this past week to end that on September 1st. It doesn't mean that the crisis has gone away. Today's action would extend an eviction moratorium through September 30th. It is our hope as pointed out by my colleague supervisor McPherson that action in the state legislature will create a statewide response to provide resources for people to be able to stay in their homes, the best tool to prevent homelessness in the state of California. This action that we take today will allow us to put on hold until the legislature takes that action. And I look forward to the adoption by my colleagues. Okay, thank you. Supervisor McPherson, you want to comment? Yes, thank you, chair. And I would thanks Supervisor Leopold for joining me in this effort and to the county council for monitoring the recent activity by the state judicial council. While their legislative fixes in the works, as I mentioned, the consent agenda, we need to take some action, I believe today to protect our tenants affected by the COVID-19 until there's more clarity from the state as a whole. And that statewide action, whether it comes from the legislature or the governor needs to look at for tenants and property owners, many of whom have mortgages to pay, many landlords also really value their renters. The majority of them for sure, and they have been very cooperative, I think, in this effort and we don't want to let them go to the extent that we want to go to the extent we can to help them as well as they need to pay off their mortgages and so forth. And lastly, as mentioned in March, when we first passed the temporary moratorium, this is not a rent holiday, this is an emergency ordinance to protect the renters from eviction and homelessness to address that issue at the same time, and we encourage renters to work with their landlords and vice versa on terms for repayment. So I am very, very hopeful that a state solution is coming in the next two weeks by the end of this month. And so I think this is a valid way to address this issue on a temporary basis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Any other comments from board members, friend or community? Thank you, Mr. Chair, Supervisor Friend. I do have one additional request and see if it would be amenable to those that are bringing forward the item. We have heard from COPA and others about and I recognize the board action just now in support of Senator Caballero's item, but I do think it would make sense to provide additional direction to have staff come back with the possibility of a six or 12 month repayment program similar to what they have in Watsonville, Santa Clara County and Los Angeles County, at least the exploration of it so we can see whether such a thing would work in Santa Cruz County. I think the concern as we can all know is that even at the end of the moratorium, you end up with a balloon payment that really makes it pretty infeasible for people. So a turn to Supervisor Leopold and McPherson if they'd be amenable to additional direction that doesn't directly impact this item, but would request that staff come back with whether such a thing would be feasible. I would not have a problem with that and I'll be happy offline to share the discussions we've had about it, but I would see that as a friendly addition. As do I. The timing of it all, we could do it as soon as maybe, if not the first week in September or meeting the second week and then come back with the options of six month and 12 month, I guess. I don't know, we could do it either way, but I think we should address this immediately and it's all gonna depend on what the state does as well. Maybe Council has something. Thank you, Supervisor. I would recommend because SB 1410 is it currently made it out of the last policy read committee and I think two of the other bills did as well. There's a lot happening right now on this issue over the next couple of weeks. I think we're gonna get a lot more clarity on a statewide scheme that's going to provide the relief that the board is considering. So I would recommend at the second meeting in September to your board with some options and with an update on what's happening at the state level. I would be not recommending that the board get ahead of the state on this issue because what the board does may end up conflicting with what the state does and vice versa. So when it comes time to make a motion, I'll try to incorporate that. Maybe you wanna check with Supervisor Coonerty. Supervisor Coonerty. I have nothing to add. I'm very supportive of this and appreciate the efforts and I'm hoping that there will be a statewide response, but I think this is a good interim step to protect our local renters. Thank you. Okay, we did a motion, right? Well, we probably have to go out to a public comment. Public comment. Hi, Marilyn. Hi, on the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote and a lot of deaths, a lot of struggle, a lot of work. And we still don't have much voice or power and decision making. And I am struck by the hypocrisy of this board. We just heard all of you comment on consent agenda items and not one voice of a woman. Why? Because you censored, you adopted a censorship policy on consent agenda items aimed according to emails I have. Jared's about to rent. And Becky Steinbruner and me. Do not silence me. I am a woman. We have struggled and your censorship is really despicable and does not help this county. Regarding, and that's why anybody from the public, you notice there's nobody from the public commenting on consent agenda items as we have done forever with board of supervisors agendas. Regarding this item, I think it's, the words sound good, but as you talked, of course, there's a balloon payment and how can people pay when their livelihoods have intentionally been destroyed? This is, we need public housing. We need guaranteed rights that are actually implemented, right to employment, right to housing. This is for a short term. We're in a mass of depression and over this virus that penetrates mass and is part of life, what is going on here? So I look at this as meaningless, the homeless situation has increased dramatically and will. And it's by these policies under a supposed public health crisis with this virus it's just really, really disturbing. We need genuine support of public wellbeing. This doesn't do it. I'm sorry. Thank you. How do you do? My name's Everdowns. I live in the fifth district. A couple of things I'd like to point out real quick is like in yesterday's paper, there was an article about all this worry about the homeless getting all gonna be decimated because of this virus and it turns out it wasn't true. So there was a lot of premises about homelessness and evictions that don't hold as much water. And today's paper has County has taken off the watch list. So we're turning the corner here. We have been pretty exemplary all along. And so how big is the problem? That's point number one. You know, Mr. McPherson just said that something to the effect of tenants and landlords working things out. Well, that's not always the case. It certainly isn't the case as this landlord can point out. And first of all, you're just kicking the can down the road here. And you're doing it at the expense of some of us that can't afford it. So I had my day in court back on the 27th. A judge listened to all the evidence and said, Mr. Downs, you have a right to have your property back and you have a right to have all that rent. Not one penny was paid once the states and this board and others said, hey, we'll have a little moratorium on evictions. Some tenants took that to say, good, I don't pay a penny to this guy. And now they're walking away. I've got a tenant that is, I have an eviction order that the sheriff's office won't enforce. And why is that? Well, it's because of apparently County council, I don't know if you personally decided that the safe way to do it is not do any evictions because they might violate some sort of code on the California judicial code. But that's ended. So there was some light and I can get this person out who is, he's not a family. He's not a heart. He worked for the required people that continue to work. Well, he quit his job and his collecting was collecting a lot of money and banking it for who knows what. So in your provisions, you make no provisions for people like myself. My wife and I are in very fixed income social security and we've lost by losing the income of this rental, that's one third of our income. And there's no government agencies out there helping us. And I've heard this $1 million, well, I didn't see a penny of that. You know, we're looking around trying, we have bills piling up because we don't have a tenant that's not going to pay. And he's made indications he's not going to pay even though he's ordered to this, you know, worrying about it, all you're doing is you're putting some of those people down the road and who's going to foot the bill is the landlords. They're gonna, these people are gonna walk away from that. You need to give that some consideration when you make these bills. Thank you. Morning, my name is James Ewing Whitman. What to say about this? I really like kicking the can down the road. You know, what is this gonna extend for the renters another 45 days at the most? You know, I haven't read extensively what all this entails. Some of the other supervisors I really thank for saying how is this affecting homeowners? Because how is it affecting homeowners? How is it affecting their ability to pay their mortgages and what's gonna happen to these homeowners? How is it affecting their abilities to pay their property taxes? And what is the future plan? It's like responsibility seems to be being kicked down the road further and further. And although I'd like to talk about the future plan, it's just not very polite, but I appreciate some things going on in these rooms, but, and I am appreciative that some of the supervisors are saying, what about the homeowners? What about all the businesses that have been destroyed? Do this hoax. This is an absolute hoax. What is it about? It's about eugenics. And this is, you know, wear the mask, take the vaccine. So I hope people start listening and doing their own research because we're all in this lifeboat together. And some people are profiting greatly. And most people aren't. So thank you. Thank you. Chair Caput. I think there's one more. Oh, no. Okay. Sheriff Hart would like to speak on public comment. So Sheriff Hart, now would be your time. Thank you. Good morning, Board. Jim Hart, Sheriff Corner. And I just wanted to give you a brief background because some of you may have been hearing that there are evictions that are still occurring. And so when the State Judicial Council issued the moratorium on evictions, there's a carve out for public safety emergencies. And so our local courts are having exparte hearings and are granting eviction orders based on public safety emergencies. When our county declared a state of emergency, I reassigned my civil staff to COVID related details and we didn't do any evictions through the end of July. The court started growing impatient with us about not doing evictions on these public safety emergencies. In late June, I had a meeting with the presiding judge, the court administrator, County Council, myself. And at that time, I was told that I had to follow the law and evict people under this public safety emergency when the exparte hearings were granted. And so in late July, I reinstated my civil staff and there have been evictions that were ordered by the local courts. And some of them were three or four months old. But so the point is, is that there are some evictions. I don't like it. I think it shows a real disconnect between our court system and the community. But at the end of the day, as the chief law enforcement officer of the county, I do have to follow the law and I do have to follow the court's orders. And so that is occurring and will continue to occur as long as that language still exists. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other comments? There's nobody in the community room and we have no web comments. Chair, I would move the recommended actions and direct County Council to come back at our second meeting in September with a report about the payback schedule. It'll be fine. We have a second. Second. Okay. I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. Person? Aye. Chairman Caput? Aye. The motion passes unanimously. And that will now take us to item number eight. Did you see the note about- So Chair Caput, we're going to go to item nine. Thank you. It's missing out of my- So we're in item nine? We're at nine. Okay. Yeah. I could read it in as a chair if you'd like me to. Consider approval and the concept of ordinance amending the Santa Cruz County code section. 13.10.694 vacation rentals and use charts within sections 13.10.312.1310.322. 3.10.352 and 13.10.372 to implement amendments to 13.10.694. Local coastal program amendments require review and certification by California coastal, by the California coastal commission and make findings of exemption from the California environmental quality act, CEQA adopt resolution schedule the ordinance for a second reading and final adoption on September 1, 2020 and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. Questions? See, we all staff play the presentation. Good morning. Thank you, chair Caput and members of the board. I'm Jocelyn Drake with the planning department. So this item, the vacation when our ordinance amendment package was most recently before your board for consideration on June 30th. At that meeting, the board recommended staff make some minor revisions to the ordinance. And as directed, the recommended provisions have been drafted and incorporated into the ordinance. So to just go over those recommendations quickly, the recommendations made by the board on June 30th were to eliminate the overall percentage caps in the designated areas, the live oak designated area or the Loda, the C Cliff, Aptos, La Selva Beach designated area or the newly named Salzda and the Davenport, Swanton designated area or DASDA. And to revise and lower the numerical cap, apply to vacation rentals in the Loda and to strengthen and clarify the violation section, section L in the ordinance. So at your meeting on the 30th, the consensus of the board was that the retention of percentage caps for the hosted rentals in the designated areas was ambiguous and that switching to a numerical cap for both vacation and hosted rentals would be more straightforward. Thus, the percentage caps have been eliminated in the work and numerical caps included for hosted rentals. The caps for hosted rentals reflect the current number of hosted rental permits in each of the designated areas currently. The revised caps are as follows. In the Loda, we're looking at 220 vacation rentals and 18 hosted rentals for a total of 238 rentals. In the Salzda, we're looking at 241 vacation rentals, 45 hosted rentals for a total of 286 rentals. And in the DASDA, we're looking at three vacation rentals for hosted rentals and that's a total of seven rentals. We'll see that in the package. Also at the meeting of the 30th, the board directed staff to revise the recommended numerical cap in the Loda for the vacation rentals. In the earlier amendment package, staff had recommended a numerical cap of 259 vacation rental permits. The board recommended revising the cap to 220 vacation rental permits. This revision has been reflected in the amended ordinance. One section of the ordinance that has deservedly received a great deal of attention throughout this process is the violation section, which is section L. At your last meeting, the board members identified a few areas that would benefit from additional work in clarifying the enforcement triggers and streamlining of the enforcement process. In response, staff has revised section L to remove the previously proposed staff level for administrative review process. In addition, staff has revised the section to clarify that a violation of any of the requirements to obtain a vacation rental permit or of the vacation rental regulations or if any other regulation is outlined in the counting code, may be grounds for denial of a new vacation rental permit or a renewal permit or serve as grounds for revocation of an existing permit. Further, as reflected in the revised section, if more than two documented significant violations occur within a 12 month period, a permit shall be noticed for a level five hearing for consideration of revocation. The revised ordinance also references a newly created block map. This map was developed to bring consistency and transparency to the delineation of blocks in the designated areas. The block maps are depicted on a newly created land use layer named designated area blocks. Here's an example of what that block map would look like. It's a section from the LODA. You can see they're numbered and clearly delineated. As reflected in the revised ordinance, property owners will have the ability to apply for a block map adjustment. Staff has developed criteria against which block map adjustments shall be analyzed organized by a more favorable and less favorable in supporting the adjustment request. The following criteria are considered more favorable. Access is taken from the street associated with the block to which reassignment is being requested and or the mailing address is associated with the block to which reassignment is being requested and or the front doors associated with the block to which reassignment is being requested and or the parcel in question qualifies as a remainder parcel and the block to which the adjustment is requested is at least is at less than 20% capacity. The following criteria are considered less favorable in supporting an adjustment request. Access is not taken from the street associated with the block to which reassignment is being requested. And or the mailing address is not associated with the block to which reassignment is being requested. And or the block map adjustment would cross an intersecting street thereby making it inconsistent with the definition of block. And the block to which the adjustment is requested is near 20% capacity or the adjustment would result in a block that is over 20% capacity. A request for block map adjustment may only be made upon making the finding that the adjustment is warranted because the blocking question is incongruous. And such adjustment will not result in over concentration of parcels with vacationals on the assigned block. So this concludes my presentation. At this time staff is recommending that the board hold a public hearing approving concept the ordinance amending Santa Cruz County Code Section 1310694 and the associated use charts. Adopt the associated resolutions for coastal commission LCP amendments and the block map and direct the clerk of the board to schedule the ordinance for second reading and final adoption at the board meeting of September 1st, 2020. