 We'll now call to order the regular meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. It is Tuesday, October 18th at 9 a.m. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Supervisor Friend. Here. Coonerty. Here. McPherson. Here. And Koenig. Here. Chair Yeoakwam. Thank you. We came with a moment of silence and then a pledge of allegiance. I wanna begin today by saying that it's with deep sorrow that we inform you that one of our colleagues, disposal site maintenance worker, Leo Ruiz, passed away last week. And so we'll hold them in our hearts today during the moment of silence. I also wanted to acknowledge that the Homeless Persons Health Project writes an annual report for all the people experiencing homelessness who pass away each year. And this report is presented annually at a memorial around December 21st. And today I wanna include in our thoughts Marilyn Uribe and Midori Montalvo. Both were killed recently when struck by passenger cars. Marilyn was pregnant and killed in Watsonville. And Midori was with her four-year-old daughter. And both were struck at the highway one in River Street intersection. Her daughter recovered, but Midori did not. Would anyone else like to acknowledge anyone for our moment of silence? Seeing none. A few moments. I pledge 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. Sayo Palacios, are there any additions or deletions to the regular consent agenda? Yes, we have one correction on the consent agenda. Item number 15, attachment A, packet page 346 is replaced. Additional direction should read to return to the board with an agenda item to present options to help support the local cannabis industry operations and help increase the tax base of local operations. That concludes the corrections. Okay, thank you. Would any board member like to remove an item from the consent agenda to the regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll now proceed with public comment. Any person may address the board during this comment period. Speakers must not exceed two minutes in length. And individuals may speak only once during public comment. Public comments must be directed to an item listed on today's consent agenda, closed session agenda, or yet to be heard on the regular agenda, or topic not on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the board. Board members will now take actions or respond immediately to any public communication presented regarding topics not on the agenda but may choose to follow up later either individually or at a subsequent board of supervisors meeting. Please proceed. Good morning, my name is James Ewing Whitman. I didn't stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to any of these corporate flags, including the pedophile flag, and I won't do it. I think it's amazing. I think this is the first time that Ryan Coonerty has shown up in person on the consent agenda. I haven't read through all of it, but the other day, I guess Sunday, number 18, you guys are just gonna rubber stamp meeting remotely if you choose to. Why is that? What is the emergency? Is the emergency the directed energy weapons fire to the CZU that happened in 2020? Is it this scam demic? What is the emergency? Why would you continue to rubber stamp these things? I think it's amazing that Ryan Coonerty is here because I don't think he's been here once since this was open to public debate. What is a Fabian socialist? It's pretty frickin' nasty. We are facing, this is an incredible time to be a human being on planet Earth. There are four different natural sun cycles going on. When people are talking about the gray reset, most people don't know that they don't know that they don't know. Now, unfortunately, I left my brand new reading glasses on the counter in the bathrooms and these are just to help me from the blue light. I don't know. What do I know? I started getting paid as a mechanic at the age of 14. I became an Eagle Scout in 1985. I've been responsible for at least 700 construction inspections. And I'm here. I'd like to see some changes. I don't really expect much out of you guys, but there's some interesting things to talk about later. Thanks. Thank you. And I'll put the supervisor back. All right, well, we'll come back to you at the end. Gary Richard Arnold. A lot of people don't know the influence of the good times or its origins. Origins came from an outfit called In These Times and that was in Chicago. It was put together by James Weinstein, a communist who used to drive around the Rosenbergs, the atomic spies. And one of the founding sponsors is Hugh Delacy, of which you have two monuments out there done by Marty Wormhout's husband that you still honor this red Chinese spy that contributed the killing of Americans at the end of World War II, Korea and Vietnam, and it continues today. It turns out Hugh Delacy also worked for Gary Patton, according to this Wikipedia here. Gary Patton was financed immediately by Packard, who's a member of the Trilateral Commission and Fundsy Community Foundation, which has a communist red Chinese Hugh Delacy action forum. Also financed was John Laird and Marty Wormhout. The other people involved with the good times is Dorothy Healy, a communist organizer for the Southern California Party. Herbert Marquess, the theoretician of the Communist Party USA. Anyway, there's 14 different names here. We find that you know, Leon Panetta gave this communist spy military and policy information. It was also Panetta that was part of the 50 intelligence people that said Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. We find out today than Hunter Biden got millions of dollars from communist China. Leon Panetta has never changed the stripes, although you cover it with the pretense that you have representative government. You do not. You have a secret government, a Soviet called Ambag, in which people are not invited. It's never put on TV. That shows your complicity in it. And I could go one after another here. A few people have either received red Chinese money or foundation money from any spirit. Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Good morning, honorable supervisors. My name is Emily Chung from the Public Health Division of Health Service Agency. I'm here with Brenda Brenner, who we had the honor of celebrating her retirement on September 30 of this year. I'm a little belated in presenting her a proclamation signed by Chair Koenig. And I wanted to just acknowledge Brenda's wonderful efforts for our community for the six plus years of employment with the county. Brenda had started her career as a paramedic in our region and has committed her life to the emergency medical services industry and field work and has risen the ranks to eventually becoming our emergency medical services manager. She directed and led our EMS system with grace and poise and expertise for such a long period of time, including doing things like going through a RFP process for ambulance services, being mobilized for every conceivable disaster, including fires, tsunamis, pandemics, mass casualty incidents. And it's no laughing matter the serious work that she has really committed herself to as a lifetime career professional in health services. So we are sad to see her leave our organization, but we are so proud of her for what she's done and what she's contributed. And we congratulate you for your retirement. And I would like to present you this proclamation. And I want to leave you a few seconds if you want to say any words. Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to thank you for this honor. It's huge for me. I'd also like to thank you for the opportunity to work in this role for the last six years. We have a really special EMS system in this county. We all work together really well, and we put the patient as the number one priority. And I am so honored to have been able to be a member of this whole team. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for your really good work over the years and your many roles in this community. Thank you, Brenda. Good morning. My name is Cheryl Ainsworth. I live in downtown Felton. My husband and I chose to live there as our retirement location. So I had some concerns about your agenda item number 12 and the future of sewer disposal in our area. So I wanted to point out a couple of things for you. One, in your staff report, it says that the high-end costs for a replacement system for a failed septic system might be $70,000. Well, I went across the street to someone who works in the industry, the Bonnie Dune environmental systems folks. And the immediate response when I asked, what would it cost for me to get one today was $90,000. So I don't know if the staff report fully conveys the extent of the financial impact on our community when systems are repeatedly inspected and failures are found. So I wanted to really emphasize that for you to understand this is not a wealthy community. $90,000 is kind of a non-starter for many people. So the second thing is your staff report proposes that if a high rate of failures is found that at that point, there would be a process initiated where community meetings were held and that they would start a feasibility study to look again at the issue of bringing sewer for the community. I would like to say that is closing the barn door after many people have already spent this kind of money. That's already, you could see them in our little neighborhood already, people are spending this kind of money. That's too late. Should be happening now. The technology has changed since the 80s and the last study was done. The economics clearly has changed. So I would ask that you would forward this to happen now, not later. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sainsworth. Hi, my name is Judy Geer. And I live up by the university in those condominiums. I got an email from the NACP about being a sheriff's oversight committee, possibility of forming a sheriff's oversight committee composed of local community activists. I think that's just a splendid idea that we should definitely do that. It should be comprised of totally community activists and nobody connected with the sheriff's department. And there were 11 different points, including they should have ability to subpoena people and be financially supported so they could continue in their work. And I wish somebody with more articulate was here to speak on this topic, but I'm here, so I'm here. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Geer. Hello, my name is Susan Cohen. I'm also speaking on, I believe it's item eight on the sheriff's oversight committee. And I urge you all to vote to include a civilian oversight board along with the inspector general. This seems to be the most conscientious way to include disparate voices of folks who are most impacted by policing and tales. And one person alone cannot represent the experience, the range of experience and needs of those living in our county. Also, no one on this board, nor the inspector general should be affiliated part of the sheriff's department, past or present, coming in with any previous relationships or there would be no trust in the community. So, we have to be brave enough to admit that there are law enforcement officers who do some horrible things to folks and on the streets in our schools and in the jails. And we have to be willing to see the truth. And yes, their jobs are hard, but that does not mean they should not be held accountable. Inside the jails, we have a report from the grand jury that outlines abuses, neglected has led to deaths in the jails here, sexual abuse in the jails here and also day-to-day neglect, like not giving medications, not dealing with mental and physical health. So again, it's not just in the jail, people are racially profiled and people are targeted on the streets and in schools by law enforcement. Those who end up in juvenile systems and jails and prisons, some of these folks are the most vulnerable people in our society, but we blame them for having had the circumstances that led them to live on the streets or act out in school. We have to be brave enough to admit this and look for ways to start to repair and oversight that includes a board is a start. This oversight along with the inspector general can also start to look at what needs to be done to intervene so kids don't end up in juvenile detention centers and adults who are just trying to live don't end up in jail. We have to stop criminalizing being poor. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't see the time. Thank you. Sorry. Hello, I'm Patricia O'Connell. I live in the Mount Herman area. And I'm kind of doing this since further moment just heard about this last evening about the septics, the mandatory replacement of septics. Get the mic down by your mouth, please. Oh, okay. There you go. Thank you. We'll do. So I don't know what item that is on the agenda, but if I'm hearing correctly, there will be mandatory replacement requirement to update or replace, for example, septic systems that are redwood as they are in our Mount Herman area. Obviously this needs to be done. My concern is the cost. And I'm hearing 70 to 90,000. So I'd like to not only hear details about the plan because I really just have a sketchy information about it, but what kind of possible financing might be provided for people like myself, senior unfixed income and others who really don't have 70 to 90,000 sitting around to cover this expense. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. O'Connell. Do we have any speakers on Zoom? Yes, we do, Chair. Jean, your microphone is now available. Good morning commissioners or board and supervisors. I have reviewed enough of the 966 page draft EIR segment nine of the rail trail to be horrified at what I have learned. I am not exaggerating when I described this segment as a tunnel of trees, mature trees, who grew up creating a sanctuary of wildlife since we all envisioned a simple scenic trail. Everything we thought we wanted and then needed 25 years ago, me included when we all glowingly spoke of this trail along the coast, everything has changed to deliberately cut down 400 trees and pave over living soil is insane in today's world. How can we bemoan the loss of trees and homes in rural Santa Cruz County due to fires and then plan deliberately to kill 400 trees? The homes of birds, the homes of monarch butterflies, small mammals and pollinators, how can we do this? How can we say the words sustainable or green or Monterey Bay sanctuary scenic trail and then cut down almost 400 trees in less than two miles to build a hardened impermeable asphalt bicycle pedestrian road next to the dormant rails killing life and destroying homes as we go creating a homeless wildlife. We must not do this. There is no sane rationalization for this industrial project to continue. We must apply the brakes and start all over again to find a way to repurpose this living corridor of life. Please, as a board or as individuals, do everything in your power to act for the good of all life in Santa Cruz County. Help stop this insanity, put the brakes on it right now, return to the planning tables and find a way to repurpose the rail corridor without destroying its precious life. I know I'm speaking to the Board of Supervisors today, not to the Regional Transportation Commission, but I am going to speak to everyone I can possibly speak to between now and when this horrific project commences. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Brocklebank. Colin, user one, your microphone is now available. Marilyn Garrett, I would like the board to take to heart the comments of the previous speaker, horrifying killing trees and ecosystems. Another factor in the death of trees is all the radiation. I refer you to a book called The Invisible Rainbow, a History of Electricity and Life by Arthur First of Berg. There is a chapter in there, these birds, trees and humans on the dire consequences of microwave exposure. I'd also call for the removal of microwave technology because it's a death technology. And I'm looking right now at the September 11th, a 2022 Sentinel with a picture of it says, what's that giant or radar installation? Now top Santa Cruz share of the office and refers to expand radar facility. So I took off my shelf the 1977 book, The Zapping of America chapter four, The Human Factor. In 1961, we're mourning people who die in car crashes rightly so. What about mourning and preventing people from dying from radiation and cancer causing exposure? So I'll read this till you come off. In 1961, that's just from The Zapping of America, Professor Susskind performed an experiment for the Air Force exposed 200 male rats to radiation in the expand frequency range, which was generated by an Air Force radar transmitter. Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Your microphone is now available. Okay, good morning, Chair Koenig and Supervisors, Tom Avila, Watts Welfare Division Chief. I manage department operations in Watsonville. I'd like to comment on consent item number 38, the AMR contract extension. As I mentioned at your last meeting, AMR provides a valuable service to the communities in Santa Cruz County and is an important part in our EMS system. I wanted to share with you that since your last meeting, Watts Welfare is very appreciative to have been able to meet with Health Services Director Morellis, EMS Medical Director Dr. Giroducci and AMR manager to discuss our concerns that I raised at your last meeting. We reviewed data from the past 18 months. The meetings were productive and our concerns have been addressed. We look forward to continuing to work with AMR and other stakeholders on efforts in improving the EMS services in Santa Cruz County. Thank you and I appreciate pulling this item from the last consent agenda is to give us time to have these meetings and discussions. Thank you. Thank you, Chief Avila. Felix, your microphone is now available. Hello, my name is Felix Vassier. I live in the Live Oak area. I'm calling in to comment about the Sheriff's Oversight Committee. I support making one with an inspector general with subpoena power and also a citizens committee that works with them. So I think that would be the most legitimate to like the population in general if you had all those pieces and the most effective. So thank you for your time, but. Thank you, Felix. Kathy, your microphone is now available. Hello, my name is Kathy Lass. I live in Aptos. I am also calling on the Sheriff's Oversight Committee. I agree with the previous commenters and the NAACP and the ACLU and I'm a member of showing up for racial justice Santa Cruz County, Serge SCC. I would just like to echo that I do support having both an inspector general and an independent inspector general and a civilian oversight board to hold the Sheriff's Department accountable. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lass. Clay, your microphone is now available. Good morning, board. Clay Kemp, Executive Director of the Seniors Council. And I'm just here to share the urgency around the situation with the Live Oak Senior Center. I think all of you are familiar with this issue, but currently the tenants, the Meals on Wheels program and Senior Network Services are both slated for eviction at the end of this fiscal year. We did get a stay of the eviction of a couple of months. And as part of that request, the school board was asked if they would form a working committee involving senior services, county staff, obviously the school board and their staff in order to work out a mutual solution rather than just bulldozing the property. That has not happened yet and we're getting concerned. A variety of you and other elected officials, including Senator Laird have sent a letter to the school district requesting that action, but it's still not there. And at this late date, we're getting more concerned than ever. And one story, I think I can get this in in the next 50 seconds. During the heat wave that we had all around the state, we had senior centers open as cooling centers. In our case, the Live Oak Senior Center was the opposite because the heating and cooling system hasn't worked for about five years. And despite numerous requests to repair that by the tenants, we were actually preparing how to let the workers work from home because the building would be too hot. And ironically, the cost of repairing that system is one of the reasons that the tenants are being evicted. And the mitigation that's being worked out is that the tenants themselves are currently planning on repairing that cooling system. So the situation continues to be unresolved and it's just critically important to older adults in our community. So we're hoping the board can urge staff to move this along. Thank you much. Thank you, Director Kempf. Chair, we have no further speakers online. Thank you. Supervisor McPherson. I'd like to take the unusual action to just point out two annual reports that were issued since our last meeting. And one is on the 2021 Sheriff's Department report as Sheriff Jim Hart said, it began our return to pre-COVID life. And I just wanted to say thank you to those members of 33 or 333 employees of the Sheriff's office and 266 peace officers. And we have 21 volunteers that have offices throughout the county that men and women knows with a budget of $114 million per year. It made 82,000 calls. And I would like to say that they did it professionally. And the hope in 2022 for the sheriff is to reopen the correctional facilities and the DNA lab project. But about 10 years ago, our Sheriff's Department was at the front of the line in implementing community policing throughout the nation. And it's done much more of that with through the Judicial Council in a cooperative effort now recently four cities in the county to see how they coordinate their efforts as best way possible. And I just want to say thanks to the Sheriff's Department for their accomplishments and for their professionalism. Secondly, I'd like to just make mention to the importance of our agricultural industry. And in 2021 crop report, this was reported in the Santa Cruz Sentinel and other newspapers, I'm sure. We had a total crop value of $657 million and we ranked 19th of the 58 counties in production. And this production is done on about 17,000 acres. And the importance of agriculture and those who are involved with it just can't be overstated for Santa Cruz County. And I think it's something that a lot of county residents would like to recognize or learn more about. I just wanted to mention these two reports because I think they're significant. They're really a critical part of Santa Cruz County. And I just wanted to mention some of the details in them. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. We'll now have comments and action on the consent agenda. If any board member would like to speak to items on the consent agenda. I'll start off with that too. On item 25, I want to thank our CEO and the personnel director and other leaders for developing these new roles that we have in Santa Cruz County. I think there's a critical for addressing the county's strategic goals and pretending to improve customer service, especially in our planning public works departments. That's item 25. And on item 29, the public should be aware that the board schedule will be conducting its budget hearings and the final budget action differently next year than we have. I think the proposed schedule has moved up and we'll give the public more time to really think through the budget and address the issues that are in it, as well as address the questions of a concern in a more thoughtful manner. The budget is in an enormous document of over a billion dollars now and it has far reaching implications on how we operate year in and year out, of course. So it's good that the board is considering this earlier in the spring and it'll be in the may or earlier than we normally have the budget sessions. So I think it's a good idea and we'll give the public more access and a longer time period to look at our accounting budget for 22-23. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Supervisor Coonerty. No comments today, thank you. Okay. All right, I'll just like to call out a couple items. On item 30, 31 and 32, I wanna thank Sylvia Morales for volunteering to serve on the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Arthur Solway, volunteering for the Arts Commission in the First District and Suzanne Dottie for volunteering for the Seniors Commission in the First District. Our democracy depends on the enthusiastic engagement of a lot more members of the community than just us. Thank you as well to all the public who are here today to participate in democracy. And I'm just really grateful for these commissioners for stepping forward. And on item 46 and item 50, easement acquisition and approving plans for the Soquel Drive Buffer Bike Lane and congestion mitigation project. This is a really exciting step towards a project that's really gonna be transformative in providing much better multimodal access through the middle of the county, both safer bike lanes as well as have much better functioning metro routes on Soquel Drive. There's no further comments. Is there a motion? So moved. Motion by Supervisor Coonerty, second by Supervisor McPherson to adopt the consent agenda. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. And Koenig? Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we'll proceed with our regular agenda and item seven to consider approval and concept ordinance amending section 2.13.030 of the Santa Cruz County Code regarding administrative oversight of the public defender and schedule the ordinance for second reading and final adoption on October 25th, 2022 is outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. And for a report on this item, we have Assistant CAO Nicole Coburn. And good morning, Chair Koenig and members of the board. I'm Nicole Coburn, Assistant CAO. I'm here to present the proposed ordinance before you today. On November 17th, 2020, the board enacted an ordinance adding chapter 2.13 to establish the public defender's office and the position of public defender. The board subsequent to that adopted a resolution creating the public defender job specification in February of 2021. And it is now necessary to amend section 2.13030 of the County Code, which is the implementing ordinance of the public defender's office to align with the public defender job specification. The ordinance under consideration would specifically specify that the public defender works independently under administrative oversight from the board of supervisors and the County Administrative Officer or their designee and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Language is also added noting that the County Administrative Officer or their designee is responsible for coordinating with the board of supervisors to decide on the method and procedure to be used for the performance evaluation of the public defender. And as I mentioned, these would align both the County Code with the job specification. There's no financial impact from this recommended action. And with that, I would ask you to consider and prove in concept the ordinance and schedule the ordinance for a second reading on October 25th. Thank you, Assistant CAO Coburn. Are there questions from members of the board? Seeing none. Is any member of the public wish to comment on this item? Yeah, good morning. My name is James Ewing Whitman. I tried to write down and quota. I believe what was stated is the public defender operates independently from this board of supervisors and the County Administrator. I think that's great, because you guys are just puppets. Since 1915, the city and County managers have been controlling boards of supervisors and city councils. So it's great that we have somebody operating independently. I think that's very needed. I often not politely, but refer to our COA as the Civilization Abliteration Assistant. So I think it's great that the public defenders has their own amount of money. I think it's between 11 and $15 million, because we're gonna need the public defenders. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. Seeing no one else here in chambers, is there anyone on Zoom that would just comment on this item? We do have speakers with their hands raised. Linda, your microphone is now available. Yeah, I'm sorry. This is not the topic I wanted to comment on. I was referring back to the septic comments. Okay, thank you, Linda. We have no speakers at this time, Chair. All right, then I'll return to the board for action. We recommend actions. Second. All right, motion by Supervisor McPherson, seconded by Supervisor Kennedy to accept the recommended actions. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. All right. Senator Kennedy? Aye. McPherson? Aye. And Koenig? Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Coburn. I'll now proceed with item eight to consider establishing the Office of Inspector General, authorize the General Services Department to release a request for proposal RFP for independent inspector general services for the Sheriff's Office and direct the County Administrative Officer to return with a selected vendor and contract once the RFP process is complete as outlined in the memorandum with the County Administrative Officer. And for a report on this item, we have Melody Serino, our Deputy CAO. Good morning, members of the board. As Supervisor Koenig said, I am Melody Serino. I'm the Deputy CAO. And the item before you today is to establish the Independent Office of Inspector General for the Sheriff's Office and approve the request for proposal for services for the office for your instructions on January 11th of this year. I'm gonna run you through a very brief presentation on why this office is being established, what they do, how they do it based on the statute and the research and review some things quickly in the RFP. So AB 1185 is the state legislation that was enacted in 2020 and allowed for the establishment of the independent oversight over county sheriffs. I wanna be clear that an inspector general is not a new idea. And in fact, has been in effect in many California cities as early as 1990. AB 1185 codified this ability for counties. In January, you unanimously approved a plan to hire an inspector general and funding was included in the current fiscal year budget to support that hiring. Sheriff Hart was one of the very first local sheriffs to implement 21st century policing, which are best practices designed to help law enforcement agencies promote effective crime reduction and build public trust through transparency and accountability. At the January board meeting, Sheriff Hart said an independent sheriff auditor or inspector general is in line with 21st century policing ideas and he is fully supportive of the idea. The critical thing to remember about an inspector general is that it allows an independent third party the ability to audit law enforcement actions, procedures and policies. Just like we have independent auditors who review our finances to be sure we are managing the taxpayers money appropriately, the independent auditor or inspector general would audit or review actions of the sheriff's departments to be sure their actions are objective, fair and transparent. So when I was doing some research and I looked about 52 different agencies to have this kind of office, this was a mission statement I found and I thought it really fully captured the purpose of the inspector general's role. So the inspector general has the authority to investigate the actions, policies and procedures of the sheriff's office, provide reports to the public and make recommendations. They have access to records, people and information in order to make their determinations. And during my research I found that while each inspector general was set up slightly different in terms of who they reported to or what they had authority to investigate, they always had at least these elements in common for their roles and responsibilities. In researching, there were differences also in how each office carried out its mission. However, most adhered to the any open door policy whereby complaints or information could come through the IG office, the sheriff's office or the internal affairs office in order to start investigations. Depending on the nature of the issue, the complaint could be followed up by any one of those entities as well. Following an investigation by others, the IG can audit the investigation to determine if it has been objective, fair and transparent and can either agree or disagree with the findings or require more actions. Independent investigations by the IG may also be considered when necessary. Prior to developing the request for proposal, we held four community meetings with the public to understand what was the concern and what they wanted to be included in the IG statement of work for the RFP. Many of the suggestions will be included in the ordinance and I'm sorry there was in the report it said in the RFP. So some of the things are in the RFP and some of the things that will be in the ordinance depending on the appropriate place for them. And that could things in the ordinance could include subpoena power or the ability to conduct independent instigations. While some are included in the RFP such as reporting to the public and we're requesting staffing details including resumes to help evaluators understand available resources, expertise and cultural competencies. The County Administrative Office will be the agency which contracts with, manages and evaluates the performance of the IG. Therefore the CAO will select the members of the evaluation committee for the RFP and bring the final recommendation for the contractor to the board. It is expected that that will happen before the end of the year so that the IG office can begin to establish itself in the new calendar year. At a later date, County Council will bring forth the ordinance related to the IG office parameters. And I also wanted to reference that within page 12 on the RFP, there's a hanging J on page 12 that it looks like something should be there. It was just a mistake. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. So that concludes my presentation. And so at this time, we request your approval of the following recommendations and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Deputy CAO Serino. Other questions for members of the board? Supervisor McPherson. Yeah, I have a couple and I just looking at the proposed RFP on page 12 of the document, which is page 43 of our board packet. We discussed item four, the expectation that the Inspector General review cases of incusity deaths, but the item doesn't discuss any anticipated outcomes as is the case with the item right before number three, which discusses reviewing officer involved shooting investigation to determine if they were quote, complete thorough objective and fair. Is there a reason no similar anticipated outcomes were stated for item four and why it just says review? I think it was just, we said it once, we didn't feel the need to say it again because that's one of the guiding principles of the IG office is that all investigations will be investigated to determine their complete thorough objective and fair. We can certainly add that language to the RFP if you desire it. Okay, I would, I think it'd be more consistent if we did and I'd recommend that. And I have a second question is in generally, I'd like to have some clarity about the lines of authority related to wind solving disagreements between the Sheriff's office has handled the case and how the Inspector General sees it. If the Inspector General believes the case could have been handled better and makes a recommendation to that, what is the Sheriff's obligation to do to act after that? And how might the SAO or the board be involved in the discrepancies between the two if the Inspector General is to remain independent as we all want? Well, some of that should be laid out in the ordinance and I'm gonna make sure that County Council is agreeing with me on that on how those things will be handled. They wouldn't be included in the RFP because we're asking the proposers to tell us how they're gonna carry out the work. But for disagreements typically, what I saw in my research was that the flow was generally either the managing person which could have been the city council or could have been the city manager or the board of supervisors or the CAO would step in at that point and then determine what's the next steps to happen. And so that's what I saw in my research. I think it will depend on how we determine how we want the workflow to work in those instances. And of course, we'll take your advice on that. Okay. All right, thank you. I don't have any advice at this moment, but thank you. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Other questions or comments from board members? Just a couple of questions. I see that during the public meetings, one suggestion that came up was to allocate 1% of the sheriff's budget to the investigator. And here we've got, I mean, the sheriff's budget is $95 million in 22, 23, and here we're allocating about $100,000. So about one 1-tenth of 1%. I mean, I know you reviewed 52 other agencies and in that review, what was the general relationship between sheriff's budget and then the office? So I want to remind you that this is only for six months. So that's first off, right? That it's a truncated amount of money. So we would anticipate that there would be more money allocated for a full fiscal year. This was for a half fiscal year. I didn't run the math on how much of a particular budget was allocated, but I can tell you what I saw was most of the contracts were done by hourly rate. And so the contractor would give an hourly rate. They would kind of scope out the number of hours that they thought that they might work and then they'd build in a contingency to say if we needed extra hours or if there was some additional expertise that we needed that wasn't in our office, then we would have some contingency money to go ahead and spend it that way. Okay, so we would in a normal fiscal year typically expect at least $200,000. I would expect this to be more expensive in a regular full fiscal year. Yes. Okay, thank you. But we'll see depending on what we get with the proposals. Right, right. Of course, what the county budget situation looks like next year. Will there be a process by which jail inmates could make confidential complaints? So again, in my research, what I found was a lot of the Inspector General offices had a secure safe website for inmates to include information if they wanted to make complaints that went directly to the Inspector General. So there were processes in most of the ones that I saw that went directly to the Inspector General. I said through a website or... Through a website, yes. Okay, is that... I didn't catch that that was included in our RFP. Is that something that we should... We asked them to talk about a website and how, right? So how they would take in complaints. Yeah. Okay, thank you. That's all my questions. Okay, thanks. There's no other comments or questions from board members. We'll now open to two members of the public. My name is James Ewing Whitman. Let me read this again. Consider establishing the office of Inspector General authorized the General Services Department to release a request for proposal RFF, RFP for independent Inspector General Services Sheriff's Office, and it just goes on. So I took some notes. What is the obligation to act? What are they actually independent? And some clarity about authority. I remember being here in January and talking to Sheriff Jim Hart outside. I kind of joke that I was serious is this office going to be actually on this continent or they're actually going to be real people here? You know, about two months ago, I had the necessity to be interviewed by to go to the Sheriff's Department and ask for them, ask for some assistance. And I think I was recorded five times. They were extremely helpful, including a very weird way how this issue got resolved. And they were also extremely helpful. But what I want to talk about is all the law enforcement needs to realize that they're the first ones being thrown under the bus besides the military. The next people that are the most harmed are teachers and youth. I don't know if people are aware, I'd be happy to provide more information, but some of our wireless infrastructures are specifically designed to take out people that carry weapons like AK-40, what is it? The AR-15, which the Highway Patrol has. Every law enforcement in the city of Santa Cruz has their own AR-15. These weapons in this county are designed to take them out at 450 feet. You know, I've interviewed a lot of law enforcement about the wireless that they're wearing. Some of them are interested, some of them are not. That stuff is specifically designed so you will not live to retirement. So I think the oversight is very interesting. The title of Inspector General I don't really like. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. Good morning, I'm Kathy Fahl from Santa Cruz. I have no doubt that the Sheriff's Department works hard to protect and serve from personal experience. But it is an institution. And institutions need outside opinions to make healthy change. That's why this current report, though very well researched is too narrow. And I believe that the request came directly from the Sheriff who is obviously in the institution. So I think there should be some more exploration here. And I'd like you to pause your process to hear from the will of the community regarding these things. I strongly think that it should be an independent inspector who has chosen not from law enforcement or retired law enforcement, but from some other qualified person. That there being a civilian board that is trained to some extent, and some kind of an administrative person that would work with the inspector and the board. Otherwise, a lot of things just get filed because there's no one to do the work. I believe that it should have subpoena power and be able to initiate independent investigations and definitely to monitor the operation of the jail. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Fahl. Good morning, board. I'm Reverend Beverly Brooke from Peace United Church of Christ. I serve as a chaplain both to juvenile hall and county jail. I first would like to thank Ms. Serino and her staff who came out in the evening and solicited community input for the goal of AB 1185 and Sheriff oversight. I really appreciate all the work that they did and how accurate their report reflected the community. My concern is, and it may be just confusion in language, but my concern is that the scope of work that was in the agenda packet does not reflect what was included in the report that Ms. Serino put together about the community input. I strongly believe that for Sheriff oversight, we should have a civilian board but if we're to work with the independent inspector general to increase transparency, trust and accountability. I know that's not where we're going just yet. So if we're just having the scope of work for the independent inspector general, a little hard to say, that should include subpoena power for the inspector general, the ability to initiate independent investigations and we're talking about inmates being able to send in complaints or concerns or family members. So the independent inspector general should be able to initiate their own investigation. It also should include automatic investigation for in custody deaths and officer shootings and specifically include monitoring of the jail. Thank you so much. Thank you, Reverend Brooke. My name is Lee Broca. I'm on the Sheriff's oversight committee for Santa Cruz and I'm also on the board of the ACLU and chairman of the police accountability and transparency committee. I know that I don't want to duplicate what's been said. I'd like to focus on one aspect of oversight which this board was required to do with respect to AB 481 military equipment used by law enforcement. I have a tape of a meeting where the sheriff announced that he had 83 AR-15s in his possession and he was choosing not to follow the law and not to report those weapons to this board. This is the kind of taking the law into your own hands that law enforcement tends to do without proper oversight. I think that it's important that oversight of the sheriff's office be absolutely independent of this board and of the sheriff's office. The people in the jail for the most part have not been convicted of crimes. They are in custody. It is your obligation and society's obligation to see that that in custody is carried out properly. It is well known and you have lost a lawsuit on this that if you hit the cell door locks in one specific place, the guards know it, the inmates know it, the cell door pops open. And that's why there was a sexual assault for 11 hours of one inmate for which the county is paying millions of dollars for losing that lawsuit. An oversight board would see to it that these kinds of things don't exist. Thank you, Mr. Brokaw. Good morning, Chairman Kohnig and board members. I'm Stoney Brook and I'm here about the AB 1185 which is now we're actually the government code 25303.7. The proposal to provide this oversight commission is not a reflection on Sheriff Hart's leadership or a referendum on the ability of his agency to handle internal issues with a skill or integrity, whether it's a means of ensuring our transparency of our community's law enforcement for the future. A little better. Sorry, my voice gets a little weak here with his beds. I also would like to acknowledge Mr. Reno's work on their staff report because her report captured the comments, intentions and concerns of the other public forums that I attended. It was because of this report, I was a little perplexed when I read the RFP that you're gonna be considering this morning, particularly with regards to the referring to the independent inspector general that's a little misleading. When I read that the person be required to submit all their complaints to the sheriff and then to seek authorization to investigate, that by definition is not an independent investigation. And as you know, my background is pretty extensive in investigations. So I'd like to see that the IG not be required to seek third party approval or to submit those allegations before conducting an inquiry that forts the purpose of the process. Methodology also hampers the participation of employees, inmates and community members and particularly employees who are concerned about retribution being sanctioned or maligned as whistleblowers. And I wanna keep an eye on the time. And so thank you very much. I would encourage you to hold off on passing this legislation until we've had a chance to look further. Thank you. Thank you, Stine. Good morning, my name's Becky Steinbrenner and I wanna thank all of the previous speakers who have brought to you the concerns that they have that reflect those of the general public. I also encourage you to hold off on this action because it's evident that there needs to be more work to clarify things and to truly make this office an independent investigation arm of the sheriff's department, not requiring the sheriff's permission to investigate anything. I also think they should have full subpoena power. I also think that there should be, as one speaker said, a citizen's committee involved, the people are the fourth arm of the government and we need to involve them. It is largely because of the public that this is coming forward because there is such great concern. Having, for example, a doctor, Dr. Kohut, who should have been criminally prosecuted in our county for sexual abuse, multiple sexual abuse, was allowed to commit suicide, but it was all mysterious. How can that be? That needs to be investigated. How can the sheriff lose my logs twice regarding a honey oil extraction house in my neighborhood where I had one year's worth of license plates and information to document what was going on there? How can that happen? So I encourage you to not take action on this today to have a public meeting with those who have been involved all along and seek their input on this RFP language. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Steinbrenner. Seeing no one else here in chambers, which is to comment, is there anyone on Zoom? We do have speakers on Zoom, Chair. Anjali, your microphone is now available. Thank you. My name is Anjali Dionne and I'm a member of Showing Up for Racial Justice or SIRGE, and I am calling in to echo what a lot of the speakers have already said about the importance of having an independent sheriff's Inspector General and the inclusion of some kind of civilian oversight committee as well. I think we need to include the public for this to really have weight and be trusted and for transparency and accountability. In particular, I would like to see the Inspector General of course have subpoena power, be truly independent from the sheriff's office. They should have regular public meetings and maintain a website where people can file complaints and where the IG can post reports, et cetera. So based on all that we've heard today, I would also encourage you to not approve this this morning because it does need more work. I'm very thankful for Ms. Serino for going out and having the public forums around the county that was very helpful. And there's just some kinks we need to work out before we put this through. Thank you very much. Thank you. Keith, your microphone is now available. This is Keith Klosauer from Aptos and I would like to comment on two issues in the RFP that I think relate to Supervisor Kenne's comments. I would suggest that section 3.2 item 1B, which is at page 11 of the document packet page 42 be changed by inserting in the IIG's discretion between the words and in refer in item 1B so that it would receive complaints directly and in the IIG's discretion refer them to the Sheriff's Office for Investigation and even more critically at the top of page 13, at the top of agenda packet page 44, item 6B that the word will be replaced with may so that 6B would read IIG shall have a publicly noticed email phone number and web link to receive complaints directly and may refer them to the SCCO for investigation. I think those changes are necessary to underline the independence of the Inspector General and I note that any of the other issues that I'm in agreement with are presumably going to be further discussed when the actual ordinance is introduced. So I'll limit my comments to those two specifics. Thank you. Thank you, Keith. Edgar, your microphone is now available. Can y'all hear me? Yes. All right, good morning to everybody and my name, full name is Edgar Ernesto Ibarra Gutierrez. I am with Milpa Community Based Organization located in both Watsonville and Salinas and I'm here on behalf of these issues really, really deeply personal since South County specifically Watsonville is overrepresented in the County Jail and it's an alarming issue, especially when we have to consider having an oversight independent investigator for this Sheriff's Department. We have clearly seen what happens when you don't have oversight. We just got to look to South, to South of the County line, Monterey County, the shenanigans that's taking place over there and in order to avoid any type of situation or the situations that have already occurred we need to make sure that we have a fully funded independent investigator with the fixed budget and I saw that it's $80,000 and then $20,000 contingency, that's not enough. That's not enough to attract folks who would really want to take part in and be a key member to the big community of Santa Cruz County. So I just really wanted to uplift that and also understand that they're gonna need to have peanut power. They're gonna need all the resources they need to conduct their job in the best manner they can and not be limited by bureaucratic nonsense that sometimes a lot of offices in our county can get stuck with, so I would encourage this board to reconsider and park this RFP for the moment and really look at what's on the table more thoroughly and really do your job. Create something that's important, create something that's gonna last into the future, create something that's gonna provide safety both in the jail and the community. We know about the atrocities that have happened in the jail, but what about the things that go and sit in the community at the hands of the Sheriff's Department? So again, I'd encourage this board to just park this for the moment, do your job and create something that is gonna last for the future and benefit all residents of Santa Cruz County. Thank you. Thank you. Call in user two, your microphone is now available. Thank you to all the previous speakers and the Board of Supervisors members need to follow the direction of these speakers for the benefit of the community. I agree there needs to be an independent, public civilian oversight and less speaker about fully funded investigation needs to be done so they should hold off on this. I personally witnessed the Sheriff's Department violently what looked like military style to me pick up a 69-year-old friend, female, then I reported this to you, Manu, and turned in an official complaint reform at the Sheriff's office. I don't want my tax money going to this kind of violence, what's called like a wellness check or 5150. This proposal here is like, it sounds to me like the fox guarding the hen house. Administrative oversight is not what is needed in this community, it's not appropriate. And I would hope the Board members are listening carefully and will follow the direction of the public comments you have just heard. So many times you just give rubber stamp approval after an outpouring from the community saying there's a problem here, don't pass this. So those are my comments and thank you. Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Bernie, your microphone is now available. Good morning, Chair and Board. Again, thank you for giving me this opportunity to provide a comment here around this issue. I agree with the previous speakers. I think I urge you to reconsider your stance on this oversight, maybe just pause on your vote today and continue to just have these conversations with folks that have intimate knowledge with this process, right? There's a big opportunity here to just as one of the previous speakers said, right? To create a check and balance for the county and the sheriff's office. We know that the sheriff is an independent elected official. So not necessarily answers to the county, but yet the county funds that department. So I think in just preparation, understanding what's been going on across the state with the sheriff's office, not just Monterey County has been riddled with allegations of misconduct, misuse of funds, but LA, other parts of North California. So the sheriff's department is not, just because it's Santa Cruz and it's considered a progressive town, right? It doesn't mean that the sheriff's office here is not susceptible to putting the county in jeopardy and already has costing millions of dollars and stuff. So yes, it needs some oversight. We just, this board needs oversight, a strong enough and well-equipped department, right? That will allow it to create that check and balance and hold people accountable, especially at the sheriff's office. One that is essentially never really, or it's held to a different standard, which it shouldn't, but anyway, just hold up on the boat and continue to speak to community members. Thank you very much. Thank you, Bernie. We have no further speakers at this time, Chair. All right, then I'll return to the board for action. Mr. Chair, I'll make some brief comments. That's okay, because I appreciate the community input. I had said previously in regards to this item, which in part came from the Criminal Justice Council's analysis of regional law enforcement and their policies and procedures and approach, including to oversight being one of the items, a few things. First, that the sheriffs had proactively as a result of that work, actually even before the work was actually completed, proposed to bring an item forward to the board to allow for and actually support this form of independent oversight, which in and of itself says a lot about the approaches of the sheriff and the local sheriff's office that they were proactively seeking the permission to do an RFP for such a thing. The second thing is that I'm not, I don't think that the best approach would be a civilian oversight board. One of the concerns that's repetitively brought up in regards to an independent police auditor is a concern about, are they former law enforcement or is there inherent bias in that? I think it's unquestionable that the civilian oversight boards would be susceptible to a significant amount of bias, in particular, the bias of those that would be doing the appointing. You would have county supervisors that may have an inclination one way or another in regards to sheriff's oversight, appointing people with a significant self-selection bias, either pro or against law enforcement. I don't imagine that the applicants themselves would have a significant amount of self-selection bias because of what their own interests would be. So I don't think that the civilian oversight body would actually add to the discussion here. I think that the independent auditor, or in this case, inspector general role, as outlined with some of the significant components of the RFP would be very useful for our community. And I think that it's a significant step forward. Not every agency within Santa Cruz County has this. I think that independent oversight is a value that every agency should implement. And I think that moving forward with today with the recommended actions is the right thing to do. Secondly, in regards to the cost, the costs at this point are really unknown. And in fact, if you look at other agencies that have done this, the costs fluctuate because you may have a situation where during the course of a year, there really isn't that much review that's needed. Maybe there's not a lot of use of force. Maybe there aren't a lot of complaints that come in. And then another year you may have an action where there's a major incident that occurs that requires a lot of review and a lot of time. And so there needs to also be flexibility moving forward. And it's not uncommon as supervisor Coonerty knows when he was on the Santa Cruz City Council where requests for additional funding come forward for that independent police auditor as a result of changes that were needed because of a response to a significant number of complaints or issues with use of force. So I don't think it's smart to just allocate a 1% number because it's a completely arbitrary number. And at this point, you need to actually get an understanding of what a year-to-year budget would even look like, what the average number of requests for usage of the independent inspector general would be. And then there needs to be flexibility as there is in every other budget item that we have of the Board of Supervisors. We do budget amendments all the time to come forward with if there's a change in a mid-year or any other time to do it. So I think that what's being proposed is a reasonable first step in the creation of something that can be iterative over time. It meets the goals of transparency. It meets the goals of oversight. It meets the goals of access. And it also gets it established. And over the course of time, this Board or future boards can also make determinations on budget or scope moving forward. So I'm supportive as the item has presented. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Supervisor Kennedy. Sure, thank you. First of all, I want to thank everyone for engaging and offering perspectives and engaging and caring about this issue. I want to say two things. And Supervisor Friend covered one of them. One was when I was at the city, we had an independent police auditor, a lawyer, who because he did this professionally in full time was able to bring many changes. Some of them welcome, some of them not to the police department. And it was valuable to have a trained professional as you would for any other profession monitor this. The second part that I feel like is maybe not being overlooked here is you could have a citizen oversight committee that's appointed by the board or you have a board that's directly elected by the people and a sheriff who's directly elected by the people. I know the candidates running for my office right now have knocked on every door, have docked on every community group. I think the same thing is happening in South County. I know my colleagues did the same thing. Ultimately law enforcement is directly accountable to the people through the sheriff's direct appointment and then through the board. And you're watching around the state as boards of supervisors have conflict with elected sheriffs and are bringing pressure and oversight through budgetary and other process. I think we're lucky here that we have a sheriff who reflects the values of this community and has worked hard to be proactive and one of the leaders nationally to adopt 21st century policing and others. But it's much better to have elected an accountable sheriff and board than it is a group of people who are appointed and may not be accountable directly to the people. So I'm supportive of this direction. Supervisor Coonerty. Supervisor McPherson. In general, I'm supportive. I do think that as I mentioned in my previous question that item three, when we have, when we're reviewing officer involved shooting investigation, that they be complete, thorough, objective and fair. If we could just add that as a amendment, recommend a amendment. But I think that this is stated by supervisors, friend and Coonerty. I think this is a well thought out proposal and I'll be supportive of it. All right, thank you, Supervisor Coonerty. I just have one follow-up question. It was brought up during public comments with great publicity by Keith. I'm sorry, I didn't catch your last name. Keith from Aptos. That there was a couple of points where we're asking the Inspector General to take complaints, including at the website that you mentioned and then report them directly to the sheriff's office. And of course it's clear both through the agenda memo and a lot of the other wording here that our intention is for the Inspector General to be independent. Is there a reason that we asked in the RFP for the requirement that those reports be shared with the sheriff's office as opposed to having the option? Is there, could we change the shell to AMA? We certainly can change the shell to AMA. Originally when I was looking at this, we were considering the fact that there are some complaints that come in that go directly to the sheriff to manage. Maybe it's this officer was rude to me when they were dealing with me. And that's not really something that the Inspector General would get involved in. It's an action that the management of the sheriff's office would wanna take. And so we wanted to make sure that thing, again, plates can come in anywhere, but they could get dispersed to anywhere for investigation. So we can change that language from shell to AMA. Yeah. I would suggest to my colleagues that we make that small change. I mean, it's one small change we could make today. I mean, I know a lot of this is gonna be codified in the ordinance itself, which will be the next step that we take to really clarify again, the independence of the investigator general. But I think that one step naturally follows the other. And so I think it's something we can do that expresses our intention today. Mr. Chair, I'm asked just a clarifying question and this is somebody who has obviously personal lived experience in this space. Generally professional standards complaints do come disproportionately directly into the police department of the Sheriff's office, right? And the actual discipline that's handed out that's actually reviewed the investigation and analysis that's reviewed by the Inspector General or the police auditor is that of the investigation done by the Sheriff's office? There are, we're a police department. There is a secondary model where you can go straight to them. But if we turn it from a shell to a may, at the end of the day, the Sheriff's office still will need to potentially take action and do their own review on a professional standards component to make a determination, even amidst Sereno's analysis of say, it being a rude officer complaint. So how would that information then get back to the Sheriff's office to actually take action if it goes straight to the Inspector General, but there's no secondary review by the Sheriff's office? My understanding is that most times the Inspector General would pass it along to the Sheriff's office, but in cases where they feel for any reason, it's important to look at it independently or protect the name of the source, et cetera, that they might choose not to. I mean, so officers have, have Pobar, they have rights, right? I mean, they have Pobar rights that would require them to actually be able to have some part of it. I think what we should maybe say, I mean, I'm open to either, I'm open to this, but I'm just saying in practicality, in order for an action to be taken at the Sheriff's office, you wouldn't really be able to have something that would be completely withheld from the, from the department, if that makes sense. I mean, so because the officers themselves actually have state rights as to somebody that's making an accusation against them, there are findings that would be made internally by the head of professional standards and eventually the Sheriff in regards to independent hearing capabilities within the department as well. So I'm just, I just wanted to make sure from a, that we're not doing something that has, that sort of impacts the practicality of the nature. And maybe this is a better question for council to help us through this understanding because if the shall to may still meets all the needs of allowing everybody with their rights within the Sheriff's office, I'm totally forward with the practicality of it. If we need to ensure that the Sheriff's office still has access to it, then I'd be less, I would be less open to the change. So maybe county council, if I could ask you just that question. Yeah, thank you, supervisor. One thing I want to back off for just a second and focus on what your board is doing right now, which is you're just approving an RFP. You're not approving the language of an ordinance. We're going to be bringing back an ordinance that your board could debate these issues on as to may or will or shall. What we're doing right now is we're basically just advertising for a contract. So you may want to postpone this conversation and have it in a little more detail when you're actually looking at the ordinance in context. And there's nothing about what you're preparing to approve today and releasing the RFP that binds your board to any specific language. Thank you. Yeah, and I certainly underline that point for the public as well since many members of the public asked us to hold off on the actions today. And really what we're doing is just advertising for proposals to get a better sense of who out there is qualified to do this work of Inspector General and get more information. And hopefully get somebody in place for the second half of the year, which we've got budgeted now. Well, Mr. Chair, I'll move the recommended actions with the change in the recommended RFP language that was proposed by Supervisor McPherson to make it consistent in that subsection. I'll second that. All right, motion by Supervisor Friend, second by Supervisor Coonerty. And I'm fine continuing the conversation that we had begun here, Mayor Schaul, the point that we're actually reviewing an ordinance and it'll give us greater time to review what some of the specific requirements are. Any further discussion? Chair, we had an individual who was having difficulties joining online, who was trying to make public comment. The individuals in chambers now, is it acceptable to accept that comment now or would be on that point? Mr. Chair, I think it's important to have people have an opportunity. I'd like to make a motion to reopen public comment for the opportunity for this individual to speak. Second. Thank you, Supervisor Schaul. Any further, I mean, quick roll call vote on that. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Godin. Aye. Thank you, passes unanimously. Please proceed. Good morning. Thank you so much. Not joined online. First of all, my name is Cassie Gazapora. I'm a former public defender. I work for a local nonprofit and I'm a member of the Sheriff's Oversight Committee. First, I wanted to thank Ms. Serino for the way that you engage to the community and our group around this discussion and allowing the space for us to bring forward the community's wishes and concerns around this. I don't want to be duplicative. A lot of the group raised the disconnect between the community's feedback and the language in the RFP. I reiterate the feedback around taking time to really make sure the language is consistent with what the community's wishes were around meaningful oversight and really highlight the fact that the grand jury report was very clear and that the mechanisms for oversight that exist now are not sufficient. And we need the community's input and feedback in order to make sure that any mechanism of oversight that we create is intentional, is meaningful and bridges the gap between community and law enforcement. And so that's the part that I really wanted to speak about and highlight here is the importance of making sure that there is a mechanism for the community to engage around the issue of oversight, to be checked in with continually to see if there's any blind spots that the sheriff or the board may have around issues of law enforcement. And if you don't have a mechanism for engaging particularly with those who are impacted by law enforcement disproportionately impacted by policing in our community it's a missed opportunity. And I feel like the effectiveness of oversight will be impacted if there's not language around that in the RFP mandating that whoever is this independent investigator engage with the community and in the ordinance as well. So that's all I will add and I really appreciate you opening back up so I could give my feedback. Thank you. Thank you, Cassie. All right, we do have a motion on the floor from Supervisor Friend and seconded by Supervisor Coonerty to accept the or adopt the staff recommendations with additional language on item four around the investigation of incustody deaths. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk will call the vote please. Supervisor Friend. All right. Coonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. And Koenig? Aye. Item passes unanimously as amended. Thank you. We'll now proceed with item nine to consider presentation on container-based sanitation systems from the Give Love Organization and Director Department of Community Development and Infrastructure to conduct required environmental review take necessary permitting steps and engage with the Give Love Organization to create a Santa Cruz County Container-Based Sanitation Pilot Project as outlined in the memorandum of Supervisor Koenig and Supervisor Coonerty. And before I introduce our speaker, I'll just share a few words of why I helped to bring this forward. You know, I think my interest in composting toilets and by extension container-based sanitation first began as I was talking to some friends who were looking to build a tiny home and realizing that the only practical way they were gonna be able to do that is if they incorporated a composting toilet. Then hiking in the Grand Canyon is one thing to hear about composting toilets, but I was halfway down at Havasupai Gardens and I used the restroom there. And it was possibly the most remarkable restroom I ever used because it did not smell at all. And I realized that in fact, this was a composting toilet. And so that gave me some increased interest and confidence in the technology. We've heard consistently from members of the public about asking our board to look into and legalize composting toilets. Today, I should be clear. It is legal to have a composting toilet. However, you must also have a septic system on the same property. And so there are a number of challenges with the regulating state agencies. And it became clear as I learned that we actually have a leading organization, GiveLove, who we're about to hear from, who's done container-based sanitation. So effectively composting toilets. However, the composting is centralized and so the human excreta is collected in containers and taken to a central location. And GiveLove is really global experts in doing this. They've done it at Standing Rock at the protest movement. They've done it after the earthquakes in Haiti and in Kenya and many other locations. And so there's an opportunity, I think, here to really have literally a very contained, controlled and well-studied environment to look more into composting toilet technologies today and also specifically to do so with the lens on preparing for disaster. And with that, I'll be happy to introduce Ryan Smith, technical consultant for GiveLove. And I believe we also have Elisa Keezy, who is the director of GiveLove Online if she could be promoted in case there are any questions specifically from Ms. Keezy. Ryan, take it away. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Ryan Smith. I'm the wastewater division manager at Watsonville. I think your mic is not on. Just pushed a little button there. We're good. Okay. Good morning. I'm Ryan Smith. I'm the wastewater division manager for City of Watsonville. Also today I'm here representing the nonprofit organization GiveLove. I believe Elisa will be attending online for Q and A after this presentation. Thank you for this opportunity. Elisa and I are locals to Santa Cruz and we've been working on this proposal for over a year now. And we believe California is experiencing an invisible sanitation crisis. Most of you are familiar with what a compost toilet is and we're going to give a short presentation on how the use of waterless toilets is growing worldwide due to drought and water scarcity. We're using the term container-based sanitation or CBS because this is the preferred terminology used in the international aid sector. The key here is that CBS refers to the entire sanitation service chain and not just the toilet and I'll explain more of that in a little bit. Let's see. Thank you. GiveLove was founded in 2010 to provide emergency relief after the devastating earthquake in Haiti that left over one million people living in tent camps. During their five years in Haiti, GiveLove learned that providing affordable sanitation was the largest challenges in all phases of disaster recovery and reconstruction efforts because you can't build a proper house without toilets. The lack of sanitation also contributed to the largest cholera outbreak in the Western hemisphere resulting in 10,000 deaths and 900,000 cases. Next slide. Thank you. GiveLove's mission is to provide low-cost sanitation solutions in high-needs contexts. In Haiti, they successfully implemented a 300 household project with Habitat for Humanity for one of the first transitional housing developments. After leaving Haiti in 2014, GiveLove turned to working with development NGOs as a skills training organization specializing in CBS for schools in low-income communities. And pictured here is one of their projects in Columbia. Next slide. Since 2010, GiveLove has successfully introduced compost toilets in seven countries. The compost toilets and management have been widely accepted by the communities after a short period of hands-on training. This picture is the compost site in Haiti where the local workers produced 30 tons of compost in two years at the Jimmy and Rosalind Carter Foundation Housing Project. Next slide. So this graphic illustrates what the sanitation service chain mimics what a traditional wastewater system does, which is containing excreta, collecting it, transporting it, treating it, and then eventual reuse or disposal of the material. Next slide. So in 2016, GiveLove was invited to Standing Rock by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe because they were forced to remove over 110 porta-potties before the freezing winter conditions set in. GiveLove raced to build out public toilets and retrofitted Army tents and launched the entire operation in three weeks. The project is the largest community-managed CBS pilot in the United States. Thousands of people use the toilets for over four months in sub-zero conditions, and thousands of biodegradable bags full of toilet material were composted in March when the weather thawed. Next slide. Pictured here are the biobags that we plan to use for the Santa Cruz project. In Africa, GiveLove simply washes the containers after collection and emptying, but the use of compostable bags streamlines the collection process, providing for primary and secondary containment of the toilet material. This next slide is the finished compost bay in Standing Rock, build out of rebar and straw bales on tribal land. Next slide. So currently, GiveLove is actively working in East Africa. This is a picture of their site of a community-led project in Uganda where they're composting for hundreds of people living in Kamoja, a slum in Kampala, and Elise and I visited this site just last month. Next slide. And this is a photo of one of the compost toilets run by a youth group in a public toilet. Next slide. So I want us to propose that we rethink our reliance on wastewater systems as the gold standard of sanitation. It's one way of providing safe sanitation services, but it's not the only way. It's a viable solution for tiny homes, recreational settings, and serving displaced residents in unhoused populations. And when compared to port-a-potty rentals, it's a fraction of the cost. Next slide. There's a whole dignity and cleanliness element to container-based sanitation. CBS facilities provide for a better user experience than temporary sanitation or emergency facilities, like latrines or oversubscribed port-a-potties. I think we've all experienced a port-a-potty at an event or two. And unlike traditional sanitation systems, container-based sanitation systems completely bypass sewer networks, so there's no inputs of commercial and industrial wastes. Next slide. So we have a chance here to lead the circular economy in California with compost sanitation or container-based sanitation. Just some numbers for your information. Over 220,000 dry metric tons of compost produced from biosolids, which is the organic residual of wastewater treatment, are produced annually in California alone. The composting of biosolids and toilet material meets federal EPA guidelines for pathogen and vector reduction and ultimately safe reuse of the material. And one last factoid, that's 688,000 dry metric tons of raw biosolids are produced by treatment plants in California every year. And most of that's applied directly to the land without further thermophilic composting treatment. And last slide, please. Okay, so we know there's a need for container-based sanitation in Santa Cruz County. Container-based sanitation is rapidly deployable, scalable, and adaptable to all situations, benefiting not just victims of disasters, but also first responders as well. Compost toilets can meet the immediate sanitation needs for CZU fire victims, and that is what we wanna prove out in this pilot project. And then one last point, I don't know if anyone's familiar with the term day zero, but that's the theoretical day where one goes to the tap, turns it on and no water comes out. Mendocino made the news last year in a big way for this condition. Cape Town, South Africa, a city of four million people are challenged with this on almost annual basis now. And I would posit that if people need to carry water into their homes for cooking and hygiene, they're not gonna use it to flush their toilets. And I believe I'm out of time, so I will stop there. You're welcome to finish the presentation. Okay, great. Mr. Smith, can you talk a little bit also about the proposed target group that would be eligible to participate in this pilot program to begin with? Sure, so as I understand it, I believe there's 158 eligible households available that can participate in this project because they're through some level of permitting process with the county and we would actively engage with that population. Right, so I think the goal was to enroll 10 people in the pilot study to begin with. Those folks would be victims of the CZU fire who lost their homes, but have received permits to rebuild them but have not had a chance to actually finish construction yet. So really the goal here is not to subvert any of our existing permitting processes. That's why we're looking to require that participants actually have already received permits to rebuild a full home. Exactly, and a good point was starting small. We definitely wanna start small, get it right and then scale up. Okay, thank you. There are questions or comments from other members of the board? I'd like to thank Chair Koenig and Supervisor Koenig for bringing this item forward to the benefit of our CZU survivors, in particular, as was mentioned. And also for recommending a pilot sanitation method that will provide data and education about future options. Really amazing that how you've responded to this. I wanna thank GiveLove, who I had not heard of before, but very, very impressive what you have done so far and Crest Ranch to North County for its willingness to partner with the county in this effort. This really promises to be a cooperative effort that will result in providing, so with more information about how composting can benefit people in the future as well. And I might have these questions for our other board members, part of which have been answered, I think with the, we're targeting 158 properties at this point, I guess, but throughout the course of the pilot, do you anticipate that only the CZU property owners would be eligible to participate? Or if the pilot proved successful that we might apply this to other projects and other types of properties? I imagine that would need to further approval of the board, including if we have another disaster, are those probably affirmative answers? I have a couple of questions and maybe I just ought to take one at a time. Would that be the way you see it? I was just gonna add, I think the county's already identified eligible participants so we can only start there. And then I suppose we could expand over time. Yeah. And that would take, I would imagine, the board approval in a certain sense. Or health department or planning to help them. Yeah, or some, yeah, county approval. And what we're approving today, would it allow the CZU property owners to use composting toilet as their primary waste disposal unit? Or would they still require the traditional system so that it would be a secondary unit? I think the intention of the pilot is to allow it really is an interim solution, right? So these are families who lost their homes have already received permits to rebuild, including with the bison septic system. And in the interim, while they're waiting for the construction to happen, they can participate in the pilot program. And as Mr. Smith said, there are 158 families who would be eligible today and we're seeking to enroll 10. Okay, that pretty much answers my other question. I think too, if it's going to allow their primary and potentially only toilet and they continue building plans, how do we handle the retrofits if the county decides not to continue with the pilot program? I guess that's something we just have to answer in the future. And so if they, how do we handle retrofits if the county decides not to continue the pilot beyond the specified units that are here? That would just be from further angle. So I don't think any permanent structures would be built around only having the container-based sanitation as a primary means of sanitation long-term. And that's the point of having the eligibility requirement being that they've received a permit to rebuild a home, including with a septic system. And so there would not be actually be retrofits required in the long-term. I mean, Mr. Smith could talk a little bit about the decommissioning plan, if you will, for the composting site. Yeah, sure. And the toilets themselves are mobile and modular. And at the end of this project, we're going to scrap everything, repurpose materials, and restore the composting site itself to its original condition. Okay, thank you for what you're doing. It's for people that need it the most for sure. And it's really impressive. So thank you. Thank you. It's an honor. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Supervisor Kennedy. Sure, I just want to take a moment and recognize the chair's work on this. He's been diligently engaging with both nonprofits and county environmental health and fire victims in order to find a path, an interim path forward. And I want to just appreciate his efforts to make this happen over the past six months. Thank you, Supervisor Kennedy. If there's another, go ahead, Supervisor Friend. Yeah, Mr. Chair, appreciate your work on this. And I appreciate that we're providing an opportunity for CCU fire victims. I did have a question, I guess, for you directly, since you had mentioned the possibility of expansion beyond the pilot over time, I was wondering how we determine if the pilot is going to be successful. I mean, there wasn't any sort of like metrics built in or some sort of analytics built in. It seemed more of a subjective component. Since we're doing an quote-unquote environmental review, I mean, I think we're just, you know, that's for 10, but an expansion would be significantly different. So how are those two things being addressed? Ryan, would you like to address what metrics you'll be collecting and how we might deem this pilot project successful? Sure, yeah, and I think Alisa, this is probably a good opportunity for her to chime in as well. But you will be collecting qualitative and quantitative data. We will be obtaining a research composting permit. And as such, we have, you know, various research questions that need to be answered. Alisa, do you want to expand on that? Sure, thank you everyone for the hard work that has been done over the last 18 months on this. I'm the program director and I'm sorry I couldn't be there today. I think the key here is as outlined in the proposal is that we need to create an enabling environment for research on this evolving technology to be implemented in California. You know, the regulation of composting of biosolids as well established. So we're not reinventing any new treatment protocol. We'll be following, you know, standard pathogen reduction protocols that are carried out in the composting industry. And then I think because of the human component and we are serving a specific community, we need to establish, you know, a qualitative assessment of, you know, do the household and families participating except the technology. And I think then from there we can start thinking about what scaling up would involve for, you know, a number of other contexts. And even a community education component where we engage the community for disaster preparedness. And the most exciting thing for me here is I'm a resident of Santa Cruz for 24 years. I lived through the Loma Prieta earthquake and I would like to see the work here being a model for the state moving forward while recognizing this is a first phase pilot. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Keezy. So just to clarify, the research permit you're talking about is with calorie cycle. That's correct. Right, so there'd be specific reporting standards as part of that research permit. Exactly, yeah. We'd report back to a calorie cycle at the end, you know, of a certain period of time and also, you know, produce an odor mitigation and monitoring plan for the compost site. Okay, thank you. Do you have any further questions, Supervisor Friend? Oh, thank you. All right, there's no further comments from board members. How many members of the public wish to speak on this item? All right, well, I know we do have a 1045 scheduled item that I want to address. So I'm wondering if we could pause the current item, return to it after we move on with our 1045 item and then we'll return to this at the end. I'm sorry to keep people waiting, but we do want to address the 1045 item. So all right, we will return to container-based sanitation systems shortly. Where our 1045 items is item 13 to consider authorizing the issuance of a proclamation honoring Congresswoman Anna Eshoo to be signed by all members of the board. And to kick us off for this item, I know a lot of us have had many wonderful experiences working with Congresswoman Eshoo, but I wanted to start by giving Supervisor McPherson a chance to talk about some of this. Thank you. Yeah, it's been a long, I got to meet Congresswoman Eshoo when my first life as editor of the Santa Cruz Sentinel. And we were talking about issues then and who knew that 30 years later? Plus, yeah, she'd still be there, but thank heavens she has been. And the reason that we're recognizing her in particular today is that her district and the redistricting project or process, we lost her. And she is going to be centered in San Mateo County where she lives. But we're going to have an excellent Congressman, Jimmy Panetta, representing that area. But I can't say how much I appreciate her openness. And I know that whenever I visited Washington, DC, she was there and she would spend time with you. Yes, she has with all of her constituents, no matter where they be in Santa Cruz County or elsewhere. And there's a couple of particular projects that she really stepped up to the plate that I can recall. When I was in the state legislature, she was very, very active in promoting the Cotonic Coast Aries National Monument in Santa Cruz County that was led by Dennis Semleman, Fred Keely, and I was in the Senate. And we've just pushed that forward in the state level, but boy, she got on top of it and really made it become a reality. And it's a fantastic addition to our open space parks component here that we have in Santa Cruz County. Another one I just remember just more recently, she attended things, she pays attention to the local issues. And when Scott's Valley School District finally got its new school district building open, she was there and she always is there in those types of events. She has just been a tremendous support for us. And more recently, in the tragedy of the CZU, the Lightning Complex, she was front and center there too in Washington, DC and certainly in our district, in our county, within her district. So there's a lot more things that are going to be said so much about her and her dedicated effort to serve the public and do what she can do to help people recover, to have a better opportunity, whether it be through education or experiencing park and open space opportunities in our county. Congressman Anna Eshoo has been their front and center for us time and time again. And we're gonna really miss her as a representative, including Santa Cruz County. But we do have a great substitute in Jimmy Panetta. I know that she'll say that too, but it's been just a tremendous privilege to have been able to meet her and to work with her in various venues, whether it be in the state level or the county level. Anna Eshoo has been a tremendous advocate for Santa Cruz County and getting a lot of great benefits for our county. So I wanna thank her and I know a lot of people, there's more to be said, but those are just a few of the things that I can say that I recall vividly about how she has helped us time and time again. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. Other board members, Supervisor Kennedy. Yes, I just wanna take this moment and thank the Congresswoman for her efforts. She represented the North Coast and it's a very, very small percentage of our district in terms of population, but she was available for every single issue, big or small. She brought the lens of a former county supervisor to it, which always makes it so much easier because she gets the issues on the ground. She fought for conditions in the National Monument Declaration that have never been in any other National Monument Declaration to respond to local concerns. And the last part is, and I'm not sure folks realize this, but during the CCU fires when there were a real limit of boots on the ground and resources on the ground, she went and got the Bureau of Land Management's hand crew deployed to Santa Cruz when there was competition for it to be deployed all across the state. And that hand crew was there and fighting for Davenport through the night for the first couple of nights of the fire and the residents who were still there to talk about these sort of missiles being launched into town and but for their efforts, literally cutting fire breaks by hand in the mountain behind Davenport. I'm not sure Davenport would still be there or look the same today. And that was entirely due to the advocacy of Congresswoman Eshoo. She's been a great representative for the North Coast. I know she'll be a long time friend of the North Coast going forward, but we just wanted to take this moment to make sure we recognized her commitment to public service, her commitment to this country. While she worried about the local issues, she's also been a fierce fighter for democracy, for the government at a time when all our institutions are under threat. She's fought hard for this country and will continue to do so. And we've been honored to have her represent this community for so long. Thank you, Supervisor Coonerty, Supervisor Friend. Yes, Mr. Chair and Congresswoman, thank you for always taking the time as both of them, both of my colleagues that already mentioned for each one of us, every time we were in DC, you were there to meet with us personally, offer remarkable, unvarnished advice. And one thing that I always appreciated was that if I ever needed the truth, I could always get the truth from you and I was always appreciative that you were advocating on our side. I was, I've sat in many a meetings and been on every phone call and heard you advocate on behalf of our county to federal agencies. And it definitely instilled a very healthy fear of you by me. I was always glad that you were on our side because your advocacy is fierce and effective. And I got to say, even in things like some of the storm damage that we had that wasn't even in your district, but was in my district in part of Santa Cruz County to hear you call FEMA, to hear you call the Federal Highways Administration, to hear you just, I mean, unrelenting until they said that they would be out for a visit, unrelenting until you heard that they would start providing money. That is what effective advocacy is. And you're on the right side of history on all those things. And these things happen behind the scenes. You never get credit for any of this stuff but people's lives have been impacted and improved in Santa Cruz County because of how strong of an advocate you are. I just want you to know that we all appreciate it. Our residents appreciate it. And people that don't even live in your district because of your advocacy appreciate it. So thank you, Congresswoman, for your remarkable representation and advocacy on behalf of Santa Cruz County. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. I'll just add, while Congresswoman Eshu's district overlaps mine, which is just one very small corner, I think I have more communication from Congresswoman Eshu than any other federal official or representative. And so you've been a true model in terms of both your communication with the public and your fellow elected officials. And it's clear from the testimony of my colleagues that you have been just as fierce an advocate. So thank you, Congresswoman. I'd like to open up. Mr. Chair, can I just mention one thing? And I don't want to forget this, which is Congresswoman Eshu has an amazing staff and Karen Chapman has been available to us at all times. And all of us elected officials do good and hard work, but it's our staff that often makes the difference to our constituents. And I just want to take a moment and recognize your staff that's always been available and amazing to work with. Now I'd like to open it to members of the public that would like to share their comments. Hi, my name is James. I believe I first met Anna Eshu when she arrived, I don't know if she still owns the seventh floor of a commercial, well, of a commercial residential building in San Francisco on Webster. I was hired to cut out specialized fire bricks all through this remodel. There were two elevators. One was for tenants, one was for staff. There were two sets of stairs, one was for tenants, one was for staff, I was staff. We were escorted in by security at eight o'clock and we were escorted out by five. That was where I learned that when you damage an elevator, it's not going up, it's going down. We moved out what ended up being over 140,000 pounds of bricks. So when I came in and did the specialized cutting, the engineers decided that it would be easier to take out all the bricks and gut this. So you're on the seventh floor in a commercial building that was built in 1917. The inspectors didn't come in until the superstructure was done. So we had completely cleared out the building. She had beautiful of the seventh floor, beautiful sets of plans. She walked in and all she saw were two elevator shoots and two stair shoots. And she's like, hey, I had a lot more options here. So I don't know a whole lot about her political career. And I'll just say that, but it was great to see a look of surprise on her face in 1998. Okay, thank you, Ms. Torbina. Are there other members of the public that wish to speak about Congresswoman Eshoo? I'm Nancy Macy and I'm in tears because we all love Anna. Our little sound around the valley, I'm a third member emeritus for the Valley Women's Club. She has been to virtually every general meeting of the Valley Women's Club for years. I went door to door for Anna when she first ran with a baby on my back passing out her video. She was creative, innovative from the beginning. We have nothing but good things to say. Thank you for honoring her. We're gonna miss her. Bye. Thank you, Ms. Macy. Any other members of the public? Good morning. My name's John Laird and I think I would say that in a land long ago and far, far away, I was a city council member and Anna was a county supervisor. And your predecessors, along with she and her colleagues in six counties took oil mitigation money and turned it into an oil education program that really led the way on oil issues up and down the coast in a very good way. And when Santa Cruz City adopted an ordinance and we tried to have other jurisdictions do it, I went and addressed the Monterey, the San Mateo Board of Supervisors, met with her beforehand. They were just solidarity arm in arm and there's just this long history of work with everybody in this county. And as somebody that was a democratic party official when she ran the first time, I will never forget her pitch, forget out the vote when she said, go to the door and Eleanor Roosevelt will be looking over your shoulder and John Kennedy will be looking over your shoulder and Martin Luther King will be looking over your shoulder. And if there's one thing that characterizes Anna, yes. I worked with her secretary on the National Monument and I worked with her on the fire recovery and everything else, but she leads with her heart. And that heart is what we feel and it's what her constituents feel and it's what drives her. And I just know that she won't totally go away. She will still be working with us on things. And so I think we should be grateful to have had her for a representative and I just wanna join everybody in thanking her for outstanding representation of Santa Cruz County and our entire district. Thank you, Senator Laird. Hello, my name is Mark Stone. And as a constituent, Anna, I just wanna say I was so thrilled when there was a previous redistricting and you ended up representing us in Santa Cruz County. And part of it was, I can remember times when you were on the Intelligence Committee in Congress and she was fierce. And I think scared some of the folks in Washington to death when she got an issue and was unwilling to let something go and always advocated for what was best. And so here, someone on a national stage and we've seen her, doesn't matter the corporation, whether it's PG&E or AT&T or anyone that we've been struggling with, willing to get on the phone and raise a little heck as necessary. But the thing that is so remarkable and about who you are, and it just goes to the core and your set of values that even though she is so effective on a national stage and so effective in some of the most powerful boardrooms and people in the state, she would also, you would also always come out to a community meeting when we needed her to talk to everybody in the district. And I know we're not always as glamorous as Silicon Valley, but we have a strong sense of community in the Santa Rosa Valley. And whether it was coming to Felton or to Boulder Creek to address issues, you were always willing to do that. Little Felton Grove needed a change to the tax code and Anna got together with colleagues across the aisle in Congress and in similar disaster prone areas across the United States and you got it done. You did something for folks who had never felt anyone was going to stand up for them, you stood up for them. And it is because of your heart and your kindness and your focus on every single constituent in your district that you bring that powerful voice to their aid every single time. And for that, as an elected official, as a constituent, I am so grateful. And you and your team, when I was on the board of supervisors, were always there for us, Karen. And even now in the legislature, you've always been a partner, always answered the phone, always been there for whatever our constituencies needed. And for that, we all are eternally grateful. So, John and I have, I'm not sure where your cameras are, a legislative resolution that we have signed. And the words on here, the words we would have made, since it's an official state document, there are things we would have liked to have said that of course, Ledge Council said, no, we couldn't say. Because, and so what's inherent in here is how much of that kick-ass legislators you are, you never back down, always stand up for all of us and have made a tremendous difference for all. So on behalf of John and myself, we are presenting you with a legislative resolution saying thank you for all of your years representing us. And when it says you do good things, no, it means you kick-ass. I know. We should go for it. Thank you. Let's go. Yes. Thank you. Congresswoman Escher, please. She'd like a chance to share a few words. Oh boy. Well, good morning, everyone. It's more than a pleasure to be with you today, that you have chosen to do this, is really deeply, deeply meaningful to me. So to you, Mr. Chairman, each member of the board, your words will always remain with me. To the staff that's here and the work that you do day in and day out, you have my deepest regard, respect and gratitude for the work that you do for the people of Santa Cruz County. To my state colleagues, John Laird and Mark Stone, we've worked shoulder to shoulder for many, many years. And with each one of you, these bonds are very strong and they run very deep. There are three words that mean everything to all of us, the first three words of our constitution. We, the people. We, the people. For those of us that are so blessed and privileged to hold elective office, we do what we do with the trust that is placed in us. It's a sacred trust. And we don't stand apart from people. We are a part of them. And living out this trust that has been given to us is a high privilege. It's a high privilege. You have been very, more than generous with your words. I don't know whether I deserve all of that's been said, but I want you to know that my representation of parts of Santa Cruz County has been a blessing to me. The people have been a blessing. I've seen the resilience of the people in really challenging times, really challenging times. And over the last two years, everyone's life has been upended in some way, shape, or form. I think the biggest challenge is the challenge of defending our democracy, protecting our democracy. I think here at home in Santa Cruz County, that the people have done this and will continue to. The values of the people here have always been the wind beneath my sails. So we, again, that are privileged to hold office, I think that there may be sometimes an over-exaggeration of us, we draw our strength from the people. And you have sustained me. You have sustained me in all of these undertakings, whether it's been creating a national monument, but really in the toughest of times, whether it's been the pandemic, floods, the CZU fire, all of those challenges. Here in Santa Cruz County, challenges represent opportunities. They represent opportunities to get the job done together. We, the people. You will always be in the center of my heart. And as long as God gives me breath and especially in elective office, you will always have me as part of the team. I know that, and you know that you're gonna be in good hands with Jimmy Panetta. But know that you'll have two members. You'll have two members just plugging away and representing really one of the most beautiful communities that one could ever be a part of. You've made me a part of it, the people have. And how grateful I am for that. I'm deeply touched by your remarks, the privilege of, and the honor of Anna Eshoo, to hate Santa Cruz County. I can't wait to call my children and tell them that you have passed a resolution. So I look forward to, you know, to the trails ahead. I will always be there by your side. Thank you for this enormous honor. You can tell them I'm deeply, deeply touched by it. And to all of the staff of the county, all of the staff of the county, you are thoroughbred professionals. And one of them of course was your registrar of voters and on her way to the state legislature, how proud we are of Gail, the representation that she has given here. And she's going to take all of that Santa Cruz professionalism with her to the state legislature. So as you are heaping all of this praise, I have something for you. I have our beautiful flag of our nation that was flown over the Capitol in honor of the people of Santa Cruz County to present to you. This is a certificate that said it actually happened. And there it is for you. Let it fly celebrating our democracy. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman. Now I will need a quick vote from my fellow board members to authorize issuing this proclamation. If there's a motion, I'll move the recommended action. Second. I motion by Supervisor Coonerty and a second by Supervisor McPherson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. And Gonig? Aye. This item passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My apologies. I've never heard of any of them before. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We know you are amazing. Absolutely. or anything sent in the group, right over there. Thank you. All right, we will now return to item nine and in honor of, as the Congresswoman Eshu said, Santa Cruz's ability to turn adversity into creative solutions. I'll ask Ryan if you could just come back up to the stand here in case there's any further questions or comments for you. So we'll turn to item nine to consider a presentation on container-based sanitation systems. I believe we were finished with board questions and comments. So I'd like to open it at this time to members of the public that wish to comment on item nine. My name is James Ewing Whitman. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. I'm glad that Anna was in the room. I enjoyed the smile. That was, she was really surprised. Back to this agenda item about the potentially portable, compostable toilets that are gonna be stored the way they are. My understanding is it's between 900 and 1100 buildings were destroyed during the CZU directed energy weapons fire. I happen to be working on a foundation right now on one of those sites driving up empire grade. You can still see the weapons attacks on the trees that haven't been cut down. So I think it's fascinating. The oldest, the longest lasting civilizations reused everything and it's not uncommon to have a portable system that does not smell when you use it and it's not hard to do that. You look at the infrastructure going on in this county. There's a sewage line that's going up Soquel. Who is that EPA? It's another corporate organization. There are safety standards. I highly question. Here's the terminology. What is biosynthetic artificial intelligence nanotechnology hydro parasites? I don't think those things are being processed through the current sewage treatment system. It's my understanding from information I learned more than a year and a half ago that this nanotechnology that is now tracking all our foods and I see it everywhere at Gray Bear. I used to donate more time there. It can be stored, heated, cooked, processed and it can be tracked after it's been in a sewage treatment plant for six weeks. So what is the county of Santa Cruz doing? They are pumping their treated sewage into the water system. I don't know. I do mitigate mitigation. There are two types of people, those that detox and those that die. We're all in this together and around people who are not as healthy as they could be. Thank you. Are there members of the public yet? Please approach the podium. And for Maki, if you want to speak to this item. Hi, I'm just speaking off the cuff here. I did do some research on this kind of system for an RV when I was thinking about buying an RV. And I have to say the technology to me at that time was very impressive. That was the way where we're gonna go. And I'm excited for the county that we're exploring this. I think it's a wonderful idea. And I would just like to suggest that if the results are positive, that we do as a county look at other alternatives. And of course I'm relating it to what's happening in the San Lorenzo Valley. We have the potential for more failed septic systems in the future. Wouldn't it be nice to be looking at this as an alternative approach to some of the other very, very expensive ideas that we're faced with now. Thank you. Thank you. If there's no other members up here, if you go ahead. Well, I'm Tom Becker. My wife and I own a company in Boulder Creek called BAM Homes. If you've driven by the shorts box office in the last year or so, you probably seen. I'm sure that Bruce is seeing it. Anyway, we've been helping folks replace their homes from the fire. This is Peter. We've been having people replace their homes from the fire we have a dozen homes that are ordered another 20 that are being ordered. This is one of our customers. The condition of course is about the septic system. And as you know, the watershed area of the San Lorenzo Valley has the densest concentration of septic systems probably in the state. That sounds bad. Nevertheless, the water that we drink, if you look at the other water reports is some of the highest in the country. That's not affecting that. I understand the concern of what if systems fail and what if it gets into our water? So I want to address that because there's experts who will but I'll tell you a real situation. Peter and a dozen of our other people are faced with spending 50 to $150,000 to put in an engineered system with a septic in order to keep the water pure. He and his wife have been living on the same parcel for 61 years until the fire burned it out. And now they're rebuilding it. So if the interest is let's keep the watershed pure. We had a situation, well, a couple of weeks ago on our property, it abuts the San Lorenzo rivers right across from the fire department. If you know where the short spots of real estate offices, there's that empty lot in the back, which is our lot now. So it abuts the river. And every now and again, we have to call the police because there's people living under the bridge. Well, not actually living under the bridge, but using the bridge as a public sewer, really. So we're requiring our customers to spend hundreds of thousands, millions maybe. And the off chance is something their sewer system may fail. In fact, we have people that are using the rivers as a sewer. And I know it's about- Thank you, Mr. Decker. You're out of time, I'm afraid. And I think your comments also are directed to item 12. But it's fine, well, certainly. I follow them all the way. I'm new here. So Peter wanted to address this, is that okay? Peter, I think it would be more