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, I just have some questions if that's okay. Thank you for the presentation Ms. Drake. Appreciate all the work that's gone into this. I had a question about the block map. This is obviously a new tool that we're using and I think it makes sense. And wanna consider how we make those changes and when we can make those changes. If the board thought that the block map should change for various reasons, could we put something on our agenda and change that block map? Yes, definitely you can. Okay. Yep. And I know one of the things that we've been trying to wrestle this latest version of the Vacation Rental Ordinance to get to the next stage which is to the Coastal Commission. I'm very glad that we have made serious reductions in the number of Vacation Rentals. I'm very glad that we have strengthened the violation language to make it easier for people who have problem homes to be able to get some action on that. I think that the block map piece will be a new thing that we're gonna, that we'll find in its use and we might need to make some changes of that as it goes along. I think it's gonna be important that when block maps are changed in the planning department that the supervisor's office is made aware of before decision is made. So we have a chance to weigh in on that. I think that the impact of Vacation Rentals have on neighborhoods is real. We've, this board has taken action over the years to find some controls so they have less of an impact. This is our toughest measure to date. And I wanna make sure that the block maps don't create new systems in which they create problems in neighborhoods. So I'm glad to hear that that would happen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Drake. As always for your patient, we've added this County Council. I think we've made this much better than our current ordinance and a lot of these changes are long overdue in regards to protecting the affordable housing stock in regards to ensuring that problem houses are either revoked for their right to have a permit or not renewed moving forward to also providing the community with a sense of what the total number can be and an understanding of where growth can or can't occur moving forward. These are all pretty significant changes that are appropriate, especially with a lot of the challenges that we face within the housing market and a lot of the lack of tools that we've had for addressing problematic properties. I know that at Code Enforcement staff and the sheriff and others have felt hamstrung by a limited ability to address it. Once somebody's been given a permit realistically, there are very few things that we can do to address those issues. This very clearly outlines the ability for the County now to address problem situations that allows for neighborhood review for new applications in a way that in a process that never occurred before. And I believe protects the affordable housing stock for the community moving forward in a way that our current ordinance does not. So I'm very supportive of this and look forward to moving this on to the next stage but also very, very, very appreciative of the planning department's work and modifications over the last few months. Any other comments? Supervisor McPherson. No comment. Okay, Supervisor Coonerty. No comment on support above this effort and also want to thank the planning department for their work and look forward to getting this through the Coastal Commission and implement it to preserve our housing stock. Put it up for public comment on item number nine. You probably want to open the public hearing. Oh, there's not a public hearing. Right, okay. I apologize. Board members, it is regrettable you've not made the key modification that's required to this flawed vacation rental ordinance. Recall the effects of your 20% vacation rental density per block in Live Oak. Please note, the red puss jewels on this measles map. The coastal concentration of them has upended and despoiled our residential community. It converts our zone residential sections into raucous hospitality business fund zones. The two strat plan elements used to justify County's ordinance modifications show it fails the rationality and legal basis. Element one, attainable housing, narrative through regulation of vacation rentals in the County, attainable housing is preserved and sustained with one of every five houses per block taking off the rental market and convertible to party palaces. How does that promote attainable housing? County is severely bereft of affordable housing, teachers, healthcare workers, commute in ordinent distances. This ordinance as proposed fails that element. Element two, dynamic economy focus area, quote, allowing vacation rentals in County contributes to a vibrant and inclusive community. The element title is somewhat misleading and the narrative proves the ordinance is a falsehood. Economic focus for whom? Have you set aside a fund for lost value to compensate a home seller who must disclose to a potential buyer that County sanctioned five bedroom mega party palaces is their future next door neighbor? Vacation renters are not community members. They're here for a weekend gone. Leaving behind nothing of community value. They are not here cloistering themselves while writing the next great American novel. No, they're here to party. Is that your definition of contributing to a vibrant and inclusive community? The ordinance modification fails a basic governmental role. Coastal community governments from Carmel through Seal Beach protect their residential constituents from community disruptive businesses while providing appropriate locales for vacationers. It's time you do likewise. Please end and reverse this community despoliation now. Reduce that per black density under 5%. Thank you. Thank you. We have any other? We have one person. I think there's someone else here. Mr. Okay, there we go. Well, we've come a long way in the last nine years. So thank you so much for these changes. I'm writing really to support the changes. And I think there are a number of changes here that are really important. First of all, the timing of this is important. Right now we're in the same position we were when this started out. Low savings rate, low mortgage rates. Perfect environment for somebody to buy a house in the live Oak area and turn it into a vacation rental. Also the enforcement provisions are much strengthened. We've lived next to a party house. The thanks of this has calmed down slowly, slowly but surely we get good night's sleep. And I think that's important to neighborhoods too. These regulations make it much clearer and how to do it. And we know when something comes in, something may happen, which is really kind of a refreshing change. The other aspect were the block maps. And I sent around the information to all our neighborhood groups. Nobody had any comments except me. And I think partly what happened to our little block is when you look at the aerial map, it looks like the street goes through. Well, it doesn't. 1312, 1313 and 1314 Prospect Street are on a 12 foot wide little street privately maintained. It's not a county street. What I would like you to consider is before we go through all this process to look at creating our own unique block. As it is right now, the way the map to set up, we could end up with three vacation rentals on this 12 foot wide street. And I think in the future, that'd be a problem. None of us are considering selling, but I think for future homeowners, that would be a great change. I thought at first it was kind of selfish to ask for this, but then I looked and there are other small streets and I named some of them in the letter. One of them is Johans Beach Drive and the other one is the end of 19th Avenue. All of them have three or four houses. This is three houses, very limited access. The garbage truck barely makes it down. To think of three vacation rentals on that street is crazy. Also the street doesn't go through and it's been that way, as I understand it for 50 years. We've lived there 31 years and it was blocked before we arrived. So I would ask just in kind of prevent confusion, none of our neighbors care it one way. We're all gonna live there, but in the future this could be a big problem and I'd like to avoid it now. But again, in summary, this is such a vast change over what I saw eight, nine years ago. Our first hearing, people were yelling at us. Thank you for your measles map. That's great. We can sleep at night. So that's a big improvement. And for those of you who represent districts that don't have too many of these, bless you because you don't get all the people like us calling and complaining when nothing happens. Now maybe something can happen. So thank you so much. I know you've had a busy day in many issues before you. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. We have a couple of people in the community room. Becky, now is your chance. Thank you. Good to see you. Thank you. Thank you. Can you hear me? This is Becky Steinbrenner. We can hear you. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Thank you. My name is Becky Steinbrenner. I live in rural Aptos, but I have been to many of these meetings and notably the Housing Advisory Commission meeting when the issue of hosted rentals first came up in the county. What I see is a dramatic drop in the number of hosted rentals, which are a different sort of an animal. But what I heard from people at that Housing Advisory Commission meeting is that there are people who really rely on this for their income occasionally. And would not rent a room permanently for anyone. But they depend on the extra income occasionally at property tax time. So I see the number of hosted rentals has been greatly reduced. And I'd like you to explain that and address that. I also think that because I have heard various vacation rental owners come before you and try to entreat upon you the necessity of having transparent documentation with their Airbnb or whatever the platform is. Some platforms like Airbnb have worked out a guaranteed agreement with the county to automatically pay the county the transient occupancy tax, which you really depend on to balance the budget. But not all of them do. And that is not always transparent to the owners of the property. I have asked before that you write into this that all platforms be required to automatically enter into an agreement with the county, such as what you, the county, have done with Airbnb to ensure that the platform is paying the TOT directly to the county. I also feel that it should be upon the supervisors to help monitor this thing. I think it should not be incumbent upon the people in the neighborhoods to file complaints, to have their voices heard. I would like to see written into this that supervisors shall meet on a yearly basis with the neighborhoods affected in these block maps. And finally, I would like to have an explanation what remainder parcel is in the consideration of block maps. That was not explained. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Any other comments? Is there any other comments from the community room? No, that is the chair have it. There are no web comments. Chair, I just want to ask a question of council. The question that Mr. Honk brought up about changing the block map, could we do that and still pass this for our first reading today? Yes, you could do that because the block map is adopted by resolution, not by ordinance. And so yes, you could do that. Okay. I appreciate that information. One of the things I know that we've been trying to do is move this forward. I also serve on a CSAC committee with the coastal commission who's looking at short-term rentals. And this is a huge issue up and down the coast. It has been for years. The coastal commission has a lot of control because the vast majority of these rentals are in the coastal zone. And so they have looked at our ordinance as a model ordinance, and one in which they've encouraged other communities to adopt. I've had some conversation with them about what we're gonna do here and I'm hopeful that they will still see it, especially now that we've tightened some of the controls so residential neighborhoods are not impacted. This did make a difference when we first put it into place. They should not be party palaces that are disrupting neighborhoods. There should be effective enforcement and language that allows these violators to lose their ability to rent properties. And I'm glad that we're taking this step today. And I do wanna see this move forward. I would like to move the recommended actions with the change to the block map as specified here to make prospect 13, 12, 13 and 14, its own block. Second. Good. This is a roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. We'll take a little break. Yeah, take a break. We'll come back at what time? It's 10.50. I'm sorry, come back when? What time? 12 minutes, he said. Oh, in 12 minutes. Okay. I'm glad you're on it. Okay. Reconvene and we're going to number eight. I got that mixed up earlier because I was just reading down the numbers. But anyway, we put eight after nine. Public hearing to consider approval in concept of ordinance amending various sections of chapter 13.10 of the Santa Cruz County code, local coastal program implementing ordinance regarding accessory structures, home occupations, temporary uses and structures, and hosted rentals adopt resolution accepting sequence notice of exemption. Schedule the ordinance for a second reading and final adoption on September 1, 2020, and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the planning director. And I will, let's see, we'll have a presentation, right? Great. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Caput supervisors. My name is Stephanie Hansen, principal planner with the planning department. Today's public hearing is on proposed amendments to Santa Cruz County code to amend sections that regulate temporary uses and structures, accessory structures, home occupations, and hosted rentals. Staff is returning with this item pursuant to board direction on June 2 to return with a permanent ordinance that addresses business needs during the COVID-19 recovery. Purpose of today's hearing is to consider the planning commission's recommended ordinance and take public comments on the amendments. Today we're looking at amendments to provide for code updates that recognize the need of businesses and individuals as they try to recover economically from COVID-19 shelter and place orders under state guidelines for reopening, which includes social distancing, working from home, among other provisions. On June 2nd, the board passed resolution 133-20, providing direction to staff to support the recovery needs of businesses and individuals with temporary permit measures and directing staff to follow up with the permanent ordinance. The draft code sections on accessory structures, temporary uses and structures, temporary permits and home occupations were originally reviewed by the board of supervisors in 2015 after a series of community meetings. More recently, the planning commission held a study session on July 8 and a public hearing on July 22nd, 2020 to recommend the amendments brought before you today. Section 131011 currently regulates accessory structures on residential parcels. The code amendments will clarify that the regulations that pertain to the USL also pertain to the RSL or urban services line and rural services line. In the current code, the accessory structures up to 640 square feet are allowed with a building permit in the USL and RSL up to 1,000 square feet outside of those areas that meet the zone district standards. The code will allow limited bathroom fixtures. However, the number of structures with bathroom fixtures is also limited. Level four and level five permits will be required as well as variances for structures that don't meet the standards and will continue to prohibit the unpermitted conversion of accessory structures into dwelling units. During their review, the planning commission expressed concerns about permitted heights of accessory structures. The recommendation reduces the maximum height of habitable accessory structures in the USL and RSL from the 2015 proposed district allowed height which was typically 28 feet in residential districts and instead retains the current height of one story and 17 feet for habitable structures in the USL and RSL. The planning commission also expressed concern over the revised staff recommendation that would use a maximum ADU heights for non habitable structures in the USL and RSL. Typically this is 16 feet in height for detached structures. However, ADU regulations also allows second stories and maximum heights of 20 feet and 24 feet at roof peak subject to special height provisions for pleasure point and seascape beach estates. These recommendations are lower than the 2015 draft regulations which would have aligned the maximum heights with the zone district standards, typically 28 feet. As proposed variances are required to exceed the stated maximum heights. The proposed amendments also add a new section of code specific to the use of cargo and shipping containers as accessory structures. On residential properties, the use of these containers would only be allowed outside the USL and RSL subject to a level three permit and would be regulated by the accessory structures section of the code. More than one accessory cargo container could be approved per parcel based on demonstrated need and compliance with other provisions of this code. These structures would not be allowed in scenic areas or within public view of scenic roadways. Painting, sighting and screening requirements in the code aim at making the structures more compatible with existing homes and buildings. Home occupations are also currently allowed in the code. The amendments would clarify the definition of home occupation so that it is secondary to the primary use and does not affect the character of the neighborhood. These amendments would allow two non household employees and up to five non household employees with the level five permit. Noise standards are clarified as well. Certain uses are prohibited as home occupations including firewood operations and weddings and community events. The provisions for weddings and community events remain in the amendments associated with the sustainability policy and regulatory update which will come before the board next year. Based on the planning commission's comments at the study session, the proposed percentage of the home that may be used as a home occupation has been increased from the 2015 proposed 25% to now 35%. A new section of code is proposed that specifies that temporary permits are required for the establishment of temporary uses and structures. They will be processed as a level three permit although uses utilizing amplified music require level four and level five for extended or repeated activities. The new section also regulates outdoor use of parking lots. Up to 35% of parking spaces can be utilized and up to 65% of spaces can be utilized if the applicant shows that peak usage of parking is less than the 65%. New provisions require communication among county departments such as public works and environmental health and outside agencies as applicable. Finally, these amendments would regulate temporary signs and cleanup. The ordinance provides for regulation of temporary storage boxes such as pods and the like. These can be permitted for 90 days with the level one zoning clearance with considerations related to site distance triangles, setbacks, use of public and private rights of way and use of vacant parcels. Permits can be extended up to 180 days. In general, temporary uses are not permitted on vacant parcels. There are certain uses and structures that are exempt from temporary permits such as seasonal holiday sales like pumpkin and Christmas trees in non-residential districts subject to additional performance standards related to dates, hours of operations, setbacks, access, site distance, fencing, signage and fire protection. Temporary uses that are permitted in the right of way or within buildings are also exempt. Up to four garage sales per year can be allowed without permits. During the review of the amendments the Planning Commission expressed concern over lighting associated with seasonal sales on commercial properties and glare on neighboring residential properties and recommended that the board consider language to limit commercial lighting associated with seasonal sales that are located near or adjacent to residential properties. As noted during the Planning Commission any limits must be balanced by the fact that commercial parking lots are allowed to be lighted regardless of seasonal sales and that there are security concerns that are often being addressed. Temporary tents are also specifically regulated by the proposed amendments. One tent up to 300 square feet and 12 feet in height can be allowed without a permit for 180 days subject to setback requirements of the zone district. Tents that exceed these requirements are subject to a level three temporary permit. Temporary tents in backyards that are not visible from a public street can remain for a year without a permit. Since the board reviewed the draft amendments in 2015 the Planning Commission recommended that tents that are open on two sides can have reduced setbacks but not within front yard setback areas. And no nighttime lighting is permitted for these structures. Finally minor adjustments to the commercial industrial use charts remove the references to temporary uses and the definition of temporary uses and structures are proposed. This ordinance also regulates, has amendments related to hosted rentals. I know you just heard about this topic but hosted rentals are the temporary rental of one or more rooms in a house for less than 30 days. The purpose of these amendments are to align the regulations with the recent changes that you made this morning to the vacation rental ordinance. The amendments remove original language that acknowledge existing rentals and maintains a county-wide limit of 250 hosted rentals. There's also the new reference to the new numerical limits on permits in the designated areas, the LODA, Salzda and DASDA. The code references the new waiting list for hosted vacation rentals and then continue to prohibit the transfer of hosted rentals upon sale of the property. The violation section of the hosted rental code is also proposed for amendment to align with the violations and code enforcement provisions in the vacation rental ordinance that you just reviewed and approved. So the recommended actions before the board this morning are to conduct a public hearing on the ordinance county code sections 1310, 332, 342, 611, 613 and 700 and adding new sections 1310, 612 and 616 regarding accessory structures. Adopt a resolution finding that the provisions are exempt from CEQA and consistent with the Coastal Act and directing staff to submit the amendments to Coastal for Certification, approve the ordinance and concept amending the code and schedule the ordinance for second reading and adoption on September 1, 2020. That concludes our report. Thank you. Chair, I just have a couple of questions. Thank you for the presentation, for the work on this. This is some of these concepts have been discussed now for a very long time. One of them I wanted to ask about as cargo containers. It was at least five years ago that a property owner came to me about using cargo containers to develop a commercial site. And I'm trying to understand now would these regulations allow that to happen or commercial sites treated differently? No, they are allowed to happen in commercial sites and this section is really focused on residential use. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that. This second thing that I just wanted, well, there's one just overall thing. Just looking at the planning commission minutes, it referred to support for something called appendix A, but that was not included. And so it would be really helpful for either in the future. I understand that I was told that that, which was in appendix A is now included in this, but it's very hard to find the paper trail for that. So the planning commission minutes either have to reflect what appendix A is. So you can take a look at it or the staff report should reflect what appendix A had in it because otherwise it's... Yeah, I understand the confusion. And in this case, the planning commission was concerned if the staff recommendation differed from what their recommendation was. And I guess there's been some questions regarding that in the past. In this case, the staff recommendation is the planning commission's recommendation and the resolution has the areas that they wanted the board to look at exactly the same. So that's why just to explain why it disappeared, that's what appendix A just would have been the same ordinance, but... Yeah, well, so in the future, the planning committee minutes should be either more descriptive, either or. Or the staff report should say we took this into account. Otherwise it's just hard to figure out. The one area that the planning commission talked about that I still have that I just wanna ask about is this question about the heights for a habitable and non habitable structures that aren't ADUs. It's allowing something to be up to 17 feet high that's non habitable where you could have a house, an ADU, a junior ADU, and now a shed. Let's just, for lack of a better term, it seems pretty for the, at least in the urban services area of my district, that's a lot of structures. And we, this board has had some concern about the impact of these structures and tried to limit the heights so they're not invasive to the neighbors where the distance between homes are not always that great. On a more rural area, that would be different, but in the more dense urban areas it makes a big difference. So the idea of a shed being 17 feet high is seems quite large. And it seems to me that it would be better to be even smaller than that in recognizing that there's all these other provisions that allow for us to create ADUs and junior ADUs that could be taller. And I'm just trying to figure out why we're allowing all these different things. Yeah, in part, we're allowing, as you know, increases in ADUs because the state required us to, although as I know the board is aware in a housing crisis, ADUs is also a terrific tool for us to build in more units without rezoning large areas. Yeah, to be clear, I'm not speaking on ADUs, we're not talking about ADUs, we're talking about some other kind of structure, right? We have rules for ADUs, they have height limits, they have size limits. So now we're talking about other structures. And I'm concerned about the height limit here and its impact because the setbacks would be small for these sheds. Is that correct? Yes, that is. In some cases, you'll need to meet the setbacks, you need to meet the zoning standards. But the height as proposed within the USL for habitable 17 and in the USL consistent with ADU regulations, what we had before was allowing those heights to go all the way up to the. 28 feet. Yeah, to the zone district standards, which is typically two stories and 28 feet in the USL. So a reduction has been made here at the planning commission level to kind of reduce the impact of those things, but still allow some flexibilities and in some places people really do need storage on even if they have an ADU. So that was the intent. I'm not speaking out against these structures, I'm just saying this shed, a 17 foot tall shed seems excessive in an urban area where there isn't a lot of setbacks, right? It seems more appropriate to make it smaller, like 13 feet, where you could have, if at the end of the day, someone wanted to convert this into an ADU, you'd still have plenty of space to do that, but the structure would be a lot less intense in the urban environment, so. Yes. I'll wait to see what that comments from my colleagues. Thank you. Okay. Any, let's go with Supervisor McPherson. You have questions? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Supervisor Leopold, raised some concerns that I had as well, but how do we account for environmental considerations like septic, the impact, the addition of a bathroom or shower? And that's particularly important in my district up in the Santa Rosa Valley, that's on entirely septic systems, but how do we account for those environmental considerations that we have already in place in the county? Thank you, Supervisor. The regulations that are already placed in the county don't go away if you're proposing plumbing fixtures for instance, you will need to meet the regulations of the water purveyor or county environmental health if you're involving any kind of water or sewer in your project, and you need building permits for that. So there's a, the provisions in the code kind of capture the need for making sure there's adequate water, just like we would do for any structure that was utilizing water. Okay, so in general, that just wouldn't weaken the somewhat special rules we have up in the Santa Rosa Valley in this regard that I had taken. No, that's right. These would not undermine those rules at all. Supervisor Coonerty. Thank you. I don't have any questions at this time. Okay, Supervisor Friend. Thank you, Chair. I don't have questions, I just do have comments or compliments on two items, because we've had issues in regards to the temporary structures in our district. Appreciate the modifications that were proposed, both on the tending as well as the pod. Those are both things that are needed and important changes, I think, for addressing some issues within our district. So I appreciate that. Okay, I will now open the public hearing on this item. Anyone in the chambers wishing to speak? We have one, two, okay. You have three, go ahead. Good morning, still. My name is James Healing Whitman. I was, fortunately, you guys have a binder. Today's one for today's hearing is over 500 pages. Number eight, it goes from, I believe, page 21 to 83. What is that? 62 pages, I think I read through between 12 and 15. They were, my thoughts are, let me just read this legal aspect of this to the public. Regarding public hearing items, any person challenging an action taken on the foregoing matter or matters in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of Supervisors at or prior to the public meeting. One more small paragraph. The time limit for seeking judicial review for any decision approving or denying an application for a permit, license or other entitlement or revoking a permit, license or other entitlement is governed by the Civil Code Procedure Section 1094.6 and is no later than 90th day following the date of which the decision is made. Unless a shorter time is specified for the type of action by state or federal law, in which case the shorter time limit shall apply. So it's just interesting. I didn't have time to go over the 62 pages and maybe it's even more than 62 pages, but as a builder for more than three decades and as a general contractor for more than two decades, I suppose what could affect some people and it seemed to be the 17 to 28 feet seem to be flapping around like a fish where there isn't gonna go, is it not gonna go, is it excluded? Where I spent most of my time in the past 25 years in this county living in rural areas. And there's some people that have some really beautiful barns that are probably between 20 and 28 feet tall and they're very simple structures but they work. So I hope that there's nothing in here that's gonna negatively affect other people. That's enough, thank you. Thank you. Okay, Becky. Thank you. Becky Steinbruner, resident of rural Aptos. This is the code modernization that planning director, Kathy Molloy, brought before you in 2015 and has languished because she said there would be environmental review done. There has been no environmental review. What's being done today is it being rubber-stamped as CEQA exempt and that is not true. This report does not address the implications on rural communities by adding commercial uses and that has to be addressed. It does not address the increase in traffic that would happen as a result of multiple deliveries because it is allowed that these businesses could do mail order and online order. That brings a lot of delivery trucks in and also for supplies, it brings things in. That's not been reviewed for the impact on the rural neighborhoods. Likewise, the fire agency, there's no comment from fire agencies about how this would affect the fire risk areas in the rural areas and to add in extra fire protection, water for fire suppression for some of these businesses. I am not against people being able to make a living in their own home, but to be able to hire five full-time employees and have them show up every day with no, as far as I can see, no direction in terms of requiring off-street parking unless you have a very large pickup, that's specified in there. This is not going to do any service to the rural residents. There is discussion there about a reasonable level of noise, but there's nothing about nighttime lighting for these home occupations. I was happy to see in the Santa Cruz Sentinel half-page ad published on August 8th. However, there was no link given where people could find that information, only a telephone number. I called that number and I did not get a response until just yesterday. I was asking for the strikeout underlying copy of the code changes. That was not, I did not get any response until yesterday. I have a copy of that response saying, I realized late that you called and left a message to see the strike-through of the temporary use of ordinance. It's going to be before the board tomorrow. I apologize. This is not proper noticing for anything related to CEQA and it must be struck down and re-noticed properly so that the public has an opportunity. This came before you in 2015. At that time, you had public meetings in every single district. You need to do that again before you pass it. I'd like to give you three copies of these documents. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak, either here or the community room downstairs or online. There's nobody in the community room and we have no web comments. Chair, just to clarify, all the materials for this were published on the web on Thursday. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And that meets our noticing requirements as according to the Brown Act. That's correct. All right, thank you. Okay, the public hearing is now closed. I'll bring it back to the board. Chair, I want to thank the planning department for the work that they've done on this. These will make some good changes to our code. I do have concerns about the height limits on these non-ADU structures. I think the defined public benefit of an ADU and providing housing, in my mind, justified a lot of those structures being larger than 17 feet in urban zone districts. But we're not talking about ADUs here. We're talking about sheds. We're talking about storage areas. And I'm concerned about the height of these structures and their impact in more urban neighborhoods. I think that, functionally, these structures, which are, they're gonna function as separate bedrooms. And then they have these very close setbacks and that will be impactful in a negative way to neighbors. So I'd like to propose that we move the recommended actions but change the chart. I think it's chart, it's 13.10.661-2. That's in code section 13.10.611C3 and change the height limit from 17 feet to 13 feet for both the habitable and non-habitable structures. This would still allow that if someone wanted to come in, they could get a variance to make changes if they had a good reason to do that. And it would still allow an eight foot height and a pitch roof if they wanted to convert this. But I think this is a better idea to limit the impacts of these non-ADU structures in our urban neighborhoods. And I have it written down and I'm happy to answer any questions. But I would make that as the motion. Okay. I'll second. Okay, we have a first and second. Supervisor. So because this is an ordinance and this is a substantive change, we would have to bring the entire matter back for first read. If that's the direction you're giving the staff in the motion, I wanna make sure that that's clear to everyone. Otherwise, if you wanted to move on part of the ordinance, but not all of it, that's an option as well. You could, for example, move to adopt sections, one, two, four, five and six of the ordinance, but not section three and come back with section three. It's up to you. Well, I'm comfortable moving the rest of the ordinance. I think that those are ready to go. I would like to change this part of the ordinance. And maybe I'll look to my seconder if he has a preference for doing the whole thing or doing part of just changing, separating this section out. Thank you, Mr. Presley. Well, I have no preference. Ms. Hansen has a preference if they wanna keep it all together. I mean, I imagine the timeframe's pretty minimal. This is a very minor, I mean, I recognize it's substantive change, but it's a minor change as far as text goes. And I can't imagine it would take much time to modify and I imagine it could be on our next meeting. Is that correct? That's correct. It's a small change, I would say, but it's easier on everybody thing to keep it all together and just kind of come back. But I would ask for a point of clarification that you're looking to limit the heights within the USL and RSL, but outside you would still meet the zone district standards, is that correct? Yes, thank you. So it would still read outside the USL and RSL building permits up to 1,000 square foot size, three story and 28 foot height in compliance. Yes, thank you. So I appreciate the suggestion from our council, but I will keep the motion as originally made to move the recommended actions with the change in this chart, which I have written down for you from 17 to 13 feet. And is that to return for first read on September 1st? Yeah, so we wouldn't be adopting the recommended action today because the recommended action is to adopt the ordinance. So it sounds like the motion is to come back with changes the supervisor Leopold made on the September 1st agenda. Thank you for the clarity of language. Is that clear to Ms. Galloway and the seconder? It is now, yes. Okay. Thank you. So now we're ready for the vote. We'll have a motion. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Hoonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. We'll now go to item number 10, consider resolution to impose beach restrictions for the Labor Day weekend in accordance with the local health emergency actions as outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative officer. So this is for a weekend in Labor Day weekend, three day weekend. Yes, Chair Caput and members of the board, Carlos Palacios, the county administrative officer. The COVID-19 public health emergency constitutes a serious danger to the health safety and welfare of individuals in Santa Cruz County. Over the last months, we've seen increased community spread, infection rates and hospitalizations locally, regionally and throughout the state. Despite warnings, local beaches remain an attractive spot for congregation, particularly for young people, which has also been experiencing the greatest increase in possible cases. Santa Cruz County also historically receives a heavy influx of single day travelers to its beaches over holiday and three day weekends. And typically sees huge crowds on Labor Day weekend, celebrating the end of summer. Therefore, in order to protect the health and safety of our community and to impact the spread of the disease, the attached resolution with closed beaches from Saturday, September 5th, 5 a.m. until Monday, September 7th, 7th at 5 p.m., with exceptions for public use on Saturday and Sunday from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. each day. Well, in the past, the hours were from 11, the open hours were from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., both the city of Capitola and the city of Santa Cruz requested these more restricted hours in order to be able to maintain appropriate enforcement staffing. In order to promote physical and mental health, the ocean would be available for water-based activity, and beaches may be traversed during the closure period to participate in these activities. Additionally, facilities adjacent to county beaches, such as parkways, sidewalks, and trails will remain open. We've also been coordinating with the cities in our county and who have beaches, and so both the city of Capitola and city of Santa Cruz also intend to follow exactly our same resolution in terms of closures over Labor Day weekend. We've also been coordinating with Monterey County cities that have beaches, and they also intend to close their beaches over Labor Day weekend as well. We've also been in touch with the state, and they indicate that they will attempt to follow our lead in terms of the closures. So we've been in touch with cities and county and the state about these closures, and it appears that all will do the same thing that we are proposing to do. Therefore, we recommend that you approve this resolution to impose the beach restrictions for Labor Day weekend in accordance with the local health emergency and the attached resolution. That concludes my report. Thank you very much. Thank you. I had to clarify that. We're talking about from 11 to five, right? No, it would be open hours, we'd be 4 p.m. till 8 p.m. each day. 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. each day, and the reason we're changing that is both of the cities in our county have requested more restricted hours because it would make it their enforcement easier for them. Sure, okay, okay. We have any questions from the board members? Supervisor Coonerty. Sorry, no questions. I'm not supportive of this action. I like especially that it's coordinated across the county and I hope we get state support as well on their properties. Okay, Supervisor Friend. No questions. Thank you, Chair. Supervisor McPherson. Mr. Chair, what about San Mateo County? Has they taken any kind of action of this? I know in Monterey County, you said has as well as the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola. Do you know if San Mateo County has done anything in this regard? Sorry, we haven't been in touch with San Mateo County on this. Okay, and when people can be on the beach from four to eight, do they have to be in motion? Can they be stationary at city and light down beach? Yes, they can be stationary. There's no other restrictions. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, Supervisor Leopold, no. I'll just comment. It's been in the news that Santa Cruz County has taken off the watch list. And I'm one of these people that likes to see the beach open, right? But in this circumstance, what I don't wanna get is have us in this red light, green light, where we open up things again, maybe next week or whatever, restaurants, churches, things like that. We're actually moving forward. And then we have an uptick or a spike. And all of a sudden we're back where we were in the beginning. So in order to, I'm for this. And I think it's very reasonable. I've heard people say we should close it for a whole week, but we're talking about a weekend. And I think we need it at this time. So anyway, again, so we don't go forward. And then we stop again, go backwards, then go forward again. This is a very reasonable request. Chair Caput, I'd also just clarify that on the state action to tentatively remove Santa Cruz County from the watch list, the information we have is that we still have to have 14 consecutive days of no upticks and any of the metrics that are used to monitor the watch list. So even though we've tentatively been placed, our metrics are good and could be off the watch list, we still have to meet 14 consecutive days with no uptick in any of the metrics. And then after that, we're still not clear after the, if we do meet the 14 days and are off the watch list, the state still has not given us clarity about what that means in terms of re-openings to businesses and other institutions. So there's still a lot of lack of information from the state at this point, but we know the one thing we know is that we're supposed to be monitoring for 14 more days in which there would be no further uptick before there'd be any possible changes. Thank you. That takes us about to the 28th of August, right? Right. Thank you. Okay, I'll put it up for public comment, public hearing. Hi, my name is James Ewing Whitman. I've been a resident here since 1995. Gonna try not to upset anybody in the room or in the audience by disagreeing with most of everything that's been shared. There's a lot of serious dangers going on. It seems like I'm just gonna say it. Are you guys just following mainstream news? Are you looking at other things going around on the planet? There is a global lockdown going on that's lockstep with what gentlemen like Mr. Rockefeller are planning. It's like what's next? It's like red light, green light. So I think that all of you have the best of intentions, but it's just entirely frustrating. Now I will say, Mr. Caput, that I appreciate that you confirm that Santa Cruz is now off the watch list because I follow so much media. I don't really know what to believe sometimes. And I'm like, is this true? How could it be validated? And thank you so much for validating it. I just don't, I mean, I can understand what has been described as far as trying to keep the general population in Santa Cruz County and people from visiting on that weekend. But isn't that further helping? Isn't that further hurting the few businesses that are open right now from revenue? And where is this ultimately leading the county and the state? So, you know, I don't have any expectations except for this jurisdiction to follow the jurisdictions in the other counties in the United States, not just the state, the United States and in the world. And where are we gonna be six months from now? I mean, there's other things I would like to comment on, but I can't at a respect for the circle, but it's just gonna go through. Can you guys discuss the penalties for the people that wanna practice civil disobedience or whatever? Cause I know that I met some people that came to the beach last weekend from Oakland and Fremont and Milpitas that were really interesting. So anyway, thank you for your time. You're welcome. Thank you. My name is Becky Steinbruner. I'm a resident of rural Aptos. I've taken my kids to the beach for years. This action is putting in the nail in the coffin for lots of local business who are struggling and barely hanging on. Labor Day weekend is one of the few chances they could be able to recover some of the losses that have come as a result of the lockdown. If they are following, restaurants are following safe procedures for residents, why wouldn't it work to have other people coming in too? If it's safe, it's safe, regardless of where you live. Having the beaches open from only 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., excuse me, I think is plain stupid. How can that make any sense scientifically to try to limit any spread of a disease? Between 4 and 8 p.m., it's not as virulent? This is ridiculous. And I beg of you, please do not do this. You are harming, further harming local businesses. You are harming the people who live in this county because what are we gonna have to do? Show our passport that we're a county resident to get in eventually. It looks like it's going that way. This will lead to more nighttime parties at some of the vacation rentals that you've just heard complaints about. And are we going to address the San Lorenzo River? Swimming Hall, Supervisor McPherson, you should be thinking of that. That's another area. Are you gonna shut those down too? Or are you only going to go after the beaches? That's not fair. Dr. Newell has said