appropriate if you reserved your comments into actually here item, if they're related to item 12. Is there about- Yeah, I just talked to Neil when he was- Let me see if that's the question. At the school in Bonny Dune, and he was very helpful. He gave me his card and I finally called his office last week. And I said, I don't like to bother people in the county but with having trouble with continuity with the people, I've researched all the people. Some people said they have to have a- Excuse me. I'm 91 now and I've lost my thought. But what I hear is that everybody has a different answer from the county. And all I'm trying to do- In your system, Peter? Well, the engineer system is what they want me to put in. And I've been there before permits from 1954. My wife and I've been there and lived in that part. And everybody we talked to said, there's no grandfather cause on that. But the point is that we had a working septic tank. And they said, well, my daughter and I hooked up to the rain field. The tank is an old river that worked a big, 19 years. And a tank needs replacing. And I had- It's a two-acre parcel off of them are great. So it's more than enough space. Yeah, it's just that we had a perfect, I had my daughter and my son-in-law came out from Virginia to take care of my wife and I. And they've been living there. And I had a student from the UC living there in a studio that I had, which was 400 feet and the house was 600 feet. We were trying to combine it with the house that we're getting from him of around a thousand feet. But all I needed to do is get this septic tank replaced from what I hear from other neighbors. They said, oh yeah, we just run water in it. And leach field works. So all I'm trying to do is get my septic tank put in. I had from Boulder Creek, somebody to put it in. I put the money- Thank you, Peter. The county has my money now for the permit. Thank you. Thanks for coming to you. Yeah, and we're aware of the issue we're working on with environmental health staff. We've got a lot of board run this one. I apologize. Yeah, that's all right. Well, we'll register those comments for item 12, which we should get to here shortly. They're just gonna finish up taking public comment on item nine, which is related to container-based sanitation. Is there anyone else here in the audience that wishes to speak to that item? All right, is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair. We do have speakers online. Amanda, your microphone is now available. Okay, Ryan Smith. Wow, what an impressive presentation that you make. And to those supervisors who are pushing this forward, man, we stand and applaud you guys. Anything that we can do to help ease the housing burdens on people of this county, it's gonna be supported by us. As far as this particular pilot program is concerned, one of the things, some of the things we can do to make it better is that our community is in a constant state of crisis. We've had, if you live there long enough, floods, fires, earthquakes, wars, terrorist attacks, financial emergencies, a pandemic, and the worst of all of all of these is gonna be the interest rates that have just doubled and what that's gonna do to housing in our community. So, listening to Ryan's presentation, this use can go beyond just emergency use. So, for this pilot program, my feedback is why not allow some tiny houses to be introduced into this program as well? You know, we have people living in vans, RVs, and sanitation doesn't affect just them, but affects the entire community where these vehicles are parked. This technology has a potential to help all of us. Now, this may be the first phase, but time is the most important resource we have. And if we can start this process for other uses, then we can speed up our housing solution by years. So, why not include a few tiny houses or a few ADUs or any other of the new type of housings that the state and the communities are suggesting as opportunities that we're looking to help ease this housing crisis? So, again, I thank you guys for moving forward on this and please be more inclusive with it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morales. Colin, user three, your microphone is now available. Thank you for your very impressive presentation. Ryan Smith, though I couldn't see it, I could hear it on my landline and I would be interested in going in person to the board, but there's so much wireless microwave technology and tenants on the roof, I feel quite ill with these radiation exposures. Some comments and that's not accommodation for disabilities that are functional impairment caused by this toxic radiation exposure. It sounds quite impressive. I added some context, the whole water crisis catastrophe, droughts, et cetera, someone who provides insight into that context, a lot of the science is Dane Wiginton, geoengineeringwatch.org, I recommend that. Also, I question the safety of biosolids on agland due to the toxins in them that can't be removed. I recently spoke with a friend, it was saying, well, there's like 25,000 chemicals out there, only 5,000 have been tested. So in purification systems, seems like there's no way to really remove this. I think we need to advocate for prohibiting toxic technology that is dumping all these chemicals through our bodies, through the air, through the water, into the systems. Let's see. So those are- Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Michelle, your microphone is now available. Hi, and thank you. I'm also confused as far as the agenda here. So I originally wanted to listen to what was going on with the new septic system that we're supposed to spend 35,000 to 90,000. Let me show you what's still on item nine. And right, but why I'm confused is because doesn't that link into the compostable toilets? So would we save ourselves time and money if we purchased the incinerator or the compostable toilet prior to forcing everyone to have the new septic? So I don't know if you're going to be able to relate anything that is in relation to elimination together in one proposal. And I think that's why people here were confused because it all goes to the same place and how do you want it to get there and why don't you tie it all together? Just to answer your question, I think some others have raised this concern, which is this compostable program right now as envisioned is a very small pilot program. Maybe a dozen properties and meant as an interim solution while people are in the rebuilding phase, whereas the LAMP program, which there are many policy implications of is more permanent and required under state law. Okay, so say the pilot becomes a proposal and that becomes state law, then we've already investigated in this LAMP program under the state to upgrade 35,000 to 90,000 of our septic system. I'm confused. I mean, I don't know what to buy. Do I buy a new septic or do I? Again, the pilot program is for a dozen properties that is meant as an interim solution while people are rebuilding, not for rebuilding where people are gonna be living permanently and the changes across the state of California, that would be a major shift across the state of California to entirely new systems that I envision would take decades and decades to get there. If not, if ever. So that's the differentiation between the two. Well, it seems like it would be an emergency since there are not, there's not any water. And so, and we know that we have to change how the sewage is working. So it seems to me, the shift in focus would be incinerator toilet or compost toilet because that would save water. And so if we do it on our own, are there permits that we have to have if we wanna do it on our own? Can we just go ahead as private landowners to get incinerator toilets? No, you can under state law. And this isn't a time for dialogue, but I think if you're interested in changing state law, the Board of Supervisors does not have the authority and you should reach out to your state elected officials and get their read on what is possible and when. Okay, I was just trying to clear it up as why I came. Thanks for what you guys do. Thank you, Michelle. Chair, we have no further speakers at this time for this item. All right, and I'll return it to the Board for deliberation and action. I'll move the recommended action. Second. We have a motion by Supervisor Coonerty, a second by Supervisor McPherson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call out please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Coonerty passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Smith. We'll now proceed with item 10, which is as the Board of Directors of the Davenport County Sanitation District to hold a public hearing to consider in concept and ordinance amending district code, Title IV, Article III, Section 4.08.170 for Davenport County Sanitation District and schedule the ordinance for final adoption on November 15th, 2022, as outlined in the memorandum of the district engineer. And for a part on this item, we have senior civil engineer Ashley Trudillo. Good morning, thank you. On September 13th, the Board set today, October 18th, as the date for the public hearing to consider ordinance D102 of the district code. This ordinance modifies the date for which water meter readings for non-residential users are obtained in order to allow adequate time for data processing. Changing the meter reading period to October through September would allow district staff to have adequate time to calculate the next fiscal year's rates while meeting Board deadlines and adhering to Proposition 218 requirements. Therefore, we recommend that the Board hold a public hearing and upon its conclusion, consider approval and concept of the ordinance amending district code, Title IV, Section 4.08170, commercial meter reading and direct the clerk of the Board to place the ordinance on the November 15th, 2022 agenda for final adoption. I'm available for questions. Thank you, Mr. Hio. Are there comments or questions from Board members? Seeing none. Is there any member of the public wish to address this item? Seeing no one here in chambers, anyone online? We have no speakers on Zoom, Chair. All right, then I'll return to the Board for action. Move the recommended action. Second. Motion by Supervisor Kearney. Second by Supervisor McPherson to accept the recommended actions. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Clerk roll call vote please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty? Aye. McPherson? Aye. And Koenig? Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you. Then we'll proceed with Item 11 because of the Board of Directors of the Freedom County Sanitation District to hold a public hearing to consider and concept and ordinance amending district code, Title III, Article III, Section 3.08.190 for Freedom County Sanitation District and Schedule Final Adoption of the Ordinance November 15th, 2022 as outlined in the Memorandum of the District Engineer. And for a report on this item, we have again, Senior Civil Engineer, Ashley Trujillo. Hi, thank you. This is a similar item for the Freedom County Sanitation District. So on September 13th, the Board set today, October 18th as the date for the public hearing to consider ordinance F-26 amending the district code. This is similar is that it also modifies the date for which water meter readings for non-residential users is obtained for water service providers in order to allow adequate time for data processing. We therefore recommend that the Board hold the public hearing and upon its conclusion, consider approval and concept of ordinance amending the Freedom County Sanitation District Code, Title III, Section 3.08.190 for metered water and direct the clerk of the Board to place the ordinance on the November 15th, 2022 agenda for final adoption. And I'm available for questions. Thank you. Are there comments or questions from Board members? Seeing none, are there any members of the public that wish to address us on this item? Is anyone on Zoom? We have no speakers online, Chair. All right. Thank you. Then I'll return to the Board for action. I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Motion by Supervisor Friend, second by Supervisor McPherson to adopt the recommended actions. Any further discussions? Seeing none, clerk roll call vote, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Item passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, it's real. All right. We will now proceed with item 12, which is a public hearing. Consider proposed amendments to Santa Cruz County Code Chapter 7.38 on sewage disposal with associated California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Exemption, Approven Concept, Ordinance Amending Chapter 7.38 of the Santa Cruz County Code relating to on-site wastewater treatment systems and take related actions without one memorandum of the Director of Health Services. I'll report on this item. We have John Ricker, Environmental Health Consultant. Good morning. I was also expecting the Environmental Health Director. She's probably hung up at her office right now, but I'll go ahead and get started. This item is coming back to you. You've seen it on August 23rd, and then again on September 13th. At that time, you directed us to make some changes to the ordinance. Essentially, that's what's left to be adopted. The LAMP was adopted in August and the resolution amending the general plan was also adopted in August. So what's remaining is consideration and adoption of the amendments to Chapter 7.38. The County Code adopting that in concept before we take it onto the Coastal Commission as well. The changes that were made since September 13th, there were three changes that your board directed. Those have all been made. They included pushing back the point of sale, inspection timeline to July 1st of 2024, pushing it back six months. We also inserted language that would allow the Environmental Health Director to not pursue penalties if a repair was not able to be completed within the 90 days as long as the person was pursuing the repair with due diligence. And we also added language to allow the determination of winter water table levels. Looking at soils and other information, if indeed a winter water table testing period was not available due to lack of rainfall or just due to the season of the year. We made some additional changes with regards to the slope stability reports. The ordinance had required that those be reviewed by the county geologists. And we've made that more flexible to where they are to be reviewed by a professional employed by the county, which could be a consultant employed by Environmental Health. And that's the intent to go forward rather than to increase the burdens on the county geologist. There were some minor changes in language, essentially being more consistent on the proper terminology for licensed engineers and licensed geologists. So those were just bringing the language more into conformity with current practice. We did hold a TAC meeting. This was maybe a week and a half or so ago where it was a Zoom meeting. We had both realtors and a number of our qualified professionals present where we discussed the point of sale program that we are working on. That's essentially a work in progress. We got a lot of good comments at that meeting. We anticipate having a number of more meetings and working on that process, working on the reports that will be required and addressing the concerns that we've had. We've got almost nine months now to work on that and get that process fined too. So we do believe that that's gonna be an effective process going forward once we address all those concerns. Marilyn Liddicoat is now, Eris, Marilyn. Boy am I going back, sorry. Anyway, Marilyn is now here and can add anything to that if she would like to. I'm sorry for being tardy and missed items 10 and 11, I guess. I don't know what to add to John, but we are here before you just to brought back the ordinance with the changes for your request and also address some issues around the planning department and the county taking county geologists out of reviewing our slope stability reports. So we're here to move forward with the ordinance. And again, we are on process of starting working with our constituents and our stakeholders on the point of sale. As John said, we have a ways to go on that. John will be here even though I will not be here. We have a very good consultant and Angela Gray that has been developing the process. So we anticipate quite a bit of outreach with our constituents to work on this process over the next nine months. As you know, we environmental health often have new state law and to start up and put into action and we often do a soft launch and have to roll out things in a timely manner. So this will be just be another one of those processes that we will be working on studiously over the next nine months. So with that, we can take any questions. Thank you, Dr. Underwood with their comments or questions from board members to Provost McPherson. Yeah, this has been a long process. And I would thank our County Environmental Health Department, the staff as well as the community members who have been involved in this for their ongoing work and the proposed ordinance. And ultimately, I believe we're going to have a better outcome with the more local management on this issue considering the diverse environmental landscape that we have. The goals of the point of sale, of sale part of the ordinance are laudable. And I think I do agree with them but right now there's no requirement at the point of sale to identify failing septic systems which is really not good for the environment or for the buyers of the real in a real estate transaction. Perspective buyers and I have a long list here to go through. So I'm going to be referring to some of my notes. Perspective buyers also need to be made aware of the regulatory requirements that may apply to the septic system even if it's not actively failing, especially if the buyer anticipates remodeling or adding an ADU, which we're bringing into place more aggressively in the county. Not having this information beforehand causes frustrated homeowners to eventually blame the county if they are faced with installing a more expensive enhanced septic system later on. The proposed point of sale septic report form is seven pages long and contains extensive information that is useful to the buyer but there are unintended consequences requiring this report that we must recognize. The reality is that the ZZU fire victims are having serious difficulties with escalating reconstruction costs and getting appointments with licensed professionals to help them, especially related to the rebuilding of septic systems. And other than geological hazards, septic is the biggest barrier for rural property owners to overcome when they want to improve their property or build more housing on it. The bottom line is we need to be thoughtful about how and why we oppose more regulatory barriers so that we do not add impediments to creating more housing. And there also will be additional costs to do required seven page point of sale report versus the voluntary one page septic pumping system report that the county now accepts. And we do not have enough inspectors trained and available to do a longer report. So because of these are substantial problems that we should not ignore, I think it would be wise to take an interim step for the point of sale reporting requirement that identifies failed systems and also educate stakeholders regarding what they may need to do in the future. And I especially wanna thank our environmental health department, Mr. Ricker and others who've we've looked at this for months now and for making those additions and improvements, I believe, but I just think that there is more improvements that can be made. And I would like to recommend that in a form of a motion when the time comes, but we might wanna hear from other board members and the public before we go there. He's Supervisor McPherson. Other board members to comment on the item? No, I'm Supervisor Friend. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Ricker for bringing in Supervisor Liddicoat to the discussion. I'm sure she would actually have a couple of questions about this on this. I have a few questions just as follow up. It is clear that the point of sale issue is not fully resolved. And one of the things that would be a little bit of concern about adopting the subsection even before, even with the recognition of the actual implementation occurring in July is just not knowing exactly what the final point of sale requirements are really gonna be. I wanna establish that I support the concept of point of sale. I think that there's a real value to that and it's a necessary component of this moving forward. But I think that there is also some realistic elements that Supervisor McPherson was speaking to. And so I wanted to follow on some of the questions. I know that environmental health, it's my understanding similar to sanitation and some other worlds has a list on the website of some of the qualified contractors. I don't necessarily recommend it per se but I mean people that would fit for this. Have you had an opportunity to reach out to any of them to just see what the timeline would be for them to be able to implement what's being proposed by environmental health on this? Supervisor Friend, yeah, we've spoken with a few that are interested, especially this appeals to some of our folks that are sort of not wanting to do as much of the building and construction anymore but are looking toward, with using their knowledge as they retire or start to taper off in their world of employment. So those are the folks we have chatted with and there's several in that category that are interested. John, do you know of any others that you've spoken with? No, we, I mean, we did speak with them in our TAC meeting a couple of weeks ago and but we haven't really gotten down into the details. At that meeting, that was the first time that we had shown them the draft report that we were looking at. So we're still waiting to get more comments back from them and to work with that. And then we do feel like that's going to change. I would say that that seven page report or form that was developed, the vast majority of the septic systems in the county, we don't have that information for it and we don't expect the qualified professional to develop that information if it doesn't exist. The form really provided a place to sort of have the information land if it is available in the files. But in many cases, the form, the fields would be filled out as not available or not applicable. So the form was, I think, fairly scary to a lot of people, but it's not, we're not looking for that kind of, we're not looking for people to come up with information that doesn't exist. It's really to capture and present to both the buyer and the seller, what information is available. And if the information is not available, then that would also just be indicated. I asked Mr. I appreciate that clarification. That clearly wasn't clear, I think, to people that attended that I spoke to that attended the TAC meeting or some of the conversations exposed facto on that. I think that the greatest fear is that that we're adding Washington say the greatest fear. I should say one of the concerns is that we're adding in with everybody actually under the same page and agreement that something needs to be done. I think that that is actually an established thing. And I think it's actually very good that we're facing a policy or regulatory framework where there's agreement that there's a need. It's not always the case. I think that where there's disagreement is the extent by which what we need to require, does it overly meet the need? Can something or simple meet the need, something quicker, less expensive? And do we have the level of professionals even needed under the requirements that are being proposed to realistically do this? I mean, I don't think the board is interested in doing something that could significantly delay sales within an area, for example. In some of the outreach that we did to some of the qualified people on the list, some weren't willing to even do what was being proposed or their understanding of what was being proposed. Some aren't available right now. And so I just don't know realistically that there are enough providers, right? And so we don't want to create these unnecessary obstructions to get to the end goal. I just want to ensure that the environmental health team is being reasonable and pragmatic. I'm not arguing that you're not, but I think that if the takeaway is that there isn't flexibility on this, then I think that that would be our concern. We want to ensure that there's reasonableness and flexibility built into a system which was partially integrated by removing the punitive elements, delaying this a little bit of time. But I think the actual implementation in the forms may still be a little bit too complex. And so I just don't think that the number of providers exists. I think that there probably is a middle way to actually accomplish what we need from an environmental, from a health perspective without actually delaying sales or putting an undue burden on these homeowners. We can still have a disclosure that comes to a buyer of Supervisor McPherson's point to make sure the transparency is there. It just may be the seven page doc, isn't it? Which while I was asking that question, I just have a little bit of concern about moving forward without clarity of where that flexibility is going to exist. But I mean, we're still gonna continue to have that discussion today, but I just wanted you to know my thinking on it. Thank you, Supervisor Friend. Yeah, I mean, just to clarify my understanding is there's 1,017 homes that were sold in 2021 that had an on-site wastewater treatment system, which average was about 81 homes per month. You know, we have a list, but my understanding this is from our County Environmental Health website of nine qualified professionals that are able to conduct the report that has been maybe gone, you know, as you said, in draft today, and that when trying to reach out to these professionals, we had just a couple of people respond. And then even those of those people that did, only one was able to actually do a report and they could maybe do two a month. So if we're taking 81 transactions down to two, we're in big trouble. And I think that ultimately, as Supervisor Friend said, the goal here would be to make sure we have a report that can be completed by the existing workforce in the County. And I think to do that, we probably need to take it from a report that can only be completed by these qualified professionals to traditional septic pumpers. I mean, I think just reducing the point of sale requirements to the existing septic tank pumping and inspection report is something that can be again, conducted by existing pumpers. And then maybe some disclosures around the permitting for existing septic systems or on-site wastewater treatment systems that are on the property today, that's something that can be completed by the real estate professionals in the transaction would really allow us to leverage the workforce that we have to meet the goals of the policy. I would just comment that I think just to point out again, we have just begun the rollout of starting to develop this. So I actually think what, if you'd like to have a report back, I think we would report back to you on the progress of working with our stakeholders and looking at these issues. Cause quite frankly, you too, when you made phone calls to people, probably they were like, in some cases, what are you talking about? Cause we did have only a turn out of a, think of about 20 on the phone call, on that, that the tech medium, normally we have a tech of about 70. So I think, what you want to see is let it develop and see how, what is possible? Cause quite frankly, the seven page report again, if there's information in our files, it goes actually rather quickly cause you have it there to fill in. If there's not information, not in our files, it also goes fairly quickly cause now you're saying not applicable, not applicable. So might, again, I think it's, it's sounding a little dramatic at this point, but I think what you want to do is let it play out and have a report back to, from working with attack and working with our real estate agents and others as the project moves forward because it's, it is not going to roll out for about nine months. So, and again, it could be a soft rollout. So I think what you want to, at this point, I would recommend that you let it proceed and then come back to you as, as it's being developed to get to a report back. Thank you. Can I ask just, I mean, that there's sort of approaches being talked about here, but what happens if there's a two week delay in point of sale? But I mean, we can't, and the board is like, well, two weeks is unacceptable because we're hearing impacts from people closing and it's impacting all kinds of other things. We can't roll back the regulations at that point cause it's been, they've been approved by the state. What's the, what will be the remedy if the, in the report back, there's, there's an unacceptable, you know, there's, there's the issues that are being raised. Is the question that the point of sale inspection wasn't done in a timely fashion? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. If the issues that are being raised are, are happening, maybe they aren't as grievous as some people are concerned about, maybe the market emerges, et cetera, et cetera, but they're still impactful. What is the board's remedy then at that report, that report back? So what I want to say is, first of all, we're encouraging the point of sale inspection to be done up to six months before the, the point of the sale actually occurs. So one of it is we getting out there and talking to the real estate agents. And I do think, and making sure they know for their clients, hey, this is something we want to get on the radar right away, right? When you, we know you want to go for sale. And the other thing is, I think, you know, it will happen that I'm sure when lead inspections were first needed, there was not enough people to do lead inspections and they needed to get trained by the state. I'm sure when asbestos testing was done, that there will again be the void will be filled by folks. And again, I think it will be filled by folks, not just our consultants, but we hope to have our septic pumper folks. We have to have a hope to have our on-site service providers actually would be really well placed to also be folks that are doing some of these inspections. So, but again, we've just started, we only had an on-site attack meeting with relatively low turnout. So I think it's a process. What's going to happen over the next nine months is to get out there and try to get folks that are interested in doing this. I think your question is, if they didn't do the inspection at the time it's of the sale, what's the implication? No, it's more, you know, if we, I think supervisor McPherson and others are pointing to this idea of delaying that element in order to get more feedback and all that. And you're saying sort of, let's go forward, let's develop the program and then get a report back and see how it's going. I guess my question is if we move forward as your proposal and it takes a while for the economy to adjust, it takes a while for realtors to adjust, maybe it's just too burdensome. What would be the remedy that the board will be able to implement at that point to reduce it? If people are like, I can't do it six months in advance because I have to sell my house in the next month and I can't find anyone to do it and I need to move what, and the board is sympathetic as our constituents, what would be our remedy at that point? Yeah, I mean, I think what I'm saying over the next nine months, if we're seeing that this report is, as in fact, people are concerned about is too much of a burden and that requiring just a septic pump report with maybe a just closer is the better way to go. I think that's what we will see over the next seven to eight months, right? And so even environmental health can go forward with the ordinance as it's written, there's no specific statement in what is a point of sale report, right? It just says that there's a point of sale requirement done at point of sale inspection needed. So it might be that in seven to eight months we see exactly what you're saying that the fears that you're speaking about today are that we don't have enough of those folks to be able to do it, then that would be the turn that we would take it in environmental health. But certainly if your board also wanted to step in at that time too and direct the department, the division to go that direction, you could choose to go that way as well. But I think it's just a little too early to say, well, this report that just was daylighted 10 days ago is too much and we shouldn't require that. I think this is why, we're just introducing the ordinance now. We're trying to develop the program. You got to give the division time enough to develop it and see where it goes with, again, the work of our own site tech and other stakeholders to see where we can land in seven to eight months. John, did you wanna add? I would just add, I mean, the language in the ordinance is essentially creating the objective. It refers to a form that would be completed, but it doesn't get into the details on what that form is. It covers the elements that should be addressed in the form, but that could be done in a one-page form or it could be done in a seven-page form. So there is latitude within the ordinance to work out the details on this and make sure that it's workable going forward. I mean, we could do a check back with the board on what the form looks like, what the process looks like, and the board could say, no, we don't want that seven-page form. And I don't think it's gonna be a seven-page form when we're done with this. I think it's gonna be easier than that, but the board could say we want a different form. We want something that's even simpler than what you've got. So there is that latitude within the ordinance to have a different type of form. Essentially, it's approving the concept and then kicking it to us and the stakeholders to work out the details within the next nine months. Thank you, Mr. Baker. Kind of counsel, did you wanna weigh in? Yeah, I just, I think your question is what happens if what is the board's remedy if these complaints turn out to be true and the report back is that we're having all of these problems, what does the board, what can the board do? And the board can change the ordinance at that point. That's what would be the board's remedy, would be to change the ordinance. You could also change it to specifically, as opposed to having the flexibility that staff has now to address some of these issues programmatically, you could place direction in the ordinance to see it the way that you wanted it to be. So there's two paths right now, really. Yeah, I guess the hard part, it strikes me as this week, there's gonna be a pain as people adjust, as you've mentioned, led or whatever. But 20 people calling our offices saying, I'm delayed two months in a world of rising interest rates is not, I won't be here, but I'm speaking for my experience, that's a lot of hardship to put on the community. And so if we hear it back in seven months and it's mostly working but not quite working and then we have to adjust the ordinance and it's a two week setting it on the agenda and then a two read and it's like, I think that's the tension that we're all feeling. All right, thank you. If there are no other comments or questions by board members, we'll open it now to members of the public. If you'd like to comment on this item, please approach the podium. Can you hear me? Okay, thank you. I'm Mark Lee, I'm from Ben Lohman. I've been trained as an environmental planner, working in government for 30 years and also a paralegal and an MBA in finance. I, good morning, board members and Chair Koenig. I'm here representing many, many concerned residents of SLV in the area of the OWTS region. They're very concerned about many things such as the cost and what the long-term implications are financially and socially for our community with the imposition and adoption of this ordinance as plan amendment. I'm concerned also about the neighbors and particular homeowners are concerned what kind of undo burden will occur if this implementation occurs. And we're looking for leadership from our own district supervisor, Bruce McPherson to resolve this. We think the ordinance in many cases currently as it is imposed, I've heard you indicated that it would not be implemented until July 23rd, 2024. I'm hearing now nine months over here. This is going to be a draconian wakeup in the ordinance to implement. It's gonna cause a lot of people who've been here for many, many years or retirees perhaps of the 28,000 people who live here including the 10,000 homeowners are going to be perhaps 40% of them are living in retirement, do not have the funds to implement the engineering requirements that are imposed by this ordinance. So I request you as a recommendation to postpone this until another maybe out to 2025 perhaps have more public hearings workshops on the details of the technical requirements. The people are upset and it's important that you start addressing the voters and become more inclusive with the citizens of our Valley and SLV. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lee for those comments. And I support them. My name is Becky Steinbruner. I'm a resident of rural Aptos and my community is on one of the areas the Rio del Mar Lodge sites that are on the crosshairs of this. My questions that I brought to you in other testimonies have never been answered why the Valencia watershed is considered a high nitrate problem. I've never received that when a Valencia Creek is really has more of a problem with sedimentation. So my concern, I've read online some of the comments that your board received regarding this and I agree that this point of sale issue is huge and is draconian. I don't think it's fair to assume that all buyers are naive. They're very sophisticated buyers and the lenders are even more sophisticated and require reports. So I want to ask you to postpone this. I don't feel comfortable at all just doing a soft launch and hope it works. And I agree with Supervisor Coonerty. Delays in real estate transactions are expensive and many people cannot afford them. I also, I think you should just take the time and get it right. I also think that the CZU fire area really needs to have a special consideration because of the devastation and calamity. And I think that those people should not be required to do these advanced systems if there has been no complaint or report of problems in the past on those locations. This will cause many of them to be unable to financially rebuild if they get the permits. So thank you for this, please hold off. And I'm surprised that this only recently, the TAC was shown this document and thank you for bringing it to them but it needs to come back to them and the greater public area affected. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Time-Burner. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Greg Lukina. I am a local realtor and chair of the local government relations committee for the Santa Cruz County association realtors. And I come here today speaking to you on behalf of our 1400 members. So when I came last month to speak specifically on this item, one of the concerns that I had was regarding rolling, approving the lamp without a point of sale process approved to add some additional numbers to supervisor Koenig's data that he provided during our Izzy months which we call September to September 2, or excuse me, March to September. We had about 600, so about 60% of those homes that sold to about a hundred per month with the maximum in 2021 of 114 sales during that time period. After the meeting that we had the TAC meeting, I did reach out to a couple of these service providers to see what their bandwidth would be for these inspections. One of them I spoke to said he would be able to do one maybe two a week. Another one, another person said that they reviewed the form, the current form with their attorney and their attorney advised them not to become an approved inspector. Two other people I reached out to have still yet to contact me back. Could be that they didn't wanna speak to me. Could also be that they are too busy to call me back. So as currently designed, this seven page document will hold up real estate transactions. So I think I see three options moving forward. First off is approving the lamp without the point of sale. The point of sale is not a state requirement. It can be removed from the lamp. The second option would be delaying the approval of the lamp until we have a point of sale process that is approved by the technical advisory committee. Third would be utilizing some of the existing documents we have and maybe are putting together a disclosure regarding some of the challenges regarding developing properties within the with the odd system. So I just wanna close and say thank you to staff and to the tack for all their work. And really we just wanna get this right. Thank you, Mr. Locata. Hello, my name is Maria MacArthur. My husband earlier spoke Tom Decker. I come to you before you now with any title other than a citizen, we the people. And I wanted to thank the people that have stood before me that's given me the courage to come in front of you because I can see how sometimes this could be intimidating. But if I don't speak out, shame on me. I want to please all of you to think of us, your constituents that have voted for you because we believe in you. We have our voices put in through you. And I'm speaking about the changes in the lamp and all of these other things that affect us to give us enough time to process, to come before you not feeling like we're up against in a tribunal but that we're here to be listened to. And that's what I'm asking is to listen to us, our needs. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. MacArthur. I concur with Supervisor McPherson's position that we should look at this thing and do what supervisors do so well and kick the can down the road a few years until it's set up where it can be accessed. The people in our area, and again back to Supervisor McPherson because probably 70% of the homes that were lost in the CZU fire area in his district so he's very sensitive to this. We don't need another bunch of hoops to jump through. I'm gonna reintroduce you to Peter after I speak and he's gonna explain where he's been weeks trying to talk to someone, get simple questions answered with no effect. Can you imagine then adding this onto him? So we live in a diverse county, we surely do. I mean, I have friends the whole spectrum. Nevertheless, there's one thing that the folks in this county can come together on and that is our sewer systems, our septic systems, we all have them and we all know to cost to clean them out and fix them. We all know that. And if you touch that third rail and come out on the wrong side of it, this room will be full of folks. I mean, this is just an introductory kind of meeting and you can see there's a lot of people are saying, what's up with this? So be very careful with that. I would strongly consider advise you if I may to consider Supervisor McPherson's reasoned logic to let's roll this thing out when we're ready to roll it out so we don't burden the people that live here. Again, thank you for your time, Peter. Thank you, Tom. And Peter, we did receive your testimony on this item. It was during item nine, but I think he's still speaking to this. I agree. He's talking better. Just saying one more thing that my wife and I have lived in this county for many, many years. She went to high school here. We just want to get a home. That's all. Thank you. We've had some college that his wife built the home that they lived in for 61 years. It was given to them by her parents. So they have a presence on Empire grade for about 100 years. They would like to move back to that home. So anyway, thank you again for your consideration. Thank you, Mr. Decker. I see no one else here in chambers that wish to address us on this item. Is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair. We do have speakers online. Call in user three. Oh, I'll return. Call in user three, your microphone's now available. Excuse me. I always learn so much from the public comment and I'm always so disturbed at the board not responding appropriately to the direction the public is offering. This time I wrote down some of the words talking about undue hardship on the community, burdensome, draconian, unclear statements, the ordinance needs to be clear first. And this muddled comments on the form and what the form is, it seems like you have to have a form first, clear language first before approving something. The question came up also of end goal of I'm thinking of all the issues of environmental quality and environmental contamination that are going on. And I think of pesticide poisoning, all the cutting down the trees, all the radiation emitting facilities and focus on this seems to focus on something that is not a major problem. I don't get it, is it? And it's like very much targeting people who have septic systems, a myriad of problems brought up. It seems like this needs to be postponed, more public hearing, and I have a question. Don't cut me off before my question. It says lamp here. I do not see on the board agenda what is the definition of lamp. And the other question is when you talk about sewage disposal, we're talking about septic systems, shouldn't it have imprints who sees IE or septic? Those are my two questions, please respond those from my question. Thank you, Ms. Garrett. Michelle, your microphone is now available. Okay, hi. Once again, applaud you for being patient and taking our questions as a simple-minded homeowner. I'm trying to wrap my head around this. And I think the question's more directed towards the environmentalist that you have there. Is there something that I can read that has evidence-based practice research scientific study demonstrating efficacy, time, and money in comparison to what is the city ordinance for a new septic, is there a county sewage? And then why not what was stated? You have to have a law for state compost. I'm not impressed that it would take years. It sounds like it's gonna take years to have this septic rollout. And I'm still not understanding who made the decisions as far as the comparison of the efficacy, time, money of the scientific research that downstream environmental-wise that this proposal is safest compared to other alternatives. How was this decision made? Ethically, I would give that septic report without needing a law. I mean, it's just something that you would do. And I think it's more important to get county sewage connected because environmentally, I believe that's the safest way to go. All are going to take a lot of time. I wanna see a comparison study so I can visualize what's going on. I just, I'm not getting that. I'm sure there is one, but that would alleviate my confusion. If you could point me in that direction, I'd appreciate it. And thank you for listening to this simple-minded homeowner. Thank you, Michelle. Mando, your microphone is now available. Okay, so I was curious, I've seen this coming down the road. And so I actually contacted a few of, is my microphone working? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. I contacted a few qualified professionals and asked about their costs and their availability. And pretty much any sort of cost for any sort of engineering, and this goes across all types of engineering, it's about $5,000 to $8,000. And that's not to actually get anything done. That's to pretty much find out what needs to get done. And their availability is extraordinary limited. And it seems that we've had this major push towards an extraordinarily expensive enhanced septic systems and that we have labor that's only done by qualified professionals and it requires all this advanced engineering. And these costs were prohibitive even before what one of the other supervisors said before the current interest rates, which has absolutely exploded, which is going to lead to the point that another speaker spoke earlier that for every type of advanced expensive system that we put in, there's probably going to be three people living under the bridge, defecating straight into the river. Now, as a regular homeowner myself, most people, hey, you know what, we flush the toilet, if it works, that's the last thing we think of. But we need the board and the environmental people to fight for us because the cost of ownership is crushing our community. And we have hospitals that are going bankrupt. We've got civil servants that are on strike right now. And this environmental is one of the largest costs that we have towards our housing. And if we don't work to curtail that in every aspect, point of sale, building and everything, it's going to continue to push our community in a downward direction. Thank you. Thank you, Mondo. Linda, your microphone is now available. Hi. First of all, I just wanted to thank the supervisors who are speaking up and addressing the fact that this does seem excessive and pretty much premature in terms of resources that are available. I'm a longtime resident of the San Lorenzo Valley and I'm totally aware of the issues with the old and failing septic systems and their effect on our environment. That said, I have a few concerns and most of them have already been addressed, so I'll be quick here. But one of the things is just the difficulty in understanding this ordinance. I think the biggest thing I saw, and I only found out about this on social media, was that people couldn't even understand what the ordinance was. Did it mean that everybody needed to run out and get a new septic system? Was the county coming in and investigating everybody? So it caused a lot of anxiety and confusion. And so being more transparent, the lack of notification that something that could affect us all was concerning to a lot of people. We need to protect the environment and that's a worthwhile goal, but not the cost of homeowners not being able to afford expensive and a lot of time unneeded this advanced treatment systems that the county is talking about. We see that as invasive and overreach, especially if a PERC system is available. So we should be sure about making sure we can all afford this for low income people. We don't get the advantage of sewers. A lot of us don't get the advantage of county supported water, but we still pay taxes. So if you want people to do these expensive tests and enhancements, then maybe we should also look at making that affordable because maintenance should always be affordable. If that's really our goal is to make things safer. Thank you very much. Thank you, Linda. Julio, your microphone is now available. All right, thank you. Yeah, we need to postpone this. There's just not enough awareness. Most folks, I mean, I didn't even find out about this till last weekend. Most folks don't know about it, let alone the details. This is not a well thought out plan. As I listened to some of the speakers, six months prior to sale, taking the let's see what happens approach, it's not a plan. I mean, they're saying do it now. Then we'll go back in six months and try to figure out what the holes are and fix it at that point. That's not a plan. We need to postpone this. The costs, they seem to be outrageous. I'm hearing anything from 70,000 to 150,000, that's a lot of money and people quite frankly can't afford to do that. Some of the folks that have houses will end up homeless and be more a burden to state local resources than they were when the whole thing started. And the people that we'll try to pay for are gonna have a substantial reduction in their quality of life, their vacations for their family or cars that are needed, that type of thing. Like I said, it just seems like these costs are outrageous. We really need to postpone this. And the folks here in the valley, we've endured a lot. 2020 was a very crazy year. All our homeowners insurance, if they weren't canceled, I mean, I know mine gone up like six times. I was paying 1,500, now I'm paying 8,500. I mean, we're just getting pummeled left and right. So again, let's postpone this and think it through. And I do appreciate the time. Thank you so much. Thank you, Julia. Chris, your microphone is now available. Good afternoon, board members. Thanks for having me. This is Chris Berry from the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. As most of you know, the City of Santa Cruz provides drinking water primarily from the San Lorenzo watershed to almost 100,000 people. The watershed obviously provides water to tens of thousands of other folks who are not in the city service area as well. I'll also share that I'm a San Lorenzo Valley homeowner with a septic tank. So I get it from numerous perspectives. Speaking today as a city employee and watershed manager, I think I first want to compliment the work of staff. We're lucky to still have John Ricker available, frankly, to help us through this. This has been something the city's been working with John and other county staff on for decades. And I'm glad to be able to say things are much improved since I first started here, which is getting to be a long time ago. That said, I'm looking at our nitrate and coliform data. And I'm seeing degraded water quality in the San Lorenzo River. And the largest contributor of that water quality degradation is the on-site wastewater system. So this process is very much needed. I think folks will likely find that county staff are much more accessible and cooperatives and regional board staff will be if the county doesn't pursue a rigorous program here. I do support the staff recommendations. However, I do understand the need to have reasonable recommendations that can actually be implemented. I have several neighbors in my neighborhood that have unpermitted systems, which is a little bit frightening, but frankly, I understand if you're low income you have an old small lot that sometimes you just have to do that in order to make things work. So having standards that work for everyone is really important. That said, I think everyone's on the same page about this saving home buyers, hassles and long run. We just need to work out the details. So I'm hopeful that you'll find a way to do that and before with this today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barry. Alex, your microphone is now available. Hi, can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay. I just wanna say thank you to everyone for allowing us to come up and speak our minds on this topic. I wanna say a quick thanks to Mark Lee. He's the reason that I found out about this through social media just a couple of weeks ago. And he seems to be a good representative of a lot of people in the San Lorenzo Valley area. It seems like I'm not saying anything that's surprised anyone. A lot of people think that it's rushed and not well thought out and there's been not much awareness with most people I've discussed this issue with who live in the San Lorenzo Valley. To be totally honest, I'm a nurse. I do pretty well. Most people in the valley do not make as much as nurses or firemen or engineers or people in tech that work over the hill. And for most people it's just not doable. There's a lot of retirees, seniors and low income people on fixed income that are not gonna be able to retire where they want to because they have this $100,000 requirement when they sell their house. I believe in environmental policy and I've fished the San Lorenzo and Soquel rivers since I was a kid. And I would like the water to be clean but at what cost? This is just, it's overwhelming. It seems like in the next 10, 15, 20 years these newer systems might be more affordable. But at this point they are not for a vast majority of people that live in the valley. I don't know much about the research. I haven't had time to really look into it. Is it a specific strain of E. coli that's specifically pinpointed towards humans or is it possibly animals? My septic works great. I just had it inspected. Maybe we could require more frequent septic inspections for homeowners. Maybe every three years or every five years or every 10 years or small sewage systems might also work. Anyway, I just want people to be respectful to the people that don't have the money to pay for it. Thank you, Alex. Samantha, your microphone is now available. Hi, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Hi, I'm Samantha Hasher. I'm an SLV resident. And first I want to thank the supervisors for your comments and your questions. I was going to speak about the point of sale clause but it sounds like you also have concerns. So it sounds like that will be addressed. I think this law is already overreaching. We recently attempted to add 200 square feet onto an existing den in our house and we were told that that den is now considered a bedroom and the addition would require an enhanced treatment system. So that was triggered by a 200 square foot addition and so we couldn't do the project. And so I think the more onerous this gets the more people will have to decide if they even want to obtain a building permit for their projects. And I think that we can all agree that that's important for people to do. Thank you. Thank you, Samantha. We have no further speakers online. Chair. All right, and I think we had one other member of the public here in chambers that wish to address us. Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Branson. I'm a resident of the San Lorenzo Valley. I don't think I have anything different to add than what you've heard from the other residents. So first off, I want to thank you for the opportunity to let me speak. I'm probably going to say things that you've heard from everyone else, but I would like you to reconsider the proposed amendment to the County Code. And specifically I'm questioning the notice of exemption that would allow this to go forward without an environmental impact report, which that's my understanding. It could be false. So you could correct me if I'm wrong. I don't understand why a project of this or anything of this magnitude could go forward without first conducting an extensive report on what the impact would be on the residents, which as we've heard, will be disastrous financially for a lot of people. Like the last speaker, I work over the hill. I make better money than some of my neighbors, but I plan to retire in the San Lorenzo Valley. And if I'm faced with having to install a $90,000 system to continue to live there without being red tagged, I'll be forced out. I don't make tech money. So I think that's about all I have to say. I hope that you would consider conducting an environmental impact report before going forward with any of these suggestions. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you and I appreciate that some of the supervisors seem to be on board with our concerns. And thanks again, I needed to speak because like the speaker before me, if I didn't speak, that's on me. Thank you. All right, seeing no one else in the public that was to address us, I'll return it to the board for deliberation and action. Mr. Chair, well, first of all, land use issues are never easy to resolve in Santa Cruz County. That's for sure. And for the information, LAMP is a local agency management program. It's a state program that must be implemented by the counties and what it says. With time and cost really a critical factor here. And I think we need some clarity today on what we want to do moving forward. And that might change too in the future. But I would like to propose a three-prong recommendation or make a motion. Number one, that the one-page septic pumping report currently accepted by the Environmental Health Department become the required point of sale report on the date previously approved by the board to implement that part of the ordinance. That's a time factor. Secondly, the proposed seven-page point of sale report should be converted to an information disclosure required for all real estate transactions effective on the date previously approved by the board to implement the point of sale. And number three, future revisions to the required point of sale report and disclosure must be approved by the board prior to implementation. So I think this would speed up the process, give more clarity of who can do what and in effect really have an effect on whether it's gonna cost the residents of the county, but particularly Santa Rosa Valley. I'd like to make that three-point motion. And I'll second that. I guess I just wanna say after the comments, I think we're looking at two things here. One, we're looking at competing needs. And so there's an economic need in the county and there's an environmental need as Chris Berry of the water department pointed out for clean water. And those are sometimes, those are aligned and sometimes they are competing. And in this case, there's competing. And then I think as my colleague's supervisor, friend mentioned, I think we at this moment are paying the price for a previous generation's decision to not extend sewer lines into our rural areas out of fear of growth and other things that may have seemed like good ideas at the time, but are now putting an incredible burden on both our environment and our economy. And we are now trying as with so many issues where future generations are trying to fix some problems that are left over from the past and paying some bills as a result of that. And so I support supervisor McPherson's approach for some of the reasons I outlined earlier as a way to help bridge that divide. But I wanna appreciate, I think staff is doing this for all the values that are articulated constantly by this community of wanting clean environment and clean drinking water as well as allowing people to be able to stay in their homes. And hopefully we're trying to thread that needle today. Mr. President, may I just have a point of clarification with County Council? The motion that was made was to amend what was before us. There was no recommendation of any of the additional recommended actions, but is this a direction to return with a first read with this language incorporated into the ordinance? Or is this just, how are you interpreting this so I can understand how the motion moves forward? So thank you for pointing that out about the other recommended actions. What I interpreted the motion as being was giving staff direction as to how to implement the ordinance and that that would be reflected in the board's minutes. I did not interpret it as being a request to modify the ordinance itself. So if the maker of the motion is interested in doing both things, accepting staff recommendation as modified with that direction, that might be making it more clear for the record. Then I'd ask, I wanna have this clear and get it done as immediate as possible. So should it be a recommendation to amend the ordinance then in your opinion? No, I don't not believe that's necessary. Yeah, okay. I believe what you would do is you would accept staff's recommendation to adopt the ordinance with the modification to implement programmatically what you have stated on the record and staff can weigh in if they don't agree with me on that. Okay, I would agree with that. Then I have a question for Supervisor McPherson and your motion seemed to convert the seven page document into a required disclosure. So just how, this is my interpretation of it. So I don't see how that makes something less burdensome if somebody's still required then to per the seven page document, get a licensed person to come up with that information. So I just wanna make sure we're on the same page. I think you're trying to simplify the process with a one page thing that broadens who can do it, but then what's the seven page document doing and who's required to do it and wins it? I'm just trying to make sure that your intention is actually accomplished by the motion. Well, the one page is the required point of sale report that I want and that the seven page be converted into an information disclosure. So I think I'm gonna make it more. So who fills it out then? Right, I mean, are we still requiring that that be a specialist, that that be a licensed person that's doing that? Or that, I mean, so I'm just asking if you're the seller, how the burden is reduced with that? Well, the one page becomes the required document. And so. So those are required too though, correct? I mean, if you're requiring a disclosure, that's a required part of the transaction. So I'm just trying to, I'm with you on this. I'm just trying to, I don't know that we're reaching it. I mean, if it's just informational only, who fills it out, the realtor, or are we still requiring a licensed person to do the seven page based on your direction? I think to make the process speed up and be the realtor. I think we have Mr. Lacuna here. Maybe someone familiar with the disclosure requirements So what I see is the, I think Bruce, what you're asking for is the one page document is property specific, right? The seven page document or the additional disclosure or something that can be put together by environmental health that outlines all the complexities of developing a property with an auth system on it that is standard and goes to each buyer of every property within the county that has an auth system on it. So that doesn't change property to property that will just get the buyers and seller buyer, specifically the buyers, but also possibly the seller signature on that property that will outline the issues with regards to the adding 500 square feet and the enhanced treatment systems of those sorts of items. So I don't see that being something that changes from property to property, but the one page document means property specific and that they will pump the tank, inspect the tank and determine whether or not it's failing. So if I understand correctly, then the disclosure which supervisor McPherson's referring to is something that would be completed by the seller and their real estate agent. So I think it's a standard form that we could help put together in conjunction with environmental health. We have something similar for the low-flow plumbing fixtures right now that the county provides to the realtors regarding the different standards for low-flow plumbing fixtures that can be something similar to that that's required to be signed. Okay, so that clarifies it for me. Does it for the members of the board to be by the seller? All right, so if I understand correctly, the motion is to approve the recommended actions with additional direction to staff to make the septic tank pumping an inspection report that exists today. The required point of sale document at the time of this ordinance or implementation on July 1st, 2023 and with an additional disclosure to be prepared by the seller of a property and their licensed agent. Correct. So any further questions or discussion? Seeing none. Clerk roll call though, please. Supervisor Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. McPherson. Aye. And Koenig. Aye. Item passes unanimously as amended. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, staff. And thank you for all the members of public that commented on this item. That concludes our regular agenda for the day. The board will now move into closed session. County Council, are there any reportable items that we are expected from closed session? No. All right, then that concludes public portion of our meeting. The board of supervisors will reconvene next Tuesday, October 25th at 9 a.m. in these chambers. Thank you.