many, many times that it is highly unlikely that the virus is transmitted in the outdoors. When she first put on the beach closure, she said it was very, very low risk at the beaches. Why are you doing this now? It's disgusting what you're doing to the local business people and to the general public who live here. And we live here because we love the beauty and the ocean. Are you going to have to hire more sheriff's deputies with money that the county doesn't have to enforce it? It was okay for the protesters to assemble in large close gatherings. It was okay for the memorial service, for the fallen officers. They didn't even wear masks. There were no cases of COVID reported from any of those events. So how can you justify closing the beaches for Labor Day weekend when it is the last opportunity perhaps for our local business people to try to recoup any of the damages? This will be a nail in the coffin for many of them. And you are responsible for taking this action. I think it's odd that the last four deaths that have been reported in this county have been shrouded in mystery and had high-cool mobilities causes. Don't do this. Thank you. Hi, Mary-Lou. Hi, good morning. Coming from a health background, I feel to stop this contamination from spreading because people are stupid, it's just to completely close the beaches. It's easier to enforce. Yes, people will take a hit. But if you don't allow surfing because the parents of the minor children want to be on the beach to monitor their children, observe them, keep them safe from other bullies and such, but we all know people don't wear masks. Yes, if you're out in the water, you're not gonna wear them, but we've seen all over the United States and the world gatherings, public gatherings, people are not wearing masks and spreading this. So we'll go right back into being closed again due to exposure in two weeks, people are gonna have fevers and have issues. And in the evenings with all the partying going on, it's too difficult to enforce. Sheriff's officers have more important things to do out there than trying to be down on the beach and taking them away from the regular beats to take care of all the other miscreants that are out there in the world. Yes, local businesses will take a hit, but they can still do their takeout and everything else. We can watch from the cliffs, do our drive-bys, do whichever, but we have to protect the rest of the people because the rest of the people are gonna come around and affect potential to infect the rest of the residents of the county. So we need to be done with this. We all just need to take the hard line and stop it. Close the beaches. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other public comment? There's nobody in the community room and we have no web comments. Chair, I think this is a reasonable limited action and I would move the recommended action. We have a first. I'll do the roll call. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously and that takes us to item number 11, consider the final appointment of Julie Misesvich to the commission on justice and gender as an at large representative of the Walnut Avenue Family and Women's Center for a term to expire April 1st, 2024. I move approval. We have a first and second. Did you want to call for a public comment? Yeah, I just want to apologize for trying to pronounce Julie your last name if you're watching. I'm sorry, I messed it up. Okay. Seeing no one. Okay, seeing no one is here to comment. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. Takes us to number 12, consider the final appointment of Dan Brothman to the Santa Cruz Monterey-Merced Managed Medical Care Commission as an at large representative for a term to expire April 1st, 2023. I move approval. And I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously and the board will now recess and convene in closed session for item number 13. And will the county council, will there be any reportable items from the closed session? No. No. And we will return at 1.30 PM to conduct a special meeting on the revised budget hearings. Last day reports and concluding actions. Thank you. We'll see you at 1.30. Good afternoon, everyone. Just a reminder that face coverings are required at all times while in the county building. And please keep your nose and mouth covered, especially when you come up to the microphone to speak before the board. Thank you. I will now call the August 18th, 2020 special meeting on the board of supervisors to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Supervisor Leopold. Here. Friend. Here. Coonerty. Here. McPherson. Supervisor McPherson. Chairman Caput. Here. We can wait. We'll make a note of when he arrives. Revision's Mr. Palacios, so there are any changes? Yes, on the regular agenda, last day reports, item number 13, there's additional materials. There's a revised memo packet page 98. That concludes the revisions to the agenda for the corrections. Okay. We'll now go to the regular agenda, public hearing to consider resolution amending the unified fee schedule as outlined in the reference budget documents and memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. Hi. Good morning. Good morning. Christina Maurier, County Budget Manager, I'll be presenting the last day and concluding report items. And staff will be available to answer any questions as we work our way through the agenda. So the first item is the public hearing on the unified fee schedule. There's just one additional fee that we didn't cover in June, and that is a recommendation for a new administrative citation appeals fee for the cannabis licensing office, along with updates to current retail license renewal and site inspection fees to cover the cost of time and materials. So it's recommended that your board open the public hearing, take testimony and hear objections, if any, to the proposed unified fee schedule changes. Close the public hearing and adopt the resolution amending the unified fee schedule. Okay. I'll bring it back to the board. You want to open the public hearing? Yes. Chair, you want to announce the opening of the public hearing. Go ahead. I just have a quick question. What is the unified fee schedule? Is that, I thought that you were voting on the budget for the next fiscal year overall? We are, but we're just doing the budget. The budget is actually many different parts. Part of our budget is what we charge fees for, whether permits or other license or things like that. So as twice a year, we come back, at least twice a year, we come back and set the fees. So it's, we do that and we have to vote on it. And that's what the unified fee schedule is. Okay. We're going to get to it. Am I publicly commenting right now? Because I find this process of feedback, especially in the era of COVID-19, to be very difficult for differently abled people. I find the website to be very difficult to read and understand, and to be honest, and I don't say this in a particularly hostile way, I'm surprised that the county hasn't gotten sued because I can't imagine many of my friends who are differently abled being able to navigate this process. So I guess that's my only public comment right now. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Becky Steinbrunner. What I do want to protest about as a piece of the unified fee schedule increase is the cost to the public for public records act request, USB stick to get the information. Most public agencies provide this free or at a reasonable cost of $4, $5. This county now effective in June, charges members of the public who want to know about what's going on in their government, $28. That's not fair. And I want to protest that and ask that you reconsider that because it is against the law to charge for the time that the people take. This is the government that you are for us. And if people want to know what's going on, public records act request should be reasonably priced and attainable by anyone. Currently the new rate for USB sticks containing information is not. And I ask you to repeal that. Thank you. Any more numbers? We have questions on this item. I'd be prepared to move the recommended actions. Okay. All second. Next. Go ahead. Supervisor, do you want a second? That was Supervisor Friend who's seconded. I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Poonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Let's see. We'll go to item number four. Consider the 2020-2021 continuing agreement list, addendum and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. Thank you. Chair Caput, members of the board. So this item is an addendum to the cow, the continuing agreements list that we provided to the board in June. It has additional changes that are included with an underliner strikeout and those are provided. So we ask that you take any public comment on this item and then approve the continuing agreements list and take the related actions as included in the memo. Are there any questions from board members on this item? I don't hear any. And I will now open public comment on this item. Each person, well, we don't have a whole lot here. So can you do it in two minutes? Okay. Thank you. Becky Steinbruner, resident of Aftas. I'm not an accountant, but I do like looking over where the money goes. It isn't easy really to determine where it goes or why it's going where it's going. But what I'd like to point out to the board and to members of the public is there are vast amounts of money in this continuing agreements that is just labeled vendorless vendors. And I have reached out to Ms. Driscoll for an explanation and all she could say was that there are some contracts that must be filled by multiple vendors. Where is the transparency in this? And we're not talking a small amount of money. This is millions and millions of dollars that is only identified as vendorless vendors. That's not acceptable. That's not transparent. And I ask you to ask County Auditor Controller to improve that level of public transparency. We need to see where our money's going, especially now. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. There any other members of the public who would like to comment either here or in the community room or on the web? There's nobody in the community room and there are no web comments. Chair. I move to approve. Second. Roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. We have the last day report starting with item number five. Consider last day report for 2020 and 2021 revised budget for the auditor, controller, tax, treasurer and tax collectors outlined to the memorandum of the auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector. Yes, Chair Caput, members of the board, Christina Maui, your county budget manager. So I'll be reviewing each of these items. This particular item is a report back by the auditor, controller, and this item restores funding of about $59,982 for the part-time account clerk that was scheduled for elimination. And this is due to some increased investment charge revenue that's available. So we ask that the board approve the report as outlined, first take any public comment and then approve the item as recommended. Any questions or comments from board members? Glad to see that we were able to do this. Thanks for that work. I'll open it up for public comment on the item number five. Okay, can we see anybody? That concludes public comment on this item. I'll bring it back to the board for a motion and second. I move approval of the recommended action. Second. To the roll call vote, Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. It takes us to item number six. Considered last day report on financial supplemental for coronavirus relief fund, approved the CRF plan, corner virus relief fund, in the amount of $27,655,000. Adopt resolution authorizing the county administrative officer to select CRF sub recipients and to award and execute contracts and grant agreements to rec staff to return with regular updates to the board and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative officer. Okay, and this item begins on page 45 of your packet as you know we presented this item during the first day of budget hearings and gave you an overview and we discussed it and heard your feedback during the CO's budget presentation. So we asked that you adopt the resolution and prove the coronavirus relief fund plan. The details are provided in attachment A for the various programs and summarized in a financial report in attachment B. And then we've attached a financial supplemental for the budget details that need to be adopted and have that corresponding actions. And that's the supplemental is about 40.3 million dollars for the funding necessary for the emergency response July through December. The approval of the last day report for the coronavirus relief fund will allocate the 27.6 million to economic and disaster relief activities related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These funds will be used to reimburse 6.7 million for 1920 expenditures and fund 20.9 million in expenditures for 2021. These funds leverage support for eligible emergency response activities funded by the Office of Emergency Services for the state of California and FEMA for the federal emergency management association of 19.2 million and about 142,000 in park and recreation fees for the total budget of 40.3 million. Staff are working with the departments on implementing the CRF plan and adhere to the reporting requirements of the state and the US Treasury. A status report will be provided each regularly scheduled board meeting to provide an update on the budget to actuals and report back any contracts or modifications to the plan. Economic development and the workforce development board staff are getting details ready to quickly administer the grant relief program for small businesses and nonprofits. Details will be available this week on the grant applications and interested businesses and nonprofits can email at scccaresrecoveryatSantaCruiseCounty.us. For more information, the board requested that the great plates program continue even if FEMA support is no longer available through December and this has been noted on the plan on page 51 and we have resources available in the plan to address that if that should occur. So it's recommended that the board approve the report as outlined in the memo and take the related actions and staff are available to answer any questions. Okay, I'll open it up for the board. Any questions? Mr. Chair, Supervisor McPherson, just to be clear, do we need to spend the money by October or is the final deadline December and it appears we can obligate it into 2020, well to calendar year 2021, is that correct? So we have to, according to the initial guidance in the CARES Act, we're supposed to spend the money actually having spent it, not just having it obligated by December 30th of this year. However, since we are a sub recipient of the funds, we're not a direct recipient from the US Treasury, the state is and so they're allocating a share of their CARES Act funding to us. So they've added the additional restriction that they would like to see the majority of that spent by October and we will be providing reports to them in September, multiple times and then each quarter and they're anticipating that the majority of that money be spent by October. So we're trying to push to have the majority of it spent that they will recognize that if we've shown that we've spent the money, if it's a month to month program that they will honor the obligations that we've made through December. So we're just gonna have to kind of wait and see. Okay, very easily understandable as usual by my big government. Thank you. I have a quick question on the money is coming from the federal government and the state government or just one or both? So the CRF funds are being provided from the US Treasury to the state of California and the state of California is allocating a portion of that to the counties and the cities and we're receiving the 27.6 million of those funds. We're leveraging those funds as well because our shelter and care operations, a lot of that is FEMA eligible. So we're able to leverage the 20 some million for the current year through December and we'll be able to hopefully draw down an additional 19 million from the state for certain programs that they've offered to cover a portion of and then the remainder 75% of those eligible activities will come from FEMA. And like you said, the money is to go forward not pay bills from backwards, right? Yes. We've already allocated 6.7 million that was eligible for the costs from March through June of the 1920 fiscal year we just finished. Well, I'll open up for public comment. In the chambers, community rooms, web. There's nobody in the chambers and there are no web comments. Thank you. Chair, I would just say that we are, it is great that we have this money to be able to help meet the needs of the community. Even with close to 28 million dollars, it is not nearly enough to meet the needs of our community. And that's why it's critically important that the US Senate act as quickly as possible to pass another relief act that would actually specifically help local government. We've had that support from the House representatives. I know our two US senators support it, but it is distressing that they have gone on vacation for a month without addressing this really critical need. When I look at this list about the importance of public health, housing support for rental assistance to help our small businesses to address the recreational needs and assure that we have the adequate equipment to be able to meet this moment in terms of the needs of PPE. We're taking big steps here today. And so I'm really grateful for that. We're helping out our community-based partners who are on the front lines of being able to meet the most vulnerable during this time. But we have to continue our advocacy in Washington and make sure that they come through. With that, I would move the recommended actions for this. I'll second. Okay. I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. Takes us to item number seven. Consider the last day report for the 2020-2021 revised budget for the cannabis licensing office as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. Yes. This last day report is provided at the request of the board on August 11th. We were asked to restore 50% of the funding for the Cannabis Compliance Unit, which allows for the refunding of the two sheriff deputy positions at the value of $368,861. And the details are provided in the financial supplemental on schedule A1. In addition, your board also requested on August 12th to restore the eliminated code investigator for position which is at a value of $104,266. And that position is restored on schedule A2. So it's recommended that your board approve the report as outlined in the memo and take the related actions and staff are available if you have any questions and ask that you ask for public comment. Thank you. Do any board members have questions? On this item. Mr. Chairman, first again, I support the, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and during our budget hearings to restore this code enforcement officer position. As I was mentioned in our discussion, it's important to keep our word to the voters who voted to have us go forward with this program. And so we can maintain public safety as well as much as possible for implementing our cannabis regulations. This, in essence, is going to pay for itself as we was discussed previously. And I just appreciate that we're moving forward with this. Thank you. Welcome. Okay, I'll open it up for the public for comment. Good afternoon, Chair Caput, members of the board. Jim Heaney, Chief Steward for the General Representation Unit. Last week I came here a lot during the hearings and our theme was pretty much continuous about, we're losing a lot of quality workers here at the county. But we did manage to save a few positions and we wanted to take the time to let you know, we appreciate that. And as it's been said to me, sometimes you've got to spend money to make money and the salary of this code compliance officer, the salary of the sheriffs are more than going to be made up and the revenues that they bring to the general fund. So we appreciate your action on this item. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Becky Steinbruner, resident of rural Abtas. I would like to echo Mr. Heaney's gratitude for you restoring this code compliance position for the cannabis licensing. It not only helps catch the bad actors, but it really gives those who have in good faith done the right thing that it matters to the county that they did so. It also gives the public more confidence that there is someone out there watching over the public for public safety issues and that can enforce the rules. Thank you very much for restoring this position. You're welcome. Any other comments anywhere? There's nobody in the community room and there are no web comments. Yes. Concludes the public comment and I'm open for motion. Chair, I would second and just add that we're in the early stages of trying to turn an illegal industry into a legal industry. And so having the staff adequate staffing to make sure that we can do that well is in the interest of all. So I'm glad to support this motion. Can we have a motion and a second? I'll do the roll call. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Supervisor Friend. Which friend? Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chair Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. We go to item number eight, consider last day report for the 2020 and 2021 revised budget for county clerk and elections and approve a fixed asset purchase of a mobile voting trailer in the amount of 72,000 as outlined in the memorandum of the county clerk. Yes. And this last day report on number eight begins on page 80 of your packet and it increases the available funding for the November 2020 general election. The secretary of state has announced a COVID-19 funding allocation to our county of $518,967 for increased costs related to the pandemic for all aspects related to voting by mail, equipment needs, permanent and temporary staffing as well as cleaning and disinfection of personal protective equipment and polling locations and election facilities. So there's also an additional 95,000 allocated for communication and outreach. So this revised budget, the revised budget that you received as a part of the supplemental all had anticipated about 300,000 to be received from the state. So this last day report is needed to accept the additional funds of $313,991 that includes the purchase also of a mobile voter outreach trailer funded through those state funds. So it's recommended that your board approve the report as outlined in the memo and take related actions and staff are available if you have any questions. But we ask that you also take public comment. Thank you. Bring it back to the board. Any questions, comments? Well, I would just say, chair, that I'm glad to be part of a local government and a state government that actually cares about helping people vote instead of the other way around. Sure. Okay. I'll open it up for the public, a public comment. That too. Thank you. Becky Steinbruner. I had a lot of objection to the county spending $72,000 to buy a mobile voting trailer. I'd like assurances that this would be coming from COVID funding from state and federal governments. If it's coming out of the general fund, I really have a problem with that. Not that I don't support helping people vote. I do. And I've worked on polls and I've done a lot of door-to-door work but to spend a lot of money when we don't have it and people are losing their jobs, I think is not responsible. So I'd like some assurance that this $72,000 for a mobile voting trailer that we've never used before and never apparently needed before will be indeed coming from state and federal grant money for COVID. And I also would like to know how this trailer will be used if at all, if it can be repurposed when we are not in election because these are very short periods of time that occur infrequently. Thank you. You're welcome. Is there anyone else? There's nobody in the community room and there are no web comments. Okay. I would move the recommended actions. I'll second and I'd just like to add, Mr. Barrett, I think not the all room but this is, the mobile voting trailers are really essential right now and an absolutely important way to ensure that everybody has the right to vote. I think that this is very exciting. I think that this is something that the county should really be promoting and it's something I know that our elections clerk has wanted for quite some time and I'm glad that the ability to make it happen has finally been delivered. So thank you for that leadership and I'm happy to second the motion. And I'll do a roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. It takes us to item number nine. Consider last day report for 2020, 2021 revised budget for the general services department has outlined in the memorandum of the director of general services. Yes. And this last day report is sort of a companion to the previous report for a portion of it. The report is updating the operating transfers in in the amount of 56,000 from the sheriff's office for the removal of the funding for an additional transportation van and adds an operating transfer in from the clerk elections office for the mobile voting trailer that was just approved for a net increase in changes of $15,800. This is a fleet services budget within general services. It's not a general fund budget. It relies on funding to be transferred in and out in order to purchase the additional vehicles. So it's recommended that your board approve the report is outlined in the memo, take any public comment and take the related actions. Okay, thank you. Bring it back to the board for questions and comments. Okay, we'll open it up for public comments. Thank you, Becky Steinbruner. I'm not entirely sure this is the time for me to discuss the elimination of Rosemary Anderson's position full-time administrator of the office of emergency services. I know that she is in the general services department and please inform me, is this the time or would there be a more appropriate time to talk about that? Does anybody have an answer? Chair, the action on that item was taken at the last meeting. This item is regarding the general services fleet budget. All right, well, I'm going to go ahead and speak my mind then because Ms. Anderson is part of the general services department and I want to, again, implore that you reinstate a full-time position for the county office of emergency services, whether it's Rosemary Anderson or somebody equally capable as she is and has been and has served our county so well. Do you smell the smoke in the air? I do and I know that Rosemary Anderson has been busy planning for things like this when they happen in our county full-time. As a member of the public, I do not want to see her full-time position eliminated. I think it is folly and I think this county will be harmed in doing so. I refuse to believe that people in the county administrative office who are also doing other things can devote the amount of quality time building the relationships that Rosemary Anderson has done in this position and that a person in a full-time position watching over the county, planning ahead, making these evacuation plans for the San Lorenzo Valley, the communication centers for the public safety power shutoffs, she's got the mind for it, she's focused, a full-time position has that focus and we'll follow through. It's too easy for part-time people in the county administrative office to just let it slide and we will suffer. Please reinstate that position full-time. Anybody else from the public wish to comment? Either. So I'm Mary Lou Sam's wire leaf rural Watsonville area. I also concur that Rosemary Anderson's position should be reinstated. She has a wealth of knowledge and having it, her everything that she's done to be decimated amongst other people and stuff, you're gonna get little pieces and tidbits and shells under the cups moving around trying to take care of all this stuff. When you have someone that can do that succinctly and completely with the least amount of time, she is just a smart, intelligent person and you can't have that by having other people. Well, we used to this. Oh yeah, it's over here in this book. You need someone that can keep it concise and together and not rely on just looking up in a book or something on the internet. Thank you. Hey, do we have any other comments? Chair, there's nobody in the community room and we have no web comments. I would move the recommended actions on this item. We're lucky. And I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. We'll go to number 10. You're gonna have to help me out on this one. Mine just says consider last day report for the 2021 revised budget for, and then I'm happy to take that if you like. So item 10 is to consider the last day report for the 2021 revised budget for the general county revenues budget as outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative officer and provides a last day financial supplemental for the general county revenues. This last day report is as requested from Supervisor Coonerty, which provides a contribution to the city of Santa Cruz towards the continued study of the community impacts of the growth of UCSC. Begins in your packet on page 88 and it's recommended that the board approve the report as outlined in the memo and take related actions. The board have any comments? What's the dollar amount? Oh, I'm sorry. The dollar amount is 20,000. We do have it, right? Yes. Open it up to the public. Good afternoon, Becky Steinbruner, resident of rural Aptos. Your question is very poignant, Chairman Caput. We do have it, right? She said, yes. The answer is no. You don't have it. You don't have $20,000 to study the community impacts of UCSC growth. Supervisor Coonerty put that on, it's his district. He's a paid lecture at UCSC. This is not right. The county already funds a special position, Ms. Morgan Bostick, paying her $60,000 a year. The city also pays her $60,000 a year. She's doing good work. I've seen her work going out into the community. Why spend $20,000 to study the community impacts of UCSC growth? This is waste. It is disgusting waste. When you're cutting people's jobs, like the people in the county clerk's office, the county board office, the parking attendant, you're cutting their job to do $20,000 worth of study on the impacts of UCSC growth on the community. That's disgusting. Do not pass this. If you've got $20,000 to throw out a window, give it to somebody who's gonna lose their job. That's a better way and help them keep their job. Thank you. Do not approve this. Any other comments either here in the chambers downstairs or on the web? Mr. Chair, just the Steinberg makes a lot of assertions without any knowledge of facts. So this is the county's share of Miss Bostick's contract and the related expenses. This is to fund the good work that she is doing because if UCSC grows by 10,000 students without mitigating their impact, it'll have tremendous impacts on not just my district, but across the county on housing, water and traffic. So it's a small investment to reduce significant impacts in our community and doing the very work that Ms. Steinbrenner just said was excellent. All right, move approve. Second. I'll close the public comment. Well, I already did, right? Okay. We have a motion and a second. I'll do the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Boonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. We go to item number 11 and you can fill me in. Yes. So item number 11 is to consider a last day report for the 2021 revised budget for animal control services as outlined in the memorandum of the county administrative officer. It includes a financial supplemental from the animal control services budget. So this last day report reduces the contribution to animal control services by 163,743 dollars as a result of the Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter Board of Directors approving their 2021 revised budget on August 10th with a 10% reduction in member contributions and updated population changes. So it's recommended that the board approve the report as outlined in the memo and take related actions. And we're available to answer any questions. Any board members comment? I'll open it up for public comment either here or downstairs or on the web. There's nobody downstairs and in the community room and we have no web comments. Thank you. I will approve all the recommended actions. Second. Roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Second. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. We go to now item number 12. Yes. And item number 12 is to consider a last day report back for the 2021 revised budget for the sheriff corner and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the sheriff corner. So this particular report is a series of report backs that your board directed. So on August 11th, the board directed staff to report back on the potential for reinstating the focused intervention team or FIT program. Also the cost related to the de-escalation training for all deputy sheriffs and sergeants and whether there were alternative options for funding that and a synopsis of the progression of the food services transition meeting with SEIU that was held. So just briefly and we can answer any additional questions that you may have. The fit as it relates to the FIT program, this program requires the use of a housing unit in the jail where programming and treatment can be delivered. And due to the COVID-19 restrictions, this unit is currently no longer available. We believe when a vaccine for the virus is released, we will have the ability to open the housing unit for the FIT clients again. And so we're recommending that a report come back to you in January to look at a status on that. As it relates to the de-escalation training, the sheriff had eliminated all non-mandated training and the de-escalation training is non-mandated. It's estimated to cost about $66,000, include mostly overtime for staff to attend the training. So we've been instructed to explore the concept of using risk management funds to pay for those training costs. At this time, no decision has been made. We're going to be having a meeting with risk management to discuss the option and then we'll report back to your board once that information is known. And then as it relates to the update on the food services program. So staff did meet on August 13th, the sheriff's office personnel and SEI you met to discuss the plan contracting out of the food services program. They discussed the financial challenges the sheriff office had been presented with and they made the necessary reductions in the budget up to $3.8 million. And this was one of those reductions. Sheriff Hart expressed that he was very happy with our food services employees and the quality of food that is produced and explained that the decision to contract out was very difficult, but was necessary due to the need to reduce the sheriff office budget. And as a result of the financial impacts of COVID-19. SEIU opposes the plan to contract out. They've agreed to continue to meet with regarding the issue to explore alternate ways to achieve the county's objectives as required under article 3.6 E of the general representation unit memorandum of understanding. So there's some additional actions and we ask that you your board take any public comment and approve the report as outlined and take the related actions. Oh, and I say, I'm sorry, let me add one thing. I skipped a piece. So the next item includes a financial supplemental, but we are extending the elimination of the cooks until the end of this calendar year while we continue talks and look at the alternatives. Chair, I just had a question from Ms. Bowery or someone else. Given this extra time that we have, if we were to identify another source of funding or we received other funding, let's say from the federal government, we could actually stop the RFP process and choose to maintain our program. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. That is correct. Yeah. Well, it's very, this is some of the hardest parts of the budget this year. And I appreciate that we found money to provide extra time to see if we could come up with a better solution because this seems like a particularly bad choice that we'd be making. So for the food service part, the new date is December 31st. The new date for the food service workers is December 31st. That's correct. Okay. A quick question, let's say we go January 1st with the outside contractor. We have to go with them maybe six months, maybe even a year. But can we just go back? Can we rehire those people or it's now an empty spot? We have to go with the outside source year after year. So I believe Ajita maybe on the call can address that, but anytime we eliminate a staff person, they have two years for a right to have their position reinstated. So in the event we found funding and reinstated any positions that have been eliminated, those staff that were eliminated from those positions have the right for reinstatement. Chair, good morning. Good afternoon, Chair Caput. Chair Caput. Sure. Good morning, good afternoon. So Christina did actually clarify that correctly. If your board were to take action to put those positions back under the civil service rules, anybody who was laid off would have a right of re-employment in the order of seniority. So those folks would have a right to come back. Okay, thank you for clearing that up. You're welcome. Okay, thank you both of you. Okay. Mr. Chair. Yes. So I just want to, I appreciate the report back from the sales office for Ms. Mowry. So I just want to confirm for Fit that in the event that it's operationally possible that there is money in the budget to restart the program and that if it doesn't, if it's not operationally possible, then it goes, it stays in the contingencies. Yes. In the event, we'll come back in January, we'll revisit the issue. And in the event your board desires to refund the Fit program at that time, the money would come from contingencies. Okay. But it says not the money isn't allocated right now. It takes an additional board action. That's correct. Okay. So at the concerning thing for me is because it takes time for, that wasn't my direction. It was to actually include a line item for February through June because it does take time for us to approve and then to get the program back up and going. So I'd like to have the money available allocated and then if it's not able to be used then it will be a salary savings. But I think to be consistent with the action that should be the direction. Anyway, thank you. With the other board comments. Mr. Chair, I'm a supervisor in person. I'm very able to hold the SEIU positions until the end of December while the sheriff and the bargaining unit work out our next steps. I know there's a proposal being circulated to fund the positions until next June. I think what is being proposed by the staff is nearly a three month timetable to look the matter further. I think it's reasonable given our general fund deficit that we're facing. And I don't agree with spending down our reserve. I know we're trying to protect that because I think people need to realize we need to protect that because the road ahead is very unpredictable for this county and everybody else in the state of California. So I do approve of the motion that's been made. Okay. I think he meant the recommended actions. The recommended action. We already have, right up, okay. Public comments now. Now's the time for public comment. Go ahead. I was just waiting to be invited. Jim Heaney, Chief Steward for the general representation unit. Who came to you last week. Discuss this contracting out issue. It should not be a surprise to anyone that we're absolutely opposed to it. We've talked about the issues of quality of service that we believe will be dramatically affected. We do appreciate the sheriff working to extend these folks through December. That's very much not lost on us. It gives us a chance to work with the sheriff through the meat and confer process to find other alternatives. We will be looking very closely at any company who responds to the RFP. We've already done some preliminary research where some of the top and common contractors that provide this kind of work. If you put their name in and you put the word lawsuit in afterwards, you're gonna get a lot of hits on your search engine. And our concern is that we could actually go to a contract situation, have that contract situation not work out because we could end up in lawsuits that cost you more than the million dollars you're trying to save per fiscal year. So we'll be working actively on this. We didn't want to lose the opportunity to other sheriff. We do appreciate him working with us in this process. And I also wasn't sure, is this the time for the comment or the next item has this information again. So maybe you'll see me on item 13 too. Thank you for your time. Thanks. Thank you. You need to have the mask over your head. I will, don't worry. Thank you. Becky Steinbrunner, resident of Aptas. I concur with Mr. Heaney's comments. And I really questioned the wisdom of laying off. I think I saw it somewhere between eight and nine, maybe more cooks and people. These are families, these are local people. And whenever you contract out food service with an outside agency, you not only lose the local support that you're giving to these families in our county, but you also lose control over the quality of the food that you bring into the facility. Why would you want to do either? I am really happy that somehow you were able to come up with money. It sounds like it's out of the reserves to keep these people on. I would like to see you do that with the other positions you're eliminating as well. But this one in particular has great concern because you would be losing control of the quality of the food, the source of the food, and you would be eliminating livelihoods for many families. I also would like to speak about the FIT funding that was brought about by Measure G, the half-cent sales tax. So if it's not going to FIT, where is the Measure G money going? It should be going to FIRE, just like you sold that bill for. Thank you. There's nobody in the community room and there are no web comments. Okay, I'll bring it back to the board. Thank you. I'd like to move the recommended actions with the addition of including funding, if operationally possible, for the FIT program from February to June, and funding for the de-escalation training, whether from risk management or from general funds. Oh, we got a motion with the change though. I'll second. Okay. Any other comments from the board? Okay, if we can read it back with the change, I'd appreciate that. So the motion was for the recommended actions, plus additional directing for if operationally possible, funding for the FIT program and for de-escalation. And if you could fill in the blanks for me, that'd be great. Sure. Yeah, so it's funding for the FIT program from February to June, if operationally possible, and funding for de-escalation training, either from risk management or from general funds. Yes. Yes, I could go for that. That's what I said. Okay, we have a motion and a second. I'll do the roll call. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Chairman Caput? Aye. The motion passes unanimously. It takes us to item number 13. Yes, item 13 is to consider a last day report with the financial supplemental for the 2021 revised budget for the Sheriff Corner as outlined in the memorandum of the Sheriff Corner. So the last day report provides for the following budget adjustments. In July, the Paro Valley Unified School District informed the Sheriff's office that they will not be renewing their contract for services. This is a reduction in revenue in the amount of 143,000, which the Sheriff has offset with some reductions in services and supplies and that you can see in schedule A-1. Also in schedule A-2 is the extension of the food services program through December that includes the nine positions that now have their positions extended through December. And as we mentioned before, we'll come back. And then the, and that's in the amount of 261,020 dollars. And then the third item in schedule A-3 is at the request of the board on August 11th. This is the financial supplemental on the Sheriff's side to restore the 50% funding for the Cannabis Compliance Unit, allowing for the refunding of the two Sheriff deputy positions. And this is an increase in expenses of $368,861 offset by revenues from the Cannabis Licensing Office. So it's recommended that your board approve the report as outlined in the memo and take the related actions and we're available to answer any questions. Okay, any questions? Well, let me just say that I'm really glad that we're moving forward with the funding of the sexual assault response team program coordinator. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'm trying not to yell at the speaker, but I'm glad that we are gonna be funding this program. I think it's critically important for our community to have and I appreciate that the board supported it unanimously. Okay. Any other comments? Open up the public, public comments. If there's nobody down in the community room and there are no web comments. I would move the recommended actions. Okay. We have a first from Supervisor Leopold. Oh, a second. Second. Okay. I'll do the roll call. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Chairman Caput? Aye. The motion passes unanimously. We go to number 14. Item number 14 on our agenda today. Yes, item 14 is to consider a last day report for the 2021 revised budget for the health services agency as outlined in the memorandum of the director of health services. There's also a last day financial supplemental. So this last day report provides some minor financial adjustments to the health services budget for the savings related to the retirement and incentive program for the employees that opted and they will be reducing and I should say unfunding those positions as a result. So it's just some minor adjustments and it begins on page 109. But it's recommended that the board approve the report as outlined in the memo and take the related actions. Bring it to the board for questions or comments. Open it up for the public, for public comment. Has anybody done so? There's nobody in the community room and we have no web comments. Okay. I would move the recommended actions. Okay. Second. To the roll call vote. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend? Aye. Pee? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Chairman Caput? Aye. The motion passes unanimously. We go to item number 15, consider concluding reports and final budget action. And this item number 15 is to consider a last day report for the 2021 revised budget for the human services department as outlined in the memorandum of the director of human services. And it includes a financial supplemental. So this last day report provides funding for the new housing for health division of the human services department as approved by the board in May. Schedule one increases the staffing from the transfer of two full-time equivalent positions from the homeless services coordination office and the addition of two positions in the new housing for health division. There's no change in financing for the existing staff and the financing for the two new positions will be leveraged from state and federal funding. The increase in the general fund contribution of $152,236 helps fund the new director for the housing for health division. Schedule A2 decreases the staffing from the, effectuates the transfer of the two staff from the homeless services coordination office to the new housing for health division. And the associated funding is being transferred. So there's no change in the general fund contribution there for the transfer and the transfers effective approximately November 1st once the new director has been hired. So it's recommended that the board approve the report as outlined in the memo and take the related actions and staff are available and willing to answer any questions. Glad to see this homeless program within human services starting. Thank you. Any other comments from the board? Open it up to the public for public comment. Thank you, Becky Steinbruner, the resident of Aptos. It concerns me. I know Supervisor Leopold, you're happy about a new department being created, but I think it's not a wise thing to do at this time when there isn't enough money to fund the departments that we've already got and people are being laid off. I understand that our county is getting a lot of money currently for housing the homeless and taking care of them and that is important, but we have to look in the longterm, is this the right thing to be doing now with that money, establishing a new person, hiring a new person for $152,000 when we're laying other people off? It doesn't seem right. It doesn't seem responsible to those who have been working here for a very long time, serving the public, serving you in your job here. And I really question the wisdom of this. I do wanna say that I'm really glad hearing earlier that the Great Plates Delivered program will be extended, funded by the county, even if the state and federal does not, because I think that serves the people who need the help and it also is a real hand up for the restaurants who are struggling. They provide the food and deliver it to these people. And I would like to ask that that program be revisited and expanded with new food service providers, giving people who might not have known about that opportunity to have a boost to their business to be considered now. Thank you. There's nobody in the community room and we have no web comments. Open it up to the board, I'll close the public comment and open it up to the board for a motion. I would move the recommended actions. New the roll call, Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Captain Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. It takes us to item number 16. Yes. Item 16 is the concluding report for the 2021 revised budget. Consider the 2021 County of Santa Cruz revised budget concluding actions, authorize the Auditor-Controller-Treasure Tax Collector with the concurrence of the County Administrative Officer to make necessary adjustments to the 2021 budget due to the increases and decreases in available financing and approve the 2021 County of Santa Cruz revised budget, including concluding report items and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. It includes a financial supplemental which is attachment A which includes exhibits one which is a summary of all the last day reports with the exception of any of the changes you made today which we will add to that before the adopted budget is finalized. And then also exhibit two is the summary of all the concluding actions and it also includes an attachment B which is the salary schedule effective September 19th which requires your approval. So this item is a standard item. It's always provided to you with the conclusion of budget hearings and it is a summary of all the actions the board has taken up to this date as it provides authorization for the Auditor and the CO to make the adjustments needed to create the adopted budget. As mentioned, the exhibit one reflects all the last day changes that your board has made with the exceptions of the additions you've made today and exhibit two includes all the concluding actions the concluding changes which is sort of the accounting details and the realignments for the various charges that impact the general fund contingencies. Before the changes you made today this left $5.1 million and a general contingency which represented about 90% of a 1% of general fund expenditures as a general contingency to address any unforeseen adjustments to expenditures and revenue estimates. The closing actions item one through 13 are provided in the letter and authorize the auditor and the CAO to prepare and report back to the board with the adopted 2021 budget incorporating all the changes through what the actions you've taken today. I just wanna highlight the summary is there and I'm happy to go into any details. I do wanna point out because we did have a question. The furlough savings is summarized in the concluding report and exhibit two H. So it shows the various furlough savings for each of the departments and any offsetting revenue that's lost. And we've included some minor adjustments for data processing, fleet and the realignment revenue losses of 7.5 million are transferred from the general revenues budget to the various departments. So that's all included in your concluding report. And then overall the change from the last day actions although we will have to update that for the additional actions you took today ended up with the 5.1 million and then we do have the restricted contingencies for the mid-year adjustments and also for any emergency repairs. We have very meager and minor amounts included in the restricted contingencies. And then we also have a million and a half in there for the state realignment trigger cuts which we discussed before at the beginning of budget hearings. In the event the state does not receive additional federal money they will, we will see a reduction of 1.5 million in the realignment revenue that the health and human services departments rely on. So we have that as a placeholder to offset that. Let's see, I don't think there's anything else I wanna go over there but I'll address any questions that you have. But before I do that I would like to thank the department heads and their budget staff for all their hard work on the budget especially the county administrative office staff under the leadership of Carlos Palacios and the board of supervisors. As we have mentioned during budget hearings we are in unprecedented times and there's still a great deal of uncertainty related to the financial impacts of COVID-19 and the related recession. Difficult decisions had to be made to address the estimated revenue losses through fiscal year 2021 of almost $36 million since March. We are fortunate that we have healthy reserves which we can rely on one time to reduce the impacts and we are grateful for the cooperation of all the bargaining units on accepting a furlough of anywhere between five and 10% which has allowed us to limit the number of position eliminations and reductions within the departments and limit the impacts on services to the community. It is anticipated that many of the eliminated positions will have placement opportunities elsewhere in the county. We will continue to monitor budget to actuals and provide periodic updates to the board. The 2021 revised budget is a prudent financial plan given our financial constraints. So it's recommended that the board approve the 2021 concluding report and approve all the related actions as presented and we are available to answer any questions. You're built, anybody from the board? Yes, chair. I appreciate all the work that's done. Mrs. Mallory has had a lot of work to do this year and although she's in her safe and secure location that we can see her in and she can make presentations from, I know that she's been working very hard. I believe that we've got this as best as we could. I would like to suggest one more change. I believe that the staff made an honest effort to represent what we talked about at the budget hearings when it came to the sanitation department but I believe the entire unit should be covered or outside the furlough than just the ones listed here. And when it comes time to make a recommendation I'll be asking to put them back in. Do we need a second on that or anything? We're not time for a motion, it was just a comment. Okay. Public comment. So now it'd be a time for public comment. Yes, I'll do that. I'll make a quick comment and then I'll be done. I want to thank everybody also. And for the few out there that have asked me, have you, the Board of Supervisors really taken a cut? Have the department heads taken a cut? Yes, we have and it started about a month ago and it's a 10% cut in pay. You can call it a furlough, you can call it whatever you want, but it is the 10% cut in pay. And that goes for the department heads also. I really appreciate that. It shows leadership by example. And I want to just commend all of you. Thank you. And I know it's the 7.5% furlough is tough for everybody else. And normally when it comes to voting on a budget, if anybody is going to lose their job in the past, I've always voted no. We are doing everything we can to get somebody a job that looks like their job is going to be eliminated somewhere in the department. We know the people and we know that they're struggling. And I appreciate how the staff is trying to find a place for them. I don't know the exact numbers, but everybody and our staff is important to us. And we take their loss very seriously. And we are going to keep trying to find you some kind of a position. Okay, thank you. Go ahead. Mr. Chair, this is Supervisor McPherson. I just want to thank Miss Mallory and the whole budget team and department heads throughout the county. This has been the toughest year of certainly the eight that I have been associated with the County Board of Supervisors. And we have an uncertain future, even though we've done a lot of things to strike a balance of our eliminated positions and furlough. So everyone contributes to our closing our gap while also tapping our reserves significantly. Again, I wanted to thank all of our employees for their contributions. What really stands out to me is how much we really need additional state and federal support to help us address our revenue losses. Local governments are, we're really on the front lines of this pandemic in terms of coordinating our public health response, which has been phenomenal, and should be some of the early costs to manage it. Now is the time that we really can ensure that we can keep doing that work. I think we have put ourselves in place to continue in it, but we may need additional help. We are gonna need additional help if this pandemic continues. This is not a fun budget, but it could have been so much worse if we hadn't had the reserves, we hadn't had taken the actions we had previously. So I want to thank my colleagues and everybody who has put together this budget. It hasn't been a fun budget, but it's one that I think we can say we did the best we could under the circumstances. So thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Okay, I'll open up the public. Sorry to have you stand up, sit down, and then stand up again. I could use some more calisthenics, so it's okay. So thank you again, Chair Caput, members of the board, Jim Heaney, Chief Steward for General Representation Unit. Couple of things I wanted to talk about was kind of the process in this budget hearing. One is that we, as taking action today, you do create layoffs. And what that does trigger in our contract is our AVTO program. It's a voluntary time off program. It actually technically says in the agreement that the board needs to authorize that. So I don't know if the board's willing to address that today, but we need that authorized person. I would like to start that tomorrow where folks in the affected departments can actually put their hand up for more time off and possibly save a coworker. Additionally, on the process, we received this revised budget about two weeks ago. We being SEIU, the marketing unit for the vast majority of the employees. And so it's a mad scramble for the last two weeks. And I think in the bad years, we find that this process is somewhat broken. The good years you don't really notice because things are sailing along, we're funding things we want to fund. But in these bad years, we quickly find out that we have to scramble and try to figure out a solution when we really should have been involved from June until the end of July with the departments that we're gonna have issues. All the bargaining units should be involved. And the fact that, you know, we go through this budget process, every single department head sits up here and sings the praise of their workers, but we're not involved in the important decision-making. So I think we need to do this better. The other thing is bargaining units are allowed to come up during public comment. And my friend here, the clock today, I get two minutes last week, I got three, is sometimes a bit of an insult. We try not to waste your time. We feel like we have a lot of things that are germane to the process. And if we are your partners, we want to be treated like partners. And I think that in forward meeting and meetings going forward, could we, thank you. Thank you, Chair. And meetings going forward, we should maybe look at this in a different way. Maybe there should be an opportunity for comments from the bargaining units. And I see units plural. We're not the only bargaining unit. There are others who have interests here also. So actually, I think that pretty much concludes my comments. I appreciate the additional time. And, you know, we are disappointed that we possibly will be losing workers here. We do want to sing the praise. You don't hear this from me very often. Listen up, Ajita. We want to sing the praise of person. Now, when it comes to this process, I've been through it many times, unfortunately, and they work really hard to help place people. There's no guarantee, but at least they will, you know, do the best they can to help us and work together. And that process starts for us tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. She will definitely keep that on her repeat loop tape. Thank you, Mr. Heaney. I appreciate your hard work on behalf of the people and your candid comments before the public and the board and the CAO. I echo your sentiments and it was appalling to me to learn that Rosemary Anderson, the director of our office of emergency services only found out two weeks ago that her job was being cut. That's pretty amazing. And as he said, you should have been involving these people who are gonna be affected a long time ago when you knew the cuts were coming. I wanna say that, first of all, Ms. Mallory, I wanna thank you for answering my questions in regarding the 10% verification of about board of supervisors pay. I didn't quite understand the answer that it was through furlough savings in exhibit 2H that the same number of furlough days could be a 7.5% reduction in pay for most people, but it equaled a 10% reduction in pay for the board of supervisors 19 days is 19 days. How can it be 7.5% for some and 10% for others? I also wanna bring to the forefront here the elephant in the room and that's the unfunded CalPERS pension that's coming due. And we've got people like Susan Mariello that are collecting huge pensions. She's making now probably about as much as Mr. Palacio is now. Are those people being reduced at all? I'd like some information on that. We've all got to suffer together, right? So they should also be suffering. I also wanna say that another one or 2% cut in your pay and Mr. Palacio's pay, which is upward of almost $400,000 a year, that would put enough money together to save these people's jobs. I'm heartened that fellow workers are willing to take a cut in their own pay to save their coworkers jobs. It could come from you, the leaders. And from Mr. Palacio, the highest paid person in the county. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Any other comments? We have nobody in the community room but we do have one web comment. This comes from Sean Mathis. Closing actions, line 10 in regards to sanitation furlough. I request that this board not settle on a carve out of sanitation staff that exempt some and not others. Sanitation furloughs does not save jobs and not only should SEIU staff be exempt but all staff including mid managers in these budgeted and fully funded positions. If not, please explain why these furlough savings, where these furlough savings would be spent. Please don't tell me on projects or other parts of the department. The idea of an employee wage savings going to fund anything other than workers is just disingenuous. And that is all for public comment. Chair, I have a question. There was a question about the voluntary time off program and the need to take some action today if you could bring some clarification about that. Sure. Good afternoon, Chair Caput, Caput members of the board, Ajita Patel, personal director. The action that Mr. Heaney was referencing is actually included in number eight in your concluding day report. So by your actions today, you'll initiate and activate the program. That's what I thought. I didn't realize it was something else. Yeah. I really appreciate what you're doing. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Chair, you know, the end of budgets is always a time to reflect on what it is we've done. There's a lot of good that's in our budget and there's obviously some very tough choices that we've had to make this year. I appreciate the work of everyone to try to find ways to reduce their costs instead of reduce their staffing to the greatest extent possible. Some of those were outside of our control, such as the state budget cut and the child support services. I'm hopeful that our personnel department can meet the praise that it received here today to try to work to find employment for as many people as possible with the vacancies that we have here in the county family. I also know that every department has had to make some very difficult choices about what they can do or what they can't do in the coming year. It is hard with a dedicated group of people to have to choose to do less when you want to be serving the public. And so I recognize there's lots of hard choices, some of which are very clear and in front of us and some of this will be just the things that we miss and that the community counts on in different ways. I do believe that in an enterprise fund like the sanitation department that we should treat them differently. And I want to also heed the call from our largest employee unit. And I'm persuaded that we should not have the furlough affect that enterprise department. And so I would move the recommended actions with the exception of action 10, which is to exempt the entire general representation unit in the public works, sanitation section. Okay, anybody else? We need a motion and a second right in the vote. Do you have a motion and a second? Supervisor Friend seconded. I'll do the roll call. Supervisor Leopold. Aye. Friend. Aye. Chair Kee. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Chairman Caput. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. Wow. The next meeting will be September 1st at 9 a.m. And that's it for today, right? Okay, thank you, everybody. Thank you.